If you RTFM, you'll find this service is being offered as an alternative to DSL/cable for those areas that still don't have it available... not as a broadband mobile solution. Since the way it's described you need a book-sized antenna to access the Internet, it doesn't seem viable as a mobile option. If it is a viable mobile option, however, you could always just have it replace your existing DSL/cable service, and kill two birds with one stone, making it an outstanding value.
I access the Internet using fixed wireless, and the prices this guy is planning on offering are outstanding compared to my ISP. Here in Trenton, FL they charge (I believe) $45/month for 128 kbps up/down and $80 for 386 up/down. Unfortunately it is the only broadband option that can reach my home.
From reading the article, it sounds like you can get access to the Internet from up to 20 miles away from his antennas using this service. I'm sure that will cover some fairly large rural areas or areas that as of yet still are unserviced by DSL and cable.
Copy protection is inherently breakable if you allow the person to play the music back. The same is not true for watermarking, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to go this direction in the long run.
Watermarking is what I thought when I read this article too, but even that would be breakable, wouldn't it? It would just require an enterprising hacker to find the watermark and edit/rub it out, the equivalent of scratching off the serial numbers.
Of course, that's not quite "inherantly breakable" but still breakable.
I also think it's going to be a pretty long time before you can't buy the RIAA's music with cash. And besides that, it's not as if identify theft never happens. It would just require one person to "steal" the music once to get a copy that from a purely tech standpoint would be extremely difficult to trace back to the original culprit.
If they go to extremes, sure they can introduce some significant obstacles to people trying to infringe on their copyrights (and take advantage of fair use rights). However, even then they will be circumvented, because the fact still remains, you only need one "broken" copy. Once produced and released into the wild, there's nothing the RIAA can do but resort to the same old whack-a-mole litigation tactics.
Hardly. First of all, it's virtually impossible to create a functioning P2P network that offers true anonymity. My understanding is that even Freenet is not truly anonymous (it just offers a few layers of anonymity that could be peeled away if you're determined enough?), and it's also my understanding that Freenet's usability is not up to most peoples' standards (aka, "useless".)
Second, it's not as if everyone who shares music infringing on the RIAA's copyrights gets a lawsuit brought on them. As a percentage, very few do. So if you're willing to accept the risk of the small chance that the RIAA does pick you to sue, then it's not useless.
Third, there's a lot of stuff you can share on these networks besides material copyrighted by members of the RIAA/MPAA, including a tons of infringing and non-infringing stuff.
My P2P client of choice at present is eMule, which doesn't offer a shred of anonymity. I'm not particularly worried about the RIAA and MPAA because I don't download the MPAA's movies and download/share very little of the RIAA's music (mostly older, rarer songs, b-sides and the like... stuff I highly doubt turns up in their searches to catch people for sharing). I share/download a little software via P2P. The bulk of what I download are TV shows (Firefly and Farscape specifically, lately). So, despite eMule's total lack of anonymity, I have to say I find it very useful.
But the "venue" in this case are publicly owned airwaves, are they not? In essence, nobody owns them.
The question is, how much of the spectrum should remain open to the public and how much of the spectrum should be allocated to licensees, and how much interference (if any) on licensed airwaves is permissable and is it practical to allow portions of the spectrum remain unlicensed?
Most of their analogies seem relavent. Yeah, you may not be able to shout over/interupt a candidate (which would essentially be the equivalent of attempting to use the same part of the spectrum that the candidate is "shouting" over), but you are, generally speaking, allowed to speak in softer tones to those in your immediate vicinity (referred to as "whispering" in the cartoons).
If it is true that advances in technology allow radio signals to more intelligently distinguish and filter out different signals from different sources, perhaps instead of licensing the entire spectrum (or letting a lot of the spectrum go to waste), they should simply mandate that devices have the technology to "intelligently" distinguish and filter signals.
I'm not an expert, but is it possible he was telling the truth, even if not using the most technically correct terminology? Tech support will sometimes dumb things down a bit so they don't unnecessarily confuse less knowledgeable customers.
It certainly seems that certain kinds of weather can interfere with my satellite TV signal, so I'm sure it could affect your signal just the same.
