The vast, vast majority of piracy, from my experience, doesn't come from blackhats using hexeditors in their spare times wanting a free ride: It comes from moms and pops who don't know any better. If microsoft just stops THOSE, the leftovers "hardcores" (the ones that will spend all night on shady web sites and IRC looking for cracks and anonymous FTPs, or making the cracks themselves, etc) are most likely negligeable in numbers.
Its the 80/20 rule. If Microsoft can stop 80 percents of the piracy, with 20 percent of the effort, its worth it. Stopping the last 20% would cost more than the money they'd make otherwise, especialy if you consider, like you said, that a lot of those wouldn't even use it otherwise. And Microsoft (I actualy think it was Bill Gates) did publicly say before: "If they're going to pirate softwares, we'd rather they pirate ours". It makes sense: Mindshare is worth more than customers, in a way.
Well, from 2k to either XP or Vista, there is incensive if you deal with bleeding edge software development (either as a developer or a customer), as the.NET 3 extensions (formerly WinFX) has only been backported to XP, not 2k. In a business environment that already deals with Windows (aka: I'm not putting *nix in the equation), being able to use things like Workflow foundation, XAML UIs, and Communication Foundation for distributed stuff, can be real interesting. But thats not Vista-only, XP has it too.
Vista will be OEM and developer only for a while. Then will stretch to gamers as games start using the Vista-only version of DX. Then a few years from now, apps will pop up that use Vista-only APIs, like what happened with XP (though those are rare). So its same old same old.
I'll say: I am interested in Vista: I just don't feel like paying for it. So it will either come from my MSDN subscription -IF- I learn my current contract with the company I work for will be renewed (I want to be legit, so if I'm gonna lose MSDN, I'll stick with my own copy of XP), or from an OEM copy next time I upgrade my box.
Didn't try Vista, but I know one thing: people have short memories. I remember when XP came out, after trying it a bit, I had sworn to stick with Windows 2000 for like ever. And have until WinXP SP1, near the release of SP2. Microsoft has an history of releasing beta products. Always has been that way: Windows NT 4 wasn't stable enough to be seriously used until SP5, and was blue screening like it was Windows ME until SP6 (if I remember well), at which point it was decent for working on.
Just stick with XP until Vista SP one, the same way one should have stuck with 2k (not talking about home users here, though 2k was good even for home use) until XP SP1, etc.
For the OEMs, well...they get Vista for 5$ over the price of the raw hardware, so I guess its consolation. Or just don't buy OEM. For the rest for whom all these options are not possible...well, they're allowed to complain I guess.
Its not so much that taxes are high in europe (though they are a bit), its that they're semi-proportional to the government's involvement, etc. In the US, the government (even state) doesn't get involved -too- much (as in social programs, etc are kept to a minimum, relatively speaking), so taxes are low. In, let say, Canada, they're much, much higher in many (most?) provinces, but Canadians get a lot more in return. Same with European countries.
Now if thats a good thing or not is up to debate. But it makes a whole lot of sense.
You can, (and usualy most smart analysts/architects will let you do that) do it in dual mode. Systems can last for well over a decade sometimes, and sooner or later the US will switch, so best be prepared, especialy since allowing the use of both system doesn't require much more code in most (unfortunately, not all) scenarios. Thats what I've been doing for now. Gets mighty useful when some smaller local manufacturing company suddently decides to export.
The only thing more harmful than someone who's ignorant, is someone who doesn't know they're ignorant. A lot of religious propaganda does stem from a significant amount of the population not even having -basic- science knowledge, thus living in ignorance and eating up everything they're fed. Thus the whole confusion about the meaning of "theory".
