Whenever my friend tells me about what he's up to in WoW I always ask him if he'll have finished the game when he does that. It never gets old.
If you ask me that question, I'd respond with "I hope not." But I do realize there are people who just can't handle that idea. They're driven to "win" or finish the game. Yet the nature of this kind of game makes these things highly subjective if not outright impossible.
That's an aspect of MMORPGs that I find interesting. Players will often dedicate the same amount of time they put towards any given hobby. But even though they're spending build-a-ship-in-a-bottle time to build up their character(s), they don't get the ship-in-the-bottle at the end. When the server plugs get pulled, everything is gone. Like it never existed. There's an almost tangible loss.
The thing is, this isn't the first intangible hobby. People also dedicate considerable time (and money) to their favorite sport(s). Yet at the end of a game, you're still left with no ship-in-a-bottle for the effort. You do get the experience. And maybe you have some souvenir from the game to try and provide material representation of that experience.
So why is it so different with MMORPGs? An Onyxia t-shirt or pennant doesn't quite do it. And perhaps the reason is that we fool ourselves in to accepting too much of the digital illusion. With a sports game, you know how long its going to last - the game clock is there from the beginning (baseball notwithstanding). With an MMORPG you can believe it will last forever.
I would be upset. Especially since they are reportedly not allowed to sell it. I mean, they work at Google, so isn't it likely that most of them already have a phone, perhaps even a gphone, and are probably already tied into a contract. So the phone is at best useless to most of them and at worst, an additional monthly cost.
That's interesting. I would say the scenarios is more along the lines of:
At best - exactly what they've been wanting since they first heard of the thing.
At worse - another gadget they don't use much cluttering up a drawer or desk.
Keep in mind that these things do have a use without a SIM card plugged in to them. And sitting idle costs nothing; nobody is forcing them to get service.
I know it's no $20-$30k, but I wouldn't be upset over an unlocked smartphone. It's a hell of a lot better than many past employers gave me.
Kudos to Valleywag for taking a non-issue and trying so valiantly to spin it negative. And a tip of the hat to the submitter for managing to paraphrase without getting in the way of the spin.
And if XP lost all the crap and became a game only OS then I could live with that as well.
I'm not getting my head around why this appeals to you so much. Maybe its just how I look at it.
For me - Linux is great. I work in it. I dabble with various hobbies in it. When I want to game, its nice to just swing over to a virtual desktop and fire up a game for an hour or two (or hell - a weekend lost to downing bosses and fighting battlegrounds). A specialized gaming OS would mean I have to reboot (I couldn't imagine running in an emulator but hey - we're getting there).
What you're asking for is a specialized OS. That seems to go against the nature of multi-purpose computing. That environment has been producing some very interesting effects over the years and pushing games that didn't exist anywhere else. Narrow the focus and you might miss the Next Big Thing.
Even consoles are wandering away from their specialized roots. PS3 and Xbox are trying very hard to be all things entertainment; gaming, media, web browsing... it goes on. Unless the market gets burned by this, it is the thing of the future. Even my Tivo wants me to use it to order a pizza (apparently unsatisfied with just recording my TV, delivering movies / internet TV shows / podcasts, and streaming internet music stations).
While I don't really disagree with your assessment, I find it interesting to note that many people have blamed the fall of the Amiga as a platform on it being too heavily marketed as a games platform rather than being for "work stuff".
Ironic that now it seems that one of the major obstacles preventing a particular platform's wide level acceptance is the presence of games.
I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to the Amiga. Which is odd, since I was such a fan of the C=64. One of my good friends at that time picked up an Amiga and it did look pretty interesting. But I never went for one. And that has me really wondering.
I find myself disagreeing with the assessment at face value; it wasn't gaming vs. business that caused the Amiga trouble. There was a more fundamental issue that could have been misinterpreted as business computing. That issue was commodity platforms.
