I expected them to use current technology for their infrastructure unlike internet1.
Eventually someone would say something like "look at all these shmoes with their crappy 3/15Mb connections..." and plug Internet1 in because the bandwidth it can use is so pathetically small.
Kind of like I share my wireless with people at dialup+ speeds, I can support several hundred of them... dozens at a time with negligible performance hits.
Well that's how it would work if the rest of the internet had the shameful infrastructure it does in North America.
Went to their software team and asked if they could do the same thing if it came to it... they were probably told something like "we could probably get most of the companies to give us drivers, but there would be a strong incentive to hold out until the end then try to negotiate against the value of the product line."
You just don't want someone else to be able to destroy you with software. Looks like Dell got a lesson in IP that being chummy with MS didn't teach them.
It's nice that they're trying to populate the game for offline players...
but is anyone else concerned that all the creatures will end up looking the same?
In particular the tribe and city levels seem to not care about initial creature design, the cities look the same for every kind of creature.
It looks like the only game components that reflect the creature editor are the first few stages. If only one or two stages rely heavily on the creature editor we might see a bunch of identical user created designs.
Here's hoping there's game balance and diversity...
I'm concerned that this will lead to an internet boycott.
The only thing that could have a major effect on this launch is a serious boycott based on Metallica's earlier views. Most/.ers are pissed and the issue is something that people learning about this album online will know about, likely the album will still do well... though it will be pirated more.
I hope this album is successful. I think Metallica is played out and their music is old fashioned and mediocre.
But I hope whatever stupid way they choose to distribute it succeeds, just so that other misguided artists who feel that piracy is the end of music will STFU.:)
Personally I like Creative players more than iPods (I traded my 30 Gig IPod Video for my sister's creative Zen Touch, better sound quality).
An mp3 player is a very cheap general processor or audio processor some simple UI software and a flash disk, they are increadibly over priced and their ergonomics and ui are a matter of preference, people aren't that different and if iPod's appeal to 70% of north American's then yes it's likely that they'll appeal to a similar percentage in other cultures, but it's not necessarily so.
Personally I think the iPod succeeded in North America because of poor competition, in Korea Samsung doesn't have much competition.
Koreans have a slightly lower average income . However, lower costs of: living, social services and prices mean that the average Korean can buy more products, and Samsung's $4-600 mp3 players are wildly successful there.
Korean commercialism is something of an oddity, my Korean ex. was adamant that regardless of income level Koreans prefer KIA vehicles, which north americans consider unacceptable.
In the vein of buying a console, unless you need online multiplayer the best consoles are: A Modded Xbox (original) tonnes of games/emulators media support and no disks, or a Dreamcast.
Nothing is being destroyed, so the question isn't one of having to buy something vs not having to buy it. The question is buying expensive vs buying inexpensive, which is simple supply/demand economics.
Open Source, I think open source adds a new aspect to economics because of the motivation behind its creation.
Open source developers are motivated by the needs of users. Others, through a competitive aspect. Some open source developers attack feature light programs looking for work. Some like Red Hat attack because it is their business aspect depends on it. Others attack entrenched monopolies for as many reasons as there are definitions of "free."
In each case emerging techs from small companies will largely be ignored allowing small companies to become medium... the large corporations will be the hardest hit.
Large corporations always have separate branches and tech companies more than most. Large companies with a lot of engineers/devs have concentrated their skill sets in an area that open source competition. The, "more is better," notion of the large company comes is competition.
Bram Cohen is an example of someone who could have been a millionaire by now if it wasn't for open source. Now his company is struggling.
Allowing tech billionaires means suppressing the evolution of open source, I think most OSS users accept this.
The question is what are the positive and negative aspects of tech billionaires --who can launch really large project unilaterally-- disappearing.
Organize, he wants us to start discussing these issues in a manner that encourages others to join the cause.
And while he sounds like he's on a soapbox techies are like cats, each has their own morality (often defined by Star Trek) and while most are idealists who suspect that their real peers will see things exactly the way they do some recognize the need for compromise.
Some points for discussion: Do we believe in freedom of speech if allows; internet pedophilia, copywrite violation, bomb design distribution, etc. Western internet service is pitiful, how much are we willing to suffer to get it working properly; Service outages, government control, high cost private isps, tiered service (god I hope not), etc.
As an avid slashdot reader I think we are largely united on these points, far more than most slashdotters realize.
Personally I think it's shameful that techies don't have a central organization. I'm considering he outcome of the current direction of IP legislations and resistence, I think the outcome will be tight control ignored by all. What I'd like to see is a nation stand up and violate IP openly, if they release their progress openly (This would also make it hard for anyone to try and stop them) many techies would move there it would also allow a developing nation could leapfrog developed nations.
I don't think this is beyond the abilities of the tech community, and while some people may disagree with this specific idea I think it's approximately the scope that should be considered.
