What theaster are you going to that has 1000 seats?
There are plenty although many have been split up into smaller sections over the last several decades. Most people only think of 'Mall' theaters these days where the average seating capacity (USA) is ~225.
The Arlington in Santa Barbara seats over 2,000 people and has a very nice atmosphere.
Are you saying HL2 bought from a store gives you some illusion you'll actually be able to do the above? That is, picking it out of a closet in 10 years time and playing? Good luck. Unless Valve's still online so you can decrypt the data after installing it, you'll be way better of burning a Steam backup onto a DVD-R.
Just like there are no-cd executables, there are already cracked versions of Steam that allow the game to be played whether Valve exists or not.
If Valve fell apart, we'd still be able to play offline. We could also play online by choosing cracked servers as well.
Even if the reviews said it was more of a cross between Ishtar and Battlefield Earth than a SW flick, we'd all still go see it just to finish the series off.
I'm not sure about that. If Waterworld were to be thrown into the mix with Ishtar and Battlefield Earth, I'd hesitate and think about brain damage that could occur.
I'm not going to mind going and seeing it in the theater. Biggest issue I see with going to the theater is sharing a space with drooling geeks. That place is going to stink of B.O. like crazy!
Not to mention the blinding light & sounds of 1,000 people text messaging their friends about every little detail or blooper in the film.
Why they did not simply have put that in Norton Antivirus a long time ago? They sure have all the scanning tools!
I'm guessing that they were waiting for someone else BIG to make the move. There wasn't much sense in trying to compete with the already established free anti-spyware products.
But, now that Microsoft has made the move, Symantec can get a lot of sales just by the fact that MS is making such a big deal out of their own product. People who already have Symantec products will now be wondering 'if Microsoft can do it, why can't my computer protection company do it better?'. Symantec indirectly gets free advertising from Microsoft's.
The majority of the public wasn't aware of anti-spyware tools until MS did this. Now the time is ripe for Symantec to cash in.
I see a lot of machines come in without Internet access and Symantec's firewall offering on the machine. Can't uninstall any of the Norton products, so have to remove them by hand.
That's strange. Of course you can uninstall any version of Norton products. If you couldn't, their corporate sales would take a big hit.
Anyway, here is the link for 2004/5 and remember me every time that cash register goes 'cha ching'.
Here is what I want to know: Why is Symantec forking their projects into Spyware on one side, virus protection on the other, firewall on the other, subscription on the other? Why don't they have these services in one package?
They do have them in one package if you want it. It's called Norton Internet Security.
They are giving customers the freedom to purchase their products seperately so that the customer can (for example) use a different firewall if they want to yet get all of the benefits of Norton Anti-Virus.
What's so wrong with having a choice instead of having to pay for included products that the customer doesn't want to use?
I'm serious here, maybe i just don't get what the "service" here is. I mean, I get these "3rd party add-ons," but what I don't get is that in games like Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam, it already has a totally capable multiplayer game server selection menu built in.
I don't know what this service will do, but I can explain why add-ons are nice such as the All Seeing Eye and Gamespy3d.
Advanced filtering and ping checking. For instance, a low ping server doesn't mean the best. Often, it's better to get a server that has less hops between it and the client for a smooth game.
I use these programs a lot. Why? Because I can filter out Windows servers. I can filter out servers that use standard maps OR ones that use custom maps.. I can specify server variables that I want to be standard so that I don't connect to servers that have odd settings for gravity for example. I can filter out servers that have cheats enabled.
The list goes on and on. These programs go above and beyond what game companies will put into their internal browsers because it's expensive and could piss off a lot of the gaming community. (Imagine how many server admins would be upset if in-game browsers had the ability to ignore Windows servers like these 3rd party browsers do)
Any setting that the server broadcasts is available for these 3rd party programs to use and allow players to set up filters for.
From reading their news it appears it will be used for their servers and community.
Gamespy lists all servers for each game they support. That is a completely different beast and not comparable to this service.
