Actually, his name is Hugo but, otherwise, you are correct. While the president of Brazil is pretty left leaning (and somewhat of a friend of Chavez's) the US government would much prefer dealing with him over Chavez.
Except you can't reocate 1/3 of the worlds oil reserve. So you have deal with Chavez or Harper from Canada (the other 1/3).
I got one recently as well. I feel the whole price argument is slightly overblown for Canadians since it's about $50 more then my launch Ps2 after inflation, but it's a "good" blu-ray player while my Ps2 was a "crap" DVD player. I enjoy all the little extra and the fact they didn't do the trademark 100% propriatary thing that was Sony electronics trademark. It support compact flash, SD, and minidisk. It does the whole USB thing too and I can put linus on it. I think they made it right but marketted it badly. And they created a lot of ill will with their upper managemetn beign so sure of it's landslide victory.
I think they can recover but they need ot shut up their marketroids for a while and let the product speak for itself. Unlike most of slashdot, the general public isn't very anti-PS3 they just need a reason to want one. One of the upcoming games liek MGS4 would do it.
I got the ps3. I stopped buying DVDs. just feels odd to have the blu ray and still buy DVDs. Most major releases will come in blu ray for roughly $10 CND more. I don't mind the extra expence to feed content to my 50' HD TV.
Just a note: Most people don't care a bit about the root kit, lik sang, or the inclusion of blu-ray. only the price and the lack of games would cross the mind of any non geek.
It a matter of taste. By sales the Warcraft series is more popular then the C&C franchise. The unit selection limit is more of a design decision versus a technological problem. They simply wanted more interaction. Micro management is a huge part of the attraction of Warcraft/starcraft games and thats is partly the reason why there are more people who play warcraft 3 online then c&c generals or in fact any individual c&C title. The number of starcraft online players easily dwarfs the total pool of people who bought c&c generals.
No matter how you put it, it's subjective and many criticise c&c as being a very "noob" game with limited depth and a tech tree that emphasises monoculture and rushes over any significant strategy. A common criticism of almost every title in the series.
Although Sony is limping in comparison to the Wii, they are on par or slightly ahead of the 360 ata similiar spot in it's life cycle. It's a hard call. Another difference is the Wii launched wiht a killer app, the 360 launched wiht no compitition, while sony launched with 1 decent game but no killer apps. Wait for a major title to come like MGS4 or FFXIII. If the PS3 doesn't perk up then, then it will be relagated to #2 or #3. Hard to call a winner at the start of the race. there is no question the 360 will be #2 or #3 since it made no inroad in japan. Even being #1 in the US may see it #2 over all. It doesn't have a shot at #1 when 1/2 of the videogame market has ignored it.
I suppose some of it is subjective depending on what you enjot about RTS games. although I think most would agree everything between C&C red alert 2 and C&C generals wasn't very good in an objective way. Tiberium sun, renegade, etc.. all were objectively terrible.
Warcraft had taken RTS is grand new directions while C&C stagnated and became nothing but cheese and rehash. they problably went with what came first and what had soem artistic merit. WCI was intersting btu ugly. WCII was pretty and despite it's age still looks alright. WCIII still stands up and is played by hundreds of thousands still, years after it's release. While the C&C series doesn't have as much lasting value.
It can work exactly how you want it. if you have this set up
Leader Attack -> nearest foe
2nd hero Attack -> leaders target
3rd hero Attack -> leaders target
This will allow you to all attack the foe nearest the leader. If you manually change leaders target the other 2 will as well. The AI prioritizes gambits from top to bottom. The top most action with a valid condition executes. If you want to use first aid when someone is weak then you need
Character First aid -> Ally hp critical
Certain abilities like "haste" and "esuna" are smart. They will only cast them on valid targets. IE, someone unhasted or someone with a debuff. Others that don't have invalid targets needs a good condition. For instance you can always attack so setting
attack -> ally
and putting at the top slot means you will always attack an ally regaurdless fo any gambits that follow. In a strange way it's like programing is lisp. It's an infinite loop that scans for valid actions. The first valid condition triggers the action. It then restarts from the top after the action is done. Remember the leader needs a different set then the others if your using any of of the "leaders target" conditions.
lol. Sorry. You mis understand that gambit. IF Vaan is the leader and he has only the gambit "attack foe leaders targeting", he will never do anything because he is leader, and isn't currently targetting anyone. Try "attack nearest foe" or "attack foe targetting leader." It's obvious when someone points it out but the leader needs a different set then the rest. For optimal kill speed I have my leader target nearest and the rest target leaders target. For money and gear hunting I steal with leader and have the rest target leaders target. I steal once, my team mate kills the target. I don't know if you have a background in programming but it's super obvious if you do.
don't want to register with a DSL network, what ever that might be... I want to route via a router. Nothing more simple than that, but no simple user findable option allows me that. There is no tab in network options where I simply can add a gateway. I wasted about a day until I finally gave up to configure that particular XP machine.
