Actually I've found that console gaming is FAR more expensive. (Which is contrary to what I say in the link in my sig)
I probably end up spending an extra $100-$200 per month on console gaming.
That money is spent on things like chips, drinks, BBQ, veggies, beer, etc that gets eaten when my friends and their wives/girlfriends come over to play console games. Also I spend extra time and money cleaning up the house before they come over.
When I was a PC gamer, sitting alone in a dark room with headphones on, it was much cheaper!
Sports games are some of the best to play on-line. And if you are involved in XSN (Xbox) tournaments, then it is a very good complement to having a bunch of friends over to play.
I've spent many, many hours playing Amped 2, Top Spin, and Links 2004 on-line.
They're all filled with a lot of 'normal' people, not jackasses who want to spend their time yelling, screaming, and cussing.
Links, combined with XSN tournaments, is absolutely incredible fun on-line. Fantasy sports league meets really good game. This game by itself is a good reason to have the Live service. Golf may not sound thrilling, but it makes a GREAT on-line game. And with options like 'Fast-Play', you can get through a round pretty quickly.
Top Spin is great on-line, as long as you get an opponent who doesn't have a lot of lag. My ratio of 'fast' (no lag) games, to 'slow' (bad lag) is about 5:1. And I think that half of the people with bad lag are jackasses who do it on purpose to force you to quit, so they get the 'win'. But these games are fairly uncommon.
I would guess that the vast majority of players in those 3 games are really happy with the on-line experience. But, I would never even try to play Counterstrike on Live, because that game HAS to be full of 13 year old jackasses with nothing better to do than try to make the game suck for everyone else.
Typically you need to have the orginal CD in the drive in order to play the game. Yes, you can get cracks- but Joe User doesn't want to hassle with the cracks, so it's easier just to cough up the $30-$40 for the game.
That is fairly effective copy protection. If you really did purchase the game, then other than having the CD in the drive, it doesn't provide much of a hassle. But, running a pirated version is beyond what most people are willing to do.
They defeat the casual pirate, without overly encumbering the rest of us.
But then again- just imagine if people didn't feel the need to steal things, just because they could. (Like music) They wouldn't need to copy protect games at all, and you could put away the CD's forever. But some people (in this thread) feel that stealing intellectual property isn't really stealing. So the creators of the IP need to protect it. You can thank them for those 20 digit codes, and un-necessarily switching CDs everytime you load up a new game.
EA has some good sports games, but Links 2004 kicks a lot of butt over Tiger Woods.
I hope that MS looks at their sports lineup title by title, not as a whole. There are a few good games there, and selling out the whole thing would be disappointing.
You don't want ads in your games- cool. Don't buy them- take that stance.
But, if you read the article, you would know that actually 52% of heavy games LIKE ads/products in the games. (I'm one of those people)
So, saying you don't like them is fine. But saying nobody else should, and people should think the same way you do, is a bit arrogant.
And like other people here- I really think they add to the realism in sports games. Because when the ads are not there, it just seems like something is missing. The ads are another little detail to make it more realistic.
Re:WinFS WILL be in the next version, just no netw
on
Microsoft Clips Longhorn
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Funny, but as I recall the main information on the business systems was data, not music and videos.
I think that really depends on what business you are in.
I'll launch Windows Media Player 5-10 times a day for work.
I might launch Excel, or even the calculator, once every 6 months or so.
Some people work in industries where music and videos ARE the business, and they ARE the data. And those businesses need DRM in order to make their business viable in the digital age.
Now if people actually paid for what they use, it would be a different story. But some people are under the impression that since they borrowed a CD from a friend, and copied that CD to their computer, it is now THEIR data. Without any regard to the effort and talent that went into creating the music. So the choice is- make it harder for these people to copy the data, or hope that they have a change of heart, and start to pay up.
I don't see a long line of people waiting to pay up...
The latency issue is really a non-issue for anyone with a decent connect. I just tried Gamespot, and my estimation is that flipping from page 1 of an article, to page 2 took less than 1 second. There are occasionally times where going from one page to another might take 1.5 seconds, but it seems pretty rare. I've got a decent DSL connection (1.2mb) but nothing spectacular. In fact, some of the stories in magazines have have huge latency issues- like 30 days or so.
