Objectivity is impossible in a game review for exactly the sorts of reasons the author-person was going on about but...
he screwed up because his statement makes it sound like "objectivity" is currently in game journalism and must be thrown out. But, as I understand it, a game review is like a movie revew except it's reviewing a game.
(note: I have commited the cardinal sin by not reading the whole (11 part!) article so it's entirely possible that I have missed some utterly crucial, illuminating point made later on. oh well since when did that stop a slashdotter!! I plod on...)
And as with a movie review or any other kind of critique the person giving it is a critic. And the reader should have no expectation of objectivity at all. (It is true that the reader gets to have an expectation of factuality as tgibbs says below (or above).)
In conclusion: I agree with you that the writer of the article made an idiotic statement--but for a completely different reason than the one you indicate. IMHO, the statement was stupid not because it was wrong but because it was right. But it's that sort of thing that's supposed to be so self-evident that this person shouldn't be saying it. Reviews of products are inherently subjective. duh
[engaging Super-Scary-Enthusastic mode] :-D:-D I like to turn *ALL* negatives. into *positives*!:-D:-D Let's think of the *positive* possibilities this presents! ! !!! ! (Ren is wearing the happy helmet)
[Super-Scary-Enthusiastic mode OFF (before I break something)]
But seriously, this needn't be so bad. All it means is: we have a reasonable excuse to buy the full (extended) DVD set when it comes out and...
Magenta: And our world...will do the Time Warp...again!
(I.e. We can, uh, watch the trilogy. again.;-)
About the "not seeing it again" part: That's a good plan. Trust me, you *really* want to stick with that plan. I saw Titan A.E. stone cold sober, and I can assure you it is not a great flick. Whatever "Xanadu"s you saw in your head, you should be eternally thankful for them and leave it at that.
Of course, that's not to say that it was the *worst* movie I've ever seen either. It wasn't *that* bad it just wasn't that good. I could go into detail but I don't want to wreck it for you.
I only have my memory to go on here, but I'm *sure*--like 100% positive--that in the movie, the narrator does, in fact, say, "The Microsoft Galaxy". I tend to remember Microsoft references especially. I haven't read the book.
Of course most of these refer to "deep linking" which is an extra "evil" version of linking. But since you're against any large entity linking to your page you are probably against them "deep linking" to your page as well. This page (note this link comes from the "has" article) lists a number of sites that don't want anyone to link to them or have linking policies that heavily restrict how they can be linked to. At least in theory.
And while you might (note I say might) have a point about how it's a terrible thing that all someone has to do is post a link to a site on slashdot and have it, thereby, slashdotted. But how do you really intend to prevent it?
After all, a link is really just a string of text. E.g. H-T-T-P-COLON-SLASH-SLASH-W-W-W-DOT-P-H-O-R-M-I-X- DOT-C-O-M
A lot of slashdotters write that "if you don't want it read, don't post it"... but really there's a difference between putting something up so that global interested parties can check it out, and having it swarmed on by the masses. Makes me wonder if I should append a "property of owner XYZ, please do not copy or link this article without permission"... at least to cover my ass in some form if such an article got in the wild.
I agree with you that there's a difference between something you want only a few people to see and something you want truly everyone to see. IMHO however, once you put it on the Web, all bets are off. To put it more bluntly, if you were to put something on the web and then say "please do not copy or link this article without permission" I will happily ignore your claim. I might even post some links to it out of spite.
If there was a Linux/Unix worm running around, couldn't the exact same situation happen?
Yes. And I say that even though I am a card carrying Microsoft hater. This is not a MS vs. Linux type issue. This is just an unfortunate side effect of systems becoming increasingly interconnected without people paying attention.
Does this mean we'll (ultimately) have Japan to thank for ushering in a new era where machines rule and crush our skulls (Terminator) or put us into the Matrix?
Actually, while I find this quite funny, I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling). I have read several previous interviews with Linus Torvalds on various topics and he almost never says something like this. (At least that's how I remember it. I'm sure many will correct me if I'm mistaken.) Although he always clearly states his opinion, he usually avoids getting into this sort of direct attack on an organization or person. This quote from him could mean a few different things. It's possible his nerves are getting a little frayed from all the SCO threats and related media blitz. I know I'm starting to get tired of it and I'm just a random, lazy slashdot poster. It must be much more uncomfortable where Linus is at. Also, although MS has frequently tried to marginalize Linux or say it doesn't count for anything, they never actually tried to claim ownership of it. Perhaps Torvalds considers that more of a personal attack.
It's true that, in this imperfect world, Bad Things sometimes happen to Good Software.
