That's not an apology. It's a justification disguised as an apology:

"This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle"

The customers didn't buy them illegally. The customers don't CARE that Amazon sold them illegally. The customers had a book. Amazon deleted their book. The "illegally sold" portion of the 'apology' is unnecessary turn of phrase that attempts to justify Amazon's actions.

I also agree with the other poster that pointed out that Amazon included a remote-wipe capability in the product - so apparently their principles include doing THAT, but not using it?

Right....

How about a real apology now?

Agreed. There is more gore in most prime-tv cop dramas than that??

I'm a bit confused by the people who are calling it violent and gory? Is it gory because of the red puddles? An arm was spewing blood for a brief second, but it was hardly gore.

Watch Dead Alive. That's good, lovely, gore.

Sorry HT PRO4, but my first thoughts were along the line of Patrick's. I have yet to meet a BB employee that doesn't make my eyes roll.

Also, for future reference, certifications make people with relevant degrees laugh.

Now get back to hocking your Monster cables.

Definitely the flying spaghetti monster. Imagine the modeling of hundreds of pieces of spaghetti.

I also have to question the "beta" comment? This is the only game on any of my systems that I play regularly (previously GoW) and it seems completely stable to me.

As blasphemous as it may seem, I almost wish they made this for the 360 so that it got some of the recognition it deserved.

"Of all the big games coming to the PS3, which this is supposed to be one of them, I think it looks awful."


I thought the same thing until I actually got into the beta. Once you play it, I think you'll understand. The world/battlegrounds are just SOOO expansive, and there are so many different approaches to how you can play - it's just amazing. Once you see it all in motion, I think you'll be impressed. I haven't seen any other games (PC or 360) that pull off quite the same experience as this game.

If I didn't have so many friends w/ 360s who are planning to get Halo 3, I would (based on the respective demos) never touch Halo 3 if I had the option of playing Warhawk.

For those who see this as a long battle, you might want to look at the original DVD vs DIVX (no, not DivX) "war". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX)

Although DIVX survived a year, it was initially supported (OVER DVD) by Disney, Fox, and Paramount - some pretty heavy hitters.

As soon as the studios see an obvious direction that customers are taking, it's over. Like the other posters here, I'd wager that time is drawing near. Things just aren't the same as they were in the Beta/VHS days - and a long battle just doesn't make sense.

While I understand what you are trying to say, it isn't something written into the license - it's your way of saying "you can only install Mac OS X on a Mac."

I can take a box with a new drive, and install ANY copy of Mac OS X onto it. It is a full install - period.

All you're saying is that since all Macs COME with Mac OS X, it , by default is an upgrade. That's quite an interesting way of bashing Apple, but not quite reality in terms of the license.

For the people saying 256MB is a bottleneck in VRAM... ummm... how much VRAM is the 360 using in GoW? A shared memory architecture is generally frowned upon.

So... assuming GoW uses more than 256MB of VRAM, then we can safely say that it has LESS than 256MB of system ram, so can't handle the extra in-game asset data that the PS3 could.

It's all a ridiculous argument really. I have GoW and the PS3 w/ R:FoM preordered (along with a Wii), so I guess that about covers it.

Nah - no need for a static IP, although you would probably need to forward ports on your router.

Most of these "use it anywhere" devices will register themselves with a central server and the end-user client can then communicate with that server to "find" the home device (ie - get the IP address and port used for the connection.)

Slingbox works in a very similar way.

A device could actually even handle the whole thing without poking incoming holes in your firewall/router, but it's a bit more complicated to implement and not necessarily the best solution for realtime applications. Networkstreaming's remote desktop solution, for example, can do this reasonably well.