It sounds obvious to a Econ101 student, but in the "MP3" electronics field there are many good products that had the qualities mentioned that haven't come close to iPod sales
I agree there are a lot of players very nearly as good as the iPod (and in some cases, better), but as an owner of both the first commercial available portable MP3 player (the 32 MB Diamond Rio) and the first model of iPod (the 5GB one, followed by a 15 GB, 20 GB and 60 GB one - largely due to losing them/dropping them a lot) and as someone who has endured using a Mini Disc, I think it's wrong to paint it as 'another Engineer vs Marketer issue'.
That's because there is one big, IMO crucial difference between the iPod and every other player.
The quality of software that comes with it.
Not the software on the iPod, but iTunes, which was the first (and only) package most users have ever used to 'rip' a CD. It makes the process really painless, and it even makes it easy to burn your own CD's (to the extent that even my 50-something year old mother is happy with it, is very happy to buy music via the iTMS, and she still can't work out how to use the channel browser on her digital TV set top box).
Now I don't think for a minute that users make a conscious decision to purchase an iPod on the basis of iTunes nor do I think users even give a second thought to iTunes (i think that's part of the 'magic' of good software that's targeted at a mass market audience), but I do think that iTunes has been and is absolutely crucial to the product's success, and that if Apple had tried to ship it with the same horrible quality Rio Jukebox BS that Creative did, or the crap that Sony provide, their is no way it would have gained the momentum and be in the position it's now in.
I also think, by the same token, that vendors like Sony and Creative have been hurt by their poor quality products- perhaps in a way that's difficult to measure directly, but because their products have failed to become know as being being 'easy to use' (which is killer when your trying to sell a new type of product most consumers are still a bit confused by and wary of).
I think that the advertising campaign has of course definitely been instrumental in the iPod's meteoric rise to dominance, but I think it's one product where the magic - the underlying reason for the whole success of the product - really is in the software (just perhaps, not in the obvious place - that is, not on the iPod itself but in the seemingly coincidental bundled software that makes it 'just work').
boring for anyone with an ounce of AV skills. My computer *IS* my TV, mp3 player, movie player, dvd player, cd player, etc....
You watch TV shows and movies on your monitor? Nasty.
I have a 24" flat panel screen on the games system in the study, and it has 5.1 surround, but as a nice a gaming system as it is [for FPS games/MMO's], it's hardly the best way to enjoy good video content, which - like console gaming - lends itself to a totally different environment.
If I'm going to watch a movie or show at home then I want to watch it on a decent sized display (in my case, a 50" Plasma), with the best sound system in the house, and on comfy seating in the lounge (where I can watch it with friends too, rather than say have them huddle round a monitor).
I think most people with a computer are going to have a TV with a screen that's about twice as large as their monitor (from Joe User with a 15-17" monitor who has a 28-32" TV - to those who spend a bit more on their hardware - who might have a 19" TFT on their computer, but a 40-42" Plasma in the living room).
It's got nothing to do with having 'A/V skills', large displays (even 1080p) in the lounge make for lousy monitors (it's really uncomfortable using one like a monitor, even with a wireless keyboard and mouse) and computer monitors don't make for very good TV's. Different things, different purposes.
I think you've completely underestimated the level of innuendo I was going for!
To be clear, I do think shoving a vibrating controller up your bum, while someone else on the interweb waggles their 'stick' suggestively, causing your controller to vibrate, is at the very least homoerotic and that it does make you at least a little bit gay. And your a pervert for even thinking of doing it!
Who cares about measuring. With the Wii, you can SHAKE IT!
I think it's always been hard to shake the suspicion that there is something slightly 'gay' about Nintendo, but the imagery that comment really nails it.
I can just imagine stores in Japan with shelves full of 3rd party homoerotic hetanti titles, which make full use of the interactivity of the vibrating wireless controller, with support for online co-op gameplay too, no doubt.
The deviants who dream up this stuff should be ashamed of themselves.
Dead Rising has it close by letting you restart the game at your current level (makes it easier the next time around), but fails in that you have to restart the entire game.
I was actually thinking of Dead Rising while I was reading your post. I love the control system, the engine, the graphics and the basic premise - they are all great. But the amount of repetition is just rediculous and I stopped playing early on because I got bored of playing the same sequences over and over, so early on in the game.
On on a broader note, one of the things I find most annoying is illogical inconsistancies in game worlds. In Dead Rising for example (and one of the reasons I ended up repeating the same sequence several times) there is one guy who's hold up in the mall (and who isn't undead) who you can shoot 15-20 times (using clips taken from the bodies of security guards) and he'll still be alive (although his health bar slowly drops, indicating he is taking some damage, it's just very slight).
In the games defense, it would seem from the 'time left to complete' system used to indicate the order you should attempt to complete missions in that you can simply leave him alone and come back for him 6 hours later (in 'game time') - perhaps when you are better armed. However, that doesn't explain to why if I DO join in and try to kill him he'll relatively quickly manage to kill the guy you are there to support, but for some reason he won't manage to kill him if you just leave them alone to fight - or why he is able to take being shot so many times, even though he's not a zombie or wearing body armour, etc.
