To un-necessarily drawl on this topic, it is rather unusual to use review as an adjective. Most people would see a compound noun there: "review copy", with only a single adjective "free". In this view, the comma is incorrect. You can see that is is both correct, yet unusual by this question/answer: "What kind of copy?" - "A review one." Works, but sounds weird.
Yeah, because "This is a private FTP server, you are not allowed to access anything on this site!" style disclaimers on public FTPs are working just brilliant as a legal defense for Warez sites. If you're running a non-protected, DNS'ed, anonymous FTP server, which you also link to on your web site[1], you'd better be ready to be liable for its contents. It's not like they'd start claiming their box got owned and somebody places those files there, distro style.
Heck, they don't have a DON'T DOWNLOAD disclaimer of any sort on the FTP itself - and the web disclaimer is far from explicit: they say they've suspended their activities, well obviously that's not true!
Note that I don't have a clue whether this is actually relevant for the case in point, I'm just saying they are in fact distributing those files.
[1] I assume they do that, though not necessarily to that folder.
See also Kolor's Le Petit Prince" demo. Not that it's really related, but it was inspirated by "The Little Prince" and it - being the winner or Mekka & Symposium '01 - is great to look at. Same release on pouet.
I don't know about Canada, but that's certainly the way it's supposed to be here in Germany. For how long, who knows with the upcoming EUCD, but it's been this way for dozens of years.
That is, however, where "unalienable rights" as defined in your constitution or in the UN human rights charta come in. Comforming with those rights is probably not part of any strict definition of democracy (note that there are many, on different levels), but it is (or at least used to be) part of our understanding of the modern "Western" democracies.
That's obviously not the case with torrentse.cx and all those other sites, but hmm, I doubt the AA's would hesitate from resorting to those tactics to bring down unliked but basically legal sites which allow uploading. Of course there's the question if any site that distributes uploaded files, unscreened, can remain legal for a long time.
I also doubt the AA's can or even want to bring down BT on the whole, as the original poster seems to imply.
You neither have a particularly slow connection - the majority of the net is on dial-up - nor are you (apparently) in a situation where hogging a phone line is a problem. You've probably got unmetered short-distance calls, so whether you're on for 3 minutes downloading a 400k email or whether you're online 30 minutes reviewing those 400 kilobytes of information doesn't matter to you.
In short, RTFA. Sorry.
Not that I'd wager that this is some kind of brilliant, revolutionary idea, but really, the article doesn't even imply that anyway.
Hm? Both. The headline only mentions the compression, while the article text mentions both - note that he talks about how this drive magically squeezes a GB of data on a 700 MB disc.
Works fine here, using Opera. 53 inline elements (images), takes 6 seconds to download and render completely, usable after 2 seconds. HTML has 4 kb, all the images have another 22 kb. 26 kb, that's really not a large amount for a full-featured web site. Just as a reference, the Slashdot main page currently has 31 kb, for me. There also is no auto-refresh.
If they'd planned for it in advance, cooperative play would have been easy.
What you're describing is not co-operative gameplay, it's two guns shooting instead of one. Even that is non-trivial to implement - should the monsters scale with the increased number of players to keep the difficulty normal? Anyway, I have not yet seen any FPS implement truly co-operative gameplay, it's usually just running around together shooting stuff, you never really depend on the other person. Sven co-op has got this depending in some places - one guy pushing a button while the other uses a deployed machine gun to hold off the critters, or pushing two buttons at the same moment etc. Also, Raven Shield and other tactical shooters (including many multiplayer ones) have got it in the sense that each player has to specialise in one way - CQB, assault, recon, sniper and so on.
But I've yet to see any meaningful co-op FPS. Not surprisingly, since that takes a lot of extra work and is only of interest to a relatively small amount of people (compared to single player).
There've been a number of games that had this, apart from the two mentioned above. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. You don't look down very often, so it doesn't make any difference most of the time. And it's really just part of the bigger complex of stuff that's normal in real life while not being properly implemented in shooters. For instance, I think Raven Shield's been the first shooter to at least start to implement something like a fluid stance, ie more than stand, crouch or prone (even prone is somewhat of a recent feature many current FPS lack). Not that I really used fluid stance in Raven Shield, I don't think the interface is very handy (I suppose some people do use it, though). In a similar vein, I think Splinter Cell has been the first PC FPS to implement somewhat analogue control over running speed. Actually, I just realized that's not true, I remember having that as early as in Quake 1 - using an analogue joystick as a controller. Splinter Cell used the mouse-wheel, which worked, but was awkward/non-intuitive. The keyboard the problem, the whole issue is easier to work with on the analogue pads the consoles have. Running direction was still digital in Splinter Cell, ie limited to 8 directions, forward, forward-right, right and so on. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it, especially since the plain strafing is extremely awkward in real-life, as has been implemented in Raven Shield by the very slow plain strafing.
