Unfortunately what you saying here is "buy compatible hardware and either learn CLI or forever be at the mercy of the uber users". Ok, I'm playing a bit at being devil's advocate, but why isn't there another option?
This goes for everything in life though, doesn't it? Take precautions or elevate your risk of being burned... know what you are doing, or be at the mercy of someone who does.
I've got a book here by Gordon Miller, called Quit Your Job Often and Get Big Raises. Switching jobs regularly can be fantastic for your career - but you have to do it intelligently: leave AFTER you finish a big project.
(disclaimer: I'm a contractor - it's a whole other way of making a living.)
Let me preface by saying I have not played Okami (and I don't have a PS2, so it's not likely anytime soon)
Pushing the envelope is a sometimes embittering experience. Not everything that is truly innovative is of good quality. Not everything of quality will find mass appeal. Not everything that eventually finds mass appeal has an explosive introduction to the scene. These are universal truths.
But saying that people don't want innovation is a mental surrender: the old sour grapes thing. This year Nintendo has proven without a shadow of any doubt that innovation is still viable in the games domain. Their focus on an innovative means of game interaction has propelled them back into viability within the console market... and the truth is that even players of other consoles will reap the benefits - Nintendo has shown that eye-candy is not the only thing that sells games, that people are still interested in the "fun factor," and the other consoles will ignore that at their own peril.
I am not completely obtuse to the financial concerns of his situation. Likely a large sum of cash was gambled on the development of this game, and by his reaction I assume that it was not a $$ success. He can either scrap the idea or gamble further that he can develop it into a success.
It's a big risk, but damn it you know the option that is the most rewarding every bit as well as I do.
Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom-queen. Right?
Thank you pointing out that Google is not Xerox PARC. I was alluding to a favorable comparison between the two, not saying they were one and the same...
(I have more confidence in the abilitys of Page and Brin.)
The two have some striking similarities: extremely talented people, and practically endless funding. I'd include a hefty dose of freedom too (even if you wouldn't agree.)
Perhaps a more in depth study of the PARC history would help you see these similarities. Admittedly, the wiki link was rather shallow on the subject of management... the early days saw a pretty relaxed research environment. If you think the Google geeks are managed less you may be right, but I'm unconvinced. I wasn't at PARC in the 70s, nor am I at Google now... either way, I seriously doubt there is *much* difference.
May I suggest you look for a copy of Fumbling the Future? It's out of print, but worth the read if you can find it.
Granted, but you can't just pull together a bunch of really smart poeple and expect something to magically happen because they are all assembled undr one umbrella either.
"In literature and film, an anti-hero is a central or supporting character that has some of the personality flaws and ultimate fortune traditionally assigned to villains but nonetheless also has enough heroic qualities or intentions to gain the sympathy of readers or viewers. Anti-heroes can be awkward, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, or obtuse--but they are always, in some fundamental way, flawed or failed heroes. In this use, the term tragic hero is sometimes used."
A more conscise definition would be: A protagonist who does not fit the accepted hero archetype.
So while an antihero is not *necessarily* evil, a villian who is the protagonist of the story would be an antihero.
If http truely is the cause and has nothing to do with GWA, I challange you to get my gmail since I have not used GWA (not available for linux). If you decide to take my challange, its the same as my slashdot ID.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. I took the liberty of looking at gmail after the last post, it (like all other webmail services I'm familiar with) does indeed use HTTPS - although only for logins. (unlike, for instance, my ISP's webmail access, which is entirely HTTPS)
If it can't be demonstrated that others can access your gmail account due to the GWA, then this whole line of discussion is moot. I.e. first show that it's broken, then speculate.
I haven't tested it, so I could be very wrong on this, but I suspect that gmail does not suffer from this issue which Rich is pointing us towards, because unlike his site (and many other sites, I'm sure) gmail is setup properly. I suspect any login cookies are not cached due to them being transfered with HTTPS.
