While the first ammendment does give us the right to freedom of speech (with some reasonable exceptions) I think it should guarantee everyone the right not to listen to the shit everyone else is saying.
I don't mind some company sending out emails about getting an extra 3 inches, printer ink cartridges, or hOt XxX pOrN!!!1!!, but I do mind having to listen to what they have to say if I don't want to.
Sure I don't have to open the actual email, but seeing it in my inbox where it takes up space and time to get rid of it is enough. I'll start sticking up more for spammers rights as soon as they start respecting mine. Until then it's really hard to give two shits or a handshake about some asshats who've generally been dicks to you and everyone for as long as they've been on the net.
I think most of the objection that comes from our culture about anyone eating dogs is because we keep them as pets here. It's a little bit harder to eat something commonly regarded as "man's best friend" here.
Read Charlotte's Web, watch Babe, and keep a pig as a pet for a while. See if you don't feel like eating pork any more. I'd bet you would feel a slight bit edgy, but that's only because our culture doesn't make eating pork shameful or socially discourage the practice. If we had the same snide jokes about people eating pigs as we did about people eating dogs, you'd certainly find less people having bacon with their eggs.
If you're not squimish about eating beef, pork, chicken, or any other kind of meat, dog really shouldn't bother you. Yet because our culture identifies dogs and cats as pets and friendly, domesticated creatures we're prone to frown on eating them. To me, it seems as though it's almost viewed in the same light as canabalism.
To be blatantly honest, we Westerns are the ones being hypocritical and irrational for the most part. I don't know whether or not dog tastes good, and I might be willing to try it just for the sake of trying it, but I've been culturally conditioned to not want to eat dog.
I honestly doubt it will be tried for a long while. First of all there are a lot of moral and religious objections to cloning a human. Second of all, cloning is still a fairly clumsy science. If you read in the article it says that they had 1000 embryos to start with. Of those 1000 implanted, 3 turned into pregnancies. Of those 3 pregnancies, 2 births occured (1 miscarried). Of those 2 births, 1 died less than a month after birth. Success rate, 1 in 1000.
Whether or not people have objections about cloning based on moral or religious reasons, I doubt that anyone would be willing to accept a 1 in 1000 success rate for attempting to clone a person. Whether or not the clones have souls, are real people, or any of the other arguments that apply, I don't think people would want 999 failures out of 1000 tries.
So until people become more accepting of cloning and the science is able to produce reliable results, I don't think we'll see it done with humans anytime soon.
I won't dispute that you can still buy a new PlayStation and that people still make games for it (usually sports games like Madden and such are all that I can recall), but once the PS2 launched, most people slowly stopped making games for the PS. Games were still released for it (like Madden which has seen a 2005 release for the system) but nothing really great that I know of has come out for the PS since the PS2 launched, which is why we don't see GTA, GT, FF, or other big franchises being released for it.
The dates I listed where from when the console launched to when the next generation version launched. This doesn't mean that everything stops for that particular system, merely that it's pretty close to it.
PlayStation: 12/94 - 3/00 (japanese dates)
PlayStation 2: 3/00 - 3/06 (guess based on current information)
Sony's machines really haven't declined much, but I used Nintendo as an example because they stretch back farther and give a wider example. Maybe the phenomina is unique to Nintendo, but I think it's somewhat applicable.
You can argue that the Sony PS is still a viable system with games being produced for it and I won't argue too much with you because there is some truth in such a statement, but for all intents and purposes, it's life is over. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that the amount of time before a new console generation is released is shortening.
Using that reformulated hypothesis, the amount of time between the PS and PS2 falls right into line with the numbers from Nintendo consoles. Taking into your account your argument for a decreasing number of Nintendo games and an increasing number of games for the PS and PS2, their life spans are a little bit longer than average. The Xbox from MS is a special case because they entered the current generation playing field late and want to start the next one early.
The projected span for the PS2 is slightly shorter than the PS2 however. Will we still see Madden 2009 for the PS2 thought? I'd bet money on it.
Now Sony has billed the Playstation3 as a 10-year device.
They've also said things about how the PS2/PS3 would be 200 times more powerful than their last console.
If you believe them when they say it will have a 10 year life cycle, you should probably get your head examined. If anything, it seems that the lifespan of consoles is decreasing: (based on information from GameFAQs.
