Actually, the problem is, pictures can very much lie. You don't even need post-production manipulation. Careful staging will give you everything you need, and not a single fingerprint on the finished product to indicate forgery.
I apologize, I was referring to DVDs/avi/mp4/etc type movies stored locally. But the access through YouTube to codecs would put Google in a strong position even with that, I suppose.
I dunno, I think it'd depend on video playback abilities. In addition to websurfing, a lot of people want to watch movies and similar on their mobile platforms. I know video playback isn't really tied to the OS directly, but if there's a lack of quality compatible playback software, or if there's some quirk, it would hurt the numbers in the short-term.
Well, I imagine any reasonably competent techie would be able to take a look at the equipment and see if it does what it says, wouldn't they? Unless you think they're going to waste time with some hardcore black-box type shit.
If that had been named in the article, I'd say it was a damn good possibility that they were removing Windows from any machines in favour of that. The fact that it exists, and that name wasn't used, pretty much confirms for me that it's not a legit story at this time.
Yeah, they can use "the Linux." I could see Google ditching Windows as a primary OS, and maybe just running it as a VM for testing purposes, but any article that doesn't give a specific distro they're moving to rates about an 8.5 on my bullshit-o-meter. Further, it'd be a staggered roll-out, I'm sure. Nothing worse for an IT department than having 20k+ employees needing everything changed. Until there's an official announcement, I won't hold my breath.
Anyone who actually thinks Apple makes their own shit is a moron. Thirty seconds looking at the specs show that the components are all off-the-shelf stuff, just put in a shiny case. Why would they change that for any of their devices when it's worked so well so far?
I figured it was probably malicious, but it was from a friend who's usually on the up-and-up, so I jacked up my security temporarily, and clicked. When I got the big white page with "click to continue," yeah, that's confirmation. Not a single one of those is in any way legit. Ever.
Hardly the same. If their beliefs are that others should act as they act, that needs must be curtailed. One's freedoms should not unreasonably impact others'. His method might not be the best to achieve that curtailing (in fact, it's terrible), but it's not anywhere near the level of the Muslims who would threaten anyone making an image of Mohammed. The fact that you think they ARE on the same level doesn't paint you in a very favourable light.
Pray tell, do you also find bludgeoning a man unconscious to stop him murdering someone to be as bad as that man murdering someone?
1) Yeah, we kinda do. There's *already* a militant subset of Christians who murder in the name of God, and even more who simply claim those they kill are sinful and perverted, and against God's order. If the religious had the kind of power they had then, then there'd be laws against the kind of stuff people are killing over (outlaw abortion, homosexuality, etc.), and it's very likely that the legal system would be skewed to be lenient on people who killed abortion doctors and "those homos." Further, as proven repeatedly throughout history, fanaticism begets fanaticism. As the Christians got power back, their views would become more extreme. Not to pull a Godwin, but that's exactly how the majority of the German population became okay with exterminating the Jews. They started slowly, and blamed the Jews for all their ills. Politicians in search of more power would do exactly the same thing. Hell, they do it NOW, they just don't use religion as a justification. There is absolutely no reason to think that Christians are any better than any other group in the regard of not abusing power.
2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies. The Holy Roman Empire crumbled when it got its ass kicked all over the map, and monarchies sprung up in its wake, and the Church still had a massive power base in those as holder of large amounts of land and money, and monarchs often had religious councilors.
Granted, you have to actually pick up the game/book/movie/whatever in the first place... And you're unlikely to be receptive if some concerned individual hands it to you and tells you to pay close attention to the message... But if you've got meaningful/useful content like this scattered through random, entertaining games - it might be helpful.
