Is there a reason an out of game object is stored within the game like this? Can you buy them in the game?
Yes.
The whole idea is to make the subscription purchasable from within the game.
If you play enough EVE, and make enough ISK, you can pay for your subscription entirely with ISK. Because somebody out there has more dollars than ISK.
They'll buy a game time card with real dollars. Then convert that game time card into a PLEX. And then sell that PLEX for in-game ISK.
I sure feel great about my Nook purchase this week.
I bought a nook for Christmas this year. Part of my thought process was how useful will the device be if the parent company goes out of business.
The nook has wi-fi, so I don't need to rely on the 3G working. The nook has a user-replaceable battery. It reads open formats like PDF and ebup natively, so I don't need to rely on the B&N storefront to buy my books. The nook runs Android, and is relatively easy to jailbreak, so I don't have to rely on B&N for software updates.
So, I figure that the nook is still going to be a handy device even if B&N goes out of business.
I really haven't seen anything compelling with 3D.
Basically the only reason to see Avatar was the 3D. Completely forgettable storyline. Hell of a show on the screen though. Saw it again on DVD... Couldn't even sit through the thing.
Up and Coraline were both very good movies, thoroughly enjoyable in 2D, but the 3D genuinely added some depth to the film.
Most tend to only have certain parts that really "show off" the effect but mostly it just distracts from the film.
My Bloody Valentine was absolutely awful, 3D or no. The 3D sure as hell didn't help... But I don't think anything could have saved that thing.
The push to 3D is an attempt to rekindle interest in cinema but people are still going to the theaters.
These days I really need a good reason to go to the theater.
I don't like people. I don't like dealing with the crowds, the cell phones, the kids, etc. I'd much rather watch something in the privacy of my own home. And these days I can watch something on pay-per-view almost before it leaves theaters. Plus, with a large HD television and a blu-ray player there isn't a whole lot of difference in visual quality between home and theater viewing.
The one thing I can't really get at home is a decent 3D movie.
That may change as 3D televisions become more common... But, for now, if I want to see 3D I have to go in to the theater. And these days that's about the only thing that will get me to pay for a ticket.
By and large, it doesn't seem like anyone really wants 3D.
I do.
I wouldn't say it belongs in every single film made... But it's a handy tool, just like pyrotechnics or green screens or digital effects. Sure, right now it's going to get abused... Just like every new gadget and gizmo before it. But once folks figure out how to make it work, and figure out where it is appropriate, it'll make a nice addition to the toolbox.
If the story doesn't need 3D to be effective, why force people to pay the extra money?
Folks don't go to see a movie for a story. If all you wanted was a story you'd read a book or listen to a radio play. Folks go to a movie to see the story played-out on the screen. They're looking for visual stimulation. That's the whole reason why there's a wardrobe department, and folks in makeup, and special effects, and dramatic locations.
Sure, if you have Windows (or whatever your favorite OS is) install media then you probably don't care about this recovery partition. It's a good way to get a little extra space on the disk.
But if you don't have install media and you remove the partition? Now you're screwed.
I mean I reinstalled my laptop with Win 7 Pro, instead of the included Home version, but I left the recovery partition. Why not? It isn't a problem or anything.
The problem I have with a recovery partition isn't the space it takes up... It's the fact that it lives on my HDD.
If I get a nasty virus that starts eating my PC, it can get at that recovery partition. If my HDD fails, that recovery partition is gone. If I upgrade my HDD, I've got no media to use to install Windows on that new disk.
A recovery partition is entirely too vulnerable. I much prefer a physical disc.
Personally, I don't want a recovery CD, I want the Windows Install CD and a Driver CD. I just bought an HP which reminded me to make my one set of recovery disks (which I did, 3 DVD's). However, what I really wanted to do was format it and re-install windows to get rid of all the junk they pre-loaded on it.
That combination of a Windows install CD and a driver CD is basically what we're referring to.
Various vendors package things somewhat differently... Some have an all-in-one recovery disc that installs Windows, loads drivers, and installs OEM software. Others just include a basic Windows disc, a driver disc, and a few software discs.
The problem isn't that there's no disc specifically labeled "recovery" - the problem is that there's no physical media that can be used to install Windows on a cleanly formatted HDD.
