True, at my first college apartment, the Time Warner guy came over to install our cable tv. He told us that the installation would cost X dollars, and if we just gave him X, he would install our cable but, to the company, he'd pretend we'd changed our mind (so no billing). We told him that we were getting Road Runner installed next week and we weren't sure how well that idea would fly.
When the Road Runner guy came, we had half a dozen computers networked together. It was clear we intended to split the connection with NAT, something which was against the terms of service at the time. The tech they sent out couldn't have cared less.
From the pdf:The ultimate goal of all computer science is the program... Let us desire, conceive, and create the program of the future together... it will... one day rise towards the heavens from the hands of a million workers as the crystalline symbol of a new and coming faith.
If if November, it might have been part of the Leonid meteor shower. It peaks on a 33 year cycle the last having been 1999-2000. So it would have been 1966-ish last time it was really big. It can be a really impressive show. Back in 1833, a lot of people thought it was the end of the world. http://comets.amsmeteors.org/meteors/showers/leoni dhistory.html
Maybe part of it is that Windows machines are more often used as desktop machines. End users are constantly installing chernobyl, using the cd tray as a drink holder, and in general urinating on the processor cooling fan.
Linux machines get used most often as servers where there are very strict requirements about what is allowed to go on them and who is allowed to have access. Just my two pence.
Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?
While true you sometimes have to buy or download these tools, this doesn't mean that you can't use em. It's been a while since I messed with this stuff, but when I worked in Nix/NT operations I remember some of the command line stuff on NT and in the reskit was ok. Also there's some great stuff out there like Roth's Admin Misc perl modules which are just great (see http://www.roth.net/perl/adminmisc/)
I think he's a little off base. He attributes love of privacy and free speech as geek trademarks, but really don't virtually all people in free countries like these things?
Similarly he says we are unified in our hatred of Microsoft and loathing of Spam. Does anyone know anybody who likes spam? In my experience, many non-geeks hate Microsoft more than we do. You don't have to be a geek to dislike directly or indirectly the RIAA.
The traits he points out referencing geeks as a monoculture are really just traits of individual humans in general. It's like saying we're a monoculture because we all want to vote or because we dislike junk mail. While it's true that we tend to be a little more evangelical about these things, it's usually just because we know a little more about the situations than the average joe.
You're telling me that if a high school kid who messes around with with Photoshop occasionally downloads a pirated copy off IRC, that Adobe loses 500 bucks?
Not all piracy takes the form of high school kids downloading $1000 software packages. The kid can afford to pay $30 for Unreal Tournament or $2.50 to see spiderman in a second run theatre. Also, I imagine some of the stuff distributed through the warez markets ends up getting sold for $$ somewhere down the line.
There's also the matter of cheaper products. Do Sun's Office sales drop because a household pirates MS Office? How does piracy affect smaller groups trying to gain market share? If Adobe has the best graphics package and nobody has any qualms about "borrowing" it, then that stifles the business of cheaper graphics packages.
I have found that most of the people who whine about certs being "useless and trivial...no real indicator of skill" are usually afraid to go take the test becuase they are unsure they could pass it.
I agree to a certain point. Back in college, I looked into taking the A+ certification ($100) figuring it might help me land an internship. Looking at sample questions, I knew 60-70% of the answers off the top of my head, the rest could easily be looked up. Looking at the test, I got the impression that no matter how experienced you were, you would have to spend a non trivial amount of time studying for the test. While that's true of any test, not all tests cost hundreds of dollars to take and have a thriving industry of educational materials behind them. It felt like a scam then and it feels like one now.
That said, I'm starting to look at certs again, not because I believe they are wholly valid, but because I want the marketting value they provide. Of course, the problem then is, which ones and how much? I can work as a Software Developer on any language or platform and could easily fill an entry level Networking/Operations position as well.
I personally (from my perspective specifically) do not find it the least bit odd that companies are placing more value on specific skill sets as they need them rather than a "jack of all trades".
I think it makes sense if you don't understand the underlying skills of the position you are hiring for. I am a 23 yr old Jack of All Trades: Operating Systems, Networking, Web Dev, Software Dev, etc. Of course I'm no where near being an expert in all these areas, but I get by well in each.
