Dude, I've run CoH on Linux using Cedega. There are no "glitches," it runs perfectly well. Like I said, it's officially supported by Cedega, just like World of Warcraft. The only thing that I would consider a glitch is that some of the higher-end graphics rendering functions, such as depth-of-field effects and such, don't work because the video driver that Cedega reports to the app claims to not have those capabilities (even if the card does).
The game not only works, it is actually a lot faster running on Cedega on Linux than on Windows. The time to zone is cut by two or three seconds at least, sometimes a lot more.
And because you obviously missed it the first time, I'll put it in bold letters this time: City of Heroes uses OpenGL to render its graphics. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
I was extremely happy when the system was changed (commonly referred to as "Enhancement Diversification" among the players). Before that happened, the Tank archetypes were invincible. It was common practice to create what were known as "burn" tankers, which were tanks that could absorb an infinite amount of damage without consequence and that would deal out massive amounts of damage with their auras. Other variations on powersets provided similar characteristics.
If you were on a team with a burn tank, your job was to stand back and watch. If you interfered, your team would get angry with you and might even kick you from the team. So that's what most missions were, one or two tanks rounding up and dispatching hundreds of enemies at a time, and six or seven other team members standing around watching. On several teams I joined, the other players wouldn't even bother leaving the mission entrance area. Why bother if you're just going to stand around and watch anyway?
It was power-levelpalozza, and it was extremely tedious and boring.
Nowadays, the developers have gone to great lengths to ensure that every member of the team, no matter what archetype, can contribute. That is a Good Thing(TM).
Unless, of course, you enjoy playing games in "god mode," in which it kind of sucks that there exists the prospect that you might (gasp!) actually get defeated once in a while!
The risk is what makes the game fun and worthwhile. Even Superman is vulnerable to Kryptonite. I guess that makes him no longer the "Man of Steel," but the "Man of Mediocrity." Still, if he were literally invulnerable to everything, as so-called "heroes" were before enhancement diversification, it wouldn't be fun reading four pages of "...aaaaaand he thumps them on the head, so now they're in jail" in every single issue.
Where is that WoW native Linux client? Oh yeah, there isn't one.
due to them supporting openGL and not DirectX
City of Heroes is built on OpenGL also, go figure. However, the graphics aren't the only thing to a game client does, and the non-graphics part of City of Heroes is built for Windows only. This wasn't a malicious decision, it was a practical one. NCsoft isn't as big as Blizzard, it never has been. Hopefully, as demand for the game grows, they'll be able to go back and capture some of the Mac and Linux markets as well. I'm pushing on NCsoft for this to happen, hopefully we'll get their ear.
now that VISTA has bombed
For the record, NCsoft does not support City of Heroes on Vista. They say they are working on it, I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually, and by all reports, it mostly works fine on Vista, but it's not like NCsoft are a bunch of Microsoft sycophants.
Going back to the ALL platforms thing again, maybe you overlooked that City of Heroes/Villains is an officially supported Cedega application? You know, just like World of Warcraft?
Did you only play at 3:00am on a low-population server or something? Whenever I'm around, there are plenty of other people. Hell, half of the complaints on the official forums are people griping about all of the broadcast clutter and blind invites.
On the official forums, the moderators have stated that they're going to tell exactly when the debt eradication will happen, as in a time and date. They have explicitly said that one of the purposes of doing so is specifically so day/night/whatever before, people can do something they're not really used to being able to do because it's a PITA to work off the debt: go out and go nuts.
Want to take on the hardest über-mission that people normally don't work on because they know that they'll spend the next few hours wallowing their way out of debt? Go for it, because tomorrow, you get a free pass.
Also, as has been pointed out, it's not like you can rack up a week's worth of debt in the game. Most of the time, it's paid off within an hour or so at most. Sometimes, I've had it worked completely off by the end of the very mission in which I accrued it. I can't think of a way this can be exploited; at worst, you might be able to save yourself a few hour's effort.
I hope you get to +5 for that comment, because you're right on the mark. The reason why there's no huge incentive for Japanese workers to unionize is because the work culture is much different over there. I'm not saying it's necessarily better in every way, but there are reasons why U.S. workers had to unionize when they did. Working conditions were simply intolerable to the point of being inhuman, a situation they haven't had to deal with over there, thanks to a different culture and different regulations on what corporations can and can't do.
In our relentless strive for economic freedom, we've given corporations way too much power, power that corporations don't have in other countries such as Japan. As a result, we've had to, over time, develop organizations to protect ourselves from that which we have created.:-(
It's ironic that so many countries have learned lessons from us so well, lessons that we ourselves still haven't picked up on. While they're learning from our mistakes, we just keep right on making them.
Since the submitter didn't bother linking to their site (!!?), if you want to try out some of these amazing new features and improvements instead of just reading about them, you should head over to the OpenBSD 4.2 page and snag a copy!
You're so wise it makes me sick. Why can't more people be like Rob?
Seriously, if you want to make a killing off of Slashdot without making changes that would kill Slashdot, you should expand your articles into a full-length book. Your site is officially an Internet institution. You are a bonafide part of geek culture now, which makes your perspective unique and interesting. You also have proven experience in building a successful community from nothing to millions, which would come in very handy in lots of industries and fields, both small and large.
Plus, when the book is reviewed and the link is posted in the article, you could earn royalties AND sales commission, how sweet is that?
