As someone without a cable/DSL/anything above 33.6, I have little interest in multiplayer gaming. I typically buy games only for single player only.
It drives me insane when I hear an announcement that X game is delayed to correct a few multiplayer cheat bugs. *I DON'T CARE*. Why do I have to sit and wait because some poor attention-starved loser wants to cheat on a part I will never use?
Add to that the added insanity (disclaimer: I believe single player games should allow me to cheat my damn brains out - i bought the game, let me do what I want with it) that sometimes developers disable cheating entirely in the game as a way to deal with the multiplayer bugs.
How are they going to solve that? Sell two separate versions of the game? I'd also expect it to be cheaper than the single+multiplayer version.
Is there any reason why this can't be done? Or am I, as a single player, destined to be ignored due to the complaints regarding a game I don't even play?
It's actually somewhat irrelevant. Episode I and II are about 30 - 50 years apart. So it's either 4000 years before Episode I or 4030 - 4050 years before. Nitpick all you want, but I don't distinguish much between 2000 BC and 1950 BC.
A friend and I were discussing this the other day. Although there's still a lot to discuss about whether or not the actual traffic *would* get routed, another topic that usually comes up is that would the reduced capacity be able to handle all the traffic that the web generates? It's important to remember here that if you lose the nodes in the US, you'd lose all the American users as well, reducing the traffic overall.
This article on Canoe.ca states that Jimmy Smits, Samuel L. Jackson, and Anthony Daniels have already left the Sydney set of Star Wars. Smits is already done his work (having only been announced that he was cast on Friday!), Jackson is done dialogue and must return in August to do a few action scenes, and Daniels will return briefly for work in Italy (Naboo) and Tunisia (Tatooine).
SK doesn't define "episode" anywhere on that page compared to "installment". If he's talking about $1 per installment, and each installment is only 20 pages, and his books are typically 500 pages plus, he's talking about $25 to pay for one book (assuming, of course, you're being honest.). If you assume he meets his goal and everyone then pays 75%, it's still > $18/book! This is *not* a savings. In fact, he's charging us *more* for each book, all the while circumventing the publisher, so that his profits are increased as well.
If someone knows anywhere where this is explained or clarified please let me know, because I searched his whole damn page and didn't see anything to contradict this.
Jack of All Trades sucks. I feel bad for Bruce. I just saw Army of Darkness for the first time recently and laughed my ass off. Jack of All Trades is, IMO, a step down.
I agree, they really missed the boat with Skinner. Skinner has already admitted he's a semi-believer (while in Vietnam, he saw something he couldn't explain, he thinks it's a UFO) AND he has got the HUGEST crush on Scully. Imagine a no-nonsense, quietly pining Skinner, searching through all this paranormal bullshit trying to help Scully, the woman he is attracted to, find Mulder, whom he views as his competition.
The few Skinner episodes they've done rank among my favourites. Hey, Chris, if you're listening, ditch T-1k and use Skinny!
I don't know about Bruce Campbell being underappreciated... He _does_ have his own series. Jack of All Trades, a weekly half-hour show. Part of the Back2Back Action hour that replaced Hercules.
As for his role, the Variety article states quite clearly that he is expected to play the "mirror opposite" (doesn't that seem redundant?) of Mulder.
And, as pointed out elsewhere in these comments, they've used *a lot* of "Mulder opposites" when introducing new characters. Scully, Krycheck, Agent Spender (CSM's son), and a few others here and there.
I'm sure that's the direction they'll take, mind you. Having noticed that a few times last season (when Mulder tried to find a rational explanation, Scully tried to find a paranormal one), I have the feeling they want to develop Scully a little more.
The full list of cast (which is quite full) can be found here.
Some interesting notes: Jimmy Smits (of NYPD Blue and others) has been cast as Senator Bail Organa, with more lines to follow in Episode III. Unle Owen and Aunt Beru, have also been cast, along with several bounty hunters. This piece details that one of the bounty hunters will be a woman -- and the absence of Boba Fett, who will be in Episode II, leads to the inevitable question: will Boba Fett be a woman (a la Princess Leia in Return of the Jedi?)
I don't think so. If you're likening this to the Microsoft scenario (preventing installation of other browsers etc.) on Windows platforms, then you must remember that this was anticompetitive and illegal only because they were a monopoly. Exclusionary agreements are signed ALL THE TIME, and are perfectly within the bounds of the law (depending of course on what country you're in - but this is the case in US, and even more liberal in Canada, afaik).
If, in your scenario, this were true, then Pepsi would have to prove that Coke is a monopoly (remember the first few months of the Microsoft fiasco which had DOJ trying to prove Windows is a monopoly, and Microsoft trying to refute it?)