At my last position, two others were hired on at the same time. The job required regular VB, COM+, and ASP work. I had virtually no experience in these areas outside of the tiniest bit of ASP. In a few weeks, I was working near peak efficiency. After a few months, some of the expierenced developers were coming to me for help. Within six months, I had contributed to every aspect of our rather complex development system, working in areas of importance that few at the company had ever touched. I never saw this happen with the other new hires.
Knowing a little bit of everything makes it very easy to learn new skills. If you encounter a new language, you can compare it to the syntax, style, and ideology of languages you already know. As a result, you can learn new tech much faster than a more focussed individual.
Along the same lines, people I encounter who are not Jack of All Trades often do not even like the computer science field all that much. They chose this profession because it pays well. They learn as much as they have to in order to maintain their paycheck. When it comes down to it though, who is better for a company 6+ months down the road?
I understand why hiring managers look for the kind of experience they do. Some get hundreds of resumes a day. They can afford to throw out 90% of the applicants. Furthermore, if they are not qualified to review candidates, they can't afford not to throw out 90% of the applicants. They may not get the best people, but in all liklihood, they'll get someone who can do their job.
I think different people react very differently to different kinds of games. For instance, I enjoy even a bad day of counterstrike and, honestly, I almost never get pissed off. Even most cheaters don't bother me, I just take it as a fun/interesting challenge. Of course, I'm one of those guys who, if my team is winning, I switch.
On the other hand, I know guys who throw hissy fits, cuss up a storm, stomp on game controllers, slam their doors, and the like.
For me it's all about recognizing my faults and working around them. Quick: 257 * 7.32 = ?
If I try to do that calculation in my head I can do it, but there is a much much greater chance of me commiting an error. I recognize this and turn the calculation over to a device that will yield the correct answer. It's the same with integration, differentiation, or a host of other tasks. Sure I can do it in my head, but for any important task it would be irresponsible of me to do so in much the same way it would be irresponsible for me to roll my own untested implementation of RSA encryption.
what happens if the student gets hired in a company that uses Borland, and all they know is Netbeans?
Whoa, big mystery. They learn Borland. As someone in the job market, there is nothing that pisses me off more than the wackos out there demanding 5 years of programming experience with language X on platform Y with database system Z. I'm a young pup, so far I've only worked regularly with about ten different programming languages, four or five database packages, and god knows how many oses. Learning a new language/dbs/platform/tool is not hard and it becomes easier and easier the more you do it. So instead of using NetBeans or Borland would you prefer that everyone use Assembly or better yet machine code on punch cards. Why not just break out the a soldering iron and start making circuits?
Shortcuts are great, as long as you completely understand exactly what the shortcut is doing for you
I agree that for some things you need to understand the underlying principals. However once you have achieved this, is there any reason a person shouldn't be allowed to learn and utilize the tools of their profession as they progress through their collegiate education? Also as a computer professional, I can safely say that there are certain areas where I have absolutely no need or desire to understand how things work on a lower level. Eg, I have 0 desire to learn x86 Machine Code.
What if we lost power permanently, lost the gee whiz tools, and had to do this stuff from scratch.
If this happens, I will have far far far bigger concerns on my mind.
The "engineers" who rely on the gee whiz tools are no longer engineers. They are monkeys without their toys. The engineers who can do the stuff with a chalkboard, and chalk, will save the world
Tools are cars, airplanes, calculators, computers, algorithms, data representations, chalk, chalkboards. They enable you to do things you could not previously imagine. Virtually everything we do in human society is dependent on tools. Get used to it. Learn to use those that will help you be better at what you do.
Re:Engineering is more difficult now
on
Engineer in a Box?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
but we as a whole need to learn how to use our brains, after all we are engineers right?
When someone says, "use your head," they are usually refering to finding a better faster way of doing something. So why is it you think learning to use your brain entails training yourself to do complex operations in minutes when a machine can do them in seconds. The human brain is piss poor at performing complex computations, sorting, detailed memory storage, and the like. Machines are very good at these things. On the other hand, humans are very good at analyzing complex situations, planning, designing, and the like. Machines are piss poor at this. Wouldn't it be smarter to assign your brain tasks it is good at and relegate other things to tools?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't need to learn to do some of this stuff manually. Sometimes knowing how things work is necessary, but at the same time we don't need to permanently burden our minds with tasks that our tools can accomplish more efficiently.
