I've played both BF2 and America's Army, and while BF2 has the benefits of larger battlefields, more classes of soldiers, more classes of weapons, and vehicles you can commandeer, it lacks the essential ingredient that makes America's Army my favorite by a mile: realism.
EA has consistently proven they think realism is in the graphics. It's not. It's in the game play. America's Army has much more realistic movement, reactions, lifecycle (coming back from the dead is not something that happens in real life, sorry psychic friends), etc.
When I play BF2 I'm amazed by the realistic water, the great tank graphics, and the wonderful explosions. But I feel like I'm playing an arcade game.
When I play America's Army, I'm amazed by the realism of the GAME itself, and I almost always become so immersed in the game that I need a few seconds after quitting to readjust to reality (scary, but true).
So BF2 is an arcade game, and America's Army feels like a simulation in a game-like environment.
In related news, the next version of AA -- due out this fall or winter, I believe -- will likely add larger maps and vehicles you can command, among other improvements.
I just started my Packet 8 service and I'm thrilled not to be paying $55 or more per month for phone service any more. The savings of nearly $35 per month is going into a Home Improvement Fund (a.k.a. geek toys)...
When I read this I got a little worried, though. I don't mind paying for stuff, but I like to know what it is first. This fee's name is ridiculous at best...
So I called them. The first agent said yes, there will be a fee, but she didn't know what it was for. She tried to find a "supervisor" to help me, but ended up transferring me to some other agent. He had never heard of it, so he went to look for it as well. Fifteen minutes later....
The fee is to "offset costs incurred by 8x8 in complying with regulatory inquiries..."
So after explaining to the second guy how I found the fee distasteful and said I'd rather pay $1.50 more in the basic service plan than pay this nebulously-named fee, he agreed with me -- even stating that he didn't understand it whatsoever -- and then gave me a month of service free. That effectively removes the $1.50 fee for a year! Woot!!!!
Anyways, I totally disagree with the approach of charging this fee. For now, it's still cheaper, but the future is cloudier.
They better update their website, too -- from Packet 8's website FAQ:
Question Does Packet8 add any additional taxes, charges or monthly fees on top of my monthly service charge?
Answer Packet8 only charges a 3% Federal Excise Tax (FET) on the total amount of your bill, so if you make no international (non-Packet8 calls outside the U.S. or Canada), your total monthly bill from us will be $20.55 on the $19.95 plan.
"Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves."
I think what you mean is this:
Basically, even though the music industry wants the site operator's behavior to be illegal, it isn't because...
According to your statements, the loophole makes the behavior legal, which is why they can't prosecute.
Quite simply, if it's illegal and there is evidence, then the case can be prosecuted. In this case, it's not illegal (loophole), ergo, no prosecution.
Re:Memory and English: An Informal Study
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
Re:Memory and English: An Informal Study
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
"A good change"?
Apparently, making fun of world memory champion websites can cause typos and the inability to catch them in preview.
I wish I could remember where I put that darn "c" key.
Memory and English: An Informal Study
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
An informal study of a single website for memory shows that if you are a world memory champion you have a good change of losing the basic ability to formulate English sentences:
"If you are a already memoriser..." (from the front page of the linked website)
Who needs memory when you've got, uh, um, what was it? Dang.
Bolo at the University of Michigan was top notch. But this was because of the crack team of CAEN employees that formed the world's greatest Bolo powerhouse that ever existed.
_Red_ Black Lightning Luxembourg white
P.S. _Red_ and Lux were the authors of BoloStar and BoloShop, the original powertools for map editing. (hey, is that my horn? TOOT! TOOT!)
Supply and demand are the basic drivers of an economy -- "lottery", as you mention it, is a very poor purveyor of this system.
In the "lottery", all the suppliers line up with a small set of controllers who intermediate the demand for the suppliers. Then, the controllers pick suppliers to meet the demanders.
In a real economy, one which can drive riches and wealth well beyond what the "lottery" provides, demand and supply are tied together WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIARY. If 25,000,000 people like Backstreet Boys, then 25,000,000 people will still buy Backstreet Boys products and services. And moreover, without the intermediary, Backstreet Boys will make more money than they do today. However, those 25,000,000 people will have the ability to also like StarvingArtistA and StarvingArtistB, who would *never* be picked by the intermediary for whatever reason.
So, in answer to your question -- yes, we want very much to do away with this pathetic intermediary lottery system.
P.S. Music labels actually DO have a purpose -- they should be promoting and marketing for artists, and even potentially acting as venture capital sources for artists with no money, but they have no business as controlling intermediaries in the distribution chain.
You may be interested to know that trademarks can be made effectively useless by the general public. Xerox makes it a point to send materials that explicitly lay out the requirements of discussing copies. For example, they say, if you declare that "You've made some Xeroxes", you are endangering their trademark. If a trademarked word becomes a colloquialism, then it becomes part of the "public domain" (open source fans should love that one).