This! This is how I think it would be done best. Don't make it the focus, and don't concentrate it. I could see that being a great success. If it was pervasive without being invasive. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to work in to most non-FPS games nowadays even. Random side quests, moral choice systems, all those kinds of mechanics are tailor-made for adding meaning, depth, and themes to games. There's no need to make adding a message the focus of a game, when you could instead sucker-punch a person. Heck, here's an idea for a horror game that would fit in with the anti-abusive message these games want:
You're dealing with a supernatural horror that's killing people in brutal ways, and you're slowly losing your sanity. Your one link keeping you going during your investigation is your old friend, recently entered in to a relationship. Calling or visiting your friend boosts your sanity. However, if you don't pay close attention to how your friend is acting, they're slowly cut off from you by their abusive significant other. If you don't manage to convince them to leave, at some point during the game, they're killed by the SO/cut off from you completely, and you lose the biggest and best way to recover sanity, and you make the game world much lonelier, and take a shot directly at the gamer, too. Then you're not shoving it in the gamer's face, but they're going to learn about the signs of an abusive relationship, the possible consequences, etc.
So... video games can't have a message AND be fun at the same time? Moreso, you don't think that the "message" can EVER add enjoyment?
No, but people who want to get a message out generally don't give a shit about the "fun" aspect. And no, I don't think giving a "message" can add enjoyment. I think you can have themes, but any person who goes in to designing a game with the frame of mind "I must tell people that X is bad" isn't going to also go in to it with the frame of mind that "I must make this something people want to play." They usually believe that the strength of their message is enough to make whatever they make compelling. And yes, the same problem applies to movies. If you're going in with an anti-violence message, then everything is flat and preachy. Characters only act how they are in order to reinforce the message. "Oh no, I shot a guy, and now my life is horrible! Why ever must we live in such a violent world!" You need to have compelling characters and a good plot in a good movie, just like in a good game, but the added burden on a game is also mechanics. If you're not going in focused on FUN, then you're going to sacrifice something in order to make that message shine through. Since making a fun game is hard, and you think your message is important (that's why you're *making* the game, after all), you'll half-ass that. And if you don't, if you instead make a fun game, you run the risk of shoehorning in the preachy bits and making them grating and even MORE apparently preachy. No, it's best to just make a game with a theme and let gamers discover for themselves what is trying to be said.
To me, your post sounds like "No violence, no fun."
Well, you see, it's like this. You can either use your car's turning signal, or you can use hand-signals to indicate if you're going to turn. Either way ends up with people knowing you're going to turn. Same with this: either you arrest your speed, or you move your car around, either way, you avoid your vehicle intersecting with the space occupied by another vehicle. More than one way to accomplish the same ends!
Games already have a purpose. To be fun. They can have secondary purposes. Training reflexes, imparting information, yadda yadda yadda. However, games with a *message* often push the message at the expense of the primary purpose of enjoyment. After all, you're not going to keep playing a game if you're not having fun in some fashion. So while these all may be beautifully design games that really speak about the issue, how effective will they be generally?
Honestly, a situation like this is probably the *worst* to try and get across in a game. It's aimed at people in their mid-teens, it says. Okay, so those people should be old enough to have a talk with and explain the dangers of abusive relationships and such. And if you can't have a talk with them, how the bloody hell do you expect a game to work?
"Hey Suzie/Johnny, I know you completely disregard everything I ever tell you, but I want you to play this game and really pay attention to the message it's trying to tell you." Because they're really going to pay attention to a message from a video game given to them by the people they won't listen to in the first place (even IF the game's fun enough to get them past being preached at).
1) I clarified in a post further down I meant a studio-owned digital store, so there wouldn't be anyone taking that cut, so I'm aware of that point.
2) SD, HD, and mobile are really all I'd expect, which to me would translate to "480p," "1080p," and...uh... whatever would play well on a current netbook/smartphone type deal. Not really up on that.
3) I wouldn't expect anything instant, but the days of being able to get away with "Interactive Menus" as a special feature are gone, so I really hope "some time" translates to "in the next 2-3 years," as no way you'd get me on-board with any digital sales before that.
The distributor's profits are wrapped up in that discount, so with one fewer step in the chain, there would reasonably be a discount possible, but I do suppose that 25% would be unrealistic. It'd probably be *possible*, without damaging profit margins, but yes, unrealistic. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd actually ever see a $1-2 discount, since they'd not want to break the whole "19.99"/"24.99" etc type pricing scheme. Most people would look at $17.99 and baulk.
