In its defense, Sony said the PS3 failures were caused by unusually high temperatures created by having many of the next-gen consoles operating in close proximity to each other.
Fortunately, most consumers are quite diligent when it comes to ensuring that their game consoles are properly positioned in a well-ventilated area with adequate clearance on all sides. I don't predict much trouble with people laying the damn thing on the carpet; butting the air vents up against the wall; setting it next to the radiator; cramming it into their entertainment center's shelf between the TiVo, XBox, and a bunch of DVDs; putting stuff on top of it; or anything else that your typical consumer would simply never dream of doing to a game console.
If you put a hold on it, nobody votes on the measure. It goes nowhere. If you don't put a hold on it, it gets voted on, you're in the minority, and it passes into law.
Now, can you think of any impending dates of political importance that might give one of the most earmark-happy Senators in Washington reason to try and delay this sort of legislation? Delay it until, say, most of America isn't paying attention to what's going on in Washington?
You're talking about spending $233,000,000 in federeal funds to build a bridge to serve a community of 7,500 people. That's roughly $30,000 per resident.
How do you justify that, especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ferry that's been in operation for ages?
Now, you may ask, why would Sen. Stevens, father of the $250,000,000 "Bridge To Nowhere" , the King of Pork himself--why would this man ever want to put a hold on a bill such as this?
Given that evolution suggests selective improvement through change over time, I'd says that the grammatical skills of the Slashdot editors are evidence against that theory...
What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?
The kind of company that companies which wouldn't turn up their noses at $500 million doesn't want you to believe exists.
Companies can exist, thrive and even excel without taking advantage of every opportunity to maximize profit. This sort of company tends to be discomfiting to the type of company which would gladly throw some ads at you for extra revenue.
Companies like Craigslist and Costco--places that thrive on word of mouth, putting people ahead of profit, and genuine goodwill--tend to make "normal" companies uncomfortable. How do you compete when your competition has justly earned and kept the trust of the marketplace? How are you supposed to "optimize profits" with a consumer who knows what it feels like to be respected?
Wait, where did I say that Apple doesn't use DRM? Where did I say that the state of digital music today is all sunshine and puppies?
Yeah, Apple uses DRM. You think there's a single person on this board who doesn't know that yet? You think any of your pet advocacy points are news to anybody here?
But we believe digital downloads have emerged into a growing, thriving business
...yeah, after Apple dragged your sorry asses kicking and screaming into the digital age. After you tried everything in your power to make digital downloads as locked down, expensive, and all but impossible to effectively implement.
Digital downloads have emerged into a growing, thriving business despite your lot's best efforts to screw it all up.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or Playstation, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or pick-up a game of baseball, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or going out on the lake for a day on a friend's boat, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or hanging out at the local Denny's, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or mowing the lawn with the blunt edge of a butter knife, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
Seriously. If we're going to bemoan the fact that kids generally tend to prefer leisure activities to poring over the great classics of Western literature, we could at least pick something that most kids might actually enjoy reading, like Shakespeare (Serial regi-patri-fratricide? Poison-tipped swords? Mass slaughter? Hot chicks? Rawk!)
But Moby Dick--well, what teen wouldn't be utterly enthralled by a several-hundred-page long account of the finer points of the early American whaler's life and amateur deck-pacing?
...so once you leave the Stone Age of video game consoles, the non-crippled PS3's (inflation adjusted) nearest neighbors are as follows:
Neo Geo
3D0
PlayStation 3
CD-i
Sega Saturn
SONY, if you can pull this one off, you'll easily have the highest-priced success story in the history of video game consoles.
I don't think you can pull it off. $500-$600 is too much to pay for a video game console that, as far as I can tell, isn't doing that much of consequence to distinguish itself from the XBox 360 in the eyes of your average consumer.
Entirely too long, and I didn't really intend to to "take apart" the grandparent--if anything, I left the bulk of his points unanswered. The GP just struck the wrong nerve at the wrong time, and my post took on a life of its own...
...as you mention me by name, I feel compelled to respond to a few things:
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.
