I expected something to differentiate it enough to make me want to play. Is that so much to ask?
Half-Life was different. That's why I liked it. Deus Ex was different. That's why I liked it. Far Cry was different...you get the idea.
Hell, I've already SEEN this shadowy bump-mapped corridor thing done in Far Cry's interior levels. Yet those areas were interspersed between buggy/boat driving, gorgeous tropical outdoor environments...hell, even hangliding.
I'm hugely disappointed. I was a big fan of the original Doom games, but even they provided more variety than this. EVERY SINGLE ROOM is dark and shadowy. After a while, I was predicting every corner that something would be hiding in and pop out of. It felt so contrived.
Think about this--would this game be getting the press it's getting if it was done by a company other than id Software and wasn't carrying the name "Doom" on the box? No...people would be saying the bump-mapping is nice, but the gameplay is repetitive. How PC Gamer gave this a 94% amazes me. Wait, I forgot, id Software is the gaming media's darling child. Meanwhile, Epic, CryTek, Valve, and more have all caught up to id and surprassed them.
It's like id Software made a FPS from the 90s. Run, shoot, run. But with even less variety than the original Doom! They haven't caught onto the current FPS genre at all. Nice engine, but boring game.
If you use Internet Explorer, strangely, the 503 errors don't appear. What's going on, Malda? This is another one of those funny things Slashdot critics will be using against Slashdot from now on.
Gamespot and the BBC are reporting that several thousands of illegal copies of Doom 3 were pirated over the weekend. One technology correspondent estimates that Activision and id Software lost up to "$2,749,500 worth of software at Doom 3's $54.99 sticker price." Activision has no comment, but Matt Pierce of PC Gamer has some harsh words. John Carmack is reportedly not happy. The game is legally scheduled for release today.
The truth is that the "many eyes" idea doesn't actually work. It's not like coders sit there all night poring through the code line by line. People miss things in the code just like a company's developers miss things in their code. The Linux kernel has had plenty of system-killing bugs in its time, and Mozilla has already had several major critical flaws. What's particularly disturbing is that the XUL flaw was known since 1999 but marked "confidential."
What we're witnessing is an OSS project struggling to deal with catering to the ideologies that spawned it while coping with the actual realities of software development. As many of us have been saying all along, nothing is inherently more secure than anything else. It gets proven time and time again.
Given the fact that that XUL bug was know for, what, a year,
It was known since 1999 but was marked as "confidential." Very disappointing. I'm not sure why there's not more outcry over this.
Mozilla was the big-news, major OSS project. As it gets bigger, it's exhibiting the very signs that people profess to hate about Microsoft. It's interesting to see the tables turned.
1.) Using a dollar sign in the word Microsoft doesn't make you clever. 2.) Your sig has been proven false. Already, we've seen two critical security holes in the past month, one of which was known for five years but covered up and marked as "confidential."
No, of course not. My position is just that those who justify copyright piracy are wrong and are twisting the concepts of free speech and free information. I didn't want to go into a tangeant on that.
How is the OSS stuff any more vaporware than Longhorn? It's "in progress" just like Longhorn is "in progress." Or do you have a release version of Longhorn that nobody else does?
Vaporware is something that is promised but never relased. Longhorn has had several beta releases, including a major PDC build.
2) The new graphics stuff isn't in the PDC beta. The new UI was shown only in Bill G's keynote --- it was stripped from the 4051 build given to attendees. The new OSS graphics stuff is actually available for download.
Yes, it is. Avalon, Indigo, XMAL, and more are all in the PDC build. Enabling hardware acceleration in the beta is a simple matter of enabling a registry entry. What is not included in the build is the Aero Glass interface which will be replacing what is in the betas now.
Most people think Free Speech means they can do and say anything, anywhere. Free speech only applies to the government itself not being to censor you. Private entities can do it all they'd like.
Second, this right to speech only extends so far that it does not trample the rights of someone else. That is why we claim free speech in this country yet cannot harrass someone, or stick billboards on their private property, and so on.
