The comments in this story make me regret that the geek campaign to contrive and use a term to distinguish the difference between a programming/tweaker enthusiast and a malicious computer user.
The word "cracker", as it applies to people who break into networks, ect., just sounds dumb. It makes you think of something you dip in your chili, or a skinny white boy (which is probably an apt description of most computer "hackers" and "crackers").
I mean, the term is so silly, that half the comments to a story with a headline is like this is jokes about the use of the word "cracker."
I say you do-gooding hackers out there give up, and just share the word meaning with your script kiddie and black hat counterparts. The "cracker" word has completely failed to gain traction with non-techies, and I doubt this will ever change.
I've never heard about any hidden files or anything either. But it figures, conspiracy theorists are always suspicious of "lone nut" assassins, aren't they?
Of course the article doesn't say the files had anything directly to do with the assassination, so it could just be a straightforward murder, and the files probably relate to something else?
How about the fact that Lucas decided to name one of his characters "Count Dooku"?:^)
A fallen Jedi character, no less. Though at least his Sith name is properly menacing, "Darth Tyranus". That's probably the whole reason he turned to the Dark Side.
*Which* games, though? I spend an inordinate amount of time playing popcap games (well, I used to) and they run rather well on a Palm Pilot. No, the fact is that most games do not need these mega-ultra computers (although it certainly wouldn't hurt). The big "blockbusters" people like to talk about (Doom 3, etc) are only a small (but rather large volume) subset of the entire gaming market. Games can be great and not be 3D, you know...
All this is true, but if you are talking 2D games, then performance does become almost a non-issue, and you don't have to concern yourself with any of this.
For other types of games, however, graphics are a significant part of the overall gaming experience. Certainly not the only part, or the most important part, but they're important nonetheless. I look forward to seeing what developers can do with the more powerful hardware that's being released, as do many others. It's a huge portion of the gaming market, and one that nobody who has much to do with the technology of gaming wants to ignore entirely.
Some of my favorite games are 2D.. older NES and SNES titles, older PC games, GBA games, and iSketch. I could play all of these on the $700 machine I built my dad several months ago just fine. But I also greatly enjoy games like Halo, EverQuest and Grand Theft Auto III quite a bit, and though they could all run on my father's machine, (though none of them are cutting edge games graphically anymore), and I'd have to run them with more conservative display settings than I do on my midrange gaming PC... which isn't that great, considering the fact that these games could look even better on my PC if I didn't have to tune back some of the settings for the sake of performance.
I don't personally buy a lot of cutting edge 3D games as soon as they come out, due to the fact that I'm on a budget, and because I don't want to pay full price for a game that I'll have to play with conservative display settings. But that's fine, because eventually the bleeding edge trickles down into a manageable price point, the hardware gets cheaper, the software gets cheaper, and I get to play cooler looking games eventually.
And, on the subject of the "levels" thing, there is a lot of stuff to keep track of if you want to gauge the relative gaming power of a PC... you've got two companies producing multiple CPU models, which are clocked at different speeds... and you have two graphics cards companies essentially doing the same... plus RAM speed/size considerations, ect. Simplifying all of this for the non-enthusiastic who nonetheless enjoys 3D games would be great, but the only ways I could think of to do this would be very messy and possibly quite inaccurate (and therefore, essentially useless.)
GAMES. For what most people do with their PCS, "extra power" just isn't necessary. Five year old computers that were mid range when they were created are sufficient. They may be sluggish sometimes, but it's tolerable.
But if you're a gamer, performance is very important to the whole experience of the game. It's not like waiting for a program to load or encoding an mp3, where patience is all you need to deal with poor performance. In games, bad performance translates into poor frame rates, which can translate into an unplayable game.
Game developers will always find new ways to utilize improvements in PC performance. More detailed models and textures, more animations, better physics, better lighting and particle effects, better AI, ect.
Game developers will continue to push the envelope and as a result, hardware developers will always have a reason to do the same, and there will always be a demand for an improved product. Until the technical limitations imposed by real physics make it infeasible to continue to make significant improvements in PC performance at a price point that is affordable to most gamers.
Minimum security prisons are no picnic. I hear the trick is to kick someone's ass on your first day, or become someone's bitch. Still better than a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, though.
Whoever wrote the summary doesn't seem to have the best grasp of the English language--maybe someone from Chinese or elsewhere in Asia, who doesn't speak it as a first language.