Since, until Google Web Accelerator, it wasn't feasible for this to occur on such a widespread basis, and GWA is required for the problem to occur, it is reasonable to say that GWA has the problem.
It seems much more likely to me that GWA is not the problem, instead it shows weaknesses in the setup of websites such as Rich's.
I stand by the troll critique. I called troll because the problems Rich points to are a non-issue with regards to the web accelerator.
Now, if you had expounded upon his page with some of your own thoughts, like you just did, then I wouldn't have called troll.
The actual security issue, as you just pointed out, is that *gmail* doesn't use HTTPS. Unfortunately for you, this has nothing to do with the web accelerator (which, I must reiterate, was the sole topic of your original post)
BTW: The link is not dead, it works fine for me.
Furthermore (in response to your ad-hominem,) I think those who believe Google can do no wrong are in the minority here on slashdot. Most of us do respect their products, sure. It's difficult not to: the success of google is largely based on understanding the users concerns and needs.
Despite that, the beta status of most of these products are a great indication that Google realizes there probably are problems with these services.
Congratulations, you nailed one of them on the head. It's with gmail though, not web accelerator.
And congratulations on posting your first troll...
Rich's lack of understanding leads him to make several false statements: "Well here's the problem, folks: everything you view is now owned by Google. Do you read email? Well now Google reads your email, and now the entire world can read your email. Do you use private messages through a website?" First and foremost: it does not cache HTTPS (required by any site hosting sensitive info - such as your webmail account, on-line banking, etc)
Second, his description of how the process works in not quite accurate: "This is done by caching entire websites on Google's servers, passing copies of any page a user visits and sending them to Google HQ." In reality, Google has been caching web pages for a long time now - that's part of how they search through billions of pages so fast - by having a local cache of these pages! What the web accelerator does is deliver those *already cached* pages to users of the client. (the whole process would add no benefit if the pages weren't already pre-cached, what with the added over head of downloading the page, then compressing it before sending it to you)
In fact his only valid issue has nothing to do with the web accelerator: "I'm having to pay a coder just to figure out how to prevent Google from caching all the webpages on our forums. Why is this a problem? Well first of all, it's a giant security hole, as private forums for mods and admins can now be viewed by anybody."
Here's a simple solution to your problem Rich - make is so that your *private* forums are on HTTPS. (lets face it, if you aren't using HTTPS already then those forums aren't really private anyways, and if you are then your fears are ungrounded)
Let's face it though, that is exactly what Blizzard does best: rehash an existing type of game and polish it to the point of brilliance. None of their games have anything really innovative about them.
They are implemented extremely well however, and that is their charm.
The DS9 episode that will forever be etched in my memory is the finale of the third season/beginning of the fourth season, where a Klingon fleet attacks DS9. I think the actual episodes were called "The Way of the Warrior"
Flashbacks to my Netrek playing days... "Ogg the base! Ogg the base!"
Good advice, and I took it. The gist of the conversation went as such:
I explained that I would not be doing further business with them unless they changed this policy, which conflicts with laws designed to protect against the sale of stolen goods.
The EBGames customer service rep put me through to a manager, who mentioned that this particular Florida incident took place over a month ago (the article above has the data Jan 29) and that they had been in contact with Michelle since then and were trying to rectify the situation.
At this point I told them a press release regarding this matter, and any policy changes that occur from it, would be appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
There are FOUR LIGHTS!
Two words: Emergency Generator
Like the Neurosky gadgets?
http://www.neurosky.com/
This goes for everything in life though, doesn't it? Take precautions or elevate your risk of being burned... know what you are doing, or be at the mercy of someone who does.
I am *rolls dice* sad to hear this.
Of course, we hear about computer break-ins killing people all the time, don't we?
Oh wait, no we don't.
Obviously the POTENTIAL exists, but in reality... not so much.
Duh! Signal degradation! 3G is notorious for it's fuzziness.
human life >> data
Breaking into a computer is extremely unlikely to result in death(s).
