So, the moment I step out of my house I somehow give up my right to probably cause, my right to personal property, and so forth?
This card was not MEANT for the cutting edge gamer
on
Trident XP4 Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Despite what their marketing might say, Trident is obviously not REALLY trying to compete with the latest and greatest from nVidia and ATI. This is obviously piece of budget hardware for people who don't want to pay a whole lot to get DX 9 compatible card.
Sure, if I build a gaming rig, this isn't the card I'm going to use. I'm going to spend the cash for a high end card, and probably brag about my insane frame rates the next time I take it to a LAN party.
On the other hand, if I built a PC for someone who isn't planning on playing Doom 3 extensively, I might actually consider a card of this calibur. It is a DX 9 card for under $100. This is probably a decent choice for a bargain PC.
My family bought two Gateways about 5 years ago. Back then it seemed they did a decent job about not adding too much useless crap that nobody needed, something that other OEM vendors such as Compaq were notorious for.
I've not seen a new Gateway since then, but it seems they've gone the way of others and are now innundating users with gigs of junk.
I really doubt that this is very uncommon. I'm sure whenever the government asks for public opinion on if or not they should do something that will affect a big business, that big business has people "pose" as ordinary citizens to try to sway government perception.
Personally, I don't understand why the government feels the need to interfere with the market in this way. They already interfere TOO much. While it certainly doesn't sit well with me that big corps want to promote this sort of thing, it pisses me off even more that the government is even considering regulating it.
There is nothing stopping you from making money off of GPLed software. Red Hat certainly has a business model. Aside from opinions of that business model, the GPL has not stopped them from pursuing it.
While the average shopper at Walmart is more than likely not a kernel hacker, it is SLIGHTLY unfair to believe that the average Walmart shopper is THAT dumb.
What does, concern me, however is the security of Lindows boxes. Most "average" users, while not complete idiots, don't often understand concepts behind the "root" user, security exploits, etc. Hopefully the default Lindows install has been secured reasonably.
The problem exists with Windows machines, as well. However, if a major security hole is found and exploited on these Lindows machines, Microsoft's PR department WILL use it to try to destroy the credibility of Linux as a whole.
A lot of people are saying that they just set up a Linux or BSD box behind their DSL or Cable connections. This works perfectly fine for small or personal sites. Some providers don't like you doing this, however. Some providers don't care at all (Speakeasy, for instance).
In either case, however, this solution is not sufficient for a site that is expected to have lots of traffic, or that you want to use for an e-commercie or other corporate solution.
I agree that most open source projects are not as friendly to Joe User as Microsoft Office. However, usability is a RELATIVE term.
Due to the Microsoft monopoly, most users are trained to understand how to interface with Microsoft products. Thus, people define usability based on how close it is to Microsoft's interface.
Case in point, I was in a library recently. The library has a bunch of iMacs running OS X. A young woman and her friend approached one of the computers and began fumbling about with it. After failing to find what she wanted after 5 minutes, she told her friend in disgust, "I hate Macs," and left.
To me, it appears that OS X has a fairly straightforward, easy to use interface. To this young woman, however, it is apparent that she finds Microsoft Windows more usable than Mac OS X, because her home PC is likely a Windows machine, and she doesn't want to put any effort into learning anything new.
Sure, OSS usability is a bit rough around the edges in many categories. However, the only way it will be "usable" in the eyes of many users is if it copies the interface of Microsoft's products.
Actually, I've never drank a Budwizer. How do I know it is low quality? Because it is generally known to be a low quality, but cheap, beer. I've only ONCE had a cheap, American beer (which was given to me, I didn't purchase it), and I don't really want to have another one.
I am in no way a big beer drinker. I hardly drink at all, like once every three months, or so. But when I do drink I'll buy a quality beer rather than American pisswater.
