"He told a faithful crowd that the new Doom will have images comprised of 250,000 polygons, compared with only 10,000 or so in Quake III. That's not far away from the 1.5 million- polygon characters in the animated film Shrek, which set a new standard for realism for computer-animated cartoon characters."
So basically they only need a six-fold increase in polygons to reach what Shrek had- not to mention that the environment is constantly changing as characters interact with it, whereas Shrek was always the same. Oops.
Tons of people are just blindly knocking Katz. Admittedly it's fun, but a bunch of people missed the point. They yelled at him for saying Microsoft is better then Apple. What he's saying is they are MORE SUCCESSFUL.
An example of this:
By Katz's argument McDonald's is better than the 5* Michelin-Approved restaurant down the road...
Excuse me but B fucking S. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that of the millions of Americans with computers/ buying computers a majority of them are going to McDonald's because they know what they are going to get. It may not be as good as the 5* restuaraunt, but a lot of people don't know that, and many don't care. They want something that will work with every app released right out of the box.
All in all, good job Katz, and to people knocking him because that's tradition... Shame on you.
My definition for advertising:
Anything that builds product awareness.
This means any news posted any time is advertising. The court case against Microsoft is/ was advertising. Katz' review of Orange County was advertising. Admittedly this is a little more blatant, but I'd argue since a lot of/.ers probably have fond memories of Tron they'd be interested to know they can pick this up.
Everything went really smoothly. No dropped service except for a few hours, but I'm not entirely sure that wasn't just some random glitch completely unrelated to all the goings on. I think the only thing changing in my service is my email address, from @home.com to @home.net
And I've been happy with the service just when it's operating as normal. I think part of it is not many people in my neighborhood are on cable:) pretty good speed all the time.
For $900 why not buy a PDA... or two? More functional, more storage space, and you're less likely to lose it. It's just ridiculous, and I don't see anybody buying it except to say, "Hey! Look what I got!"
He did this a little bit, I assume, with his extra responses at the end... I think sending the interviewee the URL of the discussion would be a better plan. That way (s)he can answer any questions- even if they're not rated 5 or even 4.
Something like this (social commentary) got done by my local paper (I think). They had an interview (quote?) of a woman asking about the debates between Gore/Bush. She said she had no clue who won, but watched SNL (Saturday Night Live) to figure it out. The candidate that got laughed at more was the loser.
So yeah, TV can influence real life, and as we all know the material is what you make of it. Reminds me of Finding Forrester when he says something like, "I hate it when critics talk about 'What did he really mean when he wrote this?'" You can read anything you want into the Simpsons. (And you can, you can always say "That reminds me of that Simpsons when...")
Yeah, but if you're a cynical person (as everyone should be when reading news from a biased source) you'd wonder why Microsoft is linking this... Obviously it is supposed to make the reader think, "Wow, Open Source sucks! They admit they aren't as good as Microsoft!" But then, as a cynical person, you realize if Microsoft wants you to think this obviously there is some reason- maybe because they feel threatened by Open Source? The way I look at it if MS wants me to read this and think that you have to look behind it and see their true motives- make Open source look bad.
That's a little disjointed, I hope I came across OK.
Re:I seem to remember...
on
SNES Portable
·
· Score: 4, Funny
When I read that my first reaction was:
Don't you mean he FLEW around in the thing? Until he stopped in a firey ball of death?
That's crazy than that Rocket Guy! At least he can parachute down if he doesn't die in the explostion, a helicopter would give you just enough time to think, "Oh shit, I knew I should have used a stronger rubber belt to-"
One thing I've noticed is almost always another person is noted as having invented the exact thing at the same time, but weren't officially recognized as "first" so they don't get any credit. The first example that comes to mind is the Periodic Table- Mendeleev was credited, but another guy (anyone remember his name? I can't) did the same thing very slightly differently at the same time (I mean invented a table with the elements arranged like this, not an improvement upon it) and gets no credit because Mendeleev was recognized as first!
