how does it compare to Planescape: Torment?
on
Review: Jade Empire
·
· Score: 1
I know Planescape: Torment wasn't a Bioware game, but it still stands out to me as probably the best computer RPG I've played...how does Jade Empire compare to it?
I ended up stumbling upon this concept, and wondered why it wasn't recommended more often.
I had to create a secure-shell passphrase. The program, when I created the private key, didn't ask me to name a "password." It said, please enter a "passphrase." As a result, I have a much longer, more secure password, and absolutely no difficulties in remembering it.
Think about it this way:
a) Please enter a password, made of letters, characters, numbers, etc, but no dictionary words, and keep it over 8 characters long, and remember that you're going to have to change it every week, and no fair writing it down. Examples: w%df#flw0234, 534##@slkfjkljluiui, ajajajoiejflkjd2341324.
or
b) Please enter a phrase, 3-10 words long. Examples: Ireallyenjoydrinkingbeer, runningintowallskindofhurts, touchmymonkeytouchit.
Which of the two would you rather do? So why don't we just tell people to enter a passphrase than a password?
There are some movies where, ok, it's such a work of art, or the story is such a classic, you can almost understand some director wanting to try his hand at it. It's like going to see Romeo and Juliet done by a different director: same story, different treatment.
But, c'mon, Tron stands just fine on its own. Watch the 20th Anniversary DVD and tell me, really, is it so out of date? Does it make you cringe? Or is it a perfectly fine movie?
So why remake it? Why not do a sequel instead? Is that so far-fetched?
Which pretty much sums up my expectations: it looks neat from the previews, and probably will disappoint me in the end. I was in line at Blockbuster with my girlfriend the other night, looking at recent releases, and noting how many of them had excellent trailers, and how many of them actually turned out to be worth watching. Almost anything looks good when your interaction with it consists of a trailer, some stills, a few out-of-context quotes and maybe a rough plot.
I'll get my ticket, I'll see the movie, I'll be disappointed, and, you know, whatever. And so will you.
One of the things that makes PA so valuable to me is that it shoots from the hip, the heart, and the gut. You guys are perfectly happy being fanboys for games that you love, while skewering those you hate.
I know PA isn't journalism, but it's not Nintendo Power either. That said, how do you balance your desire to be honest with the needs of running a business?
Browsers have been free for too long, and the fact is, people don't use browsers because of features...they use them because of compatibility.
That's probably the #1 obstacle to wide acceptance of Firefox right now: if it doesn't display all IE pages correctly (regardless of compliance to W3C standards), it won't be adopted.
Right now, my company has a lot of internal apps that are built to run only on IE. Would I love to switch to Firefox? Sure. Can we do that without spending millions rewriting existing apps? Nope.
So Opera is an alternative browser that is not only more expensive that Firefox, it might not totally support all IE functionality. NO chance that would catch on in the enterprise. At least Firefox has a shot at catching on as the next 3-5 years' worth of apps get written...you can be sure I'll encourage management to write cross-browser apps, or Firefox-only apps, because Firefox is a safer/"better" browser to use.
That's a compromise: "Hey, this new browser might not run all our legacy apps 100%, but the software is free, it doesn't have all of IE's security holes, and we're gonna have to rewrite those legacy apps anyway."
With Opera, the cost of the browser negates the savings on security. Sorry guys, but selling web browsers is like selling shareware: it's fine for a hobby, but not for a business model.
One of the big issues I think many people have with alternative fuels is the practicality. Sure, I might get 800 mpg with soy-o-line or whatever, but where am I gonna fill up at 2 a.m. on a Thursday?
D.C. was probably picked because we're very politically visible here, and if Shell really wants to make a serious push into alternative energy, it makes sense to put a filling station where government lawmakers can see the technology at work. If it works one place, it'll slowly trickle out into other metro areas, and eventually the rural regions. But it has to work here first.
As far as safety goes, I think there are more pressing issues in D.C. than one lousy hydrogen tank.
...unless a computer manufacturer is willing to market a $99 PC as a loss-leader. "Buy this PC for $99 if you sign up for $20 a month internet access, or tech support, or the Foo Computer Corp. fan newsletter, or whatever."
DIY computers got more expensive than bargain-basement Dell boxen about 2 years ago...I bought the Dell that I'm typing this on for about $300 shipped with a monitor and a copy of XP. I did it through a deal on Ben's Bargains when I realized I couldn't build my own system for less than the price of the Dell. Now, my gaming system is homebrew, and I have plenty of homebrew systems around, but those are mostly application-specific (a music jukebox machine, a server, a game emulation machine) and a labor of love rather than practical "do-it-all" cheapie boxen.
