How's about simply using a database dump? What's the point of introducing an XML parser when you already have an SQL parser at the ready?
Re:way to shit up the thread, everyone
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 1
I understand that you have your knickers in a twist and must find things to complain about.
Then you don't understand much, and what you do understand is wrong.
Do you also avoid Linux distributions because of their fanboys, who have nothing to do with technical merit?
Yes. I don't see why you have a tough time grasping that. There are too many different Linux distributions to try them all just like there are too many different bands to hear them all. It is a perfectly reasonable screening criteria to say "well, everyone who appears to be a fan of that one also appears to be an asshole, so I'll just try something else." You might have a point of we were discussing a less diverse topic. As it stands, I think I'll manage a pretty fulfilling life without listening to "mc chris".
There is no evidence that this attitude springs from the invididual we're discussing himself, so you're just making an unfounded snap decision based on your own prejudices.
You're absolutely right, but where is the rebuttal by "mc chris" if the article is so completely out of character for him? Are you saying he might not have know he was getting a slashvertisement? That he didn't notice an increase in traffic after the article was posted? Never found his way back to Slashdot to post "hey, why the hell did such an elitist jerk submit this article?"
My point about "why would you care?" was not meant to indicate that you should never try new things, but that your negative attitude was unproductive and thus unwelcome - at least to me.
Then you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I was explaining why others were posting negatively. In fact, all the negativism was from those people and those who responded with "just go away" comments like yours. It's the completely wrong approach to PR unless you're simply trying to appeal to those who can only rub brain cells together enough to make a decision based on "trendy".
Naturally I am not qualified to speak for anyone else, but it appears that a number of people agree with me on most points, as my number of fans continues to rise, and more rapidly than my freaks.
Yes, and Windows must be the best OS because the most people use it. Like I said, you are judged by the company you keep. Being a fan of your illogical ranting says nearly as much about them as it does about you. That's why Slashdot bothers with the "friend of a foe" relationship.
By responding with "you win; I'm a loser; enjoy your mutual-masturbatory clique" you yourself are cutting yourself off from new material, which I feel invalidates your own statement about encountering new material. You're not really interested in finding something new, you just want to do something for which you need no practice: complain.
That's so cute; because I apply a little critical thinking I'm whining and complaining. That I'm cutting myself off is not news, since I explicitly state that it what I intend to do in this situation! Again, the way to introduce an artist is to say "give this a listen and see if you like it" not like the article approached it with "you should already have this guy's stuff and love it . . . if you're COOL!" That is so fucking juvenile a way to promote an artist that, yes, I'll find some some more approachable artist to "discover". That you're defending it says volumes about you and, by extension, volumes about those who have marked you a friend. But you can take solace in the fact that if you can be right, at least there are so very many who are willing to be wrong with you.
Re:way to shit up the thread, everyone
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 1
If you don't know who this guy is, then why would you care? Just move on and find some other story to piss and moan in.
Again, wrong attitude. If you only care about things you already know, you'll never care about anything because at some point your knowledge about everything is zero. By your logic, nobody should be a fan of "mc chris" because there was a time when they "didn't know who this guy is". It's not about pissing and moaning, it's about the simple logic you and others have failed to demonstrate.
Also, if you are repelled from a musical act simply because you don't like its fans, then you are at least as ridiculous as the people who are saying that you should already be a fan.
This also makes no sense. The main problem I have is with an artist's "you should know me; I'm a star!" attitude. The secondary problem is the moron fans who can only mimic "you should know him; he's a star; you must be an unhip loser!" It's quite reasonable for me to respond with "you win; I'm a loser; enjoy your mutual-masturbatory clique".
You're making silly decisions based on what someone else wants you to think.
No, I'm judging people by the company they keep. It's the same reason I just "unfriended" someone who listed you as a friend. That you don't understand these very basic aspects of social interaction is very telling.
Re:way to shit up the thread, everyone
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i can't fucking believe all the negative comments in here. if you don't know who mc chris is, or you don't like him, stay the fuck away!
Wrong attitude. The article, and you, start with the misguided premise that everyone should know this guy. Rather than inviting those of us without a clue to learn more, you're getting antagonist and pushing people away who might otherwise give it a listen. I like some rap, but I certainly do not like the self-important bullshit that surrounds it. Someone saying I should already be a fan essentially results in me never being a fan, and that is the camp Slashdot, and you, have put "mc chris". Bang-up job, boys . . .
The secondary market encourages a playing style amongst its 'harvesters' that is detrimental to the role playing aspects of the primary market and also to the experience of the other players in the game
Finally a good counter-argument.:-) You're absolutely right, but I would argue that a game that can be scripted/farmed/camped/whatever is not the place to go looking for a good RPG experience. The blame again lies with the companies and not the players. This is already getting covered in other articles where people are correctly pointing out that the solution is for games to stop the predictable spawn points. Regardless, it's totally natural for an environmental advantage to be exploited; being part of a MMORPG changes nothing about that. I'm not going to fault the players for being successful in the game and I'm not going to fault them for establishing trade out of the game. They are doing exactly what every intelligent person should expect them to be doing.
