But imagine if a major online gaming world...like, say, Everquest, backed by a major corporation like Sony....had a situation where one of the game *developers* (rather than a player) had an NPC calling players, say, racial or religious slurs (which, surprisingly, seem to evoke more outcry than sexism)...Just because the NP *character* was a bigot. I don't think that would be tolerated.
The trick is to ensure that the bigotry is part of a plot or sub-plot, and can be dealt with in one way or another. For example, putting a bounty on the merchant that's bigoted.
This is implemented in Arcanum, where Half-Orcs and Orcs receive open discrimination to a large scale. For example, there are some NPCs that use Orcs as slave labour for industrial production, and consider Half-Orcs to be no better than slave fodder.
The bigotry in the game only becomes fun when the player gets a chance to mess around with the concept. For example, there is an event where Orcs in Tarant riot and seize control of a warehouse. From there, you can choose to either put down the rebellion (chaotic or neutral, depending), leave the rebellion as it is (neutral), inform the leader of the rebellion that the guards outside are trying to trick him (lawful or neutral, not sure), or to give aid to the rebellion by killing the guards (chaotic). You might be able to kill the owner of the warehouse before the rebillion starts, but I haven't seen that happen yet.
While the options listed might not produce the perfect result, they do cover most of the actions performed by PCs and are pretty reasonable. Heping the rebellion may be chaotic, but does teach those bigots a lesson for treating Orcs as animal slaves.
When Windows 95 was released, it touted 32 bits, improved stability, and compatibility with Windows 3. Windows 95 was such a fantastic improvement over DOS and Windows 3 that everybody switched.
Actually, I tried to hold back on Windows 95 as long as I could. The operating system was too "annoying" with certain features, such as the arrow at the bottom pointing to the start menu saying "click here to begin".
I eventually found a way to get the operating system to boot into Dos by default. Soon after, I found a way to get Windows to exit back into Dos - just like Windows 3.1.
OS/2 got built-in networking and Internet support and various other improvements.
I would have gotten OS/2, but couldn't. A minor problem of the operating system requiring too much resources at the time (e.g. 8MB of ram when I only had 4.) When I got my next computer, I didn't have much of a choice for the operating system - it was preloaded with Win95.
As you probably know, Microsoft somehow secured licensing deals that prevent OEMs from selling anything but Windows 95 with their newly sold computers. In turn, this was used by the justice department to claim anti-trust violations.
I would have like to try out OS/2 or even BeOS. The only problem is that I couldn't purchase those operating systems without a good reason at the time...
And it's not just games... the AvP movie has been anticipated for years but in the end, it was just crap. Daikatana, Doom3, Black & White, Half-life 2, were all over-hyped and, for how long development took, under-done.
The question is who was doing the hyping...
IIRC, I only noticed the AvP movie adertisments few weeks before it was released - before that, it was just rumours. (Besides, a correct comparison requires watching one of the other in the series soon after or before pasisng judgement.) Hyping may have been done, but I certainly didn't notice it, let alone see it advertised as much as some other movies.
Some other games, such as Doom 3 were advertised years before their release, but it seemed the fans did a lot more advertising on the game rather than iD Software.
Generals, on the other hand, was hyped by the developer. The beta testing period was allegedly done to make it look thet it was going to be the best game to compete with Starcraft/Warcraft III... turned out that the game had significant balance issues right after release (e.g. GLA tunnel network taking 5 seconds to build, later patched to 12). In addition, it generally annoyed most of the "true" fans of the C&C series.
Of course, Daikatana would be the best example of hyping. The game was barely playable on release, and is still barely playable on modern systems. Patch also takes 40 minutes to complete.:p
"if it's installed on computers at libraries and Internet cafes, users could unwittingly allow people who follow them on the PCs,
If it's somehow installed on library or Internet cafes, then it means the security of the compter has been compromised. Either someone is trying to make a very big joke, or they are too paranoid.
Besides, these problems are easily countered through one of many methods (some of which are exclusive with some other options): 1. Regular security audits (e.g. after the library or cafe closes.) You may need specialized software to automate the process, but you should at the very least be checking the computers to see if they are okay. 2. User account restrictions. In most cases, security breaches occurr because the user somehow got hold of local administrator prvilages - this should be prevented when possible. 3. Public monitering. You generally want most computers within public view. For the computers that have a privacy screen, you should give a priority audit. While this doesn't preevnt intrusions, it does deter some and otherwise make things easier to detect by a random bystander. 4. Hard drive images. If a machine is suspected to be compromized, restore it from an image. 5. DeepFreeze. Pressing the reset button restores the computer to a usable state. You can even give users permission to install software without worries either under this option (but be careful not to give permissions to change user accounts or configure the network.)
The sky is not falling. As long as Chicken Little doesn't create enough panic to get all the barnyard animals to the fox's den, we are safe.
This was posted AC (score 0) and within a few minutes modded down to -1 (overrated.)
Just what's overrated there? Even if it wasn't a particularly good post, at score 0 it was hardly 'overrated.'
With all the FUD that's been floating around about Steam, the AC could have elaborated a bit more. If you don't want to get hit by an "overrated" tag, then don't post one-liners that can be confused with something that's "overrated".
