Otto: You know those guitars, that are like, double guitars, you know?
Except, of course, that double-neck guitars have their purpose and were simply overused in the whole 80's hair metal ballads era so people avoid them just to avoid the stigma. There's still no better way to move between string layouts (6 and 12 being the most common) or differently tuned guitars during a song than a double-necked guitar (and there is at least one company that develops easily interchangable double-necked guitars and basses).
Still, 2 screens is a hardware change based somewhat in the PC world that has been mostly unused. It remains to be seen not only how they've laid out the hardware (ie is it 2 screens side-by-side or above and below?), but what the gameplay will be like. The obvious answer is overview maps and menu navigation on the second screen, but I think most of us are aware that Nintendo doesn't just hit on the obvious.
When the GameCube came about, optical discs had gotten to the point that Nintendo could use them without compromising load times. The smaller form factor was used to create a smaller console, faster seek times, and the anti-piracy that you mentioned. Anti-Piracy was not the SOLE reason for the smaller form factor as you make out.
Yet they wrote the discs from the outside-inwards (reverse of most optical media), stating it was because this reduced load times (which it does on variable speed drives, until you get towards the inside of the disc). If they had used regular sized discs with the same method, load times would have been reduced even more over the majority of the disc, and the Panasonic Q showed that the system didn't have to be much larger with the normal-sized DVDs.
I was about to say Uplink, but I just remembered that it actually used two or three networked computers.
From the sound of it, this is actually a more correct description of the DS than just a dual-screen setup, although we really need more information before anyone can say for sure. The description talks about dedicated processors for each screen, but that could be simply dedicated video processors, with a single CPU to handle everything else.
Noone's really been able to come up with a killer ap for the XBox Hard Drive yet either. Blinx isn't exactly killer...
Nearly unlimited saved games, custom soundtracks, downloadable content... At this point I don't see a reason for the next generation of consoles not to have hard drives.
sure, it's nice to save games on, but I kindof like not having to bring my GameCube to someone's house to play my save on someone else's...
So buy a memory card for the XBox and copy whatever saves you want to take over to the card. This is exactly why they sell the memory cards, but you don't have to have a huge number of cards unless you want to take a huge number of saved games with you, whereas I need 3 memory cards just to store my PS2 saves, and 2 of the larger format cards for my GC with 1 of those cards almost completely dedicated to saving ghosts in racing games (mario kart and fzero primarily).
"Most executable file types"? Those are good weasel words.
I use those words specifically because I cannot guarantee that every executable file type is blocked by default. I am about 99% sure that every executable file that would execute on Windows and has carried a virus in the past is covered, while, on the other hand, Office documents (which can carry a macro virus) are not (though the default security levels of Office won't let a macro run).
Well, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people do receive such attachments and do execute them. So, apparently, you missed the point or are trying to change it. Who is being affected by email malware, Evolution users or Outlook users? (*Hint* It's not the Evolution users or Kmail users or any users of the other *nix email clients.)
From the looks of it, it's quite possible that it's Outlook Express users or users of very old versions of Outlook (98 and previous). They could be using any email software that allows them to access the file in any way, even if they have to save the file to disk before executing it, since the worm doesn't depend on Outlook or Outlook Express to spread.
I was a MS supporter in denial for some years myself, but there comes a time when you have to take off the blinders and question whether just being bigger means it's better, and the answer is no, duh. Better is better.
I simply support using the software that's right for the job and avoiding misinformation. There's nothing about this worm that requires Outlook, and anyone using Outlook XP, 2003, or 2000SP2 that hasn't deliberately disabled executable blocking (through a registry change) isn't going to get it through that client.
Maybe we should blame Windows because the worm launches calc.exe to distract the person that clicks on it.
This and this are more or less the interface I've been using for the last 3 years (I've been using the keyboard longer, but a different trackball before I found that one).
I generally find that I can't use a mouse (instead of a trackball) or a straight keyboard for more than a couple of hours without having problems with carpal tunnel/RSI, but I can use these almost indefinitely without a problem. As both a gamer and a programmer I can sometimes find myself in front of a monitor using a keyboard + mouse for upwards of 12 hours a day, and since I also play bass & guitar my wrists and hands don't get much rest.
My FPS performance isn't legendary, but it was good enough for a couple of years to put me among the best offensive TFC players in the US. How you interface with the computer doesn't matter, as long as it's comfortable for you, and many people have different physical responses to different interfaces. Someone with smaller hands and narrower shoulders may have no problem with a standard keyboard, and perhaps different methods of using a mouse would be more productive and less harmful to other users. Hell, some people can use those thumb-balls with some accuracy.
And yes, I am a whore for MS mice and keyboards. I used to use Kensington trackballs, but they seriously lagged behind on optical trackballs, and followed that lag up with some horrid designs when they finally went optical. Logitech finally has a trackball I might be able to use, and I might consider giving it a try since MS seems to be lagging on the cordless trackballs.
but the answer to why the XBox had to come first is even more simple than that: the XBox was hacked first. Until a few months ago you couldn't load code onto a GameCube to try to run Linux.
