Have you even *looked* at any game development community? Ever?
Modelers and level builders outnumber programmers about 1000:1.
A typical forum will have the following threads:
Check out my new MOD!!!11 PROGRAMMER NEEDED FOR AWESOME NEW MOD MUST BE GOOD! Scripter / programmers needed. JOIN OUR TEAM! levels almost done, need help with programming! Awesomemod 3 sucks. WTF? help with scripting Idea for Crysis TC. Just need programming help!
etc, etc, etc.
The long and short of it is that there are many, many more modelers and level designers than there are programmers in the gaming world. The barrier to entry is easier, and yes, a lot of them suck. But there are probably as many talented modelers and level designers as there are good and bad programmers combined.
If you aren't developing because you don't want to deal with the art, the only thing I can think of excuse wise is that you don't want to work with a team.
It's worth going over some of the history of the "Modern" Jet Fighter.
Vietnam Era: The advanced F-4 Phantom turned out to suffer mostly from a disparity between air theory and what aviators actually needed in combat. Mistakes like focus on thrust to weight ratios, over maneuverability, lack of an internal cannon because of the idea that Air-to-air missiles made cannons obsolete... it all lead to the Air Force issuing a proposal for a new advanced fighter in the late 1960s.
What would eventually materialize from that was the F-15. It was to be a super fighter. It was designed to combat, and be superior to the Soviet's ultimate fighter. A fighter that was faster, more maneuverable, flew higher, and came armed with heated seats and photon torpedos. The Mig-25 Foxbat.
The U.S. and NATO greatly overestimated the Mig-25's capabilities. It was just a fast, high flying interceptor. Not much of a fighter. But that overestimation made them WAY over-engineer the F-15. They built an aircraft that today (more than 30 years after entering service) has a 104-0 kill ratio. This includes all Air Forces that fly it.
There was a BIG problem that was realized after the F-15 contract was awarded, but before they entered service. They were complicated and expensive. Simulations and projections said that they would fight with kill rations of 4:1 or 10:1, and all kinds of silly numbers were touted about.
But what was clear was that even though we had a superior aircraft to anything the Soviets were fielding, 10:1 kill ratios were irrelevant when it looked like we'd only be able to field them at a 1:20 ratio to what the Soviets were building.
You see the Soviet planes were less advanced, but they were cheap. They didn't have advanced radar, many lacked mid-air refueling capabilities, engines weren't as fuel efficient, etc, etc. But they were building them in numbers the U.S. realized it simply couldn't field the F-15 in.
So the Air Force decided they wanted a supplemental aircraft. An inexpensive complementary aircraft. One with a single engine, to cut down on cost, without all weather capability.
What they got eventually became the F-16. If my description above doesn't seem to match the current F-16, it's because much of what the F-16 does, it wasn't designed to do. IIRC, Air to ground capability wasn't even conceived of by the USAF. The Israelis did it first, and we thought it was a great idea. Same for all weather capability. The Air Force didn't require it for it's "budget" fighter. It wasn't until after delivery that they realized the F-16 was able to perform in that role anyway. I may have my time-line a bit confused there, but the basic facts are correct.
So what you wind up with is an air-superiority mix. A fast, heavy, agile, advanced fighter that can engage at insane distanced and dominate anything in the error. And a cheaper aircraft that's capable, but not as much of an mis-match for the rest of the world's Air Forces. Because it's cheaper, you can afford to build them en-mass.
The F-15 was a direct replacement for the F-4. The F-22, was in turn to be the F-15's direct replacement. A super-fighter that wasn't built around air superiority as the F-15 had been. No, the F-22 was to step up the USAF's premier fighter's capability to "Air Dominance".
But the F-16 is aging too. Still agile, and still capable, but there are other cheap fighters in the world now that are more than a match for it. The F-35 is intended to address this, as a cheaper, less capable, but still capable enough aircraft that we can afford to build in the numbers we will need to fill in the gaps between Raptors. Just because the F-35 is more advanced than most aircraft in the air today doesn't mean it's more advanced than the Raptor. It's still the "budget" alternative.
I was going to write a reply, but then I realized it didn't make as good a point as what I summed up already here, so I just copy/pasted below:
I love Nintendo, and other than the PC, I only own Nintendo consoles. But the Wii's biggest problem is that waggle is not fun in and of itself. Developers (Nintendo included, though they are a lesser offender) need to get that through their heads. If it adds to a game, (Mario Kart) use it! If not (Mario Galaxy, most other titles), don't! A great compromise is what they did with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You can use several control schemes, including one for the GameCube controller, or for the "Classic Controller" that uses no waggle at all.
Basically, Wii controls should be used for three things:
On screen analog pointing. For god's sake though, give me the option of using the D-pad, or analog stick if your game only uses on screen pointers for the menu!
Extremely analog actions, which lend themselves to a tilting motion. Marble Mania, Super Monkey Ball single player mode, driving games, and flying games lend themselves to this type of action.
Mimicking action gestures, where the gameplay doesn't require much beyond those gestures. Wii Tennis is a great example of this. You don't need to do much more than swing at the ball. But games where you need to perform an action like that, and then return to a completely different control paradigm are poorly thought out. That's not immersive. That's the opposite of immersive.
There are probably others that I can't think of, but my larger point is this: I should never be able to swap waggle for a simple button press, without loosing a degree of control. If I can, give me a fucking button. Zelda: Twilight Princess' spin attack is a great example of that. No reason it had to be waggle related. I will give some leeway for "satisfying" waggle. In the same game, swinging the remote to swing a sword just feels right, though I would love it if it had more control.
If you are a Wii developer, and you are developing a Wii game. Ask yourself this: "If I added a menu to allow players to remap their controls, would the game loose something if a player remapped Wii-specific controls?" If the answer is no, you should not be using waggle. You should be using buttons. And that's okay! Buttons are okay too!
That said, I have to disagree with you. It's not a gimmick, although I agree that it's mostly used in a gimmicky way so far. It's just a new tool in the inventory. I'll agree that it will never take the place of buttons (Natal), but Nintendo's hybrid implementation on the Wii (or something very much like it) seems like an indication of the direction of controller evolution to me.
The challenge now is getting developers to understand when to use it, and when not to, and more importantly that if the game doesn't need it, DON'T USE IT.
I would argue that Steam is both. Just because Valve is a publisher that allows for direct purchases, doesn't make it not a publisher.
