I don't think the GP was even trying to argue that there was a correlation between the cost of production and how enjoyable a game ends up being.
They were simply saying that if a lot of money has been spent on a game (with no statement about how good that game actually is), the game-maker won't stand a chance of recouping their expenses without going through standard distribution channels.
Ignoring the Steam numbers, common sense still seems to suggest getting rid of most games on CD-ROM.
Yes, there are people out there with 5 (or 10) year-old computers that still don't have DVD drives, but I can't imagine that the intersection of the sets of "computers that don't have a DVD drive" and "computers that can play most games from the past two years" is very large.
(Yes, I appreciate that there are still "casual" games being released that have lower system requirements; I'm not talking about those... I'm talking about the games that require DX9 and still ship on four CDs).
Gah! How many times in this thread does it have to be said that Exxon isn't asking for *any* science to be done, they just want scientists to spread a very specific message whether there's data to support it or not?
Even if I were to accept your suggestion that academia is suppressing all research that supported a dissenting view, it would be entirely irrelevant in this case since research doesn't even enter into it. Exxon isn't offering to pay scientists for research, they're offering to pay them to express a specific viewpoint. It absolutely baffles me that the two scenarios could be confused by so many people.
I'm sure the grandparent wasn't suggesting that the PC is overall the best gaming platform - different platforms have different strengths (and weaknesses) and each of you provided what I think are solid examples.
Rather, I expect that they were trying to preempt the common suggestion that everyone who says they use a PC (or Windows, as is more often the target of derision) to play games should just ditch it entirely in favour of a console. PC's and consoles provide different gaming experiences, and those of us who enjoy PC gaming don't have any real incentive to ditch our systems in some crusade to speed the demise of disliked-platform-X (whether it be x86, Windows, etc.)
I certainly enjoy all of the activities you mention (reading, writing, watching a good movie), and I'm certainly not criticizing what you've decided is important to you, but I personally don't see anything that makes any of those activities intrinsically "more enriching" than playing video games.
The best movies suck you in, tell a good story, "wow" you with their looks (be they special effects, good cinematography, or whatever), etc. They also give you some pop-cultural context (since you can talk about it with other people who have seen it). The best video games do the same thing and they're far less passive a medium. There are certainly lots of crappy video games that do none of those things, but there are also lots of crappy movies.
Writing provides one sort of creative outlet, but so do countless numbers of games that allow you to anything from building a city, to founding an empire, to devising a clever strategy for taking down your opponent.
Lots of games can even allow you to learn something new. I won't claim that most games contain the same information density as a good book, but I think it's unfair to paint all games with the "mindless entertainment" brush. If I were only looking at the best-sellers fiction list, I might draw the conclusion that "reading" is just as mindless (it's also a lot less social than playing a game with a friend).
Again, I'm not trying to say that video games are a replacement for all the activites you listed... just that I think you give games too little credit.
Most of these gamers have a Wii, an Xbox360, and a PS3. Hey here's a thought. Play games on your consoles, and stop using that as a reason for using Windows.
I've heard this suggestion before, and there are two problems with it:
First, it assumes that people who play games on the PC feel somehow shackled to it because of their game playing; as if every day they're thinking "Oh, woe is me, I really wish I could get rid of Windows but I can't because I need it for playing my games!" You may want them to give up Windows and switch to The One True OS, but chances are that most serious PC gamers aren't interested in your cause; they're interested in playing games on their computer and are going to use whatever OS works best for this purpose.
Second, it assumes that any given game (or gaming platform) is a perfect substitute for any other game (or gaming platform). That is, instead of playing World of Warcraft on a PC, one could instead be playing Gears of War on the 360 and not care about the difference. If that were the case, no one would need to buy more than one system, let alone the Wii, 360 and PS3 you're suggesting (not unreasonably, when dealing with hardcore games) that people have. This also isn't the case. Besides platform exclusives, it remains true that a PC and console have different strengths (specifically the suitability of keyboard+mouse vs. typical console controllers for different types of games) and said strengths dictate to a certain extent the types of games that are developed for the platforms (for example, the RTS selections for consoles is pretty slim).