I would like to note, though, that I'm not stupid enough to try the "they'd make it up in volume and extended sales" argument. I know that's bullshit.
They are forcing people to purchase it on *their terms* however. Yes, I know, it's their product, they're free to do whatever they want with it, but ffs, the point of a business is to make money. That's exactly what the *AAs do. Make money. That's what everyone on/. bitches at them most about. "They're not necessary, they're money-grubbing bastards." So what in the FUCK is keeping them from seeing this clearly profitable sector and taking advantage of it like a drunk prom queen? It's because they're scared shitless over legitimizing digital downloads. They figure if they sell it online, it'll make it easier to file share, so they cripple other industries and businesses through their lobbying efforts, just so that you still need to buy their shit the old way.
Yeah, and when someone *did* make that, you'd say "it's too expensive" and go right back to piracy.
My DVD collection says you're full of shit. 200+ movies, including a couple dozen Blu-Ray. And about 50 TV seasons. The only reason I've ever pirated a movie is because I couldn't find it to rent or purchase.
The entire point of a free market is that it's supposed to move to cover the desires of consumers. See a need, fill it, make a profit. Instead of filling the need that they easily could, the film and record industries would rather protect their old business model. Why do they have a right to their old business model, and forcing us to prop it up?
If they can't be profitable in the way they were before, they don't have the right to force people to make them profitable. What they do have the right to is to change their business model. After all, no amount of wishful thinking lets you just turn back the clock to make things how they once were because the world isn't how you want it to be any more.
And I just downloaded 6 GB today alone. All video files from independent producers. I could download a hell of a lot more, too. It's not difficult to blow past a 120 GB limit legitimately, especially if you do something like netflix on demand. Hell, if I had netflix-on-demand, I'd probably blow past 250 GB without trying, and still have 2 weeks left in the month.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the problem is, pictures can very much lie. You don't even need post-production manipulation. Careful staging will give you everything you need, and not a single fingerprint on the finished product to indicate forgery.
I apologize, I was referring to DVDs/avi/mp4/etc type movies stored locally. But the access through YouTube to codecs would put Google in a strong position even with that, I suppose.
I dunno, I think it'd depend on video playback abilities. In addition to websurfing, a lot of people want to watch movies and similar on their mobile platforms. I know video playback isn't really tied to the OS directly, but if there's a lack of quality compatible playback software, or if there's some quirk, it would hurt the numbers in the short-term.
Well, I imagine any reasonably competent techie would be able to take a look at the equipment and see if it does what it says, wouldn't they? Unless you think they're going to waste time with some hardcore black-box type shit.
Except OS X isn't more secure. That's why it's always the first gone at pwn2own competitions.
If that had been named in the article, I'd say it was a damn good possibility that they were removing Windows from any machines in favour of that. The fact that it exists, and that name wasn't used, pretty much confirms for me that it's not a legit story at this time.
Yeah, they can use "the Linux." I could see Google ditching Windows as a primary OS, and maybe just running it as a VM for testing purposes, but any article that doesn't give a specific distro they're moving to rates about an 8.5 on my bullshit-o-meter. Further, it'd be a staggered roll-out, I'm sure. Nothing worse for an IT department than having 20k+ employees needing everything changed. Until there's an official announcement, I won't hold my breath.
Anyone who actually thinks Apple makes their own shit is a moron. Thirty seconds looking at the specs show that the components are all off-the-shelf stuff, just put in a shiny case. Why would they change that for any of their devices when it's worked so well so far?
I figured it was probably malicious, but it was from a friend who's usually on the up-and-up, so I jacked up my security temporarily, and clicked. When I got the big white page with "click to continue," yeah, that's confirmation. Not a single one of those is in any way legit. Ever.
This might be the most awesome thing I've read today. A pity I've used my mod points.
Hardly the same. If their beliefs are that others should act as they act, that needs must be curtailed. One's freedoms should not unreasonably impact others'. His method might not be the best to achieve that curtailing (in fact, it's terrible), but it's not anywhere near the level of the Muslims who would threaten anyone making an image of Mohammed. The fact that you think they ARE on the same level doesn't paint you in a very favourable light.
