I'm afraid not. I try to not use Outlook itself at all, unless I can't help it. The following things Outlook can do, but Outlook Web Access can't:
- subscribe to lists - manage lists - access shared "inboxes" (not the same as public folders) - access the global address book - i've run into problems with calendaring and (re)scheduling meetings too
To claim OWA has "all of Outlook's features in a web client connection to Exchange Servers" isn't close to reality. OWA's just plain limited in what it can do. Now, WHY you might ask, can it not do all these things? Beats me, but if someone can tell me what I'm missing, I'd love to know...
Ok, how about this, then? You've got a pipe. It has a certain capacity both up and down stream. What's the difference between one person using maximum available bandwidth on said pipe, and 5 people sharing the same pipe, each using 1/5 of the max bandwidth? Same number of bits transferred for each. Each is paying for the same service.
Is it somehow inherently (more) "wrong" for the 5 people, all sharing one connection, to generate the same traffic as a single person on a single machine? What about when the single person's sucking down every.iso and.mp3 he can find, and the 5 people combined are using half the bandwidth web surfing and the like?
In an extreme example, in a bizarre sets of circumstances I've had to NAT *dialup* (single landline @ customer site, several of us on-site, IT policies forbade hooking our laptops to their LAN, us each needing resources only available over our VPN to HQ). Even at full tilt 53Kbps, 3 or 4 people sharing that one connection are hardly creating any more strain than a single person trying to download a few megs of pr0n.
How is that any different than 1 machine doing 24x7 leeching? Plus, the folks most likely to actually DO things like patch their machines, run daily updates, reload/. every 30 seconds, etc, are likely the same folks who'll set up caches, proxies, and local (DNS/mail/web) servers, thereby reducing the load on the network and/or the ISPs' communal servers. (An example: I have anywhere from 3 to 6 machines on my internal network at any one time. All internal machines' DNS queries a caching nameserver, I run apt-proxy to cache all debian updates [speeds up my update times past the first machine updated, too!], squid's set up transparently, I've got my own mail server saving my ISP from dealing with several megs of mail a *day* transitting to their servers and then immediately back out, etc.)
Arguably, it could still be 1.x times a single person (where x is some small decimal to account for checking if caches need updating), but as the number of machines, N, behind the NAT increases, additional load for shared resources should climb significantly slower.
The theory (at least it was several years ago) is that business class telephone users aren't actually being charged more for being a business, but that home users are being charged less since they don't typically use the resources at peak times (read: during the daytime) when excess free circuits are at a premium. In other words, the theory is/was that business are *subsidizing* home users.
Now, in today's modern world, with most of the (modern) phone network being packet-switched, it's probably just another way to eek out extra money from a more or less captive audience. Of course, you just know that if businesses were being charged less, home users would still end up paying more in the end. *sigh*
This is extremely disappointing. I guess I'll still have to use "RPN" as my calculator on my IIIc (which lacks the 320x320x16 screen needed by the emulator). Luckily, I *think* I still know where my 48GX is.
Wow, if it's only good for integers, I wonder why they allow you to set the precision with "k", and why I routinely use it for decimals. As for displaying, I use "p". You should really take a look at the manpage sometime, or next you're gonna be saying it's only good for base10.
The way I always read the ToS for various cablemodem ISPs I used before ditching them for service I could *use* was they always specified one computer connected to their cablemodem. Fine, I did that. I had exactly 1 computer connected to it. The fact that there was another NIC in it, connected to another network entirely, was immaterial.
True, it likely violated the "spirit" of the ToS, but quite frankly, having every useful port blocked, and then being dinged for actually *using* the bandwidth they advertised on TV and radio and the "always on" capabilities they keep hawking, well....I was able to sleep at night.
Right, this always bugged me when we were getting CMM rammed down our throats. Management kept saying how it would improve the quality of our code and make us competitive. Us grunts pointed out that (aside from wasting quite a bit of time in CMM-related presentations), all it would do is codify the existing process, even if flawed. So if we had a process that produced severely b0rked products currently, getting to CMM level 4 or 5 would just mean we would consistently have b0rked products...
Performance. Turning RSA blinding on results in a performance penalty. Even the paper itself, in section 6, Defenses, mentions that RSA blinding will add a 2% to 10% performance penalty, depending on implementation. So yes, it's possible it *might* decrease performance by an order of magnitude (a reduction of 10% would be a magnitude lower). It's still a good idea.
