Starcraft has sold 11 million units worldwide. That's pretty good, it's one of the best selling games of all time.
World of Warcraft has over 11.5 million monthly subscribers. More people play WoW in one month than the copies of SC sold in a decade.
So, when you consider target audience, and whether or not they're likely to have an internet connection... yeah. SC2 is going to sell really well.
World of Warcraft players are World of Warcraft players, many exclusively. I don't know just how much of the WoW subscriber base one can claim as interested in any RTS games, Starcraft or otherwise.
Re:Who actually cares about the "good" ratings?
on
Gaming the App Store
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I find the 0 - 3 star ratings more telling about an app than the 4 or 5 star (fanboy) ratings. In general, when I want to find out about a product, I like to read the negative to moderate reviews because they seem to be more honest about potential problems. What do you guys think/do?
I think a lot of reviews on the 5 star and 1 star polar ends are given after a first impression. The product arrives, it works and is a new toy, the person is excited, 5 stars. Conversely, person can't get it to work immediately with their setup, 1 star. Neither are very useful, which is why I always wait to review a product until I've had it for a while (and unfortunately end up forgetting to do so most of the time).
If I'm looking at reviews, chances are I'm looking for a product with specific things in mind, among a sea of similar products. I look at both high and low ratings that show thought and give input on things I'm specifically interested in. I shop for value items rather than high end lines, so I don't usually consider 5 star ratings unless they specifically have given the extra stars in as a nod to the quality/price ratio. No product is perfect, especially at the low end of the price range, so earnest reviews will always have some thoughtful criticism.
I never got why amazon didn't limit reviews to people who had bought the book, (while it doesn't stop this it makes it a more costly business, I find it particularly surprising that a company with as much control over their system as apple don't limit reviews to app purchasers.
1) If someone is abusing reviews and ratings to harm a book's Amazon reputation, the author affected will likely contest and complain.
2) If someone is abusing reviews and ratings to make a book look better on Amazon, more people will buy it, and Amazon has more sales.
With the App store, 2 billion in sales is a lot of money for Apple. Why would they worry about such things unless there's a PR backlash?
"bring you the unmatchable power of GNU/Linux". Cheesiest. Line. Ever. On/.
Just for the record: is there anything that you can name that can do more than Linux? Ever had an OS run on your wristwatch that was also able to run on the world fastest super computers, space exploration and operation critical medical hardware?
Wait? If I wanted to pick the game up again (sold the old account a long time ago), I would be required to buy the original game, plus the two expansions, PLUS this expansion when it came out?
What a joke...
You could buy a lvl 80 account, which is already authorized for all the current expansions, and download the necessary installers. Not exactly a Blizzard-supported option, but neither is selling one's account.
The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes. If your boss happens to actually be at Burning Man, it's pretty unlikely that your boss is the kind of person who will then turn around and decide to fire you for, say, being naked at Burning Man. Same for lots of other people who might give you grief for lots of other things. Yes, it could happen, but it's far, far less likely, and probabilities matter.
At the same time, if you go to Burning Man and are photographed doing drugs and running around naked, and these photos make it back to your boss who DOES fire you for whatever behavior, so be it. It's your choice where you go and how you act, and if that violates something in the company guidelines you might have to answer for your decisions.
As for photos, if Burning Man is in a legal position to set the policies it has, then again, you are entering into that contract. If it is too absolute, then, like all opt-in situations, just don't go to the event. If there policies exceeds their position, then someone can challenge it legally.
Basically, I don't see much of an issue here. No expectation of privacy makes a person not responsible for their actions, and BMO's photo policy is part of the package whether anyone likes it or not. The EFF commentary theorizes that it's a "misuse" of the DMCA, but doesn't challenge its legality. If you are a regular Burning Man attendee you can decide to continue to opt-in or not, and for those that Burning Man holds no interest, what's the bigger story that is of concern? Many events are held that don't allow ANY photography by attendees. Isn't that much more restrictive than BMO's policy?
Anti-missile defenses add a factor into your list when considering a rocket's weapon effectiveness:
A rocket weapons designer ends up having to make a series of compromises between the strength of the rocket itself, the payload, the range, and it's ability to hit its target accurately and without being intercepted. If you want to protect your rocket you're going to have to give up payload, give up range or increase rocket size, maximizing the rocket's effectiveness as a weapon.
Does anyone else think that developing an "evil" A.I. isn't a great idea?
Has anyone pointed out that the "A.I." part of "Evil A.I." is what currently makes this whole thing moot as a safety issue? Let me know when someone actually creates a true A.I. and then I'll start worrying about its personality traits.
Also, I'm not too clear on how this would work. Wouldn't it require a certificate-like central authentication server? And wouldn't this increase in traffic just exacerbate the situation of too much traffic? Especially if all Spam starts to come with fake 'stamps.'