I've got a book here by Gordon Miller, called Quit Your Job Often and Get Big Raises.
Switching jobs regularly can be fantastic for your career - but you have to do it intelligently: leave AFTER you finish a big project.
(disclaimer: I'm a contractor - it's a whole other way of making a living.)
Stephen King tried this with a book a few years back. I'm trying to locate further info, but without any success...
I suppose that shows how either he was ahead of his time, or that the model doesn't work in todays economy.
Let me preface by saying I have not played Okami (and I don't have a PS2, so it's not likely anytime soon)
Pushing the envelope is a sometimes embittering experience. Not everything that is truly innovative is of good quality. Not everything of quality will find mass appeal. Not everything that eventually finds mass appeal has an explosive introduction to the scene. These are universal truths.
But saying that people don't want innovation is a mental surrender: the old sour grapes thing. This year Nintendo has proven without a shadow of any doubt that innovation is still viable in the games domain. Their focus on an innovative means of game interaction has propelled them back into viability within the console market... and the truth is that even players of other consoles will reap the benefits - Nintendo has shown that eye-candy is not the only thing that sells games, that people are still interested in the "fun factor," and the other consoles will ignore that at their own peril.
I am not completely obtuse to the financial concerns of his situation. Likely a large sum of cash was gambled on the development of this game, and by his reaction I assume that it was not a $$ success. He can either scrap the idea or gamble further that he can develop it into a success.
It's a big risk, but damn it you know the option that is the most rewarding every bit as well as I do.
Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom-queen. Right?
(I have more confidence in the abilitys of Page and Brin.)
The two have some striking similarities: extremely talented people, and practically endless funding. I'd include a hefty dose of freedom too (even if you wouldn't agree.)
Perhaps a more in depth study of the PARC history would help you see these similarities. Admittedly, the wiki link was rather shallow on the subject of management... the early days saw a pretty relaxed research environment. If you think the Google geeks are managed less you may be right, but I'm unconvinced. I wasn't at PARC in the 70s, nor am I at Google now... either way, I seriously doubt there is *much* difference.
May I suggest you look for a copy of Fumbling the Future? It's out of print, but worth the read if you can find it.
Five words for you:
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC
don't like wiki? how about dictionary.com?& db=*
i st&db=*
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antihero
"antihero also anti-hero Audio pronunciation of "antihero" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-hîr, nt-)
n. pl. antiheroes
A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage."
see also: protagonist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protagon
"protagonist Audio pronunciation of "protagonist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tg-nst)
n.
1. The main character in a drama or other literary work."
from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero
"In literature and film, an anti-hero is a central or supporting character that has some of the personality flaws and ultimate fortune traditionally assigned to villains but nonetheless also has enough heroic qualities or intentions to gain the sympathy of readers or viewers. Anti-heroes can be awkward, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, or obtuse--but they are always, in some fundamental way, flawed or failed heroes. In this use, the term tragic hero is sometimes used."
A more conscise definition would be: A protagonist who does not fit the accepted hero archetype.
So while an antihero is not *necessarily* evil, a villian who is the protagonist of the story would be an antihero.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. I took the liberty of looking at gmail after the last post, it (like all other webmail services I'm familiar with) does indeed use HTTPS - although only for logins. (unlike, for instance, my ISP's webmail access, which is entirely HTTPS)
If it can't be demonstrated that others can access your gmail account due to the GWA, then this whole line of discussion is moot. I.e. first show that it's broken, then speculate.
I haven't tested it, so I could be very wrong on this, but I suspect that gmail does not suffer from this issue which Rich is pointing us towards, because unlike his site (and many other sites, I'm sure) gmail is setup properly. I suspect any login cookies are not cached due to them being transfered with HTTPS.
Since, until Google Web Accelerator, it wasn't feasible for this to occur on such a widespread basis, and GWA is required for the problem to occur, it is reasonable to say that GWA has the problem.
