Just because a game has the Zelda or Mario name on it doesn't makeit automatically uninnovative... Zelda:OOT and the original Legend of Zelda are both in the same series but both are completely different kinds of games. Both were innovative games for their time. Same for Super Mario Bros. and Mario 64. Metroid. Donkey Kong. Point is that Nintendo has spent a long time building up name recognition for their premier characters and they can now capitalize on that by bringing out new games that feature them.
I'd much rather see a Zelda MMORPG. I'd be even more interested in it if it were a NDS game. The Wind Waker world is perfect for a MMORPG, with it's island based geography (easy to make a seperate content of several servers) and also the pretense that when a boy comes of age, he dresses as Link for a day (everone gets to be LIKE Link, but not actually be Link).
Plus, it's cel-shaded graphics and low level of gore and realistic violence may help it appeal to a wider audience, tapping some demographics that current MMORPGs haven't captured.
Going handheld with it on the DS would be even bigger, as players who subscribe to one or two current PC based MMORPGs may be induced to get a portable game, whereas they may ignore another play at home only game. There's potential for a lot of new features in a portable MMORPG, including offline, but still multiplayer, quests, where you can invite people on your friends to come on quests you have available if they are on your local DS network, but an internet connection is not available.
Zelda has always been, in my eyes, Nintendo's best franchise. It is also the one that fits into the MMORPG concept best, and I really hope to see it done. As a side note, Nintendo really dropped the ball with Metroid 2... adding some sort of 16+ player online support with stat tracking and whatnot would have made it an easy game of the year choice, but as it is, games like Halo2 which are arguably not as good, but with top notch online play will fare better in both sales and reviews.
While I know you are kidding, the number of people actually using these systems is likely small enough that, statistally speaking, they would only need to include 2 or 3 into the sample group to be representitive. Couple that with the fact that the deviation of shows watched between a geeky TiVo user (me) and a MythTV user is probably next to nil, so their ommision is larglely irrelivent.
The alternative is that not only do the poor not have to pay taxes but that they also get their medical care and retirement savings paid for by others?
Bullshiat. Most 'working poor' do not qualify for ANY goverment healthcare in the US. Minors and seniors get the bulk of Medicare/Medicaid fund, and neither of those groups pay a significant amount into either program.
Again, Social Security does not help any working poor. The money they pay in doesn't get banked away for when they retire. It goes directly into the pockets of people collecting now. THey are paying on the promise/hope/fantasy that there will be people still paying into it when they get old enough to draw.
Have there been any GTA2 style clones done as open source/linux projects yet? Seems like a likely candidate for an OSS game project, and I'm hankrin for a game I can play on my desktop!
Maybe if you mailed photo copies that showed that you buy at least 10 games per month for the last year, and planned on buying 10 games per month for the next 3 years, that would provide them with enough incentive to fix/replace your console.
I wonder who will be the first company to use this concept like BMG does/did with CDs... "We'll send you a FREE XBox2, all you have to do is buy 1 game now for $50, and agree to buy 6 games at $30-50 during the next 12 months!" It would be worth considering, about a year after launch, especially if the console maker were doing it. They take the loss on the console, get their cut of total games sold, plus get the retailers cut on games sold in the 'program'.
All calls are evenually passed into the same telephone network and routed by either a Lucent 5ESS, or the Nortel or Seimens equivilent (yes, I know there are probably other players in that market, but those are the big three).
Cell calls are picked up by Cell towers and are multiplexed together and end p in a regional cell switching station, which has trunk lines that connect it to all the area regular switches, and also to some national waypoints that route long distance traffic.
A VoIP call is transmitted over the internet and then selectively routed to whatever local switching center it needs to go to in order to connect to the recieving POTS line.
What is to stop a carrier from routing its calls selectively, checkign to see if they are coming from the cell network or from the itnernet, and just routing the call accordingly. I agree that having a single number handled by a seperate cell and VoIP carrier would be an enormous difficultly. If I were to want a system with seperate VoIP and cell carriers I would assign the phone two diferent numbers and have the some sort of forwarding system, so that calling one of them (the VoIP number, I am guessing) would ring the cell phone if they phone was not in range of a network AP, but not if the device was 'online'.
Well, we can be friends if you aren't going to vote for Bush.
I was going to continue this, but it reminded me that arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, no matter who wins your all still retarted. (No offense meant to any Special Olympiads out there, just making a point). I think we can agree on the fact that crying kids, arguing families, loud cell phone users, people who take it apon themselves to adjust the volume, channel, settings of a TV in a "public" place are all farktards. I think we can also agree that if the management of a business chooses to have some sort of TV/radio playing and you don't like it, the burden is on you to NOT go there, rather to buy some gadget to turn it off for everyone.
