You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
I for one won't be paying 5 different video sites just to get the films/shows I want. Seriously all of you, sort it the f*ck out and cross-license.
Hmmm... If only there were companies with the internet hardware infrastructure connected to customer's homes and a vast network of business relationships with all of the competing content networks to bring them to customers in a convenient package. Who could that be????
Mind you, that's not an argument for cable, it's dying. The old cable oligarchs will squeeze every penny from it, but I think it's very naive to believe they won't take back the reins from streamers, even plucky tech start-ups and cute little mice.
I don't see why anyone would limit the idea to opening weekends, especially since video games are extremely front loaded and movies have a longer and bigger tail, especially if the foreign release comes after the domestic release.
Evidence? Because I would expect video games to make more money than movies over time with DLC add-ons, and many PC players wait for Steam sales. Then again, developer profits from console game sales probably are more front-loaded and then shifts to used game resellers, so maybe the movie theater/home video/streaming cycle is longer and more profitable. But you can't do add-on DLC for movies though... A hit video game becomes a platform that can be expanded with DLC for more revenue, even if the original game was purchased used. A hit movie is released and then it's back to drawing board to try to make another hit movie.
What will probably happen is the big ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will shift from being the distributing platform of conventional cable TV to the distribution platform for streaming TV. The ISPs already have all the connections and experience with networks and they [literally and metaphorically] have a connection to the customers. The switch could be almost seamless.
I guess some places are air tight, but the rock where I live if full of holes and I could only imagine would leak profusely.
Certainly, it's not applicable everywhere, but there are other energy storage options. For example you can apply the same concept to water and pump it between reservoirs. It's not just theoretically possible either, a "water battery" has operated in West Virginia since 1985, called the Bath County Station ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It pumps water to a reservoir when electric rates are low, releases water into turbines when electric rates are high. It runs profitably.
Storage will be the key to making renewable energy work for our grid. Whether it's compressed air, water, molten salt, or something else. We know how to make clean, cheap, sustainable electricity, but not in the moment want/need to use it (i.e. when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing), so we need a way to store it, and the best means of storage might be different for different regions.
The answer lies in the phrase "economies of scale." There is almost NOTHING that you can do in your home, and have it be more efficient than the industrial version of the same.
^^ Exactly. It's a shame a bunch of tin-hat anti-gov't/anti-industry preppers derailed the point.
Large scale is where these sorts of technologies hit the efficiencies that make them economical for investment by the private industry. Sustainable technologies can and are being driven by market forces/capitalism that will make everyone connected to the grid more "green" regardless of personal politics. We don't have to rely on each individual to choose to do the "right" thing when the industry and free markets will naturally follow paths towards efficiency and carry everyone along with them.
A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS.That'd be wonderful. Perhaps I could use the same technology to guide me underwater when I'm caving. Oh, but hang on... aren't radio signals blocked by seawater (and slightly less effectively, in proportion to the water conductivity, by fresh water)? Perhaps that is why I've never once seen an advert for an underwater GPS device. (I have however seen hundreds of adverts though for waterproofed, boat ready GPS units for use on the air-ventilated parts of boats.)
Ummmm... "Floating" as in to float on the surface of a liquid, like the ocean where GPS and radio signals are very detectable. WTF are you smoking? I expected knee-jerk reactions to mentioning oil companies [I don't care], but having to explain floating is a surprise.
You know, Your cave diving hobby [or job] is dangerous if you don't keep your wits about you. I'm concerned for you.
Not a dedicated crewed ship, an ocean drone would be much better. Particularly for arctic conditions that are difficult to keep people comfortable and sometimes even alive. A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS. You could probably even get oil exploration companies to help pay for it.
The sad thing is, those of us that really would like to take issues like this seriously wind up getting lumped in with the hysterical Chicken Littles.
This OP needs to be up-voted. There are a lot of important issues to raise around climate change, but beer barley is not one of them. The analysis and conclusion of the article makes the environmental position look as dumb as a climate denier who points at a blizzard and says "See? Global warming is a hoax." Neither is helping their side.
The first part of the beermaking process is boiling the grain to extract the sugars. As a convenient side-effect it kills most nasty germs.
Skunking is caused by exposure to light altering the alpha-acids, it's nothing to do with whether it's safe or not.
