It would seem better for the consumer if we could buy whatever console we want, and play all the games. But if it means that a company like Nintendo will go out of business, then the world would be deprived of games like Wario, et al. That can't be good.
Sega stopped making consoles, but they still make games. I don't really know. I guess I'm just posing a question for people to think about.
I'm guessing Nintendo will eventually go the way of Sega, becoming a more software oriented company. Having more consoles doesn't necessarily mean we get more (or more innovative) games, in fact, the opposite may well be true. The more fragmented the market is, the less potential customers there are for any particular game.
For the consumer, if they happen to have chosen to get one system, they miss out on all the exclusives for the systems they don't own. Does it make sense to deprive the Gamecube owner the chance to play Dead or Alive 3, or the XBox owner the chance to play Viewtiful Joe?
The market would be better off if it were possible for the hardware to be sold purely on it's technical merits, with games available for all system, but of course many issues make that difficult.
It may be better to have a great game like Viewtiful Joe available on other consoles, but then what is left to distinguish one console from the others?
I'm not sure if you are suggesting it would be a good thing for the gaming world if a game was on *less* systems, but ignoring that, Viewtiful Joe will be coming out for the PS2.
Or how about a more cynical view: what if this is driven by marketing, not quality? Consider automobiles. Which cars have the longest warranties? Cars like the Kia (ten years). Now which cars have the shortest warranties? Cars like the BMW (three years). Which is better engineered, better made? Which will last longer? Is a correlation between warranty length and quality? Is there a negative correlation? In light of the automotive evidence, I am not persuaded that length of warranty is any indication of product quality. It's only an indication that marketing believes the warranty will sell more units.
Though long warrantee does in some sense imply to the customer that the product is going to last longer, I think the best way to think of it economically is as something that adds value. The product has a base worth, which can be whatever, and is then protected by a warrantee, which raises it's total value. Perhaps BMW feels their cars are worth enough in the eyes of their customers as it is for how much they are selling for, and felt that longer warranty wasn't necessary.
In terms of hard drives, I personally specifically seek longer warrantees (the last drive I got was a Seagate with a 3 year warrantee), because they are the most likely piece of equipment to die. I've gone through so many Maxtor hard drives it's not funny, and I can tell you in the case of their new 1-year warrantee, there is no inverse relationship between warrantee length and quality.
True or not I don't know for certain but I read recently that in North Korea houses have a built in radio that broadcasts State propaganda, and that while it can be turned down, it cannot be turned off. Whereas under Capitalism some judges think that companies should be allowed to try and make you receive their propaganda, and that while the instructed may be able to stop it the majority can't....but of course that's completely different.
I really doubt this is the case. The idea of radios spewing out progaganda you can only turn down but not off is from 1984.
While I wouldn't be suprised if Capcom did a sloppy job on the remake, this article doesn't really describe the problems very well.
At one point he says there is blurring, but then he corrects himself. So... is there blurring??? The picture he presents as evidence seem to suggest this, but some/all of the ugliness of that could be attributed to his tv tuner. The author doesn't seem to specify the source of the "old" picture, but I'm guessing it's from an emulator, which isn't exactly a fair comparison. Any blurring would likely be due to the game be drawn on a quad with texture filtering setup wrong.
Then he says something about line-doubling... I'm guessing he means the sprites are stretched since I'm guessing the PS2 doesn't run at low resolutions (correct me if I'm wrong). Either way, if the game is being run at a resolution higher the original, there is nothing wrong stretching or 'line-doubling' as he calls it to make the images the right size.
He then says something about interlacing being a problem, but doesn't really say exactly what the problem is. Interlacing isn't usually an issue for a TV since it's already interlaced. This would be a problem though for those who want to play the game on a progressive scan TV/monitor.
The author should have been more careful with his terminology, if he was going through around that kind of jargon at all. He could have done almost as well just saying "game doesn't look so good".
Technically, if your product silently installs software without the users knowledge, wouldn't that put it in the same league as spyware, as defined by some of the more recent bills passing through Congress?
Even though this may be technically spyware, it could also be technically illegal to remove due the DMCA. So basically, you put a cd with this type of crap on it, and since it's goal is copy-protection, anything that could get around it, including say, the ability to remove it if it attempts to stick on your system like a virus, could very well be considerred 'circumvension'. I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.
Preventing people from making legal backups of their games that they purchased for $50 odd is insane.
That basically boils down to the fact that when you spend your hard earned 50 bucks, all you are getting is a CD / DVD disc (and hopefully a box and a manual), as you have no rights to do anything to the data contained on it.
