Simple alias rm to move the files to a recycle bin folder somewhere in your home dir. If you want it to be fancy, add a timestamp to the filename so the same original filename won't get overwritten. That several GUIs have a recycle bin has already been mentioned.
To clear the trash, you have to use 'rm' unaliased. Normally, you can't do such a thing by accident:) While this method is neither foolproofed nor perfect it should help at least a bit to prevent future accidents.
Name substantial gameplay differences between Red Alert, Warcraft II, KKND, M.A.X, Knights and Merchants [...] they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Settle down, collect, build up, expand, destroy.
I hate to burst his bubble, but that is what (RT)S is all about. Next, he says that adventures had no substantial progress since "Adventure" because they are still "solve the puzzles and win" and FPS are all about "shoot the enemy dead".
Besides, there are quite a few games that took RTS one step further, the author names three of them. And yet the future looks grim? C'mon, there are bright spots in every genre, and there is the mass of run-of-the-mill games. That hardly counts as a descent of the genre.
Plus, many games cross borders and mix RTS with RPG or RTS with FPS (Battlezone). So there are influences from other generes that bring in fresh ideas.
Galileo offers two services: one free, unencrypted service and one encrypted service that you have to pay for (higher precision, higher QoS). As far as I understand it, the encrypted signal can be jammed - this is what the Heise article is about. The talks (in January in Washington) are about jamming the unencrypted signal, according to Heise.
Why? That's like saying that conducting a research study introduces a bias into whether or not somet hingreally works. They're just observing to see what goes on.
If they had the consent of the people, it would have introduced bias. Even if the company allows private messaging at the workplace, private IM usage is likely to be lower, because everyone wants to appear working instead of chatting. Maybe because they didn't want to give the company a reason to ban IM, maybe to look like good workers. And if the company does not allow private IM, then just to keep their job.
If the people knew they were monitored, they acted different. If they didn't know (or forgot, if they gave their consent month ahead), the results are probably valid.
And, as many scientists believe, you can't examine something without changing it.
The random fights though, should always be tied to the gamestate.
I think this is the main reason why I, personally, find many random encounters "unrealistic". Ok, even if you consider a RPG unrealistic - which it can be - it doesn't help if I remove all enemies from a closed area but still they pop up just because it is random encounter time again. That IS unrealistic and it is tied to the logic of the game, not the realism of the game.
Overland travels are a completely different story, as you have mentioned. Here, enemies can emerge from various "spawn points". Maybe I can destroy all the nests all over the world - then, random battles become unrealistic again.
To make the long matter short: Dear game designers, no more random encounters in closed areas please, thank you.
Contributions to science, law, and other scholarly fields rely for their authority on citations to earlier publications. The ease of publishing on the web has made it an explosively popular medium, and web pages are increasingly cited as authorities in other publications.
For true scientific work, this should never happen. Because you should only cite reviewed sources. Such as books, articles or conference papers. This is no guarantee for quality, but at least the review process sorts out the most obvious nonsense. And, if the reviewer is good, it may even increase the quality of the work. Plus, those sources are permanent.
As always, there are sources that are more respected (IEEE, ACM etc.) than others. And using respectable sources is a good thing, because normally you want to prove a point and you base your argument on those publication. So if your basis for your argument is faulty... well;)
Furthermore, there is hardly any information that can be found on the web but not in a reviewed form. Note that there are (accepted) scientific reviewed journals using the web for publishing. Without a printed edition. And you can quote them. And, as many before me have said, the articles and links do not vanish (the URL is usually not quoted anyway - these articles are listed just like printed articles).
This is just my personal opinion on scientific work. Let's see if my head is still on my shoulders tomorrow:)
and place a speaker nearby. Install a proximity trigger. If triggered, light up all pointer and have the speaker bark "FREEZE! POLICE! PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON AND LIE ON THE GROUND! [small pause] DON'T EVEN THINK OF IT, PUNK!"
For a better effect, let each pointer move veeeery slightly. And if you want, you can add a nice gunshot.
Re:Consider how they're built
on
Pre-Fab Homes?