I know the Budwizer name, and used it in the example, because it is a brand that advertises everywhere. Football games, commercials, convenient stores, etc. The name is well known because they advertise. However, they have yet to convince me to purchase their beer in a restaurant, in the store, at a sporting event, or otherwise.
However, the name of Budwiser and all other mainstream American beer brands represent to me a complete lack of quality.
At least McDonald's can advertise the taste of their fries. Budwizer has to rely on stupid ads that imply that if you drink Bud, you will score with lots of women and be the life of the party. Good beers don't even need to advertise very much, because word of mouth spreads that they are quality, good tasting beers.
Seriously. If they want me to buy more, they should focus on making better quality products rather than focusing on trying to make the ads better.
I don't care how awesome they make the parties look, or how much they pump up the fake breasts of their beer girls. I still won't buy Budwizer, because it is a low-quality product I don't need.
Likewise, I won't buy MAXIM hair coloring no matter WHAT they make the girls in the ad do to the guys in the ad.
Sadly, _I_ (or most/. readers) am not most people.
The USA is not be as bad as China, Iraq, North Korea, etc., but it is a fact that we have quite a few very restrictive laws in place that reduce our freedoms now in the name of the "War on Terrorism" or "War on Drugs" or any "War on X that politicians can use to boost their approval ratings."
It is my opinion that people who blindly defend the federal government's actions, blindly support anything that President Bush does, and blindly accuses anyone who critiques the government of being "UnAmercian" is not a REAL Patriot, and does not really love Freedom.
Just because you stick an American flag on your SUV does not make you a patriot.
In my opinion, it is the PATRIOTIC duty of American Citizens to be ever-mindful of the government and actively defend every single one of their Constitutional rights completely. In this area, I believe that the majority of Americans have failed.
While I agree that it is a good idea to make sure computer components should be properly recycled, this is not a law we need.
1. Large computer manufacturers will always have a legal time full of slimeball lawyers who will find a loophole, or put something into an EULA that a computer user agrees to by opening the box to avoid the fees. Even if the manufacturer doesn't skip out on the fees, they can afford to pay them, but smaller manufacturers might not.
2. This will hurt any small manufacturer, who doesn't have the resources to pay recycle fees. I know of dozens of small computer stores in the San Diego area that build systems, and will be hurt badly by such a law. It wouldn't surprise me that this is the real reason HP supports this.
3. The responsibility of recycling should fall on the consumer. Consumers should be encouraged to re-use older components or to donate their old PCs rather than sending them back to the manufacturer to be scrapped.
Unfortunately, I believe this has been done before, on more than one occasion. I think something like this was featured on/. a while back. Another reason the DMCA is a completely evil law.
It protects corporations from having to take responsibilty for security flaws in their software, and it turns the people who try to help users by providing information about the flaws and possible fixes into "criminals."
I remember reading somewhere that ICD recieves funding from Microsoft. If this is true, then it immediately makes this suspect.
Anyway, regardless, this report seems to be 100% pure FUD. From the top of the article:
Just a day before the Enterprise Linux Forum gets under way in Boston, Microsoft is celebrating the results of a study that maintains that the Windows 2000 Server operating system offers a better cost of ownership for running network infrastructure, print serving, file serving and security applications than Linux.
Wonderful timing, eh? No wonder it is breaking news! This report seems to be timed as an attempt to take some steam away from the attention Linux would be getting.
As for the study itself... Windows 2000 is less than 3 years old, yet this is a five year study. Everyone else has brought this up.
What is this? You have to pay a Linux guy more than an MSCE? Not to bash all MSCEs, but there are a good number that don't know what the heck they are doing. At the last job I had, it took 3 MSCEs 2 days to get my password changed on a single NT server. I'm not making this up, seriously. It is no wonder a Linux guy is better paid, if they know their stuff. As many other people have said, I doubt they are including the costs of calling MS tech support for $150 an hour, which a lot of MSCEs probably do.
