That's why whenever I'm playing a video game, I always use headphones, and unplug the phones. I also make sure to put up a "Go Away" sign on my front door in case anyone thinks of knocking.
The game where I hated cutscenes the most was Final Fantasy 7. Every time you attacked, it would show a very long cutscene. After seeing the same cutscene 700 times, this starts to get really annoying. It's kind of cool to see the attack sequences the first time around, but after that, I really don't want to see them. The only other thing I should add, is that if the cutscene is that important to me progressing in the game, like in many RPGs, make it so that I can replay it by pausing the game and selecting the cutscene (never seen this actually done in a game), or make it require confirmation to skip the cutscene. The only thing worse than not being able to skip a cutscene, is not being able to progress in a game, because you skipped a cutscene, and don't know what to do.
My biggest problem is when they don't let you remap the controls. My favourite example of this is Tony Hawk Pro Skate 2. On the PC version, you could completely remap the controls. However, on the console version, the controls were hard-coded. I think you could pick from 2 or 3 configurations. I really hate when they don't let you remap the controls. It doesn't add any complexity to the game, and can only make things easier on the person playing the game. There is no excuse for not letting me remap the controls. You don't know how I am most comfortable playing the game.
It might not be that difficult to up the graphics and sound. With a lot of the console emulators, there's filters that up the level of the graphics by smoothing out the edges, and increasing the pixel count. The result is that by putting the graphics through a simple filter, the game looks a lot better. I imagine the same could be done for sound. Anything that's midi (or something like it) could be converted to wavetable, and instantly get a much better sound. There's some simple modifications that could easily increase the graphical and audio content.
I seem to remember the Commodore 64 being instant on. Granted our current computers are much more complicated than a Commodore 64, but it would be nice to get back to that instant-on era. Everything else seems to have gotten faster, or remained the same speed, the only thing that seems to continually get slower is boot times.
Having programmed in both PHP and.Net, I would have to say that I like programming in.Net much much much more. As for how well the server products run, that's up for debate, but the actual task of developing a product in.Net is much more pain free than doing the same in PHP.
You can always break a contract. They can't force you to produce a record. Of course there would probably be consequences to breaking said contract, mostly monetary. It would be a nice kick in the pants to the RIAA to see a bunch of bands just cancel their contract, regardless pay the breach of contract fine, and just go it on their own. It may only be financially possible for the really rich bands, but then again, if they lose enough really popular bands, maybe they will start to change their ways.
I use access all the time when people send me CSV files that have more than 65,000 rows in them, and therefore won't open in most spreadsheets. It's nice for one-time-use databases or just doing simple queries on csv files that clients have sent you. I wouldn't use it for any kind of permanent database, but that's usually how access applications get started, Somebody needs a quick and dirty database to use for a week to analyze some data, and 3 years later, it's still running, because somebody thought it would be easier to keep on using access than to upgrade to a real database.
But they aren't claiming copyright, they're claiming trademark. And if you don't defend your trademark you lose it. So if they indeed to have it trademarked, and the government should be able to trademark certain things, so that not just anyone can set up shop and call themselves the department of defense, or something like that, then they have to protect the trademark, or they risk losing it.
Yes there are some people who enjoy the taste of alcohol, just for the taste. However, the vast majority of people drink the cheapest stuff they can find. Hence half the beer commercials proclaiming they are cheaper than the other guys, or how you get 4 extra bottles, or how you get a free t-shirt. I'm not one of these people, but the vast majority of them are very much only interested in getting drunk.
Google also "reads" my mail to filter out the spam. I get equal amounts of mail (and equal spam ratios) on both me gmail and hotmail accounts. However, on my Gmail account, I probably see about 3 spams per week. On Hotmail, I see about 50 spam messages a day. The only "filtering" I've found on Hotmail that keeps the majority of the spam out is whitelisting. But I think that is a pretty crappy way to filter my mail. GMail has never required any setup, and seems to filter over 99% of the spam that gets sent to me.
I know you're trying to be funny, but this shows just how outrageous concert tickets are getting. Very few bands would be worth $150 to me. I don't know if I'd ever pay that much. The best concert I ever saw was ACDC, and those tickets were only $40, for 7th row from the floor. Either that or a full day concert with about 10 bands, 8 of which I really liked. That concert was only $50 if I recall correctly. I have no idea why anybody would pay so much just for a concert. People must either have a lot of money, or have absolutely no imagination to think up things that they could better spend their money on.
