From what we know today, Google Chrome OS is aimed for a netbook. A netbook isn't something you install heavy apps on. If it's running a heavy app, it's almost always already being hosted on a server and you are just 'remoting' in, i.e. a terminal.
Therefore, this is, very easily, a good compeditor for the netbook market.
Just doing a rough count here at my computer at work, assuming my company was down with it, a good 60 to 80% of my job could be done from a netbook (of sufficent screen size) running a generic properly setup and compatible browser appliance.
There are things that I doubt I could run from it, such as legacy programs built in Windows for accessing out of date systems. But the majority of the none job specific apps (i.e. time clocks, HR management, training, etc.) are all web based. Google Docs is sufficent for the majority of purposes MS Office is put to.
Actually the issue is less "will free crap ruin us" and is more "will pointless free crap, just released in an attempt to shore up eroding market share ruin us". And the answer is, yes. But as only one of the companies involved is attempting to make up their costs for giving stuff away for free by doing it in 'volume' and the other is using free stuff to expand their actual revenue stream, the posited scenario is a straw man.
And the Crusades were (if not started, at least kept alive) by people legitimately believing they were doing God's work by liberating the Holy City from heathens.
That's the scary part of life, villians aren't the handle-bar mustache twirling evil-doers that we see on TV. They, for the most part, aren't acting out of pure self interest and a desire simply to cause misery. Most 'villians' are people who quite clearly seem themselves in the role of the Hero (with the capital H required) in the story, doing what must be done to save the rest of us from our folly.
Whether they are heros or not depends more on if you see the world the same way as them than it does on their actual actions. I know people who still think Bush was the greatest president since Washington. I know people who spit whenever they hear Lincoln's name. And, sadly, I know people who fit both statements.
In the eyes of the law, it wouldn't have mattered, you were still at fault and liable for damages. Especially if you claimed you checked your blindspot and missed them, since that implies that you weren't paying close enough attention.
Similarly, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that they 'thought' it was legal. Legal in this instance being them going to their lawyers and saying "I want you to tell me this is legal so I can claim I was told it was legal". It only matters if it actually were legal.
You can demonize Microsoft if you want to but the reason people think Microsoft did it first and did it best is because everyone else who faded into the history books of vague references and foot notes did so because they failed. They failed to market themselves, or they failed to meet volume, or they simply failed to find financial backing.
Or Microsoft stole their code and released it as their own as part of an OS (Doublespace vs Stacker), or Microsoft coded their products specificly to refuse to work with them and then lied about it (any DOS product after the release of Win95 vs MS-DOS), or Microsoft bundled their competing version in the OS to ensure people would use it (Netscape vs IE)...
The reason Microsoft took off was not because it was inovative, it was not because they saw what was 'good' and ran with it, it's because they had a leader who admired the tatics of the olden day Robber Barons and never let an opportunity to undercut, sabatoge, or otherwise play dirty pool go to waste.
And yes, many companies also play fast and loose when it comes to ethics and business practices, and I don't look up to any of them or their leadership either.
They had one (one of the nice things about WoW, esp in the early years before they locked down alot of the things you could do with it, is it's addon capability).
And it did trend towards the CoH/CoV setup where supposed foes would just get together and yack. But then WoW disabled it and things went back to non-verbal communications.
That being said though, I still had fun as both Alliance and Horde, dropping by low level zones and doing my bit for 'world peace'. As long as I didn't mess with the lowbies, I generally didn't get harrassed outside of the occasional chase. And given having a non-grouped person hanging around to take the heat off if you get in over your head was something the lowbies appreciated, I generally didn't get the calvary called in on me.
You know, outside of the fact that they were in the middle of doing something themselves. Chasing someone out of a zone purely for the 'fun of it' is a dick move, regardless of the game. Doing it via a cheap trick makes it worse. If you want to claim the whole "playing the game it was meant to be played" bullshit, then step up and actually fight.
According to the posts here, he spent most of his time trash talking, and the 'kills' he got from teleporting people into the instakill zones didn't get marked as his, the server claimed the kill.
