Actually, the original marketing materials for the Gamecube *were* rather aimed at gen-x/y. Very artistic stuff. Somewhere along the line Nintendo decided to focus on the kids market, and that included dumbing down the skill level of their games (which Miyamoto has stated in the past).
I think the appeal of their games with the gen-x/y audience is both because we grew up with the NES and all that, and because Miyamoto knows good gameplay tha appeals to a universal audience. But that same universal appeal leads to content that is very generic. Stories are oversimplified and characters are very stereotypical because Nintendo's focus is on the gameplay, with only enough content to create an atmosphere and a hook. This is where the criticism of a lack of maturity comes from. It has nothing to do with innovation or lack thereof, but more of a sense of adult themes and more sophisticated concepts. I would suggest the Metal Gear Solid series as an example of "mature" done right. A "mature" game is one that delivers both the gameplay and also makes you think critically and conceptually. This is the kind of game that I think is necessary in capturing my generation as we mature. Sure, there's always room for the classic Nintendo formula, but those of us who were kids when the home console industry was in its infancy have grown up, and want games to grow with us. I don't think any game has come anywhere near the level of say..a Kurosawa film..but at least a few PS2 games have *tried* to bridge the cinematic gap. Nintendo just seems disinterested in evolving with the generation that made them rich, which I think is unfortunate both in an terms of a purely artistic consideration and because the average gamer age will continue to increase as my generation ages.
It would seem the biggest problem here is lack of driver support for a wide range of pro-audio sound cards and interfaces. Looking at the ALSA supported hardware page (which this workstation utilizes), most of the pro hardware hasn't been verified to work well.
I think the other major downside is the lack of VST plug-in support. Most every major digital audio software workstation like ProTools and Nuendo take advantage of the large array of VST plug-ins available for things like effects processing. I don't think you'll see a lot of pro audio guys contemplate switching over until VST support is added (in Ardour's defense, VST support is tricky because a lot of them are platform-specific due to bad design).
However, I salute them for their work and hope that Ardour matures into a great package.
The boycott is just archaic and more or less useless now. Its the negative press that follows the word boycott that really ever gets anything done. Considering the *IAA couldn't care less about their image its even more useless.
Boycotts aren't simply about not buying the product; the PR is a necessary part of the campaign. The "negative press" you mention is *part* of the boycott initiative.
Boycotts can still be quite effective. Animal testing is one off the top of my head. A boycott against the Proctor & Gamble corporation (the worst offender of animal testing) was successful in greatly reducing the animal testing they do.
However, I agree with you that the PR is the most important part of a boycott campaign in this day and age. The majority of people are too self-centered and short-sighted to accomplish a boycott against a big corporation purely on a financial level.
As my sig says. Why would any democrat let alone california democrats go see this movie? Why not boycott it and at least send a message to Arnold?
Arnold couldn't do any worse of a job as governor than Democrat Gray Davis is, who happens to be under attack by a recall campaign after shackling the state with so much debt. And oh yes, that little incident with the power companies.
Hmm... well, I immensely liked the original IBM keyboards. You could type for hours without strain on the spring-action clackity keyboards. But the Atari 800 keyboard (at least on mine) used thick plastic for the keys. The keys didn't spring back..they felt soft, but still required a good deal of pressure to press down. But it's been 20 years since I've used one and I was a kid at the time, so my memory might be a bit foggy.
The Atari 800 was the first computer I owned. I had all the expansion slots filled with memory carts, bringing up the RAM to 64k I believe. It was definitely built like a tank, and easy to program. I disagree with the "too bad he didn't get the keyboard to work" because the keyboard was crap and would hurt your fingers after a couple hours of use. The keys felt heavy and had too much tension, which required a significant amount of pressure compared to a PC keyboard.
Unfortunately, I wasn't lucky enough to own a disk drive for it. I had the infamous tape drive. Tape, as in cassette tape. Which was very economical, but the damn thing broke almost every month. And it took 30-45 minutes to load a big program. On the upside, since it did use audio tape for its media, it could playback recorded audio in conjunction with the program. I had a spanish teaching tape that would play audio from the cassette as you interacted with characters on-screen. Pretty cool stuff considering the hardware and software limitations of that age. Unfortunately it got easily out-of-sync due to the nature of the media.
The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.
I agree that my last statement was a bit dismissive; there are certain times where a console FPS is more fun, such as playing co-op Halo with a friend.