Anyone can write an application, and put the compiled binary up on their website, and "self-publish". Steam gives exactly what a publisher does: direct access to a large distribution network. In this case, that comes in the form of a desktop client app that serves as a storefront. In the case of EA, it comes in the form of relationships with brick and mortars like Game Stop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and others.
Either way, I'd say it's still publishing.
What's curious is that in the indie music world, "indie" just tends to mean independent of the "major" record labels (There are four, right? I'm not a big music person). It can still be published by a record company though. Epitaph Records has been cited as an example of that. But they publish for Bad Religion, NOFX Rancid, The Offspring, Pennywise, and other relatively well known artists. That doesn't seem to stop peoplr from claling them "indie".
The problem is that there is no direct analogy to the "Big Four" in gaming. The biggest publishers would probably be the three console makers(Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), then a few dozen or so companies like EA, Sega, Konomi, Activision, Capcom, etc.
Oh, and throw a wrench into the works with Valve, and Steam competitors like Direct-To-Drive, etc.
I think the answer is to have different levels for these indie game competitions.
It could be by number of team members, or by dollar amount, or size of the publisher.
As for scenarios like the one someone else posited where a game is developed by a small studio in January, picked up by a major publisher like EA in June, and entered into an Indie Game Festival in October, I think what's important is what the level of support was when the game was in development. If EA funded the game, no way. But if EA only got involved after the team had a finished product, why not?
As the other poster commented, a motor vehicle stop is different. Also, a valid, legal motor vehicle stop should almost always coincide with an infraction of the Motor Vehicle Code as witnessed by the officer (there are other valid reasons, but they make up a smaller percent of overall stops). This is probable cause. An officer witnesses you make an illegal left, or blow a stop sign, or speed, he has the authority to pull you over, and is in the right after that happens. At that point, you need to provide your documents.
That said, all that did is shift the topic away from the important question. What does that have to do with a national ID?
These are laws that are on the books right now and have been for decades or more, not just since 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, etc.
If the laws now protect you from unreasonable search and seizure (as well as provide for a degree of anonymity), then what difference dos it make if the ID in your wallet is issued by the city, county / parish, state, or fed? Or is a joint project by the fed, that outlines the features that must be included in IDs issued by the others?
I don't see that it does. Although I do see other inherent benefits.
If there was a push to change the laws, I could see people getting up in arms like they are. But this is innocuous. I really do believe that this is just a good idea. I don't think it's going to prevent a 9/11, if individuals are motivated enough to carry out such an attack. But I do believe it can keep us safer by making the enforcement and administration of existing laws more efficient.
The reality of the world that we live in, is a world with IDs. If we're going to live in that world (and last I checked, there were no states that don't have IDs) then it's logical to make the system as uniform and efficient as possible. Right now, we already have laws on the books to protect our privacy. We don't need to give up ID to the government without probable cause, or unless we are electing to enter a sensitive area (air ports, etc). We can also choose to present ID if we with to enter a bar, or other establishment in which establishing age is required.
None of that needs to change just because the system is more efficient. I don't trust the Federal government any more or less than the State governments, but I do tend to trust the Fed to do a better job with things. I've lived in NJ, CA, FL, and PA.
A few years ago, my license in NJ was suspended for failing to pay some fines. I didn't know it, because I had moved to PA. I only found out four years later when I moved back to NJ and tried to renew my license. They told me I was on the suspended list. Huh? But PA never told me that when I applied for a license, or renewed it.
That shouldn't happen. Granted, in my case, it was some parking ticket fines, but what if I were suspended for drunk driving, or vehicular homicide, or something much more serious? Why was I able to cross state lines and get a license in one state, while suspended in another?
The systems don't talk to each other. That's a problem when they have a legitimate cause to be used.
I'm not for a police state, I'm just for establishing a universal standard. Keep the privacy laws the way they are now.
Don't want to show your ID card to get into a club? Don't. You can't get in, but how is that different than now? Don't want to show a police officer your ID? If he or she has probable cause, it's a crime now to refuse. If they don't have cause to see your ID, then you can refuse. This is likely to make the officer unhappy / suspicious, and you'll probably be harassed for it, but you are within your rights now to refuse. I don't see why this would have to change, just because we have better IDs. Don't want to show your ID to get into the air port? Sorry, you're not getting in. Again, same as now.
Does anyone have any arguments against this that aren't based on "well with this system they could X"? Where X would break laws that already exist?
If you show me states that are willing to go without IDs, (since it is a right of the states to issue, or not issue IDs) then I'll concede that this is a bad plan. But if all states are on board, it just makes sense to make the damn thing universal. Otherwise, what's the point?
Echoing the other reply you got, I suspect you're being sarcastic, but I'd say, yes. In some cases, these developers are being foolish by targeting the PS3.
What I find shocking from the numbers posted is this:
(Sorry for the underscores, but Slashcode strips white space, and doesn't allow for the table tag.)
Not only is the Wii outselling the PS3, and the 360, but the Wii Fit is selling nearly on parity with the PS3. When you consider that this number also represents the number of Wii Balance Board peripherals in the field, it means that the Balance Board is every bit as legitimate a development target as the PS3. Add to that the fact that the PS3 has a head start of what? Two years? That's unreal.
I own one myself, and I do feel that it's a bit gimmicky. But with an install base like that, I'm shocked there isn't more software for it already.
ExciteTruck is a ton of fun, but it's a Nintendo title, so the grandparent poster's stance still stands. Also, it only uses tilt, and face buttons on the controller like an NES pad. There is zero reason it couldn't be ported to any console with analog sticks. Hell, the PS3 could play it, and retain the tilt!
I haven't played Downhill Jam, so I can't comment on that.
Super Monkey Ball had an okay single player experience, but the party games are a shining example of how not to do a Wii game. The controls Just. Don't. Work. most of the time. Both the SMBs on the GameCube are excellent through and through, so I was quite disappointed with that.
Mario Galaxy... remind me again what is special about the controls for Mario Galaxy? IIRC, they're the same as Mario Sunshine, except one or two moves involve shaking the controller instead of pressing a button. Fun game, but I'd rather be able to use a regular control scheme.
I love Nintendo, and other than the PC, I only own Nintendo consoles. But the Wii's biggest problem is that waggle is not fun in and of itself. Developers (Nintendo included, though they are a lesser offender) need to get that through their heads. If it adds to a game, (Mario Kart) use it! If not (Mario Galaxy, most other titles), don't! A great compromise is what they did with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You can use several control schemes, including one for the GameCube controller, or for the "Classic Controller" that uses no waggle at all.
