It looks like the author of the server posted a Slashdot FAQ to answer questions posed here. Too bad it's not terribly informative and contains a lot of those generic "frequently asked questions" that no one would actually ever ask. Maybe it'll keep the Negative Nellies off his back though. Hint: He knows it's an extremely limited webserver.
It really just depends on the deal they have with the record label. I seem to recall Nirvana having the option of signing a deal where if they sold a ton of records they would make a ton of money but if they only did decent sales they would get very little money. Their other option was a safe deal where they would make a little money no matter how the record sold. They went with the former and fortunately became huge.
The actual point is that you can't really pick on one part of the contract and say that it shouldn't be that way. An artist who may have to cover promotion costs could be getting a larger number of "points" on album sales. Who knows. You have to know the terms of the whole contract.
I'm not defending the RIAA though, since the general consensus seems to be that when the scales are weighed the artist is taking it in the ass.
It's not that the movie will make the game boring or vice versa. It's that movie plots never work in games. And vice versa. What Starbreeze did right was completely ignore the movie and just make a good game where they created a plot specifically for a video game.
It is amusing to see a game go through some really convoluted contrivances just to get you to reenact a scene from a movie. Even if your means make no damn sense whatsoever in the context of the game.
And yet there's tons of terrible games out there. Bottom line is, if MS thinks Thief 3 will make money as is, they're gonna sell it. Besides, it's not MS's responsibility to find a bug like this. There's no way they can put the kind of playtesting into every game that the actual developer can put into it. It's obvious, though unfortunate, that this bug was simply overlooked. No rushing it out the door or anything. I'm sure this is a very easy bug to fix, Ion Storm just fucked up.
Ken Brown should try reading a book, perhaps Just For Fun. A lot of the unanswered questions that Ken Brown thinks he's raising with Linux are answered in the book. From the best of my recollection...
I see mentioned a few times that Linus wrote Linux from scratch with no programming experience, but from what I read he was basically raised a programmmer, sitting on his grandpa's lap at his computer as a young boy, watching him program. He started off programming in Assembly I believe, not C.
Also, Linus claims in the book that Linux started off as a terminal program to read his university email. He began adding various other portions of code to suit his computing needs or rewriting code that he thought could use an improvement (like the disk drivers) and then later on decided to turn them into a complete operating system.
As far as Linux being based off Minix, Linus had very fundamental disagreements with AST about how operating systems should function, even though Linus had learned a lot about how operating systems work from AST's famous book. Linus used a monolithic kernel architecture for Linux while Minix uses a microkernel architecture. It's already been proven that Linux doesn't contain code from Minix anyway, so no point in going on about it.
So this is all Linus' side of the story, but it just seems unlikely that Linus crafted this whole facade some time ago in preparation for something like this. I also think it would probably be worthwhile to include the book in Brown's research on the history of Linux, since the book is about the history of Linux. Brown just seems to have completely ignored it and drawn his own conclusions.
And to anyone who hasn't read Linus' book yet, I do recommend it. I found it fascinating and I don't even use Linux.
That's when you hold down shift. I think it's a bit dangerous to toggle walk, because when you accidentally walk into a big group of enemies, you're gonna panic and try to run away... very slowly. It should be an active process.
There's two separate Ion Storm development studios. Well, there were anyway. Romero headed the crappy Dallas studio while Spector is/was at the Austin studio, which actually made some awesome games. They're more or less separate entities.
These PC-only people, PC gamers to be more specific, already have PCs. Since they're gamers, they're probably high end. Why do they need this instead of a standalone system?
I know the XBox Next is supposed to be more powerful than any personal computer, but they say that every time next gen consoles come out based on their highly theoretical benchmark speeds, which equate to about 1/5 the power in the real world. Sorry about that runon. I just don't see the loss leading math working out for a system that's more powerful than a PC and yet will probably sell standalone around 250-300.
But I could be wrong.
Except that each computer would probably render a random frame each time to make it more difficult to piece together any kind of preview movie. It might be a little excessive to credit people for exactly what they rendered since you'd have to credit each frame.
Only if Nintendo decides to use its friggin' head for once and put some X and Y buttons on there. You can strafe with L and R but all we have for action buttons are A and B, which would cover Attack1 and Use. What about reloading and changing weapons? At least Goldeneye had some auto-aiming or you'd need dual, uh... pads.
Don't get me wrong. It would definitely kick much ass, just not with the current DS spec. Damn it Nintendo. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.
