No, the fact that they were being developed at the same time means the game is "not derivative".
Marathon shipped a few months later than DOOM as I remember, but Bungie certainly didn't play DOOM and say "Whoa, cool! We can do this!"
DOOM was a pretty fun, visceral game. Marathon was an incredibly fun, cerebral game. Both are good games. I happen to prefer Marathon. Calling it "derivative" is damning it with faint praise.
Yeah, these things are a Really Good Idea, particularly in cases like the Cirrus where they're integrated into the airframe (and hence don't occupy cargo volume).
They're pretty lightweight, and they give you a big safety margin in the event of a disabled pilot or a seriously broken airplane.
It's hard for me to understand the objections. I mean, yeah, pilots get nervous when they're in any airplane they can't control, but I can't imagine deploying that chute any time the pilot is still in control of the airplane.
Marathon and DOOM were contemporaneous. Marathon came out of Pathways into Darkness, which was contemporaneous (roughly) with Wolf3D.
How could you have played Marathon for any amount of time, and called it "derivative" of anything? Did you totally fail to pay attention to every terminal in the game?
Ah. Well, the guy who pulled his BRS over Dallas, TX had an aircraft that was maintained by the factory-approved AP staff, and he still had an aileron come unhinged and put him in a bad spot.
What happens to your passengers if you have a heart attack?
Is it statistically likely? I don't know. Would it be an appropriate piece of safety equipment for some pilots in some situations? Absolutely.
YOU might not want one...doesn't mean they're a bad idea.
If your airplane has experienced a structural failure of sufficient magnitude to warrant pulling the lever, you are no longer the pilot anyhow. The only question is whether or not you'd like to hit the ground at a really uncomfortable speed.
Parachutes also don't protect you from having a cerebral hemhorrage, and they do a really lousy job on mildew and soap scum. They also don't seem to be very good at saving the whales.
Anybody who thinks it's a save-all is a) stupid and b) incompetent. It's another tool that can save your life in certain circumstances.
I would never, ever fly in a private aircraft with a pilot whose judgement I didn't trust completely.
Doing that much engineering to solve a non-problem is just silly.
You are safer getting on an airplane than going into your bathroom. Just as a wild-ass guess, you'd incur a weight penalty of at least 30-40% in equipment that will, in all likelihood, never be used.
Have you taken a look at the airline business lately? If you're an airline, or an airline builder, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for funds to just keep operating, never mind inventing Buck Rogers safety technology that is simply not warranted.
I'm all for technical advances, particularly those that improve safety. But what you propose is simply unworkable.
Bailing out of a small aircraft is pretty dangerous. Pulling a handle and letting the BRS save everybody's butt is much safer, and your passengers are all still sitting in a crashworthy structure.
Are you going to strap a parachute to your four year old kid? BRSes are well engineered, proven safety mechanisms.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
You are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying.
It is not possible to solve world hunger by giving more stuff. It's not a material problem: It's a distribution problem. Where there is hunger, there are corrupt governments. I would be very interested to see you show me counterexamples.
That's interesting - last time I checked, the people were controlling whether they should be giving their money to other countries, NOT the government.
The US government is not the problem. It's the tin pot dictatorships that use hunger as a weapon against their own people.
The American people are giving plenty. That giving is not solving the problem, because giving more stuff does not get the stuff to the people who are being oppressed.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
It's never enough, is it? It's never possible to do enough. There's always more hungry people than money in my wallet.
If our capitalist structure gives us enough wealth to give more per capita than any other country on Earth, why are so so against it? What country do YOU think should be the model?
There are lots of problems with the US. Generosity is not one of them.
You're totally ignoring that it's not a wealth problem: It's a government problem. It's a tyranny problem. It's a one person subjugating another person problem.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
You're missing my point.
What is keeping them from feeding themselves is despotic warlords who use hunger to subjugate people. Food production is so, terribly, completely, thoroughly NOT a problem.
Reducing the general population? Great. Start with you.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
Who's "we"?
The American public does more charitable giving, per capita, than any country in the world. Our government gives less money than some other governments on a per-capita basis, but my recollection is that it's still in the top ten.
So I don't really know what you're talking about.
Re:Not getting what they pay for - your cat is DEA
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
Although I agree with you, I don't support making cloning illegal.
Freedom is more important than ideological uniformity.
So when are you selling everything you own and donating the proceeds to the poor?
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
It's not at all an issue of the US being selfish. Famines are caused by local governments. Hunger is a weapon of tyrants, not a problem that we can solve by giving people food.
Want to solve world hunger? We need to get better governments.
I keep hearing this complaint, and it is simply not borne out by the facts.
Your average Star Wars set has no more painted bricks than your average Space set from the early 80's. The only big, pre-formed pieces are things like canopies.
That aside, the new click hinges are the most useful LEGO part ever.
The new Star Wars sets are some of the best LEGO sets ever, even though you happen to be able to put them together to look like something from a movie.
Don't know about the Harry Potter sets. They don't look very different from the Castle sets, which were my other favorites when I was a kid.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the fact that they were being developed at the same time means the game is "not derivative".
Marathon shipped a few months later than DOOM as I remember, but Bungie certainly didn't play DOOM and say "Whoa, cool! We can do this!"
DOOM was a pretty fun, visceral game. Marathon was an incredibly fun, cerebral game. Both are good games. I happen to prefer Marathon. Calling it "derivative" is damning it with faint praise.
Yeah, these things are a Really Good Idea, particularly in cases like the Cirrus where they're integrated into the airframe (and hence don't occupy cargo volume).