Unfortunately, if you DON'T have your DNS set up to deal with OpenNIC, the.indy links above won't work, but it's fairlytrivial to do so. I've been running with OpenNIC for months now, and haven't seen any DNS problems at all.
It seems from a quick perusal of that page, that at the very least, the majority of the "tablets" listed are not, in fact "Tablet PCs", but are a beast that most people haven't really ever heard of called "digitizer tablets". Usually, graphic artists and other artsy geeks (notably, not me since I lack any kind of artistic talent) have these things because it's a more "natural" interface than a mouse for drawing and the like on PCs. Unfortunately, most (all?) don't actually have a display component, or any stand-alone processing capabilities at all.
It also seemed like a lot of links on the page were dead, or it was for *really* obsolete hardware.
Pine was nice 10 years ago, easier to figure out (for me) than elm, nicer than mail and Mail. But, well, changes take a damned long time coming, and some things (like newsgroup support) seemed to be added for "gee whiz" reasons before things that make reading large mailing lists useful (like threading).
As others have said, most everyone with patience to learn something else has moved on. Most of the people I know have moved on to mutt. And yes, someone's pointed out to me the default keybindings match elm. I guess as you grow and learn . ..
I actually have a friend who was a contract employee, doing all sorts of security infrastructure for some a company working for some rather large clients. He's not really bothered finding a new job in several months, but recently got a call early one morning from his old boss, who was frantic because everything was down. Unfortunately, he lowballed himself, but got a couple days of work out of the call to fix what the folks left behind had royally screwed up.
I think he was most pleased with not realizing that, while on a conference call with the people who broke everything, the clients AND a lot of upper management were listening in, and based on what he'd said (ripping these guys a couple new assholes), the buffoons ended up being fired for a) making unannounced upgrades to a production system, b) completely failing to read release notes in the service packs they'd installed which detailed that *exactly* what happened would happen if they were installed on the version of software running.
The "$200 an hour, minimum 8 hours" was the result of several of us doing a post-mortem on the lowballing. In truth, due to the situation, he could have likely commanded at least twice that (which illustrates just how critical these systems were to the people with Big Bucks).
Unfortunately, most SLOC (Source Lines of Code) counters can tell the difference between comment and non-comment lines (for whatever language they're designed to count).
insertrandomcomments.pl might be good for inflating how well you comment your code, but likely wouldn't affect actual code counts.
However, insertrandomnullfunctions.pl would likely help out a LOT. (Reminds me of someone I knew who wrote an extensive collection of C++ classes over the course of a week, somewhere over a thousand or two lines of code, in order to shift bits in a 32-bit word...turns out she had never heard of >> and << [as in bitshift operators, not C++'s stream operators] before)
Having one of the most unreliable laptops I've ever seen (a He^H^HDell Latitude, work-supplied, with enough replacement parts to build 3 new systems in a year), I determined after one-too-many crashes for no apparent reason, I *needed* a journalling FS if I wanted any of my work data to remain intact.
I was faced with a difficult decision, however, since I didn't particularly have anywhere to STORE all my data to convert to ReiserFS, (at the time) fairly new XFS, JFS, etc. So I made the logical (for me) choice of going with ext3. The best part? Sitting in LAX waiting for a flight, converting my FS to ext3 (I'd compiled the kernel the night before, during my < 36 hours "home time").
Since then, I've had the system board in the machine spontaneously fry itself while the machine was sitting on a desk not being touched, but updating Debian in the background, I've had various other lockups (usually some combination of ALSA and resuming from a suspend), etc, and not once have I lost any data, or had FS corruption, nor have I experienced anything that could be attributed as "slowness".
I can see the merits of XFS, especially since I have friends who are familiar with the Irix version, but, if you've got a running system that absolutely can't take another drive in it to migrate data to, or happen to be somewhere you can't get temp storage, EXT3 is a logical way to go.
It might not be the BEST solution, or the solution for everyone, but so far for me, it's been a damned good one.
(Incidentally, I lucked out w/ that fried system board, since I was on-site at a customer with other coworkers, and was able to verify immediately, via swapping drives, that all my data was intact. Yay.)
Alice, Bob, Eve, etc are all just the traditional names to use to make crypto examples more real. If I had the energy, I'd pull out Applied Cryptography or some other crypto texts, and give a more definitive list.