So why not go back to the PGP/GPG system of authenticated public keys and signed email? All the cost-per-email is doing is modifying an email so it's verified as centmail. Why not just modify it as signed, requiring a user's passphrase or similar identification? If spammers can get around that with their botnets, they can get around CentMail just fine also. Why involve money?
But with the iPhone, the source code is effectively no longer free. It has a $99 price tag, since having source code, but not being able to compile and use it is pretty much useless.
I think this isn't the case. Plenty of people have pointed out that the iPhone SDK is free to download and use now, and the game can be played in the emulator. So you could download the source, compile it, and play the game. If you don't have a Mac, you can download the source and port it to your platform, like with any other open source project.
Humm, I recall that the "duplication of functionality" clause referred only to Apple's applications, not to any 3rd party applications sold on the store.
The original developer may not like the fact that the OP is charging for the client but he CHOSE the gpl in the first place.
And the GPL is there so that developers aren't limited by the original author's specific views on how the code should be used or not used, in the case that said views go beyond what's covered in the license.
His point was that the app store is governed - you have no idea whether Apple will ever let your app make it into the actual store (see Google Voice). They might perfectly well say that it is an exact duplicate of a for-pay app, and it is therefore rejected. Remember, Apple takes 30%, so it's in their best interest to put more apps behind the pay wall. And we already know that Apple can reject any app for any reason (FCC inquiries notwithstanding).
More specifically, I think he was pointing out that Apple might treat forks as duplicates, leaving the initial submitters the only ones able to earn money for the software on that platform, regardless of the source being available. That said, I think what they're doing is all right, as they are keeping the source available.
One thing to add: if the original author had said "That's great, nice work!" when it first came up, this wouldn't have been an issue for this project. I recommend not putting too much (if any) stock in what the original author thinks. There will always be people with different views on how open source projects should be handled, and plenty of bickering about it. If we didn't have licenses like the GPL which spell out how code can be used, and instead had to get the author's permission, open source software would never have progressed as far as it has.
Of course, if you're feeling guilty, you could always invest any extra money you make into developing a version for Android, or make a donation to some project that needs it.
Thinkpad isn't going to vent its heat directly into your groin, while an aluminum Macbook will.
I think you're overstating or fabricating an issue that doesn't exist. For instance, on my (ancient) Aluminum PowerBook G4 (remember that the G4 chip was notorious for its heat issues), I have vents along the backside of the computer and along both sides (all of which are hidden from view in normal use). In regular practice I can easily max out the CPU for extended periods of time (heck, running Azureus and watching a movie will do that these days), yet it never gets hot enough to warrant concern, due to the proper venting. So while the thermal properties of other metals may be more favorable, it's not an issue if the heat is properly vented, which it is (otherwise, we could make the argument that every computer should use liquids for cooling since they have better thermal properties than air, which would entirely miss the fact that liquid cooling is simply unnecessary in many cases). And last I checked, the current laptop lines from Apple do not have vents in the region that would be directed at the groin.
I have a white Macbook, and it does indeed get groin-grillingly hot, even at low CPU loads. That's my primary complaint with my Macbook, and I'm positive it's a common issue (although I'd hope not universal).
This Macbook has been a great laptop; my second, after an Acer Travelmate that lasted 6 years. I think it's interesting that each laptop I've owned has changed my set of criteria for things to look for in a portable the next time the need comes around. After the Acer I wanted something lighter. After the Macbook, I'm going to look for something cooler.
And as a view from the other side of that fence, as a die hard healer, I hated PuGs where the tanks really *wouldn't* push it. It usually manifested itself as ultra slowness, and a refusal to pull (or having to be prompted before each pack) if I didn't have full mana.
In TBC as a priest, with downranking and a brain you could heal forever with rank 2 GH and CoH and never have to worry about mana, unless things got really hairy, and yet still you'd have tanks that just wouldn't push the boat out. I can understand being sensitive to the needs of the guy keeping you alive, but after the 5th "heeler drink!" prompt in party chat while we all sit staring at a 2 pack of mobs, it starts to get tiresome.
In Wrath the heroics are so easy, that even with downranking gone, and mana regen outside the FSR severely down, it is still very easy to keep even a modestly geared tank up.
My best friend was a priest, and we levelled up together. We ran all the heroics, did 2v2 arena, and got into big raiding at the same time.
As a senior tank and then MT, I helped a lot of green warriors learn about tanking, and I always included advice on keeping your healer in mind. Beyond the obvious like "keep an eye out in case someone screws up and their mob/add goes after the healer", I'd stress things that a lot of tanks don't think about, mostly having to do with the tank now knowing how better to play the healer's character. A few I remember:
- The healer will tell you if a mana break is needed (just as the DPS will), otherwise just mark up the next pull and keep going.
