Re:Better update my mtach.com profile
on
Halo 2 Goes Gold
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This reminds me of a little anecdote: I have a friend who is an IT lawyer. We've been friends since college days. Real nice guy. Married, two kids. You could make a Martha Stewart-style TV movie about them.
Christmas two years ago, I gave his son a copy of Halo 1 (after checking with my friend to see if he was okay with his son playing a FPS). He (his son) was excited as hell.
After New Years, they invited my SO & myself over to their house for dinner. We show up and find my friend and his son in the living room in front of the big screen, engaged in a Halo CTF match.
Imagine, seeing a middle aged guy who had shown absolutely zero interest in gaming before playing with his 12-year-old son. And you really couldn't tell who was more excited. Don't get me wrong.
Before that, he would have just shrugged and muttered something about kids, violence and video games had he been approached by his son about playing a multiplayer game. He really had absolutely no interest in games whatsoever. But for some reason, he found Halo compelling enough to try it out.
Long story short, the guys (me & him & his son) ended up playing Halo that night while the girls (his wife, my girlfriend and my friend's daughter) laughed at us.
I usually don't pay too much attention to "the mainstream". But that's exactly what I like about Halo - diversity. It's just a fun game. It's still, even after all this time, fun to pick up the controllers, kick back and play (and this isn't just about replay value; it's about being able to just sit down and have fun with your friends).
Indeed. This is not just about bandwidth and infrastructure though. It's about using your NBR (name brand recognition) to establish yourself in a new niche market. The point is that you get a head start, attract a lot of users and watch your niche market evolve into a major money maker.
According to this article in Investor's Business Daily, "sales of fee-based content services on the Internet, including games, sports video and online dating, will reach $5.4 billion by 2007". Now, that's some serious dough. And Microsoft is doing what they're good at: supressing stuff they don't like while keeping all their bases covered.
They already have XBox Live which is a huge hit because they have basically no competition (another example of Microsoft's early-positioning). It's no biggie if something they invest in turns out to be a failure. And that's not because they have all the money in the world. It's because one idea that works easily makes up for 5 failed ones.
You're advertisers; tell us that's what you are, and if you don't plan on doing that, don't pretend that you're something you're not.
Good point. I am a full-disclosure advocate, too. There is one aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet. Blogs are not only a semi-instantenous form of spreading information, they also work both ways.
When you post a review on a big blog site, you can pretty much expect a certain percentage of your readership to post comments. Sometimes, those comments consist of nothing more than "right on" or "way to go" and are meant to encourage the author to blog more. Sometimes, people post about their experiences, maybe even at length. Heck, your blog article might even be picked up by a major site like Slashdot or Fark and spark discussion there.
And in my book, that (ie. discussion) is a good thing. If your blog is nothing more than a paid-for pretend-fanboy ad, people will eventually find out and post about it.
Now, if you're taking all of this to the next level and have PR actually run fake blog sites or pay real cash for good reviews there's a certain obligation on part of the reviewer involved. He probably is interested in return business. Hence, he'll make sure those readers who disagree with him have their comments deleted. When that happens, I think it's safe to assume that that blog has jumped the proverbial shark.
I only hope that fake blog sites eventually get exposed (remember the stories about the paid-for movie reviews a few months ago) and that the potential public backlash and PR nightmare that would surely ensue is enough to keep companies from doing this.
The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.
What's up with that gag order?
I could understand them choosing to refrain from comment for legal reasons (basically a CYA maneuver). But a court order? Does anyone here know what's going on?
This certainly sounds like a cool device and, I guess, at $69.95 it would make a nice, geeky Christmas gift.
The only problem I see with this though, is that your average geek will simply not need one of these. I have a CD changer in my car. I have my iPod hooked up to my car stereo. I'm literally surrounded by computers at work. I have a stereo at home, that my iPod and one of my computers is hooked up to.
With regard to my "music needs", I guess I'm pretty much covered. I guess this is really useful if you're into talk radio. But to me, the radio is something I use when I'm on the road and want to listen to a ballgame or when I'm working on something outside and don't really feel like listening to my iPod but want some background music. The radio just isn't something I pay a lot of attention to.
The reason TiVo is such a huge hit is that it fundamentally changes the way we watch TV. When I'm watching TV I usually do pay attention to what's on - it's not just some random background noise. I find it hard to see how this could work for radio. Except, of course, skipping commercials. That would indeed be nice (but not all that useful, since most commercial stations already do 30-minutes-without-commercial stuff).
The problem is this: I, and I can only speak for myself here, don't really care what's on the radio. To me, it's random stuff. Turn it on, listen to some music while doing something else, turn it off when you're done. TV's different: I care what's on. That's why I'm watching in the first place.
