Right clicking on it in the folders list to the left (under Favorite Links)works for me
Yes it does, although I had to right click on an empty space in that pane to turn on "Expand to current folder" to ensure the list followed where is was up to in the right hand window. Otherwise it just showed the drives.
No they are not. I'm a tech writer and the Microsoft tech writing manual is my lifeline. I know how the stuff is SUPPOSED to work. It is not for lack of effort on my part that the WinOS keyshortcuts are horribly documented and not intuitive.
It is true that in the old days we used to get manuals with our software. I recall we got multiple volumes of manuals for old versions of Office. However, it doesn't take too much effort to find this information. I managed to quickly find many articles on keyboard shortcuts using google, and there is a good introduction in the Help of Windows 7.
To find what you need to know in the Windows help, just open the Start menu, and choose "Help and Support" (it should be the last option on the right hand side). On the first page of the help, there is an link to "Learn about Windows Basics". It is probably worth your while to read through these articles, but the most interesting one for now is called "Using your keyboard" which tells you all about the various keyboard shortcuts, how to discover them in each program, what the keyboard modifiers are (Ctrl, Alt and Windows keys).
Unlike the Mac, when Windows first came out the mouse was optional. This means it has a tradition of providing keyboard access to every single function so there are a variety of ways of using the keyboard. You complaint of two different systems of keyboard shortcuts is not strictly correct, because the Alt key is more about keyboard access to something that would require a mouse. So it is an accessibility method rather than a shortcut.
So in effect, the CSIRO wants to be be paid by the chipset makers, and then by the companies that use those chipsets, seems greedy
I agree. I have no problem with the organisation receiving royalties from the companies who misuse their IP, but going after their customers is just not on. While I have no love for telecommunications companies, in principle they should only sue the companies who directly use their technology.
What's next? Sue all the customers of Verizon too?
That's because the hackers want a Mac, not some lame old Windows box.
Sorry, but the contestants do not decide the order in which they attack the target computers. They are allocated timeslots randomly to each system. The Mac fails first because they haven't implemented some of the basic security precautions that the other operating systems have.
No, I am using the definition from the dictionary: "restricting or tending to restrict". Does that sound like it is a comparative word? Sure you can say that something is more restrictive or less restrictive, but neither phrase was ever used here and it is the words "more" and "less" that makes it into a comparison. If the word restrictive really meant "more restrictive", then surely unrestrictive would mean "less restrictive" - which it does not.
The word "restrictive" is an adjective and modifies the noun with which it is paired. Here it states that the DRM restricts the use of the software. Period.
Any attempt on your part to claim that it implies relativity is an exercise in redefining the word yourself.
The guy was defining it as something that requires a constant Internet connection just to play the game
Well I consider it to be restrictive if it requires ANY Internet connection to play a single user game.
If it is so bad, don't buy the game. But don't freak out about it like it is the Patriot Act of games or something.
My original point was to tell someone who "loved the company for this" that they are merely implementing the same copy protection scheme that had some of us complaining just a few years ago. Rather than "freaking out" about this, I just said that we shouldn't go too far in the other direction and fall in love with the company. There is no suggestion that we should boycott the game, and I don't think we should call the company evil for this. But don't say that just because their system is not the most restrictive around that therefore it contains no restrictions at all and that Blizzard should be congratulated.
Would you buy a high end video card for a computer, even if it was only be a headless server? No. Because it would be a waste.
So why would I set up a network for a computer that I have no intention of connecting to anything else? A computer that is not going to print, or share files. That I don't want to keep updated with the latest patches because I will probably reinstall it fairly often? That will possibly get some malware that I would want to keep away from the Internet.
Seriously, why MUST I cable this computer into my network and then do extra work to isolate it from everything else it could connect to? Just to satisfy some anonymous bozo on slashdot? I think not. You are just not that worth it.
You realize you're talking about a multi-player game right? I mean, yeah, there's a single player campaign, but buying SC2 just for the single player game is essentially wasting half your money.
Surely the issue here is not value for money. This is not the only game that requires authentication. This is becoming the industry standard. Besides, I used to play Unreal Tournament in single user mode because it was a great game to play if you had 10 minutes to spare and wanted to fill in time. StarCraft II looks like it will be a good single player game too.
But I can imagine that someone who was primarily interested in online multiplayer gaming would be perplexed by my rejection of online activation. If you are playing a single user game, then you can see how silly it is to require Internet access just to placate the beancounters.
