True. I also wonder if training is really that big a hurdle anymore. As the general public (and especially long term business users) get more tech savvy can't we expect the average user to just need a couple hours of play time to re-learn where the core functionality is? Everything the average user needs is in the ribbons of Office07, its just a matter of learning their arrangement.
I work at Boeing Australia, and the people who would have had real exposure to *nix and open office are the minority, the vast majority.
Boeing Australia has ~2500 staff, if for some reason that it only took one day of training to catch everybody up it would cost:
2500 employees
AU$400 average wage per day (on average) (conservative)
2500 x $400 = AU$1,000,000
Yep, it would cost a cool million for every day in training. That doesn't include the ripple costs, the costs involved in actually getting training working, or that training won't take them back to 100%
Free software that is different to the software you have, isn't free
I have evidence for God from many people I've met in my life, as well as people I've read about. Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.
That isn't evidence, it's an impression. You have an impression that there is a god because of the people that you have met, or read about. When I look into the sky, I get a feeling of wonder and I can understand why people believe in god; but that isn't evidence that there is god.
As for software patents, I have no problem with them on the surface (well, except for those that are obvious, but that's a problem with the patent office, not patents in general). However, I think software patents should have a more limited lifespan. After all, 20 years is a *very* long time in the world of computing (just think how different things were in 1986). Something like 4 or 5 years makes far more sense.
What you obviously don't understand about software patents is that a patent is supposed to protect a specific way of doing something. Which in the case of software is already protected by copyright. This provides people the will for innovation, I can look at some software that really works and think "hey I can do this better", and do so.
However, Software Patents currently allow people to patent a broad concept of what software could do. Now, I can't look at a concept and think "hey I can do this better" because someone can patent that idea. If movie companies could patent concepts, there wouldn't be any new movies for 20 years.
Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you).
The idea is to protect people who invest those resources into developing technology from people who just wait for the technology to be invented and then just selling it without any of the research costs involved.
What I do hate is that patents have turned from protecting a method of production to a concept of a product in all of its forms. That's a major difference, if I invent a new device I should have a realistic expectation that nobody else could use my design to make their own device. However, if someone goes "hey, I like what this thing does" and then invents their own way of doing that exact same thing, they should be able to. Hell, they can even learn from my mistakes and improve on the process. That's where patents facilitate innovation.
Since the secret of manufacturing was lost in the 18th century, it would make sense that they were still made during 1500-1600. How would their properties in manufacturing compare to the folding method of the Japanese katana? Would the nanotubes be present in the katana as well, or was this unique to Damascus?
The assumption that Japanese sword making techniques are magically better than European knowledge is just piffle, end of story. This is the same hocus pocus rubbish that makes out that all Japanese Samurai had near mystical abilities in combat and paints European combatants as doofus's who wore hundreds of pounds of armour and if they fell of their horse they where useless.
Folding steel to make blades is a relatively common technique known to all nations who's natural resource in iron resulted in poor quality steal. For every story of blades with magical properties coming out of Japan there is at least one equivalent from Europe. Most people just don't know them because we, in general, don't have any interest in our own history.
The simple truth between the matter is that in the case of martial technology and prowess Asia and Europe were very close to each other.
So a team-based software development project ends up catering to the folks who don't deserve it.
There are intelligent ways that you can combat that. Firstly, you make each student produce a portfolio of their work, and write a description of what they needed to do, what they ended up doing, what problems they encountered and how they solved them. You also get students to write a report in where they describe how they think they met the criteria.
You also let teams form themselves. That loser who loves team assignments because he can coast on the work of others are rapidly going to find themselves in 'group suck'.
Why should Americans dictate how the rest of the world uses the internet? Maybe it was a good idea when America was the home of the free and the land of the brave, instead of the home of capitalism and the land of fundamentalists.
Look, don't get me wrong, America did a great job for the last 50 odd years and without American input and governance the world wouldn't have been the same. However, it is time to pass the torch to let the entire world govern it's collective product.
Yes, but it was given freely to the world, and they have adapted, modified, updated, and morphed it into what we see today. Why should America dictate world control of a product that the entire world constantly evolves?
The solution is very simple, and I am amazed that TFA didn't at least mention it. The solution is not to base grades on such handed-in work. Instead, base grades on performance that you can ensure is the student's own. Higher (and lower) education have a name for this: exams. Conduct an exam under carefully-controlled conditions, and no cheating is possible.
