Sadly, not likely to happen. Dani (nee Dan) Bunten wanted to do a remake of the original years ago, before she died. EA okayed it, as long as she included guns and bombs. She refused, EA refused.
So, if you're willing to bastardize the game into a pile of trash based on their marketroid wankers, EA's behind you all the way!
Re:What we want is information, not ads or hype.
on
The New Mediascape
·
· Score: 1
This is what turned me off to the local news on television. They had a bloody ad for the Dreamcast AS A NEWS ARTICLE. It was so blatantly obvious it was ad copy it was pathetic, and they pushed it as news. Sickening.
I sincerely hope this was a joke submission, because you proved his point. I, for one, have grown tired of the hostility and utter negativity of 90% of the people on the net, be it on IRC or boards such as this one. I rarely comment or bother to read comments--especially on Katz's articles--for this reason; most of the people seem to have an axe to grind with him and nitpick his articles to death. It's as though being a complete and total jackass has become acceptable online for no apparent reason.
I may not agree with everything Katz says, but I will applaud him for his perseverence and speaking his mind when his views are (at least publicly) unpopular.
CRT the author of Rocket Arena isn't too happy with this source release, stating that it's even inferor to the Q2 SDK and threatening id that if they don't straighten it out there won't be a Rocket Arena 3...
OMG, he's threatening id! How will id ever live through the tongue lashing of a wannabe programmer? How can Q3A ever be successful if CRT doesn't make Rocket Arena 3, which any coder with half a brain could make?
I'm constantly amused and disgusted by the power trips some gamers and mod makers get when they make a name for themselves. id Software has put out a game that outperforms any other shooter I've seen with stunning graphics, tried to allow people to make any mod they want, and CRT is bitching because the features he wants aren't available right now. Well, boohoo. I have no sympathy for this kind of idiocy, and I hope someone else beats CRT to making Rocket Arena 3 while he mopes around and whines.
Hubbard and another science fiction author (I have forgotten names, but it was noone as big as Heinlein) were debating in a sort of column format--one would write one month, the other the next--in one of those 50's scifi mags. For some reason, I think it was Amazing, but I'm not sure that even was one of the mags from back then. Hubbard asserted that people were basically stupid, easily manipulated, and fundamentally "evil". His opponent argued the other side, that people were generally intelligent and good. It finally wound up with Hubbard betting his colleague $5 that he could start a financially successful religion.
However, this does contradict quite a bit of what I've read about Hubbard's history; Scientology wasn't originally supposed to be a religion, it was "science". He pushed it into a religion for tax evasion purposes. But, then again, this may have been unrelated to Scientology.
When you do something wrong, you are punished for it. This punishment is being cast into the lake of fire for all eternity.
This particular concept is so anti-Christian, but, appallingly, it's become a major belief of many so-called Christians. When you do something wrong, you are punished so that you learn from the punishment, if the person who punishes you cares about you. To torture someone eternally for a wrongdoing is not punishment in the sense of teaching the punished, but, rather, in the sense of teaching others that they don't want to be punished. As for the punished, they become nothing more than a thing to be discarded and ignored, and I cannot and will not believe in a such a horrifically callous diety. A God who would do such things would put any earthly dictator to shame, no matter how cruel they were.
Scriptural analysis of any mentions of eternal damnation (of which, if I recall, there is only one) have been found to have several possible meanings. Of course, this argument only applies if you do not believe the KJV Bible to be absolute truth.
I must ask people to please not judge all Christians as you would some of the more unfortunately vocal extremists and hypocrites...
You have a point, but I think you missed the actual cause.
The assumption that any social or political system will revolutionize life and make for peace and happiness, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other, is fundamentally incorrect. What is really needed is ethics on the part of the people; most any system will work, to some degree or another, if people are ethical. But they often aren't. Capitalism ultimately fails because greed and lust for material wealth becomes the focus of life for too many, and those who become or are born rich seem, all too often, to lack any sort of restraint or values. Socialism (as has been seen) ultimately fails as those with power subvert what may have been a good idea into something that suits them better. Communism (the true form) usually fails from laziness of the minority.
