Do I have to be able to pass "Max 300" on heavy in order to be considered a competent DDR player?
Does it really matter? Personally, I don't care. I'll just play to have fun. I'll play the Maxes once in a while to burn out at the end, but I play mostly 8 and 7 footers.
The competition is the one thing I hate about DDR. "I AAAed LOM WITH A HUGE DUMP IN MY PANTS!" Good for you. If you consider spazzing out to PSM Oni "fun," then more power to ya.
But what other people think of your abilities shouldn't interfere with your fun.
Yup, same here. Playing Heavy is not only insane fun, but also a great leg workout.
Also, I've found that it's a decent ab/stomach workout. You're obviously not going to get a 6 pack from it, but I've found that the motions from quickly lifting your legs works out the stomach area some. Back when I started I used to get the tingly/pain post-workout feeling after playing.
I'd hate to see this in games where the music is the main feature (DDR, Amplitude, etc.). In DDR, 99% of the music they pick is actually really well suited for it. Thankfully not that much licensed American music has made it in.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Amplitude. I was pretty disappointed by the licensed crap that made it in compared to Frequency. Songs by bands like Slipknot, Blink 182, Pink, Papa Roach, and others make the Amplitude songlist really weak.
Maybe they'll take a hint when sales go downhill. Or would they go up because of the recognizable music that the mainstream will gobble up?
Wrong. I assumed that there will be many versions coming, as there are many different DDR mixes containing different songs. What gave you the idea that I wasn't informed about Japanese games?
So why did you disagree with the statement you quoted?
Our final genre is the music genre. While you may be thinking "Hey, we get some music games!" you'd be surprised (or not) by how much further is taken in Japan.
Maybe it's just me, but I really think that if Konami would actually release a few of those "obscure" Bemani games over here, like Pop'n Music, they'd be pleasantly surprised. Then again, they're content with cramming Castlevania after Castlevania down our collective throat, so...
I've imported a lot of those games, and I really don't think they'd do well here.
The learning curve on these games is insane- it's even harder than DDR. Because of the learning curve, these games would get shitty reviews. It doesn't do these games justice to review them in a week, or even in a month. A casual gamer just isn't going to pay ~$100 for a controller + the $50 for one game. Especially when they read not-so-favorable reviews and when it's going to take so long to learn. Most people aren't going to dedicate so much time (and money) to a Bemani game.
DDR is different from other Bemani. First of all, Konami did well by bundling the pad with the game in the U.S. Cheap 3rd party pads can be found everywhere, too. Other Bemani controllers are more expensive. Second, the music in every other Bemani game is "played" by the player. When a note comes up (or down) in another game, you have to hit it to play that note. Hence, when you suck at other Bemani games, the music sounds horrible, and it's not much fun. The music in DDR stays the same no matter how well you do. Third, DDR has the added novelty with its physical aspect. Because of this, it's pretty fun even when you're a beginner failing songs. And finally, all the imported DDR arcade machines have helped familiarize people with DDR. You won't find more than 10 of each machine I've mentioned above in the entire U.S., while there are easily thousands of DDR machines.
Maybe someday (after DDR gets really popular), but right now I don't think Bemani games would do well here in the U.S.
What the hell are saying? Karaoke Revolution was the FIRST game on TIME's game list thingy...
Thank you for proving Gamespy's point- you have no clue how much further the music game genre is taken in Japan.
You're using Karaoke Revolution's placement on one list as your counterpoint? Time magazine, for that matter. Not exactly what I would call a trusted source for video game reviews, or a good indicator of what's hot in the U.S.
Keeping with the Karaoke Revolution example, I bet you didn't know that there are TWELVE versions of Karaoke Revolution scheduled in Japan, with (I'm sure) many more coming? Or that another Japanese company beat Konami to the punch on Karaoke games, with 3 or 4 versions already?
Checking IGN's list of PS2 music games, I see only a handful that were developed in the U.S. Most of the big names started off in Japan, and they have a lot more versions to boot. DDR has 20 console versions in Japan, a whopping 5 in the U.S. Most of the arcade versions are supposed to be Japan-only.
Mad Maestro hasfourdifferentversions in Japan. The only (good) music game which is U.S. (and Europe) only is Frequency and its sequel, Amplitude.
