Some of my greatest computer memories are of sitting in front of a computer for like an hour while I try to think up ways to get past some point in infocom games. Damn those gave your brain a workout.
They can't take all of the blame. We've got to hold the programmers and designers accountable too. They're the ones who come up with the boring storylines, the tired old ideas, and the uninspired design.
The money is in the innovation . Make something totally new, and chances are it will be successful.
The problem is the stuff that game companies have become convinced that the best route to a bestseller is to make it exactly like games that have been around for years. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's like Hollywood, where they figure with enough special effects they can really clean up, and making interesting movies is too big a gamble.
Look how much trouble Sid Meier had getting EA to back the Sims.
Because the programmers, designers, and producers tend not to give a damn about treating game production as an art, and see it solely as a business.
They're a bunch of lemmings who parrot each others work ad nauseam; all they seem to have produced over the past few years are RTSes and FPSes, with a smattering of other genres. One game becomes succesful, the rest of them start making exactly the same kind of game. Look how many WW2 FPSes have come out recently.
I liked them all. The trick is to read them all at once; I can't even distinguish what happened in what book, as far as I'm concerned the entire series was one loooong book...
So why even bash him or do all this comparing in the first place?
Because a fan of his made the claim that he's one of the best sf writers around?
Gawd, is the "if it doesn't have a deep, involving plot, and isn't perfectly written, it's pretty well trash" mindset going to infect books as it did movies and gaming?
Did you even read the post you replied to? The claim wasn't that he wasn't entertaining, or that only highly literate books are worth reading, it was simply that he wasn't one of the best SF writers around.
Well it's not in common use around here. The only time I've heard the term is on slashdot, where it often IS derogatory (whining about how computer science majors/engineers are such well-rounded, literate people as opposed to those narrow ol' liberal arts types is where it usually pops up).
There's my point. If the toxic waste in my yard is causing you serious health complications, I can just deny that there's conclusive proof. I don't need to get scientists on my side, I just need to get the politicians. Who makes the decision as to what constitutes an environmental danger? You've said the scientists don't convince you.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
"Human industry is causing global warming."
"You can't prove that."
"Here's a bunch of scientific evidence."
"But it doesn't prove it 100%."
"Look at all these scientists saying that human industry is causing global warming."
"They're biased."
"Look at all the strange weather patterns lately."
"Coincidence."
"The arctic ice cap is almost completely melted away."
"Coincidence."
But the property rights crowd also tends to not believe anything they do on their land is destructive anywhere else. If you dump toxic waste in your backyard, and I get sick because of it, all you'll say is I "can't prove causality". Look at the global warming or DDT debate.
Alright, I apologize if I went overboard a little, but I hope you can understand my irritation at comparing aerial photography to "eco-terrorism", and characterizing any sense of environmental responsibility as radical leftism.
Fuzzies and techies are terms that were freely used and considered non-derogatory shorthand where I went to school. Your experience might have varied, but I have never before heard of anyone being offended by either term.
And how often were those terms used by the "fuzzies" themselves? It IS insulting, not just to the person but to the subjects. Do you really think anything not science or technology related betrays "fuzzy" thinking?
I can't speak for every school, of course, but the place where I got my BA required a healthy dose of science courses for all majors. It was the science majors who got off a little easy from the arts requirements if anyone did.
Seems to me they wanted to put some boulders there to keep their golf course from washing away into the sea, maybe. But it doesn't look nice, so let's get all liberal and tell them they can't keep their golf course above water.
It's illegal. They probably knew it was illegal. Why the hell should the environment take a backseat to some Californian developer making money?
This isn't vigilanteism. Is he breaking the law? Is he walking in with a jackhjammer and breaking the seawalls? He's simply taking pictures. It's the equivalent of a citizen's watch group.
Doh! I get it! It's okay to be a vigilante for lefty causes! For instance, Eco-terrorism is okay!
This terrorizes you? You feel terror while visiting this website? Timid little guy, aren't you.
It's not just your property though. That seawall may prevent erosion on your golf course, but the guy who lives down the coast a little might experience greater erosion because of it.
Yeah, it is great. You can't own part of the ocean, I don't care what the hell you think you bought. If people can't obey the laws, then leave the damn country, don't whine and snivel about "property rights"; they didn't have the right to do what they did, and they know it.