That's one damn expensive disc.
Companies should be required to separate the content from the media when selling their product. If they will only replace a broken disc for the price of the original product, then clearly the disc itself is worth the entire price, and the content is worthless and doesn't need protection.
Realistically, if we are going to have laws like the DMCA, we really need laws that also protect fair use. The copy protection should either allow for backups, or the company should be required to replace the media. If neither is satisfied, either the company should lose the protection the DMCA gives them.
I assume you mean download the whole movie and play, which isn't exactly the on-demand type of systems that I think tivo is aiming for. As far as I know BitTorrent isn't really setup for streaming. All users are generally going to want to download it in order, so the the program would have to be modified to support this somehow. Note that for the most part users will want to download it in order, though there is the possibility of trading parts of the movie slightly in the future. There is also multicasting, though I'm not sure if that has gone anywhere.
No, they don't. At least not when they can help it. Renderman didn't even have raytracing capabilities last time I looked, which admittedly was a while ago
From what I understand of Renderman (haven't used it personally), I believe it breaks up your scene into polygons that are of subpixel size, rendering with that. A major attraction of it is its shader language, whose flexibility we are starting to see to some extent in hardware now.
The problem is that Apple's security design in the Mac OS fails to establish a secure channel between the user and the OS when requesting a password. (This is why you must hit Ctrl-Alt-Del in most versions of Windows before entering a password). Apple's password dialog actually represents a reduction in security over no password, since it (a) passes the password through an insecure environment on a regular basis and (b) does not provide a method to establish that the identity of the requesting program may be trusted -- that the dialog is really a legtimiate password dialog.
Unfortunately, the default in windows doesn't require Ctrl-Alt-Del, and for those who do want to run Windows XP as a non-admin account and then use the 'Run As' feature, that window itself could be spoofed as well.
I understand one of the features of Paladium (or whatever it was based on) is that you can provide the system a picture or phrase that the OS keeps secret from the rest of the system, and that when it asks for your password the window will display it so you know it's legit. Of course, it would require quite a bit of prodding to get the average user to notice this feature, but it's a small step in the right direction.
I'd like to argue that because OSX is just a unix system it's inherently more secure than a windows box, but I don't think it necessarily is as far as malware companies getting stuff installed to spy on users/etc. A lot of this installing is done by trickery. If you try to install something outside of your home directory, the mac asks you nicely for your password, most people will probably just type it in. Not to mention the recent URL handler exploits for the mac that just became public knowledge...
Well, certainly asking for a password before you install something is one step above the average WinXP setup (with the main user as admin), though of course trojans can still get in through seemingly safe programs. Things like the URL exploits you mention, well, I that's certainly a problem but each individually anyway is easily fixed.
Unix wasn't really made with security, especially for the desktop, in mind in the first place, and systems based on it (Linux, BSD, OSX) are all quite vulnerable as you generally want to install your programs as root, which requires too much of trust in whatever you are installing. With Windows XP the situation is slightly worse since most people using it are always root. Until we start seeing more of a move to stop putting so much trust in programs (Java applets as you mention in another context, are a start), this type of thing will probably be a consant.
I got sick of supporting my friend's dad's computer... I got him a shiny new Apple.
Arrrrrrrggg... I guess it was sure that someone from the Cult of Mac would suggest this.;)
Besides the fact that the userbase is too small for most malware producers to target, what is preventing an Apple user from Spyware hell? While I don't know much of the Mac equivalent to ActiveX, I don't see much stopping spyware from hitting a Mac as, say, a trojan in freeware.
It's like email viruses. You only get infected if you act like you don't care about getting infected. OR, if you act stupid. For about 4 years I have run Ad-Aware maybe a 4 times, and all I get as a result is few tracking cookies. And I Do use the internet more than average, I can tell you that. But then again, I am european;)
This is not true. I personally managed to get adware on my system through bearshare before adware became as well known as it is. While you can only take my word for it, I do know very well what I'm doing with a computer, so it was not out of the type of ignorance you imply. I also just had the fun of cleaning up a ton of spyware a friend of mine got, who knows very well of adware and habitually clicks the 'no' button when it asks to install an ActiveX control, but accidently hit 'yes' once and found his system crawling with the crap.
These programs are trojans. While in some cases they make it 'known' what is being installed (as in, say, the adware version of DivX), they often are snuck in either through freeware or through ActiveX. While with email, you have to make at least a conscious effort to load that attachment, adware can hit even the best of us.
