It seems to me as just another example of basic human arrogance to assume that in the miniscule amount of time we've been actively looking for extraterrestrial life it's meaningful that we haven't yet been successful.
Personal viewpoints on censorship aside, I'd be hesitant to break any Chinese laws while in China.
Why, my dad just returned from a 14-year stint in a red Chinese prison...
I use Sage TV (http://www.sage.tv/) on XP (If you're going to end up going that route anyways). It's been pretty reliable and I like the interface.
I've also considered moving to Windows 7. I hear the media center functionality built in is pretty robust.
What evidence?
The company knows ratings boards well. That's great. Obviously, not as well as you think they do. Next.
To address your second point, the article claims the game is "both less and more extreme". I don't know that it really gives a lot of weight to your argument. And the review boards have access to far more content than "everyone you know" who has seen it.
Your third claim is timing. Timing? That's evidence? The ESRB notifies the publisher 30 days prior to publicly releasing its decision. I'm not aware of the British policies, but regardless, you haven't proven the timing is anything more than coincidental. And further, so what? Do you think every ratings board has the exact same process and should complete their reviews in exactly the same amount of time?
Lastly, a special interest group. Shocker! Special interest groups have been puuting pressure on the ratings boards since their inception. That's nothing new, and is at any rate not related to whether or not the British decision had any impact on the ESRB decision or vice versa.
I think we should be applauding the ESRB decision. Many of the people so vehemently against violence in video games would like to see them all banned. The ESRB is the industry-supported method for content rating and review, and as such is the gaming community's best defense against those that would rather see this sort of entertainment wiped out entirely. If the ESRB deems content worthy of AO, then so be it. We live in the digital age. Who give's a rat's ass if WalMart won't carry it?
Your logic is interesting. Rather than assuming the content of the game was the reason for the rating, you imagine the ESRB rated it AO because Britain banned it?
I believe the circle he refers to is more along the lines of Lord of the Rings was the impetus for tabletop RPGs which begat CRPGs which evolved into MMORPGs and now goes back to Lord of the Rings. Convoluted, perhaps, but not as nonsensical as you suggest.
Not true. For Outlook 2000, patch the underlying OS and things will be just fine. The same applies to Exchange 5.5, patch the OS and you'll be fine as far as basic Exchange services go. It's Exchange 5.5 CDO applications, like OWA, that don't have a publicly available patch. The worst case scenerio for most people is your appointments show up an hour late during the extended DST period, and Microsoft has released tools to fix the appointments themselves - and the tool works on Exchange 5.5. An upgrade is certainly not a requirement.
Hillary's dynastic candidacy bothers me for the same reason that the dynastic candidacy of George W Bush did, when I first heard about him in 1999 or 98 or whenever it was. I immediately assumed that I was only hearing about this guy, not because of any competence he had, but because of who his Daddy was. And guess what.
Agree wholeheartedly. If Hillary is elected we'll have close to a quarter century in which the presidency was held by members of only two families. I think it would be a sad comment on what it takes to get to the top in American politics.
This is Big Brother Online. Why not just mandate every US citizen wear a video camera, gps tracking device, and voice recorder at all times? All data streamed wirelessly to the nearest DHS office.
This is a change from previous versions of Windows, which only required a valid license key.
This isn't entirely true. The Windows 95 upgrades required verification of a previous version (Windows or DOS) as well. If you didn't already have a previous version installed, it would accept the insertion of one of the install disks for an earlier OS version.
I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).
Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?
Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.
In this round, I see the possibility for Sony to lose big. Of course PS3's will sell better as the games improve in number and quality. The question is will the the games be enough of a quantum leap over the 360 to justify the cost differential and foster greater adoption?
I've been playing multiplayer FPS since Doom. I've probably got over 2,500 hours of CounterStrike logged. I've been in a couple clans and have participated in a couple tournaments. I'm not world-class, but I know what I'm doing and can hold my own against most opponents. I've all but quit playing multiplayer though. Between the bunnyhopping and the teamkilling and the incessant homophobic chatter, it's just not fun.
To me, having fun in multiplayer requires a stable and reliable server that has a good group of regulars. Finding that when I was in college was no problem, but I haven't got that kind of time anymore. When I have time to play, I want to sit down and play. I can do that with a single-player game.
To reply to your Kasperov analogy - playing against 4th graders is excactly what I'm avoiding by playing single player.
Don't be an ass. There are plenty of subpar online players as well, and undoubtedly plenty of people who excel at FPS but would rather not be bothered by the hacks and cheats and immature behavior that flourishes in so many of the multiplayer venues, so confine most of their playtime to the single-player games and/or maps.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me as just another example of basic human arrogance to assume that in the miniscule amount of time we've been actively looking for extraterrestrial life it's meaningful that we haven't yet been successful.