One problem is that training isn't just for the stupid computer noobie employee. I know it comes in as a shock, but when you do high end enterprise softwares inhouse, moving from one environment to another can be a pain. When you're moving from an environment where the solutions are in.NET, people use OWA, everything is handled by Active Directory (including the inhouse apps), the database goes through SQL Server, the web front end is on IIS, all the web services get integrated in MS Office, the documents are pumped out Sharepoint, and the workflows are controled by Biztalk (and doing all of this is quite common, because when your devs have MSDN licenses anyhow, half of the development tools come at no cost anyway, and the actual licenses come out as peanuts compared to the development), replicating all of that (which can take several years even when everything work on first try, and is eased up greatly by the high level of integration) on OSS, while very possible, and in the end -will- work very well, is almost crazy from both a $$$ and time perspective.
All the environment generic algorythms and whatsnot they teach in school is cute and all, but when faced with business challenges, environment specific architecture and solutions are often needed, and people with high degree of seniority in these environments are required to get it done.
Basically, my point is that you'll need to fire 2/3rd of your IT department (the QAs, analysts and project managers get to stay. Maybe 1-2 low level graphic guys, an auditer, and a lucky bunch at the R&D. MAYBE), and go back to the drawing board, with your Human Ressource department not knowing which qualifications are required in the new guys, since we don't know what the actual hiccups will be.
I realize I'm making it sound worse than it is...but teaching the desk people how to use their new office UI is the -least- of an enterprise's worries, in my opinion.
Think of it this way: You know of IE's ActiveX, yes? You know how much of a security nightmare they are? Yet, they exist to make developing for IE easier and more flexible, and easy, without having to worrie about all these security settings, sandboxes, certificates, blah blah blah. Look what happens from that. Easy, flexible and fun should be balanced with robbust and well designed, thus later environments fixed that, but we still today live with the ActiveX mess.
Same thing here with PHP. Yeah, its fun and easy that you can set it so your post variables are directly converted to PHP variables. Woohoo, I can have a textbox called MyField, and bang, retrieve its data from $MyField (or something, its been a while). How fun, flexible, and convenient....
Its also one of the worse security nightmares ever. The slightest mistakes in your code design, and BANG, all kinds of issues. Its just NOT WORTH IT. Yes, ActiveXs have interesting and powerful uses. But -its not worth it- when weighted against the problems. Same thing here with PHP. A lot of things in PHP are rediculous design choices, and allowing these things at ALL serves no purpose, aside from allowing new programmers from thinking they're "L33t" while shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly, without ever knowing it.
PHP isn't the only environment with these issues: why the bloody hell does VB.NET even allow you to code without option strict. WHY?! So people can waste memory left and right, make casting errors all over, and have hundreds of lines of code with problems that cannot be checked by the compiler? All in the name of being more friendly? -NOT WORTH IT-.
The problem here, is that if you cannot depend on the framework for SOME stuff, why are you even using a framework? Thats like if in Java or.NET you had to constantly worrie about memory leaks (you actualy do, to some light extent, but thats beyond the point), then when someone complained about the framework not handling them, people would go "dont blame the framework, blame yourself!". The framework is supposed to handle these things.
The absolute worse thing ever in PHP is how until recently, SQL injection could happen because there was incredibly poor prepared statement support. Good frameworks encourage the use of prepared statements to the extreme. It was possible to use in PHP4, but certain extras had to be added, and it was rare to hear about them in tutorials, etc (thus the blame was also greatly on the community). This, along with the far too common default setting of mapping post variables to variables directly were major things that I definately think CAN be blamed on PHP and its community.
.NET 1 and 1.1 had a very well known flaw of this kind. The datagrid, when a column was configured as invisible, would still render the HTML for the data in that column, but simply not display it. This allowed the data to be seen in the source, but not on the actual page. This lead several developers to hide columns to have secret data in memory to work with on the server side, thinking the user had no access to it. Of course, a GOOD programmer would think of that and use a different method to hide the data securely. That doesn't change that it was an insecure and poor design choice in the.NET framework, and it was fixed in.NET 2.0. So yes, the framework was to blame. Same with PHP's issues. And they are severe. The community however, make them 10x worse than they should be.
