Of course, the.epub spec allows for optional encryption... And I'm sure B&N is doing something to lock down their books.
But, you should be able to open any.epub document on any device that supports.epub, even with the encryption in-place. Or, at least, that's my understanding.
And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency.
To be honest, I didn't know what a doujin game was before I bought Recettear. So I might not have been so surprised if I'd been better educated. I have nobody to blame but myself for this.
"Overhead view" is not a genre.
It sounds like you're thinking "Hmm, I see an overhead view--I've played completely unrelated games with overhead view on the PC before, so this game should be just like them!".
I saw some screenshots of the game. Heard good things about it from other people. And it was cheap. So I bought it.
The screenshots showing the menu system all showed a big, white, pointing hand next to things... So I kind of figured they'd be keyboard-driven.
But the screenshots showing the item shop itself, and the screenshots of the adventure mode, both looked similar enough to Diablo/Torchlight/whatever that I assumed they'd be mouse-driven.
The gameplay videos I saw that featured the adventure mode also looked similar enough to Diablo/Torchlight that I assumed they'd be mouse-driven.
Now, obviously, I was wrong. And if I'd been better informed about the game, I wouldn't have been surprised by the controls. And, now that I know what their design goals were, I understand why they made the choices they did.
But, let's be honest here... Most games on the PC, when presented from a top-down view, use the mouse in a fairly large way. It isn't just Diablo-alikes. Stuff like RTS titles, and any chess/checkers/board game, all sorts of strategic turn-based things... Hell, even games that rely heavily on the keyboard still (usually) let you use the mouse to navigate the base menus.
I fired up Recettear and thought my mouse had broken. I couldn't even select a new game from the menu. I couldn't navigate down to the options to see what the key bindings were (which wouldn't have mattered, because the key bindings aren't set in-game). There's that little menu bar up at the top... But there wasn't any helpful information up there.
Sure, I figured out that I could use the arrow keys to scroll through the menu quickly enough... But the enter key didn't do anything at all. I had to mash some random keys before stumbling upon the 'z' key. And then I went into options and discovered that the controls weren't in there.
I actually had to pull up the web page to see what the default controls were and how to change them.
Of course, Recettear was built by a small group of people... And it was intentionally built to work like a console game... And they didn't have a huge budget... And the game was relatively cheap... And I really should have educated myself better... So I don't get to complain, right?
Fine. I picked a bad example. I chose Recettear because it was an extreme case - absolutely no mouse support at all. I'm sorry.
But Dead Space (the original) wasn't much different. And it was not built by a small group of people, and they did have a huge budget, and it wasn't cheap... So I can complain about it, can't I?
Keyboard and mouse support was a joke. There was a token effort at making them functional... You could use them... And even change some of the key bindings... But it was cumbersome as hell.
If you turned off VSYNC the mouse was mostly usable... But you got horrible tearing when the lights flickered. And they flickered a lot in Dead Space.
If you turned on VSYNC the lights looked good, but there was a noticeable lag between moving the mouse and actually seeing anything happen on screen.
And either way, you needed to crank the sensitivity all the way up to get any kind of response out of the mouse. Which made things mostly OK for movement and aiming... But the UI became completely useless. Base menus, inventory, whatever... The cursor was far too fast and far too sensitive to actually be useful.
The "solution" was to use an Xbox controller on your PC.
It's a doujin game in the style of a 16-bit console JRPG.
So... You're telling me that my complaint about the game acting like it's on a console, even though it's on a computer... Is because it was designed to act like it's on a console, even though it's on a computer?
You have to adjust your expectations to the genre or style of game you're playing.
Fair enough.
But it's also a good idea to adjust your expectations to the hardware of the system you're running on. There are a very large number of PC gamers who do not have gamepads handy.
Would you really want to play the action portion with click to move? Really? Now that would be awkward.
Worked OK for Diablo... And Nox... And Dungeon Siege... And Torchlight... And Freedom Force...
Do you expect to be able to play Street Fighter 4 on PC with a mouse?
No, I don't. That's a port of a cabinet/console game onto a PC. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it behave like a cabinet/console game that'd been ported to a PC.
The whole complaint about "consoleitis" is that everything is now behaving like it's a console game ported to a PC.
All fine points. However, I worry about what's going on with PC developers as well. There are no real communities nowadays... You don't see massive fan communities that build various mods, maps, and custom characters like you used to. Think back to the days of Quake III Arena or Unreal Tournament. You won't find anything on that scale right now, and likely never will again. Games are being squeezed tighter and tighter to conform to the designer's will... that's why we have "weekly mutators" chosen and forces on us in things like Left 4 Dead, because implementing a proper mutator system (where you can mix and match) would be impossible for the console kiddies.