Also, IBM and MS haven't announced yet what technology was licensed for the next XBox, so the idea that it will be PPC-based is speculation at this point, especially given that IBM has produced x86 processors in the past and that even the Intel chip in the XBox is not a straight-off-the-shelf product.
Yes, they write the discs from the outside to the inside, but that has nothing to do with the direction of the spin.
Basically, to get Linux on a GameCube, they had to find a way to get software onto it, and the disc is not the way in. Instead, they had to find an existing disc with a flaw they could exploit to execute code. This came in the form of Phantasy Star Online in combination with the network adapter, so they can load any executable code over the network by tricking PSO into thinking it's an update. So, either way, they still haven't gotten around the copy protection, except that they can create images of the discs and load code over the network (which, so far as I'm aware, hasn't proven a very good method for trying to pirate games).
New versions of Outlook might not be as susceptible,
Not as susceptible as in you can't even see the executable file if it's in one of a large number of executable file types. This can also be configured by the exchange server on a network that uses exchange for email, to add executable types not in the default list.
but I bet there are tons of people running older versions.
Someone should've patched those systems at some time in the last 2-3 years when any of the other, higher profile viruses ran the rounds. Frankly, with the number of viruses that have used these techniques to greater effect in the past, I'm amazed that anyone that would click on an attachment hasn't already dropped their system to it's knees.
You cannot "run" (execute) an attachment because the file permissions on attachments are not executable, nor does Evolution offer you that option.
And you can't receive most executable file types in an up-to-date version of Outlook, either, so what's the point of this whole discussion? If I want someone to send me an executable on a system running Office XP or 2003, or an SP2+ Office 2000, I have to ask them to put it into a compressed file, uncompress it, and then run the executable.
Beyond that, no one I'm aware of (besides myself) has the admin passwords for my Windows box at home, any more than they have the root passwords for the other boxes. It gets rather old having to handle all of the installation tasks for my girlfriend (especially since you have to have admin access to install applications onto her iPaq), but it's better knowing that she can't install something that shouldn't be on the system.
The last two versions of Outlook don't accept exe files as attachments, and there was a patch for the previous versions released around the same time as Office XP.
In other words, they can send all the infected executables they want to any email address I access with Outlook and I won't be able to run the executable without jumping through a dozen hoops to disable the email filtering so that I can even see the executable (not to mention execute it), and let's just say that Microsoft didn't put a little checkbox in the Options menu that says "Let me see my exe files".
So, for this to be Microsoft's fault you have to be running an old version of Outlook (or Outlook Express) that hasn't been patched in over 2 years. It's like blaming Red Hat for holes in Linux because you never bothered to update your RH 6 or 7 installation.
What else would they show him? They announced their identity as FBI agents, produced their badges, and showed him the search warrant, while standing outside his domicile. They didn't do a no-knock, they didn't force their way in, they didn't threaten him or rough him up in any way. Just what constitutes "identify[ing] themselves significantly" in your world?
2 items (though I'm not the previous poster, obviously), assuming that his account was correct:
1) They pulled him outside to let the agents get into the building. This certainly isn't rough treatment, but it's also not the way a search warrant is supposed to be carried out. They're not permitted, in any way, to remove you from your home.
2) They refused to allow him to have any form of identification from them, though he didn't try to copy down their names and badge numbers (at least he didn't state he tried to do so, he did ask for pictures of them/their badges, which seemed a rather strange thing to ask, though useful in the event that you need to report your stuff stolen by a bunch of people claiming to be agents).
Frankly, the guy also waived a number of his rights during the search, which is his own fault for not having a lawyer on the way (or someone calling a lawyer for him) the minute he saw the FBI and USSS at his door. You should never consent to a search or any part of a search just because they have a warrant. The warrant gives them specific areas they can search and specific things they can search for, any consent may expand the area and/or items they can search. You also do not have to consent to an interview with them, and do not have to answer their questions (though it's best to answer questions relevant to the search authorized by the warrant, as being too stubborn may lead to obstruction of justice). Anyway, get a lawyer, as quickly as possible, as this person should have. Leaving was definitely a bad idea beyond all else, and was his problem, not any fault of the officers and agents involved.
I think this is probably one of the biggest things they are missing. There was recently a poll on where people learned the most about political candidates which showed a rise in the internet and cable news channels as the source rather than the networks. I listened to the people on the radio and cable news talk about this as if the networks were doing something wrong, and what it really comes down to, I believe, is that the internet and cable news channels are there when you want them to be. The cable news channels are going through the news 24/7, the networks have the news on a couple times a day for 1-2 hours at a time, when I'm probably watching something else or coming home, grocery shopping, washing dishes, doing laundry, etc. Internet sites have the information I want if I know how to look for it, and since I work with computers all day I think I can figure out how to get Google to spit something useful out every once in a while (if I can get the databases in this place to spit out what I'm looking for, Google should be a breeze).
Out of everything I want to watch on a weekly basis, there's only one show I actually make the time to watch, and it's on once a week, with 22 new episodes a year, which means that over half the year I don't care if I watch TV or not in any given week. My next project at home will be to put together a computer to perform TiVo-like functions as well as handle a few other things, and this will probably increase the number of shows I watch, but decrease both the amount of time spent watching TV and the number of commercials I watch.
