what about reading what established authors in the field consider to be good science fiction? James Blish was famous for this, even to the point of being a critic of his own work. He wrote for a time under the pen name William Atheling Jr in several science magazines. His articles are collected in the books "The Issue at Hand" and "More Issues at Hand".
Robert Silverberg wrote "Science Fiction 101: Where to Start Reading and Writing Science Fiction" which is an awesome (and humble at times) look at what made his fiction better, what he learned in the process of writing it, and what he thinks are great stories by other authors.
Two favorites on the subject from Ursula K. Le Guin are "The Wave in the Mind" and "The language of the Night".
And finally, "Zen in the art of Writing" by Ray Bradbury.
If this were a class I was teaching, I'd have the class read some of the stories mentioned by the above authors, then go on to read what the authors thought of them. Granted, the class may not be about writing, but it does help build an appreciation of the craft to be able to follow the various styles of writing them, the processes involved, etc.
What I found interesting is the total lack of understanding about the technologies involved. NOTHING that was listed is "high-tech" in terms of only being available to the US military. For instance, infrared cameras, both near and far, have been in use around the world for the last 10-15 years. You can modify most any CCD camera to see in the near infrared range by removing the filter element that blocks IR. For far IR you can use the CCD cooling kits available in astronomy magazines (along with suitable optics). I don't know about AIFEX, but the CBR suits they dragged out of storage for us to use were about 10-15 years old and not in that great of shape. I'm sure much better suits can be had abroad from chemical supply companies. One of the reports I read also brought up the attacks where forces dressed up in stolen US uniforms to bypass security and initiate an attack inside a base (I forget which). Because we all know the opposition forces inside Iraq are using EBay and Craigs List to buy US Army uniforms shipped from the states, instead of having an agent swipe them out of a warehouse INSIDE Iraq. Same with the IR goggles, MREs, CBR suits, etc if they wanted 'em. I have to agree with the posters that mentioned this as being a fear-mongering attempt. The problem is, the frumpy old non-technologically inclined representatives of our government will agree with this nonsense when spoon-fed to them by "experts", and will follow right along with the party lines of "something needs to be done!". I expect any day now they'll react in shock and dismay to the revelation that Iran has access to "them there inter-tubes" as well.
Or how about companies that hype a sequel (which is extremely different from an episode), not even tell players that it's going to be episodic, leave off the second half of the game because of time constraints, and then let them realize there's going to be another "episode". Yes, as tired as it seems, I'm still bitter about Halo 2.
If you don't like this kind of crap, vote with your dollars, and don't buy the next one. I know the developers work their asses off under artificial time constraints induced by marketing hype, but as a 30-something gamer who has the money to spend on games, I'd rather wait for a finished, polished product instead of an unfinished peice rushed to meet a particular release date: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/19/ 1452201
mod me down if you want, but I'm having my say anyway.
I loved the first Halo - it was pretty damn impressive - I still have a miscelaneous pc gaming magazine demo disk with a move demonstrating a working Halo for the PC. After significant delay from that demo disk, after they had to rip the guts out so they could cram it into the xbox's limited specs, it was still very "wow". It made me want to get Halo 2. I preordered and prepaid for TWO copies of the super DEluxe mega-cool metal-box version, stood in line to get mine at midnight (me usually being the one that laughs at fanboys who did that) only to find out that half the promised content wasn't in the game. That the game was SO short that a mediocre player like me only took under a day to finish on the normal mode. And that the game had no ending. A "clif-hanger", as some asshats will call that particular ending, doesn't belong in a $60 video game. It belongs in a weekly TV serial. I've said it before, and it's still true: How would you like to have been watching Return of the Jedi (because you liked the other two movies so much) only to have the film stop right before the big light saber battle at the end? Yes, I am still bitter, and no, I won't get over it. I wont be buying a 360 BECAUSE of the Halo 3 crap. Screw me over once, shame on you, screw me over twice, shame on me.
If you truely are bothered by this and you're in the USA, use your geek powers of influence (as I do) to tell your nongeek friends about these matters. Tell them NOT to use yahoo.com, and to close their yahoo accounts, request that their friends switch to some other chat client, etc, and (the most important part) tell Yahoo! why you're closing your account. Now, most of them will laugh you out of the room, because this is essentilly like asking someone to change their phone number out of protest. It's a pain in the ass. But maybe a FEW people would respond. Ask them to not go to Yahoo to do searches, but instead use Google (or whatever). If Yahoo USA started hemmoraging users because of policy, they'd reconsider the level at which they enforce policies. The lost revenue would be worth more to them then "potential" losses (due to threats from said government) stemming from a refusal to comply on SOME requests such as this. Sure, it's hardly a fix-all solution, but at least do SOMEthing if you actually give a crap.