I see this as a symptom of consolitis though.
The PC, as a platform, allows you to develop your own maps and mods. Maybe the game itself doesn't... But you have access to a keyboard and mouse for input, and various text editors and graphics programs and whatnot. It is possible to build a map or a mod on a computer. Hell, that's how they're all built in the first place.
The console, as a platform, does not. You can't fire up some compiler and start throwing code at it. You can't build a 3D model. You can't edit photos. Or, at least, you can't on a stock system.
And since games are being developed with consoles in mind, why include tools that your console gamers can't use? Why spend the time developing a nice editor or cleaning up a scripting language or building an API that your target audience (console gamers) will never use?
And, hell, if any mods have to come through "official" channels... Why not charge for them?
And now you've got little bits of paid DLC, instead of the wealth of free mods and maps that you used to have.
One of my favourite games, SWAT 4, doesn't have saves at all (except between missions) It only adds to the tension and difficulty.
Although most of the time if you took away my quicksave I'd be raging.
There are certainly situations where restricting the save process adds tension. This can be used to very good effect if you're trying to add some kind of realism, or if you're trying to scare the player.
But, for your average shooter or RPG, there isn't really a good reason to restrict saving.
Or you build a game like Racettear that simply has no click-to-move, even though it's played from an overhead perspective.
Having just looked at what that game is, it looks a lot like any other top down RPG. Would you really want to play Zelda with "click to move"? The only games that really work with click to move IMO are LucasArts style point'n'click games. (I hate RTSes)
When we're talking about gaming on a computer we pretty much assume we'll be using the keyboard for movement in the first-person perspective, and we pretty much assume we'll be using the mouse for movement in an overhead perspective.
Diablo, Nox, Dungeon Siege, The SIMS, pretty much any RTS, Torchlight...
That isn't true on the console, which is why it seems so weird to think of playing Zelda with click to move. But, really, Zelda (at least the original) isn't all that different from Diablo, is it? And click to move worked fine for Diablo.
If anything games are becoming more like computer games overall. Traditional console RPGs look more like MMOs now, games require patching and even have DRM...a few quirks introduced by lazy companies that do lazy ports don't make "consolitis".
It isn't about lazy ports. It's about fundamental design decisions.
There's been some good discussion on Penny Arcade about the design decisions that've gone into porting Monday Night Combat over to the PC. The mouse means you've got nearly instantaneous turn speed, instead of a fixed rotation speed. So you can pull off attacks that are just plain impossible on a console. So they've had to tweak some fundamental mechanics in the game. Stuff that's simply impossible on a console because you have a limited number of buttons at your disposal becomes downright easy when you throw in a mouse and keyboard.
Or you build a game like Racettear that simply has no click-to-move, even though it's played from an overhead perspective. You need to use arrow keys to move around. It's downright awkward on a PC. The "fix" is to plug in a gamepad.
You've got games like Deus Ex 2 that got rid of the inventory system because it was too cumbersome on the console.
Plenty of games are coming out now that have absolutely no ability to save wherever and whenever you want, and you're stuck looking for save stations or waiting for checkpoints or whatever.
I'm confused... you were married to this women for only one year, in which her psycho-bitch tendencies became obvious enough to warrant a divorce.
How fucking long did you know her before marrying her?! I mean if you dated her for two years beforehand, are you freaking telling me there wasn't enough evidence to have you run far and run fast?
I don't have exhaustive information about this situation... I'm going off the same post you are. But you might be surprised to learn that people don't always act like themselves when they're dating.
You don't occupy the same house. You don't wake up next to each-other every day. You don't go to sleep next to each-other every night. You don't have to balance a budget, or deal with bills. You just see each-other periodically for fun stuff.
Trust me, things change after you're married (or co-habitating for a while). A kind of sameness or boredom sets in. Responsibilities pile up.
Things that were cute or quirky when you were dating become downright annoying. You see new things that you never saw before, because you just weren't around all the time. And she's experiencing the same thing from you.
It's not terribly uncommon for a relationship to suddenly fall apart as soon as you move in together. It's a huge stress for everyone.
And if you didn't have enough time to realize she was psycho, what the fuck were you doing marrying her?!
I honestly believe that, at least here in the US, folks are getting married far too quickly. They don't get to know each-other well enough. They mistake infatuation for love. And then they get a divorce when things cool off.
However, you really do need to live together for a good chunk of time to really get to know someone. And, here in the US, that's still frowned-upon.
So, he may have thought he knew her very well. And he wouldn't have known just how wrong he was until they actually moved in together (usually after the wedding).
