When Nintendo tried with the NES they were bitchslapped so hard in court.
When and where did this "bitchslapping" occur? All I remember is something like this, where not only did Nintendo not get bitch slapped, but the company (Atari) attempting to circumvent the 10NES chip did.
hardcore gamers... are generally opposed to is the lazy approach some developers take to just dialling it in and relying on cheap marketing fizz to sale their empty gaming experience
This is easily demonstratably false -- hardcore gamers gobble up generic first person shooters like they're the next Mona Lisa, and praise them for the innovation of being able to shoot with *two* guns at the same time.
Then they ignore truly innovative stuff like Ico or Killer 7 or Eternal Darkness.
What people mean by "hardcore" gamer any more is really "mainstream" gamer. I'm a hardcore gamer and I want my title back.
Is it unreasonable for somebody to want a court to investigate further, given the scale and scope of the damage? Not really.
This is ridiculous. Even if the scientists had instead reported that "there is a chance that there could be another large quake in the next few weeks", what would L'Aquila have done? Evacuate everyone and wait? Move all of the buildings?
I own Madworld and finished it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
The controls are clunky, and the "combos" are repetitive and slow. The boss fights are almost always a 2-shot: attempt 1 - Ok, what do I do? Whoops, he just killed me with a random new attack. attempt 2 - Ok, now I know what to do and where to be to not get killed. Boss poses no threat now.
The story was alright, the art was great, and a lot of it was funny the first time you saw/heard it, but I wouldn't call it a good game. Worth a rental at best.
You'll get no arguments from me about Muramasa though, and I would add No More Heroes for oldschool difficulty and fun, and the Metroid Prime Trilogy is an incredible value if you can still find a copy.
A real man doesn't give a shit about what other people think about his hobbies, and doesn't need to play games with a lame, predictable story and some "adult situations" to feel like a grown-up.
How asinine is that scenario? Why don't you also include one where someone breaks both of their thumbs?
If motion control is bad, in your opinion, you don't need to invent stupid scenarios like that to illustrate your point. If that's the best argument against them that you can come up with, then maybe your opinion isn't very well-formed.
it would be terrible there is a reason why I'm not a sniper in real life, I don't like holding my arm at an angle for extended periods of time in a single spot.
I think the appropriate meme here is "you're doing it wrong."
I like how you skipped over every single reply that was to the effect that, "we should save them because we want to be able to eat them in the future" -- which is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable position to take.
Instead, you reply to the one appeal to emotion with yet another irrelevant straw man (biologists blame everything on man!). I guess we can assume that you don't disagree that biodiversity is important in an ecosystem, or that it's a good idea to not kill off all of a tasty food source.
If you don't want to have a discussion, fine; state your opinion and your bias. Don't frame your initial post as a question (a leading one at that) and then reply to the one response that takes the bait. It's intellectually dishonest.
Sure, and then others can respond with stories of Republican shenanigans, and you can argue about who is worse. That will be constructive political discourse.
Oh wait, no it won't -- it'll be the equivalent of a couple of children calling each other names.
You clearly don't get it though, so go ahead and post some more stuff about William Jefferson or whatever other democrat misdeeds make you feel better about the republican misdeeds.
He would have had more time to investigate the bills that the Republican congress sent him, but he was too busy defending himself in court over getting a blowjob.
Or -- more simply -- he was just, you know, doing his job and signing legislation into law like presidents are *supposed* to do. Or maybe he could have vetoed every one of them, because clearly Republicans don't know jack shit about writing legislation, even though they were voted in with a huge majority by the populace; how well do you think *that* would have played in the political landscape? Would you be up here defending Clinton for his principled stand against the "contract with America"?
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
To further the point made by Draek: often times, you can't even *engage* the uninformed in any sort of meaningful debate, because they simply lack enough knowledge to know what they are arguing against.
For example: debating a creationist that keeps asking for "intermediate forms" or "why hasn't a cow given birth to a dog?" It shows that they simply do not understand the most fundamental aspects of evolution. So instead of debating whether or not all forms of life were created by the process of evolution, the creationist first has to be educated about what evolution is; and they then spend the entire time arguing about unrelated points about simply the *definition* of evolution.
Similarly, it is extremely difficult to have a discussion about whether or not nationalized health care is a good thing or not. Statistics can show that the US has bad health care. They can show that the US spends more money on health care for a lesser result than every other industrialized nation. But you get into a discussion with a health care opponent, and they generally immediately respond with, "it's socialism" or "I don't want lazy people to get a hand-out". So you can't even begin having the discussion about nationalized health care until you can figure out what, exactly, they mean by "socialism" or "lazy person."