Basically, Wii controls should be used for three things:
On screen analog pointing. For god's sake though, give me the option of using the D-pad, or analog stick if your game only uses on screen pointers for the menu!
Extremely analog actions, which lend themselves to a tilting motion. Marble Mania, Super Monkey Ball single player mode, driving games, and flying games lend themselves to this type of action.
Mimicking action gestures, where the gameplay doesn't require much beyond those gestures. Wii Tennis is a great example of this. You don't need to do much more than swing at the ball. But games where you need to perform an action like that, and then return to a completely different control paradigm are poorly thought out. That's not immersive. That's the opposite of immersive.
There are probably others that I can't think of, but my larger point is this: I should never be able to swap waggle for a simple button press, without loosing a degree of control. If I can, give me a fucking button. Zelda: Twilight Princess' spin attack is a great example of that. No reason it had to be waggle related. I will give some leeway for "satisfying" waggle. In the same game, swinging the remote to swing a sword just feels right, though I would love it if it had more control.
If you are a Wii developer, and you are developing a Wii game. Ask yourself this: "If I added a menu to allow players to remap their controls, would the game loose something if a player remapped Wii-specific controls?" If the answer is no, you should not be using waggle. You should be using buttons. And that's okay! Buttons are okay too!
I believe you misunderstand what his or her post was saying.
They are not saying that games are or are not art. They are saying that practically nobody believes them to be art. Which I agree with, even though I think games can be art.
There is a disconnect though that is not often recognized. Not every picture, book, film, or game is art. Though I agree that games as a medium are no less valid than literature or film.
I do take exception to the premise of the author of the article. The submitter seems to believe that controversial games are something new.
Atari's Missile Command was originally called Armageddon, and was to take place using real Californian cities. These were both changed due to Atari believing that it would make the game to controversial. This was 30 years ago.
Then you have Custar's Revenge on the 2600, NARC on the NES, Night Trap on Sega CD, Mortal Kombat in the arcade, and later on consoles, and a whole host of other games just off the top of my head that were controversial. I wouldn't call most of them art though.
Somewhere along the line though, little gems started popping up. They were rare exceptions at first. Some would say they still are, but there were some games with compelling stories. Interactive narratives. Real fiction that was worth immersing one's self in.
Then those games became more frequent. And now, you have games with worth while stories, and worth while concepts, and publishers are less fearful of them, and game producers *want* to produce games like that...
It's slow going, but it is coming. Lolita, and Saving Private Ryan are certainly not entertainment. But they are important. Six Days in Faluja could have been too. I'm not sure it would have been, but I am sure it could have been if handled right.
One last point: I've never heard of half of these. And not that I'm some kind of authority or anything, but when you point out games or mods that were made by one person in an afternoon because they though it would be funny, it's hardly some trend. That's like saying that every blog post, or pamphlet put out by some self-publishing nut is evidence of a trend in literature. Games like Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide only get *any* attention because they are offensive. If they weren't, you would never notice them at all, like most silly flash games, or small indie games.
Should publishers and developers be able to release whatever they want? Super Columbine RPG? RapeLay? Six Days in Fallujah? Are they protected by free speech? Will games forever be entertainment and therefore never be able to cover current topics? How would you effectively regulate content if I should be able to play a game like GTA but not Six Days in Fallujah? Do these titles hurt the social standing of gamers and gaming as a medium?
Should publishers and developers be able to release whatever they want? Yes. Including Super Columbine RPG, and RapeLay, etc. They can with books now. They can with Films now, and there is remarkably little market (though some) for the truly tasteless like that. I hate to use this tired cliche, but this is one instance where the market (with a little help from public opinion) will sort things out for itself. Sure we can and probably should rate things, and keep minors away from the most offensive stuff. But beyond that? Free reign I say.
Absolutely current topics are fair game. But they need to be treated the way Saving Private Ryan treats them, not the way Full Metal Jacket does, or publishers need to be prepared to face the consequences. Oh, and of course this is a new media, so publishers have to face the real risk that early on, people won't understand (particularly non-gamers) and they'll face the consequences, even if they do everything right!
Ever heard the expression "Fast, reliable, cheap (pick two)"?
It applies here.
Of course, you were fairly specific with the processing specs you need, but not your budget. So it's hard to say what "breaking the bank" is for you. also, you called it a UPS, but you also called it an "Interruptible Power Supply". I'm assuming a brain-fart, but the "U" stands for Uninterruptible.
I agree 100% that spoon feeding is beneath the show and insulting. Like when they showed Earth at the end of Season 3, when Starbuck returns.
But I didn't see this as that kind of spoon feeding. I *did* think that the fast forward scene was sloppy though. The robots didn't really move anything forward, and being mostly cutesy, were badly out of place at the end of this show.
Starbuck's jump coordinates flashbacks could have been trimmed down a bit, and I don't think we'd have missed much.
But Boomer's flashback was important. Not for it's content, but for it's context. Boomer has been painted alternatingly (as many characters have) as the villain, and a victim of her circumstances / someone who made some bad choices. In the lead-up to her returning Hera to the Colonials, they paint her almost entirely as a villain. A redeemed villain with her last actions, but a villain none the less. You're probably thinking mostly of her sins - shooting Adama, kidnapping Hera, etc.
Her real feelings for the Chief, her horror at waking up soaking wet in the arms locker before the water tank explodes, those feelings are so long ago, and so far forgotten in the evolution of the character, that the flashback brings you down immediately from the "bitch deserved it" reaction of Athena finally getting her revenge.
It wasn't an angel figurine. It was a figurine of the Aurora, Goddess of the Dawn. It was also more than a few episodes back. It was Maelstrom - the episode in season 3 where she dies.
I agree that the show is fairly explicit that she's an Angel. But perhaps they weren't explicit, hitting us over the head enough. That's why at the end of Season 3, when Starbuck reappears, they zoom in on Earth, with North America front and center. The staff of the show were worried that if they didn't, audiences wouldn't get that it was Earth.
Mostly though, this show has done much better than typical TV spoon feeding you info and spelling everything out ad nauseum.
If I remember correctly, Mythbusters had to use rotational speeds that were several times what a real drive will do. 300x or so?
