• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 20

My comments

• EA destroyed [company] today. They fired all of the staff, but will continue to milk the now soulless franchises, doing even more damage to the already hobbling US gaming industry.
  
  Seriously, keep that 2 line article on file. Every 4-6 months, reprint it, replacing [company] with whoever they wrecked this time. That's pretty much all you need to explain their entire business. In reply to: "EA closes Pandemic Studios unit"

  November 18, 2009

  0 replies

• Ok, I know "allegedly" is standard when someone hasn't been convicted yet, but... he publicly posted video of him doing it. Is there REALLY any question of guilt here? :P In reply to: "Man allegedly steals bus, posts video on YouTube"

  November 14, 2009

  0 replies

• Lack of 3rd party games has been a problem for Nintendo on pretty much every post-SNES system, and the Wii is no exception. If they can fix that, do away with "friend codes", and get a real online platform up and running, they'll have another system as famous as the SNES. Until they do though, they're going to continue to be looked at as that system you buy if you already have the main one of its generation - because you're only buying it for what Nintendo themselves produces.
  
  That being said, EA, the company that pretty much crippled the US gaming industry, probably shouldn't be the guys trying to fix this. Pretty much everything they touch, they destroy. I've lost count of how many game companies I used to like starting to turn out crap - or just plain die, after EA took them over. In reply to: "EA chief: The Wii is 'weaker than anticipated'"

  November 11, 2009

  0 replies

• I fail to see what Silverlight does that Flash doesn't. Flash is pretty much the de facto standard, and as such, is installed on the overwhelming majority of browsers - some even include it by default since it's pretty much inevitable you'll be grabbing it at some point. Most users, on the other hand, have never even HEARD of Silverlight. If they want it to be successful, it needs to do more than have a cool name and a fancy marketing campaign, there needs to be a reason to use it over Flash - enough that animators actually learn the platform, and users don't question the install.
  
  It seems similar to Bing - sure, Bing is a big improvement over the old MSN Search, but it needs to either A. Beat Google in general or B. Be especially good at a particular type of search, making it a great secondary engine for places where Google is weak. It fails to do both, and the massive ad campaign they're running isn't going to change that.
  
  MS needs to learn that on the web, you're not making deals with clueless CEOs that can barely use a computer, you're making them on the development side directly with the developers - who choose to use your platform or not, and with users, who decide if you bring anything new to the technology. Marketing may get people on your site, but if you don't have a reason for them to STAY on the site once you get them there, you don't have any users... and you can't just destroy all of your competitors like MS normally does - the web evolves too fast for that. MS needs to learn actual innovation, or they're going to continue to fall behind. In reply to: "Microsoft hopes users see the (Silver) light"

  July 10, 2009

  7 replies

• Over 90% of Usenet is text-only groups... it's basically the world's oldest forum system, and it's completely unmoderated (with the exception of a VERY small number of *.moderated groups). Discussions of pretty much every topic imaginable exist, and it's low resource requirement makes it especially popular in countries where broadband and/or reliable connections aren't widely available.
  
  It's unmoderated nature unfortunately also means it's heavily spammed, which has made it far less popular than it was in the past, but it remains an excellent source of both information and discussions/debates/etc, as well as having groups that are more for silly fun.
  
  There are also binary groups which files are uploaded too. Like the rest of Usenet, these groups are categorized, so you can simply browse by category tree to find what you want (or use a search tool if you know a file name or subject line you're looking for.) These groups are also unmoderated, so it goes without saying that is a good amount of illegal material - both in the copyright and the "this used to be classified" sense.
  
  These files, however, account for a really, really, tiny portion of Usenet. Much like every forum system in the world occasionally gets illegal stuff uploaded to it.
  
  What's important to understand is that Usenet is an ad hoc network - there are no central servers for a group, servers simply feed each other whatever gets posted to them - continuously, and automatically. Attempting to filter copyrighted material off of your server is impossible, as it's not just a question of what got posted to yours, it's what it's automatically pulling in from THOUSANDS of other servers. Furthermore, Usenet has over 200,000 groups - yes, that isn't a typo. It is not possible to find every infringing file in hundreds of thousands of groups, which thousands of different feeds supplying your server's version of each group.
  
  Service providers have long been protected from the actions of their users, as courts have understood that being required to police content would make a small company instantly backrupt, and a large one forced to have a HUGE policing staff, which they would only be able to pay for by passing the enormous bill onto customers. The second the safe harbor laws are no longer in effect, the entire internet as we know it is effectively dead.
  
  IANAL, but this is likely a VERY dangerous precedent, which could be used to sue ISPs, modern forum admins... and well, pretty much anyone that allows a user to contribute anything in any way..
  