If you want a PC for less than $100, your only option right now is really to head on over to Craig's List and find somebody who needs to get rid of their old Compaq for $50. In that sense, the sub-100-dollar PC is possible, but it's still a loss-leader for the guy who's selling his $2000 system for a fraction of the cost when new.
Now, could it BE done? Is it POSSIBLE? Of course. But, again, only by a company like Dell or IBM or whoever can afford to buy old Duron chips by the truckload and stick 'em into bargain-basement mobos for inclusion into home computing applicances. It will happen at some point. It just hasn't happened quite yet.
I always wanted to get the chance to go into space. But after the Challenger disaster and the ensuing slowdown in spaceflight and exploration--to say nothing of the strict requirements for NASA astronauts even before that--I figured I wouldn't likely get the chance. Space seemed the domain only of scientists and researchers with government contracts.
But I never really considered commercial spaceflight as being something viable, something that could grow and prosper even without the imprimatur of a major government. Not until now.
I wonder how many other young astronaut dreamers might now get their chance...if only for just one flight?
I just sent them an email...I bet that they could generate enough sales from Slashdot readers alone to justify the cost of making the game. Hopefully they will do some kind of pre-order thing.
Man, LucasArts is going to be kicking themselves for this one.
Wow, this is actually the most excited I think I've been about the space program since I was a little kid, dreaming of being an astronaut.
To NASA: I'm sorry that you are officially so down on the concept of space tourism, but it's this kind of exposure that is going to get people interested in space again. What if the oceans or skies had been reserved for scientific research only?
Now, the same thing happened when the new Star Wars novels came out, since there had already been a hypothetical "Post-Jedi" timeline established by the old Star Wars Marvel comic. And Lucas has been very clear on saying that anything not in the movies is only a "what if" rather than official Star Wars canon. I mean, he's had no problem tromping all over stuff that WAS canon (Han shooting first, etc.), so I guess wiping out years of speculative storytelling is no big deal.
Unless he were to use some of the existing EU storylines in new movies...hey, you think Bothans would make good plush toys?
It's a little late to be posting on this thread, but...I've said it so many times in casual conversation, I have to say it now.
Learning to type is probably the only useful thing I learned in high school. Well, maybe not the ONLY, but certainly one of the more important things.
I kinda annoy my colleagues because I use an ergonomic keyboard. However, that carpal-tunnel-saving device, and my ability to easily type about 50 wpm, is such a boon that I can't imagine not being able to type at such velocity. And without being able to touch-type, an ergo keyboard is pretty much useless.
Typing is even more important in this day and age of ubiquitous computing. Perhaps when we finally have voice-recognition that works well, or some other type of commonly-used input device, typing will no longer be important. In the meantime, the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Sport? Maybe. Fun to watch? No.
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 1
I used to run cross-country in high school, and I did a lot more bike riding back then too. Both are fun activities to participate in.
But are they fun to watch? Hell no! I'd rather watch NASCAR than the Tour de France or some random 5K; at least race cars explode when they crash.
Call it a sport if you want, I don't care. I guess if they can show poker on ESPN, anything's possible. But don't expect me to watch.
BTW, I did Academic Decathalon back in high school too; last I checked, I was the record-holder for Pennsylvania in the essay competition. It's neat to be able to say that you did something like that, but if they tried to show it on Fox on prime-time, I'd flip right on by.
The major problem with this argument--and all violent media arguments--is that everybody wants to ban the violence "for the children." It's all well and good, and socially responsible, I might add, to keep 8-year-olds watching Robocop II or Reservoir Dogs or what have you. But there would be an uproar if it were suggested that we ban violent movies for adults because of those (real or imagined) correlations between violent media and aggression.
The simple response is that we tend to assume that video games are a young person's medium, when the truth is that gamers range across ages, genders, and preferences. Remember that the young gamers of the 80s are now in their 20s and 30s. You wouldn't lump a Disney movie in with Tarantino when discussing what is inappropriate for children. Why would you lump a Spongebob Squarepants game in with GTA?
Some games, like some movies, are appropriate for children. Some games, like some movies, are most certainly not.
Exactly the problem. The MPAA is treating it like a license, and everybody else sees it as physical property. In fact, as a poster above said, that's how it's marketed..."Own [dvd] today!" not "License [dvd] today!"
