Addicted to tax legislation...? wtf?!? what are you, an accountant?
(I was wondering when someone would notice that!)
No, just someone who's observed that when a government, be it at the federal, state, or county level, begins to run short of cash, it looks at trying to squeeze more from the people long before it tries to figure out where the waste is occurring. It's like riding in a leaky dirigible: they reason that if they can keep pumping in more gas (hydrogen, helium, or whatever) than is leaking out, then everything will be all right.
Think about it. So many poor, pathetic legislators have a problem just saying no to the ultimate addictive substance: other peoples' money.
you said:
So many of the world's problems could be solved if we could separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff, so to speak
I say:
And how do you do that exactly, seperate those who can't differentiate between fantasy or reality, or who get hooked on things. IQ Tests maybe? Or do YOU get to decide who's wheat and who's chaff?
(Yes, brothers, cherish the <blockquote>)
IQ tests wouldn't quite be right for this; one can be slow to put facts together, yet still able to pull the right facts out of the environment to come (eventually) to a valid conclusion. It's a matter of being able to see what information is available, not assume what isn't available, and even if the whole picture isn't available, using what you've got to make an educated guess. It would be more of a "savvy" test. But some sort of testing method, impartial and incontrovertible, would be needed for something like this.
Come on, admit it. If you're stuck at a toll bridge in the exact change lane behind someone with nothing but a twenty, most peoples' thoughts will stray, however momentarily, to putting a better filter on the gene pool.
Or maybe you don't. Interestingly, I never said anything about appointing myself Minister of Intelligence Standards.
technocrat, no. Despot, yes.
Goodbye logic, hello ad hominem attack! So tell me, what's your solution to the problem of people who get addicted to things? (And don't tell me you don't have an opinion...)
Like the woman that had her kids taken way because she wouldn't stop playing everquest.
I hope my city illegalizes RPGs
I've found that RPGs can be an excellent source of entertainment and socialization, when played in moderation. Your city should just ban stupid people.
So many of the world's problems could be solved if we could separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff, so to speak: those people who can't differentiate fantasy from reality, or who are prone to getting hooked on whatever "big thing" that comes along, be it drugs, alcohol, pornography, roleplaying games, or tax legislation.
Those people who can't handle reality should be pulled out of it and treated like the children they are. They're giving the rest of us a bad name. If they can't tell fantasy from reality, we shouldn't let them watch television. And if they're terminally gullible, they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote; politicians can be tricky.
I'd vote technocrat, only I've got nobody to vote for.
For what it's worth, I've been a follower of SJG for a long time, and I admit that SJ has some particular notions of defending his intellectual property. But overall, it hasn't hurt them over the long haul. If SJG's peculiar stance on their properties shows anything, it's how well SJ understands how bent copyright law is, not how greedy or IP-happy SJ is.
To drag this kicking and screaming back on topic, it raises a question: how far does the copyright on one of those games stretch? The source code? Source code and specific images? Because saying that the copyright applies to not only the source code but to any possible image that might emerge from playing it seems unreasonable. Specific presentation images may be covered by that, but general screenshots probably shouldn't.
I started by mentally stripping away the theme of the game itself and looking at what the game action seems to consist of. And that didn't look so bad: a sort of DDR where the pattern is dictated by one person for another person to follow. I still know nothing of the game (the site wasn't terribly descriptive about mechanics), but I could see where this is a challenging concept. It's not just pattern matching (like DDR), but coordination: how complex a pattern does the one person dare to create for the second person to follow? How complex a pattern would you lay out?
Then I mentally add the theme back in.
[Insert the sound of a dozen geese spitting up hairballs here. And never you mind how the geese ingested that much hair in the first place.]
I agree with other posters: calling this a "sports action" game is a travesty (perhaps just generic "action" game would have been better).
But more importantly, the theme (which does fit it rather well) makes it unpopular with a lot of people. One person can't play it alone, and two guys aren't going to play it together unless they're very sure of their masculinity (which eliminates most of the/. crowd, judging by the trolls). It's an original concept (apart from the versus mode in Amplitude for the PS2), but one which the theme and background of will guarantee few people will want to play. That's unfortunate.
Frankly, I'm one of the lardbutts. And I felt the need to contribute here rather than spend mod-points.
As I read the obesity research literature, I realized that its far from simple to lose weight. Its obvious what we need to do: burn more calories than we take in. However, it is surprisingly hard to do this, and not because obese people are lazy or unmotivated. Our bodies are essentially optimized to maintain body weight, even when that weight is more than it should be for optimal health. This may make sense from an evolutionary standpoint (we've spent most of our time dealing with food shortages, not overabundance), but it makes it very, very hard for a person to lose weight once they've gained it.
As one of the lardbutts, I got the usual advice from the usual sources. Eat less, exercise more, blah blah blah yakkity-shmakkity. And don't get me started on the gorge-yourself-on-fat-fall-into-a-coma-and-soak-up -water-like-a-sponge^WAtkins diet.
Then I visited a sports nutritionist (safe for work but kind of tacky) who said that I should be eating MUCH more than I had been--well over 3000 calories a day!--as well as exercising. The goal is to get the body OUT of thinking that it's dealing with food shortages so that it burns off the reserves. He makes other suggestions which, because I don't want to steal his business, I don't want to post here.