I suppose the "unnatural" aspect has more to do with the inprecise nature of the way you change your camera angle, due to the limited range of movement afforded by a controller stick. A mouse gives you a much finer degree of control, which creates the impression of greater realism. Which is tolerable for a slower-moving game like Halo, but anything that requires a higher level of action..well, I can't imagine playing something like Unreal Tournament using a console controller and having anywhere near the same competency level purely due to the degree of control available.
I think there's also about having the monitor right in front of you that creates a better sense of immersion -- I don't sit a foot from my television.
Yes, and if graphics were the only concern then your snide, dismissive attitude would be understandable. But the first Half-Life's graphics weren't that groundbreaking even at the time it was released.
To clarify, the original Half-Life used a heavily-modified Quake 2 engine. No one ever expected it to be the best-looking game. Valve was a small studio; they certainly didn't have the capital to build an engine from scratch. However, Half-Life 2 utilizes the Source Engine, an in-house graphics engine developed by Valve over the last five years specifically designed to run Half-Life 2. While it has been made to be very flexible on a wide array of systems, you won't get all the graphics effects unless you have a DirectX 9-compliant video card. This has been stated several times by Valve in past interviews. While the Xbox could conceivably run HL2, the experience won't be what the designers envisioned. I also have some reservations about the Xbox's CPU being able to handle the advanced AI and physics routines that Half-Life 2 is using.
When it comes down to it though, I don't see why anyone would *choose* to play a FPS on a console instead of on their PC, given the unnatural control mechanisms offered by console controllers.
Alas, Photoshop (the de-facto industry graphics standard) deals with PNG exportation horribly as well. It always shifts the gamma on the resultant image, and with alpha-channel PNGs it will crop some of the edges off if you don't give it extra transparency "space" to work with. It seems pretty obvious that PNG manipulation isn't a big priority for them.
I don't see PNGs going away, though. There's too many valid uses for them, at least in the graphics community. Macromedia has a product which uses PNGs as its native format. And PNGs provide a very easy way to import alpha-channeled images into Macromedia Flash or Director.
You say that the RIAA should stop trying to prevent evolution, but Apple is playing into their hands. They don't give a shit about the music artists themselves:
"Apple only deals with the partner/label. It's up to the label to pay the artists, writers, publishing, etc."
"Independent artists themselves, not with a label, can't use this. You have to go through an iTunes partner. When asked if artists with their own label would be eligible, the iTunes guys had an odd answer, saying that this was invitation-only and they want to deal with those of us in the room."
Which is especially ironic, considering that users... "Can't search by record label, although you can see the record label on the album info page."...which would seem to indicate that they are trying to promote artists instead of record labels, but this is obviously not true considering the above requirements.
In my opinion, this whole thing is a big sham. We know that the big record labels will conveniently mislead artists about the sales figures because Apple requires no transparency for the artists, so there is a high likelihood that major label artists will get screwed out of royalty payments. And really, there's no reason for the labels to have this middleman relationship at all -- they certainly didn't pay any distrubution or promotional costs to get their music put on the iTunes store. The idea of the record label is outmoded, *especially* in this new digital context. And Apple is playing right into it. (arguably because they don't want to be sued by Apple Records, but it doesn't excuse the behavior)
So please don't hold Apple up as some sort of revolutionary hero against the RIAA. They're all eating dinner together, while the people that actually create the music are still getting the leftover scraps.
Actually, they had this functionality in the original Unreal game. You could specify portals in your level that would take you to another server. Unfortunately, no one ever took advantage of this in a mod situation, probably because the netcode for Unreal sucked. I think they've taken out the functionality in the Unreal Tournament games, which is a shame.
Re:Chicken maturity matters?
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 3, Funny
All they are is a population which has been bred (selected) for certain traits; I doubt very much that they feel any more discomfort in their lives than laying hens, and probably less.
I am incredibly surprised to read your post. Are you thinking of the old iMac keyboards? The current white keyboards, and their black/clear (nicer, IMHO) counterparts from slightly earlier G4 revs, are practically identical, key-wise, to the old Extended II...
Nope, I'm definitely referring to the original Apple Extended Keyboard, circa 1988 or so. The key action was amazing, the keys are bigger than the current Apple keyboards and my perception is that the keys are spaced apart a bit more too. I used one again recently and was amazed at how much better the keys feel than the current keyboards Apple offers.
From the design of the current keyboards, it seems as if Apple's designers want to make the keyboard as minimalist and unobtrusive as possible, but the keyboard is one of the most important devices on a computer. It can't be relegated to secondary status. They are sacrificing the functionality of their older keyboards in order to look better on your desk.