The problem is in reconciling these two worldviews. At present, the MPAA is treating the DVD as a license to view content when it comes to copyright protection, but they are treating the DVD as a physical item when it comes to replacement or exchange. You can't have it both ways.
I don't like the MPAA any more than anybody else does, but it was a good interview. I think he expressed his side of the argument pretty succinctly: allowing encryption circumvention, for any reason, opens a can of worms. Much easier to avoid any kind of a slippery slope by saying, "If you want to watch this, get a licensed watching mechanism."
So, really, what is being said is, when you buy a DVD, you are not buying a physical product. What you are buying the right to view some content in a prescribed manner on an authorized device.
That's really the crux of the argument. We are geeks. We like to take things apart and use them in ways the original designers did not intend. That screws with ideas of the establishment.
What WE are saying is, "I got this free Cue-Cat scanner, and it belongs to me, and if I want to take the pieces apart and grind them into confetti or build a moon laser or whatever, I can do that, because it belongs to me."
What THEY are saying is, "You do not actually own that physical Cue-Cat scanner, you have a license to use that device in the manner we have declared, in the same way that you cannot use your cable TV box to get channels you haven't paid for."
I like to think that art is the expression of ideas and concepts in a manner that evokes something above and beyond the sheerly practical.
In other words, if you make a sandwich because you're hungry, it's not art. If you make a sandwich in a way that seems aethetically pleasing, or incorporating particular ingredients that remind you of something, or you refrain from making a sandwich to make a point about world hunger, it's art.
I'm not a huge modern art buff. I much prefer Constable, Turner and Monet to Pollock, at least as far as painting is concerned. I like things that look like things. But I don't dispute that things which may not be appealing to me aren't art.
Personally, when I really think about what I do for a living, I'm something of an artist. When I write programs, I try to make the code beautiful, clean, functional, and even visually organized, because that is artistic to me.
If you go with my definition, videogames certainly qualify.
Agreed. I pretty much *expect* people to have some sort of a college degree...and personally, at least a 4-year, and not from DeVry. If you don't, I immediately think "Why not?" Since I don't tend to think of the default human condition to be one of brilliance, I'm sorry to say that my prejudices do not lead me to believe that you're just too smart for college.;)
Also, there are limiting social aspects to not having a degree, and if you come off like a troll in interviews, you are not going to get hired. Being able to talk about college experiences--which your future boss and interviewer probably had--is one way to find common ground. My current uber-boss is from near London, and being able to just chat with him about where I lived in that city when I did a semester abroad allowed us to establish some common ground that made the interview go must more smoothly.
Check a recruiting/job search site and run one of their salary calculators. That will give you a rough estimate of the going rate in your area.
In NYC, 70K will get you about as far as 30K in some rural areas. So, salaries will tend to fluctuate depending on the local cost of living...groceries, gas, rent and insurance can be wildly more expensive in urban areas than in the sticks.
Also depends on the amount of locally available talent. Try as I might, I couldn't break into the very tough Boston IT market back in 2000. I suspect all those MIT folks might have had something to do with that. I had to settle* for the DC area, which has some fine universities, none of which are famous for their IT programs.
It also depends on whether you, like me, have a degree in some unrelated major and are trying to h4xx0r your way into a cush programming job. And it depends on exactly what "software engineer" entails...are you going to be coding missle-control microchips in assembly language, or writing HTML-based web applications?
My salaries have fallen in the 60-70k range over my brief (4-year) career. Some jobs have had more vacation, some have had better 401k plans, some have had more attractive locations, some have had nicer people, and some have had more demanding schedules.
I would say that anything over 50K is probably a reasonable starting salary, from my perspective, and assuming that you are probably going to be working someplace in a major metropolitan area and for a company of significant size and influence.
I had an offer for 32k when I graduated; I was insulted and I didn't take the job. Luckily I found a much better offer elsewhere. Don't sell yourself too short. If you have talent, tenacity, some social skills (you don't come off like a neanderthal cave-coder in interviews), and a lot of luck, you will do just fine.
Also, if you find that you are getting shut down on a lot of offers, take some time and brush up on your skills. $150 of O'Reilly books saved my career a few years ago.
Good luck!
*At the time, I thought of it as "settling." Now, I love it here.
Slashdot Mirror
I know Planescape: Torment wasn't a Bioware game, but it still stands out to me as probably the best computer RPG I've played...how does Jade Empire compare to it?
I ended up stumbling upon this concept, and wondered why it wasn't recommended more often.