I also retract my comment about Religious Right Bush Supporters, it was only meant to make an example of a group of people who think they know what is best for everyone.
The Hitler comment wasn't directed at you, I was just making a joke about the age old addage that all arguments eventually devolve untill someone mentions Nazi's, and that they automatically lose.:)
Haha, nice dig. Clearly I am illiterate! (Although I did in my hurry to respond use the wrong form of 'here/hear' which is one of my pet peeves). If I went into the street outside your house and blasted my radio or TV I can see where you would have grounds to be upset. I am projecting my noise 'pollution' into your space. However, if we are meeting at a location that both of us choose to visit and neither of us own or have any sort of controlling interest in, why does your right automatically become more important than mine?
Well, obviously they can't use copper. I am talking about the continued merging of data services. Forst it was phone and internet. The TV and internet. Now TV and internet, from a phone company, so presumably they will offer a VoIP service bundled as well. The only thing left is going to be wireless phone service, which is what I am talking about!
I want a way to launch Windows98se (that has been pared down to a minimal amount required files) on a Linux or Mac OSX machine so that I can run IE and whatnot without having to reboot!
Well, the topic wasn't just about TV, it is about an internet service provider merging DSL (which already is interent and TELEPHONE service combined) with TV. The next logical step is to ditch the POTS service and add VoIP, and why not bundle cell service with it?
It actually makes sense, if you think about it, rather than just biatching.
How is this any different? So you're right not to here a TV in a public place is more important than an illiterate person's (or more likely someone too far away to read the captions) right to hear the program?
The only option here is for you to ask the owner/manager to turn it done, or to simply not go places with services you don't like.
Hahah. You're such a sad silly little man. You have to go attacking me personally when you realize that I am indeed, in this case, right.
Just for the record, did I peg you correctly as a moral minority/religous right/Bush supporter type?
Just face it, call me whatever names you want, and it doesn't make your position hold any more water. You want to impose your idea of what is right and polite on business ownwers and their customers because you CHOOSE to frequent places that have features/services that you dislike/disagree with.
And you claim that I am the jackass?! I AGREED WITH YOU that loud PEOPLE and their CRYING BABIES are obnoxious and rude at 'public' places. That, however, has NOTHING TO DO with the subject at hand! You fail to make any comment on why I am wrong in this case. You just attack me at personal level, trying to make yourself feel superior. This reminds me very much of Hitler and the Jews! (There, I incurred Murphy's Law or whatever, by mentioning Hitler, so I lose, you win, take all the TVs out of EVERYWHERE in the whole world!!!!)
I can't see how this would be troublesome at all. Give me a cell phone that, with a WiFi card that 'wakes up' when it connects with an AP and can ping the server of the VoIP provider. It could only work on networks where you have preconfigured the AP for all I care. When the phone detects/connects a full WiFi/VoIP connection is just sets the calls to go thru there. To make it easier, you could actually have 2 phone numbers, one for the cell service and one for VoIP, but have them ring each other or forward to the other inder the right conditions, so you would onlt actually use one.
I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say 'cell/fifi roaming' will add cost. Cell service roams relatively trouble free at this point, and I don't think we would need the phone to hand off calls from wifi to cell networks, just switch over to the appropriate one when the call is ended...
I agree with you and the OP that Powell is an asshat. However, I was just commenting that a blanket no nepotism rule would be unfair to reasonablely qualified people, as you say, who happen to have fathers in important places.
Out of that list, I would be equally sceptical of all of them... I like Apple and all, but if they were running this you could only watch HDTV on their new $5500 iTV, and if it were Sony you could replace iTV with AtracTV.
Now, if they replaced MS in the article with, say, EFF or the Mozilla Dev Team, I would get excited.;-)
because today I was wondering wether or not there is a cell phone that has a built in wifi system for VoIP... I want a single phone that lets me use unlimited VoIP service if I am at home or somewhere I am authorized to get on a standard wireless network and then when I am not in range of a wireless AP switches over to a regular cell phone network (keeping the same number) and bills me with on a regular wireless phone plan.
I think that a decent phone, with some basic web/email/chat features, as well as the cell and wifi connectivity would be worth about $150 (with contract discounts) and $60-70/month (with free long distance all the time, unlimited VoIP service, 500 or so 'anytime' cell minutes, and voicemail, call waiting, etc) to me.