Who knows, maybe you could even patent some of your methods of community-building, and then post an article on how evil you've become.;-)
A. For Comcast to catch them and point fingers, it would mean that they would have to admit that they are guilty of doing what people are accusing (and proving) them of doing now after adamantly denying it. Besides, that's the beauty of the plan. Who are you going to believe, someone who we've already caught lying, or Google? Even if they reverse their lying corporate stance, no one would believe them.
B. Finding out Comcast's IP address range is trivially easy. Taking actions based on this IP address range is likewise trivially easy. There is no technical reason that this can't be done and done well.
C. What's to catch? What's to analyze? Comcast customers would only see that RST packets are being sent by what appears to be Google. At that point, there are really only two realistic ways that could happen. Either 1) Google is deliberately sending RST packets, or 2) Comcast is spoofing RST packets as if they're Google. We already know that the second possibility has happened with BitTorrent traffic, we also already know that other types of traffic (i.e. Lotus Notes) are unintentionally being negatively impacted by Comcast, so the only logical conclusion would be that Google isn't doing it, Comcast is.
Sure, Comcast might know that they're not responsible, but because they've already lied (and continue to do so) to the public-at-large, no one would believe them. Google would get away with it scott free, as long as they're able to maintain the secrecy of the people who actually do it.
As to what Google's motive would be, I've already answered it. It would make Comcast's already bad situation even worse. Right now, Comcast is claiming that what they're doing isn't affecting anyone. Even when they're finally pushed to admit that they are affecting people, they will likely tell everyone that they're only affecting those nasty pirates who are stealing food from the mouths of starving actors' and musicians' children.
But if people heard that they might not be able to get to freakin' Google if they sign up with Comcast because of this stupidity, they'll be a LOT more likely to not sign up with them, and cry to their senators and representatives that we need net neutrality laws, which is exactly what Google wants. I haven't even gotten to the part where Google might be rolling out a competing Internet access service in the not-too-distant future...
In short, Google has a LOT to gain from this completely blowing up in Comcast's face. Enough to justify some good ol' fashioned corporate sabotage? I doubt it, but it would be funny, wouldn't it? (And I'm not condoning such an action, but in the end, consumers would stand to benefit from net neutrality laws and Google's competition as well.)
What if Google, a (justifiably) huge advocate of network neutrality, is deliberately sending the type of RST packets that imitate Comcast's faked packets, specifically to Comcast IP addresses, knowing the inevitable fallout that would result? It would make an already bad situation for Comcast far, far worse, and it's likely that the requested Senate investigation would turn into nails in the coffin for those who want preferential treatment of packets on the Internet.
For a company that does no evil, if they could pull it off, it would be absolutely diabolical. But then, it could easily be one of those "ends justify the means" kinds of situations. At any rate, all I can say is "MWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!! Suckers!"
(No, I don't actually believe that's what's happening, but man, what an AWESOME plan to make network neutrality happen once and for all.)
Um yeah you can watch it on your TV, either:
1) when it airs
2) from your VCR or PVR
3) if you have a decent cable package that has "On Demand"
Maybe you don't want to watch this content on your computer but many of us do. This is who they are serving.
And more power to you, but you've completely missed the point.
Like I said, the vast majority of users out there do NOT watch television on their computers. Which means that any service that requires one to do so is serving to a very minute audience, and as such, is probably doomed to failure in the market unless they manage to price their service expensive enough to recoup their costs.
Meanwhile, there's a perfectly good service out there, iTunes with an AppleTV, that allows me to watch programming:
1) When I want
2) On my computer, my iPod, or my television, and
3) For an extremely low price (around $350 to $400 a year for the 10 or so shows I watch) compared with a "decent cable package that has 'On Demand'" (at least $720 a year in my area).
But because NBC is being such a dick about telling me when, where, and how I must watch their shows, and because other networks and other content creators are being so stingy with their stuff hoping they can be the next Google or something, I'm supposed to put up with watching stuff on a monitor that's half the size of my television, listening to it on my computer speakers instead of my nice surround sound system?
No thank you, NBC et. al. can go to hell, because that's the only place I'll be watching their shows on my computer.
I'm sorry if it makes me sound like a demanding consumer to expect companies to provide an easy means for me to watch their shows when I want to, where I want to, and how I want to. They don't have to cater to my tastes if they don't want to, and I will continue not watching their shows. However, considering that the vast majority of the world are consumers that are pretty much like me, if they keep that attitude much longer, they will completely lose their audience to other companies that realize how much better it is to please their customers instead of just telling them to watch the show "when it airs, from your VCR or PVR, or on a decent cable package that has 'On Demand.'"
Jesus, do you actually run a television network? Because you sure sound like the pinheads that do.
The funny thing is that I was actually serious, I don't do BitTorrent to get television shows or movies. (Or music either, for that matter.) I simply choose not to watch the shows. But I totally understand people who do. I mean, given the choice of all these stupid limitations imposed on people by content creators, versus being able to simply download DRM-free copies of whatever they want and streaming it anywhere to any device, burning media of it, and whatever the hell else one might want to do with the content, why would you not use BitTorrent instead of some asinine service like Amazon.com's unbox service, Netflix, or Hulu? The way they keep shutting down distribution channels for their media, you'd think the companies desperately want copyright infringement to run rampant.
The iTunes/AppleTV solution isn't perfect, but at least it gives me lots of options, covering pretty much anything I want to do with the media, for a very reasonable price. If it weren't for that and the fact that I don't watch more than 10 or so shows regularly, I probably would resort to BitTorrent just to get everything.
