Because it's so damn easier to blame metal/videogames/porn/movies for fucked up children instead than accepting responsabilty as a parent and teaching your kids what's wrong and what's not.
Seriously, it seems like every 5 years they come with a new demon to rotten your kids' minds unless that influence is banned, burnt and burried. Some people have way too much spare time on their hands.
Maps in Doom 3 *are* huge, just not outdoors. Bigger than HL2's, in fact, as most of the time maps are loaded entirely a single time instead of loading chunks of it constantly.
Check this image for example; the red arrow points a single zombie, so you get an idea of the scale of it.
It's remarkable how good the HL2 levels look in the Doom 3 engine, and how awful the Doom 3 levels look in the Source engine. Of course, you have lighting and bump-mapping to consider, but even so, the artists behind HL2 did a damn fine work with the much more limited engine (graphically).
Not that the Doom 3 crew didn't, i just think they had things easier:)
Re:Everyone already HAS a VCR!!!
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I have a friend who works in an electronics repair shop. He says he receives at least 5 or 6 VHS players a month; apparently they're still used. Besides, if you need to record video cheaply, it's your only choice.
You're mistaking packaging with content. The original book is as much yours as is your shiny new game CD. The access to the content is where the issue is.
You buy the book, you get to read the content. You buy the CD, you find out you actually got a license to play the game in it, if the company that sold it to you sees it fit.
I don't. I won't buy the game, which i liked when i tried, just because of these issues.
But you shouldn't either. You're supposed to buy a game copy, not a licence to play it. I wonder how well PC games would sell if Best Buy made explicit that they're selling you a licence instead of a game.
Point taken. To be fair, the whole discussion is offtopic. This is not about Steam and it's cancellation of 20k accounts.
Like i implied before, when you buy HL2 you bought a licence sold as a game. I don't like it, so i won't buy it. I've played a game (at a friend's house, which has, imagine that, downloaded it off BT) and i found it to be quite good, but i'm not confortable with a company telling me what i can and can't do with software i bought (besides pirating it, of course, which is covered by copyright laws).
You're missing the picture here. My example was a scenario where you buy a book, get home to read it, and find out you can only legally read it from 8 to 10am, on Sundays, and only if it's raining. No one is discussing the copyrighted media contained in the book.
You buy a book, you should get a book, and not a license agreement. You buy a game (which is being sold to you as a game, and not as a licence) and you should get precisely that as well.
Fine, but the thing is you don't know that until you open the damn box. This is the root of the problem. You go purchasing a game, you purchase a game, come back home having purchased a game and find out you actually got a licence agreement instead.
Again, this is fine on Steam. It's not on a boxed game.
This is something i thought many times before too. As far as i know, EULAs have never been challenged in court. Maybe it's time to, because they are as legaly binding as a handshake.
Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.
This is where the line is drawn; you simply don't know the licence details before buying. As far as you know, as a consumer, you're buying a boxed game which you expect to own, to do whatever you want with it. Sell it, play it, sit on it, burn it with gasoline. Can you even return the game if you don't accept the licence?
Michael put it with little subtlety, but he's right. You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it. This is fine if you're buying the game online via Steam, where the licence should be agreed on before the purchase. Not for a boxed game.
I remember a show aired once on either History or Discovery channel, i can't recall, about the developement of nuclear subs in the cold war.
Basically, the US wanted to learn about how the Russian subs were built, so they sent a spy wearing shoes with sticky soils, so small metal fragments would return with the spy, undetected. They found that the hull of their subs was made mostly of titanium alloy. US oness were made of steel, welded by hand, by a crew that had to work in very difficult conditions - working in constricted spaces and sometimes having to check their weld joints with mirrors. They thought titanium was too expensive and very difficult, if not impossible, to weld correctly.
Turns out the Russians had built a special hangar with pressurized gas that allowed the metal to be welded. They actualy developed a new metal welding techinque just to build those hulls, which of course had a resistance unseen at the time.
Also, check my link, a few parent posts above, about their supercavitating torpedoes, which they have working right now. Those travel underwater at 10m/sec, and for a sub it would be like dodging a bullet.
Open source biology, eh? Sound nice, but please, let's have someone to regulate and watch over these actions. The potential to improve the quality of life through biological engenieering is as big as the potential to end it.