If the TOS says that an alternate market is illegal, guess what.
IS CHEATING.
No, it isn't. You are confusing what is legal with what is right, inasmuch as those terms apply to a MMORPG world. Again, the analogy is to the ruler (game company) who makes a law (TOS) against free trade (selling outside the game) because they want all the money (because they want all the money!:-) for themselves. I would argue that it is not the selling that is wrong, but it's TOS that prohibits the selling that is wrong. It's not cheating because the economies are still fair. Things are merely exchanged, and make no mistake that they can be exchanged for any reason and not just legal tender. It only becomes cheating if someone in the company decides to twiddle a few bits and give themselves a bunch of rare items in order to sell them, devaluing them in the process of reaping personal gain. Note that in that case it still is not the players cheating, but rather just another case of those in power abusing their position.
I wasn't talking about cost of entry (there is a cost to buy a Monopoly board and it is greater than zero) and you know it.
Uh, of course I know it; that's why I brought it up! You weren't offering a parity example, so I helped you out. If you're upset that that you picked a bad example, don't blame me. As for Monopoly costing money, again, a parity relationship is that the game is a "server" that can host 6 (or whatever the recommend max is for Monopoly) "clients". To play on a server, I don't necessarily have to pay money, but if I do (which is the case for every MMORPG I can think of) then that establishes an exchange rate between game currency and other, "real" currency.
I have no problems with everyone paying the same basic fee to play.
Then I don't get your complaint. Everyone is paying the same fee to play. It's just that some people are paying other people for time they've already spent in the game. Instead of maintaining my own garden, I get fruits and vegetables from the store. Am I likewise cheating at real life because I'm paying someone else for farming instead of farming myself?
However, I don't really consider it fair that Joe Rich Kid who doesn't work gets to buy his items and go around being an ass to the newbies who played the game without resorting to a secondary (and usually against the rules of the game) market.
That makes no sense. Why are you concerned with exactly how someone in-game gets an item? As George Carlin said about prostitution: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" For the parity issue, why do you resent a rich guy paying for something when the game allows him to be given the same thing for free? Why shouldn't the guy you consider a loser be allowed to charge for the time and effort required to get that item?
Again, that whole "everyone is cheating" thing is a nice attempt to distract from the real issue here, but then you don't really have anything useful to add in your post so I'm not particularly surprised that you had to invent something.
If by "invent something" you mean "present a sound argument you are unable to refute", then I understand your "distraction". The basic fact is that money and time are both flowing into the game. That creates an economy just as sure as if you invested that time and money in a business in some other foreign land. It's understandable, if short-sighted, that the "ruler of the land" (i.e., the game company) is trying to lock everyone into an import-only economy, but there is value in trade and it is foolish to export nothing.
That way, Sam Highschool Kid who worked at minimum wage for 10 hours to play the damn game isn't stuck getting raped by the aforementioned Joe Rich Kid who just bought his way to the top.
You seem to mistakenly think that external money is somehow creating something that doesn't exist in the game. For JRK to do any raping, someone would have already had the items to sell! Without the secondary market, SHK would instead be raped by someone good enough to earn those items, so it'd actually be more brutal than what JRK could do. If you stopped to actually think about it you'd see that the secondary market actually helps equalize power in the game.
I'm not even sure why I bothered to explain this. If you don't get it, try reading again.
I assure you I "get it". The problem is that your argument is a poor one, and you refuse to admit your mistake. So, please, do not bother trying to further explain your current misguided viewpoint. Adopt a smarter viewpoint instead.
Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?
I sure hope so. Are you saying every Monopoly player has to pony up $50 of real money to play the game for the "opportunity" to acquire Boardwalk? And then pay another regular fee of $15 (again, real money) if they just want to stay in the game? That's a parity analogy; see the difference now?
I think that it's cheating, and I also think the PR person knows it.
I think neither you nor the PR person is thinking at all about the actual economies. By your ludicrous measure, everyone is cheating because everyone is paying money to do better in the game. Money is already flowing into the game, so a base exchange rate can be established. The only issue is that the game companies want all the money flowing to them, while players understand that a secondary market actually increases the value of the game for all parties. IGE should educate their PR person to that effect, and you should likewise educate yourself.
Oh snap! Taking down the scientific process in a single post!
It's no wonder you posted as AC, because you have an embarrassing misunderstanding of the scientific process.
That whole cycle of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation is clearly voodoo.
No, my point is precisely that they do not follow the process. Observation: these bits don't seem to be quite random. Hypothesis: human thought about current events is related to the non-randomness. Test (their version): look at the output and look at the news and assign a correlation. Test (scientific version): define what is a statistically significant variation from a random run and record when the machine produces it, define what makes a world event significant to the "global conciousness" and record all of those, then independently combine those two lists and show a correlation. I've tried to look through their site, but I can't find any lists of the machine output that is independent from global events, both which are significant by some scientific formula. Unless you can point to those links, go back to school.