I don't think freedom advocates have even begun to fight on this front, the major battle begins when people start creating false positives (with reprecussions).
Flaws like the flash vulnerability mean that even without the complicity of GNU or Microsoft the majority of communications are open to inspection.
I'm curious to see what would happen if there was a decentralized push for better communication security.
But morally the thief is inferior, if he has guilt then the moral inferiority might manifest as discomfort.
He's at a marked disadvantage from the get go...
My problem with it is that people really do enjoy the suffering of others.
Dosteyevsky defines the grandparent's line of reasoning as dividing men (people who act according to their instinct and with little consideration of others) and mice (people who don't follow the above).
A world of mice works fine, but throw a few men in and it goes to shit.
Of course for some reason not everyone is a man either... meh... literature.
Ah but it's so easy to compare that to an actual value. Can't one simply say "if this decision seems to offer $5 without effort then do it, less than that consider the consequences?"...
Or some other check, "if girl == 10{ buy flowers}; else think hard about it;"
This type of reasoning failcheck system would be the easist to implement (think Java accepting variable ranges) and would allow for free will.
So while I personally don't believe free will exists I think this article fails to prove that.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, complexity has also diminished...
Especially in sims and strategy games, no more real tech trees, gameplay evolution, etc. It's all rock paper scissors now.
The Settlers, Patrician and Railroad Tycoon used to be great series...
Of course the only reason that ID would continue with doom is because they want to make a killer 1v1 game...
I expected them to use current technology for their infrastructure unlike internet1.
Eventually someone would say something like "look at all these shmoes with their crappy 3/15Mb connections..." and plug Internet1 in because the bandwidth it can use is so pathetically small.
Kind of like I share my wireless with people at dialup+ speeds, I can support several hundred of them... dozens at a time with negligible performance hits.
Well that's how it would work if the rest of the internet had the shameful infrastructure it does in North America.
Agreed, I had a fantastic Quake three macro that switched between RL and Rail, so amazingly useful.
Also like the "cover me" reload bind in CS and the "It's pinaple time!" say bind in games with grenades.
Wow seems like it should have the best binds, it's turn based though so you just can't be really fast.
I feel the same way, reversed...
Microsoft didn't need to actually DO ANYTHING... their offer of help and governments that didn't understand its implications ruined a competitor.
For profit companies never really stood a chance in the operating system space did they...
>1ms second seek time across raid doesn't do anything for you?
SSD + Raid, even with the mediocre performance we're seeing will be killer.
SSD in the data centre is going to be interesting, data ining apps will evolve in entirely new directions.
Dell was probably startled by the EEE...
Went to their software team and asked if they could do the same thing if it came to it... they were probably told something like "we could probably get most of the companies to give us drivers, but there would be a strong incentive to hold out until the end then try to negotiate against the value of the product line."
You just don't want someone else to be able to destroy you with software. Looks like Dell got a lesson in IP that being chummy with MS didn't teach them.
It is discovered in the sense that existing math is conceptualized into human understanding.
In this sense everything is "discovered."
Of course invention is the art of creating a subset of possibilities and using this subset to achieve a solution.
That's because you aren't on the jury and didn't actually sit through the full trial.
Neither did I, which is why I won't say whether or not he's guilty.. I (and you) don't have all the facts.
I'm starting to feel kinship for the OJ supporters.
If it could be done in a way which wouldn't benefit his corporation I'd support him continuing development... what a waste.
It's nice that they're trying to populate the game for offline players...
but is anyone else concerned that all the creatures will end up looking the same?
In particular the tribe and city levels seem to not care about initial creature design, the cities look the same for every kind of creature.
It looks like the only game components that reflect the creature editor are the first few stages. If only one or two stages rely heavily on the creature editor we might see a bunch of identical user created designs.
Here's hoping there's game balance and diversity...
"'popular, therefore people paid for it'"
/.ers are pissed and the issue is something that people learning about this album online will know about, likely the album will still do well... though it will be pirated more.
:)
I'm concerned that this will lead to an internet boycott.
The only thing that could have a major effect on this launch is a serious boycott based on Metallica's earlier views. Most
I hope this album is successful.
I think Metallica is played out and their music is old fashioned and mediocre.
But I hope whatever stupid way they choose to distribute it succeeds, just so that other misguided artists who feel that piracy is the end of music will STFU.
I wish to subscibe to your news-letter.
Did the gameplay change with your skill level?
Did it evolve new and complex mechanics?
If you sat a noob down in front of an advanced level would they be lost?
If you want to see depth look at chess or Escape Velocity... Actually EV is an excellent example of what GTA fails to accomplish.
If you're going to insult a culture do it intelligently... That being said, yes there are many fakes all over the world.
Personally I like Creative players more than iPods (I traded my 30 Gig IPod Video for my sister's creative Zen Touch, better sound quality).
