Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
You apparently have forgotten that Symantec now owns Veritas -- you know, the company that had probably the most-used volume management software out there? Need I remind you that Veritas Volume Manager has been a part of Windows for many years? Windows 2000 even had VxVM incorporated into it. When you have a 2000 or XP disk that is configured as "dynamic" instead of "basic", you're looking at a Veritas Volume Manager disk, not a straight NTFS/FAT32 disk.
Even the article itself (emphases mine) says:
Microsoft said in a statement that the suit "stems from a very narrow disagreement" over terms of a contract with Veritas to license volume management technology, which allows operating systems to handle large amounts of data.
Apparently, Symantec either thinks that Microsoft has misappropriated the technology that they use in Veritas Volume Manager and incorporated it into Vista without giving Symantec that they want or they're using this as an excuse for a money grab. Either way, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's anti-virus product.
Shows what you know. Magic Carpet requires a native DOS environment to run. I know because I have a 350 MHz PC specifically to run old DOS games that do not work well with an emulator. Magic Carpet is one of them. I've tried all of the major DOS emulators out there. The copy protection in Magic Carpet does a call to MSCDEX to make sure that the CD is in the drive. Because MSCDEX, as of last year anyway, could not be properly emulated to that level on any of the DOS emulators, there was no way to play it without native DOS.
Upgrading Magic Carpet to take advantage of modern hardware would be wonderful, but allowing it to run even in a windowed environment would be all that I'd need.
Well-l-l-l, okay, fair enough. I meant "mindless" in the sense that it's not like games where you have to carefully plan what you will be doing, like with Splinter Cell or Thief. You're right, though. Some of those boss levels could not be defeated by just running and shooting.
Let's see... story, plot, sound, gameplay, multiplay features (assuming that the game is not multiplayer-focused), physics...
These companies need to realize that a large portion of the gaming population came from a time when 16-color EGA and then 256-color VGA were the norm. Graphics are no longer the big "ooh aah" that they used to be because we've had realistic graphics for years! Oh, but look! We can make it more realistic!
Some games that are mindless fun have sold well (e.g.: Doom) but there still comes a time when people need more than graphics. Sam and Max and those old LucasArts games sold because they were FUN. Magic Carpet was the perfect combination of everything - graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor! (I *so* wish someone would buy the rights to it and release a more modern version.) Look at how popular Infocom games were (and still bring fond memories to many) with no graphics at all.
Then there are games like Red Faction on the other side. Truly destructable terrain, something that had not been seen since Magic Carpet, but the game sucked! Besides destructable terrain, it was another FPS.
Frankly, with respect to this whole attitude that "it might not be about the graphics", my only response is "It's about f**king time you realized that!" Graphics are one part of the successful game formula. It's too bad that the gamers recognized that balance a lot time ago and that developers apparently are only now catching up.
That usually requires a $$$ subscription. Most anti-virus companies offer the latest updates for free as long as you manually install it. I'd like to think that most Slashdot readers are savvy enough not only to protect their systems so that automatic updates aren't essential for their own systems to do that on their own, particularly after the McAfee screw-up a few months ago, but also to be able to have the discipline to download and install virus updates on a regular basis... unless they want to pay for the convenience.
Unless it also displays a dialog box stating that, "The Lord has decided that thou hast broken the following commandments: Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not Have Naughty Thoughts. Your files have been deleted according to the rights granted to us by God as his Holy Warriors, and your screen saver is now made of publicity stills from The Passion of the Christ. Go with God."
Not in users like us, perhaps, but to the average Joe who just lost a few gigs of data, and is therefore still in "gullible, panicked buyer" mode, any virus scanner will likely be desireable. So, if an anti-virus vendor can claim to protects your gigs of fies once the new version come out, you can bet that the people who got smacked by this are going to buy it, if only under the ignorant assumption that it won't happen again.
I would guess that the majority of Slashdot readers know what a virus scanner is. And I have no doubt that they're going out to upgrade their virus definition file at this moment.:)
4) Write a trojan to wipe out what people apparently consider to be important so that they are more aware of virus scanners.
Hmmm... would the various anti-virus companies do something like this to advertise the need for their products on people who lose gigs and gigs of files to a trojan? Nahhh....
I agree with you very infrequently, but this is one of those infrequent times. Either someone who is good at coding is on a major "hoiler-than-thou", ethics spree or this is the result of a bigger source hiring this person. I completely agree with you on the latter.
