I was thinking the other day that I may never get an iPod or similar device. I don't like using the word never, of course, but I recently stumbled across something on eBay. 4 gig CF cards for $300. 2 Gigs on Newegg are in the $200 range. With that kind of storage, I'm seriously considering skipping the whole portable music player device and getting a new PocketPC/Palm that'll use one of these cards. 4 gigs is more than adequate for my music needs, plus I have other reasons for wanting a PDA.
Though I doubt that's a reasonable alternative for a lot of people out there, I figured it was worth mentioning. I'm really attracted to the idea of having a little 'store all my interesting media' device.
"I understand why this is contraversial, but tasteless? Seems to me that it's anything but. I don't blame people for being offended, but c'mon, the article's right there."
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I had a chat with somebody about this topic and felt I should express a slight change in opinion. When I posted that, I hadn't considered the effects on the Kennedy family. From that point of view, yes, tasteless probably is a word I'd use. Though the game's only $10, they're still (more than likely) making a profit from it. Seeing as how it isn't clear this will do little more than affect people's opinions (as opposed to actually providing any real evidence...) it's hard to judge this game as being much more valuable than an educational tool. In that respect, I can see what you mean by tasteless now.
I still think there is validity to my point about the goals of the game, I think that should still be considered when rendering an opinion over this game. At the very least, though, I think what I just said about the overall taste of this game should be considered as well.
"More to the point, you get _points_ for drilling JFK just so with your rifle."
Not true, at least in a contextual sense.
Points are awarded or subtracted based on how accurately the shots match the official version of events as documented in by the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy's assassination.
In other words, points are awarded for recreating a moment in history, not for killing JFK specifically.
I understand why this is contraversial, but tasteless? Seems to me that it's anything but. I don't blame people for being offended, but c'mon, the article's right there.
Re:Speaking of filters...
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"I think this would be a good place to post an email exchange that my best friend had with random representative (whoever answers the emails sent to the help address) at PUR"
You know, in a day and age where companies are way too PC or diplomatic when they respond to emails like these, it's really quite refreshing to read an email like that. Kudos, PUR.
"With all that storage George Lucas will still find a way to re-re-re-release the bastardized Star Wars movies one-per BluRay disc and people will still buy them."
And people will over-analyze each change and bitch bitch bitch!
"I think you should mention a Director's most accomplished work, rather than his biggest grossing."
Are we going to split hairs about what 'most accomplished' means? Wouldn't biggest grossing imply most people seen/enjoyed? What about the great deal of effort that went into making that movie? Isn't that quite an accomplishment compared to Aliens or Terminator(s)?
Titanic isn't my favorite of his movies, but I have no issue with calling it "most accomplished" on several levels. This is especially true considering that Titanic is probably the one he's the most proud of. He really loves that ship.
"Then DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME. Why do people complain about stuff they know they're going to hate, then hand the makers $50 anyhow?"
A.) It's a topic of discussion.
B.) Valve doesn't know why you didn't buy the game if you don't complain.
C.) Complaining is part of human nature and isn't going to magically go away. Take this particular example: You're complaining that people are complaining. Should you follow your own advice and just not hear the complaints, or are you trying to make a difference by pointing it out? If it's the latter, why is what they're doing so different?
"For those of you who don't know, anyone can host a game server. The multiplayer component of HL2 is Counterstrike:Source. Go and download the steam client, create a new user, and click on the "Play Games" button. You'll see at the bottom the option to download and install the dedicated server. This downloads the server and maps for online play. Fire this up, it contacts the steam authentication and listing servers, and you're all set to go. People start joining your server."
Unless the authentication server is also doing the hit detection, no, this is hardly uncrackable. Here are the basic steps:
1.) Remove authentication challenge from client. 2.) Remove authentication challenge from server. 3.) Play game.
"This is the best thing yet about Steam. There is nothing to lose. The key is electronic, I just type in my username and password, and it lets me play. I can lose all of the disks that came with the full version, and still go and download it again and type in my username and password and it'll let me play."
That's great as long:
a.) You remember your password. b.) Nobody else uses your password. c.) You aren't banned for life for something you didn't do. d.) Valve is in business.
You cannot honestly tell me this is preferable to how it worked in the olden days.
"Although Steam has some warts, it is a "good thing"."
Not sold. The only fairly impressive detail you mentioned here was re-downloading the media. Question is: Is Valve providing this media, or are you saying from illegit sources? If it's the former, that is great news and make cause me to reconsider my position. If it's the latter, pfbpbpb, not an interesting benefit.
Not trying to be hard nosed Anti-Valve zealot here, but I'm just not sold.