I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.
How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?
I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da
Frankly, I do not equate "individual civil servants willing to risk career, public castigation and prison time to do what is right" with "oversight". True oversight can only be performed by peers, not subordinates.
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten...and whoever is doing this leaking is going to go through absolute hell should they ever be found out.
As reported in the article, there is no evidence the government is tapping or listening in to the calls, merely looking at who's talking to whom.
...and since it's a secret program with no apparent oversight, you can be damn certain that there never will be any evidence of the government tapping or listening to the calls, unless somebody were to leak that information.
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
If the President were to wake up tomorrow morning and decide that Howard Dean needs to be monitored because the President believes Mr. Dean may be the recipient of leaked information, what is there to stop him from ordering the NSA to do just that, no questions asked? If the monitoring turned up all sorts of politically interesting information but no ties to terrorists, what stops the President from simply taking whatever information was gathered and using it for political gain?
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
For those of you who can't be bothered to read TFA, here's a quick summary:
Sony isn't going to win this round 'cuz they're too high off their own success to see the writing on the wall. How stupid are they? I mean, are they total morons? Could they possibly be any dumber? I mean, really--Sony is sooooo stupid!
For some reason, it took the author two pages to get this point across.
You got a proper alternator and a shoddy one. Right. Okay. How about this test. LOOK AT THE BOX!
If one comes with the logo of your car brand and the other comes in a plastic bag with chinese instructions. Easy choice.
...yes, because a skilled counterfeiter wouldn't have the sense to duplicate a manufacturer's packaging, just as a skilled phisher doesn't have the sense to use anything other than "Gimm3 ur info ha ha lollerbate sux0r!" as bait.
EVERY serious site has a disclaimer stating they will NOT ask you for your details by email. EVERY scam involves them sending an email asking for your details.
In the early days, yes. Now, many phishers have wised up. They'll send you a phish that, save for one or two links, looks absolutely legitimate. You click the link, it sends you to a page at ebay.verification-department.com that mimics an actual eBay login page. You'll "log in", then they'll welcome you and very professionally gather your information--all, of course, after you've "logged in" to their system.
You can't cheat a honest man
Oh, you most certainly can. Just 'cause something rolls off the tongue nicely doesn't mean it's true.
and you can't phis a person who thinks.
Again, we're talking about attrition and trust. Unless you have a quite solid understanding of what phishing is, how to identify it, and how to go about avoiding it, you're going to eventually just trust something that looks legitimate enough. It's simply not feasible to expect that every single user of email will have enough technical know-how to identify and avoid getting phished.
You've got telephone slamming, you've got phishing, you've got insurance fraud, you've got pyramid schemes, you've got con artists--if we were all simply smart enough to know a rat when we saw one, none of these would be a problem. The problem is that many, many people have ductile minds and want to trust other people. If you're somebody who is willing to cheat another person out of their money, odds are that you'll eventually nail somebody. It's attrition, plain and simple--eventually, people simply let their guard down, even if only for a moment.
Let's say I handed you an alternator. Could you tell me whether or not it was a genuine, durable, manufacturer-approved alternator or a cheap, flimsy, fly-by-night knock-off? To be fair, I'll give you a sheet of paper with some advice on how to differentiate between genuine and knockoff alternators.
Let's say I handed you an entire crate of auto parts, and told you that some of them may be genuine parts, while others might be knockoffs. I give you a whole binder, filled with instructions on how to differentiate between all the different "good" and "bad" parts. Some of these knockoffs are obvious fakes; others are quite cleverly done, requiring you to check for minute details such as whether or not inner surfaces are well-polished, or subtle discrepancies in serial number schemes and product logos.
At what point do you just start winging it? After one day of studious sifting? After a week? A month? When you see a part that you're pretty sure is genuine, but would need to haul out the manual for ten minutes' worth of cross-checking part and serial number ranges to confirm this--at what point do you simply go with your gut?