Much agreed. Still, i don't think the Russians were involved in many "dirty wars" in recent history - perhaps Afghanistan was the last one. I'm not sure though.
Like i said, technlogical advancement IS NOT an excuse for war.
I don't. I don't condone war, it's just a personal observation. Like it or not, most important technological advances are tied in some way to the military or directly to war. I couldn't agree more with you; it's sad. Very. Yet that is how it happens.
Radar, turbine engines, space flight, Mach-x flight, fussion and fission research are examples, and this is just from the top of my head.
Bad phrasing on my part, sorry. I meant "big enough to be used in a spaceship". A military laser should be insanely powerful, and i don't think laser diode technology was available back then, which means huge gas discharge lasers.
Please mod this up. The BSD team only wants the binary firmware to be freed, not the source, so it can be distributed with the rest of the *BSD system. The firmware is loaded to the hardware every time it's restarted in order for it to work. No one wants the source code for it; it's not needed.
All of this mess for scraping a couple of bucks on an onboard EEPROM, but still, Intel's position doesn't seem reasonable.
Even while it was an awfully managed country, economically, the Russians pulled out some impressive engenieering feats, specially in the field of aeronautics. In the cold war days, it was all about conquering space, for some reason, and the USSR was right there - neck to neck with the USA. And they had the military power indeed, so they were, arguably, powerful.
If anything, the fall of the USSR saddened me for that very reason. It seems the true technological progress comes in times of war, even when it's a "cold" one.
AT LAST, a movie based on a game with a top notch director. Don't get me wrong, i like Paul Anderson (check "Event Horizon" for a hell of a sci fi terror flick), and he did a fine job with both "AvP" and "Resident Evil", but he usually delivers popcorn flicks instead of movies with depth. I'd like to see a game-based movie that'd last more than a summer in interest.
Yet, Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors ("Legend" aside), and if anyone can pull a good sci-fi action movie, he's the one. I don't care much about the Halo history, but i'm eager to see this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really glad to see you're modded at +5. This shit has to end.
Because it's so damn easier to blame metal/videogames/porn/movies for fucked up children instead than accepting responsabilty as a parent and teaching your kids what's wrong and what's not.
Seriously, it seems like every 5 years they come with a new demon to rotten your kids' minds unless that influence is banned, burnt and burried. Some people have way too much spare time on their hands.
Maps in Doom 3 *are* huge, just not outdoors. Bigger than HL2's, in fact, as most of the time maps are loaded entirely a single time instead of loading chunks of it constantly.
Check this image for example; the red arrow points a single zombie, so you get an idea of the scale of it.
It's remarkable how good the HL2 levels look in the Doom 3 engine, and how awful the Doom 3 levels look in the Source engine. Of course, you have lighting and bump-mapping to consider, but even so, the artists behind HL2 did a damn fine work with the much more limited engine (graphically).
:)
Not that the Doom 3 crew didn't, i just think they had things easier
I have a friend who works in an electronics repair shop. He says he receives at least 5 or 6 VHS players a month; apparently they're still used. Besides, if you need to record video cheaply, it's your only choice.
You're mistaking packaging with content. The original book is as much yours as is your shiny new game CD. The access to the content is where the issue is.
You buy the book, you get to read the content. You buy the CD, you find out you actually got a license to play the game in it, if the company that sold it to you sees it fit.
I don't. I won't buy the game, which i liked when i tried, just because of these issues.
But you shouldn't either. You're supposed to buy a game copy, not a licence to play it. I wonder how well PC games would sell if Best Buy made explicit that they're selling you a licence instead of a game.
Point taken. To be fair, the whole discussion is offtopic. This is not about Steam and it's cancellation of 20k accounts.
Like i implied before, when you buy HL2 you bought a licence sold as a game. I don't like it, so i won't buy it. I've played a game (at a friend's house, which has, imagine that, downloaded it off BT) and i found it to be quite good, but i'm not confortable with a company telling me what i can and can't do with software i bought (besides pirating it, of course, which is covered by copyright laws).
You're missing the picture here. My example was a scenario where you buy a book, get home to read it, and find out you can only legally read it from 8 to 10am, on Sundays, and only if it's raining. No one is discussing the copyrighted media contained in the book.
You buy a book, you should get a book, and not a license agreement. You buy a game (which is being sold to you as a game, and not as a licence) and you should get precisely that as well.
