Review: Chrome 17, faster than ever, more secure than ever. - ZDNet (blog)

Summary: Google’s popular Chrome Web browser just keeps getting faster and more secure with every release.

Google's Chrome 17 Web browser is better than ever.

Google’s been really busy lately. They may be releasing “G-Drive,” a personal cloud storage service ala Dropbox. They have released a beta of the Chrome Web browser for Android. And, with all that, their developers have also been hard at work keeping Chrome on top of the Web browser hill.

Chrome 17, the latest and greatest, is fast. But, then Chrome has long been faster than its competition: Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Apple Safari. This latest update though has more than pure speed. It also comes with some new, useful features.

The best of these is security related. Besides such squashing potentially dangerous security bugs, Google now automatically runs checks on executable .exe and .msi files. If the program doesn’t match a built-in white list of OK programs, Chrome then automatically checks in with its Safe Browsing site to see if the Website you picked the program is known for of malicious downloads.

If the file isn’t from a known source, Chrome automatically sends the URL and IP of the host and other meta-data, such as the file’s hash and binary size, to Google. The file is then automatically classified using machine learning analysis and the reputation and trustworthiness of files previously seen from the same publisher and Web site. Google then sends the results back to Chrome, which warns you if you’re at risk.

Google also wants you to know that “It’s important to note that any time Safe Browsing sends data back to Google, such as information about a suspected phishing page or malicious file, the information is only used to flag malicious activity and is never used anywhere else at Google. After two weeks, any associated information, such as your IP address, is stripped, and only the URL itself is retained.”

Don’t trust Google? Fine. You can turn Safe Browsing off. Mind you, I think you’d be an idiot to do this. Windows users, in particular, are in constant danger from malware and this is a simple, slick way of cutting down on potential viruses. From where I sit, you’re in a lot more danger from malware than you are from paranoia about Google tracking your file downloads.

Another handy feature is what Google calls Omnibox pre-loading. What that mouthful means is that when you start typing a URL into the Chrome’s address bar, aka the Omnibox, you’ll see various suggestions about what site you might be looking for. That’s in been in Chrome for a while Google has taken the next step though. If Chrome’s is absolutely sure it knows what site you’re going to, it will start pre-loading the site. So, for example, when I start to type in “zd,” “plu,” or “Fac,” Chrome 17 will start loading, respectively ZDNet, Google Plus, and Facebook.

This can have the effect of making Chrome look even faster than it is… so long as it’s guessed correctly. In my experience, Chrome gets it right almost every time, but then I tend to visit the same dozen or so sites over and over again. If you visit dozens or hundreds of sites, you’d be unlike to notice any improvement. If it doesn’t seem to be working for you, or, worse still, it starts pre-loading the wrong sites so your performance seems worse, you can switch it off by un-checking “Predict network actions to improve page load performance” in Options > Under the Hood.

With that out of the way, let’s move to the testing. I’d been running Chrome 17 on my usual mix of PCs. That includes several Linux desktops, including my Linux Mint desktop, several Macs running Snow Leopard and Lion; and a couple of PCs running Windows XP SP3 and Windows 7 SP1. It ran on all my platforms.

Like all modern browsers, Chrome gets a perfect score on the Acid 3 compatibility test, which checks how well a browser complies with various Web standards such as CSS, JavaScript, and Extensible Markup Language (XML),

On the HTML5 Test, which checks to see how compliant the Web browser is with the HTML5 Web page standard, Chrome 15 scored 374 out of a possible 450. Coming in second was Firefox 10 with a score of 332.

For performance testing, I ran Chrome against the latest releases of Firefox, 10.0, and Internet Explorer, 9.08, on a Gateway DX4710 Windows 7 SP1 test box. This PC is powered by a 2.5-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor and has 6GBs of RAM and an Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100 for graphics. It’s hooked to the Internet via a Netgear Gigabit Ethernet switch, which, in turn, is hooked up to a 100Mbps (Megabit per second) cable Internet connection.

For my first performance test, Chrome went up against the other contenders on Mozilla’s Kraken 1.1 benchmark. In Kraken, which like most Web browser benchmarks measures JavaScript performance, lower scores are better. Here, Chrome left Firefox and IE eating its dust with a score of 3677.6ms. This was actually slower than Chrome 16. Still, that was far faster than the others. Firefox came in next with a score of 4342.6ms. To Firefox’s credit that’s much faster than Firefox 9.

On Google own JavaScript V8 Benchmark Suite, where higher scores are better, Chrome, roared by the others with a score of 8,153. Firefox, once more, was much better than it had been, but it still came in far behind at 5,145. IE trailed well behind the open-source browsers with a score of 2,230.

On the oldest JavaScript test, SunSpider 0.9.1, where lower results are better, Chrome didn’t show well at all. IE won this one with a score of 282.6ms, Firefox came in second with 274.8ms, and Chrome was in the rear with 307.1.

On the Peacekeeper Web browser test suite, which looks at JavaScript performance and also glances at HTML5 compatibility, video codec support and other Web browser features, Chrome won once more. On this benchmark, where higher is better and Chrome took first with a score of 2,425. IE took second with 1,626 with Firefox hot on its tail with 1,619.

Taken as a whole, Chrome remains the fastest browser around. When you include its new features, it’s clear to me that Chrome is continuing to be the top Web browser.