It's another counter-intuitive leap, and one which few people can accept because it goes against conventional wisdom (which in my experience is neither).
I managed to lose almost 100# before some sort of meltdown during which I slowly put most of it back on again. Now my schedule's in the shitter so not only can I not get to the gym as regularly as I should, but I'm ALSO not eating enough because I don't have the opportunities or resources to do so. But the technique has worked well in the past for others who DO have the time and resources to dedicate to the program.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an advertisement (maybe I shouldn't have posted that link). I just wanted to point out that the counter-intuitive behavior of the body has a counter-intuitive remedy in diet.
All you need to do to get a secure Windows OS is... upgrade. Big surprise.
Yes, but for how long? You know the cycle...
New virus/worm/Trojan/evil computer foo-foo comes out
The media panics
Networks get brought down all over
Microsoft releases a new patch/update/upgrade/evil computer foo-foo remover
Most (not all) users download and install it
The media breathes a sigh of relief (Pesky hysterical media)
Microsoft touts its responsiveness and newly beefed-up security
Serious professional/irate former employee/script kiddie/rabid chipmunk accepts the newly-issued challenge
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
???
Prof--NO!! Damnit, it's too easy!
Now, either every patch that Microsoft releases introduces the new security holes which the bug du jour enters through, or there are more holes than anybody can imagine and Microsoft is putting out the forest fire one tree at a time. It's more likely that each patch takes out a few of the existing problems, perhaps introduces one, and barely puts a dent in the collected security holes in Windows.
And remember that not everybody patches. There are probably people out there running viruses that were fixed four or five patches ago. A few of those old-timers on a network, and the bug doesn't have to infect your machine; all it has to do is choke your network with its feeble attempts to infect you.
So taking your previous thought, all you need to do to get a secure Windows OS is... upgrade everybody with a patch that fixes everything that's wrong with Windows. Big chore.
When it first came out there were laws passed banning skating and if you were out on the sidewalk on your board a cop would surely stop you. Now you can find public skate parks in most cities that are supported by the local government.
Perhaps that's not the best example to work with. Anything which enables someone to travel quickly on a sidewalk, possibly bumping people out of the way, will probably get jumped on by local authorities. They tend not to allow you to ride bicycles on the sidewalks, and driving a car is right out. (Trust me on this.)
The skatepark arose as a solution to that problem. They still can't let hooligans loose on crowded sidewalks with those things, so they sponsor a place where they can be used to full effect. (More often than not, though, I think the skateparks are owned by private individuals, not local governments.)
The skatepark isn't an overall acceptance of the hobby, it's just a solution to an old problem: where can someone use a skateboard that won't knock people over?
Apple is very kind. When I brought in my iBook for repair because of that nasty Logic Board problem, Apple serviced and delivered my computer free of charge for me.
Your experience is not indicative of everyone else's, unfortunately. Yes, I would say that the Apple experience is generally nicer than with some companies (despite their assurances), but people will either agree based on their own experiences or disagree based on their own experiences. There's no use convincing people that their impression may be erroneous in any way.
People will tend to show loyalty to a [computer|operating system|productivity package|device|office chair], until they don't want to any more. When something breaks, they'll either persevere and stick it out through the problem (replacing the troublesome part if need be) or, as is often the story, they've had it with this POS and will jump ship as soon as they have the money and find something which they think will be more reliable.
It's not unique to Apple switchers, either. Sometimes people get fed up and go to Windows. Or they get fed up with both and move to Linux. Or they get sick of Linux and move back to what burned them least the last time. It's called turnover, people. Microsoft could give away puppies. Apple could give away chocolate-covered gold ingots on a stick. Michael Dell himself could give each and every loyal (and willing) customer a BJ. Turnover may approach, but will never equal, zero.
Computer companies can try to lock in customers using whatever proprietary mechanisms they want, but if users still struggle enough against those locks (cough*LONGHORN*cough), they will still jump ship and cut their considerable losses -- a process not unlike an animal gnawing off its own leg to escape a trap. The best defense against customers leaving is to create a product that will least likely drive the customer away in the first place. That means quality control, reliability, and user experience.
That would seem to be Apple, but sooner or later everybody gets fed up with something.
Can you imagine the outcry if someone actually made a game where the objective was to pirate music/movies/software while staying one step ahead of the FBI? Assuming it was a good game, people would, of course play it, but the PR for the gaming industry would be...very bad.
...
Combining the two? I think perhaps it's just unrealistic. The penalties for breaking corporate sponsored laws are usual severe, but rarely involve things like special ops teams assassinating you.
I just want you to know that those two have just combined in my head in ways that would scare a whole lotta people. Thanks!!
Given some of the comments I saw on the previous posting about D&D celebrating its 30th birthday (from the perspective of many gamers, it might as well have been born in the Cretacious period), some of you might not remember all of the anti-D&D hype. Remember the time, when religious groups were practically crawling out of the woodwork (or out from under rocks in some cases) claiming how dangerous these things were?
