Nintendo is selling out every shipment. What Nintendo has stopped "bragging" about (i.e., projecting) is a million sales in the U.S.; they're easily going to surpass a million worldwide sales. As many other sites have pointed out, it's likely that Nintendo is pleased with U.S. sales numbers right now and would like to direct more supplies toward Europe and Japan for the rest of the year and spread things out. I suspect, though, they'll still manage to hit a million U.S. sales by December 31...just a feeling. I'm not surprised by the 360 sales given YAXS (Yet Another XBox Shooter) released, which appears to be all its good for. With Microsoft's near-zero presence in Japan and Sony's low supply numbers, Nintendo probably wants to take Japan completely with the Wii and DS.
Actually, if you include their portable systems, Nintendo is already the #1 video game company worldwide with the most market share and highest sales. The press never covers Nintendo that way, though.
Would you feel the same way if MS found a loophole in the GPL that allowed them to start lifting code wholesale?
No, they wouldn't. They would be whining and crying about how "evil" Microsoft was and how GPL copyright protects the code from "theft." You see, copyright and ownership rights are suddenly important when it's the Linux community, but meaningless when it's a company whose software they don't like, which should normally be the end of it but is instead a religious crusade against an operating system. An operating system apparently popular enough to warrant a crack.
Doesn't matter to me either way. I can't stand Windows or Linux.
If you really need a free, modern OS, rather than run something that clings to functionality through hacks, cheats, cracks and work-arounds, why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro?
Or get a Mac like most people are doing to get away from Windows. And some of us are getting Macs to get away from the hell that is Linux on the desktop!
No, it won't. You just pulled this out of thin air. Mac OS X Leopard will absolutely not require activation nor a serial key, just like every previous version of Mac OS X.
So, when the first hacks for Vista start popping up, it's nice to know that I can rely on The Pirate Bay to host those.torrents for me!
It is?
Wow. And your comment is +4 Insightful. So apparently, Slashdotters are 100% behind software piracy. I'll let John Carmack know that nobody around here will be paying him for his work anymore. I'll also be sure to point out that nobody can ever complain about "stolen" GPL code or RIAA lawsuits.
They throw Beowulf clusters of naked and petrified statues of Natalie Portman as hot grits run down their pants expect in Russia where they throw you when you're not welcoming your new overlords or when old people aren't using the Internet in Korea.
Microsoft sends care packages of bees to hackers. Leaked internal memos suggest turmoil amongst executives who can't decide if they should send more bees or just pull out entirely. A study group has determined that Microsoft should begin talks with various hacker groups as a diplomatic means of ending the bloodshed, but few believe that it will stop the attacks or the need for more bees. Many mourn for the loss of the bees, who die upon losing their stingers, while others point out that these are volunteer bees and that it's to be expected.
You say informal, I say professional. They believe in letting their products speak for themselves and not letting company personalities or marketing messages get in the way. Contrast to Microsoft, which is all about marketing slogans like "Welcome to the social," stock-photo-ridden ads, and goofy quotes from Ballmer.
A spokesman for Microsoft has said that they will issue no patches on the next 'Patch Tuesday' for versions of Word vulnerable to the recent zero-day threat.
And why should they? The devs are still trying to finish Twilight Princess on the Wii, goshdarnit. Leave them be! The users can last without opening any attachments from anybody for a little while longer, right?
The increase in console bugginess correlates with the increase in complexity of the hardware, making development more difficult. Due to Wii's "simpler" hardware, this is actually an advantage for Nintendo, though the odd bug or two will still creep in to large games like Zelda.
No, he says that the visual style of Wind Waker wouldn't have been appropriate for this game, but he would have liked some flair in the visual style. That's not a contradiction.
You'll regret the lack of the Wii's control scheme. Once you've aimed with the remote, you won't want to go back. There are a few other reasons, like the convenience of being able to save to the Wii's internal storage rather than plugging in a Gamecube memory card, the potential for game updates through WiiConnect24, and widescreen capability.