It really isn't fair to compare backwards compatibility between consoles and portables. Backwards compatibility's importance on portables is far greater than consoles. You don't have to lug consoles around. Portables, however, are designed to be just that, and carrying around additional portables will probably remove all the conveniences that a portable is supposed to afford in the first place.
Backwards compatibility on a console isn't a selling point, but when you have a ghetto ass setup with six different consoles that require pressing 3 different buttons on 3 different remotes or switches, having one less console is definitely helpful. Plus the clutter factor. Top-loading consoles don't really integrate with entertainment centers anyways.
Definitely a valid question, but it's still just begging for a stock answer. I mean, you already know what the answer will be, whether it's legitimate or not, so why bother to ask the question? I really doubt that Alaa Abd El Fatah is going to say that the installfest hasn't accomplished anything.
I'd say a decent chunk of my TV time is spent watching G4. That said, I still think it's a pretty lousy network. But it has the advantage of being the only thing like it out there and catering to a group that consists of a lot of hardcore fans, like myself.
The production values are nonexistant, which I guess is acceptable since they need to get an audience to put more into the production, but the content is scarce as well. Unfunny machinima, redundant top ten lists, a show called Cheat! that features practically no cheats, just basic advice on how to play the game that could be culled from the instruction manual, and Arena where two teams play eachother in Mechwarrior and UT2004, every freakin' time. Get some new games. And celebrities play games too? Wow, I never knew.
Most of the hosts are just awful. Matt Gallant is perhaps Satan himself. Tommy Tallarico is like a little pipsqueak with Tourette's, running around yelling opinions that don't make sense. Arena is hosted by a fratboy and a meathead. They have maybe a couple decent hosts, but most of them don't seem to know jack about games.
So yeah, it makes sense that gamers aren't watching these programs. It's because they suck! Hell, I mostly watch it because I'm stoned and I like to mock the hosts and talk to my roommate about whatever topic is on the show, ignoring the actual show. I would hate to see it disappear (or merge with TechTV), but until the quality of the programming is improved, gamers are going to stay away. The only way to really know if the market can withstand a gaming network is to actually have some good shows. I wish G4 would dump one of their pointless shows and give me a show.
Quote from the news blurb (or blurb from the news quote):
"I just haven't heard anything new I'd like to buy...
I always hear this argument every time some music sales statistics surface and sales are down again, and it always comes from the P2P zealots.
I thought the whole point of P2P was to put the power to the people. It gives us the power to listen to any music we haven't paid for (yet), and not let Clear Channel and MTV dictate what we should hear. We have practically any music available in the world in the world at our fingertips, and there's nothing out there?
The "anything new" part is what really shows the weakness of this response to poor music sales. Why do you have to buy new music? Whatever music you haven't heard is new to you. And it's not like mainstream music now is any worse than before, and there's always good indie/underground stuff coming out.
There's so much more out there. And that seems pretty obvious, but if it was then this "there's nothing new that's good" stance wouldn't keep coming up. If you think there's nothing good out to give you a reason to buy a CD, I pity you.
p.s. This isn't directed to parent. I just thought it was sort of related and didn't want to make a new thread.
Aren't most viruses propagated via files attached to emails which ignorant people download because they don't know any better?
So we are to assume that just because people upgrade to broadband they are to read their email faster, or more often? I highly doubt the latter, and the former, while probably true, is a negligible difference, since we're merely downloading text (for the actual email anyway).
So how exactly does broadband increase the proliferation of virii?
What I'd like to know is will the recent acceptance by such reputable companies open the possibility that all companies will use our bandwidth to distribute their final product for them?
Why should I have to offset the bandwidth costs of these companies just to play their game? I would expect some kind of incentive, for example giving me the option to download the game directly from their servers or download via BT and they slash a few dollars off the price.
If the download is free, great, I won't complain. But with talk about Valve hiring the creator of BT (likely for Steam integration), it seems that BT is being steered towards capitalist purposes. I see little benefit for us, the consumers, to download via BT as opposed to the company's servers unless there is some compensation.
My girlfriend blames Mozilla for making the internet slow because she's used to AOL compressing graphics into muddy hell.
I tried to explain... Lord how I tried...
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like the author of the server posted a Slashdot FAQ to answer questions posed here. Too bad it's not terribly informative and contains a lot of those generic "frequently asked questions" that no one would actually ever ask. Maybe it'll keep the Negative Nellies off his back though. Hint: He knows it's an extremely limited webserver.
