Run firefox. Go to the "Edit" menu, and pick Preferences. In the icons on the left, hit "Web Features". Six checkboxes come up in the main panel. Look at the ones labelled "Load Images" and "Enable Javascript", and think hard about what they might do.
Seems that I forgot half the story - Netscape 4.0 also had a single button that instantly loaded all the images. (It didn't have a similar button for JS, since it wasn't as critical at the time.)
Just like MS, firefox focuses more on features, and quickly. Many of the problems with firefox have come from the extension system, or from fairly experimental new features that firefox rushes to adopt, like this
Actually, the exploits come from not correctly developing features.
For example, Mozilla is quite happy to run certain Flash ads that take up 100% CPU. Not only that, but it is just as happy to run multiple instances of these ads at the default priority level, resulting in a Denial of Service Attack. While Windows 9x/NT/Linux can kill these ads, good luck getting hold of a time-slice to perform the command.
Currently, it takes a Firefox extension to fix the problem. Given that this kind of security issue has been around since Netscape 4.0 (and/or earlier), there is absolutly no reason fireFox should blindingly execute plugins. Extensions should be reserved for enhancing browser experiences - not fixing them.
In fact, Firefox has made a few wrong turns in the security department. As proof, I will point out that the "Disable Javascript" option found in Netscape 4.0 (the predecessor to Mozilla) is missing, along with the ability to prevent image loading.
yeah whilst lazer pointers are usefull presentation tools it seems a very bad idea to give one each out to a huge unruly first year (you yanks call it freshman i belive) class.
I'm sure that a mechanical engineer can create a mount that places the laser on the desk, and only make it able to aim inside the range of the A-D cells. As long as the lasers are unobstructed with other students that can easily put their remaining eye in any laser beam, the problem is solved.
Play the IFF game 'Photopia' now. It's moving, you will be moved.
I generally found that I was tightly railroaded in a game that I had no control over. Not only that, but the jumping from character to character at appearently random intervals tended to be a little confusing. At best, the story development was highly chaotic - there was a very limited join among scenes.
This was different than "Blue Chairs" where I was just as tightly railroaded in a game that I had no control over (but had an in-game option to not enter the situation in the first place.) In addition, the railroading in that game was based around the fact that you were 'tripping' after taking some mysterious drug. While there was disjunctions, such things were expected given your current state, regardless of how chaotic it would result.
Prosecutors and juries are simply not in tune with "hacker ethics". The guy in the expensive suit will just ask if you did scan or didn't, the 12 people in casual clothing will note your answer and be done by 2:30 and you'll be more screwed than you ever realized could be possible.
Any real "security consultant" would insure that the penetration test is authorized by the person running on the equipment. (e.g. the CIO, only by doing an initial port scan if they chose not to in-source it as most corporations should do.) Such a security consultant should know enough about the company anyway to avoid going into hot water.
Likewise, any real lawyer representing such a consultant would try to bring down the person that gave the so-called permission as well. You'll have to ask a lawyer on the exact procedure (and the reasoning, which can vary from case to case) - however, it is a standard motion to add a person to the list of defendants.
Besides the bact the virus is over 3 years old? There is no excuse for this! The files should have been checked for viruses when uploaded onto the Mozilla site.
The greatest worry is the existance of a trojan horse planeted in an application - which cannot easily be detected by reactive virus scanners.
It's generally easier to smuggle a backdoor into either the binary (stuff it into one line: lines aren't confined to 80 columns) or source code (Underhanded programming contest style).
Lots of Netscape 4.x versions, and Firefox 0.8, 0.9, 0.10 and others, as well.
I can explain Netscape 4.x - I've still seen them used at the local colleges because they were excellent browsers at the time (and could disable JavaScript) alongside image loading (allowing for pretty safe and fast browsing, provided you don't encounter the table rendering bugs that slow down Netscape.) Should the user desire, the images can be loaded on a click of a button (although scriptes require going into options.)