Also, it looks like they'll be regularly charging for this service. With Gamespy, I handed them $20 8 years ago and still receive updates when new games come out that they support.
Without more detail from Gamespot, there's not much to discuss. And, I'm not willing to pay $6.95 just to get the privilege of participating in their test of the software.
Notice that the article linked to in this topic doesn't mention who the Usual Suspect is that causes these keyloggers to be installed by just visiting a web site.
The article is garbage. It is pure sensationalism and doesn't bother to put the whole issue in perspective by including 1 simple href to the the actual report. (For those who don't RTFR above, you get 1 guess about which browser the report points at exclusively).
For instance, the actual report says things like "Over the last 2 months, Websense Security Labs has seen a dramatic increase in the volume of phishing-based malicious code attacks, in particular, code that targets the Portuguese language". (emphasis mine).
It also says that 48% of the phishing links are ip addresses ONLY, . (So, ~half of them specifically target people who will click ANY link)
And, this quote from the actual report puts the last nail in article's coffin:
To date, Websense Security Labs have seen attacks from the following sources:
* Websites that host adult entertainment and shopping content which exploit Internet Explorer vulnerabilities to run code remotely without user interaction.
* Instant Messaging (IM) messages and IM worms which blast a message to users enticing them to visit a remote website and run code which is hosted on that site.
* IM messages which include attachments and entice users to run the code.
* Blasts of emails that have attachments enticing users to run the code.
* Blasts of emails that entice users to visit a remote website, and then lure users to run malicious code that is hosted on that site.
* Blasts of emails that entice users to visit a remote website, and then attempt to use an Internet Explorer vulnerability to download and run code without user interaction.
Actually, he wasn't "designing for a browser," he was trying to make his page accessible to all browsers. He might generate different HTML depending on which browser is looking at it. Unfortunately, different browsers implement the standards differently, and sometimes you have to do hacks to get your pages to look the same in all browsers.
Yes. All of the browsers deviate from the standard. Some people are a bit anal about hacking up web pages until they are identical in all browsers. This isn't cost effective and only impresses 'gotta make them look identical in all browsers!' Zealots. I do it if I have the spare time, but usually I don't. I DO follow current standards and when I'm finished with a set of pages I check them in several browsers. If there is a problem with a few browsers and there isn't an relatively easy way to fix it, I make pages for those other browsers and the server 'invisibly' displays them. Making other pages with a few changes is much easier than often having to dumb down all of the pages 1 or more HTML versions. Also, if the client wants changes, I can easily do it without going through all of that other tedious process again.
There are many other reasons I like to identify browsers. For instance, I code so that 'get Firefox' images and links don't show up for Firefox users. Also, I can let people know if browser X is out of date.
I can select different content for different browsers/platforms if I have the information. For instance, it wouldn't be efficient for me to advertise a bunch of Windows software for someone who is browsing the site with an OS/X browser.
So what if many of us do this sort of thing for the above and dozens of other reasons? It's our coding and no one can tell us what to do. Not to mention, many major sites do the same thing. They customize content for depending on what they know or can guess about the user on the other end.
I tried the Google Accelerator and guess what?
on
Google Web Accelerator
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's pretty slick.
Anti-Advertisement software gets bypassed and the ads I haven't seen for years are now displayed for my 'enjoyment'.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm off to uninstall this POS.
You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!
Back in my day, we made Star Wars lightsaber effects by cutting holes in the film AND WE LIKED IT!
Remember that they are already retrieving a huge amount of the web on a regular basis for their search engine. They may well have a "faster connection to the web server", since they might have already retrieved a copy of the resource beforehand. Also remember that, assuming it's not dynamic content, they can serve copies of the resource to hundreds of thousands of people without having to download it themselves.
I really can't stand assuming.
For instance, how does Google REALLY know if a page is dynamic or not. Many web programmers (as I do) disguise PHP pages as 'straight-up' html pages for various reasons. It could be to increase security, or to keep Google rankings high, or to deliver content optimized for a particular browser, or many other reasons.
