From day 1 Will Wright has been saying that the content would be user generated, it's kind of the point of the whole 'procedural world' game play. Whenever people connect to the Internet with the game it will pull creatures that fit into your environment from a database of created creatures.
So where you see a conspiracy theory, I see a chance to mess around with the editor before the game comes out and for my creations to be some of the early creatures that are populated across the network.
Who wants to play with the editor? Me and people like me who really enjoy the creation half of video game play. We're the same people who spent hours customizing CJ in GTA:SA despite that fact that no one but us would ever see him.
We're not all of the players, to be sure. But we're enough of the players that this is probably a really great business move. EA gets more cash and I get something I want.
He's the classic Ebenezer Scrooge. He's made so much money that he doesn't know how to spend it or really have the inclination to spend it. It's a sort of waste really. WHAT
Re:trips up more companies than you'd think
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 1
I think you're missing the bigger implication. What if the person writing the article was the same anonymous person editing Wikipedia? I assume that is the case here.
There is absolutely no way Wikipedia can "defend" against abuse like that. Erm, they did defend against it.
This is the biggest problem with any critical attack on Wikipedia - it's self healing! If bad information gets in there and the fact that it's in there is publicized, people simply edit it out!
It's not some secret Wiki Cabal that is somehow misleading people into thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's the goddamn mission. You can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not Wikipedia is doing well to meet that mission but you can't possibly argue that the "free content encyclopedia" project should stop calling itself an encyclopedia.
You are right about one point though, it's true that in many ways the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are not comparable. For example, the Sacha Baron Cohen article on Wikipedia had some faulty information about his employment history for awhile. On the other hand, the Sacha Baron Cohen article in the Encyclopedia Britannica DOESN'T EXIST.
Luckily for society, neither I nor many others work by your rules. What would make a great t-shirt slogan. The best part is that people of all political stripes would think that it applied to them and buy it. You'd have to make different fonts for the different groups though. Distressed font for teens and anarchists, wavy flag stripes n stars for Republicans and action movie heroes.
There are a handful of different popular vehicle fuels.
There are thousands of different licenses. Maybe that's the issue? Maybe we'd do well to standardize the licenses a little more?
At some point, we're going to realize that the transaction cost of having to navigate all these complex and nuanced licenses probably outweighs the benefits of being able to carefully customize the clauses of your particular agreement
It's no accident that there are only a handful of popular vehicle fuels. People had to get together (directly or indirectly via the marketplace) and come to consensus on what would go in gas. Engineering standards don't come about because they are the one true way to engineer interfaces, computer ports or fuel chemistry. They come about because compromising on the details allows everyone involved to get more (important stuff) done.
It can happen in the law as well. If you're involved in business negotiations, once you've seen one MNDA, you've pretty much seen them all. They may not be perfect, but the ability to just glance over and sign and get on with the deal-making instead of running everything past legal every time you want to talk to someone new is a huge boon.
The alternative is the status quo of software which is that no one can be bothered to even read, let alone follow most of these agreements. Very few of us are willing to hire a lawyer every time we download a new demo.
Tony Stark is a closed source old school military industrial complex type. The new enemy is a diffuse open source agile terrorist type. Tony Stark finds that he and his closed source ways are having trouble keeping up with the open source stylings of his enemy.
P.S. It has NOTHING to do with the movie. Take off the tinfoil, this is an article about the new story arc in the comic book and is not part of a MIAA plot to take away your Linux.
Hilarious. I can't believe that I had to read/scroll past 2/3 of the page of people proclaiming "LINUX ISN'T EVIL THIS GUY IS A M$/SCO/BUSH/CIA SHILL" before I got to someone who'd RTFA.
Guys, this is a story about Tony Stark's insane closed source mentality (remember that in the Armour Wars he travelled around the world attacking and even killing everyone in an armoured suit that MIGHT have had some of his technology, including some fellow good guys) and the limitations it faces against a diffused and amorphous enemy that consists of dozens of groups sharing information and whatnot.
From TFA "No matter how high tech or evolved, even with Extremis, the Iron Man armor is still a guy in a suit," Fraction stated. "If you get between the man and the suit you can undo it. So Stane doesn't need a suit. That's the difference. That's what we start to see, the future of Iron Man is that there's no gap between Iron and Man. It's one being and Stane is quite literally evolving himself and people who pay him as we see in the book's opening."
This is actually the first Iron Man story that I'm looking forwards to in awhile. It looks like it might be an interesting and nuanced look at the fight for the future of technology.