Besides the sheer quantity of suck that AOL brings, one of their worst problems is that its not that easy to just type in a address and go, thats where IE comes in.
Indeed. That's one of AOL's major problems. Back in the days, when AOL was synonymous to "the Internet" in a lot of households, there were movie ads that had both the usual HTTP URL and the AOL keyword in it. I haven't seen that in a long time (probably since 2001 or so).
These days, it's just not that easy to actually lock users in. People know about Google. Heck, the expression "I'll google for it" has entered the mainstream. Even my grandma has heard of that. People also don't have to rely on any proprietary email systems any more. Most people these days use webmail services (I run my own email server and love it but that's just not for everybody).
The only thing they really have going for them is familiarity (ie. lazy people won't switch unless you really piss them off), brand name recognition (certain demographic) and chat/IM (that's one major point; ICQ/AIM/whatever still doesn't appear as straightforward as the AOL internal chat system to the average user).
That's a very interesting suggestion (I just used my last modpoint; otherwise, I would have modded you +1 Interesting).
There are two potential problems I see with this though:
Your suggestion tends to oversimplify things.
Javascript isn't a basic scripting language any more. For a scripting language, it's actually pretty advanced and basically gets the job done 95% of the time. Having a three item list doesn't really do it justice any more. That issue could probably be addressed by having a more extensive list of specific functions that can be blocked. Personally, I would really like being able to block any specific function or script (ie. a textbox that allows me to enter "window.open()" and then blocks that specific call; or a drop down menu that allows me to run this script but not that).
One basic rule of UI design is: always assume the user is stupid.
Therefore, I would rather avoid having a graphical interface for these rather advanced options. People are just too gullible. If a site they want to access doesn't work and tells them to turn on cookies, they will. Of course, most will forget to ever turn them back off. That's you want a "accept cookies for this session/from this site only" checkbox. That's also why I would advocate "hiding" an option to disable specific JavaScript functionaility somewhere in the about-config options. I also feel people who don't know what they're doing should leave stuff like this alone.
It really is. People in the industry used to refer to it as LBS (location based services) and it was supposed to be "the next big thing (tm)" two years ago.
Sadly, it never really took off since, well, WAP never really took off (which can be attributed mostly to even WAP-over-GPRS being way too expensive and the networks being less than enthusiastic about GPRS in an effort to protect their substantial UMTS investments).
Triangulation has become pretty good. In most urban areas, you can narrow the user's location down to two to three block radius without much trouble. Manual triangulation allows for even better resolution (but that's usually only used for diagnostic and law enforcement purposes).
Yup, I ditched my cell phone provider's WAP homepage in favor of Google's a year and a half ago (I still have a bunch of portal subcategories bookmarked though).
I don't really use WAP all that much since I usually have a WiFi-enabled PDA with me and a networked computer within 100 yards (and that's the outside figure). But it's a pretty useful service when you're on the road and don't have luxury of IEEE 802.11 coverage.
Google's interface works really well on cell phones. They even have a system called "Google Numbers" (IIRC) which is basically a T9 type of system (you don't hit the #2 key twice to get a "b" character -- you just input numbers and let Google figure out what you mean). The interface is pretty slick and it works well even on a small, low-resolution cell phone screen.
The problem is, most other websites just don't. I realize there's really not a whole lot Google can do about it though. That's why these days, I usually don't even bother using WAP for anything except checking sports scores and headlines. It's just easier to use my cell phone and PDA (the only thing I use Bluetooth for these days -- and it rocks).
You just won't really see third party developers releasing cheap mods on XBox Live though. Microsoft exclusively controls all MoD (means of distribution). These days, the big developers only have two distributors to chose from (MS and Sony) but they still have a lot of leverage. Both companies desperately need one great game to bundle the consoles with to push sales. In Microsoft's case, that's Halo (they basically bought Bungie just to have that one great title). For Sony, it's probably still the GTA franchise. Yes, they eventually release it on other platforms but if you want to play a new GTA game now, and not just in a year and a half, you still need to fork over the cash for a PS2.
And with the next-generation consoles just around the corner, MS just won't piss off any major developers (and encouraging competition and cutting into a developer's bottom line is one good way to piss someone off - probably not enough to make them go, abandom a lot of their know-how and switch to the PS2/PS3 but you never know).
Then there's the legal side: you not only need to have a legal editor of some sort (how long before we see shrink-wrap licenses in video games) but you also need to be able to legally distribute derivative works.
And even if you could, you'd still need Microsoft's cooperation. Sure, you could distribute your modified maps and what not over the Internet. However, that kinda defies the point of having a console in the first place (which is to work out-of-the-box, always, no setup required). And with Internet-only, non-Live distribution, only people with modified XBox's would benefit.