There are a bunch of mental processes that if abdicated, would free the brain for more interesting tasks. Me, I'm waiting for the third generation version of the chip that goes in my head to provide massive secondary storage, simple and complex math, sorting, extensible algorithm support, and of course wireless network access. Hmm, maybe it could just be a mental network interface to a server back home.
Did any PC game in the Street Fighter series support net play?
Prob not. Frankly I never played it. It's not really the kind of game I would buy for a PC.
Assuming that Super Smash Bros. 3 (rumored to introduce the Raccoon Powerup that gives you an extra couple little mid-air jumps) supports the network adapter,
Wow that would really rock.
how are you going to play a game that depends on extremely precise (17-33 ms) timing over a link with a 150 millisecond (that's nine frames!) ping?
Well, my guess would be badly. Seriously though, there are lots of response sensitive games that work successfully online. High pings can be a real burden, but the games still make people happy. Also, if you have a good ISP, you can get pings much closer to 40-60 ms which is pretty damn good for most applications. That said, Smash Brothers wouldn't be the same without 3 friends, a couple couches, and a box of pizza. JIGGLYPUFF!!!
And then get taken to court for doing something you thought was permitted. Consoles don't have clickwrap EULAs.
EULAs are annoying but that's all. Anyways, consoles do have EULAs: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956785.html?tag=fd_t op
(Configuration) Necessary? There's a lot bigger chance of everything Just Working(tm) on Macintosh hardware.
Yeah, and there's a lot better chance of everything Just Working(tm) on XP than there was with 95. What's your point? All I'm saying is when you upgrade, things must be configured. Sometimes the machine/OS can do it all, sometimes it can't.
New PCs no longer come with gameports
That's very odd, mine did (3 months old). Even if it the gameport completely disappears, there will be adapters for a while. I agree that the new sidewinders suck though for the exact reason you mentioned.
Yes you do. You have to foot the bill for three extra keyboards, mice, monitors, network cables, and computers, all with roughly the same video card so that nobody female dogs about an unfair disadvantage.
Um no I don't. The friends already have PCs. Everyone has a PC. When we play games with PC people, we play games everyone can play. No one whines about only getting 640x480 instead of 1064x786. Events are orchestrated either as Online get togethers or byoc lan parties. On the other hand, console gaming is more often spur of the moment. Most people don't have XBox/PS2/GC controllers and if they did they wouldn't carry them around with them. So the burden of buying the controllers invariably falls on the host.
PC games are $50 when they are first released as well
More sometimes, and then 2 months to a year later they are $30. Smash Brothers and Dead or Alive 3 are still going strong at $50 nearly a year after their release. When I look at Xbox games at Best Buy, virtually everything anyone would want to buy is $50. No one pays $50 for a year old PC game.
Mods: If you like I can email you a level I built for Timesplitters, but you obviously didn't spend the $200 dollars for a PS2.
A home made level is not a mod. When I bought halflife in 1999, I got Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, and a bunch of other very different games completely free.
Or you can try to play the level using 1/2 of the 400 dollar video card that will be outdated in 1 year. 'Course my PS2 has a limited shelf life as well, but $200 dollars every 4 years beats 2,000 every four years.
Only a complete moron/rich guy would pay $400 for a gaming video card. You have your initial PC cost, money that was spent to buy a PC, not a video game system. Then, it takes a $100 video card to turn a typical pc into a good gaming system. Taking advantage of the leaps and bounds in PC gaming technology requires about $300 every 2.5-3 years depending on your taste. If you stagger your video card and cpu/mobo upgrades, your PC will always be capable. Admittedly, the downside is not everyone is competent or willing to perform these upgrades themselves.
Good post. I didn't know Sony maintained compatibility with their old controllers and such. Thanks for the tip. I agree with most everything you said except a few things.
I don't think gaming on PC's is too much more expensive than feeding a console urge. You can't really factor in the initial cost of a PC as gaming expense since PC's do so much more. Instead, think of the upgrade/maintenance cost. PC's typically need about $300 worth of upgrades spread over 2.5-3 years in order to keep them kick ass. That's not too far from the cost of always having a state of the art console system... although we're not factoring in all the time and knowledge that goes into maintaining a PC.
Also, I think Memory storage in consoles could become a non issue, that is, if Nintendo and Sony were to ever follow Microsoft's example. In the near future, that seems doubtful, but eventually they may be driven to permenant in-console storage. If that ever happens, then I think we could theoretically see mods. Of course, most mod developers would probably stick to the uniform pc platform.