If you guys could get off your "Open Source == good" mentality and dial it back to "Open Source == better way to get things done" then you might be able to see how even terrorists could benefit from the wisdom of crowds. And once you can see that, there are all these really interesting possibilities for where the story could go.
Old idea, old news... This has been discussed (or at least I've already known it and teach others) not to trust Wiki. I directly link and relate it to the COI, or COST OF INFORMATION. If I have to PAY for information like a journal or subscription, I will hold the people accountable because of that premium. But Wiki is "FREE" so if I read something wrong, I laugh and keep going... Better yet, if I read something wrong on wikipedia, I can CORRECT it and keep going.
Hey, don't worry, ever since jocks taught us that computers were for social outcasts and our parents kept telling us to "get outside and get some sun", everyone's just sort of internalized the message. Years after computers and the Internet became near ubiquitous in developed countries, nerds still cling to the fantasy that it's still just for us weirdos and we try to keep that true by making nervous jokes about how all these things are for geeks and outcasts.
There may be groups of people who are spending less time face to face than they would have years ago, but for most of us the social networking apps that Flock connects us to aren't replacements for face time, they are enhancements.
We use Facebook, twitter, IM and blogs to publicize upcoming events and we use Facebook, Flickr and blogs to document events that happened. The glue that makes these worthwhile is the time spent actually together having good times.
Nobody viewing normal websites keeps their pipe in constant use
"Normal" changes daily. Yes!
I'm really surprised at the number of people who's attitude seems to be that consumers should use the service in the way that the producer guessed they'd use it instead of they way they advertised it could be used.
It's not as if this demand for more bandwidth couldn't have been predicted. Everything else in the computer world is growing more or less exponentially, why wouldn't we expect bandwidth demands to grow at a similar rate? I mean, the communications hardware (remember 14.4k?) consumers have access to has been rapidly growing in power, who on earth wouldn't we expect consumers and content creators to find ways of exploiting that power?
Napster and Bittorrent are not a recent innovation and it's not as if analysts haven't been predicting on demand HD TV and digital distribution of everything (including cheese graters) since, oh the first bubble.
Much as the Internet moved from place to send text email and visit usenet and gopher sites to a place where graphical WWW viewing was the main thing to do, we're seeing another shift where high data, rich media and WWW as application platform is happening. Of course this will take more bandwidth than viewing my site about cats.
On which lines did the service providers think that all of this data would travel?
If I'm right about this, then the ISPs are in a much worse position than they seem to realize. If they are struggling to provide adequate service now, then how on earth are they going to futureproof themselves against usage demands that we can expect to double every year or two?
Seriously, that's your argument? "Maybe I don't want to use the Internet?" Good luck with that.
We are rapidly getting to the point in the developed world that Internet access is as important as telephone access, it not more so. Reliable 'net access is more and more becoming like electricity and roads - a basic service.
If people are using beer (i.e. ethanol) to get a drug high, they're going to pay whatever the price is. You don't see too many addicts quitting due to cost.
Economists have found some evidence to support these ideas: Pamela Mobilia finds that betting at racetracks falls in anticipation of increases in bookies' takings; Nilss Olekalns and Peter Bardsley find that coffee addicts show similar foresight; Philip Cook and George Tauchen found that when some U.S. counties raised taxes on alcohol, liver cirrhosis fell more sharply than overall consumption, suggesting that it was the alcoholics who cut back most.
I heard you can buy a two bedroom rancher on its earth-like planets for only $15000. Of course, the commute is killer. Listen, I'll sell you one right now for only $4999. Act fast! The long term returns on this real estate investment are ASTRONOMICAL.
The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.
WHAT
I thought that Linux fans were also the DIY folks. Saying to people making games "Oh I guess you should start working only on proprietary systems that require either fees or homebrew cracks to get them to work" is madness!
The reason there is a vibrant indie gaming scene is the relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform. Sure if Linux can take over and become the default OS, the indie scene might move over there, but suggesting that in the meantime people should limit their gaming consumption exclusively to proprietary gaming systems is really stupid and counterproductive.
Here at/. we find it hard to admit to ourselves that the average person sucks THAT much.
I don't know which slashdot you've been reading but the one I've been reading is full of people who can't stop falling over themselves to make jokes about how all the people here are supergeniuses readers who could never fit in socially with the mainstream dumb jocks and whatnot.
It's a false dichotomy. The fact that I'm up on Paris Hilton's latest fashion doesn't prevent me from also having a subscription to the Economist. The fact that he liked American Football if anything HELPED Hunter S. Thompson become the leading light of a revolutionary new kind of journalism.