Well, there's already a way to do that, sort of. If you have a modded XBox and use a hacked dashboard, you can already access the XBox's harddrive through any FTP browser.
Some people soft-modded their XBoxes using the 007 hack a while back just to be able to add stuff to games (granted, most people who did roll their own "mods" did so to cheat). Then Microsoft fixed the hole.
I'm not so sure Microsoft really wants XBox/PC compability. That's why XBox DVDs cannot be read by ordinary PC DVD drives. That's also why the XBox's harddrive is locked (ie. password protected).
That's the way their business model works. They subsidize the hardware, and in order to make a profit, need to sell games. Making both platforms interoperable would make pirating games easier (plus, many people might just be tempted to buy an XBox, put Linux on it and use it as a cheap PC).
I agree. All the PC vs. console stuff aside, PC FPSers have basically two things going for them:
Controls. The mouse/keyboard system is probably the most intuitive and natural way to control your character in a FPS game. It doesn't require fiddling with the controller settings and it doesn't take any getting used to. (The small XBox controller comes close, from a design point of view. The button/trigger setup works really well, even for people who have literally never played a video game.)
Mods. Let's face it: the additional XBox Live content that you some games let you download is a joke compared to PC mods. Just look at Counterstrike: it's old as the hills but it's still fun to play and people still do.
Those two things are enough for some people to prefer the PC port over any XBox/PS2/GC version, at least when it comes to FPS games. Pretty graphics are nice but at the end of the day people will loose interest fast, if you don't have the gameplay to back them up.
Thank you. You're right - it's really not that big of an issue.
When I learned my way around Unix systems, Unices were server-only operating systems (pre-Linux era). And I was taught that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution; some applications require a high-security setup (like Multics was at the time) and some just don't.
The problem with that is that you actually have to think when using a system. You can't just assume that things on system X are the same as on system Y. That's why I learned to use vi (heck, I once had to fix a system that had no text editor to speak of -- echo works wonders in those cases). That's also why I was taught to stick to certain principles.
Multics, for instance, had a pretty good ACL implementation (for a broad overview, check out this link). Most Unices, didn't (and many still don't).
Even on those boxes that did not have any ACLs, I would still act as if they were in place. One rule that makes life a whole lot easier (not just from a security but also from an accountability standpoint) is that each and every application should only user their own space. That's why every app I use has its own data directory (and tmp directory, if possible).
It's really nothing more than an old habit. There's no particular reason I'm sticking with it (except that it works). Sort of like gun enthusiasts pretend that a firearm is loaded even when they've verified that it's not. It's basically like the safety on a gun - it's another layer of security.
I can't really give you any exact figures but at this site alone (a college campus), we're approaching ~250 licenses. That comes out to be about 40-45% of the total number of workstations. Microsoft has approached us (that's not unusual at all; almost all colleges offer student package deals on Microsoft software these days) and make it clear that they would be willing to "work with us" if we limited our Linux deployment.
At this point in time, all of the student accessible terminals (mostly kiosk-type deals), the entire IT department, all servers, some mission-critical infrastructure and some terminals run Linux. Everybody else runs either XP Pro (all the professors, their secretaries, etc), Win NT (mostly legacy), MacOS/OS X (very few computers) or Solaris/*BSD (mostly legacy server infrastructure).
We've had very few complaints so far. Almost all of those complaints have come from students (usually the less-than-technically-inclined crowd being concerned about being forced to use either Firefox, Opera or Lynx instead of IE when using the kiosks).
And Microsoft appears to be a little concerned that we switch the remaining desktops over to Linux and therefore cease to pay for their "support service" (which is a joke) and upgrades (serious big bucks).
That's all good and true. And I have to admit you're entirely right.
The reason people get upset over stuff like this is simple though: you didn't pay $400 for that discman.
If it breaks, I'll just toss it and get myself a new one for $30 at Walmart. You just expect cheap CEs to have a very limited lifespan. No biggie, they're cheap. That's why you bought them in the first place. Having to replace them every once in a while is no surprise.
If you're buying an iPod though (and I absolutely love mine), you're not just buying any ole MP3 player. You're buying a design, an image and I'd even say, in a way, you're buying an experience. The big deal isn't $400 (which is a lot of dough to many people, but - in comparision to other CE items (big screen TVs, good stereo equipment, etc) - isn't really all that much money).
You just expect more for those $400. Afterall, you're not buying some $250 clone, you're getting the original, the real deal. And if you pay extra for it, you just want it to work.