All parties which are running in every riding have to deal with this the correct way.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government follows what people want. This only occurs when there is a large enough public outcry, but I really don't see how a blip like this would affect things. Instead, they will fall back on the default of promoting the 'rights' of those who are funnelling money to them. While the NDP and Green Party would side with the farmer, they have little power federally (and for the green party, little power anywhere). I don't expect the Liberals or the Conservatives to change patent laws in such a way that would stop this, and I wouldn't trust either in general on IP-related issues.
Slightly off topic, I suppose, but you know that the unemployment rate in Canada is currently higher (7.3% April 2004) than the US unemployment rate (5.6% April 2004), right?
The major reason for the difference in unemployment is that Canada has a higher natural unemployment rate since a lot of work is seasonal. Changes of season affect a much smaller percentage of American jobs compared to Canadian jobs.
Um, no, not exactly. iTMS's files are AAC, from mpeg-4 codec, which means that it's not compatible with MP3 players, unless those players are also MP4 players. Idiot!
NO SHIT! Well, you see, I happen to have a non-Apple MP3 player that can play AAC. So, in order to play it without losing quality I have to do various tricks.
Of course, you can convert your iTMS songs (the ones you bought & downloaded) to mp3 via burning to disc and then re-encoding as mp3.
So, in order to use all these songs that you've purchased into a portable format, you have to burn them then rip them, which is both a pain in the ass and basically a manner of getting around the DRM. My argument was if you can't get through the DRM but still have the kinds of limitations that DRM often imposes, you will eventually run into walls due to it.
PlayFair/iTunes allows burning of the same playlist to a CD up to 10 times without modification, and rearranging tracks or tacking on a 1-second silent track counts as modifying and entitles you to another 10 burns. There is no reasonable way you should ever run up against that limit in anything resembling normal use, it seems to me.
A limit of 10 copies may be adequate for the not-to-distance future. But if you really want to have a collection of music that you are going to play 10+ years from now... things get trickier. You may be moving the music between newer computers, between newer mp3 players, etc. You will eventually run out, and will be stuck.
The other possibility is that because you are worried about using the 10 times, you will avoid doing anything to affect the limit unless absolutely necessary.
Now, I'm ignoring the fact that DRM is rarely rock-solid, and people have already cracked the current version of PlayFair. For me, being able to get an unencrypted version of the music is a prerequest for me buying it, whether it starts that way or I use some other program. If there were some sort of absolute DRM of this variety, be ready to give up your purchased music.
I realize this type of comment is made all the time, but I am still very suprised at how so many people on Slashdot seem to be so open to DRM, when it prevents so many of the interesting uses of things you have purchased. Apple's DRM isn't all that much 'better' than other's. Can you play your iTunes music on your non-iPod MP3 player without someone getting around the DRM? Can you play the music on your computer with a non-apple player? Can you play it in an OS that isn't made be Apple or Microsoft?
Uhm... no. That's not a legal download. That's a rationalization that some people have tried to claim, but it's not exactly one the courts have confirmed. You can format-shift your own copy of a song, but you can't take somebody else's copy of a song you happen to own a copy of in another format.
While clearly a much illegal trading is going on, not all transfers of copyrighted material of the network is illegal. It's hard to pass judgement on this front given the small number of details in the article, but, as an example of legal use that is on the rise is people streaming their own music to other computers they happen to be in.
More importantly, there are some serious privacy implications with this. If a university is going to search people's IM traffic for copyrighted music, why don't they go a step further, and search it for evidence of plagerism. Or perhaps a step further and search for keywords of clearly nefarious purposes, such as 'bomb', 'kill', or 'bush sucks'. While perhaps the latter examples are a bit extreme, I personally consider the former quite extreme as well, and I keep getting suprised as to how far the government goes in invading people's privacy.
Actually, I think viruses of this type deserve extra attention, since they are the type of thing that will infect even people who are reasonably careful. Fortunately the exploit they are using is really old so most have patched for it.
Users can be taught to be careful with some things, for example, openning attachments. They seem to have a tough enough time with that. Now, you are suggesting to expand this paranoia to the email messages themselves. Each email is a potential bomb waiting to explode simply by reading it.
A better solution is to keep patched (most users should be auto-patching, whether it be installed automatically or notify you when a new patch is available) so these known exploits don't hurt you, and for the most part you really should disable HTML.
I think many people do not realize this, but instead of doing the annoying disabling of the preview pane, you can disable HTML.