Its possibly one of the best keyboards I've ever used, including an old "clicky" IBM one I had in one of my old jobs.
I'm incredibly surprised to hear comments like this. All of Apple's current keyboards are ergonomic hazards, unless you perhaps have really small hands or have replaced your hands with cybernetic limbs. There is no wrist support, the keys do not bounce back well, and the keys are too close together. In the case of their keyboards, Apple has chosen form over function.
Only two Apple keyboards have ever been good enough for day-to-day usage. One was the Apple Extended Keyboard (the original, not the II), which had good tactile response, though its ergonomic features were slim-to-none. The other was the Apple Ergonomic Keyboard -- you know, the one they released in 1992 which could split into two sections and had a separate numpad. It was more ergonomic than anything MS puts out, its keys were reminescent of the early IBM clickity-clackity keyboards, and the keys had ample space between themselves. It's one of the best keyboards I've ever used, though it was a bit on the large side.
Sadly, Apple stopped making ergonomic keyboards, even though it helped to popularize their usage with the mainstream. I guess Steve has a secretary to dictate all his typing; I'm not sure why else he would be so ambivalent about the risks of CTS (I got minor nerve damage from use of the Mac Plus keyboard while in college).
They are not for the general user. the general user hates them after the initial "geee.... ohhhh" period wears off. they are perfect for Insurance adjusters, doctors, supplier's and inventory management. for anything else they are 100% worthless except for the part that they are still a computer.
I disagree. For graphics professionals, they are great for using like a sketchpad (especially with Alias' new Sketchpad Pro software) in that you can take them anywhere you like, and you can walk your comp over to your boss and write down comments directly. And being able to sketch on the screen directly makes the creation process much more fluid than current Wacom tablets (except the high-end LCD version) which are more like a giant mousepad.
I also think there's a big market here for wireless functionality via public WAPs like Starbucks or public parks like the proposed area in NYC.
Unfortunately there are deficiencies for both user groups that are inhibiting adoption at this point. For graphics users, the screens are too small, and pen stylus precision level isn't quite adequate (the desktop Wacom tablet has twice the precision level), in addition to the low-powered CPUs. For the potential wireless uses, the price point is too high for mainstream, secondary computer usage.
I think these tablets will mature, if the market allows them to. I think they could be successful, but they were launched too early.
Lucas based his Jedis on Japanese samurai, especially as he was greatly influenced by Kurosawa's samurai films such as The Hidden Fortress. The fighting style of the samurai was based on efficient, effortless and movements designed to fit the task at hand. So it was completely ridiculous, and against the samurai way that Lucas stol..er..integrated into Star Wars to have Yoda, the Jedi master (aka the big kahuna samurai), spinning around like a top. All that wasted energy. And did he even hit his opponent with all that flash? Nope.
No problem! Always glad to release users from Microsoft's UI dungeon. The only downside is that most Windows programmers don't seem to take account the fact that you may want your taskbar at the top, so they often spawn windows originating at [0,0] which means the window title bar is obscured by the taskbar (unless you turned on the taskbar's auto-hide).
The best solution I've found is Alt-Spacebar and then "M", which will let you move the window where you want with the mouse or arrow keys.
Except when you hit the magic Windows machine of Joe Jackass 'Leet Windows Power User who moved his taskbar to the top
While most of the modifications you listed are completely inane, moving the taskbar to the top is not. This is the first thing I do when I get on a default Windows system. But I worked within the Windows world only after a long love affair with the Macintosh.
There is a reason why the taskbar has been at the top of Macintosh computers since 1984. Apple knows usability, or at least it did when it creating the original Macintosh interface guidelines. And the reason for keeping the taskbar at the top is that users spend the majority of time moving the mouse around in the upper half of the monitor, because that's where most of the content and title bars are located. Therefore, it is much more efficient to keep your taskbar at the top, where awkward mouse movements can be minimized (and that is always good for reducing CTS), especially on a 21" monitor with a high screen resolution. On a lesser note, it is also more visually consistent with the idea of title bars for windows, as you could consider the task manager a "title bar" for the OS.
So flame away about all the stupid things users do, but repositioning the horrid default position of the taskbar in Windows is not one of them.
As part of the OS, IE will continue to evolve, but there will be no future standalone installations.
Doesn't this tend to fly in the face of the anti-trust suit against them? Since when did IE become an acknowledged "part of the OS" again?
Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
Really? Well, I guess the Mozilla developers got hold of the Windows source code then because they seem to be doing just fine at making their browser more feature-rich and bugfree than IE.
i totally agree, except that most artists don't own the music.
As far as major label acts you're right, except for the really big artists who have the clout to demand their own terms. A lot of indie label bands own their music though. I hope that Apple takes this into consideration when they pick up indie label bands. As much as I support indie labels (with my cash), I don't think they should be getting a cut of the profits in this case.
the biggest beneficiaries of "piracy" are the artists. they make money on the road, not off album sales. so "piracy" helps them distribute thei rmusic, and creates new fans. new fans that wouldn't have been if not for "piracy". but alas, that is what the record companies don't want. because they don't make much from the tours. which is why most of the bitching about "piracy" comes from execs, not artists.
Artists on major labels make a bit of money on tour, but they hardly make any profit. The money goes to pay off their debt. Most artists on major labels go on tour to pay off the advance they got from the record label, or to pay off the recording costs of the album which the record label also makes them pay back. And artists on indie labels make nothing on tour..they're usually lucky to have enough gas to get to the next city.
The only way artists make money on major labels is to first make a hit record, then renegotiate the contract when their terms have been fulfilled and ask for a bigger cut of the profits. The only exception to this is if the band has already become popular before signing to a major, and thereby has some leverage during the contract process.
Bands that have a sizeable fan base but are signed to an indie label can usually make out better than if they were on a major. This is because they can record their album for far less, and they usually have a fairer contract. When you're on a major, the label puts you in the most expensive studio they can find, hires a "known" producer and engineer, and then tells the band they'll have to pay it all back later.
My main problem with the Apple Music Store is that it rewards the major labels for basically doing nothing to make it happen -- they aren't doing promotions, they aren't paying off radio stations, and they aren't pressing and distributing the music. Apple hosts all the files and did the technology to make it happen. The artists should be the only ones (besides Apple) making money off the digital music sales.
You say that Unreal 2 hasn't much to offer in terms of the multiplayer aspect, and yet you tell people to save their money for Doom 3, which id has said many times that it will only have basic deathmatch out-of-the-box.
However, Doom 3 will likely provide a 10x better single-player experience than Unreal 2, although I'm basing this purely on other people's reviews of the game as Epic f-d up so much on UT2k3 that I refuse to support them financially.
On an unrelated note, the color palette for this Games section is completely hideous and hurts my eyes.
You said: "Who says Apple can't remove the iTunes-mandated DRM from their files, or start offering MP3's with their service? Apple is playing a good middle ground. They're trying to make a popular service without opening themselves up for litigation."
Why would Apple move to mp3 after spending R&D money on developing their AAC format? Apple's whole business strategy is providing software exclusive to the Macintosh, so that they can increase hardware sales (which they make a nice, premium markup on) and therefore increase market share. You can see the strategy in effect from this music store right on down to OS X itself.
Seems like the Apple devotees are really out in full force to defend this thing. But I don't see it being a win for fair use rights. A lot of people on here are saying that DRM is just a fact of life now, so we'd better get used to the idea. But that sounds like pure-and-simple capitulation to me, in the same way that many have capitulated about our civil liberties in the U.S. because it's "necessary" in a post-9/11 world. Well, it is easy to give up freedoms, but it usually requires a herculean struggle to get them back. It seems like many people are being wowed by Apple's "shock and awe" at the new ease-of-use and how everything is integrated so smoothly. But a gilded cage is still a cage. Apple's products are great, as long as you only want to use Apple products, and don't care if you are limited if your fair use rights are limited. Perhaps those of you who are especially lazy are willing to sacrifice those rights for ease-of-use.
As for the DMCA comment, that is just untrue. The DMCA makes no requirement for copyright protection. Only the RIAA would make such a requirement.
10. Will programs on The Anime Network be subtitled or dubbed or both?
At this time, with our initial launch in Philadelphia, we are only showing dubbed versions of the shows. This reflects limited bandwidth and a restricted number of hours available to us per month. We are well aware of strong interest in subtitled anime, and are exploring ways to bring subtitled programming to The Anime Network. Stay tuned!
decrease in playability?
on
Games on Demand
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
upside: Access to trying more games (legitimately) without having to shell out $50.
downside: If this distribution platform became really popular, it could encourage game developers to create games that had a lot of short-term flash, but not a lot of long-term replayability. So we'd see even less of a focus on gameplay over graphics than has already been the case with PC games these days. It also could further reduce the creation demos for games, as it would be easy (and tempting) for game publishers to say, "There's no demo available, but you can try out our game for $5."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the original marketing materials for the Gamecube *were* rather aimed at gen-x/y. Very artistic stuff. Somewhere along the line Nintendo decided to focus on the kids market, and that included dumbing down the skill level of their games (which Miyamoto has stated in the past).
