While I've had my fare share of situations where I wished my boss better understood the stuff I was doing, I believe that the purpose of a manager is two fold:
To know the goals of the company
To enable his or her team to work towards these goals
Would it be nice if a manager understands the core portions of what his/her team does in the technical sense? Sure. But you'll get too many managers who believe they know more than their team because they got Certification X or used to use punch cards. A manager with enough knowledge to be dangerous is far worse than a manager who has no technical knowledge at all.
A manager should be able to trust their team members to do what they're supposed to. Part of this includes evaluating a member on his/her strength, which is where the lack of technical knowledge becomes a problem. But aside from this, they don't need much in the way of technical knowledge. What they should have is the ability to motivate, to act as a barrier if someone else comes raging in about something, to get the team the equipment/money they need to complete their tasks, and to make sure the higher ups know what's going on. They should try to learn technical stuff relating to their team during their career, but it should be only so they can better understand their team instead of making technical decisions for them.
Do you really want your manager looking over your shoulder and asking "Why aren't you using bubble sort?"
Steam is the only thing with a DRM scheme I don't hate.
I have no problem with Steam overall, but it allows Valve to block reselling games. Before knowing the whole deal, I purchased a copy of Half Life 2 Episode 1 (in one of their rather large cases) used. It had the little instruction card with the code, all the CDs, and the box was even in nice condition.
The key, of course, was already registered. So I e-mailed Valve support and over the exchange of a few e-mails they politely but firmly told me they will not activate used products. I can understand fighting piracy in these situations, and I would have been happy to ship them the box and contents to get it activated, but no go. Luckily I only paid $5 for it, so I wasn't out much; I also picked up the Orange Box soon after it came out, so I got the game anyway, but the whole scenario still annoys me.
I not only have a common first and last name, but the addition of my middle name does little to whittle the results. I can only hope that my potential employers won't mistake me for a lawyer, someone in the winery business, a doctor, an actor, a book enthusiast, or, according to one result when I include my full middle name, dead. Even including my university, high school, or some previous employers get no results that are me.
This can backfire, though. If I include "myspace", some bad things could happen. First result is a black jazz musician's page (which is actually half-decent), so that likely won't be confused for me, but there are likely other profiles out there that might have bad things about some other guy with my name. A smart employer would be able to see that the ages, backgrounds, or education lists don't line up, but some not-so-smart ones will just accept a page as being mine.
I'm much more concerned about my online handle linking to me. The one I use on Slashdot is somewhat common, though I thought otherwise when I first came up with it. The one I use for my e-mail, though, which I've also used on other sites, is quite unique. The first page of google hits is all me but the last (yes, I'm sure someone reading this will check it out). But even then nothing bad can be traced, and I don't plan on including it in resumes or employer discussions.
Most others, especially in the younger generation, should be concerned about their online handle as much as their name. While only a few websites ask for your full name (and display it, as well), the handle you use for that website (usually not your full name) is likely the same handle you use on other websites. Websites that you might not want to be linked.
So, my college brethren, beware! Scrub the internet not only for your own name, but also for that of accounts you've used your common handle(s) on. The same goes for handles in general. Applying for a job with "sexygurl45@hotmail.com" won't win you many points. I've even gone so far as to use one of my "business" domains to set up a personal account used only for employment. It's easy to remember, more unique than a "gmail" account, and I can actually use my name in it (a downside to having a common name).
This is probably what went wrong with it. The fact that they went to a group with 0 knowledge about them probably meant they also had 0 interest in games. They didn't even develop for LCD, they made up a whole new denomination to develop for!
This is becoming an increasing problem for games and movies. Early 90s when it just cost a few hundred grand to put out a game (if that), you could stick to how you liked it, shoot it through Q&A, and have at it. They didn't put games in front of large groups and ask "How would you make this?" (At least, to my knowledge.) That's exactly why the company is making the game--because these other guys aren't. So you get these awesome games that were awesome because it was just the company, not the masses, making the decision.
I'm not familiar with the authoring process, but if someone writes a book I don't think they send it to some "random" group (and by random, we mean people walking by who were willing to spend 15 minutes in exchange for ten bucks). They'll send it to a few trusted friends, people who's opinion they trust. They'll send it to their publisher, who will ship it between a few people, also in the know. They, people who have a trusted opinion or experience, will help make decisions.
Who here has played Portal? And have you played through in Commentary mode? If not, I highly recommend it. You get a lot of insight as to the development and planning phases. What you also get is a lot of comments about how they took this puzzle or that puzzle to a group and made changes based on that group. Most of these pieces of commentary talk about how they dumbed down the game because of feedback. Now, Portal was an amazing game. I also enjoyed Bioshock, though it had no replayability. But I often wonder how much more fun I would have had in Portal, had I been given the harder challenges.
Rather than ask "What can we cut from this", it should be "How can we better explain/show this". Other Portal comments talked about how the puzzles were changed to draw the player's focus to certain portions in order to make them more aware of how to complete a puzzle. This is what focus groups should be about. They should be with gamers of all ranges (yes, even some without experience), but responses shouldn't cut anything, just change the length, instructions, or other things to make it work.
I remember this big story about how you would physically change depending on choices, plasmids used, and more.
