747. Any kid would've found it really quickly if it was 007.
The silliest thing about that code is that if you rented the game, you were probably fucked. In fact, I'd say the code was there more to force people to buy the game than for copy protection. Thank God that sort of thing didn't catch on, though it's been done at least once since (Metal Gear Solid).
No, it's just proved that you can charge money to post to a forum with totally asinine policies (particularly the "no sassing mods" one, which gives the mods power to ban pretty much anyone they don't like or anyone who questions their decisions) and thousands of idiots will still queue up for it. SA could still have a decent set of forums without these rules.
Why don't we create a group of people who can read these books and tell the retailers what's in them? That way the retailers won't have to waste their time with it but it will still get done. We could probably chair it with people who are within the industry, and call it the Book Publishers' Association of America, or maybe the Entertainment Text Rating Board. And then they could even put the rating somewhere on the book so parents could see it and then we wouldn't need a stupid fucking law like this one.
If I had a job to offer, I would offer it to my friends first. Is this "evil"?
Interesting how someone who is so strongly against giving access to source code only to specific, trusted people has no problem with giving access to employment only to specific, trusted people.
You've got the definitions totally switched around.
"The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use'" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
Only an Apple Hater would be so blind as to not see both can be true at once.
Well, it isn't possible for something to be selfless and greedy at the same time. But assuming you meant to remove "selfless" from my statement, that's still not what you said; you said that Apple did it to stop DRM without mentioning profit at all.
And no, I don't think that it's true that Apple deliberately intended to destroy DRM with FairPlay. I think all that they were concerned with at the time was the fact that the major recording studios refused to deal unless Apple agreed to use DRM.
Apple is just a company, so it's pretty weird of you to devote your life to hating them so.
The fact that I post against inflated claims made about Apple in a subthread about Apple means that I've devoted my life to hating Apple? Geez, man, get a grip. If you bothered to look at my posting history, you'd know that if there were any company you could accuse me of being rabid against, it'd be Nintendo.
Only by grabbing control of the DRM reigns away from the studios was Apple able to force labels into realizing DRM free music was good for them (it was the only way to illustrate to the studios that lock-in was a problem for studios as much as consumers).
Oh, wow. Only a True Believer would claim that iTunes' use of DRM is a selfless learning aid for the recording studios instead of the grab for marketshare that it obviously is.
I can't think of a single product Apple makes that is less useful than a similar product made by another manufacturer.
What, you've really never heard of Mac computers? You know, the ones that cost more than regular PCs despite having weaker specs, fewer upgradeability options, and less compatibility with third-party applications?
Beyond that, the other reply to my post listed a couple of other products that would fit the bill, like the MacBook Air.
What makes your post even funnier is that only Apple haters think Apple is all about image.
And only Apple zealots think that people who can see that the emperor has no clothes are haters. I don't care either way about Apple. In fact, I would recommend that people who don't know anything about computers use Macs, if only so that the Internet doesn't have to deal with as many botnets and zombie computers as it might. But that doesn't mean that it's not true that Apple is a company that is successful mostly due to image, or that most of its products are hardly superlative.
From a user's perspective there shouldn't be a difference between hardware and software
If there was any software that allowed for this sort of fusion that existed for anything as complicated and multifunctional as modern cell phones or personal computers, I would agree with you. But there isn't, certainly not including Apple's offerings, and that means that software on those devices has to be considered separately from hardware.
But it's designed by Apple, branded by Apple and runs Apple software. And the hardware and software works flawlessly together, as if there was no difference between the two.
...but wouldn't it have to be an ongoing payment in order to count as a royalty, instead of the one-time purchase you make at the computer store or where ever?
Apple may turn the "novelty" knob up to 11 sometimes, but that doesn't get in the way of the fact that their products are actually honestly more usable than the competitors.
By which you mean just the iPod, right? Because with everything else, you're just paying more for less, and the simplicity doesn't make up for it.
Yes, I have no problem with the idea that a hardware product should have standard hardware components. What we're talking about here is the software running on a hardware product. Not the engine, but the fuel, to use your obligatory car analogy.
What makes your post really funny is that if there's any company which can be accused of "being more obsessed with [its products'] novelty as a magnet for image-conscious [consumers]" than the actual usefulness of the products, it's Apple. Almost as hilarious is the insistence that vendor lock-in is a good thing.
Too bad "Think of a number, any number" isn't a question, otherwise this solution would've been fairly elegant.
Personally, I agree with the idea that 42 is God's phone number, since one of the scientists complained that all their arguing about His existence would be pointless if Deep Thought turned out to give that to them the next day. Dramatic irony, as it were.
Slashdot Mirror
747. Any kid would've found it really quickly if it was 007.
The silliest thing about that code is that if you rented the game, you were probably fucked. In fact, I'd say the code was there more to force people to buy the game than for copy protection. Thank God that sort of thing didn't catch on, though it's been done at least once since (Metal Gear Solid).
Rob
Whatever good game review structure might be, this isn't it.
Rob
It will probably have as much to do with the comic book as Starship Troopers had to do with the Sci-Fi classic.
You mean the movie version of Watchmen will be better than the original version? I find that hard to believe.
Rob
The main departure that seems to be drawing the ire of play testers is the absence of Bo.
Yeah, I can see a lot of cheaters-in-all-but-name being pissed at that, at least one of whom has replied to this article.
BTW, while the remake is called Tecmo Bowl, it's a remake of Tecmo Super Bowl. Tecmo Bowl was a different game and not nearly as fun.
