Dvorak has an atrocious, mind-boggling track record with regard to prediction. I wasn't sure about the gPhone platform, but now that I know Dvorak is against it I know it will meet some success.
How freaking old is this article? The date on it is only Oct 21, so obviously it and the poster are completely misinformed. Both the ViewSonic VX924 AND the 4ms 19" Samsung 930BF have been out for months. I have a Samsung and it's great. As for the ViewSonic's 3ms response time... it's a marketing gimmick that exploits the fact that there's no standard measurement for grey-to-grey response time (ie - which shades of grey are used). It's really no faster than Samsung's model, which suffice it to say, is shockingly fast. I thought my 16ms Hitachi was great, but Samsung's 4ms panel blew me away.
A marriage of Nintendogs and Age of Empire? Let's get real here, Black & White predates Nintendogs by some margin. If anything, Nintendogs would be the divorce of Age of Empire from Black & White.
But not really because it's a poor description, anyway.
I wouldn't be opposed to unobtrustive text (google) ads on Wikimedia, but images or anything distracting is really pushing it. As long as the revenue is kept purely non-profit (supporting the cost of bandwidth and hardware, only) I find no grounds for objection.
It's like an exponetial curve. The first 90% is always easiest and the last 10% is progressively harder until the final 1% is about as tough as all the rest, combined.
And it's not like Linux is the only game in town. It's just too bad that OSX only runs on Apple hardware. It could really making computing easier for a lot of people.
Aren't we preaching to the converted with these kinds of books? The people are earnestly capable of switching away from Windows are probably smart enough to do that on their own, and those that choose not to, probably also have good reasons for doing so (re: gaming). I just don't think the software is quite there yet for Grandma to use a Windows alternative without relying on some heavy tech support (often a family member). In a few years, the OSes will be there, but right now I really believe these books are premature.
Graphically, the game is amazing. The presentation is fluid and attractive and absolutely engaging. Otherwise, Ultimate Spider-Man is grievously inferior to its predecessor, Spider-Man 2. The games are so similar to each other in mechanics and presentation that it's impossible to refrain from comparing them.
For starters, the character's attacks have been dramatically reduced. Gone is the dodge button. Now when your Spider-sense goes off, your choices are to do nothing or jump around wildly. Gone are the dozens of awesome combos, air tricks, and web moves. No you have a basic punch, a stronger attack, and a few very basic combinations of the two. You're reduced to mindless mashing. Oh, you can web enemies, too, but they only holds them in place for a few seconds. Swinging them around your head, swinging enemies into each other for extra damage, shooting web-balls... all of that is vanished to the ether and a much smaller fraction remains. Even the random city events are few and far between. In Spider-Man 2, there could easily be two events on one block. In Ultimate Spider-Man, finding one is almost as improbable as finding one of the illogically place hidden tokens.
Thanks to the lack of moves, completing challenge races, beating up thugs, and finding tokens have almost zero benefit. Sometimes they're required to move the story forward, but it's not like you get points or anything for them, because even if you did there're no upgrades to be had. Even though the tokens unlock "secrets", they are nothing more than character portraits and comic book covers. It's the equivalent of throwing commercials and trailers onto a DVD and proclaiming that it's "packed with extras!". There's no substance to it. The tokens themselves are populated almost completely contrary to what you'd expect from a game with, well, hidden tokens. The tallest buildings in the city? There's nothing up there for you. Just keep moving along-- why would you even want to climb that building in the first place? Instead, you better check the footbridge in the park. Or the alley by the library. Or one of dozens of locations where nothing interesting or related to the story can be found.
