The art form will never die... how long have MIDI keyboards been around?
Or MIDI guitars, for that matter?
Actually, talking of '80s tech (like MIDI) and guitars reminds me of something that was said (in all seriousness) during the mid-1980s (IIRC) when samplers were just starting to become popular in the music industry.
It went along the lines of "by sampling Jimi Hendrix tracks, you would be able to effectively create a new Jimi Hendrix song". Now, those probably weren't the exact words. I don't think the person was necessarily claiming that this would necessarily be the 'work of Hendrix' per se; but he *was* implying that you could create a new guitar song by sampling Hendrix.
Sure, you might be able to sample a bass guitar, or a single riff, and you might get away with it once or twice; but if you use it repeatedly, it's going to become obvious that it's a sample. And if you think that you can take something as fluid as Hendrix's guitar playing and (using '80s tech) reassemble it into a different, but "authentic-sounding" Hendrix track, you need your head (or ears) examined.
On reflection, it sounds like something Look Around You would have parodied.
Can anyone post a link to a good article outlining exactly what is and isn't legal in the UK WRT software patents?
My understanding is that quite a lot of this can get through the back door, although whether this means a lot of it would stand up in court is unclear.
The funny thing is that today, in those discount bins, I've found the movie 1984! I was looking forward to seeing if the adaptation from the book was good:)
Seems that you understand this stuff.. tell me why firing her saves their asses? If I were the owner I'd fire them regardless..
Because you're not the owner; the owner probably isn't *that* technically brilliant, and can be conned into thinking the problem lay with this woman's actions rather than a fundamental flaw with the system.
Strangely, I agree with some of what you said. I have little respect for celebrities, sheep-like consumerism, phoney friendliness and corporate bullshit make me sick, and...
No. *You* missed on several points. This isn't about my personality. This isn't about that part of *your* personality either. As I said, "It's okay to not be a 'small talk' person, as you are." That's your choice.
You don't have to *like* anyone else's approach to life, but your inability to understand the purpose of smalltalk is so wilful, it suggests self-justification. Like it or not, small-talk has a purpose beyond the surface vacuousness. Human beings are complex animals, not what-you-see-is-what-you-get machines. It isn't rational to consider them accordingly.
You might like it that way, but that's something different altogether.
If I have cause to deal with someone, I don't want to find out that the person I'm dealing with is an impatient, self-centred, untrustworthy psychopath some time down the line. But I'm sure as hell not going to find that out by sitting the guy down at a desk and asking a bunch of questions. That's small-talk.... but, we've already been here. You don't like it. We already knew that.
When I talk of "self-awareness", I don't mean merely likes and dislikes, and your place relative to everyone else's shortcomings etc. I mean the ability to see yourself from a 'neutral' point-of-view, without imposing your own personality upon this. Your "self-awareness" has your personality stamped all over it, as far as I can tell.
And no, that's not "knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things?". It's knowing one's self. Anyway how do you know what the "grand scheme of things is"? If there's a "grand scheme of things", it's operating on a far grander scale than you're likely to be considering (to consider it requires you to think outside your own values, and also outside the values of the society you live in); sounds more like you're thinking about your place in society.
Maybe you're the type of person who cares about that sort of thing, after all. Hmm?
And then you said... I suppose I should be tolerant, though. You just haven't evolved past the need for meaningless braying when around your fellow species-members. It's not your fault--you were born that way.
Wrong. Stupid. Blinkered.
You make a *lot* of assumptions about me because you thought my consideration of the way others think, and the reasons for their behaviour meant I shared those values.
Wrong.
If anyone intends to post follow-up criticism to this post, be aware:
* Arguing with me will not make you right.
BRILLIANT! *This* is what I meant when I was discussing self-awareness.
Taken at face value, this is of course true. Unfortunately, it's also fairly pointless. Arguing in itself won't make them right; it won't necessarily make them wrong either. What *you* probably mean is "arguing with me will not convince me that I'm wrong". Never does, of course- that's human nature.
We're all like that, you included. You'd have figured that out if you were more self-aware.
* I've already moved on. Don't waste your time.
If what others think doesn't affect you, why did you bother posting to/. at all?
I never really bought the "social skills" bunk. I think chitchat and small talk is useless and stupid so I usually don't engage in it. Does this mean I don't have "social skills"? As long as you are articulate, and unless you are in public relations, fuck "social skills".
Stereotypical pseudo-rational geek attitude.
The inconsequential "chitchat and small talk" are the manner in which we find out more about the person we're dealing with before things get more serious, allowing us to "feel our way round" when we are unsure. This may apply to both strangers and people we're currently unsure of; don't bring on the heavy stuff first. They're the manner in which we show respect by asking questions about the other person that may not *directly* involve the business we have with them; of course, this may open up opportunities we hadn't considered, possibly leading to friendship and/or greater business involvement.
