Right, lets attempt a lunar landing on the sun's surface! Will we finally be able to solve the mystery of why the sun goes in a circle around the earth?
>If you didn't buy any other games and didn't play them as a buccaneer, how can you know if you like the games or not?
Well, first off, I said new releases. I bought Warcraft 3, Serious Sam, Freelancer, GTA3 and a few other titles in recent memory; however I fished them out of the bargain bin or waited for the price to drop. My point was that I'm spending less than I used to, and this in spite of the fact that I have more money; to me, new games are all to often the same as the games I already have, and thus aren't worth $60 CDN to me.
My point about the game industry was that it was headed for trouble (and this argument is not original to me). In theory, if Moore's law is beginning to have less influence, then the _first_ publishers to die off would be the shovelware producers (like, for example, Acclaim). The lack of good original new titles is a symptom of stagnation, which is in line with the theory.
I'm not saying we're there yet, I'm saying that this is where we're headed. And I'm not saying I don't play games anymore, I'm saying that I buy from the bargain bins, play demos/shareware, am indifferent to hyped up new releases, and am re-playing my game collection. And I doubt I'm the only one.
Well, according to a documentary I saw once, what they really need are monument-destroying super-lasers! And invulnerable shields, which can only be brought down by a virus programmed on a Mac (I _knew_ Apple was good for something). First though we need Jeff Goldblume to be inspired by a clever analogy that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
SETI is looking for _patterns_, not specific pieces of data. To put the question back to you, would we be able to identify a signal despite the fact that we don't speak the language? After all, what better encryption would there be to us than an alien language?
The stuff they're trying to filter out is literally background radiation, typically emitted by stars. This "static" carries no pattern whatsoever; encrypted data would likely be even _more_ complex than simple unencrypted data.
Of course, this all hinges on them being like us enought that what's true on Earth applies elsewhere. That's a rather large assumption, however we cannot avoid it if we're gonna search for ETs. Unless, of course, you'd like to seach for the signals of hyper-intelligent space dolphins.
Is it just me or are game publishers dying off? Sierra, Interplay and now Acclaim are all gone, or as good as dead. Moreover, IMHO we're seeing less and less new titles, and more sequels, rip-offs and shovelware.
A long time ago I read something to the effect that we'll see the death of the game industry (computer and console) if Moore's law slows down/stops/ceases to aplly to gaming. If new technology can't improve on last years games by a significant margin, then the industry's business model is in _real_ trouble (which might explain the abundance of sequels).
I know that, other than Doom 3 and Thief 3, it's been a long time since I bought a new release (no, I don't pirate). The last few original games I've liked had gameplay that was refined, but not really _new_ as such. Dungeon Siege, for example, was basically Diable meets Icewind Dale; it was good and well executed, but not really a new idea.
I'm not being a nostalgic geezer here, I really think we could be in trouble. Anyone care to comment?
Except if the court decision shows, for example, that SCO's case had no merit whatsoever (or even better, that SCO commited perjury), then the perception might be that the law firm is not at fault. They could simply say "we took the case we tried to win, but you can't get blood from a stone." If, in retrospect, SCO is seen as being totaly and soley at fault, or if Boise & co could make it look that way to a prospective client, they could recover. Also, I don't know their record, but if it's either very good or very bad already, this won't make much of a difference (in fact the senior lawyers might be retiring, and this could be their way of getting a beach house in the Bahamas).
Exactly! This is what people have overlooked about IBM; they're an old(ish) company and didn't get to be where they are today by behaving badly.
Folks, this is the reason IBM is taking so many bewildering (to us at least) stances; they have something to gain and little to lose. We're now so cynical with regard to companies (because of SCO, MS et all) that we fail to realize that a smart company is in it for the long term, and strategies that make sense from a short term perspective (like buying SCO) will have negative repercussions later on. IBM supporting Linux? Yep, in ten years Microsoft will wish they had. Bitchslapping SCO? Of course, can't set a bad precedent wrt their IP, or damage their rep.
The only catch is that they are still a corporation, and will do what is best financially. As long as they have shared best interests with the open source community, they're probably trustworthy. But do not forget their behaviour in th 80's, when they were more like MS is today.
Ok, maybe I'm feeding a troll, but what sort of evidence do you want exactly? Point out something that needs to be clarified or proven, don't just flame.
Yes developers do work on open source professionally, but game companies have a _much_ larger budget, and consequently a definite advantage.
(Oh, and I'm aware of the GP's spelling. Fuck it, life's too short to get your testicles twisted over spelling.)
Ok point taken, but I was looking for an example of open source versus corporate monoculture (which is misspelled in the grandparent, d'oh!). Linux/Windows is one that everybody on/. knows already. My point was only that game development is not dominated by a single stagnant company, and consequently is harder to compete in.