When I transferred over to Steam, I didn't have to pay a dime because I already purchased Half-Life. Not only that, but I no longer have to juggle around CDs or CD-Keys (meaning that I won't have to worry about my key leaking over the internet, even if it is a negligable chance of occurrance.) They may hold the cards, but they haven't done anything too stupid. The instant they require monthly payments to play the old Half-Life is the same instant of a mass exodus to manyothergames, for better or for worse.
The EULA may be restrictive, but Valve isn't going to be stupid enough to milk as much money as possible. They already know how to get as much money as possible by releasing three different levels of the Half-Life 2 bundle.
When they made it impossible to play CS anymore without selling your soul for Steam,
No, they didn't. There's already ways to get a CS server working by running out of secure mode (by launching the dedicated server with "-insecure", or by visiting Steamless CS Project). Not only that, but you are free to retrieve their SDK and write your own AI players for the game.
I have seen similar complaints about VAC - players that cheat are no longer capable of playing Half-Life, and then proced to claim that VAC is broken and banned them without reason (they either get banned from the forums, or later confess that their pet dog was trying out an aimbot a few months ago...)
the game seems very rushed (Biggest indicator of this is all the talk and build up of red greasels, but none ever show).
The red greasels texts could have been added as decoration. Just because something is written down doesn't mean that it had to occurr - generally, there needs to be a good reason or additional texts saying how they got rid of those blasted red greasels...
SS2 sort of does this - the black eggs are supposed to be the third level of evolution but you destroy them before you encounter this third form. However, the method used in DX:IW didn't really have closure to the red greasels.
The input system feels laggy,
Actually, that was a feature designed to improve framerates for the slower computers. Not that it helped any...
The fix for this was posted on the forums shortly after the demo came out. It involved opening the ".INI" file that came with the game, and changing the mouse latency setting from "=75" to "=0". The DXIW Tweaker utility was also written to help make the change for you, in addition to doing other optimizations.
almost none of the neat things the engine was supposed to do came to fruition (dynamic shadows in gameplay namely)
Actually, I'd prefer it to be smoothly runnable on the X800 rather than having to shell out even more money for a better video card. But that's my preference.
When I'm bashing DX:IW, I tend to place my focus on gameplay mechanics and story line. For example, the Tarsus academy said everything was allright in spite of the fact that it was getting pretty damn obvious there was an attack going on.
I see DX:IW much as a failed attempt to implement this idea with a storyline. For me, the "open" structure of the story made it seem weak - I didn't really relate to any of the characters and what they stood for.
There are problems with the open structure used in DX:IW. I beieve that they are a bit more deep in what appears to be on the surface of where you have to relate to the bad guys. (Although, I technically read some spoilers about the game, but not enough to know every single detail about what happens. However, I instantly realised something was off at the first WTO propaganda kiosk showing Chad.)
I believe the problem with DX:IW is that the storyline is only effectivly bound by your most recent action or so. Initially, you have to choose between the WTO and Order, before being disclosed that you were really working for the Illuminati.
When you reach Hanger 24, you get the option between which of the three factions you will work with. This only affects which of the three factions at Liberty Island you will be allied with, and only until you get to the Aquinas hub. At that point, you pick and choose which ending you want to complete.
The original DX, although is linear, did appear to have a bit more solutions per puzzle available. Naturally, stealth was emphasised but not required. This changes in DX:IW, where it's possible by design to run through entire armies without any form of detection (as opposed to DX, which is probably by oversight from a last minute implementation.)
Having to choose between "two evils" just seems too much like real life.
In most cases, the choice between the "two evils" was generally made simple enough because one of the two cases involved killing people for no good reason. The only exception would be the Club Vox/Lawyer thing - in every other case, the consequences are marginal compared to some random person dying, whether those reasons are philosophical or in-game.
At the very least, there could have been a buildup of having your actions eventually lock out some of the endings. In DX:IW, there is only one lockout, and I suspect that's based around killing Billy rather than knocking her out in Antarctica.
I never did get to play co-operative play with SS2. I heard it is pretty cool. Did anyone play it?
I have, with one friend. It took a while to set up, since at least one of the two computers was crashing a bit more often than normal. Once it was working, the gameplay mechanics worked out well - items (and nanites) are not shared, but cyber modules, research and logs are shared amongst all players. That way, you can actually perform a team of specialists in that game.
In playing the game, I haven't really noticed any increased difficulty from the additional players. There might have been something subtle, but it didn't appear on the first run. Perhaps things might change when the third player comes along - even if the monsters aren't tougher, there'll be a bit more resource in-fighting...
However, the same thing could be said about watching TV, reading, working out, etc.
While the same can be true for books and other media, there is something slightly different with games.
In particular, it's one of the many outlets that some people resort to when they are depressed. Other places where depression can lead to would be simple laying down for long periods (not sleeping), massive eating, drinking alcohol, etc.
Granted, the article is slightly different. In this case, I can't comment effectivly (although, it seems to be one of the many "adolescent" effects going on.) For me, it seems to be the opposite - there doesn't seeem to be much else to go after, thus I resort to games. I'm not glued to them 24/7 as I do occasionally read books not related to games or computers (but it's still introversion nonetheless.)
