Not really. Having played SoE games for years now at the bleeding edge and not, it's usually far more enjoyable to be on the path most travelled. The bugs are worked out, the encounters operate like they ought to, and you generally spend more time having fun, and less time waiting around beating your head on the wall and discovering it was because of a bug.
I play a few hours a night, I want all those hours to be productive and enjoyable. Let someone else be my crash test dummy. If that person is silly enough to PAY to beta test...well I have no sympathy.
Just keep in mind m59 is almost entirely about PvP. I played for almost a year prior to EQ, the game can get kind of rough, but hopelessly addicting.
At least when I was playing, PvP didn't seem very balanced. Plus new people, at least back then, were eyed with suspicion. New characters were more often that not latent PKers who were just waiting to knife someone in the back (literally), so they weren't trusted.
It can be rough, but if you stick it out it's fun. Definitely comparing it to EQ and that ilk is not a good idea, they're totally diffrent games.
Onec again you're looking to us to fix your problems. It's really totally irrelevant to me personally where the rest of the world stands on our politics. That's been a constant here for centuries. WMDs and religious nonsense aside, Saddam was walking all over the UN and the UN were letting him do it. The US supported that resolution for 10 years.
Bush has a habit of making bombastic statements but I agree with that decision. For 10 years Saddam has been playing cat and mouse. He won't anymore. WMD's in Iraq? Well now we know for absolute certain there aren't any. UN investigators are now free to go ask permission from other countries to see their secret nuclear programs, and turn away if they're not allowed inside. You can rest assured that Iraq won't be bombing you, at least until/unless we leave it to go feral. It doesn't have to be that way, perhaps the UN can succeed where the evil American's fail? Up to you, either way we'll protect our interests and no more.
If the UN is not going to back up it's threats, then it really is a defunct organization and we're all better off spending our time elsewhere. If and when the delegates sent to the UN are prepared to back up their own policies and their own countries are equally prepared to back their policies with blood, I can at least have some respect for what is done there. Talk of peace rarely acheives peace, sometimes it has to be backed by action. Only idealistic teenagers believe that peace can be attained only by peaceful means.
Remember we are a republic, not a democracy. No one pretends that our system is perfect and odd occurances do happen. That we have ways of dealing with them without cival war is enough. We have an election system with that ideal that was designed for a different era, but has been modified over the past hundred years in the same way some would patch a kernel. Radical change to it is not advisable, it's been fought over for a long time and any change needs careful thought. Perhaps the federal government needs to make no change immediately? States can spearhead reform and their results can be evaluated. These are ideas that are in action.
Remember too that while slightly over half voted against Bush, slightly under half voted for him. A great atrocity this was not, nor was it illegal. If anything it may have awoken some to the fact that the more legit voters participating in an election, the less the impact of voter fraud will be. Any discussion on who would have won if a particular incidence of possible voter fraud was squashed is hysterical nonsense, the kind Gore wisely had enough sense in bowing out of. Regardless of which officials were bending the election, the only conclusion we could draw is the country would have been satisfied with either candidate.
Don't pin the blame on us, and don't hold our election system responsible. Any elected leader would almost certainly have done things somewhat different, but I suspect the outcome would be identical. We never needed the UN, didn't even want it, and only care about it when we're not directly involved. It's positioned in NYC precisely for this reason, we just don't care enough to disrupt it, but we can protect it since it behooves us. We sat by for 10 years when we didn't perceive any danger by letting "world politics" handle Iraq. Then something happened that woke us up to the fact that we were inadequately policing our enemies and we ignored it no longer.
So my fellow foreign nations, you have to help us help you. If we come to an agreement on how to handle a disruptive nation, we need to back that agreement and deal with offenders in such a way as to not leave doubt about our sincerety. If we come to an agreement that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are not to be developed, then we need to police and enforce this at all costs. If you ban murder in your country, do you only police this if the perpetrator is convenient to arrest? No, you may spend millions of dollars figuring out who he is, and bringing him to justice. So to must you poli
I think no new law is needed. If you are spoofing in order to break the law anonymously, that's already illegal.
This means telemarketers spoofing to get around the do not call list, people spoofing to cause the spoofed person harm etc. This service is not sufficiently anonymous to protect criminals.
I can because I have been moderated down for posts that may conflict with Kerry's party line. "Troll", "Flamebait" etc. simply for disagreement. I just try to stay out of political forums now, most of it is hysterical fanboy stuff anyway.
On this particular subject I am on Kerry's side. Retraining is not an option. I have an MS in EE, I will not retrain until Bush learns differential calculus.