If my the $200 TV you keep in your kitchen breaks, you probably won't even think about getting it fixed. You'll just replace it. If your $10k+ big screen projector breaks, you'd probably be really pissed if the dealership you bought it from told you to "just buy a new one" (and rightfully so).
Again, I'm not disagreeing. Just offering some perspective.
Others have pointed out that some users may use ~ or their desktop as their download directory. That may not be a smart thing to do but that's really beside the point.
Any vulnerability that allows remote users to alter content is by definition critical. It doesn't matter if you think it's a big deal. There should be no unauthorized access to files, period.
Your non-critical files aren't 777, are they? Now why is that? Well, despite the fact that data is non-critical, recoverable or maybe even pure gargabe you still wouldn't want people to mess with it, would you?
Think about it: you probably have a lots of old stuff, bank statements and what not somewhere. That data is useless to me (value == 0). By your logic, I could just throw it all out since it doesn't matter to me. It may still be valueable to you though. And even if it weren't, you still probably wouldn't appreciate me going through your stuff and tossing whatever I don't deem important.
See, all attacks that allow any access control circumvention at all are critical. Just because it's not critical to you, doesn't mean every feels the same way.
That's why disclosing the vulnerability and making an update available ASAP was a very good move on part of the fine folks at Mozilla. I just wish there was a mechanism to do manual network-wide mass roll-outs of critical updates (ie. rolling out critical updates immediately without having to wait for Firefox's periodical checks).
Only things I wonder about are how sturdy it is internally [...]
That's a very good point.
I enjoy hiking. A while ago, I was way out in the woods hiking with some friends of mine. A buddy of mine, had his Ericsson R310s phone with him. Now, this phone is ugly as hell. It's also not available here in the US (and seeing that it's a GSM 900/1800 phone, probably wouldn't work here either). But it's rugged. His phone was the only one that survived the trip.
Most of our phones just died for no apparent reason (I assume it was due to the rain -- and it rains a lot in GB, believe me). After performing "cell phone CPR" on them (taking them apart, carefully cleaning them with alcohol, and letting sit in a warm room to dry), most of them eventually worked again though (which of course doesn't help if you're in a tight spot and need your phone to call for help).
The point is, if you're outdoors and choose to rely on any electronic device (1) make sure that it works (test it; bring extra batteries; etc) and (2) always have a backup plan (if you have a GPS device, bring a map & compass anyway).
Technology is very useful if you know what you're doing but you need be able to survive without it.
Oops. I guess I really shouldn't post before I've had my morning coffee. Thanks for correcting me.
But even 5% is a lot of money for most people in Russia. If you're living on $741 a month, you just don't have a lot of disposable income. And it's not like life in the US -- if I wanted to, I could easily save some money by turning of air conditioning in my house and by carpooling/biking/walking. In most parts of Russia, the winters are so harsh that you there's nothing you could turn off since you're barely surviving as it is.
A friend of mine is from the Ukraine. He immigrated when he was a teenager. He has basically adapted to the Western lifestyle, except for one thing. He still makes sure he always saves about half of his income to send to his folks at home because they wouldn't be able to survive without his support.
Point is, $36 is a lot of money, and to most Russians it's money better spent on the bare essentials.
Well, the sad thing is that "Windows for Workgroups 3.11" which is a 1992 or so OS would indeed offer more functionality and be more practical than this "XP Starter Edition".
According to the CIA World Factbook Russia has a per capita GDP of $8,900. US per capita GDP is $37,800 (all US-$, all figures 2003 est.).
And this doesn't even take distribution of wealth into account. According to the above mentioned source 25% of Russia's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
So you have a small upper class, a small middle class, a huge blue collar working class (with many people out of work) and a lot of people unaccounted for.
If you're living on $741 a month, do you really spend $36 on a license you essentially don't need (since there's no enforcement in Russia). Also, consider that those $36 are 20% of your monthly income (not of your monthly disposable income).
I don't really get who the folks at Microsoft think their target audience is. The upper class can afford XP Pro/Home licenses. They've either already purchased those (probably OEM licenses) or simply don't care. Anyone outside that demographic just won't be able to afford a Starter license, even if they wanted to.
There is some seriousness to this though - what are the legal implications for something in orbit?
United States law does generally not apply in outer space. The COPUOS website (COPUOS being the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) has some interesting information, as well as links to some (albeit not all) of the relevant treaties.
Some countries claim jurisdiction over their citiziens regardless of location though.
Their service might actually be worthwhile if their prices were lower, but $5 is a bit steep for renting a movie. Yeah, I know, that's what Blockbuster charges too, but that's why I haven't been to Blockbuster in a long time
Really? IIRC most rentals around here are $5 for two or three days (depending on the movie). Well, I haven't been to Blockbuster in a while either. And since they're trying to push their $19.99 a month mail-order service, a price hike doesn't seem all that implausible.
