The problem is, most of the time game reviews simply read like an instruction manual. For example, take this snippet out of your DoR review:
DoR uses the same striking and grappling system from XIX, which is good, but still not as robust as the SmackDown! grappling system on the PlayStation 2; but it does work, and works well. The B button is used for strikes, tap to do light strikes and hold for strong strikes; also pushing the control stick in a direction while striking will make you do a different weak or strong strike. You can also make combos from strikes and chain them together for up to 10 hits, depending on your wrestler. The A button is used for grapples, tap for light grapples and hold for strong grapples. You have five weak front grapples, and five strong front grapples, and the same goes for rear grapples, five each for strong and weak. The grapple done is dependent on if you move the control stick when pressing the button for weak grapples, or not, or if you move the control stick or not after initiating a strong grapple and pressing A. You can also use B to do strikes while in a strong grapple, and depending on the type of strikes the wrestler has been given for the strong grapple, they can be chained into a grapple move.
That really doesn't tell me much of anything about how the game feels. By reading that, I can only glean the following information:
- there are grapple moves - there are strike moves - there are strong and weak versions - etc.
Only the real hardcore wrestling gamer will really care or even understand the button mapping stuff. Even then it tells you nothing about how it feels while playing it. You know the saying: Just because it looks good on paper...
Another thing: I've never played XIX, so comparing it to that game just goes over my head, so once again only the hardcore fan will understand this reference.
When reading a game review, I don't need a rehash of the game manual since it comes included with the game; what I really want to know is: Is the game fun? How does it make you feel while playing it? Is it worth buying?
I think this is the point this article's author was trying to make.
And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.
If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.
Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)
As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.
Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.
That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.
42%.......... 43%...... right now I'm sitting here writing this post on Slashdot wasting my time while waiting for Halflife2 to start up, yet Steam felt the need to "Validate Steam files - Please wait while Steam verifies game files." Hmm.. 47%. So I have to sit here and watch the progress bar ever so slowly, one percent at a time.
50% now. Tell me again how Steam made everything convenient, and how it made life easier for you... well, it sure hasn't for me, because right now it's wasting my time WHEN ALL I DID WAS DOUBLECLICK THE HALFLIFE2 ICON!!!!! I just want to play the freaking game already! I don't need a software cop giving me permission to play the game!
Yeah, so I sound bitter... but hey, it's at 75% already! I should be happy right? Who knows, I might even finish this post before it finishes!
*sigh*
Mod this flamebait. Or a troll. I don't care. I'm just sick and tired of this bullshit. Whatever.
89% now... soon.... soon.... my precious, sssssoooonnnnn.....
Steam allows me to do anything i want. I never have to carry a disc around. In fact i don't even own a hl2 disc. In fact I can go to any computer in the world that is connected to the interenet, and download steam and play any game i own including hl2. That is convenience right there.
Convenience... you mean the "convenience" you get when installing Steam on someone else's machine, and wait several hours downloading 3 gigs of HL2 before you can even play?
It'd be faster to just bring the DVD, pop it in, install it, and you're good to go in minutes.
Don't forget: There is no reason why Valve couldn't have simply set up a secure web page to log into to download your games from rather than having to install a third party software on someone else's machine. What if that someone doesn't WANT an additional third party software to begin with? Your convenience would then be moot.
Valve could've done this better, no doubt but that doesn't change the fact that they are the only major game company that has made their game available for purchase online. I found it terribly convienient.
Except they could've done it in a much less intrusive/invasive way. They could've set up a webpage to buy and download the game from. They could've made Steam an option, not a requirement (you bought the CDs, why the hell do you need Steam?). But they didn't. And now they're getting nailed to the wall for it.
No excuses? Do you know how much bandwidth costs on this scale?
Not my problem.
Double that cost and find out your game isn't selling as well as the buzz indicated?
Again, not my problem.
This is Valve's problem, so don't make it MY problem too. In fact, by trying to make it into my problem, I'll just quickly pass the buck back to Valve... by not buying their next game.
When I picked up my copy from Future Shop yesterday, they had flyers up everywhere saying that they will install Halflife2 for you for $19.99 (CDN).
Me and my friends laughed it off while we were standing in the checkout line, joking about dumb computer users, and how we could easily do the same thing for $10 or less...