I think the appeal of their games with the gen-x/y audience is both because we grew up with the NES and all that, and because Miyamoto knows good gameplay tha appeals to a universal audience. But that same universal appeal leads to content that is very generic. Stories are oversimplified and characters are very stereotypical because Nintendo's focus is on the gameplay, with only enough content to create an atmosphere and a hook. This is where the criticism of a lack of maturity comes from. It has nothing to do with innovation or lack thereof, but more of a sense of adult themes and more sophisticated concepts. I would suggest the Metal Gear Solid series as an example of "mature" done right. A "mature" game is one that delivers both the gameplay and also makes you think critically and conceptually. This is the kind of game that I think is necessary in capturing my generation as we mature. Sure, there's always room for the classic Nintendo formula, but those of us who were kids when the home console industry was in its infancy have grown up, and want games to grow with us. I don't think any game has come anywhere near the level of say..a Kurosawa film..but at least a few PS2 games have *tried* to bridge the cinematic gap. Nintendo just seems disinterested in evolving with the generation that made them rich, which I think is unfortunate both in an terms of a purely artistic consideration and because the average gamer age will continue to increase as my generation ages.
It would seem the biggest problem here is lack of driver support for a wide range of pro-audio sound cards and interfaces. Looking at the ALSA supported hardware page (which this workstation utilizes), most of the pro hardware hasn't been verified to work well.
I think the other major downside is the lack of VST plug-in support. Most every major digital audio software workstation like ProTools and Nuendo take advantage of the large array of VST plug-ins available for things like effects processing. I don't think you'll see a lot of pro audio guys contemplate switching over until VST support is added (in Ardour's defense, VST support is tricky because a lot of them are platform-specific due to bad design).
However, I salute them for their work and hope that Ardour matures into a great package.
The boycott is just archaic and more or less useless now. Its the negative press that follows the word boycott that really ever gets anything done. Considering the *IAA couldn't care less about their image its even more useless.
Boycotts aren't simply about not buying the product; the PR is a necessary part of the campaign. The "negative press" you mention is *part* of the boycott initiative.
Boycotts can still be quite effective. Animal testing is one off the top of my head. A boycott against the Proctor & Gamble corporation (the worst offender of animal testing) was successful in greatly reducing the animal testing they do.
However, I agree with you that the PR is the most important part of a boycott campaign in this day and age. The majority of people are too self-centered and short-sighted to accomplish a boycott against a big corporation purely on a financial level.
As my sig says. Why would any democrat let alone california democrats go see this movie? Why not boycott it and at least send a message to Arnold?
Arnold couldn't do any worse of a job as governor than Democrat Gray Davis is, who happens to be under attack by a recall campaign after shackling the state with so much debt. And oh yes, that little incident with the power companies.
Hmm... well, I immensely liked the original IBM keyboards. You could type for hours without strain on the spring-action clackity keyboards. But the Atari 800 keyboard (at least on mine) used thick plastic for the keys. The keys didn't spring back..they felt soft, but still required a good deal of pressure to press down. But it's been 20 years since I've used one and I was a kid at the time, so my memory might be a bit foggy.
The Atari 800 was the first computer I owned. I had all the expansion slots filled with memory carts, bringing up the RAM to 64k I believe. It was definitely built like a tank, and easy to program. I disagree with the "too bad he didn't get the keyboard to work" because the keyboard was crap and would hurt your fingers after a couple hours of use. The keys felt heavy and had too much tension, which required a significant amount of pressure compared to a PC keyboard.
Unfortunately, I wasn't lucky enough to own a disk drive for it. I had the infamous tape drive. Tape, as in cassette tape. Which was very economical, but the damn thing broke almost every month. And it took 30-45 minutes to load a big program. On the upside, since it did use audio tape for its media, it could playback recorded audio in conjunction with the program. I had a spanish teaching tape that would play audio from the cassette as you interacted with characters on-screen. Pretty cool stuff considering the hardware and software limitations of that age. Unfortunately it got easily out-of-sync due to the nature of the media.