One night my girlfriend were sitting at our PCs, which were right next to each other. We heard a very loud, very sudden bang or pop noise out of nowhere. Looked at each other, and looked around the room and couldn't figure out what that noise was.
When we couldn't figure out what that loud noise was, we forgot about it, and figured that if it was important, we'd find it eventually. So we went back to what we were doing.
She was starting up a game of StarCraft, and finally noticed that the game had failed to load, giving an error message about being unable to read the CD.
She tried again. It was then that it dawned on me what that noise might had been. I had certainly *heard* of optical discs exploding, but had not had it happen to me, nor anyone I personally knew.
Do you not think that this would be of interest to slashdot? Do you honestly think that this site, with millions of users, would have nobody submit this as a story, and that none of the editors would post it?
So what you're saying is that you think it's more likley that this is astroturfing, than just you know, the people who use this site happening to think this is cool news? I for one think it's neat.
No. Tone of your comment aside, what I mean by "open" is a platform that anyone can reasonably develop and publish for.
To me a "closed" system like Windows Mobile is much more open than a system like Apple's iPhone platform because anybody can download.Net and get coding, then publish by uploading.cab files to their web host.
Not so much with the iPhone.
You can argue the merits of open source, "free as in speech", "free as in beer", etc. But to me, being able to have anyone develop for your platform is much more important in a practical sense. That's why Windows is a dominant desktop OS. It's why Valve is a successful game developer / publisher, it's the reason behind the success of an awful lot of products.
Because this is Slashdot, I'll convolute the matter with a terrible car analogy: You don't have to have access to the blueprints for a car to design a better intake manifold, or exhaust, or even ECM chip.
Likewise, "openness" the way it's typically been defined (access to source code), is only slightly more useful than just having open access to development tools for a platform. I've never looked at the source of Firefox, or PHP, or Perl. I haven't needed to. All these products are well documented, and fairly well supported.
To directly address your smart-ass comment about malware, I would contend that this problem exists because Windows is the dominant platform, and for no other reason. If Linux or OSX or BeOS, or any other platform were dominant, than malware writers would be incented to write malware for those platforms as well. Any system that is "open" by my definition (open to develop for) is vulnerable to such a threat.
In defense of your point, only a locked down system, where most folks can't publish or run their own code like the iPhone is well protected. So your iPhone is safer than your BSD box. Funny how that works.
I wish I had a better term to use than "open" for what I mean, since it already has a connotation to "source available". But coining a new term would be just as confusing.
It's not useless, and in fact, it's the very first thing I thought to myself when I read the summary.
To further your own analogy, how seriously could you take an article that, in it's first paragraph dismissed the Nazi Germany as a something the world over-reacted to, and never should have taken seriously?
It sets a tone, that perhaps the author's views are badly colored.
They love gadgets over their. The way Apple does things, and the typical build quality is what the Japanese market is all about. Cool technology packaged in an easy-to-use, stylish package. It's not like North America, where it's more or less a race to the bottom to see who can build the cheapest widget with the biggest numbers, to hell with quality. They *care* about (perceived) build quality. That's why the expensive Sony Trinitron that never had significant market share here, dominated over there during the years of tube based Televisions. It wasn't just a "buy domestic" mentality. Because much of Sony's competition was Japanese as well.
The iPod and the Mac mesh *perfectly* with what the Japanese love about technology. In fact, I'd even go so far to say the iPhone gets it nearly right, but fails with several, easily corrected critical flaws that Apple just seems unwilling to correct. MMS, Video, App Store issues - that's all software, the build quality of the hardware seems perfectly respectable to me. It feels quick and responsive most of the time, and I'd never own one because of lack of openness (my definition of "open" may differ as I'm a Windows Mobile fan) and because of those few fatal flaws mentioned in TFA.
(This is my second post today defending Sony. I need to go take a shower.)
Agreed. I also take tone with the issue that the PSP is a "failure". I've never even owned a Sony console, as I don't see anything unique enough to appeal to me that's not available on the PC, or a Nintendo console. That said, the PSP is the first console ever to come in a respectable second place to Nintendo's portable offering.
That it isn't beating the DS is certainly not what Sony would have preferred, but Sony has to be pleased with the fact that they are the first ones -ever- to take measurable market share away from Nintendo. If the PSP is past the monetary break-even point at this point in it's life span, and is now profitable to boot(I honestly have no idea if it is) then Sony certainly deserves to be proud of themselves, and I'd say a PSP2 is a near certainty.
From what I can tell, Nintendo's new offering, despite enthusiastic early reception in Japan, is receiving mixed reviews, and may not fare well commercially long term, particularly outside Japan. Time will tell, but I don't see it as a compelling upgrade from the DS Lite, by adding a pair of cameras, and an SD card reader. This to me is an opportunity for Sony to innovate. Again, time will tell.
I had never heard of this. But a quick googling reveals lots of similar problems with past contests, such as not being able to organize in time to have contestants some years, etc.
Sounds like it's a half-assed operation that's just not very well organized. Like 99% of Source Forge projects. People sign on, lose interest, and disappear. That's the nature of open source sometimes, you have to wade through lots of shit to get to the gems. (though I'd say the gems tend to make things worth it).
Hardly what I would call a high point of anything. Seeing the source would be neat, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.
I don't deny that they very well could have called it something else. But then people would be criticizing it for "ripping off Battlestar Galactica" instead. The core of the story is the search for Earth, with a rag tag fleet, protected only by the last surviving Battleship, the Galactica.
And it really is an outstanding show. The best fiction I've ever seen on television. I realize that's a low bar, but there it is.
Starbuck as a woman, doesn't matter. And that's the *point*. It's a non-issue, not a T&A thing. As for Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9 - I'd say that's the polar opposite. I disliked Voyager up until they introduced her character, but I was *trying* to give it a chance because I'd liked other Star Trek series so much. When they introduced her, it was such a blatant, terrible T&A move, that I stopped watching the show.
Starbuck, Boomer, Roslyn, Dualla, none of them run around in spandex, and that's kind of the point. They're equal. It's a universe where gender isn't an issue.
To address your point about Al-Jazeera... it's as good a source of journalism as I've encountered in western mainstream.
I got sick the spin on most western news, a long time ago, so I decided that I'd turn to the internet to get outside perspective from time to time. For a while that meant Pravda, but the writing there is terrible. I really get the sense that they either stuck their Russian version through bablefish, or that it's being written by people in their basements without the benefit of editorial review. In other words, blog-quality but before blogs.