In technical subjects, such as how to program, a mix of hand in assignments and exams are a fair compromise. Assignments give the students a chance to actually learn things that will help them in either a professional or academic career, and exams insure that Lecturers know that individuals did the work.
However, for many subjects, exams are a horrible way of testing understanding and knowledge learned during a semester, at least to any real depth. An average assignment takes at least 10 hours to complete for someone without prior experience in that field, or two to three hours more to complete. Secondly, exams don't test vocational understanding of the subject matter. An average Studio based project would take my team 100+ hours of work that had to meet clients goals and expectations over multiple design and development iterations, something that can't clearly be done within an exam environment.
Why don't they let the developers do the design? What's *not* intuitative about
Because, in general, most developers design really shit products as far as usage is concerned. Not because they can't create great things, but because a) they are expert users and go though workflow differently to novice users b) when they are designing interfaces and interactions they are mostly thinking about how those decisions work with the code set and not really how people will use it.
The trouble with project managers (and security people) is that they have a checklist mentality.
PM: Have you done this as yet.
You: No, there is no need for it
PM: But I need to get it checked off on my plan
You: It shouldn't be on the plan in the first place
PM: But it is on the plan, so I need to get it checked off. When are you going to do it.
Seeing you are talking directly to the project manager, I can only assume that for some reason you're a senior developer.
If you sit down to program x and y makes more logical sense, you need to go talk to your project advisor before you code y, not after. Even worse, the fact that x wasn't needed at all, and you didn't approach your project manager.
If a product continually gets the development process logic messed up, or the basic design of a product contains stuff that is un-needed, and you only tell the PM after you've fixed it, you are actually doing yourself a disservice and creating more work for yourself.
I mean, basically you are creating and environment where the Project Manager, and thus the reset of the stakeholders, are constantly playing catch up to developers as they hack and change things on the fly. That kind of behaviour anywhere else in business would be regarded, at best, as unprofessional.
I think the big reason is that the setting for fantasy is often simpler -- kingdoms and big bad monsters from "hell" or whatever.
Empires fighting aliens from unknown space?
Sci-fi is usually burdened with politics and trade routes and other exceedingly deep backstory (not necessarily interesting, mind). That appeals to some gamers, but certainly not all.
40k I'd argue with, it's very rarely good sci fi and I'm not even getting into how little it matters if a squad lives or dies, so it doesn't matter how over shadowed someone is or isn't.
as it has lost its reputation and the trust of its users.
That's your opinion. For whatever reasons, non-technology centric users and businesses generally choose MS. It's a brand they know.
Recently I was talking to a team leader for application development for one of the largest state government organisations in my state. They where bragging that they had all of the newest technology, all of it from microsoft. Now, I'm not a MS hater or anything, but I was amazed that they thought it was such an awesome selling point.
People have been brainwashed into thinking anything with a computer is supposed to be difficult. As such, general users assume that if something breaks on their computer it is really only their fault. Because these general users use so many Microsoft products they assume that Microsoft products are good products and as such, they will choose a Microsoft brand over a brand they don't know.
If anything, general users should be complaining that Microsoft's power comes from creating a fear by disempowerment.
Do you have any understanding on how research grants are issued? It's all used for research releated things. As such, it all essentially goes to your research department and you purchase things your research requires. Things like equipment, research assistants and space. You don't get a big fat check signed "Dr C. Researcher" with a note saying "Go wild Chuck!"
I just wanted to add to your thought, that it is VERY hard to be wealthy and powerful, and in same time haven't:
* exploited others;
* lied and cheated;
* broke the law;
* ignored common sense and responsibilities to society;
Oh please! It is very hard to be poor and not break any/all of those.
Storytronics is basically designing interactive story elements for any meta-product that might need interactive story elements. That meta-product could be a LARP, but that certainly isn't Chris Crawford's intention.
Next time, it might be handy if you do at least a minimal level of research on something before you blow your ass towards the gallery.
When, as a society, did we get the idea that when bad things happen to us somebody else should pick up the tab?
What? Lets just extend this away from computers and into cars. I purchase some tires from bridgestone and they let water leak into the chamber with the stealbelt. Eventually, the rusty belt causes your tires to explode and it kills your wife and childern on their way home from school
Should bridgestone pick up the tab?