But on the other hand, this is not necessarily a bad thing for the rest of us. Most of the people who would be come infected by this - and consequently lose all of their P2P data - are probably Joe User types who don't know any better. So, this might -- I stress might -- actually be a benefit in even minimal ways:
Fewer people for the RIAA to sue because their files got wiped out (then again, I like seeing them demonize themselves)
Fewer excuses to claim that P2P is taking away oh-so-much estimated revenue (see above statement about self-demonizing)
Likelihood of poisoned files getting wiped out also
Those who get smacked with it might actually learn something about this trivial thing called a "virus scanner"
I list the above points with a bit of sarcasm, of course, because I doubt that this will really have any impact on the above. But I don't doubt that the last item will come into play very often, which could actually be better for the rest of us overall.
This isn't that much of a surprise that he considers the manilla envelope/folder to be the enemy. One of Oracle's strengths has always been as a data warehouse. From their perspective, any data that's stored in on envelopre or folder is something that can be archived digitally. Of course, archiving digitally, and thus becoming the "paperless" office that many tout but never implement, means revenue dollars for Oracle. After all, something has to archive all of that data. The more people who store their data in folders and envelopes, the less likely Oracle is to sell to that company as a data warehouse solution. So, naturally a folder or envelope is a threat to their business model.
And once that data is archived, a searching function to quickly (if not sooner) go through and accurately return the document that it thinks you're looking for is absolutely critical. I can't imagine a more problematic scene for an IT shop than to have the users come back and say, "Well, that's great. But how do I find what I want now?" (And I'm not talking about the "Which key is the Any key?" users.) I've seen the ability (or rather inability) to do an accurate search become a majorheadache for many imaging and data warehouse installs.
Interstate 81 goes south to MARYLAND, not Delaware. I brought Delaware into the equation as well as Maryland to stress the point is that these companies saw fit to move to states around Pennsylvania. This proves that various states also can have differing hostility towards corporations, not just localities like the GGP posted.
This is not a phenomenon solely for local governments. All levels of government are just as bad. This is also not restricted to small businesses.
For example, if you're in Pennsylvania and take Interstate 81 south you'll suddenly see a number of major corporate buildings in all fields - manufacturing, financial, consulting - across the Mason-Dixon before you even get a chance to cross the border. This is because various states also have different ways of handling corporations. As a Pennsylvanian, I can state for a fact that the Commonwealth of PA is *not* tax friendly and instead treats its citizens and businesses as an endless money pit that is constantly subject to increasing taxes. It's no wonder why corporations mock Pennsylvania by having so many offices across the border. Same with Delaware. Their tax laws are much friendlier than Pennsylvania's, which is why so many financial mega-corporations are headquartered in DE.
One thing that I have noticed, however, is that PA municipalities, particularly in the more rural areas, are becoming increasing hostile towards big corporations. Wal-Mart has been defeated no less then three times in the past two years from building their mega-stores in the Harrisburg/York/Lancaster area due to citizens fighting them. I know that Wal-Mart is a favorite anti-corporation whipping boy in the past few years; however, the reasons that were cited for stopping W-M include undesirable increase to local traffic and destruction of local, small businesses, both of which are commonplace after-effects of W-M.
Of course, the U.S. itself is very hostile to businesses because of the on-going mentality that if you're rich, you've done so solely through ill-gotten means and therefore need to be punished through taxation. The increasing conversion of the U.S. from capitalism to a federal socialism is also not conducive to corporations or frankly anyone who wants to work hard to achieve wealth because if you're rich, you're living unfairly and need to have your income forcibly removed so that the local, state, and federal governments can give it to others more deserving of your money than you. This is one of the reasons why so many companies have their corporate headquarters off-shore where they can't be subject to the taxes and regulations. Whether or not people think that's ethical, I think that anyone with any sense of economics can at least understand why corporations do that, particularly with so many other countries offering greatly reduced taxes or no corporate taxes at all.
I agree with you completely that small businesses are the ones that get hurt the most. They don't have the clout and financial support that mega-corporations can fall back on. However, harmful taxation is not limited to being subjected to small businesses nor are local governments the only ones who create an environment that is hostile to small businesses. All levels of government are too blinded with short-term greed because of tax dollars that they think they can collect in the here and now.
