It's always good to intentionally BREAK your hardware with driver updates. Isn't the purpose of a version update generally to IMPROVE functionality, compatibility, and performance?
Okay, I don't know why exactly I'm posting this here, but 'eh. Neverwinter Nights promised to bring the full tabletop experience to the PC... maybe it'd be nice if number 2 actually did that... Allow the ability to add/allow custom rolls as the DM, for various purposes... And the ability to redefing the ENTIRE ruleset (at least, within the extent that you could adapt it to any of the other D20 system rulesets). Just what I'd really like to see out of it.
But I'm sure alot of the sims players probably would... And dammit, we need to support strange japanese games when/if the make it to the US. Because there's some damn good ones that have come out and NOT made it to the US on the assumption "we wouldn't get it."
Lessee... GNU/Linux, and FOSS in general is all about standards, as is the internet. Since Microsoft is about proprietary software in general, they're in the way of spreading the internet... Now if only someone were to mention to Bush they *might* have WOMD...
On a more serious note, what's to stop this from happening anyway. I mean, not necessarily by 2007, but if you look at the rate that broadband access has spread throughout the US, and where prices tend to be in the areas where it is widespread, there's a decent chance it'll be very available throughout the US without his help. It's entirely possible he's just saying it now, so he can take credit for it later.
No pony for me thanks. Just credit it towards my ISP bills.
I've been a fan of the DQ/DW series since the first game... it was actually the first RPG I played on the NES. I think the problem with sales in the US is that RPGs never were *incredibly* popular at first anyway. Once FF2 and 3 (4/6) came out on the SNES, even among the niche, the party system of FF had lodged itself in everyone's minds, as well as the variety of travel in its world.
Then came FFVII, and the way it somehow attracted a fairly large crowd of what previously weren't RPG players. By the time we got DQVII, Final Fantasy was far superior, at least if you were looking purely at polycount. The people attracted to eyecandy, and action (the kind of people FF7/8 seem to have appealed to) found the mostly sprite-based (yes, they *were* 3D to an extent) graphics, and slower gameplay of DQVII not to their liking.
Since the series stayed mostly under the radar, I know most of the people I've asked didn't realize there were more than one until VII came out, the fact that the only two games they've tried were both "behind the line" from their perspective is surely not going to help the game stateside.
Regardless, I personally can't wait to play any future releases. This series has been one of my favorites. I quite like the gameplay (and for some reason, Drakees are my favorite critter of all time.)
Okay, I bought this game. I have 2 PS2s. One is faulty (it won't read ANY media on CD) and one is mostly not (since it's mine, and not my family's, I've kept much better care of it.) Anyway, when I bought the game, it rather consistently locked up in the faulty one, eventually refused to load. In the working one it loaded and ran, with the occasional lockup. I have some lense cloths (of the disposable, alcohol coated variety) that I wiped down the disc thoroughly with, and since then have had no problems on the working or non-working PS2 at all. Admittadly, I had to clean the disc about 4 times, but since then (probably about 4 days after release) I haven't had a single lockup while playing.
In general, I'm all for remaking classic games... but Quake2 isn't one of 'em. People are already grabbing the old code and makeing not-for-profite rebuilds of the venerable older iD engines, such as the tenebrae project on sourceforge for Quake1.
I'd love to see some remakes or re-releases of various RPGs and console games, but to stay afloat the PC Market basically needs to be constantly defining the upper limit of graphics, AI, sound, interface, gameplay, and every other "aspect" you could assign to videogames.
That's where I've always seen iD as shining anyway. They're responsible for bringing shareware and 3D gaming to the mainstream, back in the day. They made vastly popular "true 3D" graphics (yes, I know there were other true 3d games, hell, I loved Descent and that one was perhaps MORE 3D) introduced colored lighting to the world, did some neat things in Quake 3 with texture effects... I buy their games so that they can keep making the engines that modders and other game developers then turn into fun products. And that's the niche I'd personally like them to continue to fill. Make a good engine, at the higher end of the technology curve, that others can play with.
Actually, it doesn't have to be on the same media or from the same physical source.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
Which offers all kinds of nasty things you can do, like put that notice on the copyrights page in the manual that most people don't even glance at.