Having the source code available is definitely an advantage. However, one of the other strengths of Linux is the amount of freedom that you have in how you use it. It seems a little hypocritical for members of the Linux community to criticize Microsoft (and, as Linux points out, the RIAA) for imposing restrictions on how you can use their software/content while imposing similar restrictions themselves. It doesn't matter that one group's motive is profit and another is some lofty political ideal... the end result is the same thing.
Banning binary kernel modules also has the potential for being the start of a slippery slope... if you're going to say that binary kernel modules aren't allowed, why not extend that to any piece of software that isn't open source? Maybe that would cause some people to open-source their software; I'd argue that it would also cause a lot of people to stop producing software for Linux altogether.
If you want Linux to be a paragon of open source virtues, banning binary modules is an excellent plan. If you want Linux to remain relevant in the real world, not so much.
If I come across a site that says "only works with IE", I'm far more likely to say "fuck this site, I'll go elsewhere" than "well, I guess I better use IE". I wouldn't expect someone using IE to react any differently to a site telling them they should be using Firefox.
Annoying the people you want to convert doesn't strike me as a particularly good strategy.
I think that it's much better to teach functional programming first, because that's exactly how the computer handles it. It's also a little easier to wrap your head around. "There's this list of instructions. The computer does each instruction in order."
I expect that the curve is probably flattening out as far as graphic realism goes. Not that there isn't still a gap between what a 360 can render and reality, but that gap is becoming less important.
However, as some of the posts above were mentioning, I think there are a lot of other types of "realism" that are still in their infancy that will benefit from continued increases in processor power, physics engines being the best example, I think.
The most striking use of physics I've personally seen (which is not to say there aren't better uses out there) was in Half Life 2 where the physics engine opened up a number of new gameplay possibilities. I think as physics engines improve they'll allow developers to create even more immersive experiences than currently possible.
That is, of course, assuming the cost of all this extra technology doesn't start to outweigh what a company can make from selling games.
You're attacking a straw man. I'm not arguing that legitimate contact information shouldn't be required to register a domain. I have no problem giving my personal contact information to the registrar who may, should it become apparent that I'm doing something questionable, pass that information on to the appropriate authorities as required.
What I object to is the argument that my personal contact information needs to be available to the world at large in a forum that is easily harvestable by people wanting to sell me Viagra.
Re:The real 90s versus outdated 00s software
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
I don't disagree with your basic statement that there are other languages that do "everything is an object" to a much greater extent than Java (and primitive types not being objects is certainly a failing, IMO).
However, all objects in Java have a "getClass()" method that returns a Class object representing their type, which you can query for objects that represent Methods, Fields, Packages, etc. of that class. Admittedly, "Method" objects and the like aren't nearly as convenient to use as they could be, but aside from that is there a meaningful difference between how Java treats these things as objects vs. the other languages you mention?
The other obvious flaw in the analogy is that there aren't harvesters written that go around and collect radio call signs in order for people to sell you viagra over the air waves.
I'm not worried about Joe Smith finding my personal information - if Joe wants to send me a letter or an email about my domain, that wouldn't bother me. It's Bill Spammer wanting to send me piles of junk that bothers me, and if avoiding his crap means that I have to hide my contact info from Joe Smith, then sorry Joe.
Haha... that's certainly tricky, but I don't think you can really fault Java for behaving that way. It's just doing exactly what you're telling it to do.
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but holy crap, you must hate your aunt and uncle to let them continue to suffer with WinME.
You can't make a recommendation out of "when one program crashes, it doesn't make you have to reboot your whole system"? Or "you can now go weeks (months!) without ever seeing a BSOD"?
At least let them use W2K if you're not going to give them XP. No one deserves the kind of pain you're continuing to inflict on these poor people.
Umm, while I'm not siding with Microsoft on the issue, I also think that yours is a ridiculous statement.
Microsoft is not deciding what you can do on your computer. They are deciding what you can do with a product they sell. It's a free market - if their product doesn't do what you want, buy (or download for free in many cases) a product that does.