Whereas I do believe that the brain can compensate for missing information, I think that all of us would also be able to do that because we have a reference point from the previous fraction of a second. Plus we can also determine the sizes and distances of most objects because we've seen them before and know how to interprect what we see. For example, we know how large tractor trailers are. If we close one eye, look at one that's really small but getting larger, it makes sense that our brain interprets that as a large vehicle, based on our prior knowledge of its size, that it's coming closer and we can approximate its distance from us.
The post above from LiquidCooled (a fantastic link, too!) also gives a fantastic example of how rapid movement of two 2D images can give a 3D perception. So, whereas I'm not saying that you're totally wrong, it's still not the same thing as the interpretation of two 2D images from different angles.
No, I'm not wrong and the perception of stereoscopic images is most certainly 3D.
The brain perceives depth primarily by taking the information that is provided by the two 2D images and creating depth. (I say "primarily" out of respect to the poster below you.) Our eyes are only 2D objects in and of themselves but they get two different perspectives of a 3D object, and our brain does the rest.
When looking at a monitor we are not looking at a 3D object that gives our eyes different images. We are looking at a 2D screen with both of our 2D eyes. Both eyes are receiving the same flat, offset image.
This is no different than having the same audio signal go into both ears. We perceive mono audio with no type of depth to it. Separate those signals so that they're no longer the same, even if it's the same signal that's separated by a 1ms variance in the timing, and suddenly the sound seems to be surrounding you.
What makes visual 3D work is the brain interpreting the variances primarily in horizontal distance between the objects in the two 2D images that our eyes perceive. This is why red/blue, "Magic Eye", and other "tricks" work. Our eyes are seeing two dissimilar images which our brain is combining into 3D.
Additionally, VRML is **NOT** 3D. I realize that the term "3D" is used to represent anything that simulates depth, but frankly I get tired of people tacking "3D" onto something just because it doesn't have a distinctly flat appearance. VRML or any other modeling tool is not inherently 3D unless there is a way to get different light signals to each eye in order to make the brain bring the images together as true depth. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a 2D surface using shading and form to make you see a pseudo-3D image.
Yes, I'm being pedantic and I gladly admit that; but until such time as web designers require red/blue anaglyph, polarizing, or other types of glasses to give the site true depth, there will be no such thing as the "3D web". Just like with so-called 3D games*, using "3D" with an inherently 2D medium is nothing more than a marketing/glitz word that is used to imply that it's better than came previously.
* With few exceptions like "Magic Carpet", which includes a well-done, red/blue anaglyph mode as well as "Magic Eye" mode.
Okay, some of these have already been covered, but there are a few others of my own to throw in.
Which version? Widescreen or pan-and-scan... sorry... "full screen"? Most likely pan-and-scan... sorry... "full screen". No freakin' thanks.
DD 5.1? Probably not.
Extras? Behind the scenes? Highly doubtful.
Separate audio tracks for director's and cast commentaries? Not.
Subtitles for those who need them? Nope.
Portable to other players? Ah. DRM. Nevermind.
Burn your own DVD from the image? Not until a hack, huh?
DVD resolution? Possibly, but I'm not holding my breath.
So... I'm getting a fraction of a DVD's normal content most likely in pan-and-scan... sorry.. "full screen" without DD 5.1, behind-the-scenes, or separate audio tracks for the cost of a regular DVD that I can then watch in every player that I own. And exactly how is this a better alternative to a DVD?
Viewing a film based on a computer game is like hanging around in an amusement arcade, peering over the shoulders of other people playing video games.
This line alone is an utter crock of shit. If a movie on based on a video game, it's like hanging around in an arcade? What the f**k is the person who penned this smoking and why isn't he sharing it with the rest of us, because that's some strong stuff!
The source material is completely irrelevant whether it's based on a true story, a classic piece of literature, or a vide game. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne if they wanted to expand on the story behind her video game character. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the Star Trek series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Bloodrayne's vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done. Instead, we got a crappy movie with just about nothing of value except a babe of a lead actress and Ben Kingsley, not that he could have added any credibility to this shlock.
Why do movie games stink? Because there is no effort in developing any kind of plot or storyline that the audience would find intriguing. In fact, this describes the majority of movies nowadays. The fact that a movie's source might be a video game cannot possibly be more irrelevant.
Okay, karma be damed for this particular instance!