Not everyone is equally good at this. Not everyone places equal importance on it. That's part of the healthy mix of personalities that push some people to work in public-facing jobs, and others to work in more "human-phobic" areas (such as the more technical aspects of computer hardware). It's okay to not be a "small talk" person, as you are.
On the other hand, to criticise it for being "useless" (because it doesn't serve any obvious purpose) smacks of blinkered short-sightedness and the kind of (phoney) rationalisation of their own behaviour that geeks like to indulge in.
Frankly, the kind of people who come out with this kind of stuff probably consider themselves "rational". Actually, that displays a laughable (and verging-on-the-autistic) lack of self-awareness. Geeks are no more "rational" than a lot of other people; they have their own neuroses and obsessions that are obvious when you take a step back. For example, to use the same surface "rationalisation", what purpose does being fanatical about "Star Trek", an entirely fictitious TV show serve? None. Surely it's more rational or logical (*) to live in the real world.
Of course, the fan will explain how it represents the problems of today's world in a semi-abstract manner, blah blah... the more insightful will mention that it provides an outlet for the geek personality type. Point is; if they are forced to explain it in depth, they'll put the effort into considering their own behaviour that they won't even waste considering anyone else's. (Although they won't explain it as an excuse to escape the real world or dress in fantasy costumes; that would be too close to the bone).
So, to get back to the point, your failure to even recognise the purpose of small talk (whether you like it or not) smacks of the most arrogant and deluded abuse of rationality to justify your own shortcomings and behaviour.
(*) Reminds me of a friend I had in my early teens who was into sci-fi, had a crap geeky sense-of-humour and an obsession with Spock and "logic". He was no more logical than anyone else; in fact, sometimes he was downright weird. In retrospect, I reckon he was (slightly) autistic in some form.
The one thing I'd point out is that I *do* see the developers being interviewed, gushing about how they can render stuff that competes with Hollywood, yadda yadda, and you really do get the impression that they're so keen to have these Hollywood values that they miss the irony that they're basically denigrating their own medium by feeling the need to judge their own success by the terms set in a different field.
As for game makers' names going on the box... I remember the Bitmap Brothers doing that in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, it smacked of pop-industry hype back then.
Anyway, if I was religious, I'd thank God I'm not that much into modern games; it would break my heart to have to put up with the bullshit and compromise involved. And I might get starry eyed and end up working horribly long hours on production-line code at EA games. Ugh.
Yeah, but the problem with calling modern games worthless, unfun crap that no-one would want to play
Which wasn't at all what I said; for one thing, I wouldn't make such a blanket statement, and secondly, I didn't say that they were worthless or unfun (although a large proportion undoubtedly are).
If no one wanted to play the upteenth iteration of GTA then there wouldn't be an upteenth + 1 version of it.
Which I acknowledged by saying that "there will always be a market for unimaginative, glossy games, and there will always be the bottom line".
I'll admit that that comes across in quite a negative manner; I'd intended putting something in there about mindless arcade games sometimes being fun. But they're still pretty uninspiring in the long run.
The problem is the majority of people do want to play GTA
Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy? The kind of people who buy computer games are the kind of people who are into computer games, who are the kind of people those computer games are written for. In other words, the majority of people who currently buy mainstream computer games, *not* the majority of the potential market out there.
I reckon at one stage 4 or 5 years ago, that the most played computer game in the world must have been either MS Solitaire or the Nokia phone Snake game.
And even back then, they looked as crude as hell. Most of the people playing those games probably wouldn't ever wander into their High Street branch of Game, or whatever.
While I realize that the gaming industry thinks that games are Hollywood productions, I honestly think fun games require nothing of the sort.
Urgh. Never understood why people thought Hollywood was glamorous or in any way desirable.
But that's beside the point, which is that those in The Industry want it to be like Hollywood, because somehow that's Grown Up. This Shows that The Industry Has Matured. They want their prestigious awards. They want to be Just Like Movie Directors. It all smacks of insecurity.
It also smacks of driving themselves into a bloated hole where they now can't *afford* to take risks because the costs of game development are so high.
There will always be a market for unimaginative, glossy games, and there will always be the bottom line. But to treat this as an ideal is frankly twisted.
Games are *not* (or should not be) like films. Films are not interactive. Games are. Imagine what the film industry would have been like if Directors had been in thrall to still photography.
"High production value" cut-scenes are bullshit. They aren't interactive, and they jar with the style of the rest of the game; but they let bloated-ego software developers Compare Themselves To Hollywood.
If you want to apply production values like that, apply them to the game itself, not to cut-scenes, no matter how well-made.