If Stern were saying anything of any political, social, moral or scientific value, and felt the need to express his idea's in terms of anal sphyncters (or whatever his favorite topic of the day is), I'd stand up and agree he is being opressed.
In fact, every time I've listened, he's just mouthing off and trying to say the most offensive, disgusting thing he can think of at the time, just so he can get ratings. I listened to him all the time in college, even his "intellectual" topics were usually puddle deep.
He's hired to get people to listen, he's quite good at that. Much like corporate evil we otherwise dislike around here, he's willing to do anything at all to make money.
Normally I'm pretty pro-republican, but I don't see particular story as biased. Kerry has said he will close the tax loophole that essentailly encourages outsourcing. Bush says (see debate #3 transcript) we should get retrained and go to community college.
It's a fact that outsourcing is a hot issue (for some). It's a fact Kerry has made that statement a number of times that he'll fix it. Will he? Can he? What is he going to fix exactly? I doubt it, but it's a pursuasive (and noteable) statement.
Now the fact that/. and it's moderators are left leaning can't be denied. This just isn't a good example.
I think he did a good job of cutting Stern down to size actually.
The problem is that Stern is just a paid loudmouth, saying things to get a reaction. Since he does no actual research or background checking, EVERYTHING he says is just speculation. It could be true that Powell's appointment to the FCC is phony, but Stern has no evidence of it.
It could also could be true (though I doubt it) that Powell has a personal vendetta against Stern. Again, Stern doesn't even have a good conspiracy, just "free speech" and "I have the highest fines". Powell's response was simply, "Right or wrong, you broke the law".
It would appear (not shockingly) that Stern only agreed to this whole thing just to keep his name out there as being controversial. He has as little valuable to say now as he did 5 years ago.
I guess that's more or less my point. The journey wasn't much fun in EQ, and doesn't appear to be fun in EQ2. Just another level grind, with prettier graphics (now featuring bad voice actors!)
It shouldn't be about grinding, it should have a plot, a story, a goal and a challenge. The killing of a thousand a_giant_wasps should be a side effect of the quest to do . People shouldn't be gathering in their favorite XP zone to kill a hundred million wasps, they should meet because they have a common goal that takes them on the same path a while. Along they way they may kill lots of wasps, or find out the wasps were merely slaves of a giant bird named Bob, who really needs to die, and go do that, etc.
The overpromised SWG, they over promised the EQ expansion Omens of War (released last month) and they are over-promised on EQ2. They just don't learn, and of course we continue to pay.
Over-promised for them means a) they led people to believe the game was going to have features that will never be in the game or b) they promised certain features which will simply not work on release.
"A" is criminal, just impossible to prove based on their wording. "B" happens because they're working on extra revenue products like the guild management system referenced above, rather than making the game good.
I think it's a great idea, but the fact that they're working on this instead of making the game more fun, playable and bug free bothers me.
It's another steep level treadmill. There's nothing fun about it. The only thing fun really about original EQ are the higher end raids which unfortunately very few get to enjoy. That occurs only after you invest around 20 real life days worth of time building your character, buy (eBay if you want it fast) equipment etc. Getting to that state is pure tedium. I seriously think all of us who have done this are people who need psychiatric treatment for OCD, it's the only thing that explains why we put up with (and pay for) it.
As far as I can see, nothing is fundamentally different about EQ2. More candy, same substance.
The door is still open for someone to make a really good MMOG.
Agreed. Dongles do not work. Even the really expensive ones they use for CAD type tools.
Bottom line: software has to be decrypted on your own system in order to run or play. Your system cannot be trusted. There is the fundamental vulnerability. There is no way to fix this, you can simply rely on time/reward investment to discourage people from doing it. However for mass market commercial products, once a single person cracks it, it's open for everyone. All that money you blew on the dongles, sw licenses etc. is out the window.
In actuality, there are enough people cracking CAD tool licenses such that as a student I never had problems learning how to use the ultra expensive chip synthesis tools etc. My school couldn't afford them, but some school in China funded their kids to go break the license, and shared the results. Fortunately we had a few chinese ex-patriots willing to share the wealth. Not trying to justify this, just showing how even a small niche market can bypass even more complicated dongle systems profitably. (No American corporation could get away with this, there are too many hostile eyes involved even in a "secret" design).
