Re:This slashvertisement was brought to you by...
on
Check Out PoxNora
·
· Score: 1
Is there something in it that attracts the geek crowd?
I'd say yeah - being interested in Magic The Gathering style card games is usually regarded as pretty geeky.
This appears to be the same thing but with virtual cards, which means it's not even necessary to leave the house to go the store to buy actual cards and - as a bonus - removes the need to invite other people over (thus keeping your Doritos and M&M's from being snaffled).
Apparently it's is flamebait to point out someone is entirely in error because they didn't check out the story (YouTube staff didn't actually censor the content at all - as it says in TFA, which apparently no one has read).
At the same time, it's not flamebait for the OP to say (falsely) that it was flagged by staff YouTube and then post about how, as a conservative he was angry about this terrible thing (even though that thing didn't happen because the allegation was of course, not true).
Do you mean that it's good for games, as long as you don't like popular games?;-) The range of bizzare and not terribly well executed logic games that run natively on Linux is indeed very high, but they are not what the vast majority of people would call 'fun' (IMO due to poor execution, and gameplay that's of very limited appeal).
Even counting all the older games that have been ported, such as titles from the now defunct Loki - some of which are excellent - there are still fewer decent titles there ever were for Apple's System 6, sadly.
At the moment, the range and sophistication of web based games seem to be overtaking that of native Linux titles. I think cross platform game development kits like BlitzMax are probably the only way to turn things around on the gaming front (and help get out of the vicious circle of "no games = no gamers and no gamers = no game developers specifically targeting Linux").
The lack of triple A titles is obviously always going to be a problem, but I think with enough half decent titles you could build up enough of a consumer base to warrent more and more offical ports of existing titles.
I completely agree there is no appreciable gaming scene on Linux, that is very true. Other than the fairly old Quake 3 Arena and UT and a very small number of Loki titles kicking around it's dead. Bizzaro, unenjoyable and poorly done puzzle games notwithstanding.
However, I don't think the rest of your post was as reasonable.
- Use Photoshop (don't say Gimp)
Gimp! There I said it! And not to be antagonistic, just because it's a really good solution.
It's functionally superior, for example it generates smaller file sizes, can work with larger files and is much more scriptable. It's obviously technically comparible (as demonstrable by it's output) and indeed is quite popular (increasingly so, amoung those who are starting to realise that actually, it's a great package - irrespective of cost).
Personally, I stopped liking Photoshop much after about version 4 (where it started to get superseded at a number of key features, by quite a few competitors). I think that was about 10 years ago (before I'd ever heard about GIMP, but PS has still stuck in the 'popular conciseness' as being 'the thing to use'.
The truth is, people use Photoshop because it's a 'known brand' and it costs lots (compared to Gimp, which is free, and therefore can't be any good, certainly not as good...) and because they are used to the way it happens to layout some if it's menu items. Often - from an objective perspective - in an inferior way, as it's stuck with convention, but it's what they know and they just can't seem to be objective about it. I find people tout Photoshop as being superior even when it's demonstrably not as good at the tasks that they do every day (preparing graphics for use on the web being a prime example).
There are tools to help with the latter problem (i.e. editions of Gimp that rename and move around options so that users more familiar with Photoshop can find things more easily), but the other issues are problems of perception in the eye of the beholder.
I do get funny looks when I tell people I use Gimp, often they seem to think it's roughly equivalent to Paint Shop Pro, but I let the quality of my work speak for me (and then, people often insist it must have been more difficult for me using Gimp than if I'd use PS, as if I've never used PS, even though I have and it's just that they haven't tried Gimp).
FWIW I use it almost exclusive on a Mac, and out of choice, in preference to Photoshop.
- Use 3D Studio Max (yes, there are some alternatives, but 3ds Max is an industry standard)
What's wrong with Blender? Apparently lots of other people seem to be able to use it to do comparable work, stuff that to me looks fantastic and entirely indistinguishable from work done in 3D Studio. Does it have a worse interface, or is it buggy?
FWIW, I often don't use popular or mainstream packages, I just use ones I find I can achive the best results in. I am aware other colleagues just try and make the best of what they are given where as I am a pain in the ass in that I refuse to use Windows over Mac OS or any Unix system for any sort of serious work - to the extent I'd rather bring in my own PowerBook and by my own software licenses for the packages I want to use. I've often noted that some co-workers have to try much harder to get an end result that is usually less impressive (purely by virtue of the limitation of the tools they are using, which they would be the first to say they often arn't that happy with). A side effect of that is you can often be asked to do work for others, as people know you can do them well and more easily.:-)
Once you have been declared "not guilty" there is an entirely separate process (that most people don't bother going through) to get yourself declared innocent.
What process is that? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious).
In Scotland (but not England) an alternative verdict of 'not proven' (in place of 'guilty' or 'not guilty') can be delivered - I'm not sure what the exact criteria are, but it's essencially where the individual on trial is widely regarded as guilty as charged, but there isn't enough solid evidence to convict them entirely beyond reasonable doubt. If a 'not proven' verdict is returned then you are free to go, but the it remains on record (and may be used against you un future, for example if you were later charged with a smilar crime).
That's quite a good distinction I think - as it emphasises the value of a 'not guilty' verdict (helping to combat the problem of public perception of their being 'no smoke without fire').
I should really point out the Omega Drivers are just the same drivers you download from ATI, but with various default settings changed (obviously they are not new drivers at all - yet the guy who distributes them seems to go out of his way to give the opposite impression). You can change all the settings that make a significant difference via the ATI control panel anyway - and other 'hidden' registry settings (which are largely hidden by ATI for good reason, though admittedly it's nice to be able to tweak them for compatiblity with the odd very old title) by using a number of utilites (including at least one GNU utility).
The Omega Drivers actually just lower the quality of the graphics, which is why they are 'faster' (they toggle on less intensive texture filtering, 'faster' smoothing rather than 'better' by default, that sort of thing). They are really popular with the 'gaming kids' on forums who can't be bothered to RTFM and don't really understand they are not actually 'new drivers' but the same old ATM drivers with different settings on by default (usually I end up getting called a "stoopid n00b" for my troubles, apparently they don't know much about writing drivers, nor do they notice that the textures in their games suddenly don't look not quite as good, I guess they think he just smarter than all those engineers at ATI, though actually going by the GUI for the Windows ATI drivers I can almost see how someone might think that, at least the Mac OS control panel is pretty awesome IMO).