Clue in, buddy, you just called gravity junk science because nobody knows the how of gravitational attraction in the absence of a Unifying Theory.
On the contrary, I more aptly called similar pseduo-astronomical "science" junk, like astrology. I have a great test for people who think my horoscope sign tells them something about me: I tell them to determine my sign by asking me significant questions about myself. It never seems to work out better than chance. Me letting go of a ball and it falling, though? 100% so far on that!
It seems pretty far-fetched to me, but I'm working my way through the Princeton site now and I've not seen any glaring errors in their methodology yet.
Are you dense? The "glaring errors" start right with the bloody name of the project! All their work is tainted by their focus on a vague "global consciousness". I'm open minded enough to say that it's possible their "random" isn't so random, but they mistakenly take the leap to correlate it with their desired conclusion instead of actually trying to determine the cause. It gets all the more outlandish when they attempt to increase correlation by deciding to do matches in both the past and the future. It's just junk science. Non-junk science would explain the how of the influence on a supposedly random source. That is, even if you give them the presumption of being right, you have gained no understanding. Even if they told you about huge spike today, you possess no knowledge you can act on tomorrow, and they'll be free to look at the paper over a range of days and simply say "Oh, yes, this is what caused it." It's beyond stupid, and if you don't see it then the site you should be at is here.
What if the photo of the tower at night is digitally edited to change the lighting configuration?
Also: what if a photo of the tower during the day is digitally edited to make it look like night, and especially if it is lit virtually in a way unlike however the current lighting setup is? What about a totally digital model rendered in a similarly non-infringing night display?
Mac fanboi-ism aside, Mac's still aren't going to do much better. Don't buy a Mac. Seriously. It's all about market share and Apple just doesn't have it.
My argument isn't about sheer numbers. Believe me, I'm well aware that the first PC target for a game should be Windows. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue is one of technology, and any technology Linux has finds a better commercial target on the Mac.
. . . or do you write your game for the 90% of computer users that use Windows? Any rational human being can make the simple decision to go with Windows.
Again, sheer numbers seem to have an advantage, but they don't tell the whole story. Not all computer users are gamers, which is why it often makes sense to target game consoles even before Windows PCs. Most importantly, the smart developer targets technologies that allow them to most easily reach the largest available market. When we consider Linux in that light, it is just another Unix platform with OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL/whatever, and in that market segment (regardless of how small it is compared to Windows) the Mac is by far the most attractive target for games. A Linux port might make sense, but never until a Mac port is done, so if a case can't be made for Mac support, what hope does Linux have?
The linked article is just bad, even beyond turning one page into four for ad purposes. Linux is not a game market, plain and simple. It isn't really even a desktop market. The only commercial alternative to Windows you can expect to make a statement is a Mac. With a Mac you don't have driver issues or the possibility of emulation for games. A Mac port will involve technologies that are also mostly available for Linux.
No game company with a clue would target Linux before they target the Mac, so you can count on the Linux game market always trailing that of the Mac (which isn't exactly stellar). CoolTechZone is beyond deluded to suggest that buying Linux games is going to do anything significant for the platform. It makes sense only on the surface; the real market dynamic points to the Mac as your best bet for eventually seeing more major games on Linux.
Perhaps they are more 'beautiful' (read: airbrushed) than the average woman, but they are still real. Real breasts, real hips, real legs.
But isn't that really more damaging to a woman's self-image? To be bombarded by images of those supposedly "real" women? To suggest that what is presented is what you need to be happy; to suggest it is a reasonable goal for every woman to strive for?
Women in videogames are pretty much 100% fantasy. Waists so thin they can wear a wedding ring as a belt, breasts so huge that no material existing today could truly contain their gravity, and of course, so much jiggle that any real woman would be unable to maintain her balance.
Again, isn't that all the more healthy for being so impossible? Certainly I can't be the only one who can hold a fantasy ideal distinct from a real ideal. I've seen some cinched-waist, implant-laden porn and it was not pretty. The video game image is most certainly not the one most woman try to achieve.
Real women, and attractive (insofar as they're not real) - not hard on the eyes, but not unrealistic either. As such, they're easier to realte to as well, for any gamer.
It's a fucking game. Either it is playable and makes sense in context, or it doesn't. Do you like whining that cartoon physics isn't accurate, too? I don't try to force everything to fit into one world view, and neither should you. If you want some woman to relate to, put down the controller and get out more.
Re:Here's why I love it:Gravity isn't just for pla
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
Nope. Counter example here. Just because your imagination is as limited as the monopolies you speak out against, don't assume that everyone is so hindered.
Granted, maybe I've been too generous in the past. For the most part, outlandish things were filed under Humor, or could be considered something of an in-joke (dups, typos, etc). This really goes beyond all that for me. In the last few months there seems to have been a serious increase in "slashvertisements", and this one is basically at the intellectual level of spam. "News for Nerds" it is not, and I see it as the start of a new pattern of article approval that is at the shark-jumping level. So CowboyNeal takes the hit for this one, but I'm just going to write off Slashdot completely if I see it again.