Besides "deeded", the phrase "playing into the hands of" is used in an odd way. Usually this phrase is used in reference to someone who is unwittingly doing things that might aid someone else (possibly a rival/enemy). From the sounds of it, Google isn't an unwitting participant in this censorship at all, it's deliberate. "Playing along" would be a more apt description of they're doing.
The economy? Give me a break, most spam isn't even taxed (since it's illegal). And I don't think spammers have a powerful Washington lobby, yet, anyway.
You really think politicians really care about protecting the economic interests of a bunch of criminals who can't/won't even help them get reelected?
And, IANAL, but I don't think providing false information is always considered fraud from a legal stand point. It's legal to use a pseudonym, ect. under certain circumstances.
I don't hold any disdain for CG. I think it's done a lot of great things for films.
I just don't believe that it's going to be replacing actors in most films (non-fantasy/sci-fi) any time soon.
Maybe in 20 years or so, the hardware and software will be available to allow the filmmaker to use CG actors in normal films for close-ups and all, but we're not there yet, and won't be for a while.
There are nuances to the texture of a person's skin and hair, and the way the light reflects off them, and the subtleties in the way a person's body moves, in the details of their facial expressions, and the like, that are very difficult to convey in a CG model. There was an article on slashdot a while back that highlighted all of this... our brains are specifically wired to be sensitive to these details when looking at a fellow human being, because it's important to our ability to naturally communicate or evaluate a person's health, ect. When something looks 99% real, our minds have little trouble noticing and focusing in on that 1% that is unreal, and it can be really distracting, and, I would imagine, jarring to a person's ability to suspend disbelief.
In a movie like Sky Captain, where there is no real pretext towards realism throughout the entire movie, you can get away with that 1%, the audience has already adjusted their sensibilities, and a bit "unrealism" in the virtual actor's model and performance isn't quite so jarring. In virtually any live action movie that isn't sci-fi or fantasy, however, it just isn't going to fly until the technology improves a lot, and you have a group of skilled individuals playing puppet master.
People are only accepting of CG when it's used effectively. Bad CG work, like bad acting, sticks out like a sore thumb and does meet with disapproval from critics and fans.
Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors.
The geeks, voices actors, artists and digital puppeteers will be the new "movie stars" with huge paychecks, only without all the glamour. Though maybe this in some ways is better than an average actress with nice T&A getting paid millions, I sincerely doubt it's really going to shake the movie industry to its foundations or anything. I don't really care if celebrities act like babies, I don't have to deal with their day to day attitude... I just have to be able to watch and enjoy their performances.
Besides, I don't think human audiences will ever totally connect with an actor that isn't real. Many movies' success are greatly influenced by how recognizable the stars are. If you're a fan of a particular actor, you're probably more likely to go out and see their movies, right? Will people have this same sense of attachment and "loyalty" to CG characters, even if the same characters are used throughout different movies? I kind of doubt it.
Also, I think your 3 year estimate is a little optimistic. The most lauded, advanced CG character in a live action movie ever created, Smeagol, was still quite recognizably a CG character in many scenes, and Smeagol had many aspects of a "creature" to him, something unrecognizable that our minds can't as easily recognize as "fake" because we don't have anything to compare it to. Unobstructed, unmasked, convincing human CG characters are going to be many, many times more difficult to create than gollum was.
Plus, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were some of the most successful movies ever to heavily use CG, but just as much energy seems to have been put into finding good locations, creating elaborate and convincing physical sets, and finding the right flesh-and-blood actors.
CG is increasingly going to become a more important element of movie-making, and it may trim down costs here and there, but I think it's going to be a long time (decades, at least, probably) before we see another dramatic shift in the way CG changes movie-making. But then, I'm not in the business and I'm not really a great visionary. It would be cool to be proven wrong, but there's always the possibility that the heavy use of CG and digital effects will just create a whole new host of problems and flaws to deal with.
What made FF7 absolutely ROCK (in its day) were quality of graphics, cinematics and music, which up until that point, the likes of which had never before seen or heard in a game.
The story and character development were not that great. Cloud's backstory was too weird and convoluted, we hardly learn anything about Aeris before she dies, ect. The best moment in the story was when Red XIII learns the truth about his father.
The gameplay was good, but nothing terribly inventive. The coolest thing about it were the mini-games to offer a break from the mindless RPG cycle of slash-slash-heal.