I only mention this because running drivers packaged by anyone other than the provider in this case is pretty bad idea IMO - by playing with various (usually nailed) settings forced on/off that a vendor is not going to have tested against you are much more likely to run in to compatiblity problems.
I completely agree about running OEM drivers in favour of generic ones though. Both on Windows and Mac OS more often than not I've found that downloadable generic drivers perfom better and have more features than the bundled drivers (pretty major stuff, like new shaders being supported, and being able to toggle FSAA and AF in case of the ATI drivers on Mac OS).
Don't get me wrong, it's handy for some people to have optimised settings for the ATI drivers I'm sure and if people don't notice the quality it's dropping to give them a 5-10 fps boost then who I am I to point out they are waisting their time, but I think the guy has not gone out of his way to set the record straight and has probably done not badly out of what little work he does. Of course, he could have just released it as a small utility of a few hundred K to turn the appropriate flags on and off and expose some additional options via drop down lists/checkboxes, but that wouldn't seem nearly as clever I'm sure.
From the Omega Drivers web site:
Important note: I'm not God, so don't be calling me like that or pretend that I'm one
But... why should others want to do so or be required to do so?
Because someone else who is poor should still be given readily avalible treatment that will save or significantly extent their life, even if it means you someone else has to put with having slightly less money to spend on luxuries.
What if they have carefully laid up their own futures, and have no wish to receive any transfer payments at all?
Everyone (of sound mind) has the right to refuse treatment if they wish, no one is forced to be the receipient of treatment they have not paid for. This raises a valid point though - that of "but what about those who can, but simply don't bother to make provision for themselves" - and it's an issue other countries with state health services are keenly aware of.
That people often to not forsee the need to set money aside for medical treatment they may need in future is specifically why general taxation is usually used as a primary means of funding state healthcare systems. This something that has very strong public support in countries with state funded health systems, because people logically realize if everyone is not forced to, then a siginificant number of people would not [ because people don't think it will happen to them ] and so the system would break down, but if eveyone is obligated to join in, then everyone ultimately benifits (and it really does benifit virtually everyone - not just those with serious illnesses).
Are you certain that society is a better place as a result of implementing medical transfer payments?
I do not think "Medical transfer payments" are a good solution, but they are better than leaving people to go untreated, yes I am certain of that. Having a US healthcare system that is radically different is what's really needed.
I am absoutely certain that society is better off if sick people are given the medicine they need. Just because cannot afford treatment (because they are young, not very bright, not very well educated or a victim of unfortunate circumstances) does not mean they should be untreated when there are so many people with much more money than they need (which is where taxation comes in again).
Now you tell me that even if you have health insurance, there's no guarantee that you won't be turned in to soylent green?!
Can anyone explain how your country works in this regard?
As difficult as it is for those of us in less barbaric countries to imagine, you are indeed hung out to dry if your health insurance runs out, and it's only good up to a point. Usually the limit is up to a specific dollar value - or covers treating a given illness for a limited time span. The maximum amount a policy covers it varies depending on the premium you are willing to pay / can afford each month.
Where the system falls down is when someone has a serious long term illness, such as Cancer, and the treatment works, you can easily end up running out of insurance cover 2 or 3 years down the road. When that happens, you have to sell all your possessions (house, car, TV) to pay for the drugs (which are really expensive - often hundreds of USD worth a month). When the money ultimately runs out, and you are lying bed ridden, flat broke in low rent accommodation - having been forced to sell all of your valuable possessions just to stay alive - you simply stop getting the medication you've been getting and you are left to succumb to the illness (that is, to die).
If you have a partner, then they are left with nothing when you die - not even the house you used to live in (because you'll have used up all the money from the life insurance pay out that would already have been made when your condition was diagnosed on the medication you needed to keep you alive), making it a double tragedy for them. I don't know how someone is supposed to get their life back together after something like that.
"Emergency rooms" are required to treat all patients brought in (regardless of insurance or ability to pay), so when you are at the final stage of your illness at deaths door (days, or hours before the end) they will give you medication to control the pain, but that's the extent of the free treatment available (and you / your partner will still get a hefty bill for any services rendered, they just can't - by law - refuse to treat you even if they know for sure you can't pay it).
Scary stuff.
Such is the price people seem willing to pay in return for lower taxation and greater spending power at the checkout.
You still haven't answered the question of how you have been cheated by Microsoft with regard to the X Box. The only thing that you seem to have offered up that remotely sounds like why you might feel 'cheated' is that you seem to have felt it didn't have 'enough good exlusive titles'. That is, even though pretty much all the multi-platform titles were graphically superior and typically they had additional features such as surround sound, additional downloadble content (levels/tracks/vehicles) and of course online play.
Not having enough exlusive titles you liked is justification for not buying a console in the first place, but with the likes of some great games like PGR, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden, Ghost Recon and, yes, Halo that rings pretty hollow - particularly when you bear in mind you couldn't play console titles like Burnout or titles like Mechwarrior online EXECPT via X Box. I do find it hilarious you've owned an X Box and missed out on the whole 'online gaming' thing.
I have access to a PS2 and a Gamecube so the ports are of no intrest to me.
I've got bad news for you, if, when a game was released for all three platforms you bought the Gamecube or PS2 versions, you almost certainly bought the inferior version. Way to go!
As you've not experienced it, I should really mention as I've said that games like Ghost Recon, Burnout, Mechwarrior and EA sports titles are vastly more fun when played with and against real people (the kind you can actually have a conversation with, courtesy of the headset) than than just the computer.
You should really try it some time. I find it more fun than gaming on the PC (and I have a pretty much top of the line gaming PC), the headset has a lot to do with that though quite a few PC games now support VoIP, even in titles like BF2 most users don't bother, but the vast majority of Live gamers do use theirs).
Assuming were playing on something larger than a 15" screen, in the vast majority of cases the multiformat titles would have looked better on the X Box, thanks to DTS surround support they would have sounded better too (though later PS2 titles ultimately supported DPL II) and they would almost always have had faster level loading (and reloading) times, thanks to being able to make use of an HD rather than having to stream from the disc.