Uh, no, the main reason I'm not a practicing Catholic is because I'm agnostic. If I eventually do believe in God, I'm fairly certain it will not involve in a return to Christianity, as I find it a little too narrow for my tastes.
In your opinion, should I expect to find the known-to-exist-but-tightly-guarded material regarding Hitler's final solution online? Should I expect to see everything the Vatican has about the Dead Sea Scrolls online?
The Vatican's behavior during the Holocaust does bear scrutiny, but I don't think they deserve all of the bad press they had. There were two options Pope Pius had; protest Hitler's actions and bring the Church openly against him, or maintain diplomatic relations publicly while privately trying to help Jews behind the scenes. The Church chose the latter, and managed to smuggle several thousand Jews out of Germany and provide a safe haven (many ended up in the Swiss Guard). I think it was probably a mistake, considering the horrific loss of life that took place, and that they should have come out publicly against Germany. I think it would probably have saved more lives in the long run by publicizing the plight of Jewish Holocaust victims, but I don't think they were complicit in the deaths as some people feel.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Dead Sea Scrolls; I don't pretend to know everything, or even that much about the Church, so perhaps you can enlighten me. As far as I know the Scrolls are held by the Israel Antiquities Authority, and any information the Vatican has would have had been from the same sources as any scholar; a reading of the scrolls themselves.
But I think that's pretty unlikely. I will be mightily impressed if the Vatican DOES fully disclose all of these secrets. What do you think? What is the Church about and why do you think they will publish everything?
Of course they won't publish everything, but they're not saying they will. The article I read explicitly said "selected".
Besides, every book in the Vatican != every book in the Vatican library. The real secret stuff I'm sure is kept somewhere else.
Actually the King James Bible probably isn't the one most people are familiar with. It's one of the great works of English literature, but for day-to-day use most people use modern versions such as the New International Version.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of my greatest computer memories are of sitting in front of a computer for like an hour while I try to think up ways to get past some point in infocom games. Damn those gave your brain a workout.
They can't take all of the blame. We've got to hold the programmers and designers accountable too. They're the ones who come up with the boring storylines, the tired old ideas, and the uninspired design.
No offense man, but you have waaaay too many capitalized letters in that post.
The money is in the innovation . Make something totally new, and chances are it will be successful.
The problem is the stuff that game companies have become convinced that the best route to a bestseller is to make it exactly like games that have been around for years. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's like Hollywood, where they figure with enough special effects they can really clean up, and making interesting movies is too big a gamble.
Look how much trouble Sid Meier had getting EA to back the Sims.
Because the programmers, designers, and producers tend not to give a damn about treating game production as an art, and see it solely as a business.
They're a bunch of lemmings who parrot each others work ad nauseam; all they seem to have produced over the past few years are RTSes and FPSes, with a smattering of other genres. One game becomes succesful, the rest of them start making exactly the same kind of game. Look how many WW2 FPSes have come out recently.
Don't hold much truck with that book-larnin', eh?
Yes, without New Jersey we wouldn't have...uhhh...hmmm...
A convenient place to make fun of?
Ironically, it looks as if Jordan lifted the entire plot of Dune for WoT.
I liked them all. The trick is to read them all at once; I can't even distinguish what happened in what book, as far as I'm concerned the entire series was one loooong book...
So why even bash him or do all this comparing in the first place?
Because a fan of his made the claim that he's one of the best sf writers around?
Gawd, is the "if it doesn't have a deep, involving plot, and isn't perfectly written, it's pretty well trash" mindset going to infect books as it did movies and gaming?
Did you even read the post you replied to? The claim wasn't that he wasn't entertaining, or that only highly literate books are worth reading, it was simply that he wasn't one of the best SF writers around.
That's what you get for electing corporate tools. Hell, Ashcroft would have dropped the prosecution completely if he could have had his way.
Well it's not in common use around here. The only time I've heard the term is on slashdot, where it often IS derogatory (whining about how computer science majors/engineers are such well-rounded, literate people as opposed to those narrow ol' liberal arts types is where it usually pops up).
There's my point. If the toxic waste in my yard is causing you serious health complications, I can just deny that there's conclusive proof. I don't need to get scientists on my side, I just need to get the politicians. Who makes the decision as to what constitutes an environmental danger? You've said the scientists don't convince you.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
"Human industry is causing global warming."