This isn't a remake, in any event. It's a movie sequel (nice because the ending of FF7 was too ambigious) and a game sequel... I'm a bit tired of the whole Japanese console RPG thing, so I'm hoping it isn't an RPG. I prefer Final Fantasy Tactics/Tactics Ogre type games, and adventure/action RPG type games more.
Are Mastercard, Visa or American Express taken any less seriously because they can facciliate the purchase pornography? How about First Union bank?
I don't think so.
No, like the article/summary says, I think this has something to do with regulatory pressure. I really don't understand all the fuss, but I think it has something to do with the fact that PayPal isn't a bank, and thus has a different set of regulations/laws it has to abide by.
Offhand I don't see why PayPal should be restricted in this manner, and why they should feel compelled to levy these fines, but IANAL or anything.
Yeah, but really, what's the point in devoting massive resources to content that essentially can only be played through once, by only one person/group/guild, per server?
That may work in a more intimately sized game, like a MUD, but when you're designing a game to be massively multiplayer, you can't afford to squander significant resources on one-shot quests/events that are only going to be enjoyed by a handful of players.
In current MMOs, you have powergamers, uber guilds, as well as more casual players, sure, but one powergamer accomplishing a certain task does not prevent others from enjoying the challenge of accomplishing that same task. Same goes for casual gamers. Though being just one of thousands of players who has slain a certain dragon or saved a specific damsel in distress for the thousandth time doesn't quite match the feeling of satisfaction you would get from being the first and only person to do so, being able to play through that experience is worth something. Maybe hearing about some other player having done those heroic deeds isn't worth a damn... if I wanted to be a spectator, I'd read a book or watch a movie.
Really, I'm not sure having a player-influenced storyline is possible/practical in a MMORPG, as nice as that would be. The best you can really do is make the content as accessible as possible and making a world flexible enough that a player or group of players can entertain themselves and make their own story.
Give players the tools to create missions/tasks/quests/events for other players. Allow players to compete over finite resources (doesn't have to involve direct PvP, but it can) in ways that may alter the "landscape" of the game world. Maybe occasionally run events or put in quests that are of a "one shot" variety that give a player or group of players a way to dramatically change the game world at least temporarily, but only to add a bit more spice and variety... the lion's share of development resources would have to be invested in expanding the avenues players have available to amuse themselves/each other. That's really the only way I can see a storyline that is meaningful to individual players in a massively multiplayer game happening, and it wouldn't be easy.
Some would argue that it simply isn't possible, because it counts on players having the initiative to "role-play" a persona in the first place, and it's well known that the quality/quantity of roleplaying is inversely proportionate to the number of players in the community. The game designers would have to find some way of encouraging smaller, discrete subcommunities to form, while at the same time allowing/encouraging those subcommunities to interact with other subcommunities. Compelling/fun gameplay would be a necessity, as well as a constant balancing act to ensure that the rewards for participating in a community are worth it. The game world would have to be immersive... the graphics, music/sound and game lore would have to be of high quality, and mesh believably with the gameplay.
I can think of a few ways this could be effectively done in a Star Trek game, without having players design uniforms or make first contact with the Cardassians, but it would still be pretty to balance it all, and to keep it from becoming too stale.
Well, from what I've read, part of the reason Google is so successful is because they've had a lot of smart people contribute good ideas that have allowed them to thrive. Part of the way they attract and keep these smart people is to let them entertain and challenge themselves by working on personal projects, do research, ect. and release the results to the general public.
This just sounds like it's an extension of that philosophy. Some of the smart people who have worked on Google code know their code probably isn't necessarily going to do them damage in the hands of their competitors, and would like for that code to be shared with the world, for, I guess what you would call their "academic merits".
So it seems to me that Google is going on this recruitment tour, demonstrating how, unlike many companies, by working at Google, your labors aren't all going to be locked in a secret vault never to be shared with the world. Knowing that this appeals to some smart/talented people, Google's "charity" seems rather pragmatic.
Is it really necessary? I wouldn't complain, of course, but most of what I used the Google toolbar for with Internet Explorer is done by Mozilla and Firefox already.
Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?
Because when they did that with web browsers, they got slapped with antitrust lawsuits?