Nintendo: 7/83 - 11/90
Super Nintendo: 11/90 - 6/96
Nintendo 64: 6/96 - 9/01
GameCube: 9/01 - 8/06 (guess based on current information)
As you can see, the lifespan of consoles is decreasing as they become more advanced. The Xbox has only existed for roughly 4 years and it's already being replaced. People will still makes games for a system after a new one comes out, but most of the killer apps will be for the new platform.
I think what Sony meant to say when they threw out the 10 year figure is that it has technology in it that will finally come into wide acceptance and be standard in 10 years. 1080p TVs, good luck finding those today, but in 10 years I think a lot of people will have HD TVs capable of making full use of the PS3's graphical output abilities. Blu-ray discs won't be heavily used now since most people are satisfied with DVDs, but in 10 years it's possible that they will have replaced the DVD as the standard. There is no way, however, that the PS3 will last for 10 years. That's like saying if you purchased a top of the line computer right now that it would still be competitive 10 years down the road. It might handle Doom 3 just fine now, but what about Doom 5?
Essentially what we get is another bullshit figure pulled from the ass of Sony to get people to buy what they're selling. 10 is a nice round number and sounds impressive and somewhat believable after all the hype about the PS3 we've had thrown at us, but in 10 years I think we'll be looking at getting a nice new shiny PS5, which will replace our PS4, which 5 years before replaced the then almost pathetic PS3. Moore's law just won't allow something like the PS3 a 10 year life span.
A TiVo style peripheral will enable TV programmes to be saved on to the optional mini hard-disk.
So it plays PS, PS2, and PS3 games, can play Blu-ray movies if they ever come into frutation, can display 2 HD outputs, used to serve as a router (functionality removed), supposedly it will run Linux out of the box, and other impressive features.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take old PS and PS2 memory cards (I found it annoying that you could save PS data onto a PS2 card, but this just really sucks). Dance pads and other old PS2 periphels won't work on it (I guess I can laugh at my brother for buying a $300 DDR dance mat that won't work with a PS3). Next thing we know, it won't even play games.
Is anyone else disappointed that the PS3 is becoming less and less of a game machine and turning more and more in to an all-in-wonder-box? I recall when Sony talked about how MS was basically releasing a PC with the Xbox, and now it seems the tables have turned. Some part of me honestly hopes that Nintendo and MS kick the crap out of Sony this round.
It's hard to boycot something when the product comes installed on over 90% of new computers and can't be completely removed from those computers.
MS will contine to dig their own grave, but very slowly because they package the software with their OS and there are still a lot of people out their ignorant to the fact that something else exists.
First Mac fanatics believed that Apple would never use Intel processors.
Then they said Apple would keep the one button mouse for ever.
It seems like every month now that Apple is turning the world upside down. This certainly seems like something strange and new to me. Does anyone know if anything like this has been done before?
At the rate they're going it makes me wonder what radical type of product or strange new feature they'll come out with next.
First, look at the Acid2 test as rendered by Firefox. It's got a few problems, but if you compare it to the prerendered picture for comparison you can see a few similarities. At least the overall shape is generally correct.
Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.
I'm curious to know how other browsers like Opera and Safari handle the Acid2 test. Are there technically any browsers out there that can pass it?
I actually disagree with you to a certain extent. I actually enjoy about 10 minutes of trailers for new movies or movies that will be out shortly. I've actually gone to a few movies that I thought I might enjoy that I might not have otherwise gone to if I hadn't seen the trailer.
Additionally, this gives me an extra 10 minutes to get to the movie. Occasionally I will decide to go to a movie shortly before it starts. Sometimes, I won't always make it there exactly when the movie is going to start, but that extra 10 minutes ensures I won't miss anything.
On the other hand, I really don't care product advertisements. Trailers I can stand, but not something telling me to buy product x or watch TV show z. I'll have to watch the DS commercial myself before making a firm judgement, but the article makes it sound as though it wouldn't be all that bad.
Considering I go to 3 movies a month tops and that this advertisement will only run for about a month and might not show at any/all movies/theaters I go to, I'll probably only see it once, which isn't bad really. On the other hand if it were crammed down my throat every hour like most products on TV, I'd get sick of it pretty fast. At worst, I'll see it 3 times and it will have wasted 3 minutes of my life over a month's time. That's about the same amount of time wasted posting this reply. Coincidence... hmm...
How does adding a poorly made sex mini game somehow magically change the game?
Killing police, running over people in cars, drive-by shootings, massive gang wars, drugs, stealing cars, prostitution, hate crimes, explicit language, and everything else in the game are somehow appropriate.
