to make our lives easier? I mean Linux has come around to make it easier for user to work to an extent (I still don't see anything as friendly to computer newbies on the linux systems as windows, but it is getting closer and closer), but to go 100 percent away from Microsoft is almost unrealistic for most people. Remember most people don't even know that you can network iTunes for playback with out buying the songs. Nor do they know what a MKV is, what the different of an OGM and XVID is, or what TCP/IP settings are needed to use a VPN (the last one puzzled me for a couple days.. turned out I was given the wrong IP... from a tech guy)
Microsoft might be a monolpolistic company but for many people it makes their lives easier. I'd love it if they didn't have the same business practices as they currently do but let's not make our lives more inconvient.
This interview sounds like another ranting guy. But yes I don't support Microsoft wholy (I got my Windows heavily discounted from school, I don't use Microsoft Office at home (At work we get it through Compaq, so it's already paid for) but going insanely against them will not help save anyone. Apple would love to step up and set themselves up as the next Microsoft. I'm sure their a little piss with what Microsoft did (with grabbing Apple's own Windows style technology, that they in turn took from Xerox who took it from their programmer who created it), and if they could trade places they would love to be the next giant, and with their love of "Apple approved" hardware, I'm sure could find some ways to close off competition. (remember if Apple was in charge, ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't compete like they do now, each trying to make radical strives, nor would there be any other sound cards except for the one or two companies apple approves of)
Besides all his problems with Microsoft seem to stem from either hatred, or the fact that people who use Windows are stupid. (claiming never to get a virus on a mac isn't a small miracle, I never get virii on PCs... Why? Because I do the same shit he does. I have a anti virus program that has been completely dorment since installation, except when I actually test it, and it performs perfectly then)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see why this is "news", when a guy writes a book or something about this stuff, let's hear info about book, not his ramblings..
And my one quote from him?
But if there is a monopoly, let's get out the rocket launchers and take our shots, please!
It appears they do acknowledge their mistake at the bottom but it's not a major change.
However Fox News has always tried to maintain a fair and balanced version of the news, and it's good to see they did update the article, and has shown a good amount of the support for the move. Some of the points they make are more damming than the entire article (hell the fact they show it's 5 K to 50 K is impressive)
It's good to see one news company who doesn't mind admitting mistakes and actually getting both sides of a story.
However I don't think that a person who makes a mistake in the code or forgets a simple check should be held liable for a criminal case. If that's the case then who will write security code if I could sue every guy who made a mistake?
A grievous error in judgement or such is a different story. Microsoft has constantly made errors repeatidly and we let them off. Perhaps we need a regulator for security (better then CERT, who actually will hit code and try to break it, and then give seals of approval or something of the like, but it would have to be more proactive than CERT.)
The problem is if we attack the programmer with lawsuits no one will want to tackle such big problems, except giants like Microsoft, who can ride out lawsuit after lawsuit with out blinking. I work in IT and if every line I wrote that had issues meant the company could sue me I'd be quiting right now. (because my company would smile about that and then wait with lawyers in the other end of the building. They are a vindictive bunch, which is why I'm looking for work)
I completely agree. Of course I did make the mistake of sorta skipping the casual gamer, one must remember the money from a casual gamer will not help a company to riches. if a cuasl gamer buys a couple games for a system the system barely breaks even, if one buys a system just for dvd playback or such, or gets bargain bin games, the system never will break even.
However the sort of game that one can play very casualy isn't found easily on the xbox.. or for that matter any console. While Super Smash Brothers Melee does come close, and Katamari Damacy is right there, it's not common for a "simplistic" game to be out and popular. However at the same time when one comes out it can hit critical acclaim. But again, no system really captures that (granted stuff like GTA, ssx 3, ratchet and clank and others are very easy to pick up and "screw with" for a while, I don't know if I would even call those "casual" games. (GTA definatly not family friendly, though fun, ssx3 I can't tell really, and ratchet and clank I think appeals to the "platformer" in me that hasn't seen a great one since Super Mario 64)
The problem though is I don't know many Xbox titles that are really "Causual" games, perhaps some of the racing games, but even there, it's more racing fanatic thean casual. Halo and Ninja Gaiden are definatly at the other end of that spectrum. But if they have completely revamped Xbox live, to a point where one can download and play "Simpler" games such as Yahoo Games, it could work, but they'd need to basically RIP the fan base straight out of Yahoo games, and that's a large order. If you also notice, Google hasn't even shown interest in that area, and I'm sure they've thought about it.
But if they can make Live similar to yahoo games, I see the "wisdom" in this advertising campaign, however it's a extremely long shot as the Xbox at 300, costs more than a computer that can run Yahoo Games. But it's just like them shovelling out that 5 million (or was it billion) for the Xbox, of which if I remember they basically lost overall.
I also meantioned those who worked, who have even LESS time than those who don't. But thanks for pointing out that you only see black and white. You really have proven you care about women so much that you'd rather just complain about a couple lines I wrote instead of actually consider the stuff I said.. Good for you.
you are correct in the short run. But the problem is this is the exception not the rule. Especially when you look at the numbers of women to men in most games, or even online stuff.
I'm not saying NO women will get this, or no women play games, but they are called a minority (gamer girls) for a reason. I think this is a big mistake for Xbox 360 because targetting that category is hard, and they are trying to make it sound like a entertainment "unit" rather then a game station for these women (more focus on the dvd and mp3 capabilities than the playing games ).
