Actually, it looks like you already can attach a new drive directly to the back. It's FireWire, though, not USB2. But I don't think that matters. This thing appears to stack pretty nicely with the Mini, meaning expandability shouldn't be a problem, so long as LaCie updates it to mount with future Mini form factors.
That is the only scenario that makes any sense to me at all. Most people who buy this game are going to spend more time playing it on next-gen consoles than current gen consoles, anyway. Why not just make Ghost a Rev title and be done with it, rather than waste all of that effort? They don't even have to take the time to develop it for the Rev's unique controller (though I think it would be a fantastic match.) They can either use the shell or require a Cube controller, since initial development was on the Cube. Of course, if they have any sense at all, they'll take the extra time to take advantage of the Rev's features. I for one don't mind waiting a little longer if it means getting a better game.
Unless this game is entirely multiplayer-dependant, with no single-player component, this decision makes no sense. Cube owners are just as able to buy the broadband adapter as PS2 owners, and are just as able to connect to Battle.net through it. If the content is good enough, I guarantee Cube owners will buy the adapter. And without it, there should still be a rich, single-player experience to be had. Personally, I was really looking forward to playing this game by myself, and had no intention of playing online. This whole thing stinks of... something. Not sure what. But the logic presented by Blizzard doesn't seem to follow.
Hey, I've got an idea: why not go ahead and release it for the Cube as is, with on-line content present, but dependent on the adapter. Then, when the Rev is available, gamers can play Ghost with online content, and even use the Cube controller to do it. Aren't they doing something similar with XBox and the 360?
Unfortunately, Flashblock is one of the extensions that is currently broken uner RC1. Hopefully that issue will be addressed soon. Until then, I remain with the old version.
Or perhaps a passionfruit. Dangerous, those passionfruit.
Re:The show will need local humor appeal
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 1
And they also have huge mountains, deep canyons, rivers, lakes, and all sorts of other geographical landmarks. I think it's safe to say that Springfield truly is "Anytown USA."
That's not a bad idea. If the player wants to role-play a criminal, then, if caught, he should have to role-play the appropriate punishment. One problem with your idea, though: in all fairness, the "criminal" should have to be tracked down and caught within the confines of the game, and not via meta-gaming techniques (ie. using player logs, monitoring tools, etc.) If the punishment is to be carried out in game, then so should the detective work. After all, it shouldn't be a violation of the game rules to play a criminal, so long as you do it within the confines of the game (without external help).
Of course, if the player violated the terms of service by using a bot, then his account should simply be terminated.
Leaving behind an unsuccessful, underperforming, or obsolete technology in favor of something new is not the same thing as abandoning your existing user base. It's simply how one runs a successful tech business.
Yes, Apple dropped SCSI from their low-end machines and, ultimately, from their entire line. They had good reason to do so. But that does not mean that anyone with SCSI hardware in their Macs were suddenly out of luck, or that anyone who really needs SCSI in a Mac cannot still install it. It's not like Apple made the Mac incompatible with SCSI - they just stopped shipping them standard. You want SCSI, no one is stopping you.
As for the floppy drive, that technology was long, long past its prime and in sore need of the boot. Of course, a lot of people still had floppies for a while, which is why 3rd parties stepped up and made external floppy drives. Need a floppy drive, buy one (and they weren't that expensive, either). Again, no one was abandoned or left with nowhere to turn.
As for the clone experiment, I suppose that was kind of a special case. They never should have been introduced in the first place - it was far too late for that to have done any good. At the same time, however, it's not like people with clone Macs had to suddenly stop using them. They still worked just fine. If the clone manufacturers themselves stopped supporting them, that's another story.
The iPod battery thing was kind of a stinker, but they seem to have addressed that one. Not quite the same thing as sticking someone with outdated technology, but just as infuriating. I'll give you this point, I guess.
As for software, none of those examples really apply here. Most consumers weren't directly affected by those; Copland and Rhapsody never even saw the light of day and were purely internal to Apple, so I don't know why you're including them, here. Again, dropping support for those technologies was necessary, but hardly equates to leaving the vast majority of their user base with unsupported legacy products.