When somebody who knows what they're doing goes about trying to hoodwink your typical individual, it can be very hard for the individual to know when they're being hoodwinked, even if they know they might be being hoodwinked. It's part of human nature--there's a point at which you just throw your hands in the air and grant your trust to an unknown entity, because it's too tedious or time-consuming to check everything out. Given the average person--heck, even a person who knows a fair amount about the subject--there'll be a point where they just take the damn part and have it installed in their car, because they just want to be done with it and get on with their life. It's the same thing with phishing--unless you're one of those few individuals who has fairly advanced knowledge on the subject, you're eventually going to give up and make a gut-reaction decision to whether or not you "trust" the email you just got, simply because it's more trouble than it's worth to actually dig through it.
If I can sell 5000 copies for $10 each, I can eat for a year. Doesn't sound too ambitious, I think. I hope.
That's actually a pretty ambitious goal, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility. More important is that you're clearly approaching this with a level head, which will be a lifesaver further down the line. While you're planning, consider some of the other essential facets of strategery games and tick off how you fare at them. A few off the top of my head: scenario-building, unit balance, and user interface. These are all areas that lean more towards "art" than "science", even though it may at first seem like a fairly straightforward matter of making the numbers match.
The day job is an absolute necessity, unless you're lucky enough to have other means to survive. Hang onto it until you're totally comfortable letting go!
Don't "just give up". Instead, come to terms with the fact that you can't compete with the big guys on their home field.
It's true that the bar is much, much higher for indies than it is for the big guys. A mediocre sports title from EA will still fly off the shelves; a mediocre sports title from Bob's Country Games Bunker will languish on Bob's own downloads page. You, the indie developer, have a very difficult--but entirely navigable road to success:
Know your strengths and play to them.
Know your weaknesses and how to compensate for them.
HAVE A REALISTIC PLAN AND STICK TO IT.
You may have a hand for sketches; put this to use in making creative game content. You may have an eye for scene; use this to construct compelling environments. You may have a knack for math and physics; use this to enhance your engine design. Basically, know what it is that you do well, and do it well. Yeah, "duh"--but it's very, very easy to lose sight of this once you get elbow-deep into game development. Your strengths can act as a catalyst to help you get through the more tedious parts of game development.
That said, know and accept your limitations. Mine is time management; I'm absolutely miserable at keeping on schedule, and it shows in the fact that I've been sitting on a half-finished tech demo for the past couple months. If art isn't your strong suit, avoid making games people expect to be "pretty", and do something novel with words or physics instead. If you can't write dialogue to save your life, don't make a story-driven RPG.
Finally, and most importantly, make a plan and do your best to stick to it. Avoid feature creep like the plague; it is virtually guaranteed to sink your project. If you think of something cool to add on, make note of it and do it after you finish the current version. Don't bite off more than you can chew; ask yourself what you think you could realistically accomplish in twelve months, then cut that estimate in half. Save your masterpiece for later; get a few basic titles under your belt before you embark on that grand quest. Don't get hung up on any one aspect of the game; if you're constantly unhappy with something, walk away from it for a few weeks, focus on some other part of the game, then come back to it and try again. Don't just dive headlong into making your game. You'll just end up with a spaghetti mess of nothing particularly good. (Of course, once again, I could benefit from a bit more of my own medicine, but I digress. Do as I say...)
You're never going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Big Boys and win. You stand just as much of a chance as running faster than a Ferarri in a 100-meter dash. Instead, poke around and find one of the many, many, many niches that the Big Boys simply don't cater to. Remember, though they'll beat you at their own game, they're not interested in anything that won't make them lots and lots of money; if they don't even show up for the game, you've got a real chance at winning. You'll never beat them at making a realistic football game. You can bypass them entirely by making a wacky football game with exaggerated physics, corny sounds, and goofy images. If people like playing it, you'll be in business--regardless of whether or not it has AAA production values!
While the race could go to either the tortoise or the hare, there is another animal in the contest: a dark horse. Nintendo Co. is rolling out its console, dubbed Wii, about the same time as PlayStation 3. The Japanese game maker has deliberately tried to stay out of the Microsoft-Sony battle by focusing on a younger audience than the others, forgoing the flash of cutting-edge graphics for easier-to-play games.