The only problem is that there is no newer version of "Netscape" available. The replacement Netscape 6 defeats the purpose of using Netscape in the first place (disabling image loading), as does FireFox. While there are extensions for FireFox that help fix these problems, these are extensions (and would be insane for any IT department to consider supporting - if one gets included, why can't another?)
For IE, all you have to do is go to Windows Update, and select the patch.. and it will automagically do everything for you (even more automatic if you have automatic updates turned on). With Mozilla, you must download the latest version of the browser (which usually has more stuff than just the bug fix you're interested in),
Mozilla now has the ability to check for updates, and has had that for quite a while. The only updates it takes would be ones that fully pass regression tests and are good enough to be treated as an official release.
As of this writing, Firefox 1.0.7 is available for download but isn't found in the auto-update for some users. This is not an issue unless you are being impacted by existing flaws.
uninstall the old one, and install the new one from scratch (including specifying options like install directory and other preferences Mozilla *should* already know and use).
I also have no problem installing Mozilla in the same directory as the previous installation - the worst case being that I need to reinstall all the plugins.
Perhaps you are using some extremely old version? (e.g. Netscape 1.0)
how many times have I downloaded the latest FF only to find several things broken (especially extensions)?
Most of the extensions expire past the current version, to help ensure that the extensions are kept up to date as well. If it weren't for that, then the extensions would eventually become useless because of minor and gradual changes in the API (in addition to lack of use.)
While there are plenty of issues with the Mozilla's development cycle, those issues are not one of them. A better example would be the fact that it still suffers from the auto-execute paradigm (where it reactionairly fixes security holes rather than preventing them from occurring in the first place.) Then again, IE suffers from the same problem.
The web site's probably designed poorly if you need to say those things.
In general, you have to say those things anyway.
Netscape Communicator 4.7x has a bug with table layouts that causes extremely slow rendering (e.g. 10 seconds each time the windows is resized.) If it is that serious with a simple thing like tables, you can only imagine how well it will perform under the newer specification.
Besides, Firefox generally requests that users keep up to date to minimize the number of problems - either by comments in the bug report system or by an auto-update. There is only so far back you can go back before it becomes impractical for development. (Not counting accessability issues.)
on the other hand, some would argue a computer with no external drives, nothing on the hard disks, locked inside of an Iresali safe, with welded chains on the outside, then sent into orbit in the outer parts of our solar system is still not secure!
That's because that can still be penetrated without problem.
You need actual defences to prevent intrusion, such as something that actively repels intruders. For example, have a microphone system playing Barney songs in a continuous loop, enclosed within the safe covered with Jar-Jar posters.
Other than that, you just need to wait until automatic defence turrets can be shipped.
They talk about Firefox [...] being insecure because they *want* them to be...it's wishful thinking.
Too late - Firefox is insecure. It already blindingly runs Flash and Java applets, at the same priority level as the browser itself. This generally means that the browser becomes unresponsive - and that your system could easily follow suit if you have too many of those poorly designed 100%-CPU Flash ads.
While there is FlashBlock and Ad-Block, these things really should be part of the main Mozilla browser - not an add-on. (Mozilla doesn't even have a minimalistic protection, as demonstrated by the ineffective pop-up blocker.)
BTW, I've recently experienced a bug with the Java applet system - when it is downloading an applet, it seems to lock up the entire browser from normal operation. I don't yet have a test case, but it is something that needs to be looked at. (I'm thinking about forcing a crash just to get a bug report. Of course, it's still useless to me, since FireFox binaries don't have a client-side symbol table.)
Gcc's sanity-check-for-use-of-assignments-for-equality-t ests-in-loops doesn't pick it up either
It won't, mainly because doing anything more complex could raise false alarms for what should be legitimate statements (e.g. if (ptr=fgets(buffer, 80, stdin)) {/*... */ } )
GCC also allows including parenthesis to supress the check. Any experienced programmer would detect such holes, especially in the case of the Linux Kernel where there is a team dedicated to ensuring that changes are reviewed.