I had to create a secure-shell passphrase. The program, when I created the private key, didn't ask me to name a "password." It said, please enter a "passphrase." As a result, I have a much longer, more secure password, and absolutely no difficulties in remembering it.
Think about it this way:
a) Please enter a password, made of letters, characters, numbers, etc, but no dictionary words, and keep it over 8 characters long, and remember that you're going to have to change it every week, and no fair writing it down. Examples: w%df#flw0234, 534##@slkfjkljluiui, ajajajoiejflkjd2341324.
or
b) Please enter a phrase, 3-10 words long. Examples: Ireallyenjoydrinkingbeer, runningintowallskindofhurts, touchmymonkeytouchit.
Which of the two would you rather do? So why don't we just tell people to enter a passphrase than a password?
There are some movies where, ok, it's such a work of art, or the story is such a classic, you can almost understand some director wanting to try his hand at it. It's like going to see Romeo and Juliet done by a different director: same story, different treatment.
But, c'mon, Tron stands just fine on its own. Watch the 20th Anniversary DVD and tell me, really, is it so out of date? Does it make you cringe? Or is it a perfectly fine movie?
So why remake it? Why not do a sequel instead? Is that so far-fetched?
Saw these pics this morning...they look good.
Which pretty much sums up my expectations: it looks neat from the previews, and probably will disappoint me in the end. I was in line at Blockbuster with my girlfriend the other night, looking at recent releases, and noting how many of them had excellent trailers, and how many of them actually turned out to be worth watching. Almost anything looks good when your interaction with it consists of a trailer, some stills, a few out-of-context quotes and maybe a rough plot.
I'll get my ticket, I'll see the movie, I'll be disappointed, and, you know, whatever. And so will you.
One of the things that makes PA so valuable to me is that it shoots from the hip, the heart, and the gut. You guys are perfectly happy being fanboys for games that you love, while skewering those you hate.
I know PA isn't journalism, but it's not Nintendo Power either. That said, how do you balance your desire to be honest with the needs of running a business?
Browsers have been free for too long, and the fact is, people don't use browsers because of features...they use them because of compatibility.
That's probably the #1 obstacle to wide acceptance of Firefox right now: if it doesn't display all IE pages correctly (regardless of compliance to W3C standards), it won't be adopted.
Right now, my company has a lot of internal apps that are built to run only on IE. Would I love to switch to Firefox? Sure. Can we do that without spending millions rewriting existing apps? Nope.
So Opera is an alternative browser that is not only more expensive that Firefox, it might not totally support all IE functionality. NO chance that would catch on in the enterprise. At least Firefox has a shot at catching on as the next 3-5 years' worth of apps get written...you can be sure I'll encourage management to write cross-browser apps, or Firefox-only apps, because Firefox is a safer/"better" browser to use.
That's a compromise: "Hey, this new browser might not run all our legacy apps 100%, but the software is free, it doesn't have all of IE's security holes, and we're gonna have to rewrite those legacy apps anyway."
With Opera, the cost of the browser negates the savings on security. Sorry guys, but selling web browsers is like selling shareware: it's fine for a hobby, but not for a business model.
One of the big issues I think many people have with alternative fuels is the practicality. Sure, I might get 800 mpg with soy-o-line or whatever, but where am I gonna fill up at 2 a.m. on a Thursday?
D.C. was probably picked because we're very politically visible here, and if Shell really wants to make a serious push into alternative energy, it makes sense to put a filling station where government lawmakers can see the technology at work. If it works one place, it'll slowly trickle out into other metro areas, and eventually the rural regions. But it has to work here first.
As far as safety goes, I think there are more pressing issues in D.C. than one lousy hydrogen tank.
...unless a computer manufacturer is willing to market a $99 PC as a loss-leader. "Buy this PC for $99 if you sign up for $20 a month internet access, or tech support, or the Foo Computer Corp. fan newsletter, or whatever."
DIY computers got more expensive than bargain-basement Dell boxen about 2 years ago...I bought the Dell that I'm typing this on for about $300 shipped with a monitor and a copy of XP. I did it through a deal on Ben's Bargains when I realized I couldn't build my own system for less than the price of the Dell. Now, my gaming system is homebrew, and I have plenty of homebrew systems around, but those are mostly application-specific (a music jukebox machine, a server, a game emulation machine) and a labor of love rather than practical "do-it-all" cheapie boxen.