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
The way D&D got its breathing room back then was by taking note of which research the critics cited, noting which research specifically refuted that research, and making sure that got brought up whenever the bad research cropped up. Note especially the efforts of the CAR-PGa in that advocacy; they were set up primarily as a clearinghouse for that information.
The goal was simple and straightforward: find the false information that got repeated as gospel (irony intended) by those groups, and refute it hard whenever it got quoted. Eventually, most got the point. Anti-gaming groups were shamed, reporters who relied on sensationalism had their reputations sullied for not checking facts, and people either decided that it either wasn't really worth attacking or was too dangerous to attack.
But you know what? It's still going on. Groups sufficiently uneducated (including police organizations) are much fewer and farther between, but they can occasionally still be found. Just head for the center of the ever-expanding cloud of methane.
(This is a big day for questions for me!) What computer gaming advocacy groups are there out there that we can turn to in our hour of need? And if there aren't any, who wants to form one?
This is only accurate to the degree that everyone else is willing to follow the rule of law. When that is not the case, as seems inevitable, society must have organizations which operate outside the usual limits in order to enforce said laws.
Can anyone direct me to a contemporary military-type videogame of this sort which deals with the problems caused when a significant percentage (I'd call 30% significant) of people start breaking the smaller corporate-sponsored laws and the government starts breaking the really big laws? Because I can't name any off the top of my head.
Maybe contemporary video games aren't political enough...?
Let's say Apple ruled the domain. Everyone ran on Apple's hardware, ran OSX, etc. Would everyone start treating them like they treat Microsoft?
How did Microsoft come to dominate the market, if not through their business practices? They got big not necessarily by being better, but also by kneecapping those who did better with system "improvements" which happened to break their implementations. (see also "anti-competetive practices.")
Would people treat Apple as bad as Microsoft if they were as big as Microsoft? Maybe not quite as bad. It'd be close, anyway. Sure, they user experience would be better (for most, anyway), but Big Apple'd probably still keep their architecture closed, and given their history of litigating against people who try to copy their look, their legal department would eventually need their own zip code. For that alone, people would come to despise them even moreso than now.
In any case, there would be many happy and complacent with the leader, even if that company were chaired by Satan himself. At a dinner out a few years ago, my father voiced the opinion that the world should standardize on Windows. (Hint: he's old and doesn't want to learn anything else)
And then some are just never satisfied with the leader. Some like buying cars, fully loaded, off the showroom floor and tooling around in them the same day. Others like assembling the parts themselves. For those who like getting into their boxen up to their elbows and rewriting parts of the operating systems to fill their need, there would still be a need for Linux.
It also bears mentioning that if Big Apple is anything like Current Apple, they'd probably be finessing and romancing Linux instead of using FUD. Except where Linux copied Apple's looks, in which case in go those damned lawyers again! So Big Apple's business practices would earn them a few less brickbats, that's all.
And as for your other question:
is the hatred/.'ers have toward Microsoft truly due to their business practices, or simply because they dominate the market?
This could easily be an occasion where they raid a place to make an example. They get media coverage. They use this as a scare tactic to get other places to believe they will do it.
You know, there are words that one could use for a government which has to enforce rule by "scare tactic." And those words get prefaced by other words that Rev. Ashcroft would strongly disapprove of to describe a government that enforces rule by "scare tactic" at the request of private organizations, especially ones membered by companies charged with price fixing.
Never mind the debate over "copyright infringement" vs. "theft"; it's not just a matter of who's not helping the RIAA and MPAA roll around in a big pile of money any more. If the government has to resort to measures like this to enforce unpopular laws, if they have to infringe upon everyone's rights (especially those that weren't even thinking of violating those rules before) in order to inconvenience those responsible, then the law, the FBI, and quite possibly the government itself has to change.
I'd like to think that the Founding Fathers (yes, I'm invoking those hoary old bastards; this doesn't bode well for my Karma) intended that bit in the Constitution about restricted "search and seizure" so that people don't get their rights all infringed and trampled on with jackboots unless there's sufficient probable cause against specific individuals. It would also be useful so that the innocent-but-accused don't get victimized by the authorities that are supposed to be protecting them.
In this case, everyone got their access cut because of the actions of a few. As a precedent, it'd be pathetic if it weren't so scary.
(I also have very specific ideas about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion," but those are off-topic for this discussion.)
...when they talk about the integrity of an album and say that it's an artistic crime (A crime, I say!) to sell songs by track rather than as a whole. And in the face of the greats mentioned in this thread ("The Wall," "Tommy," "Dark Side of the Moon,"...now I gotta look up Greendale), it sounds like a valid argument.
What I find laughable now is that there are modern recording "ahh-tistes" who use that exact same argument Think about it: Pink Floyd. The Who. The Beatles. Brittney Spears. One of these things is not like the others... (cue theme music)
I haven't heard of any really recent albums that deserve to massage the feet of, much less rival the caliber of, the greats. (Maybe I'm just culturally disadvantaged. Anyone got counterexamples of recent music which actually belongs in album format?)
Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?
I think a better question is: why don't we call them on their claims of being proper [Christians|Muslims|*]? They say that "the less a politician amounts to, the more he loves the flag." A similar parallel could be drawn to the Shakespearean observation, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."