Also, it's possible that the invisible weather phenomenom he spoke of was a sunstorm. They do happen and they do affect satellite communications.
You have my sympathies in any case, I'm not at all impressed by anything I've heard about satellite Internet. I'm just glad I was able to get connected with a local WISP (high setup costs like satellite, but without the rest of the lameness for the most part, it seems).
Sometimes you have to pinch the cable tightly at one end and move your grip down the length of the cable to the other end to make sure you squeeze all of the data out of it.
The myth that the 3 Gs and PPLQ make a game a commercial success is perpetuated by the mistaken notion that all gamers are sexually frustrated teenage boys.
My sister owns the Sims (the only game she owns), but I wouldn't call her a "gamer". The "gamer" demographic is changing, but it is still very young and very male, on the whole.
The commericially successful PC games you cite are games which happen to crack the market of the mainstream, normally non-gaming masses. They aren't first person shooters... they're sims, franchised games from other mediums, or puzzle games, for the most part.
One minor quibble: I think one of the G's (graphics) accounts for a lot of Myst's popularity.
But if you're making a first person shooter, RPG, action platformer, or something along those lines, you're targeting a more specific audience. If you're making a game like that, I think the 3 G's do certainly help your odds of a game selling well. Certainly it's not the only factor, but nor do I think it's a "myth", either.
Though some of his ideas sound cool, I have a few questions/doubts about it:
1) How would it be different from Windows? If it's just a set of standards, protocals, and software that can run on a ton of different types of hardware, how exactly is it different from Windows, or Linux? Is the console release cycle replaced by incremental PC-style upgrades? If so, I'd have to mark that has a huge disadvantage. I do not want to have to upgrade my console system. I don't particularly that every 2-5 years I drop another $150-200 on a new console and peripherals, if I don't have to spend $500 and build an entire machine every several years. The beauty of console systems is that they Just Work, no having to check "system requirements", no driver conflicts, ect. Far from creating a "standard" for developers to follow to improve game stability, ect., they now are encouraged to write code that may run on multiple platforms.
2. Do we really need to play Halo on a cellphone, hand-held game console, PDA and refridgerator? For some games I could imagine that having some functionality/interaction with the actual game would be nice, but I would fear this would become a serious distraction to developers who often seem to have a difficult time just creating a single stable, fun game. Even with a set of "standards" being introduced, it's more work for the developer to build the kitchen sink into their game. I question how many gamers would actually have the time and inclination to take advantage most of these features... is it going to increase sales of games that much? I fear it could eat into developer resources that should be spent creating a good game. It shouldn't be that hard to develop a good game for a three different platforms as long as each of those platforms don't vary in terms of hardware or software configuration at all (as is currently the case.)
3. Do we really trust Microsoft to do a good job? Microsoft has a poor track record for producing stable and secure products. Though I've been skeptical of the idea of trojans, ect. that spread through gaming consoles up until now, I would not be surprised if in several years we saw a worm reap havoc because too many people didn't run "XFS Update" often enough.
4. Is this legal? Microsoft is a monopoly. DirectX is a part of Windows, which is essentially the subject of their monopoly. Outright admitting that they are attempting to dominate the market with a standard that they own, and using their existing "clout" with DirectX, ect. seems to me to raise a few red flags. What I find ironic is the guy talks about the consumers not having a choice--since when has that ever been a concern of Microsoft's? And I do think I have a coice. For console systems, I can choose a GameCube, or a PlayStation 2, or an X-Box. On any of those systems I can choose from a multitude of games from a multitude of developers. Or I can choose to game on a PC (which I can build myself or buy from any number of OEMs), running Windows or Linux. Or I can choose to game on a Mac. Is this not choice? If a substantial number of these options were replaced by XNS, just how is my choice broadened? I do not understand.
Not really trying to be a Microsoft basher, but I'd be expressing some serious doubts even if it were Nintendo (and I'm something of a fanboy) proposed something like this. The fact that it's Microsoft makes me even more skeptical.
There are several good Star Wars games. The best one I've played personally is Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II.
Tron was a pretty good video game for its time, and I believe the new Tron video game got good reviews. If that counts... a movie based on a fictional video game that subsequently became real video game.