Related Stories:

Google Chrome Web browser finally comes to Android

Can Firefox be a Web browser contender again? Firefox 9.01 Review

Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser

Opera 11.6: Better but not good enough (Review)

Google Chrome, I love ya but…

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

View the original article here

US will review death of student - Boston Globe

var archivedState=0;

Hours after a New York State grand jury declined yesterday to indict any of the police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Pace University student Danroy “D.J.’’ Henry Jr., of Easton, the US Department of Justice announced plans to examine the case.

“Consistent with our practice in cases of this kind, the Department of Justice will review all of the available evidence with respect to the death of Danroy Henry Jr., including the evidence available to the Westchester County district attorney’s office, to determine whether there were any violations of the federal criminal civil rights laws,’’ said Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for the US attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

Federal officials had been urged to review the case by Henry’s family, and Senator Scott Brown has called for a thorough investigation. The Justice Department, which had been monitoring the case, was awaiting the results of the state and local investigation before beginning its own.

Davis’s announcement followed a statement from Janet DiFiore, the Westchester, N.Y., district attorney, in which she said that after “due deliberation on the evidence presented in this matter, the grand jury found that there was no reasonable cause to vote an indictment.’’

The finding of “no true bill’’ indicates that the grand jury found no criminal wrongdoing by police who fatally shot Henry during the early morning hours of Oct. 17 outside a bar at a shopping center in Mount Pleasant, about 30 miles north of New York City.

The decision angered Henry’s family, whose members are pursuing a $120 million lawsuit against the Town of Mount Pleasant and Village of Pleasantville, N.Y.

“There are no words to express our disappointment in the grand jury’s decision,’’ Henry’s father, Danroy Henry Sr., said in a statement yesterday.

“Conclusions appear to have been drawn at the outset,’’ he said, “and the entire process appears now to have been nothing short of an attempt to create better optics for the DA and her office.’’

The district attorney said the grand jury, which began hearing testimony Jan. 10, had made “an exhaustive and thorough review of the evidence’’ that included appearances by 85 witnesses and more than 100 exhibits.

The Henry family members and their New York civil rights lawyer, Michael Sussman, have long questioned why local police were allowed to investigate a shooting by one of their own officers. The case has been investigated by New York State Police and local officers, along with the district attorney.

A lawyer for Pleasantville Officer Aaron Hess, who has acknowledged shooting at Henry, said that Henry was responsible for his own death and that Hess and his family were grateful for the grand jury’s decision.

“The loss of life that occurred that morning is regrettable and tragic, but any reasonable view of the evidence as to what took place that night demands recognition of the fact that Aaron Hess acted properly and D.J. Henry did not,’’ John K. Grant, Hess’s lawyer, said. “Sometimes the truth is painful, and in this case the painful truth is that D.J. Henry brought about his own death. Lost has been the fact that Aaron Hess too is a good and decent human being, who went to work that night to help keep his community safe.’’

Before that statement was issued, the elder Henry said: “This process is most analogous to a person committing a crime which their siblings investigate and for which their closest relatives determine their punishment. All the while the crime victim is left in the dark until the family decides how [to] handle the misdeed of their own.’’

During a fiery conference call with reporters shortly after the decision, Sussman also questioned the impartiality of the local district attorney, who works closely with local police.

Sussman said that the grand jury process is heavily weighted toward the prosecution and that indictments would have come down if prosecutors were truly seeking them.

“A district attorney can indict a ham sandwich,’’ Sussman said, quoting a 1985 New York appellate court judge’s comments on the grand jury process.

Speaking of police and prosecutors, he declared: “To say they rely on each other is to say that the fetus relies upon the mother.’’

Sussman called the shooting “an orgy of violence directed toward students.’’

Police responded to the bar where many students had gathered after the homecoming game between Pace and Stonehill College. Henry, 20, a junior, was shot after he hit two officers with his car after refusing to stop, police allege.

Conflicting reports have surfaced from witnesses, who have said Henry was trying to move his car at the request of a police officer. A police officer mounted the hood and fired repeatedly through the front windshield, killing Henry.

The elder Henry also accused prosecutors of softballing the grand jury, not aggressively pursuing an indictment against the officers who shot his son, who played on the Pace football team.

“We firmly believe that we have a good handle on what happened,’’ he said. “We never believed for a second that this district attorney was pursuing an indictment, so we already contemplated going around her, which is why we’re going to the Justice Department.’’

The officers involved in the shooting have taken criticism from police specialists, who have said that there is no training module in policing that involves jumping on a moving car and firing at the driver. In a notice of claim filed with both communities in December, Sussman alleged that police were improperly trained and unqualified to serve as armed officers.

While Sussman said he was confident the whole story will come out during the coming civil lawsuit, he said yesterday’s ruling was a reminder of racial inequity in the criminal justice system. Henry was black, and the officers who shot him are white.

“We have no lack of confidence in our ability, but the criminal justice system is supposed to be here for every American, and today is a sign that it’s not, regardless of who’s president of the United States,’’ Sussman said.

“To me, it sends a clear message to every parent of color who has a child away at college that they better be darn worried if something happens to them.’’

Bonita E. Zelman, a New York civil rights attorney lawyer representing five other Pace students, also criticized yesterday’s finding. “No citizen should accept a murder committed by anyone, certainly not a murder committed by a person sworn to protect the public good,’’ Henry’s father said.