Not at all. I wasn't referring to the Mac's overall market share. I was referring specifically to the Intel Mac's share of the Mac market. Overall market share will likely continue to rise. but that will take time. If in, say, four years, two years after the Mac line has made the transition, Mac overall marketshare has increased to 10% (which is EXTREMELY optimistic), what percentage of that is likey to be made up of Intel Macs? Probably less than half. That's a pretty small share of the home computer market. If Game companies are reluctant right now to port their games to a platform that holds less than 5% of the market, why would they change their minds and do the same thing later?
When the percentage of Intel Macs reaches around 10% of the overall home computer market (not counting PPC Macs), then they'll have reason. But that's quite a few years off.
Of course, as a Mac gamer, I'd love to see them start porting now.
If Apple's history is irrelevant to this issue, then so is Steve Jobs' history of lying (since, as you claim, his word is law at Apple, thus Jobs=Apple) So, there goes your argument. Nice work.
Apple's history is certainly not irrelevant to this issue. Their history shows that they have a tendency to support legacy hardware and software for years after they are discontinued. One need not be a "fanboi" to see that.
Not to mention the fact that, by the early 90's, the Macintosh had been on the market for more than six years. That's a lot of overlap time and is certainly more than enough for anyone who needed to make the transition to do so. Anyone who purchased an Apple II machine at any time in the 1990's should have realized this. I don't think Apple tried to mislead anyone into purchasing them. In fact, all evidence suggests they actively discouraged it - which is no different from Apple telling their developers to stop developing for OS9 a few years ago.
The funny thing about this fantasy is that it's hard enough right now to convince game developers to commit to creating games for the Mac market while it's still unified under one processor. Why would these same PC game developers suddenly find it financially worthwhile to develop their games for what is going to be, for at least three years after the first Intel Mac ships (probably four) a tiny subset of the Mac market?
Not going to happen. Al least, not until Intel Macs actually begin to outnumber PPC Macs in users' hands.
Re:My iBook died two months ago...
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You guys don't really know your Apple history, do you? When Apple made the transition from 68k to PPC, every application imaginable was released in fat binaries for several years afterwards, meaning that people running both processors were fully supported throughout the transition. When Apple moved to OSX, OS9 users were given ample time to make the switch, with measures such as the Carbon libs and Classic mode easing the way.
Face it - Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable, and the developers have generally gone along with this. Your imagined examples of non-support notwithstanding, there's just no evidence to suggest that either Apple or its developers would just suddenly drop PPC support the moment the first Intel Mac rolls off the production line. As has been stated before, there's going to be a majority of PPC Macs in users' hands for at least the next five to six years. No software company in their right mind would just abandon that market for convenience sake.
Calm down. A PPC iBook purchased this year will suit you perfectly well for the next five years. That being said, you can always wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest...
It's probably not a coincidence that the utopian society presented by Gene Rodenberry in "Star Trek" was made possible only after much of human civilization was destroyed by nuclear holocaust. There are many (including myself) who believe it will take the near total destruction of existing civilization to achieve anything close to what we're talking about, here.
Of course, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me why I am.
Dancing water
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This reminds me of a similar effect that I often observe while cooking, particularly while stir-frying (or any other high-heat method). That is: a drop of water will evaporate more quickly in a pan on medium heat that it will in a pan on high heat.
The reason? When a drop of water hits a pan on very high heat, the underside is instantly tranformed into a layer of vapor which then acts as a buffer between the pan and the liquid on top. So insulated, the water droplet will then "dance" and roll around the pan like a ball bearing. The drop can remain in the pan for a surprising amount of time, though I have never personally measured.
Where I live? Actually, I live in a college town near the beach - the girls around here are decidedly above the national average. And I still say that those girls, at least the one in the middle, are pretty average. And I can't say I've had much trouble getting laid.
Hmmm. Those are certainly NOT ugly fat chicks. I've seen my share of them, and these women do not qualify. As the parent said, these women are quite average... which anyone who gets out of their basement and away from their computers for a few hours a day would quickly realize.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it looks like you already can attach a new drive directly to the back. It's FireWire, though, not USB2. But I don't think that matters. This thing appears to stack pretty nicely with the Mini, meaning expandability shouldn't be a problem, so long as LaCie updates it to mount with future Mini form factors.