Yeah, go ahead, mod me down, but I keep hearing this sort of thing time and again. They always tell me "but she suddenly changed!". And I go: "So she didn't expect you to read her mind and moods before, ever? So she never gave you a hard time for forgetting something but expected you to treat her as if she was perfect?"
The reply: "Oh, come on! Every woman is like that!"
Everyone is like that. Even men.
We all have moments when we don't actually voice our needs, and then get upset when they aren't met. We all get annoyed when others screw up, and when they point out our flaws. Lots of people actually see this in themselves and try to moderate it. Lots of people don't.
But it's very normal to see this in other people.
And when you're dating, you might see in once in a while and not think much of it. Not even know whether it's going to be frequent enough to be a problem.
And then you move in together... And it's happening every single day... And they're resistant to change...
As long as men take whatever woman will have them and don't EXPECT to be treated fairly and as a partner instead of someone who has to be grateful to even be allowed around a female, this shit will keep repeating.
The fact of the matter is that, in the US at least, relationships are not equal. Hell, your wording up there (it's the man's fault for acting this way) simply reinforces that.
We've all got baggage we carry around. A lot of it is handed out by our society - parenting, mass media, stereotypes, literature, etc.
The trick is to find somebody you like, and then actually get to know them well enough to learn what kind of baggage they've got. And, at the same time, be honest enough that they can see what kind of baggage you've got.
I honestly believe that a very big part of this includes living together and sharing responsibilities for a good couple of years.
I used to enjoy reading comments to a story, but now it's essentially impossible because of how BROKEN the scrolling is (at least in Firefox and IE). Scrolling using the mousewheel is slow as hell and when using the keyboard it's very unresponsive.
Scrolls just fine for me in Firefox 3.6.13 (which I use at home) and Firefox 4.0b10 (which I use at work) and IE7/IE8 (also used at work).
That and the new style is hard to read and has too much whitespace.
Hadn't really noticed any real change in readability.
My only real complaint would be seeing replies to my comments. Used to be the email you got provided a link directly to the reply, now you have to drill down through several layers of comments to see what was said. That's genuinely annoying. But not crippling.
Well, AFAIK, you're in the minority. I think most people do in fact move their mouse with their gaze, because it cuts the delay between when they decide to click on something and when they actually click on it. Think of it as a pre-loading or caching technique -- you don't pay much cost for moving your mouse around a little bit, but you can save time. At least that's my hypothesis.
I dunno...
I mean, obviously, they've got some kind of research to back it up... But it seems like this would be pretty useless to me. I mean, do people actually follow what they're reading with the mouse cursor?
I generally plant my mouse cursor in a chunk of whitespace so that it's out of the way while I'm reading. When I find something to click on, I go straight to that link and click. If there's multiple things I want to click on I'll generally hit them with the middle button to open multiple tabs. I don't generally pause my cursor over anything in particular.
And then there are the people who just don't stop moving their mouse cursor... The thing spins and swirls around the screen, slowly circling towards a link or a button that they want to click. I wonder what kind of data they could mine from that sort of behavior?
I will occasionally highlight a few random characters to act as a bookmark if I have to go do something else. What would this be interpreted as?
China's space technology is pretty much a verbatim copy of the Russian stuff(and ever since Russia realized what China was doing with technology it lent China to go to space, China hasn't been back there. Not a coincidence in my opinion). So if Russia has a space plane then maybe China has one, otherwise I doubt it.
Just because they've been copying Russia's space technology doesn't mean they're incapable of developing their own. Ever hear the phrase "don't re-invent the wheel"? We IT folks routinely re-use other people's code where we can, and then write our own where we can't?
Regardless, Russia did have some space plane-ish stuff. The Buran comes to mind...
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course. But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
The idea behind the public school system is, at least in theory, to give everyone the basic knowledge necessary to function in the world.
People need to be able to read, they need to be able to write, they need to be able to do math. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of classic literature because so much of the modern world is built upon it. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of history, they need to have some understanding of how our government works, they need to have a basic understanding of science.
We consider it fairly normal to know that the heart pumps blood around your body, for example. It may not be necessary to know exactly how many bones are in the human body, or be able to name them... But it's a good idea to know that humans have bones, and worms do not.
Obviously, individual families and parents are going to impart their own wisdom along the way... Or, at least we hope they will. But the whole point of a public school system with expectations and requirements is to establish a baseline of sorts. A foundation to build upon.
Now, you can certainly argue that any particular bit of education is or isn't necessary... Do folks really need to learn geometry? Is it essential to read Romeo and Juliet? Do we have to teach evolution?
I would argue that the scientific method - the process of testing and refining a hypothesis until you've got something useful - is absolutely essential. It's the foundation of the entire modern world. And without a grasp of the scientific method you're going to have a hard time establishing critical thinking skills.