How do you convey vogon ships hanging in the air much like a brick doesn't on the big screen?
Seems pretty easy. You show the ship. Cut to pedestrian shouting something like "Oh my God, is that an alien spaceship!?" Then have Ford or Arthur running by say, "Well it ain't a brick, lady!"
Well, in posting this, it seems like you're suggesting a mass exodus. Any suggestions for replacement sites?
I haven't gone looking yet, but (with suitable irony) Engadget might be my first stop! Slashdot reposts so much from them, it seems only fitting that the middleman gets cut out in the end. But, in truth, I see a lot of the article links just in my regular browsing or via RSS aggregates, often days before they are even approved by Slashdot the first time. What I get out of Slashdot is mostly a place to discuss those articles, but I could just as easily go into Usenet if I wanted geeky discussions about specific topics.
In general, the time to switch platforms in any direction is when you've finally got everything running smoothly on your current platform of choice after some major disaster. I'm sure that seems illogical at first, but it stems from the fact that you do not want to switch when you're in the middle of an emergency. If things have always been smooth, there's no need to switch at all. If things are becoming a reoccurring mess, resolve to switch, but then still clean up the current mess! It'll make the switch that much easier when you're not trying to transition all the mission critical stuff a once.
Am I going to get burned by a sluggish overpriced laptop that is updated next month?
Only if you're a fucking idiot. If you think a Mac is sluggish today, why the hell would you buy it? It doesn't matter if a vendor is updating their systems next week or next year. Either what they're offering today meets your needs or it doesn't, and if it doesn't and you still buy it, then you should probably be fired (or beaten by friends and family). The march of technology still guarantees any purchase you make is an expense, not an investment. Stop pretending you can wait to "buy low" because you will never, ever be able to "sell high".
I declare this the moment Slashdot officially jumped the shark. Honestly, if this story doesn't get updated, pulled, or at least shuffled off to the humor section, I'm canning CowboyNeal stories in my preferences. Pulling any more crap report/editing like this (including the increasingly annoying Engadget related blog linking shit) only means I'll eventually ditch this site completely.
well, just open google, type in "UPS Fuel cell" and thell me you haven't seen them...
I haven't seen them. The products you're pointing to, and I could find only one place selling them, cost $20k! That does not support any assertion of technology we'll see in cell phones tomorrow. Hell, that's not even cost effective compared to a battery backup or a gas generator at the same level. When they can replace my $120 desktop UPS, then we might be able to start talking about fuel cell phones in a year or two.
if you tuned out during the first 3 seasons, you should tune in and give it a shot
No. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but TV doesn't work that way anymore. Series get cancelled in less than a season if they "suck" (by network standards), and anything that is allowed to run as long as Enterprise has is "good" (by network standards). What Paramount should have done if they wanted "good" (by viewer standards) is put a bullet in the head of Enterprise and then released a new Trek series is they wanted to tap Coto's talents. They didn't and so I'm not going to waste my time with a mere tweak of Enterprise "goodness" (by network standards).
They already have prototypes small enough to power a cell phone, and they're approaching the marketplace.
I disbelieve. Why? Because use in cell phones or other portable electronics is the cutting-fucking-edge of the technology. There is no reason to expect it in your pocket before you get it on your desktop/nightstand/porch/camper/whatever. For example, I would expect to see a UPS powered by fuel cells at least a good 2 years before a cell phone. A UPS is doing nothing 99.9% of the time, so it is silly to have it constantly keeping a battery is a "ready" state; that's a situation just begging for a fuel cell replacement. Do you really think they have a small, always working fuel cell just around the corner when they can't even get out something that could be the size of a microwave and still only be used a few hours a year? Bullshit.
Google News gets me all the headlines, sorted, categorised, prioratised and without corporate sponsorship biasing every article the same way.
What both you and MishaGray are getting at is that there really is precious little else worthwhile that is being done in the "aggregate" arena. What you mostly see is software that allows you pull feeds into a common collection, which is of questionable advantage. Beyond Google (and this dinky site of ours:-), there isn't much other software that is actually trying to cross reference feeds in order to provide an aggregate whole that truly is greater than the sum of its parts. The current state seem to parallel trying to read Usenet without the ability to cross post; three sites announce something and the crappy RSS software that is out there still forces you to read three announcements.
From what I gather about Rojo, it's a step in the wrong direction. Simply gathering up things found interesting by people I find interesting . . . doesn't interest me! The last thing I want is to slog through one person's link to InfoWorld, another person's link to a local paper's AP reprint, and a third friend's PC Magazine link all covering the same subject in pretty much the same manner. Google already does a fine job at that (for news, at least). If there is any future in RSS aggregates, it is definitely in doing "value added" processing, not just passing along someone else's links.