But playing Venom should be fun, right? I mean, the commercials give a pretty clear impression of the dichotomy between playing a villain and playing a hero. "Which will you be?" the ads proclaim, invoking thoughts of influence from blockbusters such as Knights of the Old Republic or even Fable. Unfortunately, the commercials are entirely misleading. The game decides when you play as Venom or Spider-Man, and what you can do with them. It switches you to Venom every few sequences, but the missions are much shorter and much more linear. And for all the fluff surrounding the Venom character, his attacks do no more damage than Spider-Man's, and his inability to web-swing makes his movements more limited. Yeah, his super-jump is cool at first, but I'd take swinging any day. When a game has as many follow/chase/race missions as Ultimate Spider-Man, you really need a little horizontal locomotion. Venom can throw objects, which sounds useful, unless you want to throw it at anything specific. If you want to just watch a slow animation of something being upended, then it's truly awesome, but don't try anything foolish like aiming. All of these shortcomings make playing as Venom feel tacked-on and gimmicky.
The camera is a bit of a problem, which is not to be unexpected. It swings around wildly when you get near, say, the side of a building you're jumping for and climbing on, and tends to want to swing around the opposite direction of, say, what you actually want to see. However, that's pretty standard fare for a 3D game. At there's a convenient camera lock-on for those crazy battle sequences, right? Wrong again. The camera lock-on is largely theoretical. It never seems to work and if does, there's no confirmation or indication that you've locked on to an enemy.
I hear this argument all the time and it never makes any sense to me. When the MPAA was fighting for the broadcast flag, they flat-out threatened to stop making television and movies. They said that it would not be worth their while unless they could exercise absolute control over the content.
I've never seen a more obvious bluff in my entire life. It's like a child threatening to hold his breath until you give in to what he wants. It has no more substance than the "blockbusters" they produce.
They will not stop making movies or television or music because of piracy or anything else. Why? Because then they'd be making no money. They're threatening to stop making money. The TPM argument (I guess "TPM" sounds better than "DRM") is no different. Without (DR/TP)M, businesses and their advocates muse, no one will make digital content.
Good. I hope the MPAA and the RIAA and everyone else bows out because the business is just "too risky" from their point of view. The second they do so, they give away their market. Television, movies and music are a very, very competitive business, and there are thousands of people trying to work their way into it every day. There are thousands of people who want their shot at the billions these companies make and there are thousands more who would pleased with the chance to give their stuff away just for a little recognition. Someone else would step in immediately, hopefully or even probably with a better attitude for the market, and seize what can only be deemed a mythical opportunity.
To suddenly give up a huge position of power and influence... a position that might never been attainable again, is ludicrous. It's a bluff. The MPAA and RIAA have everything to lose by stepping out of the market and we, the consumers, and have everything to gain.
I do realize this, but isn't the fact that it's not available to casual users a mortal strike against it? Software can't claim to truly be an alternative unless it offers a compelling experience that is in some way on par with its competitors'. Gimp may very well be a powerful tool, but a tool is not a replacement. It's not there yet.
I really, truly don't undestand why Gimp is so highly regarded. I have used the program and can confidently say, without equivocation, that I would rather use MS Paint. It'll be years before it can serve as a real replacement for Photoshop or even Paint Shop Pro, and where will those programs be by then?
Open source software is great, but using something just because it's free is not a good argument.
It was called DivX. We just don't remember it because it died quickly. The same thing happened to Betamax and the same thing will happen to one of these new formats. I don't know which one it will be, but I can say with certainty that if Toshiba had any marketing brains whatsoever they could very, very easily crush Bluray, by trading on cost, backward compatability (players), and name.
Yes, it's true that there are 3500 hundred (or so) shows listed on the TV Tome website, but they are sorely lacking in information. If I want to find out who was on the recent episode of... Battlestar Galactica, example, I'm better off looking on IMDB. That's sad.
The only foreseeable problem is a mass of misinformation. The old TV Tome -- which was moderated -- had a problem with redundant, erroneous, and outright false submitions.
You're right, I didn't read it at all. Which is why I didn't find "1. Removable NvIOpRAM 2. Optical lens" hilarious to describe the precise model of audio adapter that I have sitting on my desk, right in front of me. Because, you know, cylindrical pieces of metal are "lenses".