Consensual sex mini game that isn't very graphic or raunchy? BAN BAN BAN BAN!!!
If you want to ban GTA:SA for the violence, drugs, and language that's fine by me. If all of a sudden sex is so wrong to be a bannable offense, I wonder how much longer Australia will have people in it? A little extreme, but still.
I'm curious to know how Australians feel about this. Hopefully outraged and pissed off, because I know I would be.
When can I move there?
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars. Now that we're pretty sure there's water there, it isn't a far stretch to believe that the planet is more than capable of supporting human life.
Something borrowed, nothing new
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
After glancing over the screenshots and reading some of the comments the author had, the appearance to firefox is remarkable.
Tabbed browsing has been added, dropdown search, add-on manager. Now where have I seen those all before?
Seems like a good effort by Microsoft to play catch up, but that's it. Aside from the anti-phising feature, I've yet to see one new feature of any importance.
I think a lot of stories would be better if the games had better characters in them. I can't count the number of games that have turned me off because the protaginist acted like a whiny, angst-filled teen, or was in fact designed to act like this. RPGs seem to be most guilty of this.
Why not give us an older mature character who already understands love, death, sacrifice, and other emotions and parts of life so I don't have to be drug through horribly written plot. I've gotten really sick of the main character in almost every RPG having some love interest that they're too afraid to approach.
Give the characters good voice acting if you're going to give them voices. Granted with a weak script not even a good voice actor can do much with it, but at least make an effort. Bad voice acting leaves me hating the characters and wishing they would die. Good voice acting can really make a game though.
Lunar:SSSC despite the simple graphics and the simple cliche story that has been done a thousand times over, had interesting characters with real personalities and excellent voice acting. To date, I think it's the best execution of a video game I've seen even though the graphics are sprites and the cutscene animation is hand drawn.
I think the system itself is limited by the gimmicky nature of the two screen system.
The system is in no way limited by either the two screens or touch functionality. Those actually make games like Kirby: Canvas Curse possible. Could you do the same on a PSP, GameCube, or any other system for that matter?
If you want to talk about things that limit the system, you'd be better to point out the lack of analog control stick, inability to play GB or GBC games, and other things it can't do.
Do you absolutely need both screens for every single game? No. Do you need touch functionality either? No. But they both have interesting applications that make games like Kirby's Canvas Curse possible.
The extra features that the DS has might not be vital to every single game, nor should they be, but that can provide additional functionality to games like a map or status screen that's easy accessible without requiring that the game be paused.
It's not always a matter of if, but rather should they?
As much as some people like Windows, I'd rather see everyone using an open source OS. Rather than having everything try to be fancy, a minimalist OS that was build for security and ease of use would be so much better for the computer world in general. The open standards would allow anyone to develop for it, find flaws in the system, or add on to the existing code.
Open source applications like Open Office are certainly a good thing, but I see the realm of applications as being much more commercial. I don't see too many people going out of their way to create open source games. Game engines possibly, but some applications will almost always be more commercial in nature. In cases where monopolies don't exist, commercial software also has the benifit of needing to be good, or people won't buy it. The necessity to provide good and innovative software will drive people to create better sotfware. It would be nice to have a choice of four or more different word processors, especially if they all shared a common file format in addition to any propriatary one that made communication a lot easier.
There are advantages to both, and it's quite clear that they can exist together given that they do in fact today.
It's nice to see a little dose of careful planning and good execution from the people at Microsoft. I'll take things with a grain of salt until I can actually see and use the interface for myself, but it sounds like they put some thought and effort into it.
Microsoft is generally better known for (what most would call) the pile of crap OS known as Windows. Given how most of their products turn out, MS has gained a largely negative reputation. However it's nice to see the people working on the Xbox obviously don't suffer the same shortcomings as everyone else at the company does.
Considering that more and more people will likely begin to switch to Linux or Apple in the coming years, it's interesting to think that Microsoft will rely on the Xbox more and more in the future. In any event it's nice to see that there are a few competent people working there still.
The privacy statement for Internet Explorer 7.0 beta lists a "phishing filter," which is said to be capable of warning users about the possibility that the Web site currently being visited is impersonating a trusted Web site. This feature is turned off by default
Why bother creating a feature like this and having it turned off by default. The people most likely to be taken in by a phishing scam seem to me to be the same people who won't know enough about a computer to turn this feature on to protect themselves. The more tech and internet savvy people could turn this off if it annoys them.
but in order for it to be used properly, the Web site's address and other information about the user's computer, are sent to Microsoft for automatic evaluation.
