It's actually because Angel Munoz is a crackpot who thinks choosing a game the massive majority doesn't like or want to play will mean more casual players will stand a remote chance. The only real competition at the WT will be between who has more of the top spots, UT2004 or Q3 players. The only PK player likely to get a top 8 will be Vo0.
To put this in perspective, there are currently 3892 UT2004 players, 3449 Q3 players and 45 Painkiller players online (ASE stats). The day after PK was announced to be the WT game PK peaked an alltime high of 80 players, it averages 20-40 players now.
Yes I am biased, but honestly, CPL would of done better picking Serious Sam 2. Even Quakers defend UT as a better choice than Q3.
Some advantages of 1vs1 games are that you have more space to for stars, in UT there is Burnie, GitZzz, Lauke and ForresT for EU, stryfe, combatcarl, infinite for the US. Also it's alot easier (and cheaper sponsorwise) to get a 1vs1 player to a tournament than it is a team of 5.
It was actually a super bright light, to quote from the book;
(p709 of the green paperback)
"The 'magic' they had used in Africa was conceptually nothing more than a souped-up flashlight, but this one had a xenon-arc bulb and put out three million candlepower."
Not if you're sloppy, I'm supposed to be a half competent user and earlier on today I discovered my box had been owned by what looks to be Slapper, if so it was a 2 year old vulnerability.
I admit I have been sloppy the last few months but I had definitely apt-get updateded and ugpraded within the last 3 months...
Oh well, look forward to the cleanup and reinstallation this weekend, meh
To be honest, I don't think the odds of 1 & 2 are that unlikely, 2 & 3 less likely but understandable (interest in computers), 3 & 4 are compatible, blooging being largely a teenage thing.
Firefox and Mozilla share the same Gecko rendering engine, Moz1.7.3 and FF1.0PR should (in theory) render pages exactly the same as they were released at the same time.
Don't like the theme.. download a new one. Personally I like Modern and think it should be the default theme (compared to ns4 at least, which everyone worldwide has to agree, wtf were ns thinking when they made it?!)
Problem is alot of the making-mozilla-pretty people are concentrating on firefox/thunderbird instead.
Alot of open source software is written for fun or to scratch a paticular person's itch, when it is released, it is merely so other people can benefit from it.
Closed source software is written for profit, to fulfill various peoples needs, when it is released it is expected to work as it has been paid for. When you have a few million dollars to put into manpower you are expected to come up with the goods fast, especially faster than what a group of decentralized volunteers can do.
Difference is, you pay for Windows, and in doing so certain expectations are placed upon it, Mozilla et al are given away free with no guarantees. You deserve what you pay for.
The critical exploits were found and the Mozilla team told privately. The bugs were fixed and a new release made, then the bugs were disclosed publically so people knew to upgrade. Apparently the bugs were found due to the cash bounty programme, which was only possible because it was open source.
Compare this to Microsoft, bugs are found and Microsoft told privately, multiple times, eventually the white hat gives up and publically discloses it as the only way to put pressure on Microsoft.
So you'd rather the Mozilla team told everyone there was a bug in an area of the code, which everyone including script kiddies, can see, before having made a fix?
This isn't a coverup, this is common sense.
If at work, you suddenly remembered you had left your front door wide open, would you call up your local radio station and tell everyone?
Slashdot Mirror
In all the time I've been online, I can never remember ICQ (or AIM) being decent compared to either Yahoo! or now MSN. Might just be a Euro thing :/
It's actually because Angel Munoz is a crackpot who thinks choosing a game the massive majority doesn't like or want to play will mean more casual players will stand a remote chance. The only real competition at the WT will be between who has more of the top spots, UT2004 or Q3 players. The only PK player likely to get a top 8 will be Vo0.
To put this in perspective, there are currently 3892 UT2004 players, 3449 Q3 players and 45 Painkiller players online (ASE stats). The day after PK was announced to be the WT game PK peaked an alltime high of 80 players, it averages 20-40 players now.
Yes I am biased, but honestly, CPL would of done better picking Serious Sam 2. Even Quakers defend UT as a better choice than Q3.
I ditto, I used to play for a few months and it is an awesome game and community, *nods to roguelazer, t'is the rogue :)*
I'm not addicted, I've /quit games hundreds of times
Halo 2 is Xbox-only until the PC version is released anyway...
Some advantages of 1vs1 games are that you have more space to for stars, in UT there is Burnie, GitZzz, Lauke and ForresT for EU, stryfe, combatcarl, infinite for the US. Also it's alot easier (and cheaper sponsorwise) to get a 1vs1 player to a tournament than it is a team of 5.
Well, the world tour game is supposed to be in 1vs1 format. 1vs1 CS would be a joke but, it's CPL, it could happen :).
Quake and storyline.. eh?
Anyway, I doubt it will be Quake IV as the release isn't supposed to be until at the very least late 2005.
It was actually a super bright light, to quote from the book;
(p709 of the green paperback)
"The 'magic' they had used in Africa was conceptually nothing more than a souped-up flashlight, but this one had a xenon-arc bulb and put out three million candlepower."
Not if you're sloppy, I'm supposed to be a half competent user and earlier on today I discovered my box had been owned by what looks to be Slapper, if so it was a 2 year old vulnerability.
I admit I have been sloppy the last few months but I had definitely apt-get updateded and ugpraded within the last 3 months...
Oh well, look forward to the cleanup and reinstallation this weekend, meh
All the details of your post could easily be gleamed from RTFW :)
To be honest, I don't think the odds of 1 & 2 are that unlikely, 2 & 3 less likely but understandable (interest in computers), 3 & 4 are compatible, blooging being largely a teenage thing.
Firefox and Mozilla share the same Gecko rendering engine, Moz1.7.3 and FF1.0PR should (in theory) render pages exactly the same as they were released at the same time.
I don't know specifically anything, but anything you might lose you can probably make up for with plugins.
Don't like the theme.. download a new one. Personally I like Modern and think it should be the default theme (compared to ns4 at least, which everyone worldwide has to agree, wtf were ns thinking when they made it?!)
Problem is alot of the making-mozilla-pretty people are concentrating on firefox/thunderbird instead.
You should take your computer back and get it fixed then!
Are there enough Joe Public who care?
Their*
Now we know why you don't work for them =)
Alot of open source software is written for fun or to scratch a paticular person's itch, when it is released, it is merely so other people can benefit from it.
Closed source software is written for profit, to fulfill various peoples needs, when it is released it is expected to work as it has been paid for. When you have a few million dollars to put into manpower you are expected to come up with the goods fast, especially faster than what a group of decentralized volunteers can do.
Difference is, you pay for Windows, and in doing so certain expectations are placed upon it, Mozilla et al are given away free with no guarantees. You deserve what you pay for.
The critical exploits were found and the Mozilla team told privately. The bugs were fixed and a new release made, then the bugs were disclosed publically so people knew to upgrade. Apparently the bugs were found due to the cash bounty programme, which was only possible because it was open source.
Compare this to Microsoft, bugs are found and Microsoft told privately, multiple times, eventually the white hat gives up and publically discloses it as the only way to put pressure on Microsoft.
So you'd rather the Mozilla team told everyone there was a bug in an area of the code, which everyone including script kiddies, can see, before having made a fix?
This isn't a coverup, this is common sense.
If at work, you suddenly remembered you had left your front door wide open, would you call up your local radio station and tell everyone?