Well spotted. I recently learned how the paddle interface worked when reverse-engineering an old Apple II game. Even though I cut my teeth on an Apple II, I never knew how the circuit actually worked. When I saw the 6502 paddle code in the game it made no sense to me until I examined the Apple II's schematics. Then my mind was slightly blown. Just another one of those brilliantly simple hacks that riddle the Apple II's design and make it an almost magical device to me.
Constitutions don't work that way and it's dangerous to think they do. They do not empower citizens, they limit governments. Civil rights are inherent. If you don't understand that, you have already given up your freedom.
I feel bad for animals in bad shape, like that. But it honestly sounds more like a human-rodent relationship. It comes around for food, but otherwise doesn't care.
Dogs are great though. They actually love the shit out of you. Man's best friend, ftw!
Sadly true. I've had cats all my life, but no matter how great you think you and your cat are together, they will leave you flat for a better meal somewhere else. Cats have no sense of loyalty.
It might make it easier, but it doesn't necessarily make it better, and it certainly doesn't make it good. It's still garbage coming in. MPEG2 motion estimation is not sophisticated enough to ever be good. I can't speak for MPEG4 or BluRay but I would not expect it to be any better, just possibly finer grained.
>But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Yeah, my TV did that (interpolated 24fps into 120fps) until I turned it off "motion enhancement". I hated the effect. Somehow the picture seemed artificial and less clear even though the action was arguably smoother. Motion interpolation is much more well understood and easier to implement than faking 3d, but it still produces bad results.
Motion interpolation generally only works well for a very small subset of common visual imagery. Complex motion confuses it, often obliterating the original motion which makes things look subtly unreal, dreamlike, or otherwise confusing to the viewer. Discreet sampling and reconstruction filters, which are guaranteed to be sub-optimal, intensify the problem. When the video source is a DVD or some other video that's been wrung through the motion estimation process at least once already, it can only get worse. Garbage in, garbage out, Chinese whispers, turd polish, and all that rhythm.
I hope it's not true that mechanical starfield projectors are being phased out for boring video projectors. When I heard about this a week or so ago, I imagined the game being run from such a mechanical device. Disappointed to find this is not the case. Not sure how that would actually work in retrospect, but it was an appealing notion. Making a game for a hemispherical projection would still be an interesting challenge.
Of course you preferred mouse/keyboard, that's the only interface option of the PC version. No amount of controller remapping will ever change that. That's like putting pontoons on your car and expecting to enjoy your drive across the ocean.
The console interface doesn't work anything like the PC interface because it was designed with game pads in mind. The Torchlight developers themselves believe the console interface is superior, but they refused to consider it for PC users because it is apparently too much work for them. Options frighten developers.
That said, there's no reason why both versions can't be good. Torchlight was a Diablo clone made by an indie developer that was praised for the amount of work put into making the console port just as playable as the PC version.
Where they failed is making the PC version as playable as the console port.
Torchlight begs to played with a game pad, but that's not an option on PCs... as usual.
In the spirit of Slashdot pedantry, I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres, who is not part of Mojang.
Your point hits near the mark though. The more descriptive the trademark, the more difficult it is to enforce. Minecraft is pretty descriptive but as a compound word made of words that normally wouldn't be sequenced as such a phrase, it's got a slight edge over Elder Scrolls. Scrolls by itself seems pretty weak when compared to either of the other brands.
If you read the letter linked in the summary, the only thing Atari cites are alleged copyright infringements. The letter is a by-the-numbers DMCA takedown notice. Everything that a DMCA takedown notice is supposed to include is included. It's practically boilerplate. The only deviation from the norm is it was apparently not sent to the ISP, it was sent to the site owner. The purpose of a DMCA takedown notice is to force compliance by going to the ISP instead of persuading the site owner to cooperate. It's not clear what Atari's thinking is here but at this stage it looks like intimidation or incompetence.
Atari passed through several hands between Time-Warner and Inforgrames. Before Warner, it was owned by it's founders (Nolan Bushnell, et al). After the North American video game crash, the Tramiels (Commodore's founders) purchased Atari's debt from Time-Warner in the mid-80s for next to nothing. After a reasonable run of actually producing compelling product (Atari ST/TT/Falcon line and the over-hyped and critically bugged Jaguar), they sold it to a disk drive manufacturer in the 90s, who in turn sold it to Hasbro and/or Mattel a few years later, and it eventually wound its way into the hands of Infogrames who ditched their worthless name, took on the Atari moniker, and have been trying their damnedest to ruin it ever since.