Regestering with the DSL provider is mandatory unless the routers MAC has already been registered. Most DSL providers regaurdless of Mac/PC/Linux require this. Adding a gateway is just control panel->networks connections->Create new connection select then a light bit of radio button selecting and clicking next. Very similiar to MAcs. Most ISP's will provide a configuration disk to do this as well. Seriously 1 min 30s worth of clicking for me. 10 min for the non techie XP user, 1 hour 30 min and a call to tech support for the computer illiterate.
That's not quite true. How do you configure XP (home edition) to use your router to connect to the DSL modem to get into the internet?
In Win95 you only told it what the gateway is and what it's IP address it, and if you want you can set some preconfigured DNS servers.
On XP I failed to configure something that simple as a router, it only asked me if I wanted to make a network install wizard, no idea what that even is, and certainly I did not want to make one.
A Mac does not relief you from knowing how TCP/IP works or how routers work or how the internet works, but you simply can configure it.
Thats familiarity issue not a usability one. On either machine you have an auto configuration option. On the vast majority of PC's I've set up, trouble shooted, installed inet for, or use the set up was as you described. The majority of the cases the only configuration needed was to register with the DSL network. The settings are in a similiar place to Win95. The automatic settings work 90% of the time. In corner cased where it doesn't it's not hard to set. You plug the router in, you plug the dsl in, you open an explorer window. If you have more arcane settings for the router you access it and configure. IF you need another DNS you set it up in "networks" under the control panel. Not rocket science or protien modeling.
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
It's a different machine, not a different dimension. Your users will be as good as you hire. The folks who couldn't set the wall paper before aren't going to miraculously learn. For most customization option or usage options, XP and OSX are similiar in difficulty. The gulf between OSX and XP is mostly in security and default settings not usability and user friendlyness.
Corprate It guy: Hey boss I just bought a bunch of macs at 20% over retail of similiar PC's. It seems the key application we make most our money on doesn't function on it so I bought new copies of the XP and reinstalled them. don't worry they dual boot.
Corprate IT VP: Ohh wonderful. Why don't you give yourself a raise and have sex with my wife. While your ate it do my 19 year old daughter too. I'm going to go give my mercded to the next homeless person I see and donate all the company bank accounts to UNICEF.... I doubt any IT decision maker will really risk changing and changing back. The cost of conversion sttill exists even wiht dual booting. Unless there is a seriously compelling reason to change, people and organizations won't change.
I got my $699 worth. I now have a web browser and a linux machine on my 50" HD LCD. I can play some snazzy over priced blu ray movies. I have a replacement for my seriously aging SNES/NES (eventually) and a PS1/PS2. My umm special movie collection also looks good! I'd say thats worth $699 to me.
That's a bit of an extreme example, but it's important to remember that value is relative. The stuff inside a PS3 might be worth $800 to them, and worth $800 to you, and that's great. But to me a pile of silicon and plastic and metal has very little intrinsic value, regardless of how well it's organized or how great other people think it is. A game console on the other hand, has its value created by the games it is capable of playing. I have seen very little software for the PS3 that would convince me it was worth it at $300, much less $500 or $800.
Where does this $800 number come from? $599 is the US price. If soem stores want ot bundle the machine with some random gear it still doe snot make it $800. I just bought one. I spent $699 CND + tax.
Nintendo did give a more honest number. My point was Sony is not unique by giving idealized numbers. It happens when ever the marketing dept in a company beleive their consumers have the IQ of your average fanboy. It's a pity they're right so often.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, his name is Hugo but, otherwise, you are correct. While the president of Brazil is pretty left leaning (and somewhat of a friend of Chavez's) the US government would much prefer dealing with him over Chavez.
Except you can't reocate 1/3 of the worlds oil reserve. So you have deal with Chavez or Harper from Canada (the other 1/3).
He likes the feel of smooth plastic and chrome. Hippies can be really kinky.
