Uh, no. The blame only goes to the robber. I should be able to leave my fucking door open.
Yes, you probably should. But you can't. Crime exists in its various forms, and sitting back saying how unfortunate the whole situation is doesn't solve anything. In today's world if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition then you have some partial responsibility when it gets stolen. You made the crime easier by totally disregarding sensible security precautions. Yeah, the car thief is to blame, but you've suffered the consequences for your own actions.
Perhaps blame isn't the right word. The blame is all on the thief...but the responsibilty to recognise the dangers that exist and prepare for them is all yours.
Anyone who seriously thought that closing their Facebook account would immediately result in everything they'd released onto the Internet magically being recalled and returned to the realms of privacy is probably accessing their account during their one-hour-a-day computing time in the loony bin.
Who cares if Facebook can technically now use whatever you post forever. So could anyone who archived the page, or even took a screenshot. Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
Interesting theory, but I seem to remember my biology teacher discussing silicon-based life, and how it was much less likely to develop as carbon atoms produced much more stable molecules, especially on planets like Earth with water and nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres. Carbon-based life just "works" better on Earth.
On planets with radcially different environments there's probably a lot of potential for life that's totally different from ours, but I think it's fairly unlikely for us to discover it here.
Make a number of versions and divide your beta-testers into groups. A control group playing the current version, perhaps one where hints are unlimited and have no penalty, one where there are limited numbers of hints, or some penalty is associated with using them. After they've played ask them to fill out a questionaire rating their enjoyment of the game overall, and in specific areas.
That way you'll have useful, qualitative data about the overall "enjoyment factor" of your game, as apposed to using guesswork and the (possibly biased) opinions of others to decide which features you need. This masters dissertation contains some relevant points, and seems to have some references which may be useful to you.
On a more personal note, I find games that provide hints can be more satisfying than games that leave it entirely to the user, especially in cases where the puzzles require a certain way of thinking, or a certain intrisic understanding of a system that I perhaps do not possess. Limited hints allow me to continue past a puzzle or area that I might otherwise have been stuck on, and in some cases might have caused me to ragequit. It's a fine line though, as some games provide hints too freely, and I find it too tempting to click the hint button whenever my progress is delayed more than a few minutes or seconds. In these situations I might have discovered the answer on my own in time and felt elated by my own cleverness, probably enhancing my perceived enjoyment of the game. There are probably those that only derive enjoyment from a game through its completion, or through using every possible hint, guide or even cheat to be the "best".
Basically I think you need some empirical testing to determine what system is right for your game, and what your target users will find to be the most fun.
Secondly, for those that still want a gaming fix tend to look at cheaper games.
Or older games in the bargain bin, or choosing to buy one game a month where they might have bought two in the past. The troubles of games publishers can't be put squarely on the shoulders of the used-game community, and personally I don't think its half as bad as some publishers would lead us to believe. Trading used games has gone on for decades, and suddenly it's being put right up there with piracy.
I'm sure its a factor, but it's hard to argue with the logic that a good game will sell in larger numbers than a bad one, and that a huge development budget for a mediocre game is a recipe for losing money.
I was as surprised as you that my comment was modded Insightful. I thought my assertion that Neanderthals were overgrown fruit flies, closely related to both chimps and their favourite food would have been considered Funny, or at worst ignored. Thanks for the interesting information regarding genes though, biology was never my strong point.
And yes, I know chimps don't actually like bananas as much as we think they do.
Doesn't the significance depend hugely on what genes were included in the 60% that have been mapped? We're supposed to share 50% of our DNA with fruit, 60% with fruit flies and 98% with chimps, so this incomplete map might tell us absolutely nothing, except that Neanderthal man is closely related to bananas and chimps, and that they were actually overgrown fruit flies.
It seems that claims from late last year suggesting the games industry may be "recession proof" are quickly being proven wrong
Labelling an entire industry "recession proof" seems a bit excessive. Any games company with a solid fanbase, probably through years of making good quality games and having good customer support, are unlikely to be affected too badly by the global economy problems. Sure, things are a bit tighter for me money-wise now, but I'm sure as hell not going to stop buying games. A good business model and high quality products, for a receptive market sounds like a winner to me. But a bad games company, making bad games and treating their customers like idiots, criminals, or flat out ignoring them, is going to go under no matter what. Recession just speeds things up, and being in an industry considered "safe" from economic problems isn't going to save you one little bit.
Another approach to riding out a recession is to create games that are mind-bendingly addictive, and provide income month-after-month. Anyone for WoW?
So let's imagine someone did actually manage to track the President using his Blackberry. Now that person could plan an assassination based on the Presiden't location? How is that more useful than knowing he'll be in location X at time Y based on a press release, or a public event?