Martin Finucane of the Globe staff contributed to this report. John M. Guilfoil can be reached at jguilfoil@globe.com.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

View the original article here

2010 in Review: The Year for the Mac - PC World

In 2010, iOS (Apple's mobile operating system) and iOS devices (iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad) commanded the spotlight for much of the year. And for over nine months, Mac users saw the usual computer updates from Apple, but not much else. The combination of the iOS success and the stagnant Mac led some vocal tech analysts, pundits, and even Mac users to ponder whether Apple gave a damn about the Mac anymore. Some even went so far as to declare the Mac dead.

However, Apple gave new life to the Mac in mid-October, when CEO Steve Jobs took the stage and gave Mac users a taste of what's to come during a "Back to the Mac" presentation.

To paraphrase literary icon Mark Twain, the death of the Macintosh was an exaggeration, considering what Apple has in the works. On the last day of 2010, let's take a look back at the previous 12 months, from a Mac perspective.

A sneak peek at Lion

In October, Apple announced a forthcoming version of Mac OS X: Version 10.7, code-named Lion, will have features that are inspired by iOS. According to Steve Jobs, you can think of Lion as, "Mac OS X meets the iPad."

Lion will allow you to enter a full-screen mode as you work in your apps, and if you use a trackpad, you can swipe to switch between open apps. Lion will also feature the Launchpad, a full-screen display of all your apps (think of it as an iOS-like presentation of OS X's current /Applications folder); and Mission Control, which shows a view of open full-screen apps, the Dock, and the desktop.

Apple says that Lion will be available in the summer of 2011. Pricing has not been released.

With the demonstration of Lion and how it uses finger gestures, a particular accessory could possibly become mandatory for Mac users: the Magic Trackpad. Released in July, the Magic Trackpad is basically the glass trackpad found in Apple's laptops made into a self-standing input device. Such a device can help bridge the gap in the whole Apple user expereince between Mac OS X and iOS.

Mac App Store

Of all the Mac-related announcements made in 2010, the new Mac App Store is the most significant. The Mac App Store will work similarly to the iOS App Store, providing an easy-to-access marketplace.

While software developers will be able to use the Mac App Store as a way to get their software in front of a large population of Mac users, developers will have to write software according to the Mac App Store guidelines. (On a related note, Apple decided that its Mac OS X Downloads site will "no longer offer apps" and that developers should submit software to the Mac App Store.) There's also a concern that the Mac App Store would lead to the Mac becoming a closed system, like iOS.

We won't have to wait much longer to see the effect of the Mac App Store on the Mac marketplace. The Mac App Store will open on January 6, 2011, in 90 countries.

Small laptop makes huge impression

The MacBook Air had become the forgotten machine in Apple's Mac lineup. Then in October 2010, Apple introduced the 11-inch MacBook Air, and it immediately became Apple's newest darling. The smallest Mac portable Apple has ever created features a full-size keyboard, an impressive 1366-by-768-pixel display, and flash storage to help provide a dramatic performance boost over the previous 13-inch MacBook Air.

Most importantly, the MacBook Air gave many longtime customers what they've been waiting for: a true heir to the legendary 12-inch PowerBook. Now, road warriors don't need to compromise with an iPad, or lug around excess weight and size with a MacBook or a 13-inch MacBook Pro. The 11-inch MacBook Air is the ultraportable that's long been missing from Apple's lineup.

Apple also updated the 13-inch MacBook Air with a new graphics processor and flash memory. The flash memory helped the 13-inch MacBook Air outperform the current 13-inch 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro in our tests.

The MacBook and MacBook Pro lines saw dramatic changes before 2010, so the changes to those machines this year were simple refreshes. Apple did introduce Intel's Core i5 and Core i7 processors to the MacBook Pro line in the 15- and 17-inch models-expect to see faster Core i5 and i7 processors in the MacBook line in 2011. Perhaps we'll even see the 13-inch MacBook Pro's Core 2 Duo processor replaced by a Core i5.

Mac mini makeover

On the desktop, Apple's smallest machine, the Mac mini, was redesigned with an aluminum case that made the Mac mini even smaller than its predecessor. It also features a new plastic hatch that you can easily open to make memory upgrades. Apple also reduced the number of Mac mini models available, offering only one standard configuration model.

The iMac continues to offer the best bang for your buck among Apple's Mac lineup. Apple's all-in-one computer now has discrete ATI graphics chips, and the Core 2 Duo processors were phased out in favor of Core i3 and Core i5 processors in the standard configurations. Apple also added a flash-storage drive, build-to-order (BTO) option that can help boost the iMac's performance.

The iMac's aluminum case design was introduced in 2007. Could it be due for a major change in 2011? Besides the iMac becoming thinner and lighter, the basic design concept of the case works well, so it may not change much. The dramatic changes will probably be inside the case, where we could see the iMac taking a cue from the MacBook Air-flash storage could replace the hard drive completely, instead of being a BTO option. That is, if the price of flash storage in larger capacities drops enough to make this feasible.

The Mac Pro was refreshed in August. In addition to four-core and eight-core models, Apple now offers a 12-core Mac Pro. The Mac Pro continues to offer a combination of performance and expandability that's ideal for demanding users.

Mac software

iLife '11 was finally released in October, and it's well worth the upgrade if you are an iMovie, GarageBand, or iPhoto user. iWeb and iDVD had no new features, however.

Speaking of no new features, 2010 went by without a major update for Final Cut Studio. According to reports, the Final Cut development team was reshuffled, but Apple declared that it is still dedicated to the professional video-editing software suite. What's really going on with Final Cut is anyone's guess. Apple tends to make announcements for Final Cut around the time of the National Association of Broadcasters Show, so April is the time to be on the alert.

