I'm not sure if they're only looking at single persons or can stretch to groups of people. Obviously, it's not as easy to become a "game god" today by yourself when you have beasts with millions of dollars to spend, and much of that on marketing. It was different in the eighties as the game industry didn't look nearly the same as now.
But as I posted above, there are still (new) games coming out that conquer markets; it's just that there are more than one guy behind it, in case they're only counting such cases. But if not limiting ourselves to a single person sitting in a basement, we have many game gods around us. One reasonably new one besides those I mentioned is Digital Illusions who made a very strong comeback with Battlefield 1942 in 2002. Granted, some were maybe even involved in the Amiga days, but most of the devs behind that games weren't. That game's influence is mighty impressive given the competition in the FPS market.
Seriously. Look at the by far most dominating MMORPG and who's behind it. Then see how the same devs made the most successful PC RTS series in gaming history. Not to count reinventing the Action RPG genre previously mostly just found in Roguelikes.
How can the article miss this? If there was some "game gods" of today, why shouldn't it be a group of designers that have conquered a major part of the PC game industry today? Other "game gods" can be found in Maxis who made that silly game The Sims I guess no-one heard of.:-p
I think this article cropped up because the author had an easier time seeing yesterday than seeing today. A bit like how it can be easier to identify past historical events than current ones. But believe me, there are VERY influental forces in the game industry today.
Unless, you know, they want to search everyone's spreadsheets to monitor trends. Kind of like they do with gMail.
Yes, or their actual search engine for services like this.
WooOoOo, fear the dangerous Google collecting info on what you and me typed, even binding it to the area of search using your very personal IP address. Just use that site and look at all the evil you can do with it. Then imagine them putting up ads based on this information and you should completely see how spooky Google is getting. No...?
I agree. I believe many living in urbanized areas (and then such cities would be 5,000+ or close to such towns) would be quite shocked to see the night sky as it looks like with no special light pollution influences. I've seen it just a few times the past decade or so, and it's a fascinating sight, making you truly *see* how you're on a sphere floating around in space.:-) You know you're in such a place when you can spot our neighboring Andromeda galaxy as a fuzzy spot with the naked eye!
I looked a bit on the web for pictures illustrating how it *can* look for those who haven't seen it, or seen it recently, but didn't find any good ones (not talking simulations here) and was reminded how cameras may not pick up star shine well due to optics and sensitivity? Hmm, not sure though, and I'm no photographer.
This sounds a bit corny, and is so out of place on Slashdot that it isn't even funny, but I've found being physically active (like at least 30 mins exercise a day) and maintaining a healthy lifestyle does good things to your concentration and studying abilities. You'll be less tired because your lung capacity improves and more, and there's of course other good side effects beyond the realms of studies, like better looks and health. Many feel they're too tired to exercise, but that's a bit of a vicious cycle in that the reason is often because you haven't.
So this would be a natural way to hopefully improve the studying situation a bit if you're into that sort of thing.
OK, so I've done it. Posted a health/lifestyle post on Slashdot. Feel free to mod me into oblivion!:-)
I'm not sure if these will still be available [about.com] for Windows XP, and where Windows 2000 stands.
WCF and WPF will be backported, yes. I doubt to 2000, but definitely to XP and Server 2003. (actually, they already have been and is downloadable if you wish to check them out)
One more thing,.NET 3.0 is to succeed 2.0 which succeeded 1.1 and in turn 1.0. So this is more about natural version progression (WinFX/.NET 3.0 has *major* additions applied to the framework) more than anything else, like version pumping. I'd say it's just coincidence, and wouldn't be surprised if WinFX has internally been versioned 3.0 for some time already.
Micorsoft just wants to stay ahead of everyone else, so Web 2.0 means.Net 3.0, Web 3.0 will mean.Net 4.0 and so on. This is their cheeky way of making it seem like they are ahead of the game. Branding doesn't make up for crappy products.
How can you even compare.NET to the AJAX of "Web 2.0"?
And how can this Slashdot article do it?