Anyway, the point is yeah, it would definitely have been invented within a few years (months?) of when it was.
Singing atoms is (probably) just an interesting soundbite for TV guys to run. (And an interesting quote for that article, it was one of a very few in there).
Right, but these bugs were making the game unplayable for just about everyone. Basically they got... *nothing*. Those comments were a little comedic, but major bugs causing the game to be just a disk that crashes your computer is not something that should EVER be released- or something that should be missed in beta testing.
I saw one poster say (not exact quote, but close) "but they've only had 36 hours and have already fixed most of the major bugs with one patch"
This may sound like (somewhat) of a rant, but if they only need 36 hours to fix most of the major bugs Why didn't they start 36 hours earlier a year ago and get it right the first time? Have everyone on the team stay late an hour for a week or two. I realize they have release dates etc., but in any other industry releasing something this bad would absolutely KILL your marketshare/ sales. Nobody would buy it, and thousands of people would be screaming for their money back.
Anyway, my real question was why, after so many games do developers still get this wrong? Why don't they learn from past mistakes and get it right the first time? Not only will they accomplish the same thing as with multiple patches, but they'll get major kudos from everyone who doesn't have to madly patch to try to get into the game!
If someone can explain this to me please do, in all serious (not being facetious) if there's a reason I'd like to know.
For instance, I once played an online game (Utopia) and was pretty good (well, really good, false modesty is stupid). However, to be *the best* you had to spend an inordinate amount of time on it- it was time based, so the best thing to do was to log in frequently. (It also helped to be able to spend a long time every few days, but that's beside the point.) Because I was (am) a HS student, this was pretty tough. So I'd get up before school, keep the game open all evening.. you know the drill. Anyway, what finally broke my "addiction" was going on vacation. No access to the game for a couple of weeks. (BTW, that is the best way to break an addiction, just don't do it, cold turkey.) I just decided not to play after that. Anyway, when EQ came out I WANTED to buy, looked cool, type of game I'd enjoy, but after hearing a couple stories of addiction (real, honest to go medical addiction) I figured I better not fuck around with it. Long winded way of saying know yourself... if you have a chance (think you do) of getting addicted don't buy the fucking game.
Every new movie has a website, and most have to tack "movie" on the end of the title. (ie: behindenemylinesmovie.com - I think that's an example) We just need.movie to fix all that.
It, or something like it is. Go up to Annapolis, Maryland, and you can see this HUGE cluster of radio antennas used to send signals to subs anywhere in the world. (Or so I've been told, and I can guuarantee they're not radio towers so...)
Of course, there is the argument that we're just throwing money back into the devils pocket. Actually though, we're not. MS is taking about $100's loss per unit.
Keep in mind that I might buy this but...
You do realize that if you DO NOT BUY it they'll have a MUCH GREATER loss per unit? Let's do the math. Buy one is -100 dollars for MS. Don't buy one is -400 (they cost 300 right?) for MS.
Of course they'll get bought by somebody anyway, so buying it (with MS losing money) and then putting Linux on it is a lot more spit in MS's eye then just losing money... They have so much is just ridiculous. They could make money probably just from interest if they only charged a nominal fee for their software. (NB: Just a wild guess, I have no idea if that's true or not.)
The only problem with that is you're going against every copyright precedent in the entire world... (not being able of buy the domain if you own teh copyright). That being said, it's a great idea. I don't think anyone'll submit it though : ( too bad.
Re:X-Box Linux Contest.
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot Mirror
"He told a faithful crowd that the new Doom will have images comprised of 250,000 polygons, compared with only 10,000 or so in Quake III. That's not far away from the 1.5 million- polygon characters in the animated film Shrek, which set a new standard for realism for computer-animated cartoon characters."
So basically they only need a six-fold increase in polygons to reach what Shrek had- not to mention that the environment is constantly changing as characters interact with it, whereas Shrek was always the same. Oops.