·
· Score: 1
Contractor: Get the job done for the least amount of cash acceptable
Another pitfall I've heard occasionally is that contractors and the new home owner may have a falling out about the quality of the "product", so to speak. As a result, the contractor simply stops working. The home never gets finished, and the potential owner is stuck with a ruin that, being half complete (or half incomplete, if you're a pessimist) degrades nicely over time, esp. in fall and winter.
Yes, the usually go to court, and yes, the new home owner will probably win. It won't help him, tho, because the contractor simply declares bankrupcy. So the owner was right, but he still lost a lot of money and has no new home.
Local laws apply to this, of course, but it has happened here (== Germany). So pick your contractor carefully, and don't try to save money in the wrong place.
Personally, I'd go with pre-fab. I like the way they're build, and it's no hassle. Just a few days of work, and you're done. Fixed price, too. May not be build to your particular taste and needs, but it's IMHO a safer option.
On the issue that most personal websites suck (technically speaking), I can only say that I prefer old-fashioned HTML4/XHTML standard based website
Another benefit of _strict_ standards that have to be adhered to is that you actually have to _think_ about what you want to put on the web. I personally don't care about bad HTML (although it's always a source for a quick laugh) and I know designing a webpage requires a lot of efford, esp. if you want it to look good. I don't pretend to be a decent webdesigner. But if you sit down and code your page according to the standards, you also have to think about content, structure and basic design (which is fixed in a CSS). Normally, this should produced higher quality results compared to the "hack-away-IE-can-render-HTML-out-of-a-banana" approach.
but the effort required to train enough people to play a new game with weird or complex rules just isn't worth it anymore
Ah, you need to find the right people. I agree that for the average family (or friend) players, who get together every few weeks to play for a couple of hours, complex rules and games are a no-no. Simple rules with a lot of interaction - the reason you want to play in the first place - are a must.
Complex games with complex rules are for the avid player. You need to play those games regularly, otherwise you've forgotten 50% of the rules next time you play;) Ppl that play many boardgames are also more willing to try new games and give them a second or third shot if they didn't like them the first time. This allows for a higher obscurity factor.
Uh, all of them? searchirc.org lists over 1200 IRC _networks_, the number of server might be 10 times that (and that's most likely a conservative number). The underlying question is probably why would anyone want to search the entire chit-chat of the world?? I, for one, am not interested in seeing Bob trying to score with Alice... (ok, well, maybe I am)
Heh, good point:) I might add that I didn't mean "normal" as in "socially normal" but more like "feeling mentally and physically all right". If you are dependent, the drugs make you feel "all right". Not "better" in the sense "above and beyond all right" (which they do at first, but the effect wears off).
Whew, this is a complex topic. Time to get some more of that vanilla-flavoured caffeinated soft drink.
Err, ok, I looked up a definition and found one from the WHO. Sorry, it's a Word file:( Here is what I found:
The confusion between addiction and dependence is more difficult to clarify because WHO no longer uses the term addiction. Hence there is no authoritative WHO definition of addiction to compare with that of dependence.
The current definition of dependence given by the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence is:
A cluster of physiological, behavioural and cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of a psychoactive drug (or drugs) takes on a high priority. The necessary descriptive characteristics are preoccupation with a desire to obtain and take the drug and persistent drug-seeking behaviour. Determinants and problematic consequences of drug dependence may be biological, psychological or social, and usually interact.
So you are dependend (formerly known as 'addicted') on games if you have a constant desire to play. I'd say that any damaging behaviour is a consequence of a dependency, not a prerequisite.
I like to talk to my girlfriend every day but if I didnt I wouldnt feel "abnormal", so therefore I'm not addicted to her.
I'm pretty sure she's happy to hear that;) But it's actually true, IMHO: if you don't feel that anything is missing after talking to your girl for a few days, then yes, you are not addicted... err... dependend on her.
But if I don't wear brush my teeth every day its feel odd so I am addicted to brushing my teeth?
Besides this being a social issue, yes, you are dependend on brushing your teeth - even by your definition, because not brushing your teeth is damaging to you, physically and socially.
Many people have repeating habits that are not damaging to them - I'm not sure if coffee drinking is a good example, because I'm not current on research about health issues regarding coffee. But if we assume that coffee is not a health risk, drinking coffee is not damaging to you or anyone else. And a heavy coffee drinker need two or more per day just to stay awake - they are dependend. Those who drink it only from time to time may get a "kick" out of it. If you consume it regularly over a period of time, you need it not to fall asleep.