The only thing that interferes is a lousy font. In this case, it was hard to tell the difference between the two since there was no break between '=' and '=='. While you can notice it, it generally takes a few passes since post brains simply glance over a simple difference in length.
Ask Marc Emery from Vancouver, BC. He is being held( at least in Canada for now) on an extradiction notice from the USA.
Canada only decriminalized possession of Marijuana. It's still a restricted product as there are still fines for possession (for those who do not have a permit). In addition, there's still laws against trafficing that are being enforced against some organizations (e.g. those who give pot out to anyone, while falsly claiming those people had a legit permit or whatever.)
As another poster mentioned, there were reports that drug trafficing occured cross border. This is illegal in both countries.
or maybe it'll force him to stop using computers to attack people and get a life instead.
How does one be a productive member of society when not permitted to use computers?
In general, such restrictions mean that: - One cannot apply for a job. Most places require a resume, which is normally typed to remain competitive (even if it is something as simple as an apprentice plumber.) As you know, typewriters are considered too obsolete to be found normally. - Even if one can apply, it can't be in 3/4 of the market that permits (or provides employment) to convicts. Even something as Cashier requires using a computer. Don't say that there's going to be exceptions - the USA legal system (among others) is still struggling with the new concept of computers. - One cannot progress in education. Given massive workloads in High-school, you need a computer to even complete the assignments (not counting freakinh schools that require ise of laptops.) Same applies to college/university. BTW, note that the offender is a juvenile - a.k.a. high school student (as mandated by laws in most industrial countries.)
The government might as well lock him up for the full two years. As far as I'm concerned, banning computer use is no different than banning vehicle usage (even as a passenger of a friend's car.)
I read the first paragraph - almost immediatly, I remembered a job offer:
- System Administrator (network) - $7.25/hour. (That's right - below mimimum wage.) - Located in Navan (which is hard to reach by bus - taxing a car is an option, but only minimally.)
The systems were alreahy infested with malware that generate popups. This is also a computer consulting company. (I'd love to name them, but was never given the name of the company.) This single example proves that hhe lack of IT department or equivalent thereof is no less secure.
Besides, with an IT department (not counting pseudo-departments by nome only), there is actually an ability to learn from mistakes of users, ane refining policy and training to make sure that inappropriate computer use is known by the employees to be inappropriate (and detectable.)
Guessed? He used her password hint which was "Favorite Pet's Name" and three seconds of google tells you Paris Hilton's dog's name.
The alternative is using "What is your first name?" as the secret question. We both know that shoddy websites that use secret question systems never give any useful choices for that mandatory field.
In any case, that question/answer system is a security risk itself. A trained staff employee is much more secure, as they can get a general idea of something suspicious going on.
Tell that to every single English teacher I've had...
That's a style issue, not a grammar issue.
While there are perfectly valid sentences that can last for more than 30 or more words, such sentences will cause the reader to lose focus on the topic of the sentence (rather than become confused because such a sentence is malformed), causing the reader to go back to the beginning and re-read the sentence more than once.
That's generally why grammar checkers suggest to revise sentences rather than saying "You must chop it in half." There is also a rare case where fixing the run-on makes the result look worse - that's why run-ons are not grammar errors.
BTW, whether or not the origianl post contained a run-on is debatable at best. AFAIK, it's merely a compound sentence that stuffs two verbs onto the second subject.
for example, "to e-mail" is now a normal verb, but it used to just be a noun.
As a professional writer, I'm sure you know that the English language has a knack for verbifying nouns. Goose, Egg, Badger is a prime example of this, where most major nouns have a directly associated verb.
Because of this special exception in English, grammar checkers will never catch up until they are the equivalent of a human AI. Until then, you'll probably see an option asking whether it should permit treating nouns as verbs.
(This is also ignoring subdialects, such as the one with the silly rule stating that a preposition isn't a good thing to end a sentence with.)