Between tending home, taking care of the kids, I'm sure moms have to time to relax after a long day to go frag someone. Oh yeah I mean there's so many girls who were there to buy Halo on the first day wasn't there? Maybe in Microsoft land but not in the real world.
I'm in IT, I'm like their "typical gamer" and I barely have time to play games anymore, I get in a couple hours a day if I really look for it. If I find a girlfriend that time will be cut to non existant.
So either they expect single mothers to find time to play games instead of spending time with their kids.
Or is it the married woman, who takes care of a husband is going to spend time playing games instead of being with the man she lives with?
I'm not saying they won't want to play games, but adults in america don't have that much time to just waste on a system, when they have other commitments. Yeah I get into gaming moods still, but I'd much rather hang out with people from the office than be alone playing games. And don't try to tell me that a majority of women are going to get together to game, I'm sure they'd most likely just talk about Desperate housewives and the like (Which from what I hear is quite a quality show) than talk about games or play them.
As for their "all encompassing idea" I've news for them. My Samsung DVD player plays MP3s through TV setups, Plays Dvds, show pictures. and guess what I paid for it? Xbox 360 version is at least 300 + dvd attachments and all. Samsung solution? 30 bucks. WOW! I'm saving over 90 percent of the price.
Real media played about as unfairly as Microsoft. If I remember right once something is put as a RM, it's as safe as a PDF, you can share it but you can't copy it easily (yes I know there's ways to copy anything but there's no converter from RM to change it back to a AVI from real, and most out there are hack jobs, that the DMCA would be able to stop)
Even Apple has offered a Movie convert from Mov to AVI but I still don't know if Real offers the same. And that just makes the format almost worthless.
In addition Real's software has been pretty shoddy for a long time, I remember about ten years ago, about the only reason people still used it then was that there was no other option when stuff was in the format. Now we have many options on what to put it into, I don't see many RMs around except for feeds, (which is what they excel at). Perhaps their problems arn't from Microsoft but from their lack of quality for so long.
This article deals with 3 compilers or systems for C++, NOT C++ in general. sorry, gcc is a C++ compiler, not c++ itself. If I use another compiler those issues will return. And many people do use other systems...
C++ CAN be made more secure of course but it's the programmer's job not the compiler's job to keep it secure. You want to compare security? You need to start with the core C++ stuff and the core java stuff, the stuff that is in every version of it. This of course gives Java the advantage because sun makes it very standard (and has to be) and c++ has many versions (we all know Microsoft's attempt to take C++ in their direction). Then You take GCC, and the Java Compiler head to head, if you have stuff before gcc 4.1 you're weaker on gcc, but it appears his point is that with 4.1 they have made gcc stronger. Then take notable IDEs for both and compare them (Visual Studio vs Eclipse would be the two I use) and see what they do extra, if your using visual studio, Java will likely run the ball on that play. But fact that c++ by itself is less secure than java. The extras that one compiler adds doesn't matter if not every system uses that compiler. Java at least keeps very strict guidelines on their compilers so it does make it a bit more standardized.
Now with a good programmer/compiler C++ is as secure if not more so than java, but the fact is the language has an inherent security issue. In that issue alone it means that a good programmer is going to take time to fix C++ issues rather than relying on inherent java stuff. That doesn't mean it's not good in other ways, but for security you need to rely on the programmer a bit more than java.
Of course this all being said a good programmer can make C++ more secure, and use some of these things that can create the security problems in other ways to write better, faster, or more interesting code. But as always it's a matter of choice the problem with the article is he's pointing out only 3 different versions of c++ that have had upgrades, but in corporate life many people have people use Microsoft Visual studio (hell we use 6, because.net isn't worth the pain, though we have the option. Though 6 or.net I don't believe use any "auto" update feature, just makes them very hard to keep "current") People will always use outdated compilers because they are faster to use that way, and as such we'll always have issues.
So in the long run, C++ can try to catch up but because of the unstandardized nature of C++, and the fact that Java has had the security from the begining we'll always have a difference.
NEVER! The web must continue to be filled with pornography and spam! otherwise productivity for IT departments might actually rise? Dear god.
And if that's not frightful enough imagine a veternarian to be able to look up enema's for a puppy and not be able to see the most horrid twisted shit no human should ever be given access to.
Windows and Office will get even more expensive for a while, and microsoft will say it's because of patents.
But let's remember most other patent holders just want the recognition and time to go to market first, they don't grab the patent 15 years after the fact(FAT anybody?), after it's an industry standard to make money and force out competition.
Other patent holders might start targetting Microsoft when these patents continue to stifle businesses, which will likely start the minute they get the FAT partition (I can't imagine a better example on how patenting after the fact is unfair)
The greatness of Google is that I could use maps.google.com while it was still under development and it worked perfectly for me, and I never had a problem or new it was still under development
This isn't how people would react in the real life, we all should understand that of course, but in a game, people have wants and desires, just like real life. It could be Desire to gain levels (grow stronger), Desire to gain wealth(greed), Desire to hurt others (masochists), or desire to solve problems (care givers), but if you notice, while each of these things likely arn't the same as these people would do in real life, the actions do exist at least for others in the real world.