Sure, if you've got your own Windows install media, then you aren't going to need another disc. But many folks don't. Many folks only have the discs that came with the computer, as well as whatever other software (games/apps/whatever) they've purchased.
If they could fit enough into the BIOS to have it connect to their servers and redownload your OS in case of drive failure, why the hell not go that route?
That assumes you're going to have working bandwidth when you need to reload your computer.
I have long thought that it is a scam that you have to pay a third party to do electronic preparation and filing like the usual services (TurboTax, etc.) provide.
The government made the convoluted tax system - they should make the web-based application to navigate it.
I'd have to ask my wife what website she uses... She always does our taxes...
But we always do them on-line. For free. We have no trouble, usually have them filed well ahead of time, usually get whatever refund may be coming before other folks have even filed their taxes.
I'm having trouble understanding how the Cherynobl meltdown has anything to do with wild boar populations in southern Germany. The article specifically mentions Bavaria, a region a thousand miles (and several countries) away. I admit I'm just an ignorant American, but surely this doesn't make any sense?
I'm just as clueless... But I'm going to assume that you've got radioactive dust drifting in the wind. Maybe?
Do we REALLY want them to sell broadband to anyone even if they know the service will be shit? As far as I can see, this isn't the crux of the matter and I think Slashdot could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their editing.
I dunno...
If they know I'm not going to get anything better than 1 Mbps, I sure as hell don't want to be paying for a 5 Mbps connection.
But, at the same time, I don't want them telling me no, sorry, your lines aren't good enough for our service and I wind up stuck with dial-up.
I guess what I'd like to see is universal availability, with an attempt to match the pricing to the performance you're actually going to get. Which sounds like I'm asking for an awful lot, but I'm not. If they'd drop the pretense of an "unlimited" package and just be honest with folks - you get 2 GB a month, over that you're paying $X/byte - then the pricing would kind of work itself out. Folks with crappy lines that can't download too fast would be unlikely to exceed that monthly allotment. Folks with blazing fast connections that like to download everything they can find would pay more, since they're downloading more. Nobody would really have to do extensive line testing or modify fees or anything.
With the exception of "Standard Automotive HDMI cable" they all seem rather good, self explanatory names to me. Much better names than just "HDMI 1.4 cable" anyway. Besides, the packaging probably will still say HDMI 1.4 somewhere..?
I agree that the names are relatively self-explanatory... Even the automotive one seems pretty clear to me - if it isn't going in a car you probably don't want that cable.
But it seems like there's some redundancy and un-necessary detail. If "high speed" cables are tested up to 1080p resolution, they ought to work for lower resolutions as well, right? So why not just make that the new standard? If you make an HDMI cable, test it to that standard, and you know it'll work with pretty much anything.
The confusion isn't really going to come from the label, so much as the different types of cable available.
Say you buy a new TV, get it home, discover you need a cable to plug it in. So you go back out to the store. You know you need an HDMI cable because it says "HDMI" all over your TV and BD-player/DVR/receiver/whatever. But then you get to the aisle where the cables are and you see four different kinds of HDMI cables. Did you need a high speed HDMI cable? What resolution were you going to run your TV at? What's the highest resolution your receiver can output? Do you need ethernet with your HDMI cable?
Sure, your average geek probably has a good idea what the answer is to all that... But your average consumer probably doesn't. They just know they need an HDMI cable.
They admitted there was an error and as an apology gave them all a rather expensive game. That's pretty good customer service.
Yup, not bad at all.
Far too many companies these days would have insisted it wasn't their fault.
And I don't think anyone really would have expected much more than simply getting their account re-activated.
Valve could have given away pretty much anything... A copy of Portal or Half-Life or something else that's been around for a while. They certainly didn't need to give out a copy of a newer title like Left 4 Dead 2.
Good job guys! I wish more companies behaved this way...
I can understand that they have to make PUBLIC websites and information (state, federal, etc) accessible, but, this almost implies they are going to require that private business (eg the note about small business exceptions) HAVE to put their websites up to some form of handicapped accessible standards?!?!
WTF?
That's nothing new. Private businesses like hotels and restaurants are currently required to meet the ADA standards. If you serve the public at large, you have to be able to serve folks with disabilities.