In my opinion, MovieLink is really missing the point though. I enjoy having my DVDs sent to my house and I like the flat fee model. At ~$20 I usually break even, and it's really convenient if I have the time to plan ahead.
However, renting a movie from an actual rental store is an entirely different experience. It's not so much about watching a movie. It's really about you and your significant other going on, picking up food and maybe a 6-pack on the way, actually browsing the shelves and then physically picking the movies you want to watch. Sure, if you figure in gas, etc. it's more expensive than even MovieLink but that's beside the point. You don't mind paying extra since you get so much more out of it (plus, you don't have to wait for your DVDs to actually get here; impulsive rentals, if you will).
Now, in between those two business models, there's just not much room. Why would I want to use my own bandwidth (that I might otherwise use for more interesting stuff), wait, pay more, be forced to watch a movie on my computer screeen instead of my big screen TV and not get any of the fun (see above)?
Aside from the 'new factor', they just don't have a whole lot going for them.
That's why I wrote 'does recognize my address as whitelisted'. A lot of people have multiple email accounts. I might respond to an email sent to one of my personal accounts from the office or using one of my role accounts (I don't always change the headers or ssh into my box to send a two line reply). I also often check my emails on the go (using my PDA & WiFi/cell phone) but usually wait 'til I can get my hands on a normal keyboard to reply.
I am experiencing the same problem. You might find the Show Old Extensions plugin helpful (homepage is down, link goes to a mirror). It allows you to access old extensions' options dialogues, and to manually enable/disable them.
Slashdot Mirror
Christmas two years ago, I gave his son a copy of Halo 1 (after checking with my friend to see if he was okay with his son playing a FPS). He (his son) was excited as hell.
After New Years, they invited my SO & myself over to their house for dinner. We show up and find my friend and his son in the living room in front of the big screen, engaged in a Halo CTF match.
Imagine, seeing a middle aged guy who had shown absolutely zero interest in gaming before playing with his 12-year-old son. And you really couldn't tell who was more excited. Don't get me wrong.
Before that, he would have just shrugged and muttered something about kids, violence and video games had he been approached by his son about playing a multiplayer game. He really had absolutely no interest in games whatsoever. But for some reason, he found Halo compelling enough to try it out.
Long story short, the guys (me & him & his son) ended up playing Halo that night while the girls (his wife, my girlfriend and my friend's daughter) laughed at us.
I usually don't pay too much attention to "the mainstream". But that's exactly what I like about Halo - diversity. It's just a fun game. It's still, even after all this time, fun to pick up the controllers, kick back and play (and this isn't just about replay value; it's about being able to just sit down and have fun with your friends).
According to this article in Investor's Business Daily, "sales of fee-based content services on the Internet, including games, sports video and online dating, will reach $5.4 billion by 2007". Now, that's some serious dough. And Microsoft is doing what they're good at: supressing stuff they don't like while keeping all their bases covered.
They already have XBox Live which is a huge hit because they have basically no competition (another example of Microsoft's early-positioning). It's no biggie if something they invest in turns out to be a failure. And that's not because they have all the money in the world. It's because one idea that works easily makes up for 5 failed ones.
Good point. I am a full-disclosure advocate, too. There is one aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet. Blogs are not only a semi-instantenous form of spreading information, they also work both ways.
When you post a review on a big blog site, you can pretty much expect a certain percentage of your readership to post comments. Sometimes, those comments consist of nothing more than "right on" or "way to go" and are meant to encourage the author to blog more. Sometimes, people post about their experiences, maybe even at length. Heck, your blog article might even be picked up by a major site like Slashdot or Fark and spark discussion there.
And in my book, that (ie. discussion) is a good thing. If your blog is nothing more than a paid-for pretend-fanboy ad, people will eventually find out and post about it.
Now, if you're taking all of this to the next level and have PR actually run fake blog sites or pay real cash for good reviews there's a certain obligation on part of the reviewer involved. He probably is interested in return business. Hence, he'll make sure those readers who disagree with him have their comments deleted. When that happens, I think it's safe to assume that that blog has jumped the proverbial shark.
I only hope that fake blog sites eventually get exposed (remember the stories about the paid-for movie reviews a few months ago) and that the potential public backlash and PR nightmare that would surely ensue is enough to keep companies from doing this.
Check the Beewiki FAQ. It's basically an ARG.
What's up with that gag order?
I could understand them choosing to refrain from comment for legal reasons (basically a CYA maneuver). But a court order? Does anyone here know what's going on?