Business computing was important. That's what got IBM to jump in to the fray. And IBM's hat to be tossed in to the microcomputer ring was the IBM PC. IBM themselves are important. IBM lends a lot of credibility, demands loyal budget spending, and simply draws attention from those who didn't realize a revolution was going on around them. But it doesn't end there.
It really starts with Compaq. Compaq re-engineers the gatekeeper to IBM PC -- the BIOS. Then Compaq produces a better, cheaper "IBM PC" than IBM. And so begins the clone wars (stop transposing that in a Yoda voice).
The introduction of clones really means that what used to be IBM's platform instead becomes a commodity platform. And commodities are really difficult to deal with in the business world. What we have is a force that sweeps away almost anything competing against it (and more than a few competing within it). Commodore was one such entity that tried to stand against, instead of figure out how to surf, that wave (Microsoft sells surfboards).
Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and Ventrilo) client for it. For the time being though my Mac is thankfully able to handle both those tasks.
I use Wine. I've had minor issues in the past. But things are pretty decent right now. WoTLK seems to have handed me a performance hit (although I have to admit I haven't done a lot to tweak performance - either in game settings, addons, or wine).
There's a distinct difference between a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing sanity and a Machiavellian cabal intent on extending its own power and curtailing Constitutional freedom (which is only slightly different than an Administration that can't deal with reality and is convinced its way is the best way no matter what Constitutional freedoms it has to trample or facts it has to ignore in the process).
It's possible the gov't patented this so they could share the information with other people and not worry about some private company patenting the idea and then sueing everyone else for us it. Basically - patent to allow people to use it.
Couldn't they do the same thing by, say, publishing a paper?
Just a quick check confirms that the not-so-much-a-rule-as-a-guide banner reads "News for nerds" not "News to 4D6963" (or even "News to Slashdot colors").
Devil is probably in the details. I'm constantly running Flash constantly in Firefox both at work and home. I'd say "no crashes" except I think Firefox did drop out on me once last month.
That's not to say its not happening to you (or even a bunch of folks). That's the nature of these things. But I'm willing to guess that its not happening to everyone.
And again - it probably has to do with your environment; said details I noted before. Since I mentioned details... I don't have the details for my home environment handy (other than its Debian Unstable) but my work laptop is as follows:
I'm amazed that something this good emerged from regulatory agencies under the Bush Administration. I suspect that some staffers are thinking very hard about what happens to their career once government regulation again gets, as Obama puts it, "adult supervision".
I'd be surprised to find out that George Bush is an omnipotent god with an all-seeing eye. Likewise, I'd find it difficult to believe that his administration is ran by a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing any sanity they come across (stroking pet cats optional).
Instead, this act is likely done by one of the many bureaucrats that are doing their best in their little corner of the Government. They likely operate at a level that does not require the attentions of the President's inner (or even several-times-removed) circle. And thus they plug along doing their thing... and hey, occasionally getting things right (competency will either lead to a touch of insanity or flight from Civil Service).
I agree with this. MS' "I'm a PC" campaign was dated and uninspired. I have no idea why any Linux organization would want to associate themselves with it.
But before you hit "Flamebait" and censor me into oblivion, LISTEN. Seriously. This is why 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are NOT going to be the "Year Of The Linux Desktop"... because all the freetards (to quote Fake Steve) can do is just copy the two big names in the industry.
Alright. Tell ya what - let's ignore the fact that this is flamebait. We'll just gloss over that and pretend like this is honest conversation.
If you're going to quote someone, feel free to use their real name. "Fake Steve" is Daniel Lyons. Not only eos this journalist excel in the flamebait style that you enjoy, he's been incredibly wrong in his opinions and prognostications. Considering the source, "freetard" is a badge of honor.
So let's get to the sliver of meat in the middle of all this gristle. Originality. We've heard that one before. Heck - Microsoft has heard it plenty of times before too. But the kicker here is that it doesn't matter. Think about that for a minute.
No. Really. Listen. Let it sink in.
Originality goes hand in hand with "innovation" - another Microsoft buzz word. The thing is, Microsoft is hardly the bastion of either. And they don't have to be. Nobody cares about originality.