[GC games actually not being largely okay on that front, but with PS2 being pretty annoying on some titles, especially when it came to restarting a level/track that was already loaded. The PSP is pretty bad at that too - going for an optical disc in a portable was not really a smart move, a flaw in an otherwise really well built handheld.]
if you mean Halo and Halo 2 when you say iconic console exclusive I'll stick with PC shooters thanks, I never feel for the marketing.
Ah that's right, everyone who liked the X Box was pulled in by the marketing! That's a rather ironic suggestion, given the the PS2 was almost exlusively popular based on the back of the origional PlayStation. If anything, the X Box was a success dispite the low expectations, a fair bit of negative press and a rightly skeptical public and it's up hill battle against the much loved (but now increasingly tarnished) PlayStation brand. It did well through merit and it's pretty silly to suggest otherwise.
It was not the "most advanced system on the market" by any means...
Erm, yes it was the most advance console on the market, your ignorance on the subject not withstanding. That it was technically the best console something that's a point of contention. It's not only most easily demonstable by comparing multiformat titles visually, it's self evident based on the hardware specs (little things, like having 10 times as much VRAM avalible on the X Box and FSAA support meant that was always going to be a given).
it was a computer, an obsolete one at that, yes it was "younger" than a PS2.
Well yeah, obviously it's a computer, what did you think the PS2
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft.
I'd better start by openly admitting to not being a fan of the PS2, partly because Sony lied so audaciously about it's performance and in reality - despite how much later it hit the streets - the games were no better than the by then already aging Dreamcast (I assume this was in part because it was more difficult to develop games for and because the Dreamcast was a much more developer friendly console). That's true to the extent that some games (like Dead or Alive) were actually noticeably inferior to Dreamcast versions (e.g. 2d sprites in place of 3d rendered scenery).
I think the PS2's success is almost entirely down to the overwelming dominance of the origional Playstation, which gave life to the brand. The origional was by all accounts a great console (at a time when a lot of turkeys had been released), but it's worth bearing in mind it was origionally a Nintendo concept which Sony were contracted to develop, until the two companies fell out.
The PS2 was Sony's first real shot at building a console on their own, amd while it was an overwhelming commercial success, technically it wasn't particularly good. They also fumbled when senior Sony executives recalled launch units after they found out the SCE division (Sony Computer Entertainment) had made the DVD player region free (on purpose, thinking - correctly I'm sure - that it would be a feature that would sell more units). Apparently representatives of the other arms of the company were not happy with the upstart arm at the time and made life very difficult for SCE (even though SCE would go on to prop up the entire company), at least according to subsequent interviews from senior executives from Sony (unfortunately I don't have references for those to hand). As we know now, SCE would never the less go on to prop up Sony's profitability (and share price) in the years to come.
I am sure they are about to make some big mistakes again, but this time I think it will impact revenues and units sold, and they will suffer for it (though I do not expect the console to 'bomb' by any means - there is still a lot of wide spread anticipation by the general public). The overwhelming power of the origional brand is not as strong (a reponse to the relative mediority of the PS2) and I don't think that's going to be enough to overcome the huge price tag and the level of collective disappointment when people see that not only do games NOT look like this but that they actually look a lot more like this.
I know it's early days and I'm sure not all games will look that bad, but it's not a good sign - nor is it that GT is also looking decidedly underwhealming (I'm frankly amazed they have released what footage the have, I think it looks pretty desperate for a flagship racing title). Now the console is near release it's clear just how detatched from reality all those early renders were, and Sony are forced to start showing us what we can actually expect. While there was undoubtably also a touch of this with a few titles for the 360 (specifically with some EA titles and with GRAW (Ghost Recon)), the same level of discrepancy was not nearly as significant, and a year on games like Gears of War are showing that it really can look as good as, if not better, than developers said they thought it could (with reference to GoW actual in game footage compared to GRAW's pre-rendered footage).
The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
To be fair I think they make very good harware! The mice, the keyboards, the Sidewider gaming peripheral range and both X-Box consoles have been really good products!
It's just a shame about 90% of all the software they've ever written. Interestingly, their games over the years have been pretty good, as are some of the
to put it plainly was given an Xbox about a year after it was introduced and I played all of three games on it.
I feel bad for the people who gave it to me as a gift... and will not likely be buying or showing a desire for a Xbox 360.
You haven't really said why you felt cheated.
There were loads of really good titles for the X Box, something that would be true even if you only counted the ports from other platforms (like the Dreamcast, PS2 and PC), and of course there were some great (even iconic) console exclusives.
Objectively, from a consumer perspective it was a really good console. It was technically superior to all other offerings on the market (and except the 360, still is) and it had some great unique hardware features (like having a hard disk and ethernet support built in to every console).
What about it left you feeling cheated or let down?
The point is that a call over a POTS line is very difficult for nefarious users to compromise unless they have physical access between you and the exchange - and they have to target you specifically, it requires a disproportionate amount of effort (for a start, if they have already decided to speficially target you and are on your street, then they are close enough to be able to set up listening devices pointed at your house). I'm more worried about someone trashing through my garbage than splicing my telephone line.
In comparison, unencypted data over the internet is far easier to snoop on, and can be done indiscriminately and remotely, by perps in regions with little or no effective law enforcement (which is exactly what happens today with internet related credit card fraud - the perps invariably being from Russia, eastern Europe or Africa, not criminals in our own backyards).
And so is your cellphone
I don't know what network and handset you have, but my phone is UMTS, so not in my case. Even conversations on a normal old fashioned GSM mobile are encrypted and cannot be trivially snooped with an off the shelf scanner.
And so is your cordless phone.
Actually, that's not true for virtually anyone who has upgraded their home phone at least once in about the last decade. Virtually all except the nastiest less-than-10-USD handsets use DSC.
Wait, what the hell kind of standard is 640x480? NTSC is 720x480. Why would they change the resolution?
The change has likely happened as by now both Apple and content owners are relatively happy with the distribution system and both are willing to make videos available at a higher resolution. Putting lower quality more 'disposable' content online (in the form of TV series at QVGA) lowered the risk from the PoV of content owners, but now the system is seen to be 'proven' (popular opinion being that the low resolution of the initially available content being at the bequest of the content owners, with Apple acquiescing to get them on board).