The bottom line is if you make excellent software, you will make money on it, even with piracy. How do I know this? The software industry went from almost non-existant, around the time of my birth, to the huge, hopeless gargantuan that we know today. Piracy has been there all along, for all the same reasons. Before the internet there were pirate BBSs, before that there was the corner SW shop with the cash only business in the back room.
...I am annoyed with people who turn off TVs that I am watching simply because they have attention span problems. What you do at home is up to you, but in airports and restaurants consider that there are many others present who may not appreciate you flipping the TV off because you a) have a short attention span, b) think it's funny, c) are making a socio-political statement that I think is puddle deep.
Also accept that I sound irate because I spend too many days in TGI Friday's "listening" to some windbag (usually my boss) take credit for my work, or my co-workers work, and getting the big fat bonus we deserved. My only salvation is that I can occasionally get in my 6:30-7:30 "Simpsons" viewing in. I, for one, am perfectly capable of ignoring one source of spurious and useless input in favor of another of my choosing.
I don't think that's a fair statement. If you consider everything "rudimentary" once you have done the design and have only work ahead of you, even a space shuttle is trivial. The rest is just work right? There's the design, which we'll call 1% of the work, and then there's the implementation, which even Einstein thinks is 99% of the work and he was a pretty smart guy.
Anyway, since I live in Union NJ, I have an idea that you may have more access to engineering resources than the average bear. I suggest implementing their design for yourself, you'd be surprised at how much went in to this.
I on the other hand, hope this is not a standard project. The A++ goes out to the people who think up something on their own, figure out how to do it with resources at their disposal, and then actually do it. Forcing everyone to do the same thing (while 80% of them, in my personal experience, copy/cheat) makes for some not-so original thinkers.
I think that you're referring to static friction. While there's always some, I don't think there's a significant amount of static friction on a vertical launch. The significant friction I think (and I'm not an aerospace engineer) is the "wind resistance" you face going through the air to reach space. Unless you could get an assist plane up very high, it's probably less energy to launch straight up from ground.
It is scary. Imagine that hte FBI wanted to shut you up. It couldn't do so following US laws, so it works out an agreement with the Swiss to invoke some international treaty to allow them to shut you up. (In return we could provide the same service to them). Replace swiss with whatever country has 1st/4th ammendment like complications.
I think there's a misconception about EverQuest style "role" playing games. They're not play-acting fantasies for would be Broadway actrons. They're not even for people who played paper and die D&D games and pretended 'they were' their character. They're also not MUDs.
They're role playing in the same way a football player has a role (block, pass, catch, run, etc.) and plays his role to the limit of his capabilities. Phat Lewt is a means to an end, without it you can't take on the harder bosses (which drop loot for hte next tier of bosses, etc.).
So if you're expecting your fellow player to speak in "thee's" and "thou's" and talk about slaying the mighty dragon who harasses the villagers...yes you will be disappointed.
That said, EverQuest's total lack of a story makes the game very mechanical. I can't see how putting voice acting on the NPCs is going to address that problem.
$1,000,000 is not the highest tax bracket, and never has been. My combined household income, whatever that is, pays the highest tax %.
Put another way, Bush's tax cut benefits me. Kerry wants to re-instate Clinton's tax plan. That would hurt me.
I can get over that to be honest, in 10 years I will be able to afford a house, and I'm only 28. I want to understand how the tax money is being useful, and I am not seeing that.
So on this particular issue I give Kerry 0, Bush 0. Bush is bleeding money and going to stick us with the bill. Kerry wants to tax me more, spend more, and plug the hole a little. Bah I say.
I think you should find the facts for this yourself./. is not the place to get unbiased facts about Bush and his tax cuts.
Regardless of my opinion on his other policies, my taxes are lower now than with Clinton. But then I, as with most graduated (and employed) slashdotters make well over the national medan income. I live in an apartment, drive a 6 year old ford, am in middle management hell, and do not play tennis or golf. Rich I am not, but neither am I poor.
As for raises, your point may be taken, but I am not sure there is a relation ebtween tax cuts and raises. It would be fair to say that Bush has done nothing to stop job outsourcing, and regrettably NO candidate is willing to deal with that issue as it woudl turn corporate funding against them. Sad, as far as I'm concerned Kerry and Bush are equivalent on every issue. This would turn my favor to either one that I thought could do it.
Not really, you'd expect that, but in many ways this is one of EverQuests drawbacks. Really, clerics do two things: Heal and and buff hitpoints. If we're doing something that's easy, surely we can do some offense too (however our damage output is necessarily very small), or we could do some small crowd control, but really, just healing. We have many types of heals, and choosing the right one for the situation is "the skill", but it's obvious once you'e done it a while.