Besides, your argument is a straw man. if you really wanted to play the game it would trivial to give the computer Net access for the 30 seconds required.
Actually, my argument was that I still considered the online authentication to be restrictive DRM and that we shouldn't love the company merely because they weren't as bad as the worst DRM in the industry. This branch of the thread came from me having to explain the potential problems with the DRM. It was other people who seem to think that I was talking out of my hat to say that some gaming computers would not be connected to the Internet.
And in any case, I would be mad to connect it to the Internet when it hasn't been locked down in any way, is not fully patched and has had a bucket load of dodgy software installed on it. But as I said, it was a theoretical example, especially since I wasn't in the market to buy StarCraft II anyway! I have too much of a backlog of games!
So you are paranoid enough that you don't want your gaming machines connected to your network of machines with personal data on them for fear of sneaky game and DRM programmers.
Not just sneaky, but sloppy. How many games out there require administrator access to run? And it is not just the programmers, but me. I download demos, games and other untested software from various sources to use on that system. If I let a virus through then it will be completely contained.
Am I the only one surprised that someone would view games as a larger incursion threat than being connected to the net?
You are making assumptions about the rest of my network. I have three computers that are completely disconnected from my network because they just don't need access to anything. Of the rest of them, only three workstations have access to the Internet, and only two of those have access to my file server. My firewalls are set to block everything by default and I set up rules to allow particular applications to use particular ports to particular servers. Yes, I am paranoid, but I am supposed to be paranoid for a living.
Tell me, do you really think that petty name-calling and swearing actually helps in any conversation. It says nothing about the person you are abusing, and everything about you.
On second thoughts, don't tell me. I don't imagine your answer would be insightful enough to make me bother to click on the link to your reply.
One day the industry will get it and drop all copy protection, like it did in the early '90s.
I'm not sure about that. Services like Steam act as copy protection, but also do provide an easy way to buy software. If it looks like a benefit to the comsumer then I can't see any incentive for companies to go without DRM. Judging by the reactions here, enough people seem to think that this is a reasonable trade off - which is fine if you wait for the sales and don't pay full price for anything to offset the inability to resell your old games.
How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?
Here's the test: try to run the game without signing up. If you can't do that then it is a restrictive DRM. That's fine if you have no problems with that, just don't try to claim that it isn't restrictive DRM.
I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately.
How many people really create separate accounts with a view to reselling their games? I would find that a total pain. What do you do, keep logging out and back in again to play another game online?
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.
Rather than unable to connect, let's try unwilling to connect. I have always kept my games separate from my real computer network because I deem game programmers and DRM programmers to be suspect. Because I am installing things more often on a games system, there is more chance of things going wrong and viruses being introduced. For this reason, I always keep this away from my real data. The easiest way to do this is physical separation. This then limits access to the Internet.
Furthermore, since "restrictive" can be a very relative term, you can do so with a straight face, in perfect accuracy, and be understood by most competent speakers of the English language, just like you can claim you don't like hot beverages but then drink a "cold" beer that's hundreds of degrees above absolute zero.
In that case, no DRM is restrictive because there could always be something more restrictive. Therefore there was no point in making the claim in the first place because it would be stating the obvious. But really, this line of argument is just silly wordplay and doesn't prove anything.
Diablo 2 was just a "what if" example. I wasn't saying that it didn't work. The point was what happens if a new game today was being played in 10 years time like the poster was saying he was doing with Diablo now. Will the new games with the new DRM still work?
The company will intend to remove the DRM at some stage, but this is a volitile market and one day we are bound to have some company go under without freeing up their software. The receivers will be more interested in selling the assets rather than keeping gamers happy.
What exactly are you talking about? It's a single online activation.
You just answered your question. Online activation seems so simple, until it all goes wrong. You might install it on a notebook without net access (admittedly less of an issue these days). The servers might crash. A pirate might have already used your ID and you can't install. There may be limits to how many times you can install, so reinstalling after a system crash will cause problems. I don't know if it may happen in this case, but upgrading your computer may cause the software to think it has been copied onto another system and demand reactivation (or just stop working). The company might go bankrupt or just decide the software is at end of life.
But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.
Why the love? They are still shoving restrictive DRM at you, just not as restrictive as another company's DRM. That's like saying that the guy who broke both your legs was really nice because he didn't murder you. (Convert that to a car analogy if it makes you more comfortable)
When Microsoft implemented activation for Windows and Office I complained like mad and stopped upgrading. When games started doing it, I stopped buying games for a long time and just replayed my old ones as I didn't trust game writers enough to connect my game system to the Internet. Even now I try to avoid it by buying games on GOG.com.