Traditionally, Republicans (in the modern sense) who have nothing to worry about with respect to being elected (aka. the general populous) generally believe in less government and more personal responsibility. That's why anti-gaming laws are generally considered to be an afront to what the standard, non-politician Republican believes. Such laws are nothing more than bigger government usurping parental responsibility.
I really wish that people like you would stop with the mentality that the clueless politicians inside of the Washington beltway are 100% representative of the people who put them into office. They're not. American politics has degraded to the election of the lesser of the available evils, and very few people fully agree 100% with the people that they elect. More often than not, people are not voting for their candidate but instead voting against the other candidate. Very sad, but true.
What's more, if you really think that Washington Democrats will bring "sanity" to the U.S. government, that shows how completely f**king clueless you really are about modern, American politics. Washington Democrats (notice how I'm focusing on those inside the Beltway by not generally speaking about the populous) have traditionally attempted to usurp personal responsibility in the way of "the government knows what's better for you than you do" mentality on issues that are centered in bleeding-heart compassion as opposed to theologoical morality. (See various socialist/entitlement laws that have been signed or at least submitted into the House and Senate in the past few decades.) But whether it's bleeding-heart compassion (typically left-wing) or theological morality (typically right-wing), any law based on such is done so in order to appease constituents, not to enhance the betterment of the country, and should be opposed.
That being said, you are correct in the sense that anti-gaming laws are also pounced upon by the various moralists in the Republican fringe who are putting their personal morals ahead of the traditional Republican values of smaller government. Sadly, better morals and/or protecting the children has become a pathetic excuse for both parties to pass whatever law they want, because it's easy to vilify opponents as being against children for no reason except that you can -- just as easily as it is to vilify an opposing party about not bringing "fucking balance" for no reason except that you can.
SO WHAT?! Since when did popular games require ZOMG GRAPHICS to be either good ro popular and why in hell do people like you continue to propagate that myth? Darwinia is by no means cutting edge graphics, neither are the thousands of title that companies like PopCap sell successfully. I've played and enjoyed Zuma, Bejewelled, and lots of other games of that nature. They are hardly games that anyone would consider to have cutting-edge graphics, but they're FUN and I enjoy playing them.
There are also plenty of talented voice actors out there who would give their vocal talents just for the fun of doing it. I think that most gamers really don't give a rat's rear end about who does voice acting as long as it's done WELL. Hell, I can do lots of accurate, European accents and have been told by many people that I should get into voice acting. I'd gladly lend my voice to a local independent gaming company (if there was one near me) just to say that I did it! Half-Life 2 was no better because it used the voice talents of people like Robet Guillaume (sp?) and Louis Gosset, Jr. It would not have been any worse if unknown but talented voice actors were used instead.
The attitude that successfull games require ZOMG GRAPHICS and well-known voice talent and that having neither is detrimental is the real "handicap" that independent game companies have to overcome. What's disgusting about it is that the real "handicap" is not the company's action but the ignorant perception of those who externally place those "handicaps" on the gaming companies.
I was thinking that exact same thing myself. StarDock has been around for quite some time. They were just about the only company back in the OS/2 days that recognized that there was a market for OS/2 games, and the games that they made were *good*. The OS/2 community responded by helping to keep StarDock afloat through purchases of what was clearly niche software products.
Along the same lines, StarDock's attitude that they should be grateful to the customer and therefore continue to produce games and company policies that keep people coming back also help to keep them afloat. Hell, I plan on buying Galactic Civilizations II just because StarDock has refused to use on-disc copy protection, even though I don't really care for that particular genre!
This is in stark contrast to the mega-game conglomerates like EA and Ubi who treat the customer as though they are potential criminals (and therefore deserve invasive copy protection) who should be grateful that they are being given the privilege of purchasing the game (and therefore expect the customer to tolerate a bug-ridden version while the company works on patches). Bullshit!
Since when does any company need to compete against the big-boys or die? From what I understand, Darwinia is exceptionally popular and that company doesn't come close to EA or UbiSoft. What about Zuma and other popular games? I still think back to Apogee and Id, both of which were independents that profited through a successful shareware model.
The notion that you have to compete with the big boys and have big-budget games in order to survive is complete and utter bullshit. Find your niche, make great games, get great word-of-mouth, and treat your customers with respect. You'll make it in the gaming world. You might not be as big as EA or Ubi, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
You beat me to it. Why anyone would consider the PSP to be a portable movie player is beyond me. Another cost for a different media, a typically Sony proprietary format, with a screen that's a lot smaller than most portable DVD players. For crying out loud, I recently bought a DVD player with a 7" 16:9 screen that could double as a portable video game display (I/O cables were included) for less than $100 -- and I don't have to purchase the same movie again on UMD!