- If the healer isn't ultra green, definitely give the benefit of the doubt before you start worrying aloud if they're getting the right heals on you (but keep an eye on your HP spikes, all the same).
- Between pulls, stand in front of the healer. Accidental pulls happen all the time, but if your priest gets one-shotted, not only will you wipe, you'll all have to run back.
- Never tell a priest that you need healing. That's literally all he's doing. (My favourite tip)
There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps.
It's definitely natural to look to the President to lead the way on this (or not), but it seems like people generally leave out the role of Congress. I'm no expert, but shouldn't congressional oversight be a major player (if not THE major player) in matters like this? I know the DoJ falls under the Executive branch, but Congress has appointed special investigators in the past, IIRC.
In any case, Congress definitely has a role to play. As the warrant-less domestic wiretapping was known for some time under Pres. Bush, and continues under Pres. Obama, I'm more likely to place blame on Democrats in the Legislature. I expect today's surviving Republicans to both stick to party lines and put national security ahead of constitutionality. More importantly, I know that they don't wield significant power at present.
Democrats are also prone to the security over constitutionality choice, of course. I don't have a party line behind this post. For both parties, political climate is a huge influence. I just think it's worth remembering that Congress has duties in government beyond passing laws and setting the budget; that's what all the committees are there for.
If we put all blame and expectations on Bush and now Obama, we make it too easy for Congress to not press important issues. It's part of the President's job to take blame and criticism, since they represent the entire country and can never expect to please everyone. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are individually much more answerable to us, theoretically anyway.
The bottom line is that arguing about Bush or Obama on Slashdot just wastes time and space in the discussion (this article is about the press, isn't it?). Writing your Senator or Representative, on the other hand, is a much better use of your time, if only to have the opportunity to gain insight into the canned response you will get back from their offices.
Subsistence living is a different beast. As is having more kids than you can afford with a reasonable job - what is the point of supporting the kids if you never see them anyway?
I think we're defining "support" differently. The point of supporting your kids is so they can eat, have a home, etc. The level of subsistence where supporting the kids definitely has importance over quality time. I agree with you on "supporting" being things like buying them an xbox, making sure they get a new car at 16, etc.
Being in the military is a separate thing too, I would assume the "retire early" applies, but modified to be "I don't expect to be doing this for my entire working life, but it is worth it in the short/medium term". Where "worth it" could be a lot of things from expecting a long career in the military not involving being in a warzone all their lives, or a jump start on a civilian career with the training/experience/etc the military provided, or just plain old "I will suffer and risk my life for my country because I am a patriot". And don't forget "I love shooting stuff":)
I'll give you the "I don't expect to be doing this for my entire working life", absolutely. Of course, that doesn't change the present, which with long and repeated deployments can really suck personally, but at the same time include reasons important to that individual for making that sacrifice.
Regardless of my specific examples, I was pointing out that not everyone has the luxury to chose work or hours. This is obviously true in the short term, but it's definitely not a given that it's false in the long term.
I agree work doesn't have to be bad, but it's not always us who has the ultimate say in it. If we end up working a job we hate for a long time, or our entire lives, at least we have the chance to try to bring up our children to have the best chance to not let the same thing happen (be it financial opportunities, or merely teaching them to make better choices).
An online multiplayer RPG without most of the MMO horseshit. You can group up, play solo, or mix the two up.
In this game, the fun is the journey more than the destination. There are always monsters along the way that your character will have trouble with, regardless of your "build."
It's because of the d-bags. We love the idea of all the new content, ever-changing worlds, new quests, new gear, or trading for awesome gear you can't normally get at your level. Then we play with people and remember that it's still the same thing as playing with online as it ever was--awful. D-bags, cheaters, impatient people, and all the other awful people online. Just think, the same trolls and flamebaiters and morons who post random comments on forums/articles (excluding/.; those people make./ trolls look like saints) are the same people you'll be playing with on an MMO.
Hence the single-player MMO--providing all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
I agree with your thoughts on the d-bags, but not that a single player MMO will provide all the benefits. The single biggest benefit to my MMO experience, and the only reason I started playing one at all, was that I could play with friends. My friends are scattered around the country now, and in high school we used to have gaming nights all the time. Playing WoW, we got to play together again, socialising every night and having a lot of fun. When people started quitting or moving servers (for good reasons, all), WoW suddenly lost it's primary appeal. Even though I still had plenty of decent guildmates to play with, it just wasn't the same.
There's just something fun about getting a text message on a Sunday evening from one of my oldest friends saying only: "arena arena arena arena arena arena ", and then spending the next 3 hours yelling and swearing over vent. It was like being back in the high school computer lab playing Quake death match over a LAN, complete with someone throwing a mouse in to the garbage from time to time.