Nobody is going to be "required" to purchase Microsoft's AntiVirus product. Nortan AntiVirus will continue to exist and it's what many people will continue to remain comfortable using. Microsoft's poor track record of dozens upon dozens of critical vulnerabilities in their OS and other software isn't going to make them the first company people think to go to for an antivirus solution... especially while Symantec has been making a name for itself as a legitimate security/antivirus company for years. Meanwhile, free antivirus software exists out there (for home users at least), including
On top of that, since Microsoft is not bundling the AV software as a part of the OS, so it's not going to be free. It's hard to compete against free, and there are a free ways that home users have to protect themselves against malicious code (Grisoft AVG, AntiVir Personal Edition, as well as free online options, like Panda ActiveScan and Trend Micro's Housecall).
So Microsoft has to compete against both an established anti-virus/system utility software company which many people are already using, as well as several viable free alternatives. No doubt Microsoft will have some success, but while these alternatives exist (and I suspect at least some of them will continue to exist for a long while), I don't quite see how you can call it extortion.
I think case-modding is interesting, but 99% of case mods, to me, just look lame... I'd rather have a beige box. This one is no different. I don't really care for the whole "look at all the junk inside my computer" look. To me it's cheesy and retro, like a transparent telephone from the 80's. The fact that this guy's case is stuffed with all manner of cables doesn't impress me... you can't even see (what to me) is the coolest part, which is the circuitry. Perhaps I'm just not enough of a case-modding guru to recognize the genius of this work.
I don't own a Mac, but I really like the styling of Macintosh computers. They have a cool, clean, modern, almost organic look to them. It's clear they have been professionally designed to have an appealing aesthetic. Case-mods, for the most part, are done by hobbyists/amateurs, and they look like it, too.
Not to take anything away from this guy. He's obviously skilled. To me, though, it's just kind of ugly.:\
... but I should add that I was on the MythTV discussion mailing list for a while, and as others have pointed out, setting up one of these things is not a walk in the park. A lot of people seem to have various problems, some of them fairly serious. This is probably inevitable when you think about all the different hardware and software configurations people are using for their HTPC. A lot of people get their HTPCs to work just dandy though. So MythTV would seem less mature if you're going to take possible snafus into consideration.
Looking at MythTV's feature list, it certainly seems to me that a Linux PVR can be more feature-rich than a commercial PVR.
MythTV seems to have all of the standard PVR bases covered, and have a few nice little cherries on top, like a skinnable interface, and a front end for Atari, NES and SNES emulators.
Plus there's the fact that your HTPC is an actual PC and can do, even if you aren't inclined to use it much that way. So in terms of software it's a lot more flexible. Also in terms of hardware... one of the things I like about having a HTPC is that you can put a DVD burner in it, or connect a wireless adapter, ect., stuff that I doubt is as easy to do on a TiVo, or if you can do it on a TiVo, I bet you have to pay a premium for it.
I'm pondering building one of them myself, haven't yet taken the plunge though. My shopping list consists of:
VIA Epia MII-10000 motherboard
Morex Venus 669 (or 668) case + power supply
256 mb DDR266 RAM
Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-250
120 GB hard drive
NEC 8X DVD+RW/-RW drive
PCMCIA 802.11g adapter
A serial interface cable for my DirecTV receiver
and a Radio Shack universal remote
Last time I checked prices and did the tallying, the total price came to $740-$800, including shipping. Quite a bit more expensive than a TiVo, but also more powerful, and without subscription fees. Seems like a nice deal to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "cracker", as it applies to people who break into networks, ect., just sounds dumb. It makes you think of something you dip in your chili, or a skinny white boy (which is probably an apt description of most computer "hackers" and "crackers").
I mean, the term is so silly, that half the comments to a story with a headline is like this is jokes about the use of the word "cracker."
I say you do-gooding hackers out there give up, and just share the word meaning with your script kiddie and black hat counterparts. The "cracker" word has completely failed to gain traction with non-techies, and I doubt this will ever change.
Of course the article doesn't say the files had anything directly to do with the assassination, so it could just be a straightforward murder, and the files probably relate to something else?
A fallen Jedi character, no less. Though at least his Sith name is properly menacing, "Darth Tyranus". That's probably the whole reason he turned to the Dark Side.
Haha, chump! I got to see the magnificent landscapes by clicking that link, and I didn't have to move one foot!
All this is true, but if you are talking 2D games, then performance does become almost a non-issue, and you don't have to concern yourself with any of this.
For other types of games, however, graphics are a significant part of the overall gaming experience. Certainly not the only part, or the most important part, but they're important nonetheless. I look forward to seeing what developers can do with the more powerful hardware that's being released, as do many others. It's a huge portion of the gaming market, and one that nobody who has much to do with the technology of gaming wants to ignore entirely.