So what can be done about this? Simple--encourage ethical behavior. Respect other people. Be honest. Share your time and talents in your community. Stop talking and DO SOMETHING--ethical behavior is an active thing. Don't be quick to take offense at others' mistakes or even their intentional words and actions.
This seems fairly obvious; whoever the programmers decide owns it. If the programmers have signed a contract giving joint ownership, then all five own it. If they've decided they alone own it, then they do. If they've decided to be altruistic Open Source programmers (noone/everyone) owns it. Why would this be a difficult subject?
It seems your biggest problem isn't so much about censorship as it is about meta tags and search engines. At one point, I'm sure meta tags were supposed to be informative, but now they're used as a form of advertisement, sadly. And, as far as search engines go, the porn sites certainly did have what you indicated to the search engine you were looking for: pages with the word "Bleys" in them. This is why I like engines like Altavista with the option to exclude keywords from your search. Or perhaps you should have added more keywords.
Is there a limit on what format the image has to be in? Does it have to be well distributed or documented? Or is there an additional filed trademark on the sequence of bits in the image? If not, anyone could make up a format on the fly that reads some specific data and turns it into a trademarked logo. It seems if there are no limitations, this would be a field day for nuisance lawsuits.
Secondly, it seems if someone were to find out the string of bits with no knowledge that they were a bitmapped image, and prove it (IE: hack at the Gameboy code and figure out what string of bits makes it run games), Nintendo would have a hard time filing a suit that wouldn't get thrown out.
It also seems interesting in that it implies a trademark on a particular chunk of data. Heck, randomly searching the net, after a while, would probably turn up something--a binary, a JPEG, whatever--that contains a 15x15 bitmapped representation of AOL's logo. Does this mean that, if some AOL wonk was feeling nasty, they could file an infringement suit on some poor shmuck or demand he take down some image because of this? Or, God forbid, another annoyance tactic in the Scientologist's lawyer attacks?
I am in no way familiar with trademark laws, so I am genuinely curious about this...
To people living with a government so controlling that would REQUIRE such an implant (which would give them all sorts of fun ways of locating you, checking what you're doing, verifying that you conform), I should think the end of the world would be more of a release than something to fear.
Besides, if you take the Bible literally enough to believe direct interpretation of the Book of Revelations, this stuff is going to happen, no matter what you do or say, so railing against it or trying to delay it is as pointless as screaming at the wind.
Perhaps this is just me, but it seems fairly obvious why the games industry could be less lucrative than any other--hundreds of games are fighting for the consumers' money simultaneously. For example, I consider myself a fairly "hardcore" gamer. I own about 60 games for my PC, a hundred plus for my old C64, etc, etc. All paid for. And still, I probably own less than 1% of games out there. When you've got that much competition for the consumer's money, some--hell, probably most--games are going to fail to turn a profit.
Now, compare that to, say, the home apps industry. Really, you've got only a handful of companies offering similar products, and many times only one (MickeySquish) gets marketed to any degree, and other apps companies without the marketing clout to make themselves heard don't invest in similar apps. Of course, there are the other companies (i.e., StarDivision), but the investment in time and effort in these products is likely to be much less--I mean, which seems more difficult, coding up a matrix transformation algorithm to adjust the game player's view, or writing up a "Search and Replace" function for a system with so much computing power that the user isn't likely to note the time difference between different search algorithms? Plus, they usually cost the consumers more money.
This all seems rather obvious to me. I may be mistaken in the depth of programming issues in the apps industry, and I'm certain the time and effort to develop "Slingo" were relatively low. (By the way, I highly suggest finding a review of this game to marvel at the idiocy. It's single player Bingo with pretty graphics.) However, all the impressions of the gaming industry I've EVER read or heard of has portrayed it in a favorable light; creative, fun and rewarding, even if it is somewhat low-paying. So, as far as I can see, the author raised a perfectly valid, well-stated point. I don't see how he needs to find the reason why.