The fact that Sony actually expected people to double-dip for an inferior format is staggering. Of course, this comes from the same people who brought us Beta, MiniDisc, and music CD rootkits.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
You apparently have forgotten that Symantec now owns Veritas -- you know, the company that had probably the most-used volume management software out there? Need I remind you that Veritas Volume Manager has been a part of Windows for many years? Windows 2000 even had VxVM incorporated into it. When you have a 2000 or XP disk that is configured as "dynamic" instead of "basic", you're looking at a Veritas Volume Manager disk, not a straight NTFS/FAT32 disk.
Even the article itself (emphases mine) says:
Microsoft said in a statement that the suit "stems from a very narrow disagreement" over terms of a contract with Veritas to license volume management technology, which allows operating systems to handle large amounts of data.
Apparently, Symantec either thinks that Microsoft has misappropriated the technology that they use in Veritas Volume Manager and incorporated it into Vista without giving Symantec that they want or they're using this as an excuse for a money grab. Either way, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's anti-virus product.
Shows what you know. Magic Carpet requires a native DOS environment to run. I know because I have a 350 MHz PC specifically to run old DOS games that do not work well with an emulator. Magic Carpet is one of them. I've tried all of the major DOS emulators out there. The copy protection in Magic Carpet does a call to MSCDEX to make sure that the CD is in the drive. Because MSCDEX, as of last year anyway, could not be properly emulated to that level on any of the DOS emulators, there was no way to play it without native DOS.
Upgrading Magic Carpet to take advantage of modern hardware would be wonderful, but allowing it to run even in a windowed environment would be all that I'd need.
Well-l-l-l, okay, fair enough. I meant "mindless" in the sense that it's not like games where you have to carefully plan what you will be doing, like with Splinter Cell or Thief. You're right, though. Some of those boss levels could not be defeated by just running and shooting.
Let's see ... story, plot, sound, gameplay, multiplay features (assuming that the game is not multiplayer-focused), physics ...
These companies need to realize that a large portion of the gaming population came from a time when 16-color EGA and then 256-color VGA were the norm. Graphics are no longer the big "ooh aah" that they used to be because we've had realistic graphics for years! Oh, but look! We can make it more realistic!
Some games that are mindless fun have sold well (e.g.: Doom) but there still comes a time when people need more than graphics. Sam and Max and those old LucasArts games sold because they were FUN. Magic Carpet was the perfect combination of everything - graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor! (I *so* wish someone would buy the rights to it and release a more modern version.) Look at how popular Infocom games were (and still bring fond memories to many) with no graphics at all.
Then there are games like Red Faction on the other side. Truly destructable terrain, something that had not been seen since Magic Carpet, but the game sucked! Besides destructable terrain, it was another FPS.
Frankly, with respect to this whole attitude that "it might not be about the graphics", my only response is "It's about f**king time you realized that!" Graphics are one part of the successful game formula. It's too bad that the gamers recognized that balance a lot time ago and that developers apparently are only now catching up.
That usually requires a $$$ subscription. Most anti-virus companies offer the latest updates for free as long as you manually install it. I'd like to think that most Slashdot readers are savvy enough not only to protect their systems so that automatic updates aren't essential for their own systems to do that on their own, particularly after the McAfee screw-up a few months ago, but also to be able to have the discipline to download and install virus updates on a regular basis ... unless they want to pay for the convenience.
Unless it also displays a dialog box stating that, "The Lord has decided that thou hast broken the following commandments: Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not Have Naughty Thoughts. Your files have been deleted according to the rights granted to us by God as his Holy Warriors, and your screen saver is now made of publicity stills from The Passion of the Christ. Go with God."
:)
Then, maybe so...
Not in users like us, perhaps, but to the average Joe who just lost a few gigs of data, and is therefore still in "gullible, panicked buyer" mode, any virus scanner will likely be desireable. So, if an anti-virus vendor can claim to protects your gigs of fies once the new version come out, you can bet that the people who got smacked by this are going to buy it, if only under the ignorant assumption that it won't happen again.