Instead of playing wannabe Scorsese, those in the industry should be concentrating on the potential of *their* medium; to allow the player more freedom to do what they want to do (the path it would have been interesting to see them go down), to choose new and different styles of gameplay, rather than the same restricted gameplay in progressively better-rendered worlds. Cut scenes, by their very nature, are going to force gameplay through predefined points. It's all so..... old-fashioned.
Anyway, enough... yeah, I'm probably getting old, but this isn't so much about romanticisation of the past. It's criticism of the way that, rather than focusing on the way technology could open up exciting new avenues in gameplay, the Industry has concentrated on turning out (basically) the same old stuff, but with ego-bolstering production values.
The article said that most developers would be using only one of the PS3's processors for most operations. Well, when you're used to designing for one processor, you tend to continue designing for one processor.
Not really surprising; at any rate, it may be essential to get used to this type of architecture/programming, as The Free Lunch Is Over, if this article is to be believed. (This may have featured in/.; I forget where I first saw it).
You know, I see what you're getting at. I'm kind of arguing this for the hell of it:)
However... I was discussing absolute "freedom of *action*" in the sense that you're not *prohibited* from doing anything.
I didn't mean the God-like freedom to do what you want, nor to avoid the consequences of your actions. The latter would require making some other entity less "free" anyway.
If you are on a desert island, you are not forced to do anything. You can sit on your arse, dehydrate and die- if you have the willpower. Freedom in that sense *must* include the freedom to do what you want with your own life, if that's in the set of actions available to you.
The point being that saying everything is ultimately free is the same as saying that nothing is free.
No, I'm not sure that this applies to "freedom" in the sense that I meant. I would say that saying everything is free (in that sense)- which it is- effectively renders freedom (in the same sense) meaningless.
Practical freedom is, of course, a different kettle of fish. It is more desirable, and includes an element of power. It also requires restriction, which prompts some to complain about their "freedom" being restricted. This *is* where my somewhat ivory-towered point approaches real-world practicality. There's always going to be some guy bitching that someone's imposing on his "freedom".
But, as I mentioned, we have to decide where it is acceptable to put ones face and where it is acceptable to swing one's arms (*this* is where the conflict lies), and if we say to people "do what you like", we have the absolute "freedom" described above (yuk!) and a totally unworkable society. Or rather, we don't, since chances are people will come together and decide some rules on swinging arms/putting faces (!) which they may wish to impose on others. And so on, yadda yadda...
BTW, your discussion about choosing to be Not Free points to a good chink in the armour of what I was saying; namely, that we don't have the choice to be born- let alone born into a "blank slate" society.
[ I wrote a long-winded section here about how the rights of children conflict with the responsibilities- and rights- of parents, but it got out of hand. ]
You seem to be saying that while Hitler was clearly only embracing facism to gain power, it apears at least that Mao and Stalin had at least some attachment to their causes.
No, I was saying that Mao and Stalin exploited their supposed causes simply as a means to an end; "they latched onto their respective causes solely to gain power".
Your "useful" meaning of freedom is obviously necessary for a workable society, but it does imply restriction at *some* level that goes against the "literal" meaning of freedom. And your definition says nothing about where (reasonably) one can swing their arms, or one can stick their face; this must also be argued.
My point was that; if everyone is free to do what they choose (in the absolute, unrestricted sense), then they must still accept the consequences of their actions, and the situation they are in, if it was reached from an initially free position- which it was. To have it any other way would imply restricting the "freedom" of others.
So, any actions done by a person(s) A to another person(s) B, including smacking them in the face, or imposing an unwanted society and/or system of law is the result of A's freedom. B is also free to respond to this in any way they like; including ignoring the A's laws/punishments (AKA threats). A in turn can use *their* freedom to punish (AKA attack) B who broke their "laws".
Thus, all societies started from a point of "freedom" and can be considered "free".
And so on..... this would be intellectual masturbation if it weren't fundamentally true.
And; if God imposes Free Will upon man, then the religious types can claim that man is Free to do what he likes. I'm not religious personally, but if God does not directly impose his (His...) will upon Man, then Man is still free to choose to ignore this, and morality is still only God's choice.
This, of course, assumes we are discussing a Christian God; I'm no expert on religion, and certainly not non-Christian ones.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it's really funny to watch someone's brain asplode as they try to artificially twist real-world politics down to a mere two pidgeonholes.
Not really; if you re-read the post, you'll see I said that "the only thing I'm really sure about is that 'left wing' and 'right wing' are pretty damn stupid labels anyway", and then proceeded to point out their contradictions.
The reason you can't do it is because politics is not one-dimensional.
That's the gist of what I was saying.
Having only a lousy two reference points, a line is the result - and from that is drawn left and right, a retarded one dimensional political concept.
Which would make 'left wing' and 'right wing' "pretty damn stupid labels anyway", as I was saying:)
You wouldn't happen to be American by any chance?