And I would also argue that evolution is essential. The theory of evolution was developed by scientific observation and testing, it isn't something some random person just thought-up out of the blue. It has some basis in reality. And it goes a long way towards explaining how the world around us works. Why diseases change and adapt to new hosts or drugs. Why certain creatures live in one place and not another. Why we have the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. That one theory provides an awful lot of answers.
Now, I suppose, if the problem was just a lack of funding or time or something... If they just couldn't squeeze everything into the curriculum... I wouldn't be so bent out of shape. I'd be very curious what was being taught instead of evolution. And I might very well suggest that it was more important to teach the basics of evolution than to dissect a frog. But I'd at least understand what the pressures and limitations were.
As it is, however, the pressure is not one of funding or time. The reason evolution is not being taught is because it conflicts with an alternate "theory". One that was, in fact, simply thought-up out of the blue by some guy. One that is not based on the scientific method. One that does not have any basis in reality. One that cannot be objectively tested, or used to make any predictions. One that may, possibly, offer some emotional solace... But is absolutely useless in understanding the actual world around us.
I would be just as offended if they stopped teaching Shakespeare in classes for no other reason than because Twilight fans were feeling threatened.
Where the hell (pardon the pun) did "Satan's Game" come from? D&D has always been Dungeons & Dragons since inception. Now get off my lawn!
Are you kidding me?
D&D suffered from an awful lot of bad press back in the 80's. Lots of folks were claiming it was satanic. I remember getting an awful lot of odd looks from folks when I'd admit to playing. My folks were pretty concerned until I actually showed them the rulebooks.
One of the things that makes a telnet client so handy is that it'll take a datastream from just about anything. It's great for troubleshooting SMTP servers and things like that.
The point that the parent was trying to make is that there is absolutely no reason you should be running a telnet server on any public-facing server.
Telnet itself answers on port 23. You could use a telnet connection to port 80 to maybe do some troubleshooting or something... But if you just try to telnet into your company website on the default port (23) and you get a login prompt, somebody is doing something wrong.
I use telnet constantly. Port 110 to check for a broken email header, Port 25 to check for SMTP auth errors, Port 3200 to check for the present of a NetGen DSS unit, etc, etc... I love telnet. Simple 3-way handshake and boom, datastream.
Sure, the telnet client is useful. I use it all the time for those very same reasons.
But actually running a telnet server and allowing incoming connections on port 23? Nope. Stopped doing that for everything I could years ago, switched to SSH on everything that would support it. The things that wouldn't support it were all tucked away on our inside network. I've got nothing facing the world that'll accept connections on port 23.
The quickest way to cause me to roll my eyes and discount anything else you have to say is to use terms like "visual novel" or "genre film". It says to me that you're so insecure about the subject's ability to stand on its own two feet that you have to invent overwrought euphemisms (seriously, "visual novel"? Does anyone call a movie a "motion novel"?).
God. It's a comic book.
Didn't read the article, so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...
And you may very well be referring to something you've personally experienced that I haven't... For example, I generally hear the term "graphic novel" rather than "visual novel".
However, there does seem to be a use for that term. There does seem to be a distinction to be made.
Your typical "comic book" is a periodical publication, and each issue is relatively short - on the order of tens or dozens of pages. Kind of like a magazine, or a short story.
Your typical "graphic novel" is a one-off, or maybe part of a much shorter series (trilogy). It's typically much longer, as well - on the order of hundreds of pages. More like a novel than a short story.
That's always been, in my mind, the difference in terms. If somebody says they read a great "comic book" I have an image of a large series of short stories, constantly being released, in a very long (possibly ongoing or never-ending) story arc. If somebody says they read a great "graphic novel" I have an image of a single, large book comprising a relatively short or discrete story arc.
I've obviously never heard a movie referred to as a "motion novel"... But we distinguish between a made-for-tv movie, and a mini-series, and a tv series. We distinguish between novels and short stories. We distinguish between short films and feature-length films. Why wouldn't we distinguish between a comic book and a graphic novel?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately it gave me extreme motion sickness.
This.
I played it just briefly... The demos looked fantastic, I couldn't wait to see what it was about. And after about 10 minutes I had to shut it off.
Barnes & Noble is using .epub for all their stuff.
Of course, the .epub spec allows for optional encryption... And I'm sure B&N is doing something to lock down their books.
But, you should be able to open any .epub document on any device that supports .epub, even with the encryption in-place. Or, at least, that's my understanding.
I thought this was the whole point of using a unique username. If I didn't want a unique identity, I wouldn't have created one for myself.
Yup. That's the whole reason why I picked a fairly unique name, and why I've re-used it all over the place. If you see that name, it's probably me.