Now I can deal with a little incongruity and simplicity in a game for the sake of practicality (it's a game after all, and a little absraction is usually a good idea as far as gameplay is concered), but whether I'm playing GTA, Half Life or Dead Rising, I expect that if I shoot a normal human, who's not wearing protective armour, 15-20 times then the individual will be dead, and I'll be pissed off if I am forced back to an old save point just because the developer has decided to arbirarily make this guy more resistant to dying than everyone else running around.
If something as basic as '[living] people die when you shoot them lots' isn't consistant throughout the game world, then the game ceases to be 'fair', and leaves the player feeling cheated and pissed off as a result (which is not how I expect when I shell out 50 UKP on a product that is supposed to provide some enjoyment). I think it was Peter Monolux in an interview in Edge who said that games should always avoid leaving players feeling cheated, and that's something I've always agreed with.
Test Drive Unlimited (another recent 360 title) also left me feeling hard done by, after I'd otherwise had quite a good time playing it. After winning several races, and repeating one race 3 or 4 times to rack up cash to buy more cars with (a little repeataive and unimagainative, but still fun), I took a tour around the island. On my tour a found a single 'hidden' mission (unmarked on the map) offering me 90,000 credits for a single mission, so I jumped at it (it was almost double the amount I had at present). The mission was simply to drive back for about 10-20 minutes in the direction I'd just come, and not to any damage to the car (for the 'maximum reward/bonus').
After driving so cautiously and slowly for so long, I couldn't wait to get back to racing again. I'd been stopped by the police a few times before and been fined between 5,000 and 17,000 each time when I'd made a run for it, so I let them chase me for some entertainment. When they cought up with me, they fined me - much to my surprise - just under 70,000 credits! It seems you get fined more, if you have more money on you at the time. The game doesn't explain this though, nor does it seem to be mentioned in the manual - it's just a nasty surprise waiting to bite you in the ass - unfortunately the game has a 'rolling save system', meaning I couldn't undo it and now I'll have to
I mean, the entire basis for affirmative action is that certain identifiable groups are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to performing certain jobs
That is incorrect, in fact you've got it spetacularly backwards.
The basis for 'affirmative action' is that one group has historically been descrimated against (due to race, visible physical disability, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.) despite not being any less able to do the job than other groups, not because they are disadvantaged in some way that makes them less able to perform certain jobs.
She would still go to jail first, and would only be alloed home when it had cleared - and she'd still have to find the 1500 USD in the first place, which most people tend not to have just sitting in the bank (most people know they ought to, but they don't), and she'd have to go to trial (and might not see the money for weeks). If she didn't have the money, she'd just have to wait in Jail.
I earn > 40K UKP (~80k USD) a year, but I don't usually have that much sitting in the bank (more like I have a perpetual ~ 1500 UKP overdraft) - I would have 500 USD (~265) for a fine avalbile to take out though....
(Though I'd just call my parents to bail me out, and choose not to have a criminal record of course, but that's not a luxury every one has, particularly the poor who are more likely to be arrested.)
Except that emails aren't traceable. At all. Especially the throwaway ones on things like dodgeit.com. You should be concerned about the abuse.
In the vast majority of cases, emails are eminently traceable, even when some attempt has been made to obscure their origin.
Mail servers keep logs of the IP's that connect to them (both of the client, and other SMTP servers), and ISP's know who the IP's are allocated to, even if they are dynamically assigned, usually through Radius logs (and in the UK, keep such information on record is mandatory for ISP's, as it is for telecoms operators - and their is legislation on track to come into force in the next year or so that will explicitly make keeping the equivolent of 'call records' for email (e.g. sender, recipient, date+time madatory).
Requests for information about users is pretty common and usually it's very easy to trace them from emails they have sent (even when they think they 'anonymized' them by sending through a relay service, by adding forged headers to by using an internet cafe, but tracing the individual that sent it its really not that difficult in most cases - though the effort put in is usually proportional to the seriousness of the alleged offence).
When I suggested she'd take away the DSL router, hell broke loose. I think she gave it back after a mere 2 days because his behaviour became unmanagable. He didn't come to the last BBQ we organized.
Seriously, if someone took away my DSL access, like most people here I'd be pretty pissed off - and if you were the person responsible I wouldn't want to come to your BBQ either! 8)
He did not say how many times artillery landed 2 metres from the post
I'll save you the bother of looking it up. The came under direct fire (with bombs dropping within 100m) many times, and reported this 15 times to the Israeli authorities, to no avail.
The UN have said they thought Israel were apparently bombing so close because there was a legitimate target 500m away (a small group of Hezbollah), however the Israel jet's kept missing (and have still not yet hit the designated target) and continued to rain down bombs on the area hoping they would 'get lucky' sooner or later, in the full knowledge they were dropping bombs closer to the UN outpost than the declared target.
Incidentally, I've seen this on BBC news 24, but I've also just seen a UN spokesmen state the above on FOX News in the last 15 minutes. While the BBC cover the crisis in far more depth (and I would argue, far better), I do not believe there is as great a pro-Israeli/right wing bias in the coverage by FOX as is commonly thought, at least in respect of this issue.