After having gone through the horrific install process that is Steam (story too long to write here -- it involves hours, error messages, reboots, Steam interrupting me with survey messages - WTF!), a sobering thought came to me: that $19.99 flyer at Future Shop no longer seemed like a laughing matter.
If it was difficult for me, with 25 years of computer experience under my belt, imagine what it must seem like to the average Joe User.
You know there's something WRONG with your copy-protection system when Future Shop is offering a service to install your game for your customers!
Verizon says that crippling Bluetooth implementation is a "fraud prevention" tactic to prevent strangers from sending unsolicited text messages to your phone.
Umm... I don't buy it. They say they crippled OBEX to prevent people from sending spam via Bluetooth?
Except... one of the major specifications for Bluetooth is that it is intended for local connections, not long range. I have a USB Bluetooth adapter with a maximum range of 10 meters. Is Verizon seriously trying to tell me that local Bluetooth spam will be serious enough they had to turn it off?!
Granted, there are adapters with 100 meters (I don't actually know what the maximum range is on this specific phone), but is even 100 meters a wide enough area for spam to be a serious problem? In fact if anyone is within 10 meters attempting to spam me, there's nothing stopping me from simply walking over to... er.... "confront" the bastard:)
I used to run a FTP server on my home machine so that I'd be able to put my personal and work stuff on it, so I'd have a handy way of shuttling files back and forth between my home and work computers.
Well, one day I found in my InBox a nice little email from Shaw (main ISP for cable modems in western Canada) complaining that I was currently using more bandwidth their business users, and "to keep things fair" please consider either switching over to a business payment plan, or to turn off all P2P programs (assuming I was warezing mp3's, no doubt). They said that I'd been downloading about 37GB and uploaded about 20GB.
Needless to say, I was quite flabbergasted. I quickly checked my FTP logs, and sure enough, there was a whole bunch of mysterious IP addresses who connected to my FTP server, and had been using it as a Warez Joint over the past couple of days. I quickly shut down the FTP server and moved over to an encryption-based system instead.
So that was one example where a bitch-fest from the ISP actually help me quickly shut down a problem:P
Shall we now have a version of Godwin's Law, where every time the McDonald's coffee case is brought up, the thread is automatically over? It seems that on/., *every* time this case is brought up, it devolves into a "her fault!" vs "not her fault!" flamewar. Every time.
PS (even though it defeats what I said above): Nice selective quoting. The reason why the judge lowered the punitives is because she was found partly at fault in this case.
Here is my reply for the question "List the top one or two possible improvements that you would like to see made to Windows":
One: Freedom. Everything comes with a EULA that's non-negotiable and heavily tilted to one side, and it's generally NOT to the consumer's side.
Two: Forced upgrades (due to support for old software being killed off). File formats being broken and backward compatibility is not necessarily guaranteed.
Three: Less bloat. Linux can be as slim or as bloated as I want it to be. For example, I can actually completely uninstall web browsers! (as in actually removing all physical files from the hard drive)
Here is my question for the Linux version of the same question:
"Good question:P"
This may seem like a smart-ass answer, but I was VERY mindful of the fact that anything negative I say will be leaped on, while anything positive will be ignored. So this was really the only answer I would be willing to give to Microsoft.
Notice that Sony Canada is one of them. So... Sony is a member of the RIAA (who's lobbying for levys in the US), as well as the CCFDA (who's against levys in Canada). I wonder what this says about Sony's schizophrenic nature?:)
The keyword here is "compromise". The main problem with PhDs is that they rarely ever compromise, and can be pretty stubborn and unreasonable even when the stakes are high.
Suppose you have a problem and have three solutions available: 1) A quick GOTO to break out of deeply nested/recursive code (maybe 5 secs) 2) Think about a reasonable terminating condition (a couple hours maybe) 3) "Start over" and re-think the entire program so the nested/recursive code isn't used in the first place (a couple days, who knows?)
You seem to think that the parent is endorsing something like option #1, when he in fact is advocating nothing of the sort.
Most people will go for option #2 (compromise), but PhDs tend to go for the extreme, #3, even though the end result is functionally the same.