And so on and so on. Sorry for ranting. In short, FPS are still a long way from being anything like realistic, and not being able to see your legs is really a relatively minor thing. IMHO.
Also, as cool as Panther looks, I expect Jaguar to stick around for a while yet. I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I realized the other day that since Jaguar is fully 32-bit, you should be able to take 64-bit hardware and run two full instances of Jaguar on it in parallel. Give each instance its own CPU on a dual G5 system, and you have two fully functional OS X systems running in real time on a single boxen!
Running two (32- or 64-bit) processes in parallel on a dual-CPU machine, okay. But running two 32-bit processes in parallel on one 64-bit CPU? Um, no, that's not how it works. In fact, it's so stupid an idea that I am willing to think that I am misreading your message and it's not even what you meant.
I'm also not sure why exactly a typical user would want to run two operating systems on a single machine, especially not if it's the same OS in both cases and none is virtual. Meh.
The game looks absolutely great. Haven't been looking forward this much to an RPG since BG II. I even re-installed Pool of Radiance II (which is similar in concept) again yesterday, thinking "well it couldn't have been that bad" - well I was wrong.
The article doesn't look trollish. It's pretty well written. He might very well be wrong and I disapprove of his attitude of replying to mails in the end, but I don't see why that'd make it viable to shrug off his complaints as being a troll. Unless his previous articles are significantly worse, it'd appear that he's more of a pariah than a troll in the Mac community.
We get two years warranty on everything we buy here, and I don't think I know anyone personally whose phone broke down. My Nokia certainly works fine, but then I've only got it for about a year.
Slashdot Mirror
To un-necessarily drawl on this topic, it is rather unusual to use review as an adjective. Most people would see a compound noun there: "review copy", with only a single adjective "free". In this view, the comma is incorrect. You can see that is is both correct, yet unusual by this question/answer: "What kind of copy?" - "A review one." Works, but sounds weird.
Ah, the beauty of linguistics.
Yeah, because "This is a private FTP server, you are not allowed to access anything on this site!" style disclaimers on public FTPs are working just brilliant as a legal defense for Warez sites. If you're running a non-protected, DNS'ed, anonymous FTP server, which you also link to on your web site[1], you'd better be ready to be liable for its contents. It's not like they'd start claiming their box got owned and somebody places those files there, distro style.
Heck, they don't have a DON'T DOWNLOAD disclaimer of any sort on the FTP itself - and the web disclaimer is far from explicit: they say they've suspended their activities, well obviously that's not true!
Note that I don't have a clue whether this is actually relevant for the case in point, I'm just saying they are in fact distributing those files.
[1] I assume they do that, though not necessarily to that folder.
See also Kolor's Le Petit Prince" demo. Not that it's really related, but it was inspirated by "The Little Prince" and it - being the winner or Mekka & Symposium '01 - is great to look at. Same release on pouet.
:P
Enjoy.
I don't know about Canada, but that's certainly the way it's supposed to be here in Germany. For how long, who knows with the upcoming EUCD, but it's been this way for dozens of years.
That really is cool. Thanks for the link!
Mod parent down? Disagreeing with you is not a concern of the moderation system.
That is, however, where "unalienable rights" as defined in your constitution or in the UN human rights charta come in. Comforming with those rights is probably not part of any strict definition of democracy (note that there are many, on different levels), but it is (or at least used to be) part of our understanding of the modern "Western" democracies.
That's obviously not the case with torrentse.cx and all those other sites, but hmm, I doubt the AA's would hesitate from resorting to those tactics to bring down unliked but basically legal sites which allow uploading. Of course there's the question if any site that distributes uploaded files, unscreened, can remain legal for a long time.
I also doubt the AA's can or even want to bring down BT on the whole, as the original poster seems to imply.