The pervious posters summary of the situation seems accurate.
I don't understand how you can rationalize "fuck you, jews" to be anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
I don't know how you can quote what the previous poster wrote, then proceed to ignore it and go back to the same old defence taken by many who dislike criticism of Israel, as if anti-Semiatisim or ignorance is a greater evil than the current actions of the state of Israel.
A display of gross ignorance is not comparable to bombing public power plants, bridges and tower blocks and killing hundreds of civilians of another state (and very few of the stated 'enemy') in response to less than 10 civilian deaths a year and kidnapping of small number of military personnel.
While it's a grossly crude sentiment, troll or not, and perhaps better expressed as "Fuck you, Israel", it conveys much of common consensus around the world and the growing lack of tolerance for the actions of it's state or it's (almost exclusively Jewish) supporters around the world.
It might not have crazy high texture detail, it might no amounts of polygons but GT4 on the PS2 is using the video out chip @ 1920x1080i resolution.
In defense of the previous poster, that game has been stretched from a 'high res' mode of 640x540 to a higher resolution, the game itself is not actually being rendered in HD (that is, it's being rendered with considerably less pixels).
By that standard you might say that running an old X-Box title on the 360 would make it HD.
| Analog TVs see no benefits in video quality from a digital connection.
Not true at all.
Actually, the OP was basically correct, by any practical definition.
I have a decent quality 50 inch Plasma (a Pioneer PDP-505XDE) and use it with both analog and digital inputs for HD content, there is no decernable difference in quality between using an RGP/VGA analog or DVI digital input.
This is also true of using a VGA connector over a DVI connector to connect to a display using a destkop or laptop computer, you don't get "less pixels" or "blurrier pixels" or "less accurate color reproduction" - unless something else is wrong (like the equipment your connecting to/from/with is not working correctly).
And that's also going to be true over the entire life time of the Xbox360 too huh?
All XBox 360 games support HD. You can use the the X-Box 360 in 720p or 1080i mode, but typically - after comparing the two - people prefer 720p because it's visually preferable when gaming (remember, 1080i is not always better than 720p - on the contrary it's worse for most types of games). Add to this, that it's also far better to do a bit of FSAA than just to bump the resolution a bit - e.g. a 4xFSAA game at 720p is going to look far better than even a 1080p game with no FSAA.
So yeah, for the most part it will remain true, just like the 'higher resolution' modes on on consoles in, oh at least the last 10 years (thinking back to the N64), it will be almost universily ignored except in a few (gimmicky) instances - particularly in this case as it's libable to make games look worse than they could have done otherwise.
I have PS2 games that are in 1080i over component, and you are telling me that no XBox360 game will ever support 1080p? That would be a sad fact for the 360 if true.
No you don't, you might have the one single 1080i game released for the PS2, and it's entirely a gimmic, as it doesn't really handle it very well, and of course the edges are still blocky as hell at that resolution because it has no antialiasing.
By every meaningful metric, the PS2 managed to be significantly crappier graphically than the origional X-Box - and even ports of Dreamcast titles were inferior (with things such as 2D sprites replacing what had been 3D poloygons on the DC), so I wouldn't worry about the future of the X-Box if games typically "only" supports 720p and not 1080i...
Personally, I suspect the ratio of 1080i games on the X-Box will be about the same as the ratio of 1080p games on the PS3 - i.e. nothing compared to overwhelming majority of 'lowest-common-denominator-catering' 720p titles (on both platforms).
Microsoft actually enforcing the use of at least 2xFSAA (and ideally 4xFSAA) on 720p (and not allowing games like MSR or CoD2 to be released with out it) would be far more meaningful than having them get developers making more use of 1080i, which is a total red herring.
Agreed, I was looking up a problem with DOM and PHP and came across a link on the Experts Exchange site, where it showed me the question and claimed to have the answer to my problem and wanted me to register / pay to see it.
I went back and hit the Google Cached copy only to find the ticket had been closed with no answer - I don't fancy my chances of being given a refund if I'd paid and then complained I'd been scammed.
We have the biggest army, therefore ours is the standard.
With an approach like that, you must work for Microsoft.
As proof that's bogus, I would refer to something like the retarded date format which common in the US (MM/DD/YY as opposed to YYYY-MM-DD (ISO standard) or even DD/MM/YY (which is the most commonly used form internationally)).
Just because the US uses one method, doesn't make it the standard.
Firepower ultimately decides most things.
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the last 50 years of American involvement in international affairs.
While IANAL, I am familiar with relevant legislation, if that's what you were getting at.
It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
That is not true. In the UK, the copyright design and patents act explicitly allows individuals to do just that under what it terms use for "research and private study".
Obviously it does not give carte blanche permission to give copies to all your friends though ("oh noes!" students across the land cry), but even sharing copies of media with family / household members is seen as "probably" legal, according to review by a government task force set up to investigate it (which is as definitive as they could come up with).