And then there are games which won't ever see the light of day outside of Japan due to the expensive controllers that are required to play them, and also due to the insane learning curve. Most of these come from Konami's Bemani line. Games like Beatmania (5 keys and a turntable) and Beatmania IIDX (7 keys and a turntable), Keyboardmania (2 octave keyboard), Pop'n Music (9 round buttons), Guitar Freaks & Drummania (umm.. a guitar and a drum set). Non-Bemani games include Taiko no Tatsujin, Donkey Konga, Vib Ribbon (and Mojib Ribbon),
Try importing them sometime. They don't require knowledge of the Japanese language, they're a lot of fun, and well worth the money- I highly recommend them.
It makes me sad to see that all those game-developers tries to justify their desire to make good computer games by saying that they will trie to make the game "historical correct" or "with respect to the soldiers".
This is a good thing. I don't think that they're using these as excuses to justify their desire to make good computer games. If they didn't mention this at all, concerns would be brought up regarding historical accuracy and respect for the soldiers. It'd be wrong and disrespectful to make a historically inaccurate game, where you just go around shooting people randomly.
I see war-based video games as interactive historical documentaries, and the more historically accurate the better they are. And, the more people learn. Whether or not it's right to make learning about the horrors of the world fun, is an entirely different discussion. One that doesn't apply to just certain horrors (certain wars in this case), but to all.
Think about all those children that are struggling to bear the emotional burden of playing these games that in their search for historical correctness displays images that where not ment to be entertainment.
Like many people have said already, how is this different from WW2 videogames? Regarding your example of children playing games that display graphic images: That's why the ESRB video game rating system has been implemented. And like I said, whether or not video games (especially graphic ones) are or should just be for entertainment is a whole other topic.
And there are plenty of other successfull wars that could have been covered instead of the Vietnam War. Take for example the American -Mexican war; a great historical drama and a proud moment in our contry's history that too few know about. Game developers should not make games on wars that resulted in great american losses and humiliating withdrawal, such games might destroy the moral of the country to wage war in the future. Instead they should seek to make historical correct games based on true success stories.
I very strongly disagree with this point. Video games about war shouldn't be made just because we won that war. If we do that, it's censorship. The same way we have books and documentaries on U.S. losses*, we should have video games on them.
*I think there is censorship already to a certain extent. The way the media and the schools cover mostly U.S. Victories and play them up (and make the U.S. out to be the good guy all the time) is absurd. But I digress.
Just like every hobby, some people will take it more seriously than others. I could give a million examples of geeks in their respective hobbies- video games, Fantasy cosplaying, computers, programming, Britney Spears, TV shows (Simpsons geeks come to mind), movies, cars, Slashdot, science- anything. You name it- if people derive entertainment value from it, there will be some who are geekiers than others.
And it's a matter of difference of opinion whether someone's obsession is pathological. You think Joe Six-Pack around the office doesn't think his co-worker's obsession with computers is amusing?
I think what the guy did is pretty cool. There are too many options on flight plans in flight sims, and having someone else set it for you brings a challenge. Plus, he probably thought that people would derive some enjoyment/relaxation out of being on a fantasy flight.
There are a lot of reasons why people build such simulators, and none of these have to do with money. The main reason is freedom. With simulators, you have the freedom to do whatever you want without consequences.
- Freedom to fly from anywhere you want, instantly.
- Freedom to fly whatever plane you want.
- Freedom to disobey as many rules and laws as you want: FAA regulations, laws of physics, any international laws.
- Freedom to stop whenever you want, from the comfort of your own home. If you suddenly feel like stoppping and taking a nap, it's pretty hard to do that in a real plane.
- Location. Yes, real flying gets you somewhere. That's not exactly the main purpose for (most) pilots- the actual flight is. It would be a major inconvenience to end up halfway around the world if you just wanted to fly, and it wouldn't be much fun to just limit yourself to flying around your city/state.
- Freedom to fly whenever you want for as long as you want. No need to spend time going to the airport, setting up your flight with the airport or FAA (however that's done, I'm not sure). No need to go through too much hassle to fly.
- Safety. Make a mistake in a flight sim, no big deal. Make a mistake in real life...
- Partially, money. Sure, the initial investment might be bigger than when buying a plane, but the maintenance costs of a real plane would be bigger than a simulator. There's fuel, labor costs, mechanical costs, airport/FAA costs (if there are any, I'm not sure).