This is very similar to both of the mentioned scenarios, and also the scenario with the Internet censorware companies trying to block websites from saying something damaging about their product.
All these issues are related. They all stem from large companies trying to strongarm smaller groups to control public perception.
I would take a guess and say that Slashdot is subjected to the same pressures that the network television stations and other free, advertising driven magazines are. I believe in the editorial integrity of Slashdot and its editors, BUT I have no doubt that another company, if advertising on the site, would try to exert influence on Slashdot itself to prevent it from posting a link to some revealing or damaging news piece about the company. If these companies are going to try to strongarm network television stations, with all their pull in the advertising world, what makes you think that they won't try that on Slashdot?
Congrats to emmett and anyone else who was involved with following up this rumour and finding the real news. I've been seeing too many "Oops, we weren't quite right" updates lately, so it is refreshing to see that facts were found and reported on. It is also nice to see that/. has begun using their media clout (the power that allows them to go directly to a reliable source for the news) to get news and not rumours. Mind you, this is fact-checking on a rumour, so it's pre-emptive squashing, and therefore really a non-story, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. (Then again, since most of the "news" on mainstream media has been reduced to rumour mongering and pathetic emotional manipulation, I prefer the/. reporting.) Congrats once again emmett and I hope we see more of this "following up" and "straight from the source" kind of reporting, which is a major advantage of the Web! Johnathon
I can imagine Microsoft would have a big advantage in the console gaming market if the X-box could play PSX or PSX2 games as well as X-Box games.
Is this ridiculous? Not really. As far as I understand it, the OS for X-Box will be Windows-based, and currently there is Bleem (the PSX emulator for Windows). Is it really that hard to imagine MSFT making X-Box capable of supporting Bleem?
Also consider that Bleem has been fairing relatively well in the court cases...
I wasn't saying it bothered *my* ethics (I'm as unholy and unscrupulous as they come;) ) but ask yourself how you'd feel if M$FT &/. worked up a banner exchange? I'd imagine there'd be quite a few/.ers chomping at the bit. Along the same lines, ho would you feel if/. did a banner exchange with a site that was deliberately FUDding, or trying to capitalize on the OpenSource movement, while not really "getting" it (I'm looking at you, Sun).
I guess it's the same argument for any business or organization: supporters of Greenpeace would go ballistic if they advertised on Exxon's site, or vice versa.
The question is, do you think this _in any way_ compromises/.? (Before anyone gets excited, let me first say that I would guess this wasn't even realized or intended at all by our faithful/. staff, and I don't feel that it compromises anyone - I was just curious as to what everyone else thought).
I've got to admit, I was pretty surprised to see an advertisement for/. there. I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful or not:
1) Should/. have "ethical" advertising policy (ie. only clear sites, only opensource software) - I'm not even sure if this is important or not
2)/. linking to a site that contains their own ads. (Though this doesn't make much sense in being beneficial as they've have to pay more $$ for page views of people who already read/.).
This would (sort of) make sense as some mp3 sites are linked to the porn industry via banner ads. Some (most) of these banner ads are really animated gifs, which could be (sort of) considered a movie (sort of).
It goes even deeper than just the software industry. This happens in virtually every industry in the world. Think back to _The Simpsons_ when Bart & his class go on a field trip, only to find that they can't afford it. The motto of the place is "Sorry, but there's money to be made". Where there is money, there will be business. Where there is business, there will be bad business practices. This is very similar to the idea that after charisma comes bureaucracy. In other words, ideas start out very small and located in one person (Martin Luther King Jr, Steve Jobs, Ghandi, Jesus, and many many others) but becomes bureaucratic and unfriendly when the idea grows. Add to this (in this case) the possibility of becoming rich off of one product, and you get exactly what the author is describing. I don't know of a single industry this doesn't occur in. Enjoy your e-commerce job while you have it. E-commerce is still in its infancy. In 10 years you might find it's very similar to the position you just left. Yes, this will happen to many other similar movements (Linux - probably RedHat is already moving that way).
The only way to escape this is to quit and start your own company. Of course, then you have a different set of rules to follow (like getting enough business to put food on your plate!)
The ten cities are: "New York, Toronto, Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, Irvine/Los Angeles, Orlando, Virginia, and Wilmington, North Carolina" according to LinuxToday. I'm hoping (praying) that they go on a hiring spree in Canada!
Slashdot Mirror
As someone without a cable/DSL/anything above 33.6, I have little interest in multiplayer gaming. I typically buy games only for single player only.