If I had mod points, I'd do it myself. I'm no Linus expert, but it seems to me that too many people are starting to imagine him as some "software Ghandi". He's a human being, with his own (sometimes quite acerbic) moods and foibles. He also happens to be opinionated. Wow, what a surprise! In my own unimportant opinion, I don't think it's ego so much as him having a "here's what I think, like it or not" attitude. Ultimately, isn't this better than a popular figure who refuses to take a stand or voice an opinion on anything, in an attempt to please everyone?
...I think - I sent them a VERY unhappy email as I'm sure many others did. Here is basically what I said:
Dear Vivendi,
I am a 33-year old male with a steady job and a sizable disposable income. I buy at least one or two games a month for myself, and I often buy games for my friends if I think the game is cool enough. That being said, I was very displeased to find out about your treatment of the fan-created sequel "King's Quest IX: Every Cloak Has A Silver Lining". I will now use my decent sized gaming budget on other games, and will never buy another game from Vivendi Universal again. This kind of rediculous action is what will drive your company in to the ground. I'm really going to enjoy one of those nice executive oak desks when they come up for auction! Have a nice day.
Now maybe it had something to do with their decision, and maybe not, but I'm willing to bet that there were more than a few irate emails like mine, and Vivendi realized what terrible PR they were getting from some lawyer "just doing his job" or some such thing. Hopefully more companies will confer with themselves internally before doing more boneheadded stunts like persuing a property that was all but abandoned AFTER fans had been making this project publicly for quite a while already.
And on a final note, just in case Vivendi is reading this (which I doubt, but anyway):
IF this sequel goes well, you stand a good chance of making more money from a property( that you've pretty much ignored up until now) by paying these people to work for you on the next sequel. What a concept, eh?
1) Fans create game & revive interest in a "dead" property 2) Company hires fans to make NEXT addition to property 3) Profit!
I also bought a Zen Touch, and I have to agree the "touch" part is a pain in the ass. The sensitivity setting mentioned in a post below only adjusts how sensitive it is to touch, NOT how quickly it moves menus. And yes, they DO have a firmware update, but guess what, you HAVE to be using media player 10 to use it - some choice bits from the "more information" tab for this new firmware: # This firmware is only for players that are used with Windows XP Service Pack 1 or Service Pack 2 (SP1 or SP2) and Windows Media Player 10. # Be sure to back up all the audio and data files on your Zen Touch before installing this firmware update as all content will be lost when you install the new firmware. After installing the PlaysForSure firmware, use Windows Media Player 10 to restore audio and/or data files to your player.
Seriously, wtf? I pay $300 for this thing, and Creative refuses to allow me to upgrade it UNLESS I'm willing to install Media Player 10's DRM crap AND only if I'm using XP? (Media Player 10 provides compatibility with the "PlayForSure" DRM that the new firmware incorporates). I don't use downloadable music services, I buy all my own CDs and legally rip them myself. I have no need for this stuff to be forced down my throat so they can squeeze some hopefull sales from compatibilty with Napster and Audible.com - I mean, are they actively trying to push people towards the iPod?
The only good thing that comes out of this is, hey, they just screwed themselves out of using the DMCA to disallow firmware reverse engineering - which, you are allowed to do for "compatibilty" if I remember correctly. This thing doesn't work with my linux distros, and it's apparently incompatible with most people, given how goofy the touch device works. I can't use Win2000 with this either, if I decide to upgrade the firmware. Sounds like a compatibility problem to me!
Until that happens, I'm letting Creative know I could have just as easily bought an iPod, instead of watching Creative Labs take my money and light it on fire while laughing in my face! Maybe any other dissatisfied owners out there should do the same.
"...all eight of the members of the Dover, PA school board that had required Intelligent Design to be taught alongside Evolution have been canned by voters in yesterday's election." Can I just say "Amen to that!":P
Re:Scientists need to stop playing God!
on
The Los Alamos Bug
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm hoping the parent was trying to be funny (the sasser worm??) but may inflame people who actually think like this, so I'll bite. And yes, this is relevant.