As far as organization is concerned, if I am reading through the magazine, if I see an article for another game, I may have to dig through a few issues to find the review. On the web, I can just go to the 'reviews' section, and they are all right there.
I still like the magazines though, because I get to lie on my bed, and relax while I read it. And, I end up reading stuff I wouldn't read on the web- like reviews for games that don't even run on the console I have.
Magazines are still good- but I don't like them because of the lack of latency, and better organization...
Umm...I'm not sure why you think that because I spend money (on games, and eating out) it means that I do not give my daughter enough affection or love. Actually- I do know why...more on that later.
I spend TONS of time with my daughter. I am a very involved parent, and I support my daughter in a lot of things. I am very aware of what she is doing, and she knows I care- about her, and about what she is doing.
Obviously, to you, spending $250 on dinner is a lot. And spending the money on games is also a lot. Well, not everyone is in the same financial situation you are. I've got a great job. And, I don't just categorize 'great' as meaning I make a lot of money- but making good money, AND giving me plenty of time with my family. (40 hour work weeks only- I could make more if I was willing to do 60 hour weeks..but it ain't worth it)
I'm guessing that you are either too young to have a job (and your parents have crappy jobs) or you are in your early 20's and haven't gotten a decent paying job yet. So therefore, anyone who does make money must be a cold-hearted bastard who is willing to sell out his family in order to make a few extra bucks. Nope- the world doesn't have to work that way.
I'm posting this NOT because I am trying to defend myself. Hell, you don't know me, and I don't know you so it doesn't really matter. But I would like to point out that you CAN have a good life- make money, have a good family life, love your wife and kids, and do what you enjoy during your free time.
I'm also the same guy who posts all over Slashdot, trying to tell programmers that free software is NOT the way to get rich. Why would people give their work away? I don't understand it. But then again, if you are giving your work away, don't resent me because I have money to spend. I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision. Here- see one of my previous posts on the subject:
(And yes- even though you are an AC- I KNOW you support free software, free MP3s and stealing whatever you can from big business.)
Whoops...I should have added Prince of Persia to my list of 'recent games played'.
You are right- games generally are targeted toward men. Initially I was just reacting to your comments about slutty female characters. But there are plenty of games without slutty female characters (which you are in agreement).
The fact that there is a gender inequality is probably just the financial reality of the gaming market. Three people in my house play games- me, my wife, and my daughter. I've probably spent at least $1,200 in the past 12 months just on game software. (It is probably more than that, but I'd rather not acknowledge anything beyond $1,200). My wife and daughter have spent a combined total of 0 (zero) dollars on games.
It would never cross their minds to spend $50 on a game, when they could use that money to buy new shoes, or Cosmo magazine, or something like that. I'm not being sexist- that is just the reality. My daughter has an incredible sense of math when it comes to shoes. We went out for dinner, and the bill was about $250. My daughter was able to tell me how many pairs of pants, shoes, and shirts she could have bought with that money- in a matter of about 3 seconds. (Of course, knowing that it totals 5 video games came to my mind)
It's not that they don't like games that much- they do play them. It's just that it just isn't a priority for them. So financially, the game makers stand to make $1,200 a year if they target me, or get zilch if they target my wife and daughter- because they would never enter the video game store to purchase a game in the first place. Financially, it just makes sense to target me. (And the 15 year old boys who will someday grow up to be the 36 year old man who doesn't mind spending $1,200 a year on games.)
I buy a lot of games, and I don't believe that any of my games have 'slutty female characters'. Are you thinking of fantasy games?
Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...
Crimson Skies Metal Arms Splinter Cell Project Gotham Racing (2) Links Top Spin Amped Everything or Nothing Trivial Pursuit Deus Ex: Invisible War Dance Dance Revolution
Only 1 of them might portray women as 'slutty', and that is Everything or Nothing. But- that is a James Bond game- and that is just what you expect from James Bond.
