Games are supposed to be graded on the same scale as schoolwork. 6 out of 10 is just south of failure, which sounds right considering that the criticisms in the article are numerous but individually weak. 3 out of 10 is actively painful to play, which is something Darkwatch fortunately does not achieve.
One wonders how they determine, just from the IP, which clients belong to those organizations and which don't. Because they're just going to get connected through a major ISP (and get assigned an IP from their pool and not a pool that could be traced back to RIAA.com) and become completely indistinguishable from normal clients.
It's a pain in the ass for a laptop, which is portable and commonly used in places without network jacks (like, say, outdoors. You may have read about it on a web page once, but trust me, it's real).
Huh? How would being able to switch to a different base station affect the fact that your neighbor is taking up too many channels for your computer to get a word in edgewise?
This trick, along with the 108Mbps networking that's already on store shelves, is an abuse of the standard and should be avoided for the common good. There's always a huge uproar when some company is caught using an unsanctioned extension to a software protocol; this situation is no different.
"If you ignore all the other things Intel spends money on, manufacturing a CPU only costs this much." This is the same fallacious argument as claiming that album CDs only cost a record label as much as a blank CDR does in a store- the final manufacturing cost is only a tiny portion of what has been spent to make the final manufacturing possible in the first place. The acquisition of the knowledge of where exactly to put the copper dust on the silicon wafer is what makes the difference between a cutting-edge microprocessor and a worthless sliver of rock; neglecting it is simply stupid.
That would be a silly policy that results in failure to cover a lot of important stories. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was discredited long ago and accusations of "newspeak" are just paranoia. If you understand the fundamental issues involved the terminology doesn't matter, and if you feel vulnerable to having your mind clouded by misleading phrases then do more research.
A vehicle with a 500-ton cargo capacity would make a great platform for an anti-missile laser. We can fit those in a 747, so this thing should have capacity to spare.
I'm going by Apple's description of the security update introducing the check, which implies that double-clicking the application does not trigger it (first line under second heading). Also, I have not experienced what you describe- installing and then launching an app does not ask me to confirm it on 10.4.2.
Double-clicking an executable file in Mail does ask you to confirm; I just tried it. Also, you can turn off the Safari behavior by unchecking "Open safe files" in prefs (which is a good idea anyway since it's a stupid feature).
Actually, the permission-to-launch dialog does not protect against malicious applications disguised as documents. If you double-click an app it will launch without question. What the dialog box defends against is an automated exploit that involves sending an application and a document to a system and then a request that the document be opened, which would launch the app before this dialog was introduced.
The way you express your belief that violent games are suitable for children is by letting them play the games. How the games were acquired doesn't really enter into it. If you want your children to play violent games, get involved with their lives long enough to figure out what games they want and go with them to buy them.
Perhaps because 8.9 is a very good score? Game ratings are supposed to be like test scores- a complete failure is rated at 5-6, and you should read the review to see exactly what the reviewer didn't like and whether it would bother you more or less than it did him. If you insist on only playing games that score above, say, a 9.5, then not only will you play very few games but you will be missing out on a whole lot of really good ones. Did you permanently swear off watching movies after Citizen Kane, or reading books after discovering Shakespeare?
True, but its development was made very much easier by the knowledge of the valid key. The Xbox was also cracked by sidestepping the protection method instead of directly breaking it- a flaw was found in the code that implemented the checksum.
And besides, even if a method is found for compromising the 360, if it's sufficiently more difficult to perform than modding a current-generation console (i.e. if you can't just drop a modchip in the box or take it to the corner electronics store and pay $50 labor) then cracked 360s will be very rare.
One of the trends you listed has already hit its limit and stopped- what are you going to drop lossless audio for? The only step up is a completely uncompressed format, and that offers no real advantage over true lossless.
Why do you automatically rule out the possibility that the Nano really is that good? Or is he supposed to automatically dock it 30% because it comes from a huge corporation you don't like?
Firstly, a review that just regurgitated the spec page in English instead of tables would be boring. Secondly, if you ever look outside/., you'd find a lot of people who do not know things like "flash memory is more resistant to impact than hard disks" (not because they are dumb or lazy, but because they never had a reason to investigate it). Thirdly, the number he was talking about was not disk space, it was Apple's marketing line of "1000 songs"- again, not everyone is sufficiently knowledgeable about computers or their music collection to mentally convert that to gigabytes on-the-fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and breast enlargment was intended only for cancer survivors who had mastectomies.
Games are supposed to be graded on the same scale as schoolwork. 6 out of 10 is just south of failure, which sounds right considering that the criticisms in the article are numerous but individually weak. 3 out of 10 is actively painful to play, which is something Darkwatch fortunately does not achieve.
Everything2.
It's also worth pointing out that that's almost exactly how it happens in the original book.
