The iPod has astonishing market share despite the presence of cheaper, better-equipped alternatives.
A portable mp3 player with another gig of space that plays ogg for 50 bucks less may be a "better-equipped alternative". But the interface isn't as good, I can't share its accessories with my wife and coworkers, and it won't integrate into iTunes or my car stereo. Those are all features too, and they are more important to me than another 150 songs and ogg playback. (Although ogg playback *would* be a welcome addition to the ipod.)
One advantage to having the scaler in the player is that you don't run into video lag if your running the audio and video to different devices.
This is a common problem with entry to mid-range home-theatre HD systems; where the DVD player might have an optical audio run to a surround capable amp, and then run the video to the hdtv (on DVI/HDMI/composite). The result is the video comes out a few nths of a second after the audio because the amp and tv get the signal in at the same time, but the amp immediately pushes it out to the speakers while the TV takes a few nths of a second to process the image before you get to see it on-screen, leading to annoying lip-sync issues. If the DVD was already poorly synced (and so many of those low budget DVD transfers *are* pretty marginal) the extra delay can make them almost unwatchable.
If you run both sound/video into your hdtv it works fine because the tv buffers the audio until the video signal is ready. But if you run the audio to your TV there's no real way to get it into your surround sound system. Few HDTVs have a digital audio pass-thru of any sort.
New higher end receivers have the ability to delay the audio allowing you to manually resync it, but this is a bit of a kludge and the receivers that can do it are usually total overkill for most small scale home theatre applications -- especially in the smallish living rooms in apartments/condos most urbanites have doubling as their "home theatre".:)
The other solution is to purchase audio delay hardware, but they aren't exactly cheap. (couple hundred plus)
Doing the video processing in the player bypasses the issue (assuming it syncs the audio output; almost all do -- but some of the early & budget progressive scan players don't. Also, its now surprise that newer HDTVs have faster processors so the lag is shrinking but its still a major problem today.
While I agree and hate patents, its worth mentioning that almost everytime anyone here on/. asks what makes the iPod any better than other players, they always rave about how easy and smooth the control interface is and because of that Apple is the one who "really gets it", etc, etc
Creative certainly didn't invent the 'hierarchical menu'. Nor were they the first to use it to make selections in a "device".
Office phone handsets, POS boxes (for swiping credit/debit cards), clock radios, home theatre amplifiers, synthesizers, monitor OSDs, car stereos, cell phones, and countless other devices going back like 30 years have implemented the "hierarchical menu" as a way of making a selection. Most of these menus are absolutely *horrid* to work with, thanks to the awkward controls and poor feedback.
iPods aren't better because they use hierarchical menus. They are better because they made navigating them easy, efficient, and intuitive, using an input method that scales very well even to very large lists. (like artists, or songs in a playlist).
You can turn that off so I'm sure there's a way for the software to get around it.
You can also turn it UP, so that it gives you the "This is not certified" message, and removes the "continue anyways" option.
As for there being ways to work around it. I'm sure there are, but these should be picked up and blocked as HIGHLY suspicious activies by any antivirus product worth having. After all, surreptitiously installing a device driver, bypassing the users policies that prevent it amount to serious malware.
Not to mention illegal hackery on par with the sony rootkit!
MS drivers typically have better quality because it is much easier to write a robust driver when you have access to the OS source (see Linux:-), but that doesn't mean they are flawless.
I dunno their drivers are pretty good. I'd have to admint my OS was 100% stable when it thought my geforce 7800 was a "Standard VGA Adapter" , my Audigy4 was just an "Unknown Multimedia Controller", and my scanner was just a "USB device".
Of course, it wasn't a terribly useful PC at that point, but I had no complaints about stability.
The question of abuse is a very interesting one. I can't imagine how they can solve it reliably, since obviously it is unsolvable: hypothetically I could submit crash reports from my Linux machine.
Clearly they'll just tie it into the Windows Genuine Advantage spyware. Not only will that weed out any submissions from Linux, but they'll be able to cross-ref it with your name, organization name, installed applications, web history and from that be able to determine if you're copy is pirated, whether you work for a competitor, and most importantly whether they should put ads for Fruit-Loops or Special-K next to your email next time you check it...;)
Food for thought, as I watch my relatives fall victim to severe mental deterioration.
The prospect of losing your mind is far scarier than actually losing it. Because when it actually happens you won't know its missing. Its much harder on those around you.
That said, the early stage Alzheimer's victims I know, while afraid, very pragmatically, just want to make the most of the time they have left before they are gone, exactly what most healthy elderly people say.
Is choking to death on a cancerous lung really preferable? Is being mentally alert but trapped in a rapidly deteriorating body really better than having a deteriorating mind in a healthy body?
I haven't looked at the actual firefox extension but it wouldn't make sense to offer encryption and still store the PIN.
It would if the point of encryption is to keep it private *in-transit*. Just as HTTPS doesn't prevent the site you are interacting with to get all that data you submitted, the encryption prevents bystanders from seeing it.