What a wishy-washy summary. It's not like you have anything better to do tonight than watch Jeopardy, is it?
Indeed.
It almost seems like they scheduled this to avoid viewership.
Pretty much... Except in the case of the US it will be only be used in a real emergency, right? Right?
Of course.
And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency.
So... Exactly like what was done in Egypt then?
It's also a doujin game
To be honest, I didn't know what a doujin game was before I bought Recettear. So I might not have been so surprised if I'd been better educated. I have nobody to blame but myself for this.
"Overhead view" is not a genre.
It sounds like you're thinking "Hmm, I see an overhead view--I've played completely unrelated games with overhead view on the PC before, so this game should be just like them!".
I saw some screenshots of the game. Heard good things about it from other people. And it was cheap. So I bought it.
The screenshots showing the menu system all showed a big, white, pointing hand next to things... So I kind of figured they'd be keyboard-driven.
But the screenshots showing the item shop itself, and the screenshots of the adventure mode, both looked similar enough to Diablo/Torchlight/whatever that I assumed they'd be mouse-driven.
The gameplay videos I saw that featured the adventure mode also looked similar enough to Diablo/Torchlight that I assumed they'd be mouse-driven.
Now, obviously, I was wrong. And if I'd been better informed about the game, I wouldn't have been surprised by the controls. And, now that I know what their design goals were, I understand why they made the choices they did.
But, let's be honest here... Most games on the PC, when presented from a top-down view, use the mouse in a fairly large way. It isn't just Diablo-alikes. Stuff like RTS titles, and any chess/checkers/board game, all sorts of strategic turn-based things... Hell, even games that rely heavily on the keyboard still (usually) let you use the mouse to navigate the base menus.
I fired up Recettear and thought my mouse had broken. I couldn't even select a new game from the menu. I couldn't navigate down to the options to see what the key bindings were (which wouldn't have mattered, because the key bindings aren't set in-game). There's that little menu bar up at the top... But there wasn't any helpful information up there.
Sure, I figured out that I could use the arrow keys to scroll through the menu quickly enough... But the enter key didn't do anything at all. I had to mash some random keys before stumbling upon the 'z' key. And then I went into options and discovered that the controls weren't in there.
I actually had to pull up the web page to see what the default controls were and how to change them.
Of course, Recettear was built by a small group of people... And it was intentionally built to work like a console game... And they didn't have a huge budget... And the game was relatively cheap... And I really should have educated myself better... So I don't get to complain, right?
Fine. I picked a bad example. I chose Recettear because it was an extreme case - absolutely no mouse support at all. I'm sorry.
But Dead Space (the original) wasn't much different. And it was not built by a small group of people, and they did have a huge budget, and it wasn't cheap... So I can complain about it, can't I?
Keyboard and mouse support was a joke. There was a token effort at making them functional... You could use them... And even change some of the key bindings... But it was cumbersome as hell.
If you turned off VSYNC the mouse was mostly usable... But you got horrible tearing when the lights flickered. And they flickered a lot in Dead Space.
If you turned on VSYNC the lights looked good, but there was a noticeable lag between moving the mouse and actually seeing anything happen on screen.
And either way, you needed to crank the sensitivity all the way up to get any kind of response out of the mouse. Which made things mostly OK for movement and aiming... But the UI became completely useless. Base menus, inventory, whatever... The cursor was far too fast and far too sensitive to actually be useful.
The "solution" was to use an Xbox controller on your PC.
It's a doujin game in the style of a 16-bit console JRPG.
So... You're telling me that my complaint about the game acting like it's on a console, even though it's on a computer... Is because it was designed to act like it's on a console, even though it's on a computer?
You have to adjust your expectations to the genre or style of game you're playing.
Fair enough.
But it's also a good idea to adjust your expectations to the hardware of the system you're running on. There are a very large number of PC gamers who do not have gamepads handy.
Would you really want to play the action portion with click to move? Really? Now that would be awkward.
Worked OK for Diablo... And Nox... And Dungeon Siege... And Torchlight... And Freedom Force...
Do you expect to be able to play Street Fighter 4 on PC with a mouse?
No, I don't. That's a port of a cabinet/console game onto a PC. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it behave like a cabinet/console game that'd been ported to a PC.
The whole complaint about "consoleitis" is that everything is now behaving like it's a console game ported to a PC.
All fine points. However, I worry about what's going on with PC developers as well. There are no real communities nowadays... You don't see massive fan communities that build various mods, maps, and custom characters like you used to. Think back to the days of Quake III Arena or Unreal Tournament. You won't find anything on that scale right now, and likely never will again. Games are being squeezed tighter and tighter to conform to the designer's will... that's why we have "weekly mutators" chosen and forces on us in things like Left 4 Dead, because implementing a proper mutator system (where you can mix and match) would be impossible for the console kiddies.