In all the "we are playing god" arguments that I've heard, I ask "where in the Bible/Talmud/Torah/Qur'an does it say 'Ye shall not create life'?". No one can ever give me a direct quote where it says we are forbidden from doing so. So, with that in mind, and given that we are given, the parent would say, from our devine creator, the gifts of intelligence AND curiosity, who is to say that we are not expressly ALLOWED to do this because we were granted the abilities. Now I'm sure I'll get replys that say "well, I'm given the ability to kill or steal, but it doesn't mean that I'm ALLOWED to do so..." and for the asshat that comes up with this argument, I'll counter with: Taking Life or Doing Harm (TM), in that intent, is usually a direct, willful act of agression. Creating, whether it be life, or a painting, or a controversial book, is not intended to be directly harmful in most cases, especially if the intent is to learn, or open a discourse, etc. Sure, some science has yielded results that might be harmful to someone in some circumstance, but I, driving my car to work, might be harmful to someone, in some circumstance, whether it be hitting them or poisoning the air of their great grand children and causing global warming, the seas to melt, and all of us end up doing bad Kevin Costner impersonations. My point is, and this is my own opinion, that the intent of most of the religious texts of the world seem to be "don't be evil bastards." How can creation be evil, when it's A) not intended to be evil, and B) Not even expressly forbidden? (that I know of)
I've never heard a good explanation about who built it, only that it was known that there were repairs done (or deduced from the sections of gears that had been replaced with different material) and that it was made around 50 BC - something like that, I think my dates are wrong. It would be interesting to have someone do a spectral analysis of the metals used (unless being submerged for that long in salt water drastically changed trace element properties in every single bit of metal) to trace back to the region of origin, where the metals were mined. I think I read about doing metalurgical traces by geographic reigon once, where they compared samples from ancient mines to trace amounts in artifacts, and could narrow down where it came from. Back to the whole point of my tirade, it would be interesting to find out, for instance, that the metals used in this device came from india, or china, etc. Might not tell us "who built it" but it might be valuable nonetheless.
Exactly right! With a good demand for knowledge workers (CS/Engineers, etc), the employee isn't forced to accept rediculous contractual terms as much either. Companies get away with too much as it is with regard to how they treat their workers ( I'm looking at YOU, EA), so I don't feel much sympathy if they have to pay a bit more to compete for employees. It's about time. Again.:P
Seems like a LOT of people beat me to the punch. Yeah, he's getting a lot of flak about his statement, but I'm pretty sure that his "I got a TON of calls about that statement" story will spread a lot further among his fellow law enforcement officials if at least for no other reason that how he was unable to get regular work done because of the sheer number of calls. Yes, this one guy is a little incoveinced for today and maybe a few days after, but how many false arrests, harrasments, and other crap did we prevent by saying something about it before it could get carried away? Well done, fellow geeks, well done!
I hope someone points out the error of his statement in a very public manner, to persuede other law enforcement officials from making uninformed blanket statements like this. Yes, this is a single statement, but the problem is that anyone with a motive or just the urge to bust a user of a cantenna can say "look, the sherriff in such and such place said it's illegal, I can arrest you for it" without even checking the facts. This kinda stuff can carry on long after the first statement was issued, and snowball into a really ugly affair. If you are at all worried about this, do something, make a call, and like I am about to, INFORM him that he was wrong.
1) It was a "good seller" because consumers like me were duped into thinking it would have an ending, like the first game.
2) Movies at least usually have SOME kind of resolution at the end, regardless of leaving room open for a sequel (Planned sequels like SW and LOTR notwithstanding). Halo 2 had no resolution. This has nothing to do with "leaving room" for a sequel. If halo 2 had been a movie, it would have been a movie that stopped half way through, just as the action was getting good. And yes, if I paid $60 bucks for a movie I would definately get pissed if only half of it was presented to me. Can you honestly say that if they (microsoft) had said "Ok, we're going to give you PART of Halo 2, but the ending, we're saving that for Halo 3", do you honestly think it would have been such a "good seller" as you call it? I think not. As a matter of fact, right up until Halo 2 was released, Bungie insisted that their next project would NOT involve the Halo franchise. This is not about "inner workings", this is about using customer loyalty towards a brand to milk more money by subterfuge: A) Make half a game without telling you it's only half a game. B) THEN Promise that you can see the rest IF and ONLY IF you buy their new 360 and yet another Halo game. It really doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but maybe it's beyond a fanboy. End of story.
The main thing they're going to try is to push Halo 3 around Christmas or so, or whenever the PS3 hits the market. I am specifically NOT buying an Xbox 360 because of Halo 2 being cut in half. It was an insult to all the people like me who prepaid, bought friends copies of the game, and waited in line to get the deluxe super duper versions of Halo 2. Their use of such a transparent method of pushing another fucking "episode" of Halo has made me encourage my friends not to buy a 360, not to buy Halo 3, and if they must, rent the system and the game when it becomes available to do so. Microsoft pissed me off for the last time with that, and Sony will get my next gaming system dollars because of it. Fuck Halo 3, and fuck the 360.
In general, coal, though not "pretty" can be used for: Generating electricity, making coke for use in steel blast furnaces, the manufacture of synfuels, carbolic acids, amonia, paint pigments, TNT explosives, linoleum, sugar substitues, batteries, disinfectants, varnish, insulation... Oh, and it's cheap and relatively easy to get...
Diamonds ARE pretty...and they're expensive... oh, and they can cut things...
Personally, I think I'd rather have the "coal" software over the "diamond" software, but maybe that's just me.