So all this encryption does is give you some security that nobody but google will be able to see it. So if you value your privacy at all the question remains, do you trust google with it? Do you trust google to look out for your interests, even under government pressure?
Just for Now? or Always and Forever?
I'm with that other individual: Is there any extension that does this with an ftp/webdav/... server of *my* choice?
The article refers to replacing USB, and A/V cables.
You describe bluetooth as:
It was purely a personal wireless protocol, short range between paired objects.
The average usb cable is 5 feet. The average A/V cable is 3 feet. Short range: check. Cables go from one object to another object. Paired: check.
The only spot BT can come up short is throughput -- but then why not a "Bluetooth 2" a faster backwards compatible spec that is to Bluetooth what USB2 is to USB?
Not that I have any dislike of UWB or anything, but really, Bluetooth was designed as a short range cable replacement. USB and A/V cables certainly fit into that world. For longer range connections wireless wifi seems like a better approach, even it uses a protocol that sits on top of ethernet to provide "virtual pairing" or something.
For example, I routinely use serial devices. A long time ago I stopped having them connected directly to my PC, and instead setup virtual serial ports connected over ethernet to connect to serial devices plugged into a LAN. It works great.
Now if I wanted to go wireless the logical step would be to simply make the LAN wireless; not invent some entirely new long range pairing wireless serial cable replacement prototcol.
On that note, I can do and say what I want, becase if they want to come and arrest me over bull, I wont just go quietly, I'll shoot back.
And they'll be sure to mention the damage you did to the little robo-sidekick they sent in to subdue you at your funeral.
I think America's "armed populace" might be just an illusion today. You might as well be running around with hammers and pitchforks for all the good your arms will do you should the goverment turn its army on you.
Take a look at the fighting Iraq. They aren't accomplishing much with handguns and rifles. It seems that all the "incidents" where any sort of blow was struck against the US relied primarily on explosives, grenades, rpgs, etc. This simply isn't the sort of stuff America's armed populace has.
Basically, you're saying that you feel ripped off when there is extra entertainment in a game that you've paid for and you cannot access it because it is too difficult to acquire.
Only if the unlocked content is fun/important to all players. Like trackes, cars, playmodes, critical plot elements, etc. It doesn't bother me if the stuff I can't access is merely a "trophy", or a humourous but irrelevant bonus FMV, or even just more difficult challenges.
Consider a game like Mario Golf for the cube. It advertises a mix of standard and "mushroom kingdom" courses. You only start out with 2 courses if I recall, both very tame. No access to any mushroom kingdom courses at all. You have to win a several tournaments first.
If a player can't do that they miss out on most of the game. My young kids for example primarily like to play multiplayer; so they've got 2 lousy courses to choose from. Whee.
Beating a tournament takes a fair bit of time - 18 holes, and a reasonable amount of skill (and it helps a lot if you unlock the "star" characters that can hit further along the way, a separate challenge). I doubt either my kids (quite young) or my parents (extremely casual players) would have had the patience or ability to do it. But they all enjoy the game, and my kids especially like playing on the mushroom kingdom courses.
It doesn't bother me in the least that to progress to the next tournament I have to beat the previous one. It *does* bother me that my kids had to wait until I beat a few tournaments before they could fool around on a mushroom kingdom course with their grandparents.
Because I've unlocked much of the game they can enjoy the game far more. If I hadn't it would be a crappy golf game with 2 boring courses, and they would never play it. Definately would be a ripoff for them.
Would you feel less ripped off if that content were never put in the game?
In the case of Mario golf, for example, I would never have paid 50 dollars for a game with 2 lousy courses.
Kind of like you meant to post this in your reply right?
If the input gets set to html, and you don't explicitly put in or
then it ignores paragraph breaks as whitespace and condenses everything into one paragraph.
Yes, it's tedious, yes, it's jumping through hoops. Your reward is major plot points and FMV sequences that you cannot view in any other way, except maybe Gameshark codes or something.
Which I contend is wrong. MAJOR plot points etc should not be locked away where only a small percentage of the most dedicated players will be able to find and unlock them.
I'm sorry that you have to work so hard to unlock driving a cement truck. But honestly, the game was not written to race a cement truck, or it would be called "Cement Truck Driving." Those features are extras, designed to reward people who truly enjoy the game, to give them a little additional content to hold them over before the next game comes out.
Yet that is some of the most enjoyable content in the game, for all players, once unlocked. My 3 year old loves plowing around with a cement truck; its her favorite part of the game -- she wouldn't be able to unlock that mode no matter how hard she tried, period. It just doesn't make sense to place things that would be fun for novice players behind gates that only grand-masters can open.
I propose designers either put things behind those gates that have no real value, like "trophys" or "high scores", or other status symbols, or if you must hide content, hide stuff that actually needs "grand master" like skill to enjoy. Like the secret robot-cyborg level in the original Doom 1, or unlocking Nightmare/Hell/Hardcore (permadeath) difficulties in Diablo II.