It's also usually that Alice and Bob are trying to carry on a relationship, and jealous Eve is trying to mess things up...
Actually, around 5 years ago, I DID have to consult a manual to figure out how to turn the lights on in an Escort.
The biggest difference between cars and electronics is that cars have had 100 years to standardize on a user interface, while most electronics haven't even had 20 (VCRs, some others excepted). A car is just another common interface in today's world, but try to drive something from 60-70 years ago, and you'd likely be a complete loss to figure out how to do almost everything you can do today with little or no thought (don't get me started on braindead drivers, though...).
In the accelerated product lifetimes of electronics, that car's 100 years probably translates to about 10 years for electronics, and even then, lots of things like DVD players and the like try to use familiar paradigms of CD players, VCRs, etc, to at least give you some basis for figuring out how the thing works.
Sadly, most people are just plain unable to process more than one new thing at once, and some (like my mom) can't figure out how to work devices they've had for over 10 years (like the TV...I got a call one day that it was broken, drove over, hit "input down" on the remote, and "fixed" it). Of course, part of it is a refusal to learn new terminology and ways of looking at things. The next time you're trying to explain something like a computer or TiVo to someone and they're refusing to "get it", ask them to explain how a car works, and object to the introduction of every car-specific term. "What do you mean, 'accelerator'?? I just want to make it go!" "Why do I need to know what an ignition is?" "Who cares what gears are, it should go the direction I want automatically." See how frustrated they get. It's the same way with new electronics. If you're not willing to take even a small amount of time to learn the basics (think of Driver's Ed, where you actually DO have to learn from the ground up), then you'll never get ANYWHERE, regardless of how easy the interface is.
I don't know, I've driven a LOT of different cars while travelling. It usually takes me a couple minutes to figure out where the lights, wipers, cruise control, window and mirror controls, hazards, etc, are located on various brands of cars. Not to mention I usually drive a column-shift automatic, and most cars I get for rentals are console-shift. Don't get me started about figuring out how to set the clock on some of these things. Even the "on" button for the radio can take some playing around, and there's about 4 different locations for where some manufacturers put the seat adjustment. And then half the time I don't know what side of the car the gas (petrol) cap's on, or if I can open it from the outside or need to pull a level inside the passenger compartment.
The difference between cars and electronics? Most people have been around cars long enough to know that what they want to do is usually on some button or knob *somewhere* within a fixed area of the driver. I've seen some truly bizarre layouts (even of where, exactly the ignition key goes) in cars. Electronics are only different in that most people aren't familiar enough with the standard conventions (I can program practically any VCR after a few minutes of playing with the controls) to know where to experiment.
Am I different from the average user? Probably. But that's because I'm willing to experiment, learn new terminology, and try to figure out "If I were the designer, what would I do?"
Perhaps English isn't your primary language. Perhaps you're just like most people who do speak it as their primary language and don't understand the finer points. "Gladiator" is but a single game. Single. Singular. Meaning one. If Electronic Arts' "Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf", or "Dungeons & Dragons" (the other two games specifically mentioned in the article) are available for non-BREW phones, then you have a point. A single game that's already available for Web-enabled phones doesn't mean that any and all games being provided via BREW are already available. As such, the statement "No one's yet pointed out that in order to even play these games, you need a BREW-enabled phone." still stands.
No, you're wrong. Jam Dat Mobile Inc. has been providing Gladiator to Sprint for quite some time. Porting it to BREW is a brand new innovation and doesn't change the fact that its already out there.
Funny, I thought the article in question is discussing BREW, which also mentions that BREW-enabled phones have only really recently started to be rolled out on a "limited" basis. So, that would mean that, yes, you would need to upgrade your phone in order to play BREW games.
No one's yet pointed out that in order to even play these games, you need a BREW-enabled phone. Verizon's just started coming out with them according to the article, and there's no mention of any other US carrier offering them.
Not to mention that this usually locks you into another contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal. I think I'll stick with snake if I feel the need to play a game on my cellphone. Or just stick with my PDA for games, especially when I'm stuck on an airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid not. I try to not use Outlook itself at all, unless I can't help it. The following things Outlook can do, but Outlook Web Access can't:
- subscribe to lists
- manage lists
- access shared "inboxes" (not the same as public folders)
- access the global address book
- i've run into problems with calendaring and (re)scheduling meetings too
To claim OWA has "all of Outlook's features in a web client connection to Exchange Servers" isn't close to reality. OWA's just plain limited in what it can do. Now, WHY you might ask, can it not do all these things? Beats me, but if someone can tell me what I'm missing, I'd love to know...