It really just depends on the deal they have with the record label. I seem to recall Nirvana having the option of signing a deal where if they sold a ton of records they would make a ton of money but if they only did decent sales they would get very little money. Their other option was a safe deal where they would make a little money no matter how the record sold. They went with the former and fortunately became huge.
The actual point is that you can't really pick on one part of the contract and say that it shouldn't be that way. An artist who may have to cover promotion costs could be getting a larger number of "points" on album sales. Who knows. You have to know the terms of the whole contract.
I'm not defending the RIAA though, since the general consensus seems to be that when the scales are weighed the artist is taking it in the ass.
It's not that the movie will make the game boring or vice versa. It's that movie plots never work in games. And vice versa. What Starbreeze did right was completely ignore the movie and just make a good game where they created a plot specifically for a video game.
It is amusing to see a game go through some really convoluted contrivances just to get you to reenact a scene from a movie. Even if your means make no damn sense whatsoever in the context of the game.
Or you could just buy a Game Genie? If you're going to cheat your way through FF6/3 you're insane and you're just wasting 70 hours of your life.
And yet there's tons of terrible games out there. Bottom line is, if MS thinks Thief 3 will make money as is, they're gonna sell it. Besides, it's not MS's responsibility to find a bug like this. There's no way they can put the kind of playtesting into every game that the actual developer can put into it. It's obvious, though unfortunate, that this bug was simply overlooked. No rushing it out the door or anything. I'm sure this is a very easy bug to fix, Ion Storm just fucked up.
Ken Brown should try reading a book, perhaps Just For Fun. A lot of the unanswered questions that Ken Brown thinks he's raising with Linux are answered in the book. From the best of my recollection...
I see mentioned a few times that Linus wrote Linux from scratch with no programming experience, but from what I read he was basically raised a programmmer, sitting on his grandpa's lap at his computer as a young boy, watching him program. He started off programming in Assembly I believe, not C.
Also, Linus claims in the book that Linux started off as a terminal program to read his university email. He began adding various other portions of code to suit his computing needs or rewriting code that he thought could use an improvement (like the disk drivers) and then later on decided to turn them into a complete operating system.
As far as Linux being based off Minix, Linus had very fundamental disagreements with AST about how operating systems should function, even though Linus had learned a lot about how operating systems work from AST's famous book. Linus used a monolithic kernel architecture for Linux while Minix uses a microkernel architecture. It's already been proven that Linux doesn't contain code from Minix anyway, so no point in going on about it.
So this is all Linus' side of the story, but it just seems unlikely that Linus crafted this whole facade some time ago in preparation for something like this. I also think it would probably be worthwhile to include the book in Brown's research on the history of Linux, since the book is about the history of Linux. Brown just seems to have completely ignored it and drawn his own conclusions.
And to anyone who hasn't read Linus' book yet, I do recommend it. I found it fascinating and I don't even use Linux.
That's when you hold down shift. I think it's a bit dangerous to toggle walk, because when you accidentally walk into a big group of enemies, you're gonna panic and try to run away... very slowly. It should be an active process.
There's two separate Ion Storm development studios. Well, there were anyway. Romero headed the crappy Dallas studio while Spector is/was at the Austin studio, which actually made some awesome games. They're more or less separate entities.
These PC-only people, PC gamers to be more specific, already have PCs. Since they're gamers, they're probably high end. Why do they need this instead of a standalone system? I know the XBox Next is supposed to be more powerful than any personal computer, but they say that every time next gen consoles come out based on their highly theoretical benchmark speeds, which equate to about 1/5 the power in the real world. Sorry about that runon. I just don't see the loss leading math working out for a system that's more powerful than a PC and yet will probably sell standalone around 250-300. But I could be wrong.
Except that each computer would probably render a random frame each time to make it more difficult to piece together any kind of preview movie. It might be a little excessive to credit people for exactly what they rendered since you'd have to credit each frame.
Something like this?
Only if Nintendo decides to use its friggin' head for once and put some X and Y buttons on there. You can strafe with L and R but all we have for action buttons are A and B, which would cover Attack1 and Use. What about reloading and changing weapons? At least Goldeneye had some auto-aiming or you'd need dual, uh... pads. Don't get me wrong. It would definitely kick much ass, just not with the current DS spec. Damn it Nintendo. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.
You have a tough time finding a game without nudity that's fun for you?
Kidding aside, what major games that didn't suck had nudity in them? I have no idea but you probably count them on less than one hand.