Also, did they include the costs associated with security holes? Remember that nasty Code Red outbreak last year? I highly doubt they took that into account. Heck, I still at least a few attempted Code Red attacks on Apache server logs. How about costs when your exchange server goes down due to "Outlook Viruses?" Doubt it.
For everyone I know in a small business setting, the cost of Open Source has always been cheaper. In a small business there are usually one or two guys who can maintain every Linux and BSD box, and are able to do two or three times as much as the equivalent number of MSCEs, without spending a dime on tech support.
How do you avoid the problem of a PHB or HR Drone who is LOOKING for acronyms or fancy buzzwords in your resume? Or do you not, and feel these companies aren't worth your time?
Your method sounds great if you're applying to a place where the person who is reading the resume is someone with a clue.
However, more often than not they are looking for X+Y years of experience with something that sounds hot in the market, where X is the number of years the product has been out, and Y is greater than 0. A college degree is often "preferred but not required," but it seems an absolute requirement to have 5 years experience with a technology less than a year old. Either that or you must know about all the new fads in web design as well as know how to operate ancient systems from the 80s.
For example, I saw a posting that required 5 years of experience with.NET and C#. Seriously! How the heck does anyone get past that without lying? The HR Drone will just toss a resume in the garbage if it doesn't say "5 years of.NET and C#" on it, won't they?
Point 1: A lot of people feel the DMCA is unconstitutional. They don't want to see court cases where the DMCA is upheld.
Point 2: Many people feel the DMCA is a law "bought" by the entertainment industry. They feel the DMCA is another example of how our government is representing big business rather than the voters.
Point 3: Many companies HAVE used threats of DMCA action as a weapon against would-be competition or a challenge to their control of the market. Even if the party the threat is against has not actually violated the DMCA, the cost of going up against a huge corporation in court is enough to scare a lot of people.
Point 4: Elcomsoft and Sklyarov made their software in RUSSIA. Some people feel that the Sklyarov, at least, should not be punished for doing something in Russia that was against a US law.
America needs to downsize.
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2
This would be no problem if people in here in the US realize they don't really need a giant SUV, or even a full-sized car.
Seriously, it is beyond me why anyone would want to drive one of those huge SUVs as their regular vehicle. The gas costs for those things must be completely insane, not to mention the fact that some of them can't even fit in a parking space properly.
Truthfully, it would be better for the USA and the world if we downsized. It would be wonderful if the majority of people here switched to cars no bigger than a Civic.
I believe that if the US at large switched to compact cars, things would be a lot better for us.
1) Less gas consumption. This means cheaper prices at the pumps, cleaner air, and a supply that will last longer.
2) Less congestion. Bigger vehicles take up more space on the road. This will also allow for more parking spaces on the side of the road, in parking lots, and more room in your garage.
3) Safer roads. This might be a personal bias, but it seems that those who drive SUVs and larger cars have a false sense of security, and thus drive less cautiously. It seems as if SUV drivers where I live use their size as a "weapon," forcing everyone to look out for them rather than driving defensively. Additionally, an impact between two light cars will be less destructive than an impact between an SUV and a light car.
This question is mostly directed at making web sites accessible to the blind.
Most people who design pages think visually when creating their sites. A good web designer will place text and images in a way that looks visually appealing and brings attention to important information on the page. Even those who make pages with little or no images are still likely to think visually.
For someone who is visually impaired, however, much of this appeal will be gone, even if the important content of the page is still accessible.
Any ideas on how to make a page that is more appealing aesthetically to the visually impaired?
I've heard that while Sierra scrapped the Middle Earth MMORPG they were working on, they still had the rights and were planning on starting it over from scratch after all the movies were out.
Of course, this is just an unconfirmed rumor. Given the popularity of the movies, I think that even a not-so-well made MMORPG based on Middle Earth would steal people away from EverQuest rather quickly.