Well, Powell is a bad example, as is Bush Jr., but would it really be fair to say that just because you are someones son you really aren't able to do your job?
Another responder already said this, but since it was directed specifically at me, I'll add my bit...
First off, if you don't like the fact that a "restaurant" owner has loud TVs, go elsewhere. If you have no qualms about asking someone else to pay for your meal because you were disturbed in a public place, I have no qualms about telling you to fuck off and go somewhere were everyone is quiet and reserved while they eat. I am sure Bush is having a fund raising dinner somewhere in your area.
Second off, this discussion has NOTHING to do with cryng babies, arguing children, or what have you. I agree, that's generally rude and annoying. What we are talking about is a feature of the establishment that you don't like. Let's look at it like this, if you didn't like a places food, would you eat there? No, because it doesn't appeal to you. If you don't like TVs in restaurant, then see above.
On a different analogy, if I think that people shouldn't drink alcohol in public because it makes them loud and obnoxious, should I be able to go into a bar and ask them to all stop drinking so I can enjoy my meal in peace? This is the same, a feature of the "public place" I am visiting is that they serve beer/wine/liquor/etc. and if I don't like that, I should go elsewhere, rather than bitch about it.
I, for one, am sick and tired of people like YOU, who bitch and moan about things that OTHER people are ruining our society. We aren't talking about MY personal freedom, or YOUR's, we are talking about the proprietor of a private business being free to operate that business as they see fit. If they choose to have TVs playing in the establishment THEY OWN what makes you feel like you have a "Personal Freedom" to turn it off? The only "personal Freedom" of mine OR yours that enter into it is the one where we get to choose where to go. It's not like people are bringing TVs into places and making you listen to them.
This is alot like smoking (albiet the effects on bystanders are much greater than smoking). In lots of places it is still legal to let people smoke in your restaurant/bar/whatever, however there's many, many places that DON'T allow it because there are enough people who prefer that sort of service to support a sub-class of 'non-smoking restaurants'. If there was more than a pissy, whiney, bitchy, spoiled, vocal minority of people who wanted TV free places to eat maybe someone could afford to open a TV free place for you to eat at. Maybe someone already has, and rather than bitch that I am eroding society because you CHOOSE to go to a place with a TV playing in it you could go eat there.
(I know this is an old thread and no one will read this, but...) Myth Busters now officially has everything, as they have add a hot chick as well as two geeks, skepticism, science, folklore, and stuff blowin' up real good.
Even my (admittidly bi) wife thinks Kari is Hot, with a capital H.
How did a PRIVATELY OWNED establishment suddenly become a public place? If your neighborhood park had some TVs going full bore you MIGHT have a valid point. If the OWNER of some place decides that (s)he wants to have TVs going in THEIR establishment, maybe you should ask them to turn it down/off. Maybe MOST of the clientel WANT it ON?
Also, if it was a publiclt owned facility and the marjority of constiuents WANTED a TV being played there, and there wasn't any techinical reason that made it unfeasible, why should they have to accede to the demands of the vocal minority?
Exactly. If some asshole comes into a sports bar where I am trying to watch a game with my buddies and turns off/mutes/changes the channel of the TV I am watching, we're going to issues of the let's take it outside variety.
The only places I can think of that have TVs where the volume is occasionally turned up loud enough to be heard is bars and restaurants with bars. People often go to those bars to watch those TVs, so turning them off would entirely defeat the purpose. You want peace and quiet? Stay home or goto you local library.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a game has the Zelda or Mario name on it doesn't makeit automatically uninnovative... Zelda:OOT and the original Legend of Zelda are both in the same series but both are completely different kinds of games. Both were innovative games for their time. Same for Super Mario Bros. and Mario 64. Metroid. Donkey Kong. Point is that Nintendo has spent a long time building up name recognition for their premier characters and they can now capitalize on that by bringing out new games that feature them.
Plus, it's cel-shaded graphics and low level of gore and realistic violence may help it appeal to a wider audience, tapping some demographics that current MMORPGs haven't captured.
Going handheld with it on the DS would be even bigger, as players who subscribe to one or two current PC based MMORPGs may be induced to get a portable game, whereas they may ignore another play at home only game. There's potential for a lot of new features in a portable MMORPG, including offline, but still multiplayer, quests, where you can invite people on your friends to come on quests you have available if they are on your local DS network, but an internet connection is not available.