The last link supposedly discusses the "risks" of a "trackable" President by supposing some would-be assassin could tell if the President was in the White House, or which car he was in out of several choices. Wouldn't this assassin be better off waiting for a public rally where the President's attendance, location (and probably the time of his attendance) are public knowledge?
This just strikes me as wild speculation with a healty dose of paranoia. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure a hundred people will now cite many examples of how this could lead to "another JFK". Fire away people...
Apparently you went to a private school where you learned that only the rich and populous states matter. Unfortunately for you, our government was designed to try and protect the minority from being bullied and exploited by the large states.
Actually I went to public school, but in England, where the intimate details of the American voting system weren't a high priority. So my comments/questions are coming from a position of ignorance I'll admit, but not one of stupidity.
I'm simply questioning a system whereby a person in a "large" state implicity has less "power" to decide who becomes president than someone in a "small" state. Shouldn't every man and woman in the USA have an equal right to decide who's in charge?
Perhaps it's just a different cultural view, and the fact that I haven't had the merits of the EC system taught to me from a young age, but disproportional voting power based on the population density of the state you live in just seems odd in a country supposedly based upon freedom and equity for all. Or is that just more propaganda?
I'm also not seeing the importance of this. Sounds about as interesting as me posting a/. article about the view from my office window, or a lengthy description of the various fillings in my daily sandwiches.
If anyone would like to actually click the Gmail paper link, you'll hopefully discover that this is some elaborate joke. From the page:
"
"Now that I have Gmail Paper, I understand the difference between labels and folders. I had one message with two labels, but when I tried to stick the paper version into two filing cabinets at the same time, it just wouldn't go."
But what about the environment?
Not a problem. Gmail Paper is made out of 96% post-consumer organic soybean sputum, and thus, actually helps the environment. For every Gmail Paper we produce, the environment gets incrementally healthier.
Since the point of the Electoral College was to keep the populace states from having too much of a voice, and give the small states more of a voice, maybe we should redistribute the count of electors to be more fair.
Since the United States of America is now considered more a single entity than it is a collection of independent states (especially in the wider world, where I'll bet most people aren't even aware of the complexities of the US voting system), is it still sensible to talk about presidential candidates lobbying states, rather than lobbying people?
Surely a person living in a state with a high population should have just as much say in the choice of their president as someone who lives in a low-populaton state, or is that just the ramblings of a crazy person?
Doesn't the current system mean that people living in high-population states have votes that are "worth" less than the votes of people in relatively unpopulated states? And if that is actually the case, doesn't that sort of defeat the point (or at least the spirit) of democratic elections?
"Support for such a move has been building since 2000, when President Bush became president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore."
So Bush won despite more actual people voting for Gore? I'm sure there's some great technical reason for the system to work this way, but to a layman it just seems ridiculous.
Wait, what's that you say? Britain works the same way? WHAT!?
You asked and answered your own question. It's to rhyme with "theme" as per the dictionary. I can only suggest that you physically punish anyone saying "may-may" or "me-me".
Perhaps this will signal a return to past form? If they have any sense at all they may take note of the lukewarm reception of their latest Sonic titles by the press and the public, and decide that perhaps these games weren't as awesome as they thought.
Somewhere along the line they forgot what it was that made their games such hits...
If you RTFA, you'll find out that Ubiquity is really just a fancy word for "client-side scripting."
Its actually a little more complicated than that. It is actually attempting to bridge the gap between human language and computer searching/processing, albeit slowly and with baby steps. With such a complicated subject area its hard to design something with such a lofty goal immediately; its an incremental process.
The commands and argument parsing are factors sure, but there's also a system for adding new commands using a search-and-subscribe system.
1) How intrusive this Ubiquity function will be - I don't want it kicking in when I miss a space in an alias, or when I type a comma instead of a dot
and
2) How successful it is when it processes natural langauge - as a developer of software using language processing I assure you it fails more often than it succeeds!
They want to make Ask Jeeves all over again in the url bar?
Don't search keywords do this better, and in a more controlled way? I set up a google maps search keyword of "map", then I know what happens when I type "map address".
I think this particular feature might be aimed more at the casual user, rather than power users familar with aliasing keywords such as your example.
I'm assuming that, as before, the new version will be highly customisable so users can decide what functionality they want to keep, and what they want to disable.
The term "Darwinism" only exists so that creationists can change the vectors of their frothy rabid attacks from being against evolution - a battle they can never win - to being against a person
I guess we'll just have to wait for another intellectual giant to come along and contribute so significantly to evolutionary research that it'll be named after them. Of course the vitriol and unfounded criticism will likely just be applied to them instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. The blame only goes to the robber. I should be able to leave my fucking door open.