Slashdot Mirror
How's about simply using a database dump? What's the point of introducing an XML parser when you already have an SQL parser at the ready?
I understand that you have your knickers in a twist and must find things to complain about.
Then you don't understand much, and what you do understand is wrong.
Do you also avoid Linux distributions because of their fanboys, who have nothing to do with technical merit?
Yes. I don't see why you have a tough time grasping that. There are too many different Linux distributions to try them all just like there are too many different bands to hear them all. It is a perfectly reasonable screening criteria to say "well, everyone who appears to be a fan of that one also appears to be an asshole, so I'll just try something else." You might have a point of we were discussing a less diverse topic. As it stands, I think I'll manage a pretty fulfilling life without listening to "mc chris".
There is no evidence that this attitude springs from the invididual we're discussing himself, so you're just making an unfounded snap decision based on your own prejudices.
You're absolutely right, but where is the rebuttal by "mc chris" if the article is so completely out of character for him? Are you saying he might not have know he was getting a slashvertisement? That he didn't notice an increase in traffic after the article was posted? Never found his way back to Slashdot to post "hey, why the hell did such an elitist jerk submit this article?"
My point about "why would you care?" was not meant to indicate that you should never try new things, but that your negative attitude was unproductive and thus unwelcome - at least to me.
Then you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I was explaining why others were posting negatively. In fact, all the negativism was from those people and those who responded with "just go away" comments like yours. It's the completely wrong approach to PR unless you're simply trying to appeal to those who can only rub brain cells together enough to make a decision based on "trendy".
Naturally I am not qualified to speak for anyone else, but it appears that a number of people agree with me on most points, as my number of fans continues to rise, and more rapidly than my freaks.
Yes, and Windows must be the best OS because the most people use it. Like I said, you are judged by the company you keep. Being a fan of your illogical ranting says nearly as much about them as it does about you. That's why Slashdot bothers with the "friend of a foe" relationship.
By responding with "you win; I'm a loser; enjoy your mutual-masturbatory clique" you yourself are cutting yourself off from new material, which I feel invalidates your own statement about encountering new material. You're not really interested in finding something new, you just want to do something for which you need no practice: complain.
That's so cute; because I apply a little critical thinking I'm whining and complaining. That I'm cutting myself off is not news, since I explicitly state that it what I intend to do in this situation! Again, the way to introduce an artist is to say "give this a listen and see if you like it" not like the article approached it with "you should already have this guy's stuff and love it . . . if you're COOL!" That is so fucking juvenile a way to promote an artist that, yes, I'll find some some more approachable artist to "discover". That you're defending it says volumes about you and, by extension, volumes about those who have marked you a friend. But you can take solace in the fact that if you can be right, at least there are so very many who are willing to be wrong with you.
If you don't know who this guy is, then why would you care? Just move on and find some other story to piss and moan in.
Again, wrong attitude. If you only care about things you already know, you'll never care about anything because at some point your knowledge about everything is zero. By your logic, nobody should be a fan of "mc chris" because there was a time when they "didn't know who this guy is". It's not about pissing and moaning, it's about the simple logic you and others have failed to demonstrate.
Also, if you are repelled from a musical act simply because you don't like its fans, then you are at least as ridiculous as the people who are saying that you should already be a fan.
This also makes no sense. The main problem I have is with an artist's "you should know me; I'm a star!" attitude. The secondary problem is the moron fans who can only mimic "you should know him; he's a star; you must be an unhip loser!" It's quite reasonable for me to respond with "you win; I'm a loser; enjoy your mutual-masturbatory clique".
You're making silly decisions based on what someone else wants you to think.
No, I'm judging people by the company they keep. It's the same reason I just "unfriended" someone who listed you as a friend. That you don't understand these very basic aspects of social interaction is very telling.
i can't fucking believe all the negative comments in here. if you don't know who mc chris is, or you don't like him, stay the fuck away!
Wrong attitude. The article, and you, start with the misguided premise that everyone should know this guy. Rather than inviting those of us without a clue to learn more, you're getting antagonist and pushing people away who might otherwise give it a listen. I like some rap, but I certainly do not like the self-important bullshit that surrounds it. Someone saying I should already be a fan essentially results in me never being a fan, and that is the camp Slashdot, and you, have put "mc chris". Bang-up job, boys . . .
The secondary market encourages a playing style amongst its 'harvesters' that is detrimental to the role playing aspects of the primary market and also to the experience of the other players in the game
Finally a good counter-argument. :-) You're absolutely right, but I would argue that a game that can be scripted/farmed/camped/whatever is not the place to go looking for a good RPG experience. The blame again lies with the companies and not the players. This is already getting covered in other articles where people are correctly pointing out that the solution is for games to stop the predictable spawn points. Regardless, it's totally natural for an environmental advantage to be exploited; being part of a MMORPG changes nothing about that. I'm not going to fault the players for being successful in the game and I'm not going to fault them for establishing trade out of the game. They are doing exactly what every intelligent person should expect them to be doing.