"A) You aren't stealing physical property, you are stealing $50."
That's only true in certain circumstances. If somebody downloaded the game, hated it, and never played it again, nothing was lost. (they should get the demo, though. I'm not saying it's ethical.) If somebody downloaded the cracked version because they copy they bought was damaged, $50 was not stolen. I could keep going, but the basic point I'm making is that not every case is like you describe. There are a significant other that are not. Your case with the Ford example is just plain broken.
" Otherwise it would be perfectly fine to break into someones house and sleep in their bed if you didn't damage anything."
Um, no. One does not relate to the other. I agree about the dishonest part, but this reference is just... well I don't want to be too insulting here. You're being polite and tactful and I appreciate that, but man these analogies are really rubbing me the wrong way. I'm not an advocate of piracy. Not even a pirate myself. I do feel here, though, that the sense of proportion a lot of people have on this topic is really mal-adjusted.
"And how, exactly, am I "hurt" by the authentication. One of the system requirements, right on the box, is an internet connection. I'm not hurt. I'm barely even inconvenienced under the worst case scenario."
Why are you the only one that matters? Why are you ignoring those trying to play on a machine that doesn't have a net connection? (Those still exist, believe it or not.) What about those who bought the game and weren't allowed to play it for a couple of days? Does this authentication system cause the price of the game to go down? Why not? If it causes more inconvenience to the legit customer for the sake of 'selling more copies', why not pass the savings on?
"C) That's life. I just got back from a week in Disneyland with my family. If I would have lost our tickets, I'm out the entire cost. No replacement under any circumstances. Same way with movie tickets and cash."
Again with the stupid analogies. Never mind that once you use those tickets and cash, they're gone. They're not meant to stay with you for as long as you'd like to own them. Never mind that the only reason those games have those codes is to prevent stealing, but they are, in effect, causing it to happen because nobody wants to pay $50 twice for a game. Never mind that pirates aren't thwarted by this method, so really the legitimate customer is who pays the price. Let's just compare this to a real world example that's really easy to shoot down and say "That's life!"
We don't entirely disagree here. I'm ok with Valve protecting themselves, but I fear that in doing so they are creating the problem they're trying to solve. This is not a good solution, and I'm not backing them up on it. As a legitimate customer, I expect to be treated better than a pirate. That is, if they want my money. I'll be steering clear of this game. Plenty of good games on my GameCube that don't require this BS.
"A) So as long as Ford sells enough cars to "be successful", they shouldn't make attempts to keep cars from being stolen off their lots or from their factories?"
Uh huh. Because software copying is EXACTLY like removal of physical property. But as long as we're going down incongruous metaphor lane, let's make take this to an even stupider level: Would it be okay for you if Ford protected their cars by causing you to have to call them and seek permission to open the door? What good does that do if somebody can still force their way in?
If you're shaking your head, fine, don't bother hitting reply on that. The metaphor was stupid to begin with. I never said it was okay for people to steal, nor was I rationalizing it. What I was saying was that it wasn't worth hurting the customer over.
"B) Of course it will be cracked. Almost everything gets cracked. But for online gaming, what percentage of those playing the original Half-Life multiplayer were doing so on pirated software? 0%. Authentication works."
Right. Ask Blizzard about BnetD and then tell me again how succesful authentication is. If Half-Life 2's authentication is bad enough (not saying it is, as I'm not afraid to admit I really have no idea.) they could get around the authentication problem by developing their own server for it. It's difficult, not all that practical, but not impossible. (There's a big question mark over my head as to whether anybody can host their own game or if it's STRICTLY being done by Valve. If you're getting the sense that I don't know much about this game, your intuition would be correct.) If you can host your own game, authentication seriously loses its effectiveness in the hands of pirates. If the servers are 100% Valve owned, then I'm willing to concede this point to practicality.
C.) Nothing about this makes it unplayable.
Yet. Most of us have a tale to tell about losing an important element of a game, like the ID#, and having to buy another copy to play it again. History's against you here.
"And on the same note, why should Valve go through 5 years of cost and trouble to design the best game ever made (my own opinion after playing it) only to have it widely stolen and pirated?"
A.) Because it won't "only" be stolen. They'll be successful regardless. The 'legitimate customer' market is actually very large.
B.) Do you really think this won't be cracked, therefore completely thrwarting their 'protection'? Legit customers get bit, pirates don't care.
C.) You don't see the similarity between this and what certain music companies did to protect their CDs, thus rendering them unplayable? That wasn't acceptable, either.
"I'd much rather have Valve protect their creation via technology than in the courts."
I'd much rather buy products that satisfy me instead of turning piracy into a more attractive alternative.