For another example, in the Everquest "Planes of Power" expansion, you had to defeat a series of bosses to allow your character to progress to the higher planes. These battles were major encounters involving 3-6 dozen people or more. Conceptually this was great; players who were unable to defeat the "first bosses" really had no business fighting the "later bosses", so in theory if a player couldn't unlock something it was no real loss because the content it unlocked was even harder... in practice it was HORRIBLY FLAWED.
Several of the "higher level planes" had plenty of content a casual player could explore and enjoy; but it was virtually impossible to get there because they had to get into these highly organized large groups and execute fairly complex strategies as a large group to "unlock" access to the content first, which of course was impossible for many of them to do.
These players paid for the full expansion; many of them still (several years later) can't access the higher planes.
Unlockables are exactly the opposite for me. I often go through a game once just playing the basics (like FFX-2) and then go back and start over trying to get "everything" in the game, because its got replayability and there's a secondary challenge now. Then, having failed to do that the second time through, I'll try it a third.
What has *that* to do with unlockables? The fact that you CAN go back and collect all the coins, or stars, or clear out every dungeon and get your completion score to 100% doesn't bother anybody. If someone likes that sort of exploration/replay/whatever style of play, that's fine. The reward is seeing that high score, or 100% complete, or whatever.
The problem is when you HAVE to do that in order to access other major parts of the game.
If the unlockables were simply "even harder" like having to beat it on hard before you can do it in impossible, or you unlock races against Porsche GTs where you have a Toyota corolla, or you have to run a time trial with even less time -- those aren't bad unlockables.
The problem, to make an extreme example, is when you aren't allowed to use the Porsche GT until you've beaten the game driving stick without any paint scratches. And then to use the Ferrari Enzo you have to beat the entire game AGAIN, with the Porsche GT driving stick without any scratches, with the ebrake on.
And -then- with the enzo you can finally make the jumps required to unlock the UFO, VW miniwan, cement truck, and the bonus science fiction space-themed track.
Those fun features really shouldn't be available only to people who pissed away an entire summer on the game (and those who cheat).
It gets on my nerves when people refuse to use a simple f***ing paragraph break when they have something legitimate to say.
Blame slashdots UI for part it.
It drives me nuts. If the input gets set to html, and you don't explicitly put in <p> or <br> then it ignores paragraph breaks as whitespace and condenses everything into one paragraph. It drives me nuts... I've had a few of my posts get mangled by it; because I usually post in plain-text, but sometimes slashdot defaults to html for some reason. And once you submit there's no going back.
(yeah yeah... that's what preview is for... spare me:)
Look at the specs for the xbox and the 360, then just use some common sense.
Yes lets use some common sense. More Polygons and Effects don't automatically make games more fun.
The remake of Resident Evil with updated graphics didn't make the game more fun. Quake 4 wasn't 20x more fun than Quake 2; despite the huge leaps in gfx technology.
Call of Duty 2 would still be a great game even if you couldn't see the guys sweat. And a crappy xbox-1 FPS (pick whichver you hated most)... would not have been any less craptastic if they added in sweat.
Plenty of people STILL use 5900 series cards. They are playing the same latest games with them as someone with a brand new card. And while they might not have the gfx options maxed out, they are enjoying the game pretty much the same as someone who does. If the game sucks both the 5900 and 7800 players will agree it sucks... if the game was great both groups will agree. No doubt the extra eye candy, and smoother framerate at higher resolution will give the richer player more to see; but unless the game is outright unplayable due to shit framerate or something the player on a lower-end card will enjoy the game about the same.
Consider a PS3 + 1 game (no point in owning it without 1 game) will run around $700 after taxes. For 700 bucks you can probably get a Wii, a 2nd controller, and 4+ games for that $700.
The Wii's graphics will be DVD quality; the PS3's will be HD. If the price were close, yeah, I'd go with HD. But they aren't close.
Wii has a major advantage right now. Yeah, the market droids and salespeople are going to tell consumers how much more powerful the PS3 is, and a lot of consumer-sheep are going to buy into the idea... sadly even the ones without an HD tv to even take advantage of it. But the price is going to be hard to swallow if the Wii is sitting next to it at half the price; with graphics that hold their own. Parents will be thinking to themselves, that they can get a couple more games, a 2nd controller, or (-gasp-) they could even get their kid something else too this year.
At the end of the day, its going to come down to the games. If the PS3 shows up with a lot of must have exclusives it will fare alright. If all the important titles are on the xbox360 or wii, or are multi-platform releases it will be in serious trouble.
And this time round, the Nintendo system isn't just a cheaper ps2 with Mario. Its got the new controller that has a lot of potential to make some truly new gaming experiences, and above all, it seems to be properly focussed on delivering the games -- the launch library has a number of titles I already want. Come time to buy, its going to be a nobrainer for a lot of people to pick up the Wii along with several titles vs a PS3 and a single game.