I hope the "hacking" portion was based off of focus groups, at least. Some idiot says "You know, this technobutt stuff is confusing. Can't it be something similar, like plumbing?" Letting focus groups make your decisions can only make a game worse, not better.
Perfect scenario for micropayments! You could send 2000 e-mails and hope one person will pony up $1000 to avoid any downfall, or you can send 2000 e-mails and offer to take them off your hitlist for a mere dollar. At a low 50% return rate, you've made the original $1000, and the potential for more is much higher!
I absolutely do. Not what they should do, but what they would do.
You seem to think I have a vendetta against the UK or US Government. While I do believe both could use a swift kick in the pants, this isn't because it's US/UK Gov't, but Gov't and large corporations period. I'd say the same thing if it was Germany, Switzerland, or Brazil.
I'm sure I could run through Slashdot and dig up a dozen articles where someone got caught in the middle and did the right thing to report it, only for the government to charge them with a crime or a corporation to sue them because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. Be it turning in records like this, reporting a hole found accidentally on a website, a bad exploit in a program, and so forth. It's been an unfortunate, visible trend that I don't expect it to stop any time soon.
Because the NewScientist article doesn't get him the 18 billion ad impressions.
Seriously, look at the page in FireFox with adBlock. Seems... kinda bare, right? It did to me, and I opened it in Opera (where I don't have ad blocking set up) and almost every single blank space had an ad.
How many days do you think it will be before the government tries to charge him with something or the bank in question tries to sue him? I'd be pleasantly surprised if neither happened.
Also, the summary leaves out something that might affect those of us on the other side of the pond:
A spokeswoman for the third company reported to be involved, American Express, said it took the security of its card members' data "extremely seriously".
Bold mine. I know they have different branches for countries and such, but I wonder if any of this data crossed international bounds.
I've read that article, and it, too, made me lol, but more for the circumstances than that line.
Using "we" is the power of inclusion. If you say "I can make this better", the snobbish/self-centered (management, CEOs, etc.) will see you as stuck up and not willing to work with others, that the process is for you and you alone (and thus the glory). If you say "We can make this better", even if you're the only one who will be doing any work, it gives others the sense of empowerment, as well as that they're not excluded from the processes. It also means that they might try to steal some of the glory, so you have to be careful how you use it.
The reverse can be true: it can be better to use "I" than "We". You go to your CEO and say "We fucked up", he's likely to get pissed as hell at you. You go and say "I fucked up" (explaining how and how it could be fixed), and you'll get a better response. Even if the fuck up did involve the CEO, using "I" is playing cubicle politics.
Other words have such empowering feelings, such as "need". Saying "I need you to do X for me, please" is much more powerful than "Could you do X for me, please?" Because you need something, and you came to them, they feel that much more useful.
What about voluntary storage? I'm all for banning information not authorized by a person to be kept for X time-span. But there are a lot of services/sites where storage of personal information or CC data is useful or convenient to a person, even if you think the practice is stupid. I'd find Woot.com more annoying to use if I had to type in my CC every time (especially during Woot-offs or BoCs), and many people like the idea of one-click purchases.
EULAs don't count, it has to be a conscious, specific opt-in separate from any sort of sign-up procedure (or, if it is part of said procedure, must be on a page of its own and off by default).
This seems like a bad comparison setup to me. I'd expect the "mid-range" model to be, well, about mid-way between low and high end prices. But the article have this sudden jump of $7K, which is like saying "Well, you can have a sub-compact, a sedan, or a [semi|ferrari]." (It's not Slashdot without a car analogy.) Where's the budget high-end? Something that can be done for $4K or $5K?
Also, I'd bet that a well-done budget high-end would only have a slight disadvantage in tests compared to the $11K machine. There's a point in hardware where you're no longer paying for extra capacity/ability, but just for that "new hardware" smell. Sure, you may get a bit more, but the per dollar ratio just plummets. When shopping for Intel processors last year on NewEgg, I noticed that there was a gradual increase in both price and quality, but around a certain mark (I want to say $400) there was a sudden jump of $300 more to the next better processor. I decided to purchase the one just before that jump.
And, as another poster commented, that stuff will be 1/3 the price in a year or so.
Lego actually has magnetic parts. They were mostly prevalent in the Aquanauts set, IIRC. I think I still see them from time to time. Unfortunately their shopping site does not seem to carry them.
Lego also has a variety of hooking and locking parts, not to mention joints. I'm sure you could do something with out magnets (you'd still need the glue, though), especially if you look into Technic pieces.
Why? I'm sure you can build something yourself out of available Lego pieces. That's the point of Legos, after all, to use your imagination instead of one super-huge pre-fab piece like Megablocks.
Step 1) Order Lego platforms in bulk Step 2) Superglue/duct tape to wall Step 3) ??? Step 4) Painful feet!
Having spent thousands on text books myself for college (on top of an already large tuition), I applaud any effort to wrest control from the publishers. In addition to making cheaper books for students, the open-source textbooks can easily be translated and used in other countries where university-level education is harder to come by (and thus more expensive, likely with fewer options in books).