007: Goldeneye was one of the most highly acclaimed games for the Nintendo 64.
Ect. I think there's been more decent/great games based off movies than vice versa, easily. As a general rule though, both suck.
Right. We've got an antenna (don't know all the specs) on our rooftop and it can only receive a small handful of channels, and rather poorly at that.
I just got wireless broadband installed, and though at times it's very nice compared to dialup, it still leaves something to be desired. When they first installed it, they gave us uncapped bandwidth and I was getting speeds of 1.2 Mbps downstream and 760 KBps upstream with no problem. They gave us that because we didn't build our tower quite tall enough and the signal wasn't as strong as it was supposed to be. Since then they've capped is down at about 380/380 up/down, and at first we were getting those speeds, but since it's been a little unreliable... for a few days, most of the time I was getting sub-dialup speeds. I think it might have been the weather, combined with the fact that the signal has to bust through some leaves.
In any event, we paid a lot of mount to erect this tower, and get this installed, so to me, anything that the FCC might do that will strengthen the signal and free up more bandwidth is heartily welcomed by me. Broadcast TV in my area is virtually worthless already due to lack of channels and poor reception, I might as well benefit from anything that promises better and more reliable broadband access.
I'm not an expert, but I understand it like this. TV signals are one-way because that's the way they're being broadcast. There is nothing preventing the spectrum that TV signals are broadcast to be used for other things (other than government regulations).
So this just means that a certain amount of spectrum that is allocated to broadcast TV right now would be opened up to allow it to be used for other types of broadcast, including wi-fi.
As for broadband wireless ISPs, what they do is equip you a fairly powerful line of sight antenna (looks like a satellite dish) and point it at their antenna so you can both receive and broadcast data.
Re:I don't understand the Army's interest in this
on
E3 Wrapup Documented
·
· Score: 1
A lot of gamers are like the comic store guy, and, I agree, probably not Army material at all. On the other hand, teenagers are gamers too. A lot of them may be brats, but they're young, and (to some degree, at least), they can be molded/programmed/trained/ect. into better material for the Army.
The fact that gamers will tend to be at least somewhat comfortable with technology doesn't hurt either. Plus gaming requires coordination, reflexes, teamwork, strategy, ect. qualities that I imagine are useful in battle. Of course casually played games like America's Army aren't useful as training tools in and of themselves, but I don't imagine they hurt either.
The parent makes a good point about how getting killed repeatedly in a video game that's supposed to simulate the Army experience perhaps not necessarily being the best recruitment tool.
Still, I'm not sure your average gamer gives it much thought. On the other hand, it's a nifty piece of propaganda. As a player improves in skill and has more and more success in the game, passing tests, winning exercises, winning medals(?), advancing in rank(?) (I'm not sure the last two actually happen in America's Army, I didn't play it for very long), you feel a sense of satisfaction, as you would in any game, but when you're playing AA, you are being constantly reminded that the Army that the game is simulating is real. You could do all of that stuff in real life, and of course, the feeling of accomplishment would be much greater, plus they get to work in the patriotism angle, ect. The same angles they work in their television advertisements, but in game form it may be even more compelling.
Another thing I wonder is if there are any kids out there who have spent so much time playing America's Army that they started doing poorly in school and as a result, their options coming out of High School seemed bleak, and decided to enlist in the armed forces as a result. I wouldn't be surprised. Not that I necessarily think this is intention, but it's kind of interesting to contemplate nonetheless.
In my area I can't receive any PBS stations with my antenna. If I want to watch programming that airs on PBS, I have to download it... using my wireless broadband Internet connection.
Yep, I read that Gizmodo comments the guy had for the device, and he misses the whole point. Nobody needs to develop any games for the system, the games are already there... thousands of Windows/DOS games and thousands of console, arcade and hand-held games.
Of course, they are likely going to have to fight off some litigation...
But after downloading the VisualBoy Advance, and a couple roms... as far as I can tell, GBA emulation has pretty much been perfected. I'm not sure what kind of processing power you need to emulate a GBA, but I suspect not very much.