Overall, though, I'd say that if you need a grammar check to reform your sentences, you also need a logic check to reform your thoughts. Am I wrong?
Actuallly, thoughts are generally based on emotion. You can guess that because there are a lot of people saying that "Math is too hard."
Until Sony/Lowes can get fined for letting kids into R-rated movies, these laws are just blatantly unfair, and deserve to be overturned.
They can be penalized by the movie industry through oxisting contracts. Likewise, the ESRB can penalize companies for misrepresenting their product. This is done through a network of trust and contracts - retailers trust the ESRB because developers and/or publishers are bound by a trademark contract.
These penalties give two options - pay money or nobody will do business with you. This is just as effective as making stuff illegal. (The only problem is that some places don't ID check for 'M' games or can be talked out of doing so for special cases.)
This is not a problem with IPods. This is a problem with loud noises, which are fueled by the fact that there's plenty of other loudness nearby.
For example, I listen to music or a movie on my computer - it has to have a minimum volume as the computer fans make noise. (Not counting the CD/DVD vibrations.) In order to make the music audible, it has to be louder than the PC itself, and that can risk damage. As far as I know, it is rather difficult to find a Quiet PC without having to resort to specialist equipment (availble only via Internet basically.)
I also find that it is too little room between "off" and "loud" - in general, both the speakers volume and the Windows sound card volume have to be very close to no sound.
There's also other minor problems, such as music volume not being normalized (at least in the older music players) - a quiet 25dB song is immediatly followed by a 110 dB "ACTHUNG BABY!!!".
BTW, this isn't isolated to the so-called IPod generation - it can also be a problem with society. I was forced to attend a high-school "concert" which played loud heavy metal (complete with head banging against the floor), which lasted 40 minutes. I haven't checked how much that damaged by hearing.
#1 where women are treates like whores - isn't this simply a reflection of society, where women choose to wear skimpy clothing? While most "normal" people don't do that, it just takes a small group to damage everything.
#2 might have merit, but it is minimalistic. The problem is not with plot, but with the attempt at poor plot being a crutch to negate (or explain) bad gameplay. As a side note, the screenshot is for System Shock 2 - where the "Aliens" are from Earth.
#3, as most/. readers have experience with, is a dupe.
#4 is merely a variation on a theme for #2 and #3 - the storyline sucks and the developers simply focused on art.
#5 is somewhat correct. Cinametics are sometimes necessairy to help show important plot points, when it would not be possible (or "safe") to have the information shown in character.
As for full screen cinematics, any unskippable cutscene means the game is substandard (unless it is also doing background loading as quickly as possible, but that's another story). Developers that don't even make an attempt to speed those things up (even after trying a combination oy 12 ESCs, 6 mouse clicks, 256 spaces and 6 enters) will simply be blasted for excessive loading time (since the player cannot interact with the game while it is trying to do processing for the next in-game scene).
In summary, I've seen better articles. These 5 points are simply pecking away at minor issues rather than pointing towards the core problem. I'm sure other posters have pointed out the Gamesutra bill of rights that was posted recently, which does a much better job of summarizing flaws with games.
Slashdot Mirror
Personal Computer Memory Card International Association. You only hear about it when dealing with laptops.
Seems that I forgot half the story - Netscape 4.0 also had a single button that instantly loaded all the images. (It didn't have a similar button for JS, since it wasn't as critical at the time.)
Actually, the exploits come from not correctly developing features.
For example, Mozilla is quite happy to run certain Flash ads that take up 100% CPU. Not only that, but it is just as happy to run multiple instances of these ads at the default priority level, resulting in a Denial of Service Attack. While Windows 9x/NT/Linux can kill these ads, good luck getting hold of a time-slice to perform the command.
Currently, it takes a Firefox extension to fix the problem. Given that this kind of security issue has been around since Netscape 4.0 (and/or earlier), there is absolutly no reason fireFox should blindingly execute plugins. Extensions should be reserved for enhancing browser experiences - not fixing them.
In fact, Firefox has made a few wrong turns in the security department. As proof, I will point out that the "Disable Javascript" option found in Netscape 4.0 (the predecessor to Mozilla) is missing, along with the ability to prevent image loading.
I'm sure that a mechanical engineer can create a mount that places the laser on the desk, and only make it able to aim inside the range of the A-D cells. As long as the lasers are unobstructed with other students that can easily put their remaining eye in any laser beam, the problem is solved.
I generally found that I was tightly railroaded in a game that I had no control over. Not only that, but the jumping from character to character at appearently random intervals tended to be a little confusing. At best, the story development was highly chaotic - there was a very limited join among scenes.
This was different than "Blue Chairs" where I was just as tightly railroaded in a game that I had no control over (but had an in-game option to not enter the situation in the first place.) In addition, the railroading in that game was based around the fact that you were 'tripping' after taking some mysterious drug. While there was disjunctions, such things were expected given your current state, regardless of how chaotic it would result.
Any real "security consultant" would insure that the penetration test is authorized by the person running on the equipment. (e.g. the CIO, only by doing an initial port scan if they chose not to in-source it as most corporations should do.) Such a security consultant should know enough about the company anyway to avoid going into hot water.
Likewise, any real lawyer representing such a consultant would try to bring down the person that gave the so-called permission as well. You'll have to ask a lawyer on the exact procedure (and the reasoning, which can vary from case to case) - however, it is a standard motion to add a person to the list of defendants.
The greatest worry is the existance of a trojan horse planeted in an application - which cannot easily be detected by reactive virus scanners.
It's generally easier to smuggle a backdoor into either the binary (stuff it into one line: lines aren't confined to 80 columns) or source code (Underhanded programming contest style).
I can explain Netscape 4.x - I've still seen them used at the local colleges because they were excellent browsers at the time (and could disable JavaScript) alongside image loading (allowing for pretty safe and fast browsing, provided you don't encounter the table rendering bugs that slow down Netscape.) Should the user desire, the images can be loaded on a click of a button (although scriptes require going into options.)
The only problem is that there is no newer version of "Netscape" available. The replacement Netscape 6 defeats the purpose of using Netscape in the first place (disabling image loading), as does FireFox. While there are extensions for FireFox that help fix these problems, these are extensions (and would be insane for any IT department to consider supporting - if one gets included, why can't another?)
Mozilla now has the ability to check for updates, and has had that for quite a while. The only updates it takes would be ones that fully pass regression tests and are good enough to be treated as an official release.
As of this writing, Firefox 1.0.7 is available for download but isn't found in the auto-update for some users. This is not an issue unless you are being impacted by existing flaws.
I also have no problem installing Mozilla in the same directory as the previous installation - the worst case being that I need to reinstall all the plugins.
Perhaps you are using some extremely old version? (e.g. Netscape 1.0)
Most of the extensions expire past the current version, to help ensure that the extensions are kept up to date as well. If it weren't for that, then the extensions would eventually become useless because of minor and gradual changes in the API (in addition to lack of use.)
While there are plenty of issues with the Mozilla's development cycle, those issues are not one of them. A better example would be the fact that it still suffers from the auto-execute paradigm (where it reactionairly fixes security holes rather than preventing them from occurring in the first place.) Then again, IE suffers from the same problem.
In general, you have to say those things anyway.
Netscape Communicator 4.7x has a bug with table layouts that causes extremely slow rendering (e.g. 10 seconds each time the windows is resized.) If it is that serious with a simple thing like tables, you can only imagine how well it will perform under the newer specification.
Besides, Firefox generally requests that users keep up to date to minimize the number of problems - either by comments in the bug report system or by an auto-update. There is only so far back you can go back before it becomes impractical for development. (Not counting accessability issues.)
That's because that can still be penetrated without problem.
You need actual defences to prevent intrusion, such as something that actively repels intruders. For example, have a microphone system playing Barney songs in a continuous loop, enclosed within the safe covered with Jar-Jar posters.