Well, read the end of my post. I was refering to average or below average computer users, not geeks or the computer literate. Undoubtably most of the Googlable* private info came from the Joe public crowd, and these people have a hard time with data security. My disagreement with the gandparent was over the implementation of widespread or universal security (of course I may have misunderstood his point, but mine still stands).
*I have no idea whether "Googlable" is a word, and my spelling is bad enought with normal english, but I think I spelled that right
I think the reason nobody has made a "generic" engine is simply because Moore's law would render it obselite in a few years. Consider the vast difference in technology between Doom and Half Life, and then between HL and Doom 3. Similar creative content (well, ok practically the same bloody content - originallity is the exception not the rule) yet the game engine and gameplay have advanced considerably as a direct result of advancing technology. Unless the generic engine was _very_ advanced, to the point where Moore law won't give us anything better, the game(s) wouldn't compete with more recent titles. Licened engines are ususally state of the art when released, and used in "generic" titles three years later (I mean comercial titles like Soldier of Fortune, not mods in this case).
Open Source coding versus proffesional coding is kinda like distributed computing versus a supercomputer. What people fail to recognize when promoting Linux is that it's chief competetor is a corporate giant that has stagnated. In game develpoment, where there is strong competition, the proffesionals are actually making the most of their budgets. It's no surprise that the Open Source alternative have trouble competing; they're up against the best rather than up against a corporate monoculture.
Note that this isn't an attack on Open Source; there are many things it does well. But like distributed computing it takes advantage of a squandered resource that's already there (spare cycles = free developers). Against an effecient supercomputer (dedicated developers) it can't compete. Whereas agaisnt a _broken_ supercomputer (Microsoft), it can.
Well that gets us back to the free market correcting itself. I would ask you though if that's necessarily a good thing.
Remember Microsoft? Corporate giant, kinda unethical? Their producs are notoriously unsecure, and yet people still use Windows/IE/Outlook. Why? Because free market economics don't work in a corporate dominated environment. We don't have free market capitalism, we have corporate monculture, and it's notoriously unreliable for producing good, solid, honest products. Instead we get salesweasels shovel^H^H^H^H selling producs that don't work as advertised. Better alternatives are quashed, or relegated to the open source community (which is good, but lacks an R&D budget). I think you're being overly optimistic.
Not to troll, but "real security and ease of use"? That's a contradiction in terms. Any system thats easy to use is almost certainly easy to crack (hint, the crackers have as easy a time as the user). Any secure system usually requires long passwords, encryption keys or something equally challenging. If your users keep their passwords the same for all systems, or have accessable copies to remind them, then the system isn't secure (remember last week when Gabe Newall's forum accounts got hacked because he used the same friggin password and it was easy to guess?) If you mean security through obscurity then you're describing the current situation on the net, but the article states that Google is removing the obscurity aspect by making the entire net accessible. We no longer have any kind of assurance than a given nook or cranny is too obscure to bother with. I agree that people shouldn't leave their personal data lying around, but to simply assume that the general public can adopt security measures that we, the/. crowd, consider adequate and easy to use is silly. What we need is internet education (the do's and do not's for the clueless).
Not to be a pedantic twit, but doesn't plastic melt or burn at an awfully low temperature? A railgun made of plastic sounds sorta like using wooden bullets to kill a vampire, or a catapult made of balsa wood, Wyll E Coyote style.
...wondering at what point you start to hit diminishing returns for miniaturization? C'mon, how small do we need? Anything smaller than a laptop gets you into major trouble with input devices (as another poster already mentioned). I have enough trouble with existing Palmtops. There's gotta be a point at which modern technology can be miniaturized further, but benefits no one in doing so.
Call me a luddite, but this level of shrinkage strikes me as being more of an PITA than lugging around a larger unit. What someone needs to develop is a method of interfacing with a device this tiny that doesn't require tiny keys or voice input. I have absolutly no idea what kind of interface could fill that role, even theoretically (never mind realistically).
Slashdot Mirror
Right, lets attempt a lunar landing on the sun's surface! Will we finally be able to solve the mystery of why the sun goes in a circle around the earth?
I beg to differ! And just as soon as the patent office approves my perpetual motion machine, you'll be sorry that you didn't get on my friends list!
>If you didn't buy any other games and didn't play them as a buccaneer, how can you know if you like the games or not?
Well, first off, I said new releases. I bought Warcraft 3, Serious Sam, Freelancer, GTA3 and a few other titles in recent memory; however I fished them out of the bargain bin or waited for the price to drop. My point was that I'm spending less than I used to, and this in spite of the fact that I have more money; to me, new games are all to often the same as the games I already have, and thus aren't worth $60 CDN to me.
