You can make things look better by using techniques such as anti-aliasing.
Older televisions had the far superior "poor man's AA". i.e. Everything was a bit blurry anyway, so you never noticed the poor quality of the graphics. Now scale those up on a 50", super-sharp, LCD monitor, and things are going to look bad. And not only will they look bad, but you'll be able to see just how bad in excrutiatingly fine detail!
Adding software anti-aliasing would help some, but it still comes back to the fact that the PS1 games will never again be viewable the way they were intended. Much like early films, which were hand cranked at a speed felt most appropriate by the operator. When we try to play them back today at standardized frame rates, the characters jump around at ludicrous speed.
Both the 60 GB and 20 GB are available, unbundled. Just pay shipping. Alternatively, put your zip code in and see if any local stores have some. According to their site, just about every Gamestop in my area has them.
I heard that for the initial launch of a product, the manufacturer bears part of the risk by promising to buy back some number of unsold units. Is there any truth to this at all?
It depends upon the agreement between the manufacturer and retailer. In the 1980's this practice was uncommon in the video game sector, and resulted in the video game crash of '83/'84. When Nintendo introduced the NES, they promised to purchase unsold stock back from the retailers as a method of reassuring them.
So... it sort of depends. I honestly wouldn't be surprised either way. With the Playstation 2 having sold well over 100 million units, I imagine the retailers weren't too concerned. Of course, we're technically talking about the Japanese market were American retail policies don't apply. So most likely, the store is on the hook to get rid of them.
Staying home pretending to be sick instead of going to school. I see it has really paid off and now you read/. instead of doing something productive with life.
What can I say? I asked for a car, I got a computer. How's that for being born under a bad sign?
Re:Switching XP - Amiga
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It is nice to not have any distractions when working -- there is no waiting for the system to swap out when switching between major applications,
Dude, buy more RAM. RAM is cheap.
It doesn't help with Windows. Its *#$@! VM system is still tuned to machines with far less memory than we have today. Run anything memory intensive and I guarantee that you'll start seeing swapping and thrashing. On the bright side, at least it doesn't swap everything out to disk when you minimize the application. It used to be tons of fun working on local J2EE instances after accidently minimzing the console.:-/
I do agree with you that the courts will get involved, with the exception that I believe this law should not be passed at this time because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I was not trying to be disagreeable. I used a smiley and everything.
:P <-- See?;)
I'm confused greatly. You talk about how that part restricts what they can do, and it reads as "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit offering directly to each broadband user service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of the content. (providing no violations of subsection (a))"
You are indeed confused. You are looking at the heading of Section 12(b). You need to look at Section 12(b)(2). Specifically:
No, my wording is telling you that you are a whining and ignoring available facts. You are free to respond, as you did. This proves that I did not restrict your freedom of speech. I just told you what you would have to respond with to get a productive answer from me.
As I said, I was partially kidding. More importantly, though, I was demonstrating a literal interpretation of your words. Literally, I must provide you with a fatal flaw in the document that will result in the general failure of the Internet. Yet I cannot provide any such answer as the issue at hand is not about whether the law will result in failure. It is about whether the law will cause stagnation.
Given that I use phrasing such as "though a court would probably have to be consulted" in my post, I think that it is obvious that I recognize the courts are the recognized interpreter of law, and not a bunch of Slashdot readers (or even lawyers for that matter). You seem to agree with me in the most disagreeable manner.
I do agree with you that the courts will get involved, with the exception that I believe this law should not be passed at this time because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I was not trying to be disagreeable. I used a smiley and everything.:P I'm confused greatly. You talk about how that part restricts what they can do, and it reads as "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit offering directly to each broadband user service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of the content. (providing no violations of subsection (a))" You are indeed confused. You are looking at the heading of Section 12(b). You need to look at Section 12(b)(2). Specifically:
(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection.
I'm very certain that this section would be interpreted to disallow charging for VoIP service that would only prioritize VoIP traffic if you paid for that service. It could be argued that it is inapplicable because prioritization technically doesn't change the bandwidth, but that would invalidate much of the purpose of this law.:)
How long has the ECMA-376 spec been available to the public for review? How long was the OASIS ODF standard available to the public before being published as an ISO Standard?
Answer: 1 Month vs. 1.5 years respectively.
So, Microsoft rams a specification through the ECMA in a quarter of the time as ODF was moved through OASIS, significantly increases the volume of the standard over their original specs, at least one major partner voted against it, then gives everyone exactly one month to review it before it becomes an international standard, and somehow that makes the industry a bunch of whiners for complaining about having only one month to review their standard. Right.