Well - OK, I admit that's a loaded statement. We're all abuzz about new features. And things do change. But drastic changes aren't always good and they're rarely welcomed.
Change often comes in small steps. And originality is also often small, but admittedly novel, alterations of ideas that came before. That's often pushed as the nature of Open Source. But it is really the nature of the IT Industry as a whole. "Innovation" not withstanding.
That doesn't mean that original ideas aren't welcomed. But simply that they're not as important as some pundits would make them out to be. They never have been.
Incidently, while we're proping up the "two big names in the industry" and panning OSS it might be worth noting that even Microsoft is learning from OSS (heck - they already use GPL software). You see - building on the state of the art. It's not just an OSS idea.
"No sir, I do not believe you are 'doing your part to prevent global warming.' Now please stop spitting. No, I don't believe the other patrons need to be cooled."
Ahhh. I'm saying that Debian is just as capable of automagic updates as Windows (and if I remember right, had that capability before Windows). I'm not making the claim that they're substantially different - if anything I'm saying they're similar. Which would counter the idea that one is superior to the other.
Internet Explorer may not have an auto-update system, but Microsoft Windows has an update system rivaling that of Ubuntu and OS X in automaticness, if not scale.
I can see why you would say that. But you're technically wrong (with the assumption I understand what you're saying by "automaticness").
Debian has long been very capable of automagic updates. Apt is very capable and a little crontab is all you need to automate your daily package managment. Heck - there are even multiple packages out now to do it for you.
The question has always been - do you really want to do that? And because that question exists, the ability is not default.
As an aside, the major reason I see for automagic updates is non-technical end-users. To that end, desktop-oriented systems like Ubuntu have pretty decent update notifications enabled by default (although updates are not automatically applied - even though the option is available).
Well, not always dated, necessarily. Take the B-52, for example. Yeah, the airframe is old, but the avionics and control systems have been significantly upgraded since the planes were originally built. As I understand it, the space shuttle has also gone through multiple upgrade cycles.
You're right. I didn't mean to imply that all tech on any given airframe remains static since the date of manufacture. These systems do get upgraded over time - almost everything is modular. In fact, one of the systems I worked on wasn't produced until 1986 and the airframe manufacture date was 1969.
Frankly, I don't know who to admire more - the engineers who build these things, or the engineers who have to go back over them and upgrade the designs.
I know I cursed the engineers more than a few times while squeezing in to tight spaces trying to replace FRUs that had been tucked away in cavities never designed for the equipment in question. Not that I envied their job.
My team and I were getting set up to work in a phased maintenance hanger. I was a new troop and this was my first Real Duty Assignment. Were were in the shadow of a real aircraft. I was drinking it all in. I look up at the tail of the bird we were about to take to task.
"Alright," I say, "I know the big numbers are the squadron and the tail number for the aircraft. But what are those two small numbers in front of the tail number?" My boss looks over and replies, "oh - that's the year of manufacture."
"Woah," I say in awe, "this thing is older than I am!" My boss turns to me... looks me over and sighs, "I'm getting too old."
It's not that these aircraft aren't well maintained. But they are well used. And they consist of very dated (if effective) technology that tends to be utilitarian in design to begin with.
But having said that - sitting in the seat of a jet fighter is an impressive sight. Even if you know the history of the technology in front of you. There's a cool factor that only a small percentage of people have enough exposure to eventually wear off.
I've never set foot on an actual shuttle. But I imagine the training mockups are close enough. And they impressed the same cool factor I got from both real and training mockups (we used to log unbooked time in the trainers) for the fighters I used to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever my friend tells me about what he's up to in WoW I always ask him if he'll have finished the game when he does that. It never gets old.
If you ask me that question, I'd respond with "I hope not." But I do realize there are people who just can't handle that idea. They're driven to "win" or finish the game. Yet the nature of this kind of game makes these things highly subjective if not outright impossible.