But in actuality, almost all classes are about that one dimensional when fighting difficult opponents. You know your role, and you play your role, or no one wants to group with you. Even the high damage classes are pretty narrow in focus. (Do damage, do not get mob agression or you die)
I'm sure if you were creative, you could make "guard" about as complex as your average EQ role ("block high", "Block low", "grab", "Mutilate", etc). I'm just not sure football in video games is all that fun, but judging by Madden I guess it is...
Playing a long time builds skill. There is very little innate, inbred basketball skill in anyone. There are perhaps a few traits that MAY help (i.e. being tall, having a fast metabolism, long legs), but most of the skill comes from practice, repetition and interest.
Since there is no correlation to playing basketball in a video game, and on court, it should not surprise anyone if they get "schooled" in game, but are the schooler on the court.
As far as strategy goes, that's pretty much what games like EverQuest are about and is at least as complex as football. Any class in the game can be mastered by pretty much anyone. There is some element of skill, but anyone who plays the game regularly is as good as anyone else. However, the winners and losers of the big 72 person raids are determined by how much the guild practices as a team, were they using the correct overall strategy versus the mob in question, and did they perform well and carry out their plan. As far as I'm concerned at the high levels, these games are only about teamwork and strategy.
I don't see why this couldn't be translated to sporting events, but I do think such games would not have hte "persistance" that other MMOGs enjoy. People would log in for practices and games, but go do other things in between.
Sure, being a guard is analogous to playing a cleric in EverQuest. Your job is only to keep the tank alive so the other guys can go kill the bad guys. The goal in EverQuest is the same as in football: have fun and beat the bad guys, with "have fun" being optional to many. The group or guild who does all this first, gets the dubious luxury of being the heroes of the server, regardless of their role.
Similarly if you're on the football team that consistently beats everyone else, you can share in the glory. That you're not hte quarterback or wide receiver is more or less irrelevant. They can't win without you.
The court did not rule the DMCA unconstitutional. It "ruled" that the RIAA (etc.) can't strongarm other organizations into giving up customer data "because they asked". There exists a legal means to file a case against an unknown assailant and acquire identification, the lower court ruled the RIAA must use that means and the Supreme Court supported that ruling (or wants them to try again later). This is a small victory, but not unexpected.
No new bill passed my congress is going to overturn that, unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case and rules such actions within the framework of the constitution. I doubt they will, that really walks over "unauthorized search and seizure".
What I think would really quash the DMCA would be the Supreme Court ruling that it cannot be against the law to reverse engineer copy protection systems. So far as I know, no good case on the matter has made it that far. I am guessing because the RIAA knows they are likely to get ruled against, reverse-engineering is a time honored American tradition.
I have a $2000 (2 yr old) 60" projection HD screen, a $200 sony crapass sound system and whatever set top box Comcast gave me. I've had HD on Comcast for about 1.5 years. I was actually expecting to play video games in HD before cable, but I was surprised. It works great for me and was painless, though I do not have DVI inputs. I have a few complaints:
1) Not enough channels (1 HBO, 3 Network)
2) Sometimes the picture is SO good you can see what cheap materials are used on the set. Spiderman was a good example, somehow the green goblin's costume looks like rubber under heavy paint in HD, instead of the steel or whatever it's supposed to look like.
3) The HBO HD channel contents are the same as the SD version of that channel. Not all movies played there apparently have good enough quality film stock to be worth encoding and playing in HD.
4) Network TV programming for the past 2 years has sucked in ANY resolution.
5) I wish there was a VoD HD channel.
Other than that, I wish I had bought a TV with a DVI input, but that's the price of early adoption. Optical audio is a bad idea unless you're dealing with high power amps, otherwise digital coax is the same data on copper, and the same quality. I'm happy with it and I control the volume via the sound system. I wish comcast didn't charge me a premium for HD. I wish such a thing existed as an HD DVD, but I suspect when that is invented the MPAA will fuck it up, and I will have to use other means anyway. Finally I wish my playstation 2 could output HD =) I refuse to buy an X-Box until someone can prove to me on facts that buying an X-Box and pirating X-Box games will cause MS to lose money.
People who pay $6000 for a TV are asking for disappointment. But if you are in the market for a TV anyway, and (depending of course on the size etc. you're looking for) can get one for a couple hundred more? I say go for it, how often do you buy TVs? The one I replaced I inherited from my parents which they bought 20 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Having played SoE games for years now at the bleeding edge and not, it's usually far more enjoyable to be on the path most travelled. The bugs are worked out, the encounters operate like they ought to, and you generally spend more time having fun, and less time waiting around beating your head on the wall and discovering it was because of a bug.