If you've got no other choice, go ahead and pick up the GC version. No matter which you play first, it'll be kind of a new adventure when you try the other system's version because the game world is flipped horizontally, and there's a new control scheme. I have the Wii version and beat it last week, but I'll be picking up the GC version as a fun alternative when I want to play with an Ocarina-like control scheme in the original, "intended" orientation of the game world. I also suspect the Gamecube version will be tough to find in a few years, so that's another reason to pick it up as an option for the future, if you have the extra cash. It's a bit fanboy-ish to own both versions, but there are some key differences, and I'd like to experience both versions of the game. I think cut scenes in particular look aesthetically better on the Gamecube version solely based on the Wii version being flipped.
I imagine it'd be pretty fun to have played through the GC version and then move up to the Wii version and experience the remote aiming when you're used to the analog stick. So either way, you can't go wrong picking up the game, whichever system you choose first.
I'll use your only argument that OS X is secure (which I've already addressed over, and over), and replace "OS X" with "MS-DOS 6.22".
Which, of course, would be a strawman, given that OS X isn't MS-DOS 6.22.
Cite a single "remote vulnerability exploit in the wild" against MS-DOS 6.22. You can't, go ahead, I dare you. With Windows I have to worry about hackers writing remote exploits, but with MS-DOS 6.22 none exist at all. MS-DOS 6.22 is therefore more secure than Windows NT 5.x.
This argument is so incredibly stupid, because MS-DOS 6.22 is a dead operating system that hasn't been in use for over 10 years, while Mac OS X represents at least 15% of the world's computers with 18 million OS X users and growing, according to IDC. That's a very large segment of the population that you claim is vulnerable yet sees no viruses or trojans, even with no antivirus software and a firewall off by default. You are really getting desperate now.
By the way, cite a remote exploit for Windows XP SP2.
It's called an inbound firewall, and any OS with one, which isn't being used as a server, can't have a remote exploit in the sense you require.
What a stupid claim. A firewall means nothing if there's another vector of attack. For instance, a flaw in WMF or a zero-day exploit in Microsoft Word that owns your system just by opening a file.
This makes the number of remote exploits an absurd metric for desktop computer security. What about number of vulnerabilities / number of users? Who do you think would have the largest ratio out of Apple and Microsoft given this more sensible metric?
Well, according to the numbers, that would be Microsoft. But you're wrong in claiming exploits are an absurd metric (amusingly, after you spent so many posts focusing on them). The fact remains that OS X's inherent security model stops any security flaws from being exploited remotely and spreading to other users through the Internet.
I notice you ignored all other points I raised. I acknowledge your lack of counterarguments, and I suspect that next time, you'll do better research before you begin citing poor examples for your claims.
You mean crash your browser, which was quickly patched. What's the problem?
All software has bugs. All software will have security flaws. Microsoft handed the keys to hackers through things like RPC, ActiveX, Internet Explorer, and so forth. Given full local access to a system, including yours no matter what it's running, I could eventually find a way to own it. Hell, I could just reboot and run a bootdisk with MS-DOS and an NTFS driver. The point is that what separates secure systems over insecure systems is how well they stop these things from being exploited in running code propagating out in the wild. OS X is built on a UNIX security model and didn't have a single-user, pre-Internet API like Win32 grafted onto it.
Even if flaws are found, as they will be found in any system, they don't actually spread anywhere on OS X. People yawn, Apple releases a patch, case closed. Microsoft will take weeks to patch this massively damaging zero-day Word exploit that you're obviously in defensive mode over. Hell, there are flaws in Internet Explorer that are years old. IE7 is vulnerable to crap from 2004!
Christ, have fun screening all your email 'lest you receive attachments from someone you trust that turns out to be infected.
I doubt anyone is really this stupid, you must be a troll, but what the hell..
Standard procedure for someone who has a weak position is to start with the name-calling.
"running around in the wild"? An exploit is a piece of code which can be used to exploit a vulnerability.