For me at least, I think he quallifies as "one of us" because when I watched TNG I was about the same age as Wil, so I identified with this scrappy kid who was doing all the cool star trekking and neat stuff. Finding out this actor was also on slashdot was cool because, lets face it, how many actors do you think give two shits about the kind of people who read sites like slashdot? I think he also deserves some recognition because he's proud of his geekness, and being famous gives him the ability to speak up a bit more for the less famous geeks. And yeah, if someone put up a website trashing my career, I'd be fucking pissed too.
If you're talking about just asteroids, and not something with a sustainable built-on atmosphere, then you are totally dependant on the supply chain. Hell, even if you have an atmosphere, you still need other things. The only way that this is viable for long term human habitation is when you can locally make everything you need to not only exist, and survive, but thrive. Humanity as a whole has shown very limited success when we are dependant on a remote supply chain - when that chain fails for any of a dozen reasons, we are at the very least no longer thriving, at the worst, dead.
The list of "what we need" goes like this:
1) Machines that produce air for us to breathe (or an indefinate supply, i.e. planet-size)
2) Machines that produce food / nutrients (or again, indefinate, planet-size supply)
3) Machines to fix the machines that break, because they will.
4) Machines to make the machines that fix the machines, and better yet, machines that make more of themselves and anything else we need.
And yes I know a planet-sized supply isn't technically indefinate, but you know what I mean.
Now if each of those conditions are met, then yes, terraforming is very possible, and probably even necessary given our wars and rate of expansion.
If it's just food and air we're supplying, and not "stuff to thrive" (equipment & tools to make NEW things) then we might as well send chimps instead of people.
And don't give me any crap about "We didn't have all that on THIS planet, and look at us now!"
I for one am not going to colonize a new planet so I can hand-mine ores from the rocks, build a crude smelter, and work my ass up the technology tree.
Exactly! When I wrote for PCWIZE I did an article on just this sort of thing, talking about how I was writing the article in the air en route to japan, I think it was. The batteries on that thing lasted forever, ZERO boot time, and enough space to write up quite a bit of text. The keyboard was comfortable, and the screen was large enough to show you where you were at in your story/etc without making you feel claustrophobic. And you don't have to buy them off ebay, either. I got both of mine from local thrift shops, for about $2.00 a piece.
With this perspective, a game like "Gish" or "Orbz" couldn't exist simply because a game like Halo or Morrowind "raised the bar". Several disparities exist between the hollywood distribution model and that of games:
Number One: "the internet". Right now, hollywood is very much against the internet for distributing movies legally because they can't figure out how to suck more profit for each of the middle men involved - the game industry, at least the game companies, LOVE this. The game publishing companies (much like the distribution companies for movies) might not like this, because it enables game creators to directly publish their own material (aka direct download, etc). This allows a tiny game company to get their product out without all the huge overhead costs involved in an "on the shelf" product. Traditionally in the movie industry, it was virtually impossible for a small independent film to get the same notice or distribution as a huge film. In the game industry, a game like Gish will be noticed and can be equally distributed without a huge budget.
Number Two: Games provide more long term entertainment than movies - as long as mods and mod developers are out there, a small game company/individual can get a huge amount of notice, because you can make mods on a shoestring budget and distribute them for next to nothing. Most recent game makers usually allow mods if not encourage them outright. Hollywood is old-school and too worried about payoffs and liscensing rights to even THINK of independant people using parts of their movies, etc (in general) to make a NEW movie or a changed version. Think of how lucas would shit if you made a short of starwars clips voiced over and published as a movie without paying him off first. It's a crude analog to a mod, but you get the idea.
Number three: Hollywood has too many middlemen involved with EVERYthing, thus costs are astronomical. You have to pay off this group and that union and these guys and those people just to get stuff done. Costs are spread all over the board, outside of the movie company as well as internally. With a game company, the costs outside of the company are less fragmented. You basically have creation/production (usually internal), publishing (external/internal) and maintenance (internal). Some people will argue that yes, some things are being outsourced at the moment, and these could be arguably be considered the same as the movies. That logic works until you realize that with Hollywood politics today, you have to hire/pay your unions, or pubishers can't carry your film. This and that contract prohibit a non-union film maker from being distributed by someone with an agreement with the unions, etc, blah blah. That kind of setup doesn't exist (yet!) in the games industry, due to the internet distribution model as a possibility: "You won't carry my games? Screw you, I'll publish them myself."
As a matter of fact, movie makers like Robert Rodriguez are moving the movie industry toward how game makers create stuff: "You wont publish my movie without union workers? Screw you, I'll publish it myself"
The two industries are very different right now, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the better.
Slashdot Mirror
what about reading what established authors in the field consider to be good science fiction? James Blish was famous for this, even to the point of being a critic of his own work. He wrote for a time under the pen name William Atheling Jr in several science magazines. His articles are collected in the books "The Issue at Hand" and "More Issues at Hand".