I would guess that the majority of Slashdot readers know what a virus scanner is. And I have no doubt that they're going out to upgrade their virus definition file at this moment. :)
Call me cynical, but add:
4) Write a trojan to wipe out what people apparently consider to be important so that they are more aware of virus scanners.
Hmmm... would the various anti-virus companies do something like this to advertise the need for their products on people who lose gigs and gigs of files to a trojan? Nahhh....
But on the other hand, this is not necessarily a bad thing for the rest of us. Most of the people who would be come infected by this - and consequently lose all of their P2P data - are probably Joe User types who don't know any better. So, this might -- I stress might -- actually be a benefit in even minimal ways:
I list the above points with a bit of sarcasm, of course, because I doubt that this will really have any impact on the above. But I don't doubt that the last item will come into play very often, which could actually be better for the rest of us overall.
This isn't that much of a surprise that he considers the manilla envelope/folder to be the enemy. One of Oracle's strengths has always been as a data warehouse. From their perspective, any data that's stored in on envelopre or folder is something that can be archived digitally. Of course, archiving digitally, and thus becoming the "paperless" office that many tout but never implement, means revenue dollars for Oracle. After all, something has to archive all of that data. The more people who store their data in folders and envelopes, the less likely Oracle is to sell to that company as a data warehouse solution. So, naturally a folder or envelope is a threat to their business model.
And once that data is archived, a searching function to quickly (if not sooner) go through and accurately return the document that it thinks you're looking for is absolutely critical. I can't imagine a more problematic scene for an IT shop than to have the users come back and say, "Well, that's great. But how do I find what I want now?" (And I'm not talking about the "Which key is the Any key?" users.) I've seen the ability (or rather inability) to do an accurate search become a majorheadache for many imaging and data warehouse installs.
Interstate 81 goes south to MARYLAND, not Delaware. I brought Delaware into the equation as well as Maryland to stress the point is that these companies saw fit to move to states around Pennsylvania. This proves that various states also can have differing hostility towards corporations, not just localities like the GGP posted.
This is not a phenomenon solely for local governments. All levels of government are just as bad. This is also not restricted to small businesses.
For example, if you're in Pennsylvania and take Interstate 81 south you'll suddenly see a number of major corporate buildings in all fields - manufacturing, financial, consulting - across the Mason-Dixon before you even get a chance to cross the border. This is because various states also have different ways of handling corporations. As a Pennsylvanian, I can state for a fact that the Commonwealth of PA is *not* tax friendly and instead treats its citizens and businesses as an endless money pit that is constantly subject to increasing taxes. It's no wonder why corporations mock Pennsylvania by having so many offices across the border. Same with Delaware. Their tax laws are much friendlier than Pennsylvania's, which is why so many financial mega-corporations are headquartered in DE.
One thing that I have noticed, however, is that PA municipalities, particularly in the more rural areas, are becoming increasing hostile towards big corporations. Wal-Mart has been defeated no less then three times in the past two years from building their mega-stores in the Harrisburg/York/Lancaster area due to citizens fighting them. I know that Wal-Mart is a favorite anti-corporation whipping boy in the past few years; however, the reasons that were cited for stopping W-M include undesirable increase to local traffic and destruction of local, small businesses, both of which are commonplace after-effects of W-M.
Of course, the U.S. itself is very hostile to businesses because of the on-going mentality that if you're rich, you've done so solely through ill-gotten means and therefore need to be punished through taxation. The increasing conversion of the U.S. from capitalism to a federal socialism is also not conducive to corporations or frankly anyone who wants to work hard to achieve wealth because if you're rich, you're living unfairly and need to have your income forcibly removed so that the local, state, and federal governments can give it to others more deserving of your money than you. This is one of the reasons why so many companies have their corporate headquarters off-shore where they can't be subject to the taxes and regulations. Whether or not people think that's ethical, I think that anyone with any sense of economics can at least understand why corporations do that, particularly with so many other countries offering greatly reduced taxes or no corporate taxes at all.
I agree with you completely that small businesses are the ones that get hurt the most. They don't have the clout and financial support that mega-corporations can fall back on. However, harmful taxation is not limited to being subjected to small businesses nor are local governments the only ones who create an environment that is hostile to small businesses. All levels of government are too blinded with short-term greed because of tax dollars that they think they can collect in the here and now.
And this is surprising? You must be new here.