The only problem I see with this though, is that your average geek will simply not need one of these. I have a CD changer in my car. I have my iPod hooked up to my car stereo. I'm literally surrounded by computers at work. I have a stereo at home, that my iPod and one of my computers is hooked up to.
With regard to my "music needs", I guess I'm pretty much covered. I guess this is really useful if you're into talk radio. But to me, the radio is something I use when I'm on the road and want to listen to a ballgame or when I'm working on something outside and don't really feel like listening to my iPod but want some background music. The radio just isn't something I pay a lot of attention to.
The reason TiVo is such a huge hit is that it fundamentally changes the way we watch TV. When I'm watching TV I usually do pay attention to what's on - it's not just some random background noise. I find it hard to see how this could work for radio. Except, of course, skipping commercials. That would indeed be nice (but not all that useful, since most commercial stations already do 30-minutes-without-commercial stuff).
The problem is this: I, and I can only speak for myself here, don't really care what's on the radio. To me, it's random stuff. Turn it on, listen to some music while doing something else, turn it off when you're done. TV's different: I care what's on. That's why I'm watching in the first place.
Indeed. That's one of AOL's major problems. Back in the days, when AOL was synonymous to "the Internet" in a lot of households, there were movie ads that had both the usual HTTP URL and the AOL keyword in it. I haven't seen that in a long time (probably since 2001 or so).
These days, it's just not that easy to actually lock users in. People know about Google. Heck, the expression "I'll google for it" has entered the mainstream. Even my grandma has heard of that. People also don't have to rely on any proprietary email systems any more. Most people these days use webmail services (I run my own email server and love it but that's just not for everybody).
The only thing they really have going for them is familiarity (ie. lazy people won't switch unless you really piss them off), brand name recognition (certain demographic) and chat/IM (that's one major point; ICQ/AIM/whatever still doesn't appear as straightforward as the AOL internal chat system to the average user).
There are two potential problems I see with this though:
Javascript isn't a basic scripting language any more. For a scripting language, it's actually pretty advanced and basically gets the job done 95% of the time. Having a three item list doesn't really do it justice any more. That issue could probably be addressed by having a more extensive list of specific functions that can be blocked. Personally, I would really like being able to block any specific function or script (ie. a textbox that allows me to enter "window.open()" and then blocks that specific call; or a drop down menu that allows me to run this script but not that).
Therefore, I would rather avoid having a graphical interface for these rather advanced options. People are just too gullible. If a site they want to access doesn't work and tells them to turn on cookies, they will. Of course, most will forget to ever turn them back off. That's you want a "accept cookies for this session/from this site only" checkbox. That's also why I would advocate "hiding" an option to disable specific JavaScript functionaility somewhere in the about-config options. I also feel people who don't know what they're doing should leave stuff like this alone.
Triangulation has become pretty good. In most urban areas, you can narrow the user's location down to two to three block radius without much trouble. Manual triangulation allows for even better resolution (but that's usually only used for diagnostic and law enforcement purposes).
I don't really use WAP all that much since I usually have a WiFi-enabled PDA with me and a networked computer within 100 yards (and that's the outside figure). But it's a pretty useful service when you're on the road and don't have luxury of IEEE 802.11 coverage.
Google's interface works really well on cell phones. They even have a system called "Google Numbers" (IIRC) which is basically a T9 type of system (you don't hit the #2 key twice to get a "b" character -- you just input numbers and let Google figure out what you mean). The interface is pretty slick and it works well even on a small, low-resolution cell phone screen.
The problem is, most other websites just don't. I realize there's really not a whole lot Google can do about it though. That's why these days, I usually don't even bother using WAP for anything except checking sports scores and headlines. It's just easier to use my cell phone and PDA (the only thing I use Bluetooth for these days -- and it rocks).
You just won't really see third party developers releasing cheap mods on XBox Live though. Microsoft exclusively controls all MoD (means of distribution). These days, the big developers only have two distributors to chose from (MS and Sony) but they still have a lot of leverage. Both companies desperately need one great game to bundle the consoles with to push sales. In Microsoft's case, that's Halo (they basically bought Bungie just to have that one great title). For Sony, it's probably still the GTA franchise. Yes, they eventually release it on other platforms but if you want to play a new GTA game now, and not just in a year and a half, you still need to fork over the cash for a PS2.
And with the next-generation consoles just around the corner, MS just won't piss off any major developers (and encouraging competition and cutting into a developer's bottom line is one good way to piss someone off - probably not enough to make them go, abandom a lot of their know-how and switch to the PS2/PS3 but you never know).
Then there's the legal side: you not only need to have a legal editor of some sort (how long before we see shrink-wrap licenses in video games) but you also need to be able to legally distribute derivative works.