The image "A Bulge" suffers from minor imperfections - for example, the cell farthest down initiating the illusion is black with two white squares at the top. The center of the small right-hand square has a grayscale value of 254 rather than 255. Other imperfections exist elsewhere.
While this doesn't impact the illusion directly, I know something that does. CRT monitors have been known to have minor convergence issues that generally mess around with how an image should look. As a result, it's best to print it out on paper to view the result.
Then you haven't read the patent. At all. If you are going to read one thing, read the claims. The abstract can be completely irrelevant to the claimed invention, and the claims are what defines the scope of what a party can sue another for infringing on.
And as I mentioned, I didn't have time to review the fulltext of the patents - especially on a dial-up connection. Besides, reading the patent could take at least one day to fully understand, especially if you are not familiar with reading patents.
Regardless of whether or not reading the fulltext (or claims) would change an opinion about the ruling, there can be a lot done by just taking a look at the abstract. All you need is to get a few software "experts" (10+ years experience or post-doctorate equivalent of study) to take a look at the abstract to help convince them that something is wrong - especially if the abstract covers something that would be fairly obvious or standardized.
Remember the Paralegal that got confused by Dihydrogen Monoxide? That was caused only by glancing at the preliminary information. While digging down would have revealed that the claims would naturally be a hoax, just the initial glance caused a big knee-jerk reaction.
The differerence in this case of these patents is that the information is only preliminary at this stage - it can still go either way. To see whether the current decision stands or falls will have to wait until the appeals court makes their decision.
Given the first statement it is clear that you have not read the patent in question, and therefore you have no idea what they are actually patenting other than the incredibly broad summary given in the article (i.e. "software that asks for help, statement (2)).
While I have only read the abstracts on the patent, it seems that the patents in question cover a mixture of Object-Oriented programming and Interprocess Communication. The only difference is that there is a method of identifing which applications (or application components) should modify a certain piece of data. It's hard to tell for sure (especially without legal training and a quick-glance on a dial-up connection).
The content of the patent does seem a bit familiar - I have seen something very similar used in Microsoft Windows API, where Microsoft Word requests another application to modify an image. Either Microsoft has found a method that somehow evades the patent, or Kodak is simply building a case law before they can take on MS.
At least I checked the abstract - most others are incorrectly assuming that Java is infringing on the bytecode interpreter.
Black & White wasn't a bad game. Sure, there was a ton of hype about it, but not all of it from Peter. The press had a ton of hype about it also.
And when all was said and done, it wasn't that bad of a game.
There are faulty game mechanics that tends to mess things up.
For example, try kidnapping villagers from an enemy village and replace them with your own missionaries. If you take and replace them oneat a time, you will eventually have an enemy town full of missionaries that still believes in the enemy. If you empty the town first then plant your missionary, then you claim the town (just a single villager remaining is enough to require massive amounts of belief to conquer a town).
Also, I'm interested in why the AI isn't as strong as it could be. For some reason, it doesn't seem interested in attempting to convert my villages - in spite of the fact that it should have no problem doing so.
- awkward controls (WHY DOES AUTOLOCK KEEP POINTING ME TOWARDS THE FREAKIN BARREL WHEN I AM FIGHTING 5 BALVERINES!)
The barrel is considered very special... there's a small chance it contains an ultra-rare artifact...:)
I can't comment here, as I don't know exactly what Autolock is supposed to do. If it is a bug that autolock is choosing the wrong object, then this sort of thing should have been detected during the testing period.
- clichéd story elements... honestly, aren't we passed the forced failure being acceptable in a game, particularly one that claims as it selling point the concept of player choice?
The only case where a "forced failure" would be acceptable would be in Operation Flashpoint - in the cases where forced failure occurred, it was roleplayed and used in an excessive fashion. The cases where you had to retreat was because your squad was not equipped to handle a certain attack squad, or because another friendly AI team could not complete their objectives (when they were supposed to). In the second case, the game was scripted well enough to have a contingency mission based on the failure of the allied squad.
I haven't seen any other game where forced failure would be acceptable - in these cases, the forced failure is generally annoying and an unrealistically artificial plot device. "What's this? There was only one artifact found instead of the two incorrectly stated by Intel? MISSION FAILED!"
- the fact that temple donations make the game's alignment system seem pointless
That would be a problem with the temple donation system. Either the alignment shift is too great for the amount of money (or whatever) given, or there wasn't a limitation on an alignment shift caused by temple donations.
It's just like Freelancer - if you can collect enough money, the faction rating system will eventually seem pointless as you can buy your way into favour with almost anyone. However, it's not worthless because you can't afford most hack offers early in the game - as well as the fact that the prices for hacking the best factions (such as Corsairs) is generally astronomical.
- and for a game that was supposed to be an genre changing epic RPG, isn't the game kind of short?
Personally, I wasn't really impressed by the advertisments of the game. The official home page contained a flash animation that only seemed to imply some sort of alignment system - in addition, the flash animation was slow loading as well, because of a scripted slowness in rendering the content (they wanted it to gradually fade in - it caused be to lose my patience and leave after page 5.)