Yeah, because companies will all rush one by one to spend billions in R&D just to have a 5 people software firm take the idea and make a functional product out of it for pennies.
Its like biotech patents. Yeah they have bad sides, but between all the billions spent, the risk taken, the years spent on R&D before you get a product, on top of the -extremely high- risk of getting sued to oblivion if you make the slighest mistake, if Walmart could just wait for you to spend the billions, only to sell the product for 99 cents a bottle, would you be willing to go for it?
Patents are a necessity. The system is flawed, but not the idea behind it.
No offence, but are you 15 years old or something? The whole "porn, like gaming, pushes tech adoption" thing is something you can see with your own two eyes over the years/decades. Its not a wikiality. Its just common sense.
My experience with AJAX toolkits, is probably going against Slashdot's ideology, but for the sake of giving diverse arguments: the web is a complex world, full of bugs, mishaps, problems (even in the best browsers), and intimate knowledge of all of em is required to do complex (very complex) things. That is simply not something anyone but the most dedicated programmer can do as a hobby.
In other word, for a long time, commercial backup will be required. That means things like ASP.NET Ajax (Atlas. Note: Microsoft, stop working on fancy Ajax things, as nice as they are, and fix add display:table-cell to IE already), ComponentArt, Telerik, and so on (just to name a few: I am not familiar with commercial offering in other languages, as they tend to be slightly rarer, for obvious reasons) tend to work better than the "Free" (as in freedom) counterparts.
Open source projects especialy, strive because of the interests developers have in their projects. But making a widget/ajax toolkit, is plain and simple, not fun, for the majority of programmers. Its one of the worse environment (among the mainstream ones) to work in. Thus you need paychecks to further them. Obviously, considering there are a lot of open toolkits, SOME people find it interesting. Just not enough to do something thats reliable in a mission critical environment (admitedly, while SOME, and not all, commercial offerings are there, they are only barely).
Thus, as sad as it is, google around, take out your credit card, make sure you pick a vendor that has some kind of garentee/priority support, and go for it. And if its for an internal app, use something like Flash/Flex, or anything that can get you away from the horrors of xhtml/css/javascript.
Except Sony cannot decide when the next final fantasy comes out or whatsnot. Zelda is Nintendo's property. Final Fantasy is SquareEnix's. SquareEnix figured the higher ammount of PS2s around, shorter time to market, etc, was a way to make more money out of the game: they were probably (most likely) right, too. I only got FFXII because it was for a console I already had, and it was around.
The hype behind the Wii is a combination of Microsoft being unremarkable (note to the reader: this is not synonym to "crappy". It just means it doesn't stand out, regardless of how good the console actualy is), Sony was overhyped until E3, thus even though they have a decent product, hype works at the elastic principle, the higher they are, the worse the fall, and from Nintendo surprising: We expected so much NOTHING from Nintendo, that what they delivered was amazing in opposition.
All these elements together, and you have a product that sells fast. Plus, the games are actualy quite good. Not many Epics, but a lot of great titles. Too many for the amount of hours I have in a day anyway, if you add all the good DS games that are coming out at the same time, in addition to the final batch of PS2 titles... So its all going good.
*sigh*, you know you could do very basic research and find that BOTH wiimote and Sixaxis use accelerometers, not just Wiimote. The original poster is just downright wrong.
You are correct. I did do research. The problem, and whats misleading when critically reading the available information, is that most of Sony's own announcements are too sensationalists to see exactly whats truth and whats bent fluff. Also, I had seen an opened up Sixaxis, and only saw the gyro. It happens that the Sixasix also has one of the (currently) smallest 3 axis accelerometers on the market hidden in a corner. Learn something new everyday.
Thank you for the correction. Though the argument of Mr. Troll were all made in the "rotation = movement, thus sixaxis = wiimote minus pointer", leading me to beleive he did not realise this either.
if I was you, I'd give up. This guy is basically arguing "OMG! What a troll! They dared say something was getting colder, when ANYONE with a brain would know that it is not getting colder, it is dissipating heat!" (note: I am not a physicist, so I'm sure the terminology isn't correct, but you get the idea).