Then again it does scare me a little that MS would be taking a peek at my browsing habits. Hopefully it just asks a big database full of bad websites whether or not this one is good. I'd like to think that MS wouldn't be keeping tabs on my online activity. Makes me wonder if this is why that bought Gator... I mean Claria.
Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that these games typically tend to have similar styles or music that MTV itself would play, proivided it actually played music (sorry, but obligatory) or that the type of people who watch MTV most identify with or like listening to.
If Chrono Cross (My favorite game soundtrack of all time) happened to be released this year, do you think it would have made the list despite the fact that I and a lot of other people think it's damned good? I don't think it would've even been mentioned. Something tells me that Chrono Cross or RPGs just wouldn't be in with the MTV crowd.
Maybe it's the fact that the games listed all have songs from well known or popular artists. They're songs that people might have heard on the radio or some that are expected to become popular.
Either way, who cares.? If you don't like MTV or what it thinks is the best music in a video game, you don't have to watch their show.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mind some company sending out emails about getting an extra 3 inches, printer ink cartridges, or hOt XxX pOrN!!!1!!, but I do mind having to listen to what they have to say if I don't want to.
Sure I don't have to open the actual email, but seeing it in my inbox where it takes up space and time to get rid of it is enough. I'll start sticking up more for spammers rights as soon as they start respecting mine. Until then it's really hard to give two shits or a handshake about some asshats who've generally been dicks to you and everyone for as long as they've been on the net.
Imagine what he could do with the first Stealth bomber (that he invented) that he ever flew!
More seriously though, this was done in South Korea, not North Korea which is the country KJI is driving into the ground.
Read Charlotte's Web, watch Babe, and keep a pig as a pet for a while. See if you don't feel like eating pork any more. I'd bet you would feel a slight bit edgy, but that's only because our culture doesn't make eating pork shameful or socially discourage the practice. If we had the same snide jokes about people eating pigs as we did about people eating dogs, you'd certainly find less people having bacon with their eggs.
If you're not squimish about eating beef, pork, chicken, or any other kind of meat, dog really shouldn't bother you. Yet because our culture identifies dogs and cats as pets and friendly, domesticated creatures we're prone to frown on eating them. To me, it seems as though it's almost viewed in the same light as canabalism.
To be blatantly honest, we Westerns are the ones being hypocritical and irrational for the most part. I don't know whether or not dog tastes good, and I might be willing to try it just for the sake of trying it, but I've been culturally conditioned to not want to eat dog.
Whether or not people have objections about cloning based on moral or religious reasons, I doubt that anyone would be willing to accept a 1 in 1000 success rate for attempting to clone a person. Whether or not the clones have souls, are real people, or any of the other arguments that apply, I don't think people would want 999 failures out of 1000 tries.
So until people become more accepting of cloning and the science is able to produce reliable results, I don't think we'll see it done with humans anytime soon.
The dates I listed where from when the console launched to when the next generation version launched. This doesn't mean that everything stops for that particular system, merely that it's pretty close to it.
PlayStation: 12/94 - 3/00 (japanese dates)
PlayStation 2: 3/00 - 3/06 (guess based on current information)
Sony's machines really haven't declined much, but I used Nintendo as an example because they stretch back farther and give a wider example. Maybe the phenomina is unique to Nintendo, but I think it's somewhat applicable.
You can argue that the Sony PS is still a viable system with games being produced for it and I won't argue too much with you because there is some truth in such a statement, but for all intents and purposes, it's life is over. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that the amount of time before a new console generation is released is shortening.
Using that reformulated hypothesis, the amount of time between the PS and PS2 falls right into line with the numbers from Nintendo consoles. Taking into your account your argument for a decreasing number of Nintendo games and an increasing number of games for the PS and PS2, their life spans are a little bit longer than average. The Xbox from MS is a special case because they entered the current generation playing field late and want to start the next one early.
The projected span for the PS2 is slightly shorter than the PS2 however. Will we still see Madden 2009 for the PS2 thought? I'd bet money on it.
They've also said things about how the PS2/PS3 would be 200 times more powerful than their last console.
If you believe them when they say it will have a 10 year life cycle, you should probably get your head examined. If anything, it seems that the lifespan of consoles is decreasing: (based on information from GameFAQs.
