Until Russia stops being nationalist idiots? I agree there. Unless you mean Ukraine is being nationalistic, which is sort of silly. Sure, there are a few hard right morons there but in the minority, except that this feeds into the Russian nationalist paranoia that the entire world is filled with reincarnated nazis out to get them. When Russia today calls others nationalist and fascist it's so ironic you could make hammers from it.
The "democratically" elected leader stole much of the country's money, everyone hated him except Putin. He wasn't overthrown, he fled the country because he knew he couldn't keep the crimes a secret much longer. The corruption dropped by half once he left.
This is not typical for IoT. A smart phone is not an internet-of-things style device. These are tiny processors, extremely low power with none to waste, very low bandwidth so that it takes longer to send parameters and receive the answers than to just do it locally.
His personality also held a lot of stuff back. The threw out good ideas and championed bad ones. To him, the look was better than the functionality.
People followed him because they were getting paid, same as any other worker in the world. The fan base came from Apple customers first and foremost, not from the Apple employees themselves.
People don't like to test third party products, much less looking inside them. The whole point is that it's like going to the store and buying a box of something from the shelf. To do any more than that is to admit that the adage of "never reinvent the wheel" is inappropriate to software.
Partially it's a junior programmer mentality too. They do not understand that third party components frequently break; they've never encountered hardware that has bugs, compilers that have bugs, libraries that have bugs, etc. I suspect many of them when presented with a test case that fails on a third party component will first suspect that the test must have been written incorrectly.
On the other hand it can become extremely difficult to update versions of third party components. Ie, we've made several in-house bug fixes to the library (*all* of them have bugs!), now the next release has decided to layout all the code differently, rename variables, rewrite comments in Linear B, etc. So the job then is to integrate the two together which can be a very lengthy task.
I found in Deus Ex that when one enemy was alerted that they all become alerted and instantly knew where you were hiding. Ie, remotely set off an explosive to open a door at the statue of liberty, and all those robots will hone in on you.
I didn't think it captured any of the Thief games. I must not played it long enough. I failed always anytime I tried to sneak. There were some guards that never look the other way. Could not see a zero-combat method to get out of the intro.
Hated Daggerfall. Elder Scrolls has gotten vastly better. Between Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, I give them a tie. One is better than the other in some areas, and vice versa in other areas.
When you get down to it, the reason that Fallout 1 grabbed the imagination of the fans was not the gameplay itself so much, but the style of the games. From the manuals, to the pip-boy, the character sheet, the music, and so on. Layer on top the open nature of it; you're not on rails, you aren't penalized by talking your way out of combat, and so forth. Fallout 3 did reclaim a lot of that even though fans were worried.
There just are no other games in this style at all out there. There may be fantasy RPG games, or post-apocalyptic games (mostly zombie stuff), but nothing really measures up. So many things today are about restricting choices (makes the story easy), restricting where you can go and what you can do (makes the graphics easier), forced combat, forced cut-scenes, gutted RPG mechanics, etc. These really are niche games in that sense, bucking the trend.
Fallout 1 was very much a niche game when it came out. It had staying power of course, and a loyal fan base, but it was very easy to overlook that game at the time.
Fallout is a good series for older players as it's not really a twitch game. Open world games are getting pretty rare so it's nice they keep this going.
Dishonored feels like a Thief-wannabe, not really as good a sneaker as it claims to be, but I didn't get too far into it. It felt on rails as well, like 99% of modern games, but maybe I just didn't get far enough in it.
Doom, I couldn't care less. I care a little, but I think the gameplay trailer was enough to satisfy the nostalgia completely without having to upgrade the PC and buy the game.
Yup, Doom looked so very twitch oriented. It's another FPS to me which I don't play, so it's hard for me to judge how it compares in that genre. There certainly is a sort of nostalgia factor there but how does that map to aging gamers.
Fallout was the main game from Bethesda itself (or Bethesda Softworks). Doom and Dishonored 2 are from partners/subsidiaries. So to Bethesda, Fallout is hte most important emotionally.
Amiga was essentially the first microcomputer that really caught the imagination of computer professionals who were used to working with and programming on advanced operating systems daily. Certainly Mac caught on with the design crowd too, even though under the hood it was pretty basic. Everything else in the micro world really seemed derived from the CP/M style of systems, where the "operating system" was nothing more than a glorified boot loader and monitor system.
But "personal computer" is not the same as "PC", and not the same as "Personal Computer". Commodore never used the PC acronym in its marketing or branding. PC was used primarily as a brand name, part of actual trademarks (and not just by IBM).
At work those near me work in the Advanced Systems Services group. I do not call them the ASS group even though that could be their acronym. So similarly, PC as an acronym is not always interchangeable with "personal computer".