Frankly, the author fundamentally fails to understand what Nintendo is trying to accomplish with the Wii. While the young market is still decidedly one of Nintendo's target audiences, they're far more interested in tapping into the (possibly huge) mature non-gamer market. Virtually every piece of marketing we've seen for the Wii has showcased a primarily adult audience, including couples, the elderly, and other demographics that aren't generally associated with gaming.
If the author doesn't get this very, very fundamental aspect of what Nintendo is trying to do, you have to wonder just how deep his knowledge of the current next-gen fight is...
Well, tell me which of the following sentences makes the most contextual sense:
The more affected among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more overrefined among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more ineffectual among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more effeminate among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
As you've said elsewhere, intention is everything. While it's plausible that he meant effete in the "overrefined" or "ineffectual" sense, it's contextually more likely he meant it in the "effeminate" sense (why else would he throw the "saucy" and "sexy" in there?)
I'm not saying this is the type joke that you or I shouldn't make; rather, I'm saying that this is the type of joke the editor-in-chief of a major, general-audience tech publication shouldn't make in print. I'm not so much incensed about the joke itself as I am bewildered by the fact that it's being told by an editor-in-chief, in writing, to an international audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, most consumers are quite diligent when it comes to ensuring that their game consoles are properly positioned in a well-ventilated area with adequate clearance on all sides. I don't predict much trouble with people laying the damn thing on the carpet; butting the air vents up against the wall; setting it next to the radiator; cramming it into their entertainment center's shelf between the TiVo, XBox, and a bunch of DVDs; putting stuff on top of it; or anything else that your typical consumer would simply never dream of doing to a game console.
Big. Honkin'. Red. Flag.
Now, can you think of any impending dates of political importance that might give one of the most earmark-happy Senators in Washington reason to try and delay this sort of legislation? Delay it until, say, most of America isn't paying attention to what's going on in Washington?
You're talking about spending $233,000,000 in federeal funds to build a bridge to serve a community of 7,500 people. That's roughly $30,000 per resident. How do you justify that, especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ferry that's been in operation for ages?
Turns out he's just concerned that this bill would cost too much of the good American taxpayers' money.
Seriously--the man deserves his seat in Congress, if only for being able to sling such profoundly obvious bullshit with a perfectly straight face.
Given that evolution suggests selective improvement through change over time, I'd says that the grammatical skills of the Slashdot editors are evidence against that theory...
As much as I like the sentiment, that just ain't always the case. Ask Sega about it.
The kind of company that companies which wouldn't turn up their noses at $500 million doesn't want you to believe exists.
Companies can exist, thrive and even excel without taking advantage of every opportunity to maximize profit. This sort of company tends to be discomfiting to the type of company which would gladly throw some ads at you for extra revenue.
Companies like Craigslist and Costco--places that thrive on word of mouth, putting people ahead of profit, and genuine goodwill--tend to make "normal" companies uncomfortable. How do you compete when your competition has justly earned and kept the trust of the marketplace? How are you supposed to "optimize profits" with a consumer who knows what it feels like to be respected?
Oh, and nice headline. I'd even go so far as to call it a sensational headline. You get a slow clap.
Yeah, Apple uses DRM. You think there's a single person on this board who doesn't know that yet? You think any of your pet advocacy points are news to anybody here?
Digital downloads have emerged into a growing, thriving business despite your lot's best efforts to screw it all up.
Y'know, I hear that if you beat it hard enough, it'll actually come back to life!
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or pick-up a game of baseball, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or going out on the lake for a day on a friend's boat, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or hanging out at the local Denny's, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or mowing the lawn with the blunt edge of a butter knife, I think we know which one a kid will pick.
Seriously. If we're going to bemoan the fact that kids generally tend to prefer leisure activities to poring over the great classics of Western literature, we could at least pick something that most kids might actually enjoy reading, like Shakespeare (Serial regi-patri-fratricide? Poison-tipped swords? Mass slaughter? Hot chicks? Rawk!)