Microsoft really show make this the default, whether to protect from viruses due to exploits or to prevent web-bugs (though disabling image tags to remote sites would do this as well).
Anyway, unfortunately it's not particularly obvious that this option exists, but here it is:
Go into, Tools/Options menu, and click on the 'Read' tab. Enable "Read all messages in plain text". For good measure, go to the security tab and make sure it's set to the restricted zone (though it probably won't matter as much now)
Yes, having the original cabinet is nice, along with the original controllers and everything. However, an emulator mixed with a good joystick is going to be nearly as good as the real thing. Unless you only want to play a few of games total, buying the cabinets won't get you very far unless you happen to have a lot of extra cash/space.
I don't think she's persuing this correctly though. Assuming that she has a homeowner's insurance policy, she should total the value of all the stolen items and see if it is worth more than the deductible.
Yes, she probably should look into her insurance, though quite often making a claim will just mean higher premiums later. However, I think she did go about this right... look how much pressure she is putting on EB. The people in the store were too stupid to realize the bad publicity the would receive for not just fixing things up. Yes, they may have to eat several hundred dollars in losses, but they have probably cost the EB chain as a whole thousands and perhaps millions due to the bad publicity this generated.
Funny how so many of the tech savvy alphageeks on slashdot don't have basic researching skills to find out facts on their but rather follow others like sheep and just assume what the other guy is saying is true
Thanks for the information, but no need to be an ass about it.
As it is, it will be a cold day in hell before I sell anything else to one of these stores.
It's not like you were giving these games to the store for altruistic purposes. It does you no difference if these games have the box or not, since you don't have these games anymore.
Now, on the other hand, I'd be more concerned about *buying* these used games knowing this information, since if you wanted things like the box you know this store won't save it.
All sides are dark. I don't want viruses nor my own purchased programs hiding what they are doing to my computer from me. We have seen plenty of examples of 'legimate' programs playing stupid tricks to do things from copy projection (i.e. modifying hard drive bootsectors) to adware (modifying core system files).
So, yes, tech like this perhaps could be used in viruses as well, however it's usually a pointless exercise no matter. So many companies think they have something important to hide, whether it be their copy protection or the billionth implementation of storing a record in a database.
Slashdot Mirror
Sega stopped making consoles, but they still make games. I don't really know. I guess I'm just posing a question for people to think about.
I'm guessing Nintendo will eventually go the way of Sega, becoming a more software oriented company. Having more consoles doesn't necessarily mean we get more (or more innovative) games, in fact, the opposite may well be true. The more fragmented the market is, the less potential customers there are for any particular game.
For the consumer, if they happen to have chosen to get one system, they miss out on all the exclusives for the systems they don't own. Does it make sense to deprive the Gamecube owner the chance to play Dead or Alive 3, or the XBox owner the chance to play Viewtiful Joe?
The market would be better off if it were possible for the hardware to be sold purely on it's technical merits, with games available for all system, but of course many issues make that difficult.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting it would be a good thing for the gaming world if a game was on *less* systems, but ignoring that, Viewtiful Joe will be coming out for the PS2.
Though long warrantee does in some sense imply to the customer that the product is going to last longer, I think the best way to think of it economically is as something that adds value. The product has a base worth, which can be whatever, and is then protected by a warrantee, which raises it's total value. Perhaps BMW feels their cars are worth enough in the eyes of their customers as it is for how much they are selling for, and felt that longer warranty wasn't necessary.
In terms of hard drives, I personally specifically seek longer warrantees (the last drive I got was a Seagate with a 3 year warrantee), because they are the most likely piece of equipment to die. I've gone through so many Maxtor hard drives it's not funny, and I can tell you in the case of their new 1-year warrantee, there is no inverse relationship between warrantee length and quality.
I really doubt this is the case. The idea of radios spewing out progaganda you can only turn down but not off is from 1984.
At one point he says there is blurring, but then he corrects himself. So... is there blurring??? The picture he presents as evidence seem to suggest this, but some/all of the ugliness of that could be attributed to his tv tuner. The author doesn't seem to specify the source of the "old" picture, but I'm guessing it's from an emulator, which isn't exactly a fair comparison. Any blurring would likely be due to the game be drawn on a quad with texture filtering setup wrong.
Then he says something about line-doubling... I'm guessing he means the sprites are stretched since I'm guessing the PS2 doesn't run at low resolutions (correct me if I'm wrong). Either way, if the game is being run at a resolution higher the original, there is nothing wrong stretching or 'line-doubling' as he calls it to make the images the right size.