Incorrect. Ever tried using an old Nintendo cartridge? The contacts are usually flaky at best--I'm not sure if this is due to the wear and tear of insertion/removal, oxidation, etc.--but the cartidge becomes unusable after a relatively short amount of time. Now, sometimes it is the console itself, but I've seen several carts that won't work on anyone's system.
I'm also completely baffled by your first paragraph, and, if I understand you correctly, people are underusing an amazing legal tactic--saying it's illegal makes it so!
Slashdot Mirror
I gotta chuckle about this, really... Siembieda vs. McFarlane: who has the bigger ego?
Sadly, not likely to happen. Dani (nee Dan) Bunten wanted to do a remake of the original years ago, before she died. EA okayed it, as long as she included guns and bombs. She refused, EA refused.
So, if you're willing to bastardize the game into a pile of trash based on their marketroid wankers, EA's behind you all the way!
This is what turned me off to the local news on television. They had a bloody ad for the Dreamcast AS A NEWS ARTICLE. It was so blatantly obvious it was ad copy it was pathetic, and they pushed it as news. Sickening.
Actually, you missed the fact that he will be assisted by a phenomenally mechanically gifted man named "Cid".
I may not agree with everything Katz says, but I will applaud him for his perseverence and speaking his mind when his views are (at least publicly) unpopular.
OMG, he's threatening id! How will id ever live through the tongue lashing of a wannabe programmer? How can Q3A ever be successful if CRT doesn't make Rocket Arena 3, which any coder with half a brain could make?
I'm constantly amused and disgusted by the power trips some gamers and mod makers get when they make a name for themselves. id Software has put out a game that outperforms any other shooter I've seen with stunning graphics, tried to allow people to make any mod they want, and CRT is bitching because the features he wants aren't available right now. Well, boohoo. I have no sympathy for this kind of idiocy, and I hope someone else beats CRT to making Rocket Arena 3 while he mopes around and whines.
Hubbard and another science fiction author (I have forgotten names, but it was noone as big as Heinlein) were debating in a sort of column format--one would write one month, the other the next--in one of those 50's scifi mags. For some reason, I think it was Amazing, but I'm not sure that even was one of the mags from back then. Hubbard asserted that people were basically stupid, easily manipulated, and fundamentally "evil". His opponent argued the other side, that people were generally intelligent and good. It finally wound up with Hubbard betting his colleague $5 that he could start a financially successful religion.
However, this does contradict quite a bit of what I've read about Hubbard's history; Scientology wasn't originally supposed to be a religion, it was "science". He pushed it into a religion for tax evasion purposes. But, then again, this may have been unrelated to Scientology.
This particular concept is so anti-Christian, but, appallingly, it's become a major belief of many so-called Christians. When you do something wrong, you are punished so that you learn from the punishment, if the person who punishes you cares about you. To torture someone eternally for a wrongdoing is not punishment in the sense of teaching the punished, but, rather, in the sense of teaching others that they don't want to be punished. As for the punished, they become nothing more than a thing to be discarded and ignored, and I cannot and will not believe in a such a horrifically callous diety. A God who would do such things would put any earthly dictator to shame, no matter how cruel they were.
Scriptural analysis of any mentions of eternal damnation (of which, if I recall, there is only one) have been found to have several possible meanings. Of course, this argument only applies if you do not believe the KJV Bible to be absolute truth.
I must ask people to please not judge all Christians as you would some of the more unfortunately vocal extremists and hypocrites...
The assumption that any social or political system will revolutionize life and make for peace and happiness, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other, is fundamentally incorrect. What is really needed is ethics on the part of the people; most any system will work, to some degree or another, if people are ethical. But they often aren't. Capitalism ultimately fails because greed and lust for material wealth becomes the focus of life for too many, and those who become or are born rich seem, all too often, to lack any sort of restraint or values. Socialism (as has been seen) ultimately fails as those with power subvert what may have been a good idea into something that suits them better. Communism (the true form) usually fails from laziness of the minority.