My main concern about the whole thing is the "everyone edits" model. I love Wikipedia, but this is the sort of thing where we may want to lock out some. I didn't see anything in the Times article about it, but I hope some of the wider-adopted ones do a credentials check. It's free to get in, but you have to prove you have at least a Masters or something, and then are limited in which types of books you can edit (so someone with a Masters in Finance won't be working on a biology textbook). Especially with debacles like the Kansas Board of Education, it would only take a small group of rogue individuals to mess up a textbook to make it more "Christian" or "wholesome", or even trying to change history. While likely caught before a book goes to press, some may get their stuff straight online, and so may download a bad copy.
Furthermore, while I'm glad it happened at the college level (too late to help myself, though), I see a far larger need for this at the public school level. While the students don't pay for the books themselves (per se), it's hard for many school systems to keep up-to-date textbooks or enough textbooks on hand, especially in poorer areas. Many would benefit greatly from open-source, cheap textbooks. There may be projects on this already, but I don't recall any at the moment.
Even better, scrap the large amount of text-books at the higher level and go fully digital. When I envision the Average High School in 2020, I see all students with two things: a Kindle-like device and something like the SmartQuill (I don't know a modern equivalent).
The digital textbook, something that will be along the likes of an "OLPC" for Kindle, will house all text-books, have bluetooth (or WUSB) to instantly download any notes, updates, or addendums by the teacher, and wireless networking to access school-wide announcements, discussion boards, and the like. Ideally it's in the style of a clamshell, both to protect the screen and to give it a better "book" feel. A small keyboard slides in when not in use. Bonus if it's a touchscreen or tablet, but it's not required and, at least for the moment, can't be done with eInk at the moment anyway.
The SmartQuill (or modern equivalent) will allow students to take hand-written notes if their typing isn't up to par, or if they need to draw diagrams/more complex equations. It will sync up with the digital textbook (perhaps even using a custom port that can house the pen, and sell them as a set) to make a permanent copy of the notes. These could be shared or cross-referenced in case someone misses something.
The whole setup will likely cost ~$600 student. It's about the price of four college textbooks or five-six high school text books. The convenience and re-use (you get it as a freshmen and give it back once you graduate) will likely more than make up for the initial large cost. Combine that with cheap digital text books or free open-source projects (and the Gutenberg project!) and it would be great thing for all schools to have.
I also see flying cars, but I think the Kindle/SmartQuill setup is actually feasible.
I just finished my last university course this summer, so it's all fresh in my mind. No, with an if; Yes, with a but.
Some professors (notably the extremely lazy ones, of which I encountered too many) will model their class around a book. Sometimes it's not so much that they're letting the book lead, but that the book mostly lines up with how they want to teach the class.
For things like math and physics, text-books are quite useful. Not only will they have one explanation written out (a good professor will give his/her own, as well, if s/he has one) but also prepared questions along with the answers in a teacher's guide. This saves the professors time because they don't have to think up problems themselves except for tests/quizzes (and some pull from the book, anyway). Furthermore, a good book and a good setup can go a long way--the same Calculus book was used for Calc I, II, and III when I took them, just focused on different portions.
Good professors will find a book that lines up with their plan, even if it means skipping around a bit or ignoring it entirely for some things. A really good professor will do the same, but also focus on cheap books.
Another post further up talks about students in the UK copying down everything the lecturer wrote. I find this to be the worst way to learn. I'm not absorbing anything, I'm merely processing it. In the eyes/ears and then on to the page. I don't have time to stop and think because if I do, the professor might start erasing notes I haven't been able to jot down yet (my writing is both sloppy and slow). Even at the high prices, I prefer the use of textbooks because that means I can learn on my own time, then apply/discuss while in class. If the professor hands out notes, as you mention, then it's not a problem.
I would not have minded a class without a textbook. I would have hated having to write every little bit down.
One small addition: With an assigned textbook, a student who is highly interested in the material can work ahead or explore a topic that won't be covered in the class. They can research without the textbook, sure, but the textbook provides easy access to a structured setup that builds (and references) information they've already learned, and only that.
I would think that every company would have some sort of archive for their products, even ones that were finished to some point but never made it to market. Especially game companies that, for the most part, just store the CDs/carts.
Here's hoping that some of these gents take some spare time to fix up this room and make a proper archive.
Personally, I think a small "museum" type setup to show off consoles, accessories, etc. with the gaming library nearby would be a really cool thing. There was this Video Game tour about six or seven years back--I forget the actual name--that went around the country with a whole bunch of arcade games, both old and new, and also had a display for home consoles and hand helds. It was damn cool to just walk along the glass cases and see video game history, much of which brought up personal memories. Also, a quarter for every arcade was awesome.
I know it's been changed around to focus on press/investors (and subsequently a bunch of developers/producers no longer care), but that doesn't mean you have to have a bad show. Both Sony and Microsoft had decent shows--nothing to get excited over, but they were alright and dropped some nice tidbits (though Microsoft's new Live interface made me laugh a lot, it looks horrible).
Nintendo's was downright bad, though. They could have shown 15 seconds of any one franchise and it would have been tremendous, but the whole thing was just embarrassing and didn't bring to light any new games, just stated ones that were already announced (everyone knew that Animal Crossing Wii was coming at some point).