Ok, how about this, then? You've got a pipe. It has a certain capacity both up and down stream. What's the difference between one person using maximum available bandwidth on said pipe, and 5 people sharing the same pipe, each using 1/5 of the max bandwidth? Same number of bits transferred for each. Each is paying for the same service.
.iso and .mp3 he can find, and the 5 people combined are using half the bandwidth web surfing and the like?
Is it somehow inherently (more) "wrong" for the 5 people, all sharing one connection, to generate the same traffic as a single person on a single machine? What about when the single person's sucking down every
In an extreme example, in a bizarre sets of circumstances I've had to NAT *dialup* (single landline @ customer site, several of us on-site, IT policies forbade hooking our laptops to their LAN, us each needing resources only available over our VPN to HQ). Even at full tilt 53Kbps, 3 or 4 people sharing that one connection are hardly creating any more strain than a single person trying to download a few megs of pr0n.
How is that any different than 1 machine doing 24x7 leeching? Plus, the folks most likely to actually DO things like patch their machines, run daily updates, reload /. every 30 seconds, etc, are likely the same folks who'll set up caches, proxies, and local (DNS/mail/web) servers, thereby reducing the load on the network and/or the ISPs' communal servers. (An example: I have anywhere from 3 to 6 machines on my internal network at any one time. All internal machines' DNS queries a caching nameserver, I run apt-proxy to cache all debian updates [speeds up my update times past the first machine updated, too!], squid's set up transparently, I've got my own mail server saving my ISP from dealing with several megs of mail a *day* transitting to their servers and then immediately back out, etc.)
Arguably, it could still be 1.x times a single person (where x is some small decimal to account for checking if caches need updating), but as the number of machines, N, behind the NAT increases, additional load for shared resources should climb significantly slower.
The theory (at least it was several years ago) is that business class telephone users aren't actually being charged more for being a business, but that home users are being charged less since they don't typically use the resources at peak times (read: during the daytime) when excess free circuits are at a premium. In other words, the theory is/was that business are *subsidizing* home users.
Now, in today's modern world, with most of the (modern) phone network being packet-switched, it's probably just another way to eek out extra money from a more or less captive audience. Of course, you just know that if businesses were being charged less, home users would still end up paying more in the end. *sigh*
This is extremely disappointing. I guess I'll still have to use "RPN" as my calculator on my IIIc (which lacks the 320x320x16 screen needed by the emulator). Luckily, I *think* I still know where my 48GX is.
Wow, if it's only good for integers, I wonder why they allow you to set the precision with "k", and why I routinely use it for decimals. As for displaying, I use "p". You should really take a look at the manpage sometime, or next you're gonna be saying it's only good for base10.
when I read the title was "I wonder what Peril tastes like, and how much Great Ape meat is?"
Sick, I know. I blame it on "spring forward" plus the annual federal government sloppy seconds from their year-long ass-raping...
The way I always read the ToS for various cablemodem ISPs I used before ditching them for service I could *use* was they always specified one computer connected to their cablemodem. Fine, I did that. I had exactly 1 computer connected to it. The fact that there was another NIC in it, connected to another network entirely, was immaterial.
True, it likely violated the "spirit" of the ToS, but quite frankly, having every useful port blocked, and then being dinged for actually *using* the bandwidth they advertised on TV and radio and the "always on" capabilities they keep hawking, well....I was able to sleep at night.
Right, this always bugged me when we were getting CMM rammed down our throats. Management kept saying how it would improve the quality of our code and make us competitive. Us grunts pointed out that (aside from wasting quite a bit of time in CMM-related presentations), all it would do is codify the existing process, even if flawed. So if we had a process that produced severely b0rked products currently, getting to CMM level 4 or 5 would just mean we would consistently have b0rked products...
Performance. Turning RSA blinding on results in a performance penalty. Even the paper itself, in section 6, Defenses, mentions that RSA blinding will add a 2% to 10% performance penalty, depending on implementation. So yes, it's possible it *might* decrease performance by an order of magnitude (a reduction of 10% would be a magnitude lower). It's still a good idea.