At least with these website regulations it should be relatively easy to meet them. It's all text/code anyway... Any special parsing will be done on the client's end. You just have to make sure to tag your images and make sure things are navigable. It isn't like you have to physically construct a ramp or anything.
In my hometown, a hardware store couldn't afford to put in an ADA-compliant ramp
If you can't afford an ADA-compliant ramp you've got bigger problems than wheelchair accessibility. It isn't like they're crafted out of solid gold or anything like that. Most of the family-owned places around here just have simple wooden ramps.
he ended up working for nearly minimum wage at Walmart and couldn't afford to put his daughters through college. Another result: his two employees lost their jobs.
Some people just seem to forget that the world doesn't owe them anything. If you're unemployed, that's nobody's problem except your own. Move to a city where you can find a job.
The landlord lost a tenant (the store sat unoccupied for 2 years, in part because everyone knew that the first business to move in would get sued for not having an ADA-compliant ramp.)
Seriously?
Nobody could afford to build a ramp? Not the landlord, none of the prospective renters? None of them?
But where do we stop in defining disabilities? If I have autism, does that mean I can sue a store for being too noisy and crowded? If I have a peanut allergy, does a Thai restaurant have to give you a hermetically sealed room and special food stored, prepared, and cooked away from everything else?
Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere.
And maybe it isn't drawn in a good place now.
I don't know. I'm able-bodied and could do just fine without the ADA right now, so I honestly haven't given it much thought.
But guidelines about ramps and braille lettering are useful for an awful lot of people. Hell, you don't even have to be straight-up disabled to appreciate a ramp... When I was moving out of our old apartment it was awfully nice to be able to wheel a dolly in and out, right up the ramp. And when I broke my leg it was far easier navigating ramps with my crutches than stairs.
If you just want to avoid frustration, you might enjoy something like The Path. It's an interesting bit of software... I'm not even sure if you can really call it a game. You can't really win or lose, you just explore the world and see what happens.
Games like Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, or Dragon Age vary a lot in frustration levels. Depending on what type of character you pick, who you put in your party, and what difficulty level you choose, you can have a very easy ride or some real challenge.
Portal is an absolutely terrific game. Tons of fun. But some of the levels are very frustrating.
You know Square-Enix bread and butter Final Fantasy? Well, of course what everyone talked about in Final Fantasy X was the story!
I haven't played a Final Fantasy game in years.
I have, however, played a number of very successful single-player games that owe pretty much all their success to a good storyline. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, Fallout (1, 2, and 3), Morrowind, Oblivion... Those are all games with relatively simple graphics, no multi-player, and relatively low challenge. What made all those games successful was the storyline.
I'm pretty sure that challenging gameplay and graphics are what sell games.
I'll agree that graphics sell games.
Nice graphics look good on the box. They're impressive on the demo kiosk. They immediately grab your attention and make you want to play.
As far as challenging gameplay goes... I'd suggest that your average gamer doesn't want to be challenged. They want to have fun, they want to feel like they're accomplishing something, they want to win, but they don't really want it to be challenging. Which is why single-player games are getting shorter and easier.
And it's also why games rely heavily on multi-player these days. You can easily find your preferred level of difficulty just by finding different players to compete against.
People read books for story. People do anything else for excitement.
So nobody watches movies for the story? Or television programs? Or plays?
Absolutely ever other form of entertainment on the planet is all about excitement?
I exclusively play multiplayer games, except on my phone when I want a quick game of Vexed or something to pass the time. Other than that, single player games are a little sad, and never as challenging as multiplayer. The way single player games are made challenging are to have bad guys with more strength/weapons/power than you, and/or cheating. Whereas QuakeLive is as good as the guys you're playing against, and given that it's full of clan players and people who've been playing quake for perhaps longer than they should have, it means that you're competing on level ground when it comes to player specs/weapons, but against people who know every last trick available (which you can learn should you be arsed). Who wants to play quakelive against bots? What would be the point?
You're only thinking of a very narrow subset of games.
Was Myst made more challenging by giving the bad guys more strength/weapons/power than the player? What about The Path? Or Braid? Or Portal?