I know a lot of RPG geeks are awaiting a new game in the Lunar series and are still wanting to know if all plans for Lunar 3 are cancelled, or if there will one day be a new Lunar game.
There has been rumor after rumor regarding Lunar 3. After Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete came out for Playstation in the US, there were statements coming from both Game Arts (the Japanese makers of Lunar) and Working Designs (who localized the Lunar games for the Sega CD and PS) that we would soon see work beginning on Lunar 3, probably for the Playstation 2.
It has been 2 years since Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete has come out, and no new information can be obtained about Lunar 3. Working Designs has been silent about the issue, and there doesn't seem to be anything from Game Arts on it.
Lunar Legends for GBA is translated by UbiSoft (probably because WD doesn't have the lisence to do GBA games), but that is a remake of Lunar 1, not a sequel.
It seems like Lunar 3 would be an instant hit, but both Working Designs and Game Arts have been silent about it.
About two weeks ago I saw a message regarding Lunar Legends on the Working Designs message board. It was explained that Working Designs had sold the rights to some of their original Lunar content back to Game Arts (Working designs apparently owned the rights to some of the things they did in their localization, including the name of the White Dragon, Quark) so that this stuff could be included in the US GBA version of Lunar Legend.
Someone on the board asked if this transfer of the rights meant there would be no Lunar 3, to which I did not see an answer.
What was not clear to me was if Working Designs had really SOLD the rights to these things back to Game Arts, or if they had LISENCED these things.
I'm really starting to believe that Game Arts has perhaps abandonded the idea of making Lunar 3. If Game Arts really has abandoned the idea of Lunar 3, then it explains why Working Designs would easily want to sell back otherwise useless IP for some quick cash.
I hope that this is not the case, but it seems like it may be.
I come to my Parents' for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Sometime last night I use their PC to check my email.
I notice an advertisement sent to them via Windows Messenger. I ask my mom how long she's been getting these, and she replies that she has for a few weeks repeatedly.
I disable Windows Messenger and told her that what I did should have fixed the problem.
However, my parents know very little about computers. They had no clue how all these ads for pr0n were coming in to them. They don't read up on this type of stuff, nor would they like to have to.
Microsoft brands their OS as being user friendly and secure, yet they don't even set the default configurations on their own OS to respect the privacy of their customers.
I'm not about to suggest Linux to them. I use Linux and Windows XP, but I also have the knowhow to configure them at least decently. I suggested that my parents ditch their PC and get a Mac.
First of all, the "Final Fantasy" movie was a huge mistake. Square should have known that they'd only attract fans of the FF series, who would immediately be disappointed that the movie had nothing to do with any of the games AT ALL, but was just a crappy sci-fi movie titled "Final Fantasy" to get them into the theaters. Besides, the track record for video game based movies should have told Square not to make the film.
Second of all, Square is getting pretty sloppy, IMO. Instead of creating a new game, they are getting lazy and making "FF10 Part 2." While Square might spout some PR garbage that FF10 is so popular that they wanted to give players another chance to play in the FF10 world, the real reason for this FF10 side-story is so they don't have to put cash into developing an all new game.
To top it off they are considering "FF7 Part 2." Hopefully plans for at least the second of these will be canned thanks to this merger, but I doubt it.
I don't have very good impressions of this merger because it seems that the "Square" entity of this merger will have more control. I'd rather see Enix on top, since their most recent games have not been as crappy as FF10 or Kingdom Hearts.
More than likely things will stay the same for the time being. The new company will continue to develop games from their most popular series for the Playstation 2. The focus will continue to fall away from the story and world and will emphasise more and more on pretty graphics.
Remember that Square was still working on some games for Game Cube and GBA. This might open Square games up a little more for release on multiple platforms, but there is probably going to still be a huge emphasis on Playstation 2.