You neither have a particularly slow connection - the majority of the net is on dial-up - nor are you (apparently) in a situation where hogging a phone line is a problem. You've probably got unmetered short-distance calls, so whether you're on for 3 minutes downloading a 400k email or whether you're online 30 minutes reviewing those 400 kilobytes of information doesn't matter to you.
In short, RTFA. Sorry.
Not that I'd wager that this is some kind of brilliant, revolutionary idea, but really, the article doesn't even imply that anyway.
Sorry, I don't get it. Care to explain? :)
Hm? Both. The headline only mentions the compression, while the article text mentions both - note that he talks about how this drive magically squeezes a GB of data on a 700 MB disc.
A bit anal-retentive? Substitute "FPS" for "shooter", then, that sentence is universal to both. What a waste of time.
Works fine here, using Opera. 53 inline elements (images), takes 6 seconds to download and render completely, usable after 2 seconds. HTML has 4 kb, all the images have another 22 kb. 26 kb, that's really not a large amount for a full-featured web site. Just as a reference, the Slashdot main page currently has 31 kb, for me. There also is no auto-refresh.
:)
So um. PEBKAC?
If they'd planned for it in advance, cooperative play would have been easy.
What you're describing is not co-operative gameplay, it's two guns shooting instead of one. Even that is non-trivial to implement - should the monsters scale with the increased number of players to keep the difficulty normal?
Anyway, I have not yet seen any FPS implement truly co-operative gameplay, it's usually just running around together shooting stuff, you never really depend on the other person. Sven co-op has got this depending in some places - one guy pushing a button while the other uses a deployed machine gun to hold off the critters, or pushing two buttons at the same moment etc. Also, Raven Shield and other tactical shooters (including many multiplayer ones) have got it in the sense that each player has to specialise in one way - CQB, assault, recon, sniper and so on.
But I've yet to see any meaningful co-op FPS. Not surprisingly, since that takes a lot of extra work and is only of interest to a relatively small amount of people (compared to single player).
There've been a number of games that had this, apart from the two mentioned above. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. You don't look down very often, so it doesn't make any difference most of the time. And it's really just part of the bigger complex of stuff that's normal in real life while not being properly implemented in shooters.
For instance, I think Raven Shield's been the first shooter to at least start to implement something like a fluid stance, ie more than stand, crouch or prone (even prone is somewhat of a recent feature many current FPS lack). Not that I really used fluid stance in Raven Shield, I don't think the interface is very handy (I suppose some people do use it, though). In a similar vein, I think Splinter Cell has been the first PC FPS to implement somewhat analogue control over running speed. Actually, I just realized that's not true, I remember having that as early as in Quake 1 - using an analogue joystick as a controller. Splinter Cell used the mouse-wheel, which worked, but was awkward/non-intuitive. The keyboard the problem, the whole issue is easier to work with on the analogue pads the consoles have.
Running direction was still digital in Splinter Cell, ie limited to 8 directions, forward, forward-right, right and so on. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it, especially since the plain strafing is extremely awkward in real-life, as has been implemented in Raven Shield by the very slow plain strafing.
And so on and so on. Sorry for ranting. In short, FPS are still a long way from being anything like realistic, and not being able to see your legs is really a relatively minor thing. IMHO.
I'm also not sure why exactly a typical user would want to run two operating systems on a single machine, especially not if it's the same OS in both cases and none is virtual. Meh.
The game looks absolutely great. Haven't been looking forward this much to an RPG since BG II. I even re-installed Pool of Radiance II (which is similar in concept) again yesterday, thinking "well it couldn't have been that bad" - well I was wrong.
I certainly hope so.
Reminds me of Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. :)
(Apologies for posting off-topic.)
Note he said exclusive title. PSO, Splinter Cell and Morrowind are not exclusive, dunno about the remainind two.
Thanks! :)
I understand what the parent's command does, but what does exec true added to the profile do?
Troll. Slashdot had two articles (semi-dupes) on 55808 (aka Stumbler): What's Behind The Odd Data? and 55808 Trojan Analysis
The article doesn't look trollish. It's pretty well written. He might very well be wrong and I disapprove of his attitude of replying to mails in the end, but I don't see why that'd make it viable to shrug off his complaints as being a troll. Unless his previous articles are significantly worse, it'd appear that he's more of a pariah than a troll in the Mac community.
We get two years warranty on everything we buy here, and I don't think I know anyone personally whose phone broke down. My Nokia certainly works fine, but then I've only got it for about a year.