What Google sees as a static web page could actually be a page that was optimized for the browser the server thought was 'looking' at that page. In that case, the majority of pages that Google displays would most likely be rendered as IE compatible ones.
The thing that confuses me is if the Xbox has a 733Mhz processor and 64MB of shared RAM, why does it take, say, around 1.8 Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and a mid range grafics card to display a similer level of graphics.
I know the OS eats RAM and runs processes in the background but unless your system is terribly loaded with spyware and the like, that still leaves at least a couple hundred megs for the game and more then enough CPU cycles. IMO anyway.
It isn't a similar level of graphics. The resolution of consoles is very different from a PC. Less than 1% of current PC FPS players would want to use the resolution that console players have. In fact, I haven't used a recent FPS that allowed me to lower my resolution to be equal to what a console displays. (q3/doom3/RTCW/BF1942/UT2k4/etc... do not allow this)
For example, Quake1 allowed that sort of thing. But, that was 9 years ago.
Not only that, but PC games LOVE to have extra memory so that they can cache maps & related files so that level loading is as fast as possible.
How bout you shut the hell up and not tell everyone about this, thank you. People like you ruin everything for everyone.
Actually, keeping it a Big Secret will ensure its eventual demise because of RIAA or other similar organizations. The RIAA knows quite well what a serious threat USENET is and has been. They're just waiting for the 'right' time to attack. They can't do that now because it would force a direct confrontation between ISP's and the RIAA. RIAA doesn't want to do this for obvious reasons.
Already, it's often difficult to get an ISP representative to give out their news server address because they say they don't know what USENET means. Many ISPs now don't offer in-house USENET as it is.
If this trend continues, all major ISPs will drop default news server access with accounts and the RIAA wrecking ball on USENET will begin to take it's toll.
Shhhh! Ix-nay on the uality-quay talk! I like Usenet just the way it is, a fountain of the bizarre and unfamiliar. Last thing I want is for it to become another Britney bucket.
Oh crap. I forgot the first rule of operation USENET!
Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).
EXACTLY!
That's one of the major reasons why the quality/quantity of good files is better on USENET.
People who won't bother to learn how to use USENET or download an application to do it for them get filtered out. Serious traders spend an hour or so learning how to use USENET and often keep quality sets of files on-hand so that they can post 'FILEFOO (requesting: FILEBAR)' and be assured that they will get the exact file they want in return.
OTOH, P2P is full of tons of crap that people don't even realize they are sharing because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Example: Search for NOTEPAD.EXE and then browse the users and you'll see that often you're looking at their WINDOWS directory.
Yes, the quality on P2P isn't anywhere close on average to what is on USENET. Serious traders have a on-line reputation to uphold. That does not apply to P2P in the same manner.
Also, 'USENET' doesn't sound as cool as 'Napster' and other similar applications in news stories. So, USENET gets left alone by the media and general public.
And, with low-cost USENET hosts that have 30+ day expire periods and ignore cancel posts, it's much better to have 1 reliable source instead of 1,000s of P2P sources with various upload speeds/queues going on and offline constantly.
I still don't know why people like P2P applications so much. They are begging to get busted due to them waving a 'looky here at my copyrighted files' flag publicly.
USENET is still superior: Anonymous uploading of files can be done. Downloads are usually extremely fast & won't be noticed by the RIAA or whoever else is interested. And, reviews ("virus!", "bad sample rate", "wrong file", "goatse.cx warning", etc..) of uploaded files are there to be looked at before choosing to download them.
P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.
This has happened on several sites I know of. The sites run their forums for free for several years, and then when they have a large enough user base that's addicted to the site because of the friends they've made there, they slam the users with fees. The heavy posters feel compelled to pay to keep the community that they've built together.
Compelled? Those people have much more serious issues than paying to post if they cannot make decisions for themselves and are instead controlled by a *cough* web forum.
It doesn't matter at all what they've 'built'. It was 'built' on someone elses property and they darned well knew that. If the site owner decides to implement a cover fee to help deal with costs, why blame them? Why should they feel a moral obligation to give out Welfare accounts to people who have been posting for quite a while?