If you are going to invite a bunch of friends over to your place, console gaming is a lot easier to get going than a LAN party
But on the flip side, it may be a lot easier to get friends to join a game server over ICQ than to convince them to drive half way across town/state/country to play a few rounds of Super Smash Brothers (the best game ever made).
Despite claims by PC fans of what their $400 accelerator cards can do
No one sane buys a $400 graphics card for gaming unless they are a millionaire.
don't have to deal with installation issues,
I assume you are talking about game installation as opposed to hardware. Is this really that hard? Most of the time I just close my eyes and hit next a bunch.
device driver conflicts
Apples and Oranges. You don't have to modify your PC hardware configuration if you don't want to. It will still work every bit as good as the day you bought it. However, since it is a PC you have the power and the ability to upgrade it. Configuration issues are a necessary side effect. You don't have to upgrade your PC, but you can't upgrade your console.
patches
It's true that broken console games are rare, but it does sometimes happen. When it does there is no way to get a patch out. Anyways, patches and mods are a package deal. Nothing adds more value to a game than a mod.
Plus all modern consoles have great controllers
Expensive, proprietary, incompatible controllers, that cost $120 for a set and won't even work from one generation to the next. I have a 12 year old PC joystick that still works perfectly on my brand new pc. When I play PC games with friends, I don't have to foot the bill for 3 extra controllers.
Competing Platforms: There is nothing quite like getting stuck with a dead console like a Sega Saturn. With a PC, you can be assured the platform won't die.
Controllers: A typical console controller costs $30. This by itself is not unreasonable. The problem occurs when you play multiplayer games that require 4 controllers. In the PC world, everyone typically plays on their own equipment. In the console world, the owner of the console usually ends up footing the $90 bill for 3 extra controllers.
Accessories & Game cost: They are way to frickin expensive. A PC Ethernet card can be purchased for $15. Dreamcast broadband adapters retailed for $70. The X-box is a dvd player but in order to unlock that functionality you need to buy their remote for an extra $30. And let's not forget the ever present annoyance and cost of memory cards. Even console games seem to be more expensive than PC games. Best Buy advertises titles for $50 as if it were some kind of deal.
Incompatibilities: This goes along with competing platforms and expensive accessories. With PC's, for practical purposes, all equipment is compatible and interoperable. With consoles, the opposite is true. A PS2 controller will not work with an xbox, hell, a PS1 controller probably won't work with a PS2. An Xbox broadband adpater won't work with a PS2. People complain about driver/soundcard/video problems in PCs, but on the other hand, my 12 year old joystick still works perfectly in my new pc. I've been using the same keyboard for 5 years. Same with a couple of my network adapters. This stuff will work with any PC.
Mods: These might make it to consoles some day, but you've got to wonder. People with PCs developing for PCs is one thing, figuring out how to develop for external proprietary systems is another.
Using that connection to access bandwidth resources paid for by the company IS theft, without the company's permission.
Agreed. However, we let machines represent ourselves every day for monetary and data transactions. When a WAP boradcasts in a public medium and grants access to an arbitrary client, it is acting as a representative of the owners. Such a grant of access constitutes authorization of network use in the same way an anonymous ftp server authorizes upload or download of files to it.
This *is* a matter of right and wrong. "Because it's there" works for climbing mountains, but not in this argument...
I agree completely, it's there does not necessarily work for this argument. When I buy something off of amazon.com, my computer represents me in a financial transaction. Amazon's servers represent Amazon by providing information and processing capabilities to enable the transaction. If I am sitting on a park bench and ask the people across the street for use of their wireless network, and a representative of their company/apartment/whatever authorizes me, how have I done anything morally or legally wrong?
If I host an open website containing my social security number, address, email, and phone number with the idea in my head that only financial institutions will access this information... are you morally in the wrong for going to this webpage? Are you legally in the wrong? I personally did not grant you permission to view this information, but my computer, my representative in the data transaction did authorize you to view it.
The person with the crappy music did not authorize you to listen to it, but the company's wireless access point did authorize you by explicitly granting you access to the network.