^^ He's got it. The boiling part of making beer is what made beer safer to drink than water in medieval times. People then didn't understand why at the time, but they did notice people who drank more beer got sick less than people who drank more water.
...If it's really off it will smell of vinegar, cheese and puke in various charming combinations.
Even then drinking it usually won't sicken or kill someone like fecal coliform or dysentery commonly found in medieval water supplies. In fact, most medieval beer probably was sour to some degree by natural bacteria/yeasts in floating through the air or from the wood of the barrels beer was stored in and would have been considered normal.
on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense"....the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending... Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...
^ Yeah, basically. The Department of Defense does a lot pure science and tech research that isn't always about killing people, and even the "deadly" research can have high civilian value. Drones can shoot missiles or survey land for development. Nuclear energy can power bombs, submarines and aircraft carriers, or civilian carbon-free power plants. Radar can track enemy missiles or help keep commercial airplanes from crashing in mid-air. GPS can aim bombs or give people directions on road trip. Robots can sweep for mines and break into terrorist strongholds or build cars in factories and vacuum people's floors while they are away. The internet was a DoD program once. The list of beneficial military to civilian technologies is long. I have no great love for the military, but I do support science and technology and if it's through the military, so be it. If the research has potential value, but being under the Department of Defense bothers people emotionally, then move the funding over to another research institution (e.g. CDC, USDA, EPA, NIST, DOI, etc.), but don't don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
....the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be quite an accomplishment.
A general broad-spectrum means to protect crops from disease, like harnessing a wide-ranging pervasive insect to deliver a counter-measure to acres of vital croplands? Yeah, that would be quite an accomplishment.
This sounds like a perfect example of science/technology that is slightly far-fetched and high risk, but with high potential public benefit that the US gov't should be doing to lay the groundwork until private industry can run with it. (See also: nuclear power, GPS, solar cells, battery technology, internet, space travel, computers, anti-malaria medicine, etc.)
Besides, another country will do similar research anyway and there are many countries I trust far less than the US to responsibly conduct sensitive research on crop diseases. Whether it's DoD, NSF, NIST, CDC, EPA, USDA, NASA, NOAA, VA, DOE, etc. who cares, get it done.
...believed to be true based on one psychology researcher's work from 1920's and 1930's, and a few cherry-picked modern studies, which on the whole are pretty mixed and inconclusive. But thanks for the link anyway... I learn something new everyday....
1) 1.6M is a very large sample size and large sample sizes [typically] have less variability throughout the data set, including the extremes. 2) There are decades of very well documented systemic gender biases in STEM fields. 3) The "variability hypothesis" still begs the question: Why? If one claims extreme-spectrum boys are inherently/genetically/socially better at STEM than extreme-spectrum girls, that claim ignores the data from nearly 1.6M other students showing girls and boys are equally adept. I think it's a little ridiculous not to consider decades of systemic gender bias to at least be a factor in the "variability."
Then what would be a better analogy? What are the overarching rules of the sport that determine what is and isn't a valid stadium for the sport?...In the case of a ball sport, nobody could shut that down. In the case of an esport, Activision Blizzard could legally shut that down if it is too similar. But how similar does it have to be without no longer serving its purpose as a stadium for that sport?
Good questions....honestly. We're in a gray area... we can disagree, and that's fine... Anyway, in traditional sports, you can't call yourself the same name as and participate in the competitive leagues (i.e. NFL, MLB, FIFA, Olympics, etc.) without abiding by their rules, so I think that's a similarity to video games... but to your point in traditional sports someone could setup a parallel league playing the exact same game (which has happened in the past). If you tried to do that with Overwatch Blizzard's copyright would shut it down. It's a fundamental difference between them and we can disagree on how important that difference is. Maybe Overwatch to Yankee Stadium is the wrong analogy. Maybe Overwatch is more like Major League Baseball (MLB), and MLB team stadiums are like Overwatch's game servers, all under the ownership if Blizzard. That may seem like a lot of power concentrated in the game developer, but the intense competition between games balances that power (in my opinion, of course). Games like Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, etc. have lots of competition from very very similar games and players can and do move between games with the touch of a button, literally. Traditional sports compete for players/fans too, but when changes happen it's usually slow, less dynamic. MLB fans are probably not going to switch to FIFA soccer overnight, but fans of Overwatch might rapidly switch to a competing game.