His point is, a DMCA takedown notice is sent to an ISP, not a site owner, in order to compel them to remove the content without requiring the cooperation of the allegedly infringing party. The ISP must comply, in exchange for which they are absolved of any liability in hosting the allegedly infringing content. So, he's technically correct, it's not a DMCA takedown notice in the purest sense, but it fits all the requirements of a DMCA takedown notice excepting who the notice was sent to.
Here's a copy of the initial post of the DCemu thread linked in the summary:
I received this cease and desist letter from Atari, are they completely dumb, did you guys get one? Should we be concerned? As far as I know, its still legal to distribute emulators unless some new law passed? and of all the sites, they are referring to my old ass DCEmu archive.
"Atari, Inc. 417 5th Avenue New York, NY 10016-2204
I am writing on behalf of Atari, Inc./Atari Interactive, Inc. (“Atari”) to demand that you immediately and permanently cease and desist from the infringing activities described below and comply with the other demands set forth in this letter.
Atari is a global producer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment software for all market segments and all interactive game platforms. Atari is the exclusive owner of intellectual property rights, including copyrights and trademarks, in numerous interactive entertainment software products, including those listed below, and vigilantly protects its rights.
Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):
infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari’s copyright rights. Atari’s copyrighted works that have been infringed include:
Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx
The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as “Infringing Material”) is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.
The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari’s exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. 501.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is codified at 17 USC 512, Atari demands that you 1) expeditiously remove or disable access to the Infringing Material; and 2) take steps to prevent further infringement of Atari’s intellectual property rights at the above referenced URL(s).
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described herein is not authorized by Atari, its agent, or the law. The information in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, I affirm I am authorized to act on behalf of Atari whose exclusive copyright rights I believe to be infringed as described herein.
This notice is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law in this matter. Nor is it intended to be a complete statement of Atari's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone 212-726-6500 or email at us.legal@atari.com.
Infogrames has forever tainted the Atari brand to the point that it is almost worthless. They've done more damage than a hundred Tramiels. Their shareholders should be pissed. What an ignominious waste of an incredible legacy.
Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel better?
Well spotted. I recently learned how the paddle interface worked when reverse-engineering an old Apple II game. Even though I cut my teeth on an Apple II, I never knew how the circuit actually worked. When I saw the 6502 paddle code in the game it made no sense to me until I examined the Apple II's schematics. Then my mind was slightly blown. Just another one of those brilliantly simple hacks that riddle the Apple II's design and make it an almost magical device to me.
Our 'rights' granted to us by the state ...
Constitutions don't work that way and it's dangerous to think they do. They do not empower citizens, they limit governments. Civil rights are inherent. If you don't understand that, you have already given up your freedom.
Sadly true. I've had cats all my life, but no matter how great you think you and your cat are together, they will leave you flat for a better meal somewhere else. Cats have no sense of loyalty.
It might make it easier, but it doesn't necessarily make it better, and it certainly doesn't make it good. It's still garbage coming in. MPEG2 motion estimation is not sophisticated enough to ever be good. I can't speak for MPEG4 or BluRay but I would not expect it to be any better, just possibly finer grained.
>But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Yeah, my TV did that (interpolated 24fps into 120fps) until I turned it off "motion enhancement". I hated the effect. Somehow the picture seemed artificial and less clear even though the action was arguably smoother. Motion interpolation is much more well understood and easier to implement than faking 3d, but it still produces bad results.
Motion interpolation generally only works well for a very small subset of common visual imagery. Complex motion confuses it, often obliterating the original motion which makes things look subtly unreal, dreamlike, or otherwise confusing to the viewer. Discreet sampling and reconstruction filters, which are guaranteed to be sub-optimal, intensify the problem. When the video source is a DVD or some other video that's been wrung through the motion estimation process at least once already, it can only get worse. Garbage in, garbage out, Chinese whispers, turd polish, and all that rhythm.
Fashion doesn't have IP protection. You should have used a car analogy.
I hope it's not true that mechanical starfield projectors are being phased out for boring video projectors. When I heard about this a week or so ago, I imagined the game being run from such a mechanical device. Disappointed to find this is not the case. Not sure how that would actually work in retrospect, but it was an appealing notion. Making a game for a hemispherical projection would still be an interesting challenge.
Of course you preferred mouse/keyboard, that's the only interface option of the PC version. No amount of controller remapping will ever change that. That's like putting pontoons on your car and expecting to enjoy your drive across the ocean.
The console interface doesn't work anything like the PC interface because it was designed with game pads in mind. The Torchlight developers themselves believe the console interface is superior, but they refused to consider it for PC users because it is apparently too much work for them. Options frighten developers.
That said, there's no reason why both versions can't be good. Torchlight was a Diablo clone made by an indie developer that was praised for the amount of work put into making the console port just as playable as the PC version.
