Please, this is really a weak argument for hoarding more cash then you know what to do with. If people who exceeded a certain finanical status could apply Forrest Gump's logic the world would be a better place. I'll paraphrase for those that haven't seen the movie:
"Momma said there's only so much fortune a man really needs and the rest is just for showing off."
I can't even retire with my current savings, yet I should be expected to donate rediculous sums? We're talking about someone who has so much money that he could live more comfortable then 99.5% of Americans on less then one-tenth of one percent of his net worth. I'm not sure you can really compare our situations.
$30 million to go into space. Yea, it's a great adventure [for him], but do you know how much good you could do with that money? I won't bother to seach the web for how many children he could feed or how many mosquito nets he could purchase, but it shames me to think how much good that money could do instead of giving him a slight adrenaline rush and a story for his grandkids. I'm sure someone will reply with a "relative" comment regarding money I and others who are less fiscally successful spend on things like MMOG's and flat panels, but on a person-by-person basis that's a very small chunk compared to the giant barrel of money he's giving away here.
No, you can't quantify fun, but you can qunatify a lot of what about a game makes it fun to most people and allow them to draw conclusions based on that information. Such things include:
1) Interface, controls, information provided in-game and the customization of each.
2) Graphics levels and relative speed comparable to other established games.
3) Complexity and depth of levels/missions.
4) Polish - the presence (or lack of) bugs.
5) Length of play and difficulty compared to other established titles (ie. not as hard as Ninja Gaiden, but close).
6) If it's online, how intuitive the multiplayer functionality works and how it compares to other titles.
The list goes on but you get the idea. You throw out whatever facts you can, compare where appropriate, and let the user make his/her decision from there.
People use MMO's to escape reality. Winning a gas card or movie would just be a reminder of what they're trying to get away from while they're playing. Not to mention, the game caters to a large international audience. It would be tough to provide prizes that had relevence to everyone (I doubt Mahjin in India wants a Barnes and Nobles gift card).
Not really a solution, but more public focus on upcoming vulnerability patches would be helpful. And I don't mean in the sense of *what* the vulnerability is, but moreso that it's coming, and how important it is. As it stands now, everyone is so familiar with "patch tuesday" that's as much an after-thought as a new moon. If we gave each cycle (or at least really important ones) the importance of an eclipse, we might get somewhere. This could be achieved through MS helping us understand the importance of an upcoming release without necessarily divulging all the details of it. When a boss knows the importance of a patch before it's released (even if he doesn't understand *what* it fixes), the IT staff is much less-likely to allow that vulnerability to go unmitigated as their ability to bullshit their way through damage control after-the-fact has gone out the window.
But until we had geologic evidence that showed otherwise, we always thought that magnetic North was up. For all we know, we're just 13.73 billion years into the current universal cycle.
The site announcing the vuln seems rather respectful. Why on earth would they release the PoC code to the public (non-compiled and thus easy to integrate) instead of just *saying* they had tested and proven it and sent the code and their findings to VMWare? I guess it generates more clicks and thus more ad revenue, but still.
Did you glance over the "opt out" portion of the idea that would take all of one phone call or the clicking of a check box? You mention filtering software as some sort of protection means, so I assume you also glanced over the part where I said people should be more worried about protecting their kids at other people's homes where they have no control. Those same people who are too lazy to police the use of the web probably aren't going to call the ISP and have the porn "turned on" either. The site list or intelligent filter might be set at the government level, but it would have to be implemented at the ISP level, so there would be a clear and obvious list of what was or wasn't being blocked, so it's unlikely any sort of non-porn censorship would be going on. You try to sound like someone who wants to protect our freedoms and limit government intervention, but in this case you come off as one of those guys that thinks the government's out to screw them.