Slashdot Mirror
True, at my first college apartment, the Time Warner guy came over to install our cable tv. He told us that the installation would cost X dollars, and if we just gave him X, he would install our cable but, to the company, he'd pretend we'd changed our mind (so no billing). We told him that we were getting Road Runner installed next week and we weren't sure how well that idea would fly.
When the Road Runner guy came, we had half a dozen computers networked together. It was clear we intended to split the connection with NAT, something which was against the terms of service at the time. The tech they sent out couldn't have cared less.
From the pdf:The ultimate goal of all computer science is the program... Let us desire, conceive, and create the program of the future together... it will ... one day rise towards the heavens from the hands of a million workers as the crystalline symbol of a new and coming faith.
Whoa. Wrong book.
If if November, it might have been part of the Leonid meteor shower. It peaks on a 33 year cycle the last having been 1999-2000. So it would have been 1966-ish last time it was really big. It can be a really impressive show. Back in 1833, a lot of people thought it was the end of the world. http://comets.amsmeteors.org/meteors/showers/leoni dhistory.html
Somebody didn't read the article, it was the TCO of webservers.
Maybe part of it is that Windows machines are more often used as desktop machines. End users are constantly installing chernobyl, using the cd tray as a drink holder, and in general urinating on the processor cooling fan.
Linux machines get used most often as servers where there are very strict requirements about what is allowed to go on them and who is allowed to have access. Just my two pence.
Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?
While true you sometimes have to buy or download these tools, this doesn't mean that you can't use em. It's been a while since I messed with this stuff, but when I worked in Nix/NT operations I remember some of the command line stuff on NT and in the reskit was ok. Also there's some great stuff out there like Roth's Admin Misc perl modules which are just great (see http://www.roth.net/perl/adminmisc/)
I think he's a little off base. He attributes love of privacy and free speech as geek trademarks, but really don't virtually all people in free countries like these things?
Similarly he says we are unified in our hatred of Microsoft and loathing of Spam. Does anyone know anybody who likes spam? In my experience, many non-geeks hate Microsoft more than we do. You don't have to be a geek to dislike directly or indirectly the RIAA.
The traits he points out referencing geeks as a monoculture are really just traits of individual humans in general. It's like saying we're a monoculture because we all want to vote or because we dislike junk mail. While it's true that we tend to be a little more evangelical about these things, it's usually just because we know a little more about the situations than the average joe.
You're telling me that if a high school kid who messes around with with Photoshop occasionally downloads a pirated copy off IRC, that Adobe loses 500 bucks?
Not all piracy takes the form of high school kids downloading $1000 software packages. The kid can afford to pay $30 for Unreal Tournament or $2.50 to see spiderman in a second run theatre. Also, I imagine some of the stuff distributed through the warez markets ends up getting sold for $$ somewhere down the line.
There's also the matter of cheaper products. Do Sun's Office sales drop because a household pirates MS Office? How does piracy affect smaller groups trying to gain market share? If Adobe has the best graphics package and nobody has any qualms about "borrowing" it, then that stifles the business of cheaper graphics packages.
Read last Sunday's foxtrot. http://www.ucomics.com/foxtrot/2002/09/29/
I have found that most of the people who whine about certs being "useless and trivial...no real indicator of skill" are usually afraid to go take the test becuase they are unsure they could pass it.
I agree to a certain point. Back in college, I looked into taking the A+ certification ($100) figuring it might help me land an internship. Looking at sample questions, I knew 60-70% of the answers off the top of my head, the rest could easily be looked up. Looking at the test, I got the impression that no matter how experienced you were, you would have to spend a non trivial amount of time studying for the test. While that's true of any test, not all tests cost hundreds of dollars to take and have a thriving industry of educational materials behind them. It felt like a scam then and it feels like one now.
That said, I'm starting to look at certs again, not because I believe they are wholly valid, but because I want the marketting value they provide. Of course, the problem then is, which ones and how much? I can work as a Software Developer on any language or platform and could easily fill an entry level Networking/Operations position as well.
I personally (from my perspective specifically) do not find it the least bit odd that companies are placing more value on specific skill sets as they need them rather than a "jack of all trades".
I think it makes sense if you don't understand the underlying skills of the position you are hiring for. I am a 23 yr old Jack of All Trades: Operating Systems, Networking, Web Dev, Software Dev, etc. Of course I'm no where near being an expert in all these areas, but I get by well in each.