Then Al-Jazeera released it's English language edition a few years ago. And the quality is splendid. It's skewed the same way that western news sources are, just with a different local bent. But the difference between Al-Jazeera and Pravda is that I genuinely get the sense that the Al-Jazeera writers and editors want to be, and go through pains to be as non-biased as they can be.
Are folks who blow themselves up, or lob rockets into populated areas barbarians? Probably. But they don't have to be. They are desperate, and desperate people take up arms. Sometimes they take up arms and do things that are disgusting in the name of their cause. Particularly when they are the underdog.
And I don't see Al-Jazeera as connected to those folks. It just reports from the region where these things tend to happen.
I *do* read it. It's a great source for getting a different prespective, and it's much, much better written than Pravda is.
I just find it funny that whatever software Slashdot uses to choose ad serves decided to pick Al-Jazeera in a story that mentions suicide bombers. I just have to think that that's not coincidental.
It's like whatever software runs the ads decided $suicidebombers --> $middleeast --> $al-jazeera which is funny, if a bit disturbing.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you even *looked* at any game development community? Ever?
Modelers and level builders outnumber programmers about 1000:1.
A typical forum will have the following threads:
etc, etc, etc.
The long and short of it is that there are many, many more modelers and level designers than there are programmers in the gaming world. The barrier to entry is easier, and yes, a lot of them suck. But there are probably as many talented modelers and level designers as there are good and bad programmers combined.
If you aren't developing because you don't want to deal with the art, the only thing I can think of excuse wise is that you don't want to work with a team.
No it doesn't. You are correct.
It's worth going over some of the history of the "Modern" Jet Fighter.
Vietnam Era: The advanced F-4 Phantom turned out to suffer mostly from a disparity between air theory and what aviators actually needed in combat. Mistakes like focus on thrust to weight ratios, over maneuverability, lack of an internal cannon because of the idea that Air-to-air missiles made cannons obsolete... it all lead to the Air Force issuing a proposal for a new advanced fighter in the late 1960s.
What would eventually materialize from that was the F-15. It was to be a super fighter. It was designed to combat, and be superior to the Soviet's ultimate fighter. A fighter that was faster, more maneuverable, flew higher, and came armed with heated seats and photon torpedos. The Mig-25 Foxbat.
The U.S. and NATO greatly overestimated the Mig-25's capabilities. It was just a fast, high flying interceptor. Not much of a fighter. But that overestimation made them WAY over-engineer the F-15. They built an aircraft that today (more than 30 years after entering service) has a 104-0 kill ratio. This includes all Air Forces that fly it.
There was a BIG problem that was realized after the F-15 contract was awarded, but before they entered service. They were complicated and expensive. Simulations and projections said that they would fight with kill rations of 4:1 or 10:1, and all kinds of silly numbers were touted about.
But what was clear was that even though we had a superior aircraft to anything the Soviets were fielding, 10:1 kill ratios were irrelevant when it looked like we'd only be able to field them at a 1:20 ratio to what the Soviets were building.
You see the Soviet planes were less advanced, but they were cheap. They didn't have advanced radar, many lacked mid-air refueling capabilities, engines weren't as fuel efficient, etc, etc. But they were building them in numbers the U.S. realized it simply couldn't field the F-15 in.
So the Air Force decided they wanted a supplemental aircraft. An inexpensive complementary aircraft. One with a single engine, to cut down on cost, without all weather capability.
What they got eventually became the F-16. If my description above doesn't seem to match the current F-16, it's because much of what the F-16 does, it wasn't designed to do. IIRC, Air to ground capability wasn't even conceived of by the USAF. The Israelis did it first, and we thought it was a great idea. Same for all weather capability. The Air Force didn't require it for it's "budget" fighter. It wasn't until after delivery that they realized the F-16 was able to perform in that role anyway. I may have my time-line a bit confused there, but the basic facts are correct.
So what you wind up with is an air-superiority mix. A fast, heavy, agile, advanced fighter that can engage at insane distanced and dominate anything in the error. And a cheaper aircraft that's capable, but not as much of an mis-match for the rest of the world's Air Forces. Because it's cheaper, you can afford to build them en-mass.
The F-15 was a direct replacement for the F-4. The F-22, was in turn to be the F-15's direct replacement. A super-fighter that wasn't built around air superiority as the F-15 had been. No, the F-22 was to step up the USAF's premier fighter's capability to "Air Dominance".
But the F-16 is aging too. Still agile, and still capable, but there are other cheap fighters in the world now that are more than a match for it. The F-35 is intended to address this, as a cheaper, less capable, but still capable enough aircraft that we can afford to build in the numbers we will need to fill in the gaps between Raptors. Just because the F-35 is more advanced than most aircraft in the air today doesn't mean it's more advanced than the Raptor. It's still the "budget" alternative.
I was going to write a reply, but then I realized it didn't make as good a point as what I summed up already here, so I just copy/pasted below:
That said, I have to disagree with you. It's not a gimmick, although I agree that it's mostly used in a gimmicky way so far. It's just a new tool in the inventory. I'll agree that it will never take the place of buttons (Natal), but Nintendo's hybrid implementation on the Wii (or something very much like it) seems like an indication of the direction of controller evolution to me.
The challenge now is getting developers to understand when to use it, and when not to, and more importantly that if the game doesn't need it, DON'T USE IT.
I would argue that Steam is both. Just because Valve is a publisher that allows for direct purchases, doesn't make it not a publisher.
Anyone can write an application, and put the compiled binary up on their website, and "self-publish". Steam gives exactly what a publisher does: direct access to a large distribution network. In this case, that comes in the form of a desktop client app that serves as a storefront. In the case of EA, it comes in the form of relationships with brick and mortars like Game Stop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and others.
Either way, I'd say it's still publishing.
What's curious is that in the indie music world, "indie" just tends to mean independent of the "major" record labels (There are four, right? I'm not a big music person). It can still be published by a record company though. Epitaph Records has been cited as an example of that. But they publish for Bad Religion, NOFX Rancid, The Offspring, Pennywise, and other relatively well known artists. That doesn't seem to stop peoplr from claling them "indie".
The problem is that there is no direct analogy to the "Big Four" in gaming. The biggest publishers would probably be the three console makers(Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), then a few dozen or so companies like EA, Sega, Konomi, Activision, Capcom, etc.
