We would like to build a version to be displayed at E3 2007 as part of game company's booth.
Mabye someone should kindly inform them that the E3 as we knew it with booth babes and huge displays is dead. If oceans of demo Wii systems can't sell Nintendo products, a life-size Mario simulation that will bring joy to 10-15 E.B. and Gamestop employees certainly won't.
Ok...Every time I read an article like this, and I see sites like Google and Yahoo referenced as "portals", I go a little crazy. I think of sites like, http://weed.com/ as a true portal. I know the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal is a little broad, saying that they are, "sites on the World Wide Web that typically provide personalized capabilities to their visitors," but c'mon here...just because you can customize your Google or Yahoo homepage doesn't make it a Portal IMHO. A true portal to me is a domain squatter buying a name like, googles.com or ytahoo.com and putting a crapload of ads and "related" searches on it. I really think there needs to be a clear distinction between the two types of sites, instead of a branching term for any site that offfers custom content. Seriously...that would mean http://www.amazon.com/ is a portal because I can customize my User Account screen.
Registering new products is fair, but removing functionality from already-purchased old products... that's just low.
Just to play devil's advocate here, what they're doing is perfectly fair. Since you said that you wanted to buy Half-Life used at a thrift store means that you were not the original owner. So your choices were as follows:
1. Buy a new copy for 20-50 dollars in store (if we are talking a few years ago here).
2. Buy a used copy for 1 dollar, re-register it for 10.
Excluding sales tax, you still save 9 dollars getting the thrift store version. You aren't having to re-register something you already own--that would be a crime. This is just their way of making sure everybody playing Half-Life / C.S. / whatever isn't playing their friend's burned copy.
Perhaps to help draw interest from the non comp-sci crowd, you could set up one "recreation" of a nerd's setup from pop culture, i.e. David Lightman's setup in wargames with the IMSAI 8080 computer, modem, etc. Of course, empty cans of soda, bags of chips, and Playboy magazines scattered around the desk would be necessary for the full effect as well.
I think an important point for the burn / re-rip crowd and the AAC to FLAC or OGG crowd is that if you are a "true audiophile" you wouldn't even deal with digitized music in the first place. You would be more concerned with finding an audiophile-grade turntable to connect to your 20,000 dollar Mark Levinson amplifier. So lossy AAC files vs. hi-bitrate MP3's vs. lossless filetypes is a non-issue.
I seem to have forgotten, but I do recall reading somewhere about Ray Kurzweil's involvement in CCD scanning. I know he utilized the technology in his sight reading machines for the blind, and he made some sort of deal involving the scanning technology with Xerox. Anyone else remember this? I don't have my copy of The Age of Spiritual Machines handy.
One popular view of the cellphone gaming industry is that it's the place where they exile people who couldn't cut it in the console and PC game industry.
Oh, and don't succumb to the temptation to get the SR-80s just because they've got a higher model number. The 60s are far better for non-amp-driven listening.
I would disagree with this. I also was looing for high quality headphones awhile ago, and Grado came up in many audiophile circles. The difference between the SR 60's and the SR 80's is that the SR 80's have a better bass response. Emphasise the word "response". This means that if the sound mix on a cd has a lot of low frequencies, it will reproduce them accurately, not "BASS BOOST" them a la Sony. Don't get me wrong, the SR 60's are a great set of phones, but there is a noticable difference in sound quality.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
We would like to build a version to be displayed at E3 2007 as part of game company's booth.
Mabye someone should kindly inform them that the E3 as we knew it with booth babes and huge displays is dead. If oceans of demo Wii systems can't sell Nintendo products, a life-size Mario simulation that will bring joy to 10-15 E.B. and Gamestop employees certainly won't.
Ok...Every time I read an article like this, and I see sites like Google and Yahoo referenced as "portals", I go a little crazy. I think of sites like, http://weed.com/ as a true portal. I know the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal is a little broad, saying that they are, "sites on the World Wide Web that typically provide personalized capabilities to their visitors," but c'mon here...just because you can customize your Google or Yahoo homepage doesn't make it a Portal IMHO. A true portal to me is a domain squatter buying a name like, googles.com or ytahoo.com and putting a crapload of ads and "related" searches on it. I really think there needs to be a clear distinction between the two types of sites, instead of a branching term for any site that offfers custom content. Seriously...that would mean http://www.amazon.com/ is a portal because I can customize my User Account screen.
This Blue Screen of "Life" is sponsored by Blue Shield Health Insurance.
Finally! Now that movie Contact doesn't have any scientific merit! (Like it did before...)
Registering new products is fair, but removing functionality from already-purchased old products... that's just low.
Just to play devil's advocate here, what they're doing is perfectly fair. Since you said that you wanted to buy Half-Life used at a thrift store means that you were not the original owner. So your choices were as follows:
1. Buy a new copy for 20-50 dollars in store (if we are talking a few years ago here).
2. Buy a used copy for 1 dollar, re-register it for 10.
Excluding sales tax, you still save 9 dollars getting the thrift store version. You aren't having to re-register something you already own--that would be a crime. This is just their way of making sure everybody playing Half-Life / C.S. / whatever isn't playing their friend's burned copy.
Perhaps to help draw interest from the non comp-sci crowd, you could set up one "recreation" of a nerd's setup from pop culture, i.e. David Lightman's setup in wargames with the IMSAI 8080 computer, modem, etc. Of course, empty cans of soda, bags of chips, and Playboy magazines scattered around the desk would be necessary for the full effect as well.
I think an important point for the burn / re-rip crowd and the AAC to FLAC or OGG crowd is that if you are a "true audiophile" you wouldn't even deal with digitized music in the first place. You would be more concerned with finding an audiophile-grade turntable to connect to your 20,000 dollar Mark Levinson amplifier. So lossy AAC files vs. hi-bitrate MP3's vs. lossless filetypes is a non-issue.
I seem to have forgotten, but I do recall reading somewhere about Ray Kurzweil's involvement in CCD scanning. I know he utilized the technology in his sight reading machines for the blind, and he made some sort of deal involving the scanning technology with Xerox. Anyone else remember this? I don't have my copy of The Age of Spiritual Machines handy.
Tell that to John Romero.
This is a rebought Atari. The orginial Atari already had gone under and been rebought by Infogrames. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATARI)
I would disagree with this. I also was looing for high quality headphones awhile ago, and Grado came up in many audiophile circles. The difference between the SR 60's and the SR 80's is that the SR 80's have a better bass response. Emphasise the word "response". This means that if the sound mix on a cd has a lot of low frequencies, it will reproduce them accurately, not "BASS BOOST" them a la Sony. Don't get me wrong, the SR 60's are a great set of phones, but there is a noticable difference in sound quality.