Using an mp3 player or other device to play copyrighted content supplied on CD that you do not have permission to format-shift is illegal.
No it's not illegal, nor is illegal to format and/or time shift using a VCR or a Mini Disc, nor are ISP's who cache such content on their proxy servers committing an offence, nor is it illegal to make backup copies of your computer software, even if EULA says it is (and other urban legends).
Theres nothing illegal to use an mp3 player to play back your own material, material legally supplied to you in the mp3 format, material you have a license to 'format-shift' or public domain materials, and also to play material where 'fair use' applies (this does not apply to personal use)
'Fair use' is an American term with specific meaning, it does not apply in the UK. Perhaps the term you were looking for is 'Fair Dealing', which is a different thing I should point out. It is insubstantial, vague and in need of improvement, but it still allows for copies for personal use as it stands under "private study".
To re-iterate a previous point, if it were not so, that would mean unequivocally anyone who sell's iPods or Mini Disc's (now there is an irony) or who makes available copies of MP3 ripping software (including Apple's iTunes) would therefore be guilty of secondary infringement by order of supplying tools for the intended purpose of assisting in copyright violation - which is an interesting taking on things!
It seems like what your looking for a nice codified European style civi-law that says very clearly "This is illegal" and "but this is okay" - English law very often doesn't work like that though (as a result, the law is harder to interpret with a trade-off, at least in theory, being you get better reasoned judgements).
The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.
Good Fucking Greif. It's legal to copy your own music for personal use. Get a grip on reality and stop suggesting that's anything but the case.
That's explcitly what tape recorders, mini disc players, VHS and DVD recoders are for (in fact, it would in fact be a crimimal offence - and not just the UK - to sell them if the practice was actually illegal).
The weasel words are "music that you own."So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.
Those are not weasel words in any shape or form. They are communicating their very reasonable position quite straightforwardly.
Like many of todays 'yoof', you don't seem to understand the concept of 'paying for something you ought to' though.
The record industry hasn't changed.
You mean because they want you to pay for stuff they are selling? What an odd idea!
On the contrary, we do have such a world, and we're using it to communicate with each other right now. The only problem is that it only works for information and not physical objects.
It's not free to share information over the internet (you sound like one of the P2P warez kiddies who thinks The Bandwidth Fairy make it all 'happen' because mum and dad and/or the local educational establishment foot the bill and provide the required equipment).
It is also a fallacy to imply that information is always freely shared, in fact it can be very valuable, is frequently traded and often closely guarded.
I'm sorry, but its not the law he was talking about, it was a contract.
You apparently missed the part the poster wrote that reads:
Copyright is not a right (despite the name); it is a construct of law -- a "social contract," if you will....of course it is enshrined in law (duh), so clearly he's talking about something that's law.
It's not a civil contract (except in a few unique cases) and breaking it is not the same thing as merely breaking a 'contract', breaking it (in most countries that support the concept of IP) a criminal offence, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
In short : The music-companies have long-since stopped to sell music. They have, somewhere along the line, started to sell performances. You think you have bought the right to hear a certain piece of music everywhere ? Wrong.
Nope, you are wrong. That's a fashionable emo myspace blogger PoV, but not one that matches with reality.
Wrong : You have rented the agreement that you are allowed to use a piece of plastic untill it rots away to listen to the specific order of some sounds embedded into it, if you can. You have not acquired any kind of right to listen to those specific order of sounds from any other source, or to expect that you can actually listen to it.
Again, wrong (where on earth did you get that idea - reading/. I assume....).
The right to media shift content such as music or movies is explicitly protected by law in most western countries - again , duh.
And yes, I think that is, next to ripping people off, a breach of contract.
GFG - some people will say anything to excuse paying for something - way to stick it to "the man"...
Now, because Jefferson and the other writers of the Constitution realized that enhancing this information sharing (through the Public Domain) was a Good Thing, they decided to construct a mechanism by which artists and inventors would be encouraged to create.
It's not something the founding fathers of the United States of America dreamt up, it was already a well understood concept long before the first Pilgrim stepped off the Mayflower.
The concept of legislation to protect what is commonly referred to today as "intellectual property" has existed in written form for at least over two thousand years (in fact, the concept predates the invention of the printing press by nearly as long).
Therefore, the social contract is null and void, and it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to ignore it.
No, it's not - that doesn't follow logically at all (and smacks of self-justification by someone who routinely doesn't pay for media they know they ought to). Just because you believe someone else breaks the law it doesn't follow that you are then justified in doing so.
I have to say that the runner-up is so much better it hurts. The problem with slashdot is all the noise. The collapseable sections would be a much welcome improvement. Don't see why they didn't go with the runner up. Just my 2cents
When they previously announced candidates under consideration I preferred the runner up immediately and still do.
There are a small number of things I'd change, but largely it's by far the better design IMHO. I wonder what the selection process was like...