The only relationship I can see is that.NET *can* do web "stuff". It has no focus specifically on asynchronous XML though, or even the web. (well, ASP.NET has, but we're talking about the.NET Framework in general here) The.NET Framework is just a more updated framework to let developers write apps that run in a sandbox like Java. You can write an offline console application in.NET if you like, and actually that's an explicitly supported application type among others.
For once I like the renaming, especially if MS do internally consider this to be an update to the.NET Framework. Then it's just confusing to call it something as obscure as "WinFX" (many believed FX was for "effects" too, which it wasn't). The only unfortunate thing I can see about this rename is that they picked a bad brand in the first place.
Shouldn't the analysis on extrasolar data be based on the properties of celestial bodies, not if they're called planets or not? It's just a gut feeling, but defining "planet" and then looking specifically for those for life could maybe even hurt the discovery of such celestial bodies with life (which I believe is the extrasolar body analysis that's most interesting to humanity), in case the definition was such to not cover all possible bodies.
Not going specifically for what's defined as "planets" feels like freeing yourself of the boundaries a group of scientists thought up in a conference room, and that feels quite important when we know so little about extrasolar life.
I don't think they're looking at games as addictive, but at people being addicted.
There's a fine line there, with the major implication being that not everyone becomes addicted to games.
However, are you saying none get addicted to games, but it's simply the environment that cause them to sacrifice a social life and career on trying to get the next Druid to level 60? What environmental traits are you talking about in that case that leads to this behavior in some persons, and not others? Becoming isolated with few friends? But isn't that often a psychological, not environmental, effect from e.g an introvert personality and having a hard time making and keeping friends? A stressed environment? I've been through this, and play games, but never to the point of an addiction and can freely choose to stay away from it a day or two, so surely it doesn't seem to be an automatic effect from the environment alone?
Personally, I believe it is a combination, and to successfully combat an addiction, you need to both get down to the social state of a person's life, and also get to the bottom of any psychological reasons behind it. At least in other cases, it seems that some persons are more suspectible to becoming addicted to something than others. I haven't really heard of anything convincing that there isn't a psychological factor involved. I can surely understand that a social/environmental factor triggers a behavior, but the question is if the environment keeps them there, if psychology traits are involved, or both.
In my opinion, when Microsoft ended Windows 98 support through security patches, releasing all safety nets for new exploits and allowing Windows 98 to freely become a security hole of its own, it only makes sense that Firefox which intend to push for a reasonably high security shouldn't run on such an OS. Also, Windows 98 is based on a kernel since 1995, and the security landscape has changed a lot the past 11 years. Heck, the kernel of 98 isn't even based much around the assumption that its users will be Internet heavy users, and I believe it shows up in many places of that OS.
Windows 2000 provides, using Microsoft standards, a quite solid platform with the NT 5.0 kernel, and it's an entirely different ball game as for the kernel API.
... and the Swedish, and the Danish, according to a Swedish newspaper.
So I think this is a problem with laws common to a number of Scandinavian countries, and in short they dislike that Apple is writing themselves free of so many things upon signing up; e.g freedom of changing the license agreement without warning and with immediate effect.
This may have made its rounds to Slashdot because Reuters just reported it as current news. Which in turn makes me believe it's not the same old, but an actual updated or new one.
However, that comment was made after: 1. A single Russian company, AllofMp3, has become US government matter. 2. A single Swedish web site, The Pirate Bay, has become US government matter.
In both cases, the sites have not formerly been found to breach any laws in their respective countries. What's more, AllofMp3 has already been investigated, and The Pirate Bay has support by a formerly case where a BBS was tested exactly about linking to copyrighted content; i.e. what The Pirate Bay is now once again accused of.
Sure, maybe the US won't go as far as into war if these countries wouldn't comply to their demands, but what do you think would happen if they wouldn't comply? Trade penalties or other penalties on a more civil level? Even that would be confusingly similar to the penalties that are currently discussed for Iran's nuclear energy production.
I think the reason behind all this fuss is economics. Correctly or falsely, the US is believing they're losing huge amounts of money because their laws are more strict than other countries', and this is completely and totally unacceptable for the MPAA, the RIAA, and the US government itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if they're only looking at single persons or can stretch to groups of people. Obviously, it's not as easy to become a "game god" today by yourself when you have beasts with millions of dollars to spend, and much of that on marketing. It was different in the eighties as the game industry didn't look nearly the same as now.