I have to disagree. I believe anyone who would sexually abuse a child should be put down.
OK.
What if they didn't but you think they did? What if they wouldn't but you think they would?
The death penalty is for keeps. Courts have convicted the innocent many times.
Hell, as it is now, all i have to do is hack your box, download a bundle of child-porn and then tip off the authorities. And even if they don't manage to convict you your life is FUCKED. Your relationship with your friends, family, employer, co-workers will range from tainted to ruined forever.
Even if we keep them in prison until they die they use up an available prison spot and continue to damage society by forcing us to pay to feed them and guard them.
Which is why rehabilitation makes more sense than punishment.
We also lose the deterrent affect that executing them would have on future pedophiles.
You are presuming there actually IS a deterrent effect.
From everything I've seen states that cancelled the death penalty did not see a rise in crime, states that implemented it did not see a decrease. And states that have it are no safer than states that do not.
ACtually that doesn't undermine the GP at all. In fact it demonstrates just how pointless this law is. If they make it "illegal" for the 9 year old to buy the game, then 9 year olds will just get it illegally or via some other method.
Hell, while shopping I recently had some kids ask me to buy some PG xbox title on their behalf because the staff was being anal retentive. (I mean really anal retentive; sadly I don't remember what game it was - but these kids were like 12 and the game was like Halo or something.)
So go ahead and pass the law, it won't stop kids from getting their game on. Just as it doesnn't stop them from getting drugs, cigarettes, movies, or porn.
Just when Windows becomes bearably funtional and stable, and the Office suite is mature enough that the average user could run WinXP + Office XP for 10 years without having any reason to upgrade, then they decide that "software-as-a-product" is dead, time to make you start paying monthly for software-as-a-service.
I'm surprised the furniture industry hasn't gotten in on this. Why do they sell chairs, tables, and sofas that last upwards of 10 - 20 years. Clearly the industry should get out of the "furniture as a product" business and move to a subscription or ad-supported "furniture as a service" model.
And for all google's services, I use very few of them because I don't want ads all the time, in everything I do. Even if they don't flash or bounce. Even if they are "relevant". Sometimes I just don't want ads!!
Actually, in my limited time of martial arts sparring when I was young, I noticed that it was the novices and not the experts that seemed to hurt and get hurt more often than the experts. But this was sparring for points, not for damage.
The experts know how to both hit and be hit (and are better at avoiding the hits); they take a lot less damage than novices, and unless they INTEND to deal damage, they deal less damage too.
On the flip side an expert INTENDING to deal damage will deal it a lot more effectively than a novice.
production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection
Not just computers:
Video cameras, still cameras (including cellular phones), tape recorders, photocopiers, fax machines, scanners...
pretty much anything with an "analog capture mode" is capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection......microphones, web cams, pen and paper, sticks and clay
Man, what the hell happened to Tom's Hardware? You guys used to be good.
-rant on
That's an understatement, I remember when they were practically an authority on pc technology. The hardware reviews were relevant, and well done, and the content was well organized.
Now its just a giant sprawling ad-generation scam. Content quality has taken a nose-dive. Their benchmarks which used to be highly informative are usually utterly pointless...(Hint: 15 different games all within 1% of eachother on all the products in question merits a rethink in testing methodology.)
But the breaking point for me was when they introduced "intellitext" - I hate that more than popups. Sure I can block it with ad-block (and I do), but the fact that they are willing to annoy their readers by popping up worthless adds everytime they fail to dodge an ad trigger is ridiculous.
Its worse than the "catch the monkey" adds of a few years back. At least you could just ignore those. Now you *have* to play dodge with the page content. I fear the next big-thing will be ads that actively try to put themselves under your mouse... think intellitext but the keywords chase the mouse instead of just waiting for you run into them... (Hmmm... Patent pending... )
And even the iMac Rainbow of the late 90's, which were colorful to a fault were admirably well thought out in terms of being functional. Sure, upgrading the internals was a royal pain, especially on the earliest models - but those cases were never designed to be opened by their owners; but they were quite functional. The only fault I'd give to modern mac cases is the lack of highly accessible usb ports -- for using with flash drives, cameras, and other similar devices.
The older generation at least had usb ports on the keyboard, but that's gone away with bluetooth/wireless. (And even then those ports weren't generally as well powered.)
Of course this is easily fixed with a usb hub and ipod dock combo device...;)
Slashdot Mirror
The iPod has astonishing market share despite the presence of cheaper, better-equipped alternatives.
A portable mp3 player with another gig of space that plays ogg for 50 bucks less may be a "better-equipped alternative". But the interface isn't as good, I can't share its accessories with my wife and coworkers, and it won't integrate into iTunes or my car stereo. Those are all features too, and they are more important to me than another 150 songs and ogg playback. (Although ogg playback *would* be a welcome addition to the ipod.)
One advantage to having the scaler in the player is that you don't run into video lag if your running the audio and video to different devices.
