I have to say, TF2 is one of only a very FEW games I continuously come back to and play, over and over again. I never really get bored with it. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I get the idea an awful lot of people abandoned that game simply because they got their attention re-focused on the latest and greatest, shiny new releases.

But IMO, Team Fortress 2 checks all the boxes for a truly fun gaming experience. The 3D shooter category only has so many basic concepts for multiplayer play, anyway. You have your "Capture the Flag" mode, your "Deathmatch", your "Domination", and so on. The only thing that really changes when you pay your $50 for the latest one are the background scenery, design of the levels and the characters. You get some unique weapons too, once in a while, but even those are usually re-hashes of the same ideas 90% of the time.

To me, TF2 ensures plenty of people to play against at any time, because they gave the game away free and it runs well not only on multiple platforms, but has reasonable hardware requirements so even older machines can run it. The bandwidth usage isn't too bad either, so your people stuck on say, a 3mbit DSL connection, can still play it without issues.

I'd rather see more development on top of something great like TF2 than wasted "reinventing the wheel" on yet another FPS title that will just get played for a little while and scrapped.....

(The best thing Valve could do for TF2 though, IMO, is to release some more official levels for it. I've played a few really good custom made ones, but also a lot of buggy, not so well thought out ones that even crashed the game at times. It definitely doesn't have NEAR the enthusiastic level building community that we had for older classics like Quake. It could use an official "level pack" or two from Valve, even if they cost a few bucks to download.)

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but I think it's a pretty legitimate summary.....

If U.S. citizens needed an alternative currency, that would be because the U.S. dollar started failing them, right? If that happens, it's pretty closely tied to other markets. We don't live in an economic vacuum..... I doubt converting to the Euro or Canadian dollar would be much of a solution.

At the same time, I really don't follow the logic of the "survivalist" types who want to hoard up ammo and believe that's the only sensible answer for "when it all falls apart". What's the real plan there? Just start shooting people to get what you need? If we're all so lacking in any kind of moral compass or care for anyone other than ourselves that absent of a strong central government, we're all going to revert to savages trying to kill each other to obtain their possessions? They may as well shoot me... I don't want to hang around anymore in that world.

I do, however, see where there could be very compelling reasons to switch to a decentralized currency, not subject to any arbitrary rules imposed by governments .... And by extension, I see why a government with a currency not really backed by anything tangible, would find this alternative a threat.

With automated self-driving cars, a lot of other traditional economics are upset too. For example, what will this do to public transportation like the bus system? Currently, one of the primary advantages to taking the bus is the concept that someone else will do the driving, getting you to your destination. People who don't have a driver's license can just take the bus and still get to or from work. With a self-driving car, why would a license be required anymore? That means one less reason to bother with a bus, when a car would get you from point A to B without a lot of annoying stops along the way dropping off other people or picking them up.

Of course, this will result in upsetting those who like public transportation for the environmental benefits..... So what happens then? Some sort of govt. imposed taxation on using a personal car instead of a bus? I sure hope not, but that's the type of future we're quickly headed into. Slap taxes on all the behaviors you want to deter people from doing so just like lab rats running in a maze, you force them to follow the paths you like.

I beg to differ. The only reason they care about such things as selling Beanie Babies or trading cards is because to them, those objects are simply items of value, which don't function as a currency. When one is exchanged for U.S. dollars, the IRS wants a cut of the profits.

Bitcoin, Litecoin and other such inventions are designed and intended to function as substitutes for U.S. dollars. The plan for them is to allow buying and selling other goods of value (such as those trading cards or Beanie Babies) using the virtual currency. As long as the vast majority prefers to deal in the official U.S. currency instead, Bitcoin type e-money will be dealt with a little more like a stock or mutual fund -- where people want to buy and sell it in an attempt to come out with more U.S. currency than they started with. But there's an underlying design to allow for this stuff to work as a competing or even substitute currency for the U.S. dollar.

I predict the govt. WILL eventually decide to try to take down Bitcoin and variants as a "threat to National Security" (their favorite excuse for such behaviors).

While it's not really "news" that the IRS is once again looking for a source of revenue? I'd argue that there's a strange paradox with the whole thing. If the U.S. govt. starts taxing alternative virtual currencies, that indicates by extension they recognize them as legitimate.

I thought a big part of the whole battle for acceptance of these new e-currencies was the idea that the govt. would never recognize them as legal tender, out of fear it undermines the official currency it has control over via the Federal Reserve.

I don't think you can really have this both ways though.... legitimate taxable currency when it works in government's favor and not recognized as valid when it doesn't!

Perhaps so, but forcibly splitting companies up into separate companies based on their product lines may not really be something we want government doing, regardless of any efficiency improvements it might bring? I don't think arguing about such forced reorganization making products "better" is a very valid reasons for using the force of Federal law against a business.