Even then, there was very limited information on the game itself. The trick is to actually release real information on how the game plays out in the late stages of development - that will minimze any anger from features missing from the game.
Rise of Nations is simple to learn? Not for the people I try to play with.
That would really be strange - especially since RoN has tutorial missions that provide the most basic information.
There are even practice scenarios where you have to rush to a specific tech level within a time limit, as well as placing you in a rank of players with the best time - you can't get better than that for learning how to play the game.
You want to really get the party going? Buts out Master of Orion 3. In about three days you'll have a real game kick'n.
That's the other thing that interests me - generally, I found Master of Orion 3 to be a "slow" game that requires micromanagement. Sure, there's ways to cut it down, but there are bugs with the AI that generally require you to personally manage the economy to get the best out of it.
Also, MoO3 doesn't have a "tutorial" - you generally have to learn the game with limited instruction, which can be intimidating for first-timers. (Onvr you get the hang of it, you will find the gameplay mechanics to be quite clear, even if the interface could use some work.)
Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.
That depends on your definition of illegal, which I doubt is correct under the law. To be illegal, it just has to be against the letter of the law even if it isn't exactly part of the criminal code (e.g. Section 422, "Criminal Breach of Contract"). Other things that are illegal are covered under civil law (a.k.a. tort law in some places or textbooks.)
If you want more information, you may wish to consult either the laws in question or contact a lawyer with your questions. (Or a law student - they've been known to give out free-legal advice if you know how to talk it out of them, even if it might not be as accurrate as it could be.)
A lot of people have the same withdrawl when fast food is taken away for two weeks(not to mention chemical withdrawl!).
While I do agree with withdrawl symptoms here, I doubt they are chemical - more like a psychological dependancy. (There are exceptions, but those aren't localized to fast food as such.)
For a long period of time, I was given peanut-butter sandwiches for a school lunch. After a long period of time with the same food over and over again, I switched over to fast-food when I reached college. The hot dogs were fairly cheap at the time (1.50 for a "jumbo", later increased to 1.75) - and was known by the cafeteria staff for always purchasing that (and they were making implicit suggestions that I should take a bit more variety.)
Ever since I took fast food stuff (a mix of McDonalds, a generic pizza place, Subway, A&W, etc), I'm finding that it is slightly more difficult to eat some of the equivalents at home - some of the foods I eat very slowly because I find it hard to chew.
It's not necessairily and addiction, although lots of people have an addiction, but it is a necessity.
I could provide reasons why it's an addition, even if they are debatable. I suspect that the reason people feel addicted to the internet is because the offline counterparts aren't as suitable as they could be - for example, some people may have had bad experience with a social life and turned to the Internet instead.
Actually, I wish more victims would take responsibility for some of their actions. If somebody leaves the door to their house wide open,[...] do you really think that the victim shares no blame if they are mugged or raped?
I've seen doors left wide open because the owner was on the way to lift newly purchased furniture. As you know, it's very difficult to open a door while carring furniture without dropping it first or without having a risk of scratching the door or wall.
I also left the door unlocked because I was expecting a friend or family member to come over while I was sleeping (and at the time, he did not have a key). The unlocked door is not an invitation for some random person off the street to enter the room - it applies only to the person that I'm expecting.
Just because a person doesn't infalliably defend myself or my property does not mean that it is legal for others to attack me. If your local law doesn't agree, then perhaps you should move to either a State (Country) or a State (unit of the USA) that does.
Likewise, if somebody is behind a wheel drunk, they are stopped at a sign, and somebody plows into them, do they share part of the blame by being foolish enough to drive drunk? It is possible that had they not been drunk that they would have seen the car coming and gotten out of the way.
In the situation you described, the drunk driver is a true victim. In most cases, a reasonable driver should not expect to be rear-ended when stopped at a stop sign. Besides, any driver worth his salt should have enough common sense to avoid hitting cars stopped at a stop sign.
Your example isn't a good analogy, as the drunk driver is guilty of a completely unrealted offence. Driving under influence has nothing to do with the fact of who caused the accident.
You would instantly run into, for example, "Level 5 with the video card of a level 8." or "Level 7 but double the ram," ect., etc
A system that is designed properly won't run into these sort of things. Instead of being a simple bar, the rating system can easily be converted to support variations by both having an absolute minimum component ratings that must be met, and a number of elective ratings (out of a slightly larger group) that also must be met.
Of course, this thing wouldn't really fly as well as it could. It just makes the infinite upgrade cycle a bit more obvious.
I'm impressed. Downloaded the 0.7 zip file from the site (it was the only download available). I thought... well, this must be the windows version (I'm on Linux FC2), but I'll have a look at the code anyway. Unzipped it, realised it was for Win and Lin, looked for a "configure" script, couldn't find one, so just ran "make". All compiled without a single problem. Then went to the examples and compiled all those, again just with a make, everything ran OK. It seems pretty solid. I think this is going to be great.
That just means that it is easy to compile, not easy to use.
For it to be easy to use, the functions must be written in an intuitive manner, while at the same time allowing you to have maximum access to the API. In addition, there needs to be tutorials (or the equivalent thereof) provided so that an inexperienced person can learn how to do stuff as well.