:)
This is a common problem with entry to mid-range home-theatre HD systems; where the DVD player might have an optical audio run to a surround capable amp, and then run the video to the hdtv (on DVI/HDMI/composite). The result is the video comes out a few nths of a second after the audio because the amp and tv get the signal in at the same time, but the amp immediately pushes it out to the speakers while the TV takes a few nths of a second to process the image before you get to see it on-screen, leading to annoying lip-sync issues. If the DVD was already poorly synced (and so many of those low budget DVD transfers *are* pretty marginal) the extra delay can make them almost unwatchable.
If you run both sound/video into your hdtv it works fine because the tv buffers the audio until the video signal is ready. But if you run the audio to your TV there's no real way to get it into your surround sound system. Few HDTVs have a digital audio pass-thru of any sort.
New higher end receivers have the ability to delay the audio allowing you to manually resync it, but this is a bit of a kludge and the receivers that can do it are usually total overkill for most small scale home theatre applications -- especially in the smallish living rooms in apartments/condos most urbanites have doubling as their "home theatre".
The other solution is to purchase audio delay hardware, but they aren't exactly cheap. (couple hundred plus)
Doing the video processing in the player bypasses the issue (assuming it syncs the audio output; almost all do -- but some of the early & budget progressive scan players don't. Also, its now surprise that newer HDTVs have faster processors so the lag is shrinking but its still a major problem today.
While I agree and hate patents, its worth mentioning that almost everytime anyone here on /. asks what makes the iPod any better than other players, they always rave about how easy and smooth the control interface is and because of that Apple is the one who "really gets it", etc, etc
Creative certainly didn't invent the 'hierarchical menu'. Nor were they the first to use it to make selections in a "device".
Office phone handsets, POS boxes (for swiping credit/debit cards), clock radios, home theatre amplifiers, synthesizers, monitor OSDs, car stereos, cell phones, and countless other devices going back like 30 years have implemented the "hierarchical menu" as a way of making a selection. Most of these menus are absolutely *horrid* to work with, thanks to the awkward controls and poor feedback.
iPods aren't better because they use hierarchical menus. They are better because they made navigating them easy, efficient, and intuitive, using an input method that scales very well even to very large lists. (like artists, or songs in a playlist).
You can turn that off so I'm sure there's a way for the software to get around it.
You can also turn it UP, so that it gives you the "This is not certified" message, and removes the "continue anyways" option.
As for there being ways to work around it. I'm sure there are, but these should be picked up and blocked as HIGHLY suspicious activies by any antivirus product worth having. After all, surreptitiously installing a device driver, bypassing the users policies that prevent it amount to serious malware.
Not to mention illegal hackery on par with the sony rootkit!
MS drivers typically have better quality because it is much easier to write a robust driver when you have access to the OS source (see Linux :-), but that doesn't mean they are flawless.
;)
I dunno their drivers are pretty good. I'd have to admint my OS was 100% stable when it thought my geforce 7800 was a "Standard VGA Adapter" , my Audigy4 was just an "Unknown Multimedia Controller", and my scanner was just a "USB device".
Of course, it wasn't a terribly useful PC at that point, but I had no complaints about stability.
The question of abuse is a very interesting one. I can't imagine how they can solve it reliably, since obviously it is unsolvable: hypothetically I could submit crash reports from my Linux machine.
Clearly they'll just tie it into the Windows Genuine Advantage spyware. Not only will that weed out any submissions from Linux, but they'll be able to cross-ref it with your name, organization name, installed applications, web history and from that be able to determine if you're copy is pirated, whether you work for a competitor, and most importantly whether they should put ads for Fruit-Loops or Special-K next to your email next time you check it...
Food for thought, as I watch my relatives fall victim to severe mental deterioration.
The prospect of losing your mind is far scarier than actually losing it. Because when it actually happens you won't know its missing. Its much harder on those around you.
That said, the early stage Alzheimer's victims I know, while afraid, very pragmatically, just want to make the most of the time they have left before they are gone, exactly what most healthy elderly people say.
Is choking to death on a cancerous lung really preferable? Is being mentally alert but trapped in a rapidly deteriorating body really better than having a deteriorating mind in a healthy body?
Misery
Looking for Misery?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com
Its been a while since I saw that excellent film; ebay might be a good place to pick it up cheap.
Agony
The perfume? I hadn't thought of looking on ebay; its hard to find in stores.
Loss
The memoir deconstructing a young man's response to his mother's death... by Wyatt Van Wendels... maybe ebay can beat Amazon.com's $15 price tag?
plus if you think about it, K is kinda Kool
Kool is also "Bold, Smooth, and Fresh"?
Although KDE probably doesn't want to be linked with it.
http://www.kool.com/
Apple did this?
Nah... it was the RIAA/MPAA!
Although, guys, The Pirate Bay is in Sweden, not Norway.
Closer than usual though.