Zelda has always been, in my eyes, Nintendo's best franchise. It is also the one that fits into the MMORPG concept best, and I really hope to see it done. As a side note, Nintendo really dropped the ball with Metroid 2... adding some sort of 16+ player online support with stat tracking and whatnot would have made it an easy game of the year choice, but as it is, games like Halo2 which are arguably not as good, but with top notch online play will fare better in both sales and reviews.
While I know you are kidding, the number of people actually using these systems is likely small enough that, statistally speaking, they would only need to include 2 or 3 into the sample group to be representitive. Couple that with the fact that the deviation of shows watched between a geeky TiVo user (me) and a MythTV user is probably next to nil, so their ommision is larglely irrelivent.
Bullshiat. Most 'working poor' do not qualify for ANY goverment healthcare in the US. Minors and seniors get the bulk of Medicare/Medicaid fund, and neither of those groups pay a significant amount into either program.
Again, Social Security does not help any working poor. The money they pay in doesn't get banked away for when they retire. It goes directly into the pockets of people collecting now. THey are paying on the promise/hope/fantasy that there will be people still paying into it when they get old enough to draw.
Although, those tend to be the reasons that these people vote, so I s'pose you are partially right.
Have there been any GTA2 style clones done as open source/linux projects yet? Seems like a likely candidate for an OSS game project, and I'm hankrin for a game I can play on my desktop!
I wonder who will be the first company to use this concept like BMG does/did with CDs... "We'll send you a FREE XBox2, all you have to do is buy 1 game now for $50, and agree to buy 6 games at $30-50 during the next 12 months!" It would be worth considering, about a year after launch, especially if the console maker were doing it. They take the loss on the console, get their cut of total games sold, plus get the retailers cut on games sold in the 'program'.
I might sign up for something like that...
All calls are evenually passed into the same telephone network and routed by either a Lucent 5ESS, or the Nortel or Seimens equivilent (yes, I know there are probably other players in that market, but those are the big three).
Cell calls are picked up by Cell towers and are multiplexed together and end p in a regional cell switching station, which has trunk lines that connect it to all the area regular switches, and also to some national waypoints that route long distance traffic.
A VoIP call is transmitted over the internet and then selectively routed to whatever local switching center it needs to go to in order to connect to the recieving POTS line.
What is to stop a carrier from routing its calls selectively, checkign to see if they are coming from the cell network or from the itnernet, and just routing the call accordingly. I agree that having a single number handled by a seperate cell and VoIP carrier would be an enormous difficultly. If I were to want a system with seperate VoIP and cell carriers I would assign the phone two diferent numbers and have the some sort of forwarding system, so that calling one of them (the VoIP number, I am guessing) would ring the cell phone if they phone was not in range of a network AP, but not if the device was 'online'.
I was going to continue this, but it reminded me that arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, no matter who wins your all still retarted. (No offense meant to any Special Olympiads out there, just making a point). I think we can agree on the fact that crying kids, arguing families, loud cell phone users, people who take it apon themselves to adjust the volume, channel, settings of a TV in a "public" place are all farktards. I think we can also agree that if the management of a business chooses to have some sort of TV/radio playing and you don't like it, the burden is on you to NOT go there, rather to buy some gadget to turn it off for everyone.
I also retract my comment about Religious Right Bush Supporters, it was only meant to make an example of a group of people who think they know what is best for everyone.
The Hitler comment wasn't directed at you, I was just making a joke about the age old addage that all arguments eventually devolve untill someone mentions Nazi's, and that they automatically lose. :)
WooWoo, anybody but Bush 2004, WooWoo!
Haha, nice dig. Clearly I am illiterate! (Although I did in my hurry to respond use the wrong form of 'here/hear' which is one of my pet peeves). If I went into the street outside your house and blasted my radio or TV I can see where you would have grounds to be upset. I am projecting my noise 'pollution' into your space. However, if we are meeting at a location that both of us choose to visit and neither of us own or have any sort of controlling interest in, why does your right automatically become more important than mine?
Well, obviously they can't use copper. I am talking about the continued merging of data services. Forst it was phone and internet. The TV and internet. Now TV and internet, from a phone company, so presumably they will offer a VoIP service bundled as well. The only thing left is going to be wireless phone service, which is what I am talking about!
Anyone make that?
Heheh, beat me to it! And to the other responder, get a sense of humor!
It actually makes sense, if you think about it, rather than just biatching.
The only option here is for you to ask the owner/manager to turn it done, or to simply not go places with services you don't like.
Just for the record, did I peg you correctly as a moral minority/religous right/Bush supporter type?