Currently, I'm trying to look through the source code in order to see how to do edit an existing model or mesh (e.g. to import a 3D model in a format not currently supported by Irrlicht, or perhaps to create a modeller for Irrlicht.)
Nice thought exercise in how such a system could be abused... but it has a glaring hole. Any time the defendant took the stand in their own defense, they'd suddenly gain the favorable witness camera as they spoke... if there was a glaring difference in the two cameras, it'd be as clear as daylight when the person moved to the better camera.
There need not be a significant difference in this sort of thing. All that has to be done is an extremely small change, which is only picked up subconsciously. At subtle levels of change, the small amount of positiveness from being in the witness stand would not outweigh the negative impressions that arise from being in the defendant's stand.
With this form of e-courts, I suspect that an attack would be generally better performed without resorting to simple camera brightness. Can't say for sure since I don't know how it's implemented, but it can be possible to disrupt justice. I wouldn't worry too much, if it weren't for the fact that there is a scaringly high number of false convictions (even if it a really only one or two, these false convictions seem to be generating a lot of press.)
I also have to nod in agreement with an earlier poster who pointed out that for the price of a fancy lock, you can get a bike that no one wants to steal. This is a perfect example of why my everyday driver car is an old beater that no one in their right mind would want to steal. If you're going to drive fancy stuff, then you have to accept that you are going to be a target.
That's assuming that the thieves are going for expensive bikes, which is not always the case. For a car thief, fourth class driving is better than first class walking - the same applies to bicycles.
No its not. An honest person does not steal people's bikes.
An honest person can steal another person's bike, if it is in a full lot of identically looking bikes. But in this case, it's not intentional theft.:)
The purpose of all locks and security measures are to make it more difficult to steal stuff. The value of the stuff is roughly proportional to the complexity of the lock. The lock on my front door is not that big. The lock on Fort Knox is probably much bigger.
The problem with the locks and security measures is that they aren't intellegent. In theory, any person who has a valid key can pass the lock without anybody thinking that it is suspicious.
The only way a lock can truly work is if it is backed by something intellegent that can confirm whether or not the person entering is valid (as well as the fact that the lock is intact). For example, the lock on Fort Knox is not only big, but it is being observed at all times to make sure that nobody is trying to sneak or break in. A system that does not contain an intellegent component will eventually get broken into, even if it is in a cheap movie.
Exactly. A project like this is actual one of those instances where a GPL license might be a bad idea.
Not entirely true, although your idea is correct.
As you know, the Quake 2 engine is released under the GPL. As an alternative to abiding by the rules of the GPL, you may shell out a single payment to change the license to something closer to your liking. (To prevent some potential issues, the alternate license should only apply to the base source code tree, as well as changes intended to be merged into the tree.)
The dual licensing method is commonly used by developers who either want to see the community gain from redistribution, or monetary compensation should the game developer want to keep the source closed.
While I can read french, I have a little bit of trouble confirming the story. I picked up the sentence "Ainsi, le taux de panne moyen nécessitant un redémarrage du système est mesuré autour de 8% par session." Whileit does match with the "Windows Fails 8% of the time", there is no information on why it fails, let alone any other basis of comparison. Other recent postings elaborate on this...
In any case, I haven't had any recent crashes by any opering system. The only memorable recent crashes (e.g. past 3 years or so) would have to do with faulty video drivers that do not function properly, regardless of whether it is Windows, Linux, or whatever other OS is installed.
Granted, I do know how to require Windows to reboot in order to become usable - it involves writing a Windows callback that returns incorrect values for the message WM_NCHITTEST, usually by forgetting to call the default Windows Callback. (The CTRL-ALT-DEL might be able to get pas this, but opening the task manager to kill the application won't really help. Given what accidently happened last time, I don't really want to check again.)
It's also not same type of FUD as some posters are claiming it to be - it's more like a statement saying that the "Zero-Paper" office is still not yet ready. The only reference suggesting Open Source would be one small statement in the conclusion, and it seems to be secondary to something about... "optimizing license management and increating the time within upgrade cycle for hardware and software?"
Can't really tell to make sure. At the very least, Slashdot could provide a link to a translator to help understand. (I'm using Google to supplement my personal translation). Slashdot could do a better job to help us understand the article - but then I'd be expecting too much from the editors.
Slashdot Mirror
This is implemented in Arcanum, where Half-Orcs and Orcs receive open discrimination to a large scale. For example, there are some NPCs that use Orcs as slave labour for industrial production, and consider Half-Orcs to be no better than slave fodder.
The bigotry in the game only becomes fun when the player gets a chance to mess around with the concept. For example, there is an event where Orcs in Tarant riot and seize control of a warehouse. From there, you can choose to either put down the rebellion (chaotic or neutral, depending), leave the rebellion as it is (neutral), inform the leader of the rebellion that the guards outside are trying to trick him (lawful or neutral, not sure), or to give aid to the rebellion by killing the guards (chaotic). You might be able to kill the owner of the warehouse before the rebillion starts, but I haven't seen that happen yet.
While the options listed might not produce the perfect result, they do cover most of the actions performed by PCs and are pretty reasonable. Heping the rebellion may be chaotic, but does teach those bigots a lesson for treating Orcs as animal slaves.