Or just go to see different bands. There's probably about 20 different venues in any major city where you can see a live band for $10 or less at least once a week. I've even seen some pretty big name bands sell tickets for way less than $175. Last concert I went to was Slayer, ant it was about $50 for a ticket on the floor. The Eagles only charge $175 a ticket because they know all their fans are old, and have a bunch of money saved up, and will pay just about anything to see them. If a band like Slayer tried charging $175 for a ticket, their fans would just not go, no only because they couldn't afford it, but because it's just crazy to expect people to pay that much money.
This only ensures that the people who end up going to the concerts are yuppies who don't even know who the band is, but just heard their name on TV, and thought it sounded cool. It really sucks that the real fans can't afford tickets.
My biggest beef is with the price of the tracks. $1.29 for a track is way too much. Even the $10.99 for the album is too much, especially considering there is no distribution chain, and no physical product. For me, eMusic offers a sane price. They have a subscription which forces a minimum spending limit, but I'd rather have a minimum spending limit of $10 per month, and only pay $0.30 for a track, than have to pay $1.29 cents a track. Even if I only downloaded 10 tracks on a $10 per month account, I'd still save over iTunes Plus. Downloads should be significantly cheaper than the CD. Many people say CDs are overpriced, and if that's true then digital downloads via iTunes is just highway robbery.
You don't get any guaranty with regular TV either. I was quite annoyed when they cancelled Invasion after 1 season. Especially with the ending they left. Again, Jericho almost got cancelled, but apparently they are bringing it back mid-season. Meanwhile, they have 18 different crime dramas, and 37 medical dramas. It seems like every show I get really interested in they cancel.
Oh, let me add... for a 17 minute episode? you have got to be kidding me. When I saw $2 for SD, I assumed that was for a 1 hour (or 45 minute, like TV without ads) episode. Not for 17 minutes of footage. I wish this show luck, but I don't know how anybody can justify spending $2 for a 17 minute TV episode.
I thought that almost looked like someone was headed in the right direction. Until I saw the price. $2 an episode? Where do they get their market research information? Do people actually think paying $2 an episode is a good price? If there are 24 episodes in a season (pretty standard for regular TV) then that's $48 a season. At that price, I'll wait for the DVD to come out and get a hard copy. The digital download which has no distribution chain, and no physical product should be much cheaper than the DVD. I would pay a maximum of $1 per episode, althought $0.50 would be much more to my liking. That's why I only download music on eMusic. They're the only ones that I've found that have a reasonable pricing structure.
I live in Canada, so I have the priviledge of watching shows the same time they are aired in the US. Sometimes earlier, thanks to our Atlantic time zone and time shifting via digital cable. Anyway, I got a new iPod Nano, and I'm using it to watch the shows I've recorded with SageTV, and then watch them the next day on my commute to work (on the bus). I think for something like this to really beat piracy, they are going to have to provide this level of freedom. For $50 you can buy the season on DVD. So for $2 an episode, you're already paying $50 for the download. So it had better be DRM free so you can watch it on any capable device, and give you the ability to keep the videos. Otherwise, people will go to piracy, because it gives them so much more functionality. I would pay $1 for every show I watched, if it meant I got to keep a copy, and be able to watch it on any device, including my TV.
That is very true. I could have 6 Mbps internet, via cable, but meh, I don't download anything that big. Maybe 1 or 2 Linux ISOs a year, and a bunch of MP3s off eMusic, everything else is web, email, and IM. So I'm using 1 Mbps internet. I don't care that it's not that fast. I don't want 50 Mbps internet until there's something worth downloading.
What the sig is saying is what has always been true. People who are really interested in IT and have real skills will have no problem finding a job. There's a huge shortage of good IT workers. The fact that CS enrollment has dropped 70% just goes to show how many people were just in it for the money. Once the lucrative jobs went away, so did the people with no interest in the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why whenever I'm playing a video game, I always use headphones, and unplug the phones. I also make sure to put up a "Go Away" sign on my front door in case anyone thinks of knocking.