So if it comes off as dismissive or dogmatic when someone asks you to RTFM and educate yourself about the basics of the topic at hand before they will engage you in a discussion, there is a good chance that they are just tired of answering the same basic questions asked by every ignorant, opinionated idiot. You may be genuinely interested in learning and having a debate; unfortunately, your questions about "if AGW is real, then why did we get so much snow on the east coast this year?" sounds a lot like someone who has chosen to not take the time to educate themselves *at all*.
If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, show that you have taken the time to analyze the facts and come up with real reasons for why you hold the beliefs that you do. If you can't do that, expect your bush league statements to be dismissed out of hand.
The athiests I know all have comic books in their back pockets. They should just fess up where their hearts are, rather than hiding behind the facad of "rationality."
I have to be misreading this, because I can't believe that anyone would seriously imply that all atheists somehow use comic books to define their reason for being.
Here's a link. Note that he said "the majority of America supports health care reform." Not "the majority of America supports the health care bill that was passed." Hell, I'll even spare you the link that cites 77% of the population being in favor of a choice of a public option, because that's on HuffPost and therefore obviously biased.
I wanted health care reform. I think the current bill is not very good (it is, in fact, almost exactly what Republicans proposed as an alternative to the system Hillary proposed 15 years ago), but I think it is at least a step in the right direction to preventing medical bankruptcies. The Republican party was in power for over a decade and did exactly jack squat about resolving healthcare inequality and the obvious problems our system has. What we ended up getting due to Obama and the democrats is not good, but it's better than nothing.
When Bush was president, left-wing nutjobs were not much better. Are we comparing the worst of the worst of both parties?
When Bush was president, the most vocal "left-wing nutjobs" bitched about stuff that was TRUE. Sure, there were quite a few that were unhappy about the results in Florida, but I don't remember them being given nearly as much media attention as, say, the birthers have. The majority of us were pissed about going to war on false pretenses, not "robbing medicare to pay for socialized medicine" or crap like this.
Ahh yes, the old, "Apple did it for our own good" argument.
First off, this automated compliance testing you speak of is an irrelevant point. If there are certain compliance checks that the automated tools look for (doing a "whole-program" test would be a breakthrough in computer science and mathematics in general -- look up the halting problem), the cross-compiled code could just contain those things. Second, the binaries are actually generated by Apple's compiler after being translated into objective c, so anything they have in them should be compliant.
Second, if they're just using this as a blanket excuse to pre-reject bad code... you can write bad code in any language or in any environment. You can write good, well behaved code in most reasonable languages. If they really want to filter bad apps, they should be judging each app on its own merits, rather than blanket banning every app that just happened to be generated from the same tool.
This is entirely an anti-competetive move to make cross-platform development more difficult. I hate Flash as much as anyone, but in this case, Apple is clearly in the wrong. This move may be technically legal, but nobody who really cares about computing or openness should support it.
They hate their customers and have crazy-insane people who see "pirates" in every shadow designing their consoles - it's why they had insane licensing schemes as far back as the NES, why they stuck with cartridges on the N64 which turned that into a pretty-much-forgettable box, why they continued to burn developers with the Gamecube, and why the only developers developing for the Wii right now are pretty much Nintendo's in-house studios, Sega (and let's face it, they might as well just get bought out by Big N anyways now), and a bunch of shovelware guys making aerobics games and button mashing Mario Party ripoffs.
Oh you've got to be kidding. They had the lockout chips on the NES to prevent *third party manufacturers* from producing games. They stuck with the cartridge format on the N64 because, despite people's tolerance for awful load times on the PlayStation, the CD just was not ready for the kind of experience that Nintendo provides. They bled developers on the Gamecube because Microsoft and Sony waved wads of cash at dev studios to get themselves exclusives, while Nintendo was content to stick with the (sustainable) model of, "make whatever games you want and sell them, and it's up to you to be profitable." The bleeding continues on the Wii because of some inexplicable desire by the major studios to compete with each other at the ultra-high end HD segment in some sort of pissing war, rather than going with the platform with a 50% market share.
That said, I don't buy DLC. From anyone. I don't pay for bits streamed across a wire unless I get to negotiate the price -- and because there's no mechanism for this from Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, they get nothing from me.
Your rant about Nintendo and piracy is just inane.
There isn't much retail markup on video games; a couple of bucks at best by the end retailer.
The bigger flaw with the GP post's idea is that it assumes that both User 1 and User 2 buy new games at some point: in a lot of cases, this isn't true. Especially for games with a smaller market that people can just "wait to buy used."
Slashdot Mirror
When and where did this "bitchslapping" occur? All I remember is something like this, where not only did Nintendo not get bitch slapped, but the company (Atari) attempting to circumvent the 10NES chip did.