Lots of games challenge players in different ways - challenge them to think through a situation, rather than relying on quick reflexes or memorizing a map's layout.
But I think you're missing the broader picture... A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete. A single-player game can present an interesting storyline in ways that a multi-player game cannot (or, at least, has not yet).
In a single-player game you can develop characters and settings. You can explore a world. You can show the consequences of your actions. You can have a whole story arc.
A multi-player game is generally about pure competition. Beat the other guy. Score more kills. Get more points.
Hmm, and you are prevented from changing your DNS exactly how? How fucking hard is it to use OpenDNS?
That is precisely what I'm doing right now.
And it's a damn good thing that we currently have a largely neutral Internet, because that means my traffic to OpenDNS is treated just the same as my traffic to my ISP's DNS. If we didn't have a neutral Internet then my traffic to OpenDNS might be subject to throttling or surcharges.
This net neutrality bullshit is going to bite you idiots in the ass.
To be completely honest, you're probably right... But not for the reasons that you think you are. It isn't like the mythical Free Market is going to do any better. Stuff gets fucked up. It's just what happens.
If "not" neutral was a good idea WHY THE HELL ISN'T IT ACTIVELY BEING USED ALL OVER THE PLACE ALREADY?!??
It is.
I do all sorts of traffic shaping at work. We block various sites outright. We limit other sites to just a fraction of our total bandwidth. And some sites get priority treatment.
My personal motivation for this is to ensure that all the business-critical stuff we need is accessible.
Other folks might have multiple pipes, and shape traffic based on which route is going to cost them the least. Or you might base it on latency, or congestion. There's lots of ways to shape traffic, and lots of reasons to do it.
Right now, generally speaking, shaping is pretty much limited to private networks like mine. Once you get out to your ISP everything is generally treated the same. But the technology exists, and the motivation exists. The main reason ISPs aren't currently doing large scale shaping is because the legality is fuzzy right now.
Both sides of the debate would like to correct that. We all want to eliminate that fuzziness. The difference is that one side wants to make that kind of large scale shaping clearly legal, where the other side wants to make it clearly illegal.
If the two events were to be truly compared, then the First Amendment should have made anyone with a printing press unable to refuse to print and distribute whatever someone else wants based on content, and that includes the major newspapers of the time - the First Amendment did no such thing, but network neutrality will do if it were to be implemented as trumpeted on Slashdot.
You are correct that it isn't a very good analogy.
The first amendment was about giving the press the right to produce whatever (basically factual) content they wanted.
Network Neutrality is about giving all data traversing your network equal treatment, regardless of content.
But your counter-analogy is equally flawed.
ISPs do not, generally produce content. They simply transmit what others have produced. The Internet is not a single entity, it is a collective. When I sign up with an ISP it isn't because I want to be able to get to Google specifically, but because I want access to the collection of inter-connected networks that is The Internet. I expect to be able to view stuff on pretty much any random website. I expect to be able to get to my wife's blog just as easily as Google or Facebook.
I do not expect to have to wait twice as long to load my sister's wedding pictures because she happened to post them on Facebook instead of Flickr.
I just feel like he could have used a much more hard hitting example than that.
Harder hitting than virtual censorship?
If Daily Kos is only getting 56kbps, and Fox News gets 3Mbps, it's going to be hard as hell to get much information from Daily Kos. Oh, sure, they could do some kind of text-only version... But any images or video are basically going to be right out.
Ask yourself why is there such a mad rush to have FCC regulate the ISPs when there is really no problem with them discriminating between content providers in reality, only in theory.
So, I must have imagined all that stuff with Comcast screwing up BitTorrent?
And my ISP certainly hasn't been playing around with my DNS either, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a reason an out of game object is stored within the game like this? Can you buy them in the game?
Yes.
The whole idea is to make the subscription purchasable from within the game.
If you play enough EVE, and make enough ISK, you can pay for your subscription entirely with ISK. Because somebody out there has more dollars than ISK.
They'll buy a game time card with real dollars. Then convert that game time card into a PLEX. And then sell that PLEX for in-game ISK.
I sure feel great about my Nook purchase this week.
I bought a nook for Christmas this year. Part of my thought process was how useful will the device be if the parent company goes out of business.