But, while the judge might not know much about Linux or malloc() or any of that, the judge most likely knows quite a bit about copyright law. (probably has three or four books citing copyright related case law in his chambers too) If Perens can lay out a fairly convincing argument in a single web page, I think IBM and it's army of vicious attack sharks/lawyers should be able to more or less decimate SCO's claims without every getting much into the technical side of things. The case is about ownership and copyright more than it is about what the malloc() function actually does.
While the problem is a tough one to crack, it may well be solved within the next few decades, particularly with massively parallel computing on the horizon: miniturization plus clustering technology means cheap, powerful, small supercomputers perfect for tasks like this that consist of many more or less independent operations.
Oh. That would be cool. My guess is: with best play, Black is able to hold off White and the game ends in a draw. But that's just my opinion.
Warning: The following is an angry rant. Sometimes it's good to vent.
From the artcle:
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.
WHAT THE FUCK!? Yeah, you're right that used to happen! Maybe before the flippin' telephone was invented! Why does the article want to say that it's IM that's the problem? C'mon, like those people with cell phones can't just call their friends and say, "the movie sucked"? The article points to the fact that recent blockbusters have been losing 11% more viewers between their opening weekend and their second weekend than equivilently bad blockbusters did last year. The article then draws the (gratuitously asinine) conclusion that it must be because now people can instant message their friends. Oooookaaaay. Maybe they could just call their friends? Like, you know, on a phone? Oh wait, that wouldn't let us explain the 11% increase, gee I guess it must be the text messages! Stupid article. Maybe this year's blockbuster bombs suck 11% more than last year's. Maybe the public is 11% less tolerant of the same old crap as they were last year. Maybe (just maybe) ELEVEN GOD-DAMN PERCENT IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE BRAIN DAMAGED THEORY THAT INSTANT MESSAGING RESULTS IN FEWER TICKET SALES!!!!
I know I'm on my way to Karma hell for this post, but I don't really care. It was fun. And that sort of sloppy thinking really does piss me off. Of course, I may be guilty of it myself on occasion, but at least I try to avoid it...
I chalenge you to build the "tree of all Chess moves". I think you will find it will take you many thousands of millenia to build the thing. Good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Objectivity is impossible in a game review for exactly the sorts of reasons the author-person was going on about but...
he screwed up because his statement makes it sound like "objectivity" is currently in game journalism and must be thrown out. But, as I understand it, a game review is like a movie revew except it's reviewing a game.
(note: I have commited the cardinal sin by not reading the whole (11 part!) article so it's entirely possible that I have missed some utterly crucial, illuminating point made later on. oh well since when did that stop a slashdotter!! I plod on...)
And as with a movie review or any other kind of critique the person giving it is a critic. And the reader should have no expectation of objectivity at all. (It is true that the reader gets to have an expectation of factuality as tgibbs says below (or above).)
In conclusion: I agree with you that the writer of the article made an idiotic statement--but for a completely different reason than the one you indicate. IMHO, the statement was stupid not because it was wrong but because it was right. But it's that sort of thing that's supposed to be so self-evident that this person shouldn't be saying it. Reviews of products are inherently subjective. duh
[engaging Super-Scary-Enthusastic mode]
:-D :-D I like to turn *ALL* negatives. into *positives*! :-D :-D Let's think of the *positive* possibilities this presents! ! !!! ! (Ren is wearing the happy helmet)
[Super-Scary-Enthusiastic mode OFF (before I break something)]
But seriously, this needn't be so bad. All it means is: we have a reasonable excuse to buy the full (extended) DVD set when it comes out and...
Magenta: And our world...will do the Time Warp...again! ;-)
(I.e. We can, uh, watch the trilogy. again.
About the "not seeing it again" part: That's a good plan. Trust me, you *really* want to stick with that plan. I saw Titan A.E. stone cold sober, and I can assure you it is not a great flick. Whatever "Xanadu"s you saw in your head, you should be eternally thankful for them and leave it at that.
Of course, that's not to say that it was the *worst* movie I've ever seen either. It wasn't *that* bad it just wasn't that good. I could go into detail but I don't want to wreck it for you.
Then how come we're not dying out? We're not are we?
Gee, you're right, I agree with you. *sigh* (Does that mean we're doing the same thing as the poster that you're critiqueing?)
I only have my memory to go on here, but I'm *sure*--like 100% positive--that in the movie, the narrator does, in fact, say, "The Microsoft Galaxy". I tend to remember Microsoft references especially. I haven't read the book.
No. It's not the new form of karma whoring. All forms of karma whoring are equally old or new.
*sigh* You are obviously new here. This has already been debated. (a lot!)