And even if you could, you'd still need Microsoft's cooperation. Sure, you could distribute your modified maps and what not over the Internet. However, that kinda defies the point of having a console in the first place (which is to work out-of-the-box, always, no setup required). And with Internet-only, non-Live distribution, only people with modified XBox's would benefit.
Some people soft-modded their XBoxes using the 007 hack a while back just to be able to add stuff to games (granted, most people who did roll their own "mods" did so to cheat). Then Microsoft fixed the hole.
I'm not so sure Microsoft really wants XBox/PC compability. That's why XBox DVDs cannot be read by ordinary PC DVD drives. That's also why the XBox's harddrive is locked (ie. password protected).
That's the way their business model works. They subsidize the hardware, and in order to make a profit, need to sell games. Making both platforms interoperable would make pirating games easier (plus, many people might just be tempted to buy an XBox, put Linux on it and use it as a cheap PC).
I agree. All the PC vs. console stuff aside, PC FPSers have basically two things going for them:
Those two things are enough for some people to prefer the PC port over any XBox/PS2/GC version, at least when it comes to FPS games. Pretty graphics are nice but at the end of the day people will loose interest fast, if you don't have the gameplay to back them up.
When I learned my way around Unix systems, Unices were server-only operating systems (pre-Linux era). And I was taught that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution; some applications require a high-security setup (like Multics was at the time) and some just don't.
The problem with that is that you actually have to think when using a system. You can't just assume that things on system X are the same as on system Y. That's why I learned to use vi (heck, I once had to fix a system that had no text editor to speak of -- echo works wonders in those cases). That's also why I was taught to stick to certain principles.
Multics, for instance, had a pretty good ACL implementation (for a broad overview, check out this link). Most Unices, didn't (and many still don't).
Even on those boxes that did not have any ACLs, I would still act as if they were in place. One rule that makes life a whole lot easier (not just from a security but also from an accountability standpoint) is that each and every application should only user their own space. That's why every app I use has its own data directory (and tmp directory, if possible).
It's really nothing more than an old habit. There's no particular reason I'm sticking with it (except that it works). Sort of like gun enthusiasts pretend that a firearm is loaded even when they've verified that it's not. It's basically like the safety on a gun - it's another layer of security.
At this point in time, all of the student accessible terminals (mostly kiosk-type deals), the entire IT department, all servers, some mission-critical infrastructure and some terminals run Linux. Everybody else runs either XP Pro (all the professors, their secretaries, etc), Win NT (mostly legacy), MacOS/OS X (very few computers) or Solaris/*BSD (mostly legacy server infrastructure).
We've had very few complaints so far. Almost all of those complaints have come from students (usually the less-than-technically-inclined crowd being concerned about being forced to use either Firefox, Opera or Lynx instead of IE when using the kiosks).
And Microsoft appears to be a little concerned that we switch the remaining desktops over to Linux and therefore cease to pay for their "support service" (which is a joke) and upgrades (serious big bucks).
The reason people get upset over stuff like this is simple though: you didn't pay $400 for that discman.
If it breaks, I'll just toss it and get myself a new one for $30 at Walmart. You just expect cheap CEs to have a very limited lifespan. No biggie, they're cheap. That's why you bought them in the first place. Having to replace them every once in a while is no surprise.
If you're buying an iPod though (and I absolutely love mine), you're not just buying any ole MP3 player. You're buying a design, an image and I'd even say, in a way, you're buying an experience. The big deal isn't $400 (which is a lot of dough to many people, but - in comparision to other CE items (big screen TVs, good stereo equipment, etc) - isn't really all that much money).
You just expect more for those $400. Afterall, you're not buying some $250 clone, you're getting the original, the real deal. And if you pay extra for it, you just want it to work.
If my the $200 TV you keep in your kitchen breaks, you probably won't even think about getting it fixed. You'll just replace it. If your $10k+ big screen projector breaks, you'd probably be really pissed if the dealership you bought it from told you to "just buy a new one" (and rightfully so).
Again, I'm not disagreeing. Just offering some perspective.
Any vulnerability that allows remote users to alter content is by definition critical. It doesn't matter if you think it's a big deal. There should be no unauthorized access to files, period.
Your non-critical files aren't 777, are they? Now why is that? Well, despite the fact that data is non-critical, recoverable or maybe even pure gargabe you still wouldn't want people to mess with it, would you?
Think about it: you probably have a lots of old stuff, bank statements and what not somewhere. That data is useless to me (value == 0). By your logic, I could just throw it all out since it doesn't matter to me. It may still be valueable to you though. And even if it weren't, you still probably wouldn't appreciate me going through your stuff and tossing whatever I don't deem important.