The nook has wi-fi, so I don't need to rely on the 3G working. The nook has a user-replaceable battery. It reads open formats like PDF and ebup natively, so I don't need to rely on the B&N storefront to buy my books. The nook runs Android, and is relatively easy to jailbreak, so I don't have to rely on B&N for software updates.
So, I figure that the nook is still going to be a handy device even if B&N goes out of business.
I really haven't seen anything compelling with 3D.
Basically the only reason to see Avatar was the 3D. Completely forgettable storyline. Hell of a show on the screen though. Saw it again on DVD... Couldn't even sit through the thing.
Up and Coraline were both very good movies, thoroughly enjoyable in 2D, but the 3D genuinely added some depth to the film.
Most tend to only have certain parts that really "show off" the effect but mostly it just distracts from the film.
My Bloody Valentine was absolutely awful, 3D or no. The 3D sure as hell didn't help... But I don't think anything could have saved that thing.
The push to 3D is an attempt to rekindle interest in cinema but people are still going to the theaters.
These days I really need a good reason to go to the theater.
I don't like people. I don't like dealing with the crowds, the cell phones, the kids, etc. I'd much rather watch something in the privacy of my own home. And these days I can watch something on pay-per-view almost before it leaves theaters. Plus, with a large HD television and a blu-ray player there isn't a whole lot of difference in visual quality between home and theater viewing.
The one thing I can't really get at home is a decent 3D movie.
That may change as 3D televisions become more common... But, for now, if I want to see 3D I have to go in to the theater. And these days that's about the only thing that will get me to pay for a ticket.
By and large, it doesn't seem like anyone really wants 3D.
I do.
I wouldn't say it belongs in every single film made... But it's a handy tool, just like pyrotechnics or green screens or digital effects. Sure, right now it's going to get abused... Just like every new gadget and gizmo before it. But once folks figure out how to make it work, and figure out where it is appropriate, it'll make a nice addition to the toolbox.
If the story doesn't need 3D to be effective, why force people to pay the extra money?
Folks don't go to see a movie for a story. If all you wanted was a story you'd read a book or listen to a radio play. Folks go to a movie to see the story played-out on the screen. They're looking for visual stimulation. That's the whole reason why there's a wardrobe department, and folks in makeup, and special effects, and dramatic locations.
3D adds to the visual spectacle.
1) You can remove the partition easy enough.
Yes, you can. Too easily, in fact.
Sure, if you have Windows (or whatever your favorite OS is) install media then you probably don't care about this recovery partition. It's a good way to get a little extra space on the disk.
But if you don't have install media and you remove the partition? Now you're screwed.
I mean I reinstalled my laptop with Win 7 Pro, instead of the included Home version, but I left the recovery partition. Why not? It isn't a problem or anything.
The problem I have with a recovery partition isn't the space it takes up... It's the fact that it lives on my HDD.
If I get a nasty virus that starts eating my PC, it can get at that recovery partition. If my HDD fails, that recovery partition is gone. If I upgrade my HDD, I've got no media to use to install Windows on that new disk.
A recovery partition is entirely too vulnerable. I much prefer a physical disc.
Personally, I don't want a recovery CD, I want the Windows Install CD and a Driver CD. I just bought an HP which reminded me to make my one set of recovery disks (which I did, 3 DVD's). However, what I really wanted to do was format it and re-install windows to get rid of all the junk they pre-loaded on it.
That combination of a Windows install CD and a driver CD is basically what we're referring to.
Various vendors package things somewhat differently... Some have an all-in-one recovery disc that installs Windows, loads drivers, and installs OEM software. Others just include a basic Windows disc, a driver disc, and a few software discs.
The problem isn't that there's no disc specifically labeled "recovery" - the problem is that there's no physical media that can be used to install Windows on a cleanly formatted HDD.
Sure, if you've got your own Windows install media, then you aren't going to need another disc. But many folks don't. Many folks only have the discs that came with the computer, as well as whatever other software (games/apps/whatever) they've purchased.
If they could fit enough into the BIOS to have it connect to their servers and redownload your OS in case of drive failure, why the hell not go that route?
That assumes you're going to have working bandwidth when you need to reload your computer.