I admit that discussing addiction & dependencies is very dependend (no pun intended) on the definitions one uses. And I'm certain there are plenty definitions that support your point of view, which is very feasible:)
Actually, there is quite a list I could name. And I am bad with names. IMHO, the real factor is that most story lines are repeating (aliens invade earth etc.), so there is only the "lead character" to spice things up (enter Duke Nukem).
Furthermore, for which kind of games do you really need a story? While all FPS have one (more or less), it's basically all about pulling the trigger and finding the keys or something like it. Sure, the story gives you a reason for the look of the next map, but for the game mechanics its not really necessary (although very nice to have, and I like any kind of game with a good story just like everyone else!). But in an adventure or a RPG, the plot drives you, it tells you what to do next. Simply because there are (should be) so many options for you to explore, you need a hint to push you in the right direction.
The reward [...] is what makes it addictive, the theory goes.
Only in a way. You are addicted to something if you need that to feel normal - not better. That is the short definition of addiction.
As an example, do you feel something missing if you didn't read your newspaper today? Or can you satisfy the need for news from other sources as well, e.g. TV or radio? Can stay away from the internet over a few days without feeling a loss? If so, you are not addicted. Many of us need internet access for the job, that hardly counts as an addiction.
It's the same with games. If you have to play several hours a day to feel normal, then you are addicted. If you play because it makes you feel better, you are not addicted. People that are addicted to drinking alcohol e.g. need a constant alcohol intake, a constant alcohol level. If they drop below that level, they feel worse, and then they consume alcohol to feel normal again.
In short: if playing games makes you happy, you are safe:)
At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2.
It heavily depends on what you can do with it besides playing games. Ever tried to write a letter with a PS2? Or run a database? No, modding the XBOX to run Linux does not count. Truth is, it is silly to buy a PC just to play games. But the PC will still be with you a few years from now. And it might even be useful. And you can do more with it than with a console.
The same holds true for PDAs. If you want to store your contacts, adresses and events, a relatively cheap Palm device will do nicely. If you want to have insane multimedia capabilites and all those nice little extras, you want a PocketPC -- which costs about 3 times more (YMMV). And those devices can also play games.
To sum up the essay by Crawford, he complains that the published results are not scientific. Unfortunately, an original document doesn't seem to be available from the ESA site, so all we have are a number of websites quoting/summarizing the results. This, of course, is not scientific, since important background information, e. g. definition of terms, is lacking (as Crawford notes correctly).
To be reliable, any measurement or experiment must be repeatable
So far, so good - but this, however, does not mean that they have to published. It would be nice, though. But the repeatability could also be made sure by peer reviewing the experiment. Of course I doubt that the research article was peer reviewed:)
We shun nine out of ten titles and place the remaining one percent on a pedestal.
Ok, to begin with, I'll be nitpicking that 1 out of 10 games is 10%, not 1%. And compared to my "good ol' days" (which is, for me, the 8-bit time beginning 1980), many more games come out each month for the PC alone than for all the 8-bit computers (in a month) back then. Not counting consoles, even if some titles are published for both.
So back then I accepted almost every title, because there were no others. And they were cheaper. Is it a bad thing I'm not spending all my income on games and pick those instead that I like?!?
Games that are poorly received by the general public are termed "misunderstood" [...] others, that appeal to the masses are nitpicked.
No, it does depend on the game. Battlezone was poorly received, but a really good game. Same thing with System Shock. Pokemon was selling hot, but I didn't care about that. My bad. Same with "Deer Hunter" or some obscure fishing simulation. Sold well - but I don't play them.
Is it despisable that everyone has a different taste? So I played games 20 years ago, I know what I like and I know what a decent game designer can do. Therefore, I only buy games that I like. And now I'm a bad person? Then why do I have Half-Life, UT, Civ 1, 2, 3 and The Sims on my shelf, which all sold well?
So what's the message? Well it's simply, start appreciating games for what they're worth.
Hmm, ok, I do that. Maybe that article wasn't targeted at people like me. But I still won't play FF X, thank you.
