So everything Gates does is evil... unless it help's keep your lawn green...
Well, for those of us who enjoy asparagus, strawberries, artichokes, apples, blackberries, raspberries, peaches, apricots, rice or any of the other agricultural products grown in the western United States, creating a more sustainable source of water is a good thing for more than just lawn maintenance.
Having written a few games I just cannot see a situation where I would take on a "idea" person to assist me. I worked with a artist on my last and it was still 10% time his part and 90% my time to actually get it to work and finish the project.
I don't think anybody is saying someone should just be an 'idea person,' but there are some cases where a lot of in-game dialogue and backstory need to be conveyed to the player.
If you're writing all the dialogue, doing all the character/story concept work, designing all the interior/exterior environments conceptually and then taking everything and bringing it over into the virtual environment, that's a lot of work for some games. If you're trying to do all the engineering and game mechanics as well, then that's certainly admirable, but I think it's understandable if other groups choose to break up the responsibilities a bit more.
The problem is that they will not likely get a developer on board. Anyone that can sit down and write a game doesn't need help to do so. He is not likely to want to provide 100% of the work in exchange for a small amount if any profit.
It depends on what kind of a game they want to develop.
If the game doesn't really have a plot or strong characters, then you're spot on.
At the same time, if the game is heavy on plot and requires intricate dialogue trees, character design, setting concept and concepts for other in-game assets, then you're looking at a fair amount of work.
...Then a life of crime is all that awaits. It's easy to say you have high standards shutting potentially talented people out of your organization, but no one should be surprised if those people turn to illegitimate activities again.
That's kid stuff, I'm an armless, legless, headless chinchilla that has to worm my way over to the roll of paper tape and decode it by discerning the hole patterns with the part of my neck stump that still has functioning nerves.
Seriously, Vorbis and Theora are not supported by default on either Windows or Mac OS X, so it's really a PITA to use those formats for 99.999% of the users.
Yes, but Slashdot tends to represent the.001% of the population that knows more about installing different codecs than getting sunshine, interacting with members of the opposite sex and those other boring activities that we don't have time for.
As many people in the United States with immigrant ancestors know, the government is going to have to naturalise the volcano's name if the ashes pass Ellis Island.
Yup. If only people would finally realize that we know whats best for them.
Hello, did you just drop in to leave a comment without thinking about it, or are you here for a more serious discussion?
If you want a serious discussion, there are numerous points to consider.
The most important thing is to remember that any introduction of driverless automobiles would likely not be universal. That is to say, consumers would still have the option of purchasing cars they drive.
From the consumer's standpoint, this presents more options, not less.
The people hoping to prevent driverless cars would be precisely those who think they know what's best for everyone.
Taking this into consideration, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's ask Toyota owners how they feel about 'driverless cars'. All it takes is one small problem, or even an incompatible system amongst the many manufacturers (keep in mind that odds are they all won't be running Linux).
Drivers confusing the gas-pedal with the brake isn't a small problem. It's quite a large one.
Fixing the troublesome component (i.e. eliminating the human driver) would likely reduce accidents quite a lot.
Of course, the accidents that did occur would be sensationalised, but hopefully people would realise the increase in safety is worth it.
Without a motive, inventing conspiracy theories in advance seems rather pointless.
The motive is the government is a major investor and primary share-holder in the competition. If you can't see a conflict of interest here, then you're not looking hard enough.
In addition, it's not "in advance" if the government is already playing headline-grabbing politics on the issue and has been for months.
So, this is an admission that sticking pedals and faulty floormats had nothing to do with the problem, and that the recalls to fix pedal and floormat "problems" were simply a smokescreen to hide the actual cause of the problem (albeit, unknown cause)?
No, this is an admission that the United States government wants the US automotive companies they purchased to increase in value at the expense of the competition.
Headline-grabbing 'investigations' are the best way to scare the public and drive people to purchase more GM cars.
No - it means you'll always look at the trnaslations and never learn what the underlying words were.
On the contrary, it means I'll pick up languages that much quicker since I'll have a ready translation of everything in the environment without needing to manually reference the dictionary.
Of course, they would need cameras essentially pointing both outwards and towards the eye, as well as the storage and processing capacity to perform OCR and translation on images. Still, it's nothing that a few years of Moore's law can't solve.
Wow, based on all the responses suggesting 3D is "the future," I guess the marketing people really did their job.
I have yet to see a compelling use of 3D technology, but apparently everybody is ready to spend money on this "revolution."
It's easy to see why colour films are more realistic, as is adding sound to movies. It's not easy to see why an optical illusion created to make an image *appear* three-dimensional is more realistic.