You say you still play Diablo 2? How would you feel if you suddenly couldn't play it anymore because a 10 year old game had reached its end of life?
How is HW acceleration of graphics going to help anything on a netbook unless you have a ION chipset?
What is your point? That they shouldn't even try to do GPU accelerated video because not everyone has a capable system? That maybe Intel's GPU will only allow one video to run rather than two? That demonstrating it on a netbook isn't representative of what most people use (because most people use faster systems)? That the next generation of Atom chips will not have superior video capabilities?
As someone who has a desktop system that is much faster than a netbook, I appreciate that they are aiming so low because that means it will really fly on my computer. And when I buy a netbook to replace my 6 year old Toshiba Portege, I will know to pay attention to the video support when choosing a model. Since I wasn't getting something to play games, I wouldn't have cared too much about that previously.
-1 Flogging a dead horse! Everyone kept attacking Vista with the vague DRM claims without being able to back it up. That was what made me the most mad when I eventually and begrudgingly tried Vista only to find that most of the complaints that I read about it were crap. I found that I could rip CDs in MP3 format with Windows Media Player, I could rip DVDs and I could play pirated videos downloaded from the Internet (presumably - not that I actually did that!)
When you look at the specific claims people made about DRM, half the time it was just made up and the other half tended to be changes in the driver models (which lead to some hastily made and incomplete drivers).
IIRC since Vista there are restrictions on audio software, something about not allowing to record the output of another program or something like that
That is a driver issue, not DRM. Some people who have had this problem have managed to fix it by downloading the drivers from the chipset manufacturer rather than using their motherboard's driver (assuming onboard audio).
The audio system of Vista was rewritten to allow things like better sound quality (recording and playback), crash protection and per-application volume levels. This required some changes to the sound drivers. I think a lot of the problems people had was due to manufacturers writing the bare bones drivers to get something out quickly.
A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.
Surely if they do this, then it doesn't matter that they aren't paid or haven't been formally trained in a scientific field. There are limits to what you can achieve without an education, but what defines a scientist is the search for knowledge, not already having knowledge.
I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually".
It sounds a bit childish, really. How can you say it is all take and no give, and then immediately say that they WILL be giving you the results, but only after it has gone through that pesky scientific process.<WHINE>But I want it now!</WHINE>
What is the problem with waiting for the right answer? Zakabog has already pointed out that a real time display could be used maliciously, but it could even skew the results by well-intentioned people. If the first person who submits a result for a given region makes a mistake, then the next person who analyses that region might compare their results with the first and "correct" their own mistake. If you use statistics to build confidence in the results then the last thing you should do is tell the subjects what you are currently expecting them to do. That only uses statistics to compound errors.
If the power difference between a P4 and a modern CPU wasn't enough the change the number of solar cells required, then it doesn't matter if it uses extra power. Given the point of the charity is specifically to reuse old equipment, then they might as well pack up and go home if they have to buy all new stuff.
A P4 would be enough to run 10 users. 15 years ago I ran a 10 user office from a single 386. By today's standard it was slow, but it still worked. Considering that the communications in the remote regions of Africa is likely to be high latency and low bandwidth then it is not as if it will be possible to use Youtube or anything like it.
awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.
Well, there's your problem. Your full quality on the PS3 is the same as mainstream quality on the PC. But since you know that it is possible to get better quality on the PC you feel that you are missing out on something.
I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up.
Well don't crank the graphics up. Leave it at mainstream settings and you will get your PS3 experience. The advantage of the PC is that if you decide to play a game again in a few years time then you will get improved visuals due to the advances in graphics and CPU. But in my opinion the improvements are not compelling enough to warrant spending hundreds more on a top of the range video card right now.
According to Wikipedia: Supported web browsers include Internet Explorer 7 and later, Mozilla Firefox 3.5 and later and Safari 4. In another thread, I just criticised the Microsoft web apps for requiring Silverlight, but I just read that according to Wikipedia it was: optional and its availability will only "enhance the user experience, resulting in sharper images and improved rendering."
Slashdot Mirror
Right clicking on it in the folders list to the left (under Favorite Links)works for me
Yes it does, although I had to right click on an empty space in that pane to turn on "Expand to current folder" to ensure the list followed where is was up to in the right hand window. Otherwise it just showed the drives.