But as I posted above, there are still (new) games coming out that conquer markets; it's just that there are more than one guy behind it, in case they're only counting such cases. But if not limiting ourselves to a single person sitting in a basement, we have many game gods around us. One reasonably new one besides those I mentioned is Digital Illusions who made a very strong comeback with Battlefield 1942 in 2002. Granted, some were maybe even involved in the Amiga days, but most of the devs behind that games weren't. That game's influence is mighty impressive given the competition in the FPS market.
LOL
Seriously. Look at the by far most dominating MMORPG and who's behind it. Then see how the same devs made the most successful PC RTS series in gaming history. Not to count reinventing the Action RPG genre previously mostly just found in Roguelikes.
How can the article miss this? If there was some "game gods" of today, why shouldn't it be a group of designers that have conquered a major part of the PC game industry today? Other "game gods" can be found in Maxis who made that silly game The Sims I guess no-one heard of.
I think this article cropped up because the author had an easier time seeing yesterday than seeing today. A bit like how it can be easier to identify past historical events than current ones. But believe me, there are VERY influental forces in the game industry today.
Yes, or their actual search engine for services like this.
WooOoOo, fear the dangerous Google collecting info on what you and me typed, even binding it to the area of search using your very personal IP address. Just use that site and look at all the evil you can do with it. Then imagine them putting up ads based on this information and you should completely see how spooky Google is getting. No...?
I agree. I believe many living in urbanized areas (and then such cities would be 5,000+ or close to such towns) would be quite shocked to see the night sky as it looks like with no special light pollution influences. I've seen it just a few times the past decade or so, and it's a fascinating sight, making you truly *see* how you're on a sphere floating around in space. :-) You know you're in such a place when you can spot our neighboring Andromeda galaxy as a fuzzy spot with the naked eye!
I looked a bit on the web for pictures illustrating how it *can* look for those who haven't seen it, or seen it recently, but didn't find any good ones (not talking simulations here) and was reminded how cameras may not pick up star shine well due to optics and sensitivity? Hmm, not sure though, and I'm no photographer.
WGA is misrepresented in my Windows install. *insert pirate smiley*
Then MS can misrepresent it all they want.
This sounds a bit corny, and is so out of place on Slashdot that it isn't even funny, but I've found being physically active (like at least 30 mins exercise a day) and maintaining a healthy lifestyle does good things to your concentration and studying abilities. You'll be less tired because your lung capacity improves and more, and there's of course other good side effects beyond the realms of studies, like better looks and health. Many feel they're too tired to exercise, but that's a bit of a vicious cycle in that the reason is often because you haven't.
:-)
So this would be a natural way to hopefully improve the studying situation a bit if you're into that sort of thing.
OK, so I've done it. Posted a health/lifestyle post on Slashdot. Feel free to mod me into oblivion!
I'm not sure if these will still be available [about.com] for Windows XP, and where Windows 2000 stands.
WCF and WPF will be backported, yes. I doubt to 2000, but definitely to XP and Server 2003.
(actually, they already have been and is downloadable if you wish to check them out)
One more thing, .NET 3.0 is to succeed 2.0 which succeeded 1.1 and in turn 1.0. So this is more about natural version progression (WinFX/.NET 3.0 has *major* additions applied to the framework) more than anything else, like version pumping. I'd say it's just coincidence, and wouldn't be surprised if WinFX has internally been versioned 3.0 for some time already.
How can you even compare
And how can this Slashdot article do it?
The only relationship I can see is that
For once I like the renaming, especially if MS do internally consider this to be an update to the .NET Framework. Then it's just confusing to call it something as obscure as "WinFX" (many believed FX was for "effects" too, which it wasn't). The only unfortunate thing I can see about this rename is that they picked a bad brand in the first place.
+Funny doesn't give karma, silly. ;-)
Flying pig?
By now it's a flying Bill Gates as a super hero praising open source and destroying proprietary software companies with fricking lasers from his head.