That's an aspect of MMORPGs that I find interesting. Players will often dedicate the same amount of time they put towards any given hobby. But even though they're spending build-a-ship-in-a-bottle time to build up their character(s), they don't get the ship-in-the-bottle at the end. When the server plugs get pulled, everything is gone. Like it never existed. There's an almost tangible loss.
The thing is, this isn't the first intangible hobby. People also dedicate considerable time (and money) to their favorite sport(s). Yet at the end of a game, you're still left with no ship-in-a-bottle for the effort. You do get the experience. And maybe you have some souvenir from the game to try and provide material representation of that experience.
So why is it so different with MMORPGs? An Onyxia t-shirt or pennant doesn't quite do it. And perhaps the reason is that we fool ourselves in to accepting too much of the digital illusion. With a sports game, you know how long its going to last - the game clock is there from the beginning (baseball notwithstanding). With an MMORPG you can believe it will last forever.
It never does.
I would be upset. Especially since they are reportedly not allowed to sell it. I mean, they work at Google, so isn't it likely that most of them already have a phone, perhaps even a gphone, and are probably already tied into a contract. So the phone is at best useless to most of them and at worst, an additional monthly cost.
That's interesting. I would say the scenarios is more along the lines of:
At best - exactly what they've been wanting since they first heard of the thing.
At worse - another gadget they don't use much cluttering up a drawer or desk.
Keep in mind that these things do have a use without a SIM card plugged in to them. And sitting idle costs nothing; nobody is forcing them to get service.
I know it's no $20-$30k, but I wouldn't be upset over an unlocked smartphone. It's a hell of a lot better than many past employers gave me.
Kudos to Valleywag for taking a non-issue and trying so valiantly to spin it negative. And a tip of the hat to the submitter for managing to paraphrase without getting in the way of the spin.
Did you just insult mosquitoes?
And if XP lost all the crap and became a game only OS then I could live with that as well.
I'm not getting my head around why this appeals to you so much. Maybe its just how I look at it.
For me - Linux is great. I work in it. I dabble with various hobbies in it. When I want to game, its nice to just swing over to a virtual desktop and fire up a game for an hour or two (or hell - a weekend lost to downing bosses and fighting battlegrounds). A specialized gaming OS would mean I have to reboot (I couldn't imagine running in an emulator but hey - we're getting there).
What you're asking for is a specialized OS. That seems to go against the nature of multi-purpose computing. That environment has been producing some very interesting effects over the years and pushing games that didn't exist anywhere else. Narrow the focus and you might miss the Next Big Thing.
Even consoles are wandering away from their specialized roots. PS3 and Xbox are trying very hard to be all things entertainment; gaming, media, web browsing... it goes on. Unless the market gets burned by this, it is the thing of the future. Even my Tivo wants me to use it to order a pizza (apparently unsatisfied with just recording my TV, delivering movies / internet TV shows / podcasts, and streaming internet music stations).
While I don't really disagree with your assessment, I find it interesting to note that many people have blamed the fall of the Amiga as a platform on it being too heavily marketed as a games platform rather than being for "work stuff".
Ironic that now it seems that one of the major obstacles preventing a particular platform's wide level acceptance is the presence of games.
I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to the Amiga. Which is odd, since I was such a fan of the C=64. One of my good friends at that time picked up an Amiga and it did look pretty interesting. But I never went for one. And that has me really wondering.
I find myself disagreeing with the assessment at face value; it wasn't gaming vs. business that caused the Amiga trouble. There was a more fundamental issue that could have been misinterpreted as business computing. That issue was commodity platforms.
Business computing was important. That's what got IBM to jump in to the fray. And IBM's hat to be tossed in to the microcomputer ring was the IBM PC. IBM themselves are important. IBM lends a lot of credibility, demands loyal budget spending, and simply draws attention from those who didn't realize a revolution was going on around them. But it doesn't end there.
It really starts with Compaq. Compaq re-engineers the gatekeeper to IBM PC -- the BIOS. Then Compaq produces a better, cheaper "IBM PC" than IBM. And so begins the clone wars (stop transposing that in a Yoda voice).