This has nothing to do with the Sony/Nintendo/Square politics, but rather the fact that there are something like 50+ Million PS2s out there and only like 20 Million X-Box and Game Gubes (combined). While it might benefit them to release a version of FF11 for every console, given it has a subscription, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile for them to abandon the PS2.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure that Al Qaeda operatives will have absolutely no problem getting ahold of such an ID card.
So, the moment I step out of my house I somehow give up my right to probably cause, my right to personal property, and so forth?
Despite what their marketing might say, Trident is obviously not REALLY trying to compete with the latest and greatest from nVidia and ATI. This is obviously piece of budget hardware for people who don't want to pay a whole lot to get DX 9 compatible card.
Sure, if I build a gaming rig, this isn't the card I'm going to use. I'm going to spend the cash for a high end card, and probably brag about my insane frame rates the next time I take it to a LAN party.
On the other hand, if I built a PC for someone who isn't planning on playing Doom 3 extensively, I might actually consider a card of this calibur. It is a DX 9 card for under $100. This is probably a decent choice for a bargain PC.
My family bought two Gateways about 5 years ago. Back then it seemed they did a decent job about not adding too much useless crap that nobody needed, something that other OEM vendors such as Compaq were notorious for.
I've not seen a new Gateway since then, but it seems they've gone the way of others and are now innundating users with gigs of junk.
I really doubt that this is very uncommon. I'm sure whenever the government asks for public opinion on if or not they should do something that will affect a big business, that big business has people "pose" as ordinary citizens to try to sway government perception.
Personally, I don't understand why the government feels the need to interfere with the market in this way. They already interfere TOO much. While it certainly doesn't sit well with me that big corps want to promote this sort of thing, it pisses me off even more that the government is even considering regulating it.
There is nothing stopping you from making money off of GPLed software. Red Hat certainly has a business model. Aside from opinions of that business model, the GPL has not stopped them from pursuing it.
What does, concern me, however is the security of Lindows boxes. Most "average" users, while not complete idiots, don't often understand concepts behind the "root" user, security exploits, etc.
Hopefully the default Lindows install has been secured reasonably.
The problem exists with Windows machines, as well.
However, if a major security hole is found and exploited on these Lindows machines, Microsoft's PR department WILL use it to try to destroy the credibility of Linux as a whole.
In either case, however, this solution is not sufficient for a site that is expected to have lots of traffic, or that you want to use for an e-commercie or other corporate solution.
Due to the Microsoft monopoly, most users are trained to understand how to interface with Microsoft products. Thus, people define usability based on how close it is to Microsoft's interface.
Case in point, I was in a library recently. The library has a bunch of iMacs running OS X. A young woman and her friend approached one of the computers and began fumbling about with it. After failing to find what she wanted after 5 minutes, she told her friend in disgust, "I hate Macs," and left.
To me, it appears that OS X has a fairly straightforward, easy to use interface. To this young woman, however, it is apparent that she finds Microsoft Windows more usable than Mac OS X, because her home PC is likely a Windows machine, and she doesn't want to put any effort into learning anything new.
Sure, OSS usability is a bit rough around the edges in many categories. However, the only way it will be "usable" in the eyes of many users is if it copies the interface of Microsoft's products.
Actually, I've never drank a Budwizer. How do I know it is low quality? Because it is generally known to be a low quality, but cheap, beer. I've only ONCE had a cheap, American beer (which was given to me, I didn't purchase it), and I don't really want to have another one.
I am in no way a big beer drinker. I hardly drink at all, like once every three months, or so. But when I do drink I'll buy a quality beer rather than American pisswater.
I know the Budwizer name, and used it in the example, because it is a brand that advertises everywhere. Football games, commercials, convenient stores, etc. The name is well known because they advertise. However, they have yet to convince me to purchase their beer in a restaurant, in the store, at a sporting event, or otherwise.
However, the name of Budwiser and all other mainstream American beer brands represent to me a complete lack of quality.
