...I don't see how you could make a AAA title without being face-to-face with your coworkers. Every project I've worked on has featured (at least) daily meetings and discussions about game design, or gamesystem design, or how designers want something exposed to them, or any number of other issues. We're consantly sketching and scribbling on whiteboards and bouncing ideas off each other, and even then, lack of sufficient communication has been an issue in every project as well.
Every off-site contracter we've used has also been problematic. Trying to communicate via email or IM is unreliable, syncing builds for folks on DSL or cable modems can be painful, and having to deal with a problem they introduced and we have a deadline looming is horrible.
Maybe there's a process that would work for the Open Source community -- I don't know, I've never done large-scale OS development. But unless there are some magic tools out there, I'd be very surprised.
Have you considered the possibility that you, a slashdot reader, may not fully understand what's involved in the process of bidding on government contracts?
Of course, but let's not pretend that there's a full competitive free market going on and Halliburton is winning all its contracts as the low bidder. In some cases, the contract was simply handed to them.
Nobody's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act. Name one or shut up.
The ACLU has filed a court challenge to the Patriot Act. They also do a good job detailing exactly how the increased survellance powers violiate our rights. Finally, there's at least one other occasion in which the FBI used the Patriot Act in a case that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (in this case to get information on strip club owners, their families, and four politicians).
The deficit as a percent of GDP is LOWER now than it was under Clinton.
According to this, you're incorrect. Bush's deficit as percentage of GDP in FY2004 is 2.7%, whereas during the Clintion years it averaged 0.1%.
It was the low bidder; what do you want - WalMart supplying our troops?
In some cases, Halliburton was the only bidder. According to the Pentagon, taking other bids "would have been a wasteful duplication".
I've got an Archos 340 and I use it primarly when traveling. Any plane flight now includes a selection of my favorite movies and TV shows, paused when I want, with high-quality sound. Plus I can listen to music if the mood strikes me. Yes, I could use a laptop for movie playback, but it's considerably more bulky and has worse battery life.
Continue offering just the CD for those that don't want the extra's and price it in the $7 - $11 dollar range.
Check out Cheap CDs. They sell all CDs at cost and only make money on a small handling fee. Huge slection and 91% of their stock of new CDs are under $11.99. They ship quickly and their packaging is very nice. I'm definitely a happy customer.
we'll still burn through $20+ at the concession stand
Um...so don't buy concessions.
Seriously, you can't blame the film industry because you, your girlfriend, or her kids can't sit through an hour-and-a-half movie without a coke, a popcorn, and a bag of candy at your side.
Hey, no need to be a dick. I just asked for a source. Why the attitude?
Regarding the book in question, if contains statements that are provably false and is intended to damage the Kerry campaign (which it clearly is), it's libelous and the Kerry campaign could sue for its removal. Sadly, a court decision would surely take until post-election, after which the damage is already done. As much as calling for its removal irks my first-amendment tendencies, does he have any other option?
In any case, I find it a bit odd that Kerry is the evil one here, given that the Bush camp is the one that appears to be selling a libelous book.
Nobody gives a fsck what Bush did for 7 FSCKING minutes after receiving word of the events.
On the contrary, this display of inaction is potentially very damaging to the Bush camp, despite how much the Bush apologists would claim otherwise.
I would certainly hope that ANY President, when told that his contry is under attack, would immediately excuse himself from whatever photo-op he is involved in. It is his responsibility, more than anyone else in the country, to gather information, talk to other high-ranking officials, develop a plan, and put it into action. The fact that he did nothing for seven minutes is simply inexcusable to me and belies an apalling lack of leadership.
Even more galling is are the lame excuses for the delay. "Not wanting to alarm the children" is absurd, he could have -- and should have -- simply said that there was something that he needed to attend to and exused himself. Not a single child would have been alarmed in the least.
As far as Kerry's war record...are you sure you really want to start comparing it against that of Bush? Doesn't seem like he'll stack up well there.
As far as your use of the word "slander", that would require the information to be known false and intended to cause harm. Can you demonstrate either of those in Kerry's testimony?
But he wasn't critical of a certain Senator that's running for President named John Kerry that sat stunned for 45 MINUTES during the same scenario. Gee, I wonder who did better in that situation?
Again, do you have a source for that information? (It's not that hard to google for a source to back up your claims, folks).
As far as comparing the two, one is the President and Commander in Chief. You'd hope that he would begin gathering information and taking action immediately when it has become clear that his country has come under attack. Instead, he sat dumbfounded for seven minutes and later justified it with the exceedingly weak argument that he "didn't want to alarm the children" by leaving his photo-op early. Source here.