The introduction of clones really means that what used to be IBM's platform instead becomes a commodity platform. And commodities are really difficult to deal with in the business world. What we have is a force that sweeps away almost anything competing against it (and more than a few competing within it). Commodore was one such entity that tried to stand against, instead of figure out how to surf, that wave (Microsoft sells surfboards).
Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and Ventrilo) client for it. For the time being though my Mac is thankfully able to handle both those tasks.
I use Wine. I've had minor issues in the past. But things are pretty decent right now. WoTLK seems to have handed me a performance hit (although I have to admit I haven't done a lot to tweak performance - either in game settings, addons, or wine).
Does it really matter if, one day, Windows is a gaming OS and serious stuff gets done in, say, Linux?
Yeah, it does. I don't want to have to waste time and resources on Windows. If I was going to do that, I'd buy a console... which is the why of Xbox.
There's a distinct difference between a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing sanity and a Machiavellian cabal intent on extending its own power and curtailing Constitutional freedom (which is only slightly different than an Administration that can't deal with reality and is convinced its way is the best way no matter what Constitutional freedoms it has to trample or facts it has to ignore in the process).
It's possible the gov't patented this so they could share the information with other people and not worry about some private company patenting the idea and then sueing everyone else for us it. Basically - patent to allow people to use it.
Couldn't they do the same thing by, say, publishing a paper?
Just a quick check confirms that the not-so-much-a-rule-as-a-guide banner reads "News for nerds" not "News to 4D6963" (or even "News to Slashdot colors").
Devil is probably in the details. I'm constantly running Flash constantly in Firefox both at work and home. I'd say "no crashes" except I think Firefox did drop out on me once last month.
That's not to say its not happening to you (or even a bunch of folks). That's the nature of these things. But I'm willing to guess that its not happening to everyone.
And again - it probably has to do with your environment; said details I noted before. Since I mentioned details... I don't have the details for my home environment handy (other than its Debian Unstable) but my work laptop is as follows:
Flash:
Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12
Firefox:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.4) Gecko/2008111318 Ubuntu/8.10 (intrepid) Firefox/3.0.4
I'm amazed that something this good emerged from regulatory agencies under the Bush Administration. I suspect that some staffers are thinking very hard about what happens to their career once government regulation again gets, as Obama puts it, "adult supervision".
I'd be surprised to find out that George Bush is an omnipotent god with an all-seeing eye. Likewise, I'd find it difficult to believe that his administration is ran by a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing any sanity they come across (stroking pet cats optional).
Instead, this act is likely done by one of the many bureaucrats that are doing their best in their little corner of the Government. They likely operate at a level that does not require the attentions of the President's inner (or even several-times-removed) circle. And thus they plug along doing their thing... and hey, occasionally getting things right (competency will either lead to a touch of insanity or flight from Civil Service).
It's been done before. The longest version that I remember goes like this:
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates"
That particular phrase is fairly old too - it predates Microsoft's campaign by years.
I agree with this. MS' "I'm a PC" campaign was dated and uninspired. I have no idea why any Linux organization would want to associate themselves with it.
But before you hit "Flamebait" and censor me into oblivion, LISTEN. Seriously. This is why 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are NOT going to be the "Year Of The Linux Desktop"... because all the freetards (to quote Fake Steve) can do is just copy the two big names in the industry.
Alright. Tell ya what - let's ignore the fact that this is flamebait. We'll just gloss over that and pretend like this is honest conversation.
If you're going to quote someone, feel free to use their real name. "Fake Steve" is Daniel Lyons. Not only eos this journalist excel in the flamebait style that you enjoy, he's been incredibly wrong in his opinions and prognostications. Considering the source, "freetard" is a badge of honor.
So let's get to the sliver of meat in the middle of all this gristle. Originality. We've heard that one before. Heck - Microsoft has heard it plenty of times before too. But the kicker here is that it doesn't matter. Think about that for a minute.
No. Really. Listen. Let it sink in.