Seriously, though, I'd be more than interested to see what the community will do with the code. The first CtP was available for Linux, and there is already Freeciv. Maybe the latter will integrate a few ideas (personally, I think not, since they are very well underway on their own!).
In one of the shows, Sydney had to break into a german installation and hack into their security system. The screen language was german, but they misspelled the text... which is a minor mistake, given that they had the right intention:)
Or maybe they did it on purpose... you never know.
And yes, I'm aware that I probably messed up the grammar in this post really bad (not to mention spelling mistakes - even though I used the preview button; twice).
I used to think, like many people, that ebooks just didn't work
Yes, same here. But that was until I actually used an e-book:) Granted, e-books are not perfect for all situations, and there are times when a printed version is better. I prefer print version when I have to mark the text and reuse it (citing etc.), since I find it easier to skim through the printed pages than to look things up in the PDF reader.
And how I wish the MPAA and RIAA could work like the publishing industry.
Well, seeing how reluctant publishers are in creating e-books of printed version, I'm not quite sure;) And, unfortunately, publisher often choose to charge the same price for an e-book and the printed version, although electronic publishing should be cheaper.
The existence of ebooks is NOT threatening traditional books
I'd say it depends. I agree that someone who prefers e- or p-books, will always buy his preferred version. But e-books are very interesting for educational purposes: buy one e-book (maybe a "campus license" or something like that, which costs a bit more) and let students access it for free. For how long they want. This would losen the bottleneck the current lending system introduces, but print version would be unnecessary (I'd say that libraries would still buy one print version, tho).
Slashdot Mirror
Simple alias rm to move the files to a recycle bin folder somewhere in your home dir. If you want it to be fancy, add a timestamp to the filename so the same original filename won't get overwritten. That several GUIs have a recycle bin has already been mentioned.
:) While this method is neither foolproofed nor perfect it should help at least a bit to prevent future accidents.
To clear the trash, you have to use 'rm' unaliased. Normally, you can't do such a thing by accident
Name substantial gameplay differences between Red Alert, Warcraft II, KKND, M.A.X, Knights and Merchants [...] they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Settle down, collect, build up, expand, destroy.
I hate to burst his bubble, but that is what (RT)S is all about. Next, he says that adventures had no substantial progress since "Adventure" because they are still "solve the puzzles and win" and FPS are all about "shoot the enemy dead".
Besides, there are quite a few games that took RTS one step further, the author names three of them. And yet the future looks grim? C'mon, there are bright spots in every genre, and there is the mass of run-of-the-mill games. That hardly counts as a descent of the genre.
Plus, many games cross borders and mix RTS with RPG or RTS with FPS (Battlezone). So there are influences from other generes that bring in fresh ideas.
I just realized my post has many TLAs. Oh well.
Galileo offers two services: one free, unencrypted service and one encrypted service that you have to pay for (higher precision, higher QoS). As far as I understand it, the encrypted signal can be jammed - this is what the Heise article is about. The talks (in January in Washington) are about jamming the unencrypted signal, according to Heise.
Why? That's like saying that conducting a research study introduces a bias into whether or not somet hingreally works. They're just observing to see what goes on.
If they had the consent of the people, it would have introduced bias. Even if the company allows private messaging at the workplace, private IM usage is likely to be lower, because everyone wants to appear working instead of chatting. Maybe because they didn't want to give the company a reason to ban IM, maybe to look like good workers. And if the company does not allow private IM, then just to keep their job.
If the people knew they were monitored, they acted different. If they didn't know (or forgot, if they gave their consent month ahead), the results are probably valid.
And, as many scientists believe, you can't examine something without changing it.
The random fights though, should always be tied to the gamestate.
I think this is the main reason why I, personally, find many random encounters "unrealistic". Ok, even if you consider a RPG unrealistic - which it can be - it doesn't help if I remove all enemies from a closed area but still they pop up just because it is random encounter time again. That IS unrealistic and it is tied to the logic of the game, not the realism of the game.
Overland travels are a completely different story, as you have mentioned. Here, enemies can emerge from various "spawn points". Maybe I can destroy all the nests all over the world - then, random battles become unrealistic again.