Oh, and throw a wrench into the works with Valve, and Steam competitors like Direct-To-Drive, etc.
I think the answer is to have different levels for these indie game competitions.
It could be by number of team members, or by dollar amount, or size of the publisher.
As for scenarios like the one someone else posited where a game is developed by a small studio in January, picked up by a major publisher like EA in June, and entered into an Indie Game Festival in October, I think what's important is what the level of support was when the game was in development. If EA funded the game, no way. But if EA only got involved after the team had a finished product, why not?
As the other poster commented, a motor vehicle stop is different. Also, a valid, legal motor vehicle stop should almost always coincide with an infraction of the Motor Vehicle Code as witnessed by the officer (there are other valid reasons, but they make up a smaller percent of overall stops). This is probable cause. An officer witnesses you make an illegal left, or blow a stop sign, or speed, he has the authority to pull you over, and is in the right after that happens. At that point, you need to provide your documents.
That said, all that did is shift the topic away from the important question. What does that have to do with a national ID?
These are laws that are on the books right now and have been for decades or more, not just since 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, etc.
If the laws now protect you from unreasonable search and seizure (as well as provide for a degree of anonymity), then what difference dos it make if the ID in your wallet is issued by the city, county / parish, state, or fed? Or is a joint project by the fed, that outlines the features that must be included in IDs issued by the others?
I don't see that it does. Although I do see other inherent benefits.
If there was a push to change the laws, I could see people getting up in arms like they are. But this is innocuous. I really do believe that this is just a good idea. I don't think it's going to prevent a 9/11, if individuals are motivated enough to carry out such an attack. But I do believe it can keep us safer by making the enforcement and administration of existing laws more efficient.
I see your argument, but I don't agree.
The reality of the world that we live in, is a world with IDs. If we're going to live in that world (and last I checked, there were no states that don't have IDs) then it's logical to make the system as uniform and efficient as possible. Right now, we already have laws on the books to protect our privacy. We don't need to give up ID to the government without probable cause, or unless we are electing to enter a sensitive area (air ports, etc). We can also choose to present ID if we with to enter a bar, or other establishment in which establishing age is required.
None of that needs to change just because the system is more efficient. I don't trust the Federal government any more or less than the State governments, but I do tend to trust the Fed to do a better job with things. I've lived in NJ, CA, FL, and PA.
A few years ago, my license in NJ was suspended for failing to pay some fines. I didn't know it, because I had moved to PA. I only found out four years later when I moved back to NJ and tried to renew my license. They told me I was on the suspended list. Huh? But PA never told me that when I applied for a license, or renewed it.
That shouldn't happen. Granted, in my case, it was some parking ticket fines, but what if I were suspended for drunk driving, or vehicular homicide, or something much more serious? Why was I able to cross state lines and get a license in one state, while suspended in another?
The systems don't talk to each other. That's a problem when they have a legitimate cause to be used.
I'm not for a police state, I'm just for establishing a universal standard. Keep the privacy laws the way they are now.
Don't want to show your ID card to get into a club? Don't. You can't get in, but how is that different than now?
Don't want to show a police officer your ID? If he or she has probable cause, it's a crime now to refuse. If they don't have cause to see your ID, then you can refuse. This is likely to make the officer unhappy / suspicious, and you'll probably be harassed for it, but you are within your rights now to refuse. I don't see why this would have to change, just because we have better IDs.
Don't want to show your ID to get into the air port? Sorry, you're not getting in. Again, same as now.
Does anyone have any arguments against this that aren't based on "well with this system they could X"? Where X would break laws that already exist?
If you show me states that are willing to go without IDs, (since it is a right of the states to issue, or not issue IDs) then I'll concede that this is a bad plan. But if all states are on board, it just makes sense to make the damn thing universal. Otherwise, what's the point?
Echoing the other reply you got, I suspect you're being sarcastic, but I'd say, yes. In some cases, these developers are being foolish by targeting the PS3.
What I find shocking from the numbers posted is this:
(Sorry for the underscores, but Slashcode strips white space, and doesn't allow for the table tag.)
Not only is the Wii outselling the PS3, and the 360, but the Wii Fit is selling nearly on parity with the PS3. When you consider that this number also represents the number of Wii Balance Board peripherals in the field, it means that the Balance Board is every bit as legitimate a development target as the PS3. Add to that the fact that the PS3 has a head start of what? Two years? That's unreal.
I own one myself, and I do feel that it's a bit gimmicky. But with an install base like that, I'm shocked there isn't more software for it already.
I think you got the wrong joke.
ExciteTruck is a ton of fun, but it's a Nintendo title, so the grandparent poster's stance still stands. Also, it only uses tilt, and face buttons on the controller like an NES pad. There is zero reason it couldn't be ported to any console with analog sticks. Hell, the PS3 could play it, and retain the tilt!
I haven't played Downhill Jam, so I can't comment on that.
Super Monkey Ball had an okay single player experience, but the party games are a shining example of how not to do a Wii game. The controls Just. Don't. Work. most of the time. Both the SMBs on the GameCube are excellent through and through, so I was quite disappointed with that.
Mario Galaxy... remind me again what is special about the controls for Mario Galaxy? IIRC, they're the same as Mario Sunshine, except one or two moves involve shaking the controller instead of pressing a button. Fun game, but I'd rather be able to use a regular control scheme.
I love Nintendo, and other than the PC, I only own Nintendo consoles. But the Wii's biggest problem is that waggle is not fun in and of itself. Developers (Nintendo included, though they are a lesser offender) need to get that through their heads. If it adds to a game, (Mario Kart) use it! If not (Mario Galaxy, most other titles), don't! A great compromise is what they did with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You can use several control schemes, including one for the GameCube controller, or for the "Classic Controller" that uses no waggle at all.
Basically, Wii controls should be used for three things:
There are probably others that I can't think of, but my larger point is this: I should never be able to swap waggle for a simple button press, without loosing a degree of control. If I can, give me a fucking button. Zelda: Twilight Princess' spin attack is a great example of that. No reason it had to be waggle related. I will give some leeway for "satisfying" waggle. In the same game, swinging the remote to swing a sword just feels right, though I would love it if it had more control.
If you are a Wii developer, and you are developing a Wii game. Ask yourself this: "If I added a menu to allow players to remap their controls, would the game loose something if a player remapped Wii-specific controls?" If the answer is no, you should not be using waggle. You should be using buttons. And that's okay! Buttons are okay too!