The fact that he labeled the original poster as a most likely troll, stating that it was obvious the Wii only had 1 feature over the PS3's controler (the ability to triangulate position), as opposed to two (the ability to detect movement AND triangulate 3d position) using semantic (since rotation is a movement, the PS3 has it too, thus clearly, the Wii only has 1 extra feature!) when it is obvious it has 2 (the acceleromethers aren't there for show), just show that he's in his own bubble world.
So wether he is correct or not, is quite irrelevent to the original subject. So you should let him argue alone, as everyone -else- understood the original poster anyway (thus why its his posts that got moderated troll, not yours, nor the original post)
Because the everyday "street" definition of motion (as opposed to the actual definition), is synonymous with linear motion. When you're rotating the controler, in "everyday" vocabulary, its not moving.
Anyone with a brain capable of critical thinking would have been able to deduce what the poster meant by the tone of the post and its context. While you are correct in your statement, all you're doing is arguing sementics. Just about anyone reading the post would get it, unless they have extremly little deduction skills.
Yeah yeah, the Sixaxis can detect rotating motion. Its still quite limiting. You're almost as bad, trying to make it sound like motion is motion is motion, when the motion detection on the sixaxis is quite limiting in practice.
However, regardless of who's winning the e-pen war, I repeat the main point: the poster was most likely not trying to spred fud or whatever. They simply went with a common everyday (if incorrect) definition of motion. Big freagin deal. Just correct them and be on your way. No need to cry wolf.
Yeah, like there isn't a ton of developer's article stating the exact opposite.. Its anyone's best guess as to what will win right now. And 3 times more powerful? You're on crack.
Even more so when by the time the good PS3 games come out, the PS3 probably will be somewhat cheaper... So the idea that good games will come later (some hints point at FFXIII Versus, the game I actualy want so far as it is made by the team of KH, to end up being released late 2008...) doesn't justify shelling out the full price right now.
Wii however, has like 3-4 games I want now now now now now. But no Wii >.
To be fair, it does happen the other way around plenty, and with 360s, too. I've seen a lot of people return their Wiis when they learnt that online play wouldn't be Nintendo's main focus.
Not enough people, unfortunately, since I got Zelda for christmas, and I have no Wii to play it on >. I had several chances at a PS3, but not at a Wii, grrrrrrr...
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. So true.
The exact same thing happened with Windows XP... "Drivers don't work!" "It doesn't support my apps!" "its full of bugs and always crash". Hell, I know its how it went, -I- was one of the people saying these things... Didn't stop Windows XP one bit.
The world changed, so it might hurt Vista more than it hurt XP...but its not dying anytime soon. People are just silly.
Though the amount of effort required to stop referer links is so minimal, that an appropriate analogy would be a convenience store (aka: a public place that you can reasonably expect to be open at night) who left the door WIDE OPEN at night, then complain that someone entered.
The internet is almost based on hyperlinks, you're expected to have them, to the extent that technologies like Google's is -based- around it. If you don't want to go by that, you have to explicitely do something against it: "close the door".
We're not talking about an entire cryptographic implementation here: just an htaccess file or a 10 line scripts would have stopped it, and it has been the COMMONLY ACCEPTED way, until today, to do this. Why change it?
Yeah, definately. If a -hyperlink- ruins your business model when you use -hypertext-... The people complaining about this should just make their darn site in raw Flash or something. Problem solved >.>
The judge is an idiot, too. He/she seems to have no clue whatsoever about the implication of this decision.
Agreed. This is amazingly retarded. Its a programmer's job to allow or deny this, not a court. Especialy since its not like you need a master degree in cryptography or something to protect content this way. Its 10 lines of code in an http module, or a htaccess, or whatever. It takes -minutes- to stop...