I play a few hours a night, I want all those hours to be productive and enjoyable. Let someone else be my crash test dummy. If that person is silly enough to PAY to beta test...well I have no sympathy.
Just keep in mind m59 is almost entirely about PvP. I played for almost a year prior to EQ, the game can get kind of rough, but hopelessly addicting.
At least when I was playing, PvP didn't seem very balanced. Plus new people, at least back then, were eyed with suspicion. New characters were more often that not latent PKers who were just waiting to knife someone in the back (literally), so they weren't trusted.
It can be rough, but if you stick it out it's fun. Definitely comparing it to EQ and that ilk is not a good idea, they're totally diffrent games.
Onec again you're looking to us to fix your problems. It's really totally irrelevant to me personally where the rest of the world stands on our politics. That's been a constant here for centuries. WMDs and religious nonsense aside, Saddam was walking all over the UN and the UN were letting him do it. The US supported that resolution for 10 years.
Bush has a habit of making bombastic statements but I agree with that decision. For 10 years Saddam has been playing cat and mouse. He won't anymore. WMD's in Iraq? Well now we know for absolute certain there aren't any. UN investigators are now free to go ask permission from other countries to see their secret nuclear programs, and turn away if they're not allowed inside. You can rest assured that Iraq won't be bombing you, at least until/unless we leave it to go feral. It doesn't have to be that way, perhaps the UN can succeed where the evil American's fail? Up to you, either way we'll protect our interests and no more.
If the UN is not going to back up it's threats, then it really is a defunct organization and we're all better off spending our time elsewhere. If and when the delegates sent to the UN are prepared to back up their own policies and their own countries are equally prepared to back their policies with blood, I can at least have some respect for what is done there. Talk of peace rarely acheives peace, sometimes it has to be backed by action. Only idealistic teenagers believe that peace can be attained only by peaceful means.
Remember we are a republic, not a democracy. No one pretends that our system is perfect and odd occurances do happen. That we have ways of dealing with them without cival war is enough. We have an election system with that ideal that was designed for a different era, but has been modified over the past hundred years in the same way some would patch a kernel. Radical change to it is not advisable, it's been fought over for a long time and any change needs careful thought. Perhaps the federal government needs to make no change immediately? States can spearhead reform and their results can be evaluated. These are ideas that are in action.
Remember too that while slightly over half voted against Bush, slightly under half voted for him. A great atrocity this was not, nor was it illegal. If anything it may have awoken some to the fact that the more legit voters participating in an election, the less the impact of voter fraud will be. Any discussion on who would have won if a particular incidence of possible voter fraud was squashed is hysterical nonsense, the kind Gore wisely had enough sense in bowing out of. Regardless of which officials were bending the election, the only conclusion we could draw is the country would have been satisfied with either candidate.
Don't pin the blame on us, and don't hold our election system responsible. Any elected leader would almost certainly have done things somewhat different, but I suspect the outcome would be identical. We never needed the UN, didn't even want it, and only care about it when we're not directly involved. It's positioned in NYC precisely for this reason, we just don't care enough to disrupt it, but we can protect it since it behooves us. We sat by for 10 years when we didn't perceive any danger by letting "world politics" handle Iraq. Then something happened that woke us up to the fact that we were inadequately policing our enemies and we ignored it no longer.
So my fellow foreign nations, you have to help us help you. If we come to an agreement on how to handle a disruptive nation, we need to back that agreement and deal with offenders in such a way as to not leave doubt about our sincerety. If we come to an agreement that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are not to be developed, then we need to police and enforce this at all costs. If you ban murder in your country, do you only police this if the perpetrator is convenient to arrest? No, you may spend millions of dollars figuring out who he is, and bringing him to justice. So to must you poli
I've worked on >20 layer circuit boards, I'm pretty sure they meant something other than "the first 20 layer circuit board".
I think no new law is needed. If you are spoofing in order to break the law anonymously, that's already illegal.
This means telemarketers spoofing to get around the do not call list, people spoofing to cause the spoofed person harm etc. This service is not sufficiently anonymous to protect criminals.
I can because I have been moderated down for posts that may conflict with Kerry's party line. "Troll", "Flamebait" etc. simply for disagreement. I just try to stay out of political forums now, most of it is hysterical fanboy stuff anyway.