At least, it has been for me, for TWELVE YEARS NOW. Get with the times and quit yer whining. There is no need to have a separate device for doing X at home, when your computer can already do X at home.
Like I said, if you want to watch stuff on your computer, then more power to you. I don't, and as it so happens, hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans don't, also.
So you need to quit your whining, unless you plan on trying to convince hundreds of millions of Americans (not to mention probably BILLIONS of others around the world) to change their ways also. A decent computer an monitor costs orders of magnitude more than a decent but inexpensive television.
Nope, and I doubt it will anytime soon. When I use my computer, I tend to want to sit close to the screen to make out detail. When I watch television, I tend to sit six to ten feet away and don't care so much if I can make out itty bitty fonts.
I'm just not willing to switch back and forth right now. I wouldn't mind having a cheap dedicated computer for the purpose of serving as a media center, something with a simple interface (I don't want a keyboard interface to watching television). You know... like an AppleTV.;-)
I still think that ultimately, it will be the successful player (no pun intended) in the market. It's pretty easy to use, it works really well, it's already got some media companies behind it (although it admittedly needs several more to really take off), and best of all, it doesn't ask people to watch television and movies on their computer screen. I honestly thinkg that someday, after Hulu is recognized for the abject failure that it will be, the idiots at NBC that decided to bail in it will eventually be fired for incompetence and allowing its competitors get a huge lead on them in the market of digital media distribution.
I think it's really weird that Amazon.com, Hulu, Netflix, and so many others think that I watch television on my computer. I don't. I watch television on... well, I watch it on my television.
Now, I know, some of you have fancy media PCs set up so that you can watch television on your computer on your television, and if you do, congratulations, sounds like you've got a nice setup. But the vast majority of people don't.
A while back, I bought one of the AppleTV boxes. Know why? So that I can watch television on my television, not on my computer. So now, I buy shows from iTunes. I've also been known to rent a movie or two on my Xbox 360, which is also hooked up to... well, you already know what it's hooked up to, right?
So to NBC, and to anyone else who wants me to watch their stuff, unless it's short clips that are posted on sites like YouTube, it doesn't matter how great the quality your programming is, it doesn't matter how simple it is to download and watch it on my computer. If you can't give me a relatively simple way to watch it on my television, I'm not going to be watching it. Period, end of story.
By the way, that's one of the things that would be so hypothetically great about downloading torrents of movies and/or television shows, if I participated in such illegal activities. With a few button presses, I could have a DVD copy of anything I download to watch at my leisure... ON MY TELEVISION!
Come back when shows on Hulu can be watched on an AppleTV, or when you're willing to let me burn a copy to DVD. Maybe then, we'll talk. (Somehow, I kind of doubt we'll be talking anytime soon.)
Now mod me up, dammit, that's one of my better rants, and something painfully obvious that I don't see discussed very often in these threads.
Actually, some college students at Georgia State University tried an experiment in which they blocked off all lanes on Interstate 285 going 55 miles per hour, the speed limit. Keep in mind that most people drive 65 to 70 on that road.
As a result, the people behind them got very angry and began active extremely dangerously. One van even had an accident when he passed them on the right shoulder and clipped a car that was parked in the emergency lane.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about going faster than the speed limit. Sometimes, when it's raining and there is low visibility, driving the speed limit is unsafe. Other times, when there is low traffic volume, high visibility, and the roads are dry, it's perfectly safe to go 10 to 15 miles per hour above the limit. The law doesn't take that into account, though, and as a result, the speed limit is set arbitrarily low on almost every road.
Damn, I wish you hadn't posted as an AC. That was insightful enough that I probably would have friended you for it just so I could read more of your comments.
The point of such a lawsuit is not so much for you to personally profit by $7.32, it is that they will have to pay millions of people $7.32, plus millions of dollars more to very expensive lawyers.
The point is that after paying so much money for doing something so stupid, they'll be less inclined to do stupid things in the future.
I hope that this actually happens, so that somewhere, at some time, some executive might realize, "Gosh, it would have been a lot cheaper and more PR-friendly if we had just upgraded our network instead." Also, I hpe that this actually happens so that other Internet service providers sit up and take note.
If I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying for the ability to communicate with other people to accomplish various legal tasks. And if there is anything to learn in the past few days immediately following the release of Gutsy Gibbon, with Ubuntu.com completely hosed as far as I can tell, there are legitimate, much-needed, legal ways to use peer-to-peer services. If this isn't the fundamental reason for signing up with an Internet Service Provider, to be able to communicate with other computers, what is?
If they had told me up front that they would be resetting peer-to-peer connections, I might be mad, but at least I'd know it up front and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so. If these were technical problems that forced their actions as a resolution, then I might agree that taking necessary action to restore service is a Good Thing. If there really were no legitimate uses for peer-to-peer networks, as the RIAA and MPAA would have everyone believe, then I would still disagree, but at least I would understand.
As it is, though, none of those things are true. Comcast is still denying that they are deliberately causing connections to fail, in spite of the incontrovertible proof that has been offered, and that only after Comcast said nothing at all to their customers for... well... we don't know how long. As it is, it's not in response to connections being down, it was planned out and implemented while nothing was broken in response to some hypothetical situation that might arise. In fact, in having problems with Lotus Notes, Comcast has actually broken something else that was working before in order to fix a problem that didn't exist to begin with!
