When playing video games, you're just involved directly in the game with little to no social interaction.
Again, proving that you either don't know what you're talking about or don't understand it, one. I have never played video games with my friends where we were not constantly exchanging commentary and insults, much the same as we do when we play 5-Card Stud, or Settlers of Cataan, or watch 24, or...
There's nothing special about video games, they're just games. And, like most other games, they're not all that interesting to write news about.
Realize that this is what we call an "opinion," and is based on your life experiences. The point of the original comment you replied to was that certain generations form different opinions and have varied reactions to video games. This does not make their view fact.
Bullshit. "Boomers" get video games just fine. They're just like any other non-sports game, just they involve a TV. If you get card games, if you get board games, you get video games.
The fact that it is apparently acceptable to spend upwards of $600 and spend hours playing video games, that one is a little harder to stand. I don't play Monopoly because it takes too long to play. I can't imagine spending hours playing the same video game. The whole anti-social aspect of games (no, online doesn't count) is also confusing - half the point behind games is to be sociable with other people.
Way to prove his point. Card game and board games have little to do with most video games, beyond the fact that you need your brain to play.
As for the social aspect, how is playing video games (online or otherwise) any less social than staring at the TV, or going to the movies, or playing cards, for that matter? Four of my friends around the poker table is just as social as those same four around the XBox.
quick turn on your favorite game from 2006 and your favorite game from 1996 and your favorite game from 1986. how long does it take to get from power on to running around the first level and not being in a "tutorial" or cutscene.
Now, play your favorite games from 2006, 1996, and 1986. How long long can you keep playing? When do you get bored? What all can you do?
I'm all for nostalgia, but games get more complex over time for a reason. There was a time that Pitfall was all that was needed, but as much as we claim to love our 2600 roots and all that jazz, just how seriously entertaining is it to jump over 10 different pits with various hazards?
A lot of times you aren't forced to play a tutorial, it's just there if you don't understand the controls or format. There are simple games out there that the great unwashed masses can just start playing, but those are mainly puzzle or arcade-style games. To give gamers the features and entertainment they expect out of a game sometimes the developers have to up the ante and throw in some new things. I see no problem with innovation. I mean, at least they give you a tutorial instead of throwing you to the wolves, right?:)
Interesting - I'm reading an article on slashdot that's criticising MS for favouring security over..... well anything!
Exactly! That's the first thing I thought when I read this blurb. I'm not even going to bother to read the article. You can't have it both ways; don't criticize Microsoft for favoring usability over security for years, then flip-flop when they finally listen.
I can see that, but a MUD would take a lot more focus. You can take in the general situation on a graphical game at a glance, and give commands with a simple interface. A MUD requires reading the situation in text repeatedly and typing commands for everything. Doesn't strike me as casual enough for a cell phone gamer, not to mention the annoyance of typing things on those keyboards or numberpads.
Okay, that makes tons more sense. That was probably in the article or something, too. And they also didn't capitalize it.
Though in fairness, when it comes to video games they should probably just bite the bullet and add the extra "phones" to distinguish, since we can't always rely on accurate spelling or grammar.:)
Yeah, after I posted I looked again and realized they were going for clever but landed on confusing. Oh well, the title is technically accurate, but the rest is still pretty squarely wrong.:)
First, the title is "Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy." What does that even mean?
Second, as nearly everyone has already noted, as designed this will not "keep appearing until you license your version of Windows or, presumably, convince Microsoft they've made a mistake." It is uninstallable.
It's not just cost, it's inertia, too. I get calls on plenty of companies that would have no problem dropping the cash to convert but still use token ring. They also are using 10 year old PC Servers to run it. They don't see a reason to upgrade, and they pay us enough to support them that they don't have to.
Exactly. I read the title of this story and was disgusted. Watch Amazon get a patent for inventing a way of selling things over wireless. Microsoft can get a patent for inventing a way of showing web pages over wireless. We need a new GIF patent, I hear they can be shown over wireless.
We all knew this wouldn't reduce spam. This is just a launching point for email blackmail, along the lines of BellSouth's bandwidth threats. The legal people at AOL are just trying to cover their butts so people don't have a leg to stand on when they complain that they don't get less spam. Totally stupid program.
Actually, through an emergency use of the Slashdot Firefox Extension I've forced the IT scheme on the whole site. Unfortunately it doesn't get everything, but at least the comments are okay.
I know IBM has been a contributor to Linux -- has their backing been that strong?
I'm not sure the exact details of IBM's direct support of Linux, but they develop tools for it and on it. The ServeRAID Manager CD and other bootable tools run on Linux kernels, and the latest ServeRAID-8i adapter runs Linux onboard as well. The DSA tools will run on Red Hat, SUSE, and Novell server editions. Apparently an entire IBM division is considering switching to Linux. And of course, as mentioned in the article, their commercial software offerings run on Linux.