640x480 is of course VGA, and it's 4:3 resolution, as was QVGA, the previous distribution format (NTSC 720 x 480 is also 4:3, but that's because it relies on pixels that are not square). They could have used NTSC with square pixels, but the maximum MPEG4 video resolution on the Broadcom chip in the video iPod can rescale on the fly is 640x480 - I would bet that is why they went with it.
I'm a bit confused though, because I had thought all video content from the iTMS was in H.264 (not MPEG4) and I thought the iPod could only handle playback of H.264 at up to at QVGA size - I guess it's all MPEG4 then?
If the iPod's video chip supported a higher resolution (like NTSC/PAL DVD quality) I expect they would have bumped up the quality slightly. It's a shame it's not actually DVD quality (especially at a time when people are now looking for HD content), but at 640x480 is at least a reasonable size (for comparison, it's better than SVCD, which I've always thought was quite watchable).
Maybe this guy's problem is he takes on too much. Or maybe that he can't finish anything. Instead of buying a new game, why not save some money, and finish one of the games he's given up on?
Because playing the same game long after it's stopped being fresh and new is boring and starts to feel like a chore, and when that happens it's time to stop playing (unless the core gameplay is good enough to keep you going long enough).
Most good games innovate as you go through them, giving the player new enemies and new types of environment to deal with and ways of dealing with enemies (in the form of new weapons, and new tactics), but still they fail to do this all the way through - typically a few levels, usually towards the end - drag on and offer nothing new or interesting in terms of gameplay, and that's why so many go unfinished IMO.
In the same way that TV shows get stale, and bands get repetitive, individual games drag on too long - and unlike movies, they don't usually have a strong editorial or production team to keep them focused.
I think playing a game that you are now bored of is daft. As other posters have said, games by definition should be fun. I know a sizeable number of players like to say they want to feel like they are 'achieving' something by playing a game through, but I've always found that an odd notion, and don't understand why they don't do something genuinely productive if that's what they are really looking for (like writing some free software, editing a wiki, or doing some DIY).
(Sadly, I often find writing software than playing the latter stages of games, which is usually when I decide the game has jumped the shark and go play something else).
Yeah... but as a long time Console and PC gamer I can honestly say that I would much rather have 16 hours of great gameplay than 40 (or 200) hours of mindless repetition.
That comment reminded me of Unreal 2. It was slated quite a bit by reviewers as I recall, but I really enjoyed it, yet it was one of the shortest games of it's type I've ever played because it wasn't repetitive and threw up new enemies, new weapons, new environments and provided a showcase of challenges that kept me entertained all the way through. It was slated for all of those reasons.
It took me maybe 12-14 hours where as most games take me 40 or more - typically I finish few of them - I often play about 70-90% of the way through, then come back a few months later and god mode my way through the final stages, if a game gets too difficult or is tediously repetitive early on (Rising Dead I'm looking at you) I am likely to ignore it and play something else entirely, because I just don't have that much free time that I want games to feel like 'work'.
In case of this happening 'literally', I gave up on Shenmue (one of the best games I've ever played, and I regret not finishing it now) after it got to the stage where your character gets a job and has to move crates around the dock every day to make money to get through to the next stage of the story. While it had some really innovative gameplay and I appreciate that it did add to the telling of the story (like a lull in a movie, between the high action sequences) I just lost interest because it was too tediously repetitive.
Perhaps one way to satisfy more users is to make games shorter but cheaper, with episodic content (I guess this is what Valve are trying to do now). It certainly seems a logical approach, particularly with the ability to deliver content electronically. I can see publishers not being so keen on this though as they'd have to release and promote each title separately which would eat into profits, and they'd run the risk of people spotting the turkeys more easily (I can't see many people playing the first half of Doom 3 and going "ooh I've got to get more some more of that stumbling around in the dark action!").
If I get free repairs now then shouldn't they give me my money back on that warranty?
My initial response was 'no way', but then I recalled they had an extended offer for something like 12 months 'extended cover' which they included in the box and seemed to be pushing quite heavily. Caveat emptor applies here I think, for two reasons:
1) In most western countries companies are under obligation to resolve issues caused by inherent serious design flaws in their products (typically as long as the flaws are discovered with in X weeks or months of purchase). In many cases, warranties grant no more real protection than is already provided for under consumer rights legislation (though they may state they will endeavour turnaround your problem faster than they are strictly obligated to).
2) They were always likely to offer free repairs / replacements for serious design flaws any way. As indeed they did - offering free repairs and replacements for users, even for those who did not fill in their warranty card or take out 'extended cover'.
My own 360 had a problem with the drive tray from the start - to the extent it became stuck shut within the first 48 hours - the store had no replacements in stock, so Microsoft paid for a courier to come and collect it, and sent me a new one within a week. They made it really easy to get the problem sorted out, by calling me back when they said they would and not waiting till I had to push them into providing a replacement (I would add that both the line quality and the communication skills of guy on the other end of the phone were really good - something I always like).
I buy a lot of [new] games for the X-Box (more than I realistically have time to play through, sadly) so that was a prudent move on their part. I don't mind teething problems or design flaws on new equipment (most conspicuously I've had it with a few Apple products too), as long as the vendor acts reasonably to put it right I'm happy to keep buying their products (and take risks on buying new equipment).
I can understand users who took out cover perhaps feeling burned to some extent, but there is a reason so many people joke about most 'extended cover' being worthless (possible exceptions being on things like high end laptops or large TV's). It's common knowledge that's it's usually not a wise investment and most consumer groups caution against taking them out without careful consideration of the tangible benefits being offered.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there something in it that attracts the geek crowd?
I'd say yeah - being interested in Magic The Gathering style card games is usually regarded as pretty geeky.
This appears to be the same thing but with virtual cards, which means it's not even necessary to leave the house to go the store to buy actual cards and - as a bonus - removes the need to invite other people over (thus keeping your Doritos and M&M's from being snaffled).
Apparently it's is flamebait to point out someone is entirely in error because they didn't check out the story (YouTube staff didn't actually censor the content at all - as it says in TFA, which apparently no one has read).
At the same time, it's not flamebait for the OP to say (falsely) that it was flagged by staff YouTube and then post about how, as a conservative he was angry about this terrible thing (even though that thing didn't happen because the allegation was of course, not true).