This isn't "Carebear vs PVP", PVP means you actually throw down. This is "Players vs griefer". It's not playing the game, it's just being a dick.
Not at home, so I can't give the details, but one of the X-Com games Steam does do DOSBox for and the other is actually a windows executable (i.e. won't run in DOSBox) and was released as such because they couldn't find a working DOS version. The last I checked (which was a week after the games hit Steam) there were a few devs claiming they were working on finding a copy that would work and that they'd release it via steam as an update to the game.
Having not played COH, I can't say this is true, but I would imagine part of the problem was that at the time the only location heros and villians could get together was this arena.
Additionally, it's one thing to 'just be playing the way the game was meant to be' and another to be directly informed that the person on the other side of the screen didn't want to play with you and yet you still screw with them.
Especially if those people have no chance at fighting back, which the article quite heavily implies.
All in all, the prof sounds like a toad, I have a hard time believing that he didn't understand why people were pissed off and that it wasn't about 'customs' but about 'consent'.
In the case of most of these 'old' games, there is zero DRM. You install the game and you can launch it from it's folder just as you could back in the old days. DRM, for the most part, is reserved for modern games.
Sure there's a point. And to be cynical, the point is they want your money.
To be more generous, if you are registering a game on Steam with a CD key, you are setting your account up so you can download the game whenever you 'want'. The few bucks they'll be charging you for this aren't that much compared to the idea of not needing to keep your CD's in a shrine to protect them.
X-Com's relaunch failed mostly because the two companies that made it no longer exist and the property is now owned by a money grubing meglocorp (Hasbro). Beyond that, they had lost the source code to the games and weren't even able to find all the versions (i.e Windows binary vs DOS) to allow them to set it up correctly.
Conversely, LusasArts is still LusasArts, and the majority of the games they are doing this round are games that were designed to be run in a virtual machine that today is so well understood and documented that there is a third party emulator out there for it (scummvm).
Even if LusasArts went the crap route, you'd still be able to play the games just by installing them and then using SCUMMVM rather than the prepackaged binaries.
Remember, while Valve is doing the publishing, the developers are doing the packaging.
Not all of the publishers (or Steam Users) realize that there is an option to let you link the manual to the game so that you can load it by right clicking the game entry. But even then, many of them have the manual avaliable on the actual game's store page if you look on the side bars.
Actually they answered that the reason they posted the tests were to level the playing field as a number of people already had copies of the tests and thus an unfair advantage. When Redhat came after them, they argued that the onus was on Redhat to change the test since the cat had already been out of the bag.
I would. And I'll tell you why. Because if someone comes to Wikileaks and the site pulls some sort of 'nefarious' power play by only posting leaks in regard to a specific agenda, those people trying to get the banned material leaks will know and find alternative methods of getting the word out.
Were you under the impression that these are the only folk who know how to setup a web site?
PS. The answer to the question is: If Wikileaks has something out there that is so damaging to your 'elected officials' that it can't stand to see the light of day, then you already had a problem, you just weren't willing to admit it.
This BS about "What if they post the nuclear launch codes!!!??!??! OMG!" and other related arguements is just that BS. The folk running Wikileaks aren't from Marvel comics. They don't have a massive mind reading devices hidden underneath their often assaulted school for mutants. They get this information from people who already have it and are already ready to leak it. The question isn't "What if they..." but "What would have happened if they hadn't..."
On one hand yes. On the other hand, sometimes its asif the authors of these stories just got their copy of The Hero with a Thousand Faces" and are just using it as a checklist. It'd be nice if sometimes things got switched up or 99% of the plot wasn't discernable from the first training mission.
Or worse, you've still got it all and it's useless because in order to ensure that imported characters aren't overpowered, everything's been amped up by an order of magnitude or two.
Slashdot Mirror
From what we know today, Google Chrome OS is aimed for a netbook. A netbook isn't something you install heavy apps on. If it's running a heavy app, it's almost always already being hosted on a server and you are just 'remoting' in, i.e. a terminal.
