Aricle: "Berkley finds cure for cancer."
Slashdot: "What the hell can they use that for?"
Are you telling me that you have such narrow, blinded, imagination-less vision that you can't see the use for something as thin and flexible as paper, but with the functionality of a touch-screen laptop? How about, I dunno, an e-Book that's as easy to transport and hold as a newspaper? Hell, with modern wireless technology, you could have your screen/input device sitting on the table with you at breakfast while the laptop "base" is over by the outlet. Carry the newspaper screen/input device around with you on the train and bus wirelessly connected to a PDA around your belt.
Contrary to popular opinion, "creating Jobs" is not always good and is not always entirely different from "throwing money at the problem." "Creating Jobs" only helps when the jobs are useful and produce something else of value.
I don't know anything about how cost effective the Hoover Dam or various bridges and public works projects have been in the past, but assuming that they _were_ cost effective, these are examples where "Creating Jobs" is a good thing that stimulates the economy in a good way, because it not only gives people money to spend, but it adds overall value to the system. The Hoover Dam added irrigation, water supply, and power, while bridges add lower transportation costs.
On the other hand, paying someone to sit like a night watchmen on P2P Networks or paying someone to replace the White House Carpet or repaint the ceilings doesn't really help anyone because nothing of value is being created. You're just shuffling money around, and its really no different economy-wise than just _giving away_ the money. People are going to spend it either way.
This isn't to say I don't support re-carpeting or re-painting the White House if it needs it, I am merely saying that the catch-phrase "creating jobs" doesn't do the system any good unless the jobs are worth doing.
You don't state a reason why you think it is a good idea to switch.
Which is why, instead of asking for "How to..." she asked for some studies on the subject, presumably so that she might determine whether it is a good idea to switch or not.
It would certainly be _free_, but would it be better?
She didn't even mention that she advocated the switch yet, just that it had been discussed and she needs more information.
I am glad that you went ahead and characterized all of the improvements, that's very helpful and I thank you for it.
Thankfully, none of them look like they will require Processes, because when I first saw this article, I immediately thought "Bloat." But these are more "tweaks" than "new functionality."
As for your commentary, I think you're dead wrong. You seem to think that these are the only fixes and improvements that Microsoft is making based on user critique. I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of tweaks and bug fixes that they didn't mention. These, on the other hand, are pieces of untested functionality that didn't appear in the Beta _at all_.
Because being a Lesbian automatically makes you 100x more attractive to guys. There's no WAY they'd ban a girl.
Furthermore, you know it's bullshit because she says "They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."
People with kids don't play X-Box live. People with kids certainly don't check user profiles. She was either doing something obscene, or that's not why she was banned.
Glad you think so. Care to throw some more bias in there?
nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay. Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make people pay.
That's because this wasn't a press release. This was the CEO of the AP answering a single question:
>>"Can I imagine content going behind a pay wall?" asks Tom Curley, the CEO of the Associated Press. "Absolutely. And, yes, we are in conversations about that."
Instead, they think that if they put up a paywall, people will magically pay -- even though the paywall itself is what takes away much of the value by making it harder for people to do what they want with the news: to spread it, to comment on it, to participate in the story.
Sure they can. Except only with other registered useres. Besides, it's far more interaction than they had from reading a newspaper or from having no services at all.
Until newspaper execs figure this out, they're only going to keep making things worse.
I suppose you have all the answers on how to save the industry. Since you're so fond of asking questions to the AP, I'm going to ask you a few: How do you propose the AP continues to pay the thousands of professional reporters, secretaries, copy boys, managers, staff writers, photographers, and journalists? Where is this money supposed to come from? Ad revenue? Don't be silly.
The fact of the matter is that these newpapers have to find _some_ way to survive in the digital age. It's going to be hard and they're likely going to shrink, but perhaps they're onto something that will not only bail out the industry but provide a decent service.
I, for one, would be more than willing to pay a flat fee of $5 for unlimited content to all of the major newspapers in the nation, which is exactly what they are thinking about doing. The stories are written by (hopefully unbiased) professionals as opposed to the dribble that makes it onto the Slashdot homepage, this article being a perfect example. Now don't get me wrong, I do love Slashdot, but what about local news? Non-nerd news? State-wide news? Sports news?