If it was invented in 1962 the patents will have expired. What's to stop the Chinese just making their own "PandaGlass" or whatever?
Pandas aren't strong like gorillas. They're cute and cuddly. Who wants to cuddle with a chunk of glass?
I have long thought that it is a scam that you have to pay a third party to do electronic preparation and filing like the usual services (TurboTax, etc.) provide.
The government made the convoluted tax system - they should make the web-based application to navigate it.
I'd have to ask my wife what website she uses... She always does our taxes...
But we always do them on-line. For free. We have no trouble, usually have them filed well ahead of time, usually get whatever refund may be coming before other folks have even filed their taxes.
Read the Fucking Article.
Why the hell would I do that? This is Slashdot.
I'm having trouble understanding how the Cherynobl meltdown has anything to do with wild boar populations in southern Germany. The article specifically mentions Bavaria, a region a thousand miles (and several countries) away. I admit I'm just an ignorant American, but surely this doesn't make any sense?
I'm just as clueless... But I'm going to assume that you've got radioactive dust drifting in the wind. Maybe?
Do we REALLY want them to sell broadband to anyone even if they know the service will be shit? As far as I can see, this isn't the crux of the matter and I think Slashdot could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their editing.
I dunno...
If they know I'm not going to get anything better than 1 Mbps, I sure as hell don't want to be paying for a 5 Mbps connection.
But, at the same time, I don't want them telling me no, sorry, your lines aren't good enough for our service and I wind up stuck with dial-up.
I guess what I'd like to see is universal availability, with an attempt to match the pricing to the performance you're actually going to get. Which sounds like I'm asking for an awful lot, but I'm not. If they'd drop the pretense of an "unlimited" package and just be honest with folks - you get 2 GB a month, over that you're paying $X/byte - then the pricing would kind of work itself out. Folks with crappy lines that can't download too fast would be unlikely to exceed that monthly allotment. Folks with blazing fast connections that like to download everything they can find would pay more, since they're downloading more. Nobody would really have to do extensive line testing or modify fees or anything.
With the exception of "Standard Automotive HDMI cable" they all seem rather good, self explanatory names to me. Much better names than just "HDMI 1.4 cable" anyway. Besides, the packaging probably will still say HDMI 1.4 somewhere..?
I agree that the names are relatively self-explanatory... Even the automotive one seems pretty clear to me - if it isn't going in a car you probably don't want that cable.
But it seems like there's some redundancy and un-necessary detail. If "high speed" cables are tested up to 1080p resolution, they ought to work for lower resolutions as well, right? So why not just make that the new standard? If you make an HDMI cable, test it to that standard, and you know it'll work with pretty much anything.
The confusion isn't really going to come from the label, so much as the different types of cable available.
Say you buy a new TV, get it home, discover you need a cable to plug it in. So you go back out to the store. You know you need an HDMI cable because it says "HDMI" all over your TV and BD-player/DVR/receiver/whatever. But then you get to the aisle where the cables are and you see four different kinds of HDMI cables. Did you need a high speed HDMI cable? What resolution were you going to run your TV at? What's the highest resolution your receiver can output? Do you need ethernet with your HDMI cable?
Sure, your average geek probably has a good idea what the answer is to all that... But your average consumer probably doesn't. They just know they need an HDMI cable.
They admitted there was an error and as an apology gave them all a rather expensive game. That's pretty good customer service.
Yup, not bad at all.
Far too many companies these days would have insisted it wasn't their fault.
And I don't think anyone really would have expected much more than simply getting their account re-activated.
Valve could have given away pretty much anything... A copy of Portal or Half-Life or something else that's been around for a while. They certainly didn't need to give out a copy of a newer title like Left 4 Dead 2.
Good job guys! I wish more companies behaved this way...
If done the way TFS says, it's a good thing.
The problem is that teachers don't want to fail students, so the D students will get Cs instead of Fs.
Yup.
Frankly, I'm surprised folks are getting D's and F's in the first place. It seems like you'd have to actually try to get grades that low these days.
I can understand that they have to make PUBLIC websites and information (state, federal, etc) accessible, but, this almost implies they are going to require that private business (eg the note about small business exceptions) HAVE to put their websites up to some form of handicapped accessible standards?!?!