Indeed.
So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?
When someone who is politically motivated makes an assertion that is not true, then their opinion on the matter has no value.
It's not what I would call a "liberal party line" it's more a "human beings with an ounce of common sense line".
Of course, if you don't like it you are free to go with the conservative party line that it's all a conspiracy by "the liberal media".
I'm one of those conservative folks who was annoyed by this
And apparently 'one of those conservative folks that don't bother to check out the story first' before crying foul.
Do you mean that it's good for games, as long as you don't like popular games? ;-) The range of bizzare and not terribly well executed logic games that run natively on Linux is indeed very high, but they are not what the vast majority of people would call 'fun' (IMO due to poor execution, and gameplay that's of very limited appeal).
Even counting all the older games that have been ported, such as titles from the now defunct Loki - some of which are excellent - there are still fewer decent titles there ever were for Apple's System 6, sadly.
At the moment, the range and sophistication of web based games seem to be overtaking that of native Linux titles. I think cross platform game development kits like BlitzMax are probably the only way to turn things around on the gaming front (and help get out of the vicious circle of "no games = no gamers and no gamers = no game developers specifically targeting Linux").
The lack of triple A titles is obviously always going to be a problem, but I think with enough half decent titles you could build up enough of a consumer base to warrent more and more offical ports of existing titles.
Maybe you don't, but what if I want/need to:
:-)
- Play games (Tux Racer doesn't count)
I completely agree there is no appreciable gaming scene on Linux, that is very true. Other than the fairly old Quake 3 Arena and UT and a very small number of Loki titles kicking around it's dead. Bizzaro, unenjoyable and poorly done puzzle games notwithstanding.
However, I don't think the rest of your post was as reasonable.
- Use Photoshop (don't say Gimp)
Gimp! There I said it! And not to be antagonistic, just because it's a really good solution.
It's functionally superior, for example it generates smaller file sizes, can work with larger files and is much more scriptable. It's obviously technically comparible (as demonstrable by it's output) and indeed is quite popular (increasingly so, amoung those who are starting to realise that actually, it's a great package - irrespective of cost).
Personally, I stopped liking Photoshop much after about version 4 (where it started to get superseded at a number of key features, by quite a few competitors). I think that was about 10 years ago (before I'd ever heard about GIMP, but PS has still stuck in the 'popular conciseness' as being 'the thing to use'.
The truth is, people use Photoshop because it's a 'known brand' and it costs lots (compared to Gimp, which is free, and therefore can't be any good, certainly not as good...) and because they are used to the way it happens to layout some if it's menu items. Often - from an objective perspective - in an inferior way, as it's stuck with convention, but it's what they know and they just can't seem to be objective about it. I find people tout Photoshop as being superior even when it's demonstrably not as good at the tasks that they do every day (preparing graphics for use on the web being a prime example).
There are tools to help with the latter problem (i.e. editions of Gimp that rename and move around options so that users more familiar with Photoshop can find things more easily), but the other issues are problems of perception in the eye of the beholder.
I do get funny looks when I tell people I use Gimp, often they seem to think it's roughly equivalent to Paint Shop Pro, but I let the quality of my work speak for me (and then, people often insist it must have been more difficult for me using Gimp than if I'd use PS, as if I've never used PS, even though I have and it's just that they haven't tried Gimp).
FWIW I use it almost exclusive on a Mac, and out of choice, in preference to Photoshop.
- Use 3D Studio Max (yes, there are some alternatives, but 3ds Max is an industry standard)
What's wrong with Blender? Apparently lots of other people seem to be able to use it to do comparable work, stuff that to me looks fantastic and entirely indistinguishable from work done in 3D Studio. Does it have a worse interface, or is it buggy?
FWIW, I often don't use popular or mainstream packages, I just use ones I find I can achive the best results in. I am aware other colleagues just try and make the best of what they are given where as I am a pain in the ass in that I refuse to use Windows over Mac OS or any Unix system for any sort of serious work - to the extent I'd rather bring in my own PowerBook and by my own software licenses for the packages I want to use. I've often noted that some co-workers have to try much harder to get an end result that is usually less impressive (purely by virtue of the limitation of the tools they are using, which they would be the first to say they often arn't that happy with). A side effect of that is you can often be asked to do work for others, as people know you can do them well and more easily.
Once you have been declared "not guilty" there is an entirely separate process (that most people don't bother going through) to get yourself declared innocent.
What process is that? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious).
In Scotland (but not England) an alternative verdict of 'not proven' (in place of 'guilty' or 'not guilty') can be delivered - I'm not sure what the exact criteria are, but it's essencially where the individual on trial is widely regarded as guilty as charged, but there isn't enough solid evidence to convict them entirely beyond reasonable doubt. If a 'not proven' verdict is returned then you are free to go, but the it remains on record (and may be used against you un future, for example if you were later charged with a smilar crime).
That's quite a good distinction I think - as it emphasises the value of a 'not guilty' verdict (helping to combat the problem of public perception of their being 'no smoke without fire').
Unfortunately it seems this guy was right on the money!
Perhaps by doing this buying and selling, I can afford Xmas presents for *my* family?
Or perhaps you could do an honest days work, instead of being a lazy weasel trying to make a fast buck at someone else's expense.
But you should do what feels right.
Just don't be surprised if Santa brings you coal this year, on account of him having your name listed under "Naug"^W "Cunts". YMMV.
I should really point out the Omega Drivers are just the same drivers you download from ATI, but with various default settings changed (obviously they are not new drivers at all - yet the guy who distributes them seems to go out of his way to give the opposite impression). You can change all the settings that make a significant difference via the ATI control panel anyway - and other 'hidden' registry settings (which are largely hidden by ATI for good reason, though admittedly it's nice to be able to tweak them for compatiblity with the odd very old title) by using a number of utilites (including at least one GNU utility).
The Omega Drivers actually just lower the quality of the graphics, which is why they are 'faster' (they toggle on less intensive texture filtering, 'faster' smoothing rather than 'better' by default, that sort of thing). They are really popular with the 'gaming kids' on forums who can't be bothered to RTFM and don't really understand they are not actually 'new drivers' but the same old ATM drivers with different settings on by default (usually I end up getting called a "stoopid n00b" for my troubles, apparently they don't know much about writing drivers, nor do they notice that the textures in their games suddenly don't look not quite as good, I guess they think he just smarter than all those engineers at ATI, though actually going by the GUI for the Windows ATI drivers I can almost see how someone might think that, at least the Mac OS control panel is pretty awesome IMO).