I once worked with a guy who was directly responsible for a couple of missed deadlines because he was too busy "laying out the foundations" instead of actually Getting It Done. By "laying out the foundations", I am referring to creating dozens of classes with an elaborate inheiritance tree, when two or three would've worked just fine.
Biased? Maybe, yes. But he did end up getting fired, and we ended up getting TONS more work done since then. And our code is still clean and non-spaghettified.
Yay! Glad that Google re-listed Operation Clambake. If there is any site that deserves to stay listed despite the DMCA, this is it. However, I still feel that the DOJ really should look into Scientology's actions, many of which are downright illegal. I actually made a post regarding this in the other forum, but here it is again because this issue's too important... SIGN THE PETITION!
Well, well, well... upon hearing this news, my first thought was of disgust - disgust that Google would help Scientology censor xenu.net into oblivion. However I couldn't help but wonder... who leaked the news to the media? If it was Google who informed the media about this while complying with the law, then I must admit it's a nice way to stir up the controversy and to inform people who/what Scientologists are really like. So.. who leaked?:)
While lurking around on Xenu.net, I saw that there's a petition to ask the DOJ to investigate the Church[sic] of Scientology. I signed it. How about you?
Getting on the soapbox for a second to rant a bit(since everyone else is doing it, why not?)
A comparision was made between Scientology and Al-Quaeda earlier on in this forum. Please! Let's be realistic here... Al-Quaeda isn't that bad!:) At least they're honest when they say "Death to America!" while trying to kill you. With Scientology... well... they infiltrate. They smile and pretend to be your friend while reaching for your wallet. They play with your emotions. If you catch them in the act and try to speak out about it, they try (and usually succeed) to destroy your life. This is even in their DOCTRINE for crying out loud! They're the ultimate mind-fuckers.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So... if Scientology doesn't fall under this definition, just what IS terrorism anyway?
Well, well, well... upon hearing this news, my first thought was of disgust - disgust that Google would help Scientology censor xenu.net into oblivion. However I couldn't help but wonder... who leaked the news to the media? If it was Google who informed the media about this while complying with the law, then I must admit it's a nice way to stir up the controversy and to inform people who/what Scientologists are really like. So.. who leaked?:)
While lurking around on Xenu.net, I saw that there's a petition to ask the DOJ to investigate the Church[sic] of Scientology. I signed it. How about you?
Getting on the soapbox for a second to rant a bit(since everyone else is doing it, why not?)
A comparision was made between Scientology and Al-Quaeda earlier on in this forum. Please! Let's be realistic here... Al-Quaeda isn't that bad!:) At least they're honest when they say "Death to America!" while trying to kill you. With Scientology... well... they infiltrate. They smile and pretend to be your friend while reaching for your wallet. They play with your emotions. If you catch them in the act and try to speak out about it, they try (and usually succeed) to destroy your life. This is even in their DOCTRINE for crying out loud! They're the ultimate mind-fuckers.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So... if Scientology doesn't fall under this definition, just what IS terrorism anyway?
I am seriously not trying to troll. This is a real question that I'd like to know the answer to. I'm not bashing Linux (hell, I have a Linux box which I love playing with). I know I'll get flamed anyways.. but here goes...
Why would I want a Linux PS2? When playing games on the PS2, I just put a CD/DVD in, boot up, and play. Why should the average Joe Customer care what OS it's running?
I can certainly see how it'd be cool as a hacking plaything to mess around with. I wouldn't mind getting a Linux PS2 just for that very reason. But beyond that, I don't see much point... either for myself, or for the average Joe Customer.
I'd really appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me on this point?
I 100% agree with the AC poster as it's quite likely that this is the reason for the child's good behaviour. Hell, I remember when *I* was a kid, and I'd be on my good behaviour just to get what I wanted from my parents.
I did get into trouble at elementary school sometimes, and I did play games like Pacman, Space Invaders, Gyruss, and other ultra-violent oldies. Why oh why didn't anyone ban these games so I could've had a normal, non-violent upbringing? (heavy sarcasm for those who didn't catch that)
Oh, and during those times I got into trouble, it usually came from standing up to a bully. What are the circumstances of YOUR kid getting into trouble at school?
Go to http://pc.ign.com and browse around a few articles, and bask in all the advertising glory. Click-throughs, flash overlays, you name it, it's there to make your head hurt and eyes bleed.