Some of my favorite games are 2D.. older NES and SNES titles, older PC games, GBA games, and iSketch. I could play all of these on the $700 machine I built my dad several months ago just fine. But I also greatly enjoy games like Halo, EverQuest and Grand Theft Auto III quite a bit, and though they could all run on my father's machine, (though none of them are cutting edge games graphically anymore), and I'd have to run them with more conservative display settings than I do on my midrange gaming PC... which isn't that great, considering the fact that these games could look even better on my PC if I didn't have to tune back some of the settings for the sake of performance.
I don't personally buy a lot of cutting edge 3D games as soon as they come out, due to the fact that I'm on a budget, and because I don't want to pay full price for a game that I'll have to play with conservative display settings. But that's fine, because eventually the bleeding edge trickles down into a manageable price point, the hardware gets cheaper, the software gets cheaper, and I get to play cooler looking games eventually.
And, on the subject of the "levels" thing, there is a lot of stuff to keep track of if you want to gauge the relative gaming power of a PC... you've got two companies producing multiple CPU models, which are clocked at different speeds... and you have two graphics cards companies essentially doing the same... plus RAM speed/size considerations, ect. Simplifying all of this for the non-enthusiastic who nonetheless enjoys 3D games would be great, but the only ways I could think of to do this would be very messy and possibly quite inaccurate (and therefore, essentially useless.)
GAMES. For what most people do with their PCS, "extra power" just isn't necessary. Five year old computers that were mid range when they were created are sufficient. They may be sluggish sometimes, but it's tolerable.
But if you're a gamer, performance is very important to the whole experience of the game. It's not like waiting for a program to load or encoding an mp3, where patience is all you need to deal with poor performance. In games, bad performance translates into poor frame rates, which can translate into an unplayable game.
Game developers will always find new ways to utilize improvements in PC performance. More detailed models and textures, more animations, better physics, better lighting and particle effects, better AI, ect.
Game developers will continue to push the envelope and as a result, hardware developers will always have a reason to do the same, and there will always be a demand for an improved product. Until the technical limitations imposed by real physics make it infeasible to continue to make significant improvements in PC performance at a price point that is affordable to most gamers.
Minimum security prisons are no picnic. I hear the trick is to kick someone's ass on your first day, or become someone's bitch. Still better than a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, though.
Or maybe they just made a typo. ;)
Besides "deeded", the phrase "playing into the hands of" is used in an odd way. Usually this phrase is used in reference to someone who is unwittingly doing things that might aid someone else (possibly a rival/enemy). From the sounds of it, Google isn't an unwitting participant in this censorship at all, it's deliberate. "Playing along" would be a more apt description of they're doing.
You really think politicians really care about protecting the economic interests of a bunch of criminals who can't/won't even help them get reelected?
And, IANAL, but I don't think providing false information is always considered fraud from a legal stand point. It's legal to use a pseudonym, ect. under certain circumstances.
I just don't believe that it's going to be replacing actors in most films (non-fantasy/sci-fi) any time soon.
Maybe in 20 years or so, the hardware and software will be available to allow the filmmaker to use CG actors in normal films for close-ups and all, but we're not there yet, and won't be for a while.
There are nuances to the texture of a person's skin and hair, and the way the light reflects off them, and the subtleties in the way a person's body moves, in the details of their facial expressions, and the like, that are very difficult to convey in a CG model. There was an article on slashdot a while back that highlighted all of this... our brains are specifically wired to be sensitive to these details when looking at a fellow human being, because it's important to our ability to naturally communicate or evaluate a person's health, ect. When something looks 99% real, our minds have little trouble noticing and focusing in on that 1% that is unreal, and it can be really distracting, and, I would imagine, jarring to a person's ability to suspend disbelief.
In a movie like Sky Captain, where there is no real pretext towards realism throughout the entire movie, you can get away with that 1%, the audience has already adjusted their sensibilities, and a bit "unrealism" in the virtual actor's model and performance isn't quite so jarring. In virtually any live action movie that isn't sci-fi or fantasy, however, it just isn't going to fly until the technology improves a lot, and you have a group of skilled individuals playing puppet master.
Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors.
The geeks, voices actors, artists and digital puppeteers will be the new "movie stars" with huge paychecks, only without all the glamour. Though maybe this in some ways is better than an average actress with nice T&A getting paid millions, I sincerely doubt it's really going to shake the movie industry to its foundations or anything. I don't really care if celebrities act like babies, I don't have to deal with their day to day attitude... I just have to be able to watch and enjoy their performances.