I doubt that they meant to make it "if you do something with the plague it tells you about your real self." It is more it shows them a social system with people of varying desires and ideas after someone introduces a deadly virus. This is something that is almost impossible to study because most people would think someone studying this type of thing instead of helping is a ghoul, yet it should be studied because response systems obviously arn't doing it when everyone passes the buck.
Now as people have meantioned this likely isn't real life, but notice that once you have the plague you're given a death sentance for the most part, what you do from that point changes everything. Those that run and try to harm others with their plague are actually a real thing. There are those with serious problems (Aids and other life threatening STDs) who will go around and try to infect others because they think there's no quality of life and just like hurting others. There are those who try to avoid this. But both of these reactions are seen in game as well as in the real world. The numbers are schewed but the reaction still exists.
The point is that the study isn't saying people are acting like they would in real life (and if they were it wouldn't be interesting because of the people who would play these games arn't an accurate subsection of people, especially those who would sacrifice their lifes to hurt others) but they are studying the reactions of people in the game. The fact is while the percentage of certain reactions are different, those reactions are very similar to real life components.
That all being said, I have to say KUDOS KUDOS KUDOS to Blizzard, because they have created a game I would be interested in and because of that I bought and played it. This plague alone has my interest peaked which makes it great.
If they are completely seperate games (where you interact on the servers) kudos.
When everquest did this they started charging 150% (I think) rather than the same price. It was kinda crap but also understandable, but here there's two things to realize,
A. The only change is storage space.
b. If the world is always the same for both games and you only log on one game at a time, there's no extra load by doing this.
Overall I'm happy they did this, but it's not going to change anything for me. (The plague in WoW got me into that though so we'll see)
Sorry I perfer to watch tv, which has done a good amount of work with it's time if you know what to look for and character with better development. Those three movies I watched because they interested me and I already was familiar with the characters, last I checked hollywood admited they have been producing crap. Something I could have told them 2 years ago.
I have to say this about Card, I don't get bad info from him. While I won't agree with everything he says (he of course is a mormon, and I'm a catholic, he likes Full house, I can't stand that show now ) he does at least apply thought and information to most things, political, entertainment or what ever, where others just ignore it.
He's also one of the few people who's opinion I trust pretty much emphatically, if he says something is "quality" I'm willing to try it out (of course factoring in his critism), most of the time reviewers just make me go "so what?"
Overall a good review by him, definatly makes me interested in a movie (the last three movies I saw? Hitchhiker's guide, Lord of the Ring, and Harry Potter) which is quite a feat in it's own rights.
Yes, we hate a loss against the giant, but think about it this way.
The Supreme court doesn't legislate, it doesn't take opinions, it works with the laws we have and interprets them, that's what she did, she found a way to point out it's not applicable for class action and used it, that's ALL that's important. I'd much rather a competent supreme court judge, then an moronic one who sides with the people every time.
This being said I feel we need more of a track record from her so we can see she's not a token woman, but the fact she worked for microsoft shouldn't disqualify her. If she knows the law, and can interpret it in context, that's all she needs for the supreme court. Politics shouldn't come into the Supreme court, and in most cases it doesn't.
Yes, but let's fault these problems where they happen and make sure they happen at the home. I agree the parenting in america is a travesty. But let's make sure the parent at least knows so the game itself can't be blamed. GTA is a great game, I love that game, and I really don't want people acting like it caused murder and mayhem.
But let's also realize that some parents do care about their kids, of course those kids likely won't be as affected by these harmful games, because their homelife is better, they probably have role models, if not their parents (who are certainly interested in their lives), sports stars who probably are worthy of praise, community leaders, some politicans, or business leaders. They likely won't use Tommy Vercetti or CJ as a role model, but it certainly is fun. But of course those parents will consider the game (remember they are more intune with their kids) and make a better decision then some video game clerk.
I'm not saying it will change the world, I'm not saying it will solve crime, or avoid idiocy, but at least it's a step in trying to get certain parents more involved, if the parent doesn't care about the kid, no law will stop a kid from losing part of himself to neglect but hopefully it'll help those parents who actually care enough (and note these are also the same ones who are likely to protest... At least I hope so)
I just hope you've also found some of those caring parents among those parent who have given up.
I admit this law is a vague law, but it's a good law. Let's be honest with ourselves. GTA shouldn't be bought by kids. I'd have written the law to be 18 but there's a point when we have to realize that many parents don't give shit about their kids, and they allow them to buy these games. If there's a game a kid can't buy the parents will likely take notice and think about the game making a better decision. They might find out why the game is considered violent and decide if their kid can handle it.
When doom came out I was 14, I handled it well, there were others though that couldn't. The amount that couldn't handle it was very few, but there are those who just can't deal with this stuff. (Yes they might be mentally disturbed, maybe metally retarded, or perhaps just not mature yet. There's other reasons too.) But I think any law that requires a parent to actively consider giving a child a game that might be detremental (notice MIGHT) isn't a bad thing, it might actually help.
It needs to be a civil or criminal matter and that seems to refute what this law is. The problem is if it's just a 20 dollar fine, people will continue to do it. Look at minors and cigerettes. I don't think they are going to jail every guy in a game store who makes a mistake, but gamestores need to be held as responsable as anyone else. Does it take that much longer to take out a wallet and show id? I mean you have the wallet out for your money anyways, I take my ID out with my credit card automatically because the signature on the back was rubbed off. It's not hard at all.
Just to note, I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm not saying GTA ever should have got AO rating for code not native to the game, but at the same time GTA with a M rating shouldn't be easy to get for kids, just the same as cigarettes and R-rated movies should be restricted for them. Perhaps saying that it's easy for them to see this in R-rated movies means that those laws might need to be toughened a bit.
In theory it's a science, like programming, but like programming it has artful areas.
To be honest teaching someone how to "hack" is impossible, it's a thought process, and as such some people just will not be any good at it, but overall it should be considered a selective science. The same as programming, or others.
I don't know if many of you ever looked at a class of college students (I watched those around me in college) Some people just was NEVER going to pass the first C++ course, because they didn't have the aptitude, they couldn't handle the minor things. It wasn't for a lack of trying, they just didn't see the world that way. It's the same way I can NEVER paint or be creative artistically with my hands (however I can write, and program, but I can't play music, draw, sculpt), it's just something that is physically beyond my reach.
That's not to say they COULDN'T program, but the amount of effort they needed for simple tasks means their advanced skills would just be a waste to even attempt. Out of the people who had trouble in the early areas, only ONE got to the final area, and she was worthy of praise, and probably had more problems with the language then the theory. She actually was very good near the end and if I remember she did graduate (though not with high marks)
The whole thing is these are arts, you think that way or you don't. You can try to think the different way but it's like trying to fly with out wings. Most of the time it just won't happen. (othertimes your a freaking genius and figure out the principles to it and create a flying machine, travel only a mile, but create the first man made flight... but you have to have a brother for that) Just as in hacking, you're not going to think the correct way with out a lot of effort if you don't have it in you, and as such perhaps it's just not worth it (and of course that's up to you).
I think the most important thing is to look at our extremes, the artful hacks of Xboxs with Linux, the skillful hacks of major systems, and so on, the fact is there is an inherent art to hacking while not being a prerequist to achieving goals, it definatly helps. I'd say artful science, or scientific art? but I couldn't tell you which one.
I think it's fundamentally wrong that you can't buy a simple unlocked phone. Now I'm not saying you should be able to buy an phone and unlock it, but you have to buy locked phones or go for a used unlocked phone.
I'm all for the contracts and such, but there is nothing to stop them from controlling the consumer from the moment they walk in. "oh you want to change to a different service? we have to charge you X, oh and you need a new phone, and also...." And then when company A buys company B, you can't get company B's service or handsets, you have to change your contract over, and get a NEW phone.. which means a expensive purchase, or a new contract (2 years on the cingular ATT buy out)
I've seen them handle some of these people and the sales people are fucking (sorry for the harsh language) vultures at times. (I mean that, they are practically salivating when they see a "normal" person that they can sell add ons to) it disgusts me at times.
no problem, I mean, it is short, I'm not saying you were wrong, but it's not THAT short, when some games today you can blow through in 5 hours, this game has taken at least a couple times (played through twice once in japanese and once in english ) And then there's finding the cousins which isn't automatic like the original which didn't help the original's play time. I still am stuck on the damm third stage of the fireball (yes there's a third stage, and it's near impossible in my book, 6 meters + fireball rules)
As you say though I enjoy every minute and I'm likely to start over again with a new game even if I finish it completly.
Only thing that annoys me is I don't have a girlfriend currently because Co-op sounds like it'd be enjoyable. And I've heard the vs. mode is very improved (where the first game was quite lacking.)
But you did a good review, kudos on that alone, just felt that the game itself never says it's a "lengthy" game and at almost half price some of the longer games, I personally found the length at least adequate.
Ugh. Why not just admit they are already been used
on
Team Ninja In-Depth
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Some players might laugh when they hear this, but one of the things that was discussed was "how about making cars destructible?" Or for instance characters hanging from a ledge, and you could stomp on their fingertips causing them to fall off the ledge and die. Or a one-on-five, where it's one guy versus five and you just had this free-for-all and you took them all on. I"
Funny All those ideas are from old games, as they said busting cars is in SF2, but zones that damage your characters has been there from the NeoGeo Game World Heroes (ok game) Smashing people form the ledge? Super Smash Brothers, and one on Five? well we had 1 vs 2 in MK2, 1 vs 3 Simultanious in Smash Brothers (team based, free for all, 2v2 also) 1 vs 30 in Super Smash Brothers Melee 3 at a time... and many games besides these and then we had Tekken's "adventure" style stages. and so on.
It's fine that they take from those games but they act like they have unique ideas but the fact is these have ALL been done before and good enough where they arn't reinventing the wheel, they are just taking the good ideas from other vehicles.
The first game was SHORT! basically 12 missions with 6 side missions all almost the same. 3 area that's it.
This game is MUCH longer, remember first off you're paying 30 bucks, so don't expect a 50 buck game. But you have at least 6-10 areas for you to roll in, tons of new missions and most of them are quite lengthy Plus there's easily much more to find and do. I'd have to say it's a decent length.
Overall though the review nails it. It's a "thank you for the support", basically "you wanted more here's more fun, we won't innovate too much so we don't ruin it, but we'll have as much fun as we did the first time" gotta say that's how I found it and that's all I wanted. Kudos to Namco. Keep the good games coming.