I put it to you (nay, everybody) that most people responsible for the crap going on today are shabby examples of piety at best and their hypocrisy should be pointed out soon and repeatedly. For instance, I've heard it said that proper Christians don't resort to lawsuits... After that, the question becomes what to do about them. It's like my favorite twist on an old saying, "If we outlaw guns, then how will we shoot the conservatives?"
The argument is usually phrased as "Convenience vs Security." They can be seen as being opposed. That's not quite the same as "Usability vs Vulnerability" but that's the direction your friends' arguments were pointing.
Given that you're comparing a pair of synonyms against a pair of antonyms, it's easy to get confused. Which describes 85% of the semantic arguments around here, I'm afraid.
I'm not sure that it always holds true that you have a single gradient between Convenience and Security. You can have elements of both, and it's not just a fractional position between two extremes.
I'll go one better, and claim flat-out that you can have both, and they're not playing a zero-sum game, bearing in mind that there's no way a system can be made either 100% secure (*cough*LONGHORN*cough*) or 100% convenient ("Okay, I plugged in the computer and turned it on. Where's the document that I'm thinking of?")
Imagine the computer as a house. It's a place where you keep your stuff. (Yes, kids, here comes the analogy!)
Within that house, usability is a matter of placing light switches and doorknobs so that they're both within easy reach and easily recognizeable as such. It's a matter of leaving a clear path between rooms, unblocked by furniture. It's a matter of making doorways large enough (or using furniture thin enough) that you can moving things around if you must. To the person that lives within it, usability is a matter of making as much as possible convenient and accessible.
And within that house, security is a matter of sturdy locks on the doors and windows that close firmly, without room to stick a credit card in. It's also a matter of denying spaces within to those that don't need it. It may involve locking certain rooms, or if those rooms must be left open, then locking those few cabinets that contain dangerous things (like bleach and ammonia) or putting those dangerous things up and out of reach. Security is as great as possible a deterrant against anyone outside the house who doesn't have a key or permission to be there, and safeguards within the house to keep the unwary from setting the curtains on fire with a misplaced candle.
(A third analogy could be made for attractive design: things that are pleasing to the eye. But those lend nothing to security, and may sometimes even get in the way of usability: curtains may obscure doors. Furniture may be quite comfy and eye-catching but still be in the way.)
In that way, it is possible to have a house be both secure and usable. It's maximizing and facilitating access to what may be used at any time, and minimizing or restricting access to that which could do more harm than good.
As for what this all has to do with software, everybody can figure that it. Besides, all I promised to do was provide the analogy.:)
But is it really that simple? Can all security threats be stopped before they start, or should the government be held accountable for part of it? Seems to me like they are trying to lay some responsibility on the big corporations (not a horribly bad thing) but the reasons behind this are not good. I think their attention is focused in the wrong places. Their attitude is that creating colored alert systems and making duct tape warnings is of more importance than securing the global internet infrastructure.
I've seen this discussed dozens of times. Making something 100% secure is pretty much impossible. I've seen it in the 9/11 deconstructionism, I've seen it in the arguments for/against DRM, and now I'm seeing it in computer security.
Making something completely secure is folly. Telling someone else to make something completely secure is setting that person up for failure, which I wouldn't put past this administration.
And putting the responsibility of computer security in the chief executives? ("What color should we make the database?" "I hear mauve has the most RAM") I'll be waiting, over THERE (pointing very far away). Gimme a shout when it's over. Or I'll just listen for the explosion.
Some people haven't thought through this "roleplaying" thing enough to realize that it's not just about them. People who try to play the absolute bestest of the bestest need to realize that what they're doing is not just aggrandizing themselves, but putting great effort into upstaging others with their wishfully wondrous accomplishments.
On the Bartle scale, I'd have to qualify someone like that either as a KS- or a SK-. They couldn't care less about the world, all they want to deal with is the people, and the preferred form of dealing-with is "oohing and ahhing."
These people need a dose of balance, and not necessarily administered orally either. There are no shortage of point-based systems (like Hero or GURPS) which will enforce power level restrictions through scarcity. They will try to build their ubercharacter, fail, and then say that this is a stupid game, of course. (Sour grapes make the best whine.) Coerce them however you can to build something that fits in with everyone else, and then remind them repeatedly that it's an ensamble game, and that everyone else has a part in it too.
Yes, I know, those aren't MU* systems. But there are places that run them. As I run one of them, I won't publish any links; I don't want to slashdot myself!
Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes. The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.
Counterpoint: sex is an obsession to the USA. But many people fear it and want to see it stamped out. For this reason, many Europeans see the USA as a nation of seriously strung-out, hung-up, sexually deprived people ready to go postal at a moment's notice.
The tone of the paragraph suggests that not only are those Americans insufficiently intolerant of it, but so are many Europeans!!
The strategy in the 1980s resulted in a lot of extreme pornography - dealing in urination, violence or bestiality - going underground. Today, with the Internet, international producers and a substantial market, industry officials say there is no underground.
Of course, knowing how some Republicans are with computers, someone could take out the domain http://www.barelylegalteenagegirlswearingskidmarke dboxers.com/, and they'd think that was somehow hidden too.