Besides, I don't think human audiences will ever totally connect with an actor that isn't real. Many movies' success are greatly influenced by how recognizable the stars are. If you're a fan of a particular actor, you're probably more likely to go out and see their movies, right? Will people have this same sense of attachment and "loyalty" to CG characters, even if the same characters are used throughout different movies? I kind of doubt it.
Also, I think your 3 year estimate is a little optimistic. The most lauded, advanced CG character in a live action movie ever created, Smeagol, was still quite recognizably a CG character in many scenes, and Smeagol had many aspects of a "creature" to him, something unrecognizable that our minds can't as easily recognize as "fake" because we don't have anything to compare it to. Unobstructed, unmasked, convincing human CG characters are going to be many, many times more difficult to create than gollum was.
Plus, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were some of the most successful movies ever to heavily use CG, but just as much energy seems to have been put into finding good locations, creating elaborate and convincing physical sets, and finding the right flesh-and-blood actors.
CG is increasingly going to become a more important element of movie-making, and it may trim down costs here and there, but I think it's going to be a long time (decades, at least, probably) before we see another dramatic shift in the way CG changes movie-making. But then, I'm not in the business and I'm not really a great visionary. It would be cool to be proven wrong, but there's always the possibility that the heavy use of CG and digital effects will just create a whole new host of problems and flaws to deal with.
The story and character development were not that great. Cloud's backstory was too weird and convoluted, we hardly learn anything about Aeris before she dies, ect. The best moment in the story was when Red XIII learns the truth about his father.
The gameplay was good, but nothing terribly inventive. The coolest thing about it were the mini-games to offer a break from the mindless RPG cycle of slash-slash-heal.
This isn't a remake, in any event. It's a movie sequel (nice because the ending of FF7 was too ambigious) and a game sequel... I'm a bit tired of the whole Japanese console RPG thing, so I'm hoping it isn't an RPG. I prefer Final Fantasy Tactics/Tactics Ogre type games, and adventure/action RPG type games more.
I doubt you'll see any change, as the article mentions that the price fixing was limited to certain OEMs between 1999 to 2002.
I don't think so.
No, like the article/summary says, I think this has something to do with regulatory pressure. I really don't understand all the fuss, but I think it has something to do with the fact that PayPal isn't a bank, and thus has a different set of regulations/laws it has to abide by.
Offhand I don't see why PayPal should be restricted in this manner, and why they should feel compelled to levy these fines, but IANAL or anything.
Yeah, but really, what's the point in devoting massive resources to content that essentially can only be played through once, by only one person/group/guild, per server?
That may work in a more intimately sized game, like a MUD, but when you're designing a game to be massively multiplayer, you can't afford to squander significant resources on one-shot quests/events that are only going to be enjoyed by a handful of players.
In current MMOs, you have powergamers, uber guilds, as well as more casual players, sure, but one powergamer accomplishing a certain task does not prevent others from enjoying the challenge of accomplishing that same task. Same goes for casual gamers. Though being just one of thousands of players who has slain a certain dragon or saved a specific damsel in distress for the thousandth time doesn't quite match the feeling of satisfaction you would get from being the first and only person to do so, being able to play through that experience is worth something. Maybe hearing about some other player having done those heroic deeds isn't worth a damn... if I wanted to be a spectator, I'd read a book or watch a movie.
Really, I'm not sure having a player-influenced storyline is possible/practical in a MMORPG, as nice as that would be. The best you can really do is make the content as accessible as possible and making a world flexible enough that a player or group of players can entertain themselves and make their own story.
Give players the tools to create missions/tasks/quests/events for other players. Allow players to compete over finite resources (doesn't have to involve direct PvP, but it can) in ways that may alter the "landscape" of the game world. Maybe occasionally run events or put in quests that are of a "one shot" variety that give a player or group of players a way to dramatically change the game world at least temporarily, but only to add a bit more spice and variety... the lion's share of development resources would have to be invested in expanding the avenues players have available to amuse themselves/each other. That's really the only way I can see a storyline that is meaningful to individual players in a massively multiplayer game happening, and it wouldn't be easy.