You own a Gamecube right? Just a shot in the dark../shrug I think everyone I have ever heard claim nintendo isn't kiddie was a fan of Gamecube. Nothing against gamecube, Eternal Darkness owned.
No, I don't own a Gamecube. I wasn't saying that they weren't kiddie, either. I was just pointing out the fact that the article used that as it's only argument as to why Nintendo won't win the console war. I hate it when people bring up this point in an argument, because they usually equate it with Nintendo's games not being fun.
So if I think the games are fun, and I don't mind that they're kiddie, why don't I own a GameCube? I simply don't have that much time to game anymore. Plus, the types of games that I like (weird music games) are all on PS2, so that's the console I own.
That's part of the reason why I think Sony is winning and will win this console war. To the average Joe Schmoe Casual Gamer (which I guess includes me now*), the sheer amount of games on the PS2 will ensure that there's something that they enjoy on PS2 (whether it's weird music games, or the latest fishing simulator, or basically any gaming genre that exists).
*I used to be a huge videogame fanatic, but my obsession has declined due to lack of time/money. I got a PS2 on launch day, and in the first two years of its life I owned about 50 games for it (and I enjoyed every single one of them). Compare that to the past year, where I've gotten 5 new games.
I've seen my fair share of console war debates on numerous gaming websites and gaming forums. I've seen more than my fair share of "Nintendo will lose the console war because they're kiddie!" and "Microsoft will win because they're Microsoft and they will buy everyone out!" arguments. And frankly, I'm sick of them.
This "article", and I use that term loosely, reads as bad as last months Stuff magazine - like a 9 year old boy who can use MSPaint and should be on Ritalin.
*/me reads the article*
Congratulations, you've offended 9 year old boys (who can use MSPaint and should be on Ritalin) everywhere.
I agree with both of you. I (can't believe I) read the whole thing, trying to find some humor in it, but to no avail.
The article blatantly ignores well-known facts (like sales numbers): "There is a feel of inevitable victory with the X-Box line, despite the fact that this version is still 40 million units behind the Playstation 2 in sales." Furthermore, the article doesn't bring up much else that would be relevant in the console wars (like profit and software sales numbers).
The article brings up stupid, childish stereotypes as the basis for its argument (Nintendo being kiddie)?
I see no reason why this "article" made it to the games section. But the front page, too?
This "article" isn't news, and it isn't informative. It doesn't bring up any good points regarding the console wars (an already touchy subject). Was this "article" was allowed to go through because it was humorous? Please. These overgeneralizations, playing out of stereotypes, and crude (and unfunny) humor in this biased piece of crap article are a waste of time. It's nothing that can't be found at any videogame message boards full of trolls with no real argument.
I'd say that this was written by a 12-year old, but I'd offend 12-year olds everywhere.
In other news, it was discovered that everyone looks like an idiot when they require the services of a domain expert. What's next, neurosurgeons complaining that patients don't know as much as them? Of course end users don't know much about tech - that's what they're paying support workers for! Just like drivers pay auto mechanics, and anyone who has a bathroom pays a plumber.
Just because someone doesn't happen to have some specialized piece of knowledge you have, that doesn't make them "not so bright". I know plenty of PhDs who are extremely competent in their fields, which aren't computing, who need to call helpdesks from time to time. You see, and this will sound harsh to a Slashbot, most people have better things to do than learn the minutae of their PCs.
How many drivers know what OS runs their engine control computer? Even tho' they spent their money buying the machine.
Apples, meet oranges.
It's not fair to compare computer knowledge/tech support to all the other examples you gave (plumbing, cars, brain surgery; or anything else, for that matter). There are a ton of reasons why it isn't fair to compare computers to other things (in terms of tech support).
- Sure, all those scenarios happen frequently. People with no knowledge in a particular field will need help with it, and seek the help of a professional. However, in all those cases that you mentioned, the clueless user gets a professional to fix it, hands on. People bring the car to a mechanic. People go to the hospital so the surgeon can perform the surgery. People call the plumber so he can come in and fix the pipes. In none of those circumstances would anyone even dream about calling someone up on the phone and being walked through the process.
- The complexity of computers. To me, there's so much more going on with computers than with most other things out there. If you call someone to get help, you better know some basic information about the computer. How are you going to be able to get help if you can't describe what type of computer you have and what seems to be wrong with it? This is compounded by the fact that every computer out there is different, and the fact that computers are so commonplace.