I believe you misunderstand what his or her post was saying.
They are not saying that games are or are not art. They are saying that practically nobody believes them to be art. Which I agree with, even though I think games can be art.
There is a disconnect though that is not often recognized. Not every picture, book, film, or game is art. Though I agree that games as a medium are no less valid than literature or film.
I do take exception to the premise of the author of the article. The submitter seems to believe that controversial games are something new.
Atari's Missile Command was originally called Armageddon, and was to take place using real Californian cities. These were both changed due to Atari believing that it would make the game to controversial. This was 30 years ago.
Then you have Custar's Revenge on the 2600, NARC on the NES, Night Trap on Sega CD, Mortal Kombat in the arcade, and later on consoles, and a whole host of other games just off the top of my head that were controversial. I wouldn't call most of them art though.
Somewhere along the line though, little gems started popping up. They were rare exceptions at first. Some would say they still are, but there were some games with compelling stories. Interactive narratives. Real fiction that was worth immersing one's self in.
Then those games became more frequent. And now, you have games with worth while stories, and worth while concepts, and publishers are less fearful of them, and game producers *want* to produce games like that...
It's slow going, but it is coming. Lolita, and Saving Private Ryan are certainly not entertainment. But they are important. Six Days in Faluja could have been too. I'm not sure it would have been, but I am sure it could have been if handled right.
One last point: I've never heard of half of these. And not that I'm some kind of authority or anything, but when you point out games or mods that were made by one person in an afternoon because they though it would be funny, it's hardly some trend. That's like saying that every blog post, or pamphlet put out by some self-publishing nut is evidence of a trend in literature. Games like Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide only get *any* attention because they are offensive. If they weren't, you would never notice them at all, like most silly flash games, or small indie games.
Should publishers and developers be able to release whatever they want? Yes. Including Super Columbine RPG, and RapeLay, etc. They can with books now. They can with Films now, and there is remarkably little market (though some) for the truly tasteless like that. I hate to use this tired cliche, but this is one instance where the market (with a little help from public opinion) will sort things out for itself. Sure we can and probably should rate things, and keep minors away from the most offensive stuff. But beyond that? Free reign I say.
Absolutely current topics are fair game. But they need to be treated the way Saving Private Ryan treats them, not the way Full Metal Jacket does, or publishers need to be prepared to face the consequences. Oh, and of course this is a new media, so publishers have to face the real risk that early on, people won't understand (particularly non-gamers) and they'll face the consequences, even if they do everything right!
Ever heard the expression "Fast, reliable, cheap (pick two)"?
It applies here.
Of course, you were fairly specific with the processing specs you need, but not your budget. So it's hard to say what "breaking the bank" is for you. also, you called it a UPS, but you also called it an "Interruptible Power Supply". I'm assuming a brain-fart, but the "U" stands for Uninterruptible.
Just picking nits.
I agree 100% that spoon feeding is beneath the show and insulting. Like when they showed Earth at the end of Season 3, when Starbuck returns.
But I didn't see this as that kind of spoon feeding. I *did* think that the fast forward scene was sloppy though. The robots didn't really move anything forward, and being mostly cutesy, were badly out of place at the end of this show.
Starbuck's jump coordinates flashbacks could have been trimmed down a bit, and I don't think we'd have missed much.
But Boomer's flashback was important. Not for it's content, but for it's context. Boomer has been painted alternatingly (as many characters have) as the villain, and a victim of her circumstances / someone who made some bad choices. In the lead-up to her returning Hera to the Colonials, they paint her almost entirely as a villain. A redeemed villain with her last actions, but a villain none the less. You're probably thinking mostly of her sins - shooting Adama, kidnapping Hera, etc.
Her real feelings for the Chief, her horror at waking up soaking wet in the arms locker before the water tank explodes, those feelings are so long ago, and so far forgotten in the evolution of the character, that the flashback brings you down immediately from the "bitch deserved it" reaction of Athena finally getting her revenge.
It wasn't an angel figurine. It was a figurine of the Aurora, Goddess of the Dawn. It was also more than a few episodes back. It was Maelstrom - the episode in season 3 where she dies.
I agree that the show is fairly explicit that she's an Angel. But perhaps they weren't explicit, hitting us over the head enough. That's why at the end of Season 3, when Starbuck reappears, they zoom in on Earth, with North America front and center. The staff of the show were worried that if they didn't, audiences wouldn't get that it was Earth.
Mostly though, this show has done much better than typical TV spoon feeding you info and spelling everything out ad nauseum.
If I remember correctly, Mythbusters had to use rotational speeds that were several times what a real drive will do. 300x or so?
One night my girlfriend were sitting at our PCs, which were right next to each other. We heard a very loud, very sudden bang or pop noise out of nowhere. Looked at each other, and looked around the room and couldn't figure out what that noise was.
When we couldn't figure out what that loud noise was, we forgot about it, and figured that if it was important, we'd find it eventually. So we went back to what we were doing.
She was starting up a game of StarCraft, and finally noticed that the game had failed to load, giving an error message about being unable to read the CD.
She tried again. It was then that it dawned on me what that noise might had been. I had certainly *heard* of optical discs exploding, but had not had it happen to me, nor anyone I personally knew.
Here's what was left, when I removed her drive:
http://pyromosh.org/images/misc/Broodwar_CD_explosion/
The drive was indeed hosed, as you might expect. But no shrapnel ever escaped the drive, nor even made a visible impact on the drive casing.
No, it's nothing like that. That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever read. Even on /.
Do you not think that this would be of interest to slashdot? Do you honestly think that this site, with millions of users, would have nobody submit this as a story, and that none of the editors would post it?
So what you're saying is that you think it's more likley that this is astroturfing, than just you know, the people who use this site happening to think this is cool news? I for one think it's neat.
No. Tone of your comment aside, what I mean by "open" is a platform that anyone can reasonably develop and publish for.
To me a "closed" system like Windows Mobile is much more open than a system like Apple's iPhone platform because anybody can download .Net and get coding, then publish by uploading .cab files to their web host.
Not so much with the iPhone.
You can argue the merits of open source, "free as in speech", "free as in beer", etc. But to me, being able to have anyone develop for your platform is much more important in a practical sense. That's why Windows is a dominant desktop OS. It's why Valve is a successful game developer / publisher, it's the reason behind the success of an awful lot of products.