And your game of telephone analogy doesn't work. The brilliant thing about the Internet is that when I pass on a story to a friend I literally pass a pointer to that story. Everyone along the chain gets a link back to the same content, there is no degradation of signal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're something.
From day 1 Will Wright has been saying that the content would be user generated, it's kind of the point of the whole 'procedural world' game play. Whenever people connect to the Internet with the game it will pull creatures that fit into your environment from a database of created creatures.
So where you see a conspiracy theory, I see a chance to mess around with the editor before the game comes out and for my creations to be some of the early creatures that are populated across the network.
Who wants to play with the editor? Me and people like me who really enjoy the creation half of video game play. We're the same people who spent hours customizing CJ in GTA:SA despite that fact that no one but us would ever see him.
We're not all of the players, to be sure. But we're enough of the players that this is probably a really great business move. EA gets more cash and I get something I want.
No arguments here!
*type type type* *submit*
It does now!
Turns out they are being sued.
http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/1997-July/080537.html
There is absolutely no way Wikipedia can "defend" against abuse like that. Erm, they did defend against it.
This is the biggest problem with any critical attack on Wikipedia - it's self healing! If bad information gets in there and the fact that it's in there is publicized, people simply edit it out!
Good lord, I sound like a Wiki zealot now.
You got modded insightful for this?
It's not some secret Wiki Cabal that is somehow misleading people into thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's the goddamn mission. You can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not Wikipedia is doing well to meet that mission but you can't possibly argue that the "free content encyclopedia" project should stop calling itself an encyclopedia.
You are right about one point though, it's true that in many ways the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are not comparable. For example, the Sacha Baron Cohen article on Wikipedia had some faulty information about his employment history for awhile. On the other hand, the Sacha Baron Cohen article in the Encyclopedia Britannica DOESN'T EXIST.
Not a coincidence. When my status went to "engaged" suddenly every second stupid ad was about wedding photography services in my home city.
I'm about to get myself thoroughly modded -1 Offtopic but this is the coolest craziest thing I've read all day.
I *love* that there is a secret underground network of grandmothers sharing embroidery patterns on the Internet.
There are thousands of different licenses. Maybe that's the issue? Maybe we'd do well to standardize the licenses a little more?
At some point, we're going to realize that the transaction cost of having to navigate all these complex and nuanced licenses probably outweighs the benefits of being able to carefully customize the clauses of your particular agreement
It's no accident that there are only a handful of popular vehicle fuels. People had to get together (directly or indirectly via the marketplace) and come to consensus on what would go in gas. Engineering standards don't come about because they are the one true way to engineer interfaces, computer ports or fuel chemistry. They come about because compromising on the details allows everyone involved to get more (important stuff) done.
It can happen in the law as well. If you're involved in business negotiations, once you've seen one MNDA, you've pretty much seen them all. They may not be perfect, but the ability to just glance over and sign and get on with the deal-making instead of running everything past legal every time you want to talk to someone new is a huge boon.
The alternative is the status quo of software which is that no one can be bothered to even read, let alone follow most of these agreements. Very few of us are willing to hire a lawyer every time we download a new demo.
In the article it's used as an ANALOGY.
Tony Stark is a closed source old school military industrial complex type. The new enemy is a diffuse open source agile terrorist type. Tony Stark finds that he and his closed source ways are having trouble keeping up with the open source stylings of his enemy.
P.S. It has NOTHING to do with the movie. Take off the tinfoil, this is an article about the new story arc in the comic book and is not part of a MIAA plot to take away your Linux.
Hilarious. I can't believe that I had to read/scroll past 2/3 of the page of people proclaiming "LINUX ISN'T EVIL THIS GUY IS A M$/SCO/BUSH/CIA SHILL" before I got to someone who'd RTFA.
Guys, this is a story about Tony Stark's insane closed source mentality (remember that in the Armour Wars he travelled around the world attacking and even killing everyone in an armoured suit that MIGHT have had some of his technology, including some fellow good guys) and the limitations it faces against a diffused and amorphous enemy that consists of dozens of groups sharing information and whatnot.
From TFA "No matter how high tech or evolved, even with Extremis, the Iron Man armor is still a guy in a suit," Fraction stated. "If you get between the man and the suit you can undo it. So Stane doesn't need a suit. That's the difference. That's what we start to see, the future of Iron Man is that there's no gap between Iron and Man. It's one being and Stane is quite literally evolving himself and people who pay him as we see in the book's opening."
This is actually the first Iron Man story that I'm looking forwards to in awhile. It looks like it might be an interesting and nuanced look at the fight for the future of technology.