Of course, the current model for the device is pretty ugly, and I'm skeptical, but the idea has some promise.
The thing is, they're going to have to profit off hardware sales, because I doubt there are going to be many developers paying a decent licensing fee to develop games specifically for the system. And with a built in hard drive along with everything else, I can't see the system being too inexpensive.
My next handheld (first since the original GameBoy) will be a GBADB, I think.
I thought of Google too, but yeah since their network isn't built for sheer computational speed, I doubt it's anywhere near the fastest/most powerful system for many processing tasks.
The NSA, on the other hand... I would guess that they have the most powerful cluster of machines in the world for breaking encryption. Though perhaps not as powerful as the article's supercomputer for other tasks.
Plus there are undoubtedly several other highly classified supercomputers designed to chew on other problems.
So it would seem that you'd have to caveat any claim of regarding the "fastest computer" by saying it's the fastest known, non-secret computer. But then the headline loses some of its appeal.
Right. Unless it's a blatent fraud (the manufacturer/salesman is trying to trick the buyer into thinking they are buying a genuine Jaguar), I don't see anything wrong with it. That's why we're able to have immitation designer clothes [which to my knowledge] are completely legal.
It is the same as the other two, for the most part.
I haven't played Majora's Mask, but I've completed the Ocarina of Time and the Wind Waker. The core gameplay, for the most part, is the same. The biggest difference is cosmetic, and the changes in gameplay were rather minor (which isn't a bad thing... the Ocarina of Time was a genuinely fun game, and there haven't been very many similar games that have come close to the same level of quality). They improved the "battle engine" a bit by giving Link a few more moves, and they added a little novelty to traveling the overworld with the sailing theme, but it's still the same basic game... same lock-on targeting, many of the same or similar moves, many similar or identical weapons, many of the same kinds of monsters, ect. Dungeon design also follows pretty much the same patterns as before, also, with a number of overworld side-quests (same as before also).
I personally enjoyed the Ocarina of Time more, partially probably due to the fact that before the Ocarina of Time, I'd never played a game like it before (I don't think one truly existed). The Wind Waker, in terms of gameplay, wasn't a huge leap forward... it did improve on its predecessor in a few ways (graphics, better battle engine), however it also took a few steps back (instead of having seven great dungeons to collect seven mystical artifacts, you have to do somewhat hum-drum and at times boring overworld side-quests.)
I hope they take their time with the next Zelda and go back to having ten quality dungeons (plus mini-dungeons and overworld quests), as was the case in Link to the Past and the Ocarina of Time.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the past I've read articles and seen things on TV about how people who live near a registered sex offender have to be notified, and also their photos are put on web sites, ect.
So far, I think the single most compelling reason to get a GameCube is Metroid Prime. That game is just incredible. I wasn't a huge fan of previous Metroid titles, but Metroid Prime is just fantastic. It has puzzle-solving and exploration elements similar to a Zelda game, but obviously has a sci-fi rather than fantasy setting, an is played (mostly) in the 1st person perspective.
A previous poster linked the movie for the new Metroid Prime... it doesn't look like much of a departure from the other GameCube Metroid, which in my opinion is probably a good thing. I can't think of too many ways they could improve on Metroid Prime.
I agree. I loved the appearance and feel of the Wind Waker, but the fact that a lot of the in the game was spent dredging up junk from the bottom of the sea on the overworld (as opposed to exploring, fighting in, and solving puzzles in dungeons) was disappointing.
The graphics for the new Zelda look fantastic, though the animation appears to be a significant step down from the Wind Waker... at least for now. They may polish things up between now and the release date.
When I read the summary, I thought "10 tons of TNT... kind of weak". Because really it is, compared to nukes. I browsed the article, so for those who didn't bother to RTFA, the contraversy here is not that the stuff is so powerful, but that it is a lot more powerful than conventional explosives but not as powerful as nuclear weapons... so they don't fall under the domain of most non-proliferation treaties.
On a side note, this kind of makes the terrorist thing a moot point. I mean, I have to think it'd be very tricky to make a weapon out of these things, since there is so much debate on whether or not it's even possible to unlock the energy (hence the "Cold Fusion" reference). If it's a more difficult to weaponize this stuff than uranium and plutonium, as well as having less destructive power, I doubt we'll see any terrorists using this kind of thing as a weapon for a long, long time.