One of the characters in Links has big boobs- but it's not a big deal. The rest of the games have nothing that would be considered an 'insult' to women.
My wife has a (male) character in Amped who snowboards with shorts, and no shirt. I'm not insulted, I think its funny- and at least she's playing the game with me.
But I don't know why games should be 'pointed toward women specifically'. Why not just play good games? Is a car racing game gender specific? Tennis? Golf? Trivial Pursuit? DDR?
There are 'girl oriented' games out there- and if I were a woman, I would find those extremely insulting. 'Cosmo Girl Makeup Party'? Have you ever seen 'Barbie Horse Adventure'? It's crap!
When we start to think that every segment of society needs to have games (media in general) directed toward them- we'll end up with a huge fragmentation of the gaming industry, everyone trying to target their specific audience with what they think they should be playing. In my opinion, if they create good games, the audience will come- no matter who they are.
I just picked up 'Everything or Nothing', the new James Bond game from EA. I think that EA usually makes 'McGames', games that are technically fairly good, but don't have anything exciting to offer. Medal of Honor for the PC wasn't that great of a game- but since it never crashed on me, I ended up enjoying it.
But Everything or Nothing pretty much hits the James Bond nail on the head. You really do feel that it is a good extension of the movie series.
And as for voice talent, they use all of the real Bond voices, and some other big names.
Pierce Brosnan Judi Dench John Cleese Willem Dafoe Heidi Klum Shannon Elizabeth (okay, that last two were not top tier..)
They did a really good job- its probably the most 'movie like' of any game I have played. Obviously huge money went into the game, and not many companies other than EA have that money.
As far as sound tracks go- once again, I agree. And I agree pretty much without exception. (Okay, Grand Theft Auto III was an exception) This is one reason that I really love my Xbox- customized soundtracks. When I first started playing Amped 2- I hated the music so much (Emo? Fricking EMO?) that I didn't like the game. When I finally switched out the music to my custom soundtracks, the game suddenly got good- and my scores got much better.
I'm 36 (almost in the 'over the age of 37' group). I play a lot of games, but it generally a struggle to get my gaming time in. I could choose to ignore my other obligations, and spend all my time playing games, but I don't.
This week I will probably get 4 gaming sessions in. Each one lasting about 1.5 hours. This might seem like a lot, but I don't watch any television at all.
This past week, instead of gaming, I chose to:
Have a BBQ and party for friends. (one guy stayed late to play some Amped 2, so I did get some gaming in)
Attend another friends birthday party.
Take my daughter to two meetings at school (cheerleading).
Take the family to a movie (Hellboy).
Attend my 'History of Film' class at local college.
Do homework for said film class.
Go for walks with wife and dog.
Do yardwork.
Hang up dartboard in backyard. (which took me waaay too long)
So when I finally get time to play games, it feels like I am 'stealing' time from something else. I'm not a super-busy person, but as I get older, I find that my responsibilities take precedence over video games. Interestingly though, I did purchase two games this week, even though I probably have 3 or 4 others I am still working on.
Have you watched 'WE: Womens Entertainment' or 'Lifetime' or 'Soapnet' or 'Hallmark'?
All are aimed directly at women.
What about 'The View' or 'Oprah'?
No gratuitous cleavage there- any cleavage you do see is purely accidental, and VERY offensive to any guys who might be watching.
If you are complaining that you, as a woman, were alienated while watching a network that describes itself as 'the guys channel', you might be expecting too much.
I used to think that Microsoft (Conxion) servers were some of the biggest/fattest on earth. At work (a University) I get a 4MB/sec (big 'B') connection to them whenever I download.
Amazingly, I have found something that is faster.
Gamespot- yes, Gamespot, downloads at almost 5MB/sec. This is with the 'Gamespot Complete' membership. It's really nice when downloading a 200+MB file takes less than a minute. And I *always* get that speed from them.
Makes me wonder where the bottleneck is though- I should look into that.
I've had the same opinion of open source/free software for a while. I've voiced it here a few times.
When programmers start giving away their time, and effort, it makes their time and effort worth less.