Nintendo: 7/83 - 11/90
Super Nintendo: 11/90 - 6/96
Nintendo 64: 6/96 - 9/01
GameCube: 9/01 - 8/06 (guess based on current information)
As you can see, the lifespan of consoles is decreasing as they become more advanced. The Xbox has only existed for roughly 4 years and it's already being replaced. People will still makes games for a system after a new one comes out, but most of the killer apps will be for the new platform.
I think what Sony meant to say when they threw out the 10 year figure is that it has technology in it that will finally come into wide acceptance and be standard in 10 years. 1080p TVs, good luck finding those today, but in 10 years I think a lot of people will have HD TVs capable of making full use of the PS3's graphical output abilities. Blu-ray discs won't be heavily used now since most people are satisfied with DVDs, but in 10 years it's possible that they will have replaced the DVD as the standard. There is no way, however, that the PS3 will last for 10 years. That's like saying if you purchased a top of the line computer right now that it would still be competitive 10 years down the road. It might handle Doom 3 just fine now, but what about Doom 5?
Essentially what we get is another bullshit figure pulled from the ass of Sony to get people to buy what they're selling. 10 is a nice round number and sounds impressive and somewhat believable after all the hype about the PS3 we've had thrown at us, but in 10 years I think we'll be looking at getting a nice new shiny PS5, which will replace our PS4, which 5 years before replaced the then almost pathetic PS3. Moore's law just won't allow something like the PS3 a 10 year life span.
So it plays PS, PS2, and PS3 games, can play Blu-ray movies if they ever come into frutation, can display 2 HD outputs, used to serve as a router (functionality removed), supposedly it will run Linux out of the box, and other impressive features.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take old PS and PS2 memory cards (I found it annoying that you could save PS data onto a PS2 card, but this just really sucks). Dance pads and other old PS2 periphels won't work on it (I guess I can laugh at my brother for buying a $300 DDR dance mat that won't work with a PS3). Next thing we know, it won't even play games.
Is anyone else disappointed that the PS3 is becoming less and less of a game machine and turning more and more in to an all-in-wonder-box? I recall when Sony talked about how MS was basically releasing a PC with the Xbox, and now it seems the tables have turned. Some part of me honestly hopes that Nintendo and MS kick the crap out of Sony this round.
MS will contine to dig their own grave, but very slowly because they package the software with their OS and there are still a lot of people out their ignorant to the fact that something else exists.
Then they said Apple would keep the one button mouse for ever.
It seems like every month now that Apple is turning the world upside down. This certainly seems like something strange and new to me. Does anyone know if anything like this has been done before?
At the rate they're going it makes me wonder what radical type of product or strange new feature they'll come out with next.
Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.
I'm curious to know how other browsers like Opera and Safari handle the Acid2 test. Are there technically any browsers out there that can pass it?
Additionally, this gives me an extra 10 minutes to get to the movie. Occasionally I will decide to go to a movie shortly before it starts. Sometimes, I won't always make it there exactly when the movie is going to start, but that extra 10 minutes ensures I won't miss anything.
On the other hand, I really don't care product advertisements. Trailers I can stand, but not something telling me to buy product x or watch TV show z. I'll have to watch the DS commercial myself before making a firm judgement, but the article makes it sound as though it wouldn't be all that bad.
Considering I go to 3 movies a month tops and that this advertisement will only run for about a month and might not show at any/all movies/theaters I go to, I'll probably only see it once, which isn't bad really. On the other hand if it were crammed down my throat every hour like most products on TV, I'd get sick of it pretty fast. At worst, I'll see it 3 times and it will have wasted 3 minutes of my life over a month's time. That's about the same amount of time wasted posting this reply. Coincidence... hmm...
This sounds like a business directory, only online. How the hell could you patent something like this? It just doens't seem right.
(Yes I realize it'd be funny to mod this off topic)
Now if someone could just release a /. article that would be immune to redundancy, trolling, and blatant flamebait.
Good reads and interesting stuff in there though.
Killing police, running over people in cars, drive-by shootings, massive gang wars, drugs, stealing cars, prostitution, hate crimes, explicit language, and everything else in the game are somehow appropriate.
Consensual sex mini game that isn't very graphic or raunchy? BAN BAN BAN BAN!!!
If you want to ban GTA:SA for the violence, drugs, and language that's fine by me. If all of a sudden sex is so wrong to be a bannable offense, I wonder how much longer Australia will have people in it? A little extreme, but still.
I'm curious to know how Australians feel about this. Hopefully outraged and pissed off, because I know I would be.
I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars. Now that we're pretty sure there's water there, it isn't a far stretch to believe that the planet is more than capable of supporting human life.