The game where I hated cutscenes the most was Final Fantasy 7. Every time you attacked, it would show a very long cutscene. After seeing the same cutscene 700 times, this starts to get really annoying. It's kind of cool to see the attack sequences the first time around, but after that, I really don't want to see them. The only other thing I should add, is that if the cutscene is that important to me progressing in the game, like in many RPGs, make it so that I can replay it by pausing the game and selecting the cutscene (never seen this actually done in a game), or make it require confirmation to skip the cutscene. The only thing worse than not being able to skip a cutscene, is not being able to progress in a game, because you skipped a cutscene, and don't know what to do.
My biggest problem is when they don't let you remap the controls. My favourite example of this is Tony Hawk Pro Skate 2. On the PC version, you could completely remap the controls. However, on the console version, the controls were hard-coded. I think you could pick from 2 or 3 configurations. I really hate when they don't let you remap the controls. It doesn't add any complexity to the game, and can only make things easier on the person playing the game. There is no excuse for not letting me remap the controls. You don't know how I am most comfortable playing the game.
It might not be that difficult to up the graphics and sound. With a lot of the console emulators, there's filters that up the level of the graphics by smoothing out the edges, and increasing the pixel count. The result is that by putting the graphics through a simple filter, the game looks a lot better. I imagine the same could be done for sound. Anything that's midi (or something like it) could be converted to wavetable, and instantly get a much better sound. There's some simple modifications that could easily increase the graphical and audio content.
I seem to remember the Commodore 64 being instant on. Granted our current computers are much more complicated than a Commodore 64, but it would be nice to get back to that instant-on era. Everything else seems to have gotten faster, or remained the same speed, the only thing that seems to continually get slower is boot times.
Having programmed in both PHP and .Net, I would have to say that I like programming in .Net much much much more. As for how well the server products run, that's up for debate, but the actual task of developing a product in .Net is much more pain free than doing the same in PHP.
You can always break a contract. They can't force you to produce a record. Of course there would probably be consequences to breaking said contract, mostly monetary. It would be a nice kick in the pants to the RIAA to see a bunch of bands just cancel their contract, regardless pay the breach of contract fine, and just go it on their own. It may only be financially possible for the really rich bands, but then again, if they lose enough really popular bands, maybe they will start to change their ways.
I use access all the time when people send me CSV files that have more than 65,000 rows in them, and therefore won't open in most spreadsheets. It's nice for one-time-use databases or just doing simple queries on csv files that clients have sent you. I wouldn't use it for any kind of permanent database, but that's usually how access applications get started, Somebody needs a quick and dirty database to use for a week to analyze some data, and 3 years later, it's still running, because somebody thought it would be easier to keep on using access than to upgrade to a real database.
But they aren't claiming copyright, they're claiming trademark. And if you don't defend your trademark you lose it. So if they indeed to have it trademarked, and the government should be able to trademark certain things, so that not just anyone can set up shop and call themselves the department of defense, or something like that, then they have to protect the trademark, or they risk losing it.
Isn't that what sweat is? Or your circulatory system?
Yes there are some people who enjoy the taste of alcohol, just for the taste. However, the vast majority of people drink the cheapest stuff they can find. Hence half the beer commercials proclaiming they are cheaper than the other guys, or how you get 4 extra bottles, or how you get a free t-shirt. I'm not one of these people, but the vast majority of them are very much only interested in getting drunk.
Google also "reads" my mail to filter out the spam. I get equal amounts of mail (and equal spam ratios) on both me gmail and hotmail accounts. However, on my Gmail account, I probably see about 3 spams per week. On Hotmail, I see about 50 spam messages a day. The only "filtering" I've found on Hotmail that keeps the majority of the spam out is whitelisting. But I think that is a pretty crappy way to filter my mail. GMail has never required any setup, and seems to filter over 99% of the spam that gets sent to me.
Unless, of course, the venue happens to be out in the burbs.
I know you're trying to be funny, but this shows just how outrageous concert tickets are getting. Very few bands would be worth $150 to me. I don't know if I'd ever pay that much. The best concert I ever saw was ACDC, and those tickets were only $40, for 7th row from the floor. Either that or a full day concert with about 10 bands, 8 of which I really liked. That concert was only $50 if I recall correctly. I have no idea why anybody would pay so much just for a concert. People must either have a lot of money, or have absolutely no imagination to think up things that they could better spend their money on.