So if the programming community does not value itself enough to charge a good rate- then our business community can send our 'custom' jobs overseas, while getting the other stuff for free. Sounds like a good deal for businesses, and a crappy deal for programmers. Because in EVERY business, the final price of a product comes from PERCEIVED VALUE not the real cost of goods. So, by giving stuff away for the past few years, the percieved value of software has been going down.
I still go back to the analogy of plumbers. If I know that I can get someone to fix my plumbing for free- I will resist paying a regular plumber a few hundred bucks to come out. But as it is now, I know that I can expect to pay about $150 minimum to have some work done. And I'm happy to pay it.
Yes of course there is a difference, because plumbing cannot be outsourced to India. But when people run around shouting 'software should be free' and telling their bosses to use the 'free version' then the general feeling is that software *should* be free, or at least cheap.
I've never seen any other industry where there was such a push towards devaluing its own product. And then people get upset when the money flows somewhere else?
Rice paddies are usually very large, and they require a LOT of water and sun.
The sun part would do okay in a greenhouse, but the water would be difficult. And, building a structure that is large enough, without any type of support that would impede mechanical planting/harvesting would make this hugely expensive.
Option 1- buy some land, plant rice. Harvest.
Option 2 - but some land, build a huge building that has a crud-load of fresh water in it, maintain the building, and harvest.
Option 1 of course is cheaper.
I drive over rice paddies all the time, and the way they handle it now is pretty simple. They divert a river to flood out a few gazillion acres. They plant the rice, and the only other things I see happen are the occasional crop dusters and the harvesting. This seems to be a fairly low-maintenance crop. And I think that is one of the great benefits of rice- other than the water, it is very cheap to grow.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it was the part where he referred to heterosexuals as 'breeders'.
Because, using a derogatory term to describe people who are NOT gay means that you are gay-bashing.
Actually I've found that console gaming is FAR more expensive. (Which is contrary to what I say in the link in my sig)
I probably end up spending an extra $100-$200 per month on console gaming.
That money is spent on things like chips, drinks, BBQ, veggies, beer, etc that gets eaten when my friends and their wives/girlfriends come over to play console games. Also I spend extra time and money cleaning up the house before they come over.
When I was a PC gamer, sitting alone in a dark room with headphones on, it was much cheaper!
Sports games are some of the best to play on-line. And if you are involved in XSN (Xbox) tournaments, then it is a very good complement to having a bunch of friends over to play.
I've spent many, many hours playing Amped 2, Top Spin, and Links 2004 on-line.
They're all filled with a lot of 'normal' people, not jackasses who want to spend their time yelling, screaming, and cussing.
Links, combined with XSN tournaments, is absolutely incredible fun on-line. Fantasy sports league meets really good game. This game by itself is a good reason to have the Live service. Golf may not sound thrilling, but it makes a GREAT on-line game. And with options like 'Fast-Play', you can get through a round pretty quickly.
Top Spin is great on-line, as long as you get an opponent who doesn't have a lot of lag. My ratio of 'fast' (no lag) games, to 'slow' (bad lag) is about 5:1. And I think that half of the people with bad lag are jackasses who do it on purpose to force you to quit, so they get the 'win'. But these games are fairly uncommon.
I would guess that the vast majority of players in those 3 games are really happy with the on-line experience. But, I would never even try to play Counterstrike on Live, because that game HAS to be full of 13 year old jackasses with nothing better to do than try to make the game suck for everyone else.
You must be an all-knowing AC.
How is it that you can assure us that "no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind?"
Who are you- Mel Gibson?
I think that putting in metal detectors would be ridiculous.
And if it weren't for the morons who feel the need to bring in a camcorder, we wouldn't even be discussing it.
And really- who enjoys watching shaky-cam copies of movies anyway? Geez...go spend the $8 and watch it on a big screen, with good sound!
Damn- you must live in my neighborhood.
My office is the same way- 2 computers running all the time (mine, and my wife's Mac, which disappoints me whenever it hibernates).
Doesn't it strike you as mildly ironic that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?
George Carlin
Strangely enough, it was called Rocky. Personally, I think that the Game Rankings score of 79% is a little too high.