Even if Kerry did sit stunned for 45 minutes, what exactly was he supposed to do? As far as I know he had no control over anything that could have helped the situation. Unlike President Bush, it was neither his job nor responsiblity to act on the event.
Or how Moore can go and make film, books, etc that basically say Bush and Saudi Arabia conspired to kill 3000+ Americans because he wants some oil. He's now significantly richer and on the even shorter list for the shows.
I'm not a huge fan of Moore's one-sided rhetoric, but he's certainly never said that Bush had specific knowledge of the attack before it happened and was a coconspirator in its execution. He's been very critical of a lax attitude that allowed it to happen and extremely critical of Bush's reaction to it, but you're putting words in his mouth. Please provide a quote with a credible source.
Now, speaking about Ann Coulter, she said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the same article she advocates carpetbombing Muslim countries (and thus knowingly killing innocent civilians). And yet she remains a top conservative pundit.
In the RIAA's eyes I'm already a pirate, even though I payed for all but a handful of the albums I now possess, I just own them in a different format.
But this is just a straw man -- the RIAA isn't going after people who rip mp3s from CDs they've purchased, they're going after people who accumulate huge mp3 libraries without purchasing any of the CDs. Yes, technically, you're probably right that the RIAA considers those that rip their CDs onto their portalbe mp3 players "pirates" at some miniscule level, but it's clearly not worth their time to go after those people.
So the original poster's point still stands: that someone who downloads 1000 albums would almost certainly have purchased some portion of those albums had they not been available for free.
The problem is, not one mp3 EVER created is a 1:1 perfect digital copy. There is no way to argue this. The whole basis of an mp3 is that it uses psycho-acoustics to 'fill-in' the parts that are removed during clipping/compression of the 'perfect' copy.
Again, you're misrepresenting the original poster's point. Yes, the generation of the mp3 is lossy (though at 256+kbps it's pretty much perceptually lossless). But every generation after that is 1:1 perfect. The thousandth generation tape would be completely unlistenable, whereas the thousandth generation mp3 would stil be indistinguishable from the original CD.
I guess that's what happens when you aren't tied to the television
Or read the newspaper. Or go to any substantial news site. Or listen to the radio.
I mean, I know it's hard to pass up an opportunity to remind us of your non-TV-watching superiority, but please. Virtually any source of news would have let you know that the Olympics have started.
I don't see the big deal here -- it's not fantastic service to be sure, but doesn't seem too unreasonable either.
There was a bit of a special case that the first two employees weren't aware of, which isn't too surprising given that it's due to a combination of a certain area code and an open-box item, both of which are probably relatively rare. The GM was aware of it and explained it clearly.
As far as not shipping open-box items to the full extents of their normal shipping range, that also seems fairly reasonable -- the item is clearly not packaged fully and their deliverypeople probably aren't insured/equipped to deal with those special cases.
I'm no huge BB fan (particularly their largely incompetent salespeople), but it sounds like there was an honest mistake, clearly resolved after a few minutes, you continued to try to get them to change their policy, and eventually they grew tired of dealing with you when they obviously weren't going to change their policy regardless of what you were originally told.
It is a factual untrue belief. In fact, people are generally more honest than not.
Well, you can claim that it's factual but have done nothing to back up that claim. I could just as easily claim that it's factually true that people are more dishonest than not (though I won't).
I will say, however, that I think people who are constrained by the trappings of interpersonal relationships (that is, "in public") are generally more honest than not. However, in private, when protected by some amount of anonymity, they become considerably more self-centered and dishonest.
And in the area of IP, it's a much fuzzier issue -- the social stigmas associated with traditional stealing often don't seem to apply or are rationalized around.
I ended up as a Third-Way, which evidently is to Liberal what Neocon is to Conservative. I'm not sure how much stock I put in that test, though, I don't think it had enough questions to really establish preferences and didn't allow me to weigh any of my answers (some being far more important and significant to my overal ideology than others).
Very, very few people actually "enjoy" stealing. Most of those that do, haven't grown up yet.
It costs to steal. It costs self image, it costs self respect and it cost fear, guilt, time and effort. TANSTAFL.
I think you're completely misinformed here, paticularly when talking about media piracy.
It's FUN to be the first one with a movie/CD/game. It's a status symbol, and your friends will think it's cool that you've seen/played/listened to it before most people have. Furthermore, you can then make copies for your friends and they will appreciate it.
It's FUN to get stuff for free. Knowing what you need to know to get stuff early or free is a power trip for many, and being able to use or sample things simply by being in the right crowd is undeniably fun.