Robert Silverberg wrote "Science Fiction 101: Where to Start Reading and Writing Science Fiction" which is an awesome (and humble at times) look at what made his fiction better, what he learned in the process of writing it, and what he thinks are great stories by other authors.
Two favorites on the subject from Ursula K. Le Guin are "The Wave in the Mind" and "The language of the Night".
And finally, "Zen in the art of Writing" by Ray Bradbury.
If this were a class I was teaching, I'd have the class read some of the stories mentioned by the above authors, then go on to read what the authors thought of them. Granted, the class may not be about writing, but it does help build an appreciation of the craft to be able to follow the various styles of writing them, the processes involved, etc.
What I found interesting is the total lack of understanding about the technologies involved. NOTHING that was listed is "high-tech" in terms of only being available to the US military. For instance, infrared cameras, both near and far, have been in use around the world for the last 10-15 years. You can modify most any CCD camera to see in the near infrared range by removing the filter element that blocks IR. For far IR you can use the CCD cooling kits available in astronomy magazines (along with suitable optics). I don't know about AIFEX, but the CBR suits they dragged out of storage for us to use were about 10-15 years old and not in that great of shape. I'm sure much better suits can be had abroad from chemical supply companies. One of the reports I read also brought up the attacks where forces dressed up in stolen US uniforms to bypass security and initiate an attack inside a base (I forget which). Because we all know the opposition forces inside Iraq are using EBay and Craigs List to buy US Army uniforms shipped from the states, instead of having an agent swipe them out of a warehouse INSIDE Iraq. Same with the IR goggles, MREs, CBR suits, etc if they wanted 'em. I have to agree with the posters that mentioned this as being a fear-mongering attempt. The problem is, the frumpy old non-technologically inclined representatives of our government will agree with this nonsense when spoon-fed to them by "experts", and will follow right along with the party lines of "something needs to be done!". I expect any day now they'll react in shock and dismay to the revelation that Iran has access to "them there inter-tubes" as well.
Or how about companies that hype a sequel (which is extremely different from an episode), not even tell players that it's going to be episodic, leave off the second half of the game because of time constraints, and then let them realize there's going to be another "episode". Yes, as tired as it seems, I'm still bitter about Halo 2.
/ 1452201
If you don't like this kind of crap, vote with your dollars, and don't buy the next one. I know the developers work their asses off under artificial time constraints induced by marketing hype, but as a 30-something gamer who has the money to spend on games, I'd rather wait for a finished, polished product instead of an unfinished peice rushed to meet a particular release date: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/19
mod me down if you want, but I'm having my say anyway.
I loved the first Halo - it was pretty damn impressive - I still have a miscelaneous pc gaming magazine demo disk with a move demonstrating a working Halo for the PC. After significant delay from that demo disk, after they had to rip the guts out so they could cram it into the xbox's limited specs, it was still very "wow". It made me want to get Halo 2. I preordered and prepaid for TWO copies of the super DEluxe mega-cool metal-box version, stood in line to get mine at midnight (me usually being the one that laughs at fanboys who did that) only to find out that half the promised content wasn't in the game. That the game was SO short that a mediocre player like me only took under a day to finish on the normal mode. And that the game had no ending. A "clif-hanger", as some asshats will call that particular ending, doesn't belong in a $60 video game. It belongs in a weekly TV serial. I've said it before, and it's still true: How would you like to have been watching Return of the Jedi (because you liked the other two movies so much) only to have the film stop right before the big light saber battle at the end? Yes, I am still bitter, and no, I won't get over it. I wont be buying a 360 BECAUSE of the Halo 3 crap.
Screw me over once, shame on you, screw me over twice, shame on me.
Of course it's the Death Star - but #1 or #2? :P
If you truely are bothered by this and you're in the USA, use your geek powers of influence (as I do) to tell your nongeek friends about these matters. Tell them NOT to use yahoo.com, and to close their yahoo accounts, request that their friends switch to some other chat client, etc, and (the most important part) tell Yahoo! why you're closing your account. Now, most of them will laugh you out of the room, because this is essentilly like asking someone to change their phone number out of protest. It's a pain in the ass. But maybe a FEW people would respond. Ask them to not go to Yahoo to do searches, but instead use Google (or whatever). If Yahoo USA started hemmoraging users because of policy, they'd reconsider the level at which they enforce policies. The lost revenue would be worth more to them then "potential" losses (due to threats from said government) stemming from a refusal to comply on SOME requests such as this.
Sure, it's hardly a fix-all solution, but at least do SOMEthing if you actually give a crap.