Using your car example, nobody needs to know what OS runs the engine control computer. They just send it to a mechanic, who does.
- The differences in computers. Every single computer out there is different. Sure a few of them start out the same, but as soon as someone purchases one they start changing stuff inside. That person installs new software, changes settings, moves stuff around, deletes things, etc.; i.e., normal use. It makes it that much harder to troubleshoot when something goes wrong. Cars (for example), on the other hand, get rolled off the assembly line, and almost never does the owner change any of the components in the car, either intentionally or through normal use.
No, I don't expect everyone to know everything about computers. But if you're a complete moron when it comes to computers, use common sense. Don't try to fix it yourself- you're just going to make it a lot worse (since you don't know anything about computers). And if you don't know what you're doing, get someone who does to fix the computer hands on. Don't expect someone to walk you through it over the phone, and don't complain when they fail or give you the wrong answer.
If people used common sense, the world would be a much better place (not just in the computer industry, either).
In university, I was an Enlgish major with a habit of studying other languages - specifically, French, Russian and Old Icelandic. Studying human languages, you quickly realize that there are many ways to express the same abstractions
Imagine you could automatically translate legalese, or marketing speak to plain english. Or translate an article with a given political bias towards another political bias.
I like the first two points you made; translating jargon would be extremely useful (though I'm more interested in the translation between different languages).
But how would it translate an article from one political bias to another? If you change the political bias, you change the underlying tone and meaning of the article.
Pentagon to Abandon 'Terror' Futures Market Plan
By KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2003; 11:48 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon will abandon a plan to establish a futures market to help predict terrorist strikes, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said he spoke by phone with the program's director, "and we mutually agreed that this thing should be stopped."
according to error reporting software in windows, 5% of all windows installations crash two or more times every day.
I interpret that as: "Out of all Windows computers with errors, 5% crash more than once. The other 95% crash once."
Think about it: if they're getting the sample from error reporting, that means that all of the computers in the sample crashed (had an error, whatever). It does not mean that 5% of every Windows computer in the world crashed more than once, it means that 5% of every Windows computer that crashed did so more than once. If it were the former, that's an obscenely high number.
That Bach experiment sounds really interesting. I hope you find the link.
I disagree with your comparison, though. There's a huge difference between music and poetry, and how both can be interpreted as art.
Appreciation for music ultimately comes down to evaluating the sound of the piece. How well it flows, how good it sounds, and what feelings it evokes when you hear those sounds.
Poetry, on the other hand, is a lot more complicated. It's also based on what feelings and thoughts it evokes when you hear/read it. But the main difference is that vocabulary is a lot more complex than music. It's a lot easier for a program to evaluate tons of music that has been composed already by a person and find patterns here and there and reproduce them. It's a lot harder to do that with any language out there. You can't just take random letters or words and put them together based on statistics that have been compiled. All of these words and sentences have meaning, with stuff like different connotations and drastically different interpretations based on the word order.
Even the guy who's writing this program/running this experiment admits that the results will probably suck:
it's true: breeding two poems won't necessarily produce a better poem. In fact, if either poem is any good to start with, it will probably produce a worse poem.
The problem with this poetry "experiment" isn't that it's being done by a computer. Rather, it's the process that's being used: random splicing in order to produce what'll ultimately be perceived as set of thoughts and an expression of feelings. If you had a human do the same thing (splice poems randomly, without looking at the meaning), the results will still suck.
The ability of humans to express themselves through words is something that computers will have a hard time matching.
Then again, it's poetry. Someone out there is going to find meaning in whatever the program spews out.
There's a difference between sharing and providing copyrighted content knowingly on a p2p network, where that's the sole purpose for most people, and downloading content off a website, where you don't knowingly infringe on copyrights, and where the only person who'll get in trouble for providing illegal content is the webmaster.
Isn't the RIAA suing people for sharing and uploading, and not for downloading?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it really matter? Personally, I don't care. I'll just play to have fun. I'll play the Maxes once in a while to burn out at the end, but I play mostly 8 and 7 footers.
The competition is the one thing I hate about DDR. "I AAAed LOM WITH A HUGE DUMP IN MY PANTS!" Good for you. If you consider spazzing out to PSM Oni "fun," then more power to ya.
But what other people think of your abilities shouldn't interfere with your fun.
Does that explain the blood...?
Yup, same here. Playing Heavy is not only insane fun, but also a great leg workout.