No, but I suspect your misreading of what I meant may have been guided by that wrong assumption. Also (possibly) by my bad phrasing (the post was train of thought as much as anything), although I don't think I was that unclear.
Actually, I'm a Scot, and I don't consider the American concept of 'left' and 'right' to be very meaningful. I mean, how the **** did "liberal" come to mean "left wing"? Well, (a) Because American politics are inherently biased to the right (by world standards) and (b) the inherent contradiction in the "right" and "left" wing labels and ideologies.
Anyway, no offence taken; my brain doesn't hurt because I already recognised what you're trying to say- my brain hurts because there's plenty more complex stuff when it comes to politics.
I thought you meant the likes of 'The Sun', but then I realised that you were thinking of 'The Sunday Sport'.
Even then, I'm still trying to imagine "OI SOD GRANNY BIFF RUMPY PUMPY SUITS YOU SIR" on the front page of a newspaper... it's the literary equivalent of a Pablo Picasso painting of the bastard offspring of Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci.
Isn't "libertarian" a right-wing thing?
I'm sure the "left-wing" "equivalent" would be "anarchist"...
Actually, the only thing I'm really sure about is that "left wing" and "right wing" are pretty damn stupid labels anyway.
"Right wing" is pro-freedom, except when it's pro-repression against things it doesn't like....
"Left wing" is anti-repression, except when it's anti-freedom for things it doesn't like.
They're all so similar to each other; it's a surprise they don't get along better... actually, the main problem is that the left wing become the thing they hate in order to keep society distorted enough to support their "ideal" (although in the case of people like Stalin and Mao, it's pretty clear that they were power-hungry dictators on a par with [Godwin filter activated]; they latched onto their respective causes solely to gain power. I'd say they were right-wing in that sense, although I might be showing left-wing bias there; however, those dictators had idealistic, blinkered zealots to support them- *those* people are dangerous).
And the "right wing" don't care about the hypocrisy present in themselves, because when it comes down to it, they want freedom to do what the hell *they* want to do, without giving anyone else the freedom to stop them.
And if you live in a world unfettered by outside intelligence- or if you consider your God external to human will- as most people think they do, then you have to accept the premise that all humans-- all *organisms*-- started from a blank slate with no external laws, and used this absolute "freedom" to influence the behaviour of other humans/organisms. Everyone lives in a "free" society in this sense; laws, repression and such are just other organisms using their absolute freedom to influence them.
And, of course, if we could somehow create "absolute" freedom again, we may well end up with (allegedly) left-wing, "un"-free societies created by groups of people exerting their freedom on other people. Those other people are free to disregard the "laws" of this society, although they will suffer the consequences (as they would in an entirely free society). No-one's "freedom" is infringed, no matter what the outcome
And this- to cut an increasingly long story short- is why you can either consider "freedom" supporting right-wingers to be full of crap, or alternately, that they already won, their beds were made, and they should lie in them because "freedom" already exists and there's nothing they can do to make this world more "free".
Alternately, you could just consider "freedom" a contradiction spouted by people who don't know or care what type of freedom they want (see above).
I really *have* to start expressing my points more concisely.
IOW, if civil service and/or Pentagon yahoos took the trouble to write up a 5 page spec defining exactly what kind of "hammer" they wanted, they got charged $200 for that claw hammer, since it took us so much time to verify that the $5 Stanley hammer actually met the 5 pages worth of specifications.
That as may be, isn't it also a convenient tactic for the US government to divert money and resources into Top Secret hush-hush projects that they really *don't* want people finding out about?
Actually, the joke was a reference to the penultimate episode of the new 'Doctor Who' series (*), so it was neither particularly unoriginal, nor out of context.
I'll refrain from explaining how, in the light of this, your post makes you look like a major-league ****- that much is blindingly apparent anyway. I'll also refrain from making the obvious joke because (a) I hate that show and (b) It really *wouldn't* be funny this time.
(*) Not particularly spoilerish: The penultimate episode of the series (effectively the first of a two part story) featured a futuristic version of 'The Weakest Link' with a killer 'Anne Droid' robot (har har). Rather too silly (and unimaginative) for my tastes, but the final episode was better.
Slashdot Mirror
The art form will never die... how long have MIDI keyboards been around?
Or MIDI guitars, for that matter?
Actually, talking of '80s tech (like MIDI) and guitars reminds me of something that was said (in all seriousness) during the mid-1980s (IIRC) when samplers were just starting to become popular in the music industry.
It went along the lines of "by sampling Jimi Hendrix tracks, you would be able to effectively create a new Jimi Hendrix song". Now, those probably weren't the exact words. I don't think the person was necessarily claiming that this would necessarily be the 'work of Hendrix' per se; but he *was* implying that you could create a new guitar song by sampling Hendrix.