Apparently, though, people believe in this idea of progress which, in this case, has more to do with marketing than anything else. All hail our new $50,000 TV sets that make shiny explosions seem to project three inches beyond the screen.
We've had cheap holograms resting at the bottom of cereal boxes for ages. Now that we're making small handheld game systems that provide similar experiences it's revolutionary.
No, it's just a fad, and a stupid fad at that. There is no heightened realism associated with this technology, only a heightened perception that stupid 3D explosions are what's important in media.
If you want to talk about a truly interactive 3-dimensional space, that's a different matter, but that has nothing to do with an optical illusion on a small handheld system. I love the people crying out as if I'm hindering progress, but the reality is 3D technology was a non-starter back in the 1930s and it's only more popular at the moment because the marketing hasn't worn off yet.
Switzerland has more direct democracy than most countries. Even if the legislation passes parliament, if someone gathers 50k signatures against some law (in 100 days), he can cause national vote on this matter.
This sounds a lot like the situation in California. Maybe it works better in Switzerland, but here we have a ban on gay marriage, inconsistent property taxes and all kinds of crazy bond measures as a result.
It would certainly be very nice to live is the incredibly blessed utopia described in the book, despite the problems. Not sure why you think reading it should lead anyone to the conclusion that it's a bad idea...
I guess it just goes to show that one person's utopia is another person's hell. I certainly did not view the world as depicted in the book as an "utopia." One big popularity contest with the most manipulative members of society at the top is not my idea of a good time...
Perhaps the Whuffie is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close. In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.
If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent. No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.
While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration, a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
So everything Gates does is evil... unless it help's keep your lawn green...
Well, for those of us who enjoy asparagus, strawberries, artichokes, apples, blackberries, raspberries, peaches, apricots, rice or any of the other agricultural products grown in the western United States, creating a more sustainable source of water is a good thing for more than just lawn maintenance.
Having written a few games I just cannot see a situation where I would take on a "idea" person to assist me. I worked with a artist on my last and it was still 10% time his part and 90% my time to actually get it to work and finish the project.
I don't think anybody is saying someone should just be an 'idea person,' but there are some cases where a lot of in-game dialogue and backstory need to be conveyed to the player.
If you're writing all the dialogue, doing all the character/story concept work, designing all the interior/exterior environments conceptually and then taking everything and bringing it over into the virtual environment, that's a lot of work for some games. If you're trying to do all the engineering and game mechanics as well, then that's certainly admirable, but I think it's understandable if other groups choose to break up the responsibilities a bit more.
The problem is that they will not likely get a developer on board. Anyone that can sit down and write a game doesn't need help to do so. He is not likely to want to provide 100% of the work in exchange for a small amount if any profit.
It depends on what kind of a game they want to develop.
If the game doesn't really have a plot or strong characters, then you're spot on.
At the same time, if the game is heavy on plot and requires intricate dialogue trees, character design, setting concept and concepts for other in-game assets, then you're looking at a fair amount of work.
Too many ideas too few developers
Absolutely. If they find a developer willing to get on-board with the project, then they might be on to something.
Then they should work on the concept and developing material to demo with an artist and the developer.
A lot also depends on what kind of a game they want to develop and who they're targeting.
Basically, they need to ask themselves some tough questions about their game and what they're developing. Then move on to the next step.
...Then a life of crime is all that awaits. It's easy to say you have high standards shutting potentially talented people out of your organization, but no one should be surprised if those people turn to illegitimate activities again.
That's kid stuff, I'm an armless, legless, headless chinchilla that has to worm my way over to the roll of paper tape and decode it by discerning the hole patterns with the part of my neck stump that still has functioning nerves.
Seriously, Vorbis and Theora are not supported by default on either Windows or Mac OS X, so it's really a PITA to use those formats for 99.999% of the users.
Yes, but Slashdot tends to represent the .001% of the population that knows more about installing different codecs than getting sunshine, interacting with members of the opposite sex and those other boring activities that we don't have time for.
As many people in the United States with immigrant ancestors know, the government is going to have to naturalise the volcano's name if the ashes pass Ellis Island.
Get ready for Mt. Ekull.
Yup. If only people would finally realize that we know whats best for them.
Hello, did you just drop in to leave a comment without thinking about it, or are you here for a more serious discussion?
If you want a serious discussion, there are numerous points to consider.
The most important thing is to remember that any introduction of driverless automobiles would likely not be universal. That is to say, consumers would still have the option of purchasing cars they drive.
From the consumer's standpoint, this presents more options, not less.
The people hoping to prevent driverless cars would be precisely those who think they know what's best for everyone.
