Battlefield: Bad Company 2 beta download sites

Because of heavy traffic the official BFBC2 site is pretty shaky right now. The official beta site is here: http://www.battlefieldbadcompany2.com/beta

In case you can't get to the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 PC beta site, here are the three official download links they have provided:

http://www.fileplay.net/file/7568/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc-closed-beta-rc1
http://www.fileplanet.com/files/200000/209408.shtml
http://www.battle.no/?section=download&get=144

As of right now I couldn't get the Battle.no link to download anything.

They also provided a few other sites of beta download and server hosts. Here are the sites I could find with a download:

http://www.gamehosting.co.uk/bad-company-2-client-download
http://descargas.newlightsystems.com/bc2/
http://bc2.killercreation.co.uk/files/client/BFBC2_PC_ClosedBeta_RC1_511270_Client.zip

Two of the sites are UK with one Spanish site, so hope that the client is the same for different countries if using these links.

Why the iPad is targetting e-readers, not PCs.

Apple just released their much anticipated tablet. I think it's a good product for some uses, but others, not so much. Some people are saying that its main competitor is the laptop. But, it's more similar to a smartphone than a full fledged computer.

It lacks USB ports.

This is one of my huge problems with the device. It is abandoning the most superfluous connection among computers. To not have one, I think, is enough to declare something not a computer. This can be made up by bluetooth connectivity, but the amount of devices on USB compared to bluetooth is staggering. Not to mention USB is the most popular mode of external storage, which this product would need if it wants to be a computer. 64GB isn't going to cut it in PC land.

It takes it's OS from a phone.

The iPad runs off a mobile OS. This decreases the programs that can run on the device. Even when limiting it to Mac OS programs this takes a chunk out of the programs it can run. Though it does gain access to the iPhone's app store, these applications aren't meant for large screen sizes. They were also designed with the limited hardware of a phone, not something that is almost as powerful as a laptop. Sure, the amount of apps specifically designed for the tablet will increase, but that takes some time.

A physical keyboard requires a dock.

It's a computer without a keyboard. There is a dock, but this makes the device more unwieldy than a laptop. Part of what makes it unwieldy is the "lap" in laptop. With a screen attached to a flat surface with a keyboard, you can sit on a bus and computer comfortable. Not so with two separate flat surfaces.

It costs too much.

I have a netbook that I bought a year ago. It has a 10 inch screen, 6 hours of battery life, 120GB of storage, USB PORTS, Bluetooth, wifi, and a physical keyboard. Therefore it has a larger screen, more storage, and better connectivity. Yet it cost (a year ago mind you) $300. The lowest offering of the iPad is $500. It can run any productivity software I've bought in the past for a PC, including older games. In my mind, the iPad just doesn't compete.

Where it succeeds

I am not trying to be overcritical of the device, just its fit with the market people are associating with it. Now, the market that I think it will dominate is the E-reader market. This market hasn't had an entry that has both an established hardware, software, and distribution company behind it.

The three main entries are: Barnes and Noble's Nook, Amazon's Kindle, and Sony's Reader. Amazon has a distribution background for books, and is capable of providing an interface, but not hardware (WTF keyboard). It also isn't known for company branded products. Sony has the hardware background, but not the distribution. Plus, Sony's marketing for the device hasn't been stellar. Barnes and Noble knows books, but not digital distribution, software, or hardware. All in all, none of these companies have seen a huge interest in their product; at least when it comes to people buying them. Apple, on the other hand, is known for explosive product launches and could push e-readers into the mainstream. They have already had devices that have great hardware, software, and distribution.

The iPad fills most of the requirements for a good e-reader. It has a large screen, long battery life, wireless connectivity, and a distribution system. It may not have an e-ink screen, but its screen is also capable of color and video. It is powered by a 1Ghz processor, which is plenty of power for something that needs to display text and turn pages. It is a multifunction device: Email, games, video, etc. But, the biggest advantage it has is the company behind it.

Apple can sell multi-millions of devices. It has the most popular smart phone and the largest and most profitable digital distribution system. Even Amazon's Kindle devision has an app on iTunes. It has the market presence and reputation to make big changes. The e-reader market has been stagnant, even in the last two years with three major entrants. Even if the market doesn't explode, I think Apple will be able to take the lion's share with the iPad.