If it was that simple. The problem is that its quite common for people to claim mental issues and not get life for it. Just about all public cases of some female teacher abusing a male student end up with the female teacher claiming mental disorders, and getting off the hook with just some therapy.
If judges acted the way you stated, you are correct: there would be no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast, vast majority of piracy, from my experience, doesn't come from blackhats using hexeditors in their spare times wanting a free ride: It comes from moms and pops who don't know any better. If microsoft just stops THOSE, the leftovers "hardcores" (the ones that will spend all night on shady web sites and IRC looking for cracks and anonymous FTPs, or making the cracks themselves, etc) are most likely negligeable in numbers.
Its the 80/20 rule. If Microsoft can stop 80 percents of the piracy, with 20 percent of the effort, its worth it. Stopping the last 20% would cost more than the money they'd make otherwise, especialy if you consider, like you said, that a lot of those wouldn't even use it otherwise. And Microsoft (I actualy think it was Bill Gates) did publicly say before: "If they're going to pirate softwares, we'd rather they pirate ours". It makes sense: Mindshare is worth more than customers, in a way.
Well, from 2k to either XP or Vista, there is incensive if you deal with bleeding edge software development (either as a developer or a customer), as the .NET 3 extensions (formerly WinFX) has only been backported to XP, not 2k. In a business environment that already deals with Windows (aka: I'm not putting *nix in the equation), being able to use things like Workflow foundation, XAML UIs, and Communication Foundation for distributed stuff, can be real interesting. But thats not Vista-only, XP has it too.
Vista will be OEM and developer only for a while. Then will stretch to gamers as games start using the Vista-only version of DX. Then a few years from now, apps will pop up that use Vista-only APIs, like what happened with XP (though those are rare). So its same old same old.
I'll say: I am interested in Vista: I just don't feel like paying for it. So it will either come from my MSDN subscription -IF- I learn my current contract with the company I work for will be renewed (I want to be legit, so if I'm gonna lose MSDN, I'll stick with my own copy of XP), or from an OEM copy next time I upgrade my box.
Didn't try Vista, but I know one thing: people have short memories. I remember when XP came out, after trying it a bit, I had sworn to stick with Windows 2000 for like ever. And have until WinXP SP1, near the release of SP2. Microsoft has an history of releasing beta products. Always has been that way: Windows NT 4 wasn't stable enough to be seriously used until SP5, and was blue screening like it was Windows ME until SP6 (if I remember well), at which point it was decent for working on.
Just stick with XP until Vista SP one, the same way one should have stuck with 2k (not talking about home users here, though 2k was good even for home use) until XP SP1, etc.
For the OEMs, well...they get Vista for 5$ over the price of the raw hardware, so I guess its consolation. Or just don't buy OEM. For the rest for whom all these options are not possible...well, they're allowed to complain I guess.
Its not so much that taxes are high in europe (though they are a bit), its that they're semi-proportional to the government's involvement, etc. In the US, the government (even state) doesn't get involved -too- much (as in social programs, etc are kept to a minimum, relatively speaking), so taxes are low. In, let say, Canada, they're much, much higher in many (most?) provinces, but Canadians get a lot more in return. Same with European countries.
Now if thats a good thing or not is up to debate. But it makes a whole lot of sense.
You can, (and usualy most smart analysts/architects will let you do that) do it in dual mode. Systems can last for well over a decade sometimes, and sooner or later the US will switch, so best be prepared, especialy since allowing the use of both system doesn't require much more code in most (unfortunately, not all) scenarios. Thats what I've been doing for now. Gets mighty useful when some smaller local manufacturing company suddently decides to export.
The only thing more harmful than someone who's ignorant, is someone who doesn't know they're ignorant. A lot of religious propaganda does stem from a significant amount of the population not even having -basic- science knowledge, thus living in ignorance and eating up everything they're fed. Thus the whole confusion about the meaning of "theory".