Some would argue that it simply isn't possible, because it counts on players having the initiative to "role-play" a persona in the first place, and it's well known that the quality/quantity of roleplaying is inversely proportionate to the number of players in the community. The game designers would have to find some way of encouraging smaller, discrete subcommunities to form, while at the same time allowing/encouraging those subcommunities to interact with other subcommunities. Compelling/fun gameplay would be a necessity, as well as a constant balancing act to ensure that the rewards for participating in a community are worth it. The game world would have to be immersive... the graphics, music/sound and game lore would have to be of high quality, and mesh believably with the gameplay.
I can think of a few ways this could be effectively done in a Star Trek game, without having players design uniforms or make first contact with the Cardassians, but it would still be pretty to balance it all, and to keep it from becoming too stale.
It's probably already patented.
In order to detect planets in other solar systems, they'd have to be huge, like gas giants. So it's safe to say they quality as planets.
This just sounds like it's an extension of that philosophy. Some of the smart people who have worked on Google code know their code probably isn't necessarily going to do them damage in the hands of their competitors, and would like for that code to be shared with the world, for, I guess what you would call their "academic merits".
So it seems to me that Google is going on this recruitment tour, demonstrating how, unlike many companies, by working at Google, your labors aren't all going to be locked in a secret vault never to be shared with the world. Knowing that this appeals to some smart/talented people, Google's "charity" seems rather pragmatic.
By aiming very carefully.
Is it really necessary? I wouldn't complain, of course, but most of what I used the Google toolbar for with Internet Explorer is done by Mozilla and Firefox already.
Because when they did that with web browsers, they got slapped with antitrust lawsuits?
Nobody is going to be "required" to purchase Microsoft's AntiVirus product. Nortan AntiVirus will continue to exist and it's what many people will continue to remain comfortable using. Microsoft's poor track record of dozens upon dozens of critical vulnerabilities in their OS and other software isn't going to make them the first company people think to go to for an antivirus solution... especially while Symantec has been making a name for itself as a legitimate security/antivirus company for years. Meanwhile, free antivirus software exists out there (for home users at least), including
On top of that, since Microsoft is not bundling the AV software as a part of the OS, so it's not going to be free. It's hard to compete against free, and there are a free ways that home users have to protect themselves against malicious code (Grisoft AVG, AntiVir Personal Edition, as well as free online options, like Panda ActiveScan and Trend Micro's Housecall).
So Microsoft has to compete against both an established anti-virus/system utility software company which many people are already using, as well as several viable free alternatives. No doubt Microsoft will have some success, but while these alternatives exist (and I suspect at least some of them will continue to exist for a long while), I don't quite see how you can call it extortion.
I don't own a Mac, but I really like the styling of Macintosh computers. They have a cool, clean, modern, almost organic look to them. It's clear they have been professionally designed to have an appealing aesthetic. Case-mods, for the most part, are done by hobbyists/amateurs, and they look like it, too.
Not to take anything away from this guy. He's obviously skilled. To me, though, it's just kind of ugly. :\
... but I should add that I was on the MythTV discussion mailing list for a while, and as others have pointed out, setting up one of these things is not a walk in the park. A lot of people seem to have various problems, some of them fairly serious. This is probably inevitable when you think about all the different hardware and software configurations people are using for their HTPC. A lot of people get their HTPCs to work just dandy though. So MythTV would seem less mature if you're going to take possible snafus into consideration.
MythTV seems to have all of the standard PVR bases covered, and have a few nice little cherries on top, like a skinnable interface, and a front end for Atari, NES and SNES emulators.
Plus there's the fact that your HTPC is an actual PC and can do, even if you aren't inclined to use it much that way. So in terms of software it's a lot more flexible. Also in terms of hardware... one of the things I like about having a HTPC is that you can put a DVD burner in it, or connect a wireless adapter, ect., stuff that I doubt is as easy to do on a TiVo, or if you can do it on a TiVo, I bet you have to pay a premium for it.
I'm pondering building one of them myself, haven't yet taken the plunge though. My shopping list consists of:
VIA Epia MII-10000 motherboard
Morex Venus 669 (or 668) case + power supply
256 mb DDR266 RAM
Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-250
120 GB hard drive
NEC 8X DVD+RW/-RW drive
PCMCIA 802.11g adapter
A serial interface cable for my DirecTV receiver
and a Radio Shack universal remote
Last time I checked prices and did the tallying, the total price came to $740-$800, including shipping. Quite a bit more expensive than a TiVo, but also more powerful, and without subscription fees. Seems like a nice deal to me.