It drives me insane when I hear an announcement that X game is delayed to correct a few multiplayer cheat bugs. *I DON'T CARE*. Why do I have to sit and wait because some poor attention-starved loser wants to cheat on a part I will never use?
Add to that the added insanity (disclaimer: I believe single player games should allow me to cheat my damn brains out - i bought the game, let me do what I want with it) that sometimes developers disable cheating entirely in the game as a way to deal with the multiplayer bugs.
How are they going to solve that? Sell two separate versions of the game? I'd also expect it to be cheaper than the single+multiplayer version.
Is there any reason why this can't be done? Or am I, as a single player, destined to be ignored due to the complaints regarding a game I don't even play?
Whoops, yeah, I meant I and IV. I should be careful decrying ;)
It's actually somewhat irrelevant. Episode I and II are about 30 - 50 years apart. So it's either 4000 years before Episode I or 4030 - 4050 years before. Nitpick all you want, but I don't distinguish much between 2000 BC and 1950 BC.
A friend and I were discussing this the other day. Although there's still a lot to discuss about whether or not the actual traffic *would* get routed, another topic that usually comes up is that would the reduced capacity be able to handle all the traffic that the web generates? It's important to remember here that if you lose the nodes in the US, you'd lose all the American users as well, reducing the traffic overall.
This wasn't in the text of the article, but it's an update on recently posted material.
This article on Canoe.ca states that Jimmy Smits, Samuel L. Jackson, and Anthony Daniels have already left the Sydney set of Star Wars. Smits is already done his work (having only been announced that he was cast on Friday!), Jackson is done dialogue and must return in August to do a few action scenes, and Daniels will return briefly for work in Italy (Naboo) and Tunisia (Tatooine).
SK doesn't define "episode" anywhere on that page compared to "installment". If he's talking about $1 per installment, and each installment is only 20 pages, and his books are typically 500 pages plus, he's talking about $25 to pay for one book (assuming, of course, you're being honest.). If you assume he meets his goal and everyone then pays 75%, it's still > $18/book! This is *not* a savings. In fact, he's charging us *more* for each book, all the while circumventing the publisher, so that his profits are increased as well.
If someone knows anywhere where this is explained or clarified please let me know, because I searched his whole damn page and didn't see anything to contradict this.
Jack of All Trades sucks. I feel bad for Bruce. I just saw Army of Darkness for the first time recently and laughed my ass off. Jack of All Trades is, IMO, a step down.
I agree, they really missed the boat with Skinner. Skinner has already admitted he's a semi-believer (while in Vietnam, he saw something he couldn't explain, he thinks it's a UFO) AND he has got the HUGEST crush on Scully. Imagine a no-nonsense, quietly pining Skinner, searching through all this paranormal bullshit trying to help Scully, the woman he is attracted to, find Mulder, whom he views as his competition.
The few Skinner episodes they've done rank among my favourites. Hey, Chris, if you're listening, ditch T-1k and use Skinny!
I don't know about Bruce Campbell being underappreciated ... He _does_ have his own series. Jack of All Trades, a weekly half-hour show. Part of the Back2Back Action hour that replaced Hercules.
As for his role, the Variety article states quite clearly that he is expected to play the "mirror opposite" (doesn't that seem redundant?) of Mulder.
And, as pointed out elsewhere in these comments, they've used *a lot* of "Mulder opposites" when introducing new characters. Scully, Krycheck, Agent Spender (CSM's son), and a few others here and there.
I'm sure that's the direction they'll take, mind you. Having noticed that a few times last season (when Mulder tried to find a rational explanation, Scully tried to find a paranormal one), I have the feeling they want to develop Scully a little more.
The full list of cast (which is quite full) can be found here.
Some interesting notes: Jimmy Smits (of NYPD Blue and others) has been cast as Senator Bail Organa, with more lines to follow in Episode III. Unle Owen and Aunt Beru, have also been cast, along with several bounty hunters. This piece details that one of the bounty hunters will be a woman -- and the absence of Boba Fett, who will be in Episode II, leads to the inevitable question: will Boba Fett be a woman (a la Princess Leia in Return of the Jedi?)
I don't think so. If you're likening this to the Microsoft scenario (preventing installation of other browsers etc.) on Windows platforms, then you must remember that this was anticompetitive and illegal only because they were a monopoly. Exclusionary agreements are signed ALL THE TIME, and are perfectly within the bounds of the law (depending of course on what country you're in - but this is the case in US, and even more liberal in Canada, afaik).
If, in your scenario, this were true, then Pepsi would have to prove that Coke is a monopoly (remember the first few months of the Microsoft fiasco which had DOJ trying to prove Windows is a monopoly, and Microsoft trying to refute it?)
