A fine example of why there should always be "thorough" beta testing. Microsoft = Fail

Some people in this discussion are expressing pretty negative reactions towards XBox One and Kinect 2.0 over this feature.

Guess what. It's the game developer who added this feature, not XBox or Kinect. Go complain to 2K Games.

But then, that would have occurred to you if you didn't have such a hardon for bashing XBox. Still want to bash Microsoft over this? Oh, wait...PS4 has the same feature in these games! If you're the type of person to go into a rage spin over something like this then turn the feature off.

Actually a lot of people think about that. There was a pretty big outcry when it was announced that the Kinect for the Xbox one would essentially be on all the time (or at least would have to be plugged in all the time), and Microsoft eventually had to come out and say that they had gotten rid of this requirement.

I get the idea that people want their friends on the same system, so they can play with/against one another. But the degree all sides get worked up is just odd. It's one of those cases of can't we just agree to disagree, but all sides get nearly evangelical.

My take... I prefer the 360 controller to the PS3 controller. I like the weight, the button and stick placements... just the whole feel is better, for me, at least for most games. Some 3rd person games benifit from the PS3 layout a bit better, but for shooters and platformers I think the 360 layout is better. Most of the exclusive titles next Gen are leaning me to the One, but most are cross platform, so that has little influence. For the current generation, I found the PS3 to be a far superior media machine, beyond the Blu-ray support, I think it does Netflix better (even discounting the poor UI the XBox had prior to the upcoming unified interface), which might be an issue with my router and it working better with the PS3 than the XBox, but even for connecting to my Windows PC and PlayOn (a program on my PC that allows me to use Hulu on the TV without Hulu Plus, and allows me to play more media types from my PC on the TV), it was better. However, the multiplayer on XBox seemed better, despite the fee... which gets me to a rub against the One, I wish Microsoft would remove the Gold requirement to access video services like Netflix, YouTube and the like. Leave the Gold requirement for multiplayer gaming, but video services should be broke off.

That said, most of my gaming is PC side... though for a game like Battlefield 4 or Titanfall I prefer a console... do in part to my lower end PC... yeah, the graphics on those games would look better (if my PC was a bit more modern), but I don't know, something about those style games makes me like the experience on the console better... same with Assassins Creed 4... actually, many console type games... but Steam and I love one another...

To be clear, cryptography in general is not broken, but some implementations are. Here is an interesting example where the NSA compromised a mechanism by participating in setting the standards. Note: Nobody uses that particular number generator, so don't be worried.

Fortunately the security community is pretty paranoid, and I'm guessing the NSA (at least openly) won't be a welcome contributor in the future.

If you're really worried, stay off of third party encrypted solutions from large vendors (Microsoft, Google, Apple) that are known to be compromised.

Never going to happen. Those 4 cranes you see at the beginning? Been there since the 70s. The works are more tied up with law suits and litigation than a microsoft euro trial.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

Faith, *Bradley *ban keep your faith. Free Microsoft points: Steal an IPhonE.

Microsoft put people in quite a pickle when they admitted that all their products, Windows first and foremost, have easier backdoor access than the Kardashians.

Let's say a government agency is employing Windows as their standard OS. Let's say they are legally bound to protect the data they work with, within reasonable limits. Now, if said OS is widely known to be inherently insecure, would that make all of them liable for negligence if they renew any licenses, much less acquire new ones?

Anyways, still looking for an English news source for a specific talk at the Black Hat conference in Vegas. Matthew Cole, a fella working for NBC News, outlined how all the CIA spooks involved in the kidnapping of Abu Omar in Italy were identified by... telephone metadata.

Even the professionals cannot beat the fucking machine, so what does that say about the ordinary citizen. Those blokes were caught because they messed up, but still...

You're becoming a better news source than CNN, MSNBC and Fox News rolled together. I love how all the big corporations are trying to distance themselves from all these leaks. I think Microsoft is going to be especially damaged since that whole Xbox One fiasco coupled with them willingly giving NSA access to their operating systems and lying about it. Good. Let them all fall.

holodeck pls

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/Illumiroom/

http://hothardware.com/News/BOOM-Team-Fortress-2-Oculus-Rift-And-An-Omnidirectional-Treadmill-Equals-Big-Fun/

http://pinso.co.uk/2012/12/microsoft-holodeck/

or, in microsoft speak 'A data-holding subsystem holding instructions executable by a logic subsystem is provided. The instructions are configured to output a primary image to a primary display for display by the primary display, and output a peripheral image to an environmental display for projection by the environmental display on an environmental surface of a display environment so that the peripheral image appears as an extension of the primary image.'

whatevs

Many people keep their consoles in areas of a house where there is no internet connection and they are not interested in it. They will happily play garage band/guitar hero or other party games.

xbox1 will be completely unusable to military personnel that are deployed overseas. On military bases internet connection is usually available only in designated locations and at designated times(think internet cafe-type setup).

A game can be EVER run on only 2 consoles. If you like to trade/exchange/lend your games with your friends, forget about it.

You can lend the same game to the same person only once.

In order to lend or sell/give away/trade games with somebody they must be in your friends list for at least 30 prior days.

If you want to play games you must pay Microsoft $60/year for as long as you use the console. $60, $120, $180, $240, $300. After 5 years you paid MS almost as much as the console itself for nothing.

Because the Xbox 360 deal was pretty tolerable for it's time. Except for their ridiculous $50 annual fee to play peer-to-peer games online. . . Oh wait, Sony's doing that too now. Sony's just lucky that their dick move was completely overshadowed by Microsoft's incomparable dickery.

As I've been saying since the first Xbox: This is Microsoft. Why did people embrace them in the first place? Track-record means nothing to consumers...