C'mon, do you really see no middle ground between "rigorous stress testing with every possible laptop for which this product could be used" and "designed by an army of Mr. Magoo clones"? Is "product quality" a binary value?
I'm not saying that products don't suffer from design flaws. I'm not saying that there are no lazy/malicious companies out there. I'm not some starry-eyed, blind-faith-in-humanity idealist. That said, I'm not some crusty, everybody-is-out-to-fuck-me-over-for-my-money kinda person, either. I like to believe that there exists some nuance to this sort of thing.
All I'm saying is that it's reasonable to assume that a design team--even a mediocre design team--would be able to envision the kind of glaringly obvious "What about X?" flotsam that gets posted on this sort of topic.
Do you honestly believe that it is more likely than not that this company developed and released this product without ever considering the internal heat levels of the laptop?
Dozens of comments along the lines of "Duh, you'll cook your laptop if you don't let the heat out!" Every single time a new product is presented on Slashdot, we get to hear from the peanut gallery of armchair designers trumpeting the single most obvious potential design trap that product could encounter.
Rangefinders for cars? Durr, what about oncoming traffic--it'd make your car flip out! Robotic vaccuum cleaner? Hah hah, what about my stairs? Hard-drive based music player? What if you drop it? Wouldn't it a-splode? Drinking straw? What if you accidentally put it up your nose instead of in your mouth? Huh? What then? Chaos!
Reading the FA aside, does it ever occur to people that a company in the business of making heat-dissipating pads specifically designed to work with laptops just might take the internal temperature of the laptop into consideration? Do people really think that products are designed by an army of Mr. Magoo clones?
Yeah, design mistakes happen, but seriously--if you're able to think of a potential problem after ten seconds' worth of thought, do you really think it likely that the design team wouldn't have considered the exact same thing?
Careful--I recall another Slashdot editor using the exact same word to describe a newly-announced Apple gadget in the not-so-distant past.
(To CmdrTaco's credit, though, it does appear that Apple listens to the community. While the Airport Express still has less storage than a Nomad, is does have wireless. Two out of three ain't bad, right?)
Not exactly hard?! At 24 fps, there are 24*60*60=86400 frames per hour of film. That's not what i would refer to as "not exactly hard".
...and if you have a pool of junior editors/interns at your disposal, it's a simple matter of giving them each 15 minutes of film and having them step through it at 2 fps. That's only 3 hours of viewing. Given five or six people, it'd take about a week for them to review a movie in such a fashion several times over.
It's not that hard--especially when you consider that old-school cartoons had people drawing every freakin' frame of a feature-length movie by hand...
Amusing, but easily dealt with: triple the amount of work done.
If you send the same input to three different IP addresses (extra-paranoid: use three different top-level IP blocks) and get the same result back, you can be reasonably certain that the result is valid. If there are -any- discrepancies in the images, assume that one (or more) was improperly rendered, discard all three, and try again with three new addresses.
Even should you manage to hit three different IP addresses that return the exact same 'hacked' image, it's not exactly hard for an editor to step through the movie frame-by-frame, looking for discrepancies...
I was thinking old-school Road Runner--anvils, rockets, explosions, and such. No blood, no severed limbs, no agony, superficial representations of suffering, that kind of thing. It is violent in one regard, but it is a violence that is quite easy to distinguish from reality.
(Consider in Jardinains that you can blast gnomes into the stratosphere, set them alight, and bounce them at 'fatal' speeds...)
1337dR1V3r: i h8 this commute 70y074d00d: ya it sux0rz 1337dR1V3r: too long 1337dR1V3r: i got a big ppt prez to give to 54L3z in 30 min 70y074d00d: haha 54L3z l4m3rz sux 70y074d00d: 4cc0un71nG rulez 1337dR1V3r: omfg lag 70y074d00d: i no 70y074d00d: im slow too 70y074d00d: net sux 2day 70y074d00d: dr1v3r 70y074d00d: j00 there 70y074d00d: hello *** 1337dR1V3r has left channel 70y074d00d: oh fuX0r *** 70y074d00d has left channel
They re-wrote an entire renderer? Granted, Shrek is still behind some of Pixar's work but i've got to ask... Why not use some of the other renderer tools out there?