I haven't looked at the actual firefox extension but it wouldn't make sense to offer encryption and still store the PIN.
It would if the point of encryption is to keep it private *in-transit*. Just as HTTPS doesn't prevent the site you are interacting with to get all that data you submitted, the encryption prevents bystanders from seeing it.
So all this encryption does is give you some security that nobody but google will be able to see it. So if you value your privacy at all the question remains, do you trust google with it? Do you trust google to look out for your interests, even under government pressure?
Just for Now? or Always and Forever?
I'm with that other individual: Is there any extension that does this with an ftp/webdav/... server of *my* choice?
The article refers to replacing USB, and A/V cables.
You describe bluetooth as:
It was purely a personal wireless protocol, short range between paired objects.
The average usb cable is 5 feet. The average A/V cable is 3 feet. Short range: check.
Cables go from one object to another object. Paired: check.
The only spot BT can come up short is throughput -- but then why not a "Bluetooth 2" a faster backwards compatible spec that is to Bluetooth what USB2 is to USB?
Not that I have any dislike of UWB or anything, but really, Bluetooth was designed as a short range cable replacement. USB and A/V cables certainly fit into that world. For longer range connections wireless wifi seems like a better approach, even it uses a protocol that sits on top of ethernet to provide "virtual pairing" or something.
For example, I routinely use serial devices. A long time ago I stopped having them connected directly to my PC, and instead setup virtual serial ports connected over ethernet to connect to serial devices plugged into a LAN. It works great.
Now if I wanted to go wireless the logical step would be to simply make the LAN wireless; not invent some entirely new long range pairing wireless serial cable replacement prototcol.
On that note, I can do and say what I want, becase if they want to come and arrest me over bull, I wont just go quietly, I'll shoot back.
And they'll be sure to mention the damage you did to the little robo-sidekick they sent in to subdue you at your funeral.
I think America's "armed populace" might be just an illusion today. You might as well be running around with hammers and pitchforks for all the good your arms will do you should the goverment turn its army on you.
Take a look at the fighting Iraq. They aren't accomplishing much with handguns and rifles. It seems that all the "incidents" where any sort of blow was struck against the US relied primarily on explosives, grenades, rpgs, etc. This simply isn't the sort of stuff America's armed populace has.
Basically, you're saying that you feel ripped off when there is extra entertainment in a game that you've paid for and you cannot access it because it is too difficult to acquire.
Only if the unlocked content is fun/important to all players. Like trackes, cars, playmodes, critical plot elements, etc. It doesn't bother me if the stuff I can't access is merely a "trophy", or a humourous but irrelevant bonus FMV, or even just more difficult challenges.
Consider a game like Mario Golf for the cube. It advertises a mix of standard and "mushroom kingdom" courses. You only start out with 2 courses if I recall, both very tame. No access to any mushroom kingdom courses at all. You have to win a several tournaments first.
If a player can't do that they miss out on most of the game. My young kids for example primarily like to play multiplayer; so they've got 2 lousy courses to choose from. Whee.
Beating a tournament takes a fair bit of time - 18 holes, and a reasonable amount of skill (and it helps a lot if you unlock the "star" characters that can hit further along the way, a separate challenge). I doubt either my kids (quite young) or my parents (extremely casual players) would have had the patience or ability to do it. But they all enjoy the game, and my kids especially like playing on the mushroom kingdom courses.
It doesn't bother me in the least that to progress to the next tournament I have to beat the previous one. It *does* bother me that my kids had to wait until I beat a few tournaments before they could fool around on a mushroom kingdom course with their grandparents.
Because I've unlocked much of the game they can enjoy the game far more. If I hadn't it would be a crappy golf game with 2 boring courses, and they would never play it. Definately would be a ripoff for them.
Would you feel less ripped off if that content were never put in the game?
In the case of Mario golf, for example, I would never have paid 50 dollars for a game with 2 lousy courses.
Kind of like you meant to post this in your reply right?
:)
If the input gets set to html, and you don't explicitly put in
or
then it ignores paragraph breaks as whitespace and condenses everything into one paragraph.
Cheers,
Yes, it's tedious, yes, it's jumping through hoops. Your reward is major plot points and FMV sequences that you cannot view in any other way, except maybe Gameshark codes or something.
Which I contend is wrong. MAJOR plot points etc should not be locked away where only a small percentage of the most dedicated players will be able to find and unlock them.
I'm sorry that you have to work so hard to unlock driving a cement truck. But honestly, the game was not written to race a cement truck, or it would be called "Cement Truck Driving." Those features are extras, designed to reward people who truly enjoy the game, to give them a little additional content to hold them over before the next game comes out.
Yet that is some of the most enjoyable content in the game, for all players, once unlocked. My 3 year old loves plowing around with a cement truck; its her favorite part of the game -- she wouldn't be able to unlock that mode no matter how hard she tried, period. It just doesn't make sense to place things that would be fun for novice players behind gates that only grand-masters can open.