Whereas I do believe that the brain can compensate for missing information, I think that all of us would also be able to do that because we have a reference point from the previous fraction of a second. Plus we can also determine the sizes and distances of most objects because we've seen them before and know how to interprect what we see. For example, we know how large tractor trailers are. If we close one eye, look at one that's really small but getting larger, it makes sense that our brain interprets that as a large vehicle, based on our prior knowledge of its size, that it's coming closer and we can approximate its distance from us.
The post above from LiquidCooled (a fantastic link, too!) also gives a fantastic example of how rapid movement of two 2D images can give a 3D perception. So, whereas I'm not saying that you're totally wrong, it's still not the same thing as the interpretation of two 2D images from different angles.
No, I'm not wrong and the perception of stereoscopic images is most certainly 3D.
The brain perceives depth primarily by taking the information that is provided by the two 2D images and creating depth. (I say "primarily" out of respect to the poster below you.) Our eyes are only 2D objects in and of themselves but they get two different perspectives of a 3D object, and our brain does the rest.
When looking at a monitor we are not looking at a 3D object that gives our eyes different images. We are looking at a 2D screen with both of our 2D eyes. Both eyes are receiving the same flat, offset image.
This is no different than having the same audio signal go into both ears. We perceive mono audio with no type of depth to it. Separate those signals so that they're no longer the same, even if it's the same signal that's separated by a 1ms variance in the timing, and suddenly the sound seems to be surrounding you.
What makes visual 3D work is the brain interpreting the variances primarily in horizontal distance between the objects in the two 2D images that our eyes perceive. This is why red/blue, "Magic Eye", and other "tricks" work. Our eyes are seeing two dissimilar images which our brain is combining into 3D.
Additionally, VRML is **NOT** 3D. I realize that the term "3D" is used to represent anything that simulates depth, but frankly I get tired of people tacking "3D" onto something just because it doesn't have a distinctly flat appearance. VRML or any other modeling tool is not inherently 3D unless there is a way to get different light signals to each eye in order to make the brain bring the images together as true depth. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a 2D surface using shading and form to make you see a pseudo-3D image.
Yes, I'm being pedantic and I gladly admit that; but until such time as web designers require red/blue anaglyph, polarizing, or other types of glasses to give the site true depth, there will be no such thing as the "3D web". Just like with so-called 3D games*, using "3D" with an inherently 2D medium is nothing more than a marketing/glitz word that is used to imply that it's better than came previously.
* With few exceptions like "Magic Carpet", which includes a well-done, red/blue anaglyph mode as well as "Magic Eye" mode.
So
Viewing a film based on a computer game is like hanging around in an amusement arcade, peering over the shoulders of other people playing video games.
This line alone is an utter crock of shit. If a movie on based on a video game, it's like hanging around in an arcade? What the f**k is the person who penned this smoking and why isn't he sharing it with the rest of us, because that's some strong stuff!
The source material is completely irrelevant whether it's based on a true story, a classic piece of literature, or a vide game. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne if they wanted to expand on the story behind her video game character. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the Star Trek series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Bloodrayne's vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done. Instead, we got a crappy movie with just about nothing of value except a babe of a lead actress and Ben Kingsley, not that he could have added any credibility to this shlock.
Why do movie games stink? Because there is no effort in developing any kind of plot or storyline that the audience would find intriguing. In fact, this describes the majority of movies nowadays. The fact that a movie's source might be a video game cannot possibly be more irrelevant.
fdisk and format are absolute necessities when it comes to Windows.
Oh, sure, they're DOS throwbacks, but when used properly they will guarantee that you will get absolutely no Windows viruses, spyware, or malware.
(You didn't really expect a lot of serious answers on Slashdot when it comes to running Windows, did you?)
You're the one who decided to throw politics into it for the sole purpose of Republican bashing, not me.
Okay, karma be damed for this particular instance!
Traditionally, Republicans (in the modern sense) who have nothing to worry about with respect to being elected (aka. the general populous) generally believe in less government and more personal responsibility. That's why anti-gaming laws are generally considered to be an afront to what the standard, non-politician Republican believes. Such laws are nothing more than bigger government usurping parental responsibility.
I really wish that people like you would stop with the mentality that the clueless politicians inside of the Washington beltway are 100% representative of the people who put them into office. They're not. American politics has degraded to the election of the lesser of the available evils, and very few people fully agree 100% with the people that they elect. More often than not, people are not voting for their candidate but instead voting against the other candidate. Very sad, but true.