What happened was that most companies saw the Wii as an "also ran" once again. The XBox barely beat out the Gamecube lastgen (both getting their asses handed to them by the PS2). So, when Nintendo said "less power more immersive", the developers scratched their heads then "ooh"ed and "aah"ed over PS3 and 360 graphics. As with most of the market, they were thinking only of the core market (14-25 males) and what they would bring.
(It should be noted that the DS was only coming into its own right leading up to the Wii's launch, so the whole "it prints money" thing hadn't connected yet.)
Fast forward a year after release. 360's numbers are still looking alright, but Sony can't give away PS3 consoles (which were free with any HDTV purchase above a grand at many stores for a while). Wii, in the mean time, either has already surpassed the 360 in sales or is set to do so in a month or two's time, despite having a year's handicap. Suddenly, developers are going "oh shit" and want to jump on the money train. They see the success of games like Wii Sports (duh, as it's packaged with the Wii), Wii Play, and Rayman Raving Rabbids (which is quite fun) and think "We an pump out a bunch of minigame games". So we get isles of shovelware for Wii Year 2. In this time we get a bunch of good games as well, but it's starting to suffer the same way the PS2 did.
I think, though, that Year 3 will not be the year of casuals, as that's more of an over-arching thing, partly because casual gamers are far more likely to buy older titles they haven't played or only rented/borrowed before, whereas "core" gamers are much more likely to stick with new releases. Instead, a trend that I see developing for late Year 3/early Year 4 is ports, either straight or enhanced. We've had Resident Evil 4 and Okami, as well as other titles like House of the Dead (2 & 3). Capcom has announced Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop and Sega has Samba de Amigo. Only two titles, sure, but as Wii sales continue on their steady pace (and stores continue to sell out), more and more developers are going to reach into their catalog of PS2, XBox, and Dreamcast games and grab some of the more popular titles to bring to the Wii. Because the expectations lower, they won't need to spend much time ramping up graphics, and by this point many studios have gotten good with applying the Wii controls. Throw in a bit of extra content here and there, price it at $30 or $40, and you have an easy seller.
Nintendo did have a bad E3 (I mean, wow), but this allows 3rd parties to step up not just for casual gaming, but for the core market as well. Over time some of those casuals will come over to the dark side, spurring "core"
I have to agree. On certain gaming boards/sites I visit with lax rules about content, it's not uncommon to hear people talking about their R4.
I can recall one time when someone asked about homebrew. This is contrary to the 500+ times someone has asked what games to load on it first (and sites to get them from).
I like the R4 as a product for convenience. I would love to be able to load up the info for my moderate-sized collection of GBA games (actual cartridges, not some ROM folder) and take them all with me in a convenient package. However, the primary use of the R4 is pirating and, as suggested by the OP, anyone telling themselves (or others) that the push against it is for its homebrew ability is delirious.
Honestly I'm surprised it took this long for Nintendo et al. to react. Though from what I hear, the R4 (and its close cousin, the M3) is on the way out and some other card with similar functionality is on the rise.
I believe the term for this is "ghost ban". (Think of various ghost movies where the ghost can see and hear other people, but not vice versa.) I've seen it used very effectively, and heartily n-th it.
The problem is that most BB software doesn't, to my knowledge, have this kind of functionality incorporated. You can either post or you can't. Some software does allow a person to hide the posts of another user; perhaps that could be extended.
To be sure, Heath Ledger stole the show. I still enjoyed Christian Bale's Batman (though he needs a throat lozenge while in the suit) and thought the rest of the cast did a bang-up job, but Ledger perfectly captured both the madness and the "hilarity" of the Joker. Nicholson doesn't hold a candle to this.
I say with the utmost sincerity that his was a performance to die for.
The movie was well written, too. I kept expecting things to happen, and they didn't; what did far surpassed what I expected. The dialog was witty, nicely worded, and delivered well. There were two or three points during the movie that I was sure it was over, that they would just wrap things up and do something in the next film. But they never let that happen.
I don't believe that any minute of the two-and-a-half hour film was wasted. I thought Batman Begins was good, and was expecting a lot from The Dark Knight, but I had no idea that this is what I would be watching.
I don't agree that it should have come with the console in the first place. In both cases of the MotionPlus and the N64 Memory Expansion, it was a matter of both cost and use. Developers weren't going to use what the MotionPlus offers right away--many third party companies still have trouble using the Wiimote "correctly". In the same way, not every game requires the Memory Expansion; in fact, the good majority works without it. Furthermore, both technologies would have been more expensive to introduce at the outset instead of later on. The added cost wouldn't be worth it until much later, so might as well ensure the system can expand and save it for later.
The Nunchuck is actually the same way. There are games that don't require it (or require it all the time) so you don't get it. The majority of games do, though, so unless Wii Sports is the only game you want you will need to pick one up.
Personally, I'm hoping that tomorrow's Press Conference with Nintendo at E3 will re-introduce H.A.M.M.E.R. using the functionality of MotionPlus. A Zelda game is fine too.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you get it? This kid is that much of a genius!
Einstein, eat your heart out!
While I've had my fare share of situations where I wished my boss better understood the stuff I was doing, I believe that the purpose of a manager is two fold:
Would it be nice if a manager understands the core portions of what his/her team does in the technical sense? Sure. But you'll get too many managers who believe they know more than their team because they got Certification X or used to use punch cards. A manager with enough knowledge to be dangerous is far worse than a manager who has no technical knowledge at all.