I see this as a symptom of consolitis though.
The PC, as a platform, allows you to develop your own maps and mods. Maybe the game itself doesn't... But you have access to a keyboard and mouse for input, and various text editors and graphics programs and whatnot. It is possible to build a map or a mod on a computer. Hell, that's how they're all built in the first place.
The console, as a platform, does not. You can't fire up some compiler and start throwing code at it. You can't build a 3D model. You can't edit photos. Or, at least, you can't on a stock system.
And since games are being developed with consoles in mind, why include tools that your console gamers can't use? Why spend the time developing a nice editor or cleaning up a scripting language or building an API that your target audience (console gamers) will never use?
And, hell, if any mods have to come through "official" channels... Why not charge for them?
And now you've got little bits of paid DLC, instead of the wealth of free mods and maps that you used to have.
One of my favourite games, SWAT 4, doesn't have saves at all (except between missions)
It only adds to the tension and difficulty.
Although most of the time if you took away my quicksave I'd be raging.
There are certainly situations where restricting the save process adds tension. This can be used to very good effect if you're trying to add some kind of realism, or if you're trying to scare the player.
But, for your average shooter or RPG, there isn't really a good reason to restrict saving.
Or you build a game like Racettear that simply has no click-to-move, even though it's played from an overhead perspective.
Having just looked at what that game is, it looks a lot like any other top down RPG. Would you really want to play Zelda with "click to move"? The only games that really work with click to move IMO are LucasArts style point'n'click games. (I hate RTSes)
When we're talking about gaming on a computer we pretty much assume we'll be using the keyboard for movement in the first-person perspective, and we pretty much assume we'll be using the mouse for movement in an overhead perspective.
Diablo, Nox, Dungeon Siege, The SIMS, pretty much any RTS, Torchlight...
That isn't true on the console, which is why it seems so weird to think of playing Zelda with click to move. But, really, Zelda (at least the original) isn't all that different from Diablo, is it? And click to move worked fine for Diablo.
If anything games are becoming more like computer games overall. Traditional console RPGs look more like MMOs now, games require patching and even have DRM...a few quirks introduced by lazy companies that do lazy ports don't make "consolitis".
It isn't about lazy ports. It's about fundamental design decisions.
There's been some good discussion on Penny Arcade about the design decisions that've gone into porting Monday Night Combat over to the PC. The mouse means you've got nearly instantaneous turn speed, instead of a fixed rotation speed. So you can pull off attacks that are just plain impossible on a console. So they've had to tweak some fundamental mechanics in the game. Stuff that's simply impossible on a console because you have a limited number of buttons at your disposal becomes downright easy when you throw in a mouse and keyboard.
Or you build a game like Racettear that simply has no click-to-move, even though it's played from an overhead perspective. You need to use arrow keys to move around. It's downright awkward on a PC. The "fix" is to plug in a gamepad.
You've got games like Deus Ex 2 that got rid of the inventory system because it was too cumbersome on the console.
Plenty of games are coming out now that have absolutely no ability to save wherever and whenever you want, and you're stuck looking for save stations or waiting for checkpoints or whatever.
I'm confused... you were married to this women for only one year, in which her psycho-bitch tendencies became obvious enough to warrant a divorce.
How fucking long did you know her before marrying her?! I mean if you dated her for two years beforehand, are you freaking telling me there wasn't enough evidence to have you run far and run fast?
I don't have exhaustive information about this situation... I'm going off the same post you are. But you might be surprised to learn that people don't always act like themselves when they're dating.
You don't occupy the same house. You don't wake up next to each-other every day. You don't go to sleep next to each-other every night. You don't have to balance a budget, or deal with bills. You just see each-other periodically for fun stuff.
Trust me, things change after you're married (or co-habitating for a while). A kind of sameness or boredom sets in. Responsibilities pile up.
Things that were cute or quirky when you were dating become downright annoying. You see new things that you never saw before, because you just weren't around all the time. And she's experiencing the same thing from you.
It's not terribly uncommon for a relationship to suddenly fall apart as soon as you move in together. It's a huge stress for everyone.
And if you didn't have enough time to realize she was psycho, what the fuck were you doing marrying her?!
I honestly believe that, at least here in the US, folks are getting married far too quickly. They don't get to know each-other well enough. They mistake infatuation for love. And then they get a divorce when things cool off.
However, you really do need to live together for a good chunk of time to really get to know someone. And, here in the US, that's still frowned-upon.
So, he may have thought he knew her very well. And he wouldn't have known just how wrong he was until they actually moved in together (usually after the wedding).