What's more, if you really think that Washington Democrats will bring "sanity" to the U.S. government, that shows how completely f**king clueless you really are about modern, American politics. Washington Democrats (notice how I'm focusing on those inside the Beltway by not generally speaking about the populous) have traditionally attempted to usurp personal responsibility in the way of "the government knows what's better for you than you do" mentality on issues that are centered in bleeding-heart compassion as opposed to theologoical morality. (See various socialist/entitlement laws that have been signed or at least submitted into the House and Senate in the past few decades.) But whether it's bleeding-heart compassion (typically left-wing) or theological morality (typically right-wing), any law based on such is done so in order to appease constituents, not to enhance the betterment of the country, and should be opposed.
That being said, you are correct in the sense that anti-gaming laws are also pounced upon by the various moralists in the Republican fringe who are putting their personal morals ahead of the traditional Republican values of smaller government. Sadly, better morals and/or protecting the children has become a pathetic excuse for both parties to pass whatever law they want, because it's easy to vilify opponents as being against children for no reason except that you can -- just as easily as it is to vilify an opposing party about not bringing "fucking balance" for no reason except that you can.
SO WHAT?! Since when did popular games require ZOMG GRAPHICS to be either good ro popular and why in hell do people like you continue to propagate that myth? Darwinia is by no means cutting edge graphics, neither are the thousands of title that companies like PopCap sell successfully. I've played and enjoyed Zuma, Bejewelled, and lots of other games of that nature. They are hardly games that anyone would consider to have cutting-edge graphics, but they're FUN and I enjoy playing them.
There are also plenty of talented voice actors out there who would give their vocal talents just for the fun of doing it. I think that most gamers really don't give a rat's rear end about who does voice acting as long as it's done WELL. Hell, I can do lots of accurate, European accents and have been told by many people that I should get into voice acting. I'd gladly lend my voice to a local independent gaming company (if there was one near me) just to say that I did it! Half-Life 2 was no better because it used the voice talents of people like Robet Guillaume (sp?) and Louis Gosset, Jr. It would not have been any worse if unknown but talented voice actors were used instead.
The attitude that successfull games require ZOMG GRAPHICS and well-known voice talent and that having neither is detrimental is the real "handicap" that independent game companies have to overcome. What's disgusting about it is that the real "handicap" is not the company's action but the ignorant perception of those who externally place those "handicaps" on the gaming companies.
I was thinking that exact same thing myself. StarDock has been around for quite some time. They were just about the only company back in the OS/2 days that recognized that there was a market for OS/2 games, and the games that they made were *good*. The OS/2 community responded by helping to keep StarDock afloat through purchases of what was clearly niche software products.
Along the same lines, StarDock's attitude that they should be grateful to the customer and therefore continue to produce games and company policies that keep people coming back also help to keep them afloat. Hell, I plan on buying Galactic Civilizations II just because StarDock has refused to use on-disc copy protection, even though I don't really care for that particular genre!
This is in stark contrast to the mega-game conglomerates like EA and Ubi who treat the customer as though they are potential criminals (and therefore deserve invasive copy protection) who should be grateful that they are being given the privilege of purchasing the game (and therefore expect the customer to tolerate a bug-ridden version while the company works on patches). Bullshit!
Since when does any company need to compete against the big-boys or die? From what I understand, Darwinia is exceptionally popular and that company doesn't come close to EA or UbiSoft. What about Zuma and other popular games? I still think back to Apogee and Id, both of which were independents that profited through a successful shareware model.
The notion that you have to compete with the big boys and have big-budget games in order to survive is complete and utter bullshit. Find your niche, make great games, get great word-of-mouth, and treat your customers with respect. You'll make it in the gaming world. You might not be as big as EA or Ubi, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
You beat me to it. Why anyone would consider the PSP to be a portable movie player is beyond me. Another cost for a different media, a typically Sony proprietary format, with a screen that's a lot smaller than most portable DVD players. For crying out loud, I recently bought a DVD player with a 7" 16:9 screen that could double as a portable video game display (I/O cables were included) for less than $100 -- and I don't have to purchase the same movie again on UMD!
The fact that Sony actually expected people to double-dip for an inferior format is staggering. Of course, this comes from the same people who brought us Beta, MiniDisc, and music CD rootkits.