Now read it and tell me what in particular you think will bring the Internet to its knees, or shut up (and no, this isn't specifically aimed at the parent, but anyone out there talking about it without knowing what it is).
Your phrasing is a restriction on my freedom of speech, sir, as it requires that I shut up about injustices the bill would create and future doors of technology it would close simply because the bill will not "bring the Internet to its knees". I am offended and will vote you out of congress at the soonest possible opportunity.:P
I'm somewhat kidding there as I understood your point more clearly than that. But you do need to understand that any bill, no matter how well written, is going to be subject to interpretation down the road. One such interpretation (which I guarantee will be read as such) is that any prioritization of a specific type of traffic (say, VoIP) will be required to be prioritized for all users. (Section 12(b)(2)) Thus your ISP is explicitly restricted from selling unbundled, prioritized VoIP services. The end result of this is that no ISP will bother with prioritizing the traffic, as all the money is going to go to Net2Phone or Skype instead of them. Now you're back to square one with no facilities to ensure clean VoIP transmissions.
Way to go Congress, you've just killed the free market.
Do you see my problem? Granted, the problem is completely the fault of the ISPs in the first place. If they hadn't gotten greedy, they wouldn't be facing this legislation right now. But my own opinion is that by legislating this, Congress is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The current solution works just fine. Let the FCC do its job. If and when the FCC director fails to do his job, THEN you can either replace him or legislate it. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind this legislation as much if there was a time limitation on it. That would at least hold the status quo long enough to stablize the industry, then allow them to offer certain premium services in the future. I still wouldn't like it, but at least it could go away in the future. (I suppose that didn't work too well for the Patriot act, though, did it?)
Everything must be in neutral POV for it to be acceptable, however sometimes an objective POV is better. I would like to see a wikipedia branch which offered different perspectives upon an article.
That's not really Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia is a starting point in researching a topic. To develop a complete view of the subject, you should visit other sites that make more objective points about the topic. Wikipedia usually links to many of these as citations for its various sections.
I just realized that most Slashdotters probably didn't read the article, and I didn't quote quite enough to get the point across. Basically, he's saying that the ODF supporters are hypocrites by claiming that the 30 day window for OOXML review is too short, as they are using a similar 30 day period to get their own ISO approval. Which completely obscures the fact that ODF is already standardized by an industry standards organization (OASIS) while OOXML is not.
Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said that his agency has the authority to police any so-called net neutrality violations, both in the voice and video arenas.
In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.
"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.
Note that the paragraph about "tiered services" is poorly worded by the article. The author of the article for some reason is creating confusion by also referring to different levels of bandwidth availability (e.g. purchasing 768K at $20/mo vs. paying $40 for 1.5M) as "tiering". So read it carefully.
For example, in the Wikipedia entry, it currently mentions that "the members of ISO have only 31 days to raise objections", the implication being that this is far too short a time; yet, if I understand matters correctly, ODF was submitted in a fast-track procedure that didn't even allow these kind of objections.
That would be because respondants have had over 4 years to respond to the OASIS specification. Since it's already a standard that has been reviewed by the industry, the ISO committee can choose to adopt it on a fast-track as a way of putting their own stamp of approval on it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The FCC has already stated that they will fine any company that abuses their ability to Tier bandwidth. So we're covered on that front without having to pass new laws. At the same time, the current situtation allows for ISPs to use the tiering features of their routing equipment as it was originally designed: To provide near real-time routing for time-sensitive traffic such as Voice Over IP.
So you're telling me a space industry would be easier?
There is no "space industry" in the form we're talking about. India is not building these craft to compete with an open marketplace (where they would be outright crushed), they are building them to provide their nation with technology that is otherwise restricted. In creating that technology, they are forced to develop a tech and industrial base that they did not previously have available. Creating that infrastructure allows their other industries to leapfrog the costly research and development cycles that are traditionally so hard to support.
Of course, the Indian government could directly subsidize the creation of those industries instead. The problem with that line of attack is that no realworld experience in the field is created before the products are developed. So the country will have the technology and industry, but no one who knows how to apply it in a practical and safe manner. i.e. This is the difference between creating a software framework around an idealized concept of what you will need vs. real world experience of what works and what doesn't. The latter track is almost always superior.