Slashdot Mirror
to make our lives easier? I mean Linux has come around to make it easier for user to work to an extent (I still don't see anything as friendly to computer newbies on the linux systems as windows, but it is getting closer and closer), but to go 100 percent away from Microsoft is almost unrealistic for most people. Remember most people don't even know that you can network iTunes for playback with out buying the songs. Nor do they know what a MKV is, what the different of an OGM and XVID is, or what TCP/IP settings are needed to use a VPN (the last one puzzled me for a couple days.. turned out I was given the wrong IP... from a tech guy)
Microsoft might be a monolpolistic company but for many people it makes their lives easier. I'd love it if they didn't have the same business practices as they currently do but let's not make our lives more inconvient.
This interview sounds like another ranting guy. But yes I don't support Microsoft wholy (I got my Windows heavily discounted from school, I don't use Microsoft Office at home (At work we get it through Compaq, so it's already paid for) but going insanely against them will not help save anyone. Apple would love to step up and set themselves up as the next Microsoft. I'm sure their a little piss with what Microsoft did (with grabbing Apple's own Windows style technology, that they in turn took from Xerox who took it from their programmer who created it), and if they could trade places they would love to be the next giant, and with their love of "Apple approved" hardware, I'm sure could find some ways to close off competition. (remember if Apple was in charge, ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't compete like they do now, each trying to make radical strives, nor would there be any other sound cards except for the one or two companies apple approves of)
Besides all his problems with Microsoft seem to stem from either hatred, or the fact that people who use Windows are stupid. (claiming never to get a virus on a mac isn't a small miracle, I never get virii on PCs... Why? Because I do the same shit he does. I have a anti virus program that has been completely dorment since installation, except when I actually test it, and it performs perfectly then)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see why this is "news", when a guy writes a book or something about this stuff, let's hear info about book, not his ramblings..
And my one quote from him?
But if there is a monopoly, let's get out the rocket launchers and take our shots, please!
advocating wholesale violence... tsk tsk.
Which was at this link
It appears they do acknowledge their mistake at the bottom but it's not a major change.
However Fox News has always tried to maintain a fair and balanced version of the news, and it's good to see they did update the article, and has shown a good amount of the support for the move. Some of the points they make are more damming than the entire article (hell the fact they show it's 5 K to 50 K is impressive)
It's good to see one news company who doesn't mind admitting mistakes and actually getting both sides of a story.
However I don't think that a person who makes a mistake in the code or forgets a simple check should be held liable for a criminal case. If that's the case then who will write security code if I could sue every guy who made a mistake?
A grievous error in judgement or such is a different story. Microsoft has constantly made errors repeatidly and we let them off. Perhaps we need a regulator for security (better then CERT, who actually will hit code and try to break it, and then give seals of approval or something of the like, but it would have to be more proactive than CERT.)
The problem is if we attack the programmer with lawsuits no one will want to tackle such big problems, except giants like Microsoft, who can ride out lawsuit after lawsuit with out blinking. I work in IT and if every line I wrote that had issues meant the company could sue me I'd be quiting right now. (because my company would smile about that and then wait with lawyers in the other end of the building. They are a vindictive bunch, which is why I'm looking for work)
I completely agree. Of course I did make the mistake of sorta skipping the casual gamer, one must remember the money from a casual gamer will not help a company to riches. if a cuasl gamer buys a couple games for a system the system barely breaks even, if one buys a system just for dvd playback or such, or gets bargain bin games, the system never will break even.
However the sort of game that one can play very casualy isn't found easily on the xbox.. or for that matter any console. While Super Smash Brothers Melee does come close, and Katamari Damacy is right there, it's not common for a "simplistic" game to be out and popular. However at the same time when one comes out it can hit critical acclaim. But again, no system really captures that (granted stuff like GTA, ssx 3, ratchet and clank and others are very easy to pick up and "screw with" for a while, I don't know if I would even call those "casual" games. (GTA definatly not family friendly, though fun, ssx3 I can't tell really, and ratchet and clank I think appeals to the "platformer" in me that hasn't seen a great one since Super Mario 64)
The problem though is I don't know many Xbox titles that are really "Causual" games, perhaps some of the racing games, but even there, it's more racing fanatic thean casual. Halo and Ninja Gaiden are definatly at the other end of that spectrum. But if they have completely revamped Xbox live, to a point where one can download and play "Simpler" games such as Yahoo Games, it could work, but they'd need to basically RIP the fan base straight out of Yahoo games, and that's a large order. If you also notice, Google hasn't even shown interest in that area, and I'm sure they've thought about it.
But if they can make Live similar to yahoo games, I see the "wisdom" in this advertising campaign, however it's a extremely long shot as the Xbox at 300, costs more than a computer that can run Yahoo Games. But it's just like them shovelling out that 5 million (or was it billion) for the Xbox, of which if I remember they basically lost overall.
I also meantioned those who worked, who have even LESS time than those who don't. But thanks for pointing out that you only see black and white. You really have proven you care about women so much that you'd rather just complain about a couple lines I wrote instead of actually consider the stuff I said.. Good for you.
you are correct in the short run. But the problem is this is the exception not the rule. Especially when you look at the numbers of women to men in most games, or even online stuff.
I'm not saying NO women will get this, or no women play games, but they are called a minority (gamer girls) for a reason. I think this is a big mistake for Xbox 360 because targetting that category is hard, and they are trying to make it sound like a entertainment "unit" rather then a game station for these women (more focus on the dvd and mp3 capabilities than the playing games ).
