Office is "real" because it lets me create things in the real world, namely documents. Virtual goods are not real because they are only allowed to be used within that virtual world. So your purchase, using money that can be converted into "real" money via bills and coins, becomes purely virtual in the idea that nothing else "real" can become of it again.
Ahah, just the fact you're stating this review which mainly states facts with a good smattering of easily recognizable opinion is at the bottom of the barrel with the dredge that is the GameFAQs troll? "GameFAQs doesn't arbitrarily post anything they get" Ha!
It's a review by a person, not a magazine. Of course it's going to have personal opinion in it. You should expect it, because if they don't have a personal opinion on the thing, why are they even bothering reviewing it?
Plus, your "contradictions" are contradictions in your opinion. See, the screen comment doesn't contradict the GBA one because one's about the beauty of the screen and one's about the general layout of the device, which matches the first generation GBA relatively well. Of course, you were out to hate the "opinionated" review to the point you internally contradicted these two points for no good reason.
And how dare he not give points for something he hasn't experienced enough to the point where he can give points to it! "It hasn't been an issue" in conjunction with "??/10" means he either hasn't bothered to test it extensivly, or that he hasn't played his system enough without a wall socket nearby for it to matter, so he couldn't rightfully give it a score. One could argue he shouldn't have posted the review until he was finished reviewing every aspect of the machine, but since he's a person and not paid to do the reviewing, I'm sure any reasonable person would overlook this instead of using it in a thinly supported argument that this is a "horrible review not up to the standards of GameFAQs"
Actually, if you took the time to think, you'd realize it's about the name Scrabble, not the game. Check out Yahoo!'s Literati for an example of reselling Scrabble under a different name. You could quite literally sell a copy-cat Scrabble game as something else but I doubt you'd do well against the original Scrabble.
Dude, Hasbro has great customer service, even if it's slightly impersonal. My girl got a My Little Pony who refused to stand up by itself (it fell over like it was drunk no matter how hard we tried to twist its legs back). We went onto Hasbro's site and asked them to replace it and they sent us a postage-paid return label for the pony a few days later.
Another example is that I bought a lightly used Trivial Persuit 20th Anniversary Edition from Half Price Books, but it was missing the 20th Anniversary Edition special card dispenser. An email to Hasbro and a few weeks later I got a card dispenser to call my own, for free.
The word "Scrabble" is easily recognizable. If you went out on the street and asked someone if "eScrabble.com" was the official Scrabble website, I bet the majroity of people would say yes. Why? It's the name of the game in the url plus the familiar e that leads things electronic. If even one person on that site went there because they thought they were heading to the real Scrabble site, then Hasbro is right, it's misleading, at least to one person out of 100,000 (and, of course, that's just users, not visitors), and with millions of people in America, Hasbro has every right to defend their trademark.
Imagine if you made something. Anything, but copyright didn't apply to it, and patent didn't apply to it. Your product has a name, and someone else decides to sell the exact same product with the exact same name, outright copying the design down to the smallest bit. If, in this hypothetical world, they were allowed to steal everything but the name but they went and stole it anyway, are they in the right? That's exactly what's happening here. Jared can steal the game all he wants, but the name belongs to Hasbro and they need to fight over it to keep that name.
Furthermore, his work will not be "destroyed" as you put it. If anything he'll be forced to stop distributing the program and maybe even sign the rights over to Hasbro as a derivative work, but nothing will magically destroy his code.
Because innovation directly implies creating new intellectual property.
No, no, my friend. It implies creating new styles of gameplay. Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is innovative because of the gameplay, and the fact that it's Donkey Kong doesn't detract from how innovative (and fun) the game is.
All of those are in the first two years of school, more advanced versions of those classes and classes that build on those classes occur afterwards. In CS270 you make a linked list (in C, with recursion) and in CS280 you go over the O() notation (i.e. O(n) vs O(log2 n)) of using a list or an array, plus you also go over things such as optimization (like pre-increment vs post-). If you're getting people from DigiPen that don't know their shit, then they probably only graduated by brute force (i.e. throwing money at the school until they graduated).
Also, two DigiPen-made games are in the IGF student showcase, and one in the professional competition. Also, a DigiPen game won the Audience award at the BIG C competeition and the Jury Award winner Revolved is made by a company founded entirely by DigiPen graduates. They look like they have the credentials to me, but I'll let you judge however you want.
And they also repeated it with their Memory Sticks and ATRAC. Looks like they just finally learned their lesson (after 20+ years of it being proven to them over and over again as well).
In Communist Russia, Dinosaurs eat YOU! In Communist Russia, Mammals eat YOU! In Communist Russia, Mammals eat DINOSAURS! In Communist Russia, Dinosaurs eat MAMMALS!
I was just playing this yesterday
on
Wish Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
It's kinda weird having a game cancelled while you're beta testing it. Fortunately the game didn't have much potential as a retail game, so there's no loss. It was trying to follow in UO's footsteps and go with a skill based system but they forgot UO's worked because you just needed a tool to attempt doing something of a different skill. Wish made you have to apprentice to earn certain skills (for example, you couldn't carpent unless you were apprenticed under an NPC as a carpenter). Also, the battle in Wish isn't automated whatsoever. To attack you have to click one of your attack skills and then click another while that first one coolsdown, then click another because the first isn't quite cooled down yet, then click the first again, etc. If you don't click, then you don't attack. Not very fun imo.
UO also only had three stats where Wish has 7 or 8 (I can't remember offhand). Also, the creatures outside of towns in UO were bunnies and rats, all very easily killable. Outside of the town I started in in Wish the creatures had grouping tendencies and were occasionally aggressive. There's a lot more bad things Wish did, but I'm not going to bother talking about them: the game's dead and what I've said's enough to show why.
The possible reasons why the cashiers probably didn't notice are: 1. they don't care enough to name-match things they're scanning, 2. they didn't speak/read english well enough to know the difference, 3. the couple selected objects that had multiple versions spanning a price range (like buying a 512MB flash card with the price of a 128MB one), and 4. they used self checkouts (once Wal-mart implemented them). If they did bilk Wal-mart out of 1.5 million, then I'd say at least one of the four above were true at some point in their spree.
On the returns side, if they returned it for refunds sans reciept (like most stores will allow around Christmastime) then they could possibly do return them to make money.
AOL's already been giving free webmail service out for a while now, only it's netscape.net webmail. Whenever you sign up for an AIM account you get [accountname]@netscape.net, you just have to go activate it. I've abused this in the past (because of the AIM one-email-per-account rule) to essentially make an infinite amount of AIM accounts. Plus, the account's tied to AIM so AIM puts up a new mail message whenever you get something in your inbox. And since no one knows about it, I get no spam!
Seriously. It's the system's name, all of the "What's a DS?!?" posts are essentially the same as going "What's a PS2?!~?!!" in any story that didn't explicitly spell out "Sony Playstation 2 Computer Entertainment System." There's a goddamned Game Boy icon, and the story's in the games section: WHAT ELSE COULD IT STAND FOR?
First part: I'd rather make $20k a year working and being treated like a human being rather than make $50k being treated like a workhorse and getting an equivalent $10 per hour wage at either job. If you can't get that in your head (that the actual wage vs wage difference is what matters, not the salary difference) then no matter what I say you're going to keep arguing with me. Is it worth it to be expected to work 80 hours a week and have the illusion of being "rich" with your $50k a year or is it better to live a fufilling life off of the general $20k you get (more or less based on your hours and getting paid 1.5 overtime) where you have time for a wife, a family, and fun?
Second part: Wow. I like how you twisted my comment around to pull an irrelevant comparison to doctors and policement to try and make your point sound more pallateable. Your first sentence is right: my metaphorical sucking cocks doesn't equal working long hours. It equals doing something degrading to get ahead, and in the EA programming world that means working long hours. My point is that these just-out-of-college students are metaphorically sucking cock by letting themselves be worked to the bone with no complaint or even expect it to happen, the exact same way an aspiring actor might literally suck cock to get an interview or whatnot so he could potentially be a third-tier character in a movie and not complain about it or even expect to always have to do that no matter where they work in Hollywood. That's my point: that degrading yourself to get a job you potentially start a trend of accepting that degradation until you believe it's commonplace and you don't complain about it, which is a problem! It should not be commonplace whatsoever, but according to you, you'd give anything to work on a game, so would you suck cocks? Would you work 120 hour weeks? Because the 70 hours as stated in your original post, at EA, is relatively low compared to everyone else who works there, with some people getting up to 120 hours: 3 times the average full-time workweek and 48 hours less than literally working a full week with no sleep.
And to debunk your examples: the doctor who's going through his residency, the policeman who's always working nights: they're being paid properly for their time, whereas the programmers are not.
They don't get paid by the hour. They get paid by salary. Average entry into programming for a game company is around $50k a year. With 40 hour work weeks that's a nice $24 an hour, but double the hours and you get half that: $12. Plus that doesn't include taxes, social security, medicare, and anything else that gets taken out of your paycheck. That'd lower you down to around a $10/hour code monkey. And some people are even working 100+ hour work weeks at EA! That's what's atrocious, and which is why I said project management's more important: then people wouldn't have to overwork and therefore their salary would spread over a smaller amount of hours and they would be much happier.
Also, by the way, the metaphor you used about the struggling actor, while the exact same thing, gets the exact same response from me: by lowering yourself to some level you degrade your rights as a human being just to "make it" into your profession. That's not any way to make a living, in my opinion. I'd rather not have to suck the cocks of five people so I could get an interview with some other guy when I could just look elsewhere for another job where I wouldn't have to do that.
It would eventually generate too much heat. You'd have a one sided system: massive amounts of energy going in (electricity) and very little coming back out. Eventually the heat generated by the CPU will heat up the air inside of the case to a point where a heatsink will do nothing as the air is the same temperature as the CPU and by the time you reach that point you're screwed anyway.
The cold is not the problem. The problem is the ball bearing grease viscosities and the problem of creatures making their home inside of the case. If the case has crappy fans then the grease of the ball bearings is probable horribly cheap and only will work at room temperature. Even more a problem is the critters as they will get into the case no matter what, unless you seal it off completely. And since sealing it off completely is not a good idea for a fan-driven computer, the only alternative would be to water cool it.
So, to protect your garage computer from all of the mice in your cold garage, you'd need to seal it off and cool it anyways (or possibly have some sort of case metal that moves heat through it really well and let the garage temp handle the cooling, but this way isn't good unless his garage is cold year round).
That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.
Exactly what EA abuses to get its employees: they hire a whole bunch of bright eyes college graduates willing to do anything to get their name in some sort of gane, then they abuse their willingness to work and burn them out. Then when they quit, EA goes back to the farm and grabs the next bunch of grads and the cycle starts again. You can't just give up your rights just for your name to appear in a game: that's the problem. The overtime thing's just something that's fallen out of the working into the ground problem because at least they realize that if they're going to be raped of their stomach lining, they'd better at least be getting paid more for it. That's close to being a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it's a red herring.
What the industry should be doing is making realistic goals for their programming team. Everyone hates release date push backs, and the reason they exist is because of these conditions. If they started making realistic goals, then the teams would be more likely to reach them and possibly surpass them than they would be to get to the old, further out goal where they have to cruch down in the month before and then end up missing it anyway. Time management and project management are much, much more important topics than the stupid overtime topic.
Slashdot Mirror
But the world in satellite view shows it all!
Office is "real" because it lets me create things in the real world, namely documents. Virtual goods are not real because they are only allowed to be used within that virtual world. So your purchase, using money that can be converted into "real" money via bills and coins, becomes purely virtual in the idea that nothing else "real" can become of it again.
Ahah, just the fact you're stating this review which mainly states facts with a good smattering of easily recognizable opinion is at the bottom of the barrel with the dredge that is the GameFAQs troll? "GameFAQs doesn't arbitrarily post anything they get" Ha! It's a review by a person, not a magazine. Of course it's going to have personal opinion in it. You should expect it, because if they don't have a personal opinion on the thing, why are they even bothering reviewing it? Plus, your "contradictions" are contradictions in your opinion. See, the screen comment doesn't contradict the GBA one because one's about the beauty of the screen and one's about the general layout of the device, which matches the first generation GBA relatively well. Of course, you were out to hate the "opinionated" review to the point you internally contradicted these two points for no good reason. And how dare he not give points for something he hasn't experienced enough to the point where he can give points to it! "It hasn't been an issue" in conjunction with "??/10" means he either hasn't bothered to test it extensivly, or that he hasn't played his system enough without a wall socket nearby for it to matter, so he couldn't rightfully give it a score. One could argue he shouldn't have posted the review until he was finished reviewing every aspect of the machine, but since he's a person and not paid to do the reviewing, I'm sure any reasonable person would overlook this instead of using it in a thinly supported argument that this is a "horrible review not up to the standards of GameFAQs"
Just to let you know, the ACM runs its contests on Redhat.
There's region encoding for UMD-Movie playback only. UMD-Games have no regions.
Actually, if you took the time to think, you'd realize it's about the name Scrabble, not the game. Check out Yahoo!'s Literati for an example of reselling Scrabble under a different name. You could quite literally sell a copy-cat Scrabble game as something else but I doubt you'd do well against the original Scrabble.
Dude, Hasbro has great customer service, even if it's slightly impersonal. My girl got a My Little Pony who refused to stand up by itself (it fell over like it was drunk no matter how hard we tried to twist its legs back). We went onto Hasbro's site and asked them to replace it and they sent us a postage-paid return label for the pony a few days later.
Another example is that I bought a lightly used Trivial Persuit 20th Anniversary Edition from Half Price Books, but it was missing the 20th Anniversary Edition special card dispenser. An email to Hasbro and a few weeks later I got a card dispenser to call my own, for free.
The word "Scrabble" is easily recognizable. If you went out on the street and asked someone if "eScrabble.com" was the official Scrabble website, I bet the majroity of people would say yes. Why? It's the name of the game in the url plus the familiar e that leads things electronic. If even one person on that site went there because they thought they were heading to the real Scrabble site, then Hasbro is right, it's misleading, at least to one person out of 100,000 (and, of course, that's just users, not visitors), and with millions of people in America, Hasbro has every right to defend their trademark.
Imagine if you made something. Anything, but copyright didn't apply to it, and patent didn't apply to it. Your product has a name, and someone else decides to sell the exact same product with the exact same name, outright copying the design down to the smallest bit. If, in this hypothetical world, they were allowed to steal everything but the name but they went and stole it anyway, are they in the right? That's exactly what's happening here. Jared can steal the game all he wants, but the name belongs to Hasbro and they need to fight over it to keep that name.
Furthermore, his work will not be "destroyed" as you put it. If anything he'll be forced to stop distributing the program and maybe even sign the rights over to Hasbro as a derivative work, but nothing will magically destroy his code.
Because innovation directly implies creating new intellectual property. No, no, my friend. It implies creating new styles of gameplay. Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is innovative because of the gameplay, and the fact that it's Donkey Kong doesn't detract from how innovative (and fun) the game is.
Check out the main page for the 2005 finalists (12.10.04 newspost), and the Student Showcase winners (01.21.05 newspost).
Off hand, I do know that the DigiPen-developed Scavenger Hunt is cross platform, but that's all I know for sure.
What are you talking about? I can name a class here for each of your parenthetical "fundamentals":
-CS280 - Data Structures
-CS330 - Algorithm Analysis
-CS250 - Computer Graphics II: 3D graphics engine creation with 3D math
-MAT250 - Linear Algebra: 3D math
All of those are in the first two years of school, more advanced versions of those classes and classes that build on those classes occur afterwards. In CS270 you make a linked list (in C, with recursion) and in CS280 you go over the O() notation (i.e. O(n) vs O(log2 n)) of using a list or an array, plus you also go over things such as optimization (like pre-increment vs post-). If you're getting people from DigiPen that don't know their shit, then they probably only graduated by brute force (i.e. throwing money at the school until they graduated).
Also, two DigiPen-made games are in the IGF student showcase, and one in the professional competition. Also, a DigiPen game won the Audience award at the BIG C competeition and the Jury Award winner Revolved is made by a company founded entirely by DigiPen graduates. They look like they have the credentials to me, but I'll let you judge however you want.
Another late-to-the-table story would be Microsoft's C++ compiler. They were horribly late to market with that one compared to Borland and the like.
It will also be coming out for the PS2.
In a year or so (so theoretically still an exclusive until then) but with crappier graphics and shittier load times.
And they also repeated it with their Memory Sticks and ATRAC. Looks like they just finally learned their lesson (after 20+ years of it being proven to them over and over again as well).
Would it be one of the following?
In Communist Russia, Dinosaurs eat YOU!
In Communist Russia, Mammals eat YOU!
In Communist Russia, Mammals eat DINOSAURS!
In Communist Russia, Dinosaurs eat MAMMALS!
It's kinda weird having a game cancelled while you're beta testing it. Fortunately the game didn't have much potential as a retail game, so there's no loss. It was trying to follow in UO's footsteps and go with a skill based system but they forgot UO's worked because you just needed a tool to attempt doing something of a different skill. Wish made you have to apprentice to earn certain skills (for example, you couldn't carpent unless you were apprenticed under an NPC as a carpenter). Also, the battle in Wish isn't automated whatsoever. To attack you have to click one of your attack skills and then click another while that first one coolsdown, then click another because the first isn't quite cooled down yet, then click the first again, etc. If you don't click, then you don't attack. Not very fun imo. UO also only had three stats where Wish has 7 or 8 (I can't remember offhand). Also, the creatures outside of towns in UO were bunnies and rats, all very easily killable. Outside of the town I started in in Wish the creatures had grouping tendencies and were occasionally aggressive. There's a lot more bad things Wish did, but I'm not going to bother talking about them: the game's dead and what I've said's enough to show why.
The possible reasons why the cashiers probably didn't notice are: 1. they don't care enough to name-match things they're scanning, 2. they didn't speak/read english well enough to know the difference, 3. the couple selected objects that had multiple versions spanning a price range (like buying a 512MB flash card with the price of a 128MB one), and 4. they used self checkouts (once Wal-mart implemented them). If they did bilk Wal-mart out of 1.5 million, then I'd say at least one of the four above were true at some point in their spree.
On the returns side, if they returned it for refunds sans reciept (like most stores will allow around Christmastime) then they could possibly do return them to make money.
AOL's already been giving free webmail service out for a while now, only it's netscape.net webmail. Whenever you sign up for an AIM account you get [accountname]@netscape.net, you just have to go activate it. I've abused this in the past (because of the AIM one-email-per-account rule) to essentially make an infinite amount of AIM accounts. Plus, the account's tied to AIM so AIM puts up a new mail message whenever you get something in your inbox. And since no one knows about it, I get no spam!
All I want is the Windows version of GIMP not to pop up command boxes for errors that close the program when you close them. That's all I want.
Seriously. It's the system's name, all of the "What's a DS?!?" posts are essentially the same as going "What's a PS2?!~?!!" in any story that didn't explicitly spell out "Sony Playstation 2 Computer Entertainment System." There's a goddamned Game Boy icon, and the story's in the games section: WHAT ELSE COULD IT STAND FOR?
First part: I'd rather make $20k a year working and being treated like a human being rather than make $50k being treated like a workhorse and getting an equivalent $10 per hour wage at either job. If you can't get that in your head (that the actual wage vs wage difference is what matters, not the salary difference) then no matter what I say you're going to keep arguing with me. Is it worth it to be expected to work 80 hours a week and have the illusion of being "rich" with your $50k a year or is it better to live a fufilling life off of the general $20k you get (more or less based on your hours and getting paid 1.5 overtime) where you have time for a wife, a family, and fun?
Second part: Wow. I like how you twisted my comment around to pull an irrelevant comparison to doctors and policement to try and make your point sound more pallateable. Your first sentence is right: my metaphorical sucking cocks doesn't equal working long hours. It equals doing something degrading to get ahead, and in the EA programming world that means working long hours. My point is that these just-out-of-college students are metaphorically sucking cock by letting themselves be worked to the bone with no complaint or even expect it to happen, the exact same way an aspiring actor might literally suck cock to get an interview or whatnot so he could potentially be a third-tier character in a movie and not complain about it or even expect to always have to do that no matter where they work in Hollywood. That's my point: that degrading yourself to get a job you potentially start a trend of accepting that degradation until you believe it's commonplace and you don't complain about it, which is a problem! It should not be commonplace whatsoever, but according to you, you'd give anything to work on a game, so would you suck cocks? Would you work 120 hour weeks? Because the 70 hours as stated in your original post, at EA, is relatively low compared to everyone else who works there, with some people getting up to 120 hours: 3 times the average full-time workweek and 48 hours less than literally working a full week with no sleep.
And to debunk your examples: the doctor who's going through his residency, the policeman who's always working nights: they're being paid properly for their time, whereas the programmers are not.
They don't get paid by the hour. They get paid by salary. Average entry into programming for a game company is around $50k a year. With 40 hour work weeks that's a nice $24 an hour, but double the hours and you get half that: $12. Plus that doesn't include taxes, social security, medicare, and anything else that gets taken out of your paycheck. That'd lower you down to around a $10/hour code monkey. And some people are even working 100+ hour work weeks at EA! That's what's atrocious, and which is why I said project management's more important: then people wouldn't have to overwork and therefore their salary would spread over a smaller amount of hours and they would be much happier.
Also, by the way, the metaphor you used about the struggling actor, while the exact same thing, gets the exact same response from me: by lowering yourself to some level you degrade your rights as a human being just to "make it" into your profession. That's not any way to make a living, in my opinion. I'd rather not have to suck the cocks of five people so I could get an interview with some other guy when I could just look elsewhere for another job where I wouldn't have to do that.
It would eventually generate too much heat. You'd have a one sided system: massive amounts of energy going in (electricity) and very little coming back out. Eventually the heat generated by the CPU will heat up the air inside of the case to a point where a heatsink will do nothing as the air is the same temperature as the CPU and by the time you reach that point you're screwed anyway.
The cold is not the problem. The problem is the ball bearing grease viscosities and the problem of creatures making their home inside of the case. If the case has crappy fans then the grease of the ball bearings is probable horribly cheap and only will work at room temperature. Even more a problem is the critters as they will get into the case no matter what, unless you seal it off completely. And since sealing it off completely is not a good idea for a fan-driven computer, the only alternative would be to water cool it.
So, to protect your garage computer from all of the mice in your cold garage, you'd need to seal it off and cool it anyways (or possibly have some sort of case metal that moves heat through it really well and let the garage temp handle the cooling, but this way isn't good unless his garage is cold year round).
That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.
Exactly what EA abuses to get its employees: they hire a whole bunch of bright eyes college graduates willing to do anything to get their name in some sort of gane, then they abuse their willingness to work and burn them out. Then when they quit, EA goes back to the farm and grabs the next bunch of grads and the cycle starts again. You can't just give up your rights just for your name to appear in a game: that's the problem. The overtime thing's just something that's fallen out of the working into the ground problem because at least they realize that if they're going to be raped of their stomach lining, they'd better at least be getting paid more for it. That's close to being a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it's a red herring.
What the industry should be doing is making realistic goals for their programming team. Everyone hates release date push backs, and the reason they exist is because of these conditions. If they started making realistic goals, then the teams would be more likely to reach them and possibly surpass them than they would be to get to the old, further out goal where they have to cruch down in the month before and then end up missing it anyway. Time management and project management are much, much more important topics than the stupid overtime topic.
You mean the correct incorrect question.