I got one recently as well. I feel the whole price argument is slightly overblown for Canadians since it's about $50 more then my launch Ps2 after inflation, but it's a "good" blu-ray player while my Ps2 was a "crap" DVD player. I enjoy all the little extra and the fact they didn't do the trademark 100% propriatary thing that was Sony electronics trademark. It support compact flash, SD, and minidisk. It does the whole USB thing too and I can put linus on it. I think they made it right but marketted it badly. And they created a lot of ill will with their upper managemetn beign so sure of it's landslide victory.
I think they can recover but they need ot shut up their marketroids for a while and let the product speak for itself. Unlike most of slashdot, the general public isn't very anti-PS3 they just need a reason to want one. One of the upcoming games liek MGS4 would do it.
Sure you could plug in a usb mouse and keyboard but would it be all that practical but I'm not sure Blizzrd wants to cut sony into it's cash cow.
I got the ps3. I stopped buying DVDs. just feels odd to have the blu ray and still buy DVDs. Most major releases will come in blu ray for roughly $10 CND more. I don't mind the extra expence to feed content to my 50' HD TV.
Just a note: Most people don't care a bit about the root kit, lik sang, or the inclusion of blu-ray. only the price and the lack of games would cross the mind of any non geek.
It's cost 35b to gain 25b worth of a media / telecom company. Simply to do this to negate 1b of liability isn't a good deal.
Conversely, SCO is no truly worth it's market cap but viacom likely is.
It a matter of taste. By sales the Warcraft series is more popular then the C&C franchise. The unit selection limit is more of a design decision versus a technological problem. They simply wanted more interaction. Micro management is a huge part of the attraction of Warcraft/starcraft games and thats is partly the reason why there are more people who play warcraft 3 online then c&c generals or in fact any individual c&C title. The number of starcraft online players easily dwarfs the total pool of people who bought c&c generals.
No matter how you put it, it's subjective and many criticise c&c as being a very "noob" game with limited depth and a tech tree that emphasises monoculture and rushes over any significant strategy. A common criticism of almost every title in the series.
I suppose you say "first PC" but Herzog Zwei was the earliest RTS. Although arguements can be made that it really wasn't an RTS.
Zelda is just Zork with a GUI.
Wow is just LORD with a GUI.
Although Sony is limping in comparison to the Wii, they are on par or slightly ahead of the 360 ata similiar spot in it's life cycle. It's a hard call. Another difference is the Wii launched wiht a killer app, the 360 launched wiht no compitition, while sony launched with 1 decent game but no killer apps. Wait for a major title to come like MGS4 or FFXIII. If the PS3 doesn't perk up then, then it will be relagated to #2 or #3. Hard to call a winner at the start of the race. there is no question the 360 will be #2 or #3 since it made no inroad in japan. Even being #1 in the US may see it #2 over all. It doesn't have a shot at #1 when 1/2 of the videogame market has ignored it.
Any Sony or MS published title will remain exclusive. Except MS will also bring their games to the PC (Halo/Fable)
Actualyl let me clarify,
C&C tiberium sun
C&C renegade
Weren't so good. Since there wasn't much between RA2 and Generals.
I suppose some of it is subjective depending on what you enjot about RTS games. although I think most would agree everything between C&C red alert 2 and C&C generals wasn't very good in an objective way. Tiberium sun, renegade, etc.. all were objectively terrible.
Warcraft had taken RTS is grand new directions while C&C stagnated and became nothing but cheese and rehash. they problably went with what came first and what had soem artistic merit. WCI was intersting btu ugly. WCII was pretty and despite it's age still looks alright. WCIII still stands up and is played by hundreds of thousands still, years after it's release. While the C&C series doesn't have as much lasting value.
It can work exactly how you want it. if you have this set up
Leader
Attack -> nearest foe
2nd hero
Attack -> leaders target
3rd hero
Attack -> leaders target
This will allow you to all attack the foe nearest the leader. If you manually change leaders target the other 2 will as well. The AI prioritizes gambits from top to bottom. The top most action with a valid condition executes. If you want to use first aid when someone is weak then you need
Character
First aid -> Ally hp critical
Certain abilities like "haste" and "esuna" are smart. They will only cast them on valid targets. IE, someone unhasted or someone with a debuff. Others that don't have invalid targets needs a good condition. For instance you can always attack so setting
attack -> ally
and putting at the top slot means you will always attack an ally regaurdless fo any gambits that follow. In a strange way it's like programing is lisp. It's an infinite loop that scans for valid actions. The first valid condition triggers the action. It then restarts from the top after the action is done. Remember the leader needs a different set then the others if your using any of of the "leaders target" conditions.