Tabbed browsing has been added, dropdown search, add-on manager. Now where have I seen those all before?
Seems like a good effort by Microsoft to play catch up, but that's it. Aside from the anti-phising feature, I've yet to see one new feature of any importance.
Why not give us an older mature character who already understands love, death, sacrifice, and other emotions and parts of life so I don't have to be drug through horribly written plot. I've gotten really sick of the main character in almost every RPG having some love interest that they're too afraid to approach.
Give the characters good voice acting if you're going to give them voices. Granted with a weak script not even a good voice actor can do much with it, but at least make an effort. Bad voice acting leaves me hating the characters and wishing they would die. Good voice acting can really make a game though.
Lunar:SSSC despite the simple graphics and the simple cliche story that has been done a thousand times over, had interesting characters with real personalities and excellent voice acting. To date, I think it's the best execution of a video game I've seen even though the graphics are sprites and the cutscene animation is hand drawn.
Oh well, sucks to be Microsoft. Now they've had their anti-theft security cracked again. Everyone's got to be laughing at them.
The system is in no way limited by either the two screens or touch functionality. Those actually make games like Kirby: Canvas Curse possible. Could you do the same on a PSP, GameCube, or any other system for that matter?
If you want to talk about things that limit the system, you'd be better to point out the lack of analog control stick, inability to play GB or GBC games, and other things it can't do.
Do you absolutely need both screens for every single game? No. Do you need touch functionality either? No. But they both have interesting applications that make games like Kirby's Canvas Curse possible.
The extra features that the DS has might not be vital to every single game, nor should they be, but that can provide additional functionality to games like a map or status screen that's easy accessible without requiring that the game be paused.
As much as some people like Windows, I'd rather see everyone using an open source OS. Rather than having everything try to be fancy, a minimalist OS that was build for security and ease of use would be so much better for the computer world in general. The open standards would allow anyone to develop for it, find flaws in the system, or add on to the existing code.
Open source applications like Open Office are certainly a good thing, but I see the realm of applications as being much more commercial. I don't see too many people going out of their way to create open source games. Game engines possibly, but some applications will almost always be more commercial in nature. In cases where monopolies don't exist, commercial software also has the benifit of needing to be good, or people won't buy it. The necessity to provide good and innovative software will drive people to create better sotfware. It would be nice to have a choice of four or more different word processors, especially if they all shared a common file format in addition to any propriatary one that made communication a lot easier.
There are advantages to both, and it's quite clear that they can exist together given that they do in fact today.
Microsoft is generally better known for (what most would call) the pile of crap OS known as Windows. Given how most of their products turn out, MS has gained a largely negative reputation. However it's nice to see the people working on the Xbox obviously don't suffer the same shortcomings as everyone else at the company does.
Considering that more and more people will likely begin to switch to Linux or Apple in the coming years, it's interesting to think that Microsoft will rely on the Xbox more and more in the future. In any event it's nice to see that there are a few competent people working there still.
The privacy statement for Internet Explorer 7.0 beta lists a "phishing filter," which is said to be capable of warning users about the possibility that the Web site currently being visited is impersonating a trusted Web site. This feature is turned off by default
Why bother creating a feature like this and having it turned off by default. The people most likely to be taken in by a phishing scam seem to me to be the same people who won't know enough about a computer to turn this feature on to protect themselves. The more tech and internet savvy people could turn this off if it annoys them.
but in order for it to be used properly, the Web site's address and other information about the user's computer, are sent to Microsoft for automatic evaluation.
Then again it does scare me a little that MS would be taking a peek at my browsing habits. Hopefully it just asks a big database full of bad websites whether or not this one is good. I'd like to think that MS wouldn't be keeping tabs on my online activity. Makes me wonder if this is why that bought Gator... I mean Claria.
I wonder if they used their karma bonus though?
Personally I'm guessing they did it so the British or anyone else didn't mod them '-1 DEAD!'
If Chrono Cross (My favorite game soundtrack of all time) happened to be released this year, do you think it would have made the list despite the fact that I and a lot of other people think it's damned good? I don't think it would've even been mentioned. Something tells me that Chrono Cross or RPGs just wouldn't be in with the MTV crowd.
Maybe it's the fact that the games listed all have songs from well known or popular artists. They're songs that people might have heard on the radio or some that are expected to become popular.
Either way, who cares.? If you don't like MTV or what it thinks is the best music in a video game, you don't have to watch their show.
Hmm... maybe I was thinking of the next Metroid game.