He then says something about interlacing being a problem, but doesn't really say exactly what the problem is. Interlacing isn't usually an issue for a TV since it's already interlaced. This would be a problem though for those who want to play the game on a progressive scan TV/monitor.
The author should have been more careful with his terminology, if he was going through around that kind of jargon at all. He could have done almost as well just saying "game doesn't look so good".
Even though this may be technically spyware, it could also be technically illegal to remove due the DMCA. So basically, you put a cd with this type of crap on it, and since it's goal is copy-protection, anything that could get around it, including say, the ability to remove it if it attempts to stick on your system like a virus, could very well be considerred 'circumvension'. I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.
That basically boils down to the fact that when you spend your hard earned 50 bucks, all you are getting is a CD / DVD disc (and hopefully a box and a manual), as you have no rights to do anything to the data contained on it.
That's one damn expensive disc.
Companies should be required to separate the content from the media when selling their product. If they will only replace a broken disc for the price of the original product, then clearly the disc itself is worth the entire price, and the content is worthless and doesn't need protection.
Realistically, if we are going to have laws like the DMCA, we really need laws that also protect fair use. The copy protection should either allow for backups, or the company should be required to replace the media. If neither is satisfied, either the company should lose the protection the DMCA gives them.
I assume you mean download the whole movie and play, which isn't exactly the on-demand type of systems that I think tivo is aiming for. As far as I know BitTorrent isn't really setup for streaming. All users are generally going to want to download it in order, so the the program would have to be modified to support this somehow. Note that for the most part users will want to download it in order, though there is the possibility of trading parts of the movie slightly in the future. There is also multicasting, though I'm not sure if that has gone anywhere.
From what I understand of Renderman (haven't used it personally), I believe it breaks up your scene into polygons that are of subpixel size, rendering with that. A major attraction of it is its shader language, whose flexibility we are starting to see to some extent in hardware now.
Unfortunately, the default in windows doesn't require Ctrl-Alt-Del, and for those who do want to run Windows XP as a non-admin account and then use the 'Run As' feature, that window itself could be spoofed as well.
I understand one of the features of Paladium (or whatever it was based on) is that you can provide the system a picture or phrase that the OS keeps secret from the rest of the system, and that when it asks for your password the window will display it so you know it's legit. Of course, it would require quite a bit of prodding to get the average user to notice this feature, but it's a small step in the right direction.
Well, certainly asking for a password before you install something is one step above the average WinXP setup (with the main user as admin), though of course trojans can still get in through seemingly safe programs. Things like the URL exploits you mention, well, I that's certainly a problem but each individually anyway is easily fixed.
Unix wasn't really made with security, especially for the desktop, in mind in the first place, and systems based on it (Linux, BSD, OSX) are all quite vulnerable as you generally want to install your programs as root, which requires too much of trust in whatever you are installing. With Windows XP the situation is slightly worse since most people using it are always root. Until we start seeing more of a move to stop putting so much trust in programs (Java applets as you mention in another context, are a start), this type of thing will probably be a consant.
Arrrrrrrggg... I guess it was sure that someone from the Cult of Mac would suggest this. ;)
Besides the fact that the userbase is too small for most malware producers to target, what is preventing an Apple user from Spyware hell? While I don't know much of the Mac equivalent to ActiveX, I don't see much stopping spyware from hitting a Mac as, say, a trojan in freeware.
This is not true. I personally managed to get adware on my system through bearshare before adware became as well known as it is. While you can only take my word for it, I do know very well what I'm doing with a computer, so it was not out of the type of ignorance you imply. I also just had the fun of cleaning up a ton of spyware a friend of mine got, who knows very well of adware and habitually clicks the 'no' button when it asks to install an ActiveX control, but accidently hit 'yes' once and found his system crawling with the crap.
These programs are trojans. While in some cases they make it 'known' what is being installed (as in, say, the adware version of DivX), they often are snuck in either through freeware or through ActiveX. While with email, you have to make at least a conscious effort to load that attachment, adware can hit even the best of us.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government follows what people want. This only occurs when there is a large enough public outcry, but I really don't see how a blip like this would affect things. Instead, they will fall back on the default of promoting the 'rights' of those who are funnelling money to them. While the NDP and Green Party would side with the farmer, they have little power federally (and for the green party, little power anywhere). I don't expect the Liberals or the Conservatives to change patent laws in such a way that would stop this, and I wouldn't trust either in general on IP-related issues.