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds obvious to a Econ101 student, but in the "MP3" electronics field there are many good products that had the qualities mentioned that haven't come close to iPod sales
I agree there are a lot of players very nearly as good as the iPod (and in some cases, better), but as an owner of both the first commercial available portable MP3 player (the 32 MB Diamond Rio) and the first model of iPod (the 5GB one, followed by a 15 GB, 20 GB and 60 GB one - largely due to losing them/dropping them a lot) and as someone who has endured using a Mini Disc, I think it's wrong to paint it as 'another Engineer vs Marketer issue'.
That's because there is one big, IMO crucial difference between the iPod and every other player.
The quality of software that comes with it.
Not the software on the iPod, but iTunes, which was the first (and only) package most users have ever used to 'rip' a CD. It makes the process really painless, and it even makes it easy to burn your own CD's (to the extent that even my 50-something year old mother is happy with it, is very happy to buy music via the iTMS, and she still can't work out how to use the channel browser on her digital TV set top box).
Now I don't think for a minute that users make a conscious decision to purchase an iPod on the basis of iTunes nor do I think users even give a second thought to iTunes (i think that's part of the 'magic' of good software that's targeted at a mass market audience), but I do think that iTunes has been and is absolutely crucial to the product's success, and that if Apple had tried to ship it with the same horrible quality Rio Jukebox BS that Creative did, or the crap that Sony provide, their is no way it would have gained the momentum and be in the position it's now in.
I also think, by the same token, that vendors like Sony and Creative have been hurt by their poor quality products- perhaps in a way that's difficult to measure directly, but because their products have failed to become know as being being 'easy to use' (which is killer when your trying to sell a new type of product most consumers are still a bit confused by and wary of).
I think that the advertising campaign has of course definitely been instrumental in the iPod's meteoric rise to dominance, but I think it's one product where the magic - the underlying reason for the whole success of the product - really is in the software (just perhaps, not in the obvious place - that is, not on the iPod itself but in the seemingly coincidental bundled software that makes it 'just work').
boring for anyone with an ounce of AV skills. My computer *IS* my TV, mp3 player, movie player, dvd player, cd player, etc....
You watch TV shows and movies on your monitor? Nasty.
I have a 24" flat panel screen on the games system in the study, and it has 5.1 surround, but as a nice a gaming system as it is [for FPS games/MMO's], it's hardly the best way to enjoy good video content, which - like console gaming - lends itself to a totally different environment.
If I'm going to watch a movie or show at home then I want to watch it on a decent sized display (in my case, a 50" Plasma), with the best sound system in the house, and on comfy seating in the lounge (where I can watch it with friends too, rather than say have them huddle round a monitor).
I think most people with a computer are going to have a TV with a screen that's about twice as large as their monitor (from Joe User with a 15-17" monitor who has a 28-32" TV - to those who spend a bit more on their hardware - who might have a 19" TFT on their computer, but a 40-42" Plasma in the living room).
It's got nothing to do with having 'A/V skills', large displays (even 1080p) in the lounge make for lousy monitors (it's really uncomfortable using one like a monitor, even with a wireless keyboard and mouse) and computer monitors don't make for very good TV's. Different things, different purposes.
I think you've completely underestimated the level of innuendo I was going for!
To be clear, I do think shoving a vibrating controller up your bum, while someone else on the interweb waggles their 'stick' suggestively, causing your controller to vibrate, is at the very least homoerotic and that it does make you at least a little bit gay. And your a pervert for even thinking of doing it!
Who cares about measuring. With the Wii, you can SHAKE IT!
I think it's always been hard to shake the suspicion that there is something slightly 'gay' about Nintendo, but the imagery that comment really nails it.
I can just imagine stores in Japan with shelves full of 3rd party homoerotic hetanti titles, which make full use of the interactivity of the vibrating wireless controller, with support for online co-op gameplay too, no doubt.
The deviants who dream up this stuff should be ashamed of themselves.
Are you sure you didn't mean:
ps3 blue ray
some shite ms thing
ps3 1080p
some shite ms thing
ipod
some shite ms thing
google
some shite ms thing
(I kid, I kid!)
Dead Rising has it close by letting you restart the game at your current level (makes it easier the next time around), but fails in that you have to restart the entire game.
I was actually thinking of Dead Rising while I was reading your post. I love the control system, the engine, the graphics and the basic premise - they are all great. But the amount of repetition is just rediculous and I stopped playing early on because I got bored of playing the same sequences over and over, so early on in the game.
On on a broader note, one of the things I find most annoying is illogical inconsistancies in game worlds. In Dead Rising for example (and one of the reasons I ended up repeating the same sequence several times) there is one guy who's hold up in the mall (and who isn't undead) who you can shoot 15-20 times (using clips taken from the bodies of security guards) and he'll still be alive (although his health bar slowly drops, indicating he is taking some damage, it's just very slight).
In the games defense, it would seem from the 'time left to complete' system used to indicate the order you should attempt to complete missions in that you can simply leave him alone and come back for him 6 hours later (in 'game time') - perhaps when you are better armed. However, that doesn't explain to why if I DO join in and try to kill him he'll relatively quickly manage to kill the guy you are there to support, but for some reason he won't manage to kill him if you just leave them alone to fight - or why he is able to take being shot so many times, even though he's not a zombie or wearing body armour, etc.