"It's too bad that they cannot find alternatives to lawsuits, you might find it plausable that they could perhaps offer movie's online at low-prices, and maybe even really early releases for people on the internet, and charge a price?"
Even better, allow me to return a movie if it sucks. I realize that's not going to fly too high, especially with the movie industry, but I'd be far less interested in alternative means of acquisition in either case if I didn't have to worry about being stuck with it. Right now, Netflix is looking MIGHTY tempting.
"I know Pixar is a favorite here on/. but I hate to break it, there are plenty of good animators out there these days so I think it depends on who writes the scripts."
To be fair, an animator's 'goodness' can be hindered by their manement and/or their environment. My point? Disney has to do better than hire good animators, they also have to manage them well. I'm not really out to contradict your point, but rather to clarify a particular detail.
"Too bad any Disney-produced Toy Story 3 won't have half the love and care that Pixar gave to their movies."
Is that really a foregone conclusion? I mean, my faith isn't exactly placed firmly in Disney here, but they do have a huge standard to live up to. If they don't, then it'll be quite clear that Pixar's where all the magic is.
Either we get a good movie, or Disney gets a black eye, can't say I'm saddened by this turn of events.
"Yes, the "windows" trademark is technically invalid becuase it is a generic term and there is loads of prior art"
Don't forget that 'Windows' is the term describing what the end user sees (i.e. a desktop metaphor), not what the developer sees. I'm not defending MS or trying to dispute your point, but I did at least want to point out that distinction. "Windows" is very much a marketing term intended to make people more comfortable with computers.
"but when was there ever a missile attack on any north american target?"
There's always a first time.
"This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system."
Though I sort of agree, I think the odds of being attacked are a.) more significant b.) easier to defend against. To put it another way, how can we shoot down asteroids if we can't shoot down missiles?
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the other day that I may never get an iPod or similar device. I don't like using the word never, of course, but I recently stumbled across something on eBay. 4 gig CF cards for $300. 2 Gigs on Newegg are in the $200 range. With that kind of storage, I'm seriously considering skipping the whole portable music player device and getting a new PocketPC/Palm that'll use one of these cards. 4 gigs is more than adequate for my music needs, plus I have other reasons for wanting a PDA.
Though I doubt that's a reasonable alternative for a lot of people out there, I figured it was worth mentioning. I'm really attracted to the idea of having a little 'store all my interesting media' device.
We gots some cool stuff coming around the corner.
"I understand why this is contraversial, but tasteless? Seems to me that it's anything but. I don't blame people for being offended, but c'mon, the article's right there."
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I had a chat with somebody about this topic and felt I should express a slight change in opinion. When I posted that, I hadn't considered the effects on the Kennedy family. From that point of view, yes, tasteless probably is a word I'd use. Though the game's only $10, they're still (more than likely) making a profit from it. Seeing as how it isn't clear this will do little more than affect people's opinions (as opposed to actually providing any real evidence...) it's hard to judge this game as being much more valuable than an educational tool. In that respect, I can see what you mean by tasteless now.
I still think there is validity to my point about the goals of the game, I think that should still be considered when rendering an opinion over this game. At the very least, though, I think what I just said about the overall taste of this game should be considered as well.
G'nite.
Not true, at least in a contextual sense.
In other words, points are awarded for recreating a moment in history, not for killing JFK specifically.
I understand why this is contraversial, but tasteless? Seems to me that it's anything but. I don't blame people for being offended, but c'mon, the article's right there.
"I think this would be a good place to post an email exchange that my best friend had with random representative (whoever answers the emails sent to the help address) at PUR"
You know, in a day and age where companies are way too PC or diplomatic when they respond to emails like these, it's really quite refreshing to read an email like that. Kudos, PUR.
"Internet Porn More Addictive Than Crack, Senate Told"
Gee, imagine the desire to procreate being more powerful than a narcotic. I'm addicted to oxygen, too.
"With all that storage George Lucas will still find a way to re-re-re-release the bastardized Star Wars movies one-per BluRay disc and people will still buy them."
And people will over-analyze each change and bitch bitch bitch!
Doh!
"The dude from Growing Pains?"
Well that conjured thoughts of sending somebody down to the Titanic.
"I think you should mention a Director's most accomplished work, rather than his biggest grossing."
Are we going to split hairs about what 'most accomplished' means? Wouldn't biggest grossing imply most people seen/enjoyed? What about the great deal of effort that went into making that movie? Isn't that quite an accomplishment compared to Aliens or Terminator(s)?
Titanic isn't my favorite of his movies, but I have no issue with calling it "most accomplished" on several levels. This is especially true considering that Titanic is probably the one he's the most proud of. He really loves that ship.