In short, if I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying them to deliver network packets, that's all. At best, Comcast has engaged in an egregious breach of contract by deliberately interfering with my ability to get packets from A to B. At worst, they are guilty of deliberately and secretly impersonating someone they're not, and if I'm not mistaken, that's a crime. They might be lucky if they can get out of this with just a class action lawsuit.
I'm not on Comcast's Internet service, thank goodness, although I am on AT&T's, and believe me, it's not much better. All of this stupidity just makes me long even more for more competition in this space for something else to come along. I never that I'd see the day when, "We won't interfere with your Internet connection!" would actually become a selling point, yet here we are.
If I can indulge in a bit of tinfoil-hattishness, it really makes me wonder. The RIAA and MPAA are a huge media creation conglomerate. As mentioned, they hate, HATE, HATE peer-to-peer software, even with all of its legitimate uses. As some of you may know, Comcast is more than just an Internet service provider, they also happen to be the largest media provider company, and they're facing increased competition from telcos and satellite providers. Who wants to bet that Comcast has been either paid off or offered sweet deals on media content in trade for pushing the RIAA's and MPAA's agenda of controlling what applications can and can't be used on the Internet?
I have patented putting characters in an ordered sequence. I'm calling it a SENT-ENCE. I'd ask for your thoughts on it, but I will of course need royalties.
atht edia scuks.
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, I gotta say, I liked getting some of MY money back. And I don't think a surplus is a good thing, it means they have too much of the citizen's money. If they have too much, they will find a way to spend it. I don't like the huge debt they have us in now, no...but, if they will bring the war down to a close, and cut some stupid spending (how about stopping a lot of the payments we make to other countries?), I think we'll start to recover financially. I'm still paying about 33% of my income....and that is ENOUGH!! The govt needs to learn to live within its means. Heck, I wish they go to a FairTax type thing...simpler to understand, and would keep a lot of tax dodges by large corps and cash under the table stuff from being lost as tax funds that happen so readily today.
Great, one of those. Man, I could spend an hour going off on you, but I'll just try to stick to the high points.
First of all, it's not YOUR money. Why? Because the US government, in its (lack of) infinite wisdom, has been spending far more than you've been paying it on your behalf. And I hate to burst your bubble, but that's the agreement that you sign onto by having income in this country. As a result, you have a massive debt that's getting bigger and bigger every day, and yet here you are, complaining that you want to pay less and less back.
Second of all, when you have such a massive debt, having a budget surplus is a good thing; it's what allows you to pay that debt off. If you have a credit card with a huge balance, don't you think that it's a good thing if you have a little left over each month to pay towards the balance? According to your logic, the answer is no, you should at most break even each month.
Third of all, if you're paying 33% of your income, then you must be extremely wealthy and extremely stupid. The marginal rate of 33% only applies if you make over $97,925 a year. If your total income tax is 33%, do you have any clue what that makes your income? $694,850. And the kicker? That's before any deductions are taken into account. I'm having a hard time believing that you actually make $694,850. If you do, more power to you, but I don't have any sympathy for your righteous indignation.
Fourth of all, your Fair Tax comment deserves its own full comment, but let's take at least a few pot shots at it:
The Fair Tax fanatics continually lie about the rate they want to charge. It's not the 23% they keep trying to push off to stupid people. Read something by someone who's not trying to relentlessly push it on us.
If the Fair Tax passes, there will be no tax deductions. Have kids? Too damn bad. Wave bye-bye to the mortgage interest deduction. No more retirement savings advantages.
It totally neglects people's current after-tax investments. All that Roth IRA money people have invested? They'll be paying tax on it twice—income tax when they earned it, and again when they purchase stuff.
Ooh, they'll be able to get rid of the IRS right? Who do you think is going to be collecting the Fair Tax and enforcing its collection? Santa Claus?
Speaking of collection, it turns millions of people into tax collectors. Keep in mind that the Fair Tax applies to services, too. Does your son mow lawns in the summer? He has to collect Fair Tax. Does your daughter baby-sit the neighbor's baby? She has to collect the Fair Tax. If they don't and the new Santa Claus government entity that collects Fair Tax finds out, they'll be punished for tax evasion.
There is no provision for paying different taxes on different things. Right now, if you buy a $200,000 house for example, you don't pay that much in sales tax. Under the Fair Tax, you'll be stuck with an extra $46,000. If I'm not mistaken (I'd have to go look it up again), I think that loans are subject to the Fair Tax also as a service, which means that you'll be paying another
I can just imagine the taxes that could get initiated in order to (legally) increase the personal coffers of future politicians.
I actually doubt that would happen very often. Politicians who raise taxes tend to get voted out of office. They'd have to walk a fine line between explaining tax increases to their constituents to taking a hit for spending too much money.
I think the approach that would be much more common is that government spending would be cut. It's a lot easier to tell people that you're canceling the "Bridge to Nowhere" project than it is that they're going to have to turn over more of their hard-earned pay to Uncle Sam.
There ought to be a fine line right now between explaining to people that you're going to charge up the national credit card and starting some new expensive government program, but it's just become a lot easier to hand over our country to foreign investors (you know, places like China...) to pay for our hedonistic excess than it is to say, "I'm sorry, but that's just too expensive."
Right now, politicians are rewarded handsomely for spending massive amounts of our money. Unless that changes, they're going to continue to do so until this country is bankrupt and some other country takes us over in a hostile economic coup. The funniest part of it is that a lot of people think that the biggest threat to our national security is terrorists.