Yes, you probably should. But you can't. Crime exists in its various forms, and sitting back saying how unfortunate the whole situation is doesn't solve anything. In today's world if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition then you have some partial responsibility when it gets stolen. You made the crime easier by totally disregarding sensible security precautions. Yeah, the car thief is to blame, but you've suffered the consequences for your own actions.
Perhaps blame isn't the right word. The blame is all on the thief...but the responsibilty to recognise the dangers that exist and prepare for them is all yours.
Anyone who seriously thought that closing their Facebook account would immediately result in everything they'd released onto the Internet magically being recalled and returned to the realms of privacy is probably accessing their account during their one-hour-a-day computing time in the loony bin.
Who cares if Facebook can technically now use whatever you post forever. So could anyone who archived the page, or even took a screenshot. Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
I have to question the standards of a Wikipedia article entitled "Life" that ends with a section on life insurance that makes up 1/8th of the article.
Interesting theory, but I seem to remember my biology teacher discussing silicon-based life, and how it was much less likely to develop as carbon atoms produced much more stable molecules, especially on planets like Earth with water and nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres. Carbon-based life just "works" better on Earth.
On planets with radcially different environments there's probably a lot of potential for life that's totally different from ours, but I think it's fairly unlikely for us to discover it here.
27 seconds in the hamster throws someone an evil look; probably the sadistic bastard that put him in a jacket and started filming him.
Make a number of versions and divide your beta-testers into groups. A control group playing the current version, perhaps one where hints are unlimited and have no penalty, one where there are limited numbers of hints, or some penalty is associated with using them. After they've played ask them to fill out a questionaire rating their enjoyment of the game overall, and in specific areas.
That way you'll have useful, qualitative data about the overall "enjoyment factor" of your game, as apposed to using guesswork and the (possibly biased) opinions of others to decide which features you need. This masters dissertation contains some relevant points, and seems to have some references which may be useful to you.
On a more personal note, I find games that provide hints can be more satisfying than games that leave it entirely to the user, especially in cases where the puzzles require a certain way of thinking, or a certain intrisic understanding of a system that I perhaps do not possess. Limited hints allow me to continue past a puzzle or area that I might otherwise have been stuck on, and in some cases might have caused me to ragequit. It's a fine line though, as some games provide hints too freely, and I find it too tempting to click the hint button whenever my progress is delayed more than a few minutes or seconds. In these situations I might have discovered the answer on my own in time and felt elated by my own cleverness, probably enhancing my perceived enjoyment of the game. There are probably those that only derive enjoyment from a game through its completion, or through using every possible hint, guide or even cheat to be the "best".
Basically I think you need some empirical testing to determine what system is right for your game, and what your target users will find to be the most fun.
Secondly, for those that still want a gaming fix tend to look at cheaper games.
Or older games in the bargain bin, or choosing to buy one game a month where they might have bought two in the past. The troubles of games publishers can't be put squarely on the shoulders of the used-game community, and personally I don't think its half as bad as some publishers would lead us to believe. Trading used games has gone on for decades, and suddenly it's being put right up there with piracy.
I'm sure its a factor, but it's hard to argue with the logic that a good game will sell in larger numbers than a bad one, and that a huge development budget for a mediocre game is a recipe for losing money.
I was as surprised as you that my comment was modded Insightful. I thought my assertion that Neanderthals were overgrown fruit flies, closely related to both chimps and their favourite food would have been considered Funny, or at worst ignored. Thanks for the interesting information regarding genes though, biology was never my strong point.
And yes, I know chimps don't actually like bananas as much as we think they do.
Doesn't the significance depend hugely on what genes were included in the 60% that have been mapped? We're supposed to share 50% of our DNA with fruit, 60% with fruit flies and 98% with chimps, so this incomplete map might tell us absolutely nothing, except that Neanderthal man is closely related to bananas and chimps, and that they were actually overgrown fruit flies.
It seems that claims from late last year suggesting the games industry may be "recession proof" are quickly being proven wrong
Labelling an entire industry "recession proof" seems a bit excessive. Any games company with a solid fanbase, probably through years of making good quality games and having good customer support, are unlikely to be affected too badly by the global economy problems. Sure, things are a bit tighter for me money-wise now, but I'm sure as hell not going to stop buying games. A good business model and high quality products, for a receptive market sounds like a winner to me. But a bad games company, making bad games and treating their customers like idiots, criminals, or flat out ignoring them, is going to go under no matter what. Recession just speeds things up, and being in an industry considered "safe" from economic problems isn't going to save you one little bit.
Another approach to riding out a recession is to create games that are mind-bendingly addictive, and provide income month-after-month. Anyone for WoW?
So let's imagine someone did actually manage to track the President using his Blackberry. Now that person could plan an assassination based on the Presiden't location? How is that more useful than knowing he'll be in location X at time Y based on a press release, or a public event?