The Amiga was a personal computer (lower case) but it never had "PC" as part of it's name like the IBM PC did. No one referred to "Personal Computer" at the time with uppercase letters except when it was part of the computer's name (upper case makes it a proper noun). As an acronym, I don't recall "PC" ever being used to describe the generic class of microcomputers.
In other words, the Amiga, Apple II, and IBM PC were all personal computers but only one of those could be called a Personal Computer or PC. This isn't just my view, compare how things are described on the wikipedia pages talking about Apple II for instance; they use "personal computer" when speaking generically and "PC" when talking about the IBM PC or PC clones. There was never any confusion about this in 1985, games were marketed as being for "PC and Amiga" for example.
The confusion never arose until the "PC clone" was used as a shorthand for "IBM PC clone" and then things became murky. Now "PC" is an insult to call something that when it is not an IBM PC clone. PC fans don't understand this because they don't understand the insult.
Yes, the whole question is fundamentally stupid. Or else utterly ignorant. Robots are not people, they're just technology. They don't need a passport anymore than my toaster needs a passport!
We already have many robots crossing country borders all the time - Roombas, industrial robotic equipment, little toy puppies purchased for the kids, and so forth. If we get self driving cars then those will of course also be robots. The Zoltar fortune teller booth is also a robot.
Ah, but these stupid/ignorant people will now say "but those aren't robots!" But of course they are. People are maybe confused with "androids"? But even there the only special thing between an android and a human is the shape and amount of illusion involved. Androids are not people either, they don't need a passport anymore than Teddy Ruxpin needs a passport. Oh, but wait, maybe these stupid/ignorant people think that robots mean artificial intelligence. And not just any AI that we've had since the 70s, but the sort of AI you find in science fiction. In that case, they may have a point, and when we are within a century of having such technology then maybe it will be time to start considering this. In the meantime people should get better at understanding the terminology, the technology, and the legal issues.
Slashdot Mirror
It helps to have total and complete control over domestic news media.
Rushing hands leave the Merkins askew.
In Soviet Russia, you pay to make favorable comments!
Until Russia stops being nationalist idiots? I agree there. Unless you mean Ukraine is being nationalistic, which is sort of silly. Sure, there are a few hard right morons there but in the minority, except that this feeds into the Russian nationalist paranoia that the entire world is filled with reincarnated nazis out to get them. When Russia today calls others nationalist and fascist it's so ironic you could make hammers from it.
The "democratically" elected leader stole much of the country's money, everyone hated him except Putin. He wasn't overthrown, he fled the country because he knew he couldn't keep the crimes a secret much longer. The corruption dropped by half once he left.
I think Russia wants Ukraine to know they are there. Denying it is mostly just another way to thumb their noses.
But her followers did seem to be from a breakthrough in cloning technology.
These are university researchers. Just like most slashdot readers, they may not understand how the real world works.
This is not typical for IoT. A smart phone is not an internet-of-things style device. These are tiny processors, extremely low power with none to waste, very low bandwidth so that it takes longer to send parameters and receive the answers than to just do it locally.
Low power and low bandwidth. Very very low bandwidth in some cases.
If someone wants spare compute cycles, then use those smart phones that are constantly being used for stupid things.
His personality also held a lot of stuff back. The threw out good ideas and championed bad ones. To him, the look was better than the functionality.
People followed him because they were getting paid, same as any other worker in the world. The fan base came from Apple customers first and foremost, not from the Apple employees themselves.
People don't like to test third party products, much less looking inside them. The whole point is that it's like going to the store and buying a box of something from the shelf. To do any more than that is to admit that the adage of "never reinvent the wheel" is inappropriate to software.
Partially it's a junior programmer mentality too. They do not understand that third party components frequently break; they've never encountered hardware that has bugs, compilers that have bugs, libraries that have bugs, etc. I suspect many of them when presented with a test case that fails on a third party component will first suspect that the test must have been written incorrectly.
On the other hand it can become extremely difficult to update versions of third party components. Ie, we've made several in-house bug fixes to the library (*all* of them have bugs!), now the next release has decided to layout all the code differently, rename variables, rewrite comments in Linear B, etc. So the job then is to integrate the two together which can be a very lengthy task.
Duum comes before Dyshonored.
I found in Deus Ex that when one enemy was alerted that they all become alerted and instantly knew where you were hiding. Ie, remotely set off an explosive to open a door at the statue of liberty, and all those robots will hone in on you.
I didn't think it captured any of the Thief games. I must not played it long enough. I failed always anytime I tried to sneak. There were some guards that never look the other way. Could not see a zero-combat method to get out of the intro.