It's not like they're forcing you to click on the banners
Maybe not.. but they ARE forcing me to click on the 'X' button to close the overlays, and click on secondary links to view the actual ads. Oh, and they also have some articles that are "members only". So they annoy me with all that garbage, and they expect me to become a paid member? No thanks, there's always gamesdomain.com, gamespot.com (who is actually not as annoying!), and others.
Has this become the American way?
I don't know. I'm not an american. So that question is irrelevant.
It seems like people these days are so spoiled they think everything should be free
Obviously you're new to the internet. Read up on the history. It's quite fascinating. And offensive to the business mind. *Gasp* scholars... exchanging information... for FREE??? Open source?????? The mind boggles!
I agree that the P4 is not the best CPU at this time. However, Intel has designed this new architecture looking out 10 years or so. Many of these choices are dictated by the laws of physics, and all other processors will be heading this direction over time.
That's all well and good, but how does this help me right now? I want to buy a computer today. What should I buy? A Pentium 4 which might or might not become worth something years ahead down the road, or an Athlon which I _know_ is good _today_. Future forecasts may be fun to do, but they don't do anything for immediate purposes.
As for the Pentium Pro, Intel didn't have a real competitor at the time. Today, AMD is serious trouble for them, so they can't afford to simply sit back and tell the customers to wait 5 years.
So Denmark hopes to appease the copyright-holders by having a media tax since most people buying blank CDs are pirates anyway. Okaaayyy...
What about me? I'm deaf. Yes I do wear a cochlear implant/hearing aid combo to help me hear, but it's not perfect. I can't enjoy lyrics as it's just noise and I can't understand what it is they're saying/singing. And I have to pay this tax because I might pirate music that I realistically won't ever use/listen to?
Send the RIAA my way. Let them try to tell me (and the world) that I'm probably going to pirate music and therefore I should pay up.
IMHO something seems just wrong about a law passed that basically assumes that everyone is a pirate until proven otherwise. And even if they ARE proven otherwise, they STILL have to pay up.
What happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty?" Shouldn't the burden be on the RIAA to recover their (imaginary?) losses?
Oh, and I'm also a software developer. Where's my cut of the tax money for all the losses caused by software piracy?
They can be a real lifesaver in case of emergencies. Say that you've been robbed/rapped/beaten/etc. and your cellphone was taken from you. How are you going to call 911 otherwise? Women are paranoid enough in this society -- asking them to go to a stranger's place to use the phone after an attack is a bit much.
Also, what about TDD users? (For those of you who don't know, a TDD machine is a teletype machine used by the deaf in order to communicate). The problem is that on a standard TDD machine, it's specifically designed for the standard phone. A "modern" cellphone just wouldn't fit, as it'd be too small.
(And of course, as other people mentioned, there's the little issue of the battery dying, accidently let it drown in a puddle, or whatever accident you can think of.)
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone has a cellphone.
If you seriously and honestly believe that it's not your responsibility whenever someone uses your machine to hack into other machines, think again.
Can you say "frame-up"? Good, I knew you could.
When the cops come knocking on your door because they traced the hack back to your computer, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune. Especially if the hacker was smart enough to wipe all logs (or better yet, scramble your HDD) to wipe out any evidence that your machine had been hacked into.
Not your responsibility? Tell that to the cops. And good luck proving it, this THIS is the favourite excuse used by hackers who did get busted.
One final question - how many of those busted "hackers" were really telling the truth? Could you be next?
My reason, however, for saying that Scientology isn't so bad is based on comparison with other religions. Sure, you posted a link to a site about a girl who was killed by the Scientologists...but what if the Catholic church had been the ones using the DMCA to repress content here? I can't imagine where to begin to discuss the number of people who have died at their hands. How many hits do you get on google when you search for the crusades? How about the 100 years war?
Still... as a "religion" (and I use the term very loosely), Scientology has done a pretty impressive job of oppression, scare-mongering, fraud, libel, etc, etc, etc for a religion that's only been around for a few decades!
Think about it... what kind of a record will Scientology have by the year 3000? (If they survive that long, which I doubt) Christianity, Catholicism, et al. are going to look like groups of innocent virgins by comparison. It's all about scale.
This brings up a question about a possible conflict of interest for IBM.