No they are not. I'm a tech writer and the Microsoft tech writing manual is my lifeline. I know how the stuff is SUPPOSED to work. It is not for lack of effort on my part that the WinOS keyshortcuts are horribly documented and not intuitive.
It is true that in the old days we used to get manuals with our software. I recall we got multiple volumes of manuals for old versions of Office. However, it doesn't take too much effort to find this information. I managed to quickly find many articles on keyboard shortcuts using google, and there is a good introduction in the Help of Windows 7.
To find what you need to know in the Windows help, just open the Start menu, and choose "Help and Support" (it should be the last option on the right hand side). On the first page of the help, there is an link to "Learn about Windows Basics". It is probably worth your while to read through these articles, but the most interesting one for now is called "Using your keyboard" which tells you all about the various keyboard shortcuts, how to discover them in each program, what the keyboard modifiers are (Ctrl, Alt and Windows keys).
Unlike the Mac, when Windows first came out the mouse was optional. This means it has a tradition of providing keyboard access to every single function so there are a variety of ways of using the keyboard. You complaint of two different systems of keyboard shortcuts is not strictly correct, because the Alt key is more about keyboard access to something that would require a mouse. So it is an accessibility method rather than a shortcut.
So in effect, the CSIRO wants to be be paid by the chipset makers, and then by the companies that use those chipsets, seems greedy
I agree. I have no problem with the organisation receiving royalties from the companies who misuse their IP, but going after their customers is just not on. While I have no love for telecommunications companies, in principle they should only sue the companies who directly use their technology.
What's next? Sue all the customers of Verizon too?
That's because the hackers want a Mac, not some lame old Windows box.
Sorry, but the contestants do not decide the order in which they attack the target computers. They are allocated timeslots randomly to each system. The Mac fails first because they haven't implemented some of the basic security precautions that the other operating systems have.
Your argument is terrible.
No it isn't.
Restrictive can be relative.
Not by itself it can't.
You are choosing to define it in your own way.
No, I am using the definition from the dictionary: "restricting or tending to restrict". Does that sound like it is a comparative word? Sure you can say that something is more restrictive or less restrictive, but neither phrase was ever used here and it is the words "more" and "less" that makes it into a comparison. If the word restrictive really meant "more restrictive", then surely unrestrictive would mean "less restrictive" - which it does not.
The word "restrictive" is an adjective and modifies the noun with which it is paired. Here it states that the DRM restricts the use of the software. Period.
Any attempt on your part to claim that it implies relativity is an exercise in redefining the word yourself.
The guy was defining it as something that requires a constant Internet connection just to play the game
Well I consider it to be restrictive if it requires ANY Internet connection to play a single user game.
If it is so bad, don't buy the game. But don't freak out about it like it is the Patriot Act of games or something.
My original point was to tell someone who "loved the company for this" that they are merely implementing the same copy protection scheme that had some of us complaining just a few years ago. Rather than "freaking out" about this, I just said that we shouldn't go too far in the other direction and fall in love with the company. There is no suggestion that we should boycott the game, and I don't think we should call the company evil for this. But don't say that just because their system is not the most restrictive around that therefore it contains no restrictions at all and that Blizzard should be congratulated.
Would you buy a high end video card for a computer, even if it was only be a headless server? No. Because it would be a waste.
So why would I set up a network for a computer that I have no intention of connecting to anything else? A computer that is not going to print, or share files. That I don't want to keep updated with the latest patches because I will probably reinstall it fairly often? That will possibly get some malware that I would want to keep away from the Internet.
Seriously, why MUST I cable this computer into my network and then do extra work to isolate it from everything else it could connect to? Just to satisfy some anonymous bozo on slashdot? I think not. You are just not that worth it.
You realize you're talking about a multi-player game right? I mean, yeah, there's a single player campaign, but buying SC2 just for the single player game is essentially wasting half your money.
Surely the issue here is not value for money. This is not the only game that requires authentication. This is becoming the industry standard. Besides, I used to play Unreal Tournament in single user mode because it was a great game to play if you had 10 minutes to spare and wanted to fill in time. StarCraft II looks like it will be a good single player game too.
But I can imagine that someone who was primarily interested in online multiplayer gaming would be perplexed by my rejection of online activation. If you are playing a single user game, then you can see how silly it is to require Internet access just to placate the beancounters.
Besides, your argument is a straw man. if you really wanted to play the game it would trivial to give the computer Net access for the 30 seconds required.