Rob
No, it's just proved that you can charge money to post to a forum with totally asinine policies (particularly the "no sassing mods" one, which gives the mods power to ban pretty much anyone they don't like or anyone who questions their decisions) and thousands of idiots will still queue up for it. SA could still have a decent set of forums without these rules.
Rob
if there weren't Oceanic servers, that he would send a drop bear invasion to attack the developers physically
I don't think it's a cause for concern. The bears would probably get lost on the flight between Australia and Los Angeles.
Rob
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/26/1232259
Rob
But the Asgard were needed so O'Neill could invent that anti-Replicator gun. I guess I should've said that the Asgard and the Ancients bailed us out.
Rob
Why don't we create a group of people who can read these books and tell the retailers what's in them? That way the retailers won't have to waste their time with it but it will still get done. We could probably chair it with people who are within the industry, and call it the Book Publishers' Association of America, or maybe the Entertainment Text Rating Board. And then they could even put the rating somewhere on the book so parents could see it and then we wouldn't need a stupid fucking law like this one.
Rob
Robots made out of little pieces that assemble themselves. And we don't even have the Asgard to bail us out.
Or at least, I don't think we do.
Rob
From: RMS at MIT-AI (Richard M. Stallman)
If I had a job to offer, I would offer it to my friends first. Is this "evil"?
Interesting how someone who is so strongly against giving access to source code only to specific, trusted people has no problem with giving access to employment only to specific, trusted people.
Rob
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Rob
You've got the definitions totally switched around.
"The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use'"
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
Rob
Only an Apple Hater would be so blind as to not see both can be true at once.
Well, it isn't possible for something to be selfless and greedy at the same time. But assuming you meant to remove "selfless" from my statement, that's still not what you said; you said that Apple did it to stop DRM without mentioning profit at all.
And no, I don't think that it's true that Apple deliberately intended to destroy DRM with FairPlay. I think all that they were concerned with at the time was the fact that the major recording studios refused to deal unless Apple agreed to use DRM.
Apple is just a company, so it's pretty weird of you to devote your life to hating them so.
The fact that I post against inflated claims made about Apple in a subthread about Apple means that I've devoted my life to hating Apple? Geez, man, get a grip. If you bothered to look at my posting history, you'd know that if there were any company you could accuse me of being rabid against, it'd be Nintendo.
Rob
Only by grabbing control of the DRM reigns away from the studios was Apple able to force labels into realizing DRM free music was good for them (it was the only way to illustrate to the studios that lock-in was a problem for studios as much as consumers).
Oh, wow. Only a True Believer would claim that iTunes' use of DRM is a selfless learning aid for the recording studios instead of the grab for marketshare that it obviously is.
Also, lock-in is bad for consumers!?!? *gasp*
Rob
I can't think of a single product Apple makes that is less useful than a similar product made by another manufacturer.
What, you've really never heard of Mac computers? You know, the ones that cost more than regular PCs despite having weaker specs, fewer upgradeability options, and less compatibility with third-party applications?
Beyond that, the other reply to my post listed a couple of other products that would fit the bill, like the MacBook Air.
Rob
What makes your post even funnier is that only Apple haters think Apple is all about image.
And only Apple zealots think that people who can see that the emperor has no clothes are haters. I don't care either way about Apple. In fact, I would recommend that people who don't know anything about computers use Macs, if only so that the Internet doesn't have to deal with as many botnets and zombie computers as it might. But that doesn't mean that it's not true that Apple is a company that is successful mostly due to image, or that most of its products are hardly superlative.
Rob
From a user's perspective there shouldn't be a difference between hardware and software
If there was any software that allowed for this sort of fusion that existed for anything as complicated and multifunctional as modern cell phones or personal computers, I would agree with you. But there isn't, certainly not including Apple's offerings, and that means that software on those devices has to be considered separately from hardware.
But it's designed by Apple, branded by Apple and runs Apple software. And the hardware and software works flawlessly together, as if there was no difference between the two.
Now that is some bullshit.
Rob
...but wouldn't it have to be an ongoing payment in order to count as a royalty, instead of the one-time purchase you make at the computer store or where ever?
Rob
Apple may turn the "novelty" knob up to 11 sometimes, but that doesn't get in the way of the fact that their products are actually honestly more usable than the competitors.
By which you mean just the iPod, right? Because with everything else, you're just paying more for less, and the simplicity doesn't make up for it.
Rob
Yes, I have no problem with the idea that a hardware product should have standard hardware components. What we're talking about here is the software running on a hardware product. Not the engine, but the fuel, to use your obligatory car analogy.
Rob
What makes your post really funny is that if there's any company which can be accused of "being more obsessed with [its products'] novelty as a magnet for image-conscious [consumers]" than the actual usefulness of the products, it's Apple. Almost as hilarious is the insistence that vendor lock-in is a good thing.
Rob
Too bad "Think of a number, any number" isn't a question, otherwise this solution would've been fairly elegant.
Personally, I agree with the idea that 42 is God's phone number, since one of the scientists complained that all their arguing about His existence would be pointless if Deep Thought turned out to give that to them the next day. Dramatic irony, as it were.
Rob
You need to do the grind to get to the fun.
Why?
No, seriously. The only answer I can think of is "So the developers have sufficient time to leech money from you."
Rob
No, with all of that it'd still be more of the same. Perhaps the MMORPG developers should look into actually making their games fun instead.
Rob