From the summary: "One explanation for gender imbalance in STEM is the "variability hypothesis." This is the idea that gender gaps are much larger at the tails of the distribution -- among the highest and lowest performers -- than in the middle."
I have a hard time believing that out of 1.6M students the ends of the bell curve vary so extremely from those in the middle. Maybe there are other systematic issues.... just maybe? Not that I think we're going to fix systematic issues overnight, but we don't do ourselves any favors by avoiding them either.
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
Being engineer is a good start to a career, but if you want to start your own company one day you'll need to sell your product, service, or idea to someone. i.e. sales and marketing.
The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
It sounds like the analogy you're trying to make is the following:
Team-based first-person shooters in general are to baseball asOverwatchis to Yankee Stadium.
Under this model, each team would specialize in one game and provide game licenses to the visiting team.
You're being deliberately obtuse and cherry-picking legal technicalities on a simple analogy. And if you want to get technical, the Yankees don't own their stadium either which makes your theoretical licensing system fall apart ( https://nypost.com/2016/08/29/... ). Furthermore, the Yankees players are employees with no ownership rights to Yankee Stadium; like how a competitive video gamer does not own the servers hosting their online games. We still can build on your Overwatch/Yankee Stadium analogy though....but you need to think bigger because Overwatch is not bound physically like a traditional sports stadium... Overwatch is like baseball stadium that can house all baseball games everywhere simultaneously. It is an "eStadium." Players and spectators engage in Overwatch's eStadium, but they don't own it any more than the Yankees players or spectators own Yankee Stadium.
Skill-based matchmaking makes this a complete non-issue. You get matched against people of roughly your own performance level, regardless on input method used.
Exactly. A game might also automatically detect and sort controller from M+KB users too.
Controllers will die out for higher level competition, but they aren't now anyway. Controller-only competition is like the paralympics of gaming... they have skills despite their handicap, but no handicap would be better.
Anyone has the right to manufacture....... a game publisher's copyright precludes this sort of incremental experimentation.
There's no difference in openness if you think of a published game being like a field/court. You're right that anyone can make a bike or other sports equipment (i.e. open source). However the field/court/grounds to play the traditional sport typically has restrictions set by the owners, particularly when the sport has spectators.
The equipment of eSports is computer/console, controller, mouse, headsets, etc. are open source. The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
What a weird definition. There are many sports with equipment and/or playing areas far more prohibitive than a video game. The AC mentioned polo, but also ice hockey, [American] football, bowling, golf, racketball, curling, ski jumping, water-skiing, bobsled, luge, horse jumping, chariot racing, jai alai...and many more.
If your definition of "open" or "free" source is rooted in libertarian concepts of rights to the equipment/fields/etc, then, yes, anyone with enough money can self-fund their restriction-free sport, including a video game-based sport if someone desired that. But in the real world, investments in a sport/game are always turned in services for others who want to play or view the sport/game, and those services typically have some restrictions to people's rights.
Non-spectator running is very open source at least... but no one will give a shit either... trade-offs.
Unless there has been a comparable increase in the rate of change of the number of divorce applications, then this is a non-story.
People who want a divorce, that are required to give reason to get one, will find one. If it wasn't Fortnite, it would be something else. If it wasn't computer games, it would be something else.
Relatedly, if a marriage sucks participants may look for ways to escape it mentally and videogames are a form of escapism. That doesn't mean videogames causes divorce. A shitty marriage is still the cause of divorce.
I see the nostalgic charm in 2D consoles where you expect simple, flat graphics. They really don't age that badly. 3D on the other hand...I've tried to go back and play some old PC games from GoG and it's too painful to deal with the primitive 3D. It's just too obvious and really overshadows the rest of the game, no matter how good.
Agreed. Looking back at some of the late-90s early 00s "3D" games can be painful. It's telling that the popular late-90's games with those ugly blocky 3D models that were popular enough to be re-released are usually done so with huge graphic make-overs (e.g. Resident Evil, FFVII), but popular old sprite-based games are often re-released with little to no changes.
Slashdot Mirror
You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
I for one won't be paying 5 different video sites just to get the films/shows I want. Seriously all of you, sort it the f*ck out and cross-license.