Of course most of these refer to "deep linking" which is an extra "evil" version of linking. But since you're against any large entity linking to your page you are probably against them "deep linking" to your page as well. This page (note this link comes from the "has" article) lists a number of sites that don't want anyone to link to them or have linking policies that heavily restrict how they can be linked to. At least in theory.
And while you might (note I say might) have a point about how it's a terrible thing that all someone has to do is post a link to a site on slashdot and have it, thereby, slashdotted. But how do you really intend to prevent it?
After all, a link is really just a string of text. E.g. H-T-T-P-COLON-SLASH-SLASH-W-W-W-DOT-P-H-O-R-M-I-X- DOT-C-O-M
I agree with you that there's a difference between something you want only a few people to see and something you want truly everyone to see. IMHO however, once you put it on the Web, all bets are off. To put it more bluntly, if you were to put something on the web and then say "please do not copy or link this article without permission" I will happily ignore your claim. I might even post some links to it out of spite.
Yes. And I say that even though I am a card carrying Microsoft hater. This is not a MS vs. Linux type issue. This is just an unfortunate side effect of systems becoming increasingly interconnected without people paying attention.
And, of course, "the Microsoft Galaxy". Just like in Fight Club.
I suspect you of dark sarcasm; therefore you're guilty. Please report to the Sarcasm Termination Squad forthwith.
I did consider it. I said "I'm sure many will correct me if I'm mistaken." And here you are along with all your friends.
oh yeah, I do remember that vaguely. I had forgotten they had a big argument about Linux.
Does this mean we'll (ultimately) have Japan to thank for ushering in a new era where machines rule and crush our skulls (Terminator) or put us into the Matrix?
Actually, while I find this quite funny, I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling). I have read several previous interviews with Linus Torvalds on various topics and he almost never says something like this. (At least that's how I remember it. I'm sure many will correct me if I'm mistaken.) Although he always clearly states his opinion, he usually avoids getting into this sort of direct attack on an organization or person. This quote from him could mean a few different things. It's possible his nerves are getting a little frayed from all the SCO threats and related media blitz. I know I'm starting to get tired of it and I'm just a random, lazy slashdot poster. It must be much more uncomfortable where Linus is at. Also, although MS has frequently tried to marginalize Linux or say it doesn't count for anything, they never actually tried to claim ownership of it. Perhaps Torvalds considers that more of a personal attack.
It's true that, in this imperfect world, Bad Things sometimes happen to Good Software.
But, while the judge might not know much about Linux or malloc() or any of that, the judge most likely knows quite a bit about copyright law. (probably has three or four books citing copyright related case law in his chambers too) If Perens can lay out a fairly convincing argument in a single web page, I think IBM and it's army of vicious attack sharks/lawyers should be able to more or less decimate SCO's claims without every getting much into the technical side of things. The case is about ownership and copyright more than it is about what the malloc() function actually does.
eh, what? Did you say "profits"? You know what you get when you multiply 100,000 times zero?
Actually, I think SCO's view is, "Unix? MINE! MINE! MINE!!"
Oh. That would be cool. My guess is: with best play, Black is able to hold off White and the game ends in a draw. But that's just my opinion.
Warning: The following is an angry rant. Sometimes it's good to vent.
From the artcle:
WHAT THE FUCK!? Yeah, you're right that used to happen! Maybe before the flippin' telephone was invented! Why does the article want to say that it's IM that's the problem? C'mon, like those people with cell phones can't just call their friends and say, "the movie sucked"? The article points to the fact that recent blockbusters have been losing 11% more viewers between their opening weekend and their second weekend than equivilently bad blockbusters did last year. The article then draws the (gratuitously asinine) conclusion that it must be because now people can instant message their friends. Oooookaaaay. Maybe they could just call their friends? Like, you know, on a phone? Oh wait, that wouldn't let us explain the 11% increase, gee I guess it must be the text messages! Stupid article. Maybe this year's blockbuster bombs suck 11% more than last year's. Maybe the public is 11% less tolerant of the same old crap as they were last year. Maybe (just maybe) ELEVEN GOD-DAMN PERCENT IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE BRAIN DAMAGED THEORY THAT INSTANT MESSAGING RESULTS IN FEWER TICKET SALES!!!!
I know I'm on my way to Karma hell for this post, but I don't really care. It was fun. And that sort of sloppy thinking really does piss me off. Of course, I may be guilty of it myself on occasion, but at least I try to avoid it...
I chalenge you to build the "tree of all Chess moves". I think you will find it will take you many thousands of millenia to build the thing. Good luck with that.
Right now, I think if you want a career in IT you should move to India.
Thank you for the infomration. It's definitely something to keep in mind when I'm dialing 1-800 numbers. :-)
and, so, I suppose the other 1% are just "acceptable losses"?