lol. Sorry. You mis understand that gambit. IF Vaan is the leader and he has only the gambit "attack foe leaders targeting", he will never do anything because he is leader, and isn't currently targetting anyone. Try "attack nearest foe" or "attack foe targetting leader." It's obvious when someone points it out but the leader needs a different set then the rest. For optimal kill speed I have my leader target nearest and the rest target leaders target. For money and gear hunting I steal with leader and have the rest target leaders target. I steal once, my team mate kills the target. I don't know if you have a background in programming but it's super obvious if you do.
don't want to register with a DSL network, what ever that might be ... I want to route via a router. Nothing more simple than that, but no simple user findable option allows me that. There is no tab in network options where I simply can add a gateway. I wasted about a day until I finally gave up to configure that particular XP machine.
Regestering with the DSL provider is mandatory unless the routers MAC has already been registered. Most DSL providers regaurdless of Mac/PC/Linux require this. Adding a gateway is just control panel->networks connections->Create new connection select then a light bit of radio button selecting and clicking next. Very similiar to MAcs. Most ISP's will provide a configuration disk to do this as well. Seriously 1 min 30s worth of clicking for me. 10 min for the non techie XP user, 1 hour 30 min and a call to tech support for the computer illiterate.
That's not quite true. How do you configure XP (home edition) to use your router to connect to the DSL modem to get into the internet?
In Win95 you only told it what the gateway is and what it's IP address it, and if you want you can set some preconfigured DNS servers.
On XP I failed to configure something that simple as a router, it only asked me if I wanted to make a network install wizard, no idea what that even is, and certainly I did not want to make one.
A Mac does not relief you from knowing how TCP/IP works or how routers work or how the internet works, but you simply can configure it.
Thats familiarity issue not a usability one. On either machine you have an auto configuration option. On the vast majority of PC's I've set up, trouble shooted, installed inet for, or use the set up was as you described. The majority of the cases the only configuration needed was to register with the DSL network. The settings are in a similiar place to Win95. The automatic settings work 90% of the time. In corner cased where it doesn't it's not hard to set. You plug the router in, you plug the dsl in, you open an explorer window. If you have more arcane settings for the router you access it and configure. IF you need another DNS you set it up in "networks" under the control panel. Not rocket science or protien modeling.
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
It's a different machine, not a different dimension. Your users will be as good as you hire. The folks who couldn't set the wall paper before aren't going to miraculously learn. For most customization option or usage options, XP and OSX are similiar in difficulty. The gulf between OSX and XP is mostly in security and default settings not usability and user friendlyness.
Corprate It guy: Hey boss I just bought a bunch of macs at 20% over retail of similiar PC's. It seems the key application we make most our money on doesn't function on it so I bought new copies of the XP and reinstalled them. don't worry they dual boot.
... I doubt any IT decision maker will really risk changing and changing back. The cost of conversion sttill exists even wiht dual booting. Unless there is a seriously compelling reason to change, people and organizations won't change.
Corprate IT VP: Ohh wonderful. Why don't you give yourself a raise and have sex with my wife. While your ate it do my 19 year old daughter too. I'm going to go give my mercded to the next homeless person I see and donate all the company bank accounts to UNICEF.
I got my $699 worth. I now have a web browser and a linux machine on my 50" HD LCD. I can play some snazzy over priced blu ray movies. I have a replacement for my seriously aging SNES/NES (eventually) and a PS1/PS2. My umm special movie collection also looks good! I'd say thats worth $699 to me.
That's a bit of an extreme example, but it's important to remember that value is relative. The stuff inside a PS3 might be worth $800 to them, and worth $800 to you, and that's great. But to me a pile of silicon and plastic and metal has very little intrinsic value, regardless of how well it's organized or how great other people think it is. A game console on the other hand, has its value created by the games it is capable of playing. I have seen very little software for the PS3 that would convince me it was worth it at $300, much less $500 or $800.
Where does this $800 number come from? $599 is the US price. If soem stores want ot bundle the machine with some random gear it still doe snot make it $800. I just bought one. I spent $699 CND + tax.
Nintendo did give a more honest number. My point was Sony is not unique by giving idealized numbers. It happens when ever the marketing dept in a company beleive their consumers have the IQ of your average fanboy. It's a pity they're right so often.