Well, it seems we have more proof that the changes to Battlefield 2 in the 1.2 are for real, and that UAVs can (unfortunately) be shot down. Videos released from PlanetBattlefield and BF2.se show the UAV (and other features) in action.
The video from PlanetBattleField lasts about a minute and shows only the UAV circling around the coast on Dalian Plant. Towards the end a chopper flies up to it and seems to destroy it, although it is very possible the UAV ran out of fuel. Speculate away. I still feel it a mistake to have UAVs circling at helicopter altitute, however.
Video, originally from PlanetBattlefield
The video from the good folks at BF2.se (who also have some decent game servers), shows a few of the other features, such as: picking up C4 as spec ops; grenades from the grenade launcher bouncing after a small distance; and being unable to jump and fire.
I'm still not happy about some of the changes (UAV, not being able to jump and throw AT mines/C4, etc), but some - like the minimum arm distance for grenade launchers - will be most welcome. Videos again taken without permission. Better than trying to get something from FilePlanet though...
Microsoft's Kevin Collins was surprised as a HD-DVD player he was demoing failed to work at CES yesterday. Of course, this isn't the first time a Microsoft executive has been embarrassed at a tech demo (thanks to the ever-keen-to-bash-MS users at /. for the link!).
Now, does this mean that HD-DVD will be a failure? Of course not. But it may prove to be a significant hit in their marketing, depending on how the mainstream media will report it. Of course, with the Senate recently earmarking $3 billion in 'tv vouchers' to convert everyone to digital, this is a topic that could garner interest in the mainstram press.
...And while I'm at it, I don't believe there will be a big format war. samsung has already announced that it is making a player that will support both HD DVD and blu-ray. I don't recall much competition over DVD +/-, except for the early days of consumer DVD writers. While blu-ray is technically superior to HD-DVD, the consumer wants something that will 'just work'; a sentiment echoed elsewhere.
The problem is, people who already own HDTV sets won't be able to play HD movies on either blu-ray or HD DVD, because the 'older' HDTV sets don't support the HDMI connector and cable, which is (essentially) used for DRM. And even though blu-ray supports something known as 'Managed Copy', which allows you to multicast the video from a disc around a house (say), it won't allow you to make a backup copy of the disc. I guess if the disc gets scratched you'll just have to buy another.
And in the end, that sentiment is what this comes down to. The media industry recently 'agreed' that DVD is dead, which screams to me "Hey we want you to buy more copies of stuff you already own!" - an attempt to rush, no, force a new standard/standards onto us. DVD isn't dead, and will be mainstream for a good few years. Why spend several hundred on a blu-ray/HD DVD player and a grand or more on a HDTV set when you can buy a DVD player for 30 bucks?
Seems to me the media industry is sorry they didn't have proper DRM on DVD in the first place... and now want us to pay for it. Again. And again. And again....
The folks at Microsoft's "Linux and Open Source Lab" have done a 'study' (and I use the term as loosely as possible here) to "dispel the myth that Linux will run on legacy hardware". They claim their sudy shows more or less that Windows runs as well as Linux on legacy hardware. Interesting.
The problem is they compare the most recent Linux enterprise releases (Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, etc) against Windows 2003, Windows XP (both fair enough) and, um, Windows CE. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't comparing an OS designed to work on minimalist hardware with a full install of the latest Linux distros just a tad unfair?
I urge them to compare a Linux distro that is designed to work on legacy hardware like Damn Small Linux or an early Debian release to Windows 95 or 98. The problem for them is they would find that the Linux versions are under development (DSL above), customizable (no GUI? no problem!), and work well under the hardware requirements. The Windows versions are officially unsupported (no patches for critical problems), not very customizable, and just about run on the same hardware.
Was this an effective study from Redmond? Puh-lease!