Now I can deal with a little incongruity and simplicity in a game for the sake of practicality (it's a game after all, and a little absraction is usually a good idea as far as gameplay is concered), but whether I'm playing GTA, Half Life or Dead Rising, I expect that if I shoot a normal human, who's not wearing protective armour, 15-20 times then the individual will be dead, and I'll be pissed off if I am forced back to an old save point just because the developer has decided to arbirarily make this guy more resistant to dying than everyone else running around.
If something as basic as '[living] people die when you shoot them lots' isn't consistant throughout the game world, then the game ceases to be 'fair', and leaves the player feeling cheated and pissed off as a result (which is not how I expect when I shell out 50 UKP on a product that is supposed to provide some enjoyment). I think it was Peter Monolux in an interview in Edge who said that games should always avoid leaving players feeling cheated, and that's something I've always agreed with.
Test Drive Unlimited (another recent 360 title) also left me feeling hard done by, after I'd otherwise had quite a good time playing it. After winning several races, and repeating one race 3 or 4 times to rack up cash to buy more cars with (a little repeataive and unimagainative, but still fun), I took a tour around the island. On my tour a found a single 'hidden' mission (unmarked on the map) offering me 90,000 credits for a single mission, so I jumped at it (it was almost double the amount I had at present). The mission was simply to drive back for about 10-20 minutes in the direction I'd just come, and not to any damage to the car (for the 'maximum reward/bonus').
After driving so cautiously and slowly for so long, I couldn't wait to get back to racing again. I'd been stopped by the police a few times before and been fined between 5,000 and 17,000 each time when I'd made a run for it, so I let them chase me for some entertainment. When they cought up with me, they fined me - much to my surprise - just under 70,000 credits! It seems you get fined more, if you have more money on you at the time. The game doesn't explain this though, nor does it seem to be mentioned in the manual - it's just a nasty surprise waiting to bite you in the ass - unfortunately the game has a 'rolling save system', meaning I couldn't undo it and now I'll have to
Dammit, I was expecting that to be a link to be a single-page printable version of Google :(
I mean, the entire basis for affirmative action is that certain identifiable groups are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to performing certain jobs
That is incorrect, in fact you've got it spetacularly backwards.
The basis for 'affirmative action' is that one group has historically been descrimated against (due to race, visible physical disability, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.) despite not being any less able to do the job than other groups, not because they are disadvantaged in some way that makes them less able to perform certain jobs.
She would still go to jail first, and would only be alloed home when it had cleared - and she'd still have to find the 1500 USD in the first place, which most people tend not to have just sitting in the bank (most people know they ought to, but they don't), and she'd have to go to trial (and might not see the money for weeks). If she didn't have the money, she'd just have to wait in Jail.
I earn > 40K UKP (~80k USD) a year, but I don't usually have that much sitting in the bank (more like I have a perpetual ~ 1500 UKP overdraft) - I would have 500 USD (~265) for a fine avalbile to take out though....
(Though I'd just call my parents to bail me out, and choose not to have a criminal record of course, but that's not a luxury every one has, particularly the poor who are more likely to be arrested.)
Except that emails aren't traceable. At all. Especially the throwaway ones on things like dodgeit.com. You should be concerned about the abuse.
In the vast majority of cases, emails are eminently traceable, even when some attempt has been made to obscure their origin.
Mail servers keep logs of the IP's that connect to them (both of the client, and other SMTP servers), and ISP's know who the IP's are allocated to, even if they are dynamically assigned, usually through Radius logs (and in the UK, keep such information on record is mandatory for ISP's, as it is for telecoms operators - and their is legislation on track to come into force in the next year or so that will explicitly make keeping the equivolent of 'call records' for email (e.g. sender, recipient, date+time madatory).
Requests for information about users is pretty common and usually it's very easy to trace them from emails they have sent (even when they think they 'anonymized' them by sending through a relay service, by adding forged headers to by using an internet cafe, but tracing the individual that sent it its really not that difficult in most cases - though the effort put in is usually proportional to the seriousness of the alleged offence).
Pfffft! I have boobs, and I'm not even a girl!
When I suggested she'd take away the DSL router, hell broke loose. I think she gave it back after a mere 2 days because his behaviour became unmanagable. He didn't come to the last BBQ we organized.
Seriously, if someone took away my DSL access, like most people here I'd be pretty pissed off - and if you were the person responsible I wouldn't want to come to your BBQ either! 8)
He did not say how many times artillery landed 2 metres from the post
I'll save you the bother of looking it up. The came under direct fire (with bombs dropping within 100m) many times, and reported this 15 times to the Israeli authorities, to no avail.
The UN have said they thought Israel were apparently bombing so close because there was a legitimate target 500m away (a small group of Hezbollah), however the Israel jet's kept missing (and have still not yet hit the designated target) and continued to rain down bombs on the area hoping they would 'get lucky' sooner or later, in the full knowledge they were dropping bombs closer to the UN outpost than the declared target.
