The internet is letting scammers really go into overdrive- every trick that's ever been thought of is out there free for the taking, so they can help each other get away with it. Every single time a legitimate person makes an assumption, there will be someone out there trying to defy that assumption for personal gain.
The end result, of course, is going to be that everything gets verified at every stage of the process. This is just a pain in the ass for normal customers not trying to get away with anything, but it seems to be an inevitable consequence of the information economy- it's so easy to change or hide information that the retailer cannot afford to take their virtual eyes off it even for a moment; if they do, they have to assume it's tainted and end the transaction. Thanks, human nature.
Switch to Browse view- there are new Anime, J-Pop, and Kayokyoku (what is this?) genres. Something's wrong with the store though, so I'm unable to see the music in them.
What I meant, in response to the parent post, is that the vast majority of reviews submitted to the system are going to have either the 1- or 5-star box checked. Nobody's going to bother to spend time and effort declaring a product is mediocre (2), average (3), or "merely satisfactory" (4). And it's very unlikely that a product is going to receive 1- and 5-star ratings in similar quantities. So, regardless of how many bad reviews Amazon discards, products with an average rating of 2 or 3 are going to be very rare.
Bosses with obvious weak points and patterns are not avoidable in a practical game- they are essential to keeping the game fun (for most people). A boss with no obvious weak points or any way for the player to anticipate its actions- and figure out how to defeat it- is just frustrating.
I think the problem is more that there are far more "this product is PERFECT" and "this product is HORRIBLE" reviews than any middle ratings. You won't be motivated to go back to Amazon and comment on the product unless either you had such a bad experience that you do want to take the time to warn people away from it, or it makes you so orgasmically happy that you can't stop talking about it. If you were reasonably satisfied, you just keep using the product without a second though to the buying process. If the product is slightly flawed but not enough to make it entirely useless, you either put up with it or throw it out and get something else- either way, you again never really bother to go back to its listing on Amazon.
I'd believe it was fully shut down. A Mac can wake from sleep and be ready for use very, very quickly (the laptops will usually be completely awake before you finish opening the lid, the desktops are slower but it's still in the single-digit seconds). One minute may be an exaggeration for a complete boot, but it's nowhere near 10.
If they were doing that, it would be in the software or some tiny aspect that has no effect on the functional part of the computer. Whether or not a chip is present on the motherboard is not a watermarking scheme that could scales to thousands of unique configurations.
Wrong. There is no single BT network. Each BT tracker is completely self-contained and may accept or reject files and users at the operator's discretion. If a tracker operator (whether a media company, a pirate hub, or a hobbyist distributing files whose license allows it) wants to forbid certain people or types of content from their tracker, they have every right and ability to do so. If demand is sufficiently high for whatever has been rejected, the people demanding it are free to start their own tracker and torrent whatever they want- the two networks are now completely independent entities.
It's not unreasonable to assume that internal undocumented implementation details will change in the release version. Apple only guarantees that the devkits will run code in a software environment identical to that which will be shipping.
That's a completely valid way of looking at it, but generally the reason to play a really old game (say, Doom) is that you enjoyed the content. If you are interested in creating your own data, use a more modern, powerful, and flexible engine that doesn't have as many limits (ZDoom and friends are a huge improvement over the original engine, but it would be silly to compare them to something like Unreal).
There is only one reliable way to make XBL less horrifying: Find the "mute player" command, learn it by heart, and use it at the slighest provocation. From then on, no player can annoy you for more than a few seconds.
Open-source games are not generally free
on
Friday Means Free Games
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Usually, what gets open-sourced is only the core engine. The game data files, which would be required to recreate the game experience, remain under their original license and may not be freely distributed; you'd need to own an original copy of the game and use its files with the newly compiled engine.
Not necessarily- it's a novelty to have big name celebrities do voices in games, but many more games need voice work than before, and game developers are starting to realize that voices, like all audio, are difficult to do really well, and that doing them half-assed will result in a weak spot in the finished project.