They're pretty lightweight, and they give you a big safety margin in the event of a disabled pilot or a seriously broken airplane.
It's hard for me to understand the objections. I mean, yeah, pilots get nervous when they're in any airplane they can't control, but I can't imagine deploying that chute any time the pilot is still in control of the airplane.
King of the Hill in that circular arena with the "hill" as the stripe down the middle...DAMN that was fun.
To this day, I've never played a multiplayer game that's a better time than MP King of the Hill in Marathon.
Deathmatch bores me.
DOOM inspired? What are you talking about?
Marathon and DOOM were contemporaneous. Marathon came out of Pathways into Darkness, which was contemporaneous (roughly) with Wolf3D.
How could you have played Marathon for any amount of time, and called it "derivative" of anything? Did you totally fail to pay attention to every terminal in the game?
That's absolutely insane. Cite the statute.
"I like them more then the Halo games Bungie's doing now."
You misspelled Microsoft.
Yes, I am still THAT bitter.
Ah. Well, the guy who pulled his BRS over Dallas, TX had an aircraft that was maintained by the factory-approved AP staff, and he still had an aileron come unhinged and put him in a bad spot.
What happens to your passengers if you have a heart attack?
Is it statistically likely? I don't know. Would it be an appropriate piece of safety equipment for some pilots in some situations? Absolutely.
YOU might not want one...doesn't mean they're a bad idea.
If your airplane has experienced a structural failure of sufficient magnitude to warrant pulling the lever, you are no longer the pilot anyhow. The only question is whether or not you'd like to hit the ground at a really uncomfortable speed.
You pick: Airframe parachute, or terrain feature.
Parachutes also don't protect you from having a cerebral hemhorrage, and they do a really lousy job on mildew and soap scum. They also don't seem to be very good at saving the whales.
Anybody who thinks it's a save-all is a) stupid and b) incompetent. It's another tool that can save your life in certain circumstances.
I would never, ever fly in a private aircraft with a pilot whose judgement I didn't trust completely.
It's a hell of a lot faster than that. The chute is deployed by a rocket, and the airplane is chute-borne in less than five seconds.
You know how much a personal chute weighs? Every pound of parachute (about 20 or 30 pounds) is one pound less of luggage, or fuel.
Airplanes are light for a reason. Weight costs money. Minimizing it is valuable.
Doing that much engineering to solve a non-problem is just silly.
You are safer getting on an airplane than going into your bathroom. Just as a wild-ass guess, you'd incur a weight penalty of at least 30-40% in equipment that will, in all likelihood, never be used.
Have you taken a look at the airline business lately? If you're an airline, or an airline builder, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for funds to just keep operating, never mind inventing Buck Rogers safety technology that is simply not warranted.
I'm all for technical advances, particularly those that improve safety. But what you propose is simply unworkable.
Bailing out of a small aircraft is pretty dangerous. Pulling a handle and letting the BRS save everybody's butt is much safer, and your passengers are all still sitting in a crashworthy structure.
Are you going to strap a parachute to your four year old kid? BRSes are well engineered, proven safety mechanisms.
You are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying.
It is not possible to solve world hunger by giving more stuff. It's not a material problem: It's a distribution problem. Where there is hunger, there are corrupt governments. I would be very interested to see you show me counterexamples.
That's interesting - last time I checked, the people were controlling whether they should be giving their money to other countries, NOT the government.
The US government is not the problem. It's the tin pot dictatorships that use hunger as a weapon against their own people.
The American people are giving plenty. That giving is not solving the problem, because giving more stuff does not get the stuff to the people who are being oppressed.
It's never enough, is it? It's never possible to do enough. There's always more hungry people than money in my wallet.
If our capitalist structure gives us enough wealth to give more per capita than any other country on Earth, why are so so against it? What country do YOU think should be the model?
There are lots of problems with the US. Generosity is not one of them.
You're totally ignoring that it's not a wealth problem: It's a government problem. It's a tyranny problem. It's a one person subjugating another person problem.
You're missing my point.
What is keeping them from feeding themselves is despotic warlords who use hunger to subjugate people. Food production is so, terribly, completely, thoroughly NOT a problem.
Reducing the general population? Great. Start with you.
Who's "we"?
The American public does more charitable giving, per capita, than any country in the world. Our government gives less money than some other governments on a per-capita basis, but my recollection is that it's still in the top ten.
So I don't really know what you're talking about.
Although I agree with you, I don't support making cloning illegal.
Freedom is more important than ideological uniformity.
So when are you selling everything you own and donating the proceeds to the poor?
It's not at all an issue of the US being selfish. Famines are caused by local governments. Hunger is a weapon of tyrants, not a problem that we can solve by giving people food.
Want to solve world hunger? We need to get better governments.
If you're alone, it's not sex.
Discrete means that there are separate ones. Discreet means that they keep their mouths shut.
If they are discreet, you wouldn't know about them, would you?
That anybody who cannot accept the death of a pet as a natural part of life is clinically insane.
Right, because doing the exact opposite of what "everybody" is doing is the best way to show what an individual you are.
Wow. I remember when I thought that.
I keep hearing this complaint, and it is simply not borne out by the facts.
Your average Star Wars set has no more painted bricks than your average Space set from the early 80's. The only big, pre-formed pieces are things like canopies.
That aside, the new click hinges are the most useful LEGO part ever.
The new Star Wars sets are some of the best LEGO sets ever, even though you happen to be able to put them together to look like something from a movie.
Don't know about the Harry Potter sets. They don't look very different from the Castle sets, which were my other favorites when I was a kid.