--Jeremy
Umm, no it doesn't. Amazon.com has it listed for $47 right now. I bought mine at a local shop for $48.
If you're paying $60 for a Wii game that isn't out of print, someone is ripping you off.
--Jeremy
This is easily demonstratably false -- hardcore gamers gobble up generic first person shooters like they're the next Mona Lisa, and praise them for the innovation of being able to shoot with *two* guns at the same time.
Then they ignore truly innovative stuff like Ico or Killer 7 or Eternal Darkness.
What people mean by "hardcore" gamer any more is really "mainstream" gamer. I'm a hardcore gamer and I want my title back.
--Jeremy
This is ridiculous. Even if the scientists had instead reported that "there is a chance that there could be another large quake in the next few weeks", what would L'Aquila have done? Evacuate everyone and wait? Move all of the buildings?
--Jeremy
I own Madworld and finished it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
The controls are clunky, and the "combos" are repetitive and slow. The boss fights are almost always a 2-shot: attempt 1 - Ok, what do I do? Whoops, he just killed me with a random new attack. attempt 2 - Ok, now I know what to do and where to be to not get killed. Boss poses no threat now.
The story was alright, the art was great, and a lot of it was funny the first time you saw/heard it, but I wouldn't call it a good game. Worth a rental at best.
You'll get no arguments from me about Muramasa though, and I would add No More Heroes for oldschool difficulty and fun, and the Metroid Prime Trilogy is an incredible value if you can still find a copy.
--Jeremy
A real man doesn't give a shit about what other people think about his hobbies, and doesn't need to play games with a lame, predictable story and some "adult situations" to feel like a grown-up.
--Jeremy
How asinine is that scenario? Why don't you also include one where someone breaks both of their thumbs?
If motion control is bad, in your opinion, you don't need to invent stupid scenarios like that to illustrate your point. If that's the best argument against them that you can come up with, then maybe your opinion isn't very well-formed.
--Jeremy
I think the appropriate meme here is "you're doing it wrong."
--Jeremy
That link just reverted it back to the default, impossible-to-read-over background image. It only showed up *after* you chose a different image.
At least, that's all it did when I tried it about an hour ago.
--Jeremy
I like how you skipped over every single reply that was to the effect that, "we should save them because we want to be able to eat them in the future" -- which is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable position to take.
Instead, you reply to the one appeal to emotion with yet another irrelevant straw man (biologists blame everything on man!). I guess we can assume that you don't disagree that biodiversity is important in an ecosystem, or that it's a good idea to not kill off all of a tasty food source.
If you don't want to have a discussion, fine; state your opinion and your bias. Don't frame your initial post as a question (a leading one at that) and then reply to the one response that takes the bait. It's intellectually dishonest.
--Jeremy
Sure, and then others can respond with stories of Republican shenanigans, and you can argue about who is worse. That will be constructive political discourse.
Oh wait, no it won't -- it'll be the equivalent of a couple of children calling each other names.
You clearly don't get it though, so go ahead and post some more stuff about William Jefferson or whatever other democrat misdeeds make you feel better about the republican misdeeds.
--Jeremy
You're still full of shit. You imply that because of the Internet, you were able to figure out that Obama's peace prize wasn't deserved.
Well, you could have also just watched the mainstream media coverage or listened to Obama himself and gotten roughly the same information.
But in defense of your original point -- the Internet taught me that Mother Teresa wasn't quite the saint that everyone makes her out to be.
--Jeremy
He would have had more time to investigate the bills that the Republican congress sent him, but he was too busy defending himself in court over getting a blowjob.
Or -- more simply -- he was just, you know, doing his job and signing legislation into law like presidents are *supposed* to do. Or maybe he could have vetoed every one of them, because clearly Republicans don't know jack shit about writing legislation, even though they were voted in with a huge majority by the populace; how well do you think *that* would have played in the political landscape? Would you be up here defending Clinton for his principled stand against the "contract with America"?
--Jeremy
Nah, he's talking about Pierce, Garnett, and Allen -- they were quite different players when they entered the league centuries ago.
--Jeremy
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
To further the point made by Draek: often times, you can't even *engage* the uninformed in any sort of meaningful debate, because they simply lack enough knowledge to know what they are arguing against.
For example: debating a creationist that keeps asking for "intermediate forms" or "why hasn't a cow given birth to a dog?" It shows that they simply do not understand the most fundamental aspects of evolution. So instead of debating whether or not all forms of life were created by the process of evolution, the creationist first has to be educated about what evolution is; and they then spend the entire time arguing about unrelated points about simply the *definition* of evolution.