Since they've done work on the Gekko processor, and now they've landed a deal for the Playstation3, which is essentially a competitor for Gekko.
Now the question is.. what (if any) steps will IBM make to make sure there is no conflict of interest?
After all, anyone familiar with Nintendo will know that Nintendo is pretty anal about NDA's for just about everything related to their hardware in an attempt to prevent their competitors from stealing ideas and technology. Yet if IBM were to use their past experiences to work on the PS3 chip, wouldn't that be unfair competition against Nintendo?
Yes, yes, I realize that some of you may point out that the GC will come out this year or next year, while the PS3 isn't likely to see the light of day for another 4-5 years... but can you really be sure about that? And what about the Gekko2? Who's going to work on that?
Slashdot Mirror
That really doesn't tell me much of anything about how the game feels. By reading that, I can only glean the following information:
- there are grapple moves
- there are strike moves
- there are strong and weak versions
- etc.
Only the real hardcore wrestling gamer will really care or even understand the button mapping stuff. Even then it tells you nothing about how it feels while playing it. You know the saying: Just because it looks good on paper...
Another thing: I've never played XIX, so comparing it to that game just goes over my head, so once again only the hardcore fan will understand this reference.
When reading a game review, I don't need a rehash of the game manual since it comes included with the game; what I really want to know is: Is the game fun? How does it make you feel while playing it? Is it worth buying?
I think this is the point this article's author was trying to make.
How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?
l 2005/ l deneyerogueagent/ z / e /fifasoccer2005/
Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nh
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/go
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urb
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecub
And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.
If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.
Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)
As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.
Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.
That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.
42%...... .... 43%...... right now I'm sitting here writing this post on Slashdot wasting my time while waiting for Halflife2 to start up, yet Steam felt the need to "Validate Steam files - Please wait while Steam verifies game files." Hmm.. 47%. So I have to sit here and watch the progress bar ever so slowly, one percent at a time.
50% now. Tell me again how Steam made everything convenient, and how it made life easier for you... well, it sure hasn't for me, because right now it's wasting my time WHEN ALL I DID WAS DOUBLECLICK THE HALFLIFE2 ICON!!!!! I just want to play the freaking game already! I don't need a software cop giving me permission to play the game!
Yeah, so I sound bitter... but hey, it's at 75% already! I should be happy right? Who knows, I might even finish this post before it finishes!
*sigh*
Mod this flamebait. Or a troll. I don't care. I'm just sick and tired of this bullshit. Whatever.
89% now... soon.... soon.... my precious, sssssoooonnnnn.....
Steam allows me to do anything i want. I never have to carry a disc around. In fact i don't even own a hl2 disc. In fact I can go to any computer in the world that is connected to the interenet, and download steam and play any game i own including hl2. That is convenience right there.
Convenience... you mean the "convenience" you get when installing Steam on someone else's machine, and wait several hours downloading 3 gigs of HL2 before you can even play?
It'd be faster to just bring the DVD, pop it in, install it, and you're good to go in minutes.
Don't forget: There is no reason why Valve couldn't have simply set up a secure web page to log into to download your games from rather than having to install a third party software on someone else's machine. What if that someone doesn't WANT an additional third party software to begin with? Your convenience would then be moot.
Valve could've done this better, no doubt but that doesn't change the fact that they are the only major game company that has made their game available for purchase online. I found it terribly convienient.
Except they could've done it in a much less intrusive/invasive way. They could've set up a webpage to buy and download the game from. They could've made Steam an option, not a requirement (you bought the CDs, why the hell do you need Steam?). But they didn't. And now they're getting nailed to the wall for it.
No excuses? Do you know how much bandwidth costs on this scale?
Not my problem.
Double that cost and find out your game isn't selling as well as the buzz indicated?
Again, not my problem.
This is Valve's problem, so don't make it MY problem too. In fact, by trying to make it into my problem, I'll just quickly pass the buck back to Valve... by not buying their next game.
When I picked up my copy from Future Shop yesterday, they had flyers up everywhere saying that they will install Halflife2 for you for $19.99 (CDN).
Me and my friends laughed it off while we were standing in the checkout line, joking about dumb computer users, and how we could easily do the same thing for $10 or less...