I want the colossal richness and depth available only through online worlds, without the horny adolescents, griefers, and other social incompetents that MMOGs seem to attract.
Give with WoW with just me and the NPCs, and I'll pay for it. Not otherwise.
I'd expand this to say, make a boss drop his loot, and rely less of repetitive play for content. He either has something or he hasn't. Killing the same boss 20 times for rep, badges, and the hope of a drop hardly helps maintain immersed in that richness and depth.
I was going to mention Guild Wars too, as an example of a game that is highly playable as a single player. You can be offline for a month, and it's not costing you anything, since they don't have monthly fees. The quality of the graphics is such that you can just wander around in your own time admiring the scenery, especially with the Eye Of The North expansion.
I'm heartened to read this, because I picked up GW a while back ($19 w/EotN expansion, no subscription, how could I resist?) and I've only played it a few levels. I know no one who plays it and I have no desire to pug groups (I turned off my chat window all together, the 'city' areas were just too obnoxious).
I was hoping that when I play it more, groups wouldn't suddenly be vital to play. It sounds like they won't. The expectation problem is definitely present in WoW also, but it does go both ways. As a warrior, if it's PVP weekend I'm not going to react well to someone demanding that I should respec just to tank a heroic (although I might for liked guild members, who would cover the respec costs if they need me).
At the same time, if I'm coordinating raid groups for the day, or kara groups for the week, a junior member who's now decided his pally is going to be ret from now on isn't going be high on the list of players being considered, especially if we're short on healers (for example). That is, he's welcome to build his character however he wants, but there are only so many slots and most of them are class specific, and some classes are just more useful. I don't expect him to stay holy, but in that situation, he can't expect to keep getting raid invites.
For those few of you who don't know, that's the guy who doesn't know how to get where you're going, can't properly follow your directions to get there, tries to boss around the party when he finally does get there even though he clearly doesn't know what he's doing, and then fifteen minutes into the group says, "o man i have 2 go.. mom wants me 2 clean my room".
As a tank in WoW, the type of player I hated the most was the one who believed there was only one way to run a dungeon. They weren't usually horrible players in terms of basic mechanics, but were definitely more prone to let their rigidity hurt their performance. My main frustration was they will have read gone online and read through a complete guide on how to do each corner, each pull (I'm not even counting bosses in this, just mobs). Chances are, the way detailed in the guide is a good way, quite possibly the best.
However, as a tank I'd run those heroics over and over and over to get badges, and to help my guildies get badges. I played with other good players, such that we could easily handle not doing every single pull "by the book" exactly. I liked mixing things up a bit, and even pushing some players that I knew could handle themselves (the rogues always LOVED being asked to evasion tank an elite mob solo).
The rigid, by the book players, would throw a complete FIT. One guy in particular (not a teenager), would have a complete tantrum, and refuse to continue any further at all if we didn't do things exactly as he said we should. That guy was the most extreme, because once he threw his hissy fit, it was no simple matter to calm him down and just get it over with, even if we all said okay, okay. The mere suggestion he was wrong was cause for lengthy arguments.
Less extreme, but still rigid players also objected to changing plans as circumstances changed. Maybe the sheep accidentally got a dot, maybe a wandering mob came in, but I've had players complain bitterly after I'd calmly and quickly swapped the markings and everyone in the party had adapted perfectly.
After the first complaint, I started doing this as a sort of test for players new to the guild, especially healers. A lot can go wrong in a raid or a simple pull, and adaptability is part of player competence. An accidental double pull is a much worse situation than a single pull with a planned (by me anyway), change of markings. I just mean something as simple as updating the kill order symbols as the mobs are killed. If a healer complains about symbols changing, I don't really trust that they are really up to taking in the whole situation and reacting if things don't end up going as planned.
I started to realise that I actively hated having to group with other people to the point that I'd obnoxiously subject prospective party members to simple logic tests to find out whether they were functionally mentally disabled or not. I'd just avoid any sort of quest that would require me to interact with other people, at the time realms were closed off so the actual real live friends of mine were invariably on other realms or completely inappropriate levels to quest with me.
I played in the golden age of TBC, and when looking for party members one of us would always have a spare laptop ready to fire up WOW Armory to check out anyone who offered to join in for the run. That eliminated a lot of trouble off the bat, and for less clear cases we could ask specific questions like "why are you using this item instead of this other item" or "why didn't you spend more points in this other talent branch". Even if it wasn't a good choice for them, often the answers would reveal that the player wasn't an idiot, distinguishing between someone who needs a bit more experience but plays well enough for the run and someone who would turn the attempt into wipe after wipe.
Slashdot Mirror
Starcraft has sold 11 million units worldwide. That's pretty good, it's one of the best selling games of all time.
World of Warcraft has over 11.5 million monthly subscribers. More people play WoW in one month than the copies of SC sold in a decade.