It would be far simpler just to beg, buy, borrow or steal (cf China) other people's advances
Of course you can. You just won't understand the practical applications of those advances until you've had lengthy experiences with them. So the foreign designs will [i]still[/i] end up superior to your poor attempts at copycatting.
Oh and as it turns out, pouring money directly on the poor (which I wasn't advocating in any case) actually has very positive effects.
Your example is actually the exact opposite. It's not a charity. It's a sustainable business concept that targets the needs of a specific business sector. So it is, in fact, more similar to the Indian Space Program than dissimilar. i.e. Help a country help itself.
The number of people that could be employed by a space program is dwarfed by the number of people who could be employed in, for example, car or mass transit manufacturing
It's not that easy. Mass Transit manufacturing would leave a company reliant upon the government for its funding, same as a Space Program. Car Manufacturing sounds like a good idea, but it's very difficult to compete with foreign imports. Something that Maruti Udyog, Hindustan Motors, and Bajaj Tempo (now "Force Motors") can tell you.
What a space program does is that it provides funding for the development of new materials, manufacturing, and general industrial capability that can then be turned around and poured into the production of consumer goods like Cars and Mass Transit. Those industrial and technology bases can then be used used to close the gap between the local capabilties and the much greater industrial/tech bases of foreign countries. Closing that gap leads to a better ability to compete. Competing leads to more wealth generated, and more wealth generated leads to more jobs and entrepreneurials required to sustain and/or increase that wealth.
This idea of pouring the wealth directly onto the poor is a very heartwarming sentiment, but it tends to do much less to actually solve these people's problems than if the money is spent on programs that make use of profitable business ventures.
For a more complete picture, you need to realise that there are almost as many unemployed in India as there are people in the US.
So the solution is not to create new jobs, technologies, and industries with a Space Program, but to simply dole out the money to the poor until there is no more left?
He's probably more mad that they didn't contract id to port SMB3 to the PC
I'm thinking that the hundreds of thousands of dollars they made on Commander Keen more than compensated for that little issue.:P
As it so happened, they actually miscalculated a bit. Carmack and Romero were certain that Nintendo would want to port to computers if they just had the technology necessary. Instead, the truth of that matter was that Nintendo wanted to keep their platform locked up nice and tight, and use the exclusives to force people to purchase the NES.
C64 users recall a short-lived game called The Great Giana Sisters that was basically a clone of Mario with different graphics and mildly different gameplay. Nintendo used their lawyers to shut down the company that made it, making the game very short lived indeed. Amusingly, it ended up living on thanks to piracy, and was even hacked to use Super Mario Bros. graphics!
Don't they all use the same Open Office conversion code underneath to read.doc files?
You would be AssUMe-ing too much. For the purposes of Ajax13, I'm fairly certain (based on their serverside messages) that they're using Jakarta POI to read Microsoft Documents. Thinkfree's development actually predates the general availability of OpenOffice and, I believe, uses their own in-house API. (Though I may be incorrect about that last part.) Google uses... whatever Google uses. I don't think the information on their backend is really available.
Long story short, there are more APIs out there than just OpenOffice.
Unsurprisingly, ThinkFree was chosen as their preferred "online" Office Suite. FWIW, ThinkFree is an amazing piece of software that blasted onto the scene back in '99 - '00. The most amazing part of it was how it so closely resembled Microsoft Office. Given it's age, it's no surprise that it "won" this comparison.
Of course, there is a caveat. Thinkfree uses client-side Java rather than being pure-Ajax. This gives it a distinct advantage as the Java GUI tools are far more mature than the embryonic Ajax GUIs. Basically, it was a bit of an unfair fight. Which would bother me, except that Thinkfree Office is an excellent product, and deserves the exposure.
So if you find yourself with a need for a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software on the go, keep Thinkfree in mind. It may cost money, but it's quite a bit more convenient than a Linux LiveCD.:)
But then how does the copyright holder distinguish between the purchaser engaging in illegal distribution vs being the victim of theft?
They have to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court of law. It's not a perfect system, I'll grant you, but it's better than the alternative.
FWIW, this is a non-issue anyway. Files purchased online are almost certainly not the ones floating around P2P sites. Those are usually either from audio engineers who leak them, or rips of source media like CDs. So in the long-run, such watermarking would only be good for consumers as it would prove that they're more honest than the RIAA gives them credit for.
Or the a*holes will accuse everyone and their grandma (literally) of removing the watermark. One of those two.
Not everyone who plays video games is physically capable of using the Wii.