At least McDonald's can advertise the taste of their fries. Budwizer has to rely on stupid ads that imply that if you drink Bud, you will score with lots of women and be the life of the party. Good beers don't even need to advertise very much, because word of mouth spreads that they are quality, good tasting beers.
Seriously. If they want me to buy more, they should focus on making better quality products rather than focusing on trying to make the ads better.
/. readers) am not most people.
I don't care how awesome they make the parties look, or how much they pump up the fake breasts of their beer girls. I still won't buy Budwizer, because it is a low-quality product I don't need.
Likewise, I won't buy MAXIM hair coloring no matter WHAT they make the girls in the ad do to the guys in the ad.
Sadly, _I_ (or most
You make a good point, of course.
The USA is not be as bad as China, Iraq, North Korea, etc., but it is a fact that we have quite a few very restrictive laws in place that reduce our freedoms now in the name of the "War on Terrorism" or "War on Drugs" or any "War on X that politicians can use to boost their approval ratings."
It is my opinion that people who blindly defend the federal government's actions, blindly support anything that President Bush does, and blindly accuses anyone who critiques the government of being "UnAmercian" is not a REAL Patriot, and does not really love Freedom.
Just because you stick an American flag on your SUV does not make you a patriot.
In my opinion, it is the PATRIOTIC duty of American Citizens to be ever-mindful of the government and actively defend every single one of their Constitutional rights completely. In this area, I believe that the majority of Americans have failed.
While I agree that it is a good idea to make sure computer components should be properly recycled, this is not a law we need.
1. Large computer manufacturers will always have a legal time full of slimeball lawyers who will find a loophole, or put something into an EULA that a computer user agrees to by opening the box to avoid the fees. Even if the manufacturer doesn't skip out on the fees, they can afford to pay them, but smaller manufacturers might not.
2. This will hurt any small manufacturer, who doesn't have the resources to pay recycle fees. I know of dozens of small computer stores in the San Diego area that build systems, and will be hurt badly by such a law. It wouldn't surprise me that this is the real reason HP supports this.
3. The responsibility of recycling should fall on the consumer. Consumers should be encouraged to re-use older components or to donate their old
PCs rather than sending them back to the manufacturer to be scrapped.
Unfortunately, I believe this has been done before, on more than one occasion. I think something like /. a while back.
this was featured on
Another reason the DMCA is a completely evil law.
It protects corporations from having to take responsibilty for security flaws in their software, and it turns the people who try to help users by providing information about the flaws and possible fixes into "criminals."
Anyway, regardless, this report seems to be 100% pure FUD. From the top of the article:
Just a day before the Enterprise Linux Forum gets under way in Boston, Microsoft is celebrating the results of a study that maintains that the Windows 2000 Server operating system offers a better cost of ownership for running network infrastructure, print serving, file serving and security applications than Linux.
Wonderful timing, eh? No wonder it is breaking news! This report seems to be timed as an attempt to take some steam away from the attention Linux would be getting.
As for the study itself... Windows 2000 is less than 3 years old, yet this is a five year study.
Everyone else has brought this up.
What is this? You have to pay a Linux guy more than an MSCE? Not to bash all MSCEs, but there are a good number that don't know what the heck they
are doing. At the last job I had, it took 3 MSCEs 2 days to get my password changed on a single NT server. I'm not making this up, seriously. It is no wonder a Linux guy is better paid, if they know their stuff. As many other people have said, I doubt they are including the costs of calling MS tech support for $150 an hour,
which a lot of MSCEs probably do.
Also, did they include the costs associated with security holes? Remember that nasty Code Red outbreak last year? I highly doubt they took that into account. Heck, I still at least a few attempted Code Red attacks on Apache server logs.
How about costs when your exchange server goes down due to "Outlook Viruses?" Doubt it.
For everyone I know in a small business setting, the cost of Open Source has always been cheaper. In a small business there are usually one or two guys who can maintain every Linux and BSD box, and
are able to do two or three times as much as the equivalent number of MSCEs, without spending a dime on tech support.