I know -- I and many of my friends pirated a lot of games and CDs when we were in high school and college, and now I'm a video game developer so I can see it from the other point of view (and I'm still no fan of copy protection). But I think you're putting far more stock in the pirates' consciences than is accurate.
Also, "neo-con rhetoric"? I'm about a far from a neo-con as they come and I mostly agree with the parent post. What's so neo-con about it?
George Bush : in favor (obviously) John Kerry : in favor So exactly what would be different ?
Well, first of all, it's not just a yes-or-no issue, it's far more nuanced than that. Even assuming that both would have gone in on the bad intelligence, how would Kerry have involved the international community? What would the combat strategy be? What sort of plans would have been in place for post-war security and reconstruction? How much responsibility would have been taken for the bad intelligence? Obviously these are all hypotheticals, but I suspect there would be substantial differences, even assuming that they both would have gone to war.
Get some decent points...
If you honestly think copyright law is more relevant to people's lives than gay marriage, then you clearly need to get outside of/. a bit more. Gay marriage and the rights it entails is a crucial issue for far more than the 10,000 Americans that you cite. It affects EVERY gay person's ability to create a real, legally protected family. It's a serious issue for all the gay friends that I have.
maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff
Instant Runoff is pretty deeply flawed. Approval voting is a much better alternative for making 3rd party candidates viable without the situation backfiring as in 2000.
Adding proportional representation or eliminating the electoral college would also help immensely.
Speeding may or may not be the root cause of an incident, but it dramatically affects the outcome, since the energy involved is proportional to the *square* of the velocity
Sure, but if I'm going 80 in a 65 in my 2667lb car that's still less energy than a a 5820lb Cadillac Escalade going exactly the speed limit, and is about the energy of a midsize SUV like a BMW X3 going exactly the speed limit. Yet there aren't weight limits, and there aren't "energy limits" (lower speed limits for heavier vehicles).
Furthermore, my car handles far better at those speeds than any SUV does and provides better visibility.
Which is not to say that blazing past cars or weaving in and out of traffic is in any way a safe thing to do, but driving with traffic in the fast lane, going 10-15mph over the speed limit, in my car, is far safer than larger cars driving more slowly in other lanes.
But speed kills -- every mile an hour over the limit drastically decreases the possibility of surviving a crash
Okay, I'll call BS on this one. Got any references for that claim? EVERY mile an hour DRASTICALLY decreases the possibility? Seems a bit hard to believe.
In the case of ALL of these, the vehicle in front, no matter what its speed, has the right of way and should be passed in a safe manner when room on the road allows.
Maybe I'm just ignorant of the law, but is it ever legal to pass these vehicles on roads with double-yellow lines? There's one road in particular is that is both heavily used by cyclists and is an otherwise convenient route to take by car, and it's double-yellow the whole way.
There have been paved roads LONG before cars. Romans had them 2000 years ago. In China they have paved roads where 1% of the traffic is cars.
Well, of course, but how many roads do you travel on today that predate cars? How many were built for a primary purpose other than for use by cars? Basically none, I'd guess.
This is simply not true...two-thirds comes from local government general funds, primarily property taxes and state property tax relief, also known as general-purpose aid...While a cyclist isn't paying a fuel tax, they are still paying for the roads via other taxes. Additionally, since a bicycle induces virtually no wear on the road-surface, cyclists are paying for more than their share of road maintainence.
I think you've just proven my point for me. By your quoted source, those who buy automobiles and gasoline contribute more towards road construction and repair than pure cyclists. Pure cyclists contribute just to the general fund, whereas motorists contribute to the general fund as well as to gas taxes, etc.
As far as repairs so, yes, cyclists do cause less damage to roads than cars do, but how much of the total cost of a road goes into repairs, and how much of those repairs are due to natural causes like weather? My guess is that the 1/3 contributed by motorists more than makes up for the cost of the wear-and-tear they cause the road.
The problem is its a contrived limitation on the player to make the gameplay work. When you have a game so aimed at realism, devices such as this to make the gameplay work become an annoyance.
Okay, there's your problem right there. Doom3 is not a game that's aiming for realism. It's a game that's aiming for a particular mood, a feeling of tension and fear punctuated with panicked excitement. Some elements of the game are related to providing a realistic world (the renderer in particular) but many are expressly not realistic in order to draw the player into their target experience.
I mean, you can't jump up on chest-level crates, you can't pick up cardboard boxes, there's ammo and health packs and armor lying around everywhere, and you pick stuff up by running over it. Requiring the player to choose between using a weapon or a flashlight is just one of the many ways they sacrifice a bit of realism to server the game's larger goals.