Actually, it's the other way around. If you've got enough mobility to use a gamepad, you've got enough mobility to use the small motions that the Wii requires. (The whole "standing up and jump around" thing is just for fun.) Since many games only require the Wiimote and not the Nunchuck, it represents the first time in history that one-armed players can use a video game console - with some footnote exceptions like light guns.
I forget exactly where I saw it, but there was a fellow doing charity work who saw a one-armed kid get a Wii to play with. He said that the kid enjoyed it immensely, and that it was the first time he had ever been able to actually play video games. The problem was that Gamepads and Joysticks had been inaccessable to him because they required two, fully functional arms and hands.
While this is great for the possibilities of the service, games, and gamers, it does mean that 'Core Pack' owners are now even more 'out in the cold' when it comes to downloadable content. Unless a HDD is purchased for the system, Core Packers are reduced to using the 64MB memory cards, which are clearly not large enough for even one 'expanded' game title.
Penny wise, pound foolish.
I never did understand the Core system concept anyway. If games were going to require a hard drive, what good would it do to purchase a system without one? My suspicion is that Microsoft released the Core system in an attempt to keep their prices from looking outrageous. ($399 was a lot for a game console at the time.) Thanks to Sony, however, Microsoft's pricing scheme suddenly doesn't look so bad after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Older televisions had the far superior "poor man's AA". i.e. Everything was a bit blurry anyway, so you never noticed the poor quality of the graphics. Now scale those up on a 50", super-sharp, LCD monitor, and things are going to look bad. And not only will they look bad, but you'll be able to see just how bad in excrutiatingly fine detail!
Adding software anti-aliasing would help some, but it still comes back to the fact that the PS1 games will never again be viewable the way they were intended. Much like early films, which were hand cranked at a speed felt most appropriate by the operator. When we try to play them back today at standardized frame rates, the characters jump around at ludicrous speed.
Obviously, you're not trying very hard.
3 5
Merry Christmas:
http://www.ebgames.com/productmerch.asp?groupid=6
Both the 60 GB and 20 GB are available, unbundled. Just pay shipping. Alternatively, put your zip code in and see if any local stores have some. According to their site, just about every Gamestop in my area has them.
It depends upon the agreement between the manufacturer and retailer. In the 1980's this practice was uncommon in the video game sector, and resulted in the video game crash of '83/'84. When Nintendo introduced the NES, they promised to purchase unsold stock back from the retailers as a method of reassuring them.
So... it sort of depends. I honestly wouldn't be surprised either way. With the Playstation 2 having sold well over 100 million units, I imagine the retailers weren't too concerned. Of course, we're technically talking about the Japanese market were American retail policies don't apply. So most likely, the store is on the hook to get rid of them.
What can I say? I asked for a car, I got a computer. How's that for being born under a bad sign?
It doesn't help with Windows. Its *#$@! VM system is still tuned to machines with far less memory than we have today. Run anything memory intensive and I guarantee that you'll start seeing swapping and thrashing. On the bright side, at least it doesn't swap everything out to disk when you minimize the application. It used to be tons of fun working on local J2EE instances after accidently minimzing the console.
I do agree with you that the courts will get involved, with the exception that I believe this law should not be passed at this time because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I was not trying to be disagreeable. I used a smiley and everything.
You are indeed confused. You are looking at the heading of Section 12(b). You need to look at Section 12(b)(2). Specifically:
As I said, I was partially kidding. More importantly, though, I was demonstrating a literal interpretation of your words. Literally, I must provide you with a fatal flaw in the document that will result in the general failure of the Internet. Yet I cannot provide any such answer as the issue at hand is not about whether the law will result in failure. It is about whether the law will cause stagnation.
I do agree with you that the courts will get involved, with the exception that I believe this law should not be passed at this time because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I was not trying to be disagreeable. I used a smiley and everything.
You are indeed confused. You are looking at the heading of Section 12(b). You need to look at Section 12(b)(2). Specifically:
I'm very certain that this section would be interpreted to disallow charging for VoIP service that would only prioritize VoIP traffic if you paid for that service. It could be argued that it is inapplicable because prioritization technically doesn't change the bandwidth, but that would invalidate much of the purpose of this law.
How long has the ECMA-376 spec been available to the public for review? How long was the OASIS ODF standard available to the public before being published as an ISO Standard?
Answer: 1 Month vs. 1.5 years respectively.