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How is this not like Presidential candidates promising tax rebates and such during campaigns? They are affectively buys people's votes with their own money.
The word you're looking for is "effectively," and that's the word makes all the difference.
There's a huge difference between buying votes with money and buying votes with promises. I know, this will probably get modded flamebait, but it's directly relevant to the comment.
The most blatant vote-buying scheme in recent history that I can remember was the Bush "tax rebate" scheme that he rode into office on in 2000. It basically worked like this: "If you elect me (Bush), I'll send you a check for up to $600." Unfortunately, that was perfectly legal, people got their checks from the government, and because of that and other foolish financial decisions, our country went from having a budget surplus to having more debt than it's ever had in history, over 9 trillion dollars and counting.
I'd love to see all elected politicians charged some percentage of the debt that the policies they enact rack up. If they rack up a few trillion dollars in national debt, they should rack up a few million in personal debt. If they end up with a surplus, they should get a bonus based on that same percent. If we could pass something like that, then and only then I think we would start seeing the start of real fiscal responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I've run CoH on Linux using Cedega. There are no "glitches," it runs perfectly well. Like I said, it's officially supported by Cedega, just like World of Warcraft. The only thing that I would consider a glitch is that some of the higher-end graphics rendering functions, such as depth-of-field effects and such, don't work because the video driver that Cedega reports to the app claims to not have those capabilities (even if the card does).
The game not only works, it is actually a lot faster running on Cedega on Linux than on Windows. The time to zone is cut by two or three seconds at least, sometimes a lot more.
And because you obviously missed it the first time, I'll put it in bold letters this time: City of Heroes uses OpenGL to render its graphics. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
I was extremely happy when the system was changed (commonly referred to as "Enhancement Diversification" among the players). Before that happened, the Tank archetypes were invincible. It was common practice to create what were known as "burn" tankers, which were tanks that could absorb an infinite amount of damage without consequence and that would deal out massive amounts of damage with their auras. Other variations on powersets provided similar characteristics.
If you were on a team with a burn tank, your job was to stand back and watch. If you interfered, your team would get angry with you and might even kick you from the team. So that's what most missions were, one or two tanks rounding up and dispatching hundreds of enemies at a time, and six or seven other team members standing around watching. On several teams I joined, the other players wouldn't even bother leaving the mission entrance area. Why bother if you're just going to stand around and watch anyway?
It was power-levelpalozza, and it was extremely tedious and boring.
Nowadays, the developers have gone to great lengths to ensure that every member of the team, no matter what archetype, can contribute. That is a Good Thing(TM).
Unless, of course, you enjoy playing games in "god mode," in which it kind of sucks that there exists the prospect that you might (gasp!) actually get defeated once in a while!
The risk is what makes the game fun and worthwhile. Even Superman is vulnerable to Kryptonite. I guess that makes him no longer the "Man of Steel," but the "Man of Mediocrity." Still, if he were literally invulnerable to everything, as so-called "heroes" were before enhancement diversification, it wouldn't be fun reading four pages of "...aaaaaand he thumps them on the head, so now they're in jail" in every single issue.
Where is that WoW native Linux client? Oh yeah, there isn't one.
City of Heroes is built on OpenGL also, go figure. However, the graphics aren't the only thing to a game client does, and the non-graphics part of City of Heroes is built for Windows only. This wasn't a malicious decision, it was a practical one. NCsoft isn't as big as Blizzard, it never has been. Hopefully, as demand for the game grows, they'll be able to go back and capture some of the Mac and Linux markets as well. I'm pushing on NCsoft for this to happen, hopefully we'll get their ear.
For the record, NCsoft does not support City of Heroes on Vista. They say they are working on it, I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually, and by all reports, it mostly works fine on Vista, but it's not like NCsoft are a bunch of Microsoft sycophants.
Going back to the ALL platforms thing again, maybe you overlooked that City of Heroes/Villains is an officially supported Cedega application? You know, just like World of Warcraft?
Did you only play at 3:00am on a low-population server or something? Whenever I'm around, there are plenty of other people. Hell, half of the complaints on the official forums are people griping about all of the broadcast clutter and blind invites.
On the official forums, the moderators have stated that they're going to tell exactly when the debt eradication will happen, as in a time and date. They have explicitly said that one of the purposes of doing so is specifically so day/night/whatever before, people can do something they're not really used to being able to do because it's a PITA to work off the debt: go out and go nuts.
Want to take on the hardest über-mission that people normally don't work on because they know that they'll spend the next few hours wallowing their way out of debt? Go for it, because tomorrow, you get a free pass.
Also, as has been pointed out, it's not like you can rack up a week's worth of debt in the game. Most of the time, it's paid off within an hour or so at most. Sometimes, I've had it worked completely off by the end of the very mission in which I accrued it. I can't think of a way this can be exploited; at worst, you might be able to save yourself a few hour's effort.
I hope you get to +5 for that comment, because you're right on the mark. The reason why there's no huge incentive for Japanese workers to unionize is because the work culture is much different over there. I'm not saying it's necessarily better in every way, but there are reasons why U.S. workers had to unionize when they did. Working conditions were simply intolerable to the point of being inhuman, a situation they haven't had to deal with over there, thanks to a different culture and different regulations on what corporations can and can't do.