Taking this into consideration, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's ask Toyota owners how they feel about 'driverless cars'. All it takes is one small problem, or even an incompatible system amongst the many manufacturers (keep in mind that odds are they all won't be running Linux).
Drivers confusing the gas-pedal with the brake isn't a small problem. It's quite a large one.
Fixing the troublesome component (i.e. eliminating the human driver) would likely reduce accidents quite a lot.
Of course, the accidents that did occur would be sensationalised, but hopefully people would realise the increase in safety is worth it.
To whoever modded me troll: You're right, the government would *never* play politics on an issue like this.
When US auto-manufacturers experienced a similar issue several years ago, the government did the exact same thing.
Right?
Without a motive, inventing conspiracy theories in advance seems rather pointless.
The motive is the government is a major investor and primary share-holder in the competition. If you can't see a conflict of interest here, then you're not looking hard enough.
In addition, it's not "in advance" if the government is already playing headline-grabbing politics on the issue and has been for months.
So, this is an admission that sticking pedals and faulty floormats had nothing to do with the problem, and that the recalls to fix pedal and floormat "problems" were simply a smokescreen to hide the actual cause of the problem (albeit, unknown cause)?
No, this is an admission that the United States government wants the US automotive companies they purchased to increase in value at the expense of the competition.
Headline-grabbing 'investigations' are the best way to scare the public and drive people to purchase more GM cars.
No - it means you'll always look at the trnaslations and never learn what the underlying words were.
On the contrary, it means I'll pick up languages that much quicker since I'll have a ready translation of everything in the environment without needing to manually reference the dictionary.
Of course, they would need cameras essentially pointing both outwards and towards the eye, as well as the storage and processing capacity to perform OCR and translation on images. Still, it's nothing that a few years of Moore's law can't solve.
A great application for this would be as an overlay on glasses.
If I could get on-the-fly translations of shop-signs and menus projected on to my glasses, it would be awesome.
I could also see this as the next powerpoint whizz-bang animated presentation tool, and that doesn't make me quite as happy...
3d is just another dimension (excuse the pun) like sound, colour, and movement that can be used for many reasons
A 2-dimensional optical illusion is not truly 3-dimensional.
Wow, based on all the responses suggesting 3D is "the future," I guess the marketing people really did their job.
I have yet to see a compelling use of 3D technology, but apparently everybody is ready to spend money on this "revolution."
It's easy to see why colour films are more realistic, as is adding sound to movies. It's not easy to see why an optical illusion created to make an image *appear* three-dimensional is more realistic.
Apparently, though, people believe in this idea of progress which, in this case, has more to do with marketing than anything else. All hail our new $50,000 TV sets that make shiny explosions seem to project three inches beyond the screen.
We've had cheap holograms resting at the bottom of cereal boxes for ages. Now that we're making small handheld game systems that provide similar experiences it's revolutionary.
No, it's just a fad, and a stupid fad at that. There is no heightened realism associated with this technology, only a heightened perception that stupid 3D explosions are what's important in media.
If you want to talk about a truly interactive 3-dimensional space, that's a different matter, but that has nothing to do with an optical illusion on a small handheld system. I love the people crying out as if I'm hindering progress, but the reality is 3D technology was a non-starter back in the 1930s and it's only more popular at the moment because the marketing hasn't worn off yet.
I hope this 3D fad is over soon. It's just another excuse to distract people with eye-candy instead of creating something more compelling.
MOD PARENT UP. So true, my ax fish window lament.
Seriously, who said this? I'm genuinely curious. Are there any reliable sources to back this up, or is it just another sensationalist piece?
Switzerland has more direct democracy than most countries. Even if the legislation passes parliament, if someone gathers 50k signatures against some law (in 100 days), he can cause national vote on this matter.
This sounds a lot like the situation in California. Maybe it works better in Switzerland, but here we have a ban on gay marriage, inconsistent property taxes and all kinds of crazy bond measures as a result.
anyone foolish enough to actually believe that any nation's history is glorious needs a mental health professional and a lot of appointments.
Good luck getting 75% of the American public into therapy. We pretty much did away with public funding for mental health services some years ago...
It would certainly be very nice to live is the incredibly blessed utopia described in the book, despite the problems. Not sure why you think reading it should lead anyone to the conclusion that it's a bad idea...
I guess it just goes to show that one person's utopia is another person's hell. I certainly did not view the world as depicted in the book as an "utopia." One big popularity contest with the most manipulative members of society at the top is not my idea of a good time...
Perhaps the Whuffie is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close. In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.
If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent. No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.
While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration, a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned.