Or the network adapter firmware or the encryption libraries or the BIOS or the processor itself. Yeah, there's no reason to poke a hole in the OS itself when so much of what it depends on is at your finger tips.
What's more, the NSA does have a legitimate reason to be involved. It's the same reason they wrote the SE/Linux extensions. They are required (in their public role) to provide the federal government with analysis and review of software for security purposes. To avoid having the NSA say, "Win 7 is too insecure, don't use it," Microsoft would go to them for review and comments prior to release, and respond to whatever concerns they have.
People often forget that the NSA has a public function.
It's got only one instruction....and the first parameter to that instruction controls what the instruction does with the rest of the parameters.
(p.s. I wish this was just a joke, but this is pretty much what it seems to be doing)
Yep, the one instruction is a store (I think he needs a load too, but I guess you could get around that by self-modifying).
You'll just have to prefix all instructions with "STORE" as all other instructions will be accumulators rather than instructions. Of course, this makes pipelining more complex, but nothing else really changes.
No way. A very large segment of home users need iTunes to sync with their iPod and iPhone
If Chrome OS is successful enough, Apple will port iTunes just as they have to Windows, but of course, Android devices will be able to talk to Chrome OS because they already use this model.
play video games
Games will come. Obviously, there are a ton of Web games already, but they don't yet have a browser that exposes accelerated graphics out of the box. Chrome will have to provide that under Chrome OS, but I don't believe they've talked about that yet.
take photos off their cameras
Chrome OS won't stop you from doing so, and will talk to your Picasa or Flikr account just fine.
work from home
I already use a Web-based SSL VPN to connect to work. Companies that use Google Apps or other co-located cloud infrastructure will be able to access the full suite of work mail/chat/documents/etc from Chrome OS, plus specific apps for things like shell access to remote servers will obviously be coming (Google is full of geeks who will demand it, no doubt).
I'd say this is perfect for no more than 50% of home users.
As you note, that's a staggering market, but I think it's an underestimation based on your assumption that remote office, photography and music won't be fully supported. I would contest that, and think they've made their goals clear in this respect. Gaming is still up in the air, but they're not stupid, and I'm sure they've considered the need.
... relatively dumb device that only runs a web browser to use web apps (googles or anyone else's provided their signed by google)
I don't think Web apps need to be signed to execute. That's the whole goal of their security model. Remember that a "web app" is every Web page on the planet. Google doesn't want to be in the business of signing those.
There may be system services that you need a higher degree of confidence in order access, but the entry-level "parse and execute HTML 5, dripping with JavaScript," (e.g. like the Web app I'm using right now on Slashdot to post this) I can't imagine how the device would be useful if it didn't simply execute those out of the box, and currently I see nothing to restrict that.
So what, does my computer boot up to magic, or are they building a BIOS or LiveCD specific to Chrome?
FTFA:
All applications will be web apps, all data will be stored in the cloud and the operating system will be booted from Flash - no hard disks will be supported.
Boots from flash, be it built-in or external (think SD card), presumably. I'm sure someone will come up with a live CD/PXE boot eventually, though. Plus, it's an open source OS, so someone will eventually hack in standard SATA drivers and the like, if Google refuses to provide them.
No, that's not it.
Watch their security video for more info, but my take is this:
Chrome starts in firmware which replaces or extends the BIOS. That firmware validates and boots the Linux kernel which will be found on internal storage much like Android phones use. External storage which users can write to will be in the form of removable media such as cards and sticks, but will only be used for untrusted data such as caches created by apps for fast access, as well as backups of internal storage.
This is targeted at something like a netbook that is intended to replace desktops as the routine computer for most users. Think something between a cell phone, tablet and iMac.
All of this goes out the window the moment you boot in "developer mode" which opens the OS controls to you, but may not be provided as an option by some hardware vendors. However, if you download and build the source, there's nothing stopping you from using it however you like.
I was wondering out loud to friends how long it would take to go from, "this is a developer-only, unstable, code-only release of Chromium OS," to off-hand dismissal on the basis of half-baked ideas about what it might or might not be.
I forgot about Slashdot.
Right, so you're responding to a horrible summary to start. They're not going to prevent people from installing it. The default install will be for end-users and will require hardware certification of the OS for security reasons. The developer install (hello, Slashdot) is wide open and installable on any supported hardware, just like Linux of any other flavor.
Why would you want this? Because you'll be able to buy a device that has no extra bells and whistles. It will contain only what you need in order to boot up the browser and run Web-based apps. Right now, I run three applications on my desktop routinely: a shell for remote logins to development systems, a browser and the occasional game.
Games will be a big hurdle for Chromium OS (Chrome OS is the product, Chromium OS is the open source project, much like Darwin vs MacOS, except there isn't a proprietary layer above the open source bits) and they will require new developments in browser-based infrastructure, but the short of it is that Google has made the desktop application development kit HTML5 instead of, say, Coco,.Net, Qt or Gtk+. In many ways this is no change at all, other than reducing the sprawling suite of desktop tools to one, tightly integrated desktop app (the so-called "browser").
As for "most people..." they will stick with what runs the stuff they want and what their companies, schools, etc. require. Most people don't read or care about Slashdot.
my point is that as a culture, the West as made an effort to rein in these abuses by the rule of law, as it makes our economy a less-dangerous place to do business than, say, a country that will nullify your contracts
You have an overly optimistic or perhaps an overly localized view. Is it perhaps the case that you are inured to the ritualized abuse that we engage in as a matter of course?
Do you work for a company that employs lobbyists? Does your company comply with certification requirements by "working with" regulatory agencies to craft inspection guidelines? Do you think that money among other considerations doesn't get exchanged? Do you think it only happens in small quantities? Do you wonder how one goes about getting the best contracts with U.S. government interests overseas? Have you ever seen a company's executive management go through an IPO? Do you think that that process is not an outright manipulation of the market, favoring only a small faction of the largest investors in order to concentrate and maintain their position of wealth and power?
We do have a more open system than some. We have a far more corrupt system that institutionalizes bribery than others.
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
Your experience is yours. The post I replied to listed several things he needed to root his Android phone for. His experience seems very much like it would be on an iPhone.
The post you replied to listed TWO examples, one of which circumvents user-security protections (something I think we can all agree would be best left for those willing to get their hands dirty and understand the OS) and the other is a means to directly violate your contract with your carrier, risking immediate termination of your service contract, again something that I think should be left to the users willing to explicitly step across the line.
Neither of these has anything to do with Google's interpretation of what you should use their OS for. On the other hand, Apple's stated reasons for not allowing apps that you have to jailbreak to get include nudity, replication of features Apple feel belong to them alone, creation of local files under user control, UI they don't like the look of, and so on. Their list of reasons for banning apps is long and often entirely arbitrary.
Google bans apps when they conflict with the service provider's terms (and you can choose your service provider, unlike the AT&T lockin), violate copyright or other laws, or when they subvert or compromise system security. That's it.
Comparing those two states as if they were the same is just Apple cheerleading, not reality.
This is the problem with MMOs overseas. They represent an organization which can be interacted with. It's widely accepted that once a product is out, its distribution can only be limited, not eliminated, but a company that's selling ongoing services can be forced to comply with regulations or simply shut down. Centralization is failure when it comes to dealing with repression.
Perhaps it's time for me to dig up and re-think my decentralized MMO idea....
Bribery and corruption are accepted in many Eastern (and Middle Eastern) cultures. everyone does it, and if you don't, you don't get to play.
when someone tries the same thing in the US or Europe, they always end up facing charges or at the very least looking for work somewhere else. if money buys immunity, then why did Enron, Worldcom, Madoff, etc. all end up prosecuted?
The question you need to be asking is, if Enron, Wolrldcom, Madoff, etc. all came to light after years of milking their employees/stockholders/investors/etc., how many haven't come to light? What percentage of the scams do those represent?
Your statement is a bit like saying, "my anti-virus software says it found and removed 3 viruses. It's just lucky for me that there were only 3 there to discover! Now, I'm safe."
The correct take on bribery is that Western cultures have reached a relatively stable point where the amount of bribery and corruption is just small enough that it doesn't typically do to our economy what it just did over the past 2 years.
This is definitely NOT the Droid you are looking for
While this is a funny bug, I have to disagree.
The Droid has served me well as an iPhone upgrade for the past week and a half, and the fact that its camera was for shit for most of that was barely an inconvenience. Navigation, Google Voice, file transfers and a host of other features means that this most certainly was the Droid I was looking for.
The Japanese sure seem to like Yahoo! Maybe Yahoo is the only search engine that does not deliver insane search results when searhing in Japanese??? Anyone with experience that can clarify why Yahoo is big in the Japanese market?
There are some working theories out there, but I think it's mostly a what-you-learn-first issue. When Web users were increasing in number at an exponential rate, it was easy to become dominant as the next-big-thing, but Yahoo! solidified its position in Japan early and Google didn't push very hard on that market until growth had slowed.
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.
They're not trying to compete with Garmin. They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity. It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities. The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g. Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g. Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.
Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted. Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.
I've had both an iPhone and an Android. I jailbroke my iPhone. I haven't bothered with my Android. Open development means that, for the most part, I don't have to. If I decide I want something that the firmware doesn't allow by default, I'll root it, but that wasn't where I stood with the iPhone.
Google Voice, file transfer software, alternate music players, backgrounding, and many other basic features available to Android users MUST be gained by jailbreaking on the iPhone. That's why it's called "jailbreaking."
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thank God we have Google to defend the end-users' interests.
Seriously, is there anything that Google can't provide? Maybe they should run everything!
Of course they should. And so should everyone else who wants to try to compete with them.
The great evil here, consider, is that Goolge offered phone vendors a share of search ad profits. Mind you, they also offer YOU a share of their search ad profits, and anyone else that wants to embed their search box on their Web page, device or what-have-you. So do other search engines.
As far as I can tell, this is a plain reading of modern free-services business models from Google and just about everyone else, but to what we are supposed to imagine is an ominous "late breaking news" soundtrack. Let's try that with something else....
Try re-writing that bit of paranoia with the USGS as your stand-in. They "give away" map data, but get this... they have these sneaky tax things that they use to pay for all that data-gathering!
There doesn't actually appear to be a story, here.
Some of the finest code I've ever worked on was uncommented. Some of the worst code I've ever worked on had terse, but informative and readable comments.
This smells to me like someone who didn't work with very good code becoming aware of the fact that their initial assumptions about comments were incorrect. Sadly, they have yet to discover that their second round of assumptions is just as invalid.
If you ever want to browse through some solid code in order to get an understanding of what good code looks like, I suggest GCC. Just one example file (gcc/alias.c) starts with a comment on line 50 which continues to line 129, and I assure you that it's not there because the person who wrote it didn't understand what was going on.
... who behave as though "Insightful" means "I agree with this".
And yet, you haven't responded to a single one of the points raised, which seems to indicate that you didn't actually have a viable answer to the "Because it is." statement which I backed up on several fronts, later in my post. "No it isn't" doesn't actually comprise a valid argument.
For me, Dollhouse started slow and never got moving. I find there's virtually no character development or interaction of any interest.
Be careful with that phrasing. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine, but I think one of the prime reasons that people don't find it appealing is that it's SO character-driven. Saying that it lacks character development (which you may or may not have been saying, depending on where you intended to break that sentence) is a bit like saying that Primer lacks plot development.
No greater story arc to keep me interested. After seeing "Epitaph One", my first thought was that I wish the show had been set in that time period, unraveling the past over the course of a season. That might have been interesting.
You're looking for a plot-driven show, and that's fine. This is always the downfall of popular writers: they come to believe that fans appreciate their character development, when in reality a popular audience typically isn't interested in character development at first, and are only interested in the characters once the plot development draws them in.
To be fair, however, Fox castrated the show. When I watch epitaph one, I see what the show could have been because Fox had no hand in the making of that episode.
Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
I was in your camp. Didn't start watching Buffy until season 6. Funny enough, most of what was worth watching was in seasons 2-5, so I missed out on that until I went back and re-watched.
Firefly I think is pure genius.
Firefly was a heavily plot-driven series, so that makes sense. It's not that its characters were 2-dimensional, but their development served the plot and not the other way around.
Your cogent discussion points aside, I linked to an article with more context deliberately. It, in turn, links to its source and includes a bit more about how and why this came to be.
Slashdot Mirror
There's prior art for podcast-like distribution of audio shows dating back to 1993. However, the patent has to be read, and each claim compared to previous efforts. Simply demonstrating that people used the Internet for audio show distribution prior to 2003 does nothing.
I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure
It's not "likely." It's their job.
Or the network adapter firmware or the encryption libraries or the BIOS or the processor itself. Yeah, there's no reason to poke a hole in the OS itself when so much of what it depends on is at your finger tips.
What's more, the NSA does have a legitimate reason to be involved. It's the same reason they wrote the SE/Linux extensions. They are required (in their public role) to provide the federal government with analysis and review of software for security purposes. To avoid having the NSA say, "Win 7 is too insecure, don't use it," Microsoft would go to them for review and comments prior to release, and respond to whatever concerns they have.
People often forget that the NSA has a public function.
It's got only one instruction. ...and the first parameter to that instruction controls what the instruction does with the rest of the parameters.
(p.s. I wish this was just a joke, but this is pretty much what it seems to be doing)
Yep, the one instruction is a store (I think he needs a load too, but I guess you could get around that by self-modifying).
You'll just have to prefix all instructions with "STORE" as all other instructions will be accumulators rather than instructions. Of course, this makes pipelining more complex, but nothing else really changes.
No way. A very large segment of home users need iTunes to sync with their iPod and iPhone
If Chrome OS is successful enough, Apple will port iTunes just as they have to Windows, but of course, Android devices will be able to talk to Chrome OS because they already use this model.
play video games
Games will come. Obviously, there are a ton of Web games already, but they don't yet have a browser that exposes accelerated graphics out of the box. Chrome will have to provide that under Chrome OS, but I don't believe they've talked about that yet.
take photos off their cameras
Chrome OS won't stop you from doing so, and will talk to your Picasa or Flikr account just fine.
work from home
I already use a Web-based SSL VPN to connect to work. Companies that use Google Apps or other co-located cloud infrastructure will be able to access the full suite of work mail/chat/documents/etc from Chrome OS, plus specific apps for things like shell access to remote servers will obviously be coming (Google is full of geeks who will demand it, no doubt).
I'd say this is perfect for no more than 50% of home users.
As you note, that's a staggering market, but I think it's an underestimation based on your assumption that remote office, photography and music won't be fully supported. I would contest that, and think they've made their goals clear in this respect. Gaming is still up in the air, but they're not stupid, and I'm sure they've considered the need.
... relatively dumb device that only runs a web browser to use web apps (googles or anyone else's provided their signed by google)
I don't think Web apps need to be signed to execute. That's the whole goal of their security model. Remember that a "web app" is every Web page on the planet. Google doesn't want to be in the business of signing those.
There may be system services that you need a higher degree of confidence in order access, but the entry-level "parse and execute HTML 5, dripping with JavaScript," (e.g. like the Web app I'm using right now on Slashdot to post this) I can't imagine how the device would be useful if it didn't simply execute those out of the box, and currently I see nothing to restrict that.
FTFA:
Boots from flash, be it built-in or external (think SD card), presumably. I'm sure someone will come up with a live CD/PXE boot eventually, though. Plus, it's an open source OS, so someone will eventually hack in standard SATA drivers and the like, if Google refuses to provide them.
No, that's not it.
Watch their security video for more info, but my take is this:
Chrome starts in firmware which replaces or extends the BIOS. That firmware validates and boots the Linux kernel which will be found on internal storage much like Android phones use. External storage which users can write to will be in the form of removable media such as cards and sticks, but will only be used for untrusted data such as caches created by apps for fast access, as well as backups of internal storage.
This is targeted at something like a netbook that is intended to replace desktops as the routine computer for most users. Think something between a cell phone, tablet and iMac.
All of this goes out the window the moment you boot in "developer mode" which opens the OS controls to you, but may not be provided as an option by some hardware vendors. However, if you download and build the source, there's nothing stopping you from using it however you like.
I was wondering out loud to friends how long it would take to go from, "this is a developer-only, unstable, code-only release of Chromium OS," to off-hand dismissal on the basis of half-baked ideas about what it might or might not be.
I forgot about Slashdot.
Right, so you're responding to a horrible summary to start. They're not going to prevent people from installing it. The default install will be for end-users and will require hardware certification of the OS for security reasons. The developer install (hello, Slashdot) is wide open and installable on any supported hardware, just like Linux of any other flavor.
Why would you want this? Because you'll be able to buy a device that has no extra bells and whistles. It will contain only what you need in order to boot up the browser and run Web-based apps. Right now, I run three applications on my desktop routinely: a shell for remote logins to development systems, a browser and the occasional game.
Games will be a big hurdle for Chromium OS (Chrome OS is the product, Chromium OS is the open source project, much like Darwin vs MacOS, except there isn't a proprietary layer above the open source bits) and they will require new developments in browser-based infrastructure, but the short of it is that Google has made the desktop application development kit HTML5 instead of, say, Coco, .Net, Qt or Gtk+. In many ways this is no change at all, other than reducing the sprawling suite of desktop tools to one, tightly integrated desktop app (the so-called "browser").
As for "most people..." they will stick with what runs the stuff they want and what their companies, schools, etc. require. Most people don't read or care about Slashdot.
my point is that as a culture, the West as made an effort to rein in these abuses by the rule of law, as it makes our economy a less-dangerous place to do business than, say, a country that will nullify your contracts
You have an overly optimistic or perhaps an overly localized view. Is it perhaps the case that you are inured to the ritualized abuse that we engage in as a matter of course?
Do you work for a company that employs lobbyists? Does your company comply with certification requirements by "working with" regulatory agencies to craft inspection guidelines? Do you think that money among other considerations doesn't get exchanged? Do you think it only happens in small quantities? Do you wonder how one goes about getting the best contracts with U.S. government interests overseas? Have you ever seen a company's executive management go through an IPO? Do you think that that process is not an outright manipulation of the market, favoring only a small faction of the largest investors in order to concentrate and maintain their position of wealth and power?
We do have a more open system than some. We have a far more corrupt system that institutionalizes bribery than others.
Your experience is yours. The post I replied to listed several things he needed to root his Android phone for. His experience seems very much like it would be on an iPhone.
The post you replied to listed TWO examples, one of which circumvents user-security protections (something I think we can all agree would be best left for those willing to get their hands dirty and understand the OS) and the other is a means to directly violate your contract with your carrier, risking immediate termination of your service contract, again something that I think should be left to the users willing to explicitly step across the line.
Neither of these has anything to do with Google's interpretation of what you should use their OS for. On the other hand, Apple's stated reasons for not allowing apps that you have to jailbreak to get include nudity, replication of features Apple feel belong to them alone, creation of local files under user control, UI they don't like the look of, and so on. Their list of reasons for banning apps is long and often entirely arbitrary.
Google bans apps when they conflict with the service provider's terms (and you can choose your service provider, unlike the AT&T lockin), violate copyright or other laws, or when they subvert or compromise system security. That's it.
Comparing those two states as if they were the same is just Apple cheerleading, not reality.
This is the problem with MMOs overseas. They represent an organization which can be interacted with. It's widely accepted that once a product is out, its distribution can only be limited, not eliminated, but a company that's selling ongoing services can be forced to comply with regulations or simply shut down. Centralization is failure when it comes to dealing with repression.
Perhaps it's time for me to dig up and re-think my decentralized MMO idea....
you're kidding right?
Bribery and corruption are accepted in many Eastern (and Middle Eastern) cultures. everyone does it, and if you don't, you don't get to play.
when someone tries the same thing in the US or Europe, they always end up facing charges or at the very least looking for work somewhere else. if money buys immunity, then why did Enron, Worldcom, Madoff, etc. all end up prosecuted?
The question you need to be asking is, if Enron, Wolrldcom, Madoff, etc. all came to light after years of milking their employees/stockholders/investors/etc., how many haven't come to light? What percentage of the scams do those represent?
Your statement is a bit like saying, "my anti-virus software says it found and removed 3 viruses. It's just lucky for me that there were only 3 there to discover! Now, I'm safe."
The correct take on bribery is that Western cultures have reached a relatively stable point where the amount of bribery and corruption is just small enough that it doesn't typically do to our economy what it just did over the past 2 years.
This is definitely NOT the Droid you are looking for
While this is a funny bug, I have to disagree.
The Droid has served me well as an iPhone upgrade for the past week and a half, and the fact that its camera was for shit for most of that was barely an inconvenience. Navigation, Google Voice, file transfers and a host of other features means that this most certainly was the Droid I was looking for.
The Japanese sure seem to like Yahoo!
Maybe Yahoo is the only search engine that does not deliver insane search results when searhing in Japanese??? Anyone with experience that can clarify why Yahoo is big in the Japanese market?
There are some working theories out there, but I think it's mostly a what-you-learn-first issue. When Web users were increasing in number at an exponential rate, it was easy to become dominant as the next-big-thing, but Yahoo! solidified its position in Japan early and Google didn't push very hard on that market until growth had slowed.
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.
They're not trying to compete with Garmin. They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity. It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities. The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g. Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g. Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).
Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.
Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted. Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.
I've had both an iPhone and an Android. I jailbroke my iPhone. I haven't bothered with my Android. Open development means that, for the most part, I don't have to. If I decide I want something that the firmware doesn't allow by default, I'll root it, but that wasn't where I stood with the iPhone.
Google Voice, file transfer software, alternate music players, backgrounding, and many other basic features available to Android users MUST be gained by jailbreaking on the iPhone. That's why it's called "jailbreaking."
Thank God we have Google to defend the end-users' interests.
Seriously, is there anything that Google can't provide? Maybe they should run everything!
Of course they should. And so should everyone else who wants to try to compete with them.
The great evil here, consider, is that Goolge offered phone vendors a share of search ad profits. Mind you, they also offer YOU a share of their search ad profits, and anyone else that wants to embed their search box on their Web page, device or what-have-you. So do other search engines.
As far as I can tell, this is a plain reading of modern free-services business models from Google and just about everyone else, but to what we are supposed to imagine is an ominous "late breaking news" soundtrack. Let's try that with something else....
Try re-writing that bit of paranoia with the USGS as your stand-in. They "give away" map data, but get this... they have these sneaky tax things that they use to pay for all that data-gathering!
There doesn't actually appear to be a story, here.
Some of the finest code I've ever worked on was uncommented. Some of the worst code I've ever worked on had terse, but informative and readable comments.
This smells to me like someone who didn't work with very good code becoming aware of the fact that their initial assumptions about comments were incorrect. Sadly, they have yet to discover that their second round of assumptions is just as invalid.
If you ever want to browse through some solid code in order to get an understanding of what good code looks like, I suggest GCC. Just one example file (gcc/alias.c) starts with a comment on line 50 which continues to line 129, and I assure you that it's not there because the person who wrote it didn't understand what was going on.
... who behave as though "Insightful" means "I agree with this".
And yet, you haven't responded to a single one of the points raised, which seems to indicate that you didn't actually have a viable answer to the "Because it is." statement which I backed up on several fronts, later in my post. "No it isn't" doesn't actually comprise a valid argument.
Why does he want to do this?
Because he owns $2B worth of Yahoo stock.
I don't think you have to dig deeper for the answer, really.
Why is this modded insightful??
Because it is.
It doesn't need to be in every game (any more than the game NEEDS to exist in the first place)
Correct.
but there's no reason to NOT build in the option for people who want it.
It could turn a $50 40 hour game into a $50, 100 hour game.
True, but there is an audience for games that are designed to be single-player, and not multi-player.
They could offer it and you could ignore it.
Typically, no. The impact on gameplay and UI are deep and, I suspect, intractable.
Then people who *have* friends could play this game together.
Cheap and inaccurate shot. I play highly cooperative games ranging from multi-player to MMOs and I still appreciate a good single-player only game.
For me, Dollhouse started slow and never got moving. I find there's virtually no character development or interaction of any interest.
Be careful with that phrasing. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine, but I think one of the prime reasons that people don't find it appealing is that it's SO character-driven. Saying that it lacks character development (which you may or may not have been saying, depending on where you intended to break that sentence) is a bit like saying that Primer lacks plot development.
No greater story arc to keep me interested. After seeing "Epitaph One", my first thought was that I wish the show had been set in that time period, unraveling the past over the course of a season. That might have been interesting.
You're looking for a plot-driven show, and that's fine. This is always the downfall of popular writers: they come to believe that fans appreciate their character development, when in reality a popular audience typically isn't interested in character development at first, and are only interested in the characters once the plot development draws them in.
To be fair, however, Fox castrated the show. When I watch epitaph one, I see what the show could have been because Fox had no hand in the making of that episode.
Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
I was in your camp. Didn't start watching Buffy until season 6. Funny enough, most of what was worth watching was in seasons 2-5, so I missed out on that until I went back and re-watched.
Firefly I think is pure genius.
Firefly was a heavily plot-driven series, so that makes sense. It's not that its characters were 2-dimensional, but their development served the plot and not the other way around.
Most likely there's an error in the summary. It is more likely:
"An extra charge for Verizon to provide an Exchange server for you."
Yep. I have a Droid, and paying no extra fees, I sync to work mail and calendar via exchange.
There are things to like and dislike about the Droid, but this article is hopelessly inaccurate.
You forgot the short, but memorable, "The Got The Bloodstains Out!"
Your cogent discussion points aside, I linked to an article with more context deliberately. It, in turn, links to its source and includes a bit more about how and why this came to be.