Unfortunately the things they *didn't* copy were updated data (can't find my parents' house of 15 years... well, I can find where it will be, there's just a shitload of trees in the way), colored satellite imagery, dragability that's *fast* (Google maps now drags much faster than before, and easily faster than MSN), and a street address search that works (a search for my apartment in FireFox freezes at "loading..." and in IE it says "no results were found").
It's interesting how this very much works like a beta product... whereas Google's incarnation functions like a finished piece of software (while still carrying the 'beta' tag).
He didn't exaggerate much... 2 patches in less than 4 weeks: release date was 6/21, and the 1.02 patch came out on 7/15, making it about 3 weeks and 3 days. That's pretty quick for 2 patches (and not, as you said "a hell of a lot longer than 2 weeks").
Interestingly enough, the 1.02 was released to fix the memory leak of the 1.01 patch, so they really didn't fix a ton of crap between both patches. Unfortunately, they still haven't fixed a lot of the problems with the server browser and a few other random video issues. Pity, as it's been a fun game so far.
Is it just me, or is this not really new news? I heard about the pistol mouse awhile ago, and the article linked is from October of last year. Not that I want to be a little bitch about this, but I'm just surprised something like this got accepted. It's neat, yeah, and relatively new, but you'd think NEWS items should be a bit newer than over 6 months.
Yup GTA horse is dead, thats why the last version was the highest grossing game ever made and the best selling game in the last 10 years. If they released it for gamecube and xbox, it would easily move to number on their sales charts.
First off, GTA 3 was the only 'blockbuster' in terms of sales. The pre-3D incarnations were moderately sucessful, but nowhere near as much as GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas were. Second, GTA 3 and Vice City *were* released on the Xbox in the "GTA Double Pack" back in November of 2003. It had better graphics than the PS2 version (higher res textures), was pretty much a steal at $50 (I *believe* it was $50), and generally did well. It did, however, *not* move anywhere #1 on XBox sales charts. The top of the XBox charts are and have been Halo/Halo 2 ever since launch (Halo 1 was actually the #9 most sold game of 2004, at 1.1 million units sold, and it's an XBox *launch* title. Also, it was the only game on the Top 10 list of 2004 that wasn't actually released in 2004).
Slashbotters really have a weird sense of reality when it comes to marketing and what sells.
They might be assuming that you could fit about a large amount of microwires (say, 1000) into a single usable wire, making it 10GB. Still, it's misleading to say what they did.
the rendering bug isn't that bad. I don't think I even notice it anymore I've become so used to it. It's not invasive that it renders the site unreadable.
I'd agree... in fact, I didn't even notice it was a bug the first couple of times it happened to me. A simple refresh (sometimes two at *most*) will fix it. There are plenty of pages out there that have to be refreshed to fix rendering errors stemming from half-loaded code, etc. I joked with a friend of mine that FireFox was fast enough that I could fit in a refresh while his IE was still loading it. Heh.
Your post exemplifies the wonderful extremism of some conservative viewpoints. The parent referred to teenagers, not 3-year-olds. Age-appropriateness can be a wonderful thing, but it's hardly applicable when in a situation as mundane as this.
I'm not sure you understand what being open and honest to your children really is. Forcing raw violence and sex down childrens' throats is hardly the way to go about things, so please don't insinuate that's what I was going for. Your fear of a bare breast shown in a public forum has had you jump to the conclusion that what we're talking about is overtly and inappropriately sexual. The 'choice' that you would've been denied is precisely the same choice you're denied every day in a whole slew of public realms.
For someone who refers to nudity so nonchalantly as 'T&A', I truly worry in what manner your children perceive sex. Interesting that you people insist on sex needing to be this lovely thing between two married, monogamous, consenting adults (of the opposite sex, of course *wink*), but feel repressed enough to blurt out 'tits & ass' when nudity is mentioned. How terribly enlightened and respectful of women you are.
I digress, I know. Just seems you could be helped by a little dictionarylesson.