If I had mod points, I'd do it myself. I'm no Linus expert, but it seems to me that too many people are starting to imagine him as some "software Ghandi". He's a human being, with his own (sometimes quite acerbic) moods and foibles. He also happens to be opinionated. Wow, what a surprise! In my own unimportant opinion, I don't think it's ego so much as him having a "here's what I think, like it or not" attitude. Ultimately, isn't this better than a popular figure who refuses to take a stand or voice an opinion on anything, in an attempt to please everyone?
...I think - I sent them a VERY unhappy email as I'm sure many others did.
Here is basically what I said:
Dear Vivendi,
I am a 33-year old male with a steady job and a sizable disposable income. I buy at least one or two games a month for myself, and I often buy games for my friends if I think the game is cool enough. That being said, I was very displeased to find out about your treatment of the fan-created sequel "King's Quest IX: Every Cloak Has A Silver Lining". I will now use my decent sized gaming budget on other games, and will never buy another game from Vivendi Universal again. This kind of rediculous action is what will drive your company in to the ground. I'm really going to enjoy one of those nice executive oak desks when they come up for auction! Have a nice day.
Now maybe it had something to do with their decision, and maybe not, but I'm willing to bet that there were more than a few irate emails like mine, and Vivendi realized what terrible PR they were getting from some lawyer "just doing his job" or some such thing. Hopefully more companies will confer with themselves internally before doing more boneheadded stunts like persuing a property that was all but abandoned AFTER fans had been making this project publicly for quite a while already.
And on a final note, just in case Vivendi is reading this (which I doubt, but anyway):
IF this sequel goes well, you stand a good chance of making more money from a property( that you've pretty much ignored up until now) by paying these people to work for you on the next sequel. What a concept, eh?
1) Fans create game & revive interest in a "dead" property
2) Company hires fans to make NEXT addition to property
3) Profit!
I also bought a Zen Touch, and I have to agree the "touch" part is a pain in the ass. The sensitivity setting mentioned in a post below only adjusts how sensitive it is to touch, NOT how quickly it moves menus. And yes, they DO have a firmware update, but guess what, you HAVE to be using media player 10 to use it - some choice bits from the "more information" tab for this new firmware:
# This firmware is only for players that are used with Windows XP Service Pack 1 or Service Pack 2 (SP1 or SP2) and Windows Media Player 10.
# Be sure to back up all the audio and data files on your Zen Touch before installing this firmware update as all content will be lost when you install the new firmware. After installing the PlaysForSure firmware, use Windows Media Player 10 to restore audio and/or data files to your player.
Seriously, wtf? I pay $300 for this thing, and Creative refuses to allow me to upgrade it UNLESS I'm willing to install Media Player 10's DRM crap AND only if I'm using XP? (Media Player 10 provides compatibility with the "PlayForSure" DRM that the new firmware incorporates). I don't use downloadable music services, I buy all my own CDs and legally rip them myself. I have no need for this stuff to be forced down my throat so they can squeeze some hopefull sales from compatibilty with Napster and Audible.com - I mean, are they actively trying to push people towards the iPod?
The only good thing that comes out of this is, hey, they just screwed themselves out of using the DMCA to disallow firmware reverse engineering - which, you are allowed to do for "compatibilty" if I remember correctly. This thing doesn't work with my linux distros, and it's apparently incompatible with most people, given how goofy the touch device works. I can't use Win2000 with this either, if I decide to upgrade the firmware. Sounds like a compatibility problem to me!
Until that happens, I'm letting Creative know I could have just as easily bought an iPod, instead of watching Creative Labs take my money and light it on fire while laughing in my face! Maybe any other dissatisfied owners out there should do the same.
"...all eight of the members of the Dover, PA school board that had required Intelligent Design to be taught alongside Evolution have been canned by voters in yesterday's election." :P
Can I just say "Amen to that!"
I'm hoping the parent was trying to be funny (the sasser worm??) but may inflame people who actually think like this, so I'll bite. And yes, this is relevant.
In all the "we are playing god" arguments that I've heard, I ask "where in the Bible/Talmud/Torah/Qur'an does it say 'Ye shall not create life'?". No one can ever give me a direct quote where it says we are forbidden from doing so. So, with that in mind, and given that we are given, the parent would say, from our devine creator, the gifts of intelligence AND curiosity, who is to say that we are not expressly ALLOWED to do this because we were granted the abilities. Now I'm sure I'll get replys that say "well, I'm given the ability to kill or steal, but it doesn't mean that I'm ALLOWED to do so..." and for the asshat that comes up with this argument, I'll counter with: Taking Life or Doing Harm (TM), in that intent, is usually a direct, willful act of agression. Creating, whether it be life, or a painting, or a controversial book, is not intended to be directly harmful in most cases, especially if the intent is to learn, or open a discourse, etc. Sure, some science has yielded results that might be harmful to someone in some circumstance, but I, driving my car to work, might be harmful to someone, in some circumstance, whether it be hitting them or poisoning the air of their great grand children and causing global warming, the seas to melt, and all of us end up doing bad Kevin Costner impersonations. My point is, and this is my own opinion, that the intent of most of the religious texts of the world seem to be "don't be evil bastards." How can creation be evil, when it's A) not intended to be evil, and B) Not even expressly forbidden? (that I know of)
Flame away!