I would agree with you, except that from my experience in bookstores that do make the distinction, it doesn't work out as well as one might like. There are some books that don't obviously fit in one category over the other, but more often the problem is just that the people filing the books either aren't equipped to make the distinction, or don't file things where you think they should be, and you end up looking in two places just to make sure. The worst I've seen is a series of books by Steven Erikson (which would seem to be quite obviously "fantasy", just by glancing at the cover) filed half in the sci-fi section, and half in the fantasy section.
As someone who reads far more fantasy than sci-fi, I'll gladly tolerate having the two mixed together if I don't have to always check in two places for mis-filed books.
Honestly though, and this is coming from someone who uses XP 95% of the time and has no particular problem with it, Virtual Desktop Manager strikes me as a big kludge compared to the desktop managers I've used under Linux.
Consoles are slick... I have a PS2, a GameCube, and a GBA, and I have games I love for all of them. But I can't play WoW, or Pirates!, or SimCity 4, or countless other PC-only games on them.
I'm having this same argument in a couple of threads, and the people that suggest that gamers like myself can simply get rid of all our PC games and play with consoles seem to assume that games on platform X are perfect substitutes for games on platform Y. This simply isn't the case; if it were, no one would ever need to own more than one game system. No one would buy an XBox to play Halo, because they could just be playing GTA3 on the PS2 they already own.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of good games that come out only for PC, and I, and many other PC gamers, aren't going to suddenly decide we don't want to play them anymore to satisfy some Linux fan's need to convert.
Slashdot Mirror
... and I've got the PC version and it runs flawlessly. YMMV.
I don't think the GP was even trying to argue that there was a correlation between the cost of production and how enjoyable a game ends up being.
They were simply saying that if a lot of money has been spent on a game (with no statement about how good that game actually is), the game-maker won't stand a chance of recouping their expenses without going through standard distribution channels.
Ignoring the Steam numbers, common sense still seems to suggest getting rid of most games on CD-ROM.
Yes, there are people out there with 5 (or 10) year-old computers that still don't have DVD drives, but I can't imagine that the intersection of the sets of "computers that don't have a DVD drive" and "computers that can play most games from the past two years" is very large.
(Yes, I appreciate that there are still "casual" games being released that have lower system requirements; I'm not talking about those... I'm talking about the games that require DX9 and still ship on four CDs).
"Canon," not "cannon."
And since TFA is about ranking movies, not franchises, context suggests very strongly that "Star Wars" refers to the first movie, not the entire set.
Gah! How many times in this thread does it have to be said that Exxon isn't asking for *any* science to be done, they just want scientists to spread a very specific message whether there's data to support it or not?
Even if I were to accept your suggestion that academia is suppressing all research that supported a dissenting view, it would be entirely irrelevant in this case since research doesn't even enter into it. Exxon isn't offering to pay scientists for research, they're offering to pay them to express a specific viewpoint. It absolutely baffles me that the two scenarios could be confused by so many people.
"I want to see that! Oh wait its not out yet..." then forget all about it before actually did come out.
Or perhaps more likely: "I was going to go see that new movie, but the Americans have been talking for the past week about how shitty it is."
I'm sure the grandparent wasn't suggesting that the PC is overall the best gaming platform - different platforms have different strengths (and weaknesses) and each of you provided what I think are solid examples.
Rather, I expect that they were trying to preempt the common suggestion that everyone who says they use a PC (or Windows, as is more often the target of derision) to play games should just ditch it entirely in favour of a console. PC's and consoles provide different gaming experiences, and those of us who enjoy PC gaming don't have any real incentive to ditch our systems in some crusade to speed the demise of disliked-platform-X (whether it be x86, Windows, etc.)
I certainly enjoy all of the activities you mention (reading, writing, watching a good movie), and I'm certainly not criticizing what you've decided is important to you, but I personally don't see anything that makes any of those activities intrinsically "more enriching" than playing video games.