I propose designers either put things behind those gates that have no real value, like "trophys" or "high scores", or other status symbols, or if you must hide content, hide stuff that actually needs "grand master" like skill to enjoy. Like the secret robot-cyborg level in the original Doom 1, or unlocking Nightmare/Hell/Hardcore (permadeath) difficulties in Diablo II.
For another example, in the Everquest "Planes of Power" expansion, you had to defeat a series of bosses to allow your character to progress to the higher planes. These battles were major encounters involving 3-6 dozen people or more. Conceptually this was great; players who were unable to defeat the "first bosses" really had no business fighting the "later bosses", so in theory if a player couldn't unlock something it was no real loss because the content it unlocked was even harder... in practice it was HORRIBLY FLAWED.
Several of the "higher level planes" had plenty of content a casual player could explore and enjoy; but it was virtually impossible to get there because they had to get into these highly organized large groups and execute fairly complex strategies as a large group to "unlock" access to the content first, which of course was impossible for many of them to do.
These players paid for the full expansion; many of them still (several years later) can't access the higher planes.
Unlockables are exactly the opposite for me. I often go through a game once just playing the basics (like FFX-2) and then go back and start over trying to get "everything" in the game, because its got replayability and there's a secondary challenge now. Then, having failed to do that the second time through, I'll try it a third.
What has *that* to do with unlockables? The fact that you CAN go back and collect all the coins, or stars, or clear out every dungeon and get your completion score to 100% doesn't bother anybody. If someone likes that sort of exploration/replay/whatever style of play, that's fine. The reward is seeing that high score, or 100% complete, or whatever.
The problem is when you HAVE to do that in order to access other major parts of the game.
If the unlockables were simply "even harder" like having to beat it on hard before you can do it in impossible, or you unlock races against Porsche GTs where you have a Toyota corolla, or you have to run a time trial with even less time -- those aren't bad unlockables.
The problem, to make an extreme example, is when you aren't allowed to use the Porsche GT until you've beaten the game driving stick without any paint scratches. And then to use the Ferrari Enzo you have to beat the entire game AGAIN, with the Porsche GT driving stick without any scratches, with the ebrake on.
And -then- with the enzo you can finally make the jumps required to unlock the UFO, VW miniwan, cement truck, and the bonus science fiction space-themed track.
Those fun features really shouldn't be available only to people who pissed away an entire summer on the game (and those who cheat).
It gets on my nerves when people refuse to use a simple f***ing paragraph break when they have something legitimate to say.
:)
Blame slashdots UI for part it.
It drives me nuts. If the input gets set to html, and you don't explicitly put in <p> or <br> then it ignores paragraph breaks as whitespace and condenses everything into one paragraph. It drives me nuts... I've had a few of my posts get mangled by it; because I usually post in plain-text, but sometimes slashdot defaults to html for some reason. And once you submit there's no going back.
(yeah yeah... that's what preview is for... spare me
Look at the specs for the xbox and the 360, then just use some common sense.
... would not have been any less craptastic if they added in sweat.
Yes lets use some common sense. More Polygons and Effects don't automatically make games more fun.
The remake of Resident Evil with updated graphics didn't make the game more fun.
Quake 4 wasn't 20x more fun than Quake 2; despite the huge leaps in gfx technology.
Call of Duty 2 would still be a great game even if you couldn't see the guys sweat. And a crappy xbox-1 FPS (pick whichver you hated most)
Plenty of people STILL use 5900 series cards. They are playing the same latest games with them as someone with a brand new card. And while they might not have the gfx options maxed out, they are enjoying the game pretty much the same as someone who does. If the game sucks both the 5900 and 7800 players will agree it sucks... if the game was great both groups will agree. No doubt the extra eye candy, and smoother framerate at higher resolution will give the richer player more to see; but unless the game is outright unplayable due to shit framerate or something the player on a lower-end card will enjoy the game about the same.
Consider a PS3 + 1 game (no point in owning it without 1 game) will run around $700 after taxes. For 700 bucks you can probably get a Wii, a 2nd controller, and 4+ games for that $700.
The Wii's graphics will be DVD quality; the PS3's will be HD. If the price were close, yeah, I'd go with HD. But they aren't close.
Wii has a major advantage right now. Yeah, the market droids and salespeople are going to tell consumers how much more powerful the PS3 is, and a lot of consumer-sheep are going to buy into the idea... sadly even the ones without an HD tv to even take advantage of it. But the price is going to be hard to swallow if the Wii is sitting next to it at half the price; with graphics that hold their own. Parents will be thinking to themselves, that they can get a couple more games, a 2nd controller, or (-gasp-) they could even get their kid something else too this year.
At the end of the day, its going to come down to the games. If the PS3 shows up with a lot of must have exclusives it will fare alright. If all the important titles are on the xbox360 or wii, or are multi-platform releases it will be in serious trouble.