If lawyers can convince a judge that a word is in the "public domain", then it cannot be trademarked. Trademark laws prohibit trademark protection of colloquial words. That's why you can have a company named "Apple", but you can't have a trademark on the name "Apple". Instead, you'd have to trademark "Apple Computer" and "Apple Computer, Inc."
I do not believe the word "Coke" has been challenged in a court of law, but there will come a time when it will because of its use in common lingo.
The fact is, Coke may be a trademark right now, but it may not stand up to a court challenge -- and if that happened, the word "Coke" would be in the "public domain", rendering it useless as a trademark.
NOW, whether or not the poster has the INTENT to use this domain or not is a matter for legal experts (legal experts in the poster's country, not the US)...
Remember.... law is law until someone challenges it and wins... and then it becomes history.
Well, I *was* going to give you some business advice, but the geek power in the room has already given you plenty.
Instead, I'll give you some experienced software development advice. Okay, it's actually hybrid.
FOCUS on what your customer wants. While I know this is OLD, OLD, (and probably obvious) advice, experience has shown that geeks tend to focus on technology.
That is, when geeks in the room are asked for an idea for a product, the talk quickly turns to technology and how it can best be applied.
A good philosophy is to forget about specific technology and simply start out by getting a good idea of what the customer will want or need. Once you have that, and ONLY when you have that, should the talk on technology begin -- and then it should be focused on how best to apply available technologies or discussions on how to develop new ones that will best address your product.
A product is what the customer wants. Technology is something geeks use to create products.
Nothing new here, but certainly easy to forget when you are in the middle of a brainstorm on what to create.
Outlook 2000 is incompatible with PGP 6 in that, when sending mail to someone, they will be unable to read even a SIGNED message (doesn't even have to be encrypted) sent to them if they use Outlook Express to read email.
I really fail to understand the technological reason for this, but I'm sure the real answer has something to do with Microsoft sucking big time.:)
Ahhh, in Michigan we have a century old law prohibiting profanity where it might be heard by women or children. The case is currently being tried in the public eye (http://www.msnbc.com/local/RTFLI/6090.asp) over a guy who tipped over in a Canoe and let loose with a stream of profanity which was overheard by a woman who had to cover her child's ears. A ranger heard it, too, and arrested the guy. He's suing now over the incident.
So now how about if you post some form of "profanity" on a server situated in Michigan. If the laws of Michigan are applicable, then you could be arrested (technically speaking).
While I agree people need to be responsible for what they say, I don't agree that the legal system should be used as a hammer to force feed these ethics of one group of people on another.
It certainly was interesting to watch the distinction beween "states" disappear in terms of business -- now it's even more interesting to watch them disappear in terms of law.
Pretty soon, as someone already noted, the lines between countries will disappear too. Maybe we'll eventually have a world legal system and world jurisdiction, on which the Internet will exist. Wouldn't THAT be a trip...
Slashdot Mirror
I've played both BF2 and America's Army, and while BF2 has the benefits of larger battlefields, more classes of soldiers, more classes of weapons, and vehicles you can commandeer, it lacks the essential ingredient that makes America's Army my favorite by a mile: realism.
EA has consistently proven they think realism is in the graphics. It's not. It's in the game play. America's Army has much more realistic movement, reactions, lifecycle (coming back from the dead is not something that happens in real life, sorry psychic friends), etc.
When I play BF2 I'm amazed by the realistic water, the great tank graphics, and the wonderful explosions. But I feel like I'm playing an arcade game.
When I play America's Army, I'm amazed by the realism of the GAME itself, and I almost always become so immersed in the game that I need a few seconds after quitting to readjust to reality (scary, but true).
So BF2 is an arcade game, and America's Army feels like a simulation in a game-like environment.
In related news, the next version of AA -- due out this fall or winter, I believe -- will likely add larger maps and vehicles you can command, among other improvements.
Dantelope
When I read this I got a little worried, though. I don't mind paying for stuff, but I like to know what it is first. This fee's name is ridiculous at best...
So I called them. The first agent said yes, there will be a fee, but she didn't know what it was for. She tried to find a "supervisor" to help me, but ended up transferring me to some other agent. He had never heard of it, so he went to look for it as well. Fifteen minutes later....
The fee is to "offset costs incurred by 8x8 in complying with regulatory inquiries..."
So after explaining to the second guy how I found the fee distasteful and said I'd rather pay $1.50 more in the basic service plan than pay this nebulously-named fee, he agreed with me -- even stating that he didn't understand it whatsoever -- and then gave me a month of service free. That effectively removes the $1.50 fee for a year! Woot!!!!
Anyways, I totally disagree with the approach of charging this fee. For now, it's still cheaper, but the future is cloudier.
They better update their website, too -- from Packet 8's website FAQ:
"Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves."
I think what you mean is this:
Basically, even though the music industry wants the site operator's behavior to be illegal, it isn't because...
According to your statements, the loophole makes the behavior legal, which is why they can't prosecute.
Quite simply, if it's illegal and there is evidence, then the case can be prosecuted. In this case, it's not illegal (loophole), ergo, no prosecution.