Tons of people are just blindly knocking Katz. Admittedly it's fun, but a bunch of people missed the point. They yelled at him for saying Microsoft is better then Apple. What he's saying is they are MORE SUCCESSFUL.
An example of this:
By Katz's argument McDonald's is better than the 5* Michelin-Approved restaurant down the road...
Excuse me but B fucking S. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that of the millions of Americans with computers/ buying computers a majority of them are going to McDonald's because they know what they are going to get. It may not be as good as the 5* restuaraunt, but a lot of people don't know that, and many don't care. They want something that will work with every app released right out of the box.
All in all, good job Katz, and to people knocking him because that's tradition... Shame on you.
My definition for advertising:
/.ers probably have fond memories of Tron they'd be interested to know they can pick this up.
Anything that builds product awareness.
This means any news posted any time is advertising. The court case against Microsoft is/ was advertising. Katz' review of Orange County was advertising. Admittedly this is a little more blatant, but I'd argue since a lot of
Everything went really smoothly. No dropped service except for a few hours, but I'm not entirely sure that wasn't just some random glitch completely unrelated to all the goings on. I think the only thing changing in my service is my email address, from @home.com to @home.net
:) pretty good speed all the time.
And I've been happy with the service just when it's operating as normal. I think part of it is not many people in my neighborhood are on cable
For $900 why not buy a PDA... or two? More functional, more storage space, and you're less likely to lose it. It's just ridiculous, and I don't see anybody buying it except to say, "Hey! Look what I got!"
He did this a little bit, I assume, with his extra responses at the end... I think sending the interviewee the URL of the discussion would be a better plan. That way (s)he can answer any questions- even if they're not rated 5 or even 4.
Something like this (social commentary) got done by my local paper (I think). They had an interview (quote?) of a woman asking about the debates between Gore/Bush. She said she had no clue who won, but watched SNL (Saturday Night Live) to figure it out. The candidate that got laughed at more was the loser.
So yeah, TV can influence real life, and as we all know the material is what you make of it. Reminds me of Finding Forrester when he says something like, "I hate it when critics talk about 'What did he really mean when he wrote this?'" You can read anything you want into the Simpsons. (And you can, you can always say "That reminds me of that Simpsons when...")
Yeah, but if you're a cynical person (as everyone should be when reading news from a biased source) you'd wonder why Microsoft is linking this... Obviously it is supposed to make the reader think, "Wow, Open Source sucks! They admit they aren't as good as Microsoft!" But then, as a cynical person, you realize if Microsoft wants you to think this obviously there is some reason- maybe because they feel threatened by Open Source? The way I look at it if MS wants me to read this and think that you have to look behind it and see their true motives- make Open source look bad.
That's a little disjointed, I hope I came across OK.
When I read that my first reaction was:
Don't you mean he FLEW around in the thing? Until he stopped in a firey ball of death?
That's crazy than that Rocket Guy! At least he can parachute down if he doesn't die in the explostion, a helicopter would give you just enough time to think, "Oh shit, I knew I should have used a stronger rubber belt to-"
One thing I've noticed is almost always another person is noted as having invented the exact thing at the same time, but weren't officially recognized as "first" so they don't get any credit. The first example that comes to mind is the Periodic Table- Mendeleev was credited, but another guy (anyone remember his name? I can't) did the same thing very slightly differently at the same time (I mean invented a table with the elements arranged like this, not an improvement upon it) and gets no credit because Mendeleev was recognized as first!
Anyway, the point is yeah, it would definitely have been invented within a few years (months?) of when it was.
Singing atoms is (probably) just an interesting soundbite for TV guys to run. (And an interesting quote for that article, it was one of a very few in there).
So far as I know, major corps don't pay taxes anyway. They write it ALL off in various ways, including stock options if I remember correctly.
This is the stupidest law ever. By stupid people, for stupid people, to protect stupid people from themselves.