Pray tell, do you also find bludgeoning a man unconscious to stop him murdering someone to be as bad as that man murdering someone?
1) Yeah, we kinda do. There's *already* a militant subset of Christians who murder in the name of God, and even more who simply claim those they kill are sinful and perverted, and against God's order. If the religious had the kind of power they had then, then there'd be laws against the kind of stuff people are killing over (outlaw abortion, homosexuality, etc.), and it's very likely that the legal system would be skewed to be lenient on people who killed abortion doctors and "those homos." Further, as proven repeatedly throughout history, fanaticism begets fanaticism. As the Christians got power back, their views would become more extreme. Not to pull a Godwin, but that's exactly how the majority of the German population became okay with exterminating the Jews. They started slowly, and blamed the Jews for all their ills. Politicians in search of more power would do exactly the same thing. Hell, they do it NOW, they just don't use religion as a justification. There is absolutely no reason to think that Christians are any better than any other group in the regard of not abusing power.
2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies. The Holy Roman Empire crumbled when it got its ass kicked all over the map, and monarchies sprung up in its wake, and the Church still had a massive power base in those as holder of large amounts of land and money, and monarchs often had religious councilors.
Granted, you have to actually pick up the game/book/movie/whatever in the first place... And you're unlikely to be receptive if some concerned individual hands it to you and tells you to pay close attention to the message... But if you've got meaningful/useful content like this scattered through random, entertaining games - it might be helpful.
This! This is how I think it would be done best. Don't make it the focus, and don't concentrate it. I could see that being a great success. If it was pervasive without being invasive. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to work in to most non-FPS games nowadays even. Random side quests, moral choice systems, all those kinds of mechanics are tailor-made for adding meaning, depth, and themes to games. There's no need to make adding a message the focus of a game, when you could instead sucker-punch a person. Heck, here's an idea for a horror game that would fit in with the anti-abusive message these games want:
You're dealing with a supernatural horror that's killing people in brutal ways, and you're slowly losing your sanity. Your one link keeping you going during your investigation is your old friend, recently entered in to a relationship. Calling or visiting your friend boosts your sanity. However, if you don't pay close attention to how your friend is acting, they're slowly cut off from you by their abusive significant other. If you don't manage to convince them to leave, at some point during the game, they're killed by the SO/cut off from you completely, and you lose the biggest and best way to recover sanity, and you make the game world much lonelier, and take a shot directly at the gamer, too. Then you're not shoving it in the gamer's face, but they're going to learn about the signs of an abusive relationship, the possible consequences, etc.
So... video games can't have a message AND be fun at the same time? Moreso, you don't think that the "message" can EVER add enjoyment?
No, but people who want to get a message out generally don't give a shit about the "fun" aspect. And no, I don't think giving a "message" can add enjoyment. I think you can have themes, but any person who goes in to designing a game with the frame of mind "I must tell people that X is bad" isn't going to also go in to it with the frame of mind that "I must make this something people want to play." They usually believe that the strength of their message is enough to make whatever they make compelling. And yes, the same problem applies to movies. If you're going in with an anti-violence message, then everything is flat and preachy. Characters only act how they are in order to reinforce the message. "Oh no, I shot a guy, and now my life is horrible! Why ever must we live in such a violent world!" You need to have compelling characters and a good plot in a good movie, just like in a good game, but the added burden on a game is also mechanics. If you're not going in focused on FUN, then you're going to sacrifice something in order to make that message shine through. Since making a fun game is hard, and you think your message is important (that's why you're *making* the game, after all), you'll half-ass that. And if you don't, if you instead make a fun game, you run the risk of shoehorning in the preachy bits and making them grating and even MORE apparently preachy. No, it's best to just make a game with a theme and let gamers discover for themselves what is trying to be said.
To me, your post sounds like "No violence, no fun."
I'm not even going to dignify that.
I believe you missed the joke there. May wanna get your humour detector checked out before you go running around the internet again.