The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.
I agree that my last statement was a bit dismissive; there are certain times where a console FPS is more fun, such as playing co-op Halo with a friend.
I suppose the "unnatural" aspect has more to do with the inprecise nature of the way you change your camera angle, due to the limited range of movement afforded by a controller stick. A mouse gives you a much finer degree of control, which creates the impression of greater realism. Which is tolerable for a slower-moving game like Halo, but anything that requires a higher level of action..well, I can't imagine playing something like Unreal Tournament using a console controller and having anywhere near the same competency level purely due to the degree of control available.
I think there's also about having the monitor right in front of you that creates a better sense of immersion -- I don't sit a foot from my television.
Yes, and if graphics were the only concern then your snide, dismissive attitude would be understandable. But the first Half-Life's graphics weren't that groundbreaking even at the time it was released.
To clarify, the original Half-Life used a heavily-modified Quake 2 engine. No one ever expected it to be the best-looking game. Valve was a small studio; they certainly didn't have the capital to build an engine from scratch. However, Half-Life 2 utilizes the Source Engine, an in-house graphics engine developed by Valve over the last five years specifically designed to run Half-Life 2. While it has been made to be very flexible on a wide array of systems, you won't get all the graphics effects unless you have a DirectX 9-compliant video card. This has been stated several times by Valve in past interviews. While the Xbox could conceivably run HL2, the experience won't be what the designers envisioned. I also have some reservations about the Xbox's CPU being able to handle the advanced AI and physics routines that Half-Life 2 is using.
When it comes down to it though, I don't see why anyone would *choose* to play a FPS on a console instead of on their PC, given the unnatural control mechanisms offered by console controllers.
Alas, Photoshop (the de-facto industry graphics standard) deals with PNG exportation horribly as well. It always shifts the gamma on the resultant image, and with alpha-channel PNGs it will crop some of the edges off if you don't give it extra transparency "space" to work with. It seems pretty obvious that PNG manipulation isn't a big priority for them.
I don't see PNGs going away, though. There's too many valid uses for them, at least in the graphics community. Macromedia has a product which uses PNGs as its native format. And PNGs provide a very easy way to import alpha-channeled images into Macromedia Flash or Director.
You say that the RIAA should stop trying to prevent evolution, but Apple is playing into their hands. They don't give a shit about the music artists themselves:
...which would seem to indicate that they are trying to promote artists instead of record labels, but this is obviously not true considering the above requirements.
"Apple only deals with the partner/label. It's up to the label to pay the artists, writers, publishing, etc."
"Independent artists themselves, not with a label, can't use this. You have to go through an iTunes partner.
When asked if artists with their own label would be eligible, the iTunes guys had an odd answer, saying that this was invitation-only and they want to deal with those of us in the room."
Which is especially ironic, considering that users... "Can't search by record label, although you can see the record label on the album info page."
In my opinion, this whole thing is a big sham. We know that the big record labels will conveniently mislead artists about the sales figures because Apple requires no transparency for the artists, so there is a high likelihood that major label artists will get screwed out of royalty payments. And really, there's no reason for the labels to have this middleman relationship at all -- they certainly didn't pay any distrubution or promotional costs to get their music put on the iTunes store. The idea of the record label is outmoded, *especially* in this new digital context. And Apple is playing right into it. (arguably because they don't want to be sued by Apple Records, but it doesn't excuse the behavior)
So please don't hold Apple up as some sort of revolutionary hero against the RIAA. They're all eating dinner together, while the people that actually create the music are still getting the leftover scraps.
Actually, they had this functionality in the original Unreal game. You could specify portals in your level that would take you to another server. Unfortunately, no one ever took advantage of this in a mod situation, probably because the netcode for Unreal sucked. I think they've taken out the functionality in the Unreal Tournament games, which is a shame.
All they are is a population which has been bred (selected) for certain traits; I doubt very much that they feel any more discomfort in their lives than laying hens, and probably less.
Thanks for the insight, Agent Smith.
I am incredibly surprised to read your post. Are you thinking of the old iMac keyboards? The current white keyboards, and their black/clear (nicer, IMHO) counterparts from slightly earlier G4 revs, are practically identical, key-wise, to the old Extended II...
Nope, I'm definitely referring to the original Apple Extended Keyboard, circa 1988 or so. The key action was amazing, the keys are bigger than the current Apple keyboards and my perception is that the keys are spaced apart a bit more too. I used one again recently and was amazed at how much better the keys feel than the current keyboards Apple offers.