Here's to hoping that Ashcroft gets his ass... well, I'm not going to say "kicked." Let the punishment fit the crime, I say
Others have tried to capitalize in other ways upon the creative process by quantifying and boiling it down to as simple a process as possible. (With varying success.)
I'd say that the process of creativity can't exactly be taught, but it can be inspired by teaching people to think in different ways. The teaching shows them the door. Creativity doesn't happen until they go through and start to explore.
The following quote struck a chord. And when I changed a word or two in it, I found out why:
And, really, that sort of attitude is disgusting. While it is profitable in the short term, it encourages an attitude of "eating your young" which harms the long-term health of the industry. Publishers should really be looking to establish partnerships with artists in order to create quality music.
The notion of an industry grinding its creative force down to a soggy little nub isn't exactly a new idea. The two-word change should sound warning bells: if left unchecked, I consider it possible for the game industry of today to more and more resemble the music industry of today.
id got ther start producing a shareware product, as you said. It would behoove other game designers, especially those with solid concepts, to go a similar route, establish names for themselves before going to producers, and using their leverage to neegotiate an honest contract at least. (And this gives me some clue how to go about developing my game idea...!)
Using the internet for distribution might also have the side-effect of weeding out the weaklings, although as things are now it could also do more harm than good:
Meridian 59, all humility aside, is the best PvP experience you can get in any online RPG. Yet, a lot of people simply cannot get past production values and really appreciate the gameplay. And, hey, I'd love to have the prettyest graphics and the neatest animations, but that costs a lot of money, and the only way I'd be able to get that money is to sign a publisher contract in my own blood.
(Spoken like a true proud papa!):)
And thus, another problem with another industry can be tracked to consumers. Personally, I think it's the consumer's duty to buy what they consider the best product on the market, even if they have to go somewhat out of their way to do so -- the notion of "voting with your wallet" taken to its logical conclusion. But, as you observe, consumers aren't focused as much on gameplay and story as they are on "ferret factor" -- whatever sound and graphics put the hardware on their high-end workstation-grade PC to the most (not necessarily best) use.
Producers are most interested in producing what the most consumers (seem to) want to buy. Either the consumers need to grow up or the producers need to take a better look at what they're really producing.
I tried the first screenshot, and it actually worked! I could see some detail in the background, I could see jagged pieces and textures in between textures... and then I look to the side and Ker-FUBAR!
"Okay, who took my focus? I knew I had it here a minute ago..."
Either people playing Magic-Eye QUAKE 2 use mouselook like their heads have been spot-welded to their shoulders, or whenever they look to the sides of the screen their focus will break like the wind.
Slashdot Mirror
No, just someone who's observed that when a government, be it at the federal, state, or county level, begins to run short of cash, it looks at trying to squeeze more from the people long before it tries to figure out where the waste is occurring. It's like riding in a leaky dirigible: they reason that if they can keep pumping in more gas (hydrogen, helium, or whatever) than is leaking out, then everything will be all right.
Think about it. So many poor, pathetic legislators have a problem just saying no to the ultimate addictive substance: other peoples' money.
IQ tests wouldn't quite be right for this; one can be slow to put facts together, yet still able to pull the right facts out of the environment to come (eventually) to a valid conclusion. It's a matter of being able to see what information is available, not assume what isn't available, and even if the whole picture isn't available, using what you've got to make an educated guess. It would be more of a "savvy" test. But some sort of testing method, impartial and incontrovertible, would be needed for something like this.
Come on, admit it. If you're stuck at a toll bridge in the exact change lane behind someone with nothing but a twenty, most peoples' thoughts will stray, however momentarily, to putting a better filter on the gene pool.
Or maybe you don't. Interestingly, I never said anything about appointing myself Minister of Intelligence Standards.
Goodbye logic, hello ad hominem attack! So tell me, what's your solution to the problem of people who get addicted to things? (And don't tell me you don't have an opinion...)So many of the world's problems could be solved if we could separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff, so to speak: those people who can't differentiate fantasy from reality, or who are prone to getting hooked on whatever "big thing" that comes along, be it drugs, alcohol, pornography, roleplaying games, or tax legislation.
Those people who can't handle reality should be pulled out of it and treated like the children they are. They're giving the rest of us a bad name. If they can't tell fantasy from reality, we shouldn't let them watch television. And if they're terminally gullible, they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote; politicians can be tricky.
I'd vote technocrat, only I've got nobody to vote for.
For what it's worth, I've been a follower of SJG for a long time, and I admit that SJ has some particular notions of defending his intellectual property. But overall, it hasn't hurt them over the long haul. If SJG's peculiar stance on their properties shows anything, it's how well SJ understands how bent copyright law is, not how greedy or IP-happy SJ is.
To drag this kicking and screaming back on topic, it raises a question: how far does the copyright on one of those games stretch? The source code? Source code and specific images? Because saying that the copyright applies to not only the source code but to any possible image that might emerge from playing it seems unreasonable. Specific presentation images may be covered by that, but general screenshots probably shouldn't.
Then I mentally add the theme back in.
[Insert the sound of a dozen geese spitting up hairballs here. And never you mind how the geese ingested that much hair in the first place.]