But you wouldn't even know that if you didn't look at the accompanying picture.
Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak has an atrocious, mind-boggling track record with regard to prediction. I wasn't sure about the gPhone platform, but now that I know Dvorak is against it I know it will meet some success.
That Achewood strip was beyond lame.
Since when is plagiarism the same as copyright infringement?
There's nothing like fighting stereotypes with stereotypes.
When people get something that *just works*, all their trials, tribulations, and political affiliations melt away.
How freaking old is this article? The date on it is only Oct 21, so obviously it and the poster are completely misinformed. Both the ViewSonic VX924 AND the 4ms 19" Samsung 930BF have been out for months. I have a Samsung and it's great. As for the ViewSonic's 3ms response time... it's a marketing gimmick that exploits the fact that there's no standard measurement for grey-to-grey response time (ie - which shades of grey are used). It's really no faster than Samsung's model, which suffice it to say, is shockingly fast. I thought my 16ms Hitachi was great, but Samsung's 4ms panel blew me away.
But not really because it's a poor description, anyway.
I wouldn't be opposed to unobtrustive text (google) ads on Wikimedia, but images or anything distracting is really pushing it. As long as the revenue is kept purely non-profit (supporting the cost of bandwidth and hardware, only) I find no grounds for objection.
Who submits an entry about the bias toward Apple and includes vituperance against Microsoft? How does bias rectify bias? Come on.
It's like an exponetial curve. The first 90% is always easiest and the last 10% is progressively harder until the final 1% is about as tough as all the rest, combined. And it's not like Linux is the only game in town. It's just too bad that OSX only runs on Apple hardware. It could really making computing easier for a lot of people.
Well, I can see his point. Political statements are more important than people.
Aren't we preaching to the converted with these kinds of books? The people are earnestly capable of switching away from Windows are probably smart enough to do that on their own, and those that choose not to, probably also have good reasons for doing so (re: gaming). I just don't think the software is quite there yet for Grandma to use a Windows alternative without relying on some heavy tech support (often a family member). In a few years, the OSes will be there, but right now I really believe these books are premature.
Makes sense to me. The key to defeating a keylogger is a keychain.
An iPod Macro, just what I've also been holding out for!
1. No, Ultimate Spider-Man was made after the Spider-Man 2 videogame, and is likewise by Treyarch.
For starters, the character's attacks have been dramatically reduced. Gone is the dodge button. Now when your Spider-sense goes off, your choices are to do nothing or jump around wildly. Gone are the dozens of awesome combos, air tricks, and web moves. No you have a basic punch, a stronger attack, and a few very basic combinations of the two. You're reduced to mindless mashing. Oh, you can web enemies, too, but they only holds them in place for a few seconds. Swinging them around your head, swinging enemies into each other for extra damage, shooting web-balls... all of that is vanished to the ether and a much smaller fraction remains. Even the random city events are few and far between. In Spider-Man 2, there could easily be two events on one block. In Ultimate Spider-Man, finding one is almost as improbable as finding one of the illogically place hidden tokens.
Thanks to the lack of moves, completing challenge races, beating up thugs, and finding tokens have almost zero benefit. Sometimes they're required to move the story forward, but it's not like you get points or anything for them, because even if you did there're no upgrades to be had. Even though the tokens unlock "secrets", they are nothing more than character portraits and comic book covers. It's the equivalent of throwing commercials and trailers onto a DVD and proclaiming that it's "packed with extras!". There's no substance to it. The tokens themselves are populated almost completely contrary to what you'd expect from a game with, well, hidden tokens. The tallest buildings in the city? There's nothing up there for you. Just keep moving along-- why would you even want to climb that building in the first place? Instead, you better check the footbridge in the park. Or the alley by the library. Or one of dozens of locations where nothing interesting or related to the story can be found.