I'm not particularly worried. Seems we've already let a much more horrible genie out of the bottle.
Weapons are legal, though (with some caveats). Willfully writing and spreading malicious software is already something that's been established as being against the law.
An earlier poster gave a good legal explanation as to why the worm author wouldn't/shouldn't be charged with murder or manslaughter for his crime, but there are plenty of other laws under which he could be tried for (some perhaps directly resulting from any lost lives during the outage..? Even if not, I would imagine that any lost lives might be taken into consideration when deciding a sentence after they've been found guilty). Though the article says nothing about anybody dying as a result of this outage, and my assumption would be that nobody did die as a result, so outside of the hypothethical realm, it's a moot point.
The virus writer should take the brunt of the responsibility, in any event, followed by whoever is/was responsible for maintaining the network. If there's a patch available for a major security flaw in the OS your network's machines are running on, it should be applied immediately, as soon as possible... this is basic, important stuff that you don't even need formal training to understand. Simple incompetence.
Microsoft's accountability here is small (but not non-existant), in my opinion. Yes, it was their mistake that created the vulnerability, but they made a patch available before too much damage resulted from the worm. Businesses should hold Microsoft accountable for not creating secure, reliable software, but they generally shouldn't do it with litigation, they should do it by not purchasing Microsoft software in the first place. If you want a safe, secure, reliable network, system, ect. I think it's clear by now that Microsoft does not provide the best solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the popularity of case modding.
Should be "If you RTFA," obviously.
I access the Internet using fixed wireless, and the prices this guy is planning on offering are outstanding compared to my ISP. Here in Trenton, FL they charge (I believe) $45/month for 128 kbps up/down and $80 for 386 up/down. Unfortunately it is the only broadband option that can reach my home.
From reading the article, it sounds like you can get access to the Internet from up to 20 miles away from his antennas using this service. I'm sure that will cover some fairly large rural areas or areas that as of yet still are unserviced by DSL and cable.
Watermarking is what I thought when I read this article too, but even that would be breakable, wouldn't it? It would just require an enterprising hacker to find the watermark and edit/rub it out, the equivalent of scratching off the serial numbers.
Of course, that's not quite "inherantly breakable" but still breakable.
I also think it's going to be a pretty long time before you can't buy the RIAA's music with cash. And besides that, it's not as if identify theft never happens. It would just require one person to "steal" the music once to get a copy that from a purely tech standpoint would be extremely difficult to trace back to the original culprit.
If they go to extremes, sure they can introduce some significant obstacles to people trying to infringe on their copyrights (and take advantage of fair use rights). However, even then they will be circumvented, because the fact still remains, you only need one "broken" copy. Once produced and released into the wild, there's nothing the RIAA can do but resort to the same old whack-a-mole litigation tactics.
Hardly. First of all, it's virtually impossible to create a functioning P2P network that offers true anonymity. My understanding is that even Freenet is not truly anonymous (it just offers a few layers of anonymity that could be peeled away if you're determined enough?), and it's also my understanding that Freenet's usability is not up to most peoples' standards (aka, "useless".)
Second, it's not as if everyone who shares music infringing on the RIAA's copyrights gets a lawsuit brought on them. As a percentage, very few do. So if you're willing to accept the risk of the small chance that the RIAA does pick you to sue, then it's not useless.
Third, there's a lot of stuff you can share on these networks besides material copyrighted by members of the RIAA/MPAA, including a tons of infringing and non-infringing stuff.
My P2P client of choice at present is eMule, which doesn't offer a shred of anonymity. I'm not particularly worried about the RIAA and MPAA because I don't download the MPAA's movies and download/share very little of the RIAA's music (mostly older, rarer songs, b-sides and the like... stuff I highly doubt turns up in their searches to catch people for sharing). I share/download a little software via P2P. The bulk of what I download are TV shows (Firefly and Farscape specifically, lately). So, despite eMule's total lack of anonymity, I have to say I find it very useful.