I know it's our nature to question any sentence that includes both the words "government" and "censorship", but if the users are free to opt out at any point, how exactly is this terrible? Would you prefer this run by an organization or company that would be even more susceptable to bribes and/or collusion? Or perhaps you'd rather that every ISP establish it's own standards of censorship? People want options, and if this helps parents feel better about their kids surfing habits, why should it not be offered?
I know folks stand behind the argument of, "I monitor my kids internet, I know what they're doing." Wrong. No matter how hard you try, you can't 100% monitor their access unless you're with them 24/7. The time spent surfing the web at home isn't the time you need to worry about, it's the time they spend at they're friends house who's parent don't give two shits about internet monitoring, or the free WAP's they can access from every other streeet corner with a coffee shop, or the....you get the idea. A universal protection with an opt-out option gives parents at least *some* peace of mind, even if it is somewhat misguided.
Your team no doubt learned from all of the succeses and failures within World of Warcraft and did their best to retain what aspects had player appeal and shy away from those that illicited public outcry. Stepping away from those choices, what would you say was the most daring leap of faith the team made in the game mechanics, balance, graphics, or any other facet that jumps out at you? Is there anything in the game that really made you say, "Dang, we're hanging our butts out there on this one, but we believe in this feature/mechanic and are gonna run with it."
You got jumped 10 times in.6 or higher space? One of two things happened. You either quickly joined up with a player-owned Corp that was at war instead of staying in the npc corps like most folks do the first month or two, or you did something to really tick off some folks to the point that they'd be willing to suffer the wrath of Concord (in-game NPC police that patrol.5 and higher security space) upon attacking you.
Also, you say we assume you know the difference between different security levels. When you start, of course no one would expect you to know that. However, I'd expect after 6 weeks that you would understand the most basic concept of the game that defines your level of safety in the Eve universe. Maybe I succeeded at keeping myself safe (for the most part) because I don't assume a game is going to go easy on me (that's not a jab at you, just an observation on how most games are).
Anyway, the bottom line is there's a reason that most Eve players (not myself though) call pretty much every other MMO a "Carebear" game compared to Eve. Eve makes you take risks if you want to succeed...big risks that can lead to big losses. For that reason, I don't recommend this game to someone who takes their gaming experience too seriously;)
You sound very bitter. Did you actually try it? If so, is that what happened to you?
If that's the case, then that's sad. I started playing a VERY long time ago, so granted, I'm not as far behind the curve as other folks, but I've managed to get to 27 mil skill points (a far cry from the vets with ~50 mil +) and have only been destroyed once, and that was within the first few weeks of playing and because I blatantly ignored the warnings of my friends who told me "don't do that."
Eve is a game that rewards the ambitious. It especially rewards those without morals as well as those who share company with folks of a similar mindset. However, it only punishes those that are stupid enough to blatantly ignore the warnings. If you take your cruiser with it's Tech 1 pea shooters into.2 thinking you're gonna hit it rich mining Jaspet and don't even have the common sense to spend a few seconds scanning the local channel every now and then, you deserve to get destroyed.
Care to elaborate? Or are you just onboard with the "Hate Microsoft" bandwagon? As someone who works in an environment supporting Microsoft (and other) products, I'm in no immediate hurry to see them tumble down just because I like to watch big things go boom.
Vista is a great OS, it just may be a little too bulky for it's time. It probably needs to wait a little bit for mainstream hardware to catch up to it's outlandish specs (which in all honesty, you don't need if you don't run it in it's Turbo Hyper-Fighting Championship Edition graphics mode).
Have you (or others) really looked at Vista's management of resources? There's a good reason it's only for Vista. I would liken trying to run DX10 on XP to trying to run Gears of War on an old XBOX.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, this is really a weak argument for hoarding more cash then you know what to do with. If people who exceeded a certain finanical status could apply Forrest Gump's logic the world would be a better place. I'll paraphrase for those that haven't seen the movie: "Momma said there's only so much fortune a man really needs and the rest is just for showing off."