That hits on your other point and something else I have a problem with. TV shows seem to be getting shorter, even though 1-hour formats seem to be more common (at least for what I watch, maybe it's just me shifting towards 1-hour shows). They seem to squeeze in more commercials and show them for a longer period of time, as if you're going to just sit there and watch until the show comes back, or they're hoping they can catch you when you come back from the bathroom or the kitchen. This, of course, has lead me to buy many of the shows I have watched over the years on DVD, and when a series regularly gets DVD releases I lose interest in watching at the scheduled time as the new seasons come along, as I know I'll just pick it up on DVD then and won't have to wait until their given time to watch it.
Last I knew, Blizzard was owned by Vivendi Universal. There were rumours recently that they might be sold off, but I hadn't heard that they actually were sold off. Sierra also used to be owned by Vivendi, and I'd imagine that if Vivendi had everything together, they'd distribute through the same company even though Blizzard wouldn't have Sierra's name on their box (since Blizzard isn't published by Sierra). They self-publish, more or less, but I don't know who does the distribution (in fact, I don't know who does any of the distribution for the games industry, the bigger publishers may do their own distribution, but I'd imagine there are a handful of companies that will do distribution for a number of publishers, even the big publishers that handle a lot of developers). Wikipedia.org's entry for Blizzard states that Blizzard is a publisher as well as a developer, which may be the answer to your question, since the games industry tends to use the word distributor in a different sense from other industries (for instance, a distributor in the music and movie industries from their own perspective would be the company that presses and ships the discs, but consumers and the game industry often think of distributors as the places that sell the discs).
In the end, though, it would appear that Blizzard is still part of VU Games, which is part of Vivendi Universal.
I had a similar experience, though, with some better anecdotal evidence to show an increase in sales.
I didn't buy Super Mario Advance 4 until after Christmas because most of the people shopping for gifts for me knew I wanted it. Besides, the game was everywhere, at every store I went to, and they all had a rather large stock of the game on their shelves (or behind the counter as the case may be). I didn't receive the game as a gift, and started looking for it 2 days after Christmas. I couldn't find it for nearly a week (when I found it at an out-of-the-way WalMart that appeared to have just restocked their game shelves).
There were a handful of other games I noticed with similar stock problems, and a lot of accessories, most of which had no significant shortages in the past. Of course, determining the demand for them before the Christmas rush is the real issue. Sometimes there's a bit of a lag in the sales of certain items before the Christmas shopping starts, but realistically I doubt anyone was expecting the GC to sell as well as it did, if not in pure numbers than compared to the other two consoles. I didn't see many games sold out this Christmas, but the ones that were are ones that most people could've expected to sell, or, as you said, may have been carried in smaller numbers (.hack//, the whole series of games was sold out at the Best Buy stores in this area), and many of the games I picked up after Christmas were display copies at EB or GameStop (PGR2, Live Subscription Kit, Tactics Ogre GBA).
Still, SMA4 surprised me the most. Either they expected a lot of early sales, saw very slow initial sales, and then picked up fairly rapidly, or Nintendo couldn't ship what people wanted fast enough. There were more copies of that game sitting on Best Buy's shelves before the holidays than I had ever seen them put up on the shelves before, and after the holidays the only GBA games on those shelves were either crap or extremely niche-market games.
Of course, the problem with all of the analyst bs is that you also deal with questions like this, in the real world: Would Mario Kart be the fastest selling GC game if they hadn't dropped the price? Would GC software sales have increased year-over-year if the GC hadn't dropped in price?
But that's all hypothetical anyway, and each press release chooses it's numbers carefully. Sony releases November+December sales data because their December hardware sales were lower than Nintendo's December sales. Microsoft releases their hardware sales for the last two weeks of December because they sold more units of the XBox in those 2 weeks than Nintendo did GCs. So, it can also be said that Nintendo chose to release December monthly sales because the PS2 outsold them in November and the XBox outsold them in the last 2 weeks of December. Of course, to actually get even that much of the picture you have to read far too many press releases from too many different sources.
first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't.
Exactly. Most investors talk about diversifying their investments, so why should a company be any different? At least Nintendo has some similarity in their markets so that they can learn from one category and use that knowledge in another, not to mention product leveraging like GBA-GC connectivity. Additionally, the BBC story was very light on actual facts and numbers. They didn't talk about Nintendo's sales, or even discuss their handheld position in the least. Maybe the GC is in a significantly worse position in the UK, but there aren't any numbers on the page to prove their points.
I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with.
The problem is finding a way to deal with that image. They've been working on this problem since it first came up in the 16-bit console wars with Sega. So far they've had very limited success, at best.
The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.
My only comment on this is that most of the GC titles I've purchased have been in the $20-25 range, although some of them were used titles. I can find a lot more PS2 titles in that price range, but then there are a lot more PS2 titles in general, and I can't necessarily find titles I want, for any console, in that range now that I have a similar number of titles for each system. At worst, I'd say that Nintendo's top-tier 1st party titles stay at the $50 price longer than most PS2 titles, but I can't say the same in comparison with the XBox, where Halo sat at $50 for 2 years.
Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage.
The Dreamcast had a year's head start on the PS2, and in many ways had titles that showed off the hardware better at launch, but it didn't help them against Sony. The PS2 wasn't even widely available for 6 months after it's US launch, and it still pulled ahead mostly on the strength of Sony's marketing and the PS1's titles and reputation.
Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).
It's due to Sony's reputation among developers for allowing a lot of freedom in content (even if it's no longer true that they have any more freedom there than anywhere else), plus the head start, and their dominance in the previous console generation. Currently, there are more multi-platform releases than exclusives for any of the consoles, at least as far as I've been able to tell, which is probably the reason for Sony's recent whining about the quality of multi-platform titles on their console (and it's generally accepted that a good multi-platform title isn't going to look as good on a PS2, which may be an image problem for Sony's entry for the next console generation).
I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have exper
Probably whoever their parent company is at the moment. id Software has had a similar relationship with Activision ever since id's developers made it well known that Activision was at fault for Quake 2 being released early. About every other project from Westwood (now part of EA) seemed to work out that way, too, almost in opposition of how their last game did (your last game did well, get this new one out now/your last game sucked because it was rushed, take your time on this one).
and on and on, there are plenty of companies that work this way, but I'm sure most of us know which ones consistently have this power in their relationships with their publishers and distributors.
Evidence: Dynamix, canned by Sierra. There is no way that Tribes 2 reflects hard work by competant people given the long development timeline and months of after-release patching. I'm sure there were some bright people there but from my non-game-industry viewpoint, I don't think that they exactly pushed themselves to the limit.
The problem with that example is that, in the end, it's Sierra you're talking about. Every couple of years for the past decade Sierra has canned a half dozen development studios or cancelled as many projects, many of which were on-time and on-budget (or at least were claimed to have been, they usually weren't late at the time they were cancelled). On the other hand, the best-selling game Sierra has published in the last decade was one which they had no financial control over because the developer was completely independant up to the point where they had to meet Sierra's QA requirements before being published, and that would be Half-Life from Valve. Sierra couldn't cancel a Valve project if they wanted to, or fire anyone at Valve, they could only find something in their contract that would allow them to not publish a title from Valve, and that would seem like a bonehead move even for them at this point.
Call me crazy, but given the titles that Jason Hall has been a part of, this thing might just fly. I don't believe he would want to just turn out lots of licensed crap.
Yes, because all of Monolith's early titles were amazing, well-polished titles with great QA. Except Blood 2 and Shogo, err wait...
Of course, at the moment, as the interview states, they're not discussing whether or not they're actually going to develop games in house. So far they've simply hired Jason Hall so that they have someone in house that actually understands managing a development house, which goes a long way towards being able to interact with developers that you've contracted to develop games.
No, we didn't. You need a really good sound system to tell vinyl from CD. You can tell MP3 from CD on any system. Of course, if you don't care, you don't care, but generally having a good ear is considered to be a good thing.
Then again, most people can tell vinyl from CD if they have a really crappy or even mid-range sound system;)
That's really the difference. CDs sound fairly good on even pretty bad hardware, and MP3s sound ok if you're in poor listening conditions (ie as background music in the office, where I sit in a cubical farm with a lot of external noise). The only time vinyl sounds good is when you have a good system and take very good care of your records. Many (if not most) people have never heard vinyl on a really good setup, and even some of the people that prefer vinyl prefer it for completely different reasons from the typical audiophile. And other people are simply analog junkies.
I'm still using an Iiyama VM Pro 450 (19") here at work from around 1997. I had a VM 450 at home (closest matchnot the same as the VM Pro 450), but it stopped working almost 2 years ago.
I've always been very pleased by Iiyama's monitors, but the replacement I bought 2 years ago was an NEC monitor, which is the best aperture grill screen I've ever seen (though I haven't seen Iiyama's newer monitors, since the 450 line is up to 455 for the AG screens, I bought the non-pro 450 for home use specifically because it was not an AG screen, because the AG usually makes games and images very dark). Unfortunately most people don't seem to carry Iiyama monitors, which means ordering online and hoping their new models are worth the money (as other manufacturers have gotten much better over the years) or going elsewhere.
Man, if you are going to make a technical point, at least know what you are talking about. The difference between the PS2's vector units and P3/P4's SSE/SSE2 is huge. SSE/SSE2 operates synchronously (at least at the conceptual level) - it uses the same instruction stream as the rest of the CPU. VU1 operates asynchronously. VU0 can be run in sync with the CPU (macro mode), but running it async gets you more bang for the buck.
Additionally, most compilers can do at least some SSE/SSE2 optimization on their own. It's not going to be as good as spending the time to hand-code for the instruction sets, but since not everyone has a processor with those instructions, it gives the developer the choice of whether or not hand-coding is worth the boost in performance for a segment of their market that may be very small or very large, depending on their project, while still giving those users that have the instruction sets some benefits from purchasing the hardware (if the developer at least takes the time to allow it to be used in their software).
Slashdot Mirror
This appears to be the level of thinking here:
Otto: You know those guitars, that are like, double guitars, you know?