  The only reason the RIAA won this case is that sadly, very few people know how Usenet actually works... including apparently the author of this blog. Please do a bit of research next time. In reply to: "RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case"

  June 30, 2009

  2 replies

• Currently, the RIAA screws bands over to the point that they make ~$0.25 per album sale. Concerts are pretty much the only way a band can actually make money because of this. So yes, I think prices are higher than they should be, but unless the RIAA collapses, I don't think that's going to be changing any time soon. In reply to: "Poll: Are concert ticket prices too high?"

  May 30, 2009

  1 reply

• Professionaladventurer, they don't sell weapons because those require background checks and registration, with laws on how to handle that varying from state to state, as well as which weapons are and aren't legal to own varying from state to state.
  
  Suppose you buy a sword. Some states say as long as it isn't sold sharpened, no requirements are required. Some require you to present proof of age to the seller and a signature acknowledging you take responsibility for its use or misuse. Some allow sharpened blades up to a certain length, some don't allow anything sharp unless it can be used in your kitchen. What about double-edged blades? In some states that's automatically illegal, in some it lowers the allowed length of sharpness, in some they don't care, only length matters.
  
  ...and that's swords. Gun laws are far, FAR more complicated, and a site like craigslist simply doesn't have the resources to handle figuring out which sales are legal.
  
  On the other hand, the only standard for 2 people meeting for sex is that it can't involve money, and everyone involved must consent. If you're posting an offer or replying to accept one, by definition, you've consented. As for the money standard, that's a pretty universal rule, and with only a single rule to watch out for, the chances users will flag an ad that violates it are rather high.
  
  I think it weapon laws were consistent, they'd allow them, but as it stands, there's just too much crap to keep track of. In reply to: "Craigslist founder: No plans to shut down Erotic Services"

  April 25, 2009

  1 reply

• What it really comes down are 4 simple factors.
  1. XP works fine, and there's no software you could possibly need that won't run on XP.
  2. Vista introduces extra annoyances, many compatibility problems, and requires more resources to run. (Saying you can turn the extra resource using stuff off means saying you should turn all the advantages of Vista off... and it does NOT justify the absurd memory requirements of these features.)
  3. Vista is FAR more expensive than XP.
  4. Vista does have some advantages over XP... but not many.
  So... take a look at what you gain in #4. Is it worth dealing with #2? Most people say no.
  If you decide it IS worth it, is it still worth it when you see the pricetag? Most people say no who didn't already.
  
  In reality, Vista may not be as bad as many say it is (and really, it isn't), but that isn't the standard to buy it on. The big question is whether it's worth dropping XP for it, and the overwhelming majority of people at all levels of computer skill have agreed - it isn't. Vista's sales figures are a reflection of that simple fact, and no amount of marketing spin by MS is going to change that. If they want to see real sales on Windows 7, they're going to have to clean up the mess they made of Vista, offer a few compelling reasons to upgrade like they did with 98 and XP... oh, and losing the 7-tier sales model designed to milk more money out of an already hesitant customer base probably wouldn't hurt either.
  
  ITComposer -
  Sure, IE is more secure in Vista than XP. Firefox, however, is more secure than IE regardless of what OS you run it on, and has a convenient price tag of 0. If you're worried about browser security, there's your answer. (Opera and Chrome of course, are also options, though I'd recommend FF as its larger userbase means both faster patches and more addons.)
  Yes, you can shut off the few good things that make Vista different from XP... but then you have XP with extra annoyances, and you're paying twice as much for it - so you're paying for pretty much literally nothing.
  A+ certification is a joke - pretty much anyone can get that, and it proves you know only the very, very, basics of computer maintenance and repair, if that.
  It sounds to me like you're one of those people who makes a lot of money "upgrading" companies to Vista, and so it's in your best interest to convince them to use it. In reply to: "What's so bad about XP?"

  February 9, 2009

  1 reply

• It'd be nice if what Comcast said actually matched reality. If I run a single torrent capped at a tiny fraction of my bandwidth at 4 in the morning, my entire connection slows to a crawl. If I pause the torrent, it'll return to normal a minute or two later.
  While I'm not sure what they consider "peak time", and "abnormally high congestion", I can say pretty confidently that neither of those occurs at 4 AM.
  I'm glad the FCC is stepping in here, because if don't go after one company for this, it won't be long before all the major ones do it. In reply to: "FCC set to punish Comcast on P2P blocking"

  July 26, 2008

  2 replies

• ...so in other words, they're doing exactly what Kongregate did a year or two ago, and Newgrounds did several years before that, just without the stuff that actually ensures they match the library size of either of those sites, and with some extra roadblocks so make people not want to use their service. In reply to: "AddictingGames makes social-network play"

  July 16, 2008

  0 replies