At my last position, two others were hired on at the same time. The job required regular VB, COM+, and ASP work. I had virtually no experience in these areas outside of the tiniest bit of ASP. In a few weeks, I was working near peak efficiency. After a few months, some of the expierenced developers were coming to me for help. Within six months, I had contributed to every aspect of our rather complex development system, working in areas of importance that few at the company had ever touched. I never saw this happen with the other new hires.
Knowing a little bit of everything makes it very easy to learn new skills. If you encounter a new language, you can compare it to the syntax, style, and ideology of languages you already know. As a result, you can learn new tech much faster than a more focussed individual.
Along the same lines, people I encounter who are not Jack of All Trades often do not even like the computer science field all that much. They chose this profession because it pays well. They learn as much as they have to in order to maintain their paycheck. When it comes down to it though, who is better for a company 6+ months down the road?
I understand why hiring managers look for the kind of experience they do. Some get hundreds of resumes a day. They can afford to throw out 90% of the applicants. Furthermore, if they are not qualified to review candidates, they can't afford not to throw out 90% of the applicants. They may not get the best people, but in all liklihood, they'll get someone who can do their job.
Not every game is going to relieve stress.
I think different people react very differently to different kinds of games. For instance, I enjoy even a bad day of counterstrike and, honestly, I almost never get pissed off. Even most cheaters don't bother me, I just take it as a fun/interesting challenge. Of course, I'm one of those guys who, if my team is winning, I switch.
On the other hand, I know guys who throw hissy fits, cuss up a storm, stomp on game controllers, slam their doors, and the like.
For me it's all about recognizing my faults and working around them. Quick: 257 * 7.32 = ?
If I try to do that calculation in my head I can do it, but there is a much much greater chance of me commiting an error. I recognize this and turn the calculation over to a device that will yield the correct answer. It's the same with integration, differentiation, or a host of other tasks. Sure I can do it in my head, but for any important task it would be irresponsible of me to do so in much the same way it would be irresponsible for me to roll my own untested implementation of RSA encryption.
what happens if the student gets hired in a company that uses Borland, and all they know is Netbeans?
Whoa, big mystery. They learn Borland. As someone in the job market, there is nothing that pisses me off more than the wackos out there demanding 5 years of programming experience with language X on platform Y with database system Z. I'm a young pup, so far I've only worked regularly with about ten different programming languages, four or five database packages, and god knows how many oses. Learning a new language/dbs/platform/tool is not hard and it becomes easier and easier the more you do it. So instead of using NetBeans or Borland would you prefer that everyone use Assembly or better yet machine code on punch cards. Why not just break out the a soldering iron and start making circuits?
Shortcuts are great, as long as you completely understand exactly what the shortcut is doing for you
I agree that for some things you need to understand the underlying principals. However once you have achieved this, is there any reason a person shouldn't be allowed to learn and utilize the tools of their profession as they progress through their collegiate education? Also as a computer professional, I can safely say that there are certain areas where I have absolutely no need or desire to understand how things work on a lower level. Eg, I have 0 desire to learn x86 Machine Code.
What if we lost power permanently, lost the gee whiz tools, and had to do this stuff from scratch.
If this happens, I will have far far far bigger concerns on my mind.
The "engineers" who rely on the gee whiz tools are no longer engineers. They are monkeys without their toys. The engineers who can do the stuff with a chalkboard, and chalk, will save the world
Tools are cars, airplanes, calculators, computers, algorithms, data representations, chalk, chalkboards. They enable you to do things you could not previously imagine. Virtually everything we do in human society is dependent on tools. Get used to it. Learn to use those that will help you be better at what you do.
but we as a whole need to learn how to use our brains, after all we are engineers right?
When someone says, "use your head," they are usually refering to finding a better faster way of doing something. So why is it you think learning to use your brain entails training yourself to do complex operations in minutes when a machine can do them in seconds. The human brain is piss poor at performing complex computations, sorting, detailed memory storage, and the like. Machines are very good at these things. On the other hand, humans are very good at analyzing complex situations, planning, designing, and the like. Machines are piss poor at this. Wouldn't it be smarter to assign your brain tasks it is good at and relegate other things to tools?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't need to learn to do some of this stuff manually. Sometimes knowing how things work is necessary, but at the same time we don't need to permanently burden our minds with tasks that our tools can accomplish more efficiently.