CDE sucks, it is good that a better WM is making it to Solaris, finally. Even though I use KDE, Gnome will be a welcome change for everyone, I think.
How do you avoid the problem of a PHB or HR Drone who is LOOKING for acronyms or fancy buzzwords in your resume? Or do you not, and feel these companies aren't worth your time?
.NET and C#. Seriously! How the heck does anyone get past that without lying? .NET and C#" on it, won't they?
Your method sounds great if you're applying to a place where the person who is reading the resume is someone with a clue.
However, more often than not they are looking for X+Y years of experience with something that sounds hot in the market, where X is the number of years the product has been out, and Y is greater than 0.
A college degree is often "preferred but not required," but it seems an absolute requirement to have 5 years experience with a technology less than a year old. Either that or you must know about all the new fads in web design as well as know how to operate ancient systems from the 80s.
For example, I saw a posting that required 5 years of experience with
The HR Drone will just toss a resume in the garbage if it doesn't say "5 years of
Point 1: A lot of people feel the DMCA is unconstitutional. They don't want to see court
cases where the DMCA is upheld.
Point 2: Many people feel the DMCA is a law "bought" by the entertainment industry. They feel the DMCA is another example of how our government is representing big business rather than the voters.
Point 3: Many companies HAVE used threats of DMCA action as a weapon against would-be competition or a challenge to their control of the market. Even if the party the threat is against has not actually violated the DMCA, the cost of going up against a huge corporation in court is enough to scare a lot of people.
Point 4: Elcomsoft and Sklyarov made their software in RUSSIA. Some people feel that the Sklyarov, at least, should not be punished for doing something in Russia that was against a US law.
This would be no problem if people in here in the US realize they don't really need a giant SUV, or even a full-sized car.
Seriously, it is beyond me why anyone would want to drive one of those huge SUVs as their regular vehicle. The gas costs for those things must be completely insane, not to mention the fact that some of them can't even fit in a parking space properly.
Truthfully, it would be better for the USA and the world if we downsized. It would be wonderful if the majority of people here switched to cars no bigger than a Civic.
I believe that if the US at large switched to compact cars, things would be a lot better for us.
1) Less gas consumption. This means cheaper prices at the pumps, cleaner air, and a supply that will last longer.
2) Less congestion. Bigger vehicles take up more space on the road. This will also allow for more parking spaces on the side of the road, in parking lots, and more room in your garage.
3) Safer roads. This might be a personal bias, but it seems that those who drive SUVs and larger cars have a false sense of security, and thus drive less cautiously. It seems as if SUV drivers where I live use their size as a "weapon," forcing everyone to look out for them rather than driving defensively. Additionally, an impact between two light cars will be less destructive than an impact between an SUV and a light car.
This question is mostly directed at making web sites accessible to the blind.
Most people who design pages think visually when creating their sites. A good web designer will place text and images in a way that looks visually appealing and brings attention to important information on the page. Even those who make pages with little or no images are still likely to think visually.
For someone who is visually impaired, however, much of this appeal will be gone, even if the important content of the page is still accessible.
Any ideas on how to make a page that is more appealing aesthetically to the visually impaired?
How will it fix it? The answer is that with IE, someone can access your hard drive for you and upgrade Mozilla when the new patch is ready!
Easy!
I've heard that while Sierra scrapped the Middle Earth MMORPG they were working on, they still had the rights and were planning on starting it over from scratch after all the movies were out.
Of course, this is just an unconfirmed rumor. Given the popularity of the movies, I think that even a not-so-well made MMORPG based on Middle Earth would steal people away from EverQuest rather quickly.
I know a lot of RPG geeks are awaiting a new game in the Lunar series and are still wanting to know if all plans for Lunar 3 are cancelled, or if there will one day be a new Lunar game.