See, all attacks that allow any access control circumvention at all are critical. Just because it's not critical to you, doesn't mean every feels the same way.
That's why disclosing the vulnerability and making an update available ASAP was a very good move on part of the fine folks at Mozilla. I just wish there was a mechanism to do manual network-wide mass roll-outs of critical updates (ie. rolling out critical updates immediately without having to wait for Firefox's periodical checks).
That's a very good point.
I enjoy hiking. A while ago, I was way out in the woods hiking with some friends of mine. A buddy of mine, had his Ericsson R310s phone with him. Now, this phone is ugly as hell. It's also not available here in the US (and seeing that it's a GSM 900/1800 phone, probably wouldn't work here either). But it's rugged. His phone was the only one that survived the trip.
Most of our phones just died for no apparent reason (I assume it was due to the rain -- and it rains a lot in GB, believe me). After performing "cell phone CPR" on them (taking them apart, carefully cleaning them with alcohol, and letting sit in a warm room to dry), most of them eventually worked again though (which of course doesn't help if you're in a tight spot and need your phone to call for help).
The point is, if you're outdoors and choose to rely on any electronic device (1) make sure that it works (test it; bring extra batteries; etc) and (2) always have a backup plan (if you have a GPS device, bring a map & compass anyway).
Technology is very useful if you know what you're doing but you need be able to survive without it.
But even 5% is a lot of money for most people in Russia. If you're living on $741 a month, you just don't have a lot of disposable income. And it's not like life in the US -- if I wanted to, I could easily save some money by turning of air conditioning in my house and by carpooling/biking/walking. In most parts of Russia, the winters are so harsh that you there's nothing you could turn off since you're barely surviving as it is.
A friend of mine is from the Ukraine. He immigrated when he was a teenager. He has basically adapted to the Western lifestyle, except for one thing. He still makes sure he always saves about half of his income to send to his folks at home because they wouldn't be able to survive without his support.
Point is, $36 is a lot of money, and to most Russians it's money better spent on the bare essentials.
Well, the sad thing is that "Windows for Workgroups 3.11" which is a 1992 or so OS would indeed offer more functionality and be more practical than this "XP Starter Edition".
And this doesn't even take distribution of wealth into account. According to the above mentioned source 25% of Russia's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
So you have a small upper class, a small middle class, a huge blue collar working class (with many people out of work) and a lot of people unaccounted for.
If you're living on $741 a month, do you really spend $36 on a license you essentially don't need (since there's no enforcement in Russia). Also, consider that those $36 are 20% of your monthly income (not of your monthly disposable income).
I don't really get who the folks at Microsoft think their target audience is. The upper class can afford XP Pro/Home licenses. They've either already purchased those (probably OEM licenses) or simply don't care. Anyone outside that demographic just won't be able to afford a Starter license, even if they wanted to.
There is some seriousness to this though - what are the legal implications for something in orbit? United States law does generally not apply in outer space. The COPUOS website (COPUOS being the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) has some interesting information, as well as links to some (albeit not all) of the relevant treaties. Some countries claim jurisdiction over their citiziens regardless of location though.
Really? IIRC most rentals around here are $5 for two or three days (depending on the movie). Well, I haven't been to Blockbuster in a while either. And since they're trying to push their $19.99 a month mail-order service, a price hike doesn't seem all that implausible.
In my opinion, MovieLink is really missing the point though. I enjoy having my DVDs sent to my house and I like the flat fee model. At ~$20 I usually break even, and it's really convenient if I have the time to plan ahead.
However, renting a movie from an actual rental store is an entirely different experience. It's not so much about watching a movie. It's really about you and your significant other going on, picking up food and maybe a 6-pack on the way, actually browsing the shelves and then physically picking the movies you want to watch.
Sure, if you figure in gas, etc. it's more expensive than even MovieLink but that's beside the point. You don't mind paying extra since you get so much more out of it (plus, you don't have to wait for your DVDs to actually get here; impulsive rentals, if you will).
Now, in between those two business models, there's just not much room. Why would I want to use my own bandwidth (that I might otherwise use for more interesting stuff), wait, pay more, be forced to watch a movie on my computer screeen instead of my big screen TV and not get any of the fun (see above)?
Aside from the 'new factor', they just don't have a whole lot going for them.
That's why I wrote 'does recognize my address as whitelisted'. A lot of people have multiple email accounts. I might respond to an email sent to one of my personal accounts from the office or using one of my role accounts (I don't always change the headers or ssh into my box to send a two line reply). I also often check my emails on the go (using my PDA & WiFi/cell phone) but usually wait 'til I can get my hands on a normal keyboard to reply.
HTH.