Hmmm... If only there were companies with the internet hardware infrastructure connected to customer's homes and a vast network of business relationships with all of the competing content networks to bring them to customers in a convenient package. Who could that be????
Mind you, that's not an argument for cable, it's dying. The old cable oligarchs will squeeze every penny from it, but I think it's very naive to believe they won't take back the reins from streamers, even plucky tech start-ups and cute little mice.
My point is the AC's complaint is moot.
Agreed.
I don't see why anyone would limit the idea to opening weekends, especially since video games are extremely front loaded and movies have a longer and bigger tail, especially if the foreign release comes after the domestic release.
Evidence? Because I would expect video games to make more money than movies over time with DLC add-ons, and many PC players wait for Steam sales. Then again, developer profits from console game sales probably are more front-loaded and then shifts to used game resellers, so maybe the movie theater/home video/streaming cycle is longer and more profitable. But you can't do add-on DLC for movies though... A hit video game becomes a platform that can be expanded with DLC for more revenue, even if the original game was purchased used. A hit movie is released and then it's back to drawing board to try to make another hit movie.
What will probably happen is the big ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will shift from being the distributing platform of conventional cable TV to the distribution platform for streaming TV. The ISPs already have all the connections and experience with networks and they [literally and metaphorically] have a connection to the customers. The switch could be almost seamless.
I guess some places are air tight, but the rock where I live if full of holes and I could only imagine would leak profusely.
Certainly, it's not applicable everywhere, but there are other energy storage options. For example you can apply the same concept to water and pump it between reservoirs. It's not just theoretically possible either, a "water battery" has operated in West Virginia since 1985, called the Bath County Station ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It pumps water to a reservoir when electric rates are low, releases water into turbines when electric rates are high. It runs profitably.
Storage will be the key to making renewable energy work for our grid. Whether it's compressed air, water, molten salt, or something else. We know how to make clean, cheap, sustainable electricity, but not in the moment want/need to use it (i.e. when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing), so we need a way to store it, and the best means of storage might be different for different regions.
The answer lies in the phrase "economies of scale." There is almost NOTHING that you can do in your home, and have it be more efficient than the industrial version of the same.
^^ Exactly. It's a shame a bunch of tin-hat anti-gov't/anti-industry preppers derailed the point.
Large scale is where these sorts of technologies hit the efficiencies that make them economical for investment by the private industry. Sustainable technologies can and are being driven by market forces/capitalism that will make everyone connected to the grid more "green" regardless of personal politics. We don't have to rely on each individual to choose to do the "right" thing when the industry and free markets will naturally follow paths towards efficiency and carry everyone along with them.
A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS.That'd be wonderful. Perhaps I could use the same technology to guide me underwater when I'm caving. Oh, but hang on ... aren't radio signals blocked by seawater (and slightly less effectively, in proportion to the water conductivity, by fresh water)? Perhaps that is why I've never once seen an advert for an underwater GPS device. (I have however seen hundreds of adverts though for waterproofed, boat ready GPS units for use on the air-ventilated parts of boats.)
Ummmm... "Floating" as in to float on the surface of a liquid, like the ocean where GPS and radio signals are very detectable. WTF are you smoking? I expected knee-jerk reactions to mentioning oil companies [I don't care], but having to explain floating is a surprise.
You know, Your cave diving hobby [or job] is dangerous if you don't keep your wits about you. I'm concerned for you.
Not a dedicated crewed ship, an ocean drone would be much better. Particularly for arctic conditions that are difficult to keep people comfortable and sometimes even alive. A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS. You could probably even get oil exploration companies to help pay for it.
The sad thing is, those of us that really would like to take issues like this seriously wind up getting lumped in with the hysterical Chicken Littles.
This OP needs to be up-voted. There are a lot of important issues to raise around climate change, but beer barley is not one of them. The analysis and conclusion of the article makes the environmental position look as dumb as a climate denier who points at a blizzard and says "See? Global warming is a hoax." Neither is helping their side.
The first part of the beermaking process is boiling the grain to extract the sugars. As a convenient side-effect it kills most nasty germs.
Skunking is caused by exposure to light altering the alpha-acids, it's nothing to do with whether it's safe or not.
^^ He's got it. The boiling part of making beer is what made beer safer to drink than water in medieval times. People then didn't understand why at the time, but they did notice people who drank more beer got sick less than people who drank more water.