It seems much more likely to me that GWA is not the problem, instead it shows weaknesses in the setup of websites such as Rich's.
-Vex
I stand by the troll critique.
I called troll because the problems Rich points to are a non-issue with regards to the web accelerator.
Now, if you had expounded upon his page with some of your own thoughts, like you just did, then I wouldn't have called troll.
The actual security issue, as you just pointed out, is that *gmail* doesn't use HTTPS. Unfortunately for you, this has nothing to do with the web accelerator (which, I must reiterate, was the sole topic of your original post)
BTW: The link is not dead, it works fine for me.
Furthermore (in response to your ad-hominem,) I think those who believe Google can do no wrong are in the minority here on slashdot. Most of us do respect their products, sure. It's difficult not to: the success of google is largely based on understanding the users concerns and needs.
Despite that, the beta status of most of these products are a great indication that Google realizes there probably are problems with these services.
Congratulations, you nailed one of them on the head. It's with gmail though, not web accelerator.
And congratulations on posting your first troll...
-Vex
Ugh.. can't... resist.... troll... bait...
Apparently neither Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka nor yourself actually *read* the Google Accelerator information page.
http://webaccelerator.google.com/support.html
Rich's lack of understanding leads him to make several false statements:
"Well here's the problem, folks: everything you view is now owned by Google. Do you read email? Well now Google reads your email, and now the entire world can read your email. Do you use private messages through a website?"
First and foremost: it does not cache HTTPS (required by any site hosting sensitive info - such as your webmail account, on-line banking, etc)
Second, his description of how the process works in not quite accurate:
"This is done by caching entire websites on Google's servers, passing copies of any page a user visits and sending them to Google HQ."
In reality, Google has been caching web pages for a long time now - that's part of how they search through billions of pages so fast - by having a local cache of these pages! What the web accelerator does is deliver those *already cached* pages to users of the client. (the whole process would add no benefit if the pages weren't already pre-cached, what with the added over head of downloading the page, then compressing it before sending it to you)
In fact his only valid issue has nothing to do with the web accelerator:
"I'm having to pay a coder just to figure out how to prevent Google from caching all the webpages on our forums. Why is this a problem? Well first of all, it's a giant security hole, as private forums for mods and admins can now be viewed by anybody."
Here's a simple solution to your problem Rich - make is so that your *private* forums are on HTTPS.
(lets face it, if you aren't using HTTPS already then those forums aren't really private anyways, and if you are then your fears are ungrounded)
-Vex
heh, reminds me of an old joke/adage:
Camping + Motorcycling = High Speed Backpacking!
(Yep, I've done that a few times myself)
Let's face it though, that is exactly what Blizzard does best: rehash an existing type of game and polish it to the point of brilliance. None of their games have anything really innovative about them.
They are implemented extremely well however, and that is their charm.
The quote at the bottom of the page when this article was posted was:
:P
"One man tells a falsehood, a hundred repeat it as true."
It's soo true! I do *ALL* the damn work around here.
The large print giveth...
The small print taketh away.
I know this isn't a troubleshooting thread, but I've seen many people complain about this exact SBLive! (emu10k1) sound card problem.
It is an incredibly easy fix for such an annoyance. (One I experienced with Mandrake 10)
Of course, I am disappointed this slipped through quality control at Mandrake...
Flashbacks to my Netrek playing days... "Ogg the base! Ogg the base!"
And carnage ensues...
Good advice, and I took it.
The gist of the conversation went as such:
I explained that I would not be doing further business with them unless they changed this policy, which conflicts with laws designed to protect against the sale of stolen goods.
The EBGames customer service rep put me through to a manager, who mentioned that this particular Florida incident took place over a month ago (the article above has the data Jan 29) and that they had been in contact with Michelle since then and were trying to rectify the situation.
At this point I told them a press release regarding this matter, and any policy changes that occur from it, would be appreciated.