I only mention this because running drivers packaged by anyone other than the provider in this case is pretty bad idea IMO - by playing with various (usually nailed) settings forced on/off that a vendor is not going to have tested against you are much more likely to run in to compatiblity problems.
I completely agree about running OEM drivers in favour of generic ones though. Both on Windows and Mac OS more often than not I've found that downloadable generic drivers perfom better and have more features than the bundled drivers (pretty major stuff, like new shaders being supported, and being able to toggle FSAA and AF in case of the ATI drivers on Mac OS).
Don't get me wrong, it's handy for some people to have optimised settings for the ATI drivers I'm sure and if people don't notice the quality it's dropping to give them a 5-10 fps boost then who I am I to point out they are waisting their time, but I think the guy has not gone out of his way to set the record straight and has probably done not badly out of what little work he does. Of course, he could have just released it as a small utility of a few hundred K to turn the appropriate flags on and off and expose some additional options via drop down lists/checkboxes, but that wouldn't seem nearly as clever I'm sure.
From the Omega Drivers web site:
Important note:
I'm not God, so don't be calling me like that or pretend that I'm one
Indeed.
To answers these questions seperately:
But... why should others want to do so or be required to do so?
Because someone else who is poor should still be given readily avalible treatment that will save or significantly extent their life, even if it means you someone else has to put with having slightly less money to spend on luxuries.
What if they have carefully laid up their own futures, and have no wish to receive any transfer payments at all?
Everyone (of sound mind) has the right to refuse treatment if they wish, no one is forced to be the receipient of treatment they have not paid for. This raises a valid point though - that of "but what about those who can, but simply don't bother to make provision for themselves" - and it's an issue other countries with state health services are keenly aware of.
That people often to not forsee the need to set money aside for medical treatment they may need in future is specifically why general taxation is usually used as a primary means of funding state healthcare systems. This something that has very strong public support in countries with state funded health systems, because people logically realize if everyone is not forced to, then a siginificant number of people would not [ because people don't think it will happen to them ] and so the system would break down, but if eveyone is obligated to join in, then everyone ultimately benifits (and it really does benifit virtually everyone - not just those with serious illnesses).
Are you certain that society is a better place as a result of implementing medical transfer payments?
I do not think "Medical transfer payments" are a good solution, but they are better than leaving people to go untreated, yes I am certain of that. Having a US healthcare system that is radically different is what's really needed.
I am absoutely certain that society is better off if sick people are given the medicine they need. Just because cannot afford treatment (because they are young, not very bright, not very well educated or a victim of unfortunate circumstances) does not mean they should be untreated when there are so many people with much more money than they need (which is where taxation comes in again).
Now you tell me that even if you have health insurance, there's no guarantee that you won't be turned in to soylent green?!
Can anyone explain how your country works in this regard?
As difficult as it is for those of us in less barbaric countries to imagine, you are indeed hung out to dry if your health insurance runs out, and it's only good up to a point. Usually the limit is up to a specific dollar value - or covers treating a given illness for a limited time span. The maximum amount a policy covers it varies depending on the premium you are willing to pay / can afford each month.
Where the system falls down is when someone has a serious long term illness, such as Cancer, and the treatment works, you can easily end up running out of insurance cover 2 or 3 years down the road. When that happens, you have to sell all your possessions (house, car, TV) to pay for the drugs (which are really expensive - often hundreds of USD worth a month). When the money ultimately runs out, and you are lying bed ridden, flat broke in low rent accommodation - having been forced to sell all of your valuable possessions just to stay alive - you simply stop getting the medication you've been getting and you are left to succumb to the illness (that is, to die).
If you have a partner, then they are left with nothing when you die - not even the house you used to live in (because you'll have used up all the money from the life insurance pay out that would already have been made when your condition was diagnosed on the medication you needed to keep you alive), making it a double tragedy for them. I don't know how someone is supposed to get their life back together after something like that.
"Emergency rooms" are required to treat all patients brought in (regardless of insurance or ability to pay), so when you are at the final stage of your illness at deaths door (days, or hours before the end) they will give you medication to control the pain, but that's the extent of the free treatment available (and you / your partner will still get a hefty bill for any services rendered, they just can't - by law - refuse to treat you even if they know for sure you can't pay it).
Scary stuff.
Such is the price people seem willing to pay in return for lower taxation and greater spending power at the checkout.
You still haven't answered the question of how you have been cheated by Microsoft with regard to the X Box. The only thing that you seem to have offered up that remotely sounds like why you might feel 'cheated' is that you seem to have felt it didn't have 'enough good exlusive titles'. That is, even though pretty much all the multi-platform titles were graphically superior and typically they had additional features such as surround sound, additional downloadble content (levels/tracks/vehicles) and of course online play.
Not having enough exlusive titles you liked is justification for not buying a console in the first place, but with the likes of some great games like PGR, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden, Ghost Recon and, yes, Halo that rings pretty hollow - particularly when you bear in mind you couldn't play console titles like Burnout or titles like Mechwarrior online EXECPT via X Box. I do find it hilarious you've owned an X Box and missed out on the whole 'online gaming' thing.
I have access to a PS2 and a Gamecube so the ports are of no intrest to me.
I've got bad news for you, if, when a game was released for all three platforms you bought the Gamecube or PS2 versions, you almost certainly bought the inferior version. Way to go!
As you've not experienced it, I should really mention as I've said that games like Ghost Recon, Burnout, Mechwarrior and EA sports titles are vastly more fun when played with and against real people (the kind you can actually have a conversation with, courtesy of the headset) than than just the computer.
You should really try it some time. I find it more fun than gaming on the PC (and I have a pretty much top of the line gaming PC), the headset has a lot to do with that though quite a few PC games now support VoIP, even in titles like BF2 most users don't bother, but the vast majority of Live gamers do use theirs).