"Then DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME. Why do people complain about stuff they know they're going to hate, then hand the makers $50 anyhow?"
A.) It's a topic of discussion.
B.) Valve doesn't know why you didn't buy the game if you don't complain.
C.) Complaining is part of human nature and isn't going to magically go away. Take this particular example: You're complaining that people are complaining. Should you follow your own advice and just not hear the complaints, or are you trying to make a difference by pointing it out? If it's the latter, why is what they're doing so different?
"For those of you who don't know, anyone can host a game server. The multiplayer component of HL2 is Counterstrike:Source. Go and download the steam client, create a new user, and click on the "Play Games" button. You'll see at the bottom the option to download and install the dedicated server. This downloads the server and maps for online play. Fire this up, it contacts the steam authentication and listing servers, and you're all set to go. People start joining your server."
Unless the authentication server is also doing the hit detection, no, this is hardly uncrackable. Here are the basic steps:
1.) Remove authentication challenge from client.
2.) Remove authentication challenge from server.
3.) Play game.
"This is the best thing yet about Steam. There is nothing to lose. The key is electronic, I just type in my username and password, and it lets me play. I can lose all of the disks that came with the full version, and still go and download it again and type in my username and password and it'll let me play."
That's great as long:
a.) You remember your password.
b.) Nobody else uses your password.
c.) You aren't banned for life for something you didn't do.
d.) Valve is in business.
You cannot honestly tell me this is preferable to how it worked in the olden days.
"Although Steam has some warts, it is a "good thing"."
Not sold. The only fairly impressive detail you mentioned here was re-downloading the media. Question is: Is Valve providing this media, or are you saying from illegit sources? If it's the former, that is great news and make cause me to reconsider my position. If it's the latter, pfbpbpb, not an interesting benefit.
Not trying to be hard nosed Anti-Valve zealot here, but I'm just not sold.
"A) You aren't stealing physical property, you are stealing $50."
... well I don't want to be too insulting here. You're being polite and tactful and I appreciate that, but man these analogies are really rubbing me the wrong way. I'm not an advocate of piracy. Not even a pirate myself. I do feel here, though, that the sense of proportion a lot of people have on this topic is really mal-adjusted.
That's only true in certain circumstances. If somebody downloaded the game, hated it, and never played it again, nothing was lost. (they should get the demo, though. I'm not saying it's ethical.) If somebody downloaded the cracked version because they copy they bought was damaged, $50 was not stolen. I could keep going, but the basic point I'm making is that not every case is like you describe. There are a significant other that are not. Your case with the Ford example is just plain broken.
" Otherwise it would be perfectly fine to break into someones house and sleep in their bed if you didn't damage anything."
Um, no. One does not relate to the other. I agree about the dishonest part, but this reference is just
"And how, exactly, am I "hurt" by the authentication. One of the system requirements, right on the box, is an internet connection. I'm not hurt. I'm barely even inconvenienced under the worst case scenario."
Why are you the only one that matters? Why are you ignoring those trying to play on a machine that doesn't have a net connection? (Those still exist, believe it or not.) What about those who bought the game and weren't allowed to play it for a couple of days? Does this authentication system cause the price of the game to go down? Why not? If it causes more inconvenience to the legit customer for the sake of 'selling more copies', why not pass the savings on?
"C) That's life. I just got back from a week in Disneyland with my family. If I would have lost our tickets, I'm out the entire cost. No replacement under any circumstances. Same way with movie tickets and cash."
Again with the stupid analogies. Never mind that once you use those tickets and cash, they're gone. They're not meant to stay with you for as long as you'd like to own them. Never mind that the only reason those games have those codes is to prevent stealing, but they are, in effect, causing it to happen because nobody wants to pay $50 twice for a game. Never mind that pirates aren't thwarted by this method, so really the legitimate customer is who pays the price. Let's just compare this to a real world example that's really easy to shoot down and say "That's life!"
We don't entirely disagree here. I'm ok with Valve protecting themselves, but I fear that in doing so they are creating the problem they're trying to solve. This is not a good solution, and I'm not backing them up on it. As a legitimate customer, I expect to be treated better than a pirate. That is, if they want my money. I'll be steering clear of this game. Plenty of good games on my GameCube that don't require this BS.
"A) So as long as Ford sells enough cars to "be successful", they shouldn't make attempts to keep cars from being stolen off their lots or from their factories?"
Uh huh. Because software copying is EXACTLY like removal of physical property. But as long as we're going down incongruous metaphor lane, let's make take this to an even stupider level: Would it be okay for you if Ford protected their cars by causing you to have to call them and seek permission to open the door? What good does that do if somebody can still force their way in?