To me, it sounds more like a Phantasy Star Online game.
Have you tried to copy a game CD lately?
Chances are it won't work.
Typically you need to have the orginal CD in the drive in order to play the game. Yes, you can get cracks- but Joe User doesn't want to hassle with the cracks, so it's easier just to cough up the $30-$40 for the game.
That is fairly effective copy protection. If you really did purchase the game, then other than having the CD in the drive, it doesn't provide much of a hassle. But, running a pirated version is beyond what most people are willing to do.
They defeat the casual pirate, without overly encumbering the rest of us.
But then again- just imagine if people didn't feel the need to steal things, just because they could. (Like music) They wouldn't need to copy protect games at all, and you could put away the CD's forever. But some people (in this thread) feel that stealing intellectual property isn't really stealing. So the creators of the IP need to protect it. You can thank them for those 20 digit codes, and un-necessarily switching CDs everytime you load up a new game.
EA has some good sports games, but Links 2004 kicks a lot of butt over Tiger Woods.
I hope that MS looks at their sports lineup title by title, not as a whole. There are a few good games there, and selling out the whole thing would be disappointing.
You don't want ads in your games- cool. Don't buy them- take that stance.
But, if you read the article, you would know that actually 52% of heavy games LIKE ads/products in the games. (I'm one of those people)
So, saying you don't like them is fine. But saying nobody else should, and people should think the same way you do, is a bit arrogant.
And like other people here- I really think they add to the realism in sports games. Because when the ads are not there, it just seems like something is missing. The ads are another little detail to make it more realistic.
Funny, but as I recall the main information on the business systems was data, not music and videos.
I think that really depends on what business you are in.
I'll launch Windows Media Player 5-10 times a day for work.
I might launch Excel, or even the calculator, once every 6 months or so.
Some people work in industries where music and videos ARE the business, and they ARE the data. And those businesses need DRM in order to make their business viable in the digital age.
Now if people actually paid for what they use, it would be a different story. But some people are under the impression that since they borrowed a CD from a friend, and copied that CD to their computer, it is now THEIR data. Without any regard to the effort and talent that went into creating the music. So the choice is- make it harder for these people to copy the data, or hope that they have a change of heart, and start to pay up.
I don't see a long line of people waiting to pay up...
The latency issue is really a non-issue for anyone with a decent connect. I just tried Gamespot, and my estimation is that flipping from page 1 of an article, to page 2 took less than 1 second. There are occasionally times where going from one page to another might take 1.5 seconds, but it seems pretty rare. I've got a decent DSL connection (1.2mb) but nothing spectacular. In fact, some of the stories in magazines have have huge latency issues- like 30 days or so.
As far as organization is concerned, if I am reading through the magazine, if I see an article for another game, I may have to dig through a few issues to find the review. On the web, I can just go to the 'reviews' section, and they are all right there.
I still like the magazines though, because I get to lie on my bed, and relax while I read it. And, I end up reading stuff I wouldn't read on the web- like reviews for games that don't even run on the console I have.
Magazines are still good- but I don't like them because of the lack of latency, and better organization...
Umm...I'm not sure why you think that because I spend money (on games, and eating out) it means that I do not give my daughter enough affection or love. Actually- I do know why...more on that later.
I spend TONS of time with my daughter. I am a very involved parent, and I support my daughter in a lot of things. I am very aware of what she is doing, and she knows I care- about her, and about what she is doing.
Obviously, to you, spending $250 on dinner is a lot. And spending the money on games is also a lot. Well, not everyone is in the same financial situation you are. I've got a great job. And, I don't just categorize 'great' as meaning I make a lot of money- but making good money, AND giving me plenty of time with my family. (40 hour work weeks only- I could make more if I was willing to do 60 hour weeks..but it ain't worth it)
I'm guessing that you are either too young to have a job (and your parents have crappy jobs) or you are in your early 20's and haven't gotten a decent paying job yet. So therefore, anyone who does make money must be a cold-hearted bastard who is willing to sell out his family in order to make a few extra bucks. Nope- the world doesn't have to work that way.