In our relentless strive for economic freedom, we've given corporations way too much power, power that corporations don't have in other countries such as Japan. As a result, we've had to, over time, develop organizations to protect ourselves from that which we have created. :-(
It's ironic that so many countries have learned lessons from us so well, lessons that we ourselves still haven't picked up on. While they're learning from our mistakes, we just keep right on making them.
Since the submitter didn't bother linking to their site (!!?), if you want to try out some of these amazing new features and improvements instead of just reading about them, you should head over to the OpenBSD 4.2 page and snag a copy!
I'm sorry, you lost me around that third step.
You're so wise it makes me sick. Why can't more people be like Rob?
Seriously, if you want to make a killing off of Slashdot without making changes that would kill Slashdot, you should expand your articles into a full-length book. Your site is officially an Internet institution. You are a bonafide part of geek culture now, which makes your perspective unique and interesting. You also have proven experience in building a successful community from nothing to millions, which would come in very handy in lots of industries and fields, both small and large.
Plus, when the book is reviewed and the link is posted in the article, you could earn royalties AND sales commission, how sweet is that?
Who knows, maybe you could even patent some of your methods of community-building, and then post an article on how evil you've become. ;-)
A. For Comcast to catch them and point fingers, it would mean that they would have to admit that they are guilty of doing what people are accusing (and proving) them of doing now after adamantly denying it. Besides, that's the beauty of the plan. Who are you going to believe, someone who we've already caught lying, or Google? Even if they reverse their lying corporate stance, no one would believe them.
B. Finding out Comcast's IP address range is trivially easy. Taking actions based on this IP address range is likewise trivially easy. There is no technical reason that this can't be done and done well.
C. What's to catch? What's to analyze? Comcast customers would only see that RST packets are being sent by what appears to be Google. At that point, there are really only two realistic ways that could happen. Either 1) Google is deliberately sending RST packets, or 2) Comcast is spoofing RST packets as if they're Google. We already know that the second possibility has happened with BitTorrent traffic, we also already know that other types of traffic (i.e. Lotus Notes) are unintentionally being negatively impacted by Comcast, so the only logical conclusion would be that Google isn't doing it, Comcast is.
Sure, Comcast might know that they're not responsible, but because they've already lied (and continue to do so) to the public-at-large, no one would believe them. Google would get away with it scott free, as long as they're able to maintain the secrecy of the people who actually do it.
As to what Google's motive would be, I've already answered it. It would make Comcast's already bad situation even worse. Right now, Comcast is claiming that what they're doing isn't affecting anyone. Even when they're finally pushed to admit that they are affecting people, they will likely tell everyone that they're only affecting those nasty pirates who are stealing food from the mouths of starving actors' and musicians' children.
But if people heard that they might not be able to get to freakin' Google if they sign up with Comcast because of this stupidity, they'll be a LOT more likely to not sign up with them, and cry to their senators and representatives that we need net neutrality laws, which is exactly what Google wants. I haven't even gotten to the part where Google might be rolling out a competing Internet access service in the not-too-distant future...
In short, Google has a LOT to gain from this completely blowing up in Comcast's face. Enough to justify some good ol' fashioned corporate sabotage? I doubt it, but it would be funny, wouldn't it? (And I'm not condoning such an action, but in the end, consumers would stand to benefit from net neutrality laws and Google's competition as well.)
Any more questions?
What if Google, a (justifiably) huge advocate of network neutrality, is deliberately sending the type of RST packets that imitate Comcast's faked packets, specifically to Comcast IP addresses, knowing the inevitable fallout that would result? It would make an already bad situation for Comcast far, far worse, and it's likely that the requested Senate investigation would turn into nails in the coffin for those who want preferential treatment of packets on the Internet.
For a company that does no evil, if they could pull it off, it would be absolutely diabolical. But then, it could easily be one of those "ends justify the means" kinds of situations. At any rate, all I can say is "MWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!! Suckers!"
(No, I don't actually believe that's what's happening, but man, what an AWESOME plan to make network neutrality happen once and for all.)
And more power to you, but you've completely missed the point.
Like I said, the vast majority of users out there do NOT watch television on their computers. Which means that any service that requires one to do so is serving to a very minute audience, and as such, is probably doomed to failure in the market unless they manage to price their service expensive enough to recoup their costs.
Meanwhile, there's a perfectly good service out there, iTunes with an AppleTV, that allows me to watch programming:
1) When I want
2) On my computer, my iPod, or my television, and
3) For an extremely low price (around $350 to $400 a year for the 10 or so shows I watch) compared with a "decent cable package that has 'On Demand'" (at least $720 a year in my area).
But because NBC is being such a dick about telling me when, where, and how I must watch their shows, and because other networks and other content creators are being so stingy with their stuff hoping they can be the next Google or something, I'm supposed to put up with watching stuff on a monitor that's half the size of my television, listening to it on my computer speakers instead of my nice surround sound system?
No thank you, NBC et. al. can go to hell, because that's the only place I'll be watching their shows on my computer.
I'm sorry if it makes me sound like a demanding consumer to expect companies to provide an easy means for me to watch their shows when I want to, where I want to, and how I want to. They don't have to cater to my tastes if they don't want to, and I will continue not watching their shows. However, considering that the vast majority of the world are consumers that are pretty much like me, if they keep that attitude much longer, they will completely lose their audience to other companies that realize how much better it is to please their customers instead of just telling them to watch the show "when it airs, from your VCR or PVR, or on a decent cable package that has 'On Demand.'"