And this time round, the Nintendo system isn't just a cheaper ps2 with Mario. Its got the new controller that has a lot of potential to make some truly new gaming experiences, and above all, it seems to be properly focussed on delivering the games -- the launch library has a number of titles I already want. Come time to buy, its going to be a nobrainer for a lot of people to pick up the Wii along with several titles vs a PS3 and a single game.
I have to disagree. I believe anyone who would sexually abuse a child should be put down.
OK.
What if they didn't but you think they did?
What if they wouldn't but you think they would?
The death penalty is for keeps. Courts have convicted the innocent many times.
Hell, as it is now, all i have to do is hack your box, download a bundle of child-porn and then tip off the authorities. And even if they don't manage to convict you your life is FUCKED. Your relationship with your friends, family, employer, co-workers will range from tainted to ruined forever.
Even if we keep them in prison until they die they use up an available prison spot and continue to damage society by forcing us to pay to feed them and guard them.
Which is why rehabilitation makes more sense than punishment.
We also lose the deterrent affect that executing them would have on future pedophiles.
You are presuming there actually IS a deterrent effect.
From everything I've seen states that cancelled the death penalty did not see a rise in crime, states that implemented it did not see a decrease. And states that have it are no safer than states that do not.
ACtually that doesn't undermine the GP at all. In fact it demonstrates just how pointless this law is. If they make it "illegal" for the 9 year old to buy the game, then 9 year olds will just get it illegally or via some other method.
Hell, while shopping I recently had some kids ask me to buy some PG xbox title on their behalf because the staff was being anal retentive. (I mean really anal retentive; sadly I don't remember what game it was - but these kids were like 12 and the game was like Halo or something.)
So go ahead and pass the law, it won't stop kids from getting their game on. Just as it doesnn't stop them from getting drugs, cigarettes, movies, or porn.
Figures,
Just when Windows becomes bearably funtional and stable, and the Office suite is mature enough that the average user could run WinXP + Office XP for 10 years without having any reason to upgrade, then they decide that "software-as-a-product" is dead, time to make you start paying monthly for software-as-a-service.
I'm surprised the furniture industry hasn't gotten in on this. Why do they sell chairs, tables, and sofas that last upwards of 10 - 20 years. Clearly the industry should get out of the "furniture as a product" business and move to a subscription or ad-supported "furniture as a service" model.
And for all google's services, I use very few of them because I don't want ads all the time, in everything I do. Even if they don't flash or bounce. Even if they are "relevant". Sometimes I just don't want ads!!
Actually, in my limited time of martial arts sparring when I was young, I noticed that it was the novices and not the experts that seemed to hurt and get hurt more often than the experts. But this was sparring for points, not for damage.
The experts know how to both hit and be hit (and are better at avoiding the hits); they take a lot less damage than novices, and unless they INTEND to deal damage, they deal less damage too.
On the flip side an expert INTENDING to deal damage will deal it a lot more effectively than a novice.
The same is generally true in most sports.
production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection
...microphones, web cams, pen and paper, sticks and clay
Not just computers:
Video cameras, still cameras (including cellular phones), tape recorders, photocopiers, fax machines, scanners...
pretty much anything with an "analog capture mode" is capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection...
Man, what the hell happened to Tom's Hardware? You guys used to be good.
-rant on
That's an understatement, I remember when they were practically an authority on pc technology. The hardware reviews were relevant, and well done, and the content was well organized.
Now its just a giant sprawling ad-generation scam. Content quality has taken a nose-dive. Their benchmarks which used to be highly informative are usually utterly pointless...(Hint: 15 different games all within 1% of eachother on all the products in question merits a rethink in testing methodology.)
But the breaking point for me was when they introduced "intellitext" - I hate that more than popups. Sure I can block it with ad-block (and I do), but the fact that they are willing to annoy their readers by popping up worthless adds everytime they fail to dodge an ad trigger is ridiculous.
Its worse than the "catch the monkey" adds of a few years back. At least you could just ignore those. Now you *have* to play dodge with the page content. I fear the next big-thing will be ads that actively try to put themselves under your mouse... think intellitext but the keywords chase the mouse instead of just waiting for you run into them... (Hmmm... Patent pending... )
-rant off...
Apparently you've never seen the G5 case, as they are truly works of art.
l arge.jpg
n _case.jpg
;)
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:PowermacG5_
http://www.starcoder.com/blog/static_links/g5_ope
And even the iMac Rainbow of the late 90's, which were colorful to a fault were admirably well thought out in terms of being functional. Sure, upgrading the internals was a royal pain, especially on the earliest models - but those cases were never designed to be opened by their owners; but they were quite functional. The only fault I'd give to modern mac cases is the lack of highly accessible usb ports -- for using with flash drives, cameras, and other similar devices.
The older generation at least had usb ports on the keyboard, but that's gone away with bluetooth/wireless. (And even then those ports weren't generally as well powered.)
Of course this is easily fixed with a usb hub and ipod dock combo device...
-cheers,