The end of single purpose gadgets?

One of the biggest, yet smallish, trends in the last two years has been the introduction of the "e-reader." A generally single purpose device with the goal of digitizing static media, i.e. books. They use sophisticated technologies to provide a paper-like surface to read from through the use of e-inks and other alternatives. Along with a more natural reading media than traditional monitors, these handful of techs have also increased the battery life of these devices. But, generally these devices provide only one service; delivering books to your eyes. What's the longevity of a single purpose device these days? The iPod provides an example.

In a world where the iPod, previously a single-function device, has turned into the iTouch and iPhone, do single-function gadgets serve a purpose? Apple has sold untold millions of iPods and yet have turned away from it's single-function beginnings. The devices that have evolved from it not only play music, but make calls, play 3D games, social network, and web browse among a multitude of other activities. Would Apple change a product that has sold literally millions if they didn't have a good reason?

Another recent gadget is a family of devices known as the "Peek." TwitterPeek, the first of these devices, only serves to send out your daily activities through Twitter, nothing else. It was absolutely blasted on technology blogs for being backwards and terribly uneconomical. The TwitterPeek comes with two payment options. A 6 month service option with the device which puts the price at $100, or a lifetime service plan which gives you a lifetime of tweeting. While the lifetime service plan is enticing, how long does a gadget really last you? Three, maybe four years? With the ability of literally any basic cellular phone (w/ text messaging) able to tweet, whats the point? You could spend, at minimum, $100 on a device that will last you six months, or you could simply use what has also turned into a multifunction device, a phone.

With this convergence of electronic abilities we come back to the e-reader, well, in a way. Apple is rumored to be unleashing a delicious miracle (Penny-Arcade) of a device in just three days. Those rumors include a 10.1" touchscreen, e-books, media streaming, and 3G internet. Basically, it blows up the multi-functionality already established by the iPhone into a more hefty shell. In some cases it might replace a person's books, laptop, and media device. Why would anyone buy an e-reader when there is a device out there that can do an overwhelmingly amount more? You might cite the advantages of battery life and eye comfort, but technology will be available in the immediate future in the form of color e-books, and hybrid screens (Gizmodo).

So, my take? E-books have a bright future in the form of other devices. "Peeks" will never catch on. Ultimately we will see more convergence in gadgets. Even huge industries such as PCs have been taking a hit, and I'd wager that multi-purpose gadgets are a big reason.

Sources and attributions:

Gizmodo

TwitterPeek

Penny Arcade.

Accreditation done with links throughout.

R U SRS: Google leaving because of Baidu?

I've seen a lot of coverage on the events recently plaguing our friendly software giant Google. There's a big scare over whether or not they are staying in the Chinese market, if their software is secure, and if it for some other reason than the recent hacking attacks. Some people have cited Baidu as the culprit, believing that Google is unsuccessful in competing.

Let's start out with some facts.

1. The Chinese internet enabled market is approximately 384million (Reuters). Taken into perspective, this is almost 30% larger than the entire US population.
2. Google entered the Chinese market in 2006
3. Google has since gained about 43% marketshare (statcounter w/ a nice graph).
4. Baidu has about 55% marketshare (statcounter)

Additionally, these "analyzations" might help you gain some perspective. In the last 4 years Google has gained more than 40% of the marketshare in China. Traditionally any US company entering China has had at least a difficult time. 10% a year is nothing to scoff at in any industry, ever, and given the context, astounding. Baidu and Google combined leave 2% to the rest. This implicates that Google has been taking marketshare primarily from their major competitor for the last four years. Comparitively, Yahoo and Microsoft, the next largest competitors in the US market only have 28% of the US market combined. (Business Insider) Add that to the fact that most of Bing's marketshare has been taken from Yahoo, not Google. How can people even think that competition with Baidu is even a minor reason for Google leaving China?

Quite frankly I think it would be a terrible idea to leave even if the reason is to "don't be evil." Google isn't the one being "evil" it's the Chinese government for forcing them to censor their results. I don't think that people understand that if they didn't censor their results, they wouldn't be able to do business in China. "Then why not leave China?" Because of the aforementioned 43% market share! You don't just leave when you've taken 40% of something. That'd be like if the Allied powers in WW2 took back 40% of Europe and then left because Germany was too strong of a competitor. (There's another metaphor about civilian losses equating to "don't be evil", but I'm gonna leave it at that.)