A manager should be able to trust their team members to do what they're supposed to. Part of this includes evaluating a member on his/her strength, which is where the lack of technical knowledge becomes a problem. But aside from this, they don't need much in the way of technical knowledge. What they should have is the ability to motivate, to act as a barrier if someone else comes raging in about something, to get the team the equipment/money they need to complete their tasks, and to make sure the higher ups know what's going on. They should try to learn technical stuff relating to their team during their career, but it should be only so they can better understand their team instead of making technical decisions for them.
Do you really want your manager looking over your shoulder and asking "Why aren't you using bubble sort?"
I have no problem with Steam overall, but it allows Valve to block reselling games. Before knowing the whole deal, I purchased a copy of Half Life 2 Episode 1 (in one of their rather large cases) used. It had the little instruction card with the code, all the CDs, and the box was even in nice condition.
The key, of course, was already registered. So I e-mailed Valve support and over the exchange of a few e-mails they politely but firmly told me they will not activate used products. I can understand fighting piracy in these situations, and I would have been happy to ship them the box and contents to get it activated, but no go. Luckily I only paid $5 for it, so I wasn't out much; I also picked up the Orange Box soon after it came out, so I got the game anyway, but the whole scenario still annoys me.
I not only have a common first and last name, but the addition of my middle name does little to whittle the results. I can only hope that my potential employers won't mistake me for a lawyer, someone in the winery business, a doctor, an actor, a book enthusiast, or, according to one result when I include my full middle name, dead. Even including my university, high school, or some previous employers get no results that are me.
This can backfire, though. If I include "myspace", some bad things could happen. First result is a black jazz musician's page (which is actually half-decent), so that likely won't be confused for me, but there are likely other profiles out there that might have bad things about some other guy with my name. A smart employer would be able to see that the ages, backgrounds, or education lists don't line up, but some not-so-smart ones will just accept a page as being mine.
I'm much more concerned about my online handle linking to me. The one I use on Slashdot is somewhat common, though I thought otherwise when I first came up with it. The one I use for my e-mail, though, which I've also used on other sites, is quite unique. The first page of google hits is all me but the last (yes, I'm sure someone reading this will check it out). But even then nothing bad can be traced, and I don't plan on including it in resumes or employer discussions.
Most others, especially in the younger generation, should be concerned about their online handle as much as their name. While only a few websites ask for your full name (and display it, as well), the handle you use for that website (usually not your full name) is likely the same handle you use on other websites. Websites that you might not want to be linked.
So, my college brethren, beware! Scrub the internet not only for your own name, but also for that of accounts you've used your common handle(s) on. The same goes for handles in general. Applying for a job with "sexygurl45@hotmail.com" won't win you many points. I've even gone so far as to use one of my "business" domains to set up a personal account used only for employment. It's easy to remember, more unique than a "gmail" account, and I can actually use my name in it (a downside to having a common name).
Mario can, however, get you a tremendous amount of cake.
This is probably what went wrong with it. The fact that they went to a group with 0 knowledge about them probably meant they also had 0 interest in games. They didn't even develop for LCD, they made up a whole new denomination to develop for!
This is becoming an increasing problem for games and movies. Early 90s when it just cost a few hundred grand to put out a game (if that), you could stick to how you liked it, shoot it through Q&A, and have at it. They didn't put games in front of large groups and ask "How would you make this?" (At least, to my knowledge.) That's exactly why the company is making the game--because these other guys aren't. So you get these awesome games that were awesome because it was just the company, not the masses, making the decision.
I'm not familiar with the authoring process, but if someone writes a book I don't think they send it to some "random" group (and by random, we mean people walking by who were willing to spend 15 minutes in exchange for ten bucks). They'll send it to a few trusted friends, people who's opinion they trust. They'll send it to their publisher, who will ship it between a few people, also in the know. They, people who have a trusted opinion or experience, will help make decisions.
Who here has played Portal? And have you played through in Commentary mode? If not, I highly recommend it. You get a lot of insight as to the development and planning phases. What you also get is a lot of comments about how they took this puzzle or that puzzle to a group and made changes based on that group. Most of these pieces of commentary talk about how they dumbed down the game because of feedback. Now, Portal was an amazing game. I also enjoyed Bioshock, though it had no replayability. But I often wonder how much more fun I would have had in Portal, had I been given the harder challenges.
Rather than ask "What can we cut from this", it should be "How can we better explain/show this". Other Portal comments talked about how the puzzles were changed to draw the player's focus to certain portions in order to make them more aware of how to complete a puzzle. This is what focus groups should be about. They should be with gamers of all ranges (yes, even some without experience), but responses shouldn't cut anything, just change the length, instructions, or other things to make it work.
I remember this big story about how you would physically change depending on choices, plasmids used, and more.
I hope the "hacking" portion was based off of focus groups, at least. Some idiot says "You know, this technobutt stuff is confusing. Can't it be something similar, like plumbing?" Letting focus groups make your decisions can only make a game worse, not better.