If someone sell that they know is broke then they should be responsable for it. That goes from mechanical, civil, electrical or software.
(1) Players with retarded names. As soon as you log on and see someone with Drizzzzzt DoDurddden as character name, immersion breaks. There are also superb names like Scratch MyBalls or xTerminatorx and so on.
There are people with retarded names and nicknames in 'the real world' too, does it ruin your immersion here too? Do high-fantasy elves have to be called Ka'tala'far'a? Should Elvin towns be called Astralananalalana? Why can't my orc warrior be called TheWaambulence?
Maybe the problem here isn't other people, but your preconceptions about the way other people should play.
(2) These games have quests that everyone does. Oh wait, he killed the evil knight, wait, me too, him too, good bye immersion. Same thing with dragons that need raids to take down. That dragon will "magically" respawn in 7 days. But wait... didn't we kill it?
Actually, your first example is fine; if we all go around killing "the evil knight" well that's probably ok... I'm sure there are a lot of 'evil knights' that can fill the role for this quest. In fact, it is almost a scared cow of many P&P RPGs to use stock (or close enough to stock) bad guys. However, I know what you mean, killing "PooBear the evil druid of the forest" 11 million times is simply stupid. However, that doesn't mean that immersion is impossible in MMOGs, it just means that a different tact needs to be used.
(3) As soon as you listen to players around you start to chat about RL stuff, who won what sports game, immersion is gone. Not to mention plenty of retards who use everything from butchered english to d00d/l33t speak: cna ne1 hepl me plz!!?!?!
Again, that's your problem with your expectations on how other people should play their games. I mean people talk in some screwed up languages/dialects in the "real world" does that ruin your immersion out here? Again, your preconceptions are your fault, not MMOGs
There is no immersion in MMOGs, if you are looking for immersion, try single player games or NWN/Diablo type games with a group of friends who are into role playing.
Is true immersion possible anywhere? Even applying some of your own rules your two suggested games are just as easily broken from immersion as MMOs.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I also wonder if training is really that big a hurdle anymore. As the general public (and especially long term business users) get more tech savvy can't we expect the average user to just need a couple hours of play time to re-learn where the core functionality is? Everything the average user needs is in the ribbons of Office07, its just a matter of learning their arrangement.
I work at Boeing Australia, and the people who would have had real exposure to *nix and open office are the minority, the vast majority.
Boeing Australia has ~2500 staff, if for some reason that it only took one day of training to catch everybody up it would cost:
2500 employees
AU$400 average wage per day (on average) (conservative)
2500 x $400 = AU$1,000,000
Yep, it would cost a cool million for every day in training. That doesn't include the ripple costs, the costs involved in actually getting training working, or that training won't take them back to 100%
Free software that is different to the software you have, isn't free
I have evidence for God from many people I've met in my life, as well as people I've read about. Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.
That isn't evidence, it's an impression. You have an impression that there is a god because of the people that you have met, or read about. When I look into the sky, I get a feeling of wonder and I can understand why people believe in god; but that isn't evidence that there is god.
As for software patents, I have no problem with them on the surface (well, except for those that are obvious, but that's a problem with the patent office, not patents in general). However, I think software patents should have a more limited lifespan. After all, 20 years is a *very* long time in the world of computing (just think how different things were in 1986). Something like 4 or 5 years makes far more sense.
What you obviously don't understand about software patents is that a patent is supposed to protect a specific way of doing something. Which in the case of software is already protected by copyright. This provides people the will for innovation, I can look at some software that really works and think "hey I can do this better", and do so.
However, Software Patents currently allow people to patent a broad concept of what software could do. Now, I can't look at a concept and think "hey I can do this better" because someone can patent that idea. If movie companies could patent concepts, there wouldn't be any new movies for 20 years.
Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you).
The idea is to protect people who invest those resources into developing technology from people who just wait for the technology to be invented and then just selling it without any of the research costs involved.
What I do hate is that patents have turned from protecting a method of production to a concept of a product in all of its forms. That's a major difference, if I invent a new device I should have a realistic expectation that nobody else could use my design to make their own device. However, if someone goes "hey, I like what this thing does" and then invents their own way of doing that exact same thing, they should be able to. Hell, they can even learn from my mistakes and improve on the process. That's where patents facilitate innovation.
Since the secret of manufacturing was lost in the 18th century, it would make sense that they were still made during 1500-1600. How would their properties in manufacturing compare to the folding method of the Japanese katana? Would the nanotubes be present in the katana as well, or was this unique to Damascus?
The assumption that Japanese sword making techniques are magically better than European knowledge is just piffle, end of story. This is the same hocus pocus rubbish that makes out that all Japanese Samurai had near mystical abilities in combat and paints European combatants as doofus's who wore hundreds of pounds of armour and if they fell of their horse they where useless.
Folding steel to make blades is a relatively common technique known to all nations who's natural resource in iron resulted in poor quality steal. For every story of blades with magical properties coming out of Japan there is at least one equivalent from Europe. Most people just don't know them because we, in general, don't have any interest in our own history.
The simple truth between the matter is that in the case of martial technology and prowess Asia and Europe were very close to each other.
So a team-based software development project ends up catering to the folks who don't deserve it.
There are intelligent ways that you can combat that. Firstly, you make each student produce a portfolio of their work, and write a description of what they needed to do, what they ended up doing, what problems they encountered and how they solved them. You also get students to write a report in where they describe how they think they met the criteria.
You also let teams form themselves. That loser who loves team assignments because he can coast on the work of others are rapidly going to find themselves in 'group suck'.
Look, don't get me wrong, America did a great job for the last 50 odd years and without American input and governance the world wouldn't have been the same. However, it is time to pass the torch to let the entire world govern it's collective product.
Yes, but it was given freely to the world, and they have adapted, modified, updated, and morphed it into what we see today. Why should America dictate world control of a product that the entire world constantly evolves?
The solution is very simple, and I am amazed that TFA didn't at least mention it. The solution is not to base grades on such handed-in work. Instead, base grades on performance that you can ensure is the student's own. Higher (and lower) education have a name for this: exams. Conduct an exam under carefully-controlled conditions, and no cheating is possible.
In technical subjects, such as how to program, a mix of hand in assignments and exams are a fair compromise. Assignments give the students a chance to actually learn things that will help them in either a professional or academic career, and exams insure that Lecturers know that individuals did the work.
However, for many subjects, exams are a horrible way of testing understanding and knowledge learned during a semester, at least to any real depth. An average assignment takes at least 10 hours to complete for someone without prior experience in that field, or two to three hours more to complete. Secondly, exams don't test vocational understanding of the subject matter. An average Studio based project would take my team 100+ hours of work that had to meet clients goals and expectations over multiple design and development iterations, something that can't clearly be done within an exam environment.
The problem is that you can really on wear one hat at a time. So, when you are developing products it biases your designs.
Why don't they let the developers do the design? What's *not* intuitative about
Because, in general, most developers design really shit products as far as usage is concerned. Not because they can't create great things, but because a) they are expert users and go though workflow differently to novice users b) when they are designing interfaces and interactions they are mostly thinking about how those decisions work with the code set and not really how people will use it.
It's an example of unprofessionalism.
The trouble with project managers (and security people) is that they have a checklist mentality.
PM: Have you done this as yet.
You: No, there is no need for it
PM: But I need to get it checked off on my plan
You: It shouldn't be on the plan in the first place
PM: But it is on the plan, so I need to get it checked off. When are you going to do it.
Seeing you are talking directly to the project manager, I can only assume that for some reason you're a senior developer.
If you sit down to program x and y makes more logical sense, you need to go talk to your project advisor before you code y, not after. Even worse, the fact that x wasn't needed at all, and you didn't approach your project manager.
If a product continually gets the development process logic messed up, or the basic design of a product contains stuff that is un-needed, and you only tell the PM after you've fixed it, you are actually doing yourself a disservice and creating more work for yourself.
I mean, basically you are creating and environment where the Project Manager, and thus the reset of the stakeholders, are constantly playing catch up to developers as they hack and change things on the fly. That kind of behaviour anywhere else in business would be regarded, at best, as unprofessional.
it's typo-squatting any .com domain. www.cnn.com is one character away from www.cnn.cm
Wouldn't that simply mean that if something was a minor success an everybody else can just start using it?
I think the big reason is that the setting for fantasy is often simpler -- kingdoms and big bad monsters from "hell" or whatever.
Empires fighting aliens from unknown space?
Sci-fi is usually burdened with politics and trade routes and other exceedingly deep backstory (not necessarily interesting, mind). That appeals to some gamers, but certainly not all.
But it doesn't have to be.
40k I'd argue with, it's very rarely good sci fi and I'm not even getting into how little it matters if a squad lives or dies, so it doesn't matter how over shadowed someone is or isn't.
Have you read the novels?
as it has lost its reputation and the trust of its users.
That's your opinion. For whatever reasons, non-technology centric users and businesses generally choose MS. It's a brand they know.
Recently I was talking to a team leader for application development for one of the largest state government organisations in my state. They where bragging that they had all of the newest technology, all of it from microsoft. Now, I'm not a MS hater or anything, but I was amazed that they thought it was such an awesome selling point.
People have been brainwashed into thinking anything with a computer is supposed to be difficult. As such, general users assume that if something breaks on their computer it is really only their fault. Because these general users use so many Microsoft products they assume that Microsoft products are good products and as such, they will choose a Microsoft brand over a brand they don't know.
If anything, general users should be complaining that Microsoft's power comes from creating a fear by disempowerment.
Do you have any understanding on how research grants are issued? It's all used for research releated things. As such, it all essentially goes to your research department and you purchase things your research requires. Things like equipment, research assistants and space. You don't get a big fat check signed "Dr C. Researcher" with a note saying "Go wild Chuck!"
I just wanted to add to your thought, that it is VERY hard to be wealthy and powerful, and in same time haven't:
* exploited others;
* lied and cheated;
* broke the law;
* ignored common sense and responsibilities to society;
Oh please! It is very hard to be poor and not break any/all of those.
Storytronics is basically designing interactive story elements for any meta-product that might need interactive story elements. That meta-product could be a LARP, but that certainly isn't Chris Crawford's intention.
Next time, it might be handy if you do at least a minimal level of research on something before you blow your ass towards the gallery.
http://www.storytron.com/
When, as a society, did we get the idea that when bad things happen to us somebody else should pick up the tab?
What? Lets just extend this away from computers and into cars. I purchase some tires from bridgestone and they let water leak into the chamber with the stealbelt. Eventually, the rusty belt causes your tires to explode and it kills your wife and childern on their way home from school
Should bridgestone pick up the tab?
If someone sell that they know is broke then they should be responsable for it. That goes from mechanical, civil, electrical or software.
fuck you microsoft, and fuck your little dog@!
(1) Players with retarded names. As soon as you log on and see someone with Drizzzzzt DoDurddden as character name, immersion breaks. There are also superb names like Scratch MyBalls or xTerminatorx and so on.
There are people with retarded names and nicknames in 'the real world' too, does it ruin your immersion here too? Do high-fantasy elves have to be called Ka'tala'far'a? Should Elvin towns be called Astralananalalana? Why can't my orc warrior be called TheWaambulence?
Maybe the problem here isn't other people, but your preconceptions about the way other people should play.
(2) These games have quests that everyone does. Oh wait, he killed the evil knight, wait, me too, him too, good bye immersion. Same thing with dragons that need raids to take down. That dragon will "magically" respawn in 7 days. But wait ... didn't we kill it?
Actually, your first example is fine; if we all go around killing "the evil knight" well that's probably ok ... I'm sure there are a lot of 'evil knights' that can fill the role for this quest. In fact, it is almost a scared cow of many P&P RPGs to use stock (or close enough to stock) bad guys. However, I know what you mean, killing "PooBear the evil druid of the forest" 11 million times is simply stupid. However, that doesn't mean that immersion is impossible in MMOGs, it just means that a different tact needs to be used.
(3) As soon as you listen to players around you start to chat about RL stuff, who won what sports game, immersion is gone. Not to mention plenty of retards who use everything from butchered english to d00d/l33t speak: cna ne1 hepl me plz!!?!?!
Again, that's your problem with your expectations on how other people should play their games. I mean people talk in some screwed up languages/dialects in the "real world" does that ruin your immersion out here? Again, your preconceptions are your fault, not MMOGs
There is no immersion in MMOGs, if you are looking for immersion, try single player games or NWN/Diablo type games with a group of friends who are into role playing.
Is true immersion possible anywhere? Even applying some of your own rules your two suggested games are just as easily broken from immersion as MMOs.
I'll never purchase another game that has anything to do with SOE. I don't even care if they are just the publishers.