I could go off on a rant against P2P piracy at this point, but I won't. Point is, free speech has been twisted by too many people in this day and age, because today's generations have a sense of entitlement to everything. "Why shouldn't I be able to spam someone's computer?? FREE SPEECH!!! INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!"
That's the problem, it wasn't obvious the piece was an opinion piece. That's how the graphics deceives. It appears when Moore is narrating about how the Florida recount allegedly showed that Gore won the election. A large newspaper headline and article is put on screen from the Pantagraph claiming this. The intent is to make it appear that this newspaper was reporting hard news about this, to give it validity.
Why would Moore take some yahoo's random letter to the editor and use it as evidence for his claim? That's why he had it retyped and enlarged to appear as a frontpage headline, to lend validity to it and make it appear that this was a majorly reported issue in 2000.
You may have qualms of bias with this site, but the story was broken on Moorewatch, and you can find scans of the film version of the article compared to the original newspaper issue.
This is something you wouldn't be able to get away with in a simple university journalism class. You can't take someone's letter to the editor and doctor it up as a valid newspaper article and then cite it as evidence for your claim. I'm not even getting into the five independent journalists who recounted the votes and found that Bush won no matter how the votes were counted (conveniently not reported in the film). This is just basic deceit, and an odd one at that. Surely he could have found a real article on this? Instead, he took a letter to the editor in some random paper and made it into a large hard news headline to bolster his claim. That is deceitful, and I suspect if a conservative had done it, many of Moore's fans would be all over it.
It doesn't matter to me if you liked and agreed with the film. It just bothers me that people are unwilling or unable to see how things are twisted in the film. My opinion is, if your "documentary" can't live up to the standards of a basic college journalism class, it's not a valid political commentary and is basically nothing more than propaganda.
Slashdot links to Newsforge, Everything2, and other affiliates all the time. It also has a very uninformed slant against Microsoft (think of how many people now believe SP2 RC2 only boots on half the computers it's installed on, all because of one incorrect article posted last week).
People love to forget that this website is corporate-owned and full of even MORE bias than this article is claiming about Microsoft. I'm still laughing over that "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" headline from several months back.
This site is owned by a corporation. You should question every single thing posted on it. It amuses me that so many anti-capitalists post on a website designed to make money for a company, complete with pointless subscription fees and banner ads. If I was a Slashdot editor, I'd be laughing at the situation whereby people use my site to bash others for bias and greed when my site is a vehicle for just that.
Hell, now we have to deal with these horrible new sections. Everything is lumped into "IT" or "Linux." Were the subscribers consulted about this, or was that whole thing about people being able to participate in Slashdot just another forgotten claim?
They have such a tight knit community going on within Slashdot that they think their way is the only one that works. While this is great for those people inside Slashdot, and we have all read about how great they are to post on, it doesn't convince the rest of the world, and OS usage statistics prove this.
Why do they insist on being blinded by the branding? They could easily challenge Microsoft if they did what Microsoft does, but with a bigger brand, instead they choose to take away the very thing that Microsoft is popular in with their own offering.
Fact is, we don't know what little contracts they signed. They may very well have agreed to be monitored, but as we all know, rules can override other rules, and it's likely the idea of an employee spying on his boss is one of them. Also, just because people agree to be monitored doesn't mean anybody can do the monitoring.
The utility only captured input during periods of user activity. If there was none, the utility would remain inactive. So you posters saying "I leave Freecell open during meetings" are missing the point.
It also only captured during randomly set intervals at 30 minutes a minimum. Basically, it was set up so that it was a completely random sample that the sysadmin was unable to knowingly control in order to make the guy look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Christ, I thought the exact thing when I first received my pistol and went into a dark room.
"Four years of development, and they never thought to combine both weapon and light source?"
Hey, at least the Imps have multiple eyes now. If I could see them.
I expected something to differentiate it enough to make me want to play. Is that so much to ask?
Half-Life was different. That's why I liked it. Deus Ex was different. That's why I liked it. Far Cry was different...you get the idea.
Hell, I've already SEEN this shadowy bump-mapped corridor thing done in Far Cry's interior levels. Yet those areas were interspersed between buggy/boat driving, gorgeous tropical outdoor environments...hell, even hangliding.