After having gone through the horrific install process that is Steam (story too long to write here -- it involves hours, error messages, reboots, Steam interrupting me with survey messages - WTF!), a sobering thought came to me: that $19.99 flyer at Future Shop no longer seemed like a laughing matter.
If it was difficult for me, with 25 years of computer experience under my belt, imagine what it must seem like to the average Joe User.
You know there's something WRONG with your copy-protection system when Future Shop is offering a service to install your game for your customers!
Verizon says that crippling Bluetooth implementation is a "fraud prevention" tactic to prevent strangers from sending unsolicited text messages to your phone.
:)
Umm... I don't buy it. They say they crippled OBEX to prevent people from sending spam via Bluetooth?
Except... one of the major specifications for Bluetooth is that it is intended for local connections, not long range. I have a USB Bluetooth adapter with a maximum range of 10 meters. Is Verizon seriously trying to tell me that local Bluetooth spam will be serious enough they had to turn it off?!
Granted, there are adapters with 100 meters (I don't actually know what the maximum range is on this specific phone), but is even 100 meters a wide enough area for spam to be a serious problem? In fact if anyone is within 10 meters attempting to spam me, there's nothing stopping me from simply walking over to... er.... "confront" the bastard
I used to run a FTP server on my home machine so that I'd be able to put my personal and work stuff on it, so I'd have a handy way of shuttling files back and forth between my home and work computers.
:P
Well, one day I found in my InBox a nice little email from Shaw (main ISP for cable modems in western Canada) complaining that I was currently using more bandwidth their business users, and "to keep things fair" please consider either switching over to a business payment plan, or to turn off all P2P programs (assuming I was warezing mp3's, no doubt). They said that I'd been downloading about 37GB and uploaded about 20GB.
Needless to say, I was quite flabbergasted. I quickly checked my FTP logs, and sure enough, there was a whole bunch of mysterious IP addresses who connected to my FTP server, and had been using it as a Warez Joint over the past couple of days. I quickly shut down the FTP server and moved over to an encryption-based system instead.
So that was one example where a bitch-fest from the ISP actually help me quickly shut down a problem
Shall we now have a version of Godwin's Law, where every time the McDonald's coffee case is brought up, the thread is automatically over? It seems that on /., *every* time this case is brought up, it devolves into a "her fault!" vs "not her fault!" flamewar. Every time.
PS (even though it defeats what I said above): Nice selective quoting. The reason why the judge lowered the punitives is because she was found partly at fault in this case.
Here is my reply for the question "List the top one or two possible improvements that you would like to see made to Windows":
:P"
One: Freedom. Everything comes with a EULA that's non-negotiable and heavily tilted to one side, and it's generally NOT to the consumer's side.
Two: Forced upgrades (due to support for old software being killed off). File formats being broken and backward compatibility is not necessarily guaranteed.
Three: Less bloat. Linux can be as slim or as bloated as I want it to be. For example, I can actually completely uninstall web browsers! (as in actually removing all physical files from the hard drive)
Here is my question for the Linux version of the same question:
"Good question
This may seem like a smart-ass answer, but I was VERY mindful of the fact that anything negative I say will be leaped on, while anything positive will be ignored. So this was really the only answer I would be willing to give to Microsoft.
Take a look at this, which lists members of the CCFDA:
:)
http://www.ccfda.ca/subsections/eng_whoweare.html
Notice that Sony Canada is one of them. So... Sony is a member of the RIAA (who's lobbying for levys in the US), as well as the CCFDA (who's against levys in Canada). I wonder what this says about Sony's schizophrenic nature?
You misunderstand what the parent said.
The keyword here is "compromise". The main problem with PhDs is that they rarely ever compromise, and can be pretty stubborn and unreasonable even when the stakes are high.
Suppose you have a problem and have three solutions available:
1) A quick GOTO to break out of deeply nested/recursive code (maybe 5 secs)
2) Think about a reasonable terminating condition (a couple hours maybe)
3) "Start over" and re-think the entire program so the nested/recursive code isn't used in the first place (a couple days, who knows?)
You seem to think that the parent is endorsing something like option #1, when he in fact is advocating nothing of the sort.
Most people will go for option #2 (compromise), but PhDs tend to go for the extreme, #3, even though the end result is functionally the same.