One of the paragraphs reads like it might be possible, if it were unmodified, for them to say "Binary and Source forms are available here" and point at MythTV's site. It says if binary or source is made available by offering access to copy from a designated site... which I misread slightly, but it does seem to imply that the site should be yours.
Regardless, they aren't required to post the source code on their site, or anything, not even include it. Assuming they have a little note somewhere saying "The source is availabe, at media-cost, from *******"
I mean admittadly, it's a problem that they don't clearly mention and link to MythTV's webpage or whatever, but if it's an unmodified binary built from source readily available, wouldn't they just need to point to it?
Well, a couple things.
If it's small when it hits the earth, it was probably pretty big when it hit the atmosphere.
A "minor" piece of an astroid is still pretty darn big until it gets to the ground.
The ghost isn't directly attached to a user, no. But at the same time it has a duty to make sure User0 gets what he/she needs. But what's harder on a server, streaming a video of a 3D rendering at 1600*1200 resolution, lossless, to several people, or sending those same people a much simplified version of that rendering in object code upon request, and letting their machines do the work? If they want it lower rez, they can get it that way, but if they want it in full glory they've got that too. And all at lest cost or stress for the server. That's what I'd suggest, where the data's local, but the interface is more personally oriented.
Paperwork: How much moreso would a local ghosts than a personal. If you give the local ghost your information, what's different about your personal ghost submitting the very same data via WiFi, except that it's probably faster?
As for querying databases, your personal ghost wouldn't need direct access... If you can ask the local ghost, your personal ghost can just as easily request data on a subject, and a daemon can then handle it in much the way the local ghost would've.
Again, I'm not saying to remove the idea of local ghosts. I'd just prefer a personal one in most cases. And I'm not really trying to start an argument, I'm really enjoying your points, as it's helping me clarify my idea.
First and foremost: I just enjoy joking about Microsoft. I also make fun of the Gamecube because to me it looks like a plastic purse. In the case of the latter, I still enjoy using it.
Anyway, on to topic. From the descriptions and such, the ghosts may wander the location, and that's fine, but some attach themselves to a user. I see some ghosts, like welcomers, being attached, but for the purpose of guidance, why not have something that exists in your personal hardware of choice, uploads NOTHING (or minimal amounts, say the electronic equivalent of a businesscard, saying "Person X has arrived") and downloads whatever information is publicly available, like floorplans, event schedules, and whatnot.
I don't know about the world as a whole, but I'd much rather interact with a pseudo-AI of my choice more often, and just see the ghosts as the occasional "Welcome" "Coats may be checked here" "This exhibit shows..." kinds of things.
If electronic voting is unavoidable, much like Windows it's "easy to use", why not offer a few alternatives.
Open sourcing is always fun, why not a simpler machine based off standard PC hardware. An open source secured program running off of a LiveCD (to prevent permanent modification. If the CD's secure when it goes it, you can't make permanent changes at the station.)
Each vote is electronically signed, so if you want to add in a fake vote, you'd need to create the equivalent of a public key whose matching private equivalent just happens to have been generated, something fairly unlikely.
NO Networking. Besides everyone getting a hard-copy receipt (or digital copy if they feel like it, as long as it's a receipt, I don't feel what form is too much of an issue), all the data is carried by hand, and once more encrypted after voting so that it can only be decrypted at wherever they feel the votes need to be tallied securely. I mean, obviously decryption can be broken, but generally not too quickly if it's good, and unreasonable delays in the delivery of the votes would be a fairly quick sign something was amiss.
I mean, obviously there's no such thing as 100% secure electronic voting, but peer review as well as an electronic at-machine form of voter verification that requires the machine to authenticate a unique per-voter id just seems like common sense.
I'd have to agree with the general trend here, that although sound is "higher quality" in modern games, it isn't necessarily better. Whereas on the Nintendo I first heard the Zelda theme, and felt a heroic urge to adventure forth, or I first heard the few blips called music at the Metroid title, and felt the aloneness of space, modern videogame music is almost like elevator music in its almost pointless background. Very rarely do the themes seem to be as well pointed, because of the lack of limitation it seems less detail and focus on perfection goes into the music. (As always, with some exceptions. Every now and again I play a game where the music beautifully sets the scene and gameplay.)