Other than that, you just need to wait until automatic defence turrets can be shipped.
Too late - Firefox is insecure. It already blindingly runs Flash and Java applets, at the same priority level as the browser itself. This generally means that the browser becomes unresponsive - and that your system could easily follow suit if you have too many of those poorly designed 100%-CPU Flash ads.
While there is FlashBlock and Ad-Block, these things really should be part of the main Mozilla browser - not an add-on. (Mozilla doesn't even have a minimalistic protection, as demonstrated by the ineffective pop-up blocker.)
BTW, I've recently experienced a bug with the Java applet system - when it is downloading an applet, it seems to lock up the entire browser from normal operation. I don't yet have a test case, but it is something that needs to be looked at. (I'm thinking about forcing a crash just to get a bug report. Of course, it's still useless to me, since FireFox binaries don't have a client-side symbol table.)
It won't, mainly because doing anything more complex could raise false alarms for what should be legitimate statements (e.g. if (ptr=fgets(buffer, 80, stdin)) {
GCC also allows including parenthesis to supress the check. Any experienced programmer would detect such holes, especially in the case of the Linux Kernel where there is a team dedicated to ensuring that changes are reviewed.
The only thing that interferes is a lousy font. In this case, it was hard to tell the difference between the two since there was no break between '=' and '=='. While you can notice it, it generally takes a few passes since post brains simply glance over a simple difference in length.
Canada only decriminalized possession of Marijuana. It's still a restricted product as there are still fines for possession (for those who do not have a permit). In addition, there's still laws against trafficing that are being enforced against some organizations (e.g. those who give pot out to anyone, while falsly claiming those people had a legit permit or whatever.)
As another poster mentioned, there were reports that drug trafficing occured cross border. This is illegal in both countries.
C++ implements typedefs which effectivly eliminate the problem of fully typing out type names.
The alternative is Java, where everything extends from Object (requiring minimal typing stuff.)
How does one be a productive member of society when not permitted to use computers?
In general, such restrictions mean that:
- One cannot apply for a job. Most places require a resume, which is normally typed to remain competitive (even if it is something as simple as an apprentice plumber.) As you know, typewriters are considered too obsolete to be found normally.
- Even if one can apply, it can't be in 3/4 of the market that permits (or provides employment) to convicts. Even something as Cashier requires using a computer. Don't say that there's going to be exceptions - the USA legal system (among others) is still struggling with the new concept of computers.
- One cannot progress in education. Given massive workloads in High-school, you need a computer to even complete the assignments (not counting freakinh schools that require ise of laptops.) Same applies to college/university. BTW, note that the offender is a juvenile - a.k.a. high school student (as mandated by laws in most industrial countries.)
The government might as well lock him up for the full two years. As far as I'm concerned, banning computer use is no different than banning vehicle usage (even as a passenger of a friend's car.)
I read the first paragraph - almost immediatly, I remembered a job offer:
- System Administrator (network)
- $7.25/hour. (That's right - below mimimum wage.)
- Located in Navan (which is hard to reach by bus - taxing a car is an option, but only minimally.)
The systems were alreahy infested with malware that generate popups. This is also a computer consulting company. (I'd love to name them, but was never given the name of the company.) This single example proves that hhe lack of IT department or equivalent thereof is no less secure.
Besides, with an IT department (not counting pseudo-departments by nome only), there is actually an ability to learn from mistakes of users, ane refining policy and training to make sure that inappropriate computer use is known by the employees to be inappropriate (and detectable.)
The alternative is using "What is your first name?" as the secret question. We both know that shoddy websites that use secret question systems never give any useful choices for that mandatory field.
In any case, that question/answer system is a security risk itself. A trained staff employee is much more secure, as they can get a general idea of something suspicious going on.
That's a style issue, not a grammar issue.
While there are perfectly valid sentences that can last for more than 30 or more words, such sentences will cause the reader to lose focus on the topic of the sentence (rather than become confused because such a sentence is malformed), causing the reader to go back to the beginning and re-read the sentence more than once.