Incidentally, I've seen this on BBC news 24, but I've also just seen a UN spokesmen state the above on FOX News in the last 15 minutes. While the BBC cover the crisis in far more depth (and I would argue, far better), I do not believe there is as great a pro-Israeli/right wing bias in the coverage by FOX as is commonly thought, at least in respect of this issue.
The pervious posters summary of the situation seems accurate.
I don't understand how you can rationalize "fuck you, jews" to be anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
I don't know how you can quote what the previous poster wrote, then proceed to ignore it and go back to the same old defence taken by many who dislike criticism of Israel, as if anti-Semiatisim or ignorance is a greater evil than the current actions of the state of Israel.
A display of gross ignorance is not comparable to bombing public power plants, bridges and tower blocks and killing hundreds of civilians of another state (and very few of the stated 'enemy') in response to less than 10 civilian deaths a year and kidnapping of small number of military personnel.
While it's a grossly crude sentiment, troll or not, and perhaps better expressed as "Fuck you, Israel", it conveys much of common consensus around the world and the growing lack of tolerance for the actions of it's state or it's (almost exclusively Jewish) supporters around the world.
It might not have crazy high texture detail, it might no amounts of polygons but GT4 on the PS2 is using the video out chip @ 1920x1080i resolution.
In defense of the previous poster, that game has been stretched from a 'high res' mode of 640x540 to a higher resolution, the game itself is not actually being rendered in HD (that is, it's being rendered with considerably less pixels).
By that standard you might say that running an old X-Box title on the 360 would make it HD.
| Analog TVs see no benefits in video quality from a digital connection.
Not true at all.
Actually, the OP was basically correct, by any practical definition.
I have a decent quality 50 inch Plasma (a Pioneer PDP-505XDE) and use it with both analog and digital inputs for HD content, there is no decernable difference in quality between using an RGP/VGA analog or DVI digital input.
This is also true of using a VGA connector over a DVI connector to connect to a display using a destkop or laptop computer, you don't get "less pixels" or "blurrier pixels" or "less accurate color reproduction" - unless something else is wrong (like the equipment your connecting to/from/with is not working correctly).
And that's also going to be true over the entire life time of the Xbox360 too huh?
All XBox 360 games support HD. You can use the the X-Box 360 in 720p or 1080i mode, but typically - after comparing the two - people prefer 720p because it's visually preferable when gaming (remember, 1080i is not always better than 720p - on the contrary it's worse for most types of games). Add to this, that it's also far better to do a bit of FSAA than just to bump the resolution a bit - e.g. a 4xFSAA game at 720p is going to look far better than even a 1080p game with no FSAA.
So yeah, for the most part it will remain true, just like the 'higher resolution' modes on on consoles in, oh at least the last 10 years (thinking back to the N64), it will be almost universily ignored except in a few (gimmicky) instances - particularly in this case as it's libable to make games look worse than they could have done otherwise.
I have PS2 games that are in 1080i over component, and you are telling me that no XBox360 game will ever support 1080p? That would be a sad fact for the 360 if true.
No you don't, you might have the one single 1080i game released for the PS2, and it's entirely a gimmic, as it doesn't really handle it very well, and of course the edges are still blocky as hell at that resolution because it has no antialiasing.
By every meaningful metric, the PS2 managed to be significantly crappier graphically than the origional X-Box - and even ports of Dreamcast titles were inferior (with things such as 2D sprites replacing what had been 3D poloygons on the DC), so I wouldn't worry about the future of the X-Box if games typically "only" supports 720p and not 1080i...
Personally, I suspect the ratio of 1080i games on the X-Box will be about the same as the ratio of 1080p games on the PS3 - i.e. nothing compared to overwhelming majority of 'lowest-common-denominator-catering' 720p titles (on both platforms).
Microsoft actually enforcing the use of at least 2xFSAA (and ideally 4xFSAA) on 720p (and not allowing games like MSR or CoD2 to be released with out it) would be far more meaningful than having them get developers making more use of 1080i, which is a total red herring.
Agreed, I was looking up a problem with DOM and PHP and came across a link on the Experts Exchange site, where it showed me the question and claimed to have the answer to my problem and wanted me to register / pay to see it.
I went back and hit the Google Cached copy only to find the ticket had been closed with no answer - I don't fancy my chances of being given a refund if I'd paid and then complained I'd been scammed.
We have the biggest army, therefore ours is the standard.
With an approach like that, you must work for Microsoft.
As proof that's bogus, I would refer to something like the retarded date format which common in the US (MM/DD/YY as opposed to YYYY-MM-DD (ISO standard) or even DD/MM/YY (which is the most commonly used form internationally)).
Just because the US uses one method, doesn't make it the standard.
Firepower ultimately decides most things.
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the last 50 years of American involvement in international affairs.
Have you read the law?
I am greatly amused at the notion you might have!
While IANAL, I am familiar with relevant legislation, if that's what you were getting at.
It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
That is not true. In the UK, the copyright design and patents act explicitly allows individuals to do just that under what it terms use for "research and private study".
Obviously it does not give carte blanche permission to give copies to all your friends though ("oh noes!" students across the land cry), but even sharing copies of media with family / household members is seen as "probably" legal, according to review by a government task force set up to investigate it (which is as definitive as they could come up with).