I'm a US Citizen, and I don't despise anyone. Is there a memo I didn't get?
I've never heard a good explanation about who built it, only that it was known that there were repairs done (or deduced from the sections of gears that had been replaced with different material) and that it was made around 50 BC - something like that, I think my dates are wrong. It would be interesting to have someone do a spectral analysis of the metals used (unless being submerged for that long in salt water drastically changed trace element properties in every single bit of metal) to trace back to the region of origin, where the metals were mined. I think I read about doing metalurgical traces by geographic reigon once, where they compared samples from ancient mines to trace amounts in artifacts, and could narrow down where it came from. Back to the whole point of my tirade, it would be interesting to find out, for instance, that the metals used in this device came from india, or china, etc. Might not tell us "who built it" but it might be valuable nonetheless.
Exactly right! With a good demand for knowledge workers (CS/Engineers, etc), the employee isn't forced to accept rediculous contractual terms as much either. Companies get away with too much as it is with regard to how they treat their workers ( I'm looking at YOU, EA), so I don't feel much sympathy if they have to pay a bit more to compete for employees. It's about time. Again. :P
Seems like a LOT of people beat me to the punch. Yeah, he's getting a lot of flak about his statement, but I'm pretty sure that his "I got a TON of calls about that statement" story will spread a lot further among his fellow law enforcement officials if at least for no other reason that how he was unable to get regular work done because of the sheer number of calls. Yes, this one guy is a little incoveinced for today and maybe a few days after, but how many false arrests, harrasments, and other crap did we prevent by saying something about it before it could get carried away? Well done, fellow geeks, well done!
I hope someone points out the error of his statement in a very public manner, to persuede other law enforcement officials from making uninformed blanket statements like this. Yes, this is a single statement, but the problem is that anyone with a motive or just the urge to bust a user of a cantenna can say "look, the sherriff in such and such place said it's illegal, I can arrest you for it" without even checking the facts. This kinda stuff can carry on long after the first statement was issued, and snowball into a really ugly affair. If you are at all worried about this, do something, make a call, and like I am about to, INFORM him that he was wrong.
1) It was a "good seller" because consumers like me were duped into thinking it would have an ending, like the first game.
2) Movies at least usually have SOME kind of resolution at the end, regardless of leaving room open for a sequel (Planned sequels like SW and LOTR notwithstanding). Halo 2 had no resolution. This has nothing to do with "leaving room" for a sequel. If halo 2 had been a movie, it would have been a movie that stopped half way through, just as the action was getting good. And yes, if I paid $60 bucks for a movie I would definately get pissed if only half of it was presented to me. Can you honestly say that if they (microsoft) had said "Ok, we're going to give you PART of Halo 2, but the ending, we're saving that for Halo 3", do you honestly think it would have been such a "good seller" as you call it? I think not. As a matter of fact, right up until Halo 2 was released, Bungie insisted that their next project would NOT involve the Halo franchise.
This is not about "inner workings", this is about using customer loyalty towards a brand to milk more money by subterfuge:
A) Make half a game without telling you it's only half a game.
B) THEN Promise that you can see the rest IF and ONLY IF you buy their new 360 and yet another Halo game.
It really doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but maybe it's beyond a fanboy.
End of story.
Uh... sorry about the italics, I was in rant mode and forgot to preview :P
The main thing they're going to try is to push Halo 3 around Christmas or so, or whenever the PS3 hits the market. I am specifically NOT buying an Xbox 360 because of Halo 2 being cut in half. It was an insult to all the people like me who prepaid, bought friends copies of the game, and waited in line to get the deluxe super duper versions of Halo 2. Their use of such a transparent method of pushing another fucking "episode" of Halo has made me encourage my friends not to buy a 360, not to buy Halo 3, and if they must, rent the system and the game when it becomes available to do so. Microsoft pissed me off for the last time with that, and Sony will get my next gaming system dollars because of it. Fuck Halo 3, and fuck the 360.
damnit, I knew I probably spelled that wrong :P
Yes, slightly OT, but bare with me -
In general, coal, though not "pretty" can be used for: Generating electricity, making coke for use in steel blast furnaces, the manufacture of synfuels, carbolic acids, amonia, paint pigments, TNT explosives, linoleum, sugar substitues, batteries, disinfectants, varnish, insulation... Oh, and it's cheap and relatively easy to get...
Diamonds ARE pretty...and they're expensive... oh, and they can cut things...