Perfect scenario for micropayments! You could send 2000 e-mails and hope one person will pony up $1000 to avoid any downfall, or you can send 2000 e-mails and offer to take them off your hitlist for a mere dollar. At a low 50% return rate, you've made the original $1000, and the potential for more is much higher!
Seriously, criminals these days.
I absolutely do. Not what they should do, but what they would do.
You seem to think I have a vendetta against the UK or US Government. While I do believe both could use a swift kick in the pants, this isn't because it's US/UK Gov't, but Gov't and large corporations period. I'd say the same thing if it was Germany, Switzerland, or Brazil.
I'm sure I could run through Slashdot and dig up a dozen articles where someone got caught in the middle and did the right thing to report it, only for the government to charge them with a crime or a corporation to sue them because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. Be it turning in records like this, reporting a hole found accidentally on a website, a bad exploit in a program, and so forth. It's been an unfortunate, visible trend that I don't expect it to stop any time soon.
Because the NewScientist article doesn't get him the 18 billion ad impressions.
Seriously, look at the page in FireFox with adBlock. Seems... kinda bare, right? It did to me, and I opened it in Opera (where I don't have ad blocking set up) and almost every single blank space had an ad.
These are the kind of sites that require AdBlock.
How many days do you think it will be before the government tries to charge him with something or the bank in question tries to sue him? I'd be pleasantly surprised if neither happened.
Also, the summary leaves out something that might affect those of us on the other side of the pond:
Bold mine. I know they have different branches for countries and such, but I wonder if any of this data crossed international bounds.
I've read that article, and it, too, made me lol, but more for the circumstances than that line.
Using "we" is the power of inclusion. If you say "I can make this better", the snobbish/self-centered (management, CEOs, etc.) will see you as stuck up and not willing to work with others, that the process is for you and you alone (and thus the glory). If you say "We can make this better", even if you're the only one who will be doing any work, it gives others the sense of empowerment, as well as that they're not excluded from the processes. It also means that they might try to steal some of the glory, so you have to be careful how you use it.
The reverse can be true: it can be better to use "I" than "We". You go to your CEO and say "We fucked up", he's likely to get pissed as hell at you. You go and say "I fucked up" (explaining how and how it could be fixed), and you'll get a better response. Even if the fuck up did involve the CEO, using "I" is playing cubicle politics.
Other words have such empowering feelings, such as "need". Saying "I need you to do X for me, please" is much more powerful than "Could you do X for me, please?" Because you need something, and you came to them, they feel that much more useful.
What about voluntary storage? I'm all for banning information not authorized by a person to be kept for X time-span. But there are a lot of services/sites where storage of personal information or CC data is useful or convenient to a person, even if you think the practice is stupid. I'd find Woot.com more annoying to use if I had to type in my CC every time (especially during Woot-offs or BoCs), and many people like the idea of one-click purchases.
EULAs don't count, it has to be a conscious, specific opt-in separate from any sort of sign-up procedure (or, if it is part of said procedure, must be on a page of its own and off by default).
This seems like a bad comparison setup to me. I'd expect the "mid-range" model to be, well, about mid-way between low and high end prices. But the article have this sudden jump of $7K, which is like saying "Well, you can have a sub-compact, a sedan, or a [semi|ferrari]." (It's not Slashdot without a car analogy.) Where's the budget high-end? Something that can be done for $4K or $5K?
Also, I'd bet that a well-done budget high-end would only have a slight disadvantage in tests compared to the $11K machine. There's a point in hardware where you're no longer paying for extra capacity/ability, but just for that "new hardware" smell. Sure, you may get a bit more, but the per dollar ratio just plummets. When shopping for Intel processors last year on NewEgg, I noticed that there was a gradual increase in both price and quality, but around a certain mark (I want to say $400) there was a sudden jump of $300 more to the next better processor. I decided to purchase the one just before that jump.
And, as another poster commented, that stuff will be 1/3 the price in a year or so.
Lego actually has magnetic parts. They were mostly prevalent in the Aquanauts set, IIRC. I think I still see them from time to time. Unfortunately their shopping site does not seem to carry them.
Lego also has a variety of hooking and locking parts, not to mention joints. I'm sure you could do something with out magnets (you'd still need the glue, though), especially if you look into Technic pieces.
Why? I'm sure you can build something yourself out of available Lego pieces. That's the point of Legos, after all, to use your imagination instead of one super-huge pre-fab piece like Megablocks.
Step 1) Order Lego platforms in bulk
Step 2) Superglue/duct tape to wall
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Painful feet!
Having spent thousands on text books myself for college (on top of an already large tuition), I applaud any effort to wrest control from the publishers. In addition to making cheaper books for students, the open-source textbooks can easily be translated and used in other countries where university-level education is harder to come by (and thus more expensive, likely with fewer options in books).
My main concern about the whole thing is the "everyone edits" model. I love Wikipedia, but this is the sort of thing where we may want to lock out some. I didn't see anything in the Times article about it, but I hope some of the wider-adopted ones do a credentials check. It's free to get in, but you have to prove you have at least a Masters or something, and then are limited in which types of books you can edit (so someone with a Masters in Finance won't be working on a biology textbook). Especially with debacles like the Kansas Board of Education, it would only take a small group of rogue individuals to mess up a textbook to make it more "Christian" or "wholesome", or even trying to change history. While likely caught before a book goes to press, some may get their stuff straight online, and so may download a bad copy.