To make the long matter short: Dear game designers, no more random encounters in closed areas please, thank you.
Contributions to science, law, and other scholarly fields rely for their authority on citations to earlier publications. The ease of publishing on the web has made it an explosively popular medium, and web pages are increasingly cited as authorities in other publications.
;)
:)
For true scientific work, this should never happen. Because you should only cite reviewed sources. Such as books, articles or conference papers. This is no guarantee for quality, but at least the review process sorts out the most obvious nonsense. And, if the reviewer is good, it may even increase the quality of the work. Plus, those sources are permanent.
As always, there are sources that are more respected (IEEE, ACM etc.) than others. And using respectable sources is a good thing, because normally you want to prove a point and you base your argument on those publication. So if your basis for your argument is faulty... well
Furthermore, there is hardly any information that can be found on the web but not in a reviewed form. Note that there are (accepted) scientific reviewed journals using the web for publishing. Without a printed edition. And you can quote them. And, as many before me have said, the articles and links do not vanish (the URL is usually not quoted anyway - these articles are listed just like printed articles).
This is just my personal opinion on scientific work. Let's see if my head is still on my shoulders tomorrow
and place a speaker nearby. Install a proximity trigger. If triggered, light up all pointer and have the speaker bark "FREEZE! POLICE! PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON AND LIE ON THE GROUND! [small pause] DON'T EVEN THINK OF IT, PUNK!"
For a better effect, let each pointer move veeeery slightly. And if you want, you can add a nice gunshot.
Contractor: Get the job done for the least amount of cash acceptable
Another pitfall I've heard occasionally is that contractors and the new home owner may have a falling out about the quality of the "product", so to speak. As a result, the contractor simply stops working. The home never gets finished, and the potential owner is stuck with a ruin that, being half complete (or half incomplete, if you're a pessimist) degrades nicely over time, esp. in fall and winter.
Yes, the usually go to court, and yes, the new home owner will probably win. It won't help him, tho, because the contractor simply declares bankrupcy. So the owner was right, but he still lost a lot of money and has no new home.
Local laws apply to this, of course, but it has happened here (== Germany). So pick your contractor carefully, and don't try to save money in the wrong place.
Personally, I'd go with pre-fab. I like the way they're build, and it's no hassle. Just a few days of work, and you're done. Fixed price, too. May not be build to your particular taste and needs, but it's IMHO a safer option.
On the issue that most personal websites suck (technically speaking), I can only say that I prefer old-fashioned HTML4/XHTML standard based website
Another benefit of _strict_ standards that have to be adhered to is that you actually have to _think_ about what you want to put on the web. I personally don't care about bad HTML (although it's always a source for a quick laugh) and I know designing a webpage requires a lot of efford, esp. if you want it to look good. I don't pretend to be a decent webdesigner. But if you sit down and code your page according to the standards, you also have to think about content, structure and basic design (which is fixed in a CSS). Normally, this should produced higher quality results compared to the "hack-away-IE-can-render-HTML-out-of-a-banana" approach.
but the effort required to train enough people to play a new game with weird or complex rules just isn't worth it anymore
;) Ppl that play many boardgames are also more willing to try new games and give them a second or third shot if they didn't like them the first time. This allows for a higher obscurity factor.
Ah, you need to find the right people. I agree that for the average family (or friend) players, who get together every few weeks to play for a couple of hours, complex rules and games are a no-no. Simple rules with a lot of interaction - the reason you want to play in the first place - are a must.
Complex games with complex rules are for the avid player. You need to play those games regularly, otherwise you've forgotten 50% of the rules next time you play
Unless they add the code to the irc servers
Uh, all of them? searchirc.org lists over 1200 IRC _networks_, the number of server might be 10 times that (and that's most likely a conservative number). The underlying question is probably why would anyone want to search the entire chit-chat of the world?? I, for one, am not interested in seeing Bob trying to score with Alice... (ok, well, maybe I am)
Who the hell is really "normal" anymore?
:) I might add that I didn't mean "normal" as in "socially normal" but more like "feeling mentally and physically all right". If you are dependent, the drugs make you feel "all right". Not "better" in the sense "above and beyond all right" (which they do at first, but the effect wears off).