Sure, you might be able to sample a bass guitar, or a single riff, and you might get away with it once or twice; but if you use it repeatedly, it's going to become obvious that it's a sample. And if you think that you can take something as fluid as Hendrix's guitar playing and (using '80s tech) reassemble it into a different, but "authentic-sounding" Hendrix track, you need your head (or ears) examined.
On reflection, it sounds like something Look Around You would have parodied.
Can anyone post a link to a good article outlining exactly what is and isn't legal in the UK WRT software patents?
My understanding is that quite a lot of this can get through the back door, although whether this means a lot of it would stand up in court is unclear.
And if anybody thinks this is cute, I wrote my own fucking will rather than pay some dirty pirate lawyer to do it. Any monkey could do it.
I hired a monkey to write my will, but all I got was the complete works of Shakespeare.
The funny thing is that today, in those discount bins, I've found the movie 1984! I was looking forward to seeing if the adaptation from the book was good :)
In totalitarian Oceania, the DVD watches YOU!!!
Seems that you understand this stuff .. tell me why firing her saves their asses? If I were the owner I'd fire them regardless..
Because you're not the owner; the owner probably isn't *that* technically brilliant, and can be conned into thinking the problem lay with this woman's actions rather than a fundamental flaw with the system.
Yesss! Thank you... you made the point I was trying to make in *my* reply, but in a far more efficient, concise and to-the-point manner.
If I'd read this one first, I wouldn't have bothered posting my reply.
You talk too much
:-)
Absolutely...
Strangely, I agree with some of what you said. I have little respect for celebrities, sheep-like consumerism, phoney friendliness and corporate bullshit make me sick, and...
/. at all?
No. *You* missed on several points. This isn't about my personality. This isn't about that part of *your* personality either. As I said, "It's okay to not be a 'small talk' person, as you are." That's your choice.
You don't have to *like* anyone else's approach to life, but your inability to understand the purpose of smalltalk is so wilful, it suggests self-justification. Like it or not, small-talk has a purpose beyond the surface vacuousness. Human beings are complex animals, not what-you-see-is-what-you-get machines. It isn't rational to consider them accordingly.
You might like it that way, but that's something different altogether.
If I have cause to deal with someone, I don't want to find out that the person I'm dealing with is an impatient, self-centred, untrustworthy psychopath some time down the line. But I'm sure as hell not going to find that out by sitting the guy down at a desk and asking a bunch of questions. That's small-talk.... but, we've already been here. You don't like it. We already knew that.
When I talk of "self-awareness", I don't mean merely likes and dislikes, and your place relative to everyone else's shortcomings etc. I mean the ability to see yourself from a 'neutral' point-of-view, without imposing your own personality upon this. Your "self-awareness" has your personality stamped all over it, as far as I can tell.
And no, that's not "knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things?". It's knowing one's self. Anyway how do you know what the "grand scheme of things is"? If there's a "grand scheme of things", it's operating on a far grander scale than you're likely to be considering (to consider it requires you to think outside your own values, and also outside the values of the society you live in); sounds more like you're thinking about your place in society.
Maybe you're the type of person who cares about that sort of thing, after all. Hmm?
And then you said... I suppose I should be tolerant, though. You just haven't evolved past the need for meaningless braying when around your fellow species-members. It's not your fault--you were born that way.
Wrong. Stupid. Blinkered.
You make a *lot* of assumptions about me because you thought my consideration of the way others think, and the reasons for their behaviour meant I shared those values.
Wrong.
If anyone intends to post follow-up criticism to this post, be aware:
* Arguing with me will not make you right.
BRILLIANT! *This* is what I meant when I was discussing self-awareness.
Taken at face value, this is of course true. Unfortunately, it's also fairly pointless. Arguing in itself won't make them right; it won't necessarily make them wrong either. What *you* probably mean is "arguing with me will not convince me that I'm wrong". Never does, of course- that's human nature.
We're all like that, you included. You'd have figured that out if you were more self-aware.
* I've already moved on. Don't waste your time.
If what others think doesn't affect you, why did you bother posting to
I never really bought the "social skills" bunk. I think chitchat and small talk is useless and stupid so I usually don't engage in it. Does this mean I don't have "social skills"? As long as you are articulate, and unless you are in public relations, fuck "social skills".
Stereotypical pseudo-rational geek attitude.
The inconsequential "chitchat and small talk" are the manner in which we find out more about the person we're dealing with before things get more serious, allowing us to "feel our way round" when we are unsure. This may apply to both strangers and people we're currently unsure of; don't bring on the heavy stuff first. They're the manner in which we show respect by asking questions about the other person that may not *directly* involve the business we have with them; of course, this may open up opportunities we hadn't considered, possibly leading to friendship and/or greater business involvement.