One problem is that training isn't just for the stupid computer noobie employee. I know it comes in as a shock, but when you do high end enterprise softwares inhouse, moving from one environment to another can be a pain. When you're moving from an environment where the solutions are in .NET, people use OWA, everything is handled by Active Directory (including the inhouse apps), the database goes through SQL Server, the web front end is on IIS, all the web services get integrated in MS Office, the documents are pumped out Sharepoint, and the workflows are controled by Biztalk (and doing all of this is quite common, because when your devs have MSDN licenses anyhow, half of the development tools come at no cost anyway, and the actual licenses come out as peanuts compared to the development), replicating all of that (which can take several years even when everything work on first try, and is eased up greatly by the high level of integration) on OSS, while very possible, and in the end -will- work very well, is almost crazy from both a $$$ and time perspective.
All the environment generic algorythms and whatsnot they teach in school is cute and all, but when faced with business challenges, environment specific architecture and solutions are often needed, and people with high degree of seniority in these environments are required to get it done.
Basically, my point is that you'll need to fire 2/3rd of your IT department (the QAs, analysts and project managers get to stay. Maybe 1-2 low level graphic guys, an auditer, and a lucky bunch at the R&D. MAYBE), and go back to the drawing board, with your Human Ressource department not knowing which qualifications are required in the new guys, since we don't know what the actual hiccups will be.
I realize I'm making it sound worse than it is...but teaching the desk people how to use their new office UI is the -least- of an enterprise's worries, in my opinion.
Think of it this way: You know of IE's ActiveX, yes? You know how much of a security nightmare they are? Yet, they exist to make developing for IE easier and more flexible, and easy, without having to worrie about all these security settings, sandboxes, certificates, blah blah blah. Look what happens from that. Easy, flexible and fun should be balanced with robbust and well designed, thus later environments fixed that, but we still today live with the ActiveX mess.
...
Same thing here with PHP. Yeah, its fun and easy that you can set it so your post variables are directly converted to PHP variables. Woohoo, I can have a textbox called MyField, and bang, retrieve its data from $MyField (or something, its been a while). How fun, flexible, and convenient.
Its also one of the worse security nightmares ever. The slightest mistakes in your code design, and BANG, all kinds of issues. Its just NOT WORTH IT. Yes, ActiveXs have interesting and powerful uses. But -its not worth it- when weighted against the problems. Same thing here with PHP. A lot of things in PHP are rediculous design choices, and allowing these things at ALL serves no purpose, aside from allowing new programmers from thinking they're "L33t" while shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly, without ever knowing it.
PHP isn't the only environment with these issues: why the bloody hell does VB.NET even allow you to code without option strict. WHY?! So people can waste memory left and right, make casting errors all over, and have hundreds of lines of code with problems that cannot be checked by the compiler? All in the name of being more friendly? -NOT WORTH IT-.
See where I'm coming from?
The problem here, is that if you cannot depend on the framework for SOME stuff, why are you even using a framework? Thats like if in Java or .NET you had to constantly worrie about memory leaks (you actualy do, to some light extent, but thats beyond the point), then when someone complained about the framework not handling them, people would go "dont blame the framework, blame yourself!". The framework is supposed to handle these things.
.NET 1 and 1.1 had a very well known flaw of this kind. The datagrid, when a column was configured as invisible, would still render the HTML for the data in that column, but simply not display it. This allowed the data to be seen in the source, but not on the actual page. This lead several developers to hide columns to have secret data in memory to work with on the server side, thinking the user had no access to it. Of course, a GOOD programmer would think of that and use a different method to hide the data securely. That doesn't change that it was an insecure and poor design choice in the .NET framework, and it was fixed in .NET 2.0. So yes, the framework was to blame. Same with PHP's issues. And they are severe. The community however, make them 10x worse than they should be.