I think there will be plenty of people willing to pay for this service, especially once the papers start cutting circulation.
In other news, a prominent Chinese Blogger was admitted to a local hospital with two broken kneecaps and three missing toes, injuries he reportedly sustained after falling down a flight of stairs.
The first portion of the game will have you fighting Level 1 Obsolete Satellites, and it'll take about 70 of them to level the first few levels. You'll have missions to destroy tiny asteroids, maybe fix some GPS Satellites, or possibly collect a dozen 'Unique Space Debris' and bring them back to the Hubble Telescope.
But by the end of the game, there will be large 40-man Raids scouring the Martian valleys, fighting Dust Golems and Communist Colonists, the final boss of which will be the long-missing rogue Mutated Mars Rover.
Sumatra PDF Reader is Open Source, less than half the size of Foxit (1/15th the size of Acrobat) and has search, text-read, copy-paste, and plenty of keyboard shortcuts. It's very quick and streamlined and makes Foxit look bloated in comparison.
On the other hand, World of Warcraft was very economical for me, a hardcore gamer, living in a college dorm. I must've played at LEAST 30 hours/week.
Most new games will last me maybe half that. I beat Bioshock in half a week. Same with FEAR and FEAR 2. HL2 took a little bit longer... but at that rate, I'm buying a new game or two every week. There aren't even that many good games out there!
Something like WoW, at $15/month, play as much as you want, is really economical. I bought NO games for the 6 months I played it... and year, it cost me $90, but that's only the price of two New Releases.
In HL2, you can sit in a doorway waiting for the Combine to come after you. They will. They will keep swarming through like stupid ants even after you've killed 50 of their guys in the same doorway. You can also hold up a barrel and walk right at the guy and he'll continue to shoot at the barrel until you're close enough to crowbar him (or launch the barrel at him from point-blank range.)
Not in FEAR, though. In FEAR they -will- wait for you. They'll also try and go around and flank you if there is any other way. I remember one instance I entered a room and took some cover. I waited for them to come get me. They didn't. I kept waiting. They never popped out. Just as I was about to leave, a guy shoots me in the back. He had traversed no less than four hallways, countless turns and obstacles, and climbed a ladder to reach me. THAT's good AI.
Or another example, there was no way around to reach me. I was on a doorway looking into a room. A guy sprints through the doorway, running too fast for him to shoot me, and too fast for me to shoot him. Obviously I turn and shoot him, he's now behind me and easy prey. But as I turned to shoot him, another guy stepped through the door and capped me. THAT's good AI.
The reason for this is simple: HL2 AI is written into every enemy exactly the same, location unspecific. You can plop 50 combine into a field you created and they'll function just as well as anywhere in game. FEAR2 AI is written using waypoints and maneuvers specific to every location. That one soldier knew how to get around me because there were waypoints telling him to. They knew the specific "rush through the door" maneuver for that one location only. Sure, it's probably more programming intensive, and not as scalable, but as a Player, I don't see any of that. I see only great AI and alright AI.
Implausably shiny textures, especially on enemies - Check
I wouldn't know, my graphics card can't handle it.
Weapon "quick menu" - Check
What do you mean? Selecting the weapons via numbers? That's been done in every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D. The scrollwheel select? That's been done since HL1. I'm not sure what you mean here.
Dumbed down HUD - Check
I really like this HUD. It looks like a mask and has just the information that you need. It offers health, armor, stamina, and slowmo bars, weapon ammo and total ammo. What more are you looking for?
I blame Halo really - pre-Halo FPS games were generally devloped purely for the PC and benefitted greatly from it. Now, almost every FPS has to be designed for a simultaneous release on PC & console and thus suffers from having to cater to lower resolutions, lack of a keyboard and the rather strange desire to have everything looking shiny.
I'm going to receive flak for this, but I also blame Piracy. The console markets just make more money, even though there are far more potential gamers in the PC crowd.
Blood wasn't scary, it was much more action-oriented. (YOU were the dead guy)
Nobody really knows about Blood, and as such, nobody is comparing FEAR or FEAR2 to it.