To get a .indy domain, go to http://www.opennic.glue/tlds.html (or http://www.opennic.unrated.net/tlds.html for those without OpenNIC set up), which'll provide a link to http://www.opennic.indy/, which should have all the info you need. In short, mail the hostmaster. Policies are available there too...
.indy links above won't work, but it's fairly trivial to do so. I've been running with OpenNIC for months now, and haven't seen any DNS problems at all.
Unfortunately, if you DON'T have your DNS set up to deal with OpenNIC, the
It seems from a quick perusal of that page, that at the very least, the majority of the "tablets" listed are not, in fact "Tablet PCs", but are a beast that most people haven't really ever heard of called "digitizer tablets". Usually, graphic artists and other artsy geeks (notably, not me since I lack any kind of artistic talent) have these things because it's a more "natural" interface than a mouse for drawing and the like on PCs. Unfortunately, most (all?) don't actually have a display component, or any stand-alone processing capabilities at all.
It also seemed like a lot of links on the page were dead, or it was for *really* obsolete hardware.
..."because it's slow and messy"...
.
Pine was nice 10 years ago, easier to figure out (for me) than elm, nicer than mail and Mail. But, well, changes take a damned long time coming, and some things (like newsgroup support) seemed to be added for "gee whiz" reasons before things that make reading large mailing lists useful (like threading).
As others have said, most everyone with patience to learn something else has moved on. Most of the people I know have moved on to mutt. And yes, someone's pointed out to me the default keybindings match elm. I guess as you grow and learn . .
I actually have a friend who was a contract employee, doing all sorts of security infrastructure for some a company working for some rather large clients. He's not really bothered finding a new job in several months, but recently got a call early one morning from his old boss, who was frantic because everything was down. Unfortunately, he lowballed himself, but got a couple days of work out of the call to fix what the folks left behind had royally screwed up.
I think he was most pleased with not realizing that, while on a conference call with the people who broke everything, the clients AND a lot of upper management were listening in, and based on what he'd said (ripping these guys a couple new assholes), the buffoons ended up being fired for a) making unannounced upgrades to a production system, b) completely failing to read release notes in the service packs they'd installed which detailed that *exactly* what happened would happen if they were installed on the version of software running.
The "$200 an hour, minimum 8 hours" was the result of several of us doing a post-mortem on the lowballing. In truth, due to the situation, he could have likely commanded at least twice that (which illustrates just how critical these systems were to the people with Big Bucks).
Unfortunately, most SLOC (Source Lines of Code) counters can tell the difference between comment and non-comment lines (for whatever language they're designed to count).
insertrandomcomments.pl might be good for inflating how well you comment your code, but likely wouldn't affect actual code counts.
However, insertrandomnullfunctions.pl would likely help out a LOT. (Reminds me of someone I knew who wrote an extensive collection of C++ classes over the course of a week, somewhere over a thousand or two lines of code, in order to shift bits in a 32-bit word...turns out she had never heard of >> and << [as in bitshift operators, not C++'s stream operators] before)
"$200 an hour, minimum 8 hours"
Having one of the most unreliable laptops I've ever seen (a He^H^HDell Latitude, work-supplied, with enough replacement parts to build 3 new systems in a year), I determined after one-too-many crashes for no apparent reason, I *needed* a journalling FS if I wanted any of my work data to remain intact.
I was faced with a difficult decision, however, since I didn't particularly have anywhere to STORE all my data to convert to ReiserFS, (at the time) fairly new XFS, JFS, etc. So I made the logical (for me) choice of going with ext3. The best part? Sitting in LAX waiting for a flight, converting my FS to ext3 (I'd compiled the kernel the night before, during my < 36 hours "home time").
Since then, I've had the system board in the machine spontaneously fry itself while the machine was sitting on a desk not being touched, but updating Debian in the background, I've had various other lockups (usually some combination of ALSA and resuming from a suspend), etc, and not once have I lost any data, or had FS corruption, nor have I experienced anything that could be attributed as "slowness".
I can see the merits of XFS, especially since I have friends who are familiar with the Irix version, but, if you've got a running system that absolutely can't take another drive in it to migrate data to, or happen to be somewhere you can't get temp storage, EXT3 is a logical way to go.
It might not be the BEST solution, or the solution for everyone, but so far for me, it's been a damned good one.
(Incidentally, I lucked out w/ that fried system board, since I was on-site at a customer with other coworkers, and was able to verify immediately, via swapping drives, that all my data was intact. Yay.)