So, Microsoft rams a specification through the ECMA in a quarter of the time as ODF was moved through OASIS, significantly increases the volume of the standard over their original specs, at least one major partner voted against it, then gives everyone exactly one month to review it before it becomes an international standard, and somehow that makes the industry a bunch of whiners for complaining about having only one month to review their standard. Right.
Your phrasing is a restriction on my freedom of speech, sir, as it requires that I shut up about injustices the bill would create and future doors of technology it would close simply because the bill will not "bring the Internet to its knees". I am offended and will vote you out of congress at the soonest possible opportunity.
I'm somewhat kidding there as I understood your point more clearly than that. But you do need to understand that any bill, no matter how well written, is going to be subject to interpretation down the road. One such interpretation (which I guarantee will be read as such) is that any prioritization of a specific type of traffic (say, VoIP) will be required to be prioritized for all users. (Section 12(b)(2)) Thus your ISP is explicitly restricted from selling unbundled, prioritized VoIP services. The end result of this is that no ISP will bother with prioritizing the traffic, as all the money is going to go to Net2Phone or Skype instead of them. Now you're back to square one with no facilities to ensure clean VoIP transmissions.
Way to go Congress, you've just killed the free market.
Do you see my problem? Granted, the problem is completely the fault of the ISPs in the first place. If they hadn't gotten greedy, they wouldn't be facing this legislation right now. But my own opinion is that by legislating this, Congress is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The current solution works just fine. Let the FCC do its job. If and when the FCC director fails to do his job, THEN you can either replace him or legislate it. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind this legislation as much if there was a time limitation on it. That would at least hold the status quo long enough to stablize the industry, then allow them to offer certain premium services in the future. I still wouldn't like it, but at least it could go away in the future. (I suppose that didn't work too well for the Patriot act, though, did it?)
That's not really Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia is a starting point in researching a topic. To develop a complete view of the subject, you should visit other sites that make more objective points about the topic. Wikipedia usually links to many of these as citations for its various sections.
I just realized that most Slashdotters probably didn't read the article, and I didn't quote quite enough to get the point across. Basically, he's saying that the ODF supporters are hypocrites by claiming that the 30 day window for OOXML review is too short, as they are using a similar 30 day period to get their own ISO approval. Which completely obscures the fact that ODF is already standardized by an industry standards organization (OASIS) while OOXML is not.
No, but neither is a new Federal law if it doesn't get enforced. And guess who's on the hook for enforcement?
I'd rather have the FCC enforce a reasonable set of guidelines than a draconian reaction from Congress. (Also known as the opposite of "progress".)
http://www.networkcomputing.com/channels/networki
Note that the paragraph about "tiered services" is poorly worded by the article. The author of the article for some reason is creating confusion by also referring to different levels of bandwidth availability (e.g. purchasing 768K at $20/mo vs. paying $40 for 1.5M) as "tiering". So read it carefully.
That would be because respondants have had over 4 years to respond to the OASIS specification. Since it's already a standard that has been reviewed by the industry, the ISO committee can choose to adopt it on a fast-track as a way of putting their own stamp of approval on it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The FCC has already stated that they will fine any company that abuses their ability to Tier bandwidth. So we're covered on that front without having to pass new laws. At the same time, the current situtation allows for ISPs to use the tiering features of their routing equipment as it was originally designed: To provide near real-time routing for time-sensitive traffic such as Voice Over IP.
There is no "space industry" in the form we're talking about. India is not building these craft to compete with an open marketplace (where they would be outright crushed), they are building them to provide their nation with technology that is otherwise restricted. In creating that technology, they are forced to develop a tech and industrial base that they did not previously have available. Creating that infrastructure allows their other industries to leapfrog the costly research and development cycles that are traditionally so hard to support.
Of course, the Indian government could directly subsidize the creation of those industries instead. The problem with that line of attack is that no realworld experience in the field is created before the products are developed. So the country will have the technology and industry, but no one who knows how to apply it in a practical and safe manner. i.e. This is the difference between creating a software framework around an idealized concept of what you will need vs. real world experience of what works and what doesn't. The latter track is almost always superior.
Of course you can. You just won't understand the practical applications of those advances until you've had lengthy experiences with them. So the foreign designs will [i]still[/i] end up superior to your poor attempts at copycatting.
Your example is actually the exact opposite. It's not a charity. It's a sustainable business concept that targets the needs of a specific business sector. So it is, in fact, more similar to the Indian Space Program than dissimilar. i.e. Help a country help itself.