Heh, good point
Whew, this is a complex topic. Time to get some more of that vanilla-flavoured caffeinated soft drink.
Err, ok, I looked up a definition and found one from the WHO. Sorry, it's a Word file :( Here is what I found:
;) But it's actually true, IMHO: if you don't feel that anything is missing after talking to your girl for a few days, then yes, you are not addicted... err... dependend on her.
:)
The confusion between addiction and dependence is more difficult to clarify because WHO no longer uses the term addiction. Hence there is no authoritative WHO definition of addiction to compare with that of dependence.
The current definition of dependence given by the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence is:
A cluster of physiological, behavioural and cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of a psychoactive drug (or drugs) takes on a high priority. The necessary descriptive characteristics are preoccupation with a desire to obtain and take the drug and persistent drug-seeking behaviour. Determinants and problematic consequences of drug dependence may be biological, psychological or social, and usually interact.
So you are dependend (formerly known as 'addicted') on games if you have a constant desire to play. I'd say that any damaging behaviour is a consequence of a dependency, not a prerequisite.
I like to talk to my girlfriend every day but if I didnt I wouldnt feel "abnormal", so therefore I'm not addicted to her.
I'm pretty sure she's happy to hear that
But if I don't wear brush my teeth every day its feel odd so I am addicted to brushing my teeth?
Besides this being a social issue, yes, you are dependend on brushing your teeth - even by your definition, because not brushing your teeth is damaging to you, physically and socially.
Many people have repeating habits that are not damaging to them - I'm not sure if coffee drinking is a good example, because I'm not current on research about health issues regarding coffee. But if we assume that coffee is not a health risk, drinking coffee is not damaging to you or anyone else. And a heavy coffee drinker need two or more per day just to stay awake - they are dependend. Those who drink it only from time to time may get a "kick" out of it. If you consume it regularly over a period of time, you need it not to fall asleep.
I admit that discussing addiction & dependencies is very dependend (no pun intended) on the definitions one uses. And I'm certain there are plenty definitions that support your point of view, which is very feasible
who had a pink sword. (No jokes please.)
...MUST...RESIST...URGE...
Phew!
"Quick, name a character from a PC game"
Actually, there is quite a list I could name. And I am bad with names. IMHO, the real factor is that most story lines are repeating (aliens invade earth etc.), so there is only the "lead character" to spice things up (enter Duke Nukem).
Furthermore, for which kind of games do you really need a story? While all FPS have one (more or less), it's basically all about pulling the trigger and finding the keys or something like it. Sure, the story gives you a reason for the look of the next map, but for the game mechanics its not really necessary (although very nice to have, and I like any kind of game with a good story just like everyone else!). But in an adventure or a RPG, the plot drives you, it tells you what to do next. Simply because there are (should be) so many options for you to explore, you need a hint to push you in the right direction.
The reward [...] is what makes it addictive, the theory goes.
:)
Only in a way. You are addicted to something if you need that to feel normal - not better. That is the short definition of addiction.
As an example, do you feel something missing if you didn't read your newspaper today? Or can you satisfy the need for news from other sources as well, e.g. TV or radio? Can stay away from the internet over a few days without feeling a loss? If so, you are not addicted. Many of us need internet access for the job, that hardly counts as an addiction.
It's the same with games. If you have to play several hours a day to feel normal, then you are addicted. If you play because it makes you feel better, you are not addicted. People that are addicted to drinking alcohol e.g. need a constant alcohol intake, a constant alcohol level. If they drop below that level, they feel worse, and then they consume alcohol to feel normal again.
In short: if playing games makes you happy, you are safe
By using passengers with laptops to control the plane
:)
Only problem is: during takeoff and landing you have to turn off all electronic devices...
Ah well, crashing the plane gets rid of the unsold game copies
At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2.
It heavily depends on what you can do with it besides playing games. Ever tried to write a letter with a PS2? Or run a database? No, modding the XBOX to run Linux does not count. Truth is, it is silly to buy a PC just to play games. But the PC will still be with you a few years from now. And it might even be useful. And you can do more with it than with a console.
The same holds true for PDAs. If you want to store your contacts, adresses and events, a relatively cheap Palm device will do nicely. If you want to have insane multimedia capabilites and all those nice little extras, you want a PocketPC -- which costs about 3 times more (YMMV). And those devices can also play games.