Looking back on the whole issue, I think an awful lot of people's dislike for Microsoft's products drives them to support the claim that the company was a monopoly that needed to be broken up -- when a more objective look at the facts makes that less clear.

There were definitely areas where Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive behaviors. In my mind, the worst of it was the convoluted and overly restrictive product licensing. For example, I remember when companies couldn't legally create custom images of the Windows OS with their applications and preferred settings and then use "Ghost" or similar software to roll it out to the rest of the PC's they bought, because they didn't pay more for "full" licenses, vs. the limited OEM licenses that came with the machines.

Then there was the strong-arming of hardware manufacturers. (EG. We'll sell you Windows licenses at such a deep discount, you'd be silly not to buy these from us to load on all of your new computers.... BUT, this deal is only good as long as you refuse to build anything with one of our competitor's OS's pre-loaded on it!)

But the court case didn't really even address some of this. Instead, it surrounded the whole bundling of IE thing, which to me was an issue that would have (and history proves, DID) resolve itself with time anyway. The idea that the browser included with an OS was so critical, it would require dismantling a whole software company over the dispute, seems a little ridiculous today.

One thing we've recently seen in my workplace is a Trojan horse virus embedded in a fake Flash player update which carries a valid Adobe signature.

So even allowing only signed apps to install is no guarantee of security.

The main difference with something like UAC versus Apple's Gatekeeper is that Apple made the effort to sell as many programs as possible in their own online store for the Mac, and Microsoft didn't really have an equivalent. So Apple was in a position to put something in place allowing only those store purchased items to be installed by end users (while admins of a box could still have less restrictive settings and load whatever they wished). This allows configuring a system with everything a user needs up front, but still giving the user freedom to buy and load a wide selection of programs after the fact, while ensuring they all come from a known, safe source.

I didn't recall the type correctly... The drive I replaced in the Spectre XT Pro was actually an "mSATA" type of drive.

I guess it was something like the drive Crucial sells here:

http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=433DDBDFA5CA7304

So I stand potentially corrected.... Perhaps the PCIe connector Apple is using here a little thinner and different. Looked very similar though.

From the photos Apple has on their site of the Mac Pro with its cover open, it looks to me like the flash storage used is a "mini PCIe" form-factor. I've already purchased and used an identical looking 480GB flash drive to fit in an HP "Ultrabook" type of portable called the "Spectre XT Pro".

(HP claims the notebook can't be purchased with a drive larger than 256GB, even in a custom build order on their web site, but a technical manual I found clearly showed it took the mini PCIe type of flash drive, so I bought a 480GB from CDW to try it and it worked just fine.)

I've seen a few comments yesterday and today though claiming some of these mini PCIe form-factor SSDs are not *really* following the standards for the PCIe connector? So in effect, they perform with a lot less throughput, the same as any existing SSD drive, except just using that type of physical connector.

Anyone know if there's much truth to such claims .... meaning what Apple is offering here really will be more advanced than current SSD technology, or is this a case where companies like HP have really been using the same stuff for at least the last 1-2 years in select ultraportables?

If a big virus hits that exploits a security hole that's unpatched, SOMEONE will offer a patch. I'm 99.999% certain. Why? Because regardless of Microsoft's wishes for XP to just go away, there are still too many people using it every single day (many of whom aren't even computer savvy enough to be able to tell you for sure which version of Windows they're actually using). A serious virus infection would #1, make Microsoft look really bad if they take a stance of "Too bad... we can't fix it.", and #2 would likely put entire networks at risk with the infected files getting copied onto shared drives on servers, uploaded to cloud shared storage locations, and more. It's quite possible such an infection would need an unpatched XP machine to secretly get installed in the first place, but newer OS's would have problems too if the users open attached files sent from the originally infected XP boxes.

If Microsoft stubbornly refused, some 3rd. party computer security firm would seize on the opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame with a free patch they'd circulate.

The problem I can see with it is the governments in question will simply start actively jamming or disrupting these frequencies if they think they're being used to subvert the systems they're trying to monitor.

To do this properly, I think you might have to resort to a system that randomly changes frequencies as it runs -- so modified hardware would be needed as well as software?

The way I see it, there are no really good answers to the questions in the original article. Will MS market-share keep plunging? A *lot* of that hinges on the long-term popularity of the trend of people using tablet devices in place of computers.

If you're the type who likes to bet on future results based on current trends? Then yes, you have a lot of statistical data in your corner. "John Q. Public" and "Jane Doe" who were never really very good with computers to begin with absolutely LOVE devices like the iPad, or smartphones. All they were ever trying to do to begin with was surf the net, check their email, and maybe type up a few letters to print out. The letter writing part, long argued a weak spot for mobile phones or tablets, is largely overcome with a bluetooth wireless keyboard.