I can't even retire with my current savings, yet I should be expected to donate rediculous sums? We're talking about someone who has so much money that he could live more comfortable then 99.5% of Americans on less then one-tenth of one percent of his net worth. I'm not sure you can really compare our situations.
$30 million to go into space. Yea, it's a great adventure [for him], but do you know how much good you could do with that money? I won't bother to seach the web for how many children he could feed or how many mosquito nets he could purchase, but it shames me to think how much good that money could do instead of giving him a slight adrenaline rush and a story for his grandkids. I'm sure someone will reply with a "relative" comment regarding money I and others who are less fiscally successful spend on things like MMOG's and flat panels, but on a person-by-person basis that's a very small chunk compared to the giant barrel of money he's giving away here.
No, you can't quantify fun, but you can qunatify a lot of what about a game makes it fun to most people and allow them to draw conclusions based on that information. Such things include:
1) Interface, controls, information provided in-game and the customization of each.
2) Graphics levels and relative speed comparable to other established games.
3) Complexity and depth of levels/missions.
4) Polish - the presence (or lack of) bugs.
5) Length of play and difficulty compared to other established titles (ie. not as hard as Ninja Gaiden, but close).
6) If it's online, how intuitive the multiplayer functionality works and how it compares to other titles.
The list goes on but you get the idea. You throw out whatever facts you can, compare where appropriate, and let the user make his/her decision from there.
The irony is you in fact have confirmed the worthiness of this article by making the obligatory "Why is this news?" post.
A checksum won't help if the user replaces/saves the file with a corrupted version.
People use MMO's to escape reality. Winning a gas card or movie would just be a reminder of what they're trying to get away from while they're playing. Not to mention, the game caters to a large international audience. It would be tough to provide prizes that had relevence to everyone (I doubt Mahjin in India wants a Barnes and Nobles gift card).
Because if I'm a supplier of components, I'm not going to make what I want and then hope I can sell it. I'm going to make what my customers *ask* for.
Damn girl, you look hot enough to transmit energy in a lossless....hey, where are you going?
*Sigh* It's become pretty obvious on these forums that intelligence and sarcasm detection are indirectly proportional attributes.
Not really a solution, but more public focus on upcoming vulnerability patches would be helpful. And I don't mean in the sense of *what* the vulnerability is, but moreso that it's coming, and how important it is. As it stands now, everyone is so familiar with "patch tuesday" that's as much an after-thought as a new moon. If we gave each cycle (or at least really important ones) the importance of an eclipse, we might get somewhere. This could be achieved through MS helping us understand the importance of an upcoming release without necessarily divulging all the details of it. When a boss knows the importance of a patch before it's released (even if he doesn't understand *what* it fixes), the IT staff is much less-likely to allow that vulnerability to go unmitigated as their ability to bullshit their way through damage control after-the-fact has gone out the window.
Just roll the entire i386 directory into every patch.
But until we had geologic evidence that showed otherwise, we always thought that magnetic North was up. For all we know, we're just 13.73 billion years into the current universal cycle.
The site announcing the vuln seems rather respectful. Why on earth would they release the PoC code to the public (non-compiled and thus easy to integrate) instead of just *saying* they had tested and proven it and sent the code and their findings to VMWare? I guess it generates more clicks and thus more ad revenue, but still.
Did you glance over the "opt out" portion of the idea that would take all of one phone call or the clicking of a check box? You mention filtering software as some sort of protection means, so I assume you also glanced over the part where I said people should be more worried about protecting their kids at other people's homes where they have no control. Those same people who are too lazy to police the use of the web probably aren't going to call the ISP and have the porn "turned on" either. The site list or intelligent filter might be set at the government level, but it would have to be implemented at the ISP level, so there would be a clear and obvious list of what was or wasn't being blocked, so it's unlikely any sort of non-porn censorship would be going on. You try to sound like someone who wants to protect our freedoms and limit government intervention, but in this case you come off as one of those guys that thinks the government's out to screw them.