...well, if you're going to use a renderer to make an entire movie, you'll want several people on staff who understand the thing inside-out, upside-down, and in Pig Latin. In addition, if you're making an entire movie using computer graphics, you're going to have some pretty specific needs when it comes to tools, image quality/style, and rendering infrastructure/performance.
Now. Consider the fact that you have millions of dollars at your disposal, some absolutely brilliant CG engineers, and a very clear set of needs and goals. Would you rather take an existing renderer, analyze it, tweak it, adapt it, hunt down bugs, et cetera--or would you rather simply build a system from the ground up? After all, you're going to need to be able to tweak things throughout, and if something goes wrong with the software, you could save days of debugging by using an internally-built system...
All right. I make games for all ages. I dislike violence, and I take pains to make my games no worse than a Road Runner cartoon. Violence in video games doesn't really do anything for me--there are a number of violent games I enjoy, but I enjoy them for gameplay reasons, not because you can disintegrate opponents with a mortar round.
That said, I really don't have a problem with developers and publishers making violent games. Similarly, I don't have a problem with publishers who distribute violent books. I don't shun museums for displaying various garish incarnations of St. Sebastian on their walls. I am one of the vast majority of people--young and old alike--who can distinguish fantasy from reality, and are able to appreciate that the character being crushed by a tank on the game screen is not a real person.
You'll find no lack of people here on Slashdot who played games like Smash TV, N.A.R.C., and Doom as a kid. Staggeringly enough, the vast majority of us are perfectly well aware of the fact that in the Real World, one does not drive a Ferrari at 100 mph on a bridge whilst mowing down junkies, firing rocket launchers, and gathering cash and drugs.
I'm tiring of those who advocate solving the problems of the few by restricting the options of the whole. Let us use our own judgement, for Pete's sake.
I believe your game was originally called Arkanoid, a.k.a. Breakout
My, aren't we clever. Why stop at Breakout--why not go all the way back to Space War, the original computer game? After all, that's all Breakout was--yet another computer game...
Why not give Jardinains it a try? You might discover a few things that weren't present in Arkanoid/Breakout. You might discover that, while you still use a paddle to keep your ball in play, there are certain refinements that make gameplay considerably more interesting.
Hell, it's a free download, anyway--why not at least try it out before belittling the hours of work I put into this game?
Not direct bartering per se, but I have received number of creative offers from fans of my game.
My favorite thus far was an offer from a couple in Ireland who offered a night's lodging and a hearty Irish breakfast should we ever visit their fair country--in exchange for the bonus level pack.
Even though we probably won't hav ethe opportunity to take them up on the offer anytime soon, it was made in earnest, and I was happy to send them a copy of the level pack in return. Even though I can't buy beer 'n' pizza with it, this "barter" has proven far more memorable than the typical few bucks plonked in the PayPal account...
Seeing as they've built an empire on goodwill, a high-quality free search service, and word-of-mouth name recognition, I'm tempted to guess that their big benefit is continued goodwill and good karma from their userbase.
Yes, this is a novel concept in a business world where most companies look at customers and see numbers. Thing is, it's goodwill and a user-centric business plan have made Google the great company it is.
It could be that the 'catch' you're looking for is that Puffin will further solidify their already strong user relationship.
A Macworld reader alerted the magazine to the malware after he downloaded the file from Limewire. The reader told Macworld: 'I downloaded the file in the hope that perhaps Microsoft had released some sort of public beta.
Uh-huh.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a coughing fit that requires my immediate attention...
I agree with you that there exists a body of educators and politicians who do have an inflated sense of the value of technology in our schools. There is also a large contingent of intelligent, informed educators and politicians who have a good understanding of the limitations of computers.