The absolute worse thing ever in PHP is how until recently, SQL injection could happen because there was incredibly poor prepared statement support. Good frameworks encourage the use of prepared statements to the extreme. It was possible to use in PHP4, but certain extras had to be added, and it was rare to hear about them in tutorials, etc (thus the blame was also greatly on the community). This, along with the far too common default setting of mapping post variables to variables directly were major things that I definately think CAN be blamed on PHP and its community.
Yeah, because companies will all rush one by one to spend billions in R&D just to have a 5 people software firm take the idea and make a functional product out of it for pennies.
Its like biotech patents. Yeah they have bad sides, but between all the billions spent, the risk taken, the years spent on R&D before you get a product, on top of the -extremely high- risk of getting sued to oblivion if you make the slighest mistake, if Walmart could just wait for you to spend the billions, only to sell the product for 99 cents a bottle, would you be willing to go for it?
Patents are a necessity. The system is flawed, but not the idea behind it.
No offence, but are you 15 years old or something? The whole "porn, like gaming, pushes tech adoption" thing is something you can see with your own two eyes over the years/decades. Its not a wikiality. Its just common sense.
My experience with AJAX toolkits, is probably going against Slashdot's ideology, but for the sake of giving diverse arguments: the web is a complex world, full of bugs, mishaps, problems (even in the best browsers), and intimate knowledge of all of em is required to do complex (very complex) things. That is simply not something anyone but the most dedicated programmer can do as a hobby.
In other word, for a long time, commercial backup will be required. That means things like ASP.NET Ajax (Atlas. Note: Microsoft, stop working on fancy Ajax things, as nice as they are, and fix add display:table-cell to IE already), ComponentArt, Telerik, and so on (just to name a few: I am not familiar with commercial offering in other languages, as they tend to be slightly rarer, for obvious reasons) tend to work better than the "Free" (as in freedom) counterparts.
Open source projects especialy, strive because of the interests developers have in their projects. But making a widget/ajax toolkit, is plain and simple, not fun, for the majority of programmers. Its one of the worse environment (among the mainstream ones) to work in. Thus you need paychecks to further them. Obviously, considering there are a lot of open toolkits, SOME people find it interesting. Just not enough to do something thats reliable in a mission critical environment (admitedly, while SOME, and not all, commercial offerings are there, they are only barely).
Thus, as sad as it is, google around, take out your credit card, make sure you pick a vendor that has some kind of garentee/priority support, and go for it. And if its for an internal app, use something like Flash/Flex, or anything that can get you away from the horrors of xhtml/css/javascript.
Except Sony cannot decide when the next final fantasy comes out or whatsnot. Zelda is Nintendo's property. Final Fantasy is SquareEnix's. SquareEnix figured the higher ammount of PS2s around, shorter time to market, etc, was a way to make more money out of the game: they were probably (most likely) right, too. I only got FFXII because it was for a console I already had, and it was around.
The hype behind the Wii is a combination of Microsoft being unremarkable (note to the reader: this is not synonym to "crappy". It just means it doesn't stand out, regardless of how good the console actualy is), Sony was overhyped until E3, thus even though they have a decent product, hype works at the elastic principle, the higher they are, the worse the fall, and from Nintendo surprising: We expected so much NOTHING from Nintendo, that what they delivered was amazing in opposition.
All these elements together, and you have a product that sells fast. Plus, the games are actualy quite good. Not many Epics, but a lot of great titles. Too many for the amount of hours I have in a day anyway, if you add all the good DS games that are coming out at the same time, in addition to the final batch of PS2 titles... So its all going good.
Hmm...correct. Silly me! :)
Thank you for the correction. Though the argument of Mr. Troll were all made in the "rotation = movement, thus sixaxis = wiimote minus pointer", leading me to beleive he did not realise this either.
if I was you, I'd give up. This guy is basically arguing "OMG! What a troll! They dared say something was getting colder, when ANYONE with a brain would know that it is not getting colder, it is dissipating heat!" (note: I am not a physicist, so I'm sure the terminology isn't correct, but you get the idea).