FEAR came out so much later than Blood that they are incomparable. Yes, Blood was a great fun game, with great environments, weapons, powerups, and cutscenes... but FEAR came out after Halo, and damn near HL2. AI at the time of Blood was limited to "Shoot in the player's direction." Controls were choppy and you could barely use the mouse to aim. The game wasn't even "true" 3D.
You can claim that FEAR isn't as good as Blood _for its time_ but I recently tried to go back and play Blood and simply couldn't. Maybe I've been spoiled by modern games.
Yes, but Halo gave people a reason to own X-Boxes. I remember those days... everyone bought an X-Box because it had the best specs (better than PS2 or Gamecube) but no one made games for it.
Suddenly, Halo comes out, it's not only the _only_ FPS at the time for X-Box, it's one of the only GAMES. So everyone who has an X-Box _has_ to play it, and they like it by default.
I _highly_ suggest playing the first FEAR. It is still a great game, and _no_ AI has come close to it yet. FEAR and FEAR 2 are the only games that I have ever played that made me feel like I was playing against other human players.
The FEAR2 storyline also directly follows from the original FEAR, so you might be a little bit lost if you never played it.
The problem is that the Legislation was written for the new tax, and since Legislation is difficult to pass and even more difficult to repeal, it simply never got repealed through the Bureaucratic nonsense.
What we need is Legislation to make it through that Bureaucratic Nonsense that specifically sets up this new system, where new projects and sales tax initiative combos _don't_ need to go through the Bureaucracy to take effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I love Slashdot.
Aricle: "Berkley finds cure for cancer."
Slashdot: "What the hell can they use that for?"
Are you telling me that you have such narrow, blinded, imagination-less vision that you can't see the use for something as thin and flexible as paper, but with the functionality of a touch-screen laptop? How about, I dunno, an e-Book that's as easy to transport and hold as a newspaper? Hell, with modern wireless technology, you could have your screen/input device sitting on the table with you at breakfast while the laptop "base" is over by the outlet. Carry the newspaper screen/input device around with you on the train and bus wirelessly connected to a PDA around your belt.
Think of the possibilities!
Contrary to popular opinion, "creating Jobs" is not always good and is not always entirely different from "throwing money at the problem." "Creating Jobs" only helps when the jobs are useful and produce something else of value.
I don't know anything about how cost effective the Hoover Dam or various bridges and public works projects have been in the past, but assuming that they _were_ cost effective, these are examples where "Creating Jobs" is a good thing that stimulates the economy in a good way, because it not only gives people money to spend, but it adds overall value to the system. The Hoover Dam added irrigation, water supply, and power, while bridges add lower transportation costs.
On the other hand, paying someone to sit like a night watchmen on P2P Networks or paying someone to replace the White House Carpet or repaint the ceilings doesn't really help anyone because nothing of value is being created. You're just shuffling money around, and its really no different economy-wise than just _giving away_ the money. People are going to spend it either way.
This isn't to say I don't support re-carpeting or re-painting the White House if it needs it, I am merely saying that the catch-phrase "creating jobs" doesn't do the system any good unless the jobs are worth doing.
So if the Credit Transaction Software is Open Source... anyone can modify it, right?
Let's change it. I've got this idea regarding fractions of a penny...
I know you're scared, but with that attitude, you'll never get her back to your mom's basement.
You don't state a reason why you think it is a good idea to switch.
Which is why, instead of asking for "How to..." she asked for some studies on the subject, presumably so that she might determine whether it is a good idea to switch or not.
It would certainly be _free_, but would it be better?
She didn't even mention that she advocated the switch yet, just that it had been discussed and she needs more information.
Ease up, troll.
This looks helpful...
I am glad that you went ahead and characterized all of the improvements, that's very helpful and I thank you for it.
Thankfully, none of them look like they will require Processes, because when I first saw this article, I immediately thought "Bloat." But these are more "tweaks" than "new functionality."
As for your commentary, I think you're dead wrong. You seem to think that these are the only fixes and improvements that Microsoft is making based on user critique. I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of tweaks and bug fixes that they didn't mention. These, on the other hand, are pieces of untested functionality that didn't appear in the Beta _at all_.