Also, I've found that it's a decent ab/stomach workout. You're obviously not going to get a 6 pack from it, but I've found that the motions from quickly lifting your legs works out the stomach area some. Back when I started I used to get the tingly/pain post-workout feeling after playing.
I'd hate to see this in games where the music is the main feature (DDR, Amplitude, etc.). In DDR, 99% of the music they pick is actually really well suited for it. Thankfully not that much licensed American music has made it in.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Amplitude. I was pretty disappointed by the licensed crap that made it in compared to Frequency. Songs by bands like Slipknot, Blink 182, Pink, Papa Roach, and others make the Amplitude songlist really weak.
Maybe they'll take a hint when sales go downhill. Or would they go up because of the recognizable music that the mainstream will gobble up?
You forgot the GTA London: 1969 expansion for GTA2.
2. Large or imposing, as in quantity, scope, degree, intensity, or scale:
I think they mean the size of the GTA world and the open-ended gameplay.
So why did you disagree with the statement you quoted?
The learning curve on these games is insane- it's even harder than DDR. Because of the learning curve, these games would get shitty reviews. It doesn't do these games justice to review them in a week, or even in a month. A casual gamer just isn't going to pay ~$100 for a controller + the $50 for one game. Especially when they read not-so-favorable reviews and when it's going to take so long to learn. Most people aren't going to dedicate so much time (and money) to a Bemani game.
DDR is different from other Bemani. First of all, Konami did well by bundling the pad with the game in the U.S. Cheap 3rd party pads can be found everywhere, too. Other Bemani controllers are more expensive. Second, the music in every other Bemani game is "played" by the player. When a note comes up (or down) in another game, you have to hit it to play that note. Hence, when you suck at other Bemani games, the music sounds horrible, and it's not much fun. The music in DDR stays the same no matter how well you do. Third, DDR has the added novelty with its physical aspect. Because of this, it's pretty fun even when you're a beginner failing songs. And finally, all the imported DDR arcade machines have helped familiarize people with DDR. You won't find more than 10 of each machine I've mentioned above in the entire U.S., while there are easily thousands of DDR machines.
Maybe someday (after DDR gets really popular), but right now I don't think Bemani games would do well here in the U.S.
Thank you for proving Gamespy's point- you have no clue how much further the music game genre is taken in Japan.
You're using Karaoke Revolution's placement on one list as your counterpoint? Time magazine, for that matter. Not exactly what I would call a trusted source for video game reviews, or a good indicator of what's hot in the U.S.
Keeping with the Karaoke Revolution example, I bet you didn't know that there are TWELVE versions of Karaoke Revolution scheduled in Japan, with (I'm sure) many more coming? Or that another Japanese company beat Konami to the punch on Karaoke games, with 3 or 4 versions already?
Checking IGN's list of PS2 music games, I see only a handful that were developed in the U.S. Most of the big names started off in Japan, and they have a lot more versions to boot. DDR has 20 console versions in Japan, a whopping 5 in the U.S. Most of the arcade versions are supposed to be Japan-only.
Mad Maestro has four different versions in Japan. The only (good) music game which is U.S. (and Europe) only is Frequency and its sequel, Amplitude.
And then there are games which won't ever see the light of day outside of Japan due to the expensive controllers that are required to play them, and also due to the insane learning curve. Most of these come from Konami's Bemani line. Games like Beatmania (5 keys and a turntable) and Beatmania IIDX (7 keys and a turntable), Keyboardmania (2 octave keyboard), Pop'n Music (9 round buttons), Guitar Freaks & Drummania (umm.. a guitar and a drum set). Non-Bemani games include Taiko no Tatsujin, Donkey Konga, Vib Ribbon (and Mojib Ribbon),
Here are some links to some nifty videos of a few of the games mentioned above. Watch them and tell me something like this would go over well in the U.S.
Beatmania IIDX 1
Beatmania IIDX 2
Drummania
Keyboardmania
Try importing them sometime. They don't require knowledge of the Japanese language, they're a lot of fun, and well worth the money- I highly recommend them.
My take: you gotta start somewhere.
This is a good thing. I don't think that they're using these as excuses to justify their desire to make good computer games. If they didn't mention this at all, concerns would be brought up regarding historical accuracy and respect for the soldiers. It'd be wrong and disrespectful to make a historically inaccurate game, where you just go around shooting people randomly.