I'll give you sound. Modern sound effects are a notch or two above where they've been. Not that I care too much about how well sampled the squishing noises made by exploding zombies are, mind you. Though better surround sound would be nice, with attention not on the quality of individual sounds, but the environment as a whole, and the interaction of the sounds not only with themselves but with the environment.
Which brings me to my third and final paragraph. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Doom3 and have probably seen the screenshots, if not played the leaked alpha. I read in a few articles / interviews published in gaming magazines several months back that id was claiming that they were focusing more on sounds than graphics, and that if you thought the screenshots looked good, wait until you heard them. Though they suggested a 6.1 setup.
I mean, it doesn't have an AI (Microsoft instead opting to go with their proprietary Artificial Stupidity) but doesn't it somewhat seem like a prototype for this idea. I mean, an artificial helper that guides you around software isn't too different from one that guides you around a physical location.
But in all seriousness, instead of location specific ones, wouldn't you rather have a personal ghost? You decide it's appearance on your PDA/Wearable Computer/Whatever, you adjust its personality via programming or learning capabilities. You get to the campus, and it wirelessly logs onto a local server, gets a layout, and comparing your schedule develops a path to where you need to be, and on demand (or wim, if so programmed) gives you directions? Sure, location specific ones are a neat idea, but personal ones seem like they'd be alot more useful.
That's actually the order I was planning on going about things, I was just typing them out as they came to mind. As for A, it's *probably* not being migrated, I'll just be waiting until I have the cash to drop on a new machine. I may not be a fan of Windows anymore, but I figure I should respect an end user's desire to run it, and try to develop for a couple platforms. Heck, if I could put together a cheap Mac I mind even pitch in for one of those one day.
From what I've been able to tell, in my limited readings, the wireless support "out of box" at the moment seems to be lacking, but a little spot research and it seems often enough what you need can be found out there. If you've already installed and are discovering you're in trouble, and don't have an ethernet port to plug into, you may be in trouble, but since you're posting here, I imagine a little pre-planning is all you need.
Honestly, my experiences with AutoZone have been fairly negative. Prices were high, work was messed up (they suggested I needed an entirely new radiator, when I got a second opinion, it was a faulty cap, a significantly less expensive prospect.)
But c'mon, do we really need to be concerned about this anymore? Both IBM and Autozone have their hordes of starving lawyers waiting to bite chunks out of the decaying body of SCO. I'm sure their other target is going to be equally able to defend itself. And where's it going to go anyway. SCO as of yet hasn't proven any of its code is existent in GNU/Linux. Even if it does, or proves Autozone used some of their shared libraries (unlikely, but in this case actually possible for once), it's going to be a one time deal. Code will be replaced, SCO will get their damages, and maybe postpone their death a little bit.
Honestly, the only thing I'm curious now, is why haven't their programmers already jumped ship, and made whatever attempts they can at disaccociating themselves before the group goes belly-up.
Well, actually I'm looking for a variety of purposes. I need my internet gateway machine set up, a local network server for a variety of purposes, a development box (which in the end is probably going to end up running a Microsoft OS, because mainly I'm going to be working on a game project I've put aside for too long, and unfortunately if I ever want to sell it, the "mainstream" is still running MS. Though, with my development rate, GNU/Linux will be "mainstream" by then and MS will be suffering from bitrot. And yes, it'll probably include source either on-cd, or available online if I ever do finish and sell.)
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, machines which will be running various OSes.
A) Game Development platform.
B) Internet Gateway
C) Internal multipurpose server. (Print/File/Internal document/http hosting)
D) Laptop.
That last one's the fun one. It's a Sony VAIO PCG-NVR23, and I really want to move it to GNU/Linux, as it serves mainly as a word processor and web browser, so there's no excuse for it to have ANY non-free software, but I'm not familiar enough with GNU/Linux to necessarily be able to follow the directions I've found to get it working. Though I'm sure once I RTFM (or RTFD as the case may be) I'll get things worked out in the end.
Anyway, suggestions for a few of those will be welcome, so long as you guys don't get into arguments about it. (Y'know, a few simple "Why this might work here" style comments are nice. Any posts that claim someone else is wrong, are most certainly not.)