But Moby Dick--well, what teen wouldn't be utterly enthralled by a several-hundred-page long account of the finer points of the early American whaler's life and amateur deck-pacing?
Neo Geo
3D0
PlayStation 3
CD-i
Sega Saturn
SONY, if you can pull this one off, you'll easily have the highest-priced success story in the history of video game consoles.
I don't think you can pull it off. $500-$600 is too much to pay for a video game console that, as far as I can tell, isn't doing that much of consequence to distinguish itself from the XBox 360 in the eyes of your average consumer.
Entirely too long, and I didn't really intend to to "take apart" the grandparent--if anything, I left the bulk of his points unanswered. The GP just struck the wrong nerve at the wrong time, and my post took on a life of its own...
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.
I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.
How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?
I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten...and whoever is doing this leaking is going to go through absolute hell should they ever be found out.
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
Sony isn't going to win this round 'cuz they're too high off their own success to see the writing on the wall. How stupid are they? I mean, are they total morons? Could they possibly be any dumber? I mean, really--Sony is sooooo stupid!
For some reason, it took the author two pages to get this point across.
EVERY serious site has a disclaimer stating they will NOT ask you for your details by email. EVERY scam involves them sending an email asking for your details.
In the early days, yes. Now, many phishers have wised up. They'll send you a phish that, save for one or two links, looks absolutely legitimate. You click the link, it sends you to a page at ebay.verification-department.com that mimics an actual eBay login page. You'll "log in", then they'll welcome you and very professionally gather your information--all, of course, after you've "logged in" to their system.
You can't cheat a honest man
Oh, you most certainly can. Just 'cause something rolls off the tongue nicely doesn't mean it's true.
and you can't phis a person who thinks.
Again, we're talking about attrition and trust. Unless you have a quite solid understanding of what phishing is, how to identify it, and how to go about avoiding it, you're going to eventually just trust something that looks legitimate enough. It's simply not feasible to expect that every single user of email will have enough technical know-how to identify and avoid getting phished.
You've got telephone slamming, you've got phishing, you've got insurance fraud, you've got pyramid schemes, you've got con artists--if we were all simply smart enough to know a rat when we saw one, none of these would be a problem. The problem is that many, many people have ductile minds and want to trust other people. If you're somebody who is willing to cheat another person out of their money, odds are that you'll eventually nail somebody. It's attrition, plain and simple--eventually, people simply let their guard down, even if only for a moment.
Let's say I handed you an entire crate of auto parts, and told you that some of them may be genuine parts, while others might be knockoffs. I give you a whole binder, filled with instructions on how to differentiate between all the different "good" and "bad" parts. Some of these knockoffs are obvious fakes; others are quite cleverly done, requiring you to check for minute details such as whether or not inner surfaces are well-polished, or subtle discrepancies in serial number schemes and product logos.
At what point do you just start winging it? After one day of studious sifting? After a week? A month? When you see a part that you're pretty sure is genuine, but would need to haul out the manual for ten minutes' worth of cross-checking part and serial number ranges to confirm this--at what point do you simply go with your gut?
When somebody who knows what they're doing goes about trying to hoodwink your typical individual, it can be very hard for the individual to know when they're being hoodwinked, even if they know they might be being hoodwinked. It's part of human nature--there's a point at which you just throw your hands in the air and grant your trust to an unknown entity, because it's too tedious or time-consuming to check everything out. Given the average person--heck, even a person who knows a fair amount about the subject--there'll be a point where they just take the damn part and have it installed in their car, because they just want to be done with it and get on with their life. It's the same thing with phishing--unless you're one of those few individuals who has fairly advanced knowledge on the subject, you're eventually going to give up and make a gut-reaction decision to whether or not you "trust" the email you just got, simply because it's more trouble than it's worth to actually dig through it.