The best movies suck you in, tell a good story, "wow" you with their looks (be they special effects, good cinematography, or whatever), etc. They also give you some pop-cultural context (since you can talk about it with other people who have seen it). The best video games do the same thing and they're far less passive a medium. There are certainly lots of crappy video games that do none of those things, but there are also lots of crappy movies.
Writing provides one sort of creative outlet, but so do countless numbers of games that allow you to anything from building a city, to founding an empire, to devising a clever strategy for taking down your opponent.
Lots of games can even allow you to learn something new. I won't claim that most games contain the same information density as a good book, but I think it's unfair to paint all games with the "mindless entertainment" brush. If I were only looking at the best-sellers fiction list, I might draw the conclusion that "reading" is just as mindless (it's also a lot less social than playing a game with a friend).
Again, I'm not trying to say that video games are a replacement for all the activites you listed... just that I think you give games too little credit.
Most of these gamers have a Wii, an Xbox360, and a PS3. Hey here's a thought. Play games on your consoles, and stop using that as a reason for using Windows.
I've heard this suggestion before, and there are two problems with it:
First, it assumes that people who play games on the PC feel somehow shackled to it because of their game playing; as if every day they're thinking "Oh, woe is me, I really wish I could get rid of Windows but I can't because I need it for playing my games!" You may want them to give up Windows and switch to The One True OS, but chances are that most serious PC gamers aren't interested in your cause; they're interested in playing games on their computer and are going to use whatever OS works best for this purpose.
Second, it assumes that any given game (or gaming platform) is a perfect substitute for any other game (or gaming platform). That is, instead of playing World of Warcraft on a PC, one could instead be playing Gears of War on the 360 and not care about the difference. If that were the case, no one would need to buy more than one system, let alone the Wii, 360 and PS3 you're suggesting (not unreasonably, when dealing with hardcore games) that people have. This also isn't the case. Besides platform exclusives, it remains true that a PC and console have different strengths (specifically the suitability of keyboard+mouse vs. typical console controllers for different types of games) and said strengths dictate to a certain extent the types of games that are developed for the platforms (for example, the RTS selections for consoles is pretty slim).
Having the source code available is definitely an advantage. However, one of the other strengths of Linux is the amount of freedom that you have in how you use it. It seems a little hypocritical for members of the Linux community to criticize Microsoft (and, as Linux points out, the RIAA) for imposing restrictions on how you can use their software/content while imposing similar restrictions themselves. It doesn't matter that one group's motive is profit and another is some lofty political ideal... the end result is the same thing.
Banning binary kernel modules also has the potential for being the start of a slippery slope... if you're going to say that binary kernel modules aren't allowed, why not extend that to any piece of software that isn't open source? Maybe that would cause some people to open-source their software; I'd argue that it would also cause a lot of people to stop producing software for Linux altogether.
If you want Linux to be a paragon of open source virtues, banning binary modules is an excellent plan. If you want Linux to remain relevant in the real world, not so much.
If I come across a site that says "only works with IE", I'm far more likely to say "fuck this site, I'll go elsewhere" than "well, I guess I better use IE". I wouldn't expect someone using IE to react any differently to a site telling them they should be using Firefox.
Annoying the people you want to convert doesn't strike me as a particularly good strategy.
I think that it's much better to teach functional programming first, because that's exactly how the computer handles it. It's also a little easier to wrap your head around. "There's this list of instructions. The computer does each instruction in order."
I'm guessing you probably mean procedural programming, since as the poster above said, what you're describing isn't functional programming.
Windows Presentation Foundation (formerly "Avalon").
r esentation/default.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/building/p
I expect that the curve is probably flattening out as far as graphic realism goes. Not that there isn't still a gap between what a 360 can render and reality, but that gap is becoming less important.
However, as some of the posts above were mentioning, I think there are a lot of other types of "realism" that are still in their infancy that will benefit from continued increases in processor power, physics engines being the best example, I think.
The most striking use of physics I've personally seen (which is not to say there aren't better uses out there) was in Half Life 2 where the physics engine opened up a number of new gameplay possibilities. I think as physics engines improve they'll allow developers to create even more immersive experiences than currently possible.