Similarly, it is extremely difficult to have a discussion about whether or not nationalized health care is a good thing or not. Statistics can show that the US has bad health care. They can show that the US spends more money on health care for a lesser result than every other industrialized nation. But you get into a discussion with a health care opponent, and they generally immediately respond with, "it's socialism" or "I don't want lazy people to get a hand-out". So you can't even begin having the discussion about nationalized health care until you can figure out what, exactly, they mean by "socialism" or "lazy person."
So if it comes off as dismissive or dogmatic when someone asks you to RTFM and educate yourself about the basics of the topic at hand before they will engage you in a discussion, there is a good chance that they are just tired of answering the same basic questions asked by every ignorant, opinionated idiot. You may be genuinely interested in learning and having a debate; unfortunately, your questions about "if AGW is real, then why did we get so much snow on the east coast this year?" sounds a lot like someone who has chosen to not take the time to educate themselves *at all*.
If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, show that you have taken the time to analyze the facts and come up with real reasons for why you hold the beliefs that you do. If you can't do that, expect your bush league statements to be dismissed out of hand.
--Jeremy
I have to be misreading this, because I can't believe that anyone would seriously imply that all atheists somehow use comic books to define their reason for being.
--Jeremy
I don't know that "taste" overtaking "perceived needs" is necessarily any better.
How about making it a priority to satisfy "actual needs"?
--Jeremy
Spoken like a true 14-year-old.
--Jeremy
No, when *they* do it, they're being sensitive. By definition, only "liberals" are PC.
--Jeremy
Here's a link. Note that he said "the majority of America supports health care reform." Not "the majority of America supports the health care bill that was passed." Hell, I'll even spare you the link that cites 77% of the population being in favor of a choice of a public option, because that's on HuffPost and therefore obviously biased.
I wanted health care reform. I think the current bill is not very good (it is, in fact, almost exactly what Republicans proposed as an alternative to the system Hillary proposed 15 years ago), but I think it is at least a step in the right direction to preventing medical bankruptcies. The Republican party was in power for over a decade and did exactly jack squat about resolving healthcare inequality and the obvious problems our system has. What we ended up getting due to Obama and the democrats is not good, but it's better than nothing.
When Bush was president, the most vocal "left-wing nutjobs" bitched about stuff that was TRUE. Sure, there were quite a few that were unhappy about the results in Florida, but I don't remember them being given nearly as much media attention as, say, the birthers have. The majority of us were pissed about going to war on false pretenses, not "robbing medicare to pay for socialized medicine" or crap like this.
--Jeremy
Ahh yes, the old, "Apple did it for our own good" argument.
First off, this automated compliance testing you speak of is an irrelevant point. If there are certain compliance checks that the automated tools look for (doing a "whole-program" test would be a breakthrough in computer science and mathematics in general -- look up the halting problem), the cross-compiled code could just contain those things. Second, the binaries are actually generated by Apple's compiler after being translated into objective c, so anything they have in them should be compliant.
Second, if they're just using this as a blanket excuse to pre-reject bad code ... you can write bad code in any language or in any environment. You can write good, well behaved code in most reasonable languages. If they really want to filter bad apps, they should be judging each app on its own merits, rather than blanket banning every app that just happened to be generated from the same tool.
This is entirely an anti-competetive move to make cross-platform development more difficult. I hate Flash as much as anyone, but in this case, Apple is clearly in the wrong. This move may be technically legal, but nobody who really cares about computing or openness should support it.
--Jeremy
Oh you've got to be kidding. They had the lockout chips on the NES to prevent *third party manufacturers* from producing games. They stuck with the cartridge format on the N64 because, despite people's tolerance for awful load times on the PlayStation, the CD just was not ready for the kind of experience that Nintendo provides. They bled developers on the Gamecube because Microsoft and Sony waved wads of cash at dev studios to get themselves exclusives, while Nintendo was content to stick with the (sustainable) model of, "make whatever games you want and sell them, and it's up to you to be profitable." The bleeding continues on the Wii because of some inexplicable desire by the major studios to compete with each other at the ultra-high end HD segment in some sort of pissing war, rather than going with the platform with a 50% market share.
That said, I don't buy DLC. From anyone. I don't pay for bits streamed across a wire unless I get to negotiate the price -- and because there's no mechanism for this from Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, they get nothing from me.
Your rant about Nintendo and piracy is just inane.
--Jeremy
Goldeneye on the N64 would like to have a word with you.
--Jeremy
There isn't much retail markup on video games; a couple of bucks at best by the end retailer.
The bigger flaw with the GP post's idea is that it assumes that both User 1 and User 2 buy new games at some point: in a lot of cases, this isn't true. Especially for games with a smaller market that people can just "wait to buy used."
--Jeremy