Between tending home, taking care of the kids, I'm sure moms have to time to relax after a long day to go frag someone. Oh yeah I mean there's so many girls who were there to buy Halo on the first day wasn't there? Maybe in Microsoft land but not in the real world.
I'm in IT, I'm like their "typical gamer" and I barely have time to play games anymore, I get in a couple hours a day if I really look for it. If I find a girlfriend that time will be cut to non existant.
So either they expect single mothers to find time to play games instead of spending time with their kids.
Or is it the married woman, who takes care of a husband is going to spend time playing games instead of being with the man she lives with?
I'm not saying they won't want to play games, but adults in america don't have that much time to just waste on a system, when they have other commitments. Yeah I get into gaming moods still, but I'd much rather hang out with people from the office than be alone playing games. And don't try to tell me that a majority of women are going to get together to game, I'm sure they'd most likely just talk about Desperate housewives and the like (Which from what I hear is quite a quality show) than talk about games or play them.
As for their "all encompassing idea" I've news for them. My Samsung DVD player plays MP3s through TV setups, Plays Dvds, show pictures. and guess what I paid for it? Xbox 360 version is at least 300 + dvd attachments and all. Samsung solution? 30 bucks. WOW! I'm saving over 90 percent of the price.
Real media played about as unfairly as Microsoft. If I remember right once something is put as a RM, it's as safe as a PDF, you can share it but you can't copy it easily (yes I know there's ways to copy anything but there's no converter from RM to change it back to a AVI from real, and most out there are hack jobs, that the DMCA would be able to stop)
Even Apple has offered a Movie convert from Mov to AVI but I still don't know if Real offers the same. And that just makes the format almost worthless.
In addition Real's software has been pretty shoddy for a long time, I remember about ten years ago, about the only reason people still used it then was that there was no other option when stuff was in the format. Now we have many options on what to put it into, I don't see many RMs around except for feeds, (which is what they excel at). Perhaps their problems arn't from Microsoft but from their lack of quality for so long.
This article deals with 3 compilers or systems for C++, NOT C++ in general. sorry, gcc is a C++ compiler, not c++ itself. If I use another compiler those issues will return. And many people do use other systems...
.net isn't worth the pain, though we have the option. Though 6 or .net I don't believe use any "auto" update feature, just makes them very hard to keep "current") People will always use outdated compilers because they are faster to use that way, and as such we'll always have issues.
C++ CAN be made more secure of course but it's the programmer's job not the compiler's job to keep it secure. You want to compare security? You need to start with the core C++ stuff and the core java stuff, the stuff that is in every version of it. This of course gives Java the advantage because sun makes it very standard (and has to be) and c++ has many versions (we all know Microsoft's attempt to take C++ in their direction). Then You take GCC, and the Java Compiler head to head, if you have stuff before gcc 4.1 you're weaker on gcc, but it appears his point is that with 4.1 they have made gcc stronger. Then take notable IDEs for both and compare them (Visual Studio vs Eclipse would be the two I use) and see what they do extra, if your using visual studio, Java will likely run the ball on that play. But fact that c++ by itself is less secure than java. The extras that one compiler adds doesn't matter if not every system uses that compiler. Java at least keeps very strict guidelines on their compilers so it does make it a bit more standardized.
Now with a good programmer/compiler C++ is as secure if not more so than java, but the fact is the language has an inherent security issue. In that issue alone it means that a good programmer is going to take time to fix C++ issues rather than relying on inherent java stuff. That doesn't mean it's not good in other ways, but for security you need to rely on the programmer a bit more than java.
Of course this all being said a good programmer can make C++ more secure, and use some of these things that can create the security problems in other ways to write better, faster, or more interesting code. But as always it's a matter of choice the problem with the article is he's pointing out only 3 different versions of c++ that have had upgrades, but in corporate life many people have people use Microsoft Visual studio (hell we use 6, because
So in the long run, C++ can try to catch up but because of the unstandardized nature of C++, and the fact that Java has had the security from the begining we'll always have a difference.
NEVER! The web must continue to be filled with pornography and spam! otherwise productivity for IT departments might actually rise? Dear god.
And if that's not frightful enough imagine a veternarian to be able to look up enema's for a puppy and not be able to see the most horrid twisted shit no human should ever be given access to.
Windows and Office will get even more expensive for a while, and microsoft will say it's because of patents.
But let's remember most other patent holders just want the recognition and time to go to market first, they don't grab the patent 15 years after the fact(FAT anybody?), after it's an industry standard to make money and force out competition.
Other patent holders might start targetting Microsoft when these patents continue to stifle businesses, which will likely start the minute they get the FAT partition (I can't imagine a better example on how patenting after the fact is unfair)
The greatness of Google is that I could use maps.google.com while it was still under development and it worked perfectly for me, and I never had a problem or new it was still under development
Kudos google another job well done.
This isn't how people would react in the real life, we all should understand that of course, but in a game, people have wants and desires, just like real life. It could be Desire to gain levels (grow stronger), Desire to gain wealth(greed), Desire to hurt others (masochists), or desire to solve problems (care givers), but if you notice, while each of these things likely arn't the same as these people would do in real life, the actions do exist at least for others in the real world.