I eventually found a way to get the operating system to boot into Dos by default. Soon after, I found a way to get Windows to exit back into Dos - just like Windows 3.1.
I would have gotten OS/2, but couldn't. A minor problem of the operating system requiring too much resources at the time (e.g. 8MB of ram when I only had 4.) When I got my next computer, I didn't have much of a choice for the operating system - it was preloaded with Win95.
As you probably know, Microsoft somehow secured licensing deals that prevent OEMs from selling anything but Windows 95 with their newly sold computers. In turn, this was used by the justice department to claim anti-trust violations.
I would have like to try out OS/2 or even BeOS. The only problem is that I couldn't purchase those operating systems without a good reason at the time...
IIRC, I only noticed the AvP movie adertisments few weeks before it was released - before that, it was just rumours. (Besides, a correct comparison requires watching one of the other in the series soon after or before pasisng judgement.) Hyping may have been done, but I certainly didn't notice it, let alone see it advertised as much as some other movies.
Some other games, such as Doom 3 were advertised years before their release, but it seemed the fans did a lot more advertising on the game rather than iD Software.
Generals, on the other hand, was hyped by the developer. The beta testing period was allegedly done to make it look thet it was going to be the best game to compete with Starcraft/Warcraft III... turned out that the game had significant balance issues right after release (e.g. GLA tunnel network taking 5 seconds to build, later patched to 12). In addition, it generally annoyed most of the "true" fans of the C&C series.
Of course, Daikatana would be the best example of hyping. The game was barely playable on release, and is still barely playable on modern systems. Patch also takes 40 minutes to complete.
Besides, these problems are easily countered through one of many methods (some of which are exclusive with some other options):
1. Regular security audits (e.g. after the library or cafe closes.) You may need specialized software to automate the process, but you should at the very least be checking the computers to see if they are okay.
2. User account restrictions. In most cases, security breaches occurr because the user somehow got hold of local administrator prvilages - this should be prevented when possible.
3. Public monitering. You generally want most computers within public view. For the computers that have a privacy screen, you should give a priority audit. While this doesn't preevnt intrusions, it does deter some and otherwise make things easier to detect by a random bystander.
4. Hard drive images. If a machine is suspected to be compromized, restore it from an image.
5. DeepFreeze. Pressing the reset button restores the computer to a usable state. You can even give users permission to install software without worries either under this option (but be careful not to give permissions to change user accounts or configure the network.)
The sky is not falling. As long as Chicken Little doesn't create enough panic to get all the barnyard animals to the fox's den, we are safe.
When I transferred over to Steam, I didn't have to pay a dime because I already purchased Half-Life. Not only that, but I no longer have to juggle around CDs or CD-Keys (meaning that I won't have to worry about my key leaking over the internet, even if it is a negligable chance of occurrance.) They may hold the cards, but they haven't done anything too stupid. The instant they require monthly payments to play the old Half-Life is the same instant of a mass exodus to many other games, for better or for worse.
The EULA may be restrictive, but Valve isn't going to be stupid enough to milk as much money as possible. They already know how to get as much money as possible by releasing three different levels of the Half-Life 2 bundle.
No, they didn't. There's already ways to get a CS server working by running out of secure mode (by launching the dedicated server with "-insecure", or by visiting Steamless CS Project). Not only that, but you are free to retrieve their SDK and write your own AI players for the game.
I have seen similar complaints about VAC - players that cheat are no longer capable of playing Half-Life, and then proced to claim that VAC is broken and banned them without reason (they either get banned from the forums, or later confess that their pet dog was trying out an aimbot a few months ago...)
SS2 sort of does this - the black eggs are supposed to be the third level of evolution but you destroy them before you encounter this third form. However, the method used in DX:IW didn't really have closure to the red greasels.
Actually, that was a feature designed to improve framerates for the slower computers. Not that it helped any...
The fix for this was posted on the forums shortly after the demo came out. It involved opening the ".INI" file that came with the game, and changing the mouse latency setting from "=75" to "=0". The DXIW Tweaker utility was also written to help make the change for you, in addition to doing other optimizations.
Actually, I'd prefer it to be smoothly runnable on the X800 rather than having to shell out even more money for a better video card. But that's my preference.
When I'm bashing DX:IW, I tend to place my focus on gameplay mechanics and story line. For example, the Tarsus academy said everything was allright in spite of the fact that it was getting pretty damn obvious there was an attack going on.
I believe the problem with DX:IW is that the storyline is only effectivly bound by your most recent action or so. Initially, you have to choose between the WTO and Order, before being disclosed that you were really working for the Illuminati.
When you reach Hanger 24, you get the option between which of the three factions you will work with. This only affects which of the three factions at Liberty Island you will be allied with, and only until you get to the Aquinas hub. At that point, you pick and choose which ending you want to complete.
The original DX, although is linear, did appear to have a bit more solutions per puzzle available. Naturally, stealth was emphasised but not required. This changes in DX:IW, where it's possible by design to run through entire armies without any form of detection (as opposed to DX, which is probably by oversight from a last minute implementation.)