I found the whole halftime "tit show" disappointing.
The 'disappointing' part of it was the lack of sexual shock. I watched the Superbowl in a dorm room with 8 other college-aged guys, a fairly sexually charged group of people. Half of the people in the room didn't even *notice* that it was happening, and those that actually saw anything didn't really think anything of it. Christ, it's like whining about seeing a woman breastfeeding her baby in a public park. It might be giggle-inducing for those under 16, but it's hardly harmful or "disappointing."
Your portrayal of sexuality (and how it is/should be viewed) as one of two extremes is a little unfortunate. The 'sex-fest' that is MTV (an informed observation on your part, I'm sure) is certainly not realistic nor necessarily beneficial when teaching children about sex, but it is no more skewed and inaccurate than the wildly conservative views touted as family friendly.
If you feel the need to actually adjust your television viewing habits due to the sexual content on a public network, you could probably stand to do a little better in educating those whom you seem to be a role model or some sort of parental figure for. If the MTVesque view is something you don't want perpetuated, censoring it exactly what not to do. Religious affiliation and the fact they're involved in a church group aside, they're still regular kids. Most of them will have more meaningful sexual information provided to them by their peers. Being honest and open in your dealings with these teens when it comes to sex will be more effective.
As long, of course, as you're willing to accept the fact that they may develop opinions slightly more liberal than your own.
I think a big part of it is the amount people consume. I drink (on average) a few cans/bottles of coke a day, so I've become accustomed to the caffeine enough that it barely affects me. *Not* having it, however, ends up sucking.
I have friends whose caffeine intake is minimal (if at all) in a normal day, so a single can of pop or a cup of coffee can keep them up for hours. It's all relative tolerance, like a lot of other drugs out there.
I purchased a Nokia 3595 phone (a GSM phone) independently when my older 3360's LCD screen cracked while I was with Cell One. A couple of weeks later I switched to Cingular who was able to 'unlock' my 3595 without intervention from Cell One. I am currently on the GSM network with my 3595 using Cingular's service.
In the event that your cellphone comes free with the service (or at a very reduced cost), it is factored into the cost of the plan. You, however, still own the physical phone (unless, of course, your phone carrier leases the phone to you). Cancelling your service immediately to get a "free phone" is usually not possible, given the very high cancellation charges built into the service contract.
The difference between a cellphone (and anything else that involves a physical purchase and a recurring service charge) and a piece of purchased software is the fact that once you pay for that game disc, you're done. In the most materialistic sense, you are no longer financially obligated to the seller of the product and would therefore feel like you own it completely. It's the basic distinction between goods and services.
Additionally, the fact that you pay one price for more than one thing (actual disc plus license) blurs the line between fair use and what we think we're entitled to. For example, buying volume licenses for products (like Windows Server) in addition to the actual product makes it easier to see that there are specific restrictions.
Going back to the previous example, it's as if you pay a one time fee for a cellphone and service and are allowed to use that service indefinitely, but there's a license that stipulates certain things (like you can't let any other invidividual use your phone). Would you own the service provided? No. Would it seem as if you did? Of course; you paid once and it's "yours."
Maybe this is just in my experience, but through the three wireless carriers I've used (Cingular, Cell One, and Sprint), never have I had a problem having the new carrier unlock my phone. I think it's more of a way to keep an individual from using a phone/service in a way the carrier doesn't like... but considering other carrier's have the ability to get past that, it seems to be an idle threat at best when they say "you can't use this phone with someone else."
Again, in a legal sense you're right. However, I don't have a recurring charge for the license like I do with a cell service. Using the code on the CD might be an actual service, but in the minds of the consumers it doesn't seem like that.
Oftentimes, not without significant trouble. Try returning an opened game at many a retailer. Being forced to go back to the publisher for a refund is a hassle and not always possible.
Also, using the excuse "Don't complain! It's in the EULA and you should've read it!" works great in a court of law, but it's not fair in the traditional sense. Many spyware/adware programs that exist also have license agreements that legally give them permission to do what they do. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about it.