My point about the game industry was that it was headed for trouble (and this argument is not original to me). In theory, if Moore's law is beginning to have less influence, then the _first_ publishers to die off would be the shovelware producers (like, for example, Acclaim). The lack of good original new titles is a symptom of stagnation, which is in line with the theory.
I'm not saying we're there yet, I'm saying that this is where we're headed. And I'm not saying I don't play games anymore, I'm saying that I buy from the bargain bins, play demos/shareware, am indifferent to hyped up new releases, and am re-playing my game collection. And I doubt I'm the only one.
Unfortunatly the sign sank into the ground under it's own weight. The upper half now says "go stick your head in a pig", in the aliens language. ;-)
Well, according to a documentary I saw once, what they really need are monument-destroying super-lasers! And invulnerable shields, which can only be brought down by a virus programmed on a Mac (I _knew_ Apple was good for something). First though we need Jeff Goldblume to be inspired by a clever analogy that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
SETI is looking for _patterns_, not specific pieces of data. To put the question back to you, would we be able to identify a signal despite the fact that we don't speak the language? After all, what better encryption would there be to us than an alien language?
The stuff they're trying to filter out is literally background radiation, typically emitted by stars. This "static" carries no pattern whatsoever; encrypted data would likely be even _more_ complex than simple unencrypted data.
Of course, this all hinges on them being like us enought that what's true on Earth applies elsewhere. That's a rather large assumption, however we cannot avoid it if we're gonna search for ETs. Unless, of course, you'd like to seach for the signals of hyper-intelligent space dolphins.
I've come to realize that /. readers suffer from a collective case of humor constipation. Puns especially seem to get stuck in the slashcolon.
The moderation system needs a new option; -1 Ex-Lax. Moreover we need to get some fibre in our news stories.
Is it just me or are game publishers dying off? Sierra, Interplay and now Acclaim are all gone, or as good as dead. Moreover, IMHO we're seeing less and less new titles, and more sequels, rip-offs and shovelware.
A long time ago I read something to the effect that we'll see the death of the game industry (computer and console) if Moore's law slows down/stops/ceases to aplly to gaming. If new technology can't improve on last years games by a significant margin, then the industry's business model is in _real_ trouble (which might explain the abundance of sequels).
I know that, other than Doom 3 and Thief 3, it's been a long time since I bought a new release (no, I don't pirate). The last few original games I've liked had gameplay that was refined, but not really _new_ as such. Dungeon Siege, for example, was basically Diable meets Icewind Dale; it was good and well executed, but not really a new idea.
I'm not being a nostalgic geezer here, I really think we could be in trouble. Anyone care to comment?
"Care to join me in a celebratory drink?" (holds up bourbon)
"But it's nine in the morning!"
"Yeah, but I haven't slept in days" (drinks half)
(offers bottle) "Last chance" (drinks the rest)
Except if the court decision shows, for example, that SCO's case had no merit whatsoever (or even better, that SCO commited perjury), then the perception might be that the law firm is not at fault. They could simply say "we took the case we tried to win, but you can't get blood from a stone." If, in retrospect, SCO is seen as being totaly and soley at fault, or if Boise & co could make it look that way to a prospective client, they could recover. Also, I don't know their record, but if it's either very good or very bad already, this won't make much of a difference (in fact the senior lawyers might be retiring, and this could be their way of getting a beach house in the Bahamas).
Exactly! This is what people have overlooked about IBM; they're an old(ish) company and didn't get to be where they are today by behaving badly.
Folks, this is the reason IBM is taking so many bewildering (to us at least) stances; they have something to gain and little to lose. We're now so cynical with regard to companies (because of SCO, MS et all) that we fail to realize that a smart company is in it for the long term, and strategies that make sense from a short term perspective (like buying SCO) will have negative repercussions later on. IBM supporting Linux? Yep, in ten years Microsoft will wish they had. Bitchslapping SCO? Of course, can't set a bad precedent wrt their IP, or damage their rep.
The only catch is that they are still a corporation, and will do what is best financially. As long as they have shared best interests with the open source community, they're probably trustworthy. But do not forget their behaviour in th 80's, when they were more like MS is today.
Ok, maybe I'm feeding a troll, but what sort of evidence do you want exactly? Point out something that needs to be clarified or proven, don't just flame.
Yes developers do work on open source professionally, but game companies have a _much_ larger budget, and consequently a definite advantage.
(Oh, and I'm aware of the GP's spelling. Fuck it, life's too short to get your testicles twisted over spelling.)