So, when you consider target audience, and whether or not they're likely to have an internet connection... yeah. SC2 is going to sell really well.
World of Warcraft players are World of Warcraft players, many exclusively. I don't know just how much of the WoW subscriber base one can claim as interested in any RTS games, Starcraft or otherwise.
Personally, I find the 0 - 3 star ratings more telling about an app than the 4 or 5 star (fanboy) ratings. In general, when I want to find out about a product, I like to read the negative to moderate reviews because they seem to be more honest about potential problems. What do you guys think/do?
I think a lot of reviews on the 5 star and 1 star polar ends are given after a first impression. The product arrives, it works and is a new toy, the person is excited, 5 stars. Conversely, person can't get it to work immediately with their setup, 1 star. Neither are very useful, which is why I always wait to review a product until I've had it for a while (and unfortunately end up forgetting to do so most of the time).
If I'm looking at reviews, chances are I'm looking for a product with specific things in mind, among a sea of similar products. I look at both high and low ratings that show thought and give input on things I'm specifically interested in. I shop for value items rather than high end lines, so I don't usually consider 5 star ratings unless they specifically have given the extra stars in as a nod to the quality/price ratio. No product is perfect, especially at the low end of the price range, so earnest reviews will always have some thoughtful criticism.
I never got why amazon didn't limit reviews to people who had bought the book, (while it doesn't stop this it makes it a more costly business, I find it particularly surprising that a company with as much control over their system as apple don't limit reviews to app purchasers.
1) If someone is abusing reviews and ratings to harm a book's Amazon reputation, the author affected will likely contest and complain.
2) If someone is abusing reviews and ratings to make a book look better on Amazon, more people will buy it, and Amazon has more sales.
With the App store, 2 billion in sales is a lot of money for Apple. Why would they worry about such things unless there's a PR backlash?
"bring you the unmatchable power of GNU/Linux". Cheesiest. Line. Ever. On /.
Just for the record: is there anything that you can name that can do more than Linux? Ever had an OS run on your wristwatch that was also able to run on the world fastest super computers, space exploration and operation critical medical hardware?
Just curious...
NetBSD?
Wait? If I wanted to pick the game up again (sold the old account a long time ago), I would be required to buy the original game, plus the two expansions, PLUS this expansion when it came out?
What a joke...
You could buy a lvl 80 account, which is already authorized for all the current expansions, and download the necessary installers. Not exactly a Blizzard-supported option, but neither is selling one's account.
The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes. If your boss happens to actually be at Burning Man, it's pretty unlikely that your boss is the kind of person who will then turn around and decide to fire you for, say, being naked at Burning Man. Same for lots of other people who might give you grief for lots of other things. Yes, it could happen, but it's far, far less likely, and probabilities matter.
At the same time, if you go to Burning Man and are photographed doing drugs and running around naked, and these photos make it back to your boss who DOES fire you for whatever behavior, so be it. It's your choice where you go and how you act, and if that violates something in the company guidelines you might have to answer for your decisions.
As for photos, if Burning Man is in a legal position to set the policies it has, then again, you are entering into that contract. If it is too absolute, then, like all opt-in situations, just don't go to the event. If there policies exceeds their position, then someone can challenge it legally.
Basically, I don't see much of an issue here. No expectation of privacy makes a person not responsible for their actions, and BMO's photo policy is part of the package whether anyone likes it or not. The EFF commentary theorizes that it's a "misuse" of the DMCA, but doesn't challenge its legality. If you are a regular Burning Man attendee you can decide to continue to opt-in or not, and for those that Burning Man holds no interest, what's the bigger story that is of concern? Many events are held that don't allow ANY photography by attendees. Isn't that much more restrictive than BMO's policy?
Anti-missile defenses add a factor into your list when considering a rocket's weapon effectiveness:
A rocket weapons designer ends up having to make a series of compromises between the strength of the rocket itself, the payload, the range, and it's ability to hit its target accurately and without being intercepted. If you want to protect your rocket you're going to have to give up payload, give up range or increase rocket size, maximizing the rocket's effectiveness as a weapon.
Does anyone else think that developing an "evil" A.I. isn't a great idea?
Has anyone pointed out that the "A.I." part of "Evil A.I." is what currently makes this whole thing moot as a safety issue? Let me know when someone actually creates a true A.I. and then I'll start worrying about its personality traits.
Also, I'm not too clear on how this would work. Wouldn't it require a certificate-like central authentication server? And wouldn't this increase in traffic just exacerbate the situation of too much traffic? Especially if all Spam starts to come with fake 'stamps.'
So why not go back to the PGP/GPG system of authenticated public keys and signed email? All the cost-per-email is doing is modifying an email so it's verified as centmail. Why not just modify it as signed, requiring a user's passphrase or similar identification? If spammers can get around that with their botnets, they can get around CentMail just fine also. Why involve money?