I once worked with a guy who was directly responsible for a couple of missed deadlines because he was too busy "laying out the foundations" instead of actually Getting It Done. By "laying out the foundations", I am referring to creating dozens of classes with an elaborate inheiritance tree, when two or three would've worked just fine.
Biased? Maybe, yes. But he did end up getting fired, and we ended up getting TONS more work done since then. And our code is still clean and non-spaghettified.
Well, well, well... upon hearing this news, my first thought was of disgust - disgust that Google would help Scientology censor xenu.net into oblivion. However I couldn't help but wonder... who leaked the news to the media? If it was Google who informed the media about this while complying with the law, then I must admit it's a nice way to stir up the controversy and to inform people who/what Scientologists are really like. So.. who leaked? :)
While lurking around on Xenu.net, I saw that there's a petition to ask the DOJ to investigate the Church[sic] of Scientology. I signed it. How about you?
DOJ Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/cofs1/petition.html
Getting on the soapbox for a second to rant a bit(since everyone else is doing it, why not?)
A comparision was made between Scientology and Al-Quaeda earlier on in this forum. Please! Let's be realistic here... Al-Quaeda isn't that bad! :) At least they're honest when they say "Death to America!" while trying to kill you. With Scientology... well... they infiltrate. They smile and pretend to be your friend while reaching for your wallet. They play with your emotions. If you catch them in the act and try to speak out about it, they try (and usually succeed) to destroy your life. This is even in their DOCTRINE for crying out loud! They're the ultimate mind-fuckers.
From dictionary.com:
terrorism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So... if Scientology doesn't fall under this definition, just what IS terrorism anyway?
While lurking around on Xenu.net, I saw that there's a petition to ask the DOJ to investigate the Church[sic] of Scientology. I signed it. How about you?
DOJ Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/cofs1/petition.html
Getting on the soapbox for a second to rant a bit(since everyone else is doing it, why not?)
A comparision was made between Scientology and Al-Quaeda earlier on in this forum. Please! Let's be realistic here... Al-Quaeda isn't that bad! :) At least they're honest when they say "Death to America!" while trying to kill you. With Scientology... well... they infiltrate. They smile and pretend to be your friend while reaching for your wallet. They play with your emotions. If you catch them in the act and try to speak out about it, they try (and usually succeed) to destroy your life. This is even in their DOCTRINE for crying out loud! They're the ultimate mind-fuckers.
From dictionary.com:
terrorism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So... if Scientology doesn't fall under this definition, just what IS terrorism anyway?
I am seriously not trying to troll. This is a real question that I'd like to know the answer to. I'm not bashing Linux (hell, I have a Linux box which I love playing with). I know I'll get flamed anyways.. but here goes...
Why would I want a Linux PS2? When playing games on the PS2, I just put a CD/DVD in, boot up, and play. Why should the average Joe Customer care what OS it's running?
I can certainly see how it'd be cool as a hacking plaything to mess around with. I wouldn't mind getting a Linux PS2 just for that very reason. But beyond that, I don't see much point... either for myself, or for the average Joe Customer.
I'd really appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me on this point?
I 100% agree with the AC poster as it's quite likely that this is the reason for the child's good behaviour. Hell, I remember when *I* was a kid, and I'd be on my good behaviour just to get what I wanted from my parents.
I did get into trouble at elementary school sometimes, and I did play games like Pacman, Space Invaders, Gyruss, and other ultra-violent oldies. Why oh why didn't anyone ban these games so I could've had a normal, non-violent upbringing? (heavy sarcasm for those who didn't catch that)
Oh, and during those times I got into trouble, it usually came from standing up to a bully. What are the circumstances of YOUR kid getting into trouble at school?
I love that line.
Go to http://pc.ign.com and browse around a few articles, and bask in all the advertising glory. Click-throughs, flash overlays, you name it, it's there to make your head hurt and eyes bleed.
It's not like they're forcing you to click on the banners
Maybe not.. but they ARE forcing me to click on the 'X' button to close the overlays, and click on secondary links to view the actual ads. Oh, and they also have some articles that are "members only". So they annoy me with all that garbage, and they expect me to become a paid member? No thanks, there's always gamesdomain.com, gamespot.com (who is actually not as annoying!), and others.
