These days, a decent game in single player may be 5 or 6 hours long, 8 if you are lucky.
Back in the good old days, the average was about 20 hours, and there was an awesome emphasis on storytelling and immersion.
Take SOF for example, good story, a good amount of hours, if a bit repeatable. The last decent game that was long with an awesome story was FEAR.The last game everyone raved over was MW2, which I finished in six hours on hard. Not to mention the Batman game, which was fucking pathetic. The fact that everyone gave it 5 stars is testamount to how low PC Gaming has dropped.
Yes, they have all sorts of mini missions and mission generators, but it just isnt the same as playing an immersive story. Combine this with no dedicated servers and no community mods, and it is just not as appealing a scene as it were even 3 years ago.
As for Steam....it is an awesome service. I only wish they would honror the doctrine of first sale and allow me to sell what I own and paid for....
It's not wrong. Ever heard of the dancing pigs problem? It doesn't matter how secure an os is if you can trick the user into running rm -rf / as root.
And - wrong again. Unless you are referring to UAC.
NO, it's not wrong. See above. UAC is nothing special here.
Oh really? Windows approved drivers??
Why are you even nitpicking this? NO, most likely not windows approved drivers.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag...
Or, you know, as accurate.
Its an inevitability of having to reverse engineer the hardware, it results in less thoroughly tested code with less functionality. Fact.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim.
New research? No. Just the experience of people who have experience with both platforms and dont have an emotional attachment to a particular one.
Does that somehow equate to a "crash"??
Well, DUH.
Spend a lot of time supporting Vista do you? Is Aero your dancing bear of choice?
That doesn't even fucking make sense.
An imformative if somewhat stupid post - please don't be offended by my opinion. I am sure other Slashdotter readers are also keen to read your next post - "Week #2 - Learning Micro-computers".
I never said it did; I said that the people you described before sounded to me like introverts, not psychopaths, and that you were confusing the two.
Right. That was flawed from the getgo.
I described some of the common characteristics of psychopaths, and you somehow conflated those characteristics with introverts.
Some psychopaths may be introverted, but they don't have to be. The two really have nothing to do with each other.
Not necessarily, but usually they do because they can and because they want to.
Sigh. You really have watched too many movies. I've already explained that this is not the case, at all.
Just because someone has trouble emphasizing and can naturally rationalize away guilt, doesn't mean they have any inherent desire to do bad things.
That sounds pretty much just like evil to me.
Then you have a very simplistic definition of evil, and you trivialize the immense complexity of the disorder.
Don't forget that "antisocial", in psychology, has a different (and much more negative) meaning than what most common people think it means. It doesn't mean being a loner or enjoying being alone or around few people. It means doing things that hurt other people and society.
Yes, I have a feeling I know this just a bit better than you may.
Psychopathy does not exist in the DSM, and their stance is that sociopath and psychopath are outdated terms for people with APD. At the moment as psychopathy is defined however, it is nothing like what you described above.
You may also want to look at the Hare psychopathy tests, and look at the criteria for what it takes for a doctor to consider someone a psychopath. Nowehre does it meet your absurd requirements that psychopaths are scum and like to hurt other people.
So yes, psychopaths are most definitely evil, or at a minimum, have a great capacity for it.
You just don't learn, do you kid.
I'll grant that psychopaths have a greater capacity for evil, as they don't have their own guilt to hold them back.
However, they have no inherent motivation to do harm, and many probably just want to be left alone.
Most psychopaths probably wonder what is so wrong with them that they have trouble feeling emotion and wonder what the people who care about them must think or feel. Insecurity more than sadism.
This continued myth of psychopaths being evil has to stop.
You really have no clue about what you're talking about do you?
You've watched too many movies or TV shows(like the second last house episode) that portrays psychopaths as simply evil. It really is bullshit.
All psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong consciously. They just are unable to care and don't care about who they hurt,
Psychopathy also has nothing with being introverted or antiscoial. Some might love the company of people because they get something out of it. They can joke and discuss and laugh and not feel bad about killing them all. It doesn't mean they would however.
You then go on to dismiss rapists and murderers as psychopaths, truly showing your lack of understanding. People who do bad things are not psychopaths, and psychopaths will not necessarily do bad things.
Instead of harping on about things you have no idea about, perhaps you could try and educate yourself, starting here.
I might be an incredibly nice person, and just not get along with the dog. From GP's anecdote we dont know if the eprson didn't try to get along, rather it sounded like the dog took an instant dislike to someone.
That could be due to some base instinct it can't get over, which could be based on a scent or something, and is in no way an indication of the goodness of a person.
Many people are quick to mislabel bullys as psychopaths and dismiss them as purely evil. Which is of course absurd, as psychopaths simply don't feel empathy in many cases - this doesn't make them malicious or bad people.
What I wonder though is if the victims could also be sociopaths, with a lack of empathy also being responsible for the lack of social skills and getting targeted.
Some psychopaths may be smart and have dominant personalities and so become bullys(as well as all the on bully psychopaths) who may prey on anyone to remain dominant.
Some psychopaths may not be as smart or not not e dominant, and then make an easy targets and get victimized as well.
That is the view presented by the media and hollywood, and it isn't accurate at all.
I've known some psychopaths, who have been distrubed at their lack of feeling, but also care a lot about few people close to them and would do anything for them. They consciously know what is considered right and wrong, and can make the decision to do morally right things.
They don't automatically lie cheat and steal as you suggest.
There is a difference between not feeling empathy when seeing someone suffering, and consciously deciding to fuck people over for your own benefit.
Psychopaths are not scum at all. In fact, the same metric cannot even be applied - people with a conscious who do shitty things are scum because they understand the negative emotions their actions cause. Psychopaths genuinely can't feel empathy or relate. This doesnt make them all instantly scum, as many will still know enough that it is consciously wrong and stop from doing it.
FOS doesn't mean that you can say whatever you like for it and not be held accountable.
Instead of the rather barbaric system of dueling, we now have less fatal ways to resolve issues, namely through courts of law or filing appropriate charges.
You haven't addressed the issue of making holocaust denial illegal in any of your replies, and I would be interested in your views - as that is absolutely unacceptable to me.
Sigh. You're speaking like someone who has mostly experience with distributions that act as you advocate, and limited experience on closed source platforms, then getting annoyed when the closed source platforms don't have a feature you consider convenient.
It can and does work fine and there's a lot of value in it.
In a commercial closed source environment? Citation needed.
1. Developers don't have to re-invent the install and update wheel for every application. 2. Users get a consistent UI for installing and updating software. (For example, users don't have 30 different trey icons all telling them in a slightly different way that they have updates) 3. You don't need extra per application processes running in the background checking for updates. Don't need extra startup junk doing it either. 4. The user doesn't need do it all manually (although it's still an option)
The problems you describe, are not problems.
For 1 - This has not been a problem on Windows for over 10 years. For at least the last 5 years, the MSI format has been used for installs on Windows, and is far more powerful than anything similar in Linux land. Seriously - read up on it.
The MSI format also applies to your second point - It is generally the exception rather than the rule that software has its own interface to update.., i.e. java, flash etc.
As for point 3, what FUD. Either updates are pushed to the client, or it is checked on startup or at some regular interval. No need for extra processes or startup junk as you claim, and it certainly has no negative aspect on performance.
It's also a more efficient method, rather than having all software tied in to each other(not that it has to be, but in practice it often is on linux systems).
Using the MSI format installs to keep track of installs and allowing for things like concurrent versions being installed and rollbacks, with applications updating themselves as needed is efficient and useful, and the way it should stay. Nothing would be gained by changing things as you suggest.