WTF?
That's nothing new. Private businesses like hotels and restaurants are currently required to meet the ADA standards. If you serve the public at large, you have to be able to serve folks with disabilities.
At least with these website regulations it should be relatively easy to meet them. It's all text/code anyway... Any special parsing will be done on the client's end. You just have to make sure to tag your images and make sure things are navigable. It isn't like you have to physically construct a ramp or anything.
In my hometown, a hardware store couldn't afford to put in an ADA-compliant ramp
If you can't afford an ADA-compliant ramp you've got bigger problems than wheelchair accessibility. It isn't like they're crafted out of solid gold or anything like that. Most of the family-owned places around here just have simple wooden ramps.
he ended up working for nearly minimum wage at Walmart and couldn't afford to put his daughters through college. Another result: his two employees lost their jobs.
Some people just seem to forget that the world doesn't owe them anything. If you're unemployed, that's nobody's problem except your own. Move to a city where you can find a job.
The landlord lost a tenant (the store sat unoccupied for 2 years, in part because everyone knew that the first business to move in would get sued for not having an ADA-compliant ramp.)
Seriously?
Nobody could afford to build a ramp? Not the landlord, none of the prospective renters? None of them?
But where do we stop in defining disabilities? If I have autism, does that mean I can sue a store for being too noisy and crowded? If I have a peanut allergy, does a Thai restaurant have to give you a hermetically sealed room and special food stored, prepared, and cooked away from everything else?
Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere.
And maybe it isn't drawn in a good place now.
I don't know. I'm able-bodied and could do just fine without the ADA right now, so I honestly haven't given it much thought.
But guidelines about ramps and braille lettering are useful for an awful lot of people. Hell, you don't even have to be straight-up disabled to appreciate a ramp... When I was moving out of our old apartment it was awfully nice to be able to wheel a dolly in and out, right up the ramp. And when I broke my leg it was far easier navigating ramps with my crutches than stairs.
If you just want to avoid frustration, you might enjoy something like The Path. It's an interesting bit of software... I'm not even sure if you can really call it a game. You can't really win or lose, you just explore the world and see what happens.
Games like Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, or Dragon Age vary a lot in frustration levels. Depending on what type of character you pick, who you put in your party, and what difficulty level you choose, you can have a very easy ride or some real challenge.
Portal is an absolutely terrific game. Tons of fun. But some of the levels are very frustrating.
You know Square-Enix bread and butter Final Fantasy? Well, of course what everyone talked about in Final Fantasy X was the story!
I haven't played a Final Fantasy game in years.
I have, however, played a number of very successful single-player games that owe pretty much all their success to a good storyline. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, Fallout (1, 2, and 3), Morrowind, Oblivion... Those are all games with relatively simple graphics, no multi-player, and relatively low challenge. What made all those games successful was the storyline.
I'm pretty sure that challenging gameplay and graphics are what sell games.
I'll agree that graphics sell games.
Nice graphics look good on the box. They're impressive on the demo kiosk. They immediately grab your attention and make you want to play.
As far as challenging gameplay goes... I'd suggest that your average gamer doesn't want to be challenged. They want to have fun, they want to feel like they're accomplishing something, they want to win, but they don't really want it to be challenging. Which is why single-player games are getting shorter and easier.
And it's also why games rely heavily on multi-player these days. You can easily find your preferred level of difficulty just by finding different players to compete against.
People read books for story. People do anything else for excitement.
So nobody watches movies for the story? Or television programs? Or plays?
Absolutely ever other form of entertainment on the planet is all about excitement?
I exclusively play multiplayer games, except on my phone when I want a quick game of Vexed or something to pass the time. Other than that, single player games are a little sad, and never as challenging as multiplayer. The way single player games are made challenging are to have bad guys with more strength/weapons/power than you, and/or cheating. Whereas QuakeLive is as good as the guys you're playing against, and given that it's full of clan players and people who've been playing quake for perhaps longer than they should have, it means that you're competing on level ground when it comes to player specs/weapons, but against people who know every last trick available (which you can learn should you be arsed). Who wants to play quakelive against bots? What would be the point?
You're only thinking of a very narrow subset of games.