I know it's our nature to question any sentence that includes both the words "government" and "censorship", but if the users are free to opt out at any point, how exactly is this terrible? Would you prefer this run by an organization or company that would be even more susceptable to bribes and/or collusion? Or perhaps you'd rather that every ISP establish it's own standards of censorship? People want options, and if this helps parents feel better about their kids surfing habits, why should it not be offered?
I know folks stand behind the argument of, "I monitor my kids internet, I know what they're doing." Wrong. No matter how hard you try, you can't 100% monitor their access unless you're with them 24/7. The time spent surfing the web at home isn't the time you need to worry about, it's the time they spend at they're friends house who's parent don't give two shits about internet monitoring, or the free WAP's they can access from every other streeet corner with a coffee shop, or the....you get the idea. A universal protection with an opt-out option gives parents at least *some* peace of mind, even if it is somewhat misguided.
Which would render the password:
Toym,rafd
Whatever she uses, just make sure to tell her not to say it out loud as she's typing it in.
Your team no doubt learned from all of the succeses and failures within World of Warcraft and did their best to retain what aspects had player appeal and shy away from those that illicited public outcry. Stepping away from those choices, what would you say was the most daring leap of faith the team made in the game mechanics, balance, graphics, or any other facet that jumps out at you? Is there anything in the game that really made you say, "Dang, we're hanging our butts out there on this one, but we believe in this feature/mechanic and are gonna run with it."
You got jumped 10 times in .6 or higher space? One of two things happened. You either quickly joined up with a player-owned Corp that was at war instead of staying in the npc corps like most folks do the first month or two, or you did something to really tick off some folks to the point that they'd be willing to suffer the wrath of Concord (in-game NPC police that patrol .5 and higher security space) upon attacking you.
;)
Also, you say we assume you know the difference between different security levels. When you start, of course no one would expect you to know that. However, I'd expect after 6 weeks that you would understand the most basic concept of the game that defines your level of safety in the Eve universe. Maybe I succeeded at keeping myself safe (for the most part) because I don't assume a game is going to go easy on me (that's not a jab at you, just an observation on how most games are).
Anyway, the bottom line is there's a reason that most Eve players (not myself though) call pretty much every other MMO a "Carebear" game compared to Eve. Eve makes you take risks if you want to succeed...big risks that can lead to big losses. For that reason, I don't recommend this game to someone who takes their gaming experience too seriously
You sound very bitter. Did you actually try it? If so, is that what happened to you?
If that's the case, then that's sad. I started playing a VERY long time ago, so granted, I'm not as far behind the curve as other folks, but I've managed to get to 27 mil skill points (a far cry from the vets with ~50 mil +) and have only been destroyed once, and that was within the first few weeks of playing and because I blatantly ignored the warnings of my friends who told me "don't do that."
Eve is a game that rewards the ambitious. It especially rewards those without morals as well as those who share company with folks of a similar mindset. However, it only punishes those that are stupid enough to blatantly ignore the warnings. If you take your cruiser with it's Tech 1 pea shooters into
Well because it has better secur...errr, I mean, the driver support is muc...well, ok, you may have me there.
Care to elaborate? Or are you just onboard with the "Hate Microsoft" bandwagon? As someone who works in an environment supporting Microsoft (and other) products, I'm in no immediate hurry to see them tumble down just because I like to watch big things go boom.
Vista is a great OS, it just may be a little too bulky for it's time. It probably needs to wait a little bit for mainstream hardware to catch up to it's outlandish specs (which in all honesty, you don't need if you don't run it in it's Turbo Hyper-Fighting Championship Edition graphics mode).
Barring my admitted use of marketese, is there anything else you wanted to say, or are you just trolling today?
Have you (or others) really looked at Vista's management of resources? There's a good reason it's only for Vista. I would liken trying to run DX10 on XP to trying to run Gears of War on an old XBOX.