I agree with other posters: calling this a "sports action" game is a travesty (perhaps just generic "action" game would have been better).
But more importantly, the theme (which does fit it rather well) makes it unpopular with a lot of people. One person can't play it alone, and two guys aren't going to play it together unless they're very sure of their masculinity (which eliminates most of the /. crowd, judging by the trolls). It's an original concept (apart from the versus mode in Amplitude for the PS2), but one which the theme and background of will guarantee few people will want to play. That's unfortunate.
Then I visited a sports nutritionist (safe for work but kind of tacky) who said that I should be eating MUCH more than I had been--well over 3000 calories a day!--as well as exercising. The goal is to get the body OUT of thinking that it's dealing with food shortages so that it burns off the reserves. He makes other suggestions which, because I don't want to steal his business, I don't want to post here.
It's another counter-intuitive leap, and one which few people can accept because it goes against conventional wisdom (which in my experience is neither).
I managed to lose almost 100# before some sort of meltdown during which I slowly put most of it back on again. Now my schedule's in the shitter so not only can I not get to the gym as regularly as I should, but I'm ALSO not eating enough because I don't have the opportunities or resources to do so. But the technique has worked well in the past for others who DO have the time and resources to dedicate to the program.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an advertisement (maybe I shouldn't have posted that link). I just wanted to point out that the counter-intuitive behavior of the body has a counter-intuitive remedy in diet.
- New virus/worm/Trojan/evil computer foo-foo comes out
- The media panics
- Networks get brought down all over
- Microsoft releases a new patch/update/upgrade/evil computer foo-foo remover
- Most (not all) users download and install it
- The media breathes a sigh of relief (Pesky hysterical media)
- Microsoft touts its responsiveness and newly beefed-up security
- Serious professional/irate former employee/script kiddie/rabid chipmunk accepts the newly-issued challenge
- Lather
- Rinse
- Repeat
- ???
- Prof--NO!! Damnit, it's too easy!
Now, either every patch that Microsoft releases introduces the new security holes which the bug du jour enters through, or there are more holes than anybody can imagine and Microsoft is putting out the forest fire one tree at a time. It's more likely that each patch takes out a few of the existing problems, perhaps introduces one, and barely puts a dent in the collected security holes in Windows.And remember that not everybody patches. There are probably people out there running viruses that were fixed four or five patches ago. A few of those old-timers on a network, and the bug doesn't have to infect your machine; all it has to do is choke your network with its feeble attempts to infect you.
So taking your previous thought, all you need to do to get a secure Windows OS is... upgrade everybody with a patch that fixes everything that's wrong with Windows. Big chore.
The skatepark arose as a solution to that problem. They still can't let hooligans loose on crowded sidewalks with those things, so they sponsor a place where they can be used to full effect. (More often than not, though, I think the skateparks are owned by private individuals, not local governments.)
The skatepark isn't an overall acceptance of the hobby, it's just a solution to an old problem: where can someone use a skateboard that won't knock people over?
People will tend to show loyalty to a [computer|operating system|productivity package|device|office chair], until they don't want to any more. When something breaks, they'll either persevere and stick it out through the problem (replacing the troublesome part if need be) or, as is often the story, they've had it with this POS and will jump ship as soon as they have the money and find something which they think will be more reliable.
It's not unique to Apple switchers, either. Sometimes people get fed up and go to Windows. Or they get fed up with both and move to Linux. Or they get sick of Linux and move back to what burned them least the last time. It's called turnover, people. Microsoft could give away puppies. Apple could give away chocolate-covered gold ingots on a stick. Michael Dell himself could give each and every loyal (and willing) customer a BJ. Turnover may approach, but will never equal, zero.
Computer companies can try to lock in customers using whatever proprietary mechanisms they want, but if users still struggle enough against those locks (cough*LONGHORN*cough), they will still jump ship and cut their considerable losses -- a process not unlike an animal gnawing off its own leg to escape a trap. The best defense against customers leaving is to create a product that will least likely drive the customer away in the first place. That means quality control, reliability, and user experience.
That would seem to be Apple, but sooner or later everybody gets fed up with something.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
The way D&D got its breathing room back then was by taking note of which research the critics cited, noting which research specifically refuted that research, and making sure that got brought up whenever the bad research cropped up. Note especially the efforts of the CAR-PGa in that advocacy; they were set up primarily as a clearinghouse for that information.
The goal was simple and straightforward: find the false information that got repeated as gospel (irony intended) by those groups, and refute it hard whenever it got quoted. Eventually, most got the point. Anti-gaming groups were shamed, reporters who relied on sensationalism had their reputations sullied for not checking facts, and people either decided that it either wasn't really worth attacking or was too dangerous to attack.
But you know what? It's still going on. Groups sufficiently uneducated (including police organizations) are much fewer and farther between, but they can occasionally still be found. Just head for the center of the ever-expanding cloud of methane.
(This is a big day for questions for me!) What computer gaming advocacy groups are there out there that we can turn to in our hour of need? And if there aren't any, who wants to form one?
Can anyone direct me to a contemporary military-type videogame of this sort which deals with the problems caused when a significant percentage (I'd call 30% significant) of people start breaking the smaller corporate-sponsored laws and the government starts breaking the really big laws? Because I can't name any off the top of my head.