The last link supposedly discusses the "risks" of a "trackable" President by supposing some would-be assassin could tell if the President was in the White House, or which car he was in out of several choices. Wouldn't this assassin be better off waiting for a public rally where the President's attendance, location (and probably the time of his attendance) are public knowledge?
This just strikes me as wild speculation with a healty dose of paranoia. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure a hundred people will now cite many examples of how this could lead to "another JFK". Fire away people...
Apparently you went to a private school where you learned that only the rich and populous states matter. Unfortunately for you, our government was designed to try and protect the minority from being bullied and exploited by the large states.
Actually I went to public school, but in England, where the intimate details of the American voting system weren't a high priority. So my comments/questions are coming from a position of ignorance I'll admit, but not one of stupidity.
I'm simply questioning a system whereby a person in a "large" state implicity has less "power" to decide who becomes president than someone in a "small" state. Shouldn't every man and woman in the USA have an equal right to decide who's in charge?
Perhaps it's just a different cultural view, and the fact that I haven't had the merits of the EC system taught to me from a young age, but disproportional voting power based on the population density of the state you live in just seems odd in a country supposedly based upon freedom and equity for all. Or is that just more propaganda?
I'm also not seeing the importance of this. Sounds about as interesting as me posting a /. article about the view from my office window, or a lengthy description of the various fillings in my daily sandwiches.
" "Now that I have Gmail Paper, I understand the difference between labels and folders. I had one message with two labels, but when I tried to stick the paper version into two filing cabinets at the same time, it just wouldn't go."
But what about the environment? Not a problem. Gmail Paper is made out of 96% post-consumer organic soybean sputum, and thus, actually helps the environment. For every Gmail Paper we produce, the environment gets incrementally healthier.
Good to see people reading things properly...
Since the point of the Electoral College was to keep the populace states from having too much of a voice, and give the small states more of a voice, maybe we should redistribute the count of electors to be more fair.
Since the United States of America is now considered more a single entity than it is a collection of independent states (especially in the wider world, where I'll bet most people aren't even aware of the complexities of the US voting system), is it still sensible to talk about presidential candidates lobbying states, rather than lobbying people?
Surely a person living in a state with a high population should have just as much say in the choice of their president as someone who lives in a low-populaton state, or is that just the ramblings of a crazy person?
Doesn't the current system mean that people living in high-population states have votes that are "worth" less than the votes of people in relatively unpopulated states? And if that is actually the case, doesn't that sort of defeat the point (or at least the spirit) of democratic elections?
As a Brit I was shocked to read this from TFA:
"Support for such a move has been building since 2000, when President Bush became president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore."
So Bush won despite more actual people voting for Gore? I'm sure there's some great technical reason for the system to work this way, but to a layman it just seems ridiculous.
Wait, what's that you say? Britain works the same way? WHAT!?
You asked and answered your own question. It's to rhyme with "theme" as per the dictionary. I can only suggest that you physically punish anyone saying "may-may" or "me-me".
Damn editors modifying summaries....down with editors!
Perhaps this will signal a return to past form? If they have any sense at all they may take note of the lukewarm reception of their latest Sonic titles by the press and the public, and decide that perhaps these games weren't as awesome as they thought.
Somewhere along the line they forgot what it was that made their games such hits...
although we might complain of traveling in 'cattle class' we have the 747 to thank for being able to do so at affordable prices
Ah yes, the age old practice of shafting your customers, but justifying it with "At least it's cheap!"
If you RTFA, you'll find out that Ubiquity is really just a fancy word for "client-side scripting."
Its actually a little more complicated than that. It is actually attempting to bridge the gap between human language and computer searching/processing, albeit slowly and with baby steps. With such a complicated subject area its hard to design something with such a lofty goal immediately; its an incremental process.
The commands and argument parsing are factors sure, but there's also a system for adding new commands using a search-and-subscribe system.
I guess its success will depend on:
1) How intrusive this Ubiquity function will be - I don't want it kicking in when I miss a space in an alias, or when I type a comma instead of a dot
and
2) How successful it is when it processes natural langauge - as a developer of software using language processing I assure you it fails more often than it succeeds!
They want to make Ask Jeeves all over again in the url bar?
Don't search keywords do this better, and in a more controlled way? I set up a google maps search keyword of "map", then I know what happens when I type "map address".
I think this particular feature might be aimed more at the casual user, rather than power users familar with aliasing keywords such as your example.
I'm assuming that, as before, the new version will be highly customisable so users can decide what functionality they want to keep, and what they want to disable.
The term "Darwinism" only exists so that creationists can change the vectors of their frothy rabid attacks from being against evolution - a battle they can never win - to being against a person
I guess we'll just have to wait for another intellectual giant to come along and contribute so significantly to evolutionary research that it'll be named after them. Of course the vitriol and unfounded criticism will likely just be applied to them instead.