I'm hugely disappointed. I was a big fan of the original Doom games, but even they provided more variety than this. EVERY SINGLE ROOM is dark and shadowy. After a while, I was predicting every corner that something would be hiding in and pop out of. It felt so contrived.
Think about this--would this game be getting the press it's getting if it was done by a company other than id Software and wasn't carrying the name "Doom" on the box? No...people would be saying the bump-mapping is nice, but the gameplay is repetitive. How PC Gamer gave this a 94% amazes me. Wait, I forgot, id Software is the gaming media's darling child. Meanwhile, Epic, CryTek, Valve, and more have all caught up to id and surprassed them.
It's like id Software made a FPS from the 90s. Run, shoot, run. But with even less variety than the original Doom! They haven't caught onto the current FPS genre at all. Nice engine, but boring game.
They certainly won't now that they got the game for free. You don't have the right to get something just because you wouldn't pay for it anyway.
But his ideas were developed before employment with the company. "Twelve years," right there in the summary.
...I do no thinking at work, or I'd be worried by this judgment.
McBride, who in the past claimed SCO wouldn't sue Linux users but later did, is now claiming they won't sue Linux users anymore.
At what point does McBride's ideas of lies and truth begin and end?
Didn't they already half-implicate BSD in one of their interviews?
They love to make those vague implications. For a while there, we were hearing a new one every week. So much for that?
After all, piracy is good, and anybody who reports on it is making up figures.
Using Internet Explorer prevents the 503 errors from appearing! Wtf?
Off-topic.
If you use Internet Explorer, strangely, the 503 errors don't appear. What's going on, Malda? This is another one of those funny things Slashdot critics will be using against Slashdot from now on.
Gamespot and the BBC are reporting that several thousands of illegal copies of Doom 3 were pirated over the weekend. One technology correspondent estimates that Activision and id Software lost up to "$2,749,500 worth of software at Doom 3's $54.99 sticker price." Activision has no comment, but Matt Pierce of PC Gamer has some harsh words. John Carmack is reportedly not happy. The game is legally scheduled for release today.
The truth is that the "many eyes" idea doesn't actually work. It's not like coders sit there all night poring through the code line by line. People miss things in the code just like a company's developers miss things in their code. The Linux kernel has had plenty of system-killing bugs in its time, and Mozilla has already had several major critical flaws. What's particularly disturbing is that the XUL flaw was known since 1999 but marked "confidential."
What we're witnessing is an OSS project struggling to deal with catering to the ideologies that spawned it while coping with the actual realities of software development. As many of us have been saying all along, nothing is inherently more secure than anything else. It gets proven time and time again.
Given the fact that that XUL bug was know for, what, a year,
It was known since 1999 but was marked as "confidential." Very disappointing. I'm not sure why there's not more outcry over this.
Mozilla was the big-news, major OSS project. As it gets bigger, it's exhibiting the very signs that people profess to hate about Microsoft. It's interesting to see the tables turned.
That's the argument used by Microsoft to avoid announcing critical flaws before they're patched.
1.) Using a dollar sign in the word Microsoft doesn't make you clever.
2.) Your sig has been proven false. Already, we've seen two critical security holes in the past month, one of which was known for five years but covered up and marked as "confidential."
No, of course not. My position is just that those who justify copyright piracy are wrong and are twisting the concepts of free speech and free information. I didn't want to go into a tangeant on that.
According to this, EDS runs UNIX-based systems.
Nice try, though.
How is the OSS stuff any more vaporware than Longhorn? It's "in progress" just like Longhorn is "in progress." Or do you have a release version of Longhorn that nobody else does?
Vaporware is something that is promised but never relased. Longhorn has had several beta releases, including a major PDC build.
2) The new graphics stuff isn't in the PDC beta. The new UI was shown only in Bill G's keynote --- it was stripped from the 4051 build given to attendees. The new OSS graphics stuff is actually available for download.
Yes, it is. Avalon, Indigo, XMAL, and more are all in the PDC build. Enabling hardware acceleration in the beta is a simple matter of enabling a registry entry. What is not included in the build is the Aero Glass interface which will be replacing what is in the betas now.