There are various ways of supporting things. Giving money is one way, and actually using and promoting the use of them is another.
Personally I'd rather the hardware continue to advance as needed and have backwards compatibility be a secondary objective. I don't want my (supposedly) cutting-edge machine hampered by being forced to handle 5-year old technology. If they can have it both ways by some handy-dandy emulation, then good for them.
I keep running into people that use that term, and don't seem to know it's meaning.
You could make the case that "professional" dress applies to your profession, but that is not the generally accepted connotation. What you describe I would phrase as "appropriate" dress.
One of the definitions of professional behavior is "the person's actions remain in accordance with specific rules, written or unwritten, pertaining to behavior, dress, speech, etc." This covers both our uses. You should wear what is appropriate for your job role and what is accepted (or expected) for your company. No one is saying that you have to wear a tie to crawl under desks, though I've done it. In my original post I mentioned that very few people were wearing ties. A general style of clothing that you would most likely not wear to a frat party or grunge concert is the bottom line. It's about having a modicum of respect for the corporate environment you're in.
As to programmers being blue collar workers, I think you would find most people would not define sitting at a desk in an office writing code as a blue collar position. You usually have to at least be performing manual labor to earn that title.
The dress code at a company contributes a lot to the environment. When I was interviewing for jobs last year I wore a suit and tie. My first interview was at a small medical software company. I sat in a little room while they sent in different coders to ask me questions. They all looked extremely uncomfortable in their flip-flops, shorts, and T-shirts, though I was the one melting in the heat. I ended up being told I was "not right for their environment," though I had no problems with their questions and tests. After that I would ask the interviewer about the dress code. Most often I would come in khakis and a tie. When I went to IBM I wore my suit again. Even though I was the only one with a coat and one of few with a tie, I did not stand out blatantly because everyone was dressed professionally.
Still, whenever I see somebody in a suit, I assume that they've spent time and energy on their appearance that would be better spent on their work. And, conversely, if somebody wants me to conform to a dress code, I assume that they care more about appearance than performance.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Someone putting on slightly better clothes in the morning may or may not take a little longer than jeans and a T-shirt. Expecting your employees to do this does not mean you expect them to work less.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, proving that you either don't know what you're talking about or don't understand it, one. I have never played video games with my friends where we were not constantly exchanging commentary and insults, much the same as we do when we play 5-Card Stud, or Settlers of Cataan, or watch 24, or ...
Realize that this is what we call an "opinion," and is based on your life experiences. The point of the original comment you replied to was that certain generations form different opinions and have varied reactions to video games. This does not make their view fact.
Way to prove his point. Card game and board games have little to do with most video games, beyond the fact that you need your brain to play.
As for the social aspect, how is playing video games (online or otherwise) any less social than staring at the TV, or going to the movies, or playing cards, for that matter? Four of my friends around the poker table is just as social as those same four around the XBox.
The MPAA and EFF Cross Sabers
In other news Hezbollah doesn't like Israelis. :)
"Hmm, I leveled up. Do I want to buy better needle spines, or get that +2 stamina carapace ... ?"
quick turn on your favorite game from 2006 and your favorite game from 1996 and your favorite game from 1986. how long does it take to get from power on to running around the first level and not being in a "tutorial" or cutscene.
Now, play your favorite games from 2006, 1996, and 1986. How long long can you keep playing? When do you get bored? What all can you do?
I'm all for nostalgia, but games get more complex over time for a reason. There was a time that Pitfall was all that was needed, but as much as we claim to love our 2600 roots and all that jazz, just how seriously entertaining is it to jump over 10 different pits with various hazards?
A lot of times you aren't forced to play a tutorial, it's just there if you don't understand the controls or format. There are simple games out there that the great unwashed masses can just start playing, but those are mainly puzzle or arcade-style games. To give gamers the features and entertainment they expect out of a game sometimes the developers have to up the ante and throw in some new things. I see no problem with innovation. I mean, at least they give you a tutorial instead of throwing you to the wolves, right? :)
Interesting - I'm reading an article on slashdot that's criticising MS for favouring security over..... well anything!
Exactly! That's the first thing I thought when I read this blurb. I'm not even going to bother to read the article. You can't have it both ways; don't criticize Microsoft for favoring usability over security for years, then flip-flop when they finally listen.
Nope. That's exactly what I saw, too.
:)
And what I'm assuming to have happen.
I can see that, but a MUD would take a lot more focus. You can take in the general situation on a graphical game at a glance, and give commands with a simple interface. A MUD requires reading the situation in text repeatedly and typing commands for everything. Doesn't strike me as casual enough for a cell phone gamer, not to mention the annoyance of typing things on those keyboards or numberpads.
Okay, that makes tons more sense. That was probably in the article or something, too. And they also didn't capitalize it.