Except, of course, that double-neck guitars have their purpose and were simply overused in the whole 80's hair metal ballads era so people avoid them just to avoid the stigma. There's still no better way to move between string layouts (6 and 12 being the most common) or differently tuned guitars during a song than a double-necked guitar (and there is at least one company that develops easily interchangable double-necked guitars and basses).
Still, 2 screens is a hardware change based somewhat in the PC world that has been mostly unused. It remains to be seen not only how they've laid out the hardware (ie is it 2 screens side-by-side or above and below?), but what the gameplay will be like. The obvious answer is overview maps and menu navigation on the second screen, but I think most of us are aware that Nintendo doesn't just hit on the obvious.
When the GameCube came about, optical discs had gotten to the point that Nintendo could use them without compromising load times. The smaller form factor was used to create a smaller console, faster seek times, and the anti-piracy that you mentioned. Anti-Piracy was not the SOLE reason for the smaller form factor as you make out.
Yet they wrote the discs from the outside-inwards (reverse of most optical media), stating it was because this reduced load times (which it does on variable speed drives, until you get towards the inside of the disc). If they had used regular sized discs with the same method, load times would have been reduced even more over the majority of the disc, and the Panasonic Q showed that the system didn't have to be much larger with the normal-sized DVDs.
I was about to say Uplink, but I just remembered that it actually used two or three networked computers.
From the sound of it, this is actually a more correct description of the DS than just a dual-screen setup, although we really need more information before anyone can say for sure. The description talks about dedicated processors for each screen, but that could be simply dedicated video processors, with a single CPU to handle everything else.
Noone's really been able to come up with a killer ap for the XBox Hard Drive yet either. Blinx isn't exactly killer...
Nearly unlimited saved games, custom soundtracks, downloadable content... At this point I don't see a reason for the next generation of consoles not to have hard drives.
sure, it's nice to save games on, but I kindof like not having to bring my GameCube to someone's house to play my save on someone else's...
So buy a memory card for the XBox and copy whatever saves you want to take over to the card. This is exactly why they sell the memory cards, but you don't have to have a huge number of cards unless you want to take a huge number of saved games with you, whereas I need 3 memory cards just to store my PS2 saves, and 2 of the larger format cards for my GC with 1 of those cards almost completely dedicated to saving ghosts in racing games (mario kart and fzero primarily).
"Most executable file types"? Those are good weasel words.
I use those words specifically because I cannot guarantee that every executable file type is blocked by default. I am about 99% sure that every executable file that would execute on Windows and has carried a virus in the past is covered, while, on the other hand, Office documents (which can carry a macro virus) are not (though the default security levels of Office won't let a macro run).
Well, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people do receive such attachments and do execute them. So, apparently, you missed the point or are trying to change it. Who is being affected by email malware, Evolution users or Outlook users? (*Hint* It's not the Evolution users or Kmail users or any users of the other *nix email clients.)
From the looks of it, it's quite possible that it's Outlook Express users or users of very old versions of Outlook (98 and previous). They could be using any email software that allows them to access the file in any way, even if they have to save the file to disk before executing it, since the worm doesn't depend on Outlook or Outlook Express to spread.
I was a MS supporter in denial for some years myself, but there comes a time when you have to take off the blinders and question whether just being bigger means it's better, and the answer is no, duh. Better is better.
I simply support using the software that's right for the job and avoiding misinformation. There's nothing about this worm that requires Outlook, and anyone using Outlook XP, 2003, or 2000SP2 that hasn't deliberately disabled executable blocking (through a registry change) isn't going to get it through that client.
Maybe we should blame Windows because the worm launches calc.exe to distract the person that clicks on it.
This and this are more or less the interface I've been using for the last 3 years (I've been using the keyboard longer, but a different trackball before I found that one).
I generally find that I can't use a mouse (instead of a trackball) or a straight keyboard for more than a couple of hours without having problems with carpal tunnel/RSI, but I can use these almost indefinitely without a problem. As both a gamer and a programmer I can sometimes find myself in front of a monitor using a keyboard + mouse for upwards of 12 hours a day, and since I also play bass & guitar my wrists and hands don't get much rest.
My FPS performance isn't legendary, but it was good enough for a couple of years to put me among the best offensive TFC players in the US. How you interface with the computer doesn't matter, as long as it's comfortable for you, and many people have different physical responses to different interfaces. Someone with smaller hands and narrower shoulders may have no problem with a standard keyboard, and perhaps different methods of using a mouse would be more productive and less harmful to other users. Hell, some people can use those thumb-balls with some accuracy.
And yes, I am a whore for MS mice and keyboards. I used to use Kensington trackballs, but they seriously lagged behind on optical trackballs, and followed that lag up with some horrid designs when they finally went optical. Logitech finally has a trackball I might be able to use, and I might consider giving it a try since MS seems to be lagging on the cordless trackballs.
but the answer to why the XBox had to come first is even more simple than that: the XBox was hacked first. Until a few months ago you couldn't load code onto a GameCube to try to run Linux.