Most people think Free Speech means they can do and say anything, anywhere. Free speech only applies to the government itself not being to censor you. Private entities can do it all they'd like.
Second, this right to speech only extends so far that it does not trample the rights of someone else. That is why we claim free speech in this country yet cannot harrass someone, or stick billboards on their private property, and so on.
I could go off on a rant against P2P piracy at this point, but I won't. Point is, free speech has been twisted by too many people in this day and age, because today's generations have a sense of entitlement to everything. "Why shouldn't I be able to spam someone's computer?? FREE SPEECH!!! INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!"
That's the problem, it wasn't obvious the piece was an opinion piece. That's how the graphics deceives. It appears when Moore is narrating about how the Florida recount allegedly showed that Gore won the election. A large newspaper headline and article is put on screen from the Pantagraph claiming this. The intent is to make it appear that this newspaper was reporting hard news about this, to give it validity.
Why would Moore take some yahoo's random letter to the editor and use it as evidence for his claim? That's why he had it retyped and enlarged to appear as a frontpage headline, to lend validity to it and make it appear that this was a majorly reported issue in 2000.
You may have qualms of bias with this site, but the story was broken on Moorewatch, and you can find scans of the film version of the article compared to the original newspaper issue.
This is something you wouldn't be able to get away with in a simple university journalism class. You can't take someone's letter to the editor and doctor it up as a valid newspaper article and then cite it as evidence for your claim. I'm not even getting into the five independent journalists who recounted the votes and found that Bush won no matter how the votes were counted (conveniently not reported in the film). This is just basic deceit, and an odd one at that. Surely he could have found a real article on this? Instead, he took a letter to the editor in some random paper and made it into a large hard news headline to bolster his claim. That is deceitful, and I suspect if a conservative had done it, many of Moore's fans would be all over it.
It doesn't matter to me if you liked and agreed with the film. It just bothers me that people are unwilling or unable to see how things are twisted in the film. My opinion is, if your "documentary" can't live up to the standards of a basic college journalism class, it's not a valid political commentary and is basically nothing more than propaganda.
Slashdot links to Newsforge, Everything2, and other affiliates all the time. It also has a very uninformed slant against Microsoft (think of how many people now believe SP2 RC2 only boots on half the computers it's installed on, all because of one incorrect article posted last week).
People love to forget that this website is corporate-owned and full of even MORE bias than this article is claiming about Microsoft. I'm still laughing over that "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" headline from several months back.
This site is owned by a corporation. You should question every single thing posted on it. It amuses me that so many anti-capitalists post on a website designed to make money for a company, complete with pointless subscription fees and banner ads. If I was a Slashdot editor, I'd be laughing at the situation whereby people use my site to bash others for bias and greed when my site is a vehicle for just that.
Hell, now we have to deal with these horrible new sections. Everything is lumped into "IT" or "Linux." Were the subscribers consulted about this, or was that whole thing about people being able to participate in Slashdot just another forgotten claim?
From one frustrated Slashdotter.
Outside Slashdot.
They have such a tight knit community going on within Slashdot that they think their way is the only one that works. While this is great for those people inside Slashdot, and we have all read about how great they are to post on, it doesn't convince the rest of the world, and OS usage statistics prove this.
Why do they insist on being blinded by the branding? They could easily challenge Microsoft if they did what Microsoft does, but with a bigger brand, instead they choose to take away the very thing that Microsoft is popular in with their own offering.
Just for fun, guys.
Fact is, we don't know what little contracts they signed. They may very well have agreed to be monitored, but as we all know, rules can override other rules, and it's likely the idea of an employee spying on his boss is one of them. Also, just because people agree to be monitored doesn't mean anybody can do the monitoring.
The utility only captured input during periods of user activity. If there was none, the utility would remain inactive. So you posters saying "I leave Freecell open during meetings" are missing the point.
It also only captured during randomly set intervals at 30 minutes a minimum. Basically, it was set up so that it was a completely random sample that the sysadmin was unable to knowingly control in order to make the guy look bad.
Zzzzz.