Actually, my argument was that I still considered the online authentication to be restrictive DRM and that we shouldn't love the company merely because they weren't as bad as the worst DRM in the industry. This branch of the thread came from me having to explain the potential problems with the DRM. It was other people who seem to think that I was talking out of my hat to say that some gaming computers would not be connected to the Internet.
And in any case, I would be mad to connect it to the Internet when it hasn't been locked down in any way, is not fully patched and has had a bucket load of dodgy software installed on it. But as I said, it was a theoretical example, especially since I wasn't in the market to buy StarCraft II anyway! I have too much of a backlog of games!
So you are paranoid enough that you don't want your gaming machines connected to your network of machines with personal data on them for fear of sneaky game and DRM programmers.
Not just sneaky, but sloppy. How many games out there require administrator access to run? And it is not just the programmers, but me. I download demos, games and other untested software from various sources to use on that system. If I let a virus through then it will be completely contained.
Am I the only one surprised that someone would view games as a larger incursion threat than being connected to the net?
You are making assumptions about the rest of my network. I have three computers that are completely disconnected from my network because they just don't need access to anything. Of the rest of them, only three workstations have access to the Internet, and only two of those have access to my file server. My firewalls are set to block everything by default and I set up rules to allow particular applications to use particular ports to particular servers. Yes, I am paranoid, but I am supposed to be paranoid for a living.
Even now I try to avoid it by buying games on GOG.com.
Why? What is wrong with GOG?
You misread my sentence. I said that the way I avoid DRM is to buy games on GOG.com . GOG is good.
Tell me, do you really think that petty name-calling and swearing actually helps in any conversation. It says nothing about the person you are abusing, and everything about you.
On second thoughts, don't tell me. I don't imagine your answer would be insightful enough to make me bother to click on the link to your reply.
One day the industry will get it and drop all copy protection, like it did in the early '90s.
I'm not sure about that. Services like Steam act as copy protection, but also do provide an easy way to buy software. If it looks like a benefit to the comsumer then I can't see any incentive for companies to go without DRM. Judging by the reactions here, enough people seem to think that this is a reasonable trade off - which is fine if you wait for the sales and don't pay full price for anything to offset the inability to resell your old games.
How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?
Here's the test: try to run the game without signing up. If you can't do that then it is a restrictive DRM. That's fine if you have no problems with that, just don't try to claim that it isn't restrictive DRM.
I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately.
How many people really create separate accounts with a view to reselling their games? I would find that a total pain. What do you do, keep logging out and back in again to play another game online?
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.
Rather than unable to connect, let's try unwilling to connect. I have always kept my games separate from my real computer network because I deem game programmers and DRM programmers to be suspect. Because I am installing things more often on a games system, there is more chance of things going wrong and viruses being introduced. For this reason, I always keep this away from my real data. The easiest way to do this is physical separation. This then limits access to the Internet.
Furthermore, since "restrictive" can be a very relative term, you can do so with a straight face, in perfect accuracy, and be understood by most competent speakers of the English language, just like you can claim you don't like hot beverages but then drink a "cold" beer that's hundreds of degrees above absolute zero.
In that case, no DRM is restrictive because there could always be something more restrictive. Therefore there was no point in making the claim in the first place because it would be stating the obvious. But really, this line of argument is just silly wordplay and doesn't prove anything.
Diablo 2 was just a "what if" example. I wasn't saying that it didn't work. The point was what happens if a new game today was being played in 10 years time like the poster was saying he was doing with Diablo now. Will the new games with the new DRM still work?
The company will intend to remove the DRM at some stage, but this is a volitile market and one day we are bound to have some company go under without freeing up their software. The receivers will be more interested in selling the assets rather than keeping gamers happy.
What exactly are you talking about? It's a single online activation.
You just answered your question. Online activation seems so simple, until it all goes wrong. You might install it on a notebook without net access (admittedly less of an issue these days). The servers might crash. A pirate might have already used your ID and you can't install. There may be limits to how many times you can install, so reinstalling after a system crash will cause problems. I don't know if it may happen in this case, but upgrading your computer may cause the software to think it has been copied onto another system and demand reactivation (or just stop working). The company might go bankrupt or just decide the software is at end of life.
But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.