There are signs that Apple is still interested in its pro apps. A major update for Logic Pro and Logic Express was released in October. And in the spring of 2010, Apple released Aperture 3.

iWork also spent 2010 without a major update, though Apple did ship iWork for iPad. iWork has made its way through the rumor mill, however, with speculation that iWork '11 will be the marque software suite featured in the Mac App Store when it opens on January 6, 2011.

Jobs is alive and well

All this talk about the death of the Mac made us almost forget that it wasn't long ago that Steve Jobs was facing his own mortality. In 2009, Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple and had a liver transplant, which left many doubting whether Jobs could continue as Apple's CEO.

But in 2010, Jobs was back in full force. He appeared on stage giving keynotes, though he now lets others perform the deep-dive into products. He checks his e-mails from the general public, and replies in a terse style that's become a signature of the Apple CEO. He makes public appearances to promote organ donation. He's having coffee with other CEOs. And he even has time to take a jab or two at competitors and products that don't follow in The Apple Way.

Jobs led Apple to record profits and sales in 2010 and the company seems poised and ready for the new year.

View the original article here

Nexus S review roundup - Christian Science Monitor

The Nexus S arrives December 16th, but several outlets already have their hands on the new Android phone. Here are some of the early Nexus S reviews.

Skip to next paragraph

The pitch

"Though not officially positioned as such, the Nexus S is an update to the now-retired HTC Nexus One," writes CNET in its preview. CNET likes to take its time with gadgets, so expect its review later this week. "Like its predecessor, the Nexus S offers the 'pure Google' experience without a disruptive manufacturer skin. That means you'll get direct access to a full set of Google applications.... It's the first handset with 'Gingerbread,' the next version of the Android operating system, and it offers a number of feature improvements like a Super AMOLED display with a contour design, an NFC chip, and a second camera. Not everything sounds promising--the Nexus S lacks a memory card slot and support for T-Mobile's HSPA+ network--but we're excited to see it just the same."

The NFC chip

"The much-touted 'Near field communication,' so far, is a let down however," says the UK Telegraph. "That's because few people - in the UK at least - are yet using it. But as with so many Google features it could, in due course, be revolutionary: payments, transport tickets and more could – and should – all soon be based on this technology. For now, however, it’s simply a way of taking people to websites quickly."

The interface

"The UI has also been nipped and tucked all over the place, with icons and navigational elements taking on more of a buffed glass feel," writes Engadget in its preview. "Google has made big improvements to the keyboard, copy / paste, and text selection options, bringing the on-screen QWERTY and its associated components much closer to parity with iOS 4."

The downsides

"The lack of a comma on the keyboard might sound like a little issue, but to us, it's massive and could quickly get annoying," pans Tech Radar. "The text wrapping on the internet browser was hard to get right too (although that could be simply due to the early software build, so we'll wait for judgement on that). The price [$199 on contract, $529 unlocked] is ridiculously high for the average gadget lover - sure, it has come neat features but we reckon that slightly curved display added a few quid to the cost of manufacture, and had it been flat the world would have simultaneously wept."

The final word
"The bottom line is this," states TechCrunch. "If you are an iPhone user this isn’t going to make you switch. If you’re an Android user you will want this phone more than any other. If you’re currently neither, we recommend that you go with the Nexus S. It is better than the iPhone in most ways. What you lose with the slightly less impressive screen and iOS’s slightly slicker user experience you will more than make up for with the Nexus S’s ability to actually make phone calls that don’t drop and Google’s exceptional Navigation and voice input applications. The fact that the phone is unlocked and can be used abroad with other carriers is also a very big plus."

View the original article here

Week in gaming: Call of Duty review, Black Ops in 3D, CoD bribes - Ars Technica

It's very possible there is a theme to this week's top stories, and I'm sure you'll be able to crack the code. Call of Duty: Black Ops is a huge release, and with Activision spending thousands of dollars per reviewer to help everyone feel warm about the game (despite the problems the PC version experienced at launch), there was plenty to write about.

We also reviewed the new Goldeneye title on the Wii, and took a look at a very impressive-seeming iPhone game. Come on in, and we promise to go easier on Call of Duty next week... if we can stop playing online.

Call of Duty: Black Ops PC review: CPU bound, broken online play: Call of Duty: Black Ops goes for broke and makes a huge variety of settings and eras a part of the game's story. It's confusing because your character is confused, you see. It's a grand trick, but it doesn't hide the game's crippling technical problems.

A classic, reborn: Ars reviews Goldeneye 007 on the Wii: A classic console experience gets a... sequel? Reboot? Whatever you want to call it, this is a very worthy addition to the Goldeneye name. Remember, Oddjob is cheating.

Call of Duty: Black Ops, on PC, in 3D. Our first few hours: Our impressions of playing the game in 3D: to sum it up, it feels like I'm in a testosterone-soaked isolation chamber.

Call of Duty: Black Ops review event, press gifts detailed: Will companies pay for good reviews? Not directly, but by plying the press with free trips, gifts and stays at luxorious resorts, they can certainly stack the deck in their favor. Here is how Activision wowed the press before they even played Black Ops.

Epic Games shows off best looking iPhone game EVAR: Infinity Blade: Infinity Blade hopes to raise the bar for graphics on iOS devices, and the newest video showing off actual gameplay is convincing. Have a look, and download Epic Citadel if you haven't already.