Was Myst made more challenging by giving the bad guys more strength/weapons/power than the player? What about The Path? Or Braid? Or Portal?
Lots of games challenge players in different ways - challenge them to think through a situation, rather than relying on quick reflexes or memorizing a map's layout.
But I think you're missing the broader picture... A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete. A single-player game can present an interesting storyline in ways that a multi-player game cannot (or, at least, has not yet).
In a single-player game you can develop characters and settings. You can explore a world. You can show the consequences of your actions. You can have a whole story arc.
A multi-player game is generally about pure competition. Beat the other guy. Score more kills. Get more points.
It's kind of like comparing football to a novel.
Guess I'm sentimental, and wanted it all to be real for him.
It is real for him, regardless of whether it is a dream or not.
Just like those were real emotions that you were feeling, despite it all being fiction on a screen.
Hmm, and Comcast (and others) have been royally excoriated for fucking around with BT and have generally backed off.
Because of FCC regulation.
Hmm, and you are prevented from changing your DNS exactly how? How fucking hard is it to use OpenDNS?
That is precisely what I'm doing right now.
And it's a damn good thing that we currently have a largely neutral Internet, because that means my traffic to OpenDNS is treated just the same as my traffic to my ISP's DNS. If we didn't have a neutral Internet then my traffic to OpenDNS might be subject to throttling or surcharges.
This net neutrality bullshit is going to bite you idiots in the ass.
To be completely honest, you're probably right... But not for the reasons that you think you are. It isn't like the mythical Free Market is going to do any better. Stuff gets fucked up. It's just what happens.
If "not" neutral was a good idea WHY THE HELL ISN'T IT ACTIVELY BEING USED ALL OVER THE PLACE ALREADY?!??
It is.
I do all sorts of traffic shaping at work. We block various sites outright. We limit other sites to just a fraction of our total bandwidth. And some sites get priority treatment.
My personal motivation for this is to ensure that all the business-critical stuff we need is accessible.
Other folks might have multiple pipes, and shape traffic based on which route is going to cost them the least. Or you might base it on latency, or congestion. There's lots of ways to shape traffic, and lots of reasons to do it.
Right now, generally speaking, shaping is pretty much limited to private networks like mine. Once you get out to your ISP everything is generally treated the same. But the technology exists, and the motivation exists. The main reason ISPs aren't currently doing large scale shaping is because the legality is fuzzy right now.
Both sides of the debate would like to correct that. We all want to eliminate that fuzziness. The difference is that one side wants to make that kind of large scale shaping clearly legal, where the other side wants to make it clearly illegal.
If the two events were to be truly compared, then the First Amendment should have made anyone with a printing press unable to refuse to print and distribute whatever someone else wants based on content, and that includes the major newspapers of the time - the First Amendment did no such thing, but network neutrality will do if it were to be implemented as trumpeted on Slashdot.
You are correct that it isn't a very good analogy.
The first amendment was about giving the press the right to produce whatever (basically factual) content they wanted.
Network Neutrality is about giving all data traversing your network equal treatment, regardless of content.
But your counter-analogy is equally flawed.
ISPs do not, generally produce content. They simply transmit what others have produced. The Internet is not a single entity, it is a collective. When I sign up with an ISP it isn't because I want to be able to get to Google specifically, but because I want access to the collection of inter-connected networks that is The Internet. I expect to be able to view stuff on pretty much any random website. I expect to be able to get to my wife's blog just as easily as Google or Facebook.
I do not expect to have to wait twice as long to load my sister's wedding pictures because she happened to post them on Facebook instead of Flickr.
I just feel like he could have used a much more hard hitting example than that.
Harder hitting than virtual censorship?
If Daily Kos is only getting 56kbps, and Fox News gets 3Mbps, it's going to be hard as hell to get much information from Daily Kos. Oh, sure, they could do some kind of text-only version... But any images or video are basically going to be right out.
Ask yourself why is there such a mad rush to have FCC regulate the ISPs when there is really no problem with them discriminating between content providers in reality, only in theory.
So, I must have imagined all that stuff with Comcast screwing up BitTorrent?
And my ISP certainly hasn't been playing around with my DNS either, right?