There are a bunch of mental processes that if abdicated, would free the brain for more interesting tasks. Me, I'm waiting for the third generation version of the chip that goes in my head to provide massive secondary storage, simple and complex math, sorting, extensible algorithm support, and of course wireless network access. Hmm, maybe it could just be a mental network interface to a server back home.
Did any PC game in the Street Fighter series support net play?
Prob not. Frankly I never played it. It's not really the kind of game I would buy for a PC.
Assuming that Super Smash Bros. 3 (rumored to introduce the Raccoon Powerup that gives you an extra couple little mid-air jumps) supports the network adapter,
Wow that would really rock.
how are you going to play a game that depends on extremely precise (17-33 ms) timing over a link with a 150 millisecond (that's nine frames!) ping?
Well, my guess would be badly. Seriously though, there are lots of response sensitive games that work successfully online. High pings can be a real burden, but the games still make people happy. Also, if you have a good ISP, you can get pings much closer to 40-60 ms which is pretty damn good for most applications. That said, Smash Brothers wouldn't be the same without 3 friends, a couple couches, and a box of pizza. JIGGLYPUFF!!!
And then get taken to court for doing something you thought was permitted. Consoles don't have clickwrap EULAs.
t op
EULAs are annoying but that's all. Anyways, consoles do have EULAs: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956785.html?tag=fd_
(Configuration) Necessary? There's a lot bigger chance of everything Just Working(tm) on Macintosh hardware.
Yeah, and there's a lot better chance of everything Just Working(tm) on XP than there was with 95. What's your point? All I'm saying is when you upgrade, things must be configured. Sometimes the machine/OS can do it all, sometimes it can't.
New PCs no longer come with gameports
That's very odd, mine did (3 months old). Even if it the gameport completely disappears, there will be adapters for a while. I agree that the new sidewinders suck though for the exact reason you mentioned.
Yes you do. You have to foot the bill for three extra keyboards, mice, monitors, network cables, and computers, all with roughly the same video card so that nobody female dogs about an unfair disadvantage.
Um no I don't. The friends already have PCs. Everyone has a PC. When we play games with PC people, we play games everyone can play. No one whines about only getting 640x480 instead of 1064x786. Events are orchestrated either as Online get togethers or byoc lan parties. On the other hand, console gaming is more often spur of the moment. Most people don't have XBox/PS2/GC controllers and if they did they wouldn't carry them around with them. So the burden of buying the controllers invariably falls on the host.
PC games are $50 when they are first released as well
More sometimes, and then 2 months to a year later they are $30. Smash Brothers and Dead or Alive 3 are still going strong at $50 nearly a year after their release. When I look at Xbox games at Best Buy, virtually everything anyone would want to buy is $50. No one pays $50 for a year old PC game.
Mods: If you like I can email you a level I built for Timesplitters, but you obviously didn't spend the $200 dollars for a PS2.
A home made level is not a mod. When I bought halflife in 1999, I got Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, and a bunch of other very different games completely free.
Or you can try to play the level using 1/2 of the 400 dollar video card that will be outdated in 1 year. 'Course my PS2 has a limited shelf life as well, but $200 dollars every 4 years beats 2,000 every four years.
Only a complete moron/rich guy would pay $400 for a gaming video card. You have your initial PC cost, money that was spent to buy a PC, not a video game system. Then, it takes a $100 video card to turn a typical pc into a good gaming system. Taking advantage of the leaps and bounds in PC gaming technology requires about $300 every 2.5-3 years depending on your taste. If you stagger your video card and cpu/mobo upgrades, your PC will always be capable. Admittedly, the downside is not everyone is competent or willing to perform these upgrades themselves.
Good post. I didn't know Sony maintained compatibility with their old controllers and such. Thanks for the tip. I agree with most everything you said except a few things.
I don't think gaming on PC's is too much more expensive than feeding a console urge. You can't really factor in the initial cost of a PC as gaming expense since PC's do so much more. Instead, think of the upgrade/maintenance cost. PC's typically need about $300 worth of upgrades spread over 2.5-3 years in order to keep them kick ass. That's not too far from the cost of always having a state of the art console system... although we're not factoring in all the time and knowledge that goes into maintaining a PC.