Building the future: Microsoft's Kinect a marathon, not a sprint: The Kinect has plenty of problems as a gaming platform, but as a piece of Microsoft technology it's nothing but possibility. The investment Microsoft has placed in the new technology points to one thing: this device isn't going to stop at the 360.

100 copies of new Call of Duty stolen in armed heist of GameStop: The theft of video games is common. With games arriving by the case before big launches to stores staffed by a single teenager many hours a day, GameStop locations are an appealing target. One store in Baltimore lost the money in the register, plus 100 copies of the new Call of Duty release.

Nail'd: fast, insane, spectacularly unrealistic, and fun: Nail'd is one of those games that seems designed purely to show you insane things, and then allow you to explore them. It's simple enough for anyone to pick up, but the airborne gameplay should also keep hardcore gamers happy.

Ravaging villages, pilfering gold: Ars reviews Hoard: The PlayStation Network game Hoard manages to combine some of the best elements of arcade shooters with a board game style structure. It also lets you play as a dragon willing to do anything to get its claws on some gold.

The Kinect effect: how Harmonix mastered Dance Central's menus: Harmonix engineer Ryan Challinor discusses the problems with creating a gesture-controlled menu system when your only point of reference is the movie Minority Report.

View the original article here

Call of Duty: Black Ops PC review: CPU bound, broken online play - Ars Technica

Do the people lining up at midnight to buy Black Ops even know the difference between Treyarch and Infinity Ward? We spill pages of virtual ink in the enthusiast press about the soap opera between Activision and the creators of Call of Duty, but how many people actually pay attention? Gamers want to shoot people, and they want to do it online, and they want a few vehicle segments. They don't care who delivers it.

For those of us who do follow these things, the Black Ops launch is very much Treyarch's coming out party. The developer is no longer the redheaded step-child of the Call of Duty series, called in to give the A-Team a break while still profiting from the franchise. This is its chance to step up and create something that stands on its own. They've largely succeeded, and the game reeks of confidence. That being said, this path is well-worn, and I couldn't help but get the sense that we're watching a very talented skater perform tricks we've seen before on a half-pipe that's gotten a lot of use.

And oh yeah, the multiplayer barely works on the PC version, and single-player also seems to have major issues. Ta-da!

The game's premise is clever, and the menus themselves meld seamlessly into the game. You're being held... captive, maybe. Held hostage by shadowy figures, you're debriefed about a very long and distinguished career where you've spilled lead and blood across many years and many countries.

You'll meet some historical figures, and humanity will often be very close to the brink of disaster. There is a weapon that is being hunted by very powerful and ruthless people, and you'll do many things to stop its spread. Some scenes felt more X-Files than Heart of Darkness, in fact.

We are cold blooded because we kill people silently

The single-player campaign is longer than we're used to in this sort of highly scripted action game, closer to eight hours than six, and it's incredibly enjoyable. Gun battles are placed around set pieces and incredible moments of super-heroism, and you'll never be quite sure what will happen next, or even in what year. Modern Warfare 2 had a jangly, disjointed story that often left gamers feeling confused about what was going on, and Black Ops has decided to just embrace that. Hell, the character you play through the majority of the game is confused about what's going on. You're just along for the ride.

And what a ride! You'll be rappelling down the sides of things, jumping off even taller things, taking off in flying things, blowing away space-bound things, riding and driving two- and four-wheeled things while shooting things at stuff all over the place. Just in case you forget how edgy these games are supposed to be, in one scene you punch a window, take a piece of glass, put it in the mouth of another character, and then punch them very hard in the head. There is a lot of blood.

A few notes: not only are there many different guns, but you can find different variations of the guns. Extended magazines, different scopes, dual-wielding—the guns can be set up in a variety of ways, although you won't be modding them yourself in the singleplayer. Still, how cool is it to find a combination machine gun/flamethrower?

The voice cast is also impressive, including Ed Harris, Sam Worthington, Ice Cube, and Gary Oldman. Some do better than others, but everyone seems like they're trying, which is a big step up from most games where the big-name talent seems to mostly phone it in. Although, to be honest, Oldman does tend to ham it up.

Black Ops has interesting twists and turns, and the scene after the credits roll is wonderful in its humor, but it feels like a knife that has been sharpened so many times it's nearly invisible. These big-budget war games are starting to blend together, with the drivable vehicles and the globe-trotting and the military technology. I'm not sure if I've simply played too many of them or if there needs to be something done to shake things up, but a few scenes seemed to be there simply because we expect them from a game of this type. Also, twice I caught the game seemingly throwing endless waves of enemies at me until I stepped forward to the next waypoint. Once was around the middle of the game, and the other closer to the end, but it was still disappointing.

The game takes place in a variety of settings, across a number of years

View the original article here

Call of Duty: Black Ops PC review: CPU bound, broken online play - Ars Technica

Do the people lining up at midnight to buy Black Ops even know the difference between Treyarch and Infinity Ward? We spill pages of virtual ink in the enthusiast press about the soap opera between Activision and the creators of Call of Duty, but how many people actually pay attention? Gamers want to shoot people, and they want to do it online, and they want a few vehicle segments. They don't care who delivers it.

For those of us who do follow these things, the Black Ops launch is very much Treyarch's coming out party. The developer is no longer the redheaded step-child of the Call of Duty series, called in to give the A-Team a break while still profiting from the franchise. This is its chance to step up and create something that stands on its own. They've largely succeeded, and the game reeks of confidence. That being said, this path is well-worn, and I couldn't help but get the sense that we're watching a very talented skater perform tricks we've seen before on a half-pipe that's gotten a lot of use.

And oh yeah, the multiplayer barely works on the PC version, and single-player also seems to have major issues. Ta-da!

The game's premise is clever, and the menus themselves meld seamlessly into the game. You're being held... captive, maybe. Held hostage by shadowy figures, you're debriefed about a very long and distinguished career where you've spilled lead and blood across many years and many countries.

You'll meet some historical figures, and humanity will often be very close to the brink of disaster. There is a weapon that is being hunted by very powerful and ruthless people, and you'll do many things to stop its spread. Some scenes felt more X-Files than Heart of Darkness, in fact.

We are cold blooded because we kill people silently

The single-player campaign is longer than we're used to in this sort of highly scripted action game, closer to eight hours than six, and it's incredibly enjoyable. Gun battles are placed around set pieces and incredible moments of super-heroism, and you'll never be quite sure what will happen next, or even in what year. Modern Warfare 2 had a jangly, disjointed story that often left gamers feeling confused about what was going on, and Black Ops has decided to just embrace that. Hell, the character you play through the majority of the game is confused about what's going on. You're just along for the ride.

And what a ride! You'll be rappelling down the sides of things, jumping off even taller things, taking off in flying things, blowing away space-bound things, riding and driving two- and four-wheeled things while shooting things at stuff all over the place. Just in case you forget how edgy these games are supposed to be, in one scene you punch a window, take a piece of glass, put it in the mouth of another character, and then punch them very hard in the head. There is a lot of blood.

A few notes: not only are there many different guns, but you can find different variations of the guns. Extended magazines, different scopes, dual-wielding—the guns can be set up in a variety of ways, although you won't be modding them yourself in the singleplayer. Still, how cool is it to find a combination machine gun/flamethrower?

The voice cast is also impressive, including Ed Harris, Sam Worthington, Ice Cube, and Gary Oldman. Some do better than others, but everyone seems like they're trying, which is a big step up from most games where the big-name talent seems to mostly phone it in. Although, to be honest, Oldman does tend to ham it up.

Black Ops has interesting twists and turns, and the scene after the credits roll is wonderful in its humor, but it feels like a knife that has been sharpened so many times it's nearly invisible. These big-budget war games are starting to blend together, with the drivable vehicles and the globe-trotting and the military technology. I'm not sure if I've simply played too many of them or if there needs to be something done to shake things up, but a few scenes seemed to be there simply because we expect them from a game of this type. Also, twice I caught the game seemingly throwing endless waves of enemies at me until I stepped forward to the next waypoint. Once was around the middle of the game, and the other closer to the end, but it was still disappointing.

The game takes place in a variety of settings, across a number of years

View the original article here

Book review: 'Decision Points' by George W. Bush - Los Angeles Times

Former U.S. President George W. Bush waves while signing copies of his new memoir "Decision Points" at Borders Books on November 9, 2010 in Dallas, Texas. (Tom Pennington / Getty Images / November 9, 2010)

The first great American autobiographies both appeared in the 19th century, were born of conflict and written by public men — "The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" and "The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant."

Since then, what we might call the publishing-industrial complex has turned the reminiscences of our public men and women into a never-ending stream. As former President George W. Bush — barely two years out of office — points out in the acknowledgement of his memoir, "Decision Points," virtually every member of his extended, very political family has published a bestseller, including his parents' dogs.

Where does Bush's account of his astonishingly eventful eight years rank in such company? Probably far higher than many of his detractors expected. As Bush writes in "Decision Points," he enjoys surprising those who underestimate him. As the title suggests, the former chief executive elected to abandon the usual chronological approach to these volumes (except for a brief, obligatory foray into childhood and school years) in favor of his recollection of his presidency's key choices and the personal decisions that Bush says prepared him to make them.

Foremost among the latter were his conversion to active Christianity, which he attributes to an after-dinner talk that evangelist Billy Graham gave to the extended Bush family at their Maine compound, and to participation in his male friends' Crawford, Texas Bible study group. According to Bush, he continued to read the Bible every morning of his presidency — like his daily run, a comforting habit. Bush credits his religious awakening, along with a growing sense of obligation to his wife and daughters, with his other foundational personal choice: the decision to quit drinking after a night of boorish overindulgence in celebration of his Laura's 40th birthday. It's a change Bush credits with making possible his subsequent public life.

Leaks and an active publicity campaign of television and radio appearances have made many of the substantial points Bush makes rather familiar. Essentially, "Decision Points" confirms many of the better nonfiction accounts of his presidency published while he was in office, particularly Bob Woodward's four volumes and Robert Draper's "Dead Certain." The Bush White House may not have been given to doubts or its chief executive to indecision, but it did have a penchant for ad hoc deliberation, stubborn persistence in the face of failure — as in Iraq up to the surge — excessive personal loyalty and for being "blind-sided" by events beyond the unforeseeable tragedy of 9/11.

Nearly midway through "Decision Points," Bush writes that, "History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it."

For that reason, Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks. (Bush also continues to insist that waterboarding is not torture.) When then-CIA Director George Tenet asked whether he had permission to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, Bush replied, "Damn right." Bush writes that about 100 "terrorists" were placed in the CIA interrogation program and that about a third "were questioned using enhanced interrogation"; three were waterboarded. All, according to Bush, gave up usable intelligence that thwarted other acts of terrorism. Other reports have contradicted that assertion, but Bush is firm on the point.

Similarly, he writes that his stomach still churns over the fact that he and the rest of the country were misled by faulty intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but that the nation and world still are better off with the Iraqi dictator deposed. His only real regret, in fact, is that he failed to act more rapidly and decisively when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Many readers will be surprised by Bush's warm account of his cooperative relationship with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and his disappointment that they were unable to push through comprehensive immigration reform, which both felt was within a vote or two of their grasp. Given the contentious political use Karl Rove and other Bush aides made of abortion, readers also may be interested in the former president's unfailingly respectful discussion of the abortion-rights advocates with whom he disagrees. (There's also something amusing about Bush's account of urging the late Pope John Paul II not to waver in his pro-life convictions.)

Actually, one of the impressions that arises repeatedly in "Decision Points" is how much civility and bi-partisan cooperation matter to Bush. "The death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of 24-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing," he writes.

Looking back on his exit from office, Bush recalls, "I reflected on everything we were facing. Over the past few weeks we had seen the failure of America's two largest mortgage entities, the bankruptcy of a major investment bank, the sale of another, the nationalization of the world's largest insurance company, and now the most drastic intervention in the free market since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. At the same time, Russia had invaded and occupied Georgia, Hurricane Ike had hit Texas, and America was fighting a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was one ugly way to end the presidency."

There's a great deal in that statement of what this unexpectedly engrossing memoir suggests is the essential George W. Bush — a disarming candor, for example, combined with almost alarming off-handedness about the implications of what's being said. The man and the president portrayed in these pages is, at the same time, passive and strong; intelligent but not curious; a public person apparently at his best in private; willing to admit shortcomings, but not particularly self-critical; unfailingly civil himself, but happily surrounded by bare-knuckle partisans. There is a kind of pragmatic courage that makes a leader fearless of contradictions. Bush, for his part, seems oblivious to them.

Immediately after the admission that his presidency was coming to an "ugly" end, Bush adds, "I didn't feel sorry for myself. Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader…. As well, I was comforted by my conviction that the Good Lord wouldn't give a believer a burden he couldn't handle."

One suspects that Bush hopes to have the way in which he bore his unexpected burdens compared to the service of another wartime president, Lincoln. "Decision Points" records that, during his eight years in the Oval Office, Bush read 14 books on the first Republican commander-in-chief.

Somehow, though, it isn't the Great Emancipator who comes to mind at the end of this memoir, but Shakespeare's Macbeth:

"To know my deed, 'twere best not know myself."

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

View the original article here

Medal of Honor Review - PSX Extreme

More Game Info (Print This Article)

Graphics:

 8.2

Gameplay:

 8.4

Sound:

 9.1

Control:

 8.5

Replay Value:

 8.0

Online Gameplay:

 8.9

Overall Rating:       8.6

Publisher:

EA

Developer:

EA Los Angeles/DICE

Number Of Players:

1-24

Genre:

FPS

Release Date:

October 12, 2010

Maybe for the first time in first-person shooter history, many critics have misunderstood the aim of a particular production due to unfamiliarity and flat-out ignorance. This isn’t a slight against other reviewers; we all have to admit to deficiencies in knowledge that may hamper our ability to accurately judge a particular video game. In the future, I fear games will get so realistic, unless one is a true-blue expert on the subject, he or she won’t be fit to issue an accurate, reliable review. As developer Danger Close tapped the military and real Tier 1 operators for Medal of Honor, I felt I should do the same. I know a few people who have participated in the war on terror so I felt inclined to fire a few questions in their direction. As it turns out, and after playing a game I couldn’t help but enjoy, I’ve concluded that, despite the technical shortcomings (which are certainly a hindrance), this is an authentic experience that deserves its just due.

First up, we deal with an aspect of the game that doesn’t require any of the aforementioned real-world knowledge: the graphics. The visual presentation here is a bit odd, in that one minute, you’ll be impressed and even amazed at the detail, coloring, shading and special effects and the next…well, you’ll see a goat that has no face and black blotches where eyes and nose should be. The nighttime scenes aren’t anything special and the cut-scenes feature plastic-y character design, but during the day, one can’t help but become immersed in the intense, atmospheric proceedings. The designers spent a lot of time meticulously designing many elements of the environment, including seemingly trivial things like mounds of rocks and stubby trees. I still don’t think there's enough colorful “oomph” behind some of the explosive effects and one can’t deny some of the clipping, hitches and other problems, but the graphics do suffice.

The sound does more than suffice, as it’s the highlight of the game. Speaking of developer effort, Danger Close went out of their way to grab a ton of diverse and realistic radio chatter; you don’t often hear the same thing too many times, and both orders and sarcastic comments (which aren’t overdone) greatly enhance the game’s appeal. The soundtrack is great, too, as it kicks up during important parts when you’re advancing towards another battle, and tails off just a bit to let the focus sit squarely on the confrontation at hand. The effects are also top-notch; each weapon has a very distinct sound and everything from the yells of the Taliban – and your allies – to the whistle of bullets and ammo impact, is pretty awesome. The technical deficiency of the game rears its ugly head and can cause the sound to cut out completely at times, and there are a few balance issues. But still, this is about as good as you could hope for.

Based on what I’ve been told, modern warfare and especially the war on terror can be described as follows: 99% waiting around, 1% sheer terror. Of course, that doesn’t work for a video game. Therefore, Danger Close needed to reverse that ratio and create an experience that features the most intense, out-of-control, nightmarish scenarios the Army Rangers, Marines and Tier 1 Operators might encounter. This addresses the first flaw I’ve seen mentioned in different reviews: that Medal of Honor’s ceaseless action isn’t realistic and starts to feel too much like a “shooting gallery” of sorts. Firstly, you’re not following the actions of one particular individual and one particular group of soldiers. In fact, you will step into quite a few pairs of boots, and that includes being a helicopter gunner, sniper, and infantry invader. Sometimes it’s just you and a buddy; other times, there are multiple allies. Furthermore, as I understand it, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is much like this-

There’s little rhyme or reason to such a war. This isn’t the Revolutionary War or even World War II, where one encounters giant battlegrounds often planned down to the smallest detail. No, it’s about chasing random fighters through the rocks; it’s about constantly dealing with surprises; it’s about pitched battles centered in very small hot zones. This is what we have in Medal of Honor. Here, we have a series of situations and events that let you see what the bravest of the brave must contend with, and the variety, pacing and balance keeps you interested throughout. The point I’m trying to make is this- according to information I’ve been given, which is admittedly second-hand but better than third or fourth-hand via media, MoH will ring true to those who have really experienced the war on terror. I think too many people are missing this, and expected something different.

The controls are mostly tight and reliable and I’m actually very, very impressed with the hit detection. This is a facet of some shooters that simply falls flat or isn’t quite so reliable but in this game, just about every bullet that was supposed to hit something does, and weapons are realistically accurate (or inaccurate, as the case may be). Zooming in with the L1 button increases accuracy and yet, the shotgun can only be relied upon in close quarters, where it really can be relied upon. Your enemies won’t only aim at you and they won’t always hit their target. A few too many bullets will put you down, which is appropriate, and cover will protect you, but will often start to crumble if you stick around too long. Even vehicle control is pretty good, although it’s hardly refined and can be touchy.

As for AI, your allies are better than your foes. Your targets will sometimes do cool things like slide into cover but after that, they just sort of wait to get nailed. This is one of the bigger downfalls of the game and, along with the technical problems, keeps it from being an elite title. But your friends will take down plenty of targets and even though you’re often jammed into tight spaces, they don’t seem to hinder you too often. I never once died because I tried to strafe or hide and got stuck next to an ally. But really, the enemy should’ve flanked or acted a bit more human-like, and it can sometimes be difficult to know where to go next. This is another problem that’s well-documented but honesty, I think this complaint is due to two things: 1. someone who tries to move too quickly and doesn’t listen to the issued commands and 2. going off on your own and confusing the game.

Granted, that last one shouldn’t happen at all. The game should be able to adapt to your movements, no matter how ill-advised they may be. But if you stick to your allies, do what you’re told, go where you’re supposed to go, and execute as you’re asked to execute, everything will usually progress quickly and smoothly. And you know what else? All of that stuff – i.e., following orders – is kinda important. In other words, if you approach each mission as a soldier would approach it, you likely won’t encounter many of the snafus that do indeed infect the basic structure. We have to remember this. I’m not giving those snafus a free pass but I’m trying to keep the spirit of the experience at the forefront because I believe it’s crucial and may even be unique to this particular FPS. Thing is, the atmosphere never fails us. The sound, action, well-designed landscapes and continually fresh feel keep us on the edge of our seats. I’m sorry, but are we supposed to ignore all that?

It’s true that we have an incomplete graphical presentation (with great highs but disappointing lows). It’s true that the game almost froze on me once, and can hitch and glitch during transitional periods (although I never saw it during firefights). It’s true that the campaign is short (perhaps only 5 hours or so). It’s true that the story is disjointed and the characters are too faceless. But let’s look at this another way; in my eyes, the right way. In war, you simply trust the person by your side; you don’t really care about his past. I don’t care what Dusty’s favorite color is. I don’t care if he has a deep, dark secret. I only care that he tells me what to do and when, and that I execute correctly. When I jump from one view of the war on terror to the next, I’m immediately plunged into something intense and new; it ranges widely from all-out insanity, like desperately trying to stay alive until air support arrives, to quiet, stealthy missions, to marking targets from afar with some serious firepower.

Oh, and let’s not forget the fantastic multiplayer, which strikes a nice chord; it’s like a blend of Call of Duty and Battlefield: Bad Company; it forces you to think a bit more and react quickly, and although the maps are too similar to one another, the experience is ultimately quite rewarding. You definitely need to take time to master each individual weapon and the combination of strategy and fast-paced, white-knuckle action is excellent. This alone ramped up my final score of 8.3 to 8.6, if you’re wondering. The bottom line is that I believe this is a shockingly reliable virtual incarnation of what actually happened over there, although I’m sure there’s a wee bit of exaggeration involved for the sake of drama. It has its shortcomings, which are obvious. But what is also obvious – to me, anyway – is that a Tier 1 Operator will probably look at this and go, “yeah, that’s about right.” And that’s fine by me.

The Good: Atmosphere always rocks. Sound is utterly fantastic. Balance, pacing and variety is top-notch. Multiplayer awesomeoness. Attention to detail in terms of realism, presentation, audio, and war-like situations, is much appreciated.

The Bad: Short campaign. Technical problems, including clipping, screen tearing and outright glitching. Questionable enemy AI.

The Ugly: That freakin’ mutated alien goat. What the hell was that, anyway?

View the original article here