From the design of the current keyboards, it seems as if Apple's designers want to make the keyboard as minimalist and unobtrusive as possible, but the keyboard is one of the most important devices on a computer. It can't be relegated to secondary status. They are sacrificing the functionality of their older keyboards in order to look better on your desk.
Its possibly one of the best keyboards I've ever used, including an old "clicky" IBM one I had in one of my old jobs.
I'm incredibly surprised to hear comments like this. All of Apple's current keyboards are ergonomic hazards, unless you perhaps have really small hands or have replaced your hands with cybernetic limbs. There is no wrist support, the keys do not bounce back well, and the keys are too close together. In the case of their keyboards, Apple has chosen form over function.
Only two Apple keyboards have ever been good enough for day-to-day usage. One was the Apple Extended Keyboard (the original, not the II), which had good tactile response, though its ergonomic features were slim-to-none. The other was the Apple Ergonomic Keyboard -- you know, the one they released in 1992 which could split into two sections and had a separate numpad. It was more ergonomic than anything MS puts out, its keys were reminescent of the early IBM clickity-clackity keyboards, and the keys had ample space between themselves. It's one of the best keyboards I've ever used, though it was a bit on the large side.
Sadly, Apple stopped making ergonomic keyboards, even though it helped to popularize their usage with the mainstream. I guess Steve has a secretary to dictate all his typing; I'm not sure why else he would be so ambivalent about the risks of CTS (I got minor nerve damage from use of the Mac Plus keyboard while in college).
They are not for the general user. the general user hates them after the initial "geee.... ohhhh" period wears off. they are perfect for Insurance adjusters, doctors, supplier's and inventory management. for anything else they are 100% worthless except for the part that they are still a computer.
I disagree. For graphics professionals, they are great for using like a sketchpad (especially with Alias' new Sketchpad Pro software) in that you can take them anywhere you like, and you can walk your comp over to your boss and write down comments directly. And being able to sketch on the screen directly makes the creation process much more fluid than current Wacom tablets (except the high-end LCD version) which are more like a giant mousepad.
I also think there's a big market here for wireless functionality via public WAPs like Starbucks or public parks like the proposed area in NYC.
Unfortunately there are deficiencies for both user groups that are inhibiting adoption at this point. For graphics users, the screens are too small, and pen stylus precision level isn't quite adequate (the desktop Wacom tablet has twice the precision level), in addition to the low-powered CPUs. For the potential wireless uses, the price point is too high for mainstream, secondary computer usage.
I think these tablets will mature, if the market allows them to. I think they could be successful, but they were launched too early.
Lucas based his Jedis on Japanese samurai, especially as he was greatly influenced by Kurosawa's samurai films such as The Hidden Fortress. The fighting style of the samurai was based on efficient, effortless and movements designed to fit the task at hand. So it was completely ridiculous, and against the samurai way that Lucas stol..er..integrated into Star Wars to have Yoda, the Jedi master (aka the big kahuna samurai), spinning around like a top. All that wasted energy. And did he even hit his opponent with all that flash? Nope.
No problem! Always glad to release users from Microsoft's UI dungeon. The only downside is that most Windows programmers don't seem to take account the fact that you may want your taskbar at the top, so they often spawn windows originating at [0,0] which means the window title bar is obscured by the taskbar (unless you turned on the taskbar's auto-hide).
The best solution I've found is Alt-Spacebar and then "M", which will let you move the window where you want with the mouse or arrow keys.
Except when you hit the magic Windows machine of Joe Jackass 'Leet Windows Power User who moved his taskbar to the top
While most of the modifications you listed are completely inane, moving the taskbar to the top is not. This is the first thing I do when I get on a default Windows system. But I worked within the Windows world only after a long love affair with the Macintosh.
There is a reason why the taskbar has been at the top of Macintosh computers since 1984. Apple knows usability, or at least it did when it creating the original Macintosh interface guidelines. And the reason for keeping the taskbar at the top is that users spend the majority of time moving the mouse around in the upper half of the monitor, because that's where most of the content and title bars are located. Therefore, it is much more efficient to keep your taskbar at the top, where awkward mouse movements can be minimized (and that is always good for reducing CTS), especially on a 21" monitor with a high screen resolution. On a lesser note, it is also more visually consistent with the idea of title bars for windows, as you could consider the task manager a "title bar" for the OS.
So flame away about all the stupid things users do, but repositioning the horrid default position of the taskbar in Windows is not one of them.
