If you mix kids with too much variety in intelligence then you either teach at a level for the smart kids and leave the stupid kids behind because they can't possibly keep up or you teach at a level for the stupid kids and the smart kids get bored and quit learning.
It's much better to split kids up into classes that are suited to their strengths and weaknesses rather than be PC and stick 'em all together.
I've never run into a website that requires Internet Explorer 6 on the open web and if I did, I would ignore it because no self respecting developer would require IE6 therefore the site was built by spacktards.
I don't think the company intranet issue is such a big deal and I certainly don't think the rest of the world should be held back because some companies are too cheap to advance with the rest of the world.
IT departments are lazy. For instance, our intranet and everything we have works with browsers above IE6 but they still have people on IE6 (aside from the developers, thankfully) but why?
They're just too lazy to install it and then deal with people asking where things have moved. Boo hoo, their job isn't to sit there looking at sports scores. It's their job to keep the computer up to date and deal with help requests whether they like it or not.
The sooner sites ignoring IE6 users the sooner lazy IT departments will get around to upgrade to something decent.
Some of it is probably users of pirated copies and quite frankly I don't care if they can use YouTube or not. As far as business users, unless you're paid to watch YouTube videos, do it on your own time.
He is right about Rails developers. They're all web design fairies who think they can program. They'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along.
Of course most of you refuse to upgrade because the new thing either:
A: Doesn't have enough shininess.
B: Doesn't work like the old thing.
I think it is quite likely that XP will hang around for quite some time because it works fine and because companies do use a lot of old software. So, just like intranets are probably keeping IE6 alive, old software will keep XP alive.
I think MS has learned a lesson from XP. Never build an OS that's too good otherwise you can't selling a new version to people as and when you feel like it.
I have the latest version, which I've not tried yet, I can't decide which system is less of a hassle to back up and install a new OS on.
It had a few issues upon it's release but it's very nice. Most stuff works I need works with it and it has some nice thins not found elsewhere (ZFS, DTrace). Personally I think it'd be dumb to get rid of it. They should promote it more and hopefully get it to grow and then control what they can't through Linux.
Yes, full disclosure can make things worse but some companies take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to fixing exploits and if no one knows about it they don't fix it.
But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.
Humour requires good writers. Publishers and developers rarely pay for good writers.
Anything cartoonish or artistic is more expensive. It requires imagination, more artistic talent and, it's harder to recycle stylised assets where as a realistic human, tree, building, etc will look the same in all games.
Between western developers complete lack of imagination and the shitty business model for video games, asking for humour within gaming is a lost cause.
Yes, you're right. You can't watch a kid 24 hours but I'd rather my kid (if I had one) was watching porno at his friends house rather than getting drunk or doing drugs.
Face it, most of us looked at porno and jerked off to porno when we had the time to and we must assume we've all turned out ok. Surely if you're not ok, what are you doing being a parent? So if the older generation can turn out after looking a nudity then I think kids will be just fine.
Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever.
Kid's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good, show them the bad, like how sex will never last as long as a woman's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees.
The big reason for that is because, whether people want to admit it or not, kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers, publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that. Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they don't know better. This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids don't have jobs and can't get credit for when they want to buy things they can't afford.
This also stems from bad parenting which there still aren't enough punishments for. Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet, aside from beating you're kid, you'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you'll get support from all the other bad parents. Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not? Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier.
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change. Game publishers won't push to change this because they're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes, maybe suffer though a bad patch, making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone.
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect's sex scene but I actually understand, to extend, why people get upset. It's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and, if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us.
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff. You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
Games need this separation (even if it's actually insignificant like they're on opposite sides of a shop floor) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid's market and the adult's market. Publisher's won't do that because they aren't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children. Like I said, their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible. They don't care who buys them even if it's causing harm to their business' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future.
But Epic do make games and having them put out half baked rubbish like Unreal Tournament 2003 only for CliffyB to turn out and say that the game is bad because they put a priority on graphics over gameplay when they have new technology to play with while he's selling Unreal Tournament 2004 just says to me they're not really bothered about making great games.
If they want to make money from engines, that's cool. Make the greatest engine ever but leave game making to those who take it seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Could be successful? Doesn't seem like it was before.
I think he has a point. Futurama wasn't that good. It only has a following because Fox killed it before it got really bad.
What happens when the only guy with the last 10% of my file isn't online?
If you mix kids with too much variety in intelligence then you either teach at a level for the smart kids and leave the stupid kids behind because they can't possibly keep up or you teach at a level for the stupid kids and the smart kids get bored and quit learning.
It's much better to split kids up into classes that are suited to their strengths and weaknesses rather than be PC and stick 'em all together.