On this particular subject I am on Kerry's side. Retraining is not an option. I have an MS in EE, I will not retrain until Bush learns differential calculus.
If Stern were saying anything of any political, social, moral or scientific value, and felt the need to express his idea's in terms of anal sphyncters (or whatever his favorite topic of the day is), I'd stand up and agree he is being opressed.
In fact, every time I've listened, he's just mouthing off and trying to say the most offensive, disgusting thing he can think of at the time, just so he can get ratings. I listened to him all the time in college, even his "intellectual" topics were usually puddle deep.
He's hired to get people to listen, he's quite good at that. Much like corporate evil we otherwise dislike around here, he's willing to do anything at all to make money.
Normally I'm pretty pro-republican, but I don't see particular story as biased. Kerry has said he will close the tax loophole that essentailly encourages outsourcing. Bush says (see debate #3 transcript) we should get retrained and go to community college.
/. and it's moderators are left leaning can't be denied. This just isn't a good example.
It's a fact that outsourcing is a hot issue (for some). It's a fact Kerry has made that statement a number of times that he'll fix it. Will he? Can he? What is he going to fix exactly? I doubt it, but it's a pursuasive (and noteable) statement.
Now the fact that
I think he did a good job of cutting Stern down to size actually.
The problem is that Stern is just a paid loudmouth, saying things to get a reaction. Since he does no actual research or background checking, EVERYTHING he says is just speculation. It could be true that Powell's appointment to the FCC is phony, but Stern has no evidence of it.
It could also could be true (though I doubt it) that Powell has a personal vendetta against Stern. Again, Stern doesn't even have a good conspiracy, just "free speech" and "I have the highest fines". Powell's response was simply, "Right or wrong, you broke the law".
It would appear (not shockingly) that Stern only agreed to this whole thing just to keep his name out there as being controversial. He has as little valuable to say now as he did 5 years ago.
I guess that's more or less my point. The journey wasn't much fun in EQ, and doesn't appear to be fun in EQ2. Just another level grind, with prettier graphics (now featuring bad voice actors!)
It shouldn't be about grinding, it should have a plot, a story, a goal and a challenge. The killing of a thousand a_giant_wasps should be a side effect of the quest to do . People shouldn't be gathering in their favorite XP zone to kill a hundred million wasps, they should meet because they have a common goal that takes them on the same path a while. Along they way they may kill lots of wasps, or find out the wasps were merely slaves of a giant bird named Bob, who really needs to die, and go do that, etc.
The overpromised SWG, they over promised the EQ expansion Omens of War (released last month) and they are over-promised on EQ2. They just don't learn, and of course we continue to pay.
Over-promised for them means a) they led people to believe the game was going to have features that will never be in the game or b) they promised certain features which will simply not work on release.
"A" is criminal, just impossible to prove based on their wording. "B" happens because they're working on extra revenue products like the guild management system referenced above, rather than making the game good.
Bah!
I think it's a great idea, but the fact that they're working on this instead of making the game more fun, playable and bug free bothers me.
It's another steep level treadmill. There's nothing fun about it. The only thing fun really about original EQ are the higher end raids which unfortunately very few get to enjoy. That occurs only after you invest around 20 real life days worth of time building your character, buy (eBay if you want it fast) equipment etc. Getting to that state is pure tedium. I seriously think all of us who have done this are people who need psychiatric treatment for OCD, it's the only thing that explains why we put up with (and pay for) it.
As far as I can see, nothing is fundamentally different about EQ2. More candy, same substance.
The door is still open for someone to make a really good MMOG.
Agreed. Dongles do not work. Even the really expensive ones they use for CAD type tools.
Bottom line: software has to be decrypted on your own system in order to run or play. Your system cannot be trusted. There is the fundamental vulnerability. There is no way to fix this, you can simply rely on time/reward investment to discourage people from doing it. However for mass market commercial products, once a single person cracks it, it's open for everyone. All that money you blew on the dongles, sw licenses etc. is out the window.
In actuality, there are enough people cracking CAD tool licenses such that as a student I never had problems learning how to use the ultra expensive chip synthesis tools etc. My school couldn't afford them, but some school in China funded their kids to go break the license, and shared the results. Fortunately we had a few chinese ex-patriots willing to share the wealth. Not trying to justify this, just showing how even a small niche market can bypass even more complicated dongle systems profitably. (No American corporation could get away with this, there are too many hostile eyes involved even in a "secret" design).