I doubt that they meant to make it "if you do something with the plague it tells you about your real self." It is more it shows them a social system with people of varying desires and ideas after someone introduces a deadly virus. This is something that is almost impossible to study because most people would think someone studying this type of thing instead of helping is a ghoul, yet it should be studied because response systems obviously arn't doing it when everyone passes the buck.
Now as people have meantioned this likely isn't real life, but notice that once you have the plague you're given a death sentance for the most part, what you do from that point changes everything. Those that run and try to harm others with their plague are actually a real thing. There are those with serious problems (Aids and other life threatening STDs) who will go around and try to infect others because they think there's no quality of life and just like hurting others. There are those who try to avoid this. But both of these reactions are seen in game as well as in the real world. The numbers are schewed but the reaction still exists.
The point is that the study isn't saying people are acting like they would in real life (and if they were it wouldn't be interesting because of the people who would play these games arn't an accurate subsection of people, especially those who would sacrifice their lifes to hurt others) but they are studying the reactions of people in the game. The fact is while the percentage of certain reactions are different, those reactions are very similar to real life components.
That all being said, I have to say KUDOS KUDOS KUDOS to Blizzard, because they have created a game I would be interested in and because of that I bought and played it. This plague alone has my interest peaked which makes it great.
If they are completely seperate games (where you interact on the servers) kudos.
When everquest did this they started charging 150% (I think) rather than the same price. It was kinda crap but also understandable, but here there's two things to realize,
A. The only change is storage space.
b. If the world is always the same for both games and you only log on one game at a time, there's no extra load by doing this.
Overall I'm happy they did this, but it's not going to change anything for me. (The plague in WoW got me into that though so we'll see)
Giving graphic material to Underage people... goats and other animals. Underage goats. That sorta stuff.
Sorry I perfer to watch tv, which has done a good amount of work with it's time if you know what to look for and character with better development. Those three movies I watched because they interested me and I already was familiar with the characters, last I checked hollywood admited they have been producing crap. Something I could have told them 2 years ago.
I have to say this about Card, I don't get bad info from him. While I won't agree with everything he says (he of course is a mormon, and I'm a catholic, he likes Full house, I can't stand that show now ) he does at least apply thought and information to most things, political, entertainment or what ever, where others just ignore it.
He's also one of the few people who's opinion I trust pretty much emphatically, if he says something is "quality" I'm willing to try it out (of course factoring in his critism), most of the time reviewers just make me go "so what?"
Overall a good review by him, definatly makes me interested in a movie (the last three movies I saw? Hitchhiker's guide, Lord of the Ring, and Harry Potter) which is quite a feat in it's own rights.
Yes, we hate a loss against the giant, but think about it this way.
The Supreme court doesn't legislate, it doesn't take opinions, it works with the laws we have and interprets them, that's what she did, she found a way to point out it's not applicable for class action and used it, that's ALL that's important. I'd much rather a competent supreme court judge, then an moronic one who sides with the people every time.
This being said I feel we need more of a track record from her so we can see she's not a token woman, but the fact she worked for microsoft shouldn't disqualify her. If she knows the law, and can interpret it in context, that's all she needs for the supreme court. Politics shouldn't come into the Supreme court, and in most cases it doesn't.
Yes, but let's fault these problems where they happen and make sure they happen at the home. I agree the parenting in america is a travesty. But let's make sure the parent at least knows so the game itself can't be blamed. GTA is a great game, I love that game, and I really don't want people acting like it caused murder and mayhem.
But let's also realize that some parents do care about their kids, of course those kids likely won't be as affected by these harmful games, because their homelife is better, they probably have role models, if not their parents (who are certainly interested in their lives), sports stars who probably are worthy of praise, community leaders, some politicans, or business leaders. They likely won't use Tommy Vercetti or CJ as a role model, but it certainly is fun. But of course those parents will consider the game (remember they are more intune with their kids) and make a better decision then some video game clerk.
I'm not saying it will change the world, I'm not saying it will solve crime, or avoid idiocy, but at least it's a step in trying to get certain parents more involved, if the parent doesn't care about the kid, no law will stop a kid from losing part of himself to neglect but hopefully it'll help those parents who actually care enough (and note these are also the same ones who are likely to protest... At least I hope so)
I just hope you've also found some of those caring parents among those parent who have given up.
I admit this law is a vague law, but it's a good law. Let's be honest with ourselves. GTA shouldn't be bought by kids. I'd have written the law to be 18 but there's a point when we have to realize that many parents don't give shit about their kids, and they allow them to buy these games. If there's a game a kid can't buy the parents will likely take notice and think about the game making a better decision. They might find out why the game is considered violent and decide if their kid can handle it.
When doom came out I was 14, I handled it well, there were others though that couldn't. The amount that couldn't handle it was very few, but there are those who just can't deal with this stuff. (Yes they might be mentally disturbed, maybe metally retarded, or perhaps just not mature yet. There's other reasons too.) But I think any law that requires a parent to actively consider giving a child a game that might be detremental (notice MIGHT) isn't a bad thing, it might actually help.
It needs to be a civil or criminal matter and that seems to refute what this law is. The problem is if it's just a 20 dollar fine, people will continue to do it. Look at minors and cigerettes. I don't think they are going to jail every guy in a game store who makes a mistake, but gamestores need to be held as responsable as anyone else. Does it take that much longer to take out a wallet and show id? I mean you have the wallet out for your money anyways, I take my ID out with my credit card automatically because the signature on the back was rubbed off. It's not hard at all.