Because this is Slashdot, I'll convolute the matter with a terrible car analogy: You don't have to have access to the blueprints for a car to design a better intake manifold, or exhaust, or even ECM chip.
Likewise, "openness" the way it's typically been defined (access to source code), is only slightly more useful than just having open access to development tools for a platform. I've never looked at the source of Firefox, or PHP, or Perl. I haven't needed to. All these products are well documented, and fairly well supported.
To directly address your smart-ass comment about malware, I would contend that this problem exists because Windows is the dominant platform, and for no other reason. If Linux or OSX or BeOS, or any other platform were dominant, than malware writers would be incented to write malware for those platforms as well. Any system that is "open" by my definition (open to develop for) is vulnerable to such a threat.
In defense of your point, only a locked down system, where most folks can't publish or run their own code like the iPhone is well protected. So your iPhone is safer than your BSD box. Funny how that works.
I wish I had a better term to use than "open" for what I mean, since it already has a connotation to "source available". But coining a new term would be just as confusing.
It's not useless, and in fact, it's the very first thing I thought to myself when I read the summary.
To further your own analogy, how seriously could you take an article that, in it's first paragraph dismissed the Nazi Germany as a something the world over-reacted to, and never should have taken seriously?
It sets a tone, that perhaps the author's views are badly colored.
Apple has historically been different, one of the few companies welcomed, even enthusiastically embraced by the Japanese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TyR3fyLO_I
They love gadgets over their. The way Apple does things, and the typical build quality is what the Japanese market is all about. Cool technology packaged in an easy-to-use, stylish package. It's not like North America, where it's more or less a race to the bottom to see who can build the cheapest widget with the biggest numbers, to hell with quality. They *care* about (perceived) build quality. That's why the expensive Sony Trinitron that never had significant market share here, dominated over there during the years of tube based Televisions. It wasn't just a "buy domestic" mentality. Because much of Sony's competition was Japanese as well.
The iPod and the Mac mesh *perfectly* with what the Japanese love about technology. In fact, I'd even go so far to say the iPhone gets it nearly right, but fails with several, easily corrected critical flaws that Apple just seems unwilling to correct. MMS, Video, App Store issues - that's all software, the build quality of the hardware seems perfectly respectable to me. It feels quick and responsive most of the time, and I'd never own one because of lack of openness (my definition of "open" may differ as I'm a Windows Mobile fan) and because of those few fatal flaws mentioned in TFA.
(This is my second post today defending Sony. I need to go take a shower.)
Agreed. I also take tone with the issue that the PSP is a "failure". I've never even owned a Sony console, as I don't see anything unique enough to appeal to me that's not available on the PC, or a Nintendo console. That said, the PSP is the first console ever to come in a respectable second place to Nintendo's portable offering.
That it isn't beating the DS is certainly not what Sony would have preferred, but Sony has to be pleased with the fact that they are the first ones -ever- to take measurable market share away from Nintendo. If the PSP is past the monetary break-even point at this point in it's life span, and is now profitable to boot(I honestly have no idea if it is) then Sony certainly deserves to be proud of themselves, and I'd say a PSP2 is a near certainty.
From what I can tell, Nintendo's new offering, despite enthusiastic early reception in Japan, is receiving mixed reviews, and may not fare well commercially long term, particularly outside Japan. Time will tell, but I don't see it as a compelling upgrade from the DS Lite, by adding a pair of cameras, and an SD card reader. This to me is an opportunity for Sony to innovate. Again, time will tell.
I had never heard of this. But a quick googling reveals lots of similar problems with past contests, such as not being able to organize in time to have contestants some years, etc.
Sounds like it's a half-assed operation that's just not very well organized. Like 99% of Source Forge projects. People sign on, lose interest, and disappear. That's the nature of open source sometimes, you have to wade through lots of shit to get to the gems. (though I'd say the gems tend to make things worth it).
Hardly what I would call a high point of anything. Seeing the source would be neat, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.
That's true for comment bodies, but not for .sigs.
I don't deny that they very well could have called it something else. But then people would be criticizing it for "ripping off Battlestar Galactica" instead. The core of the story is the search for Earth, with a rag tag fleet, protected only by the last surviving Battleship, the Galactica.
And it really is an outstanding show. The best fiction I've ever seen on television. I realize that's a low bar, but there it is.
Starbuck as a woman, doesn't matter. And that's the *point*. It's a non-issue, not a T&A thing. As for Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9 - I'd say that's the polar opposite. I disliked Voyager up until they introduced her character, but I was *trying* to give it a chance because I'd liked other Star Trek series so much. When they introduced her, it was such a blatant, terrible T&A move, that I stopped watching the show.
Starbuck, Boomer, Roslyn, Dualla, none of them run around in spandex, and that's kind of the point. They're equal. It's a universe where gender isn't an issue.
To address your point about Al-Jazeera... it's as good a source of journalism as I've encountered in western mainstream.
I got sick the spin on most western news, a long time ago, so I decided that I'd turn to the internet to get outside perspective from time to time. For a while that meant Pravda, but the writing there is terrible. I really get the sense that they either stuck their Russian version through bablefish, or that it's being written by people in their basements without the benefit of editorial review. In other words, blog-quality but before blogs.
Then Al-Jazeera released it's English language edition a few years ago. And the quality is splendid. It's skewed the same way that western news sources are, just with a different local bent. But the difference between Al-Jazeera and Pravda is that I genuinely get the sense that the Al-Jazeera writers and editors want to be, and go through pains to be as non-biased as they can be.
Are folks who blow themselves up, or lob rockets into populated areas barbarians? Probably. But they don't have to be. They are desperate, and desperate people take up arms. Sometimes they take up arms and do things that are disgusting in the name of their cause. Particularly when they are the underdog.
And I don't see Al-Jazeera as connected to those folks. It just reports from the region where these things tend to happen.
I *do* read it. It's a great source for getting a different prespective, and it's much, much better written than Pravda is.
I just find it funny that whatever software Slashdot uses to choose ad serves decided to pick Al-Jazeera in a story that mentions suicide bombers. I just have to think that that's not coincidental.
It's like whatever software runs the ads decided $suicidebombers --> $middleeast --> $al-jazeera which is funny, if a bit disturbing.
The ad that Slashdot is choosing to serve with this story is for Al Jazeera. Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of funny?