Slashdot Mirror
What theaster are you going to that has 1000 seats?
There are plenty although many have been split up into smaller sections over the last several decades. Most people only think of 'Mall' theaters these days where the average seating capacity (USA) is ~225.
The Arlington in Santa Barbara seats over 2,000 people and has a very nice atmosphere.
Are you saying HL2 bought from a store gives you some illusion you'll actually be able to do the above? That is, picking it out of a closet in 10 years time and playing? Good luck. Unless Valve's still online so you can decrypt the data after installing it, you'll be way better of burning a Steam backup onto a DVD-R.
Just like there are no-cd executables, there are already cracked versions of Steam that allow the game to be played whether Valve exists or not.
If Valve fell apart, we'd still be able to play offline. We could also play online by choosing cracked servers as well.
I like it also because I can log in from any computer that has Steam installed and play any game I have purchased.
JSYK, only 2-3% of the HL2 players are known to be using 56k.
Here is the current hardware etc... information.
Even if the reviews said it was more of a cross between Ishtar and Battlefield Earth than a SW flick, we'd all still go see it just to finish the series off.
I'm not sure about that. If Waterworld were to be thrown into the mix with Ishtar and Battlefield Earth, I'd hesitate and think about brain damage that could occur.
I'm not going to mind going and seeing it in the theater. Biggest issue I see with going to the theater is sharing a space with drooling geeks. That place is going to stink of B.O. like crazy!
Not to mention the blinding light & sounds of 1,000 people text messaging their friends about every little detail or blooper in the film.
Why they did not simply have put that in Norton Antivirus a long time ago? They sure have all the scanning tools!
I'm guessing that they were waiting for someone else BIG to make the move. There wasn't much sense in trying to compete with the already established free anti-spyware products.
But, now that Microsoft has made the move, Symantec can get a lot of sales just by the fact that MS is making such a big deal out of their own product. People who already have Symantec products will now be wondering 'if Microsoft can do it, why can't my computer protection company do it better?'. Symantec indirectly gets free advertising from Microsoft's.
The majority of the public wasn't aware of anti-spyware tools until MS did this. Now the time is ripe for Symantec to cash in.
I see a lot of machines come in without Internet access and Symantec's firewall offering on the machine. Can't uninstall any of the Norton products, so have to remove them by hand.
That's strange. Of course you can uninstall any version of Norton products. If you couldn't, their corporate sales would take a big hit. Anyway, here is the link for 2004/5 and remember me every time that cash register goes 'cha ching'.
Here is what I want to know: Why is Symantec forking their projects into Spyware on one side, virus protection on the other, firewall on the other, subscription on the other? Why don't they have these services in one package?
They do have them in one package if you want it. It's called Norton Internet Security.
They are giving customers the freedom to purchase their products seperately so that the customer can (for example) use a different firewall if they want to yet get all of the benefits of Norton Anti-Virus.
What's so wrong with having a choice instead of having to pay for included products that the customer doesn't want to use?
I'm serious here, maybe i just don't get what the "service" here is. I mean, I get these "3rd party add-ons," but what I don't get is that in games like Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam, it already has a totally capable multiplayer game server selection menu built in.
I don't know what this service will do, but I can explain why add-ons are nice such as the All Seeing Eye and Gamespy3d.
Advanced filtering and ping checking. For instance, a low ping server doesn't mean the best. Often, it's better to get a server that has less hops between it and the client for a smooth game.
I use these programs a lot. Why? Because I can filter out Windows servers. I can filter out servers that use standard maps OR ones that use custom maps.. I can specify server variables that I want to be standard so that I don't connect to servers that have odd settings for gravity for example. I can filter out servers that have cheats enabled.
The list goes on and on. These programs go above and beyond what game companies will put into their internal browsers because it's expensive and could piss off a lot of the gaming community. (Imagine how many server admins would be upset if in-game browsers had the ability to ignore Windows servers like these 3rd party browsers do) Any setting that the server broadcasts is available for these 3rd party programs to use and allow players to set up filters for.