Just face it, call me whatever names you want, and it doesn't make your position hold any more water. You want to impose your idea of what is right and polite on business ownwers and their customers because you CHOOSE to frequent places that have features/services that you dislike/disagree with.
And you claim that I am the jackass?! I AGREED WITH YOU that loud PEOPLE and their CRYING BABIES are obnoxious and rude at 'public' places. That, however, has NOTHING TO DO with the subject at hand! You fail to make any comment on why I am wrong in this case. You just attack me at personal level, trying to make yourself feel superior. This reminds me very much of Hitler and the Jews! (There, I incurred Murphy's Law or whatever, by mentioning Hitler, so I lose, you win, take all the TVs out of EVERYWHERE in the whole world!!!!)
I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say 'cell/fifi roaming' will add cost. Cell service roams relatively trouble free at this point, and I don't think we would need the phone to hand off calls from wifi to cell networks, just switch over to the appropriate one when the call is ended...
I agree with you and the OP that Powell is an asshat. However, I was just commenting that a blanket no nepotism rule would be unfair to reasonablely qualified people, as you say, who happen to have fathers in important places.
Now, if they replaced MS in the article with, say, EFF or the Mozilla Dev Team, I would get excited. ;-)
I think that a decent phone, with some basic web/email/chat features, as well as the cell and wifi connectivity would be worth about $150 (with contract discounts) and $60-70/month (with free long distance all the time, unlimited VoIP service, 500 or so 'anytime' cell minutes, and voicemail, call waiting, etc) to me.
Is there any sign of this in the near future!?
Well, Powell is a bad example, as is Bush Jr., but would it really be fair to say that just because you are someones son you really aren't able to do your job?
First off, if you don't like the fact that a "restaurant" owner has loud TVs, go elsewhere. If you have no qualms about asking someone else to pay for your meal because you were disturbed in a public place, I have no qualms about telling you to fuck off and go somewhere were everyone is quiet and reserved while they eat. I am sure Bush is having a fund raising dinner somewhere in your area.
Second off, this discussion has NOTHING to do with cryng babies, arguing children, or what have you. I agree, that's generally rude and annoying. What we are talking about is a feature of the establishment that you don't like. Let's look at it like this, if you didn't like a places food, would you eat there? No, because it doesn't appeal to you. If you don't like TVs in restaurant, then see above.
On a different analogy, if I think that people shouldn't drink alcohol in public because it makes them loud and obnoxious, should I be able to go into a bar and ask them to all stop drinking so I can enjoy my meal in peace? This is the same, a feature of the "public place" I am visiting is that they serve beer/wine/liquor/etc. and if I don't like that, I should go elsewhere, rather than bitch about it.
I, for one, am sick and tired of people like YOU, who bitch and moan about things that OTHER people are ruining our society. We aren't talking about MY personal freedom, or YOUR's, we are talking about the proprietor of a private business being free to operate that business as they see fit. If they choose to have TVs playing in the establishment THEY OWN what makes you feel like you have a "Personal Freedom" to turn it off? The only "personal Freedom" of mine OR yours that enter into it is the one where we get to choose where to go. It's not like people are bringing TVs into places and making you listen to them.
This is alot like smoking (albiet the effects on bystanders are much greater than smoking). In lots of places it is still legal to let people smoke in your restaurant/bar/whatever, however there's many, many places that DON'T allow it because there are enough people who prefer that sort of service to support a sub-class of 'non-smoking restaurants'. If there was more than a pissy, whiney, bitchy, spoiled, vocal minority of people who wanted TV free places to eat maybe someone could afford to open a TV free place for you to eat at. Maybe someone already has, and rather than bitch that I am eroding society because you CHOOSE to go to a place with a TV playing in it you could go eat there.
Even my (admittidly bi) wife thinks Kari is Hot, with a capital H.
How did a PRIVATELY OWNED establishment suddenly become a public place? If your neighborhood park had some TVs going full bore you MIGHT have a valid point. If the OWNER of some place decides that (s)he wants to have TVs going in THEIR establishment, maybe you should ask them to turn it down/off. Maybe MOST of the clientel WANT it ON?
Also, if it was a publiclt owned facility and the marjority of constiuents WANTED a TV being played there, and there wasn't any techinical reason that made it unfeasible, why should they have to accede to the demands of the vocal minority?
The only places I can think of that have TVs where the volume is occasionally turned up loud enough to be heard is bars and restaurants with bars. People often go to those bars to watch those TVs, so turning them off would entirely defeat the purpose. You want peace and quiet? Stay home or goto you local library.