The kids and teens who only wanted the computers to play video games? That market is splitting down the middle too. A lot of them are pretty satisfied playing the ever-increasing number of titles on the Android or iOS devices. (Heck, they were playing devices like the Gameboy before that, and stuck paying much higher prices for the game cartridges.) Just as many consider that a non-starter, because they want to play bigger, more demanding titles like World of Warcraft or the Call of Duty series.

I'm not sure how long this trend will continue though? My experience with tablet computing is, you generally get only a "lite" version of a given application, compared to what's done on a full-fledged PC or Mac. If nothing else, it's sorely lacking in local storage capabilities compared to a computer. I think computer sales to the public may have permanently declined a bit, because people figured out there are good alternatives now if they don't really want or need everything a PC can do. But I suspect we're quickly reaching the saturation point there.

If Microsoft could come up with some new, compelling reason to use a Windows based computer ... something clearly impossible to do on a tablet or phone that a whole lot of people would REALLY like to be able to do? They're right back in the game.

I'm just curious if anyone out there is maintaining any type of "price guide" or can speak first-hand to the value (or lack thereof) of the electronic hand-held video games that were popular in the early 80's?

For example, I found my original Tandy Radio/Shack "Cosmic Fire Away" game in a box not long ago, and after cleaning it up, realized it still plays as good as when it was new with a fresh set of batteries in it. I knew it was the original version they released. (I remember Radio Shack coming out with a newer model with a yellow plastic case instead of the blue one I have here, because my younger brother got it one Christmas.) What I didn't know until I happened upon it on Wikipedia is that the one I've got was made in 1981 and was only sold for a year.

I know my brother and I also owned a couple games from "Bambino" including "Safari" - a game in an olive green, round plastic case where you had to move a cage around and try to capture animals as they randomly popped up on the display.

These were pretty big deals, technology-wise, at the time, because they transitioned hand-held games from using LED lights or segments to represent things (remember the old Mattel football/soccer/baseball games from the 70's?) to drawing realistic looking icons - eventually in more than one color.

Other than www.handheldmuseum.com though, I don't see a lot of references to these at all? Are they just largely forgotten by most people -- eclipsed by the console and computer game genre?

I think you make an interesting point, except I'm trying to think of examples proving it's true, and I'm not really coming up with them?

What I mean is, sure -- there's always going to be a "right thing at the right time" to get maximum value out of it. But in general, I'm not so sure collectibles reach "peak value" when the audience who grew up with them as kids reach maturity?

As one example, think of the used market today for pedal cars. The most valuable ones seem to be the oldest ones still in good condition (old pedal fire trucks, for example, or really old tricycles). I'm not so sure that the majority of the collectors paying those prices for them today are really the same ones who owned those toys as kids? It seems like many of the desirable ones are old enough to be the toys the collector's parents originally played with as kids.

As another? I know many younger people into "muscle cars" of the 60's, even though they weren't even born yet in the 60's. It's not just the generation who remember those cars from their teenage years who have an interest. There's an appreciation for them which clearly spans generations.

I can definitely see how people grow up and earn enough income to pay good money to have a few items back again that they fondly remember. But I think it's probably a mistake to believe that signifies the "peak value" for the items in question. After that wave of the nostalgic passes, I think you've got at least one more generation after that who finds it fascinating from more of a historical angle. "Wow... I never owned one of these, but I think my dad said he liked it as a kid!"

gd2shoe: Just for the record, it's not that I overlooked that aspect. It's more of a belief that it's not an aspect that should change much, in any properly run organization.

For example, concerns about BYOD devices causing security holes on the corporate network? Strongest case for this would generally be allowing older devices on the network that run older OS's. In our workplace, we simply gave a list of approved BYOD devices users could choose from that we'd allow and support. We also adopted a policy about rooting and jailbreaking. Basically, we acknowledge it's out there and is legal to do, but also note that MOST vulnerabilities come from rooted or jailbroken devices. So I.T. takes a stance of allowing it but not supporting it. If you opt to do it - you do so understanding that if you put in a support ticket with some issue with that device, we will revert it back to a non-rooted or jailbroken state as part of our troubleshooting process (and might remove you from our network until we have time to do that).

All in all, I don't even believe that I.T. is really so "expert" in handling outside threats and attacks. How can we be? We usually don't have access to the source code to the devices we implement and often aren't even good enough at coding to figure out what it meant if we were. Ever get caught in that "balancing act" where you want to apply all new updates to a system to ensure it's "as secure as possible" but some of those updates aren't supported by mission critical software also loaded on the box? Ever do the updates that are pushed out only to find they break a server? (I sure have, especially with some of Microsoft's "recommended updates" that they later recalled and revisited.) Eventually, it happens to most sysadmins that they cause real and immediate problems trying to prevent theoretical security-related ones.