One wonders how they determine, just from the IP, which clients belong to those organizations and which don't. Because they're just going to get connected through a major ISP (and get assigned an IP from their pool and not a pool that could be traced back to RIAA.com) and become completely indistinguishable from normal clients.
What part of this site is a joke don't you understand?
Actually, there are a few optional accessories that did eventually become standards on their platform, like the Dual Shock or the Xbox S controller.
So, it's like Flash and Interface Builder got drunk one night and nine months later we have Sparkle?
It's a pain in the ass for a laptop, which is portable and commonly used in places without network jacks (like, say, outdoors. You may have read about it on a web page once, but trust me, it's real).
The wireless market is already stabilized. 802.11g gear is common, cheap, and reliable.
And, as many people before me have said, gigabit ethernet is either a pain in the ass or simply not possible for laptops.
Huh? How would being able to switch to a different base station affect the fact that your neighbor is taking up too many channels for your computer to get a word in edgewise?
This trick, along with the 108Mbps networking that's already on store shelves, is an abuse of the standard and should be avoided for the common good. There's always a huge uproar when some company is caught using an unsanctioned extension to a software protocol; this situation is no different.
"If you ignore all the other things Intel spends money on, manufacturing a CPU only costs this much." This is the same fallacious argument as claiming that album CDs only cost a record label as much as a blank CDR does in a store- the final manufacturing cost is only a tiny portion of what has been spent to make the final manufacturing possible in the first place. The acquisition of the knowledge of where exactly to put the copper dust on the silicon wafer is what makes the difference between a cutting-edge microprocessor and a worthless sliver of rock; neglecting it is simply stupid.
You can track the performance of the various countries on the official PSL Scoreboard.
That would be a silly policy that results in failure to cover a lot of important stories. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was discredited long ago and accusations of "newspeak" are just paranoia. If you understand the fundamental issues involved the terminology doesn't matter, and if you feel vulnerable to having your mind clouded by misleading phrases then do more research.
A vehicle with a 500-ton cargo capacity would make a great platform for an anti-missile laser. We can fit those in a 747, so this thing should have capacity to spare.
He even got the first (and last) checkpoints. Report of suspiciously large component order from Pacific rim tech company? Check.
I'm going by Apple's description of the security update introducing the check, which implies that double-clicking the application does not trigger it (first line under second heading). Also, I have not experienced what you describe- installing and then launching an app does not ask me to confirm it on 10.4.2.
Double-clicking an executable file in Mail does ask you to confirm; I just tried it. Also, you can turn off the Safari behavior by unchecking "Open safe files" in prefs (which is a good idea anyway since it's a stupid feature).
Actually, the permission-to-launch dialog does not protect against malicious applications disguised as documents. If you double-click an app it will launch without question. What the dialog box defends against is an automated exploit that involves sending an application and a document to a system and then a request that the document be opened, which would launch the app before this dialog was introduced.
The way you express your belief that violent games are suitable for children is by letting them play the games. How the games were acquired doesn't really enter into it. If you want your children to play violent games, get involved with their lives long enough to figure out what games they want and go with them to buy them.
Perhaps because 8.9 is a very good score? Game ratings are supposed to be like test scores- a complete failure is rated at 5-6, and you should read the review to see exactly what the reviewer didn't like and whether it would bother you more or less than it did him. If you insist on only playing games that score above, say, a 9.5, then not only will you play very few games but you will be missing out on a whole lot of really good ones. Did you permanently swear off watching movies after Citizen Kane, or reading books after discovering Shakespeare?
True, but its development was made very much easier by the knowledge of the valid key. The Xbox was also cracked by sidestepping the protection method instead of directly breaking it- a flaw was found in the code that implemented the checksum.
And besides, even if a method is found for compromising the 360, if it's sufficiently more difficult to perform than modding a current-generation console (i.e. if you can't just drop a modchip in the box or take it to the corner electronics store and pay $50 labor) then cracked 360s will be very rare.
One of the trends you listed has already hit its limit and stopped- what are you going to drop lossless audio for? The only step up is a completely uncompressed format, and that offers no real advantage over true lossless.
Why do you automatically rule out the possibility that the Nano really is that good? Or is he supposed to automatically dock it 30% because it comes from a huge corporation you don't like?
Firstly, a review that just regurgitated the spec page in English instead of tables would be boring. Secondly, if you ever look outside /., you'd find a lot of people who do not know things like "flash memory is more resistant to impact than hard disks" (not because they are dumb or lazy, but because they never had a reason to investigate it). Thirdly, the number he was talking about was not disk space, it was Apple's marketing line of "1000 songs"- again, not everyone is sufficiently knowledgeable about computers or their music collection to mentally convert that to gigabytes on-the-fly.
No Hot Coffee Please, We're British?