The object of taking part (as an amateur) is to have fun playing the game.
The object of the game is to win, within the rules of the game.
Playing outside of the rules means you are quite happy with the concept of spoiling the game for other people. They are not sore losers, because you cheated. Children cheat because they don't fully appreciate the need for rules, and are testing their boundaries.
Summary: Adults have no excuse for cheating, other than that they haven't fully grown up yet.
Back to the article:
It's well written. And only today, there was memepool mentioning an article on why modern video games are rubbish. but it does show that game design and balance is at least as important as flashy graphics.
It's the cheating aspect (item farmers, lag hackers) that turns a lot of people off multiplayer games - and when the company moderating steps in to stop it, what do we see. They get sued (see previous/. article) by the childish idiots who are getting their jollies at the expense of the people who paid expecting a "game".
I'd say let the troll alone. But if all the people who wanted to play within the rules left, there wouldn't be anyone left but the cheaters - and they're not interested in playing each other as they might lose (god forbid)!
Just be thankful you no longer work for idiots like that. I remember one of the software engineering manuals where the author had sat in on a manager and a tech expert. The expert said that the task would take X number of months. And the manager started to haggle. And the consultant sitting in started to laugh at him.
This is always going to happen, because mostly the "business manager" is used to haggling with customers, not the intractable, imutable laws of physics (Yer cannae change the...) and programing, that most intricate software development involves.
Having said that, as a tech architect, knowing that every software development is a brand new challenge, how could anyone give you anything but a pretty wooly estimate. But having done the manager thing, I can pretty much say that most programmers are pretty agressive with estimates - you should always double them. Halving them for political expediency as a manager leads you to embarassment, or slopey shoulders syndrome and a lack of trust in your ability to manage from below in either case.
Oh, I'm missing something - ahh yes...
She's a student. She should be
a) studying
b) socialising
c) earning money to pay for degree.
Unless it's a media degree, I can't think of a larger waste of time at university than watching television (unless it's taped lectures). When I was there, there weren't enough hours in the week to do everything. Sports, societies, meeting new people, parties...
Tell her to go out and meet people.
> will that cover the cost of pressing and marketing the discs?
That's missing the point - those 10,000 people don't need marketing to, as they will actively hunt down the product. It's a case of the pressing - if it were available, I just ring the owner, send him the X dollar/pound/euro tarrif, and they'll send me a copy.
I can appreciate the syndication argument, but it doesn't hold water with the hard to find, "not worth our while to produce on DVD/VHS" shows. So they get "made available" through other means.
And, of course, then people think, since that was OK, we can do it for mainstream shows. And now the "it's not worth our while" crowd suddenly take note. But its too late.
And isn't that just a shame...
And for all that, I'm still not in favour of people ripping off popular, premium (not aired to public) shows. But if it's broadcast to the masses - then it's fair game (gone public).
I think that the musicians should be offered several options by the record companies. How about one of the following?
A contract as an employee, where they get paid an annual salary, and give up all rights to what they produce in that field (sound familiar to you).
Or, a VC style business loan, to Band Name Inc. where the record company gets X% ownership in return for the money invested (should also sound familiar). The band are tied in as executive directors, and cannot leave for a specified period. The company will own the rights to the music. Specific dividend and salary clauses will ensure the artists and manger/agent get paid.
It's hard enough getting people to read up on the two "main" candidates, without injecting a third.
Its even more difficult to suggest to people that "because my parents do" is not a valid reason to vote for a political party...
I believe it was down to the individual european contries individual patent offices...
I'm afraid you're definitely showing your plain naivete, as Britain has had patents for over five hundred years...
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/history/fivehundre d/origins.htm
This is pretty much what everyone would say - make sure you can compile and run from the code before its accepted (and if it doesn't, find MS in contempt of court, and jail all its corporate officers).
Each to their own hobies Tom.
I think the point is that if I *do* decide to play a game touted at $40 + a monthly cost, I am not expecting to have to routinely go and bid on objects on eBay just to ensure that I'm experiencing a level playing field.
I think the guy who posted that the farmers should be class actioned by all "normal" players for their "denial of service" (denial of access to the fair game you paid to play in the first place) was spot on.
As was stated, its a game. Games have rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't have to play the game. But if you deliberately take part in the game and not follow the rules, then you're going to ruin it for the other players. And if they're paying for the *privilege* of playing...
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up!
I always recommend Schildt's books. Clear descriptions, good example code. Perfect for a complete novice beginner.
I learned from "C, The Complete Reference". The examples on how pointers work - excellent.
OK, lets set this out shall we.
/. article) by the childish idiots who are getting their jollies at the expense of the people who paid expecting a "game".
The object of taking part (as an amateur) is to have fun playing the game.
The object of the game is to win, within the rules of the game.
Playing outside of the rules means you are quite happy with the concept of spoiling the game for other people. They are not sore losers, because you cheated. Children cheat because they don't fully appreciate the need for rules, and are testing their boundaries.