That is the only scenario that makes any sense to me at all. Most people who buy this game are going to spend more time playing it on next-gen consoles than current gen consoles, anyway. Why not just make Ghost a Rev title and be done with it, rather than waste all of that effort? They don't even have to take the time to develop it for the Rev's unique controller (though I think it would be a fantastic match.) They can either use the shell or require a Cube controller, since initial development was on the Cube. Of course, if they have any sense at all, they'll take the extra time to take advantage of the Rev's features. I for one don't mind waiting a little longer if it means getting a better game.
Unless this game is entirely multiplayer-dependant, with no single-player component, this decision makes no sense. Cube owners are just as able to buy the broadband adapter as PS2 owners, and are just as able to connect to Battle.net through it. If the content is good enough, I guarantee Cube owners will buy the adapter. And without it, there should still be a rich, single-player experience to be had. Personally, I was really looking forward to playing this game by myself, and had no intention of playing online. This whole thing stinks of... something. Not sure what. But the logic presented by Blizzard doesn't seem to follow.
Hey, I've got an idea: why not go ahead and release it for the Cube as is, with on-line content present, but dependent on the adapter. Then, when the Rev is available, gamers can play Ghost with online content, and even use the Cube controller to do it. Aren't they doing something similar with XBox and the 360?
Unfortunately, Flashblock is one of the extensions that is currently broken uner RC1. Hopefully that issue will be addressed soon. Until then, I remain with the old version.
Or perhaps a passionfruit. Dangerous, those passionfruit.
And they also have huge mountains, deep canyons, rivers, lakes, and all sorts of other geographical landmarks. I think it's safe to say that Springfield truly is "Anytown USA."
That's not a bad idea. If the player wants to role-play a criminal, then, if caught, he should have to role-play the appropriate punishment. One problem with your idea, though: in all fairness, the "criminal" should have to be tracked down and caught within the confines of the game, and not via meta-gaming techniques (ie. using player logs, monitoring tools, etc.) If the punishment is to be carried out in game, then so should the detective work. After all, it shouldn't be a violation of the game rules to play a criminal, so long as you do it within the confines of the game (without external help).
Of course, if the player violated the terms of service by using a bot, then his account should simply be terminated.
Yes, they do.
Leaving behind an unsuccessful, underperforming, or obsolete technology in favor of something new is not the same thing as abandoning your existing user base. It's simply how one runs a successful tech business.
Yes, Apple dropped SCSI from their low-end machines and, ultimately, from their entire line. They had good reason to do so. But that does not mean that anyone with SCSI hardware in their Macs were suddenly out of luck, or that anyone who really needs SCSI in a Mac cannot still install it. It's not like Apple made the Mac incompatible with SCSI - they just stopped shipping them standard. You want SCSI, no one is stopping you.
As for the floppy drive, that technology was long, long past its prime and in sore need of the boot. Of course, a lot of people still had floppies for a while, which is why 3rd parties stepped up and made external floppy drives. Need a floppy drive, buy one (and they weren't that expensive, either). Again, no one was abandoned or left with nowhere to turn.
As for the clone experiment, I suppose that was kind of a special case. They never should have been introduced in the first place - it was far too late for that to have done any good. At the same time, however, it's not like people with clone Macs had to suddenly stop using them. They still worked just fine. If the clone manufacturers themselves stopped supporting them, that's another story.
The iPod battery thing was kind of a stinker, but they seem to have addressed that one. Not quite the same thing as sticking someone with outdated technology, but just as infuriating. I'll give you this point, I guess.
As for software, none of those examples really apply here. Most consumers weren't directly affected by those; Copland and Rhapsody never even saw the light of day and were purely internal to Apple, so I don't know why you're including them, here. Again, dropping support for those technologies was necessary, but hardly equates to leaving the vast majority of their user base with unsupported legacy products.
I think you're confusing the issue.
Leopard will absolutely support PPC Macs. Whatever comes after that probably will, too.
OS 11, on the other hand, probably will not.
Not at all. I wasn't referring to the Mac's overall market share. I was referring specifically to the Intel Mac's share of the Mac market. Overall market share will likely continue to rise. but that will take time. If in, say, four years, two years after the Mac line has made the transition, Mac overall marketshare has increased to 10% (which is EXTREMELY optimistic), what percentage of that is likey to be made up of Intel Macs? Probably less than half. That's a pretty small share of the home computer market. If Game companies are reluctant right now to port their games to a platform that holds less than 5% of the market, why would they change their minds and do the same thing later?