Ok point taken, but I was looking for an example of open source versus corporate monoculture (which is misspelled in the grandparent, d'oh!). Linux/Windows is one that everybody on /. knows already. My point was only that game development is not dominated by a single stagnant company, and consequently is harder to compete in.
Well, read the end of my post. I was refering to average or below average computer users, not geeks or the computer literate. Undoubtably most of the Googlable* private info came from the Joe public crowd, and these people have a hard time with data security. My disagreement with the gandparent was over the implementation of widespread or universal security (of course I may have misunderstood his point, but mine still stands).
*I have no idea whether "Googlable" is a word, and my spelling is bad enought with normal english, but I think I spelled that right
I think the reason nobody has made a "generic" engine is simply because Moore's law would render it obselite in a few years. Consider the vast difference in technology between Doom and Half Life, and then between HL and Doom 3. Similar creative content (well, ok practically the same bloody content - originallity is the exception not the rule) yet the game engine and gameplay have advanced considerably as a direct result of advancing technology. Unless the generic engine was _very_ advanced, to the point where Moore law won't give us anything better, the game(s) wouldn't compete with more recent titles. Licened engines are ususally state of the art when released, and used in "generic" titles three years later (I mean comercial titles like Soldier of Fortune, not mods in this case).
Open Source coding versus proffesional coding is kinda like distributed computing versus a supercomputer. What people fail to recognize when promoting Linux is that it's chief competetor is a corporate giant that has stagnated. In game develpoment, where there is strong competition, the proffesionals are actually making the most of their budgets. It's no surprise that the Open Source alternative have trouble competing; they're up against the best rather than up against a corporate monoculture.
Note that this isn't an attack on Open Source; there are many things it does well. But like distributed computing it takes advantage of a squandered resource that's already there (spare cycles = free developers). Against an effecient supercomputer (dedicated developers) it can't compete. Whereas agaisnt a _broken_ supercomputer (Microsoft), it can.
Just my 0.02$
Well that gets us back to the free market correcting itself. I would ask you though if that's necessarily a good thing.
Remember Microsoft? Corporate giant, kinda unethical? Their producs are notoriously unsecure, and yet people still use Windows/IE/Outlook. Why? Because free market economics don't work in a corporate dominated environment. We don't have free market capitalism, we have corporate monculture, and it's notoriously unreliable for producing good, solid, honest products. Instead we get salesweasels shovel^H^H^H^H selling producs that don't work as advertised. Better alternatives are quashed, or relegated to the open source community (which is good, but lacks an R&D budget). I think you're being overly optimistic.
Well then, I must ask, do the penguin-shaped ones vibrate? :-)
Not to troll, but "real security and ease of use"? That's a contradiction in terms. Any system thats easy to use is almost certainly easy to crack (hint, the crackers have as easy a time as the user). Any secure system usually requires long passwords, encryption keys or something equally challenging. If your users keep their passwords the same for all systems, or have accessable copies to remind them, then the system isn't secure (remember last week when Gabe Newall's forum accounts got hacked because he used the same friggin password and it was easy to guess?) /. crowd, consider adequate and easy to use is silly. What we need is internet education (the do's and do not's for the clueless).
If you mean security through obscurity then you're describing the current situation on the net, but the article states that Google is removing the obscurity aspect by making the entire net accessible. We no longer have any kind of assurance than a given nook or cranny is too obscure to bother with.
I agree that people shouldn't leave their personal data lying around, but to simply assume that the general public can adopt security measures that we, the
Not to be a pedantic twit, but doesn't plastic melt or burn at an awfully low temperature? A railgun made of plastic sounds sorta like using wooden bullets to kill a vampire, or a catapult made of balsa wood, Wyll E Coyote style.
We've done enough hard drive jokes, thank you very much.
;-)
How 'bout RAM? Or front end ports? Or, perhaps, broadband?
Nah, she'd just jiggle uncontrolably every time she passed through a metal detector...
Wow, I just got the visual... I forsee a new type of porno niche market...
And I, for one, welcome our new cosmetically enhanced, magneto-vibrating, porn starlet overlords!
Out of morbid curiosity, by which part of his body is he stuck? ;-)
But do they run Linux?
...wondering at what point you start to hit diminishing returns for miniaturization? C'mon, how small do we need? Anything smaller than a laptop gets you into major trouble with input devices (as another poster already mentioned). I have enough trouble with existing Palmtops. There's gotta be a point at which modern technology can be miniaturized further, but benefits no one in doing so.
Call me a luddite, but this level of shrinkage strikes me as being more of an PITA than lugging around a larger unit. What someone needs to develop is a method of interfacing with a device this tiny that doesn't require tiny keys or voice input. I have absolutly no idea what kind of interface could fill that role, even theoretically (never mind realistically).
Anyone have any ideas?