Smokers slash hash :-)
Managers slash costs
Developers slash dot
"A good change"?
Apparently, making fun of world memory champion websites can cause typos and the inability to catch them in preview.
I wish I could remember where I put that darn "c" key.
An informal study of a single website for memory shows that if you are a world memory champion you have a good change of losing the basic ability to formulate English sentences:
"If you are a already memoriser..."
(from the front page of the linked website)
Who needs memory when you've got, uh, um, what was it? Dang.
Bolo at the University of Michigan was top notch. But this was because of the crack team of CAEN employees that formed the world's greatest Bolo powerhouse that ever existed.
_Red_
Black Lightning
Luxembourg
white
P.S. _Red_ and Lux were the authors of BoloStar and BoloShop, the original powertools for map editing. (hey, is that my horn? TOOT! TOOT!)
Supply and demand are the basic drivers of an economy -- "lottery", as you mention it, is a very poor purveyor of this system.
In the "lottery", all the suppliers line up with a small set of controllers who intermediate the demand for the suppliers. Then, the controllers pick suppliers to meet the demanders.
In a real economy, one which can drive riches and wealth well beyond what the "lottery" provides, demand and supply are tied together WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIARY. If 25,000,000 people like Backstreet Boys, then 25,000,000 people will still buy Backstreet Boys products and services. And moreover, without the intermediary, Backstreet Boys will make more money than they do today. However, those 25,000,000 people will have the ability to also like StarvingArtistA and StarvingArtistB, who would *never* be picked by the intermediary for whatever reason.
So, in answer to your question -- yes, we want very much to do away with this pathetic intermediary lottery system.
P.S. Music labels actually DO have a purpose -- they should be promoting and marketing for artists, and even potentially acting as venture capital sources for artists with no money, but they have no business as controlling intermediaries in the distribution chain.
You may be interested to know that trademarks can be made effectively useless by the general public. Xerox makes it a point to send materials that explicitly lay out the requirements of discussing copies. For example, they say, if you declare that "You've made some Xeroxes", you are endangering their trademark. If a trademarked word becomes a colloquialism, then it becomes part of the "public domain" (open source fans should love that one).
If lawyers can convince a judge that a word is in the "public domain", then it cannot be trademarked. Trademark laws prohibit trademark protection of colloquial words. That's why you can have a company named "Apple", but you can't have a trademark on the name "Apple". Instead, you'd have to trademark "Apple Computer" and "Apple Computer, Inc."
I do not believe the word "Coke" has been challenged in a court of law, but there will come a time when it will because of its use in common lingo.
The fact is, Coke may be a trademark right now, but it may not stand up to a court challenge -- and if that happened, the word "Coke" would be in the "public domain", rendering it useless as a trademark.
NOW, whether or not the poster has the INTENT to use this domain or not is a matter for legal experts (legal experts in the poster's country, not the US)...
Remember.... law is law until someone challenges it and wins... and then it becomes history.
Well, I *was* going to give you some business advice, but the geek power in the room has already given you plenty.
Instead, I'll give you some experienced software development advice. Okay, it's actually hybrid.
FOCUS on what your customer wants. While I know this is OLD, OLD, (and probably obvious) advice, experience has shown that geeks tend to focus on technology.
That is, when geeks in the room are asked for an idea for a product, the talk quickly turns to technology and how it can best be applied.
A good philosophy is to forget about specific technology and simply start out by getting a good idea of what the customer will want or need. Once you have that, and ONLY when you have that, should the talk on technology begin -- and then it should be focused on how best to apply available technologies or discussions on how to develop new ones that will best address your product.
A product is what the customer wants. Technology is something geeks use to create products.
Nothing new here, but certainly easy to forget when you are in the middle of a brainstorm on what to create.
Outlook 2000 is incompatible with PGP 6 in that, when sending mail to someone, they will be unable to read even a SIGNED message (doesn't even have to be encrypted) sent to them if they use Outlook Express to read email.
:)
I really fail to understand the technological reason for this, but I'm sure the real answer has something to do with Microsoft sucking big time.
--Dantelope
Ahhh, in Michigan we have a century old law prohibiting profanity where it might be heard by women or children. The case is currently being tried in the public eye (http://www.msnbc.com/local/RTFLI/6090.asp) over a guy who tipped over in a Canoe and let loose with a stream of profanity which was overheard by a woman who had to cover her child's ears. A ranger heard it, too, and arrested the guy. He's suing now over the incident.
So now how about if you post some form of "profanity" on a server situated in Michigan. If the laws of Michigan are applicable, then you could be arrested (technically speaking).
While I agree people need to be responsible for what they say, I don't agree that the legal system should be used as a hammer to force feed these ethics of one group of people on another.
It certainly was interesting to watch the distinction beween "states" disappear in terms of business -- now it's even more interesting to watch them disappear in terms of law.
Pretty soon, as someone already noted, the lines between countries will disappear too. Maybe we'll eventually have a world legal system and world jurisdiction, on which the Internet will exist. Wouldn't THAT be a trip...
'Lope.