...If it's really off it will smell of vinegar, cheese and puke in various charming combinations.
Even then drinking it usually won't sicken or kill someone like fecal coliform or dysentery commonly found in medieval water supplies. In fact, most medieval beer probably was sour to some degree by natural bacteria/yeasts in floating through the air or from the wood of the barrels beer was stored in and would have been considered normal.
Alpine glaciers near the equator, like those in the Andes Mountains of South America (as mentioned by the article).
on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense"....the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending... Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...
^ Yeah, basically.
The Department of Defense does a lot pure science and tech research that isn't always about killing people, and even the "deadly" research can have high civilian value. Drones can shoot missiles or survey land for development. Nuclear energy can power bombs, submarines and aircraft carriers, or civilian carbon-free power plants. Radar can track enemy missiles or help keep commercial airplanes from crashing in mid-air. GPS can aim bombs or give people directions on road trip. Robots can sweep for mines and break into terrorist strongholds or build cars in factories and vacuum people's floors while they are away. The internet was a DoD program once. The list of beneficial military to civilian technologies is long. I have no great love for the military, but I do support science and technology and if it's through the military, so be it. If the research has potential value, but being under the Department of Defense bothers people emotionally, then move the funding over to another research institution (e.g. CDC, USDA, EPA, NIST, DOI, etc.), but don't don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
...worked for the Nazi's.
Godwin argument = fail. The poor grammar is the icing on your loser cake.
....the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be quite an accomplishment.
A general broad-spectrum means to protect crops from disease, like harnessing a wide-ranging pervasive insect to deliver a counter-measure to acres of vital croplands? Yeah, that would be quite an accomplishment.
This sounds like a perfect example of science/technology that is slightly far-fetched and high risk, but with high potential public benefit that the US gov't should be doing to lay the groundwork until private industry can run with it. (See also: nuclear power, GPS, solar cells, battery technology, internet, space travel, computers, anti-malaria medicine, etc.)
Besides, another country will do similar research anyway and there are many countries I trust far less than the US to responsibly conduct sensitive research on crop diseases. Whether it's DoD, NSF, NIST, CDC, EPA, USDA, NASA, NOAA, VA, DOE, etc. who cares, get it done.
You may have a hard time believing it, but it's generally believed to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...believed to be true based on one psychology researcher's work from 1920's and 1930's, and a few cherry-picked modern studies, which on the whole are pretty mixed and inconclusive. But thanks for the link anyway... I learn something new everyday....
1) 1.6M is a very large sample size and large sample sizes [typically] have less variability throughout the data set, including the extremes.
2) There are decades of very well documented systemic gender biases in STEM fields.
3) The "variability hypothesis" still begs the question: Why? If one claims extreme-spectrum boys are inherently/genetically/socially better at STEM than extreme-spectrum girls, that claim ignores the data from nearly 1.6M other students showing girls and boys are equally adept. I think it's a little ridiculous not to consider decades of systemic gender bias to at least be a factor in the "variability."
Then what would be a better analogy? What are the overarching rules of the sport that determine what is and isn't a valid stadium for the sport? ...In the case of a ball sport, nobody could shut that down. In the case of an esport, Activision Blizzard could legally shut that down if it is too similar. But how similar does it have to be without no longer serving its purpose as a stadium for that sport?
Good questions....honestly. We're in a gray area... we can disagree, and that's fine... Anyway, in traditional sports, you can't call yourself the same name as and participate in the competitive leagues (i.e. NFL, MLB, FIFA, Olympics, etc.) without abiding by their rules, so I think that's a similarity to video games... but to your point in traditional sports someone could setup a parallel league playing the exact same game (which has happened in the past). If you tried to do that with Overwatch Blizzard's copyright would shut it down. It's a fundamental difference between them and we can disagree on how important that difference is.
Maybe Overwatch to Yankee Stadium is the wrong analogy. Maybe Overwatch is more like Major League Baseball (MLB), and MLB team stadiums are like Overwatch's game servers, all under the ownership if Blizzard. That may seem like a lot of power concentrated in the game developer, but the intense competition between games balances that power (in my opinion, of course). Games like Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, etc. have lots of competition from very very similar games and players can and do move between games with the touch of a button, literally. Traditional sports compete for players/fans too, but when changes happen it's usually slow, less dynamic. MLB fans are probably not going to switch to FIFA soccer overnight, but fans of Overwatch might rapidly switch to a competing game.