Where they failed is making the PC version as playable as the console port.
Torchlight begs to played with a game pad, but that's not an option on PCs ... as usual.
I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres
Sweet, is that the one where you cut up ingredients instead of dig holes?
Yes.
Argh! Hoisted by my own retard!
In the spirit of Slashdot pedantry, I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres, who is not part of Mojang.
Your point hits near the mark though. The more descriptive the trademark, the more difficult it is to enforce. Minecraft is pretty descriptive but as a compound word made of words that normally wouldn't be sequenced as such a phrase, it's got a slight edge over Elder Scrolls. Scrolls by itself seems pretty weak when compared to either of the other brands.
This reminds of that time I didn't make a Family Guy reference and people unconsciously thanked me.
the Atari 7800 Impossible Mission fiasco
What part of "impossible mission" don't you understand?
So why the hate for OnLive
You must be GNU here.
We can only hope.
If you read the letter linked in the summary, the only thing Atari cites are alleged copyright infringements. The letter is a by-the-numbers DMCA takedown notice. Everything that a DMCA takedown notice is supposed to include is included. It's practically boilerplate. The only deviation from the norm is it was apparently not sent to the ISP, it was sent to the site owner. The purpose of a DMCA takedown notice is to force compliance by going to the ISP instead of persuading the site owner to cooperate. It's not clear what Atari's thinking is here but at this stage it looks like intimidation or incompetence.
Perhaps, but "Atari" is a trademark and has nothing to do with copyright.
Atari passed through several hands between Time-Warner and Inforgrames. Before Warner, it was owned by it's founders (Nolan Bushnell, et al). After the North American video game crash, the Tramiels (Commodore's founders) purchased Atari's debt from Time-Warner in the mid-80s for next to nothing. After a reasonable run of actually producing compelling product (Atari ST/TT/Falcon line and the over-hyped and critically bugged Jaguar), they sold it to a disk drive manufacturer in the 90s, who in turn sold it to Hasbro and/or Mattel a few years later, and it eventually wound its way into the hands of Infogrames who ditched their worthless name, took on the Atari moniker, and have been trying their damnedest to ruin it ever since.
His point is, a DMCA takedown notice is sent to an ISP, not a site owner, in order to compel them to remove the content without requiring the cooperation of the allegedly infringing party. The ISP must comply, in exchange for which they are absolved of any liability in hosting the allegedly infringing content. So, he's technically correct, it's not a DMCA takedown notice in the purest sense, but it fits all the requirements of a DMCA takedown notice excepting who the notice was sent to.
Here's a copy of the initial post of the DCemu thread linked in the summary:
I received this cease and desist letter from Atari, are they completely dumb, did you guys get one? Should we be concerned? As far as I know, its still legal to distribute emulators unless some new law passed? and of all the sites, they are referring to my old ass DCEmu archive.
"Atari, Inc.
417 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10016-2204
Tel: 212-726-6500
Fax: 212-726-4214
E-mail: us.legal@atari.com
August 30, 2011
Re: seanbajuice.com
Dear Domain Admin:
I am writing on behalf of Atari, Inc./Atari Interactive, Inc. (“Atari”) to demand that you immediately and permanently cease and desist from the infringing activities described below and comply with the other demands set forth in this letter.
Atari is a global producer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment software for all market segments and all interactive game platforms. Atari is the exclusive owner of intellectual property rights, including copyrights and trademarks, in numerous interactive entertainment software products, including those listed below, and vigilantly protects its rights.
Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-atari800.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-DC7800.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-dcs2600.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-lynx.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-stelladc.htm
infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari’s copyright rights. Atari’s copyrighted works that have been infringed include:
Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx
The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as “Infringing Material”) is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.
The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari’s exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. 501.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is codified at 17 USC 512, Atari demands that you 1) expeditiously remove or disable access to the Infringing Material; and 2) take steps to prevent further infringement of Atari’s intellectual property rights at the above referenced URL(s).
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described herein is not authorized by Atari, its agent, or the law. The information in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, I affirm I am authorized to act on behalf of Atari whose exclusive copyright rights I believe to be infringed as described herein.
This notice is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law in this matter. Nor is it intended to be a complete statement of Atari's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone 212-726-6500 or email at us.legal@atari.com.
Thank you.
Regards,
Kristen Keller,
SVP & General Counsel"
http://pastebin.com/kmkN7zCM
Infogrames has forever tainted the Atari brand to the point that it is almost worthless. They've done more damage than a hundred Tramiels. Their shareholders should be pissed. What an ignominious waste of an incredible legacy.
Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.
OK, that explains your lackluster karma. Thanks for clearing that up.