Doesn't this all raise the larger question of how do we really know what any of our Firefox extensions are doing behind the scenes?
I wonder how you're going to make a trebuchet fire a person 200 miles away. However, I'm sure you'll find other buyers than NASA if you succeed.
Or 400 people half a mile?
But with the iPhone, the source code is effectively no longer free. It has a $99 price tag, since having source code, but not being able to compile and use it is pretty much useless.
I think this isn't the case. Plenty of people have pointed out that the iPhone SDK is free to download and use now, and the game can be played in the emulator. So you could download the source, compile it, and play the game. If you don't have a Mac, you can download the source and port it to your platform, like with any other open source project.
Humm, I recall that the "duplication of functionality" clause referred only to Apple's applications, not to any 3rd party applications sold on the store.
Good point. Is there only one "fart app"?
The original developer may not like the fact that the OP is charging for the client but he CHOSE the gpl in the first place.
And the GPL is there so that developers aren't limited by the original author's specific views on how the code should be used or not used, in the case that said views go beyond what's covered in the license.
His point was that the app store is governed - you have no idea whether Apple will ever let your app make it into the actual store (see Google Voice). They might perfectly well say that it is an exact duplicate of a for-pay app, and it is therefore rejected. Remember, Apple takes 30%, so it's in their best interest to put more apps behind the pay wall. And we already know that Apple can reject any app for any reason (FCC inquiries notwithstanding).
More specifically, I think he was pointing out that Apple might treat forks as duplicates, leaving the initial submitters the only ones able to earn money for the software on that platform, regardless of the source being available. That said, I think what they're doing is all right, as they are keeping the source available.
One thing to add: if the original author had said "That's great, nice work!" when it first came up, this wouldn't have been an issue for this project. I recommend not putting too much (if any) stock in what the original author thinks. There will always be people with different views on how open source projects should be handled, and plenty of bickering about it. If we didn't have licenses like the GPL which spell out how code can be used, and instead had to get the author's permission, open source software would never have progressed as far as it has.
Of course, if you're feeling guilty, you could always invest any extra money you make into developing a version for Android, or make a donation to some project that needs it.
Thinkpad isn't going to vent its heat directly into your groin, while an aluminum Macbook will.
I think you're overstating or fabricating an issue that doesn't exist. For instance, on my (ancient) Aluminum PowerBook G4 (remember that the G4 chip was notorious for its heat issues), I have vents along the backside of the computer and along both sides (all of which are hidden from view in normal use). In regular practice I can easily max out the CPU for extended periods of time (heck, running Azureus and watching a movie will do that these days), yet it never gets hot enough to warrant concern, due to the proper venting. So while the thermal properties of other metals may be more favorable, it's not an issue if the heat is properly vented, which it is (otherwise, we could make the argument that every computer should use liquids for cooling since they have better thermal properties than air, which would entirely miss the fact that liquid cooling is simply unnecessary in many cases). And last I checked, the current laptop lines from Apple do not have vents in the region that would be directed at the groin.
I have a white Macbook, and it does indeed get groin-grillingly hot, even at low CPU loads. That's my primary complaint with my Macbook, and I'm positive it's a common issue (although I'd hope not universal).
This Macbook has been a great laptop; my second, after an Acer Travelmate that lasted 6 years. I think it's interesting that each laptop I've owned has changed my set of criteria for things to look for in a portable the next time the need comes around. After the Acer I wanted something lighter. After the Macbook, I'm going to look for something cooler.
And as a view from the other side of that fence, as a die hard healer, I hated PuGs where the tanks really *wouldn't* push it. It usually manifested itself as ultra slowness, and a refusal to pull (or having to be prompted before each pack) if I didn't have full mana.
In TBC as a priest, with downranking and a brain you could heal forever with rank 2 GH and CoH and never have to worry about mana, unless things got really hairy, and yet still you'd have tanks that just wouldn't push the boat out. I can understand being sensitive to the needs of the guy keeping you alive, but after the 5th "heeler drink!" prompt in party chat while we all sit staring at a 2 pack of mobs, it starts to get tiresome.
In Wrath the heroics are so easy, that even with downranking gone, and mana regen outside the FSR severely down, it is still very easy to keep even a modestly geared tank up.
My best friend was a priest, and we levelled up together. We ran all the heroics, did 2v2 arena, and got into big raiding at the same time.
As a senior tank and then MT, I helped a lot of green warriors learn about tanking, and I always included advice on keeping your healer in mind. Beyond the obvious like "keep an eye out in case someone screws up and their mob/add goes after the healer", I'd stress things that a lot of tanks don't think about, mostly having to do with the tank now knowing how better to play the healer's character. A few I remember:
- The healer will tell you if a mana break is needed (just as the DPS will), otherwise just mark up the next pull and keep going.