What I disagree with is the sweeping, black-and-white generalizations the reviewer uses to set the tone of the debate. It's wrong and counterproductive to frame the entire educational and political community in such a simple, petty fashion. It makes me think that the reviewer more interested in parading his own opinions than making thoughtful contribution to a complex issue.
Computers do have a place in education, and mistakes are made in both directions when it comes to technology spending in education. To start a discussion by painting educators and politicians as uninformed, mindless zealots does nothing but trivialize the matter at hand.
The Flickering Mind deals a crippling blow to the blind faith that educators and politicians place in computers as solutions to education's woes.
Methinks the submitter doesn't speak with educators and politicians all that often. It's simply absurd to suggest that your typical educator or politician blindly believes that computers are the solution to America's education woes.
One wonders about the reviewer's credentials if this is how he frames the debate surrounding the use of technology in our schools. This is a complex issue with no clear answers--not some good vs. evil Joes 'n' Cobra brawl.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that products don't suffer from design flaws. I'm not saying that there are no lazy/malicious companies out there. I'm not some starry-eyed, blind-faith-in-humanity idealist. That said, I'm not some crusty, everybody-is-out-to-fuck-me-over-for-my-money kinda person, either. I like to believe that there exists some nuance to this sort of thing.
All I'm saying is that it's reasonable to assume that a design team--even a mediocre design team--would be able to envision the kind of glaringly obvious "What about X?" flotsam that gets posted on this sort of topic.
Do you honestly believe that it is more likely than not that this company developed and released this product without ever considering the internal heat levels of the laptop?
Slashdot needs a (Pedantic) mod. The real question is whether it should be (+1) or (-1)...
Rangefinders for cars? Durr, what about oncoming traffic--it'd make your car flip out! Robotic vaccuum cleaner? Hah hah, what about my stairs? Hard-drive based music player? What if you drop it? Wouldn't it a-splode? Drinking straw? What if you accidentally put it up your nose instead of in your mouth? Huh? What then? Chaos!
Reading the FA aside, does it ever occur to people that a company in the business of making heat-dissipating pads specifically designed to work with laptops just might take the internal temperature of the laptop into consideration? Do people really think that products are designed by an army of Mr. Magoo clones?
Yeah, design mistakes happen, but seriously--if you're able to think of a potential problem after ten seconds' worth of thought, do you really think it likely that the design team wouldn't have considered the exact same thing?
Careful--I recall another Slashdot editor using the exact same word to describe a newly-announced Apple gadget in the not-so-distant past.
(To CmdrTaco's credit, though, it does appear that Apple listens to the community. While the Airport Express still has less storage than a Nomad, is does have wireless. Two out of three ain't bad, right?)
It's not that hard--especially when you consider that old-school cartoons had people drawing every freakin' frame of a feature-length movie by hand...
If you send the same input to three different IP addresses (extra-paranoid: use three different top-level IP blocks) and get the same result back, you can be reasonably certain that the result is valid. If there are -any- discrepancies in the images, assume that one (or more) was improperly rendered, discard all three, and try again with three new addresses.
Even should you manage to hit three different IP addresses that return the exact same 'hacked' image, it's not exactly hard for an editor to step through the movie frame-by-frame, looking for discrepancies...
(Consider in Jardinains that you can blast gnomes into the stratosphere, set them alight, and bounce them at 'fatal' speeds...)
1337dR1V3r: i h8 this commute
70y074d00d: ya it sux0rz
1337dR1V3r: too long
1337dR1V3r: i got a big ppt prez to give to 54L3z in 30 min
70y074d00d: haha 54L3z l4m3rz sux
70y074d00d: 4cc0un71nG rulez
1337dR1V3r: omfg lag
70y074d00d: i no
70y074d00d: im slow too
70y074d00d: net sux 2day
70y074d00d: dr1v3r
70y074d00d: j00 there
70y074d00d: hello
*** 1337dR1V3r has left channel
70y074d00d: oh fuX0r
*** 70y074d00d has left channel
Now. Consider the fact that you have millions of dollars at your disposal, some absolutely brilliant CG engineers, and a very clear set of needs and goals. Would you rather take an existing renderer, analyze it, tweak it, adapt it, hunt down bugs, et cetera--or would you rather simply build a system from the ground up? After all, you're going to need to be able to tweak things throughout, and if something goes wrong with the software, you could save days of debugging by using an internally-built system...