Not everyone is equally good at this. Not everyone places equal importance on it. That's part of the healthy mix of personalities that push some people to work in public-facing jobs, and others to work in more "human-phobic" areas (such as the more technical aspects of computer hardware). It's okay to not be a "small talk" person, as you are.
On the other hand, to criticise it for being "useless" (because it doesn't serve any obvious purpose) smacks of blinkered short-sightedness and the kind of (phoney) rationalisation of their own behaviour that geeks like to indulge in.
Frankly, the kind of people who come out with this kind of stuff probably consider themselves "rational". Actually, that displays a laughable (and verging-on-the-autistic) lack of self-awareness. Geeks are no more "rational" than a lot of other people; they have their own neuroses and obsessions that are obvious when you take a step back. For example, to use the same surface "rationalisation", what purpose does being fanatical about "Star Trek", an entirely fictitious TV show serve? None. Surely it's more rational or logical (*) to live in the real world.
Of course, the fan will explain how it represents the problems of today's world in a semi-abstract manner, blah blah... the more insightful will mention that it provides an outlet for the geek personality type. Point is; if they are forced to explain it in depth, they'll put the effort into considering their own behaviour that they won't even waste considering anyone else's. (Although they won't explain it as an excuse to escape the real world or dress in fantasy costumes; that would be too close to the bone).
So, to get back to the point, your failure to even recognise the purpose of small talk (whether you like it or not) smacks of the most arrogant and deluded abuse of rationality to justify your own shortcomings and behaviour.
(*) Reminds me of a friend I had in my early teens who was into sci-fi, had a crap geeky sense-of-humour and an obsession with Spock and "logic". He was no more logical than anyone else; in fact, sometimes he was downright weird. In retrospect, I reckon he was (slightly) autistic in some form.
Interesting reply, thanks.
The one thing I'd point out is that I *do* see the developers being interviewed, gushing about how they can render stuff that competes with Hollywood, yadda yadda, and you really do get the impression that they're so keen to have these Hollywood values that they miss the irony that they're basically denigrating their own medium by feeling the need to judge their own success by the terms set in a different field.
As for game makers' names going on the box... I remember the Bitmap Brothers doing that in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, it smacked of pop-industry hype back then.
Anyway, if I was religious, I'd thank God I'm not that much into modern games; it would break my heart to have to put up with the bullshit and compromise involved. And I might get starry eyed and end up working horribly long hours on production-line code at EA games. Ugh.
Yeah, but the problem with calling modern games worthless, unfun crap that no-one would want to play
Which wasn't at all what I said; for one thing, I wouldn't make such a blanket statement, and secondly, I didn't say that they were worthless or unfun (although a large proportion undoubtedly are).
If no one wanted to play the upteenth iteration of GTA then there wouldn't be an upteenth + 1 version of it.
Which I acknowledged by saying that "there will always be a market for unimaginative, glossy games, and there will always be the bottom line".
I'll admit that that comes across in quite a negative manner; I'd intended putting something in there about mindless arcade games sometimes being fun. But they're still pretty uninspiring in the long run.
The problem is the majority of people do want to play GTA
Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy? The kind of people who buy computer games are the kind of people who are into computer games, who are the kind of people those computer games are written for. In other words, the majority of people who currently buy mainstream computer games, *not* the majority of the potential market out there.
I reckon at one stage 4 or 5 years ago, that the most played computer game in the world must have been either MS Solitaire or the Nokia phone Snake game.
And even back then, they looked as crude as hell. Most of the people playing those games probably wouldn't ever wander into their High Street branch of Game, or whatever.
While I realize that the gaming industry thinks that games are Hollywood productions, I honestly think fun games require nothing of the sort.
Urgh. Never understood why people thought Hollywood was glamorous or in any way desirable.
But that's beside the point, which is that those in The Industry want it to be like Hollywood, because somehow that's Grown Up. This Shows that The Industry Has Matured. They want their prestigious awards. They want to be Just Like Movie Directors. It all smacks of insecurity.
It also smacks of driving themselves into a bloated hole where they now can't *afford* to take risks because the costs of game development are so high.
There will always be a market for unimaginative, glossy games, and there will always be the bottom line. But to treat this as an ideal is frankly twisted.
Games are *not* (or should not be) like films. Films are not interactive. Games are. Imagine what the film industry would have been like if Directors had been in thrall to still photography.
"High production value" cut-scenes are bullshit. They aren't interactive, and they jar with the style of the rest of the game; but they let bloated-ego software developers Compare Themselves To Hollywood.
If you want to apply production values like that, apply them to the game itself, not to cut-scenes, no matter how well-made.
Instead of playing wannabe Scorsese, those in the industry should be concentrating on the potential of *their* medium; to allow the player more freedom to do what they want to do (the path it would have been interesting to see them go down), to choose new and different styles of gameplay, rather than the same restricted gameplay in progressively better-rendered worlds. Cut scenes, by their very nature, are going to force gameplay through predefined points. It's all so..... old-fashioned.