Packages don't need to or have to be all hosted in the same repository. You can have your package management system connect to as many as you like. Your distribution doesn't even have to know or approve of 3rd party software installed this way. I don't know where you get the idea that it all must come from one singular centralized source.
Because generally, that is how it is. You add a few other repositories for particular software like Opera or Virtualbox, with most stuff coming from your distribution.
That wouldn't work in Windows land, and we would be adding a repository source for every package. How is this approach superior to applications self updating as it is? It's the same end result with the benefit of skipping an unnecessary step.
Additionally, the MSI format(which 99.9% of windows aps use to install) already handles version checking and dependencies and rollbakcs and a myriad of other features not found in linux package managers.
I don't think you understand how package management systems work.
I don't think you understand how operating systems aside from those based on Debian work.
That is interesting that they only did not use the swastika for advertising - I didn't know that. Thankyou.
I still think the restrictions of FOS are appalling. Look at outlawing holocaust denial...outlawing an opinion and idea that doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. There are so many limitations and restrictions - even if it is not as harsh as I had though, it is more harsh than should be acceptable.
In the US(not where I am from btw), they may well be prudish about swearwords on TV, but there is always cable, and at least I can insult any religion, person, government, hold any opinion or ideology I chose and spread my beliefs as much as I like without fear of persecution.
Unfortunately, the same is not true in Germany, to a much lesser degree than most countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of all the distros, why would you choose a horrendously buggy and insecure, made to look good distro?
If this guy is a security professional, he should have known better.
Well, thats my point somewhat.
If I go into a store and buy a game, I own that copy.
Why should it be different on Steam, just because there is no box or manual?
These days, a decent game in single player may be 5 or 6 hours long, 8 if you are lucky.
Back in the good old days, the average was about 20 hours, and there was an awesome emphasis on storytelling and immersion.
Take SOF for example, good story, a good amount of hours, if a bit repeatable. The last decent game that was long with an awesome story was FEAR.The last game everyone raved over was MW2, which I finished in six hours on hard. Not to mention the Batman game, which was fucking pathetic. The fact that everyone gave it 5 stars is testamount to how low PC Gaming has dropped.
Yes, they have all sorts of mini missions and mission generators, but it just isnt the same as playing an immersive story. Combine this with no dedicated servers and no community mods, and it is just not as appealing a scene as it were even 3 years ago.
As for Steam....it is an awesome service. I only wish they would honror the doctrine of first sale and allow me to sell what I own and paid for....
That was worse than the great firewall. Banning small boobs.
And banning cartoon porn. Jesus. IT'S A FUCKING IDEA!
Because when someone says they "don't do windows" it says a lot about that person.
Someone has to be amazingly closeminded and fundamentalist, and go out of their to avoid the most prevalent consumer OS for the last 10 years.
"adopting a more professional color scheme with purple and orange."
wtf?
Thankyou.
Have you got any example cases?
Fucking idiot fanbois.
Wrong
It's not wrong. Ever heard of the dancing pigs problem? It doesn't matter how secure an os is if you can trick the user into running rm -rf / as root.
And - wrong again. Unless you are referring to UAC.
NO, it's not wrong. See above. UAC is nothing special here.
Oh really? Windows approved drivers??
Why are you even nitpicking this? NO, most likely not windows approved drivers.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag...
Or, you know, as accurate.
Its an inevitability of having to reverse engineer the hardware, it results in less thoroughly tested code with less functionality. Fact.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim.
New research? No. Just the experience of people who have experience with both platforms and dont have an emotional attachment to a particular one.
Does that somehow equate to a "crash"??
Well, DUH.
Spend a lot of time supporting Vista do you? Is Aero your dancing bear of choice?
That doesn't even fucking make sense.
An imformative if somewhat stupid post - please don't be offended by my opinion. I am sure other Slashdotter readers are also keen to read your next post - "Week #2 - Learning Micro-computers".
Cheers, and "thanks for playing"
Stop spreading FUD you damn useless zealot.