If the TOS says that an alternate market is illegal, guess what. IS CHEATING.
No, it isn't. You are confusing what is legal with what is right, inasmuch as those terms apply to a MMORPG world. Again, the analogy is to the ruler (game company) who makes a law (TOS) against free trade (selling outside the game) because they want all the money (because they want all the money! :-) for themselves. I would argue that it is not the selling that is wrong, but it's TOS that prohibits the selling that is wrong. It's not cheating because the economies are still fair. Things are merely exchanged, and make no mistake that they can be exchanged for any reason and not just legal tender. It only becomes cheating if someone in the company decides to twiddle a few bits and give themselves a bunch of rare items in order to sell them, devaluing them in the process of reaping personal gain. Note that in that case it still is not the players cheating, but rather just another case of those in power abusing their position.
I wasn't talking about cost of entry (there is a cost to buy a Monopoly board and it is greater than zero) and you know it.
Uh, of course I know it; that's why I brought it up! You weren't offering a parity example, so I helped you out. If you're upset that that you picked a bad example, don't blame me. As for Monopoly costing money, again, a parity relationship is that the game is a "server" that can host 6 (or whatever the recommend max is for Monopoly) "clients". To play on a server, I don't necessarily have to pay money, but if I do (which is the case for every MMORPG I can think of) then that establishes an exchange rate between game currency and other, "real" currency.
I have no problems with everyone paying the same basic fee to play.
Then I don't get your complaint. Everyone is paying the same fee to play. It's just that some people are paying other people for time they've already spent in the game. Instead of maintaining my own garden, I get fruits and vegetables from the store. Am I likewise cheating at real life because I'm paying someone else for farming instead of farming myself?
However, I don't really consider it fair that Joe Rich Kid who doesn't work gets to buy his items and go around being an ass to the newbies who played the game without resorting to a secondary (and usually against the rules of the game) market.
That makes no sense. Why are you concerned with exactly how someone in-game gets an item? As George Carlin said about prostitution: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" For the parity issue, why do you resent a rich guy paying for something when the game allows him to be given the same thing for free? Why shouldn't the guy you consider a loser be allowed to charge for the time and effort required to get that item?
Again, that whole "everyone is cheating" thing is a nice attempt to distract from the real issue here, but then you don't really have anything useful to add in your post so I'm not particularly surprised that you had to invent something.
If by "invent something" you mean "present a sound argument you are unable to refute", then I understand your "distraction". The basic fact is that money and time are both flowing into the game. That creates an economy just as sure as if you invested that time and money in a business in some other foreign land. It's understandable, if short-sighted, that the "ruler of the land" (i.e., the game company) is trying to lock everyone into an import-only economy, but there is value in trade and it is foolish to export nothing.
That way, Sam Highschool Kid who worked at minimum wage for 10 hours to play the damn game isn't stuck getting raped by the aforementioned Joe Rich Kid who just bought his way to the top.
You seem to mistakenly think that external money is somehow creating something that doesn't exist in the game. For JRK to do any raping, someone would have already had the items to sell! Without the secondary market, SHK would instead be raped by someone good enough to earn those items, so it'd actually be more brutal than what JRK could do. If you stopped to actually think about it you'd see that the secondary market actually helps equalize power in the game.
I'm not even sure why I bothered to explain this. If you don't get it, try reading again.
I assure you I "get it". The problem is that your argument is a poor one, and you refuse to admit your mistake. So, please, do not bother trying to further explain your current misguided viewpoint. Adopt a smarter viewpoint instead.
Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?
I sure hope so. Are you saying every Monopoly player has to pony up $50 of real money to play the game for the "opportunity" to acquire Boardwalk? And then pay another regular fee of $15 (again, real money) if they just want to stay in the game? That's a parity analogy; see the difference now?
I think that it's cheating, and I also think the PR person knows it.
I think neither you nor the PR person is thinking at all about the actual economies. By your ludicrous measure, everyone is cheating because everyone is paying money to do better in the game. Money is already flowing into the game, so a base exchange rate can be established. The only issue is that the game companies want all the money flowing to them, while players understand that a secondary market actually increases the value of the game for all parties. IGE should educate their PR person to that effect, and you should likewise educate yourself.
Oh snap! Taking down the scientific process in a single post!
It's no wonder you posted as AC, because you have an embarrassing misunderstanding of the scientific process.
That whole cycle of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation is clearly voodoo.
No, my point is precisely that they do not follow the process. Observation: these bits don't seem to be quite random. Hypothesis: human thought about current events is related to the non-randomness. Test (their version): look at the output and look at the news and assign a correlation. Test (scientific version): define what is a statistically significant variation from a random run and record when the machine produces it, define what makes a world event significant to the "global conciousness" and record all of those, then independently combine those two lists and show a correlation. I've tried to look through their site, but I can't find any lists of the machine output that is independent from global events, both which are significant by some scientific formula. Unless you can point to those links, go back to school.