Anyway, enough... yeah, I'm probably getting old, but this isn't so much about romanticisation of the past. It's criticism of the way that, rather than focusing on the way technology could open up exciting new avenues in gameplay, the Industry has concentrated on turning out (basically) the same old stuff, but with ego-bolstering production values.
The article said that most developers would be using only one of the PS3's processors for most operations. Well, when you're used to designing for one processor, you tend to continue designing for one processor.
/.; I forget where I first saw it).
Not really surprising; at any rate, it may be essential to get used to this type of architecture/programming, as The Free Lunch Is Over, if this article is to be believed. (This may have featured in
You know, I see what you're getting at. I'm kind of arguing this for the hell of it :)
However... I was discussing absolute "freedom of *action*" in the sense that you're not *prohibited* from doing anything.
I didn't mean the God-like freedom to do what you want, nor to avoid the consequences of your actions. The latter would require making some other entity less "free" anyway.
If you are on a desert island, you are not forced to do anything. You can sit on your arse, dehydrate and die- if you have the willpower. Freedom in that sense *must* include the freedom to do what you want with your own life, if that's in the set of actions available to you.
The point being that saying everything is ultimately free is the same as saying that nothing is free.
No, I'm not sure that this applies to "freedom" in the sense that I meant. I would say that saying everything is free (in that sense)- which it is- effectively renders freedom (in the same sense) meaningless.
Practical freedom is, of course, a different kettle of fish. It is more desirable, and includes an element of power. It also requires restriction, which prompts some to complain about their "freedom" being restricted. This *is* where my somewhat ivory-towered point approaches real-world practicality. There's always going to be some guy bitching that someone's imposing on his "freedom".
But, as I mentioned, we have to decide where it is acceptable to put ones face and where it is acceptable to swing one's arms (*this* is where the conflict lies), and if we say to people "do what you like", we have the absolute "freedom" described above (yuk!) and a totally unworkable society. Or rather, we don't, since chances are people will come together and decide some rules on swinging arms/putting faces (!) which they may wish to impose on others. And so on, yadda yadda...
BTW, your discussion about choosing to be Not Free points to a good chink in the armour of what I was saying; namely, that we don't have the choice to be born- let alone born into a "blank slate" society.
[ I wrote a long-winded section here about how the rights of children conflict with the responsibilities- and rights- of parents, but it got out of hand. ]
You mean litigate? They're not writing the law...
That depends how much money they're paying to the appropriate people in the US government.
You seem to be saying that while Hitler was clearly only embracing facism to gain power, it apears at least that Mao and Stalin had at least some attachment to their causes.
No, I was saying that Mao and Stalin exploited their supposed causes simply as a means to an end; "they latched onto their respective causes solely to gain power".
Your "useful" meaning of freedom is obviously necessary for a workable society, but it does imply restriction at *some* level that goes against the "literal" meaning of freedom. And your definition says nothing about where (reasonably) one can swing their arms, or one can stick their face; this must also be argued.
My point was that; if everyone is free to do what they choose (in the absolute, unrestricted sense), then they must still accept the consequences of their actions, and the situation they are in, if it was reached from an initially free position- which it was. To have it any other way would imply restricting the "freedom" of others.
So, any actions done by a person(s) A to another person(s) B, including smacking them in the face, or imposing an unwanted society and/or system of law is the result of A's freedom. B is also free to respond to this in any way they like; including ignoring the A's laws/punishments (AKA threats). A in turn can use *their* freedom to punish (AKA attack) B who broke their "laws".
Thus, all societies started from a point of "freedom" and can be considered "free".
And so on..... this would be intellectual masturbation if it weren't fundamentally true.
And; if God imposes Free Will upon man, then the religious types can claim that man is Free to do what he likes. I'm not religious personally, but if God does not directly impose his (His...) will upon Man, then Man is still free to choose to ignore this, and morality is still only God's choice.
This, of course, assumes we are discussing a Christian God; I'm no expert on religion, and certainly not non-Christian ones.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it's really funny to watch someone's brain asplode as they try to artificially twist real-world politics down to a mere two pidgeonholes.
:)
Not really; if you re-read the post, you'll see I said that "the only thing I'm really sure about is that 'left wing' and 'right wing' are pretty damn stupid labels anyway", and then proceeded to point out their contradictions.
The reason you can't do it is because politics is not one-dimensional.
That's the gist of what I was saying.
Having only a lousy two reference points, a line is the result - and from that is drawn left and right, a retarded one dimensional political concept.
Which would make 'left wing' and 'right wing' "pretty damn stupid labels anyway", as I was saying
You wouldn't happen to be American by any chance?