I'd speculate that Google isn't considering leaving China at all. They have this event that can finally show the rest of the world what they've been dealing with for the last 4 years. They gain some sympathy, draw more attention to China's practices, and work towards changing those practices. I'd jump a bit further into this rabbit hole and, perchance, dream that Google is talking to the Chinese government right now in a rascally marketing demeanor and saying that it would be a good move for China to stop censoring internet borne information.

Sources:

Reuters, Statcounter, Business Insider

citing done in links w/ accreditation throughout.

My thoughts on Health Care

My opinion is by far not the most important or evidenced backed. But, I would like to take a stab at the issue because it is a major topic which deals with our government, economy, and daily lives. In a post-industrial country like the United States, I believe there should be health care for all. our livings standards are higher than most of the world and even the poor are better off than the peoples of many other countries. With our situation our country should be able to provide health care for all whether it is a government option or requirements for private insurance companies.

A common statement by the politicians in Washington is that a government option will create a system with too much power. This will cause private insurance companies to lose customers because of the power a government system could wield. In extreme cases it has been said that a government option will lead us on the path to socialism. The United States is built upon an ideal of competition. That those that can provide a better product or service at a cost people hold as valuable will succeed in the marketplace. This American ideal is being challenged by those that would say a government option would take customers away from private insurance.

Let me explain what I mean by this. If a government option were available, people would still consider both public and private insurance. It is my understanding that the public option would give those without insurance, whether they can afford it or not, an opportunity to be cared for without causing them over a reasonable amount of financial stress. People who are uninsured now for financial reasons cannot go to private insurance companies. A government option would not take these people away from private insurance companies because they are not currently covered under the existing system. It would be like saying BMW is worried Kia is taking away their customers. They serve almost entirely different markets with each company serving two distinct groups of people.

Private insurance companies would serve their current customers, and the government option would serve those left behind by the current health care system. As long as private companies can provide a superior service for their current customers they don't have to worry about a government program. If they cannot provide superior service at the same price, they are not doing their job. We all know that the US government hasn't been doing a very good job from a business standpoint. A business over 11 trillion dollars in debt could not rationally survive (though some financial companies seem to be striving for this goal). If private insurance companies cannot compete with the US government on health care there is obviously something wrong with the way they run their business.

Around 15% of Americans are uninsured of 2007. A country with such a high standard of living should not allow this to happen. A public option would not take customers away from private health care. They would serve two different types of customers. If private companies cannot provide a service that will cater to the portion of 15% that should be able to afford a reasonable amount of insurance a government option should be make available. This is the brief opinion of an upper middle class citizen of the US whose family can afford a private insurance plan.

Exercise

I've been doing 100 sit-ups and 40-50 pushups, and 40 squats a day for almost a year now. I stopped during spring break, but was doing physical activity during that time (skiing). Since this time last year I've lost 20 lbs. I started with a better diet and initially lost 30 lbs over about 5 months, then started my exercise routine about when the summer Olympics were on (motivation). Recently I've been trying to ramp up how many push ups I can do by taking about a minute break after 50, then pushing out as many more as I can do.

Still no six-pack, but overall I feel more healthy and can run a solid 2 miles when I have the time. Speaking of time, I don't think many people realize that you actually can get in shape in 20 minutes a day. I think the problem is that people don't get into a routine and do it every day.

After reading this Lifehacker article I think I'm going to replace my situps with planks. It's less straining on your spine, but acheives the same objective of a stronger core. Here's a YouTube video of the exercise.

I'm 21 for reference, and when I saw people my age doing awesome feats of strength, in Gymnastics especially, I couldn't help not exercise. (Also learned how to spell exercise in that period :)

RE: Time Warner Bandwidth Caps, Gaming And You

In response to: Kotaku

Broadband internet provider Time Warner Cable is making good on its plans to charge its subscribers for the amount of bandwidth they consume, a decision that could have a serious impact on your cable bill.

Well if you are just playing games you won't see much of an effect. Games send and receive relatively small amounts of data. But when you are downloading World of Warcraft, streaming netflix videos, and buying DLC for Xbox it can really run up the bill.