I'm partial to "The Decompresonator."
Because being a Lesbian automatically makes you 100x more attractive to guys. There's no WAY they'd ban a girl.
Furthermore, you know it's bullshit because she says "They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."
People with kids don't play X-Box live. People with kids certainly don't check user profiles. She was either doing something obscene, or that's not why she was banned.
Either way, I find it all fishy.
Resident Evil? Africa?
I thought this was supposed to simulate the events following Hurricane Katrina.
Awww, you stopped writing!
That was great, I want to keep reading!
...this is a massive step in the wrong direction.
Glad you think so. Care to throw some more bias in there?
nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay. Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make people pay.
That's because this wasn't a press release. This was the CEO of the AP answering a single question:
>>"Can I imagine content going behind a pay wall?" asks Tom Curley, the CEO of the Associated Press. "Absolutely. And, yes, we are in conversations about that."
Instead, they think that if they put up a paywall, people will magically pay -- even though the paywall itself is what takes away much of the value by making it harder for people to do what they want with the news: to spread it, to comment on it, to participate in the story.
Sure they can. Except only with other registered useres. Besides, it's far more interaction than they had from reading a newspaper or from having no services at all.
Until newspaper execs figure this out, they're only going to keep making things worse.
I suppose you have all the answers on how to save the industry. Since you're so fond of asking questions to the AP, I'm going to ask you a few: How do you propose the AP continues to pay the thousands of professional reporters, secretaries, copy boys, managers, staff writers, photographers, and journalists? Where is this money supposed to come from? Ad revenue? Don't be silly.
The fact of the matter is that these newpapers have to find _some_ way to survive in the digital age. It's going to be hard and they're likely going to shrink, but perhaps they're onto something that will not only bail out the industry but provide a decent service.
I, for one, would be more than willing to pay a flat fee of $5 for unlimited content to all of the major newspapers in the nation, which is exactly what they are thinking about doing. The stories are written by (hopefully unbiased) professionals as opposed to the dribble that makes it onto the Slashdot homepage, this article being a perfect example. Now don't get me wrong, I do love Slashdot, but what about local news? Non-nerd news? State-wide news? Sports news?
I think there will be plenty of people willing to pay for this service, especially once the papers start cutting circulation.
What, the next time they'll say a guy died from playing patty-cake in prison?
Obviously you've never been forced to play "Patty-cake" in a prison.
In other news, a prominent Chinese Blogger was admitted to a local hospital with two broken kneecaps and three missing toes, injuries he reportedly sustained after falling down a flight of stairs.
The first portion of the game will have you fighting Level 1 Obsolete Satellites, and it'll take about 70 of them to level the first few levels. You'll have missions to destroy tiny asteroids, maybe fix some GPS Satellites, or possibly collect a dozen 'Unique Space Debris' and bring them back to the Hubble Telescope.
But by the end of the game, there will be large 40-man Raids scouring the Martian valleys, fighting Dust Golems and Communist Colonists, the final boss of which will be the long-missing rogue Mutated Mars Rover.
Great, now I can set the coordinates into my TomTom and drive my sub there.
Sumatra PDF Reader is Open Source, less than half the size of Foxit (1/15th the size of Acrobat) and has search, text-read, copy-paste, and plenty of keyboard shortcuts. It's very quick and streamlined and makes Foxit look bloated in comparison.
Right now it's windows only, unfortunately.
http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html
On the other hand, World of Warcraft was very economical for me, a hardcore gamer, living in a college dorm. I must've played at LEAST 30 hours/week.
Most new games will last me maybe half that. I beat Bioshock in half a week. Same with FEAR and FEAR 2. HL2 took a little bit longer... but at that rate, I'm buying a new game or two every week. There aren't even that many good games out there!
Something like WoW, at $15/month, play as much as you want, is really economical. I bought NO games for the 6 months I played it... and year, it cost me $90, but that's only the price of two New Releases.
IMO it was about par with HL2.
Maybe in your opinion, but not in fact.