Yeah, go ahead, mod me down, but I keep hearing this sort of thing time and again. They always tell me "but she suddenly changed!". And I go: "So she didn't expect you to read her mind and moods before, ever? So she never gave you a hard time for forgetting something but expected you to treat her as if she was perfect?"
The reply: "Oh, come on! Every woman is like that!"
Everyone is like that. Even men.
We all have moments when we don't actually voice our needs, and then get upset when they aren't met. We all get annoyed when others screw up, and when they point out our flaws. Lots of people actually see this in themselves and try to moderate it. Lots of people don't.
But it's very normal to see this in other people.
And when you're dating, you might see in once in a while and not think much of it. Not even know whether it's going to be frequent enough to be a problem.
And then you move in together... And it's happening every single day... And they're resistant to change...
As long as men take whatever woman will have them and don't EXPECT to be treated fairly and as a partner instead of someone who has to be grateful to even be allowed around a female, this shit will keep repeating.
The fact of the matter is that, in the US at least, relationships are not equal. Hell, your wording up there (it's the man's fault for acting this way) simply reinforces that.
We've all got baggage we carry around. A lot of it is handed out by our society - parenting, mass media, stereotypes, literature, etc.
The trick is to find somebody you like, and then actually get to know them well enough to learn what kind of baggage they've got. And, at the same time, be honest enough that they can see what kind of baggage you've got.
I honestly believe that a very big part of this includes living together and sharing responsibilities for a good couple of years.
But s
And if this story was about a guy, it would be about a frightning stalker who might murder her rather than fodder for lighthearted joking.
Hooray for double-standards!
It isn't just scientists that we don't value though... It's the whole concept of curiosity that's on its way out.
everyone hates it
I actually kind of like the new design.
I used to enjoy reading comments to a story, but now it's essentially impossible because of how BROKEN the scrolling is (at least in Firefox and IE). Scrolling using the mousewheel is slow as hell and when using the keyboard it's very unresponsive.
Scrolls just fine for me in Firefox 3.6.13 (which I use at home) and Firefox 4.0b10 (which I use at work) and IE7/IE8 (also used at work).
That and the new style is hard to read and has too much whitespace.
Hadn't really noticed any real change in readability.
My only real complaint would be seeing replies to my comments. Used to be the email you got provided a link directly to the reply, now you have to drill down through several layers of comments to see what was said. That's genuinely annoying. But not crippling.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/29/0050223/New-Critical-Bug-In-All-Current-Windows-Versions
The fact that it's a dupe is actually mentioned right in the summary...
Well, AFAIK, you're in the minority. I think most people do in fact move their mouse with their gaze, because it cuts the delay between when they decide to click on something and when they actually click on it. Think of it as a pre-loading or caching technique -- you don't pay much cost for moving your mouse around a little bit, but you can save time. At least that's my hypothesis.
I dunno...
I mean, obviously, they've got some kind of research to back it up... But it seems like this would be pretty useless to me. I mean, do people actually follow what they're reading with the mouse cursor?
I generally plant my mouse cursor in a chunk of whitespace so that it's out of the way while I'm reading. When I find something to click on, I go straight to that link and click. If there's multiple things I want to click on I'll generally hit them with the middle button to open multiple tabs. I don't generally pause my cursor over anything in particular.
And then there are the people who just don't stop moving their mouse cursor... The thing spins and swirls around the screen, slowly circling towards a link or a button that they want to click. I wonder what kind of data they could mine from that sort of behavior?
I will occasionally highlight a few random characters to act as a bookmark if I have to go do something else. What would this be interpreted as?
I generally try to rest the mouse cursor in some chunk of whitespace, so it's not in my way while I'm reading.
China's space technology is pretty much a verbatim copy of the Russian stuff(and ever since Russia realized what China was doing with technology it lent China to go to space, China hasn't been back there. Not a coincidence in my opinion). So if Russia has a space plane then maybe China has one, otherwise I doubt it.
Just because they've been copying Russia's space technology doesn't mean they're incapable of developing their own. Ever hear the phrase "don't re-invent the wheel"? We IT folks routinely re-use other people's code where we can, and then write our own where we can't?
Regardless, Russia did have some space plane-ish stuff. The Buran comes to mind...
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course.
But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
The idea behind the public school system is, at least in theory, to give everyone the basic knowledge necessary to function in the world.
People need to be able to read, they need to be able to write, they need to be able to do math. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of classic literature because so much of the modern world is built upon it. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of history, they need to have some understanding of how our government works, they need to have a basic understanding of science.
We consider it fairly normal to know that the heart pumps blood around your body, for example. It may not be necessary to know exactly how many bones are in the human body, or be able to name them... But it's a good idea to know that humans have bones, and worms do not.