No, but I suspect your misreading of what I meant may have been guided by that wrong assumption. Also (possibly) by my bad phrasing (the post was train of thought as much as anything), although I don't think I was that unclear.
Actually, I'm a Scot, and I don't consider the American concept of 'left' and 'right' to be very meaningful. I mean, how the **** did "liberal" come to mean "left wing"? Well, (a) Because American politics are inherently biased to the right (by world standards) and (b) the inherent contradiction in the "right" and "left" wing labels and ideologies.
Anyway, no offence taken; my brain doesn't hurt because I already recognised what you're trying to say- my brain hurts because there's plenty more complex stuff when it comes to politics.
I thought you meant the likes of 'The Sun', but then I realised that you were thinking of 'The Sunday Sport'.
Even then, I'm still trying to imagine "OI SOD GRANNY BIFF RUMPY PUMPY SUITS YOU SIR" on the front page of a newspaper... it's the literary equivalent of a Pablo Picasso painting of the bastard offspring of Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci.
Now you're citing "Bottom" as an illustration of censorship? The mind boggles... :-)
Isn't "libertarian" a right-wing thing? I'm sure the "left-wing" "equivalent" would be "anarchist"...
Actually, the only thing I'm really sure about is that "left wing" and "right wing" are pretty damn stupid labels anyway.
"Right wing" is pro-freedom, except when it's pro-repression against things it doesn't like.... "Left wing" is anti-repression, except when it's anti-freedom for things it doesn't like.
They're all so similar to each other; it's a surprise they don't get along better... actually, the main problem is that the left wing become the thing they hate in order to keep society distorted enough to support their "ideal" (although in the case of people like Stalin and Mao, it's pretty clear that they were power-hungry dictators on a par with [Godwin filter activated]; they latched onto their respective causes solely to gain power. I'd say they were right-wing in that sense, although I might be showing left-wing bias there; however, those dictators had idealistic, blinkered zealots to support them- *those* people are dangerous).
And the "right wing" don't care about the hypocrisy present in themselves, because when it comes down to it, they want freedom to do what the hell *they* want to do, without giving anyone else the freedom to stop them.
And if you live in a world unfettered by outside intelligence- or if you consider your God external to human will- as most people think they do, then you have to accept the premise that all humans-- all *organisms*-- started from a blank slate with no external laws, and used this absolute "freedom" to influence the behaviour of other humans/organisms. Everyone lives in a "free" society in this sense; laws, repression and such are just other organisms using their absolute freedom to influence them.
And, of course, if we could somehow create "absolute" freedom again, we may well end up with (allegedly) left-wing, "un"-free societies created by groups of people exerting their freedom on other people. Those other people are free to disregard the "laws" of this society, although they will suffer the consequences (as they would in an entirely free society). No-one's "freedom" is infringed, no matter what the outcome
And this- to cut an increasingly long story short- is why you can either consider "freedom" supporting right-wingers to be full of crap, or alternately, that they already won, their beds were made, and they should lie in them because "freedom" already exists and there's nothing they can do to make this world more "free".
Alternately, you could just consider "freedom" a contradiction spouted by people who don't know or care what type of freedom they want (see above).
I really *have* to start expressing my points more concisely.
IOW, if civil service and/or Pentagon yahoos took the trouble to write up a 5 page spec defining exactly what kind of "hammer" they wanted, they got charged $200 for that claw hammer, since it took us so much time to verify that the $5 Stanley hammer actually met the 5 pages worth of specifications.
That as may be, isn't it also a convenient tactic for the US government to divert money and resources into Top Secret hush-hush projects that they really *don't* want people finding out about?
if there were only 1024 books. You know, don't want to risk overflowing my bookshelf...
1024 *will* 'overflow' your geek 'bookshelf' if- as you're implying- the number of books it holds has to be contained within 10 bits.
Unless, of course, you're using the class of bookshelves which can *never* be empty, and can thus hold 1-1024 books, instead of 0-1023.
Dalek scary 'turns the whole world negative' for the over 25s and 'turns people into x-rays' for the current kiddy-winks.
What about "white wee-wee! Exsperminate!"
Or isn't that canon? *cough*
Actually, the joke was a reference to the penultimate episode of the new 'Doctor Who' series (*), so it was neither particularly unoriginal, nor out of context.
I'll refrain from explaining how, in the light of this, your post makes you look like a major-league ****- that much is blindingly apparent anyway. I'll also refrain from making the obvious joke because (a) I hate that show and (b) It really *wouldn't* be funny this time.
(*) Not particularly spoilerish: The penultimate episode of the series (effectively the first of a two part story) featured a futuristic version of 'The Weakest Link' with a killer 'Anne Droid' robot (har har). Rather too silly (and unimaginative) for my tastes, but the final episode was better.
Out of interest, which MEP was that?