It's not that easy. Mass Transit manufacturing would leave a company reliant upon the government for its funding, same as a Space Program. Car Manufacturing sounds like a good idea, but it's very difficult to compete with foreign imports. Something that Maruti Udyog, Hindustan Motors, and Bajaj Tempo (now "Force Motors") can tell you.
What a space program does is that it provides funding for the development of new materials, manufacturing, and general industrial capability that can then be turned around and poured into the production of consumer goods like Cars and Mass Transit. Those industrial and technology bases can then be used used to close the gap between the local capabilties and the much greater industrial/tech bases of foreign countries. Closing that gap leads to a better ability to compete. Competing leads to more wealth generated, and more wealth generated leads to more jobs and entrepreneurials required to sustain and/or increase that wealth.
This idea of pouring the wealth directly onto the poor is a very heartwarming sentiment, but it tends to do much less to actually solve these people's problems than if the money is spent on programs that make use of profitable business ventures.
So the solution is not to create new jobs, technologies, and industries with a Space Program, but to simply dole out the money to the poor until there is no more left?
I'm thinking that the hundreds of thousands of dollars they made on Commander Keen more than compensated for that little issue.
As it so happened, they actually miscalculated a bit. Carmack and Romero were certain that Nintendo would want to port to computers if they just had the technology necessary. Instead, the truth of that matter was that Nintendo wanted to keep their platform locked up nice and tight, and use the exclusives to force people to purchase the NES.
C64 users recall a short-lived game called The Great Giana Sisters that was basically a clone of Mario with different graphics and mildly different gameplay. Nintendo used their lawyers to shut down the company that made it, making the game very short lived indeed. Amusingly, it ended up living on thanks to piracy, and was even hacked to use Super Mario Bros. graphics!
You would be AssUMe-ing too much. For the purposes of Ajax13, I'm fairly certain (based on their serverside messages) that they're using Jakarta POI to read Microsoft Documents. Thinkfree's development actually predates the general availability of OpenOffice and, I believe, uses their own in-house API. (Though I may be incorrect about that last part.) Google uses... whatever Google uses. I don't think the information on their backend is really available.
Long story short, there are more APIs out there than just OpenOffice.
Unsurprisingly, ThinkFree was chosen as their preferred "online" Office Suite. FWIW, ThinkFree is an amazing piece of software that blasted onto the scene back in '99 - '00. The most amazing part of it was how it so closely resembled Microsoft Office. Given it's age, it's no surprise that it "won" this comparison.
:)
Of course, there is a caveat. Thinkfree uses client-side Java rather than being pure-Ajax. This gives it a distinct advantage as the Java GUI tools are far more mature than the embryonic Ajax GUIs. Basically, it was a bit of an unfair fight. Which would bother me, except that Thinkfree Office is an excellent product, and deserves the exposure.
So if you find yourself with a need for a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software on the go, keep Thinkfree in mind. It may cost money, but it's quite a bit more convenient than a Linux LiveCD.
They have to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court of law. It's not a perfect system, I'll grant you, but it's better than the alternative.
FWIW, this is a non-issue anyway. Files purchased online are almost certainly not the ones floating around P2P sites. Those are usually either from audio engineers who leak them, or rips of source media like CDs. So in the long-run, such watermarking would only be good for consumers as it would prove that they're more honest than the RIAA gives them credit for.
Or the a*holes will accuse everyone and their grandma (literally) of removing the watermark. One of those two.
Actually, it's the other way around. If you've got enough mobility to use a gamepad, you've got enough mobility to use the small motions that the Wii requires. (The whole "standing up and jump around" thing is just for fun.) Since many games only require the Wiimote and not the Nunchuck, it represents the first time in history that one-armed players can use a video game console - with some footnote exceptions like light guns.
I forget exactly where I saw it, but there was a fellow doing charity work who saw a one-armed kid get a Wii to play with. He said that the kid enjoyed it immensely, and that it was the first time he had ever been able to actually play video games. The problem was that Gamepads and Joysticks had been inaccessable to him because they required two, fully functional arms and hands.
Something to think about, anyway.
Um... he did?
http://www.doomrpg.com/
Here's an interview with him on his role in its development:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=6
Penny wise, pound foolish.
I never did understand the Core system concept anyway. If games were going to require a hard drive, what good would it do to purchase a system without one? My suspicion is that Microsoft released the Core system in an attempt to keep their prices from looking outrageous. ($399 was a lot for a game console at the time.) Thanks to Sony, however, Microsoft's pricing scheme suddenly doesn't look so bad after all.