If you guys could get off your "Open Source == good" mentality and dial it back to "Open Source == better way to get things done" then you might be able to see how even terrorists could benefit from the wisdom of crowds. And once you can see that, there are all these really interesting possibilities for where the story could go.
I however would like to NOT welcome the flesh eating primitive eel-like vertebrate Overlords.
Seriously scientists, what's wrong with you?
Hey, don't worry, ever since jocks taught us that computers were for social outcasts and our parents kept telling us to "get outside and get some sun", everyone's just sort of internalized the message. Years after computers and the Internet became near ubiquitous in developed countries, nerds still cling to the fantasy that it's still just for us weirdos and we try to keep that true by making nervous jokes about how all these things are for geeks and outcasts.
There may be groups of people who are spending less time face to face than they would have years ago, but for most of us the social networking apps that Flock connects us to aren't replacements for face time, they are enhancements.
We use Facebook, twitter, IM and blogs to publicize upcoming events and we use Facebook, Flickr and blogs to document events that happened. The glue that makes these worthwhile is the time spent actually together having good times.
"Normal" changes daily. Yes!
I'm really surprised at the number of people who's attitude seems to be that consumers should use the service in the way that the producer guessed they'd use it instead of they way they advertised it could be used.
It's not as if this demand for more bandwidth couldn't have been predicted. Everything else in the computer world is growing more or less exponentially, why wouldn't we expect bandwidth demands to grow at a similar rate? I mean, the communications hardware (remember 14.4k?) consumers have access to has been rapidly growing in power, who on earth wouldn't we expect consumers and content creators to find ways of exploiting that power?
Napster and Bittorrent are not a recent innovation and it's not as if analysts haven't been predicting on demand HD TV and digital distribution of everything (including cheese graters) since, oh the first bubble.
Much as the Internet moved from place to send text email and visit usenet and gopher sites to a place where graphical WWW viewing was the main thing to do, we're seeing another shift where high data, rich media and WWW as application platform is happening. Of course this will take more bandwidth than viewing my site about cats.
On which lines did the service providers think that all of this data would travel?
If I'm right about this, then the ISPs are in a much worse position than they seem to realize. If they are struggling to provide adequate service now, then how on earth are they going to futureproof themselves against usage demands that we can expect to double every year or two?
Seriously, that's your argument? "Maybe I don't want to use the Internet?" Good luck with that.
We are rapidly getting to the point in the developed world that Internet access is as important as telephone access, it not more so. Reliable 'net access is more and more becoming like electricity and roads - a basic service.
Actually it turns out you do.
Economists have found some evidence to support these ideas: Pamela Mobilia finds that betting at racetracks falls in anticipation of increases in bookies' takings; Nilss Olekalns and Peter Bardsley find that coffee addicts show similar foresight; Philip Cook and George Tauchen found that when some U.S. counties raised taxes on alcohol, liver cirrhosis fell more sharply than overall consumption, suggesting that it was the alcoholics who cut back most.
I dunno about other theatres but when I went to see Beowulf, they made us give the glasses back before we could leave.
I was thinking a youngladysillustratedprimer tag
The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.
WHAT
I thought that Linux fans were also the DIY folks. Saying to people making games "Oh I guess you should start working only on proprietary systems that require either fees or homebrew cracks to get them to work" is madness!
The reason there is a vibrant indie gaming scene is the relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform. Sure if Linux can take over and become the default OS, the indie scene might move over there, but suggesting that in the meantime people should limit their gaming consumption exclusively to proprietary gaming systems is really stupid and counterproductive.
But they DID want something. There were certain openness requirements that would only happen if the bidding moved past the $4.6 billion threshold.
In effect Google was saying "we want the block to pass the $4.6 billion mark so badly that we'll pay it ourselves if we need to"
Once bidding had passed that mark, they didn't really care if they or someone else footed the final bill. The thing they wanted had come true.
Here at /. we find it hard to admit to ourselves that the average person sucks THAT much.
I don't know which slashdot you've been reading but the one I've been reading is full of people who can't stop falling over themselves to make jokes about how all the people here are supergeniuses readers who could never fit in socially with the mainstream dumb jocks and whatnot.
It's a false dichotomy. The fact that I'm up on Paris Hilton's latest fashion doesn't prevent me from also having a subscription to the Economist. The fact that he liked American Football if anything HELPED Hunter S. Thompson become the leading light of a revolutionary new kind of journalism.
And your game of telephone analogy doesn't work. The brilliant thing about the Internet is that when I pass on a story to a friend I literally pass a pointer to that story. Everyone along the chain gets a link back to the same content, there is no degradation of signal.