Assuming were playing on something larger than a 15" screen, in the vast majority of cases the multiformat titles would have looked better on the X Box, thanks to DTS surround support they would have sounded better too (though later PS2 titles ultimately supported DPL II) and they would almost always have had faster level loading (and reloading) times, thanks to being able to make use of an HD rather than having to stream from the disc.
[GC games actually not being largely okay on that front, but with PS2 being pretty annoying on some titles, especially when it came to restarting a level/track that was already loaded. The PSP is pretty bad at that too - going for an optical disc in a portable was not really a smart move, a flaw in an otherwise really well built handheld.]
if you mean Halo and Halo 2 when you say iconic console exclusive I'll stick with PC shooters thanks, I never feel for the marketing.
Ah that's right, everyone who liked the X Box was pulled in by the marketing! That's a rather ironic suggestion, given the the PS2 was almost exlusively popular based on the back of the origional PlayStation. If anything, the X Box was a success dispite the low expectations, a fair bit of negative press and a rightly skeptical public and it's up hill battle against the much loved (but now increasingly tarnished) PlayStation brand. It did well through merit and it's pretty silly to suggest otherwise.
It was not the "most advanced system on the market" by any means...
Erm, yes it was the most advance console on the market, your ignorance on the subject not withstanding. That it was technically the best console something that's a point of contention. It's not only most easily demonstable by comparing multiformat titles visually, it's self evident based on the hardware specs (little things, like having 10 times as much VRAM avalible on the X Box and FSAA support meant that was always going to be a given).
it was a computer, an obsolete one at that, yes it was "younger" than a PS2.
Well yeah, obviously it's a computer, what did you think the PS2
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft.
I'd better start by openly admitting to not being a fan of the PS2, partly because Sony lied so audaciously about it's performance and in reality - despite how much later it hit the streets - the games were no better than the by then already aging Dreamcast (I assume this was in part because it was more difficult to develop games for and because the Dreamcast was a much more developer friendly console). That's true to the extent that some games (like Dead or Alive) were actually noticeably inferior to Dreamcast versions (e.g. 2d sprites in place of 3d rendered scenery).
I think the PS2's success is almost entirely down to the overwelming dominance of the origional Playstation, which gave life to the brand. The origional was by all accounts a great console (at a time when a lot of turkeys had been released), but it's worth bearing in mind it was origionally a Nintendo concept which Sony were contracted to develop, until the two companies fell out.
The PS2 was Sony's first real shot at building a console on their own, amd while it was an overwhelming commercial success, technically it wasn't particularly good. They also fumbled when senior Sony executives recalled launch units after they found out the SCE division (Sony Computer Entertainment) had made the DVD player region free (on purpose, thinking - correctly I'm sure - that it would be a feature that would sell more units). Apparently representatives of the other arms of the company were not happy with the upstart arm at the time and made life very difficult for SCE (even though SCE would go on to prop up the entire company), at least according to subsequent interviews from senior executives from Sony (unfortunately I don't have references for those to hand). As we know now, SCE would never the less go on to prop up Sony's profitability (and share price) in the years to come.
I am sure they are about to make some big mistakes again, but this time I think it will impact revenues and units sold, and they will suffer for it (though I do not expect the console to 'bomb' by any means - there is still a lot of wide spread anticipation by the general public). The overwhelming power of the origional brand is not as strong (a reponse to the relative mediority of the PS2) and I don't think that's going to be enough to overcome the huge price tag and the level of collective disappointment when people see that not only do games NOT look like this but that they actually look a lot more like this.
I know it's early days and I'm sure not all games will look that bad, but it's not a good sign - nor is it that GT is also looking decidedly underwhealming (I'm frankly amazed they have released what footage the have, I think it looks pretty desperate for a flagship racing title). Now the console is near release it's clear just how detatched from reality all those early renders were, and Sony are forced to start showing us what we can actually expect. While there was undoubtably also a touch of this with a few titles for the 360 (specifically with some EA titles and with GRAW (Ghost Recon)), the same level of discrepancy was not nearly as significant, and a year on games like Gears of War are showing that it really can look as good as, if not better, than developers said they thought it could (with reference to GoW actual in game footage compared to GRAW's pre-rendered footage).
The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
To be fair I think they make very good harware! The mice, the keyboards, the Sidewider gaming peripheral range and both X-Box consoles have been really good products!
It's just a shame about 90% of all the software they've ever written. Interestingly, their games over the years have been pretty good, as are some of the
to put it plainly was given an Xbox about a year after it was introduced and I played all of three games on it.
I feel bad for the people who gave it to me as a gift... and will not likely be buying or showing a desire for a Xbox 360.
You haven't really said why you felt cheated.
There were loads of really good titles for the X Box, something that would be true even if you only counted the ports from other platforms (like the Dreamcast, PS2 and PC), and of course there were some great (even iconic) console exclusives.
Objectively, from a consumer perspective it was a really good console. It was technically superior to all other offerings on the market (and except the 360, still is) and it had some great unique hardware features (like having a hard disk and ethernet support built in to every console).
What about it left you feeling cheated or let down?
but I feel majorly cheeted [sic] by MS on the Xbox
'Cheated'? In what way?
I would guess you've got to be at least as old as this guy, so I'd say your at least in your 80's.
Thanks for that comprehensive reply. :-)
And so is your POTS line
The point is that a call over a POTS line is very difficult for nefarious users to compromise unless they have physical access between you and the exchange - and they have to target you specifically, it requires a disproportionate amount of effort (for a start, if they have already decided to speficially target you and are on your street, then they are close enough to be able to set up listening devices pointed at your house). I'm more worried about someone trashing through my garbage than splicing my telephone line.
In comparison, unencypted data over the internet is far easier to snoop on, and can be done indiscriminately and remotely, by perps in regions with little or no effective law enforcement (which is exactly what happens today with internet related credit card fraud - the perps invariably being from Russia, eastern Europe or Africa, not criminals in our own backyards).
And so is your cellphone
I don't know what network and handset you have, but my phone is UMTS, so not in my case. Even conversations on a normal old fashioned GSM mobile are encrypted and cannot be trivially snooped with an off the shelf scanner.
And so is your cordless phone.
Actually, that's not true for virtually anyone who has upgraded their home phone at least once in about the last decade. Virtually all except the nastiest less-than-10-USD handsets use DSC.