This is incorrect. Mark Rein, from Epic, has been a very vocal opponent to used games and Epic are developers not publishers.
Is there anyone who uses Linux and watches Hanna Montana aside from possibly the kinda guys you find on sex offenders lists?
I've never run into a website that requires Internet Explorer 6 on the open web and if I did, I would ignore it because no self respecting developer would require IE6 therefore the site was built by spacktards.
I don't think the company intranet issue is such a big deal and I certainly don't think the rest of the world should be held back because some companies are too cheap to advance with the rest of the world.
But other browsers do and besides, there's no reason to be using an OS that's coming up on being a decade old.
IT departments are lazy. For instance, our intranet and everything we have works with browsers above IE6 but they still have people on IE6 (aside from the developers, thankfully) but why?
They're just too lazy to install it and then deal with people asking where things have moved. Boo hoo, their job isn't to sit there looking at sports scores. It's their job to keep the computer up to date and deal with help requests whether they like it or not.
The sooner sites ignoring IE6 users the sooner lazy IT departments will get around to upgrade to something decent.
Some of it is probably users of pirated copies and quite frankly I don't care if they can use YouTube or not. As far as business users, unless you're paid to watch YouTube videos, do it on your own time.
Who cares? There is no reason to be using IE6 these days.
He is right about Rails developers. They're all web design fairies who think they can program. They'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along.
Of course most of you refuse to upgrade because the new thing either:
A: Doesn't have enough shininess.
B: Doesn't work like the old thing.
I think it is quite likely that XP will hang around for quite some time because it works fine and because companies do use a lot of old software. So, just like intranets are probably keeping IE6 alive, old software will keep XP alive.
I think MS has learned a lesson from XP. Never build an OS that's too good otherwise you can't selling a new version to people as and when you feel like it.
I have the latest version, which I've not tried yet, I can't decide which system is less of a hassle to back up and install a new OS on.
It had a few issues upon it's release but it's very nice. Most stuff works I need works with it and it has some nice thins not found elsewhere (ZFS, DTrace). Personally I think it'd be dumb to get rid of it. They should promote it more and hopefully get it to grow and then control what they can't through Linux.
Yes, full disclosure can make things worse but some companies take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to fixing exploits and if no one knows about it they don't fix it.
But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.
A larger audience doesn't make a difference for books, music or movies. It shouldn't matter for games if they'd have decent writers.
Humour requires good writers. Publishers and developers rarely pay for good writers.
Anything cartoonish or artistic is more expensive. It requires imagination, more artistic talent and, it's harder to recycle stylised assets where as a realistic human, tree, building, etc will look the same in all games.
Between western developers complete lack of imagination and the shitty business model for video games, asking for humour within gaming is a lost cause.
And like what they do with games, they won't carry anything too offensive.
I had an Atari 400 and then a Commodore 64. Those were good times.
Yes, you're right. You can't watch a kid 24 hours but I'd rather my kid (if I had one) was watching porno at his friends house rather than getting drunk or doing drugs.
Face it, most of us looked at porno and jerked off to porno when we had the time to and we must assume we've all turned out ok. Surely if you're not ok, what are you doing being a parent? So if the older generation can turn out after looking a nudity then I think kids will be just fine.
Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever.
Kid's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good, show them the bad, like how sex will never last as long as a woman's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees.
The big reason for that is because, whether people want to admit it or not, kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers, publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that. Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they don't know better. This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids don't have jobs and can't get credit for when they want to buy things they can't afford.
This also stems from bad parenting which there still aren't enough punishments for. Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet, aside from beating you're kid, you'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you'll get support from all the other bad parents. Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not? Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier.
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change. Game publishers won't push to change this because they're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes, maybe suffer though a bad patch, making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone.
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect's sex scene but I actually understand, to extend, why people get upset. It's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and, if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us.
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff. You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
Games need this separation (even if it's actually insignificant like they're on opposite sides of a shop floor) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid's market and the adult's market. Publisher's won't do that because they aren't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children. Like I said, their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible. They don't care who buys them even if it's causing harm to their business' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future.
They could have just invested in Canonical and Ubuntu, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.
They could have but since when has competition for anyone been a bad thing?
But Epic do make games and having them put out half baked rubbish like Unreal Tournament 2003 only for CliffyB to turn out and say that the game is bad because they put a priority on graphics over gameplay when they have new technology to play with while he's selling Unreal Tournament 2004 just says to me they're not really bothered about making great games.
If they want to make money from engines, that's cool. Make the greatest engine ever but leave game making to those who take it seriously.
Epic is one of the least innovative companies around. The won't do anything different until there are about a dozen solid examples to copy.