The fact that he labeled the original poster as a most likely troll, stating that it was obvious the Wii only had 1 feature over the PS3's controler (the ability to triangulate position), as opposed to two (the ability to detect movement AND triangulate 3d position) using semantic (since rotation is a movement, the PS3 has it too, thus clearly, the Wii only has 1 extra feature!) when it is obvious it has 2 (the acceleromethers aren't there for show), just show that he's in his own bubble world.
So wether he is correct or not, is quite irrelevent to the original subject. So you should let him argue alone, as everyone -else- understood the original poster anyway (thus why its his posts that got moderated troll, not yours, nor the original post)
Because the everyday "street" definition of motion (as opposed to the actual definition), is synonymous with linear motion. When you're rotating the controler, in "everyday" vocabulary, its not moving.
Anyone with a brain capable of critical thinking would have been able to deduce what the poster meant by the tone of the post and its context. While you are correct in your statement, all you're doing is arguing sementics. Just about anyone reading the post would get it, unless they have extremly little deduction skills.
Yeah yeah, the Sixaxis can detect rotating motion. Its still quite limiting. You're almost as bad, trying to make it sound like motion is motion is motion, when the motion detection on the sixaxis is quite limiting in practice.
However, regardless of who's winning the e-pen war, I repeat the main point: the poster was most likely not trying to spred fud or whatever. They simply went with a common everyday (if incorrect) definition of motion. Big freagin deal. Just correct them and be on your way. No need to cry wolf.
Yeah, like there isn't a ton of developer's article stating the exact opposite.. Its anyone's best guess as to what will win right now. And 3 times more powerful? You're on crack.
Even more so when by the time the good PS3 games come out, the PS3 probably will be somewhat cheaper... So the idea that good games will come later (some hints point at FFXIII Versus, the game I actualy want so far as it is made by the team of KH, to end up being released late 2008...) doesn't justify shelling out the full price right now.
Wii however, has like 3-4 games I want now now now now now. But no Wii >.
To be fair, it does happen the other way around plenty, and with 360s, too. I've seen a lot of people return their Wiis when they learnt that online play wouldn't be Nintendo's main focus.
Not enough people, unfortunately, since I got Zelda for christmas, and I have no Wii to play it on >. I had several chances at a PS3, but not at a Wii, grrrrrrr...
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. So true.
The exact same thing happened with Windows XP... "Drivers don't work!" "It doesn't support my apps!" "its full of bugs and always crash". Hell, I know its how it went, -I- was one of the people saying these things... Didn't stop Windows XP one bit.
The world changed, so it might hurt Vista more than it hurt XP...but its not dying anytime soon. People are just silly.
Though the amount of effort required to stop referer links is so minimal, that an appropriate analogy would be a convenience store (aka: a public place that you can reasonably expect to be open at night) who left the door WIDE OPEN at night, then complain that someone entered.
The internet is almost based on hyperlinks, you're expected to have them, to the extent that technologies like Google's is -based- around it. If you don't want to go by that, you have to explicitely do something against it: "close the door".
We're not talking about an entire cryptographic implementation here: just an htaccess file or a 10 line scripts would have stopped it, and it has been the COMMONLY ACCEPTED way, until today, to do this. Why change it?
Yeah, definately. If a -hyperlink- ruins your business model when you use -hypertext-... The people complaining about this should just make their darn site in raw Flash or something. Problem solved >.>
The judge is an idiot, too. He/she seems to have no clue whatsoever about the implication of this decision.
Agreed. This is amazingly retarded. Its a programmer's job to allow or deny this, not a court. Especialy since its not like you need a master degree in cryptography or something to protect content this way. Its 10 lines of code in an http module, or a htaccess, or whatever. It takes -minutes- to stop...
If it was that simple. The problem is that its quite common for people to claim mental issues and not get life for it. Just about all public cases of some female teacher abusing a male student end up with the female teacher claiming mental disorders, and getting off the hook with just some therapy.
If judges acted the way you stated, you are correct: there would be no problems.