There will always be the fundamental limit that even light takes significant (noticeable to a human) time to travel halfway around the world, and that that time is much greater than the time it would take to travel a handful of centimeters through your motherboard. Steve Jobs, at the launch of the 500Mhz G4s, said that light travels nine inches per clock cycle; that number is much lower today.
A better solution would be to deliver the executable code over the Internet and run it locally. From there, it's logical to have the computer cache this code so that it doesn't need to be downloaded repeatedly. And now we're right back where we started.
That's because games are still evolving while movies have reached the point where absolutely anything imaginable can be done. The difference between a movie made in the 60s and one made in the 70s is far greater than the difference between one made in the 90s and one made in the 00s.
This is why the first amendment is more properly phrased like this: You have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to be heard. There is, likewise, no obligation to facilitate the speech of others.
If it's not feasible to give away web space for free, for whatever reason, it will disappear, the same way free dialup accounts and AllAdvantage disappeared. There is no "they" here, only the collective actions of every ISP and web host in the world. They don't let you on the radio or on TV or in newspapers for free, why aren't you complaining about that?
Why do you accept the rationale behind the pricing of games and not that of business apps? It's exactly the same reasoning- earn back the money spent developing the software. If you want to argue over whether or not Photoshop took twelve times as much effort as HL2 that's a different question, but there is no fundamental difference between the two categories.
One pretty important fact your argument seems to have missed- ESRB ratings are not "laws" in that their recommendations are not enforced by any government agency and that a child who the recommendations say should not play the game is not guilty of anything and providing them to children is no more a crime than giving them R-rated movies. They are supposed to be enforced by parents aware of their childrens' purchases. The system fails when parents don't bother to acquire this awareness or try to prevent their children from playing games they don't feel are suitable for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet is letting scammers really go into overdrive- every trick that's ever been thought of is out there free for the taking, so they can help each other get away with it. Every single time a legitimate person makes an assumption, there will be someone out there trying to defy that assumption for personal gain.
The end result, of course, is going to be that everything gets verified at every stage of the process. This is just a pain in the ass for normal customers not trying to get away with anything, but it seems to be an inevitable consequence of the information economy- it's so easy to change or hide information that the retailer cannot afford to take their virtual eyes off it even for a moment; if they do, they have to assume it's tainted and end the transaction. Thanks, human nature.
Switch to Browse view- there are new Anime, J-Pop, and Kayokyoku (what is this?) genres. Something's wrong with the store though, so I'm unable to see the music in them.
What I meant, in response to the parent post, is that the vast majority of reviews submitted to the system are going to have either the 1- or 5-star box checked. Nobody's going to bother to spend time and effort declaring a product is mediocre (2), average (3), or "merely satisfactory" (4). And it's very unlikely that a product is going to receive 1- and 5-star ratings in similar quantities. So, regardless of how many bad reviews Amazon discards, products with an average rating of 2 or 3 are going to be very rare.
Bosses with obvious weak points and patterns are not avoidable in a practical game- they are essential to keeping the game fun (for most people). A boss with no obvious weak points or any way for the player to anticipate its actions- and figure out how to defeat it- is just frustrating.
I think the problem is more that there are far more "this product is PERFECT" and "this product is HORRIBLE" reviews than any middle ratings. You won't be motivated to go back to Amazon and comment on the product unless either you had such a bad experience that you do want to take the time to warn people away from it, or it makes you so orgasmically happy that you can't stop talking about it. If you were reasonably satisfied, you just keep using the product without a second though to the buying process. If the product is slightly flawed but not enough to make it entirely useless, you either put up with it or throw it out and get something else- either way, you again never really bother to go back to its listing on Amazon.
I'd believe it was fully shut down. A Mac can wake from sleep and be ready for use very, very quickly (the laptops will usually be completely awake before you finish opening the lid, the desktops are slower but it's still in the single-digit seconds). One minute may be an exaggeration for a complete boot, but it's nowhere near 10.
If they were doing that, it would be in the software or some tiny aspect that has no effect on the functional part of the computer. Whether or not a chip is present on the motherboard is not a watermarking scheme that could scales to thousands of unique configurations.