Therefore, this is, very easily, a good compeditor for the netbook market.
Just doing a rough count here at my computer at work, assuming my company was down with it, a good 60 to 80% of my job could be done from a netbook (of sufficent screen size) running a generic properly setup and compatible browser appliance.
There are things that I doubt I could run from it, such as legacy programs built in Windows for accessing out of date systems. But the majority of the none job specific apps (i.e. time clocks, HR management, training, etc.) are all web based. Google Docs is sufficent for the majority of purposes MS Office is put to.
You can do all that through a browser though.
Today...
Actually the issue is less "will free crap ruin us" and is more "will pointless free crap, just released in an attempt to shore up eroding market share ruin us". And the answer is, yes. But as only one of the companies involved is attempting to make up their costs for giving stuff away for free by doing it in 'volume' and the other is using free stuff to expand their actual revenue stream, the posited scenario is a straw man.
And the Crusades were (if not started, at least kept alive) by people legitimately believing they were doing God's work by liberating the Holy City from heathens.
That's the scary part of life, villians aren't the handle-bar mustache twirling evil-doers that we see on TV. They, for the most part, aren't acting out of pure self interest and a desire simply to cause misery. Most 'villians' are people who quite clearly seem themselves in the role of the Hero (with the capital H required) in the story, doing what must be done to save the rest of us from our folly.
Whether they are heros or not depends more on if you see the world the same way as them than it does on their actual actions. I know people who still think Bush was the greatest president since Washington. I know people who spit whenever they hear Lincoln's name. And, sadly, I know people who fit both statements.
In the eyes of the law, it wouldn't have mattered, you were still at fault and liable for damages. Especially if you claimed you checked your blindspot and missed them, since that implies that you weren't paying close enough attention.
Similarly, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that they 'thought' it was legal. Legal in this instance being them going to their lawyers and saying "I want you to tell me this is legal so I can claim I was told it was legal". It only matters if it actually were legal.
Or Microsoft stole their code and released it as their own as part of an OS (Doublespace vs Stacker), or Microsoft coded their products specificly to refuse to work with them and then lied about it (any DOS product after the release of Win95 vs MS-DOS), or Microsoft bundled their competing version in the OS to ensure people would use it (Netscape vs IE)...
The reason Microsoft took off was not because it was inovative, it was not because they saw what was 'good' and ran with it, it's because they had a leader who admired the tatics of the olden day Robber Barons and never let an opportunity to undercut, sabatoge, or otherwise play dirty pool go to waste.
And yes, many companies also play fast and loose when it comes to ethics and business practices, and I don't look up to any of them or their leadership either.
They had one (one of the nice things about WoW, esp in the early years before they locked down alot of the things you could do with it, is it's addon capability).
And it did trend towards the CoH/CoV setup where supposed foes would just get together and yack. But then WoW disabled it and things went back to non-verbal communications.
That being said though, I still had fun as both Alliance and Horde, dropping by low level zones and doing my bit for 'world peace'. As long as I didn't mess with the lowbies, I generally didn't get harrassed outside of the occasional chase. And given having a non-grouped person hanging around to take the heat off if you get in over your head was something the lowbies appreciated, I generally didn't get the calvary called in on me.
You know, outside of the fact that they were in the middle of doing something themselves. Chasing someone out of a zone purely for the 'fun of it' is a dick move, regardless of the game. Doing it via a cheap trick makes it worse. If you want to claim the whole "playing the game it was meant to be played" bullshit, then step up and actually fight.
According to the posts here, he spent most of his time trash talking, and the 'kills' he got from teleporting people into the instakill zones didn't get marked as his, the server claimed the kill.
This isn't "Carebear vs PVP", PVP means you actually throw down. This is "Players vs griefer". It's not playing the game, it's just being a dick.
Not at home, so I can't give the details, but one of the X-Com games Steam does do DOSBox for and the other is actually a windows executable (i.e. won't run in DOSBox) and was released as such because they couldn't find a working DOS version. The last I checked (which was a week after the games hit Steam) there were a few devs claiming they were working on finding a copy that would work and that they'd release it via steam as an update to the game.