I'd have to disagree with you here. I don't agree that's it's even possible except along the major highways where bicycles aren't even allowed. Of the bike paths that actually exist in America I've never seen one that's even suitable for anything but light recreational use.
I've seen a couple rails-to-trails bikepaths that were perfectly good for doing some real cycling. I lived outside of Boston in Bedford, MA for a while and could ride all the way in to Cambridge where I could hop on the T and get anywhere in town, and there was no problem riding 20 mph+ for most of the trip.
The designers themselves don't seem to understand that bicycles are high speed vehicles. The roads we already have are perfectly suitable for sharing if we, well, share. Cyclists don't have the right to hog the road and ignore rights of way. Neither do cars. We all "own" the road in common. It would be nice if we acted that way.
My problem is that there is just too much difference between cars and bicycles for practical sharing. I can't recall EVER being behind a cyclist on a road that was going a speed that I'd expect a car to be going. Even on the rare 30mph road most cars are going slightly over that and cyclists are going, at most, 20mph. Are we reasonably expected to share a 45mph road? Cyclists won't even be going half the speed of the automobile traffic, and that's just an accident waiting to happen.
IF it comes down to it cyclists (and in many cases even pedestrians) have a right to be there, and drivers only have a priviledge
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's simply not true. If anything, cars have MORE of a right to be there since the roads were primarily built because of automobile transportation. They also were funded more by automobiles than by bicyles (gas taxes and whatnot).
Slashdot Mirror
...I don't see how you could make a AAA title without being face-to-face with your coworkers. Every project I've worked on has featured (at least) daily meetings and discussions about game design, or gamesystem design, or how designers want something exposed to them, or any number of other issues. We're consantly sketching and scribbling on whiteboards and bouncing ideas off each other, and even then, lack of sufficient communication has been an issue in every project as well.
Every off-site contracter we've used has also been problematic. Trying to communicate via email or IM is unreliable, syncing builds for folks on DSL or cable modems can be painful, and having to deal with a problem they introduced and we have a deadline looming is horrible.
Maybe there's a process that would work for the Open Source community -- I don't know, I've never done large-scale OS development. But unless there are some magic tools out there, I'd be very surprised.
According to this, you're incorrect. Bush's deficit as percentage of GDP in FY2004 is 2.7%, whereas during the Clintion years it averaged 0.1%.
In some cases, Halliburton was the only bidder. According to the Pentagon, taking other bids "would have been a wasteful duplication".
Seriously, you can't blame the film industry because you, your girlfriend, or her kids can't sit through an hour-and-a-half movie without a coke, a popcorn, and a bag of candy at your side.
Regarding the book in question, if contains statements that are provably false and is intended to damage the Kerry campaign (which it clearly is), it's libelous and the Kerry campaign could sue for its removal. Sadly, a court decision would surely take until post-election, after which the damage is already done. As much as calling for its removal irks my first-amendment tendencies, does he have any other option?
In any case, I find it a bit odd that Kerry is the evil one here, given that the Bush camp is the one that appears to be selling a libelous book.
I would certainly hope that ANY President, when told that his contry is under attack, would immediately excuse himself from whatever photo-op he is involved in. It is his responsibility, more than anyone else in the country, to gather information, talk to other high-ranking officials, develop a plan, and put it into action. The fact that he did nothing for seven minutes is simply inexcusable to me and belies an apalling lack of leadership.
Even more galling is are the lame excuses for the delay. "Not wanting to alarm the children" is absurd, he could have -- and should have -- simply said that there was something that he needed to attend to and exused himself. Not a single child would have been alarmed in the least.
As far as Kerry's war record...are you sure you really want to start comparing it against that of Bush? Doesn't seem like he'll stack up well there.
As far as your use of the word "slander", that would require the information to be known false and intended to cause harm. Can you demonstrate either of those in Kerry's testimony?
As far as comparing the two, one is the President and Commander in Chief. You'd hope that he would begin gathering information and taking action immediately when it has become clear that his country has come under attack. Instead, he sat dumbfounded for seven minutes and later justified it with the exceedingly weak argument that he "didn't want to alarm the children" by leaving his photo-op early. Source here.
Even if Kerry did sit stunned for 45 minutes, what exactly was he supposed to do? As far as I know he had no control over anything that could have helped the situation. Unlike President Bush, it was neither his job nor responsiblity to act on the event.
Now, speaking about Ann Coulter, she said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the same article she advocates carpetbombing Muslim countries (and thus knowingly killing innocent civilians). And yet she remains a top conservative pundit.