Clue in, buddy, you just called gravity junk science because nobody knows the how of gravitational attraction in the absence of a Unifying Theory.
On the contrary, I more aptly called similar pseduo-astronomical "science" junk, like astrology. I have a great test for people who think my horoscope sign tells them something about me: I tell them to determine my sign by asking me significant questions about myself. It never seems to work out better than chance. Me letting go of a ball and it falling, though? 100% so far on that!
It seems pretty far-fetched to me, but I'm working my way through the Princeton site now and I've not seen any glaring errors in their methodology yet.
Are you dense? The "glaring errors" start right with the bloody name of the project! All their work is tainted by their focus on a vague "global consciousness". I'm open minded enough to say that it's possible their "random" isn't so random, but they mistakenly take the leap to correlate it with their desired conclusion instead of actually trying to determine the cause. It gets all the more outlandish when they attempt to increase correlation by deciding to do matches in both the past and the future. It's just junk science. Non-junk science would explain the how of the influence on a supposedly random source. That is, even if you give them the presumption of being right, you have gained no understanding. Even if they told you about huge spike today, you possess no knowledge you can act on tomorrow, and they'll be free to look at the paper over a range of days and simply say "Oh, yes, this is what caused it." It's beyond stupid, and if you don't see it then the site you should be at is here.
What if the photo of the tower at night is digitally edited to change the lighting configuration?
Also: what if a photo of the tower during the day is digitally edited to make it look like night, and especially if it is lit virtually in a way unlike however the current lighting setup is? What about a totally digital model rendered in a similarly non-infringing night display?
Mac fanboi-ism aside, Mac's still aren't going to do much better. Don't buy a Mac. Seriously. It's all about market share and Apple just doesn't have it.
My argument isn't about sheer numbers. Believe me, I'm well aware that the first PC target for a game should be Windows. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue is one of technology, and any technology Linux has finds a better commercial target on the Mac.
. . . or do you write your game for the 90% of computer users that use Windows? Any rational human being can make the simple decision to go with Windows.
Again, sheer numbers seem to have an advantage, but they don't tell the whole story. Not all computer users are gamers, which is why it often makes sense to target game consoles even before Windows PCs. Most importantly, the smart developer targets technologies that allow them to most easily reach the largest available market. When we consider Linux in that light, it is just another Unix platform with OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL/whatever, and in that market segment (regardless of how small it is compared to Windows) the Mac is by far the most attractive target for games. A Linux port might make sense, but never until a Mac port is done, so if a case can't be made for Mac support, what hope does Linux have?
Buy a Mac. Seriously.
The linked article is just bad, even beyond turning one page into four for ad purposes. Linux is not a game market, plain and simple. It isn't really even a desktop market. The only commercial alternative to Windows you can expect to make a statement is a Mac. With a Mac you don't have driver issues or the possibility of emulation for games. A Mac port will involve technologies that are also mostly available for Linux.
No game company with a clue would target Linux before they target the Mac, so you can count on the Linux game market always trailing that of the Mac (which isn't exactly stellar). CoolTechZone is beyond deluded to suggest that buying Linux games is going to do anything significant for the platform. It makes sense only on the surface; the real market dynamic points to the Mac as your best bet for eventually seeing more major games on Linux.
Perhaps they are more 'beautiful' (read: airbrushed) than the average woman, but they are still real. Real breasts, real hips, real legs.
But isn't that really more damaging to a woman's self-image? To be bombarded by images of those supposedly "real" women? To suggest that what is presented is what you need to be happy; to suggest it is a reasonable goal for every woman to strive for?
Women in videogames are pretty much 100% fantasy. Waists so thin they can wear a wedding ring as a belt, breasts so huge that no material existing today could truly contain their gravity, and of course, so much jiggle that any real woman would be unable to maintain her balance.
Again, isn't that all the more healthy for being so impossible? Certainly I can't be the only one who can hold a fantasy ideal distinct from a real ideal. I've seen some cinched-waist, implant-laden porn and it was not pretty. The video game image is most certainly not the one most woman try to achieve.
Real women, and attractive (insofar as they're not real) - not hard on the eyes, but not unrealistic either. As such, they're easier to realte to as well, for any gamer.
It's a fucking game. Either it is playable and makes sense in context, or it doesn't. Do you like whining that cartoon physics isn't accurate, too? I don't try to force everything to fit into one world view, and neither should you. If you want some woman to relate to, put down the controller and get out more.
All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
Nope. Counter example here. Just because your imagination is as limited as the monopolies you speak out against, don't assume that everyone is so hindered.
Dude, you're about 4 years too late.
Granted, maybe I've been too generous in the past. For the most part, outlandish things were filed under Humor, or could be considered something of an in-joke (dups, typos, etc). This really goes beyond all that for me. In the last few months there seems to have been a serious increase in "slashvertisements", and this one is basically at the intellectual level of spam. "News for Nerds" it is not, and I see it as the start of a new pattern of article approval that is at the shark-jumping level. So CowboyNeal takes the hit for this one, but I'm just going to write off Slashdot completely if I see it again.