That's actually a pretty ambitious goal, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility. More important is that you're clearly approaching this with a level head, which will be a lifesaver further down the line. While you're planning, consider some of the other essential facets of strategery games and tick off how you fare at them. A few off the top of my head: scenario-building, unit balance, and user interface. These are all areas that lean more towards "art" than "science", even though it may at first seem like a fairly straightforward matter of making the numbers match.
The day job is an absolute necessity, unless you're lucky enough to have other means to survive. Hang onto it until you're totally comfortable letting go!
Best of luck to you!
You may have a hand for sketches; put this to use in making creative game content. You may have an eye for scene; use this to construct compelling environments. You may have a knack for math and physics; use this to enhance your engine design. Basically, know what it is that you do well, and do it well. Yeah, "duh"--but it's very, very easy to lose sight of this once you get elbow-deep into game development. Your strengths can act as a catalyst to help you get through the more tedious parts of game development.
That said, know and accept your limitations. Mine is time management; I'm absolutely miserable at keeping on schedule, and it shows in the fact that I've been sitting on a half-finished tech demo for the past couple months. If art isn't your strong suit, avoid making games people expect to be "pretty", and do something novel with words or physics instead. If you can't write dialogue to save your life, don't make a story-driven RPG.
Finally, and most importantly, make a plan and do your best to stick to it. Avoid feature creep like the plague; it is virtually guaranteed to sink your project. If you think of something cool to add on, make note of it and do it after you finish the current version. Don't bite off more than you can chew; ask yourself what you think you could realistically accomplish in twelve months, then cut that estimate in half. Save your masterpiece for later; get a few basic titles under your belt before you embark on that grand quest. Don't get hung up on any one aspect of the game; if you're constantly unhappy with something, walk away from it for a few weeks, focus on some other part of the game, then come back to it and try again. Don't just dive headlong into making your game. You'll just end up with a spaghetti mess of nothing particularly good. (Of course, once again, I could benefit from a bit more of my own medicine, but I digress. Do as I say...)
You're never going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Big Boys and win. You stand just as much of a chance as running faster than a Ferarri in a 100-meter dash. Instead, poke around and find one of the many, many, many niches that the Big Boys simply don't cater to. Remember, though they'll beat you at their own game, they're not interested in anything that won't make them lots and lots of money; if they don't even show up for the game, you've got a real chance at winning. You'll never beat them at making a realistic football game. You can bypass them entirely by making a wacky football game with exaggerated physics, corny sounds, and goofy images. If people like playing it, you'll be in business--regardless of whether or not it has AAA production values!
While the race could go to either the tortoise or the hare, there is another animal in the contest: a dark horse. Nintendo Co. is rolling out its console, dubbed Wii, about the same time as PlayStation 3. The Japanese game maker has deliberately tried to stay out of the Microsoft-Sony battle by focusing on a younger audience than the others, forgoing the flash of cutting-edge graphics for easier-to-play games.
Frankly, the author fundamentally fails to understand what Nintendo is trying to accomplish with the Wii. While the young market is still decidedly one of Nintendo's target audiences, they're far more interested in tapping into the (possibly huge) mature non-gamer market. Virtually every piece of marketing we've seen for the Wii has showcased a primarily adult audience, including couples, the elderly, and other demographics that aren't generally associated with gaming.
If the author doesn't get this very, very fundamental aspect of what Nintendo is trying to do, you have to wonder just how deep his knowledge of the current next-gen fight is...
The more affected among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more overrefined among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more ineffectual among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
The more effeminate among us have embraced BC because now they can run all their favorite Windows apps on a saucy, sexy Mac.
As you've said elsewhere, intention is everything. While it's plausible that he meant effete in the "overrefined" or "ineffectual" sense, it's contextually more likely he meant it in the "effeminate" sense (why else would he throw the "saucy" and "sexy" in there?)
I'm not saying this is the type joke that you or I shouldn't make; rather, I'm saying that this is the type of joke the editor-in-chief of a major, general-audience tech publication shouldn't make in print. I'm not so much incensed about the joke itself as I am bewildered by the fact that it's being told by an editor-in-chief, in writing, to an international audience.