Wrong. There is no single BT network. Each BT tracker is completely self-contained and may accept or reject files and users at the operator's discretion. If a tracker operator (whether a media company, a pirate hub, or a hobbyist distributing files whose license allows it) wants to forbid certain people or types of content from their tracker, they have every right and ability to do so. If demand is sufficiently high for whatever has been rejected, the people demanding it are free to start their own tracker and torrent whatever they want- the two networks are now completely independent entities.
That sounds completely retarded and I hope it can be switched off.
The behavior you are describing is not flawless.
If you're going to let anyone onto the network, you may be letting undercover government agents onto the network.
If you're going to transmit data from point A to point B, points A and B have to know something that makes the other unique among all possible points.
If you're going to make the network 100% anonymous and available, it'll get blocked by administrators afraid it will be abused, like Tor.
It's not unreasonable to assume that internal undocumented implementation details will change in the release version. Apple only guarantees that the devkits will run code in a software environment identical to that which will be shipping.
Shooting people really high and letting them fall back to Earth and survive is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.
That's a completely valid way of looking at it, but generally the reason to play a really old game (say, Doom) is that you enjoyed the content. If you are interested in creating your own data, use a more modern, powerful, and flexible engine that doesn't have as many limits (ZDoom and friends are a huge improvement over the original engine, but it would be silly to compare them to something like Unreal).
There is only one reliable way to make XBL less horrifying: Find the "mute player" command, learn it by heart, and use it at the slighest provocation. From then on, no player can annoy you for more than a few seconds.
Usually, what gets open-sourced is only the core engine. The game data files, which would be required to recreate the game experience, remain under their original license and may not be freely distributed; you'd need to own an original copy of the game and use its files with the newly compiled engine.
Not necessarily- it's a novelty to have big name celebrities do voices in games, but many more games need voice work than before, and game developers are starting to realize that voices, like all audio, are difficult to do really well, and that doing them half-assed will result in a weak spot in the finished project.
There will always be the fundamental limit that even light takes significant (noticeable to a human) time to travel halfway around the world, and that that time is much greater than the time it would take to travel a handful of centimeters through your motherboard. Steve Jobs, at the launch of the 500Mhz G4s, said that light travels nine inches per clock cycle; that number is much lower today.
A better solution would be to deliver the executable code over the Internet and run it locally. From there, it's logical to have the computer cache this code so that it doesn't need to be downloaded repeatedly. And now we're right back where we started.
That's because games are still evolving while movies have reached the point where absolutely anything imaginable can be done. The difference between a movie made in the 60s and one made in the 70s is far greater than the difference between one made in the 90s and one made in the 00s.
This is why the first amendment is more properly phrased like this: You have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to be heard. There is, likewise, no obligation to facilitate the speech of others.
If it's not feasible to give away web space for free, for whatever reason, it will disappear, the same way free dialup accounts and AllAdvantage disappeared. There is no "they" here, only the collective actions of every ISP and web host in the world. They don't let you on the radio or on TV or in newspapers for free, why aren't you complaining about that?
Why go through all that when you can pay $1 for the one good song and ignore the fifteen crap ones?
Youu're right- the proucess is nout hard at all. It's sou autoumated I can dou it tou my poust withouut any trouuble!
Why do you accept the rationale behind the pricing of games and not that of business apps? It's exactly the same reasoning- earn back the money spent developing the software. If you want to argue over whether or not Photoshop took twelve times as much effort as HL2 that's a different question, but there is no fundamental difference between the two categories.
One pretty important fact your argument seems to have missed- ESRB ratings are not "laws" in that their recommendations are not enforced by any government agency and that a child who the recommendations say should not play the game is not guilty of anything and providing them to children is no more a crime than giving them R-rated movies. They are supposed to be enforced by parents aware of their childrens' purchases. The system fails when parents don't bother to acquire this awareness or try to prevent their children from playing games they don't feel are suitable for them.
This claim makes no more sense than claiming that the industry loses $10 billion to piracy.