The question is, how much of the spectrum should remain open to the public and how much of the spectrum should be allocated to licensees, and how much interference (if any) on licensed airwaves is permissable and is it practical to allow portions of the spectrum remain unlicensed?
Most of their analogies seem relavent. Yeah, you may not be able to shout over/interupt a candidate (which would essentially be the equivalent of attempting to use the same part of the spectrum that the candidate is "shouting" over), but you are, generally speaking, allowed to speak in softer tones to those in your immediate vicinity (referred to as "whispering" in the cartoons).
If it is true that advances in technology allow radio signals to more intelligently distinguish and filter out different signals from different sources, perhaps instead of licensing the entire spectrum (or letting a lot of the spectrum go to waste), they should simply mandate that devices have the technology to "intelligently" distinguish and filter signals.
It certainly seems that certain kinds of weather can interfere with my satellite TV signal, so I'm sure it could affect your signal just the same.
Also, it's possible that the invisible weather phenomenom he spoke of was a sunstorm. They do happen and they do affect satellite communications.
You have my sympathies in any case, I'm not at all impressed by anything I've heard about satellite Internet. I'm just glad I was able to get connected with a local WISP (high setup costs like satellite, but without the rest of the lameness for the most part, it seems).
Just FYI.
My sister owns the Sims (the only game she owns), but I wouldn't call her a "gamer". The "gamer" demographic is changing, but it is still very young and very male, on the whole.
The commericially successful PC games you cite are games which happen to crack the market of the mainstream, normally non-gaming masses. They aren't first person shooters... they're sims, franchised games from other mediums, or puzzle games, for the most part.
One minor quibble: I think one of the G's (graphics) accounts for a lot of Myst's popularity.
But if you're making a first person shooter, RPG, action platformer, or something along those lines, you're targeting a more specific audience. If you're making a game like that, I think the 3 G's do certainly help your odds of a game selling well. Certainly it's not the only factor, but nor do I think it's a "myth", either.
I got one letter right, at least.
1) How would it be different from Windows? If it's just a set of standards, protocals, and software that can run on a ton of different types of hardware, how exactly is it different from Windows, or Linux? Is the console release cycle replaced by incremental PC-style upgrades? If so, I'd have to mark that has a huge disadvantage. I do not want to have to upgrade my console system. I don't particularly that every 2-5 years I drop another $150-200 on a new console and peripherals, if I don't have to spend $500 and build an entire machine every several years. The beauty of console systems is that they Just Work, no having to check "system requirements", no driver conflicts, ect. Far from creating a "standard" for developers to follow to improve game stability, ect., they now are encouraged to write code that may run on multiple platforms.
2. Do we really need to play Halo on a cellphone, hand-held game console, PDA and refridgerator? For some games I could imagine that having some functionality/interaction with the actual game would be nice, but I would fear this would become a serious distraction to developers who often seem to have a difficult time just creating a single stable, fun game. Even with a set of "standards" being introduced, it's more work for the developer to build the kitchen sink into their game. I question how many gamers would actually have the time and inclination to take advantage most of these features... is it going to increase sales of games that much? I fear it could eat into developer resources that should be spent creating a good game. It shouldn't be that hard to develop a good game for a three different platforms as long as each of those platforms don't vary in terms of hardware or software configuration at all (as is currently the case.)
3. Do we really trust Microsoft to do a good job? Microsoft has a poor track record for producing stable and secure products. Though I've been skeptical of the idea of trojans, ect. that spread through gaming consoles up until now, I would not be surprised if in several years we saw a worm reap havoc because too many people didn't run "XFS Update" often enough.
4. Is this legal? Microsoft is a monopoly. DirectX is a part of Windows, which is essentially the subject of their monopoly. Outright admitting that they are attempting to dominate the market with a standard that they own, and using their existing "clout" with DirectX, ect. seems to me to raise a few red flags. What I find ironic is the guy talks about the consumers not having a choice--since when has that ever been a concern of Microsoft's? And I do think I have a coice. For console systems, I can choose a GameCube, or a PlayStation 2, or an X-Box. On any of those systems I can choose from a multitude of games from a multitude of developers. Or I can choose to game on a PC (which I can build myself or buy from any number of OEMs), running Windows or Linux. Or I can choose to game on a Mac. Is this not choice? If a substantial number of these options were replaced by XNS, just how is my choice broadened? I do not understand.