Also, IBM and MS haven't announced yet what technology was licensed for the next XBox, so the idea that it will be PPC-based is speculation at this point, especially given that IBM has produced x86 processors in the past and that even the Intel chip in the XBox is not a straight-off-the-shelf product.
Yes, they write the discs from the outside to the inside, but that has nothing to do with the direction of the spin.
Basically, to get Linux on a GameCube, they had to find a way to get software onto it, and the disc is not the way in. Instead, they had to find an existing disc with a flaw they could exploit to execute code. This came in the form of Phantasy Star Online in combination with the network adapter, so they can load any executable code over the network by tricking PSO into thinking it's an update. So, either way, they still haven't gotten around the copy protection, except that they can create images of the discs and load code over the network (which, so far as I'm aware, hasn't proven a very good method for trying to pirate games).
New versions of Outlook might not be as susceptible,
Not as susceptible as in you can't even see the executable file if it's in one of a large number of executable file types. This can also be configured by the exchange server on a network that uses exchange for email, to add executable types not in the default list.
but I bet there are tons of people running older versions.
Someone should've patched those systems at some time in the last 2-3 years when any of the other, higher profile viruses ran the rounds. Frankly, with the number of viruses that have used these techniques to greater effect in the past, I'm amazed that anyone that would click on an attachment hasn't already dropped their system to it's knees.
You cannot "run" (execute) an attachment because the file permissions on attachments are not executable, nor does Evolution offer you that option.
And you can't receive most executable file types in an up-to-date version of Outlook, either, so what's the point of this whole discussion? If I want someone to send me an executable on a system running Office XP or 2003, or an SP2+ Office 2000, I have to ask them to put it into a compressed file, uncompress it, and then run the executable.
Beyond that, no one I'm aware of (besides myself) has the admin passwords for my Windows box at home, any more than they have the root passwords for the other boxes. It gets rather old having to handle all of the installation tasks for my girlfriend (especially since you have to have admin access to install applications onto her iPaq), but it's better knowing that she can't install something that shouldn't be on the system.
The last two versions of Outlook don't accept exe files as attachments, and there was a patch for the previous versions released around the same time as Office XP.
In other words, they can send all the infected executables they want to any email address I access with Outlook and I won't be able to run the executable without jumping through a dozen hoops to disable the email filtering so that I can even see the executable (not to mention execute it), and let's just say that Microsoft didn't put a little checkbox in the Options menu that says "Let me see my exe files".
So, for this to be Microsoft's fault you have to be running an old version of Outlook (or Outlook Express) that hasn't been patched in over 2 years. It's like blaming Red Hat for holes in Linux because you never bothered to update your RH 6 or 7 installation.
What else would they show him? They announced their identity as FBI agents, produced their badges, and showed him the search warrant, while standing outside his domicile. They didn't do a no-knock, they didn't force their way in, they didn't threaten him or rough him up in any way. Just what constitutes "identify[ing] themselves significantly" in your world?
2 items (though I'm not the previous poster, obviously), assuming that his account was correct:
1) They pulled him outside to let the agents get into the building. This certainly isn't rough treatment, but it's also not the way a search warrant is supposed to be carried out. They're not permitted, in any way, to remove you from your home.
2) They refused to allow him to have any form of identification from them, though he didn't try to copy down their names and badge numbers (at least he didn't state he tried to do so, he did ask for pictures of them/their badges, which seemed a rather strange thing to ask, though useful in the event that you need to report your stuff stolen by a bunch of people claiming to be agents).
Frankly, the guy also waived a number of his rights during the search, which is his own fault for not having a lawyer on the way (or someone calling a lawyer for him) the minute he saw the FBI and USSS at his door. You should never consent to a search or any part of a search just because they have a warrant. The warrant gives them specific areas they can search and specific things they can search for, any consent may expand the area and/or items they can search. You also do not have to consent to an interview with them, and do not have to answer their questions (though it's best to answer questions relevant to the search authorized by the warrant, as being too stubborn may lead to obstruction of justice). Anyway, get a lawyer, as quickly as possible, as this person should have. Leaving was definitely a bad idea beyond all else, and was his problem, not any fault of the officers and agents involved.
One is to do with the tv schedule.
I think this is probably one of the biggest things they are missing. There was recently a poll on where people learned the most about political candidates which showed a rise in the internet and cable news channels as the source rather than the networks. I listened to the people on the radio and cable news talk about this as if the networks were doing something wrong, and what it really comes down to, I believe, is that the internet and cable news channels are there when you want them to be. The cable news channels are going through the news 24/7, the networks have the news on a couple times a day for 1-2 hours at a time, when I'm probably watching something else or coming home, grocery shopping, washing dishes, doing laundry, etc. Internet sites have the information I want if I know how to look for it, and since I work with computers all day I think I can figure out how to get Google to spit something useful out every once in a while (if I can get the databases in this place to spit out what I'm looking for, Google should be a breeze).
Out of everything I want to watch on a weekly basis, there's only one show I actually make the time to watch, and it's on once a week, with 22 new episodes a year, which means that over half the year I don't care if I watch TV or not in any given week. My next project at home will be to put together a computer to perform TiVo-like functions as well as handle a few other things, and this will probably increase the number of shows I watch, but decrease both the amount of time spent watching TV and the number of commercials I watch.
