Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That still doesn't excuse the fact that their update bricked the hardware... nor is it the first time. I seem to remember a story a few months ago where new updates were bricking the older, PSX/PS2 reverse-compatible models (I have one and avoided it.)
In it's current incarnation, Battle.net requires you (like most online services faced with connecting through a firewall) to open or forward ports to the machine running the game. Normally this is no problem, for example XBox Live works the same way. Unfortunately, Battle.net wasn't forward-thinking enough to use multiple ports! As only a single port is used for communication between the server and the client, only one client may communicate with the server through the firewall or router.
This should have been fixed back in the day through an update, but alas it's still true. A couple months ago my friends and I decided to pick the old game up and try playing it. I was surprised at how everything worked well after setting up the firewall. Unfortunately the minute I had a few other friends over and we all tried playing over my cable service, a realization quickly dawned. I could host fine, everyone could connect... but there was an inorinate amount of lag once the game started. This lag was only alleviated when the people physically there weren't in the hosted game, or the remote players were sitting it out. Any mix of the two resulted in the game being outright unplayable.
And I'll echo your point. I'm house-sitting for a close friend now and there is no internet at his place. He said having the rest of the guys over for LANs or Rock Band or whatever be it would be fine. If StarCraft 2 were out, it would (have) probably be(en) the game we'd play the most. I don't like this one bit.
It also supports download resuming for when the connection drops, and you are required to tell the client what files to hash (and therefore which files on the client machine are shared) so data that shouldn't be shared generally isn't.
Another option might be setting up a DC++ hub and running the client on the rest of the machines. DC++ hashes all files and supports the ability to search any client attached to the Hub for like hashes and aggregate them during download. I've attended many a con that used a DC++ hub to facilitate file sharing, and the only limit I ever hit was the one imposed by my disk write speed and/or bus capacity. Course I'm not sure it supports encryption since I only use it a few times a year.
Barring that, I'll vouch for the Nano as well. I'm an enthusiast gamer, and have used tons of mice. BT/RF/Corded, trackball/ball/IR/laser... The Nano bests them all for everything I've thrown at it. That includes daily use at work, as I've found I just can't live without it!
Manhattan was near-all-powerful, but not omnipotently so. Almost but not quite. Also, remember that even had he known of their locations, he was losing his identification with the rest of humanity. He wouldn't have cared enough to stop them.
99 Luftballons was quite appropriate I'll agree. And holy crap did I love it when Watchtower started playing. I can't imagine someone not enjoying that scene.
I'll have to disagree with Hallelujah however. Though the theme of the song does fit the scene, I found it fairly distracting. Can't help but think there couldn't have been something better to set the scene to.