Has this become the American way?
I don't know. I'm not an american. So that question is irrelevant.
It seems like people these days are so spoiled they think everything should be free
Obviously you're new to the internet. Read up on the history. It's quite fascinating. And offensive to the business mind. *Gasp* scholars... exchanging information... for FREE??? Open source?????? The mind boggles!
Hey, if coffee hardens your blood, then just drink alcohol to thin it out again!
Isn't it nice when two vices cancel each other out?
That's all well and good, but how does this help me right now? I want to buy a computer today. What should I buy? A Pentium 4 which might or might not become worth something years ahead down the road, or an Athlon which I _know_ is good _today_. Future forecasts may be fun to do, but they don't do anything for immediate purposes.
As for the Pentium Pro, Intel didn't have a real competitor at the time. Today, AMD is serious trouble for them, so they can't afford to simply sit back and tell the customers to wait 5 years.
So Denmark hopes to appease the copyright-holders by having a media tax since most people buying blank CDs are pirates anyway. Okaaayyy...
What about me? I'm deaf. Yes I do wear a cochlear implant/hearing aid combo to help me hear, but it's not perfect. I can't enjoy lyrics as it's just noise and I can't understand what it is they're saying/singing. And I have to pay this tax because I might pirate music that I realistically won't ever use/listen to?
Send the RIAA my way. Let them try to tell me (and the world) that I'm probably going to pirate music and therefore I should pay up.
IMHO something seems just wrong about a law passed that basically assumes that everyone is a pirate until proven otherwise. And even if they ARE proven otherwise, they STILL have to pay up.
What happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty?" Shouldn't the burden be on the RIAA to recover their (imaginary?) losses?
Oh, and I'm also a software developer. Where's my cut of the tax money for all the losses caused by software piracy?
Yes! Save the pay phone.
They can be a real lifesaver in case of emergencies. Say that you've been robbed/rapped/beaten/etc. and your cellphone was taken from you. How are you going to call 911 otherwise? Women are paranoid enough in this society -- asking them to go to a stranger's place to use the phone after an attack is a bit much.
Also, what about TDD users? (For those of you who don't know, a TDD machine is a teletype machine used by the deaf in order to communicate). The problem is that on a standard TDD machine, it's specifically designed for the standard phone. A "modern" cellphone just wouldn't fit, as it'd be too small.
(And of course, as other people mentioned, there's the little issue of the battery dying, accidently let it drown in a puddle, or whatever accident you can think of.)
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone has a cellphone.
I'm sure this is a troll... but....
If you seriously and honestly believe that it's not your responsibility whenever someone uses your machine to hack into other machines, think again.
Can you say "frame-up"? Good, I knew you could.
When the cops come knocking on your door because they traced the hack back to your computer, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune. Especially if the hacker was smart enough to wipe all logs (or better yet, scramble your HDD) to wipe out any evidence that your machine had been hacked into.
Not your responsibility? Tell that to the cops. And good luck proving it, this THIS is the favourite excuse used by hackers who did get busted.
One final question - how many of those busted "hackers" were really telling the truth? Could you be next?
Still... as a "religion" (and I use the term very loosely), Scientology has done a pretty impressive job of oppression, scare-mongering, fraud, libel, etc, etc, etc for a religion that's only been around for a few decades!
Think about it... what kind of a record will Scientology have by the year 3000? (If they survive that long, which I doubt) Christianity, Catholicism, et al. are going to look like groups of innocent virgins by comparison. It's all about scale.
This brings up a question about a possible conflict of interest for IBM.
Since they've done work on the Gekko processor, and now they've landed a deal for the Playstation3, which is essentially a competitor for Gekko.
Now the question is.. what (if any) steps will IBM make to make sure there is no conflict of interest?
After all, anyone familiar with Nintendo will know that Nintendo is pretty anal about NDA's for just about everything related to their hardware in an attempt to prevent their competitors from stealing ideas and technology. Yet if IBM were to use their past experiences to work on the PS3 chip, wouldn't that be unfair competition against Nintendo?
Yes, yes, I realize that some of you may point out that the GC will come out this year or next year, while the PS3 isn't likely to see the light of day for another 4-5 years... but can you really be sure about that? And what about the Gekko2? Who's going to work on that?