A 700MHz processor with plenty of RAM and a last generation 3D graphics card _should_ be able to run just about anything.
I completely agree with you, though in a recent case I was pleasantly surprised:
I have an Athlon 900MHz, 512MB RAM, and a Radeon 9600XT, hardly a top of the line gaming rig. I bought Doom3, more under the assumption that A) it wouldn't suck and B) I'd upgrade to a newer machine in the future. Out of sheer interest for a new game, I loaded it up, and to my surprise it actually ran. More than that, the game is actually playable. I'm not sure how he did it, but Carmack made an engine that looks amazing even at 640x480 (heh, the only resolution I can use) with all the graphic options turned off. Of course, as good as that looked, it was utterly jaw dropping to see it on a friend's Alienware Athlon FX-53, 2GB RAM, and a 9800XT.
That's not really the point. As the GP said, the "average" user knew more back then. In my experience that has been the case... Our first family computer was an Epson 286. Both my parents were able to do a number of technical tasks involved with DOS and archaic programs like Wordstar (a word processor I still have nightmares about. heh). Now, with so many tasks being made transparent or terribly easy for the user, even my parents, two average users who could actually make their way around in a command-line, can no longer do basic things like navigate directories in a DOS box (something they had to do 15 years ago).
It's not that people became dumb or that computers became more difficult to use in a higher technical sense... it's that they've become easier to use for the masses. Like the GP said, computers require less technical savvy today, and considering that things are getting easier to do (in some respects), I'm not sure the trend of the average user getting 'dumber' is going to reverse anytime soon.
Not sure about you, but the last time I walked into a mobile phone store I bought the phone I use now, and I do own it. When my contract with them regarding my cellular service ends, I'll still own the phone.
With regards to travel agents, insurance stores, and estate agents, you're not purchasing any goods; you're buying the services provided by the seller. While you're right about the software license, the grey area arises in the minds of the consumers over the fact that they've physically purchased something. It's almost as if they bought a new car, but there exists a license that dictates exactly how much and where they can drive. If said license needed to be agreed to, then the seller of the car technically has legal standing, but in a practical sense it seems a bit over the top.
Funny you mention that; a few years ago we downloaded Red Faction to play on the network in our dorms. It turned out that a virus was bundled somewhere in the massive collection of rars inside of rars. A particularly resourceful friend of mine managed to repack the pirated game virus-free and redistributed it onto the campus network.
The amusing thing was when people started complaining about having virus-infected machines (everyone was infected); most of us joked that we probably deserved it, but it just goes to show that some people feel they're obligated to receive pirated copies and the priviledges that come with owning a game.
It is completely unacceptable that a demo could install this dubious software, when it's distribution does not constitute piracy in anyone's terms.
The interview mentioned that demos include this copy protection because the demo exes end up being very similiar to the final version's exes, meaning a potential cracker would have interest in the demo's executable files.
I hope these games give users a warning about what they are going to install.
Unfortunately, the person interviewed said that agreeing the the EULA gives them permission to install their software without telling you. Legally they're right... but it's a bit of BS; I want to know what is installed on my machine, and I shouldn't have to wade through a thick license agreement to know precisely what's going on.
When I was little I did the whole "listen for the ocean sound in a conch shell" and the damn thing cut my ear. I ran back to my parents and they thought I'd been beaten or something.
Considering this is a list of fixes, not current vulnerabilities, I don't see any hackers finding any direct use for it (though the resourceful hacker may use the list as a reference point to see if any other vulnerabilities exist...).
What exactly is "2.1"? I know there was SP1 and SP1a, but I believe that 1a simply removed Java to comply with the whole SunMicro thing. I doubt there will be a patch for SP2, as any issues aren't really bugs in the software. Also, in my experience, there aren't many issues with SP2 at all. My visual styles broke (mainly because I use custom.msstyles, something that requires a fix to implement), and I had to disable the firewall for some programs to work (use a hardware firewall instead), but other than that everything works fine.