Shouldn't the analysis on extrasolar data be based on the properties of celestial bodies, not if they're called planets or not? It's just a gut feeling, but defining "planet" and then looking specifically for those for life could maybe even hurt the discovery of such celestial bodies with life (which I believe is the extrasolar body analysis that's most interesting to humanity), in case the definition was such to not cover all possible bodies.
Not going specifically for what's defined as "planets" feels like freeing yourself of the boundaries a group of scientists thought up in a conference room, and that feels quite important when we know so little about extrasolar life.
Enough to whine about Firefox not going to support it in the future. :-p
Yes, despite all the security problems.
And here I thought Firefox users were generally security aware.
I don't think they're looking at games as addictive, but at people being addicted.
There's a fine line there, with the major implication being that not everyone becomes addicted to games.
However, are you saying none get addicted to games, but it's simply the environment that cause them to sacrifice a social life and career on trying to get the next Druid to level 60? What environmental traits are you talking about in that case that leads to this behavior in some persons, and not others? Becoming isolated with few friends? But isn't that often a psychological, not environmental, effect from e.g an introvert personality and having a hard time making and keeping friends? A stressed environment? I've been through this, and play games, but never to the point of an addiction and can freely choose to stay away from it a day or two, so surely it doesn't seem to be an automatic effect from the environment alone?
Personally, I believe it is a combination, and to successfully combat an addiction, you need to both get down to the social state of a person's life, and also get to the bottom of any psychological reasons behind it. At least in other cases, it seems that some persons are more suspectible to becoming addicted to something than others. I haven't really heard of anything convincing that there isn't a psychological factor involved. I can surely understand that a social/environmental factor triggers a behavior, but the question is if the environment keeps them there, if psychology traits are involved, or both.
In my opinion, when Microsoft ended Windows 98 support through security patches, releasing all safety nets for new exploits and allowing Windows 98 to freely become a security hole of its own, it only makes sense that Firefox which intend to push for a reasonably high security shouldn't run on such an OS. Also, Windows 98 is based on a kernel since 1995, and the security landscape has changed a lot the past 11 years. Heck, the kernel of 98 isn't even based much around the assumption that its users will be Internet heavy users, and I believe it shows up in many places of that OS.
Windows 2000 provides, using Microsoft standards, a quite solid platform with the NT 5.0 kernel, and it's an entirely different ball game as for the kernel API.
So I think this is a problem with laws common to a number of Scandinavian countries, and in short they dislike that Apple is writing themselves free of so many things upon signing up; e.g freedom of changing the license agreement without warning and with immediate effect.
This, then this may have pissed someone off.
This may have made its rounds to Slashdot because Reuters just reported it as current news.
Which in turn makes me believe it's not the same old, but an actual updated or new one.
Well, I for one am not putting my hand in your ass to diagnose if you have prostate cancer!
So that's one area.
Any more?
I support cloning, because that's the only way I assume I'll reproduce. :-/
My mind wandered off to an incest sex orgy for a moment there. :-o
However, that comment was made after:
1. A single Russian company, AllofMp3, has become US government matter.
2. A single Swedish web site, The Pirate Bay, has become US government matter.
In both cases, the sites have not formerly been found to breach any laws in their respective countries. What's more, AllofMp3 has already been investigated, and The Pirate Bay has support by a formerly case where a BBS was tested exactly about linking to copyrighted content; i.e. what The Pirate Bay is now once again accused of.
Sure, maybe the US won't go as far as into war if these countries wouldn't comply to their demands, but what do you think would happen if they wouldn't comply? Trade penalties or other penalties on a more civil level? Even that would be confusingly similar to the penalties that are currently discussed for Iran's nuclear energy production.
I think the reason behind all this fuss is economics. Correctly or falsely, the US is believing they're losing huge amounts of money because their laws are more strict than other countries', and this is completely and totally unacceptable for the MPAA, the RIAA, and the US government itself.
I thought that was exactly what you could, if it hit well enough.
Of course, the downside is that the rest of the software + hardware may not work well afterwards either.
Why would you drop the leading zero for day and month but not for year?
To make the number become 666. You don't honestly believe he said that for any other reason, do you?