Personal viewpoints on censorship aside, I'd be hesitant to break any Chinese laws while in China. Why, my dad just returned from a 14-year stint in a red Chinese prison...
...does it come with 3D glasses?
What's Verizon got to do with anything here?
I use Sage TV (http://www.sage.tv/) on XP (If you're going to end up going that route anyways). It's been pretty reliable and I like the interface. I've also considered moving to Windows 7. I hear the media center functionality built in is pretty robust.
I think you're the one that missed something obvious.
I think their only real competition is the Phantom.
What evidence? The company knows ratings boards well. That's great. Obviously, not as well as you think they do. Next. To address your second point, the article claims the game is "both less and more extreme". I don't know that it really gives a lot of weight to your argument. And the review boards have access to far more content than "everyone you know" who has seen it. Your third claim is timing. Timing? That's evidence? The ESRB notifies the publisher 30 days prior to publicly releasing its decision. I'm not aware of the British policies, but regardless, you haven't proven the timing is anything more than coincidental. And further, so what? Do you think every ratings board has the exact same process and should complete their reviews in exactly the same amount of time? Lastly, a special interest group. Shocker! Special interest groups have been puuting pressure on the ratings boards since their inception. That's nothing new, and is at any rate not related to whether or not the British decision had any impact on the ESRB decision or vice versa. I think we should be applauding the ESRB decision. Many of the people so vehemently against violence in video games would like to see them all banned. The ESRB is the industry-supported method for content rating and review, and as such is the gaming community's best defense against those that would rather see this sort of entertainment wiped out entirely. If the ESRB deems content worthy of AO, then so be it. We live in the digital age. Who give's a rat's ass if WalMart won't carry it?
Your logic is interesting. Rather than assuming the content of the game was the reason for the rating, you imagine the ESRB rated it AO because Britain banned it?
I believe the circle he refers to is more along the lines of Lord of the Rings was the impetus for tabletop RPGs which begat CRPGs which evolved into MMORPGs and now goes back to Lord of the Rings. Convoluted, perhaps, but not as nonsensical as you suggest.
You don't need to leave a bag open to switch between a pick and an axe, just drag the implements to a quick-slot bar for single click access.
You can either use tzedit from Microsoft or the unofficial IntelliAdmin patch. I used IntelliAdmin, no poking about necessary.
This article says Outlook 2000 is fine as long as the OS is patched: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/dst_topissues
This article discusses how CDO is the only reason Exchange needs to be patched: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926666
The Outlook appointment tool is here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931667
The Exchange server version is here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930879
Not true. For Outlook 2000, patch the underlying OS and things will be just fine. The same applies to Exchange 5.5, patch the OS and you'll be fine as far as basic Exchange services go. It's Exchange 5.5 CDO applications, like OWA, that don't have a publicly available patch. The worst case scenerio for most people is your appointments show up an hour late during the extended DST period, and Microsoft has released tools to fix the appointments themselves - and the tool works on Exchange 5.5. An upgrade is certainly not a requirement.
This is Big Brother Online. Why not just mandate every US citizen wear a video camera, gps tracking device, and voice recorder at all times? All data streamed wirelessly to the nearest DHS office.
My bad. Fixed link.
Actually, this is the guy that made his living saying IT doesn't matter.
Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?
Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.
In this round, I see the possibility for Sony to lose big. Of course PS3's will sell better as the games improve in number and quality. The question is will the the games be enough of a quantum leap over the 360 to justify the cost differential and foster greater adoption?
High-school nickname was Troll for other reasons, and I drive a Firebird Formula. And now I'm offtopic (but informative nonetheless).
On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
I've been playing multiplayer FPS since Doom. I've probably got over 2,500 hours of CounterStrike logged. I've been in a couple clans and have participated in a couple tournaments. I'm not world-class, but I know what I'm doing and can hold my own against most opponents. I've all but quit playing multiplayer though. Between the bunnyhopping and the teamkilling and the incessant homophobic chatter, it's just not fun. To me, having fun in multiplayer requires a stable and reliable server that has a good group of regulars. Finding that when I was in college was no problem, but I haven't got that kind of time anymore. When I have time to play, I want to sit down and play. I can do that with a single-player game. To reply to your Kasperov analogy - playing against 4th graders is excactly what I'm avoiding by playing single player.
Don't be an ass. There are plenty of subpar online players as well, and undoubtedly plenty of people who excel at FPS but would rather not be bothered by the hacks and cheats and immature behavior that flourishes in so many of the multiplayer venues, so confine most of their playtime to the single-player games and/or maps.