I see war-based video games as interactive historical documentaries, and the more historically accurate the better they are. And, the more people learn. Whether or not it's right to make learning about the horrors of the world fun, is an entirely different discussion. One that doesn't apply to just certain horrors (certain wars in this case), but to all.
Like many people have said already, how is this different from WW2 videogames? Regarding your example of children playing games that display graphic images: That's why the ESRB video game rating system has been implemented. And like I said, whether or not video games (especially graphic ones) are or should just be for entertainment is a whole other topic.
I very strongly disagree with this point. Video games about war shouldn't be made just because we won that war. If we do that, it's censorship. The same way we have books and documentaries on U.S. losses*, we should have video games on them.
*I think there is censorship already to a certain extent. The way the media and the schools cover mostly U.S. Victories and play them up (and make the U.S. out to be the good guy all the time) is absurd. But I digress.
And it's a matter of difference of opinion whether someone's obsession is pathological. You think Joe Six-Pack around the office doesn't think his co-worker's obsession with computers is amusing?
I think what the guy did is pretty cool. There are too many options on flight plans in flight sims, and having someone else set it for you brings a challenge. Plus, he probably thought that people would derive some enjoyment/relaxation out of being on a fantasy flight.
- Freedom to fly from anywhere you want, instantly.
- Freedom to fly whatever plane you want.
- Freedom to disobey as many rules and laws as you want: FAA regulations, laws of physics, any international laws.
- Freedom to stop whenever you want, from the comfort of your own home. If you suddenly feel like stoppping and taking a nap, it's pretty hard to do that in a real plane.
- Location. Yes, real flying gets you somewhere. That's not exactly the main purpose for (most) pilots- the actual flight is. It would be a major inconvenience to end up halfway around the world if you just wanted to fly, and it wouldn't be much fun to just limit yourself to flying around your city/state.
- Freedom to fly whenever you want for as long as you want. No need to spend time going to the airport, setting up your flight with the airport or FAA (however that's done, I'm not sure). No need to go through too much hassle to fly.
- Safety. Make a mistake in a flight sim, no big deal. Make a mistake in real life...
- Partially, money. Sure, the initial investment might be bigger than when buying a plane, but the maintenance costs of a real plane would be bigger than a simulator. There's fuel, labor costs, mechanical costs, airport/FAA costs (if there are any, I'm not sure).
Oh yeah, IANAP. :)
No, I don't own a Gamecube. I wasn't saying that they weren't kiddie, either. I was just pointing out the fact that the article used that as it's only argument as to why Nintendo won't win the console war. I hate it when people bring up this point in an argument, because they usually equate it with Nintendo's games not being fun.
So if I think the games are fun, and I don't mind that they're kiddie, why don't I own a GameCube? I simply don't have that much time to game anymore. Plus, the types of games that I like (weird music games) are all on PS2, so that's the console I own.
That's part of the reason why I think Sony is winning and will win this console war. To the average Joe Schmoe Casual Gamer (which I guess includes me now*), the sheer amount of games on the PS2 will ensure that there's something that they enjoy on PS2 (whether it's weird music games, or the latest fishing simulator, or basically any gaming genre that exists).
*I used to be a huge videogame fanatic, but my obsession has declined due to lack of time/money. I got a PS2 on launch day, and in the first two years of its life I owned about 50 games for it (and I enjoyed every single one of them). Compare that to the past year, where I've gotten 5 new games.
I've seen my fair share of console war debates on numerous gaming websites and gaming forums. I've seen more than my fair share of "Nintendo will lose the console war because they're kiddie!" and "Microsoft will win because they're Microsoft and they will buy everyone out!" arguments. And frankly, I'm sick of them.
*/me reads the article*
Congratulations, you've offended 9 year old boys (who can use MSPaint and should be on Ritalin) everywhere.
The article blatantly ignores well-known facts (like sales numbers): "There is a feel of inevitable victory with the X-Box line, despite the fact that this version is still 40 million units behind the Playstation 2 in sales." Furthermore, the article doesn't bring up much else that would be relevant in the console wars (like profit and software sales numbers).
The article brings up stupid, childish stereotypes as the basis for its argument (Nintendo being kiddie)?
I see no reason why this "article" made it to the games section. But the front page, too?