In HL2, you can sit in a doorway waiting for the Combine to come after you. They will. They will keep swarming through like stupid ants even after you've killed 50 of their guys in the same doorway. You can also hold up a barrel and walk right at the guy and he'll continue to shoot at the barrel until you're close enough to crowbar him (or launch the barrel at him from point-blank range.)
Not in FEAR, though. In FEAR they -will- wait for you. They'll also try and go around and flank you if there is any other way. I remember one instance I entered a room and took some cover. I waited for them to come get me. They didn't. I kept waiting. They never popped out. Just as I was about to leave, a guy shoots me in the back. He had traversed no less than four hallways, countless turns and obstacles, and climbed a ladder to reach me. THAT's good AI.
Or another example, there was no way around to reach me. I was on a doorway looking into a room. A guy sprints through the doorway, running too fast for him to shoot me, and too fast for me to shoot him. Obviously I turn and shoot him, he's now behind me and easy prey. But as I turned to shoot him, another guy stepped through the door and capped me. THAT's good AI.
The reason for this is simple: HL2 AI is written into every enemy exactly the same, location unspecific. You can plop 50 combine into a field you created and they'll function just as well as anywhere in game. FEAR2 AI is written using waypoints and maneuvers specific to every location. That one soldier knew how to get around me because there were waypoints telling him to. They knew the specific "rush through the door" maneuver for that one location only. Sure, it's probably more programming intensive, and not as scalable, but as a Player, I don't see any of that. I see only great AI and alright AI.
Implausably shiny textures, especially on enemies - Check
I wouldn't know, my graphics card can't handle it.
Weapon "quick menu" - Check
What do you mean? Selecting the weapons via numbers? That's been done in every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D. The scrollwheel select? That's been done since HL1. I'm not sure what you mean here.
Dumbed down HUD - Check
I really like this HUD. It looks like a mask and has just the information that you need. It offers health, armor, stamina, and slowmo bars, weapon ammo and total ammo. What more are you looking for?
I blame Halo really - pre-Halo FPS games were generally devloped purely for the PC and benefitted greatly from it. Now, almost every FPS has to be designed for a simultaneous release on PC & console and thus suffers from having to cater to lower resolutions, lack of a keyboard and the rather strange desire to have everything looking shiny.
I'm going to receive flak for this, but I also blame Piracy. The console markets just make more money, even though there are far more potential gamers in the PC crowd.
Except that:
Blood wasn't scary, it was much more action-oriented. (YOU were the dead guy)
Nobody really knows about Blood, and as such, nobody is comparing FEAR or FEAR2 to it.
FEAR came out so much later than Blood that they are incomparable. Yes, Blood was a great fun game, with great environments, weapons, powerups, and cutscenes... but FEAR came out after Halo, and damn near HL2. AI at the time of Blood was limited to "Shoot in the player's direction." Controls were choppy and you could barely use the mouse to aim. The game wasn't even "true" 3D.
You can claim that FEAR isn't as good as Blood _for its time_ but I recently tried to go back and play Blood and simply couldn't. Maybe I've been spoiled by modern games.
Yes, but Halo gave people a reason to own X-Boxes. I remember those days... everyone bought an X-Box because it had the best specs (better than PS2 or Gamecube) but no one made games for it.
Suddenly, Halo comes out, it's not only the _only_ FPS at the time for X-Box, it's one of the only GAMES. So everyone who has an X-Box _has_ to play it, and they like it by default.
I _highly_ suggest playing the first FEAR. It is still a great game, and _no_ AI has come close to it yet. FEAR and FEAR 2 are the only games that I have ever played that made me feel like I was playing against other human players.
The FEAR2 storyline also directly follows from the original FEAR, so you might be a little bit lost if you never played it.
he number of people I wish to communicate with via voice is a single digit.
...And you can just yell up the basement stairs if you want to talk to her.
The problem is that the Legislation was written for the new tax, and since Legislation is difficult to pass and even more difficult to repeal, it simply never got repealed through the Bureaucratic nonsense.
What we need is Legislation to make it through that Bureaucratic Nonsense that specifically sets up this new system, where new projects and sales tax initiative combos _don't_ need to go through the Bureaucracy to take effect.