Furthermore, while I'm glad it happened at the college level (too late to help myself, though), I see a far larger need for this at the public school level. While the students don't pay for the books themselves (per se), it's hard for many school systems to keep up-to-date textbooks or enough textbooks on hand, especially in poorer areas. Many would benefit greatly from open-source, cheap textbooks. There may be projects on this already, but I don't recall any at the moment.
Even better, scrap the large amount of text-books at the higher level and go fully digital. When I envision the Average High School in 2020, I see all students with two things: a Kindle-like device and something like the SmartQuill (I don't know a modern equivalent).
The digital textbook, something that will be along the likes of an "OLPC" for Kindle, will house all text-books, have bluetooth (or WUSB) to instantly download any notes, updates, or addendums by the teacher, and wireless networking to access school-wide announcements, discussion boards, and the like. Ideally it's in the style of a clamshell, both to protect the screen and to give it a better "book" feel. A small keyboard slides in when not in use. Bonus if it's a touchscreen or tablet, but it's not required and, at least for the moment, can't be done with eInk at the moment anyway.
The SmartQuill (or modern equivalent) will allow students to take hand-written notes if their typing isn't up to par, or if they need to draw diagrams/more complex equations. It will sync up with the digital textbook (perhaps even using a custom port that can house the pen, and sell them as a set) to make a permanent copy of the notes. These could be shared or cross-referenced in case someone misses something.
The whole setup will likely cost ~$600 student. It's about the price of four college textbooks or five-six high school text books. The convenience and re-use (you get it as a freshmen and give it back once you graduate) will likely more than make up for the initial large cost. Combine that with cheap digital text books or free open-source projects (and the Gutenberg project!) and it would be great thing for all schools to have.
I also see flying cars, but I think the Kindle/SmartQuill setup is actually feasible.
I just finished my last university course this summer, so it's all fresh in my mind. No, with an if; Yes, with a but.
Some professors (notably the extremely lazy ones, of which I encountered too many) will model their class around a book. Sometimes it's not so much that they're letting the book lead, but that the book mostly lines up with how they want to teach the class.
For things like math and physics, text-books are quite useful. Not only will they have one explanation written out (a good professor will give his/her own, as well, if s/he has one) but also prepared questions along with the answers in a teacher's guide. This saves the professors time because they don't have to think up problems themselves except for tests/quizzes (and some pull from the book, anyway). Furthermore, a good book and a good setup can go a long way--the same Calculus book was used for Calc I, II, and III when I took them, just focused on different portions.
Good professors will find a book that lines up with their plan, even if it means skipping around a bit or ignoring it entirely for some things. A really good professor will do the same, but also focus on cheap books.
Another post further up talks about students in the UK copying down everything the lecturer wrote. I find this to be the worst way to learn. I'm not absorbing anything, I'm merely processing it. In the eyes/ears and then on to the page. I don't have time to stop and think because if I do, the professor might start erasing notes I haven't been able to jot down yet (my writing is both sloppy and slow). Even at the high prices, I prefer the use of textbooks because that means I can learn on my own time, then apply/discuss while in class. If the professor hands out notes, as you mention, then it's not a problem.
I would not have minded a class without a textbook. I would have hated having to write every little bit down.
One small addition: With an assigned textbook, a student who is highly interested in the material can work ahead or explore a topic that won't be covered in the class. They can research without the textbook, sure, but the textbook provides easy access to a structured setup that builds (and references) information they've already learned, and only that.
I would think that every company would have some sort of archive for their products, even ones that were finished to some point but never made it to market. Especially game companies that, for the most part, just store the CDs/carts.
Here's hoping that some of these gents take some spare time to fix up this room and make a proper archive.
Personally, I think a small "museum" type setup to show off consoles, accessories, etc. with the gaming library nearby would be a really cool thing. There was this Video Game tour about six or seven years back--I forget the actual name--that went around the country with a whole bunch of arcade games, both old and new, and also had a display for home consoles and hand helds. It was damn cool to just walk along the glass cases and see video game history, much of which brought up personal memories. Also, a quarter for every arcade was awesome.
I know it's been changed around to focus on press/investors (and subsequently a bunch of developers/producers no longer care), but that doesn't mean you have to have a bad show. Both Sony and Microsoft had decent shows--nothing to get excited over, but they were alright and dropped some nice tidbits (though Microsoft's new Live interface made me laugh a lot, it looks horrible).
Nintendo's was downright bad, though. They could have shown 15 seconds of any one franchise and it would have been tremendous, but the whole thing was just embarrassing and didn't bring to light any new games, just stated ones that were already announced (everyone knew that Animal Crossing Wii was coming at some point).
What happened was that most companies saw the Wii as an "also ran" once again. The XBox barely beat out the Gamecube lastgen (both getting their asses handed to them by the PS2). So, when Nintendo said "less power more immersive", the developers scratched their heads then "ooh"ed and "aah"ed over PS3 and 360 graphics. As with most of the market, they were thinking only of the core market (14-25 males) and what they would bring.
