In 1994, the researchers found that 31 percent of the IT projects were flat failures. [...] As of 2006, the absolute failure rate is down to 19 percent.
I have serious doubts that IT projects have made any significant improvements in management efficiency in the last decade or so. More likely the people estimating timelines, budgets and features have learned from their mistakes and simply set the bar much lower than they did in the early 90s.
It's the "SAT Effect" (tm). Why actually improve performance when you can simply tweak the metrics by which you measure?
The reason for this is pretty simple. You still watch a bad movie in the exact same way you would watch a great movie. A bad game, however, has gameplay and controls so awkward or downright frustrating that you are immediately sick of the game.
Nintendo is not abandoning new IPs; they are abandoning the idea that the only way to improve is by adding better graphics and more realistic blood spatters. Since that seems to be all that "hardcore gamers" want, they are feeling abandoned.
I want games involving more than one button. I want to be challenged a little bit instead of having watered down puzzles that a 10 year old could solve. I want a storyline and character development that is slightly more involved than the last episode of Pokemon.
If these things make me hardcore then I feel awfully sorry for the "gamers" who think the industry is better off without these things.
SAP workers hacked into a Web site and stole software codes Am I the only one confused as to why Oracle would be keeping source code on a production web server?
You were complaining about the death of a PEN AND PAPER franchise, Dungeons and Dragons. I'm telling you WotC didn't kill D&D, computers and the explosive growth of MMORPGs did. WotC just happened to be the ones left holding the reins when that horse fell over dead.
In my mind and in my parent's basement, We can't hit res we've gone too far. Net tubes came and broke your heart, So put all the blame on Al Goooooore.
I find it interesting they compared the much smaller notebook market and ignored desktops. Desktops are far and away the more common form of personal computing, and in that arena the PC blows away the Mac in terms of performance per dollar.
If your only contact with someone is through the internet then they are anonymous for all intents and purposes. Doubly so if all your contact is through a video game.
So other than the memory cache, what features could be stripped from FF to make it leaner and faster? I know nothing of its internals, but without any extensions it doesn't seem to have many wasteful features.
A quick glance at the Firefox features page lists these things, which as far as I'm concerned are bloat as they are not fundamental to a web browser:
Spell Checking
Search Suggestions
Session Restore
Web Feeds (RSS)
Live Titles
Integrated Search
Live Bookmarks
Pop-up Blocker
Accessibility
Phishing Protection
Automated Update
I don't see any reason why all of those things are integrated and not seperate addons. And that list gets bigger with each new version.
All great games eventually get made into a franchise that milks the brand for all it's worth. Take Madden, Super Mario, or even Zelda for example. Game companies exist to make themselves rich, and those games have a proven formula for success. Why would they tamper with that?
This seems akin to asking Slashdot what you should be when you grow up. There's no way total strangers could answer this for you. Take a look at your hobbies, interests and what you do well at. Look at the classifieds and see what kind of jobs center around those things. See what kind of experience and education they require. Go from there.
Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.
If he was universally adored then such laws would be unnecessary.
What is the incentive to buy virtual items? If you don't, you'd look cheap, look unimportant and unnoticable, not to mention some items could give you the edge among the community.
In a country nearing 1.4 billion people you would have to spend quite a lot to look important and be noticed.
You probably have friends with totally different tastes in movies. As a result, if they were to say a movie was great you would take that with a grain of salt. Humans are all different and they define "good" in different ways.
Critics are the same way. You find a critic who's taste closely matches your own, and use them as a gauge of how much you will or will not like any given game, movie, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1994, the researchers found that 31 percent of the IT projects were flat failures. [...] As of 2006, the absolute failure rate is down to 19 percent.
I have serious doubts that IT projects have made any significant improvements in management efficiency in the last decade or so. More likely the people estimating timelines, budgets and features have learned from their mistakes and simply set the bar much lower than they did in the early 90s.
It's the "SAT Effect" (tm). Why actually improve performance when you can simply tweak the metrics by which you measure?
A great example of a b-game is Time Killers.
The reason for this is pretty simple. You still watch a bad movie in the exact same way you would watch a great movie. A bad game, however, has gameplay and controls so awkward or downright frustrating that you are immediately sick of the game.
Nintendo is not abandoning new IPs; they are abandoning the idea that the only way to improve is by adding better graphics and more realistic blood spatters. Since that seems to be all that "hardcore gamers" want, they are feeling abandoned.
I want games involving more than one button. I want to be challenged a little bit instead of having watered down puzzles that a 10 year old could solve. I want a storyline and character development that is slightly more involved than the last episode of Pokemon.
If these things make me hardcore then I feel awfully sorry for the "gamers" who think the industry is better off without these things.
That is like a movie studio executive deciding if he wants to make a thoughtful independent film or another CGI movie with talking hamsters.
Of course they are abandoning the hardcore gamers; there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels.
You can't say something is the "best" without defining what you think those qualities are that make something best.
Storyline? Gameplay? Graphics? Sounds? Replayability? Uniqueness?
I hope this thing isn't phoning home. Literally.
Ahem.
You were complaining about the death of a PEN AND PAPER franchise, Dungeons and Dragons. I'm telling you WotC didn't kill D&D, computers and the explosive growth of MMORPGs did. WotC just happened to be the ones left holding the reins when that horse fell over dead.
MMO killed the PnP star.
MMO killed the PnP star.
In my mind and in my parent's basement,
We can't hit res we've gone too far.
Net tubes came and broke your heart,
So put all the blame on Al Goooooore.
I find it interesting they compared the much smaller notebook market and ignored desktops. Desktops are far and away the more common form of personal computing, and in that arena the PC blows away the Mac in terms of performance per dollar.
What on Earth are you doing on Slashdot?
If your only contact with someone is through the internet then they are anonymous for all intents and purposes. Doubly so if all your contact is through a video game.
Lord knows if you can't trust your own paid employees to not cheat then you can certainly trust anonymous player volunteers.
A quick glance at the Firefox features page lists these things, which as far as I'm concerned are bloat as they are not fundamental to a web browser:
I don't see any reason why all of those things are integrated and not seperate addons. And that list gets bigger with each new version.
All great games eventually get made into a franchise that milks the brand for all it's worth. Take Madden, Super Mario, or even Zelda for example. Game companies exist to make themselves rich, and those games have a proven formula for success. Why would they tamper with that?
You get what you pay for.
This seems akin to asking Slashdot what you should be when you grow up. There's no way total strangers could answer this for you. Take a look at your hobbies, interests and what you do well at. Look at the classifieds and see what kind of jobs center around those things. See what kind of experience and education they require. Go from there.
Until you realize it was your own money.
"Foolproof systems do not take into account the ingenuity of fools."
If he was universally adored then such laws would be unnecessary.
In a country nearing 1.4 billion people you would have to spend quite a lot to look important and be noticed.
Does winning a match of CounterStrike make you a mass murderer?
Everything about TFA is ridiculous.
Professional critics are word of mouth.
You probably have friends with totally different tastes in movies. As a result, if they were to say a movie was great you would take that with a grain of salt. Humans are all different and they define "good" in different ways.
Critics are the same way. You find a critic who's taste closely matches your own, and use them as a gauge of how much you will or will not like any given game, movie, etc.