The bottom line is if you make excellent software, you will make money on it, even with piracy. How do I know this? The software industry went from almost non-existant, around the time of my birth, to the huge, hopeless gargantuan that we know today. Piracy has been there all along, for all the same reasons. Before the internet there were pirate BBSs, before that there was the corner SW shop with the cash only business in the back room.
...I am annoyed with people who turn off TVs that I am watching simply because they have attention span problems. What you do at home is up to you, but in airports and restaurants consider that there are many others present who may not appreciate you flipping the TV off because you a) have a short attention span, b) think it's funny, c) are making a socio-political statement that I think is puddle deep.
Also accept that I sound irate because I spend too many days in TGI Friday's "listening" to some windbag (usually my boss) take credit for my work, or my co-workers work, and getting the big fat bonus we deserved. My only salvation is that I can occasionally get in my 6:30-7:30 "Simpsons" viewing in. I, for one, am perfectly capable of ignoring one source of spurious and useless input in favor of another of my choosing.
I don't think that's a fair statement. If you consider everything "rudimentary" once you have done the design and have only work ahead of you, even a space shuttle is trivial. The rest is just work right? There's the design, which we'll call 1% of the work, and then there's the implementation, which even Einstein thinks is 99% of the work and he was a pretty smart guy.
Anyway, since I live in Union NJ, I have an idea that you may have more access to engineering resources than the average bear. I suggest implementing their design for yourself, you'd be surprised at how much went in to this.
I on the other hand, hope this is not a standard project. The A++ goes out to the people who think up something on their own, figure out how to do it with resources at their disposal, and then actually do it. Forcing everyone to do the same thing (while 80% of them, in my personal experience, copy/cheat) makes for some not-so original thinkers.
I think that you're referring to static friction. While there's always some, I don't think there's a significant amount of static friction on a vertical launch. The significant friction I think (and I'm not an aerospace engineer) is the "wind resistance" you face going through the air to reach space. Unless you could get an assist plane up very high, it's probably less energy to launch straight up from ground.
It is scary. Imagine that hte FBI wanted to shut you up. It couldn't do so following US laws, so it works out an agreement with the Swiss to invoke some international treaty to allow them to shut you up. (In return we could provide the same service to them). Replace swiss with whatever country has 1st/4th ammendment like complications.
I think there's a misconception about EverQuest style "role" playing games. They're not play-acting fantasies for would be Broadway actrons. They're not even for people who played paper and die D&D games and pretended 'they were' their character. They're also not MUDs.
They're role playing in the same way a football player has a role (block, pass, catch, run, etc.) and plays his role to the limit of his capabilities. Phat Lewt is a means to an end, without it you can't take on the harder bosses (which drop loot for hte next tier of bosses, etc.).
So if you're expecting your fellow player to speak in "thee's" and "thou's" and talk about slaying the mighty dragon who harasses the villagers...yes you will be disappointed.
That said, EverQuest's total lack of a story makes the game very mechanical. I can't see how putting voice acting on the NPCs is going to address that problem.
$1,000,000 is not the highest tax bracket, and never has been. My combined household income, whatever that is, pays the highest tax %.
Put another way, Bush's tax cut benefits me. Kerry wants to re-instate Clinton's tax plan. That would hurt me.
I can get over that to be honest, in 10 years I will be able to afford a house, and I'm only 28. I want to understand how the tax money is being useful, and I am not seeing that.
So on this particular issue I give Kerry 0, Bush 0. Bush is bleeding money and going to stick us with the bill. Kerry wants to tax me more, spend more, and plug the hole a little. Bah I say.
I think you should find the facts for this yourself. /. is not the place to get unbiased facts about Bush and his tax cuts.
Regardless of my opinion on his other policies, my taxes are lower now than with Clinton. But then I, as with most graduated (and employed) slashdotters make well over the national medan income. I live in an apartment, drive a 6 year old ford, am in middle management hell, and do not play tennis or golf. Rich I am not, but neither am I poor.
As for raises, your point may be taken, but I am not sure there is a relation ebtween tax cuts and raises. It would be fair to say that Bush has done nothing to stop job outsourcing, and regrettably NO candidate is willing to deal with that issue as it woudl turn corporate funding against them. Sad, as far as I'm concerned Kerry and Bush are equivalent on every issue. This would turn my favor to either one that I thought could do it.
Not really, you'd expect that, but in many ways this is one of EverQuests drawbacks. Really, clerics do two things: Heal and and buff hitpoints. If we're doing something that's easy, surely we can do some offense too (however our damage output is necessarily very small), or we could do some small crowd control, but really, just healing. We have many types of heals, and choosing the right one for the situation is "the skill", but it's obvious once you'e done it a while.