This "article" isn't news, and it isn't informative. It doesn't bring up any good points regarding the console wars (an already touchy subject). Was this "article" was allowed to go through because it was humorous? Please. These overgeneralizations, playing out of stereotypes, and crude (and unfunny) humor in this biased piece of crap article are a waste of time. It's nothing that can't be found at any videogame message boards full of trolls with no real argument.
I'd say that this was written by a 12-year old, but I'd offend 12-year olds everywhere.
Translation: $398.99
It's not fair to compare computer knowledge/tech support to all the other examples you gave (plumbing, cars, brain surgery; or anything else, for that matter). There are a ton of reasons why it isn't fair to compare computers to other things (in terms of tech support).
- Sure, all those scenarios happen frequently. People with no knowledge in a particular field will need help with it, and seek the help of a professional. However, in all those cases that you mentioned, the clueless user gets a professional to fix it, hands on. People bring the car to a mechanic. People go to the hospital so the surgeon can perform the surgery. People call the plumber so he can come in and fix the pipes. In none of those circumstances would anyone even dream about calling someone up on the phone and being walked through the process.
- The complexity of computers. To me, there's so much more going on with computers than with most other things out there. If you call someone to get help, you better know some basic information about the computer. How are you going to be able to get help if you can't describe what type of computer you have and what seems to be wrong with it? This is compounded by the fact that every computer out there is different, and the fact that computers are so commonplace.
Using your car example, nobody needs to know what OS runs the engine control computer. They just send it to a mechanic, who does.
- The differences in computers. Every single computer out there is different. Sure a few of them start out the same, but as soon as someone purchases one they start changing stuff inside. That person installs new software, changes settings, moves stuff around, deletes things, etc.; i.e., normal use. It makes it that much harder to troubleshoot when something goes wrong. Cars (for example), on the other hand, get rolled off the assembly line, and almost never does the owner change any of the components in the car, either intentionally or through normal use.
No, I don't expect everyone to know everything about computers. But if you're a complete moron when it comes to computers, use common sense. Don't try to fix it yourself- you're just going to make it a lot worse (since you don't know anything about computers). And if you don't know what you're doing, get someone who does to fix the computer hands on. Don't expect someone to walk you through it over the phone, and don't complain when they fail or give you the wrong answer.
If people used common sense, the world would be a much better place (not just in the computer industry, either).
But how would it translate an article from one political bias to another? If you change the political bias, you change the underlying tone and meaning of the article.
Pentagon to Abandon 'Terror' Futures Market Plan
By KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2003; 11:48 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon will abandon a plan to establish a futures market to help predict terrorist strikes, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said he spoke by phone with the program's director, "and we mutually agreed that this thing should be stopped."
(more in the article)
according to error reporting software in windows, 5% of all windows installations crash two or more times every day.
I interpret that as: "Out of all Windows computers with errors, 5% crash more than once. The other 95% crash once."
Think about it: if they're getting the sample from error reporting, that means that all of the computers in the sample crashed (had an error, whatever). It does not mean that 5% of every Windows computer in the world crashed more than once, it means that 5% of every Windows computer that crashed did so more than once. If it were the former, that's an obscenely high number.
I disagree with your comparison, though. There's a huge difference between music and poetry, and how both can be interpreted as art.
Appreciation for music ultimately comes down to evaluating the sound of the piece. How well it flows, how good it sounds, and what feelings it evokes when you hear those sounds.
Poetry, on the other hand, is a lot more complicated. It's also based on what feelings and thoughts it evokes when you hear/read it. But the main difference is that vocabulary is a lot more complex than music. It's a lot easier for a program to evaluate tons of music that has been composed already by a person and find patterns here and there and reproduce them. It's a lot harder to do that with any language out there. You can't just take random letters or words and put them together based on statistics that have been compiled. All of these words and sentences have meaning, with stuff like different connotations and drastically different interpretations based on the word order.
Even the guy who's writing this program/running this experiment admits that the results will probably suck:
The problem with this poetry "experiment" isn't that it's being done by a computer. Rather, it's the process that's being used: random splicing in order to produce what'll ultimately be perceived as set of thoughts and an expression of feelings. If you had a human do the same thing (splice poems randomly, without looking at the meaning), the results will still suck.
The ability of humans to express themselves through words is something that computers will have a hard time matching.
Then again, it's poetry. Someone out there is going to find meaning in whatever the program spews out.
Isn't the RIAA suing people for sharing and uploading, and not for downloading?