If you want a PC for less than $100, your only option right now is really to head on over to Craig's List and find somebody who needs to get rid of their old Compaq for $50. In that sense, the sub-100-dollar PC is possible, but it's still a loss-leader for the guy who's selling his $2000 system for a fraction of the cost when new.
Now, could it BE done? Is it POSSIBLE? Of course. But, again, only by a company like Dell or IBM or whoever can afford to buy old Duron chips by the truckload and stick 'em into bargain-basement mobos for inclusion into home computing applicances. It will happen at some point. It just hasn't happened quite yet.
I always wanted to get the chance to go into space. But after the Challenger disaster and the ensuing slowdown in spaceflight and exploration--to say nothing of the strict requirements for NASA astronauts even before that--I figured I wouldn't likely get the chance. Space seemed the domain only of scientists and researchers with government contracts.
But I never really considered commercial spaceflight as being something viable, something that could grow and prosper even without the imprimatur of a major government. Not until now.
I wonder how many other young astronaut dreamers might now get their chance...if only for just one flight?
I just sent them an email...I bet that they could generate enough sales from Slashdot readers alone to justify the cost of making the game. Hopefully they will do some kind of pre-order thing.
Man, LucasArts is going to be kicking themselves for this one.
Wow, this is actually the most excited I think I've been about the space program since I was a little kid, dreaming of being an astronaut.
To NASA: I'm sorry that you are officially so down on the concept of space tourism, but it's this kind of exposure that is going to get people interested in space again. What if the oceans or skies had been reserved for scientific research only?
Yeah, and you don't have to watch a train wreck either. :)
Expanded Universe, not European Union. :)
Now, the same thing happened when the new Star Wars novels came out, since there had already been a hypothetical "Post-Jedi" timeline established by the old Star Wars Marvel comic. And Lucas has been very clear on saying that anything not in the movies is only a "what if" rather than official Star Wars canon. I mean, he's had no problem tromping all over stuff that WAS canon (Han shooting first, etc.), so I guess wiping out years of speculative storytelling is no big deal.
Unless he were to use some of the existing EU storylines in new movies...hey, you think Bothans would make good plush toys?
It's a little late to be posting on this thread, but...I've said it so many times in casual conversation, I have to say it now.
Learning to type is probably the only useful thing I learned in high school. Well, maybe not the ONLY, but certainly one of the more important things.
I kinda annoy my colleagues because I use an ergonomic keyboard. However, that carpal-tunnel-saving device, and my ability to easily type about 50 wpm, is such a boon that I can't imagine not being able to type at such velocity. And without being able to touch-type, an ergo keyboard is pretty much useless.
Typing is even more important in this day and age of ubiquitous computing. Perhaps when we finally have voice-recognition that works well, or some other type of commonly-used input device, typing will no longer be important. In the meantime, the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
I used to run cross-country in high school, and I did a lot more bike riding back then too. Both are fun activities to participate in.
But are they fun to watch? Hell no! I'd rather watch NASCAR than the Tour de France or some random 5K; at least race cars explode when they crash.
Call it a sport if you want, I don't care. I guess if they can show poker on ESPN, anything's possible. But don't expect me to watch.
BTW, I did Academic Decathalon back in high school too; last I checked, I was the record-holder for Pennsylvania in the essay competition. It's neat to be able to say that you did something like that, but if they tried to show it on Fox on prime-time, I'd flip right on by.
With movies like this, who needs pr0n?
"Gates was stymied in his efforts to pay the fine when nobody in the courtroom could give him change for $1 million." /obvious
The major problem with this argument--and all violent media arguments--is that everybody wants to ban the violence "for the children." It's all well and good, and socially responsible, I might add, to keep 8-year-olds watching Robocop II or Reservoir Dogs or what have you. But there would be an uproar if it were suggested that we ban violent movies for adults because of those (real or imagined) correlations between violent media and aggression.
The simple response is that we tend to assume that video games are a young person's medium, when the truth is that gamers range across ages, genders, and preferences. Remember that the young gamers of the 80s are now in their 20s and 30s. You wouldn't lump a Disney movie in with Tarantino when discussing what is inappropriate for children. Why would you lump a Spongebob Squarepants game in with GTA?
Some games, like some movies, are appropriate for children. Some games, like some movies, are most certainly not.
Exactly the problem. The MPAA is treating it like a license, and everybody else sees it as physical property. In fact, as a poster above said, that's how it's marketed..."Own [dvd] today!" not "License [dvd] today!"
The problem is in reconciling these two worldviews. At present, the MPAA is treating the DVD as a license to view content when it comes to copyright protection, but they are treating the DVD as a physical item when it comes to replacement or exchange. You can't have it both ways.