It really isn't fair to compare backwards compatibility between consoles and portables. Backwards compatibility's importance on portables is far greater than consoles. You don't have to lug consoles around. Portables, however, are designed to be just that, and carrying around additional portables will probably remove all the conveniences that a portable is supposed to afford in the first place. Backwards compatibility on a console isn't a selling point, but when you have a ghetto ass setup with six different consoles that require pressing 3 different buttons on 3 different remotes or switches, having one less console is definitely helpful. Plus the clutter factor. Top-loading consoles don't really integrate with entertainment centers anyways.
Definitely a valid question, but it's still just begging for a stock answer. I mean, you already know what the answer will be, whether it's legitimate or not, so why bother to ask the question? I really doubt that Alaa Abd El Fatah is going to say that the installfest hasn't accomplished anything.
should read:
i'm not complaining, i was merely pointing the fact that it was "more or less" a dupe
stupid mods, what exactly is flamebait about my post?
ah the effort of this irrelevant comment
i'm not complaining, i was merely pointing the fact that it was "more or less" a dupe stupid mods, what exactly is flamebait about my post?
check it bleed
I'd say a decent chunk of my TV time is spent watching G4. That said, I still think it's a pretty lousy network. But it has the advantage of being the only thing like it out there and catering to a group that consists of a lot of hardcore fans, like myself.
The production values are nonexistant, which I guess is acceptable since they need to get an audience to put more into the production, but the content is scarce as well. Unfunny machinima, redundant top ten lists, a show called Cheat! that features practically no cheats, just basic advice on how to play the game that could be culled from the instruction manual, and Arena where two teams play eachother in Mechwarrior and UT2004, every freakin' time. Get some new games. And celebrities play games too? Wow, I never knew.
Most of the hosts are just awful. Matt Gallant is perhaps Satan himself. Tommy Tallarico is like a little pipsqueak with Tourette's, running around yelling opinions that don't make sense. Arena is hosted by a fratboy and a meathead. They have maybe a couple decent hosts, but most of them don't seem to know jack about games.
So yeah, it makes sense that gamers aren't watching these programs. It's because they suck! Hell, I mostly watch it because I'm stoned and I like to mock the hosts and talk to my roommate about whatever topic is on the show, ignoring the actual show. I would hate to see it disappear (or merge with TechTV), but until the quality of the programming is improved, gamers are going to stay away. The only way to really know if the market can withstand a gaming network is to actually have some good shows. I wish G4 would dump one of their pointless shows and give me a show.
Quote from the news blurb (or blurb from the news quote):
"I just haven't heard anything new I'd like to buy...
I always hear this argument every time some music sales statistics surface and sales are down again, and it always comes from the P2P zealots.
I thought the whole point of P2P was to put the power to the people. It gives us the power to listen to any music we haven't paid for (yet), and not let Clear Channel and MTV dictate what we should hear. We have practically any music available in the world in the world at our fingertips, and there's nothing out there?
The "anything new" part is what really shows the weakness of this response to poor music sales. Why do you have to buy new music? Whatever music you haven't heard is new to you. And it's not like mainstream music now is any worse than before, and there's always good indie/underground stuff coming out.
There's so much more out there. And that seems pretty obvious, but if it was then this "there's nothing new that's good" stance wouldn't keep coming up. If you think there's nothing good out to give you a reason to buy a CD, I pity you.
p.s. This isn't directed to parent. I just thought it was sort of related and didn't want to make a new thread.
Aren't most viruses propagated via files attached to emails which ignorant people download because they don't know any better? So we are to assume that just because people upgrade to broadband they are to read their email faster, or more often? I highly doubt the latter, and the former, while probably true, is a negligible difference, since we're merely downloading text (for the actual email anyway). So how exactly does broadband increase the proliferation of virii?
What I'd like to know is will the recent acceptance by such reputable companies open the possibility that all companies will use our bandwidth to distribute their final product for them? Why should I have to offset the bandwidth costs of these companies just to play their game? I would expect some kind of incentive, for example giving me the option to download the game directly from their servers or download via BT and they slash a few dollars off the price. If the download is free, great, I won't complain. But with talk about Valve hiring the creator of BT (likely for Steam integration), it seems that BT is being steered towards capitalist purposes. I see little benefit for us, the consumers, to download via BT as opposed to the company's servers unless there is some compensation.
Plus the name is misleading. It's like having a law against murder called the CAN-KILL Act.
My girlfriend blames Mozilla for making the internet slow because she's used to AOL compressing graphics into muddy hell. I tried to explain... Lord how I tried...