Well, you see, it's like this. You can either use your car's turning signal, or you can use hand-signals to indicate if you're going to turn. Either way ends up with people knowing you're going to turn. Same with this: either you arrest your speed, or you move your car around, either way, you avoid your vehicle intersecting with the space occupied by another vehicle. More than one way to accomplish the same ends!
Games already have a purpose. To be fun. They can have secondary purposes. Training reflexes, imparting information, yadda yadda yadda. However, games with a *message* often push the message at the expense of the primary purpose of enjoyment. After all, you're not going to keep playing a game if you're not having fun in some fashion. So while these all may be beautifully design games that really speak about the issue, how effective will they be generally?
Honestly, a situation like this is probably the *worst* to try and get across in a game. It's aimed at people in their mid-teens, it says. Okay, so those people should be old enough to have a talk with and explain the dangers of abusive relationships and such. And if you can't have a talk with them, how the bloody hell do you expect a game to work?
"Hey Suzie/Johnny, I know you completely disregard everything I ever tell you, but I want you to play this game and really pay attention to the message it's trying to tell you." Because they're really going to pay attention to a message from a video game given to them by the people they won't listen to in the first place (even IF the game's fun enough to get them past being preached at).
Thanks for the response;
1) I clarified in a post further down I meant a studio-owned digital store, so there wouldn't be anyone taking that cut, so I'm aware of that point.
2) SD, HD, and mobile are really all I'd expect, which to me would translate to "480p," "1080p," and ...uh... whatever would play well on a current netbook/smartphone type deal. Not really up on that.
3) I wouldn't expect anything instant, but the days of being able to get away with "Interactive Menus" as a special feature are gone, so I really hope "some time" translates to "in the next 2-3 years," as no way you'd get me on-board with any digital sales before that.
The distributor's profits are wrapped up in that discount, so with one fewer step in the chain, there would reasonably be a discount possible, but I do suppose that 25% would be unrealistic. It'd probably be *possible*, without damaging profit margins, but yes, unrealistic. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd actually ever see a $1-2 discount, since they'd not want to break the whole "19.99"/"24.99" etc type pricing scheme. Most people would look at $17.99 and baulk.
I would like to note, though, that I'm not stupid enough to try the "they'd make it up in volume and extended sales" argument. I know that's bullshit.
They are forcing people to purchase it on *their terms* however. Yes, I know, it's their product, they're free to do whatever they want with it, but ffs, the point of a business is to make money. That's exactly what the *AAs do. Make money. That's what everyone on /. bitches at them most about. "They're not necessary, they're money-grubbing bastards." So what in the FUCK is keeping them from seeing this clearly profitable sector and taking advantage of it like a drunk prom queen? It's because they're scared shitless over legitimizing digital downloads. They figure if they sell it online, it'll make it easier to file share, so they cripple other industries and businesses through their lobbying efforts, just so that you still need to buy their shit the old way.
Yeah, and when someone *did* make that, you'd say "it's too expensive" and go right back to piracy.
My DVD collection says you're full of shit. 200+ movies, including a couple dozen Blu-Ray. And about 50 TV seasons. The only reason I've ever pirated a movie is because I couldn't find it to rent or purchase.
"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse."
The entire point of a free market is that it's supposed to move to cover the desires of consumers. See a need, fill it, make a profit. Instead of filling the need that they easily could, the film and record industries would rather protect their old business model. Why do they have a right to their old business model, and forcing us to prop it up?
If they can't be profitable in the way they were before, they don't have the right to force people to make them profitable. What they do have the right to is to change their business model. After all, no amount of wishful thinking lets you just turn back the clock to make things how they once were because the world isn't how you want it to be any more.
Pfft. I'm 6'5". I don't want no stinkin' pony. Gimme a Clydesdale! YAAAAAAAAAY! HORSIE!!!! :D
And I just downloaded 6 GB today alone. All video files from independent producers. I could download a hell of a lot more, too. It's not difficult to blow past a 120 GB limit legitimately, especially if you do something like netflix on demand. Hell, if I had netflix-on-demand, I'd probably blow past 250 GB without trying, and still have 2 weeks left in the month.