That said, I really don't have a problem with developers and publishers making violent games. Similarly, I don't have a problem with publishers who distribute violent books. I don't shun museums for displaying various garish incarnations of St. Sebastian on their walls. I am one of the vast majority of people--young and old alike--who can distinguish fantasy from reality, and are able to appreciate that the character being crushed by a tank on the game screen is not a real person.
You'll find no lack of people here on Slashdot who played games like Smash TV, N.A.R.C., and Doom as a kid. Staggeringly enough, the vast majority of us are perfectly well aware of the fact that in the Real World, one does not drive a Ferrari at 100 mph on a bridge whilst mowing down junkies, firing rocket launchers, and gathering cash and drugs.
I'm tiring of those who advocate solving the problems of the few by restricting the options of the whole. Let us use our own judgement, for Pete's sake.
Cool. Thanks for helping circulate it!
Thanks!
Don't fret. Version 2 will use Torque.
You're welcome, and thank you!
My, aren't we clever. Why stop at Breakout--why not go all the way back to Space War, the original computer game? After all, that's all Breakout was--yet another computer game...
Why not give Jardinains it a try? You might discover a few things that weren't present in Arkanoid/Breakout. You might discover that, while you still use a paddle to keep your ball in play, there are certain refinements that make gameplay considerably more interesting.
Hell, it's a free download, anyway--why not at least try it out before belittling the hours of work I put into this game?
My favorite thus far was an offer from a couple in Ireland who offered a night's lodging and a hearty Irish breakfast should we ever visit their fair country--in exchange for the bonus level pack.
Even though we probably won't hav ethe opportunity to take them up on the offer anytime soon, it was made in earnest, and I was happy to send them a copy of the level pack in return. Even though I can't buy beer 'n' pizza with it, this "barter" has proven far more memorable than the typical few bucks plonked in the PayPal account...
Why do I suddenly have this mental image of a swarm of bees chasing down a game designer?
(Warning: lack of cynicism ahead)
Seeing as they've built an empire on goodwill, a high-quality free search service, and word-of-mouth name recognition, I'm tempted to guess that their big benefit is continued goodwill and good karma from their userbase.
Yes, this is a novel concept in a business world where most companies look at customers and see numbers. Thing is, it's goodwill and a user-centric business plan have made Google the great company it is.
It could be that the 'catch' you're looking for is that Puffin will further solidify their already strong user relationship.
Uh-huh.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a coughing fit that requires my immediate attention...
What I disagree with is the sweeping, black-and-white generalizations the reviewer uses to set the tone of the debate. It's wrong and counterproductive to frame the entire educational and political community in such a simple, petty fashion. It makes me think that the reviewer more interested in parading his own opinions than making thoughtful contribution to a complex issue.
Computers do have a place in education, and mistakes are made in both directions when it comes to technology spending in education. To start a discussion by painting educators and politicians as uninformed, mindless zealots does nothing but trivialize the matter at hand.
Methinks the submitter doesn't speak with educators and politicians all that often. It's simply absurd to suggest that your typical educator or politician blindly believes that computers are the solution to America's education woes.
One wonders about the reviewer's credentials if this is how he frames the debate surrounding the use of technology in our schools. This is a complex issue with no clear answers--not some good vs. evil Joes 'n' Cobra brawl.
"...that bump? No, no no no--you've got it all wrong! I'm clean--that's my RFID chip! Really! Wait! Come back!"
Triple-edge sword?
Sounds like the functional equivalent of a clue-by-four to me...
Seeing as less than 25% of all videogames coming out today seem capable of using one screen effectively, this should not come as a huge surprise...