How do you convey vogon ships hanging in the air much like a brick doesn't on the big screen?
Seems pretty easy. You show the ship. Cut to pedestrian shouting something like "Oh my God, is that an alien spaceship!?" Then have Ford or Arthur running by say, "Well it ain't a brick, lady!"
Well, in posting this, it seems like you're suggesting a mass exodus. Any suggestions for replacement sites?
I haven't gone looking yet, but (with suitable irony) Engadget might be my first stop! Slashdot reposts so much from them, it seems only fitting that the middleman gets cut out in the end. But, in truth, I see a lot of the article links just in my regular browsing or via RSS aggregates, often days before they are even approved by Slashdot the first time. What I get out of Slashdot is mostly a place to discuss those articles, but I could just as easily go into Usenet if I wanted geeky discussions about specific topics.
When is the right time to jump on the Apple ship?
In general, the time to switch platforms in any direction is when you've finally got everything running smoothly on your current platform of choice after some major disaster. I'm sure that seems illogical at first, but it stems from the fact that you do not want to switch when you're in the middle of an emergency. If things have always been smooth, there's no need to switch at all. If things are becoming a reoccurring mess, resolve to switch, but then still clean up the current mess! It'll make the switch that much easier when you're not trying to transition all the mission critical stuff a once.
Am I going to get burned by a sluggish overpriced laptop that is updated next month?
Only if you're a fucking idiot. If you think a Mac is sluggish today, why the hell would you buy it? It doesn't matter if a vendor is updating their systems next week or next year. Either what they're offering today meets your needs or it doesn't, and if it doesn't and you still buy it, then you should probably be fired (or beaten by friends and family). The march of technology still guarantees any purchase you make is an expense, not an investment. Stop pretending you can wait to "buy low" because you will never, ever be able to "sell high".
I declare this the moment Slashdot officially jumped the shark. Honestly, if this story doesn't get updated, pulled, or at least shuffled off to the humor section, I'm canning CowboyNeal stories in my preferences. Pulling any more crap report/editing like this (including the increasingly annoying Engadget related blog linking shit) only means I'll eventually ditch this site completely.
For the record: there is nothing you can stick on the outside of a battery to improve its performance.
Better tell that to Apple! :-)
well, just open google, type in "UPS Fuel cell" and thell me you haven't seen them ...
I haven't seen them. The products you're pointing to, and I could find only one place selling them, cost $20k! That does not support any assertion of technology we'll see in cell phones tomorrow. Hell, that's not even cost effective compared to a battery backup or a gas generator at the same level. When they can replace my $120 desktop UPS, then we might be able to start talking about fuel cell phones in a year or two.
if you tuned out during the first 3 seasons, you should tune in and give it a shot
No. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but TV doesn't work that way anymore. Series get cancelled in less than a season if they "suck" (by network standards), and anything that is allowed to run as long as Enterprise has is "good" (by network standards). What Paramount should have done if they wanted "good" (by viewer standards) is put a bullet in the head of Enterprise and then released a new Trek series is they wanted to tap Coto's talents. They didn't and so I'm not going to waste my time with a mere tweak of Enterprise "goodness" (by network standards).
They already have prototypes small enough to power a cell phone, and they're approaching the marketplace.
I disbelieve. Why? Because use in cell phones or other portable electronics is the cutting-fucking-edge of the technology. There is no reason to expect it in your pocket before you get it on your desktop/nightstand/porch/camper/whatever. For example, I would expect to see a UPS powered by fuel cells at least a good 2 years before a cell phone. A UPS is doing nothing 99.9% of the time, so it is silly to have it constantly keeping a battery is a "ready" state; that's a situation just begging for a fuel cell replacement. Do you really think they have a small, always working fuel cell just around the corner when they can't even get out something that could be the size of a microwave and still only be used a few hours a year? Bullshit.
Google News gets me all the headlines, sorted, categorised, prioratised and without corporate sponsorship biasing every article the same way.
What both you and MishaGray are getting at is that there really is precious little else worthwhile that is being done in the "aggregate" arena. What you mostly see is software that allows you pull feeds into a common collection, which is of questionable advantage. Beyond Google (and this dinky site of ours :-), there isn't much other software that is actually trying to cross reference feeds in order to provide an aggregate whole that truly is greater than the sum of its parts. The current state seem to parallel trying to read Usenet without the ability to cross post; three sites announce something and the crappy RSS software that is out there still forces you to read three announcements.
From what I gather about Rojo, it's a step in the wrong direction. Simply gathering up things found interesting by people I find interesting . . . doesn't interest me! The last thing I want is to slog through one person's link to InfoWorld, another person's link to a local paper's AP reprint, and a third friend's PC Magazine link all covering the same subject in pretty much the same manner. Google already does a fine job at that (for news, at least). If there is any future in RSS aggregates, it is definitely in doing "value added" processing, not just passing along someone else's links.