As part of the OS, IE will continue to evolve, but there will be no future standalone installations.
Doesn't this tend to fly in the face of the anti-trust suit against them? Since when did IE become an acknowledged "part of the OS" again?
Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
Really? Well, I guess the Mozilla developers got hold of the Windows source code then because they seem to be doing just fine at making their browser more feature-rich and bugfree than IE.
i totally agree, except that most artists don't own the music.
As far as major label acts you're right, except for the really big artists who have the clout to demand their own terms. A lot of indie label bands own their music though. I hope that Apple takes this into consideration when they pick up indie label bands. As much as I support indie labels (with my cash), I don't think they should be getting a cut of the profits in this case.
the biggest beneficiaries of "piracy" are the artists. they make money on the road, not off album sales. so "piracy" helps them distribute thei rmusic, and creates new fans. new fans that wouldn't have been if not for "piracy". but alas, that is what the record companies don't want. because they don't make much from the tours. which is why most of the bitching about "piracy" comes from execs, not artists.
Artists on major labels make a bit of money on tour, but they hardly make any profit. The money goes to pay off their debt. Most artists on major labels go on tour to pay off the advance they got from the record label, or to pay off the recording costs of the album which the record label also makes them pay back. And artists on indie labels make nothing on tour..they're usually lucky to have enough gas to get to the next city.
The only way artists make money on major labels is to first make a hit record, then renegotiate the contract when their terms have been fulfilled and ask for a bigger cut of the profits. The only exception to this is if the band has already become popular before signing to a major, and thereby has some leverage during the contract process.
Bands that have a sizeable fan base but are signed to an indie label can usually make out better than if they were on a major. This is because they can record their album for far less, and they usually have a fairer contract. When you're on a major, the label puts you in the most expensive studio they can find, hires a "known" producer and engineer, and then tells the band they'll have to pay it all back later.
My main problem with the Apple Music Store is that it rewards the major labels for basically doing nothing to make it happen -- they aren't doing promotions, they aren't paying off radio stations, and they aren't pressing and distributing the music. Apple hosts all the files and did the technology to make it happen. The artists should be the only ones (besides Apple) making money off the digital music sales.
You say that Unreal 2 hasn't much to offer in terms of the multiplayer aspect, and yet you tell people to save their money for Doom 3, which id has said many times that it will only have basic deathmatch out-of-the-box.
However, Doom 3 will likely provide a 10x better single-player experience than Unreal 2, although I'm basing this purely on other people's reviews of the game as Epic f-d up so much on UT2k3 that I refuse to support them financially.
On an unrelated note, the color palette for this Games section is completely hideous and hurts my eyes.
You said: "Who says Apple can't remove the iTunes-mandated DRM from their files, or start offering MP3's with their service? Apple is playing a good middle ground. They're trying to make a popular service without opening themselves up for litigation."
Why would Apple move to mp3 after spending R&D money on developing their AAC format? Apple's whole business strategy is providing software exclusive to the Macintosh, so that they can increase hardware sales (which they make a nice, premium markup on) and therefore increase market share. You can see the strategy in effect from this music store right on down to OS X itself.
Seems like the Apple devotees are really out in full force to defend this thing. But I don't see it being a win for fair use rights. A lot of people on here are saying that DRM is just a fact of life now, so we'd better get used to the idea. But that sounds like pure-and-simple capitulation to me, in the same way that many have capitulated about our civil liberties in the U.S. because it's "necessary" in a post-9/11 world. Well, it is easy to give up freedoms, but it usually requires a herculean struggle to get them back. It seems like many people are being wowed by Apple's "shock and awe" at the new ease-of-use and how everything is integrated so smoothly. But a gilded cage is still a cage. Apple's products are great, as long as you only want to use Apple products, and don't care if you are limited if your fair use rights are limited. Perhaps those of you who are especially lazy are willing to sacrifice those rights for ease-of-use.
As for the DMCA comment, that is just untrue. The DMCA makes no requirement for copyright protection. Only the RIAA would make such a requirement.
upside: Access to trying more games (legitimately) without having to shell out $50.
downside: If this distribution platform became really popular, it could encourage game developers to create games that had a lot of short-term flash, but not a lot of long-term replayability. So we'd see even less of a focus on gameplay over graphics than has already been the case with PC games these days. It also could further reduce the creation demos for games, as it would be easy (and tempting) for game publishers to say, "There's no demo available, but you can try out our game for $5."