I know that. You have yet to cite an example of a running piece of code out in the wild. Since you appear to be unfamiliar with standard security terminology, "out in the wild" means an actual trojan or worm making the rounds via a security vulnerability. For instance, the MS.Blaster worm that rebooted two-thirds of the world's computers, or the SQL Server worm that took out entire enterprise networks.
One thing that the rm-my-mac-mini competition showed is that exploits have been written for undisclosed OS X vulnerabilities.
No, it didn't. Exploits would be running code out in the wild taking advantage of some remote security vulnerability. As you repeatedly ignore since it decimates your point, the competition provided full local accounts to anyone on request.
If no exploits existed how could OS X's security have been breached, and the Mac Mini's files deleted? Q.E.D.; exploits do exist for OS X.
Once again, you're purposely confusing alleged security flaws with exploits--actual trojan running around, you know, exploiting something. There are none, and you still haven't cited any. Next.
As I showed above exploits have been written for OS X.
And as already stated, the competition was debunked. Clearly you just grabbed the first result you found off of Google.
What you are saying is that the only time exploits have ever been used against OS X was in the rm-my-mac-mini competition.
Exactly. Care to cite an actual real-world incident of an exploit allowing hackers into a Mac out in the wild? You can't. The hard (for you) truth is that there are no OS X viruses or trojans. The UNIX security inherent to the system and the lack of default open ports makes it much more difficult, unlike the Windows world based on Win32, which dates back to the single-user DOS days and was grafted onto the NT codebase like an artificial tumor.
The hackers that look for security holes in Apple's software, and don't disclose the holes, never exploit the holes they find; they just do it in case rm-my-mac-mini competitions come up.
I see--not only are there mysterious, unnamed hackers whose minds you've read, they don't exploit any holes they find. They just sit around silently (again, you somehow know about them, perhaps through a Vulcan mind meld?) until someone sets up a competition where they have full local access with SSH. Mac users must be quaking in their boots! To think, we could be using PCs where we would have to worry about Word attachments taking over our systems (d'oh, the flaw also exists in Word for Mac), rebooting RPC exploits, the neverending series of security flaws coming from IE, and other staples of Microsoft engineering.
What about the Safari vulnerability that allows you to remotely execute code?
The one you completely made up?
What about the Webkit vulnerability
The one that allows malformed HTML to access a deallocated object, crashing the machine, which was quickly patched? Meanwhile, Internet Explorer 7 is vulnerable to flaws disclosed back in 2004!
or the AirPort vulnerability
The one that only affected first-generation AirPort cards in scanning mode that haven't been sold since 2003? As usual, when you tear apart the layers of your argument, the roaches scatter.
So holes like anyone being able to get complete access to your machine simply by you connecting
EA has devoted more resources to the Wii, Disney has formed a Wii development studio, and companies like Konami are coming out with games like Elebits. The third-party support is there.
If I understand you right you are saying OS X is secure because the rm-my-mac-mini competition wasn't realistic.
Absolutely correct. You cited a "hacking" incident without revealing that participants were given full local access! Compare that to a magic Word attachment in Outlook completely owning your computer just by double-clicking it. Clearly, you're in full damage control mode right now on Slashdot.
First off I only referenced it to show the GP that exploits for these vulnerabilities do exist in the wild, and had been in the hands of hackers for months. Something which he thought I "made up on the spot".
On the contrary. You referenced it to present a skewed image of Mac security, conveniently leaving out that the Mac provided accounts for anyone on request along with full SSH access. Basically, you have to go through a lot of work to make a Mac hackable.
You just need to accept that you got owned on this point. Have fun rejecting any and all Word attachments you receive from any and all contacts in Outlook.
Yes, you absolutely did. There are no exploits running around in the wild affecting Macs. You can't cite a single real-world example. Not a single one.
What you conveniently leave out when you cited the long-ago debunked Mac mini hack is that the Mac was previously configured to give anyone an account who requested one, including full SSH access to poke around. Even the readers at Digg tore this one apart. Hardly the typical situation.
None of them are zero-day exploits?
Absolutely correct. None of them are being exploited at all.
Checking one of the UNIX utility vulnerabilities (because these are the only ones that we know when they were discovered) the perl vulnerability was discovered in December 2005.
And yet nobody's exploiting it, because OS X's security prevents access. Next.
With that perl vulnerability, and probably others in the list, it was discovered in 2005 and Apple only get around to releasing a patch now.
Which should tell you just how "urgent" it was to fix something that wasn't really a problem in the first place.
Look at the list above from Apple; you would have had to screen e-mail for HTML, new fonts, turn off your wireless card, not use any Windows shares, not go to any links to web pages given in e-mails, not go to any suspect web pages, etc, etc.
Lies, lies, and more lies. 100% false in every way imaginable.
The only difference is that Apple don't post security bulletins giving people warning, that might damage sales.
Uh, they do post security bulletins.
Have fun having a false sense of security though.
Ah, the old "false sense of security" canard, despite the fact THERE IS NOT A SINGLE EXPLOIT RUNNING IN THE WILD THAT IS INTRUDING ON A SINGLE MAC. You can't cite a single one. Go for it.
Do you have any other skewed, sliced-and-diced "facts" you want to post that I can debunk? Any articles you want to cite without revealing the full situation behind them? Clearly, you have some chip on your shoulder against Macs, but your shortcomings don't change the fact that there is not a single trojan or virus running the wild for Macs. Not one.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you include their portable systems, Nintendo is already the #1 video game company worldwide with the most market share and highest sales. The press never covers Nintendo that way, though.
No, they wouldn't. They would be whining and crying about how "evil" Microsoft was and how GPL copyright protects the code from "theft." You see, copyright and ownership rights are suddenly important when it's the Linux community, but meaningless when it's a company whose software they don't like, which should normally be the end of it but is instead a religious crusade against an operating system. An operating system apparently popular enough to warrant a crack.
Doesn't matter to me either way. I can't stand Windows or Linux.
Or get a Mac like most people are doing to get away from Windows. And some of us are getting Macs to get away from the hell that is Linux on the desktop!
No, it won't. You just pulled this out of thin air. Mac OS X Leopard will absolutely not require activation nor a serial key, just like every previous version of Mac OS X.
It is?
Wow. And your comment is +4 Insightful. So apparently, Slashdotters are 100% behind software piracy. I'll let John Carmack know that nobody around here will be paying him for his work anymore. I'll also be sure to point out that nobody can ever complain about "stolen" GPL code or RIAA lawsuits.
They throw Beowulf clusters of naked and petrified statues of Natalie Portman as hot grits run down their pants expect in Russia where they throw you when you're not welcoming your new overlords or when old people aren't using the Internet in Korea.
Microsoft sends care packages of bees to hackers. Leaked internal memos suggest turmoil amongst executives who can't decide if they should send more bees or just pull out entirely. A study group has determined that Microsoft should begin talks with various hacker groups as a diplomatic means of ending the bloodshed, but few believe that it will stop the attacks or the need for more bees. Many mourn for the loss of the bees, who die upon losing their stingers, while others point out that these are volunteer bees and that it's to be expected.
You say informal, I say professional. They believe in letting their products speak for themselves and not letting company personalities or marketing messages get in the way. Contrast to Microsoft, which is all about marketing slogans like "Welcome to the social," stock-photo-ridden ads, and goofy quotes from Ballmer.
Apple developers also post regularly to their developer mailing lists, answering people's questions.
Whoa, it's Steve Ballmer! How are those squirting Zunes selling?
If this was a WMA DRM crack, we'd see a patch within three days. Don't you just love Microsoft?
And why should they? The devs are still trying to finish Twilight Princess on the Wii, goshdarnit. Leave them be! The users can last without opening any attachments from anybody for a little while longer, right?
I like to keep the lid of my Wii closed, so it's nice to use that 512MB internal storage for save games. You can also swap SD cards if you need more.
The increase in console bugginess correlates with the increase in complexity of the hardware, making development more difficult. Due to Wii's "simpler" hardware, this is actually an advantage for Nintendo, though the odd bug or two will still creep in to large games like Zelda.
No, he says that the visual style of Wind Waker wouldn't have been appropriate for this game, but he would have liked some flair in the visual style. That's not a contradiction.
You'll regret the lack of the Wii's control scheme. Once you've aimed with the remote, you won't want to go back. There are a few other reasons, like the convenience of being able to save to the Wii's internal storage rather than plugging in a Gamecube memory card, the potential for game updates through WiiConnect24, and widescreen capability.
If you've got no other choice, go ahead and pick up the GC version. No matter which you play first, it'll be kind of a new adventure when you try the other system's version because the game world is flipped horizontally, and there's a new control scheme. I have the Wii version and beat it last week, but I'll be picking up the GC version as a fun alternative when I want to play with an Ocarina-like control scheme in the original, "intended" orientation of the game world. I also suspect the Gamecube version will be tough to find in a few years, so that's another reason to pick it up as an option for the future, if you have the extra cash. It's a bit fanboy-ish to own both versions, but there are some key differences, and I'd like to experience both versions of the game. I think cut scenes in particular look aesthetically better on the Gamecube version solely based on the Wii version being flipped.
I imagine it'd be pretty fun to have played through the GC version and then move up to the Wii version and experience the remote aiming when you're used to the analog stick. So either way, you can't go wrong picking up the game, whichever system you choose first.
Which, of course, would be a strawman, given that OS X isn't MS-DOS 6.22.
This argument is so incredibly stupid, because MS-DOS 6.22 is a dead operating system that hasn't been in use for over 10 years, while Mac OS X represents at least 15% of the world's computers with 18 million OS X users and growing, according to IDC. That's a very large segment of the population that you claim is vulnerable yet sees no viruses or trojans, even with no antivirus software and a firewall off by default. You are really getting desperate now.
IE flaw puts Windowss XP SP2 at risk
Windows Metafile Format vulnerability
XP SP2 Firewall bug
More Internet Explorer vulnerabilities that bypass SP2 security features
Hell, just do a Google search for "XP SP2 remote exploit," because I could go on and on and on here. It's pointless.
What a stupid claim. A firewall means nothing if there's another vector of attack. For instance, a flaw in WMF or a zero-day exploit in Microsoft Word that owns your system just by opening a file.
Well, according to the numbers, that would be Microsoft. But you're wrong in claiming exploits are an absurd metric (amusingly, after you spent so many posts focusing on them). The fact remains that OS X's inherent security model stops any security flaws from being exploited remotely and spreading to other users through the Internet.
I notice you ignored all other points I raised. I acknowledge your lack of counterarguments, and I suspect that next time, you'll do better research before you begin citing poor examples for your claims.
Next.
Careful, the shrapnel flying from the decimation of his argument might hit you in the face.
Pwned.
You mean crash your browser, which was quickly patched. What's the problem?
All software has bugs. All software will have security flaws. Microsoft handed the keys to hackers through things like RPC, ActiveX, Internet Explorer, and so forth. Given full local access to a system, including yours no matter what it's running, I could eventually find a way to own it. Hell, I could just reboot and run a bootdisk with MS-DOS and an NTFS driver. The point is that what separates secure systems over insecure systems is how well they stop these things from being exploited in running code propagating out in the wild. OS X is built on a UNIX security model and didn't have a single-user, pre-Internet API like Win32 grafted onto it.
Even if flaws are found, as they will be found in any system, they don't actually spread anywhere on OS X. People yawn, Apple releases a patch, case closed. Microsoft will take weeks to patch this massively damaging zero-day Word exploit that you're obviously in defensive mode over. Hell, there are flaws in Internet Explorer that are years old. IE7 is vulnerable to crap from 2004!
Christ, have fun screening all your email 'lest you receive attachments from someone you trust that turns out to be infected.
Standard procedure for someone who has a weak position is to start with the name-calling.
I know that. You have yet to cite an example of a running piece of code out in the wild. Since you appear to be unfamiliar with standard security terminology, "out in the wild" means an actual trojan or worm making the rounds via a security vulnerability. For instance, the MS.Blaster worm that rebooted two-thirds of the world's computers, or the SQL Server worm that took out entire enterprise networks.
No, it didn't. Exploits would be running code out in the wild taking advantage of some remote security vulnerability. As you repeatedly ignore since it decimates your point, the competition provided full local accounts to anyone on request.
Once again, you're purposely confusing alleged security flaws with exploits--actual trojan running around, you know, exploiting something. There are none, and you still haven't cited any. Next.
And as already stated, the competition was debunked. Clearly you just grabbed the first result you found off of Google.
Exactly. Care to cite an actual real-world incident of an exploit allowing hackers into a Mac out in the wild? You can't. The hard (for you) truth is that there are no OS X viruses or trojans. The UNIX security inherent to the system and the lack of default open ports makes it much more difficult, unlike the Windows world based on Win32, which dates back to the single-user DOS days and was grafted onto the NT codebase like an artificial tumor.
I see--not only are there mysterious, unnamed hackers whose minds you've read, they don't exploit any holes they find. They just sit around silently (again, you somehow know about them, perhaps through a Vulcan mind meld?) until someone sets up a competition where they have full local access with SSH. Mac users must be quaking in their boots! To think, we could be using PCs where we would have to worry about Word attachments taking over our systems (d'oh, the flaw also exists in Word for Mac), rebooting RPC exploits, the neverending series of security flaws coming from IE, and other staples of Microsoft engineering.
The one you completely made up?
The one that allows malformed HTML to access a deallocated object, crashing the machine, which was quickly patched? Meanwhile, Internet Explorer 7 is vulnerable to flaws disclosed back in 2004!
The one that only affected first-generation AirPort cards in scanning mode that haven't been sold since 2003? As usual, when you tear apart the layers of your argument, the roaches scatter.
EA has devoted more resources to the Wii, Disney has formed a Wii development studio, and companies like Konami are coming out with games like Elebits. The third-party support is there.
I said the same thing when I saw the 360. Especially when I found out you had to pay for online play, which is crap. Nintendo WFC is free.
Trauma Center! I've never played a game of arcade surgery before. It's a lot of fun and pretty tense at times.
Absolutely correct. You cited a "hacking" incident without revealing that participants were given full local access! Compare that to a magic Word attachment in Outlook completely owning your computer just by double-clicking it. Clearly, you're in full damage control mode right now on Slashdot.
On the contrary. You referenced it to present a skewed image of Mac security, conveniently leaving out that the Mac provided accounts for anyone on request along with full SSH access. Basically, you have to go through a lot of work to make a Mac hackable.
You just need to accept that you got owned on this point. Have fun rejecting any and all Word attachments you receive from any and all contacts in Outlook.
Yes, you absolutely did. There are no exploits running around in the wild affecting Macs. You can't cite a single real-world example. Not a single one.
What you conveniently leave out when you cited the long-ago debunked Mac mini hack is that the Mac was previously configured to give anyone an account who requested one, including full SSH access to poke around. Even the readers at Digg tore this one apart. Hardly the typical situation.
Absolutely correct. None of them are being exploited at all.
And yet nobody's exploiting it, because OS X's security prevents access. Next.
Which should tell you just how "urgent" it was to fix something that wasn't really a problem in the first place.
Lies, lies, and more lies. 100% false in every way imaginable.
Uh, they do post security bulletins.
Ah, the old "false sense of security" canard, despite the fact THERE IS NOT A SINGLE EXPLOIT RUNNING IN THE WILD THAT IS INTRUDING ON A SINGLE MAC. You can't cite a single one. Go for it.
Do you have any other skewed, sliced-and-diced "facts" you want to post that I can debunk? Any articles you want to cite without revealing the full situation behind them? Clearly, you have some chip on your shoulder against Macs, but your shortcomings don't change the fact that there is not a single trojan or virus running the wild for Macs. Not one.
Next.