Or just go to see different bands. There's probably about 20 different venues in any major city where you can see a live band for $10 or less at least once a week. I've even seen some pretty big name bands sell tickets for way less than $175. Last concert I went to was Slayer, ant it was about $50 for a ticket on the floor. The Eagles only charge $175 a ticket because they know all their fans are old, and have a bunch of money saved up, and will pay just about anything to see them. If a band like Slayer tried charging $175 for a ticket, their fans would just not go, no only because they couldn't afford it, but because it's just crazy to expect people to pay that much money.
This only ensures that the people who end up going to the concerts are yuppies who don't even know who the band is, but just heard their name on TV, and thought it sounded cool. It really sucks that the real fans can't afford tickets.
My biggest beef is with the price of the tracks. $1.29 for a track is way too much. Even the $10.99 for the album is too much, especially considering there is no distribution chain, and no physical product. For me, eMusic offers a sane price. They have a subscription which forces a minimum spending limit, but I'd rather have a minimum spending limit of $10 per month, and only pay $0.30 for a track, than have to pay $1.29 cents a track. Even if I only downloaded 10 tracks on a $10 per month account, I'd still save over iTunes Plus. Downloads should be significantly cheaper than the CD. Many people say CDs are overpriced, and if that's true then digital downloads via iTunes is just highway robbery.
Southeast Asia is considered it's own region of Asia, but that doesn't make it a continent.
You don't get any guaranty with regular TV either. I was quite annoyed when they cancelled Invasion after 1 season. Especially with the ending they left. Again, Jericho almost got cancelled, but apparently they are bringing it back mid-season. Meanwhile, they have 18 different crime dramas, and 37 medical dramas. It seems like every show I get really interested in they cancel.
Oh, let me add... for a 17 minute episode? you have got to be kidding me. When I saw $2 for SD, I assumed that was for a 1 hour (or 45 minute, like TV without ads) episode. Not for 17 minutes of footage. I wish this show luck, but I don't know how anybody can justify spending $2 for a 17 minute TV episode.
I thought that almost looked like someone was headed in the right direction. Until I saw the price. $2 an episode? Where do they get their market research information? Do people actually think paying $2 an episode is a good price? If there are 24 episodes in a season (pretty standard for regular TV) then that's $48 a season. At that price, I'll wait for the DVD to come out and get a hard copy. The digital download which has no distribution chain, and no physical product should be much cheaper than the DVD. I would pay a maximum of $1 per episode, althought $0.50 would be much more to my liking. That's why I only download music on eMusic. They're the only ones that I've found that have a reasonable pricing structure.
I live in Canada, so I have the priviledge of watching shows the same time they are aired in the US. Sometimes earlier, thanks to our Atlantic time zone and time shifting via digital cable. Anyway, I got a new iPod Nano, and I'm using it to watch the shows I've recorded with SageTV, and then watch them the next day on my commute to work (on the bus). I think for something like this to really beat piracy, they are going to have to provide this level of freedom. For $50 you can buy the season on DVD. So for $2 an episode, you're already paying $50 for the download. So it had better be DRM free so you can watch it on any capable device, and give you the ability to keep the videos. Otherwise, people will go to piracy, because it gives them so much more functionality. I would pay $1 for every show I watched, if it meant I got to keep a copy, and be able to watch it on any device, including my TV.
Central America is not a continent, in case you were wondering. Costa Rica is part of North America.
That is very true. I could have 6 Mbps internet, via cable, but meh, I don't download anything that big. Maybe 1 or 2 Linux ISOs a year, and a bunch of MP3s off eMusic, everything else is web, email, and IM. So I'm using 1 Mbps internet. I don't care that it's not that fast. I don't want 50 Mbps internet until there's something worth downloading.
What the sig is saying is what has always been true. People who are really interested in IT and have real skills will have no problem finding a job. There's a huge shortage of good IT workers. The fact that CS enrollment has dropped 70% just goes to show how many people were just in it for the money. Once the lucrative jobs went away, so did the people with no interest in the subject.