A lot of people I know are going for SP2 right now, be it the geeks who want to try it out or the normal people that see it as another update. Maybe they're not the norm, but I don't see a whole lot of people specifically avoiding it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nanostray (the lowest rated) received 2 of 5 as a total score :P
Naw, I don't live there. I just take my dates home there.
Unfortunately the things they *didn't* copy were updated data (can't find my parents' house of 15 years... well, I can find where it will be, there's just a shitload of trees in the way), colored satellite imagery, dragability that's *fast* (Google maps now drags much faster than before, and easily faster than MSN), and a street address search that works (a search for my apartment in FireFox freezes at "loading..." and in IE it says "no results were found").
It's interesting how this very much works like a beta product... whereas Google's incarnation functions like a finished piece of software (while still carrying the 'beta' tag).
He didn't exaggerate much... 2 patches in less than 4 weeks: release date was 6/21, and the 1.02 patch came out on 7/15, making it about 3 weeks and 3 days. That's pretty quick for 2 patches (and not, as you said "a hell of a lot longer than 2 weeks").
Interestingly enough, the 1.02 was released to fix the memory leak of the 1.01 patch, so they really didn't fix a ton of crap between both patches. Unfortunately, they still haven't fixed a lot of the problems with the server browser and a few other random video issues. Pity, as it's been a fun game so far.
Is it just me, or is this not really new news? I heard about the pistol mouse awhile ago, and the article linked is from October of last year. Not that I want to be a little bitch about this, but I'm just surprised something like this got accepted. It's neat, yeah, and relatively new, but you'd think NEWS items should be a bit newer than over 6 months.
First off, GTA 3 was the only 'blockbuster' in terms of sales. The pre-3D incarnations were moderately sucessful, but nowhere near as much as GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas were. Second, GTA 3 and Vice City *were* released on the Xbox in the "GTA Double Pack" back in November of 2003. It had better graphics than the PS2 version (higher res textures), was pretty much a steal at $50 (I *believe* it was $50), and generally did well. It did, however, *not* move anywhere #1 on XBox sales charts. The top of the XBox charts are and have been Halo/Halo 2 ever since launch (Halo 1 was actually the #9 most sold game of 2004, at 1.1 million units sold, and it's an XBox *launch* title. Also, it was the only game on the Top 10 list of 2004 that wasn't actually released in 2004).
Congrats on accurately labeling yourself ;)
They might be assuming that you could fit about a large amount of microwires (say, 1000) into a single usable wire, making it 10GB. Still, it's misleading to say what they did.
I'd agree... in fact, I didn't even notice it was a bug the first couple of times it happened to me. A simple refresh (sometimes two at *most*) will fix it. There are plenty of pages out there that have to be refreshed to fix rendering errors stemming from half-loaded code, etc. I joked with a friend of mine that FireFox was fast enough that I could fit in a refresh while his IE was still loading it. Heh.
Your post exemplifies the wonderful extremism of some conservative viewpoints. The parent referred to teenagers, not 3-year-olds. Age-appropriateness can be a wonderful thing, but it's hardly applicable when in a situation as mundane as this.
I'm not sure you understand what being open and honest to your children really is. Forcing raw violence and sex down childrens' throats is hardly the way to go about things, so please don't insinuate that's what I was going for. Your fear of a bare breast shown in a public forum has had you jump to the conclusion that what we're talking about is overtly and inappropriately sexual. The 'choice' that you would've been denied is precisely the same choice you're denied every day in a whole slew of public realms.
For someone who refers to nudity so nonchalantly as 'T&A', I truly worry in what manner your children perceive sex. Interesting that you people insist on sex needing to be this lovely thing between two married, monogamous, consenting adults (of the opposite sex, of course *wink*), but feel repressed enough to blurt out 'tits & ass' when nudity is mentioned. How terribly enlightened and respectful of women you are.
I digress, I know. Just seems you could be helped by a little dictionary lesson.