But playing Venom should be fun, right? I mean, the commercials give a pretty clear impression of the dichotomy between playing a villain and playing a hero. "Which will you be?" the ads proclaim, invoking thoughts of influence from blockbusters such as Knights of the Old Republic or even Fable. Unfortunately, the commercials are entirely misleading. The game decides when you play as Venom or Spider-Man, and what you can do with them. It switches you to Venom every few sequences, but the missions are much shorter and much more linear. And for all the fluff surrounding the Venom character, his attacks do no more damage than Spider-Man's, and his inability to web-swing makes his movements more limited. Yeah, his super-jump is cool at first, but I'd take swinging any day. When a game has as many follow/chase/race missions as Ultimate Spider-Man, you really need a little horizontal locomotion. Venom can throw objects, which sounds useful, unless you want to throw it at anything specific. If you want to just watch a slow animation of something being upended, then it's truly awesome, but don't try anything foolish like aiming. All of these shortcomings make playing as Venom feel tacked-on and gimmicky.
The camera is a bit of a problem, which is not to be unexpected. It swings around wildly when you get near, say, the side of a building you're jumping for and climbing on, and tends to want to swing around the opposite direction of, say, what you actually want to see. However, that's pretty standard fare for a 3D game. At there's a convenient camera lock-on for those crazy battle sequences, right? Wrong again. The camera lock-on is largely theoretical. It never seems to work and if does, there's no confirmation or indication that you've locked on to an enemy.
Spider-Man 2 was quite the surprise when i
I've never seen a more obvious bluff in my entire life. It's like a child threatening to hold his breath until you give in to what he wants. It has no more substance than the "blockbusters" they produce.
They will not stop making movies or television or music because of piracy or anything else. Why? Because then they'd be making no money. They're threatening to stop making money. The TPM argument (I guess "TPM" sounds better than "DRM") is no different. Without (DR/TP)M, businesses and their advocates muse, no one will make digital content.
Good. I hope the MPAA and the RIAA and everyone else bows out because the business is just "too risky" from their point of view. The second they do so, they give away their market. Television, movies and music are a very, very competitive business, and there are thousands of people trying to work their way into it every day. There are thousands of people who want their shot at the billions these companies make and there are thousands more who would pleased with the chance to give their stuff away just for a little recognition. Someone else would step in immediately, hopefully or even probably with a better attitude for the market, and seize what can only be deemed a mythical opportunity.
To suddenly give up a huge position of power and influence... a position that might never been attainable again, is ludicrous. It's a bluff. The MPAA and RIAA have everything to lose by stepping out of the market and we, the consumers, and have everything to gain.
I just don't understand their argument at all.
I do realize this, but isn't the fact that it's not available to casual users a mortal strike against it? Software can't claim to truly be an alternative unless it offers a compelling experience that is in some way on par with its competitors'. Gimp may very well be a powerful tool, but a tool is not a replacement. It's not there yet.
I gave it a fair shot, and I will be placated neither by its shortcomings nor by other users' vituperations.
Open source software is great, but using something just because it's free is not a good argument.
It was called DivX. We just don't remember it because it died quickly. The same thing happened to Betamax and the same thing will happen to one of these new formats. I don't know which one it will be, but I can say with certainty that if Toshiba had any marketing brains whatsoever they could very, very easily crush Bluray, by trading on cost, backward compatability (players), and name.
Because, as we all know, "free as in speech" means open access to the printing press blue-prints.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
The only foreseeable problem is a mass of misinformation. The old TV Tome -- which was moderated -- had a problem with redundant, erroneous, and outright false submitions.
But you wouldn't even know that if you didn't look at the accompanying picture.
This image alone... http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com/_uimage s/256Mx6M.jpg (from http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page3.html )
It's the "NvIOpRAM 24GB [3-pin]", also known as the 1/4" to 1/8" gold-plated headphone adapter available at RadioShacks everywhere.