You read Goblins and Tales of MU(or should be), admit it. ^_^
Reading the other posts, he was teleporting the players into instakill zones, often from within a safe area where he himself coulndn't be touched.
I don't think l2p applies here.
The individual. How the fuck can you play baseball with only one person?
Having not played COH, I can't say this is true, but I would imagine part of the problem was that at the time the only location heros and villians could get together was this arena.
Additionally, it's one thing to 'just be playing the way the game was meant to be' and another to be directly informed that the person on the other side of the screen didn't want to play with you and yet you still screw with them.
Especially if those people have no chance at fighting back, which the article quite heavily implies.
All in all, the prof sounds like a toad, I have a hard time believing that he didn't understand why people were pissed off and that it wasn't about 'customs' but about 'consent'.
In the case of most of these 'old' games, there is zero DRM. You install the game and you can launch it from it's folder just as you could back in the old days. DRM, for the most part, is reserved for modern games.
Sure there's a point. And to be cynical, the point is they want your money.
To be more generous, if you are registering a game on Steam with a CD key, you are setting your account up so you can download the game whenever you 'want'. The few bucks they'll be charging you for this aren't that much compared to the idea of not needing to keep your CD's in a shrine to protect them.
Check out Cave Story. Though it might not be RPGy enough (more platformer now that I think back).
X-Com's relaunch failed mostly because the two companies that made it no longer exist and the property is now owned by a money grubing meglocorp (Hasbro). Beyond that, they had lost the source code to the games and weren't even able to find all the versions (i.e Windows binary vs DOS) to allow them to set it up correctly.
Conversely, LusasArts is still LusasArts, and the majority of the games they are doing this round are games that were designed to be run in a virtual machine that today is so well understood and documented that there is a third party emulator out there for it (scummvm).
Even if LusasArts went the crap route, you'd still be able to play the games just by installing them and then using SCUMMVM rather than the prepackaged binaries.
Where have you looked?
Remember, while Valve is doing the publishing, the developers are doing the packaging.
Not all of the publishers (or Steam Users) realize that there is an option to let you link the manual to the game so that you can load it by right clicking the game entry. But even then, many of them have the manual avaliable on the actual game's store page if you look on the side bars.
Actually they answered that the reason they posted the tests were to level the playing field as a number of people already had copies of the tests and thus an unfair advantage. When Redhat came after them, they argued that the onus was on Redhat to change the test since the cat had already been out of the bag.
Which, you will note, Redhat did.
I would. And I'll tell you why. Because if someone comes to Wikileaks and the site pulls some sort of 'nefarious' power play by only posting leaks in regard to a specific agenda, those people trying to get the banned material leaks will know and find alternative methods of getting the word out.
Were you under the impression that these are the only folk who know how to setup a web site?
PS. The answer to the question is: If Wikileaks has something out there that is so damaging to your 'elected officials' that it can't stand to see the light of day, then you already had a problem, you just weren't willing to admit it.
This BS about "What if they post the nuclear launch codes!!!??!??! OMG!" and other related arguements is just that BS. The folk running Wikileaks aren't from Marvel comics. They don't have a massive mind reading devices hidden underneath their often assaulted school for mutants. They get this information from people who already have it and are already ready to leak it. The question isn't "What if they..." but "What would have happened if they hadn't..."
On one hand yes. On the other hand, sometimes its asif the authors of these stories just got their copy of The Hero with a Thousand Faces" and are just using it as a checklist. It'd be nice if sometimes things got switched up or 99% of the plot wasn't discernable from the first training mission.
Or worse, you've still got it all and it's useless because in order to ensure that imported characters aren't overpowered, everything's been amped up by an order of magnitude or two.
I did but the article kept telling me that I'd only know if I were in deep shit if I opened the box...
Yes, I'm sure wearing a ball and chain to work won't send any negative messages to your manager. ^_^