WOOOOSH
You're an idiot.
A large portion of Hollywood stuff might be crap, but a lot of it isn't, as well as all the international films.
There are excellent, original, well written films coming out each year. You would have to be truly ignorant to say otherwise.
The vast majority are asian..almost 3 billion including india.
whites can and have frequently been the target of racism.
Jesus Christ APK, you're useless.
posting to remove moderation
I never said it did; I said that the people you described before sounded to me like introverts, not psychopaths, and that you were confusing the two.
Right. That was flawed from the getgo.
I described some of the common characteristics of psychopaths, and you somehow conflated those characteristics with introverts.
Some psychopaths may be introverted, but they don't have to be. The two really have nothing to do with each other.
Not necessarily, but usually they do because they can and because they want to.
Sigh. You really have watched too many movies. I've already explained that this is not the case, at all.
Just because someone has trouble emphasizing and can naturally rationalize away guilt, doesn't mean they have any inherent desire to do bad things.
That sounds pretty much just like evil to me.
Then you have a very simplistic definition of evil, and you trivialize the immense complexity of the disorder.
Don't forget that "antisocial", in psychology, has a different (and much more negative) meaning than what most common people think it means. It doesn't mean being a loner or enjoying being alone or around few people. It means doing things that hurt other people and society.
Yes, I have a feeling I know this just a bit better than you may.
Psychopathy does not exist in the DSM, and their stance is that sociopath and psychopath are outdated terms for people with APD. At the moment as psychopathy is defined however, it is nothing like what you described above.
You may also want to look at the Hare psychopathy tests, and look at the criteria for what it takes for a doctor to consider someone a psychopath. Nowehre does it meet your absurd requirements that psychopaths are scum and like to hurt other people.
So yes, psychopaths are most definitely evil, or at a minimum, have a great capacity for it.
You just don't learn, do you kid.
I'll grant that psychopaths have a greater capacity for evil, as they don't have their own guilt to hold them back.
However, they have no inherent motivation to do harm, and many probably just want to be left alone.
Most psychopaths probably wonder what is so wrong with them that they have trouble feeling emotion and wonder what the people who care about them must think or feel. Insecurity more than sadism.
This continued myth of psychopaths being evil has to stop.
wiki link didnt post..."here" should point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Characteristics
You really have no clue about what you're talking about do you?
You've watched too many movies or TV shows(like the second last house episode) that portrays psychopaths as simply evil. It really is bullshit.
All psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong consciously. They just are unable to care and don't care about who they hurt,
Psychopathy also has nothing with being introverted or antiscoial. Some might love the company of people because they get something out of it. They can joke and discuss and laugh and not feel bad about killing them all. It doesn't mean they would however.
You then go on to dismiss rapists and murderers as psychopaths, truly showing your lack of understanding. People who do bad things are not psychopaths, and psychopaths will not necessarily do bad things.
Instead of harping on about things you have no idea about, perhaps you could try and educate yourself, starting here.
likely based on what?
I might be an incredibly nice person, and just not get along with the dog. From GP's anecdote we dont know if the eprson didn't try to get along, rather it sounded like the dog took an instant dislike to someone.
That could be due to some base instinct it can't get over, which could be based on a scent or something, and is in no way an indication of the goodness of a person.
Many people are quick to mislabel bullys as psychopaths and dismiss them as purely evil. Which is of course absurd, as psychopaths simply don't feel empathy in many cases - this doesn't make them malicious or bad people.
What I wonder though is if the victims could also be sociopaths, with a lack of empathy also being responsible for the lack of social skills and getting targeted.
Some psychopaths may be smart and have dominant personalities and so become bullys(as well as all the on bully psychopaths) who may prey on anyone to remain dominant.
Some psychopaths may not be as smart or not not e dominant, and then make an easy targets and get victimized as well.
What Rubbish.
That is the view presented by the media and hollywood, and it isn't accurate at all.