But in actuality, almost all classes are about that one dimensional when fighting difficult opponents. You know your role, and you play your role, or no one wants to group with you. Even the high damage classes are pretty narrow in focus. (Do damage, do not get mob agression or you die)
I'm sure if you were creative, you could make "guard" about as complex as your average EQ role ("block high", "Block low", "grab", "Mutilate", etc). I'm just not sure football in video games is all that fun, but judging by Madden I guess it is...
Playing a long time builds skill. There is very little innate, inbred basketball skill in anyone. There are perhaps a few traits that MAY help (i.e. being tall, having a fast metabolism, long legs), but most of the skill comes from practice, repetition and interest.
Since there is no correlation to playing basketball in a video game, and on court, it should not surprise anyone if they get "schooled" in game, but are the schooler on the court.
As far as strategy goes, that's pretty much what games like EverQuest are about and is at least as complex as football. Any class in the game can be mastered by pretty much anyone. There is some element of skill, but anyone who plays the game regularly is as good as anyone else. However, the winners and losers of the big 72 person raids are determined by how much the guild practices as a team, were they using the correct overall strategy versus the mob in question, and did they perform well and carry out their plan. As far as I'm concerned at the high levels, these games are only about teamwork and strategy.
I don't see why this couldn't be translated to sporting events, but I do think such games would not have hte "persistance" that other MMOGs enjoy. People would log in for practices and games, but go do other things in between.
Sure, being a guard is analogous to playing a cleric in EverQuest. Your job is only to keep the tank alive so the other guys can go kill the bad guys. The goal in EverQuest is the same as in football: have fun and beat the bad guys, with "have fun" being optional to many. The group or guild who does all this first, gets the dubious luxury of being the heroes of the server, regardless of their role.
Similarly if you're on the football team that consistently beats everyone else, you can share in the glory. That you're not hte quarterback or wide receiver is more or less irrelevant. They can't win without you.
The court did not rule the DMCA unconstitutional. It "ruled" that the RIAA (etc.) can't strongarm other organizations into giving up customer data "because they asked". There exists a legal means to file a case against an unknown assailant and acquire identification, the lower court ruled the RIAA must use that means and the Supreme Court supported that ruling (or wants them to try again later). This is a small victory, but not unexpected.
No new bill passed my congress is going to overturn that, unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case and rules such actions within the framework of the constitution. I doubt they will, that really walks over "unauthorized search and seizure".
What I think would really quash the DMCA would be the Supreme Court ruling that it cannot be against the law to reverse engineer copy protection systems. So far as I know, no good case on the matter has made it that far. I am guessing because the RIAA knows they are likely to get ruled against, reverse-engineering is a time honored American tradition.
I have a $2000 (2 yr old) 60" projection HD screen, a $200 sony crapass sound system and whatever set top box Comcast gave me. I've had HD on Comcast for about 1.5 years. I was actually expecting to play video games in HD before cable, but I was surprised. It works great for me and was painless, though I do not have DVI inputs. I have a few complaints:
1) Not enough channels (1 HBO, 3 Network)
2) Sometimes the picture is SO good you can see what cheap materials are used on the set. Spiderman was a good example, somehow the green goblin's costume looks like rubber under heavy paint in HD, instead of the steel or whatever it's supposed to look like.
3) The HBO HD channel contents are the same as the SD version of that channel. Not all movies played there apparently have good enough quality film stock to be worth encoding and playing in HD.
4) Network TV programming for the past 2 years has sucked in ANY resolution.
5) I wish there was a VoD HD channel.
Other than that, I wish I had bought a TV with a DVI input, but that's the price of early adoption. Optical audio is a bad idea unless you're dealing with high power amps, otherwise digital coax is the same data on copper, and the same quality. I'm happy with it and I control the volume via the sound system. I wish comcast didn't charge me a premium for HD. I wish such a thing existed as an HD DVD, but I suspect when that is invented the MPAA will fuck it up, and I will have to use other means anyway. Finally I wish my playstation 2 could output HD =) I refuse to buy an X-Box until someone can prove to me on facts that buying an X-Box and pirating X-Box games will cause MS to lose money.
People who pay $6000 for a TV are asking for disappointment. But if you are in the market for a TV anyway, and (depending of course on the size etc. you're looking for) can get one for a couple hundred more? I say go for it, how often do you buy TVs? The one I replaced I inherited from my parents which they bought 20 years ago.