That hits on your other point and something else I have a problem with. TV shows seem to be getting shorter, even though 1-hour formats seem to be more common (at least for what I watch, maybe it's just me shifting towards 1-hour shows). They seem to squeeze in more commercials and show them for a longer period of time, as if you're going to just sit there and watch until the show comes back, or they're hoping they can catch you when you come back from the bathroom or the kitchen. This, of course, has lead me to buy many of the shows I have watched over the years on DVD, and when a series regularly gets DVD releases I lose interest in watching at the scheduled time as the new seasons come along, as I know I'll just pick it up on DVD then and won't have to wait until their given time to watch it.
Yeah, I see that now. I'll blame it on not having enough caffeine yesterday, or the weather ;)
Last I knew, Blizzard was owned by Vivendi Universal. There were rumours recently that they might be sold off, but I hadn't heard that they actually were sold off. Sierra also used to be owned by Vivendi, and I'd imagine that if Vivendi had everything together, they'd distribute through the same company even though Blizzard wouldn't have Sierra's name on their box (since Blizzard isn't published by Sierra). They self-publish, more or less, but I don't know who does the distribution (in fact, I don't know who does any of the distribution for the games industry, the bigger publishers may do their own distribution, but I'd imagine there are a handful of companies that will do distribution for a number of publishers, even the big publishers that handle a lot of developers). Wikipedia.org's entry for Blizzard states that Blizzard is a publisher as well as a developer, which may be the answer to your question, since the games industry tends to use the word distributor in a different sense from other industries (for instance, a distributor in the music and movie industries from their own perspective would be the company that presses and ships the discs, but consumers and the game industry often think of distributors as the places that sell the discs).
In the end, though, it would appear that Blizzard is still part of VU Games, which is part of Vivendi Universal.
I had a similar experience, though, with some better anecdotal evidence to show an increase in sales.
I didn't buy Super Mario Advance 4 until after Christmas because most of the people shopping for gifts for me knew I wanted it. Besides, the game was everywhere, at every store I went to, and they all had a rather large stock of the game on their shelves (or behind the counter as the case may be). I didn't receive the game as a gift, and started looking for it 2 days after Christmas. I couldn't find it for nearly a week (when I found it at an out-of-the-way WalMart that appeared to have just restocked their game shelves).
There were a handful of other games I noticed with similar stock problems, and a lot of accessories, most of which had no significant shortages in the past. Of course, determining the demand for them before the Christmas rush is the real issue. Sometimes there's a bit of a lag in the sales of certain items before the Christmas shopping starts, but realistically I doubt anyone was expecting the GC to sell as well as it did, if not in pure numbers than compared to the other two consoles. I didn't see many games sold out this Christmas, but the ones that were are ones that most people could've expected to sell, or, as you said, may have been carried in smaller numbers (.hack//, the whole series of games was sold out at the Best Buy stores in this area), and many of the games I picked up after Christmas were display copies at EB or GameStop (PGR2, Live Subscription Kit, Tactics Ogre GBA).
Still, SMA4 surprised me the most. Either they expected a lot of early sales, saw very slow initial sales, and then picked up fairly rapidly, or Nintendo couldn't ship what people wanted fast enough. There were more copies of that game sitting on Best Buy's shelves before the holidays than I had ever seen them put up on the shelves before, and after the holidays the only GBA games on those shelves were either crap or extremely niche-market games.
Of course, the problem with all of the analyst bs is that you also deal with questions like this, in the real world:
Would Mario Kart be the fastest selling GC game if they hadn't dropped the price?
Would GC software sales have increased year-over-year if the GC hadn't dropped in price?
But that's all hypothetical anyway, and each press release chooses it's numbers carefully. Sony releases November+December sales data because their December hardware sales were lower than Nintendo's December sales. Microsoft releases their hardware sales for the last two weeks of December because they sold more units of the XBox in those 2 weeks than Nintendo did GCs. So, it can also be said that Nintendo chose to release December monthly sales because the PS2 outsold them in November and the XBox outsold them in the last 2 weeks of December. Of course, to actually get even that much of the picture you have to read far too many press releases from too many different sources.
first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't.
Exactly. Most investors talk about diversifying their investments, so why should a company be any different? At least Nintendo has some similarity in their markets so that they can learn from one category and use that knowledge in another, not to mention product leveraging like GBA-GC connectivity. Additionally, the BBC story was very light on actual facts and numbers. They didn't talk about Nintendo's sales, or even discuss their handheld position in the least. Maybe the GC is in a significantly worse position in the UK, but there aren't any numbers on the page to prove their points.
I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with.
The problem is finding a way to deal with that image. They've been working on this problem since it first came up in the 16-bit console wars with Sega. So far they've had very limited success, at best.
The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.
My only comment on this is that most of the GC titles I've purchased have been in the $20-25 range, although some of them were used titles. I can find a lot more PS2 titles in that price range, but then there are a lot more PS2 titles in general, and I can't necessarily find titles I want, for any console, in that range now that I have a similar number of titles for each system. At worst, I'd say that Nintendo's top-tier 1st party titles stay at the $50 price longer than most PS2 titles, but I can't say the same in comparison with the XBox, where Halo sat at $50 for 2 years.
Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage.
The Dreamcast had a year's head start on the PS2, and in many ways had titles that showed off the hardware better at launch, but it didn't help them against Sony. The PS2 wasn't even widely available for 6 months after it's US launch, and it still pulled ahead mostly on the strength of Sony's marketing and the PS1's titles and reputation.
Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).
It's due to Sony's reputation among developers for allowing a lot of freedom in content (even if it's no longer true that they have any more freedom there than anywhere else), plus the head start, and their dominance in the previous console generation. Currently, there are more multi-platform releases than exclusives for any of the consoles, at least as far as I've been able to tell, which is probably the reason for Sony's recent whining about the quality of multi-platform titles on their console (and it's generally accepted that a good multi-platform title isn't going to look as good on a PS2, which may be an image problem for Sony's entry for the next console generation).
I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have exper
Hmm, who distributes Blizzard's games?
Probably whoever their parent company is at the moment. id Software has had a similar relationship with Activision ever since id's developers made it well known that Activision was at fault for Quake 2 being released early. About every other project from Westwood (now part of EA) seemed to work out that way, too, almost in opposition of how their last game did (your last game did well, get this new one out now/your last game sucked because it was rushed, take your time on this one).
and on and on, there are plenty of companies that work this way, but I'm sure most of us know which ones consistently have this power in their relationships with their publishers and distributors.
Evidence: Dynamix, canned by Sierra. There is no way that Tribes 2 reflects hard work by competant people given the long development timeline and months of after-release patching. I'm sure there were some bright people there but from my non-game-industry viewpoint, I don't think that they exactly pushed themselves to the limit.
The problem with that example is that, in the end, it's Sierra you're talking about. Every couple of years for the past decade Sierra has canned a half dozen development studios or cancelled as many projects, many of which were on-time and on-budget (or at least were claimed to have been, they usually weren't late at the time they were cancelled). On the other hand, the best-selling game Sierra has published in the last decade was one which they had no financial control over because the developer was completely independant up to the point where they had to meet Sierra's QA requirements before being published, and that would be Half-Life from Valve. Sierra couldn't cancel a Valve project if they wanted to, or fire anyone at Valve, they could only find something in their contract that would allow them to not publish a title from Valve, and that would seem like a bonehead move even for them at this point.
Call me crazy, but given the titles that Jason Hall has been a part of, this thing might just fly. I don't believe he would want to just turn out lots of licensed crap.
Yes, because all of Monolith's early titles were amazing, well-polished titles with great QA. Except Blood 2 and Shogo, err wait...
Of course, at the moment, as the interview states, they're not discussing whether or not they're actually going to develop games in house. So far they've simply hired Jason Hall so that they have someone in house that actually understands managing a development house, which goes a long way towards being able to interact with developers that you've contracted to develop games.
No, we didn't. You need a really good sound system to tell vinyl from CD. You can tell MP3 from CD on any system. Of course, if you don't care, you don't care, but generally having a good ear is considered to be a good thing.
;)
Then again, most people can tell vinyl from CD if they have a really crappy or even mid-range sound system
That's really the difference. CDs sound fairly good on even pretty bad hardware, and MP3s sound ok if you're in poor listening conditions (ie as background music in the office, where I sit in a cubical farm with a lot of external noise). The only time vinyl sounds good is when you have a good system and take very good care of your records. Many (if not most) people have never heard vinyl on a really good setup, and even some of the people that prefer vinyl prefer it for completely different reasons from the typical audiophile. And other people are simply analog junkies.
I'm still using an Iiyama VM Pro 450 (19") here at work from around 1997. I had a VM 450 at home (closest match not the same as the VM Pro 450), but it stopped working almost 2 years ago.
I've always been very pleased by Iiyama's monitors, but the replacement I bought 2 years ago was an NEC monitor, which is the best aperture grill screen I've ever seen (though I haven't seen Iiyama's newer monitors, since the 450 line is up to 455 for the AG screens, I bought the non-pro 450 for home use specifically because it was not an AG screen, because the AG usually makes games and images very dark). Unfortunately most people don't seem to carry Iiyama monitors, which means ordering online and hoping their new models are worth the money (as other manufacturers have gotten much better over the years) or going elsewhere.
Man, if you are going to make a technical point, at least know what you are talking about. The difference between the PS2's vector units and P3/P4's SSE/SSE2 is huge. SSE/SSE2 operates synchronously (at least at the conceptual level) - it uses the same instruction stream as the rest of the CPU. VU1 operates asynchronously. VU0 can be run in sync with the CPU (macro mode), but running it async gets you more bang for the buck.
Additionally, most compilers can do at least some SSE/SSE2 optimization on their own. It's not going to be as good as spending the time to hand-code for the instruction sets, but since not everyone has a processor with those instructions, it gives the developer the choice of whether or not hand-coding is worth the boost in performance for a segment of their market that may be very small or very large, depending on their project, while still giving those users that have the instruction sets some benefits from purchasing the hardware (if the developer at least takes the time to allow it to be used in their software).