"You can't prove that."
"Here's a bunch of scientific evidence."
"But it doesn't prove it 100%."
"Look at all these scientists saying that human industry is causing global warming."
"They're biased."
"Look at all the strange weather patterns lately."
"Coincidence."
"The arctic ice cap is almost completely melted away."
"Coincidence."
And so on.
But the property rights crowd also tends to not believe anything they do on their land is destructive anywhere else. If you dump toxic waste in your backyard, and I get sick because of it, all you'll say is I "can't prove causality". Look at the global warming or DDT debate.
Alright, I apologize if I went overboard a little, but I hope you can understand my irritation at comparing aerial photography to "eco-terrorism", and characterizing any sense of environmental responsibility as radical leftism.
Fuzzies and techies are terms that were freely used and considered non-derogatory shorthand where I went to school. Your experience might have varied, but I have never before heard of anyone being offended by either term.
And how often were those terms used by the "fuzzies" themselves? It IS insulting, not just to the person but to the subjects. Do you really think anything not science or technology related betrays "fuzzy" thinking?
I can't speak for every school, of course, but the place where I got my BA required a healthy dose of science courses for all majors. It was the science majors who got off a little easy from the arts requirements if anyone did.
Seems to me they wanted to put some boulders there to keep their golf course from washing away into the sea, maybe. But it doesn't look nice, so let's get all liberal and tell them they can't keep their golf course above water.
It's illegal. They probably knew it was illegal. Why the hell should the environment take a backseat to some Californian developer making money?
This isn't vigilanteism. Is he breaking the law? Is he walking in with a jackhjammer and breaking the seawalls? He's simply taking pictures. It's the equivalent of a citizen's watch group.
Doh! I get it! It's okay to be a vigilante for lefty causes! For instance, Eco-terrorism is okay!
This terrorizes you? You feel terror while visiting this website? Timid little guy, aren't you.
It's not just your property though. That seawall may prevent erosion on your golf course, but the guy who lives down the coast a little might experience greater erosion because of it.
Yeah, it is great. You can't own part of the ocean, I don't care what the hell you think you bought. If people can't obey the laws, then leave the damn country, don't whine and snivel about "property rights"; they didn't have the right to do what they did, and they know it.
Uh, no, the main reason I'm not a practicing Catholic is because I'm agnostic. If I eventually do believe in God, I'm fairly certain it will not involve in a return to Christianity, as I find it a little too narrow for my tastes.
What, then, is the Church about?
It's about a lot of things.
In your opinion, should I expect to find the known-to-exist-but-tightly-guarded material regarding Hitler's final solution online? Should I expect to see everything the Vatican has about the Dead Sea Scrolls online?
The Vatican's behavior during the Holocaust does bear scrutiny, but I don't think they deserve all of the bad press they had. There were two options Pope Pius had; protest Hitler's actions and bring the Church openly against him, or maintain diplomatic relations publicly while privately trying to help Jews behind the scenes. The Church chose the latter, and managed to smuggle several thousand Jews out of Germany and provide a safe haven (many ended up in the Swiss Guard). I think it was probably a mistake, considering the horrific loss of life that took place, and that they should have come out publicly against Germany. I think it would probably have saved more lives in the long run by publicizing the plight of Jewish Holocaust victims, but I don't think they were complicit in the deaths as some people feel.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Dead Sea Scrolls; I don't pretend to know everything, or even that much about the Church, so perhaps you can enlighten me. As far as I know the Scrolls are held by the Israel Antiquities Authority, and any information the Vatican has would have had been from the same sources as any scholar; a reading of the scrolls themselves.
But I think that's pretty unlikely. I will be mightily impressed if the Vatican DOES fully disclose all of these secrets. What do you think? What is the Church about and why do you think they will publish everything?
Of course they won't publish everything, but they're not saying they will. The article I read explicitly said "selected".
Besides, every book in the Vatican != every book in the Vatican library. The real secret stuff I'm sure is kept somewhere else.
Actually the King James Bible probably isn't the one most people are familiar with. It's one of the great works of English literature, but for day-to-day use most people use modern versions such as the New International Version.