I'm posting this NOT because I am trying to defend myself. Hell, you don't know me, and I don't know you so it doesn't really matter. But I would like to point out that you CAN have a good life- make money, have a good family life, love your wife and kids, and do what you enjoy during your free time.
I'm also the same guy who posts all over Slashdot, trying to tell programmers that free software is NOT the way to get rich. Why would people give their work away? I don't understand it. But then again, if you are giving your work away, don't resent me because I have money to spend. I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision. Here- see one of my previous posts on the subject:
(And yes- even though you are an AC- I KNOW you support free software, free MP3s and stealing whatever you can from big business.)
Whoops...I should have added Prince of Persia to my list of 'recent games played'.
You are right- games generally are targeted toward men. Initially I was just reacting to your comments about slutty female characters. But there are plenty of games without slutty female characters (which you are in agreement).
The fact that there is a gender inequality is probably just the financial reality of the gaming market. Three people in my house play games- me, my wife, and my daughter. I've probably spent at least $1,200 in the past 12 months just on game software. (It is probably more than that, but I'd rather not acknowledge anything beyond $1,200). My wife and daughter have spent a combined total of 0 (zero) dollars on games.
It would never cross their minds to spend $50 on a game, when they could use that money to buy new shoes, or Cosmo magazine, or something like that. I'm not being sexist- that is just the reality. My daughter has an incredible sense of math when it comes to shoes. We went out for dinner, and the bill was about $250. My daughter was able to tell me how many pairs of pants, shoes, and shirts she could have bought with that money- in a matter of about 3 seconds. (Of course, knowing that it totals 5 video games came to my mind)
It's not that they don't like games that much- they do play them. It's just that it just isn't a priority for them. So financially, the game makers stand to make $1,200 a year if they target me, or get zilch if they target my wife and daughter- because they would never enter the video game store to purchase a game in the first place. Financially, it just makes sense to target me. (And the 15 year old boys who will someday grow up to be the 36 year old man who doesn't mind spending $1,200 a year on games.)
I buy a lot of games, and I don't believe that any of my games have 'slutty female characters'. Are you thinking of fantasy games?
Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...
Crimson Skies
Metal Arms
Splinter Cell
Project Gotham Racing (2)
Links
Top Spin
Amped
Everything or Nothing
Trivial Pursuit
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Dance Dance Revolution
Only 1 of them might portray women as 'slutty', and that is Everything or Nothing. But- that is a James Bond game- and that is just what you expect from James Bond.
One of the characters in Links has big boobs- but it's not a big deal. The rest of the games have nothing that would be considered an 'insult' to women.
My wife has a (male) character in Amped who snowboards with shorts, and no shirt. I'm not insulted, I think its funny- and at least she's playing the game with me.
But I don't know why games should be 'pointed toward women specifically'. Why not just play good games? Is a car racing game gender specific? Tennis? Golf? Trivial Pursuit? DDR?
There are 'girl oriented' games out there- and if I were a woman, I would find those extremely insulting. 'Cosmo Girl Makeup Party'? Have you ever seen 'Barbie Horse Adventure'? It's crap!
When we start to think that every segment of society needs to have games (media in general) directed toward them- we'll end up with a huge fragmentation of the gaming industry, everyone trying to target their specific audience with what they think they should be playing. In my opinion, if they create good games, the audience will come- no matter who they are.
Generally I agree with you...
I just picked up ' Everything or Nothing ', the new James Bond game from EA. I think that EA usually makes 'McGames', games that are technically fairly good, but don't have anything exciting to offer. Medal of Honor for the PC wasn't that great of a game- but since it never crashed on me, I ended up enjoying it.
But Everything or Nothing pretty much hits the James Bond nail on the head. You really do feel that it is a good extension of the movie series.
And as for voice talent, they use all of the real Bond voices, and some other big names.
Pierce Brosnan
Judi Dench
John Cleese
Willem Dafoe
Heidi Klum
Shannon Elizabeth (okay, that last two were not top tier..)
They did a really good job- its probably the most 'movie like' of any game I have played. Obviously huge money went into the game, and not many companies other than EA have that money.