I don't like the MPAA any more than anybody else does, but it was a good interview. I think he expressed his side of the argument pretty succinctly: allowing encryption circumvention, for any reason, opens a can of worms. Much easier to avoid any kind of a slippery slope by saying, "If you want to watch this, get a licensed watching mechanism."
So, really, what is being said is, when you buy a DVD, you are not buying a physical product. What you are buying the right to view some content in a prescribed manner on an authorized device.
That's really the crux of the argument. We are geeks. We like to take things apart and use them in ways the original designers did not intend. That screws with ideas of the establishment.
What WE are saying is, "I got this free Cue-Cat scanner, and it belongs to me, and if I want to take the pieces apart and grind them into confetti or build a moon laser or whatever, I can do that, because it belongs to me."
What THEY are saying is, "You do not actually own that physical Cue-Cat scanner, you have a license to use that device in the manner we have declared, in the same way that you cannot use your cable TV box to get channels you haven't paid for."
That's the real question.
I like to think that art is the expression of ideas and concepts in a manner that evokes something above and beyond the sheerly practical.
In other words, if you make a sandwich because you're hungry, it's not art. If you make a sandwich in a way that seems aethetically pleasing, or incorporating particular ingredients that remind you of something, or you refrain from making a sandwich to make a point about world hunger, it's art.
I'm not a huge modern art buff. I much prefer Constable, Turner and Monet to Pollock, at least as far as painting is concerned. I like things that look like things. But I don't dispute that things which may not be appealing to me aren't art.
Personally, when I really think about what I do for a living, I'm something of an artist. When I write programs, I try to make the code beautiful, clean, functional, and even visually organized, because that is artistic to me.
If you go with my definition, videogames certainly qualify.
Agreed. I pretty much *expect* people to have some sort of a college degree...and personally, at least a 4-year, and not from DeVry. If you don't, I immediately think "Why not?" Since I don't tend to think of the default human condition to be one of brilliance, I'm sorry to say that my prejudices do not lead me to believe that you're just too smart for college. ;)
Also, there are limiting social aspects to not having a degree, and if you come off like a troll in interviews, you are not going to get hired. Being able to talk about college experiences--which your future boss and interviewer probably had--is one way to find common ground. My current uber-boss is from near London, and being able to just chat with him about where I lived in that city when I did a semester abroad allowed us to establish some common ground that made the interview go must more smoothly.
Anyway, go get that sheepskin.
Gotta agree. Boston is a tough city. I was never able to break in to that market.
I mean, you've got MIT, Harvard, BU, half a dozen other schools that are pretty good...there is a LOT of cheap talent up there.
You might have better luck shopping elsewhere.
You may have a hard drive assault cannon, but your web server crumbles before the /. assault cannon!
Check a recruiting/job search site and run one of their salary calculators. That will give you a rough estimate of the going rate in your area.
In NYC, 70K will get you about as far as 30K in some rural areas. So, salaries will tend to fluctuate depending on the local cost of living...groceries, gas, rent and insurance can be wildly more expensive in urban areas than in the sticks.
Also depends on the amount of locally available talent. Try as I might, I couldn't break into the very tough Boston IT market back in 2000. I suspect all those MIT folks might have had something to do with that. I had to settle* for the DC area, which has some fine universities, none of which are famous for their IT programs.
It also depends on whether you, like me, have a degree in some unrelated major and are trying to h4xx0r your way into a cush programming job. And it depends on exactly what "software engineer" entails...are you going to be coding missle-control microchips in assembly language, or writing HTML-based web applications?
My salaries have fallen in the 60-70k range over my brief (4-year) career. Some jobs have had more vacation, some have had better 401k plans, some have had more attractive locations, some have had nicer people, and some have had more demanding schedules.
I would say that anything over 50K is probably a reasonable starting salary, from my perspective, and assuming that you are probably going to be working someplace in a major metropolitan area and for a company of significant size and influence.
I had an offer for 32k when I graduated; I was insulted and I didn't take the job. Luckily I found a much better offer elsewhere. Don't sell yourself too short. If you have talent, tenacity, some social skills (you don't come off like a neanderthal cave-coder in interviews), and a lot of luck, you will do just fine.
Also, if you find that you are getting shut down on a lot of offers, take some time and brush up on your skills. $150 of O'Reilly books saved my career a few years ago.
Good luck!
*At the time, I thought of it as "settling." Now, I love it here.