Why the love? They are still shoving restrictive DRM at you, just not as restrictive as another company's DRM. That's like saying that the guy who broke both your legs was really nice because he didn't murder you. (Convert that to a car analogy if it makes you more comfortable)
When Microsoft implemented activation for Windows and Office I complained like mad and stopped upgrading. When games started doing it, I stopped buying games for a long time and just replayed my old ones as I didn't trust game writers enough to connect my game system to the Internet. Even now I try to avoid it by buying games on GOG.com.
You say you still play Diablo 2? How would you feel if you suddenly couldn't play it anymore because a 10 year old game had reached its end of life?
How is HW acceleration of graphics going to help anything on a netbook unless you have a ION chipset?
What is your point? That they shouldn't even try to do GPU accelerated video because not everyone has a capable system? That maybe Intel's GPU will only allow one video to run rather than two? That demonstrating it on a netbook isn't representative of what most people use (because most people use faster systems)? That the next generation of Atom chips will not have superior video capabilities?
As someone who has a desktop system that is much faster than a netbook, I appreciate that they are aiming so low because that means it will really fly on my computer. And when I buy a netbook to replace my 6 year old Toshiba Portege, I will know to pay attention to the video support when choosing a model. Since I wasn't getting something to play games, I wouldn't have cared too much about that previously.
-1 Flogging a dead horse! Everyone kept attacking Vista with the vague DRM claims without being able to back it up. That was what made me the most mad when I eventually and begrudgingly tried Vista only to find that most of the complaints that I read about it were crap. I found that I could rip CDs in MP3 format with Windows Media Player, I could rip DVDs and I could play pirated videos downloaded from the Internet (presumably - not that I actually did that!)
When you look at the specific claims people made about DRM, half the time it was just made up and the other half tended to be changes in the driver models (which lead to some hastily made and incomplete drivers).
IIRC since Vista there are restrictions on audio software, something about not allowing to record the output of another program or something like that
That is a driver issue, not DRM. Some people who have had this problem have managed to fix it by downloading the drivers from the chipset manufacturer rather than using their motherboard's driver (assuming onboard audio).
The audio system of Vista was rewritten to allow things like better sound quality (recording and playback), crash protection and per-application volume levels. This required some changes to the sound drivers. I think a lot of the problems people had was due to manufacturers writing the bare bones drivers to get something out quickly.
amateur scientists are not scientists, however.
Why? According to :
A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.
Surely if they do this, then it doesn't matter that they aren't paid or haven't been formally trained in a scientific field. There are limits to what you can achieve without an education, but what defines a scientist is the search for knowledge, not already having knowledge.
I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually".
It sounds a bit childish, really. How can you say it is all take and no give, and then immediately say that they WILL be giving you the results, but only after it has gone through that pesky scientific process.<WHINE>But I want it now!</WHINE>
What is the problem with waiting for the right answer? Zakabog has already pointed out that a real time display could be used maliciously, but it could even skew the results by well-intentioned people. If the first person who submits a result for a given region makes a mistake, then the next person who analyses that region might compare their results with the first and "correct" their own mistake. If you use statistics to build confidence in the results then the last thing you should do is tell the subjects what you are currently expecting them to do. That only uses statistics to compound errors.
If the power difference between a P4 and a modern CPU wasn't enough the change the number of solar cells required, then it doesn't matter if it uses extra power. Given the point of the charity is specifically to reuse old equipment, then they might as well pack up and go home if they have to buy all new stuff.
A P4 would be enough to run 10 users. 15 years ago I ran a 10 user office from a single 386. By today's standard it was slow, but it still worked. Considering that the communications in the remote regions of Africa is likely to be high latency and low bandwidth then it is not as if it will be possible to use Youtube or anything like it.
What the hell are those?
It is what they used to wrap the TV guides in.
awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.
Well, there's your problem. Your full quality on the PS3 is the same as mainstream quality on the PC. But since you know that it is possible to get better quality on the PC you feel that you are missing out on something.
I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up.
Well don't crank the graphics up. Leave it at mainstream settings and you will get your PS3 experience. The advantage of the PC is that if you decide to play a game again in a few years time then you will get improved visuals due to the advances in graphics and CPU. But in my opinion the improvements are not compelling enough to warrant spending hundreds more on a top of the range video card right now.
According to Wikipedia: Supported web browsers include Internet Explorer 7 and later, Mozilla Firefox 3.5 and later and Safari 4. In another thread, I just criticised the Microsoft web apps for requiring Silverlight, but I just read that according to Wikipedia it was: optional and its availability will only "enhance the user experience, resulting in sharper images and improved rendering."
I should have read TFA.