This is very interesting. Do you have some links for court challenged EULAs? I'm not being an asshole here, i'm geniunely interested.
Come on, you're kidding me? Well of course they will think that! When you buy a book, do you expect it to be yours?
Fine, but the thing is you don't know that until you open the damn box. This is the root of the problem. You go purchasing a game, you purchase a game, come back home having purchased a game and find out you actually got a licence agreement instead.
Again, this is fine on Steam. It's not on a boxed game.
This is something i thought many times before too. As far as i know, EULAs have never been challenged in court. Maybe it's time to, because they are as legaly binding as a handshake.
Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.
This is where the line is drawn; you simply don't know the licence details before buying. As far as you know, as a consumer, you're buying a boxed game which you expect to own, to do whatever you want with it. Sell it, play it, sit on it, burn it with gasoline. Can you even return the game if you don't accept the licence?
Michael put it with little subtlety, but he's right. You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it. This is fine if you're buying the game online via Steam, where the licence should be agreed on before the purchase. Not for a boxed game.
I remember a show aired once on either History or Discovery channel, i can't recall, about the developement of nuclear subs in the cold war.
Basically, the US wanted to learn about how the Russian subs were built, so they sent a spy wearing shoes with sticky soils, so small metal fragments would return with the spy, undetected. They found that the hull of their subs was made mostly of titanium alloy. US oness were made of steel, welded by hand, by a crew that had to work in very difficult conditions - working in constricted spaces and sometimes having to check their weld joints with mirrors. They thought titanium was too expensive and very difficult, if not impossible, to weld correctly.
Turns out the Russians had built a special hangar with pressurized gas that allowed the metal to be welded. They actualy developed a new metal welding techinque just to build those hulls, which of course had a resistance unseen at the time.
Also, check my link, a few parent posts above, about their supercavitating torpedoes, which they have working right now. Those travel underwater at 10m/sec, and for a sub it would be like dodging a bullet.
Yes, those guys are a force to be reckoned with.
Just wait and see.
Now, excuse me, i have to go. That flying pig told me we'll be having a cold day here in Hell.
Well, to be fair the Russians do have that other torpedo that works a tad better :)
Open source biology, eh? Sound nice, but please, let's have someone to regulate and watch over these actions. The potential to improve the quality of life through biological engenieering is as big as the potential to end it.
Much agreed. Still, i don't think the Russians were involved in many "dirty wars" in recent history - perhaps Afghanistan was the last one. I'm not sure though.
Like i said, technlogical advancement IS NOT an excuse for war.
I don't. I don't condone war, it's just a personal observation. Like it or not, most important technological advances are tied in some way to the military or directly to war. I couldn't agree more with you; it's sad. Very. Yet that is how it happens.
Radar, turbine engines, space flight, Mach-x flight, fussion and fission research are examples, and this is just from the top of my head.
Bad phrasing on my part, sorry. I meant "big enough to be used in a spaceship". A military laser should be insanely powerful, and i don't think laser diode technology was available back then, which means huge gas discharge lasers.
Please mod this up. The BSD team only wants the binary firmware to be freed, not the source, so it can be distributed with the rest of the *BSD system. The firmware is loaded to the hardware every time it's restarted in order for it to work. No one wants the source code for it; it's not needed.
All of this mess for scraping a couple of bucks on an onboard EEPROM, but still, Intel's position doesn't seem reasonable.
Even while it was an awfully managed country, economically, the Russians pulled out some impressive engenieering feats, specially in the field of aeronautics. In the cold war days, it was all about conquering space, for some reason, and the USSR was right there - neck to neck with the USA. And they had the military power indeed, so they were, arguably, powerful.
If anything, the fall of the USSR saddened me for that very reason. It seems the true technological progress comes in times of war, even when it's a "cold" one.
AT LAST, a movie based on a game with a top notch director. Don't get me wrong, i like Paul Anderson (check "Event Horizon" for a hell of a sci fi terror flick), and he did a fine job with both "AvP" and "Resident Evil", but he usually delivers popcorn flicks instead of movies with depth. I'd like to see a game-based movie that'd last more than a summer in interest.
Yet, Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors ("Legend" aside), and if anyone can pull a good sci-fi action movie, he's the one. I don't care much about the Halo history, but i'm eager to see this one.