But can the GBA store your appointments?
To sum up the essay by Crawford, he complains that the published results are not scientific. Unfortunately, an original document doesn't seem to be available from the ESA site, so all we have are a number of websites quoting/summarizing the results. This, of course, is not scientific, since important background information, e. g. definition of terms, is lacking (as Crawford notes correctly).
:)
To be reliable, any measurement or experiment must be repeatable
So far, so good - but this, however, does not mean that they have to published. It would be nice, though. But the repeatability could also be made sure by peer reviewing the experiment. Of course I doubt that the research article was peer reviewed
We shun nine out of ten titles and place the remaining one percent on a pedestal.
Ok, to begin with, I'll be nitpicking that 1 out of 10 games is 10%, not 1%. And compared to my "good ol' days" (which is, for me, the 8-bit time beginning 1980), many more games come out each month for the PC alone than for all the 8-bit computers (in a month) back then. Not counting consoles, even if some titles are published for both.
So back then I accepted almost every title, because there were no others. And they were cheaper. Is it a bad thing I'm not spending all my income on games and pick those instead that I like?!?
Games that are poorly received by the general public are termed "misunderstood" [...] others, that appeal to the masses are nitpicked.
No, it does depend on the game. Battlezone was poorly received, but a really good game. Same thing with System Shock. Pokemon was selling hot, but I didn't care about that. My bad. Same with "Deer Hunter" or some obscure fishing simulation. Sold well - but I don't play them.
Is it despisable that everyone has a different taste? So I played games 20 years ago, I know what I like and I know what a decent game designer can do. Therefore, I only buy games that I like. And now I'm a bad person? Then why do I have Half-Life, UT, Civ 1, 2, 3 and The Sims on my shelf, which all sold well?
So what's the message? Well it's simply, start appreciating games for what they're worth.
Hmm, ok, I do that. Maybe that article wasn't targeted at people like me. But I still won't play FF X, thank you.
[The source code] has been stripped of comments
;)
;)
Ah, so they have learned from SCO
Seriously, though, I'd be more than interested to see what the community will do with the code. The first CtP was available for Linux, and there is already Freeciv. Maybe the latter will integrate a few ideas (personally, I think not, since they are very well underway on their own!).
Now, Sid, how about the Civ3 source?
In one of the shows, Sydney had to break into a german installation and hack into their security system. The screen language was german, but they misspelled the text... which is a minor mistake, given that they had the right intention :)
Or maybe they did it on purpose... you never know.
And yes, I'm aware that I probably messed up the grammar in this post really bad (not to mention spelling mistakes - even though I used the preview button; twice).
I used to think, like many people, that ebooks just didn't work
:) Granted, e-books are not perfect for all situations, and there are times when a printed version is better. I prefer print version when I have to mark the text and reuse it (citing etc.), since I find it easier to skim through the printed pages than to look things up in the PDF reader.
;) And, unfortunately, publisher often choose to charge the same price for an e-book and the printed version, although electronic publishing should be cheaper.
Yes, same here. But that was until I actually used an e-book
And how I wish the MPAA and RIAA could work like the publishing industry.
Well, seeing how reluctant publishers are in creating e-books of printed version, I'm not quite sure
The existence of ebooks is NOT threatening traditional books
I'd say it depends. I agree that someone who prefers e- or p-books, will always buy his preferred version. But e-books are very interesting for educational purposes: buy one e-book (maybe a "campus license" or something like that, which costs a bit more) and let students access it for free. For how long they want. This would losen the bottleneck the current lending system introduces, but print version would be unnecessary (I'd say that libraries would still buy one print version, tho).
Mozilla will undergo a great deal of pain when we apply the branding iron and will no doubt scream in agony.
Seeing how BIG Mozilla is, I'll plan to be WAY out of the way when you approach him with your branding iron...
Wouldn't it be easier to do it the "Wong-Style" and brand everything that is NOT Mozilla?
Did you follow the link?
Yes. Did you get the joke?
Guess I'll have to do better next time. I promise.
Hm... are you sure? I though I saw it on cnn.com (or in an email, can't quite remeber)...