Jesus, do you actually run a television network? Because you sure sound like the pinheads that do.
The funny thing is that I was actually serious, I don't do BitTorrent to get television shows or movies. (Or music either, for that matter.) I simply choose not to watch the shows. But I totally understand people who do. I mean, given the choice of all these stupid limitations imposed on people by content creators, versus being able to simply download DRM-free copies of whatever they want and streaming it anywhere to any device, burning media of it, and whatever the hell else one might want to do with the content, why would you not use BitTorrent instead of some asinine service like Amazon.com's unbox service, Netflix, or Hulu? The way they keep shutting down distribution channels for their media, you'd think the companies desperately want copyright infringement to run rampant.
The iTunes/AppleTV solution isn't perfect, but at least it gives me lots of options, covering pretty much anything I want to do with the media, for a very reasonable price. If it weren't for that and the fact that I don't watch more than 10 or so shows regularly, I probably would resort to BitTorrent just to get everything.
Like I said, if you want to watch stuff on your computer, then more power to you. I don't, and as it so happens, hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans don't, also.
So you need to quit your whining, unless you plan on trying to convince hundreds of millions of Americans (not to mention probably BILLIONS of others around the world) to change their ways also. A decent computer an monitor costs orders of magnitude more than a decent but inexpensive television.
Nope, and I doubt it will anytime soon. When I use my computer, I tend to want to sit close to the screen to make out detail. When I watch television, I tend to sit six to ten feet away and don't care so much if I can make out itty bitty fonts.
I'm just not willing to switch back and forth right now. I wouldn't mind having a cheap dedicated computer for the purpose of serving as a media center, something with a simple interface (I don't want a keyboard interface to watching television). You know... like an AppleTV. ;-)
I still think that ultimately, it will be the successful player (no pun intended) in the market. It's pretty easy to use, it works really well, it's already got some media companies behind it (although it admittedly needs several more to really take off), and best of all, it doesn't ask people to watch television and movies on their computer screen. I honestly thinkg that someday, after Hulu is recognized for the abject failure that it will be, the idiots at NBC that decided to bail in it will eventually be fired for incompetence and allowing its competitors get a huge lead on them in the market of digital media distribution.
To me, it's an entirely different question.
Can I watch it on my television?
I think it's really weird that Amazon.com, Hulu, Netflix, and so many others think that I watch television on my computer. I don't. I watch television on... well, I watch it on my television.
Now, I know, some of you have fancy media PCs set up so that you can watch television on your computer on your television, and if you do, congratulations, sounds like you've got a nice setup. But the vast majority of people don't.
A while back, I bought one of the AppleTV boxes. Know why? So that I can watch television on my television, not on my computer. So now, I buy shows from iTunes. I've also been known to rent a movie or two on my Xbox 360, which is also hooked up to... well, you already know what it's hooked up to, right?
So to NBC, and to anyone else who wants me to watch their stuff, unless it's short clips that are posted on sites like YouTube, it doesn't matter how great the quality your programming is, it doesn't matter how simple it is to download and watch it on my computer. If you can't give me a relatively simple way to watch it on my television, I'm not going to be watching it. Period, end of story.
By the way, that's one of the things that would be so hypothetically great about downloading torrents of movies and/or television shows, if I participated in such illegal activities. With a few button presses, I could have a DVD copy of anything I download to watch at my leisure... ON MY TELEVISION!
Come back when shows on Hulu can be watched on an AppleTV, or when you're willing to let me burn a copy to DVD. Maybe then, we'll talk. (Somehow, I kind of doubt we'll be talking anytime soon.)
Now mod me up, dammit, that's one of my better rants, and something painfully obvious that I don't see discussed very often in these threads.
I hate to tell you this also, but LOTS of people make sex tapes. Yes, some of them even become public. Are they famous today? No.
The Paris Hilton sex tape is known because it was the sex tape of a famous person. It's not the other way around.
Actually, some college students at Georgia State University tried an experiment in which they blocked off all lanes on Interstate 285 going 55 miles per hour, the speed limit. Keep in mind that most people drive 65 to 70 on that road.
As a result, the people behind them got very angry and began active extremely dangerously. One van even had an accident when he passed them on the right shoulder and clipped a car that was parked in the emergency lane.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about going faster than the speed limit. Sometimes, when it's raining and there is low visibility, driving the speed limit is unsafe. Other times, when there is low traffic volume, high visibility, and the roads are dry, it's perfectly safe to go 10 to 15 miles per hour above the limit. The law doesn't take that into account, though, and as a result, the speed limit is set arbitrarily low on almost every road.
I seriously doubt that Google is going to be Slashdotted anytime soon...
If it is, I hope Rob goes public, because I want to buy me some Slashdot stock.
Damn, I wish you hadn't posted as an AC. That was insightful enough that I probably would have friended you for it just so I could read more of your comments.
That's as true as it gets.
The point of such a lawsuit is not so much for you to personally profit by $7.32, it is that they will have to pay millions of people $7.32, plus millions of dollars more to very expensive lawyers.
The point is that after paying so much money for doing something so stupid, they'll be less inclined to do stupid things in the future.
I hope that this actually happens, so that somewhere, at some time, some executive might realize, "Gosh, it would have been a lot cheaper and more PR-friendly if we had just upgraded our network instead." Also, I hpe that this actually happens so that other Internet service providers sit up and take note.
One should hope so. See, here's the deal.