Maybe contemporary video games aren't political enough...?
How did Microsoft come to dominate the market, if not through their business practices? They got big not necessarily by being better, but also by kneecapping those who did better with system "improvements" which happened to break their implementations. (see also "anti-competetive practices.")
Would people treat Apple as bad as Microsoft if they were as big as Microsoft? Maybe not quite as bad. It'd be close, anyway. Sure, they user experience would be better (for most, anyway), but Big Apple'd probably still keep their architecture closed, and given their history of litigating against people who try to copy their look, their legal department would eventually need their own zip code. For that alone, people would come to despise them even moreso than now.
In any case, there would be many happy and complacent with the leader, even if that company were chaired by Satan himself. At a dinner out a few years ago, my father voiced the opinion that the world should standardize on Windows. (Hint: he's old and doesn't want to learn anything else)
And then some are just never satisfied with the leader. Some like buying cars, fully loaded, off the showroom floor and tooling around in them the same day. Others like assembling the parts themselves. For those who like getting into their boxen up to their elbows and rewriting parts of the operating systems to fill their need, there would still be a need for Linux.
It also bears mentioning that if Big Apple is anything like Current Apple, they'd probably be finessing and romancing Linux instead of using FUD. Except where Linux copied Apple's looks, in which case in go those damned lawyers again! So Big Apple's business practices would earn them a few less brickbats, that's all.
And as for your other question:
Sadly, some /.'ers hate anything that isn't Linux.
You know, there are words that one could use for a government which has to enforce rule by "scare tactic." And those words get prefaced by other words that Rev. Ashcroft would strongly disapprove of to describe a government that enforces rule by "scare tactic" at the request of private organizations, especially ones membered by companies charged with price fixing.
Never mind the debate over "copyright infringement" vs. "theft"; it's not just a matter of who's not helping the RIAA and MPAA roll around in a big pile of money any more. If the government has to resort to measures like this to enforce unpopular laws, if they have to infringe upon everyone's rights (especially those that weren't even thinking of violating those rules before) in order to inconvenience those responsible, then the law, the FBI, and quite possibly the government itself has to change.
I'd like to think that the Founding Fathers (yes, I'm invoking those hoary old bastards; this doesn't bode well for my Karma) intended that bit in the Constitution about restricted "search and seizure" so that people don't get their rights all infringed and trampled on with jackboots unless there's sufficient probable cause against specific individuals. It would also be useful so that the innocent-but-accused don't get victimized by the authorities that are supposed to be protecting them.
In this case, everyone got their access cut because of the actions of a few. As a precedent, it'd be pathetic if it weren't so scary.
(I also have very specific ideas about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion," but those are off-topic for this discussion.)
...when they talk about the integrity of an album and say that it's an artistic crime (A crime, I say!) to sell songs by track rather than as a whole. And in the face of the greats mentioned in this thread ("The Wall," "Tommy," "Dark Side of the Moon," ...now I gotta look up Greendale), it sounds like a valid argument.
What I find laughable now is that there are modern recording "ahh-tistes" who use that exact same argument Think about it: Pink Floyd. The Who. The Beatles. Brittney Spears. One of these things is not like the others... (cue theme music)
I haven't heard of any really recent albums that deserve to massage the feet of, much less rival the caliber of, the greats. (Maybe I'm just culturally disadvantaged. Anyone got counterexamples of recent music which actually belongs in album format?)
I think a better question is: why don't we call them on their claims of being proper [Christians|Muslims|*]? They say that "the less a politician amounts to, the more he loves the flag." A similar parallel could be drawn to the Shakespearean observation, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."
I put it to you (nay, everybody) that most people responsible for the crap going on today are shabby examples of piety at best and their hypocrisy should be pointed out soon and repeatedly. For instance, I've heard it said that proper Christians don't resort to lawsuits... After that, the question becomes what to do about them. It's like my favorite twist on an old saying, "If we outlaw guns, then how will we shoot the conservatives?"
Given that you're comparing a pair of synonyms against a pair of antonyms, it's easy to get confused. Which describes 85% of the semantic arguments around here, I'm afraid.
I'll go one better, and claim flat-out that you can have both, and they're not playing a zero-sum game, bearing in mind that there's no way a system can be made either 100% secure (*cough*LONGHORN*cough*) or 100% convenient ("Okay, I plugged in the computer and turned it on. Where's the document that I'm thinking of?")
Imagine the computer as a house. It's a place where you keep your stuff. (Yes, kids, here comes the analogy!)
Within that house, usability is a matter of placing light switches and doorknobs so that they're both within easy reach and easily recognizeable as such. It's a matter of leaving a clear path between rooms, unblocked by furniture. It's a matter of making doorways large enough (or using furniture thin enough) that you can moving things around if you must. To the person that lives within it, usability is a matter of making as much as possible convenient and accessible.And within that house, security is a matter of sturdy locks on the doors and windows that close firmly, without room to stick a credit card in. It's also a matter of denying spaces within to those that don't need it. It may involve locking certain rooms, or if those rooms must be left open, then locking those few cabinets that contain dangerous things (like bleach and ammonia) or putting those dangerous things up and out of reach. Security is as great as possible a deterrant against anyone outside the house who doesn't have a key or permission to be there, and safeguards within the house to keep the unwary from setting the curtains on fire with a misplaced candle.