Personally, I think I'd rather have the "coal" software over the "diamond" software, but maybe that's just me.
Yeah, Flame Bait but I'll reply anyway.
For me at least, I think he quallifies as "one of us" because when I watched TNG I was about the same age as Wil, so I identified with this scrappy kid who was doing all the cool star trekking and neat stuff. Finding out this actor was also on slashdot was cool because, lets face it, how many actors do you think give two shits about the kind of people who read sites like slashdot? I think he also deserves some recognition because he's proud of his geekness, and being famous gives him the ability to speak up a bit more for the less famous geeks. And yeah, if someone put up a website trashing my career, I'd be fucking pissed too.
If you're talking about just asteroids, and not something with a sustainable built-on atmosphere, then you are totally dependant on the supply chain. Hell, even if you have an atmosphere, you still need other things. The only way that this is viable for long term human habitation is when you can locally make everything you need to not only exist, and survive, but thrive. Humanity as a whole has shown very limited success when we are dependant on a remote supply chain - when that chain fails for any of a dozen reasons, we are at the very least no longer thriving, at the worst, dead.
The list of "what we need" goes like this:
1) Machines that produce air for us to breathe (or an indefinate supply, i.e. planet-size)
2) Machines that produce food / nutrients (or again, indefinate, planet-size supply)
3) Machines to fix the machines that break, because they will.
4) Machines to make the machines that fix the machines, and better yet, machines that make more of themselves and anything else we need.
And yes I know a planet-sized supply isn't technically indefinate, but you know what I mean.
Now if each of those conditions are met, then yes, terraforming is very possible, and probably even necessary given our wars and rate of expansion.
If it's just food and air we're supplying, and not "stuff to thrive" (equipment & tools to make NEW things) then we might as well send chimps instead of people.
And don't give me any crap about "We didn't have all that on THIS planet, and look at us now!"
I for one am not going to colonize a new planet so I can hand-mine ores from the rocks, build a crude smelter, and work my ass up the technology tree.
Exactly! When I wrote for PCWIZE I did an article on just this sort of thing, talking about how I was writing the article in the air en route to japan, I think it was. The batteries on that thing lasted forever, ZERO boot time, and enough space to write up quite a bit of text. The keyboard was comfortable, and the screen was large enough to show you where you were at in your story/etc without making you feel claustrophobic. And you don't have to buy them off ebay, either. I got both of mine from local thrift shops, for about $2.00 a piece.
With this perspective, a game like "Gish" or "Orbz" couldn't exist simply because a game like Halo or Morrowind "raised the bar". Several disparities exist between the hollywood distribution model and that of games:
Number One: "the internet". Right now, hollywood is very much against the internet for distributing movies legally because they can't figure out how to suck more profit for each of the middle men involved - the game industry, at least the game companies, LOVE this. The game publishing companies (much like the distribution companies for movies) might not like this, because it enables game creators to directly publish their own material (aka direct download, etc). This allows a tiny game company to get their product out without all the huge overhead costs involved in an "on the shelf" product. Traditionally in the movie industry, it was virtually impossible for a small independent film to get the same notice or distribution as a huge film. In the game industry, a game like Gish will be noticed and can be equally distributed without a huge budget.
Number Two: Games provide more long term entertainment than movies - as long as mods and mod developers are out there, a small game company/individual can get a huge amount of notice, because you can make mods on a shoestring budget and distribute them for next to nothing. Most recent game makers usually allow mods if not encourage them outright. Hollywood is old-school and too worried about payoffs and liscensing rights to even THINK of independant people using parts of their movies, etc (in general) to make a NEW movie or a changed version. Think of how lucas would shit if you made a short of starwars clips voiced over and published as a movie without paying him off first. It's a crude analog to a mod, but you get the idea.
Number three: Hollywood has too many middlemen involved with EVERYthing, thus costs are astronomical. You have to pay off this group and that union and these guys and those people just to get stuff done. Costs are spread all over the board, outside of the movie company as well as internally. With a game company, the costs outside of the company are less fragmented. You basically have creation/production (usually internal), publishing (external/internal) and maintenance (internal). Some people will argue that yes, some things are being outsourced at the moment, and these could be arguably be considered the same as the movies. That logic works until you realize that with Hollywood politics today, you have to hire/pay your unions, or pubishers can't carry your film. This and that contract prohibit a non-union film maker from being distributed by someone with an agreement with the unions, etc, blah blah. That kind of setup doesn't exist (yet!) in the games industry, due to the internet distribution model as a possibility:
"You won't carry my games? Screw you, I'll publish them myself."
As a matter of fact, movie makers like Robert Rodriguez are moving the movie industry toward how game makers create stuff: "You wont publish my movie without union workers? Screw you, I'll publish it myself"
The two industries are very different right now, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the better.