This is good news for alot of people (like me.) I've just recently developed a fairly major interest in GNU/Linux, other alternatives, free software (as in speech) and the like. I've tried several GNU/Linux liveCDs, but am still in my "distro-decision" process, and having another alternative to try out will be very nice. Definitely a step in the right direction, the more OSes that you can "try before you buy" so to speak, the better, 'eh?
A note about a few things, such as the customizability. Most games I've seen with difficulty levels still don't offer that level of "perfection or death" that some games challenged you to in the past.
Whereas alot of "difficult" games nowadays depend alot on chance, and timing, the challenge in older games tended to be a learning issue. If you could recognize patterns, you survived. The development of modern AI has created more realistic and believable enemies, but at the same time, removed a factor of problem solving skills from most modern action games. Honestly, you mention dying over and over to figure out some pattern, but I didn't play terribly many games where you couldn't avoid shots/attack/whatever long enough to see the pattern.
Most importantly, the question isn't the starting difficulty, but the ending. Alot of old games had a sharp difficulty ramp, where the beginning levels were (fairly) easy, but completing the game actually felt like a solid accomplishment. If you learned the skills, you could beat it on the first try, and that was something to BRAG about. And beating it at all still felt good. Now you have to beat it at least once, just to replay the same crud on a challenging difficulty, and most games I've completed have left me feeling grimy and bored, wondering what developer thought this would inspire any REAL sense of accomplishment.
Beating a game should be like that final warning-free compile, it's done, there may be room for improvement, but at least this time nothing went wrong, and damn do you feel good about it.
Or rather, I believe they claim to already have something at least functionally similar if not equivalent to a room temperature superconductor... I wonder how much of this is hype and how much of this is reality. I've actually had the chance to read what they handed out to prospective investors, and although I admit I have a very limited background, the "fluff content" seemed to be backed by relatively stable facts beside the fact that they didn't give away exactly how they pulled it off (for what I suspect are rather clear "or you'd try it to" reasons).
I dunno, just thought it was interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always good to intentionally BREAK your hardware with driver updates. Isn't the purpose of a version update generally to IMPROVE functionality, compatibility, and performance?
Okay, I don't know why exactly I'm posting this here, but 'eh. Neverwinter Nights promised to bring the full tabletop experience to the PC... maybe it'd be nice if number 2 actually did that... Allow the ability to add/allow custom rolls as the DM, for various purposes... And the ability to redefing the ENTIRE ruleset (at least, within the extent that you could adapt it to any of the other D20 system rulesets). Just what I'd really like to see out of it.
But I'm sure alot of the sims players probably would... And dammit, we need to support strange japanese games when/if the make it to the US. Because there's some damn good ones that have come out and NOT made it to the US on the assumption "we wouldn't get it."
Lessee... GNU/Linux, and FOSS in general is all about standards, as is the internet. Since Microsoft is about proprietary software in general, they're in the way of spreading the internet... Now if only someone were to mention to Bush they *might* have WOMD...
On a more serious note, what's to stop this from happening anyway. I mean, not necessarily by 2007, but if you look at the rate that broadband access has spread throughout the US, and where prices tend to be in the areas where it is widespread, there's a decent chance it'll be very available throughout the US without his help. It's entirely possible he's just saying it now, so he can take credit for it later.
No pony for me thanks. Just credit it towards my ISP bills.
I've been a fan of the DQ/DW series since the first game... it was actually the first RPG I played on the NES. I think the problem with sales in the US is that RPGs never were *incredibly* popular at first anyway. Once FF2 and 3 (4/6) came out on the SNES, even among the niche, the party system of FF had lodged itself in everyone's minds, as well as the variety of travel in its world.
Then came FFVII, and the way it somehow attracted a fairly large crowd of what previously weren't RPG players. By the time we got DQVII, Final Fantasy was far superior, at least if you were looking purely at polycount. The people attracted to eyecandy, and action (the kind of people FF7/8 seem to have appealed to) found the mostly sprite-based (yes, they *were* 3D to an extent) graphics, and slower gameplay of DQVII not to their liking.
Since the series stayed mostly under the radar, I know most of the people I've asked didn't realize there were more than one until VII came out, the fact that the only two games they've tried were both "behind the line" from their perspective is surely not going to help the game stateside.
Regardless, I personally can't wait to play any future releases. This series has been one of my favorites. I quite like the gameplay (and for some reason, Drakees are my favorite critter of all time.)
Okay, I bought this game. I have 2 PS2s. One is faulty (it won't read ANY media on CD) and one is mostly not (since it's mine, and not my family's, I've kept much better care of it.) Anyway, when I bought the game, it rather consistently locked up in the faulty one, eventually refused to load. In the working one it loaded and ran, with the occasional lockup. I have some lense cloths (of the disposable, alcohol coated variety) that I wiped down the disc thoroughly with, and since then have had no problems on the working or non-working PS2 at all. Admittadly, I had to clean the disc about 4 times, but since then (probably about 4 days after release) I haven't had a single lockup while playing.
In general, I'm all for remaking classic games... but Quake2 isn't one of 'em. People are already grabbing the old code and makeing not-for-profite rebuilds of the venerable older iD engines, such as the tenebrae project on sourceforge for Quake1.
I'd love to see some remakes or re-releases of various RPGs and console games, but to stay afloat the PC Market basically needs to be constantly defining the upper limit of graphics, AI, sound, interface, gameplay, and every other "aspect" you could assign to videogames.
That's where I've always seen iD as shining anyway. They're responsible for bringing shareware and 3D gaming to the mainstream, back in the day. They made vastly popular "true 3D" graphics (yes, I know there were other true 3d games, hell, I loved Descent and that one was perhaps MORE 3D) introduced colored lighting to the world, did some neat things in Quake 3 with texture effects... I buy their games so that they can keep making the engines that modders and other game developers then turn into fun products. And that's the niche I'd personally like them to continue to fill. Make a good engine, at the higher end of the technology curve, that others can play with.
Actually, it doesn't have to be on the same media or from the same physical source.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Which offers all kinds of nasty things you can do, like put that notice on the copyrights page in the manual that most people don't even glance at.
One of the paragraphs reads like it might be possible, if it were unmodified, for them to say "Binary and Source forms are available here" and point at MythTV's site. It says if binary or source is made available by offering access to copy from a designated site... which I misread slightly, but it does seem to imply that the site should be yours. Regardless, they aren't required to post the source code on their site, or anything, not even include it. Assuming they have a little note somewhere saying "The source is availabe, at media-cost, from *******"
I mean admittadly, it's a problem that they don't clearly mention and link to MythTV's webpage or whatever, but if it's an unmodified binary built from source readily available, wouldn't they just need to point to it?
Well, a couple things. If it's small when it hits the earth, it was probably pretty big when it hit the atmosphere. A "minor" piece of an astroid is still pretty darn big until it gets to the ground.
Adressing your concerns:
The ghost isn't directly attached to a user, no. But at the same time it has a duty to make sure User0 gets what he/she needs. But what's harder on a server, streaming a video of a 3D rendering at 1600*1200 resolution, lossless, to several people, or sending those same people a much simplified version of that rendering in object code upon request, and letting their machines do the work? If they want it lower rez, they can get it that way, but if they want it in full glory they've got that too. And all at lest cost or stress for the server. That's what I'd suggest, where the data's local, but the interface is more personally oriented.
Paperwork: How much moreso would a local ghosts than a personal. If you give the local ghost your information, what's different about your personal ghost submitting the very same data via WiFi, except that it's probably faster?
As for querying databases, your personal ghost wouldn't need direct access... If you can ask the local ghost, your personal ghost can just as easily request data on a subject, and a daemon can then handle it in much the way the local ghost would've.
Again, I'm not saying to remove the idea of local ghosts. I'd just prefer a personal one in most cases. And I'm not really trying to start an argument, I'm really enjoying your points, as it's helping me clarify my idea.
I swear I had the other tag in there... And I apologize, I hit submit and wandered off for food, giving into the lazyness and ease of use I mentioned.
First and foremost: I just enjoy joking about Microsoft. I also make fun of the Gamecube because to me it looks like a plastic purse. In the case of the latter, I still enjoy using it.
Anyway, on to topic. From the descriptions and such, the ghosts may wander the location, and that's fine, but some attach themselves to a user. I see some ghosts, like welcomers, being attached, but for the purpose of guidance, why not have something that exists in your personal hardware of choice, uploads NOTHING (or minimal amounts, say the electronic equivalent of a businesscard, saying "Person X has arrived") and downloads whatever information is publicly available, like floorplans, event schedules, and whatnot.
I don't know about the world as a whole, but I'd much rather interact with a pseudo-AI of my choice more often, and just see the ghosts as the occasional "Welcome" "Coats may be checked here" "This exhibit shows..." kinds of things.
If electronic voting is unavoidable, much like Windows it's "easy to use", why not offer a few alternatives.
Open sourcing is always fun, why not a simpler machine based off standard PC hardware. An open source secured program running off of a LiveCD (to prevent permanent modification. If the CD's secure when it goes it, you can't make permanent changes at the station.)
Each vote is electronically signed, so if you want to add in a fake vote, you'd need to create the equivalent of a public key whose matching private equivalent just happens to have been generated, something fairly unlikely.
NO Networking. Besides everyone getting a hard-copy receipt (or digital copy if they feel like it, as long as it's a receipt, I don't feel what form is too much of an issue), all the data is carried by hand, and once more encrypted after voting so that it can only be decrypted at wherever they feel the votes need to be tallied securely. I mean, obviously decryption can be broken, but generally not too quickly if it's good, and unreasonable delays in the delivery of the votes would be a fairly quick sign something was amiss.
I mean, obviously there's no such thing as 100% secure electronic voting, but peer review as well as an electronic at-machine form of voter verification that requires the machine to authenticate a unique per-voter id just seems like common sense.
I'd have to agree with the general trend here, that although sound is "higher quality" in modern games, it isn't necessarily better. Whereas on the Nintendo I first heard the Zelda theme, and felt a heroic urge to adventure forth, or I first heard the few blips called music at the Metroid title, and felt the aloneness of space, modern videogame music is almost like elevator music in its almost pointless background. Very rarely do the themes seem to be as well pointed, because of the lack of limitation it seems less detail and focus on perfection goes into the music. (As always, with some exceptions. Every now and again I play a game where the music beautifully sets the scene and gameplay.)
I'll give you sound. Modern sound effects are a notch or two above where they've been. Not that I care too much about how well sampled the squishing noises made by exploding zombies are, mind you. Though better surround sound would be nice, with attention not on the quality of individual sounds, but the environment as a whole, and the interaction of the sounds not only with themselves but with the environment.
Which brings me to my third and final paragraph. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Doom3 and have probably seen the screenshots, if not played the leaked alpha. I read in a few articles / interviews published in gaming magazines several months back that id was claiming that they were focusing more on sounds than graphics, and that if you thought the screenshots looked good, wait until you heard them. Though they suggested a 6.1 setup.
I mean, it doesn't have an AI (Microsoft instead opting to go with their proprietary Artificial Stupidity) but doesn't it somewhat seem like a prototype for this idea. I mean, an artificial helper that guides you around software isn't too different from one that guides you around a physical location. But in all seriousness, instead of location specific ones, wouldn't you rather have a personal ghost? You decide it's appearance on your PDA/Wearable Computer/Whatever, you adjust its personality via programming or learning capabilities. You get to the campus, and it wirelessly logs onto a local server, gets a layout, and comparing your schedule develops a path to where you need to be, and on demand (or wim, if so programmed) gives you directions? Sure, location specific ones are a neat idea, but personal ones seem like they'd be alot more useful.
That's actually the order I was planning on going about things, I was just typing them out as they came to mind. As for A, it's *probably* not being migrated, I'll just be waiting until I have the cash to drop on a new machine. I may not be a fan of Windows anymore, but I figure I should respect an end user's desire to run it, and try to develop for a couple platforms. Heck, if I could put together a cheap Mac I mind even pitch in for one of those one day.
From what I've been able to tell, in my limited readings, the wireless support "out of box" at the moment seems to be lacking, but a little spot research and it seems often enough what you need can be found out there. If you've already installed and are discovering you're in trouble, and don't have an ethernet port to plug into, you may be in trouble, but since you're posting here, I imagine a little pre-planning is all you need.
Honestly, my experiences with AutoZone have been fairly negative. Prices were high, work was messed up (they suggested I needed an entirely new radiator, when I got a second opinion, it was a faulty cap, a significantly less expensive prospect.)
But c'mon, do we really need to be concerned about this anymore? Both IBM and Autozone have their hordes of starving lawyers waiting to bite chunks out of the decaying body of SCO. I'm sure their other target is going to be equally able to defend itself. And where's it going to go anyway. SCO as of yet hasn't proven any of its code is existent in GNU/Linux. Even if it does, or proves Autozone used some of their shared libraries (unlikely, but in this case actually possible for once), it's going to be a one time deal. Code will be replaced, SCO will get their damages, and maybe postpone their death a little bit.
Honestly, the only thing I'm curious now, is why haven't their programmers already jumped ship, and made whatever attempts they can at disaccociating themselves before the group goes belly-up.
Well, actually I'm looking for a variety of purposes. I need my internet gateway machine set up, a local network server for a variety of purposes, a development box (which in the end is probably going to end up running a Microsoft OS, because mainly I'm going to be working on a game project I've put aside for too long, and unfortunately if I ever want to sell it, the "mainstream" is still running MS. Though, with my development rate, GNU/Linux will be "mainstream" by then and MS will be suffering from bitrot. And yes, it'll probably include source either on-cd, or available online if I ever do finish and sell.)
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, machines which will be running various OSes.
A) Game Development platform.
B) Internet Gateway
C) Internal multipurpose server. (Print/File/Internal document/http hosting)
D) Laptop.
That last one's the fun one. It's a Sony VAIO PCG-NVR23, and I really want to move it to GNU/Linux, as it serves mainly as a word processor and web browser, so there's no excuse for it to have ANY non-free software, but I'm not familiar enough with GNU/Linux to necessarily be able to follow the directions I've found to get it working. Though I'm sure once I RTFM (or RTFD as the case may be) I'll get things worked out in the end.
Anyway, suggestions for a few of those will be welcome, so long as you guys don't get into arguments about it. (Y'know, a few simple "Why this might work here" style comments are nice. Any posts that claim someone else is wrong, are most certainly not.)
This is good news for alot of people (like me.) I've just recently developed a fairly major interest in GNU/Linux, other alternatives, free software (as in speech) and the like. I've tried several GNU/Linux liveCDs, but am still in my "distro-decision" process, and having another alternative to try out will be very nice. Definitely a step in the right direction, the more OSes that you can "try before you buy" so to speak, the better, 'eh?
A note about a few things, such as the customizability. Most games I've seen with difficulty levels still don't offer that level of "perfection or death" that some games challenged you to in the past.
Whereas alot of "difficult" games nowadays depend alot on chance, and timing, the challenge in older games tended to be a learning issue. If you could recognize patterns, you survived. The development of modern AI has created more realistic and believable enemies, but at the same time, removed a factor of problem solving skills from most modern action games. Honestly, you mention dying over and over to figure out some pattern, but I didn't play terribly many games where you couldn't avoid shots/attack/whatever long enough to see the pattern.
Most importantly, the question isn't the starting difficulty, but the ending. Alot of old games had a sharp difficulty ramp, where the beginning levels were (fairly) easy, but completing the game actually felt like a solid accomplishment. If you learned the skills, you could beat it on the first try, and that was something to BRAG about. And beating it at all still felt good. Now you have to beat it at least once, just to replay the same crud on a challenging difficulty, and most games I've completed have left me feeling grimy and bored, wondering what developer thought this would inspire any REAL sense of accomplishment.
Beating a game should be like that final warning-free compile, it's done, there may be room for improvement, but at least this time nothing went wrong, and damn do you feel good about it.
http://www.ultraconductors.com/ *feels stupid* I don't deserve to be a /.er
Or rather, I believe they claim to already have something at least functionally similar if not equivalent to a room temperature superconductor... I wonder how much of this is hype and how much of this is reality. I've actually had the chance to read what they handed out to prospective investors, and although I admit I have a very limited background, the "fluff content" seemed to be backed by relatively stable facts beside the fact that they didn't give away exactly how they pulled it off (for what I suspect are rather clear "or you'd try it to" reasons). I dunno, just thought it was interesting.