In most cases, the choice between the "two evils" was generally made simple enough because one of the two cases involved killing people for no good reason. The only exception would be the Club Vox/Lawyer thing - in every other case, the consequences are marginal compared to some random person dying, whether those reasons are philosophical or in-game.
At the very least, there could have been a buildup of having your actions eventually lock out some of the endings. In DX:IW, there is only one lockout, and I suspect that's based around killing Billy rather than knocking her out in Antarctica.
In playing the game, I haven't really noticed any increased difficulty from the additional players. There might have been something subtle, but it didn't appear on the first run. Perhaps things might change when the third player comes along - even if the monsters aren't tougher, there'll be a bit more resource in-fighting...
In particular, it's one of the many outlets that some people resort to when they are depressed. Other places where depression can lead to would be simple laying down for long periods (not sleeping), massive eating, drinking alcohol, etc.
Granted, the article is slightly different. In this case, I can't comment effectivly (although, it seems to be one of the many "adolescent" effects going on.) For me, it seems to be the opposite - there doesn't seeem to be much else to go after, thus I resort to games. I'm not glued to them 24/7 as I do occasionally read books not related to games or computers (but it's still introversion nonetheless.)
The image "A Bulge" suffers from minor imperfections - for example, the cell farthest down initiating the illusion is black with two white squares at the top. The center of the small right-hand square has a grayscale value of 254 rather than 255. Other imperfections exist elsewhere.
While this doesn't impact the illusion directly, I know something that does. CRT monitors have been known to have minor convergence issues that generally mess around with how an image should look. As a result, it's best to print it out on paper to view the result.
Regardless of whether or not reading the fulltext (or claims) would change an opinion about the ruling, there can be a lot done by just taking a look at the abstract. All you need is to get a few software "experts" (10+ years experience or post-doctorate equivalent of study) to take a look at the abstract to help convince them that something is wrong - especially if the abstract covers something that would be fairly obvious or standardized.
Remember the Paralegal that got confused by Dihydrogen Monoxide? That was caused only by glancing at the preliminary information. While digging down would have revealed that the claims would naturally be a hoax, just the initial glance caused a big knee-jerk reaction.
The differerence in this case of these patents is that the information is only preliminary at this stage - it can still go either way. To see whether the current decision stands or falls will have to wait until the appeals court makes their decision.
The content of the patent does seem a bit familiar - I have seen something very similar used in Microsoft Windows API, where Microsoft Word requests another application to modify an image. Either Microsoft has found a method that somehow evades the patent, or Kodak is simply building a case law before they can take on MS.
At least I checked the abstract - most others are incorrectly assuming that Java is infringing on the bytecode interpreter.
For example, try kidnapping villagers from an enemy village and replace them with your own missionaries. If you take and replace them oneat a time, you will eventually have an enemy town full of missionaries that still believes in the enemy. If you empty the town first then plant your missionary, then you claim the town (just a single villager remaining is enough to require massive amounts of belief to conquer a town).
Also, I'm interested in why the AI isn't as strong as it could be. For some reason, it doesn't seem interested in attempting to convert my villages - in spite of the fact that it should have no problem doing so.
I can't comment here, as I don't know exactly what Autolock is supposed to do. If it is a bug that autolock is choosing the wrong object, then this sort of thing should have been detected during the testing period.
The only case where a "forced failure" would be acceptable would be in Operation Flashpoint - in the cases where forced failure occurred, it was roleplayed and used in an excessive fashion. The cases where you had to retreat was because your squad was not equipped to handle a certain attack squad, or because another friendly AI team could not complete their objectives (when they were supposed to). In the second case, the game was scripted well enough to have a contingency mission based on the failure of the allied squad.
I haven't seen any other game where forced failure would be acceptable - in these cases, the forced failure is generally annoying and an unrealistically artificial plot device. "What's this? There was only one artifact found instead of the two incorrectly stated by Intel? MISSION FAILED!"
That would be a problem with the temple donation system. Either the alignment shift is too great for the amount of money (or whatever) given, or there wasn't a limitation on an alignment shift caused by temple donations.
It's just like Freelancer - if you can collect enough money, the faction rating system will eventually seem pointless as you can buy your way into favour with almost anyone. However, it's not worthless because you can't afford most hack offers early in the game - as well as the fact that the prices for hacking the best factions (such as Corsairs) is generally astronomical.
Personally, I wasn't really impressed by the advertisments of the game. The official home page contained a flash animation that only seemed to imply some sort of alignment system - in addition, the flash animation was slow loading as well, because of a scripted slowness in rendering the content (they wanted it to gradually fade in - it caused be to lose my patience and leave after page 5.)
Even then, there was very limited information on the game itself. The trick is to actually release real information on how the game plays out in the late stages of development - that will minimze any anger from features missing from the game.
There are even practice scenarios where you have to rush to a specific tech level within a time limit, as well as placing you in a rank of players with the best time - you can't get better than that for learning how to play the game.
That's the other thing that interests me - generally, I found Master of Orion 3 to be a "slow" game that requires micromanagement. Sure, there's ways to cut it down, but there are bugs with the AI that generally require you to personally manage the economy to get the best out of it.