I think most judges have shown that they lack an understand of (programming and English).
Alice, Bob, Eve, etc are all just the traditional names to use to make crypto examples more real. If I had the energy, I'd pull out Applied Cryptography or some other crypto texts, and give a more definitive list.
It's also usually that Alice and Bob are trying to carry on a relationship, and jealous Eve is trying to mess things up...
Actually, around 5 years ago, I DID have to consult a manual to figure out how to turn the lights on in an Escort.
The biggest difference between cars and electronics is that cars have had 100 years to standardize on a user interface, while most electronics haven't even had 20 (VCRs, some others excepted). A car is just another common interface in today's world, but try to drive something from 60-70 years ago, and you'd likely be a complete loss to figure out how to do almost everything you can do today with little or no thought (don't get me started on braindead drivers, though...).
In the accelerated product lifetimes of electronics, that car's 100 years probably translates to about 10 years for electronics, and even then, lots of things like DVD players and the like try to use familiar paradigms of CD players, VCRs, etc, to at least give you some basis for figuring out how the thing works.
Sadly, most people are just plain unable to process more than one new thing at once, and some (like my mom) can't figure out how to work devices they've had for over 10 years (like the TV...I got a call one day that it was broken, drove over, hit "input down" on the remote, and "fixed" it). Of course, part of it is a refusal to learn new terminology and ways of looking at things. The next time you're trying to explain something like a computer or TiVo to someone and they're refusing to "get it", ask them to explain how a car works, and object to the introduction of every car-specific term. "What do you mean, 'accelerator'?? I just want to make it go!" "Why do I need to know what an ignition is?" "Who cares what gears are, it should go the direction I want automatically." See how frustrated they get. It's the same way with new electronics. If you're not willing to take even a small amount of time to learn the basics (think of Driver's Ed, where you actually DO have to learn from the ground up), then you'll never get ANYWHERE, regardless of how easy the interface is.
I don't know, I've driven a LOT of different cars while travelling. It usually takes me a couple minutes to figure out where the lights, wipers, cruise control, window and mirror controls, hazards, etc, are located on various brands of cars. Not to mention I usually drive a column-shift automatic, and most cars I get for rentals are console-shift. Don't get me started about figuring out how to set the clock on some of these things. Even the "on" button for the radio can take some playing around, and there's about 4 different locations for where some manufacturers put the seat adjustment. And then half the time I don't know what side of the car the gas (petrol) cap's on, or if I can open it from the outside or need to pull a level inside the passenger compartment.
The difference between cars and electronics? Most people have been around cars long enough to know that what they want to do is usually on some button or knob *somewhere* within a fixed area of the driver. I've seen some truly bizarre layouts (even of where, exactly the ignition key goes) in cars. Electronics are only different in that most people aren't familiar enough with the standard conventions (I can program practically any VCR after a few minutes of playing with the controls) to know where to experiment.
Am I different from the average user? Probably. But that's because I'm willing to experiment, learn new terminology, and try to figure out "If I were the designer, what would I do?"
It's not about pissing on yourself, it's about not spreading coliform.
Perhaps English isn't your primary language. Perhaps you're just like most people who do speak it as their primary language and don't understand the finer points. "Gladiator" is but a single game. Single. Singular. Meaning one. If Electronic Arts' "Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf", or "Dungeons & Dragons" (the other two games specifically mentioned in the article) are available for non-BREW phones, then you have a point. A single game that's already available for Web-enabled phones doesn't mean that any and all games being provided via BREW are already available. As such, the statement "No one's yet pointed out that in order to even play these games, you need a BREW-enabled phone." still stands.
No, you're wrong. Jam Dat Mobile Inc. has been providing Gladiator to Sprint for quite some time. Porting it to BREW is a brand new innovation and doesn't change the fact that its already out there.
Funny, I thought the article in question is discussing BREW, which also mentions that BREW-enabled phones have only really recently started to be rolled out on a "limited" basis. So, that would mean that, yes, you would need to upgrade your phone in order to play BREW games.
No one's yet pointed out that in order to even play these games, you need a BREW-enabled phone. Verizon's just started coming out with them according to the article, and there's no mention of any other US carrier offering them.
Not to mention that this usually locks you into another contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal. I think I'll stick with snake if I feel the need to play a game on my cellphone. Or just stick with my PDA for games, especially when I'm stuck on an airplane.