There has been rumor after rumor regarding Lunar 3. After Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete came out for Playstation in the US, there were statements coming from both Game Arts (the Japanese makers of Lunar) and Working Designs (who localized the Lunar games for the Sega CD and PS) that we would soon see work beginning on Lunar 3, probably for the Playstation 2.
It has been 2 years since Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete has come out, and no new information can be obtained about Lunar 3. Working Designs has been silent about the issue, and there doesn't seem to be anything from Game Arts on it.
Lunar Legends for GBA is translated by UbiSoft (probably because WD doesn't have the lisence to do GBA games), but that is a remake of Lunar 1, not a sequel.
It seems like Lunar 3 would be an instant hit, but both Working Designs and Game Arts have been silent about it.
About two weeks ago I saw a message regarding Lunar Legends on the Working Designs message board. It was explained that Working Designs had sold the rights to some of their original Lunar content back to Game Arts (Working designs apparently owned the rights to some of the things they did in their localization, including the name of the White Dragon, Quark) so that this stuff could be included in the US GBA version of Lunar Legend.
Someone on the board asked if this transfer of the rights meant there would be no Lunar 3, to which I did not see an answer.
What was not clear to me was if Working Designs had really SOLD the rights to these things back to Game Arts, or if they had LISENCED these things.
I'm really starting to believe that Game Arts has perhaps abandonded the idea of making Lunar 3. If Game Arts really has abandoned the idea of Lunar 3, then it explains why Working Designs would easily want to sell back otherwise useless IP for some quick cash.
I hope that this is not the case, but it seems like it may be.
Just a little Thanksgiving tidbit for you all.
I come to my Parents' for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Sometime last night I use their PC to check my email.
I notice an advertisement sent to them via Windows Messenger. I ask my mom how long she's been getting these, and she replies that she has for a few weeks repeatedly.
I disable Windows Messenger and told her that what I did should have fixed the problem.
However, my parents know very little about computers. They had no clue how all these ads for pr0n were coming in to them. They don't read up on this type of stuff, nor would they like to have to.
Microsoft brands their OS as being user friendly and secure, yet they don't even set the default configurations on their own OS to respect the privacy of their customers.
I'm not about to suggest Linux to them. I use Linux and Windows XP, but I also have the knowhow to configure them at least decently. I suggested that my parents ditch their PC and get a Mac.
First of all, the "Final Fantasy" movie was a huge mistake. Square should have known that they'd only attract fans of the FF series, who would immediately be disappointed that the movie had nothing to do with any of the games AT ALL, but was just a crappy sci-fi movie titled "Final Fantasy" to get them into the theaters. Besides, the track record for video game based movies should have told Square not to make the film.
Second of all, Square is getting pretty sloppy, IMO. Instead of creating a new game, they are getting lazy and making "FF10 Part 2." While Square might spout some PR garbage that FF10 is so popular that they wanted to give players another chance to play in the FF10 world, the real reason for this FF10 side-story is so they don't have to put cash into developing an all new game.
To top it off they are considering "FF7 Part 2." Hopefully plans for at least the second of these will be canned thanks to this merger, but I doubt it.
I don't have very good impressions of this merger because it seems that the "Square" entity of this merger will have more control. I'd rather see Enix on top, since their most recent games have not been as crappy as FF10 or Kingdom Hearts.
More than likely things will stay the same for the time being. The new company will continue to develop games from their most popular series for the Playstation 2. The focus will continue to fall away from the story and world and will emphasise more and more on pretty graphics.
Remember that Square was still working on some games for Game Cube and GBA. This might open Square games up a little more for release on multiple platforms, but there is probably going to still be a huge emphasis on Playstation 2.
This has nothing to do with the Sony/Nintendo/Square politics, but rather the fact that there are something like 50+ Million PS2s out there and only like 20 Million X-Box and Game Gubes (combined). While it might benefit them to release a version of FF11 for every console, given it has a subscription, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile for them to abandon the PS2.