Also, I think Memory storage in consoles could become a non issue, that is, if Nintendo and Sony were to ever follow Microsoft's example. In the near future, that seems doubtful, but eventually they may be driven to permenant in-console storage. If that ever happens, then I think we could theoretically see mods. Of course, most mod developers would probably stick to the uniform pc platform.
If you are going to invite a bunch of friends over to your place, console gaming is a lot easier to get going than a LAN party
But on the flip side, it may be a lot easier to get friends to join a game server over ICQ than to convince them to drive half way across town/state/country to play a few rounds of Super Smash Brothers (the best game ever made).
Despite claims by PC fans of what their $400 accelerator cards can do
No one sane buys a $400 graphics card for gaming unless they are a millionaire.
don't have to deal with installation issues,
I assume you are talking about game installation as opposed to hardware. Is this really that hard? Most of the time I just close my eyes and hit next a bunch.
device driver conflicts
Apples and Oranges. You don't have to modify your PC hardware configuration if you don't want to. It will still work every bit as good as the day you bought it. However, since it is a PC you have the power and the ability to upgrade it. Configuration issues are a necessary side effect. You don't have to upgrade your PC, but you can't upgrade your console.
patches
It's true that broken console games are rare, but it does sometimes happen. When it does there is no way to get a patch out. Anyways, patches and mods are a package deal. Nothing adds more value to a game than a mod.
Plus all modern consoles have great controllers
Expensive, proprietary, incompatible controllers, that cost $120 for a set and won't even work from one generation to the next. I have a 12 year old PC joystick that still works perfectly on my brand new pc. When I play PC games with friends, I don't have to foot the bill for 3 extra controllers.
Why I hate consoles:
Competing Platforms: There is nothing quite like getting stuck with a dead console like a Sega Saturn. With a PC, you can be assured the platform won't die.
Controllers: A typical console controller costs $30. This by itself is not unreasonable. The problem occurs when you play multiplayer games that require 4 controllers. In the PC world, everyone typically plays on their own equipment. In the console world, the owner of the console usually ends up footing the $90 bill for 3 extra controllers.
Accessories & Game cost: They are way to frickin expensive. A PC Ethernet card can be purchased for $15. Dreamcast broadband adapters retailed for $70. The X-box is a dvd player but in order to unlock that functionality you need to buy their remote for an extra $30. And let's not forget the ever present annoyance and cost of memory cards. Even console games seem to be more expensive than PC games. Best Buy advertises titles for $50 as if it were some kind of deal.
Incompatibilities: This goes along with competing platforms and expensive accessories. With PC's, for practical purposes, all equipment is compatible and interoperable. With consoles, the opposite is true. A PS2 controller will not work with an xbox, hell, a PS1 controller probably won't work with a PS2. An Xbox broadband adpater won't work with a PS2. People complain about driver/soundcard/video problems in PCs, but on the other hand, my 12 year old joystick still works perfectly in my new pc. I've been using the same keyboard for 5 years. Same with a couple of my network adapters. This stuff will work with any PC.
Mods: These might make it to consoles some day, but you've got to wonder. People with PCs developing for PCs is one thing, figuring out how to develop for external proprietary systems is another.
Using that connection to access bandwidth resources paid for by the company IS theft, without the company's permission.
Agreed. However, we let machines represent ourselves every day for monetary and data transactions. When a WAP boradcasts in a public medium and grants access to an arbitrary client, it is acting as a representative of the owners. Such a grant of access constitutes authorization of network use in the same way an anonymous ftp server authorizes upload or download of files to it.
This *is* a matter of right and wrong. "Because it's there" works for climbing mountains, but not in this argument...
I agree completely, it's there does not necessarily work for this argument. When I buy something off of amazon.com, my computer represents me in a financial transaction. Amazon's servers represent Amazon by providing information and processing capabilities to enable the transaction. If I am sitting on a park bench and ask the people across the street for use of their wireless network, and a representative of their company/apartment/whatever authorizes me, how have I done anything morally or legally wrong?
If I host an open website containing my social security number, address, email, and phone number with the idea in my head that only financial institutions will access this information... are you morally in the wrong for going to this webpage? Are you legally in the wrong? I personally did not grant you permission to view this information, but my computer, my representative in the data transaction did authorize you to view it.
The person with the crappy music did not authorize you to listen to it, but the company's wireless access point did authorize you by explicitly granting you access to the network.