If you're shaking your head, fine, don't bother hitting reply on that. The metaphor was stupid to begin with. I never said it was okay for people to steal, nor was I rationalizing it. What I was saying was that it wasn't worth hurting the customer over.
"B) Of course it will be cracked. Almost everything gets cracked. But for online gaming, what percentage of those playing the original Half-Life multiplayer were doing so on pirated software? 0%. Authentication works."
Right. Ask Blizzard about BnetD and then tell me again how succesful authentication is. If Half-Life 2's authentication is bad enough (not saying it is, as I'm not afraid to admit I really have no idea.) they could get around the authentication problem by developing their own server for it. It's difficult, not all that practical, but not impossible. (There's a big question mark over my head as to whether anybody can host their own game or if it's STRICTLY being done by Valve. If you're getting the sense that I don't know much about this game, your intuition would be correct.) If you can host your own game, authentication seriously loses its effectiveness in the hands of pirates. If the servers are 100% Valve owned, then I'm willing to concede this point to practicality.
C.) Nothing about this makes it unplayable.
Yet. Most of us have a tale to tell about losing an important element of a game, like the ID#, and having to buy another copy to play it again. History's against you here.
"And on the same note, why should Valve go through 5 years of cost and trouble to design the best game ever made (my own opinion after playing it) only to have it widely stolen and pirated?"
A.) Because it won't "only" be stolen. They'll be successful regardless. The 'legitimate customer' market is actually very large.
B.) Do you really think this won't be cracked, therefore completely thrwarting their 'protection'? Legit customers get bit, pirates don't care.
C.) You don't see the similarity between this and what certain music companies did to protect their CDs, thus rendering them unplayable? That wasn't acceptable, either.
"I'd much rather have Valve protect their creation via technology than in the courts."
I'd much rather buy products that satisfy me instead of turning piracy into a more attractive alternative.
"It gives the "Blue Screen" special effect an entirely different meaning..."
MS + TV = Blue screen joke. Tee hee ha ha giggle giggle snort.
"but it'll never have the same feel that Netscape had."
Thanks for reminding me of Netscape's affectionate nickname: Nutscrape.
" if you were reading Byte Magazine you really had no idea what the hell Women were for."
I can furnish you with schematic drawings!
"It's too bad that they cannot find alternatives to lawsuits, you might find it plausable that they could perhaps offer movie's online at low-prices, and maybe even really early releases for people on the internet, and charge a price?"
Even better, allow me to return a movie if it sucks. I realize that's not going to fly too high, especially with the movie industry, but I'd be far less interested in alternative means of acquisition in either case if I didn't have to worry about being stuck with it. Right now, Netflix is looking MIGHTY tempting.
" but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
So... how does this program scan my apartment for the DVDs of those movies I own?
"I know Pixar is a favorite here on /. but I hate to break it, there are plenty of good animators out there these days so I think it depends on who writes the scripts."
To be fair, an animator's 'goodness' can be hindered by their manement and/or their environment. My point? Disney has to do better than hire good animators, they also have to manage them well. I'm not really out to contradict your point, but rather to clarify a particular detail.
"Too bad any Disney-produced Toy Story 3 won't have half the love and care that Pixar gave to their movies."
Is that really a foregone conclusion? I mean, my faith isn't exactly placed firmly in Disney here, but they do have a huge standard to live up to. If they don't, then it'll be quite clear that Pixar's where all the magic is.
Either we get a good movie, or Disney gets a black eye, can't say I'm saddened by this turn of events.
"It's a complete perversion of the original intent of the system."
Why?
a.) It encourages creative development.
b.) Those with patented ideas get rewarded.
Maybe there is some perversion going on here, but I wouldn't say complete.
"Thanks. I'll look forward to the next update on Wednesday to see if they're still banning modded Xboxes or not."
Sometimes I think the editors just want to watch us wave our pitchforks around. More ad clicks that way.
"Yes, the "windows" trademark is technically invalid becuase it is a generic term and there is loads of prior art"
Don't forget that 'Windows' is the term describing what the end user sees (i.e. a desktop metaphor), not what the developer sees. I'm not defending MS or trying to dispute your point, but I did at least want to point out that distinction. "Windows" is very much a marketing term intended to make people more comfortable with computers.
"but when was there ever a missile attack on any north american target?"
There's always a first time.
"This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system."
Though I sort of agree, I think the odds of being attacked are a.) more significant b.) easier to defend against. To put it another way, how can we shoot down asteroids if we can't shoot down missiles?