Summary: Adults have no excuse for cheating, other than that they haven't fully grown up yet.
Back to the article:
It's well written. And only today, there was memepool mentioning an article on why modern video games are rubbish. but it does show that game design and balance is at least as important as flashy graphics.
It's the cheating aspect (item farmers, lag hackers) that turns a lot of people off multiplayer games - and when the company moderating steps in to stop it, what do we see. They get sued (see previous
I'd say let the troll alone. But if all the people who wanted to play within the rules left, there wouldn't be anyone left but the cheaters - and they're not interested in playing each other as they might lose (god forbid)!
Hey, some of us are still playing moria ... now if only there was a multiplayer version. We might need a bigger playing area than 80x24 mind.
I can't see this happening while the Direct Marketing Association is lobbying (read bribing) the government.
I think this is more to stop people writing their own binaries to cheat ...
Just be thankful you no longer work for idiots like that. I remember one of the software engineering manuals where the author had sat in on a manager and a tech expert. The expert said that the task would take X number of months. And the manager started to haggle. And the consultant sitting in started to laugh at him.
...) and programing, that most intricate software development involves.
This is always going to happen, because mostly the "business manager" is used to haggling with customers, not the intractable, imutable laws of physics (Yer cannae change the
Having said that, as a tech architect, knowing that every software development is a brand new challenge, how could anyone give you anything but a pretty wooly estimate. But having done the manager thing, I can pretty much say that most programmers are pretty agressive with estimates - you should always double them. Halving them for political expediency as a manager leads you to embarassment, or slopey shoulders syndrome and a lack of trust in your ability to manage from below in either case.
Good luck with your next job.
Oh, I'm missing something - ahh yes ...
She's a student. She should be
a) studying
b) socialising
c) earning money to pay for degree.
Unless it's a media degree, I can't think of a larger waste of time at university than watching television (unless it's taped lectures). When I was there, there weren't enough hours in the week to do everything. Sports, societies, meeting new people, parties ...
Tell her to go out and meet people.
> will that cover the cost of pressing and marketing the discs?
...
That's missing the point - those 10,000 people don't need marketing to, as they will actively hunt down the product. It's a case of the pressing - if it were available, I just ring the owner, send him the X dollar/pound/euro tarrif, and they'll send me a copy.
I can appreciate the syndication argument, but it doesn't hold water with the hard to find, "not worth our while to produce on DVD/VHS" shows. So they get "made available" through other means.
And, of course, then people think, since that was OK, we can do it for mainstream shows. And now the "it's not worth our while" crowd suddenly take note. But its too late.
And isn't that just a shame
And for all that, I'm still not in favour of people ripping off popular, premium (not aired to public) shows. But if it's broadcast to the masses - then it's fair game (gone public).
I'm sure every Red Dwarf, Black Adder, yadda yadda comedy cult classics fan ...
I think that the musicians should be offered several options by the record companies. How about one of the following?
A contract as an employee, where they get paid an annual salary, and give up all rights to what they produce in that field (sound familiar to you).
Or, a VC style business loan, to Band Name Inc. where the record company gets X% ownership in return for the money invested (should also sound familiar). The band are tied in as executive directors, and cannot leave for a specified period. The company will own the rights to the music. Specific dividend and salary clauses will ensure the artists and manger/agent get paid.
It's hard enough getting people to read up on the two "main" candidates, without injecting a third. Its even more difficult to suggest to people that "because my parents do" is not a valid reason to vote for a political party ...
Cold served revenge of course!
Feel free to spell and pronounce Aluminium as you like. As long as you change your spelling of Condominium ...
I believe it was down to the individual european contries individual patent offices ...
I'm afraid you're definitely showing your plain naivete, as Britain has had patents for over five hundred years ...
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/history/fivehundre d/origins.htm
This is pretty much what everyone would say - make sure you can compile and run from the code before its accepted (and if it doesn't, find MS in contempt of court, and jail all its corporate officers).
As is carefully explained in the book "Starship Troupers" by Robert Heinlein ...
Since I'm only listening to one instance of the music, all other copies (perhaps including the original) are currently "archived" perhaps?
I suspect this is exactly how the farmers are seen by Mythic, but they can't come up with some way of limiting their access to the spawning areas.
Each to their own hobies Tom. I think the point is that if I *do* decide to play a game touted at $40 + a monthly cost, I am not expecting to have to routinely go and bid on objects on eBay just to ensure that I'm experiencing a level playing field. I think the guy who posted that the farmers should be class actioned by all "normal" players for their "denial of service" (denial of access to the fair game you paid to play in the first place) was spot on. As was stated, its a game. Games have rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't have to play the game. But if you deliberately take part in the game and not follow the rules, then you're going to ruin it for the other players. And if they're paying for the *privilege* of playing ...