Not really trying to be a Microsoft basher, but I'd be expressing some serious doubts even if it were Nintendo (and I'm something of a fanboy) proposed something like this. The fact that it's Microsoft makes me even more skeptical.
Tron was a pretty good video game for its time, and I believe the new Tron video game got good reviews. If that counts... a movie based on a fictional video game that subsequently became real video game.
007: Goldeneye was one of the most highly acclaimed games for the Nintendo 64.
Ect. I think there's been more decent/great games based off movies than vice versa, easily. As a general rule though, both suck.
I just got wireless broadband installed, and though at times it's very nice compared to dialup, it still leaves something to be desired. When they first installed it, they gave us uncapped bandwidth and I was getting speeds of 1.2 Mbps downstream and 760 KBps upstream with no problem. They gave us that because we didn't build our tower quite tall enough and the signal wasn't as strong as it was supposed to be. Since then they've capped is down at about 380/380 up/down, and at first we were getting those speeds, but since it's been a little unreliable... for a few days, most of the time I was getting sub-dialup speeds. I think it might have been the weather, combined with the fact that the signal has to bust through some leaves.
In any event, we paid a lot of mount to erect this tower, and get this installed, so to me, anything that the FCC might do that will strengthen the signal and free up more bandwidth is heartily welcomed by me. Broadcast TV in my area is virtually worthless already due to lack of channels and poor reception, I might as well benefit from anything that promises better and more reliable broadband access.
So this just means that a certain amount of spectrum that is allocated to broadcast TV right now would be opened up to allow it to be used for other types of broadcast, including wi-fi.
As for broadband wireless ISPs, what they do is equip you a fairly powerful line of sight antenna (looks like a satellite dish) and point it at their antenna so you can both receive and broadcast data.
The fact that gamers will tend to be at least somewhat comfortable with technology doesn't hurt either. Plus gaming requires coordination, reflexes, teamwork, strategy, ect. qualities that I imagine are useful in battle. Of course casually played games like America's Army aren't useful as training tools in and of themselves, but I don't imagine they hurt either.
The parent makes a good point about how getting killed repeatedly in a video game that's supposed to simulate the Army experience perhaps not necessarily being the best recruitment tool.
Still, I'm not sure your average gamer gives it much thought. On the other hand, it's a nifty piece of propaganda. As a player improves in skill and has more and more success in the game, passing tests, winning exercises, winning medals(?), advancing in rank(?) (I'm not sure the last two actually happen in America's Army, I didn't play it for very long), you feel a sense of satisfaction, as you would in any game, but when you're playing AA, you are being constantly reminded that the Army that the game is simulating is real. You could do all of that stuff in real life, and of course, the feeling of accomplishment would be much greater, plus they get to work in the patriotism angle, ect. The same angles they work in their television advertisements, but in game form it may be even more compelling.
Another thing I wonder is if there are any kids out there who have spent so much time playing America's Army that they started doing poorly in school and as a result, their options coming out of High School seemed bleak, and decided to enlist in the armed forces as a result. I wouldn't be surprised. Not that I necessarily think this is intention, but it's kind of interesting to contemplate nonetheless.
In my area I can't receive any PBS stations with my antenna. If I want to watch programming that airs on PBS, I have to download it... using my wireless broadband Internet connection.
Of course, they are likely going to have to fight off some litigation...
But after downloading the VisualBoy Advance, and a couple roms... as far as I can tell, GBA emulation has pretty much been perfected. I'm not sure what kind of processing power you need to emulate a GBA, but I suspect not very much.
Of course, the current model for the device is pretty ugly, and I'm skeptical, but the idea has some promise.
The thing is, they're going to have to profit off hardware sales, because I doubt there are going to be many developers paying a decent licensing fee to develop games specifically for the system. And with a built in hard drive along with everything else, I can't see the system being too inexpensive.
My next handheld (first since the original GameBoy) will be a GBADB, I think.