As far as sound tracks go- once again, I agree. And I agree pretty much without exception. (Okay, Grand Theft Auto III was an exception) This is one reason that I really love my Xbox- customized soundtracks. When I first started playing Amped 2- I hated the music so much (Emo? Fricking EMO?) that I didn't like the game. When I finally switched out the music to my custom soundtracks, the game suddenly got good- and my scores got much better.
This week I will probably get 4 gaming sessions in. Each one lasting about 1.5 hours. This might seem like a lot, but I don't watch any television at all.
This past week, instead of gaming, I chose to:
So when I finally get time to play games, it feels like I am 'stealing' time from something else. I'm not a super-busy person, but as I get older, I find that my responsibilities take precedence over video games. Interestingly though, I did purchase two games this week, even though I probably have 3 or 4 others I am still working on.
Have you watched 'WE: Womens Entertainment' or 'Lifetime' or 'Soapnet' or 'Hallmark'?
All are aimed directly at women.
What about 'The View' or 'Oprah'?
No gratuitous cleavage there- any cleavage you do see is purely accidental, and VERY offensive to any guys who might be watching.
If you are complaining that you, as a woman, were alienated while watching a network that describes itself as 'the guys channel', you might be expecting too much.
Microsoft does make it possible to create new themes. People do create them, in fact there are thousands and thousands of them out there.
Actually, they give you 3 color schemes to choose from. Default (blue), Silver and Olive Green.
But of course you change the entire color scheme yourself, fairly easily. Just go to the desktop properties.
I used to think that Microsoft (Conxion) servers were some of the biggest/fattest on earth. At work (a University) I get a 4MB/sec (big 'B') connection to them whenever I download.
Amazingly, I have found something that is faster.
Gamespot- yes, Gamespot, downloads at almost 5MB/sec. This is with the 'Gamespot Complete' membership. It's really nice when downloading a 200+MB file takes less than a minute. And I *always* get that speed from them.
Makes me wonder where the bottleneck is though- I should look into that.
I've had the same opinion of open source/free software for a while. I've voiced it here a few times.
When programmers start giving away their time, and effort, it makes their time and effort worth less.
So if the programming community does not value itself enough to charge a good rate- then our business community can send our 'custom' jobs overseas, while getting the other stuff for free. Sounds like a good deal for businesses, and a crappy deal for programmers. Because in EVERY business, the final price of a product comes from PERCEIVED VALUE not the real cost of goods. So, by giving stuff away for the past few years, the percieved value of software has been going down.
I still go back to the analogy of plumbers. If I know that I can get someone to fix my plumbing for free- I will resist paying a regular plumber a few hundred bucks to come out. But as it is now, I know that I can expect to pay about $150 minimum to have some work done. And I'm happy to pay it.
Yes of course there is a difference, because plumbing cannot be outsourced to India. But when people run around shouting 'software should be free' and telling their bosses to use the 'free version' then the general feeling is that software *should* be free, or at least cheap.
I've never seen any other industry where there was such a push towards devaluing its own product. And then people get upset when the money flows somewhere else?
Rice paddies are usually very large, and they require a LOT of water and sun.
The sun part would do okay in a greenhouse, but the water would be difficult. And, building a structure that is large enough, without any type of support that would impede mechanical planting/harvesting would make this hugely expensive.
Option 1- buy some land, plant rice. Harvest.
Option 2 - but some land, build a huge building that has a crud-load of fresh water in it, maintain the building, and harvest.
Option 1 of course is cheaper.
I drive over rice paddies all the time, and the way they handle it now is pretty simple. They divert a river to flood out a few gazillion acres. They plant the rice, and the only other things I see happen are the occasional crop dusters and the harvesting. This seems to be a fairly low-maintenance crop. And I think that is one of the great benefits of rice- other than the water, it is very cheap to grow.
An even better explanation of the costs of rice farming can be found. But when the 'typical' farm is 700 acres, that would be a lot to cover. The Pentagon only has 34 acres of floor space. The Mall of America is only 92 acres total (stores/entertainment, etc)
700 Acres per farm is a LOT. Constructing a building that large would not be very cost-effective.