So the original poster's point still stands: that someone who downloads 1000 albums would almost certainly have purchased some portion of those albums had they not been available for free.
Again, you're misrepresenting the original poster's point. Yes, the generation of the mp3 is lossy (though at 256+kbps it's pretty much perceptually lossless). But every generation after that is 1:1 perfect. The thousandth generation tape would be completely unlistenable, whereas the thousandth generation mp3 would stil be indistinguishable from the original CD.
I mean, I know it's hard to pass up an opportunity to remind us of your non-TV-watching superiority, but please. Virtually any source of news would have let you know that the Olympics have started.
I don't see the big deal here -- it's not fantastic service to be sure, but doesn't seem too unreasonable either.
There was a bit of a special case that the first two employees weren't aware of, which isn't too surprising given that it's due to a combination of a certain area code and an open-box item, both of which are probably relatively rare. The GM was aware of it and explained it clearly.
As far as not shipping open-box items to the full extents of their normal shipping range, that also seems fairly reasonable -- the item is clearly not packaged fully and their deliverypeople probably aren't insured/equipped to deal with those special cases.
I'm no huge BB fan (particularly their largely incompetent salespeople), but it sounds like there was an honest mistake, clearly resolved after a few minutes, you continued to try to get them to change their policy, and eventually they grew tired of dealing with you when they obviously weren't going to change their policy regardless of what you were originally told.
I will say, however, that I think people who are constrained by the trappings of interpersonal relationships (that is, "in public") are generally more honest than not. However, in private, when protected by some amount of anonymity, they become considerably more self-centered and dishonest.
And in the area of IP, it's a much fuzzier issue -- the social stigmas associated with traditional stealing often don't seem to apply or are rationalized around.
I ended up as a Third-Way, which evidently is to Liberal what Neocon is to Conservative. I'm not sure how much stock I put in that test, though, I don't think it had enough questions to really establish preferences and didn't allow me to weigh any of my answers (some being far more important and significant to my overal ideology than others).
It's FUN to be the first one with a movie/CD/game. It's a status symbol, and your friends will think it's cool that you've seen/played/listened to it before most people have. Furthermore, you can then make copies for your friends and they will appreciate it.
It's FUN to get stuff for free. Knowing what you need to know to get stuff early or free is a power trip for many, and being able to use or sample things simply by being in the right crowd is undeniably fun.
I know -- I and many of my friends pirated a lot of games and CDs when we were in high school and college, and now I'm a video game developer so I can see it from the other point of view (and I'm still no fan of copy protection). But I think you're putting far more stock in the pirates' consciences than is accurate.
Also, "neo-con rhetoric"? I'm about a far from a neo-con as they come and I mostly agree with the parent post. What's so neo-con about it?
If you honestly think copyright law is more relevant to people's lives than gay marriage, then you clearly need to get outside of
Adding proportional representation or eliminating the electoral college would also help immensely.
Furthermore, my car handles far better at those speeds than any SUV does and provides better visibility.
Which is not to say that blazing past cars or weaving in and out of traffic is in any way a safe thing to do, but driving with traffic in the fast lane, going 10-15mph over the speed limit, in my car, is far safer than larger cars driving more slowly in other lanes.
I think you've just proven my point for me. By your quoted source, those who buy automobiles and gasoline contribute more towards road construction and repair than pure cyclists. Pure cyclists contribute just to the general fund, whereas motorists contribute to the general fund as well as to gas taxes, etc.
As far as repairs so, yes, cyclists do cause less damage to roads than cars do, but how much of the total cost of a road goes into repairs, and how much of those repairs are due to natural causes like weather? My guess is that the 1/3 contributed by motorists more than makes up for the cost of the wear-and-tear they cause the road.
I mean, you can't jump up on chest-level crates, you can't pick up cardboard boxes, there's ammo and health packs and armor lying around everywhere, and you pick stuff up by running over it. Requiring the player to choose between using a weapon or a flashlight is just one of the many ways they sacrifice a bit of realism to server the game's larger goals.
My problem is that there is just too much difference between cars and bicycles for practical sharing. I can't recall EVER being behind a cyclist on a road that was going a speed that I'd expect a car to be going. Even on the rare 30mph road most cars are going slightly over that and cyclists are going, at most, 20mph. Are we reasonably expected to share a 45mph road? Cyclists won't even be going half the speed of the automobile traffic, and that's just an accident waiting to happen.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's simply not true. If anything, cars have MORE of a right to be there since the roads were primarily built because of automobile transportation. They also were funded more by automobiles than by bicyles (gas taxes and whatnot).