From the summary: "One explanation for gender imbalance in STEM is the "variability hypothesis." This is the idea that gender gaps are much larger at the tails of the distribution -- among the highest and lowest performers -- than in the middle."
I have a hard time believing that out of 1.6M students the ends of the bell curve vary so extremely from those in the middle. Maybe there are other systematic issues.... just maybe? Not that I think we're going to fix systematic issues overnight, but we don't do ourselves any favors by avoiding them either.
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
Being engineer is a good start to a career, but if you want to start your own company one day you'll need to sell your product, service, or idea to someone. i.e. sales and marketing.
The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
It sounds like the analogy you're trying to make is the following:
Team-based first-person shooters in general are to baseball as Overwatch is to Yankee Stadium.
Under this model, each team would specialize in one game and provide game licenses to the visiting team.
You're being deliberately obtuse and cherry-picking legal technicalities on a simple analogy. And if you want to get technical, the Yankees don't own their stadium either which makes your theoretical licensing system fall apart ( https://nypost.com/2016/08/29/... ). Furthermore, the Yankees players are employees with no ownership rights to Yankee Stadium; like how a competitive video gamer does not own the servers hosting their online games. We still can build on your Overwatch/Yankee Stadium analogy though....but you need to think bigger because Overwatch is not bound physically like a traditional sports stadium... Overwatch is like baseball stadium that can house all baseball games everywhere simultaneously. It is an "eStadium." Players and spectators engage in Overwatch's eStadium, but they don't own it any more than the Yankees players or spectators own Yankee Stadium.
Skill-based matchmaking makes this a complete non-issue. You get matched against people of roughly your own performance level, regardless on input method used.
Exactly. A game might also automatically detect and sort controller from M+KB users too.
Controllers will die out for higher level competition, but they aren't now anyway. Controller-only competition is like the paralympics of gaming... they have skills despite their handicap, but no handicap would be better.
Menus for ports should be better at least... I won't hold my breath for anything else though.
Anyone has the right to manufacture....... a game publisher's copyright precludes this sort of incremental experimentation.
There's no difference in openness if you think of a published game being like a field/court. You're right that anyone can make a bike or other sports equipment (i.e. open source). However the field/court/grounds to play the traditional sport typically has restrictions set by the owners, particularly when the sport has spectators.
The equipment of eSports is computer/console, controller, mouse, headsets, etc. are open source.
The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
What a weird definition. There are many sports with equipment and/or playing areas far more prohibitive than a video game. The AC mentioned polo, but also ice hockey, [American] football, bowling, golf, racketball, curling, ski jumping, water-skiing, bobsled, luge, horse jumping, chariot racing, jai alai...and many more.
If your definition of "open" or "free" source is rooted in libertarian concepts of rights to the equipment/fields/etc, then, yes, anyone with enough money can self-fund their restriction-free sport, including a video game-based sport if someone desired that. But in the real world, investments in a sport/game are always turned in services for others who want to play or view the sport/game, and those services typically have some restrictions to people's rights.
Non-spectator running is very open source at least... but no one will give a shit either... trade-offs.
Unless there has been a comparable increase in the rate of change of the number of divorce applications, then this is a non-story.
People who want a divorce, that are required to give reason to get one, will find one. If it wasn't Fortnite, it would be something else. If it wasn't computer games, it would be something else.
Relatedly, if a marriage sucks participants may look for ways to escape it mentally and videogames are a form of escapism. That doesn't mean videogames causes divorce. A shitty marriage is still the cause of divorce.
I see the nostalgic charm in 2D consoles where you expect simple, flat graphics. They really don't age that badly. 3D on the other hand...I've tried to go back and play some old PC games from GoG and it's too painful to deal with the primitive 3D. It's just too obvious and really overshadows the rest of the game, no matter how good.
Agreed. Looking back at some of the late-90s early 00s "3D" games can be painful. It's telling that the popular late-90's games with those ugly blocky 3D models that were popular enough to be re-released are usually done so with huge graphic make-overs (e.g. Resident Evil, FFVII), but popular old sprite-based games are often re-released with little to no changes.