This is very similar to both of the mentioned scenarios, and also the scenario with the Internet censorware companies trying to block websites from saying something damaging about their product.
All these issues are related. They all stem from large companies trying to strongarm smaller groups to control public perception.
I would take a guess and say that Slashdot is subjected to the same pressures that the network television stations and other free, advertising driven magazines are. I believe in the editorial integrity of Slashdot and its editors, BUT I have no doubt that another company, if advertising on the site, would try to exert influence on Slashdot itself to prevent it from posting a link to some revealing or damaging news piece about the company. If these companies are going to try to strongarm network television stations, with all their pull in the advertising world, what makes you think that they won't try that on Slashdot?
Congrats to emmett and anyone else who was involved with following up this rumour and finding the real news. I've been seeing too many "Oops, we weren't quite right" updates lately, so it is refreshing to see that facts were found and reported on. It is also nice to see that /. has begun using their media clout (the power that allows them to go directly to a reliable source for the news) to get news and not rumours. Mind you, this is fact-checking on a rumour, so it's pre-emptive squashing, and therefore really a non-story, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. (Then again, since most of the "news" on mainstream media has been reduced to rumour mongering and pathetic emotional manipulation, I prefer the /. reporting.) Congrats once again emmett and I hope we see more of this "following up" and "straight from the source" kind of reporting, which is a major advantage of the Web! Johnathon
I can imagine Microsoft would have a big advantage in the console gaming market if the X-box could play PSX or PSX2 games as well as X-Box games.
...
Is this ridiculous? Not really. As far as I understand it, the OS for X-Box will be Windows-based, and currently there is Bleem (the PSX emulator for Windows). Is it really that hard to imagine MSFT making X-Box capable of supporting Bleem?
Also consider that Bleem has been fairing relatively well in the court cases
I wasn't saying it bothered *my* ethics (I'm as unholy and unscrupulous as they come ;) ) but ask yourself how you'd feel if M$FT & /. worked up a banner exchange? I'd imagine there'd be quite a few /.ers chomping at the bit. Along the same lines, ho would you feel if /. did a banner exchange with a site that was deliberately FUDding, or trying to capitalize on the OpenSource movement, while not really "getting" it (I'm looking at you, Sun).
/.? (Before anyone gets excited, let me first say that I would guess this wasn't even realized or intended at all by our faithful /. staff, and I don't feel that it compromises anyone - I was just curious as to what everyone else thought).
I guess it's the same argument for any business or organization: supporters of Greenpeace would go ballistic if they advertised on Exxon's site, or vice versa.
The question is, do you think this _in any way_ compromises
I've got to admit, I was pretty surprised to see an advertisement for /. there. I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful or not:
/. have "ethical" advertising policy (ie. only clear sites, only opensource software) - I'm not even sure if this is important or not
/. linking to a site that contains their own ads. (Though this doesn't make much sense in being beneficial as they've have to pay more $$ for page views of people who already read /.).
1) Should
2)
Weird stuff, just a weird coincidence I guess
This would (sort of) make sense as some mp3 sites are linked to the porn industry via banner ads. Some (most) of these banner ads are really animated gifs, which could be (sort of) considered a movie (sort of).
I went with Star Wars planets. Coruscant, endor, tatooine, naboo, deathstar ... it goes on and on and on...
You mean 10 - 20 hours by programmers and 1500 hours by the lawyers coming up with this. *grin*
It goes even deeper than just the software industry. This happens in virtually every industry in the world. Think back to _The Simpsons_ when Bart & his class go on a field trip, only to find that they can't afford it. The motto of the place is "Sorry, but there's money to be made". Where there is money, there will be business. Where there is business, there will be bad business practices. This is very similar to the idea that after charisma comes bureaucracy. In other words, ideas start out very small and located in one person (Martin Luther King Jr, Steve Jobs, Ghandi, Jesus, and many many others) but becomes bureaucratic and unfriendly when the idea grows. Add to this (in this case) the possibility of becoming rich off of one product, and you get exactly what the author is describing. I don't know of a single industry this doesn't occur in. Enjoy your e-commerce job while you have it. E-commerce is still in its infancy. In 10 years you might find it's very similar to the position you just left. Yes, this will happen to many other similar movements (Linux - probably RedHat is already moving that way).
The only way to escape this is to quit and start your own company. Of course, then you have a different set of rules to follow (like getting enough business to put food on your plate!)
Johnathon
The ten cities are: "New York, Toronto, Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, Irvine/Los Angeles, Orlando, Virginia, and Wilmington, North Carolina" according to LinuxToday. I'm hoping (praying) that they go on a hiring spree in Canada!