That is, of course, assuming the cost of all this extra technology doesn't start to outweigh what a company can make from selling games.
You're attacking a straw man. I'm not arguing that legitimate contact information shouldn't be required to register a domain. I have no problem giving my personal contact information to the registrar who may, should it become apparent that I'm doing something questionable, pass that information on to the appropriate authorities as required.
What I object to is the argument that my personal contact information needs to be available to the world at large in a forum that is easily harvestable by people wanting to sell me Viagra.
I don't disagree with your basic statement that there are other languages that do "everything is an object" to a much greater extent than Java (and primitive types not being objects is certainly a failing, IMO).
However, all objects in Java have a "getClass()" method that returns a Class object representing their type, which you can query for objects that represent Methods, Fields, Packages, etc. of that class. Admittedly, "Method" objects and the like aren't nearly as convenient to use as they could be, but aside from that is there a meaningful difference between how Java treats these things as objects vs. the other languages you mention?
The other obvious flaw in the analogy is that there aren't harvesters written that go around and collect radio call signs in order for people to sell you viagra over the air waves.
I'm not worried about Joe Smith finding my personal information - if Joe wants to send me a letter or an email about my domain, that wouldn't bother me. It's Bill Spammer wanting to send me piles of junk that bothers me, and if avoiding his crap means that I have to hide my contact info from Joe Smith, then sorry Joe.
Haha... that's certainly tricky, but I don't think you can really fault Java for behaving that way. It's just doing exactly what you're telling it to do.
:)
Garbage In, Garbage Out
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but holy crap, you must hate your aunt and uncle to let them continue to suffer with WinME.
You can't make a recommendation out of "when one program crashes, it doesn't make you have to reboot your whole system"? Or "you can now go weeks (months!) without ever seeing a BSOD"?
At least let them use W2K if you're not going to give them XP. No one deserves the kind of pain you're continuing to inflict on these poor people.
Umm, while I'm not siding with Microsoft on the issue, I also think that yours is a ridiculous statement.
Microsoft is not deciding what you can do on your computer. They are deciding what you can do with a product they sell. It's a free market - if their product doesn't do what you want, buy (or download for free in many cases) a product that does.
An American blog published it in the first place. It was then "promoted by an all-news Canadian website".
Gotta work on those reading comprehension skills.
It doesn't "escape" the sandbox... the user explicitly grants it permission to play outside of the sandbox.
Java is behaving in exactly the manner it's designed and advertised to act.
I would agree with you, except that from my experience in bookstores that do make the distinction, it doesn't work out as well as one might like. There are some books that don't obviously fit in one category over the other, but more often the problem is just that the people filing the books either aren't equipped to make the distinction, or don't file things where you think they should be, and you end up looking in two places just to make sure. The worst I've seen is a series of books by Steven Erikson (which would seem to be quite obviously "fantasy", just by glancing at the cover) filed half in the sci-fi section, and half in the fantasy section.
As someone who reads far more fantasy than sci-fi, I'll gladly tolerate having the two mixed together if I don't have to always check in two places for mis-filed books.
Honestly though, and this is coming from someone who uses XP 95% of the time and has no particular problem with it, Virtual Desktop Manager strikes me as a big kludge compared to the desktop managers I've used under Linux.
Consoles are slick... I have a PS2, a GameCube, and a GBA, and I have games I love for all of them. But I can't play WoW, or Pirates!, or SimCity 4, or countless other PC-only games on them.
I'm having this same argument in a couple of threads, and the people that suggest that gamers like myself can simply get rid of all our PC games and play with consoles seem to assume that games on platform X are perfect substitutes for games on platform Y. This simply isn't the case; if it were, no one would ever need to own more than one game system. No one would buy an XBox to play Halo, because they could just be playing GTA3 on the PS2 they already own.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of good games that come out only for PC, and I, and many other PC gamers, aren't going to suddenly decide we don't want to play them anymore to satisfy some Linux fan's need to convert.