(A third analogy could be made for attractive design: things that are pleasing to the eye. But those lend nothing to security, and may sometimes even get in the way of usability: curtains may obscure doors. Furniture may be quite comfy and eye-catching but still be in the way.)
In that way, it is possible to have a house be both secure and usable. It's maximizing and facilitating access to what may be used at any time, and minimizing or restricting access to that which could do more harm than good.
As for what this all has to do with software, everybody can figure that it. Besides, all I promised to do was provide the analogy. :)
I've seen this discussed dozens of times. Making something 100% secure is pretty much impossible. I've seen it in the 9/11 deconstructionism, I've seen it in the arguments for/against DRM, and now I'm seeing it in computer security.
Making something completely secure is folly. Telling someone else to make something completely secure is setting that person up for failure, which I wouldn't put past this administration.
And putting the responsibility of computer security in the chief executives? ("What color should we make the database?" "I hear mauve has the most RAM") I'll be waiting, over THERE (pointing very far away). Gimme a shout when it's over. Or I'll just listen for the explosion.
Some people haven't thought through this "roleplaying" thing enough to realize that it's not just about them. People who try to play the absolute bestest of the bestest need to realize that what they're doing is not just aggrandizing themselves, but putting great effort into upstaging others with their wishfully wondrous accomplishments.
On the Bartle scale, I'd have to qualify someone like that either as a KS- or a SK-. They couldn't care less about the world, all they want to deal with is the people, and the preferred form of dealing-with is "oohing and ahhing."
These people need a dose of balance, and not necessarily administered orally either. There are no shortage of point-based systems (like Hero or GURPS) which will enforce power level restrictions through scarcity. They will try to build their ubercharacter, fail, and then say that this is a stupid game, of course. (Sour grapes make the best whine.) Coerce them however you can to build something that fits in with everyone else, and then remind them repeatedly that it's an ensamble game, and that everyone else has a part in it too.
Yes, I know, those aren't MU* systems. But there are places that run them. As I run one of them, I won't publish any links; I don't want to slashdot myself!
Counterpoint: sex is an obsession to the USA. But many people fear it and want to see it stamped out. For this reason, many Europeans see the USA as a nation of seriously strung-out, hung-up, sexually deprived people ready to go postal at a moment's notice.
The tone of the paragraph suggests that not only are those Americans insufficiently intolerant of it, but so are many Europeans!!
*cough*FREENET*cough*
Of course, knowing how some Republicans are with computers, someone could take out the domain http://www.barelylegalteenagegirlswearingskidmarke dboxers.com/, and they'd think that was somehow hidden too.
Here's to hoping that Ashcroft gets his ass... well, I'm not going to say "kicked." Let the punishment fit the crime, I say
"Imagineering."
Others have tried to capitalize in other ways upon the creative process by quantifying and boiling it down to as simple a process as possible. (With varying success.)
I'd say that the process of creativity can't exactly be taught, but it can be inspired by teaching people to think in different ways. The teaching shows them the door. Creativity doesn't happen until they go through and start to explore.
I believe they are one and the same. However, notice that in the text of the article, not once did he ever mention the N-
Hah! Close, but I didn't fall for it!
The following quote struck a chord. And when I changed a word or two in it, I found out why:
The notion of an industry grinding its creative force down to a soggy little nub isn't exactly a new idea. The two-word change should sound warning bells: if left unchecked, I consider it possible for the game industry of today to more and more resemble the music industry of today.
id got ther start producing a shareware product, as you said. It would behoove other game designers, especially those with solid concepts, to go a similar route, establish names for themselves before going to producers, and using their leverage to neegotiate an honest contract at least. (And this gives me some clue how to go about developing my game idea...!)
Using the internet for distribution might also have the side-effect of weeding out the weaklings, although as things are now it could also do more harm than good:
(Spoken like a true proud papa!) :)
And thus, another problem with another industry can be tracked to consumers. Personally, I think it's the consumer's duty to buy what they consider the best product on the market, even if they have to go somewhat out of their way to do so -- the notion of "voting with your wallet" taken to its logical conclusion. But, as you observe, consumers aren't focused as much on gameplay and story as they are on "ferret factor" -- whatever sound and graphics put the hardware on their high-end workstation-grade PC to the most (not necessarily best) use.
Producers are most interested in producing what the most consumers (seem to) want to buy. Either the consumers need to grow up or the producers need to take a better look at what they're really producing.
I tried the first screenshot, and it actually worked! I could see some detail in the background, I could see jagged pieces and textures in between textures... and then I look to the side and Ker-FUBAR!
"Okay, who took my focus? I knew I had it here a minute ago..."
Either people playing Magic-Eye QUAKE 2 use mouselook like their heads have been spot-welded to their shoulders, or whenever they look to the sides of the screen their focus will break like the wind.
Who remembers Sony's television commercial for the PS9, the entertainment system you inhale so it can access your brain directly?
(If someone has a link to the commercial itself, please share!