It sounds like some public officials are tired of frying their networks and getting "that guy who knows computers and stuff" mad at them!
Right, but these bugs were making the game unplayable for just about everyone. Basically they got... *nothing*. Those comments were a little comedic, but major bugs causing the game to be just a disk that crashes your computer is not something that should EVER be released- or something that should be missed in beta testing.
I saw one poster say (not exact quote, but close) "but they've only had 36 hours and have already fixed most of the major bugs with one patch"
This may sound like (somewhat) of a rant, but if they only need 36 hours to fix most of the major bugs Why didn't they start 36 hours earlier a year ago and get it right the first time? Have everyone on the team stay late an hour for a week or two. I realize they have release dates etc., but in any other industry releasing something this bad would absolutely KILL your marketshare/ sales. Nobody would buy it, and thousands of people would be screaming for their money back.
Anyway, my real question was why, after so many games do developers still get this wrong? Why don't they learn from past mistakes and get it right the first time? Not only will they accomplish the same thing as with multiple patches, but they'll get major kudos from everyone who doesn't have to madly patch to try to get into the game!
If someone can explain this to me please do, in all serious (not being facetious) if there's a reason I'd like to know.
I think you've missed the point. The idea of addiction is that you CAN'T do that because you spend all your time playing the game.
I see a new primetime special:
Giant Laser Building!
Watch 3 teams of scientists try do design and build lasers to protect our troops on the battlefield! Tonight at 8!
Come to think of it, that'd be a good Simpsons episode (the lasers I mean) or maybe a Junkyard Wars in the near future.
For instance, I once played an online game (Utopia) and was pretty good (well, really good, false modesty is stupid). However, to be *the best* you had to spend an inordinate amount of time on it- it was time based, so the best thing to do was to log in frequently. (It also helped to be able to spend a long time every few days, but that's beside the point.) Because I was (am) a HS student, this was pretty tough. So I'd get up before school, keep the game open all evening.. you know the drill. Anyway, what finally broke my "addiction" was going on vacation. No access to the game for a couple of weeks. (BTW, that is the best way to break an addiction, just don't do it, cold turkey.) I just decided not to play after that. Anyway, when EQ came out I WANTED to buy, looked cool, type of game I'd enjoy, but after hearing a couple stories of addiction (real, honest to go medical addiction) I figured I better not fuck around with it. Long winded way of saying know yourself... if you have a chance (think you do) of getting addicted don't buy the fucking game.
I'd HIGHLY suggest reading a SoaNM. One of my favorite books (fiction or non).
Does anyone really believe that there won't be hacks out within about six hours for this? Anyway, my radio already does this, and it's free.
is .movie
.movie to fix all that.
Every new movie has a website, and most have to tack "movie" on the end of the title. (ie: behindenemylinesmovie.com - I think that's an example) We just need
It, or something like it is. Go up to Annapolis, Maryland, and you can see this HUGE cluster of radio antennas used to send signals to subs anywhere in the world. (Or so I've been told, and I can guuarantee they're not radio towers so...)
Of course, there is the argument that we're just throwing money back into the devils pocket. Actually though, we're not. MS is taking about $100's loss per unit.
Keep in mind that I might buy this but...
You do realize that if you DO NOT BUY it they'll have a MUCH GREATER loss per unit? Let's do the math. Buy one is -100 dollars for MS. Don't buy one is -400 (they cost 300 right?) for MS.
Of course they'll get bought by somebody anyway, so buying it (with MS losing money) and then putting Linux on it is a lot more spit in MS's eye then just losing money... They have so much is just ridiculous. They could make money probably just from interest if they only charged a nominal fee for their software. (NB: Just a wild guess, I have no idea if that's true or not.)
The only problem with that is you're going against every copyright precedent in the entire world... (not being able of buy the domain if you own teh copyright). That being said, it's a great idea. I don't think anyone'll submit it though : ( too bad.
Shouldn't the name have been linuxbox.com ?