That's generally why grammar checkers suggest to revise sentences rather than saying "You must chop it in half." There is also a rare case where fixing the run-on makes the result look worse - that's why run-ons are not grammar errors.
BTW, whether or not the origianl post contained a run-on is debatable at best. AFAIK, it's merely a compound sentence that stuffs two verbs onto the second subject.
If Yoda strong with force is he, why can't proper English speak he?
As a professional writer, I'm sure you know that the English language has a knack for verbifying nouns. Goose, Egg, Badger is a prime example of this, where most major nouns have a directly associated verb.
Because of this special exception in English, grammar checkers will never catch up until they are the equivalent of a human AI. Until then, you'll probably see an option asking whether it should permit treating nouns as verbs.
(This is also ignoring subdialects, such as the one with the silly rule stating that a preposition isn't a good thing to end a sentence with.)
Actuallly, thoughts are generally based on emotion. You can guess that because there are a lot of people saying that "Math is too hard."
For the time being, smaller publishers can simply ignore the ESRB - they can sell their stuff direct over the internet.
Appearently, the rating costs are only available to publishers that desire to get a rating - it's behind some login window.
They can be penalized by the movie industry through oxisting contracts. Likewise, the ESRB can penalize companies for misrepresenting their product. This is done through a network of trust and contracts - retailers trust the ESRB because developers and/or publishers are bound by a trademark contract.
These penalties give two options - pay money or nobody will do business with you. This is just as effective as making stuff illegal. (The only problem is that some places don't ID check for 'M' games or can be talked out of doing so for special cases.)
This is not a problem with IPods. This is a problem with loud noises, which are fueled by the fact that there's plenty of other loudness nearby.
For example, I listen to music or a movie on my computer - it has to have a minimum volume as the computer fans make noise. (Not counting the CD/DVD vibrations.) In order to make the music audible, it has to be louder than the PC itself, and that can risk damage. As far as I know, it is rather difficult to find a Quiet PC without having to resort to specialist equipment (availble only via Internet basically.)
I also find that it is too little room between "off" and "loud" - in general, both the speakers volume and the Windows sound card volume have to be very close to no sound.
There's also other minor problems, such as music volume not being normalized (at least in the older music players) - a quiet 25dB song is immediatly followed by a 110 dB "ACTHUNG BABY!!!".
BTW, this isn't isolated to the so-called IPod generation - it can also be a problem with society. I was forced to attend a high-school "concert" which played loud heavy metal (complete with head banging against the floor), which lasted 40 minutes. I haven't checked how much that damaged by hearing.
#1 where women are treates like whores - isn't this simply a reflection of society, where women choose to wear skimpy clothing? While most "normal" people don't do that, it just takes a small group to damage everything.
/. readers have experience with, is a dupe.
#2 might have merit, but it is minimalistic. The problem is not with plot, but with the attempt at poor plot being a crutch to negate (or explain) bad gameplay. As a side note, the screenshot is for System Shock 2 - where the "Aliens" are from Earth.
#3, as most
#4 is merely a variation on a theme for #2 and #3 - the storyline sucks and the developers simply focused on art.
#5 is somewhat correct. Cinametics are sometimes necessairy to help show important plot points, when it would not be possible (or "safe") to have the information shown in character.
As for full screen cinematics, any unskippable cutscene means the game is substandard (unless it is also doing background loading as quickly as possible, but that's another story). Developers that don't even make an attempt to speed those things up (even after trying a combination oy 12 ESCs, 6 mouse clicks, 256 spaces and 6 enters) will simply be blasted for excessive loading time (since the player cannot interact with the game while it is trying to do processing for the next in-game scene).
In summary, I've seen better articles. These 5 points are simply pecking away at minor issues rather than pointing towards the core problem. I'm sure other posters have pointed out the Gamesutra bill of rights that was posted recently, which does a much better job of summarizing flaws with games.