- If the healer isn't ultra green, definitely give the benefit of the doubt before you start worrying aloud if they're getting the right heals on you (but keep an eye on your HP spikes, all the same).
- Between pulls, stand in front of the healer. Accidental pulls happen all the time, but if your priest gets one-shotted, not only will you wipe, you'll all have to run back.
- Never tell a priest that you need healing. That's literally all he's doing. (My favourite tip)
There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps.
It's definitely natural to look to the President to lead the way on this (or not), but it seems like people generally leave out the role of Congress. I'm no expert, but shouldn't congressional oversight be a major player (if not THE major player) in matters like this? I know the DoJ falls under the Executive branch, but Congress has appointed special investigators in the past, IIRC.
In any case, Congress definitely has a role to play. As the warrant-less domestic wiretapping was known for some time under Pres. Bush, and continues under Pres. Obama, I'm more likely to place blame on Democrats in the Legislature. I expect today's surviving Republicans to both stick to party lines and put national security ahead of constitutionality. More importantly, I know that they don't wield significant power at present.
Democrats are also prone to the security over constitutionality choice, of course. I don't have a party line behind this post. For both parties, political climate is a huge influence. I just think it's worth remembering that Congress has duties in government beyond passing laws and setting the budget; that's what all the committees are there for.
If we put all blame and expectations on Bush and now Obama, we make it too easy for Congress to not press important issues. It's part of the President's job to take blame and criticism, since they represent the entire country and can never expect to please everyone. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are individually much more answerable to us, theoretically anyway.
The bottom line is that arguing about Bush or Obama on Slashdot just wastes time and space in the discussion (this article is about the press, isn't it?). Writing your Senator or Representative, on the other hand, is a much better use of your time, if only to have the opportunity to gain insight into the canned response you will get back from their offices.
Subsistence living is a different beast. As is having more kids than you can afford with a reasonable job - what is the point of supporting the kids if you never see them anyway?
I think we're defining "support" differently. The point of supporting your kids is so they can eat, have a home, etc. The level of subsistence where supporting the kids definitely has importance over quality time. I agree with you on "supporting" being things like buying them an xbox, making sure they get a new car at 16, etc.
Being in the military is a separate thing too, I would assume the "retire early" applies, but modified to be "I don't expect to be doing this for my entire working life, but it is worth it in the short/medium term". Where "worth it" could be a lot of things from expecting a long career in the military not involving being in a warzone all their lives, or a jump start on a civilian career with the training/experience/etc the military provided, or just plain old "I will suffer and risk my life for my country because I am a patriot". And don't forget "I love shooting stuff" :)
I'll give you the "I don't expect to be doing this for my entire working life", absolutely. Of course, that doesn't change the present, which with long and repeated deployments can really suck personally, but at the same time include reasons important to that individual for making that sacrifice.
Regardless of my specific examples, I was pointing out that not everyone has the luxury to chose work or hours. This is obviously true in the short term, but it's definitely not a given that it's false in the long term.
I agree work doesn't have to be bad, but it's not always us who has the ultimate say in it. If we end up working a job we hate for a long time, or our entire lives, at least we have the chance to try to bring up our children to have the best chance to not let the same thing happen (be it financial opportunities, or merely teaching them to make better choices).
Diablo II.
An online multiplayer RPG without most of the MMO horseshit. You can group up, play solo, or mix the two up.
In this game, the fun is the journey more than the destination. There are always monsters along the way that your character will have trouble with, regardless of your "build."
Yeah, I can see the adventure now:
*click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click*
ooh, a drop!
*click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click*
It's because of the d-bags. We love the idea of all the new content, ever-changing worlds, new quests, new gear, or trading for awesome gear you can't normally get at your level. Then we play with people and remember that it's still the same thing as playing with online as it ever was--awful. D-bags, cheaters, impatient people, and all the other awful people online. Just think, the same trolls and flamebaiters and morons who post random comments on forums/articles (excluding /.; those people make ./ trolls look like saints) are the same people you'll be playing with on an MMO.
Hence the single-player MMO--providing all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
I agree with your thoughts on the d-bags, but not that a single player MMO will provide all the benefits. The single biggest benefit to my MMO experience, and the only reason I started playing one at all, was that I could play with friends. My friends are scattered around the country now, and in high school we used to have gaming nights all the time. Playing WoW, we got to play together again, socialising every night and having a lot of fun. When people started quitting or moving servers (for good reasons, all), WoW suddenly lost it's primary appeal. Even though I still had plenty of decent guildmates to play with, it just wasn't the same.