Hated Daggerfall. Elder Scrolls has gotten vastly better. Between Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, I give them a tie. One is better than the other in some areas, and vice versa in other areas.
When you get down to it, the reason that Fallout 1 grabbed the imagination of the fans was not the gameplay itself so much, but the style of the games. From the manuals, to the pip-boy, the character sheet, the music, and so on. Layer on top the open nature of it; you're not on rails, you aren't penalized by talking your way out of combat, and so forth. Fallout 3 did reclaim a lot of that even though fans were worried.
There just are no other games in this style at all out there. There may be fantasy RPG games, or post-apocalyptic games (mostly zombie stuff), but nothing really measures up. So many things today are about restricting choices (makes the story easy), restricting where you can go and what you can do (makes the graphics easier), forced combat, forced cut-scenes, gutted RPG mechanics, etc. These really are niche games in that sense, bucking the trend.
Fallout 1 was very much a niche game when it came out. It had staying power of course, and a loyal fan base, but it was very easy to overlook that game at the time.
Fallout is a good series for older players as it's not really a twitch game. Open world games are getting pretty rare so it's nice they keep this going.
Dishonored feels like a Thief-wannabe, not really as good a sneaker as it claims to be, but I didn't get too far into it. It felt on rails as well, like 99% of modern games, but maybe I just didn't get far enough in it.
Doom, I couldn't care less. I care a little, but I think the gameplay trailer was enough to satisfy the nostalgia completely without having to upgrade the PC and buy the game.
Yup, Doom looked so very twitch oriented. It's another FPS to me which I don't play, so it's hard for me to judge how it compares in that genre. There certainly is a sort of nostalgia factor there but how does that map to aging gamers.
Fallout was the main game from Bethesda itself (or Bethesda Softworks). Doom and Dishonored 2 are from partners/subsidiaries. So to Bethesda, Fallout is hte most important emotionally.
Amiga was essentially the first microcomputer that really caught the imagination of computer professionals who were used to working with and programming on advanced operating systems daily. Certainly Mac caught on with the design crowd too, even though under the hood it was pretty basic. Everything else in the micro world really seemed derived from the CP/M style of systems, where the "operating system" was nothing more than a glorified boot loader and monitor system.
But "personal computer" is not the same as "PC", and not the same as "Personal Computer". Commodore never used the PC acronym in its marketing or branding. PC was used primarily as a brand name, part of actual trademarks (and not just by IBM).
At work those near me work in the Advanced Systems Services group. I do not call them the ASS group even though that could be their acronym. So similarly, PC as an acronym is not always interchangeable with "personal computer".
The Amiga was a personal computer (lower case) but it never had "PC" as part of it's name like the IBM PC did. No one referred to "Personal Computer" at the time with uppercase letters except when it was part of the computer's name (upper case makes it a proper noun). As an acronym, I don't recall "PC" ever being used to describe the generic class of microcomputers.
In other words, the Amiga, Apple II, and IBM PC were all personal computers but only one of those could be called a Personal Computer or PC. This isn't just my view, compare how things are described on the wikipedia pages talking about Apple II for instance; they use "personal computer" when speaking generically and "PC" when talking about the IBM PC or PC clones. There was never any confusion about this in 1985, games were marketed as being for "PC and Amiga" for example.
The confusion never arose until the "PC clone" was used as a shorthand for "IBM PC clone" and then things became murky. Now "PC" is an insult to call something that when it is not an IBM PC clone. PC fans don't understand this because they don't understand the insult.
They also tend to show up very late to the game and then wonder why they're not winning.
A similarly stupid question might be, "if I get a head transplant will I need two passports?"
Yes, the whole question is fundamentally stupid. Or else utterly ignorant. Robots are not people, they're just technology. They don't need a passport anymore than my toaster needs a passport!
We already have many robots crossing country borders all the time - Roombas, industrial robotic equipment, little toy puppies purchased for the kids, and so forth. If we get self driving cars then those will of course also be robots. The Zoltar fortune teller booth is also a robot.
Ah, but these stupid/ignorant people will now say "but those aren't robots!" But of course they are. People are maybe confused with "androids"? But even there the only special thing between an android and a human is the shape and amount of illusion involved. Androids are not people either, they don't need a passport anymore than Teddy Ruxpin needs a passport. Oh, but wait, maybe these stupid/ignorant people think that robots mean artificial intelligence. And not just any AI that we've had since the 70s, but the sort of AI you find in science fiction. In that case, they may have a point, and when we are within a century of having such technology then maybe it will be time to start considering this. In the meantime people should get better at understanding the terminology, the technology, and the legal issues.