Also, MoO3 doesn't have a "tutorial" - you generally have to learn the game with limited instruction, which can be intimidating for first-timers. (Onvr you get the hang of it, you will find the gameplay mechanics to be quite clear, even if the interface could use some work.)
If you want more information, you may wish to consult either the laws in question or contact a lawyer with your questions. (Or a law student - they've been known to give out free-legal advice if you know how to talk it out of them, even if it might not be as accurrate as it could be.)
For a long period of time, I was given peanut-butter sandwiches for a school lunch. After a long period of time with the same food over and over again, I switched over to fast-food when I reached college. The hot dogs were fairly cheap at the time (1.50 for a "jumbo", later increased to 1.75) - and was known by the cafeteria staff for always purchasing that (and they were making implicit suggestions that I should take a bit more variety.)
Ever since I took fast food stuff (a mix of McDonalds, a generic pizza place, Subway, A&W, etc), I'm finding that it is slightly more difficult to eat some of the equivalents at home - some of the foods I eat very slowly because I find it hard to chew.
I could provide reasons why it's an addition, even if they are debatable. I suspect that the reason people feel addicted to the internet is because the offline counterparts aren't as suitable as they could be - for example, some people may have had bad experience with a social life and turned to the Internet instead.
I also left the door unlocked because I was expecting a friend or family member to come over while I was sleeping (and at the time, he did not have a key). The unlocked door is not an invitation for some random person off the street to enter the room - it applies only to the person that I'm expecting.
Just because a person doesn't infalliably defend myself or my property does not mean that it is legal for others to attack me. If your local law doesn't agree, then perhaps you should move to either a State (Country) or a State (unit of the USA) that does.
In the situation you described, the drunk driver is a true victim. In most cases, a reasonable driver should not expect to be rear-ended when stopped at a stop sign. Besides, any driver worth his salt should have enough common sense to avoid hitting cars stopped at a stop sign.
Your example isn't a good analogy, as the drunk driver is guilty of a completely unrealted offence. Driving under influence has nothing to do with the fact of who caused the accident.
Of course, this thing wouldn't really fly as well as it could. It just makes the infinite upgrade cycle a bit more obvious.
For it to be easy to use, the functions must be written in an intuitive manner, while at the same time allowing you to have maximum access to the API. In addition, there needs to be tutorials (or the equivalent thereof) provided so that an inexperienced person can learn how to do stuff as well.
Currently, I'm trying to look through the source code in order to see how to do edit an existing model or mesh (e.g. to import a 3D model in a format not currently supported by Irrlicht, or perhaps to create a modeller for Irrlicht.)
With this form of e-courts, I suspect that an attack would be generally better performed without resorting to simple camera brightness. Can't say for sure since I don't know how it's implemented, but it can be possible to disrupt justice. I wouldn't worry too much, if it weren't for the fact that there is a scaringly high number of false convictions (even if it a really only one or two, these false convictions seem to be generating a lot of press.)
The problem with the locks and security measures is that they aren't intellegent. In theory, any person who has a valid key can pass the lock without anybody thinking that it is suspicious.
The only way a lock can truly work is if it is backed by something intellegent that can confirm whether or not the person entering is valid (as well as the fact that the lock is intact). For example, the lock on Fort Knox is not only big, but it is being observed at all times to make sure that nobody is trying to sneak or break in. A system that does not contain an intellegent component will eventually get broken into, even if it is in a cheap movie.
As you know, the Quake 2 engine is released under the GPL. As an alternative to abiding by the rules of the GPL, you may shell out a single payment to change the license to something closer to your liking. (To prevent some potential issues, the alternate license should only apply to the base source code tree, as well as changes intended to be merged into the tree.)
The dual licensing method is commonly used by developers who either want to see the community gain from redistribution, or monetary compensation should the game developer want to keep the source closed.
While I can read french, I have a little bit of trouble confirming the story. I picked up the sentence "Ainsi, le taux de panne moyen nécessitant un redémarrage du système est mesuré autour de 8% par session." Whileit does match with the "Windows Fails 8% of the time", there is no information on why it fails, let alone any other basis of comparison. Other recent postings elaborate on this...
In any case, I haven't had any recent crashes by any opering system. The only memorable recent crashes (e.g. past 3 years or so) would have to do with faulty video drivers that do not function properly, regardless of whether it is Windows, Linux, or whatever other OS is installed.
Granted, I do know how to require Windows to reboot in order to become usable - it involves writing a Windows callback that returns incorrect values for the message WM_NCHITTEST, usually by forgetting to call the default Windows Callback. (The CTRL-ALT-DEL might be able to get pas this, but opening the task manager to kill the application won't really help. Given what accidently happened last time, I don't really want to check again.)
It's also not same type of FUD as some posters are
claiming it to be - it's more like a statement saying that the "Zero-Paper" office is still not yet ready. The only reference suggesting Open Source would be one small statement in the conclusion, and it seems to be secondary to something about... "optimizing license management and increating the time within upgrade cycle for hardware and software?"
Can't really tell to make sure. At the very least, Slashdot could provide a link to a translator to help understand. (I'm using Google to supplement my personal translation). Slashdot could do a better job to help us understand the article - but then I'd be expecting too much from the editors.