:)
Though in fairness, when it comes to video games they should probably just bite the bullet and add the extra "phones" to distinguish, since we can't always rely on accurate spelling or grammar.
This last is an expansion of Xbox Live to PC and cell platforms in addition to the Xbox arena.
Okay, am I completely misreading this or does that open the door to PS3 vs XBox 360 over XBox Live?
Probably not, but it's an interesting possibility.
Link?
Surprisingly enough it's http://www.myspace.com/sp0rk173.Maybe you should let your own little personal prejudices slide a bit. MySpace isn't the great Internet evil, you know.
joe-baldwin.net's MySpace profile complete with auto-playing song.
We all have bias, you know. :)
Yeah, after I posted I looked again and realized they were going for clever but landed on confusing. Oh well, the title is technically accurate, but the rest is still pretty squarely wrong. :)
First, the title is "Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy." What does that even mean?
Second, as nearly everyone has already noted, as designed this will not "keep appearing until you license your version of Windows or, presumably, convince Microsoft they've made a mistake." It is uninstallable.
It's not just cost, it's inertia, too. I get calls on plenty of companies that would have no problem dropping the cash to convert but still use token ring. They also are using 10 year old PC Servers to run it. They don't see a reason to upgrade, and they pay us enough to support them that they don't have to.
Exactly. I read the title of this story and was disgusted. Watch Amazon get a patent for inventing a way of selling things over wireless. Microsoft can get a patent for inventing a way of showing web pages over wireless. We need a new GIF patent, I hear they can be shown over wireless.
Total crap.
We all knew this wouldn't reduce spam. This is just a launching point for email blackmail, along the lines of BellSouth's bandwidth threats. The legal people at AOL are just trying to cover their butts so people don't have a leg to stand on when they complain that they don't get less spam. Totally stupid program.
Actually, through an emergency use of the Slashdot Firefox Extension I've forced the IT scheme on the whole site. Unfortunately it doesn't get everything, but at least the comments are okay.
I know IBM has been a contributor to Linux -- has their backing been that strong?
I'm not sure the exact details of IBM's direct support of Linux, but they develop tools for it and on it. The ServeRAID Manager CD and other bootable tools run on Linux kernels, and the latest ServeRAID-8i adapter runs Linux onboard as well. The DSA tools will run on Red Hat, SUSE, and Novell server editions. Apparently an entire IBM division is considering switching to Linux. And of course, as mentioned in the article, their commercial software offerings run on Linux.
There are various ways of supporting things. Giving money is one way, and actually using and promoting the use of them is another.
Personally I'd rather the hardware continue to advance as needed and have backwards compatibility be a secondary objective. I don't want my (supposedly) cutting-edge machine hampered by being forced to handle 5-year old technology. If they can have it both ways by some handy-dandy emulation, then good for them.
I keep running into people that use that term, and don't seem to know it's meaning.
You could make the case that "professional" dress applies to your profession, but that is not the generally accepted connotation. What you describe I would phrase as "appropriate" dress.
One of the definitions of professional behavior is "the person's actions remain in accordance with specific rules, written or unwritten, pertaining to behavior, dress, speech, etc." This covers both our uses. You should wear what is appropriate for your job role and what is accepted (or expected) for your company. No one is saying that you have to wear a tie to crawl under desks, though I've done it. In my original post I mentioned that very few people were wearing ties. A general style of clothing that you would most likely not wear to a frat party or grunge concert is the bottom line. It's about having a modicum of respect for the corporate environment you're in.
As to programmers being blue collar workers, I think you would find most people would not define sitting at a desk in an office writing code as a blue collar position. You usually have to at least be performing manual labor to earn that title.
The dress code at a company contributes a lot to the environment. When I was interviewing for jobs last year I wore a suit and tie. My first interview was at a small medical software company. I sat in a little room while they sent in different coders to ask me questions. They all looked extremely uncomfortable in their flip-flops, shorts, and T-shirts, though I was the one melting in the heat. I ended up being told I was "not right for their environment," though I had no problems with their questions and tests. After that I would ask the interviewer about the dress code. Most often I would come in khakis and a tie. When I went to IBM I wore my suit again. Even though I was the only one with a coat and one of few with a tie, I did not stand out blatantly because everyone was dressed professionally.
Exactly. I haven't seen a suit yet at my IBM center, except the one I wore to my interview.
I remember seeing the news stories back in the 90s about the change, but everyone still seems to assume we're all drones.
Still, whenever I see somebody in a suit, I assume that they've spent time and energy on their appearance that would be better spent on their work. And, conversely, if somebody wants me to conform to a dress code, I assume that they care more about appearance than performance.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Someone putting on slightly better clothes in the morning may or may not take a little longer than jeans and a T-shirt. Expecting your employees to do this does not mean you expect them to work less.I looked all over to see if you'd answered that already ... sorry. Thanks for the quick reply.