Originality goes hand in hand with "innovation" - another Microsoft buzz word. The thing is, Microsoft is hardly the bastion of either. And they don't have to be. Nobody cares about originality.
Well - OK, I admit that's a loaded statement. We're all abuzz about new features. And things do change. But drastic changes aren't always good and they're rarely welcomed.
Change often comes in small steps. And originality is also often small, but admittedly novel, alterations of ideas that came before. That's often pushed as the nature of Open Source. But it is really the nature of the IT Industry as a whole. "Innovation" not withstanding.
That doesn't mean that original ideas aren't welcomed. But simply that they're not as important as some pundits would make them out to be. They never have been.
Incidently, while we're proping up the "two big names in the industry" and panning OSS it might be worth noting that even Microsoft is learning from OSS (heck - they already use GPL software). You see - building on the state of the art. It's not just an OSS idea.
Legumes.
The Weather Underground wasn't an approved political party, the Democrats were and are.
I wasn't aware that the Democrats bomb Federal buildings and organize riots.
"No sir, I do not believe you are 'doing your part to prevent global warming.' Now please stop spitting. No, I don't believe the other patrons need to be cooled."
Ahhh. I'm saying that Debian is just as capable of automagic updates as Windows (and if I remember right, had that capability before Windows). I'm not making the claim that they're substantially different - if anything I'm saying they're similar. Which would counter the idea that one is superior to the other.
Your going to need some more marketing spin on it.
"Vista Ready."
In what manner is this substantially different?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking me to defend a position or play a game of "which one of these things are different?"
Internet Explorer may not have an auto-update system, but Microsoft Windows has an update system rivaling that of Ubuntu and OS X in automaticness, if not scale.
I can see why you would say that. But you're technically wrong (with the assumption I understand what you're saying by "automaticness").
Debian has long been very capable of automagic updates. Apt is very capable and a little crontab is all you need to automate your daily package managment. Heck - there are even multiple packages out now to do it for you.
The question has always been - do you really want to do that? And because that question exists, the ability is not default.
As an aside, the major reason I see for automagic updates is non-technical end-users. To that end, desktop-oriented systems like Ubuntu have pretty decent update notifications enabled by default (although updates are not automatically applied - even though the option is available).
Well, not always dated, necessarily. Take the B-52, for example. Yeah, the airframe is old, but the avionics and control systems have been significantly upgraded since the planes were originally built. As I understand it, the space shuttle has also gone through multiple upgrade cycles.
You're right. I didn't mean to imply that all tech on any given airframe remains static since the date of manufacture. These systems do get upgraded over time - almost everything is modular. In fact, one of the systems I worked on wasn't produced until 1986 and the airframe manufacture date was 1969.
Frankly, I don't know who to admire more - the engineers who build these things, or the engineers who have to go back over them and upgrade the designs.
I know I cursed the engineers more than a few times while squeezing in to tight spaces trying to replace FRUs that had been tucked away in cavities never designed for the equipment in question. Not that I envied their job.
My team and I were getting set up to work in a phased maintenance hanger. I was a new troop and this was my first Real Duty Assignment. Were were in the shadow of a real aircraft. I was drinking it all in. I look up at the tail of the bird we were about to take to task.
"Alright," I say, "I know the big numbers are the squadron and the tail number for the aircraft. But what are those two small numbers in front of the tail number?" My boss looks over and replies, "oh - that's the year of manufacture."
"Woah," I say in awe, "this thing is older than I am!" My boss turns to me... looks me over and sighs, "I'm getting too old."
It's not that these aircraft aren't well maintained. But they are well used. And they consist of very dated (if effective) technology that tends to be utilitarian in design to begin with.
But having said that - sitting in the seat of a jet fighter is an impressive sight. Even if you know the history of the technology in front of you. There's a cool factor that only a small percentage of people have enough exposure to eventually wear off.
I've never set foot on an actual shuttle. But I imagine the training mockups are close enough. And they impressed the same cool factor I got from both real and training mockups (we used to log unbooked time in the trainers) for the fighters I used to maintain.