When the percentage of Intel Macs reaches around 10% of the overall home computer market (not counting PPC Macs), then they'll have reason. But that's quite a few years off.
Of course, as a Mac gamer, I'd love to see them start porting now.
What in the hell are you talking about?
If Apple's history is irrelevant to this issue, then so is Steve Jobs' history of lying (since, as you claim, his word is law at Apple, thus Jobs=Apple) So, there goes your argument. Nice work.
Apple's history is certainly not irrelevant to this issue. Their history shows that they have a tendency to support legacy hardware and software for years after they are discontinued. One need not be a "fanboi" to see that.
Not to mention the fact that, by the early 90's, the Macintosh had been on the market for more than six years. That's a lot of overlap time and is certainly more than enough for anyone who needed to make the transition to do so. Anyone who purchased an Apple II machine at any time in the 1990's should have realized this. I don't think Apple tried to mislead anyone into purchasing them. In fact, all evidence suggests they actively discouraged it - which is no different from Apple telling their developers to stop developing for OS9 a few years ago.
The funny thing about this fantasy is that it's hard enough right now to convince game developers to commit to creating games for the Mac market while it's still unified under one processor. Why would these same PC game developers suddenly find it financially worthwhile to develop their games for what is going to be, for at least three years after the first Intel Mac ships (probably four) a tiny subset of the Mac market?
Not going to happen. Al least, not until Intel Macs actually begin to outnumber PPC Macs in users' hands.
You guys don't really know your Apple history, do you? When Apple made the transition from 68k to PPC, every application imaginable was released in fat binaries for several years afterwards, meaning that people running both processors were fully supported throughout the transition. When Apple moved to OSX, OS9 users were given ample time to make the switch, with measures such as the Carbon libs and Classic mode easing the way.
Face it - Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable, and the developers have generally gone along with this. Your imagined examples of non-support notwithstanding, there's just no evidence to suggest that either Apple or its developers would just suddenly drop PPC support the moment the first Intel Mac rolls off the production line. As has been stated before, there's going to be a majority of PPC Macs in users' hands for at least the next five to six years. No software company in their right mind would just abandon that market for convenience sake.
Calm down. A PPC iBook purchased this year will suit you perfectly well for the next five years. That being said, you can always wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest...
Yes, it seems that I am.
Of course, if you came here for a good argument...
That's "moistened bink" you vacuous, toffy-nosed, malodorous pervert!
No, he's right. You're thinking of this:
"You can't expect to wield supreme, executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
I'm suddenly reminded of the office drones in "Brazil", all huddled around those tiny screens with the huge magnifying lenses, watching old TV shows.
I'd rather not share that experience.
It's probably not a coincidence that the utopian society presented by Gene Rodenberry in "Star Trek" was made possible only after much of human civilization was destroyed by nuclear holocaust. There are many (including myself) who believe it will take the near total destruction of existing civilization to achieve anything close to what we're talking about, here.
Of course, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me why I am.
That was both intelligent and sensible. Shame I can't mod you up.
SHUT UP!
Bloody vikings.
This reminds me of a similar effect that I often observe while cooking, particularly while stir-frying (or any other high-heat method). That is: a drop of water will evaporate more quickly in a pan on medium heat that it will in a pan on high heat.
The reason? When a drop of water hits a pan on very high heat, the underside is instantly tranformed into a layer of vapor which then acts as a buffer between the pan and the liquid on top. So insulated, the water droplet will then "dance" and roll around the pan like a ball bearing. The drop can remain in the pan for a surprising amount of time, though I have never personally measured.
Does this mean they're not allowed to clear this page from cache, now?
Where I live? Actually, I live in a college town near the beach - the girls around here are decidedly above the national average. And I still say that those girls, at least the one in the middle, are pretty average. And I can't say I've had much trouble getting laid.
Hmmm. Those are certainly NOT ugly fat chicks. I've seen my share of them, and these women do not qualify. As the parent said, these women are quite average... which anyone who gets out of their basement and away from their computers for a few hours a day would quickly realize.