Just to note, I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm not saying GTA ever should have got AO rating for code not native to the game, but at the same time GTA with a M rating shouldn't be easy to get for kids, just the same as cigarettes and R-rated movies should be restricted for them. Perhaps saying that it's easy for them to see this in R-rated movies means that those laws might need to be toughened a bit.
But that's just to say that's my opinion.
In theory it's a science, like programming, but like programming it has artful areas.
To be honest teaching someone how to "hack" is impossible, it's a thought process, and as such some people just will not be any good at it, but overall it should be considered a selective science. The same as programming, or others.
I don't know if many of you ever looked at a class of college students (I watched those around me in college) Some people just was NEVER going to pass the first C++ course, because they didn't have the aptitude, they couldn't handle the minor things. It wasn't for a lack of trying, they just didn't see the world that way. It's the same way I can NEVER paint or be creative artistically with my hands (however I can write, and program, but I can't play music, draw, sculpt), it's just something that is physically beyond my reach.
That's not to say they COULDN'T program, but the amount of effort they needed for simple tasks means their advanced skills would just be a waste to even attempt. Out of the people who had trouble in the early areas, only ONE got to the final area, and she was worthy of praise, and probably had more problems with the language then the theory. She actually was very good near the end and if I remember she did graduate (though not with high marks)
The whole thing is these are arts, you think that way or you don't. You can try to think the different way but it's like trying to fly with out wings. Most of the time it just won't happen. (othertimes your a freaking genius and figure out the principles to it and create a flying machine, travel only a mile, but create the first man made flight... but you have to have a brother for that) Just as in hacking, you're not going to think the correct way with out a lot of effort if you don't have it in you, and as such perhaps it's just not worth it (and of course that's up to you).
I think the most important thing is to look at our extremes, the artful hacks of Xboxs with Linux, the skillful hacks of major systems, and so on, the fact is there is an inherent art to hacking while not being a prerequist to achieving goals, it definatly helps. I'd say artful science, or scientific art? but I couldn't tell you which one.
I think it's fundamentally wrong that you can't buy a simple unlocked phone. Now I'm not saying you should be able to buy an phone and unlock it, but you have to buy locked phones or go for a used unlocked phone.
I'm all for the contracts and such, but there is nothing to stop them from controlling the consumer from the moment they walk in. "oh you want to change to a different service? we have to charge you X, oh and you need a new phone, and also...." And then when company A buys company B, you can't get company B's service or handsets, you have to change your contract over, and get a NEW phone.. which means a expensive purchase, or a new contract (2 years on the cingular ATT buy out)
I've seen them handle some of these people and the sales people are fucking (sorry for the harsh language) vultures at times. (I mean that, they are practically salivating when they see a "normal" person that they can sell add ons to) it disgusts me at times.
no problem, I mean, it is short, I'm not saying you were wrong, but it's not THAT short, when some games today you can blow through in 5 hours, this game has taken at least a couple times (played through twice once in japanese and once in english ) And then there's finding the cousins which isn't automatic like the original which didn't help the original's play time. I still am stuck on the damm third stage of the fireball (yes there's a third stage, and it's near impossible in my book, 6 meters + fireball rules)
As you say though I enjoy every minute and I'm likely to start over again with a new game even if I finish it completly.
Only thing that annoys me is I don't have a girlfriend currently because Co-op sounds like it'd be enjoyable. And I've heard the vs. mode is very improved (where the first game was quite lacking.)
But you did a good review, kudos on that alone, just felt that the game itself never says it's a "lengthy" game and at almost half price some of the longer games, I personally found the length at least adequate.
"Some players might laugh when they hear this, but one of the things that was discussed was "how about making cars destructible?" Or for instance characters hanging from a ledge, and you could stomp on their fingertips causing them to fall off the ledge and die. Or a one-on-five, where it's one guy versus five and you just had this free-for-all and you took them all on. I"
Funny All those ideas are from old games, as they said busting cars is in SF2, but zones that damage your characters has been there from the NeoGeo Game World Heroes (ok game) Smashing people form the ledge? Super Smash Brothers, and one on Five? well we had 1 vs 2 in MK2, 1 vs 3 Simultanious in Smash Brothers (team based, free for all, 2v2 also) 1 vs 30 in Super Smash Brothers Melee 3 at a time... and many games besides these and then we had Tekken's "adventure" style stages. and so on.
It's fine that they take from those games but they act like they have unique ideas but the fact is these have ALL been done before and good enough where they arn't reinventing the wheel, they are just taking the good ideas from other vehicles.
The first game was SHORT! basically 12 missions with 6 side missions all almost the same. 3 area that's it.
This game is MUCH longer, remember first off you're paying 30 bucks, so don't expect a 50 buck game. But you have at least 6-10 areas for you to roll in, tons of new missions and most of them are quite lengthy Plus there's easily much more to find and do. I'd have to say it's a decent length.
Overall though the review nails it. It's a "thank you for the support", basically "you wanted more here's more fun, we won't innovate too much so we don't ruin it, but we'll have as much fun as we did the first time" gotta say that's how I found it and that's all I wanted. Kudos to Namco. Keep the good games coming.