Elliott C. Back: In Aere Aedificare

So far, the answer is clearly no. Go vote yourself on Expelled: The Movement’s website.

I thought that I would give Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Vegas 2 for the PC a spin, since I saw it come out on steam. Ratings for the game rate it mediocre, as Amazon users rate it 3.5/5, and Metacritic puts it in the mid 70s so far, with user opinions in the 60s.

The premise of the game so far–and I’ve only played through the first four missions–is that there are terrorists, and you must kill them. That’s it. It’s not a tactical shooter, has no real objectives, it’s just a spray and pray race through various environments. As a commenter on Amazon puts it, “the planning and team aspects of the game have been reduced or in some cases deleted. In previous titles you could command a team of up to eight operatives and then systematically plan your assault by assigning waypoints and goals utilizing a map layout of the mission. Now your team never consists of more than three members (including yourself) and you cannot plan your mission out. At all.”

The draw of the game is that you can look at ladders, doors, and ropes and indicate that you or your teammates should use them. Aside from that, there’s nothing interesting or novel. What’s worse, the FPS interface and controls are absolutely terrible. The view angle feels awkward, and the UI for switching and customizing weapons is slow. Also, in the windows port, alt-tabbing in and out of the game takes a full minute (on a Q6600, 8800GTS, 4GB ram; it’s not a bad machine), and loading maps is sluggish.

To it’s credit, as the above screenshot indicates, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (RSV2?) is not a bad looking game, but it’s total lack of plot, tactics, and a usable control system make it a toss-and-return. Don’t buy this game, get Call of Duty 4 (COD4) instead–it’s a better modern warfare simulation.

A little company called Pystar just threw down the gauntlet by offering a $399 Apple Mac Mini clone they’re calling an OpenMac. Currently their website is overloaded with traffic, so don’t expect the links to work just yet.

For an additional $155 you get Apple OSX 10.5 Leopard installed on the system using a Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) emulator and the OSx86 project. Upgrading to an NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT will cost an additional $110, while Firewire ports costs $50. The base specs are formidable:

• 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 2GB of DDR2 667 memory
• Integrated Intel GMA 950 Graphics
• 20x DVD+/-R Drive
• 4 USB Ports
• 250GB 7200RPM Drive

Buying a similarly spec’d mac-mini will cost you at least $1000 for a computer with worse specifications and a slightly nicer looking chassis. That’s right, Apple is charging you 250% more than Pystar will. Where’s the catch? It’s the Apple Leopard 10.5 EULA, which reads “You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.” The Fortune Blog highlights a similar EULA section, which reads “This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time,” and concludes “that’s what’s wrong with this.”

The EULA, Does It Mean Anything?

No, it doesn’t. Based on the First sale doctrine, when you buy something, you essentially have the right to do whatever you want with it (a fact that bothers libertarians, corporations, but few else). That’s right, in the United States, you can buy a copy of OSX 10.5, install it on commodity x86 hardware, and ignore anything in the EULA to the contrary. Apple needs to learn that simply printing indecipherable text buried in a legal document doesn’t make it truth. If their hardware is truly superior, they should welcome the competition.

Note that I am not a lawyer, and this does not in any way provide legal advice

Apple Fans, They’re Hating!

Apple fans have a huge, negative response to this news. They just can’t stand someone creating a cheaper, faster clone of their favorite computer brand. Here are a few select samples, with citations:

• “This is illegal and will never happen. This is EXACTLY what Apple doesn’t want: it’s brand diluted with an ugly product full of bargain-bin components to appeal to the wellfare market. No thanks.” [src]
• “I smell a fly-by-night scam.” [src]
• “Many people may find paying 150% the price for a mac mini with less performance just as insulting” [src]
• “God damn that thing is UGLY. Building a box like that really destroys most of the joys of owning a mac” [src]
• “I can’t even imagine why someone would want all of the crap from the PC world swirling around inside of a well made fine piece of machinery. Good luck with that.” [src]

Essentially, this is the same reaction as Apple fans had to the $200 iPhone price cut: “You can’t drop the price and give Apple to the plebes!” Any Macintosh fans who are honestly upset by a little competition need to tone-down their absolute devotion to the Cult of Jobs, and see how this is good for everyone.

My brother has a Dell Inspiron, my sister has an Apple Macbook. The inspiron has a Dell Wireless 1390 or Intel Wireless 3945 card, while the Macbook has AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n. The other night we were all playing an online game, with mixed results. They share a DSL connection to the internet, while I measured their latency over time from my Verizon FIOS:

Looking at the box-plots for my brother, who has the Dell, he is spending about 50% of his time experiencing latencies up to twice as bad as they should be, while my sister is getting decent, consistent Wireless performance. I don’t know if it’s environmental to their home, or something else, but what’s causing such bad performance for my brother? Does Dell just suck that much?

Flow|state, a user interface design blog, recently ragged on the Windows Vista file copy dialog for obscuring important information about the files it’s copying. Specifically, Vista warns about files with the same name, and asks you what you want to do with them:

Can you see the disaster in progress? Most users can’t either.

This dialog has buried the lede. It focuses the user’s attention on the fact that there is another file with the same name in the destination folder. It fails to point out a much, much more interesting condition: The user is about to overwrite a newer file with an older file.

So he suggests the dialog read “There is a newer file with the same name in this location,” increasing the number of recognizable file attributes from one, the file name, to two. What other kind of file attributes are there? I can list a few:

• Path (implied)
• Name (explicit)
• Date created / modified / accessed (suggested)
• Size
• Type
• State
• Permissions
• Ownership
• File System
• Mount

I think these are all equally important attributes. By flow|state’s logic, the dialog should really read “There is a newer, substantially larger file with the same name in this location. The current file is a video, but your new file is music owned by a different user, your mom.” This is obviously ridiculous.

The best way to do this is what linux does–just move the file. If you want to get clever, use a command pattern to make it reversible.