The NSA, on the other hand... I would guess that they have the most powerful cluster of machines in the world for breaking encryption. Though perhaps not as powerful as the article's supercomputer for other tasks.
Plus there are undoubtedly several other highly classified supercomputers designed to chew on other problems.
So it would seem that you'd have to caveat any claim of regarding the "fastest computer" by saying it's the fastest known, non-secret computer. But then the headline loses some of its appeal.
Right. Unless it's a blatent fraud (the manufacturer/salesman is trying to trick the buyer into thinking they are buying a genuine Jaguar), I don't see anything wrong with it. That's why we're able to have immitation designer clothes [which to my knowledge] are completely legal.
I haven't played Majora's Mask, but I've completed the Ocarina of Time and the Wind Waker. The core gameplay, for the most part, is the same. The biggest difference is cosmetic, and the changes in gameplay were rather minor (which isn't a bad thing... the Ocarina of Time was a genuinely fun game, and there haven't been very many similar games that have come close to the same level of quality). They improved the "battle engine" a bit by giving Link a few more moves, and they added a little novelty to traveling the overworld with the sailing theme, but it's still the same basic game... same lock-on targeting, many of the same or similar moves, many similar or identical weapons, many of the same kinds of monsters, ect. Dungeon design also follows pretty much the same patterns as before, also, with a number of overworld side-quests (same as before also).
I personally enjoyed the Ocarina of Time more, partially probably due to the fact that before the Ocarina of Time, I'd never played a game like it before (I don't think one truly existed). The Wind Waker, in terms of gameplay, wasn't a huge leap forward... it did improve on its predecessor in a few ways (graphics, better battle engine), however it also took a few steps back (instead of having seven great dungeons to collect seven mystical artifacts, you have to do somewhat hum-drum and at times boring overworld side-quests.)
I hope they take their time with the next Zelda and go back to having ten quality dungeons (plus mini-dungeons and overworld quests), as was the case in Link to the Past and the Ocarina of Time.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the past I've read articles and seen things on TV about how people who live near a registered sex offender have to be notified, and also their photos are put on web sites, ect.
A previous poster linked the movie for the new Metroid Prime... it doesn't look like much of a departure from the other GameCube Metroid, which in my opinion is probably a good thing. I can't think of too many ways they could improve on Metroid Prime.
The graphics for the new Zelda look fantastic, though the animation appears to be a significant step down from the Wind Waker... at least for now. They may polish things up between now and the release date.
On a side note, this kind of makes the terrorist thing a moot point. I mean, I have to think it'd be very tricky to make a weapon out of these things, since there is so much debate on whether or not it's even possible to unlock the energy (hence the "Cold Fusion" reference). If it's a more difficult to weaponize this stuff than uranium and plutonium, as well as having less destructive power, I doubt we'll see any terrorists using this kind of thing as a weapon for a long, long time.
I'm not particularly worried. Seems we've already let a much more horrible genie out of the bottle.
An earlier poster gave a good legal explanation as to why the worm author wouldn't/shouldn't be charged with murder or manslaughter for his crime, but there are plenty of other laws under which he could be tried for (some perhaps directly resulting from any lost lives during the outage..? Even if not, I would imagine that any lost lives might be taken into consideration when deciding a sentence after they've been found guilty). Though the article says nothing about anybody dying as a result of this outage, and my assumption would be that nobody did die as a result, so outside of the hypothethical realm, it's a moot point.
The virus writer should take the brunt of the responsibility, in any event, followed by whoever is/was responsible for maintaining the network. If there's a patch available for a major security flaw in the OS your network's machines are running on, it should be applied immediately, as soon as possible... this is basic, important stuff that you don't even need formal training to understand. Simple incompetence.
Microsoft's accountability here is small (but not non-existant), in my opinion. Yes, it was their mistake that created the vulnerability, but they made a patch available before too much damage resulted from the worm. Businesses should hold Microsoft accountable for not creating secure, reliable software, but they generally shouldn't do it with litigation, they should do it by not purchasing Microsoft software in the first place. If you want a safe, secure, reliable network, system, ect. I think it's clear by now that Microsoft does not provide the best solutions.