Using an mp3 player or other device to play copyrighted content supplied on CD that you do not have permission to format-shift is illegal.
No it's not illegal, nor is illegal to format and/or time shift using a VCR or a Mini Disc, nor are ISP's who cache such content on their proxy servers committing an offence, nor is it illegal to make backup copies of your computer software, even if EULA says it is (and other urban legends).
Theres nothing illegal to use an mp3 player to play back your own material, material legally supplied to you in the mp3 format, material you have a license to 'format-shift' or public domain materials, and also to play material where 'fair use' applies (this does not apply to personal use)
'Fair use' is an American term with specific meaning, it does not apply in the UK. Perhaps the term you were looking for is 'Fair Dealing', which is a different thing I should point out. It is insubstantial, vague and in need of improvement, but it still allows for copies for personal use as it stands under "private study".
To re-iterate a previous point, if it were not so, that would mean unequivocally anyone who sell's iPods or Mini Disc's (now there is an irony) or who makes available copies of MP3 ripping software (including Apple's iTunes) would therefore be guilty of secondary infringement by order of supplying tools for the intended purpose of assisting in copyright violation - which is an interesting taking on things!
It seems like what your looking for a nice codified European style civi-law that says very clearly "This is illegal" and "but this is okay" - English law very often doesn't work like that though (as a result, the law is harder to interpret with a trade-off, at least in theory, being you get better reasoned judgements).
The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.
Good Fucking Greif. It's legal to copy your own music for personal use. Get a grip on reality and stop suggesting that's anything but the case.
That's explcitly what tape recorders, mini disc players, VHS and DVD recoders are for (in fact, it would in fact be a crimimal offence - and not just the UK - to sell them if the practice was actually illegal).
The weasel words are "music that you own."So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.
Those are not weasel words in any shape or form. They are communicating their very reasonable position quite straightforwardly.
Like many of todays 'yoof', you don't seem to understand the concept of 'paying for something you ought to' though.
The record industry hasn't changed.
You mean because they want you to pay for stuff they are selling? What an odd idea!
On the contrary, we do have such a world, and we're using it to communicate with each other right now. The only problem is that it only works for information and not physical objects.
It's not free to share information over the internet (you sound like one of the P2P warez kiddies who thinks The Bandwidth Fairy make it all 'happen' because mum and dad and/or the local educational establishment foot the bill and provide the required equipment).
It is also a fallacy to imply that information is always freely shared, in fact it can be very valuable, is frequently traded and often closely guarded.
I'm sorry, but its not the law he was talking about, it was a contract.
...of course it is enshrined in law (duh), so clearly he's talking about something that's law.
/. I assume....).
You apparently missed the part the poster wrote that reads:
Copyright is not a right (despite the name); it is a construct of law -- a "social contract," if you will.
It's not a civil contract (except in a few unique cases) and breaking it is not the same thing as merely breaking a 'contract', breaking it (in most countries that support the concept of IP) a criminal offence, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
In short : The music-companies have long-since stopped to sell music. They have, somewhere along the line, started to sell performances. You think you have bought the right to hear a certain piece of music everywhere ? Wrong.
Nope, you are wrong. That's a fashionable emo myspace blogger PoV, but not one that matches with reality.
Wrong : You have rented the agreement that you are allowed to use a piece of plastic untill it rots away to listen to the specific order of some sounds embedded into it, if you can. You have not acquired any kind of right to listen to those specific order of sounds from any other source, or to expect that you can actually listen to it.
Again, wrong (where on earth did you get that idea - reading
The right to media shift content such as music or movies is explicitly protected by law in most western countries - again , duh.
And yes, I think that is, next to ripping people off, a breach of contract.
GFG - some people will say anything to excuse paying for something - way to stick it to "the man"...
Now, because Jefferson and the other writers of the Constitution realized that enhancing this information sharing (through the Public Domain) was a Good Thing, they decided to construct a mechanism by which artists and inventors would be encouraged to create.
It's not something the founding fathers of the United States of America dreamt up, it was already a well understood concept long before the first Pilgrim stepped off the Mayflower.
The concept of legislation to protect what is commonly referred to today as "intellectual property" has existed in written form for at least over two thousand years (in fact, the concept predates the invention of the printing press by nearly as long).
Therefore, the social contract is null and void, and it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to ignore it.
No, it's not - that doesn't follow logically at all (and smacks of self-justification by someone who routinely doesn't pay for media they know they ought to). Just because you believe someone else breaks the law it doesn't follow that you are then justified in doing so.
I have to say that the runner-up is so much better it hurts. The problem with slashdot is all the noise. The collapseable sections would be a much welcome improvement. Don't see why they didn't go with the runner up. Just my 2cents
When they previously announced candidates under consideration I preferred the runner up immediately and still do.
There are a small number of things I'd change, but largely it's by far the better design IMHO. I wonder what the selection process was like...
One more reason to buy an overpriced video card instead of an overpriced CPU?
What do you mean an overpriced video card, and why would you want one instead of an overpriced CPU?!