An mp3 player is a very cheap general processor or audio processor some simple UI software and a flash disk, they are increadibly over priced and their ergonomics and ui are a matter of preference, people aren't that different and if iPod's appeal to 70% of north American's then yes it's likely that they'll appeal to a similar percentage in other cultures, but it's not necessarily so.
Personally I think the iPod succeeded in North America because of poor competition, in Korea Samsung doesn't have much competition.
Koreans have a slightly lower average income . However, lower costs of: living, social services and prices mean that the average Korean can buy more products, and Samsung's $4-600 mp3 players are wildly successful there.
Korean commercialism is something of an oddity, my Korean ex. was adamant that regardless of income level Koreans prefer KIA vehicles, which north americans consider unacceptable.
I would point out why this is evil, but I'll let wikipedia and history do it for me.
" not everything "
I suppose but in the current world of technology it seems this statement is open to contention.
There are many co-op PC games, I recommend rainbow 6:3 Raven Shield.
You will learn to work together, or you will lose.
Best multiplayer PC game, if you get controllers it's off the chain. Runs on any machine (AFAIK).
Liero.
In the vein of buying a console, unless you need online multiplayer the best consoles are: A Modded Xbox (original) tonnes of games/emulators media support and no disks, or a Dreamcast.
Enjoy.
Open Source, I think open source adds a new aspect to economics because of the motivation behind its creation.
Open source developers are motivated by the needs of users. Others, through a competitive aspect. Some open source developers attack feature light programs looking for work. Some like Red Hat attack because it is their business aspect depends on it. Others attack entrenched monopolies for as many reasons as there are definitions of "free."
In each case emerging techs from small companies will largely be ignored allowing small companies to become medium... the large corporations will be the hardest hit.
Large corporations always have separate branches and tech companies more than most. Large companies with a lot of engineers/devs have concentrated their skill sets in an area that open source competition. The, "more is better," notion of the large company comes is competition.
Bram Cohen is an example of someone who could have been a millionaire by now if it wasn't for open source. Now his company is struggling.
Allowing tech billionaires means suppressing the evolution of open source, I think most OSS users accept this.
The question is what are the positive and negative aspects of tech billionaires --who can launch really large project unilaterally-- disappearing.
Well off to code and read Trump.
What does he want us to do?
Organize, he wants us to start discussing these issues in a manner that encourages others to join the cause.
And while he sounds like he's on a soapbox techies are like cats, each has their own morality (often defined by Star Trek) and while most are idealists who suspect that their real peers will see things exactly the way they do some recognize the need for compromise.
Some points for discussion: Do we believe in freedom of speech if allows; internet pedophilia, copywrite violation, bomb design distribution, etc. Western internet service is pitiful, how much are we willing to suffer to get it working properly; Service outages, government control, high cost private isps, tiered service (god I hope not), etc.
As an avid slashdot reader I think we are largely united on these points, far more than most slashdotters realize.
Personally I think it's shameful that techies don't have a central organization. I'm considering he outcome of the current direction of IP legislations and resistence, I think the outcome will be tight control ignored by all. What I'd like to see is a nation stand up and violate IP openly, if they release their progress openly (This would also make it hard for anyone to try and stop them) many techies would move there it would also allow a developing nation could leapfrog developed nations.
I don't think this is beyond the abilities of the tech community, and while some people may disagree with this specific idea I think it's approximately the scope that should be considered.
- Del
I agree with your pragmatism statement however I think you missed the point about the unmotivated vindictiveness of people.
I propose you experiment.
And to continue backwards yes the thief may not feel any moral qualms but he's more likely to feel some than the person who was stolen from.
I don't think freedom advocates have even begun to fight on this front, the major battle begins when people start creating false positives (with reprecussions).
Flaws like the flash vulnerability mean that even without the complicity of GNU or Microsoft the majority of communications are open to inspection.
I'm curious to see what would happen if there was a decentralized push for better communication security.
But morally the thief is inferior, if he has guilt then the moral inferiority might manifest as discomfort.
He's at a marked disadvantage from the get go...
My problem with it is that people really do enjoy the suffering of others.
Dosteyevsky defines the grandparent's line of reasoning as dividing men (people who act according to their instinct and with little consideration of others) and mice (people who don't follow the above).
A world of mice works fine, but throw a few men in and it goes to shit.
Of course for some reason not everyone is a man either... meh... literature.
Ah but it's so easy to compare that to an actual value. Can't one simply say "if this decision seems to offer $5 without effort then do it, less than that consider the consequences?"...
Or some other check, "if girl == 10{ buy flowers}; else think hard about it;"
This type of reasoning failcheck system would be the easist to implement (think Java accepting variable ranges) and would allow for free will.
So while I personally don't believe free will exists I think this article fails to prove that.
Theory, social Cordyceps?
anyone?