The 'disappointing' part of it was the lack of sexual shock. I watched the Superbowl in a dorm room with 8 other college-aged guys, a fairly sexually charged group of people. Half of the people in the room didn't even *notice* that it was happening, and those that actually saw anything didn't really think anything of it. Christ, it's like whining about seeing a woman breastfeeding her baby in a public park. It might be giggle-inducing for those under 16, but it's hardly harmful or "disappointing."
Your portrayal of sexuality (and how it is/should be viewed) as one of two extremes is a little unfortunate. The 'sex-fest' that is MTV (an informed observation on your part, I'm sure) is certainly not realistic nor necessarily beneficial when teaching children about sex, but it is no more skewed and inaccurate than the wildly conservative views touted as family friendly.
If you feel the need to actually adjust your television viewing habits due to the sexual content on a public network, you could probably stand to do a little better in educating those whom you seem to be a role model or some sort of parental figure for. If the MTVesque view is something you don't want perpetuated, censoring it exactly what not to do. Religious affiliation and the fact they're involved in a church group aside, they're still regular kids. Most of them will have more meaningful sexual information provided to them by their peers. Being honest and open in your dealings with these teens when it comes to sex will be more effective.
As long, of course, as you're willing to accept the fact that they may develop opinions slightly more liberal than your own.
I think a big part of it is the amount people consume. I drink (on average) a few cans/bottles of coke a day, so I've become accustomed to the caffeine enough that it barely affects me. *Not* having it, however, ends up sucking.
I have friends whose caffeine intake is minimal (if at all) in a normal day, so a single can of pop or a cup of coffee can keep them up for hours. It's all relative tolerance, like a lot of other drugs out there.
Personally, I use an axe.
I purchased a Nokia 3595 phone (a GSM phone) independently when my older 3360's LCD screen cracked while I was with Cell One. A couple of weeks later I switched to Cingular who was able to 'unlock' my 3595 without intervention from Cell One. I am currently on the GSM network with my 3595 using Cingular's service.
In the event that your cellphone comes free with the service (or at a very reduced cost), it is factored into the cost of the plan. You, however, still own the physical phone (unless, of course, your phone carrier leases the phone to you). Cancelling your service immediately to get a "free phone" is usually not possible, given the very high cancellation charges built into the service contract.
The difference between a cellphone (and anything else that involves a physical purchase and a recurring service charge) and a piece of purchased software is the fact that once you pay for that game disc, you're done. In the most materialistic sense, you are no longer financially obligated to the seller of the product and would therefore feel like you own it completely. It's the basic distinction between goods and services.
Additionally, the fact that you pay one price for more than one thing (actual disc plus license) blurs the line between fair use and what we think we're entitled to. For example, buying volume licenses for products (like Windows Server) in addition to the actual product makes it easier to see that there are specific restrictions.
Going back to the previous example, it's as if you pay a one time fee for a cellphone and service and are allowed to use that service indefinitely, but there's a license that stipulates certain things (like you can't let any other invidividual use your phone). Would you own the service provided? No. Would it seem as if you did? Of course; you paid once and it's "yours."
Maybe this is just in my experience, but through the three wireless carriers I've used (Cingular, Cell One, and Sprint), never have I had a problem having the new carrier unlock my phone. I think it's more of a way to keep an individual from using a phone/service in a way the carrier doesn't like... but considering other carrier's have the ability to get past that, it seems to be an idle threat at best when they say "you can't use this phone with someone else."
Again, in a legal sense you're right. However, I don't have a recurring charge for the license like I do with a cell service. Using the code on the CD might be an actual service, but in the minds of the consumers it doesn't seem like that.
I'll vouch for Prince of Persia and X2: The Threat both working wonderfully :)
Oftentimes, not without significant trouble. Try returning an opened game at many a retailer. Being forced to go back to the publisher for a refund is a hassle and not always possible.
Also, using the excuse "Don't complain! It's in the EULA and you should've read it!" works great in a court of law, but it's not fair in the traditional sense. Many spyware/adware programs that exist also have license agreements that legally give them permission to do what they do. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about it.