The major reason for the difference in unemployment is that Canada has a higher natural unemployment rate since a lot of work is seasonal. Changes of season affect a much smaller percentage of American jobs compared to Canadian jobs.
NO SHIT! Well, you see, I happen to have a non-Apple MP3 player that can play AAC. So, in order to play it without losing quality I have to do various tricks.
Of course, you can convert your iTMS songs (the ones you bought & downloaded) to mp3 via burning to disc and then re-encoding as mp3.
So, in order to use all these songs that you've purchased into a portable format, you have to burn them then rip them, which is both a pain in the ass and basically a manner of getting around the DRM. My argument was if you can't get through the DRM but still have the kinds of limitations that DRM often imposes, you will eventually run into walls due to it.
A limit of 10 copies may be adequate for the not-to-distance future. But if you really want to have a collection of music that you are going to play 10+ years from now... things get trickier. You may be moving the music between newer computers, between newer mp3 players, etc. You will eventually run out, and will be stuck.
The other possibility is that because you are worried about using the 10 times, you will avoid doing anything to affect the limit unless absolutely necessary.
Now, I'm ignoring the fact that DRM is rarely rock-solid, and people have already cracked the current version of PlayFair. For me, being able to get an unencrypted version of the music is a prerequest for me buying it, whether it starts that way or I use some other program. If there were some sort of absolute DRM of this variety, be ready to give up your purchased music.
I realize this type of comment is made all the time, but I am still very suprised at how so many people on Slashdot seem to be so open to DRM, when it prevents so many of the interesting uses of things you have purchased. Apple's DRM isn't all that much 'better' than other's. Can you play your iTunes music on your non-iPod MP3 player without someone getting around the DRM? Can you play the music on your computer with a non-apple player? Can you play it in an OS that isn't made be Apple or Microsoft?
While clearly a much illegal trading is going on, not all transfers of copyrighted material of the network is illegal. It's hard to pass judgement on this front given the small number of details in the article, but, as an example of legal use that is on the rise is people streaming their own music to other computers they happen to be in.
More importantly, there are some serious privacy implications with this. If a university is going to search people's IM traffic for copyrighted music, why don't they go a step further, and search it for evidence of plagerism. Or perhaps a step further and search for keywords of clearly nefarious purposes, such as 'bomb', 'kill', or 'bush sucks'. While perhaps the latter examples are a bit extreme, I personally consider the former quite extreme as well, and I keep getting suprised as to how far the government goes in invading people's privacy.
Users can be taught to be careful with some things, for example, openning attachments. They seem to have a tough enough time with that. Now, you are suggesting to expand this paranoia to the email messages themselves. Each email is a potential bomb waiting to explode simply by reading it.
A better solution is to keep patched (most users should be auto-patching, whether it be installed automatically or notify you when a new patch is available) so these known exploits don't hurt you, and for the most part you really should disable HTML.
Microsoft really show make this the default, whether to protect from viruses due to exploits or to prevent web-bugs (though disabling image tags to remote sites would do this as well).
Anyway, unfortunately it's not particularly obvious that this option exists, but here it is:
Go into, Tools/Options menu, and click on the 'Read' tab. Enable "Read all messages in plain text". For good measure, go to the security tab and make sure it's set to the restricted zone (though it probably won't matter as much now)
Yes, having the original cabinet is nice, along with the original controllers and everything. However, an emulator mixed with a good joystick is going to be nearly as good as the real thing. Unless you only want to play a few of games total, buying the cabinets won't get you very far unless you happen to have a lot of extra cash/space.
Yes, she probably should look into her insurance, though quite often making a claim will just mean higher premiums later. However, I think she did go about this right... look how much pressure she is putting on EB. The people in the store were too stupid to realize the bad publicity the would receive for not just fixing things up. Yes, they may have to eat several hundred dollars in losses, but they have probably cost the EB chain as a whole thousands and perhaps millions due to the bad publicity this generated.
Funny how so many of the tech savvy alphageeks on slashdot don't have basic researching skills to find out facts on their but rather follow others like sheep and just assume what the other guy is saying is true
Thanks for the information, but no need to be an ass about it.
It's not like you were giving these games to the store for altruistic purposes. It does you no difference if these games have the box or not, since you don't have these games anymore.
Now, on the other hand, I'd be more concerned about *buying* these used games knowing this information, since if you wanted things like the box you know this store won't save it.
So, yes, tech like this perhaps could be used in viruses as well, however it's usually a pointless exercise no matter. So many companies think they have something important to hide, whether it be their copy protection or the billionth implementation of storing a record in a database.