From reading their news it appears it will be used for their servers and community.
Gamespy lists all servers for each game they support. That is a completely different beast and not comparable to this service.
Also, it looks like they'll be regularly charging for this service. With Gamespy, I handed them $20 8 years ago and still receive updates when new games come out that they support.
Without more detail from Gamespot, there's not much to discuss. And, I'm not willing to pay $6.95 just to get the privilege of participating in their test of the software.
Notice that the article linked to in this topic doesn't mention who the Usual Suspect is that causes these keyloggers to be installed by just visiting a web site.
The article is garbage. It is pure sensationalism and doesn't bother to put the whole issue in perspective by including 1 simple href to the the actual report. (For those who don't RTFR above, you get 1 guess about which browser the report points at exclusively).
For instance, the actual report says things like "Over the last 2 months, Websense Security Labs has seen a dramatic increase in the volume of phishing-based malicious code attacks, in particular, code that targets the Portuguese language ". (emphasis mine).
It also says that 48% of the phishing links are ip addresses ONLY, . (So, ~half of them specifically target people who will click ANY link)
And, this quote from the actual report puts the last nail in article's coffin:
This isn't a problem for me, I rearrange all the keycaps on my keyboard to protect myself.
.com
I still like to do the 'switch the N and M keys' trick to annoy people who can't touch type.
It's very amusing to see that there are a few people who completely lose their cool when they can't figure out how to type
Actually, he wasn't "designing for a browser," he was trying to make his page accessible to all browsers. He might generate different HTML depending on which browser is looking at it. Unfortunately, different browsers implement the standards differently, and sometimes you have to do hacks to get your pages to look the same in all browsers.
Yes. All of the browsers deviate from the standard. Some people are a bit anal about hacking up web pages until they are identical in all browsers. This isn't cost effective and only impresses 'gotta make them look identical in all browsers!' Zealots. I do it if I have the spare time, but usually I don't. I DO follow current standards and when I'm finished with a set of pages I check them in several browsers. If there is a problem with a few browsers and there isn't an relatively easy way to fix it, I make pages for those other browsers and the server 'invisibly' displays them. Making other pages with a few changes is much easier than often having to dumb down all of the pages 1 or more HTML versions. Also, if the client wants changes, I can easily do it without going through all of that other tedious process again.
There are many other reasons I like to identify browsers. For instance, I code so that 'get Firefox' images and links don't show up for Firefox users. Also, I can let people know if browser X is out of date.
I can select different content for different browsers/platforms if I have the information. For instance, it wouldn't be efficient for me to advertise a bunch of Windows software for someone who is browsing the site with an OS/X browser.
So what if many of us do this sort of thing for the above and dozens of other reasons? It's our coding and no one can tell us what to do. Not to mention, many major sites do the same thing. They customize content for depending on what they know or can guess about the user on the other end.
It's pretty slick.
Anti-Advertisement software gets bypassed and the ads I haven't seen for years are now displayed for my 'enjoyment'.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm off to uninstall this POS.
You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!
Back in my day, we made Star Wars lightsaber effects by cutting holes in the film AND WE LIKED IT!
Remember that they are already retrieving a huge amount of the web on a regular basis for their search engine. They may well have a "faster connection to the web server", since they might have already retrieved a copy of the resource beforehand. Also remember that, assuming it's not dynamic content, they can serve copies of the resource to hundreds of thousands of people without having to download it themselves.
I really can't stand assuming.
For instance, how does Google REALLY know if a page is dynamic or not. Many web programmers (as I do) disguise PHP pages as 'straight-up' html pages for various reasons. It could be to increase security, or to keep Google rankings high, or to deliver content optimized for a particular browser, or many other reasons.
What Google sees as a static web page could actually be a page that was optimized for the browser the server thought was 'looking' at that page. In that case, the majority of pages that Google displays would most likely be rendered as IE compatible ones.