(It should be noted that the DS was only coming into its own right leading up to the Wii's launch, so the whole "it prints money" thing hadn't connected yet.)
Fast forward a year after release. 360's numbers are still looking alright, but Sony can't give away PS3 consoles (which were free with any HDTV purchase above a grand at many stores for a while). Wii, in the mean time, either has already surpassed the 360 in sales or is set to do so in a month or two's time, despite having a year's handicap. Suddenly, developers are going "oh shit" and want to jump on the money train. They see the success of games like Wii Sports (duh, as it's packaged with the Wii), Wii Play, and Rayman Raving Rabbids (which is quite fun) and think "We an pump out a bunch of minigame games". So we get isles of shovelware for Wii Year 2. In this time we get a bunch of good games as well, but it's starting to suffer the same way the PS2 did.
But we're coming up on Year 3 and it seems that a lot of companies are announcing original properties or new titles for the console. We have MadWorld, Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of a New World, The Conduit, and Fatal Frame (4): Mask of the Lunar Eclipse. For the casuals, there are plenty of other enticing options, such as Rayman Raving Rabbids TV Party, Wii Music (along with other Nintendo Wii titles), and Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party 2. At the same time, the Wii is becoming more than an afterthought. For instance, Rock Band 2 will not be crippled like the original Rock Band Wii was.
I think, though, that Year 3 will not be the year of casuals, as that's more of an over-arching thing, partly because casual gamers are far more likely to buy older titles they haven't played or only rented/borrowed before, whereas "core" gamers are much more likely to stick with new releases. Instead, a trend that I see developing for late Year 3/early Year 4 is ports, either straight or enhanced. We've had Resident Evil 4 and Okami, as well as other titles like House of the Dead (2 & 3). Capcom has announced Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop and Sega has Samba de Amigo. Only two titles, sure, but as Wii sales continue on their steady pace (and stores continue to sell out), more and more developers are going to reach into their catalog of PS2, XBox, and Dreamcast games and grab some of the more popular titles to bring to the Wii. Because the expectations lower, they won't need to spend much time ramping up graphics, and by this point many studios have gotten good with applying the Wii controls. Throw in a bit of extra content here and there, price it at $30 or $40, and you have an easy seller.
Nintendo did have a bad E3 (I mean, wow), but this allows 3rd parties to step up not just for casual gaming, but for the core market as well. Over time some of those casuals will come over to the dark side, spurring "core"
I have to agree. On certain gaming boards/sites I visit with lax rules about content, it's not uncommon to hear people talking about their R4.
I can recall one time when someone asked about homebrew. This is contrary to the 500+ times someone has asked what games to load on it first (and sites to get them from).
I like the R4 as a product for convenience. I would love to be able to load up the info for my moderate-sized collection of GBA games (actual cartridges, not some ROM folder) and take them all with me in a convenient package. However, the primary use of the R4 is pirating and, as suggested by the OP, anyone telling themselves (or others) that the push against it is for its homebrew ability is delirious.
Honestly I'm surprised it took this long for Nintendo et al. to react. Though from what I hear, the R4 (and its close cousin, the M3) is on the way out and some other card with similar functionality is on the rise.
I believe the term for this is "ghost ban". (Think of various ghost movies where the ghost can see and hear other people, but not vice versa.) I've seen it used very effectively, and heartily n-th it.
The problem is that most BB software doesn't, to my knowledge, have this kind of functionality incorporated. You can either post or you can't. Some software does allow a person to hide the posts of another user; perhaps that could be extended.
To be sure, Heath Ledger stole the show. I still enjoyed Christian Bale's Batman (though he needs a throat lozenge while in the suit) and thought the rest of the cast did a bang-up job, but Ledger perfectly captured both the madness and the "hilarity" of the Joker. Nicholson doesn't hold a candle to this.
I say with the utmost sincerity that his was a performance to die for.
The movie was well written, too. I kept expecting things to happen, and they didn't; what did far surpassed what I expected. The dialog was witty, nicely worded, and delivered well. There were two or three points during the movie that I was sure it was over, that they would just wrap things up and do something in the next film. But they never let that happen.
I don't believe that any minute of the two-and-a-half hour film was wasted. I thought Batman Begins was good, and was expecting a lot from The Dark Knight, but I had no idea that this is what I would be watching.
If I had to sum it up in a word? Epic.
"Why so serious?"
I'd like to show you a magic trick. Watch as I make this pencil disappear!
I don't agree that it should have come with the console in the first place. In both cases of the MotionPlus and the N64 Memory Expansion, it was a matter of both cost and use. Developers weren't going to use what the MotionPlus offers right away--many third party companies still have trouble using the Wiimote "correctly". In the same way, not every game requires the Memory Expansion; in fact, the good majority works without it. Furthermore, both technologies would have been more expensive to introduce at the outset instead of later on. The added cost wouldn't be worth it until much later, so might as well ensure the system can expand and save it for later.
The Nunchuck is actually the same way. There are games that don't require it (or require it all the time) so you don't get it. The majority of games do, though, so unless Wii Sports is the only game you want you will need to pick one up.
Personally, I'm hoping that tomorrow's Press Conference with Nintendo at E3 will re-introduce H.A.M.M.E.R. using the functionality of MotionPlus. A Zelda game is fine too.