There's just something fun about getting a text message on a Sunday evening from one of my oldest friends saying only: "arena arena arena arena arena arena ", and then spending the next 3 hours yelling and swearing over vent. It was like being back in the high school computer lab playing Quake death match over a LAN, complete with someone throwing a mouse in to the garbage from time to time.
I want the colossal richness and depth available only through online worlds, without the horny adolescents, griefers, and other social incompetents that MMOGs seem to attract.
Give with WoW with just me and the NPCs, and I'll pay for it. Not otherwise.
I'd expand this to say, make a boss drop his loot, and rely less of repetitive play for content. He either has something or he hasn't. Killing the same boss 20 times for rep, badges, and the hope of a drop hardly helps maintain immersed in that richness and depth.
I was going to mention Guild Wars too, as an example of a game that is highly playable as a single player. You can be offline for a month, and it's not costing you anything, since they don't have monthly fees. The quality of the graphics is such that you can just wander around in your own time admiring the scenery, especially with the Eye Of The North expansion.
I'm heartened to read this, because I picked up GW a while back ($19 w/EotN expansion, no subscription, how could I resist?) and I've only played it a few levels. I know no one who plays it and I have no desire to pug groups (I turned off my chat window all together, the 'city' areas were just too obnoxious).
I was hoping that when I play it more, groups wouldn't suddenly be vital to play. It sounds like they won't. The expectation problem is definitely present in WoW also, but it does go both ways. As a warrior, if it's PVP weekend I'm not going to react well to someone demanding that I should respec just to tank a heroic (although I might for liked guild members, who would cover the respec costs if they need me).
At the same time, if I'm coordinating raid groups for the day, or kara groups for the week, a junior member who's now decided his pally is going to be ret from now on isn't going be high on the list of players being considered, especially if we're short on healers (for example). That is, he's welcome to build his character however he wants, but there are only so many slots and most of them are class specific, and some classes are just more useful. I don't expect him to stay holy, but in that situation, he can't expect to keep getting raid invites.
For those few of you who don't know, that's the guy who doesn't know how to get where you're going, can't properly follow your directions to get there, tries to boss around the party when he finally does get there even though he clearly doesn't know what he's doing, and then fifteen minutes into the group says, "o man i have 2 go.. mom wants me 2 clean my room".
As a tank in WoW, the type of player I hated the most was the one who believed there was only one way to run a dungeon. They weren't usually horrible players in terms of basic mechanics, but were definitely more prone to let their rigidity hurt their performance. My main frustration was they will have read gone online and read through a complete guide on how to do each corner, each pull (I'm not even counting bosses in this, just mobs). Chances are, the way detailed in the guide is a good way, quite possibly the best.
However, as a tank I'd run those heroics over and over and over to get badges, and to help my guildies get badges. I played with other good players, such that we could easily handle not doing every single pull "by the book" exactly. I liked mixing things up a bit, and even pushing some players that I knew could handle themselves (the rogues always LOVED being asked to evasion tank an elite mob solo).
The rigid, by the book players, would throw a complete FIT. One guy in particular (not a teenager), would have a complete tantrum, and refuse to continue any further at all if we didn't do things exactly as he said we should. That guy was the most extreme, because once he threw his hissy fit, it was no simple matter to calm him down and just get it over with, even if we all said okay, okay. The mere suggestion he was wrong was cause for lengthy arguments.
Less extreme, but still rigid players also objected to changing plans as circumstances changed. Maybe the sheep accidentally got a dot, maybe a wandering mob came in, but I've had players complain bitterly after I'd calmly and quickly swapped the markings and everyone in the party had adapted perfectly.
After the first complaint, I started doing this as a sort of test for players new to the guild, especially healers. A lot can go wrong in a raid or a simple pull, and adaptability is part of player competence. An accidental double pull is a much worse situation than a single pull with a planned (by me anyway), change of markings. I just mean something as simple as updating the kill order symbols as the mobs are killed. If a healer complains about symbols changing, I don't really trust that they are really up to taking in the whole situation and reacting if things don't end up going as planned.
I started to realise that I actively hated having to group with other people to the point that I'd obnoxiously subject prospective party members to simple logic tests to find out whether they were functionally mentally disabled or not. I'd just avoid any sort of quest that would require me to interact with other people, at the time realms were closed off so the actual real live friends of mine were invariably on other realms or completely inappropriate levels to quest with me.
I played in the golden age of TBC, and when looking for party members one of us would always have a spare laptop ready to fire up WOW Armory to check out anyone who offered to join in for the run. That eliminated a lot of trouble off the bat, and for less clear cases we could ask specific questions like "why are you using this item instead of this other item" or "why didn't you spend more points in this other talent branch". Even if it wasn't a good choice for them, often the answers would reveal that the player wasn't an idiot, distinguishing between someone who needs a bit more experience but plays well enough for the run and someone who would turn the attempt into wipe after wipe.