Wait, what the hell kind of standard is 640x480? NTSC is 720x480. Why would they change the resolution?
The change has likely happened as by now both Apple and content owners are relatively happy with the distribution system and both are willing to make videos available at a higher resolution. Putting lower quality more 'disposable' content online (in the form of TV series at QVGA) lowered the risk from the PoV of content owners, but now the system is seen to be 'proven' (popular opinion being that the low resolution of the initially available content being at the bequest of the content owners, with Apple acquiescing to get them on board).
640x480 is of course VGA, and it's 4:3 resolution, as was QVGA, the previous distribution format (NTSC 720 x 480 is also 4:3, but that's because it relies on pixels that are not square). They could have used NTSC with square pixels, but the maximum MPEG4 video resolution on the Broadcom chip in the video iPod can rescale on the fly is 640x480 - I would bet that is why they went with it.
I'm a bit confused though, because I had thought all video content from the iTMS was in H.264 (not MPEG4) and I thought the iPod could only handle playback of H.264 at up to at QVGA size - I guess it's all MPEG4 then?
If the iPod's video chip supported a higher resolution (like NTSC/PAL DVD quality) I expect they would have bumped up the quality slightly. It's a shame it's not actually DVD quality (especially at a time when people are now looking for HD content), but at 640x480 is at least a reasonable size (for comparison, it's better than SVCD, which I've always thought was quite watchable).
Maybe this guy's problem is he takes on too much. Or maybe that he can't finish anything. Instead of buying a new game, why not save some money, and finish one of the games he's given up on?
Because playing the same game long after it's stopped being fresh and new is boring and starts to feel like a chore, and when that happens it's time to stop playing (unless the core gameplay is good enough to keep you going long enough).
Most good games innovate as you go through them, giving the player new enemies and new types of environment to deal with and ways of dealing with enemies (in the form of new weapons, and new tactics), but still they fail to do this all the way through - typically a few levels, usually towards the end - drag on and offer nothing new or interesting in terms of gameplay, and that's why so many go unfinished IMO.
In the same way that TV shows get stale, and bands get repetitive, individual games drag on too long - and unlike movies, they don't usually have a strong editorial or production team to keep them focused.
I think playing a game that you are now bored of is daft. As other posters have said, games by definition should be fun. I know a sizeable number of players like to say they want to feel like they are 'achieving' something by playing a game through, but I've always found that an odd notion, and don't understand why they don't do something genuinely productive if that's what they are really looking for (like writing some free software, editing a wiki, or doing some DIY).
(Sadly, I often find writing software than playing the latter stages of games, which is usually when I decide the game has jumped the shark and go play something else).
Yeah ... but as a long time Console and PC gamer I can honestly say that I would much rather have 16 hours of great gameplay than 40 (or 200) hours of mindless repetition.
That comment reminded me of Unreal 2. It was slated quite a bit by reviewers as I recall, but I really enjoyed it, yet it was one of the shortest games of it's type I've ever played because it wasn't repetitive and threw up new enemies, new weapons, new environments and provided a showcase of challenges that kept me entertained all the way through. It was slated for all of those reasons.
It took me maybe 12-14 hours where as most games take me 40 or more - typically I finish few of them - I often play about 70-90% of the way through, then come back a few months later and god mode my way through the final stages, if a game gets too difficult or is tediously repetitive early on (Rising Dead I'm looking at you) I am likely to ignore it and play something else entirely, because I just don't have that much free time that I want games to feel like 'work'.
In case of this happening 'literally', I gave up on Shenmue (one of the best games I've ever played, and I regret not finishing it now) after it got to the stage where your character gets a job and has to move crates around the dock every day to make money to get through to the next stage of the story. While it had some really innovative gameplay and I appreciate that it did add to the telling of the story (like a lull in a movie, between the high action sequences) I just lost interest because it was too tediously repetitive.
Perhaps one way to satisfy more users is to make games shorter but cheaper, with episodic content (I guess this is what Valve are trying to do now). It certainly seems a logical approach, particularly with the ability to deliver content electronically. I can see publishers not being so keen on this though as they'd have to release and promote each title separately which would eat into profits, and they'd run the risk of people spotting the turkeys more easily (I can't see many people playing the first half of Doom 3 and going "ooh I've got to get more some more of that stumbling around in the dark action!").
If I get free repairs now then shouldn't they give me my money back on that warranty?
My initial response was 'no way', but then I recalled they had an extended offer for something like 12 months 'extended cover' which they included in the box and seemed to be pushing quite heavily. Caveat emptor applies here I think, for two reasons:
1) In most western countries companies are under obligation to resolve issues caused by inherent serious design flaws in their products (typically as long as the flaws are discovered with in X weeks or months of purchase). In many cases, warranties grant no more real protection than is already provided for under consumer rights legislation (though they may state they will endeavour turnaround your problem faster than they are strictly obligated to).
2) They were always likely to offer free repairs / replacements for serious design flaws any way. As indeed they did - offering free repairs and replacements for users, even for those who did not fill in their warranty card or take out 'extended cover'.
My own 360 had a problem with the drive tray from the start - to the extent it became stuck shut within the first 48 hours - the store had no replacements in stock, so Microsoft paid for a courier to come and collect it, and sent me a new one within a week. They made it really easy to get the problem sorted out, by calling me back when they said they would and not waiting till I had to push them into providing a replacement (I would add that both the line quality and the communication skills of guy on the other end of the phone were really good - something I always like).
I buy a lot of [new] games for the X-Box (more than I realistically have time to play through, sadly) so that was a prudent move on their part. I don't mind teething problems or design flaws on new equipment (most conspicuously I've had it with a few Apple products too), as long as the vendor acts reasonably to put it right I'm happy to keep buying their products (and take risks on buying new equipment).
I can understand users who took out cover perhaps feeling burned to some extent, but there is a reason so many people joke about most 'extended cover' being worthless (possible exceptions being on things like high end laptops or large TV's). It's common knowledge that's it's usually not a wise investment and most consumer groups caution against taking them out without careful consideration of the tangible benefits being offered.
Perhaps you are not sure which I was replying to as well because I wasn't applying to you.
You replied to my post, whether you meant to or not.
You probably need to check out the FAQ.
I don't think you realise which post I'm replying to.