If I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying for the ability to communicate with other people to accomplish various legal tasks. And if there is anything to learn in the past few days immediately following the release of Gutsy Gibbon, with Ubuntu.com completely hosed as far as I can tell, there are legitimate, much-needed, legal ways to use peer-to-peer services. If this isn't the fundamental reason for signing up with an Internet Service Provider, to be able to communicate with other computers, what is?
If they had told me up front that they would be resetting peer-to-peer connections, I might be mad, but at least I'd know it up front and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so. If these were technical problems that forced their actions as a resolution, then I might agree that taking necessary action to restore service is a Good Thing. If there really were no legitimate uses for peer-to-peer networks, as the RIAA and MPAA would have everyone believe, then I would still disagree, but at least I would understand.
As it is, though, none of those things are true. Comcast is still denying that they are deliberately causing connections to fail, in spite of the incontrovertible proof that has been offered, and that only after Comcast said nothing at all to their customers for... well... we don't know how long. As it is, it's not in response to connections being down, it was planned out and implemented while nothing was broken in response to some hypothetical situation that might arise. In fact, in having problems with Lotus Notes, Comcast has actually broken something else that was working before in order to fix a problem that didn't exist to begin with!
In short, if I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying them to deliver network packets, that's all. At best, Comcast has engaged in an egregious breach of contract by deliberately interfering with my ability to get packets from A to B. At worst, they are guilty of deliberately and secretly impersonating someone they're not, and if I'm not mistaken, that's a crime. They might be lucky if they can get out of this with just a class action lawsuit.
I'm not on Comcast's Internet service, thank goodness, although I am on AT&T's, and believe me, it's not much better. All of this stupidity just makes me long even more for more competition in this space for something else to come along. I never that I'd see the day when, "We won't interfere with your Internet connection!" would actually become a selling point, yet here we are.
If I can indulge in a bit of tinfoil-hattishness, it really makes me wonder. The RIAA and MPAA are a huge media creation conglomerate. As mentioned, they hate, HATE, HATE peer-to-peer software, even with all of its legitimate uses. As some of you may know, Comcast is more than just an Internet service provider, they also happen to be the largest media provider company, and they're facing increased competition from telcos and satellite providers. Who wants to bet that Comcast has been either paid off or offered sweet deals on media content in trade for pushing the RIAA's and MPAA's agenda of controlling what applications can and can't be used on the Internet?
Something to think about...
Great, one of those. Man, I could spend an hour going off on you, but I'll just try to stick to the high points.
First of all, it's not YOUR money. Why? Because the US government, in its (lack of) infinite wisdom, has been spending far more than you've been paying it on your behalf. And I hate to burst your bubble, but that's the agreement that you sign onto by having income in this country. As a result, you have a massive debt that's getting bigger and bigger every day, and yet here you are, complaining that you want to pay less and less back.
Second of all, when you have such a massive debt, having a budget surplus is a good thing; it's what allows you to pay that debt off. If you have a credit card with a huge balance, don't you think that it's a good thing if you have a little left over each month to pay towards the balance? According to your logic, the answer is no, you should at most break even each month.
Third of all, if you're paying 33% of your income, then you must be extremely wealthy and extremely stupid. The marginal rate of 33% only applies if you make over $97,925 a year. If your total income tax is 33%, do you have any clue what that makes your income? $694,850. And the kicker? That's before any deductions are taken into account. I'm having a hard time believing that you actually make $694,850. If you do, more power to you, but I don't have any sympathy for your righteous indignation.
Fourth of all, your Fair Tax comment deserves its own full comment, but let's take at least a few pot shots at it:
I actually doubt that would happen very often. Politicians who raise taxes tend to get voted out of office. They'd have to walk a fine line between explaining tax increases to their constituents to taking a hit for spending too much money.
I think the approach that would be much more common is that government spending would be cut. It's a lot easier to tell people that you're canceling the "Bridge to Nowhere" project than it is that they're going to have to turn over more of their hard-earned pay to Uncle Sam.
There ought to be a fine line right now between explaining to people that you're going to charge up the national credit card and starting some new expensive government program, but it's just become a lot easier to hand over our country to foreign investors (you know, places like China...) to pay for our hedonistic excess than it is to say, "I'm sorry, but that's just too expensive."
Right now, politicians are rewarded handsomely for spending massive amounts of our money. Unless that changes, they're going to continue to do so until this country is bankrupt and some other country takes us over in a hostile economic coup. The funniest part of it is that a lot of people think that the biggest threat to our national security is terrorists.
The word you're looking for is "effectively," and that's the word makes all the difference.
There's a huge difference between buying votes with money and buying votes with promises. I know, this will probably get modded flamebait, but it's directly relevant to the comment.
The most blatant vote-buying scheme in recent history that I can remember was the Bush "tax rebate" scheme that he rode into office on in 2000. It basically worked like this: "If you elect me (Bush), I'll send you a check for up to $600." Unfortunately, that was perfectly legal, people got their checks from the government, and because of that and other foolish financial decisions, our country went from having a budget surplus to having more debt than it's ever had in history, over 9 trillion dollars and counting.
I'd love to see all elected politicians charged some percentage of the debt that the policies they enact rack up. If they rack up a few trillion dollars in national debt, they should rack up a few million in personal debt. If they end up with a surplus, they should get a bonus based on that same percent. If we could pass something like that, then and only then I think we would start seeing the start of real fiscal responsibility.