So what can be done about this? Simple--encourage ethical behavior. Respect other people. Be honest. Share your time and talents in your community. Stop talking and DO SOMETHING--ethical behavior is an active thing. Don't be quick to take offense at others' mistakes or even their intentional words and actions.
Just my two cents.
This seems fairly obvious; whoever the programmers decide owns it. If the programmers have signed a contract giving joint ownership, then all five own it. If they've decided they alone own it, then they do. If they've decided to be altruistic Open Source programmers (noone/everyone) owns it. Why would this be a difficult subject?
It seems your biggest problem isn't so much about censorship as it is about meta tags and search engines. At one point, I'm sure meta tags were supposed to be informative, but now they're used as a form of advertisement, sadly. And, as far as search engines go, the porn sites certainly did have what you indicated to the search engine you were looking for: pages with the word "Bleys" in them. This is why I like engines like Altavista with the option to exclude keywords from your search. Or perhaps you should have added more keywords.
Is there a limit on what format the image has to be in? Does it have to be well distributed or documented? Or is there an additional filed trademark on the sequence of bits in the image? If not, anyone could make up a format on the fly that reads some specific data and turns it into a trademarked logo. It seems if there are no limitations, this would be a field day for nuisance lawsuits.
Secondly, it seems if someone were to find out the string of bits with no knowledge that they were a bitmapped image, and prove it (IE: hack at the Gameboy code and figure out what string of bits makes it run games), Nintendo would have a hard time filing a suit that wouldn't get thrown out.
It also seems interesting in that it implies a trademark on a particular chunk of data. Heck, randomly searching the net, after a while, would probably turn up something--a binary, a JPEG, whatever--that contains a 15x15 bitmapped representation of AOL's logo. Does this mean that, if some AOL wonk was feeling nasty, they could file an infringement suit on some poor shmuck or demand he take down some image because of this? Or, God forbid, another annoyance tactic in the Scientologist's lawyer attacks?
I am in no way familiar with trademark laws, so I am genuinely curious about this...
To people living with a government so controlling that would REQUIRE such an implant (which would give them all sorts of fun ways of locating you, checking what you're doing, verifying that you conform), I should think the end of the world would be more of a release than something to fear.
Besides, if you take the Bible literally enough to believe direct interpretation of the Book of Revelations, this stuff is going to happen, no matter what you do or say, so railing against it or trying to delay it is as pointless as screaming at the wind.
Now, compare that to, say, the home apps industry. Really, you've got only a handful of companies offering similar products, and many times only one (MickeySquish) gets marketed to any degree, and other apps companies without the marketing clout to make themselves heard don't invest in similar apps. Of course, there are the other companies (i.e., StarDivision), but the investment in time and effort in these products is likely to be much less--I mean, which seems more difficult, coding up a matrix transformation algorithm to adjust the game player's view, or writing up a "Search and Replace" function for a system with so much computing power that the user isn't likely to note the time difference between different search algorithms? Plus, they usually cost the consumers more money.
This all seems rather obvious to me. I may be mistaken in the depth of programming issues in the apps industry, and I'm certain the time and effort to develop "Slingo" were relatively low. (By the way, I highly suggest finding a review of this game to marvel at the idiocy. It's single player Bingo with pretty graphics.) However, all the impressions of the gaming industry I've EVER read or heard of has portrayed it in a favorable light; creative, fun and rewarding, even if it is somewhat low-paying. So, as far as I can see, the author raised a perfectly valid, well-stated point. I don't see how he needs to find the reason why.
Incorrect. Ever tried using an old Nintendo cartridge? The contacts are usually flaky at best--I'm not sure if this is due to the wear and tear of insertion/removal, oxidation, etc.--but the cartidge becomes unusable after a relatively short amount of time. Now, sometimes it is the console itself, but I've seen several carts that won't work on anyone's system.
I'm also completely baffled by your first paragraph, and, if I understand you correctly, people are underusing an amazing legal tactic--saying it's illegal makes it so!