I've known some psychopaths, who have been distrubed at their lack of feeling, but also care a lot about few people close to them and would do anything for them. They consciously know what is considered right and wrong, and can make the decision to do morally right things.
They don't automatically lie cheat and steal as you suggest.
There is a difference between not feeling empathy when seeing someone suffering, and consciously deciding to fuck people over for your own benefit.
While your story turned out badly, trusting the dog would have been a far stupider decision.
Psychopaths are not scum at all. In fact, the same metric cannot even be applied - people with a conscious who do shitty things are scum because they understand the negative emotions their actions cause. Psychopaths genuinely can't feel empathy or relate. This doesnt make them all instantly scum, as many will still know enough that it is consciously wrong and stop from doing it.
FOS doesn't mean that you can say whatever you like for it and not be held accountable.
Instead of the rather barbaric system of dueling, we now have less fatal ways to resolve issues, namely through courts of law or filing appropriate charges.
You haven't addressed the issue of making holocaust denial illegal in any of your replies, and I would be interested in your views - as that is absolutely unacceptable to me.
Sigh. You're speaking like someone who has mostly experience with distributions that act as you advocate, and limited experience on closed source platforms, then getting annoyed when the closed source platforms don't have a feature you consider convenient.
It can and does work fine and there's a lot of value in it.
In a commercial closed source environment? Citation needed.
1. Developers don't have to re-invent the install and update wheel for every application.
2. Users get a consistent UI for installing and updating software. (For example, users don't have 30 different trey icons all telling them in a slightly different way that they have updates)
3. You don't need extra per application processes running in the background checking for updates. Don't need extra startup junk doing it either.
4. The user doesn't need do it all manually (although it's still an option)
The problems you describe, are not problems.
For 1 - This has not been a problem on Windows for over 10 years. For at least the last 5 years, the MSI format has been used for installs on Windows, and is far more powerful than anything similar in Linux land. Seriously - read up on it.
The MSI format also applies to your second point - It is generally the exception rather than the rule that software has its own interface to update.., i.e. java, flash etc.
As for point 3, what FUD. Either updates are pushed to the client, or it is checked on startup or at some regular interval. No need for extra processes or startup junk as you claim, and it certainly has no negative aspect on performance.
It's also a more efficient method, rather than having all software tied in to each other(not that it has to be, but in practice it often is on linux systems).
Using the MSI format installs to keep track of installs and allowing for things like concurrent versions being installed and rollbacks, with applications updating themselves as needed is efficient and useful, and the way it should stay. Nothing would be gained by changing things as you suggest.
Packages don't need to or have to be all hosted in the same repository. You can have your package management system connect to as many as you like. Your distribution doesn't even have to know or approve of 3rd party software installed this way. I don't know where you get the idea that it all must come from one singular centralized source.
Because generally, that is how it is. You add a few other repositories for particular software like Opera or Virtualbox, with most stuff coming from your distribution.
That wouldn't work in Windows land, and we would be adding a repository source for every package. How is this approach superior to applications self updating as it is? It's the same end result with the benefit of skipping an unnecessary step.
Additionally, the MSI format(which 99.9% of windows aps use to install) already handles version checking and dependencies and rollbakcs and a myriad of other features not found in linux package managers.
I don't think you understand how package management systems work.
I don't think you understand how operating systems aside from those based on Debian work.
That is interesting that they only did not use the swastika for advertising - I didn't know that. Thankyou.
I still think the restrictions of FOS are appalling. Look at outlawing holocaust denial...outlawing an opinion and idea that doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. There are so many limitations and restrictions - even if it is not as harsh as I had though, it is more harsh than should be acceptable.
In the US(not where I am from btw), they may well be prudish about swearwords on TV, but there is always cable, and at least I can insult any religion, person, government, hold any opinion or ideology I chose and spread my beliefs as much as I like without fear of persecution.
Unfortunately, the same is not true in Germany, to a much lesser degree than most countries.