The thing that confuses me is if the Xbox has a 733Mhz processor and 64MB of shared RAM, why does it take, say, around 1.8 Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and a mid range grafics card to display a similer level of graphics. I know the OS eats RAM and runs processes in the background but unless your system is terribly loaded with spyware and the like, that still leaves at least a couple hundred megs for the game and more then enough CPU cycles. IMO anyway.
It isn't a similar level of graphics. The resolution of consoles is very different from a PC. Less than 1% of current PC FPS players would want to use the resolution that console players have. In fact, I haven't used a recent FPS that allowed me to lower my resolution to be equal to what a console displays. (q3/doom3/RTCW/BF1942/UT2k4/etc... do not allow this)
For example, Quake1 allowed that sort of thing. But, that was 9 years ago.
Not only that, but PC games LOVE to have extra memory so that they can cache maps & related files so that level loading is as fast as possible.
Can you name a few? Two? One really good one?
How about dozens?
The subscription servers are much better overall. There is a list with reviews of them here and here.
How bout you shut the hell up and not tell everyone about this, thank you. People like you ruin everything for everyone.
Actually, keeping it a Big Secret will ensure its eventual demise because of RIAA or other similar organizations. The RIAA knows quite well what a serious threat USENET is and has been. They're just waiting for the 'right' time to attack. They can't do that now because it would force a direct confrontation between ISP's and the RIAA. RIAA doesn't want to do this for obvious reasons.
Already, it's often difficult to get an ISP representative to give out their news server address because they say they don't know what USENET means. Many ISPs now don't offer in-house USENET as it is.
If this trend continues, all major ISPs will drop default news server access with accounts and the RIAA wrecking ball on USENET will begin to take it's toll.
Shhhh! Ix-nay on the uality-quay talk! I like Usenet just the way it is, a fountain of the bizarre and unfamiliar. Last thing I want is for it to become another Britney bucket.
Oh crap. I forgot the first rule of operation USENET!
Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).
EXACTLY!
That's one of the major reasons why the quality/quantity of good files is better on USENET.
People who won't bother to learn how to use USENET or download an application to do it for them get filtered out. Serious traders spend an hour or so learning how to use USENET and often keep quality sets of files on-hand so that they can post 'FILEFOO (requesting: FILEBAR)' and be assured that they will get the exact file they want in return.
OTOH, P2P is full of tons of crap that people don't even realize they are sharing because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Example: Search for NOTEPAD.EXE and then browse the users and you'll see that often you're looking at their WINDOWS directory.
Yes, the quality on P2P isn't anywhere close on average to what is on USENET. Serious traders have a on-line reputation to uphold. That does not apply to P2P in the same manner.
Also, 'USENET' doesn't sound as cool as 'Napster' and other similar applications in news stories. So, USENET gets left alone by the media and general public.
And, with low-cost USENET hosts that have 30+ day expire periods and ignore cancel posts, it's much better to have 1 reliable source instead of 1,000s of P2P sources with various upload speeds/queues going on and offline constantly.
I still don't know why people like P2P applications so much. They are begging to get busted due to them waving a 'looky here at my copyrighted files' flag publicly.
USENET is still superior: Anonymous uploading of files can be done. Downloads are usually extremely fast & won't be noticed by the RIAA or whoever else is interested. And, reviews ("virus!", "bad sample rate", "wrong file", "goatse.cx warning", etc..) of uploaded files are there to be looked at before choosing to download them.
P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.
This has happened on several sites I know of. The sites run their forums for free for several years, and then when they have a large enough user base that's addicted to the site because of the friends they've made there, they slam the users with fees. The heavy posters feel compelled to pay to keep the community that they've built together.
Compelled? Those people have much more serious issues than paying to post if they cannot make decisions for themselves and are instead controlled by a *cough* web forum.
It doesn't matter at all what they've 'built'. It was 'built' on someone elses property and they darned well knew that. If the site owner decides to implement a cover fee to help deal with costs, why blame them? Why should they feel a moral obligation to give out Welfare accounts to people who have been posting for quite a while?