Obviously, individual families and parents are going to impart their own wisdom along the way... Or, at least we hope they will. But the whole point of a public school system with expectations and requirements is to establish a baseline of sorts. A foundation to build upon.
Now, you can certainly argue that any particular bit of education is or isn't necessary... Do folks really need to learn geometry? Is it essential to read Romeo and Juliet? Do we have to teach evolution?
I would argue that the scientific method - the process of testing and refining a hypothesis until you've got something useful - is absolutely essential. It's the foundation of the entire modern world. And without a grasp of the scientific method you're going to have a hard time establishing critical thinking skills.
And I would also argue that evolution is essential. The theory of evolution was developed by scientific observation and testing, it isn't something some random person just thought-up out of the blue. It has some basis in reality. And it goes a long way towards explaining how the world around us works. Why diseases change and adapt to new hosts or drugs. Why certain creatures live in one place and not another. Why we have the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. That one theory provides an awful lot of answers.
Now, I suppose, if the problem was just a lack of funding or time or something... If they just couldn't squeeze everything into the curriculum... I wouldn't be so bent out of shape. I'd be very curious what was being taught instead of evolution. And I might very well suggest that it was more important to teach the basics of evolution than to dissect a frog. But I'd at least understand what the pressures and limitations were.
As it is, however, the pressure is not one of funding or time. The reason evolution is not being taught is because it conflicts with an alternate "theory". One that was, in fact, simply thought-up out of the blue by some guy. One that is not based on the scientific method. One that does not have any basis in reality. One that cannot be objectively tested, or used to make any predictions. One that may, possibly, offer some emotional solace... But is absolutely useless in understanding the actual world around us.
I would be just as offended if they stopped teaching Shakespeare in classes for no other reason than because Twilight fans were feeling threatened.
Where the hell (pardon the pun) did "Satan's Game" come from? D&D has always been Dungeons & Dragons since inception. Now get off my lawn!
Are you kidding me?
D&D suffered from an awful lot of bad press back in the 80's. Lots of folks were claiming it was satanic. I remember getting an awful lot of odd looks from folks when I'd admit to playing. My folks were pretty concerned until I actually showed them the rulebooks.
They even made a movie about the perils of D&D.
One of the things that makes a telnet client so handy is that it'll take a datastream from just about anything. It's great for troubleshooting SMTP servers and things like that.
The point that the parent was trying to make is that there is absolutely no reason you should be running a telnet server on any public-facing server.
Telnet itself answers on port 23. You could use a telnet connection to port 80 to maybe do some troubleshooting or something... But if you just try to telnet into your company website on the default port (23) and you get a login prompt, somebody is doing something wrong.
I use telnet constantly. Port 110 to check for a broken email header, Port 25 to check for SMTP auth errors, Port 3200 to check for the present of a NetGen DSS unit, etc, etc... I love telnet. Simple 3-way handshake and boom, datastream.
Sure, the telnet client is useful. I use it all the time for those very same reasons.
But actually running a telnet server and allowing incoming connections on port 23? Nope. Stopped doing that for everything I could years ago, switched to SSH on everything that would support it. The things that wouldn't support it were all tucked away on our inside network. I've got nothing facing the world that'll accept connections on port 23.
The quickest way to cause me to roll my eyes and discount anything else you have to say is to use terms like "visual novel" or "genre film". It says to me that you're so insecure about the subject's ability to stand on its own two feet that you have to invent overwrought euphemisms (seriously, "visual novel"? Does anyone call a movie a "motion novel"?).
God. It's a comic book.
Didn't read the article, so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...
And you may very well be referring to something you've personally experienced that I haven't... For example, I generally hear the term "graphic novel" rather than "visual novel".
However, there does seem to be a use for that term. There does seem to be a distinction to be made.
Your typical "comic book" is a periodical publication, and each issue is relatively short - on the order of tens or dozens of pages. Kind of like a magazine, or a short story.
Your typical "graphic novel" is a one-off, or maybe part of a much shorter series (trilogy). It's typically much longer, as well - on the order of hundreds of pages. More like a novel than a short story.
That's always been, in my mind, the difference in terms. If somebody says they read a great "comic book" I have an image of a large series of short stories, constantly being released, in a very long (possibly ongoing or never-ending) story arc. If somebody says they read a great "graphic novel" I have an image of a single, large book comprising a relatively short or discrete story arc.
I've obviously never heard a movie referred to as a "motion novel"... But we distinguish between a made-for-tv movie, and a mini-series, and a tv series. We distinguish between novels and short stories. We distinguish between short films and feature-length films. Why wouldn't we distinguish between a comic book and a graphic novel?