I completely agree with you, though in a recent case I was pleasantly surprised:
I have an Athlon 900MHz, 512MB RAM, and a Radeon 9600XT, hardly a top of the line gaming rig. I bought Doom3, more under the assumption that A) it wouldn't suck and B) I'd upgrade to a newer machine in the future. Out of sheer interest for a new game, I loaded it up, and to my surprise it actually ran. More than that, the game is actually playable. I'm not sure how he did it, but Carmack made an engine that looks amazing even at 640x480 (heh, the only resolution I can use) with all the graphic options turned off. Of course, as good as that looked, it was utterly jaw dropping to see it on a friend's Alienware Athlon FX-53, 2GB RAM, and a 9800XT.
That's not really the point. As the GP said, the "average" user knew more back then. In my experience that has been the case... Our first family computer was an Epson 286. Both my parents were able to do a number of technical tasks involved with DOS and archaic programs like Wordstar (a word processor I still have nightmares about. heh). Now, with so many tasks being made transparent or terribly easy for the user, even my parents, two average users who could actually make their way around in a command-line, can no longer do basic things like navigate directories in a DOS box (something they had to do 15 years ago).
It's not that people became dumb or that computers became more difficult to use in a higher technical sense... it's that they've become easier to use for the masses. Like the GP said, computers require less technical savvy today, and considering that things are getting easier to do (in some respects), I'm not sure the trend of the average user getting 'dumber' is going to reverse anytime soon.
Not sure about you, but the last time I walked into a mobile phone store I bought the phone I use now, and I do own it. When my contract with them regarding my cellular service ends, I'll still own the phone.
With regards to travel agents, insurance stores, and estate agents, you're not purchasing any goods; you're buying the services provided by the seller. While you're right about the software license, the grey area arises in the minds of the consumers over the fact that they've physically purchased something. It's almost as if they bought a new car, but there exists a license that dictates exactly how much and where they can drive. If said license needed to be agreed to, then the seller of the car technically has legal standing, but in a practical sense it seems a bit over the top.
Funny you mention that; a few years ago we downloaded Red Faction to play on the network in our dorms. It turned out that a virus was bundled somewhere in the massive collection of rars inside of rars. A particularly resourceful friend of mine managed to repack the pirated game virus-free and redistributed it onto the campus network.
The amusing thing was when people started complaining about having virus-infected machines (everyone was infected); most of us joked that we probably deserved it, but it just goes to show that some people feel they're obligated to receive pirated copies and the priviledges that come with owning a game.
We could only be so lucky... :P
The interview mentioned that demos include this copy protection because the demo exes end up being very similiar to the final version's exes, meaning a potential cracker would have interest in the demo's executable files.
Unfortunately, the person interviewed said that agreeing the the EULA gives them permission to install their software without telling you. Legally they're right... but it's a bit of BS; I want to know what is installed on my machine, and I shouldn't have to wade through a thick license agreement to know precisely what's going on.
When I was little I did the whole "listen for the ocean sound in a conch shell" and the damn thing cut my ear. I ran back to my parents and they thought I'd been beaten or something.
Oh. Shells. Heh.
Considering this is a list of fixes, not current vulnerabilities, I don't see any hackers finding any direct use for it (though the resourceful hacker may use the list as a reference point to see if any other vulnerabilities exist...).
What exactly is "2.1"? I know there was SP1 and SP1a, but I believe that 1a simply removed Java to comply with the whole SunMicro thing. I doubt there will be a patch for SP2, as any issues aren't really bugs in the software. Also, in my experience, there aren't many issues with SP2 at all. My visual styles broke (mainly because I use custom .msstyles, something that requires a fix to implement), and I had to disable the firewall for some programs to work (use a hardware firewall instead), but other than that everything works fine.
A lot of people I know are going for SP2 right now, be it the geeks who want to try it out or the normal people that see it as another update. Maybe they're not the norm, but I don't see a whole lot of people specifically avoiding it.