While it is apparently true that the (defunct) Super NES CD-Rom addon project was a joint effort between Nintendo and Sony, and was codenamed "Playstation," this story is a hoax.
Seriously, though, I don't understand why they are making this movie, or at least why they are making it the way they are now.
First off, Arnold is a bit too old now. 5-8 years ago, maybe it could have happened. Not now, though, despite the massive amounts of makeup.
Second off, looks like they are just turning this into a cheeseball cliche action movie. Very little originality, lots of mindless action, special effects, and the obligatory hot chick.
Now, the trailor gives away very little except that the machines have sent thier latest robot back in time to kill us. The original Terminator must also go back to stop that machine. Sounds a lot like the Plot of Terminator 2.
I might be wrong. It might end up being a good movie. I just doubt it.
I agree. In my opinion, the first thing a good leader would do in a time of financial hardships is to take the blame for a company's shortcomings, and cut their own salary. Instead it seems that the first thing they do is lay off people and then hope that the move "looks good" to the investors on Wall Street.
While most CEOs don't take in 65 Million a year, many CEOs could take a considerable cut in their pay and still live a life of relative ease, financially. I'm sure that there are some CEOs who do take pay cuts, but I'm sure there are far more who don't.
Unfortunately, many execs have learned to get where they are by taking credit for what others do, pinning the blame for their failures on their underlings, and looking out for themselves no matter what the circumstances.
This breed of people probably don't know what it means to make a sacrifice for others, no matter how little.
This is a good observation. I was wondering "why" to myself, as well. People have apparently gotten the game, toolset, etc. to work in Wine. I'm sure Bioware expected them to do so.
Your comment makes sense. The only question is "what" future project? Knights of the Old Republic? Maybe something they are just toying with right now? *Shrugs*
P.S. If you must play on Linux/BSD, please know that saving the game in the middle of an area to area transition (not module to module--that just plain didn't work) caused a freeze and core-dump in the server
Uh, I've been using the Linux deticated server since Day 1 it was released. Using Red Hat 7.2, I haven't had any of those problems since several patches ago. Bioware fixed the "save in the middle of a transition" bug (which existed in the Windows version too) a long time ago, for sure.
I was going to buy the game anyway, but I know some people who bought the game and still have it in the box, because they are waiting for a Linux client.
Bioware promised a simultaneous release for Linux, Mac, and Windows four years ago. At the time they even said that there was the possibility of a BeOS port as well. Just as a note, this promise was made during the "dot com" bubble. Bioware might have felt that they could have hired more people to work on the Linux and Mac versions at the time.
Up until right before the game was released, they were still promising this. Then, all of a sudden, they announced that only Windows would come out, with Linux and Mac to follow. Recall that at the beginning of the year, Bioware and Interplay had some sort of disagreement... and the game was in danger of not having a publisher. Then Infogames, the only other company with a lisence to D&D, picked it up.
Admittedly, they _did_ deliver on the Linux server fairly quickly. That is a good thing for me, but the client would be nice as well.
There are a few differing opinions on why the Linux client delay has occured.
My personal opinion is that the publisher of the game, Infogames, was holding Bioware to a June release date very strictly (probably so the game would release two weeks before Warcraft III). This explains the extremely short Beta period, as well as the relatively high amount of bugs (compared to previous Bioware releases). I also believe that Infogames is still pushing Bioware to focus on adding new content to the game and begin work on expansions, rather than focus on getting the Linux client done, and that is why they only seem to have a few people on the Linux client. I personally believe that if Interplay were still the publisher, the game would have likely been pushed back to fall, and the simultaneous client release would have been a reality.
Some people believe that, from the beginning, the Linux client was just a marketing ploy to get more people to buy the game and to get the game advertised on Linux sites. I really question the validity of this accusation. Bioware has a history of making good RPGs, so it isn't as if they had to rely on a cheap marketing tactic to sell the game. Mentioning that this was from the "Makers of Baldur's Gate" is enough for most RPG enthusiasts to buy the game.
The third point of view is that Bioware really is trying their hardest to get the Linux client out, but these few problems are really causing them hell. Personally, I could care less if the movies don't work.
What I believe Bioware ought to do is release a "beta" of the client as it is. No matter how crappy the sound is, I believe that it would probably at least keep Linux folks happy that Bioware is working on it.
What really hurts the Linux client right now, in my eyes, is that Bioware has mentioned NOTHING about porting the two expansions they've announced to Linux.
On the bright side, people say they've gotten NWN to run Wine. I haven't tried it myself, but at this point, it looks like Wine will be the only way to play in Linux for at least a few more months.
in today's world, the author doesn't receive a royalty everytime someone reads a book from the library. Will they in the future?
The ultimate goal of most publishers is likely to be pay-per-read. In other words, royalties for the PUBLISHER. The author might recieve 0.00000001% of this, or something like that, if they are lucky.
If so, why is it that everyone who plays MMORPGs seems to care mainly about leveling up, camping for the most ph4t l3wt in the game, earning cash as easily as possible, and generally having the most "uber" character stat wise?
Ask a warrior why he is using a particular weapon in an MMORPG, and he'll say it is because it is the most damaging weapon that is available to him at the time.
He probably won't say something like, "this sword was my father's. I carry it to remind myself of what a powerful and honorable warrior he was. One day I will use my father's sword to slay the one who murdered him!"
Sure there is. Have NPCs run as AI processes with random needs and plots, in response to player action or the plots of other NPCs.
This would work on a small scale. However, there are still problems on the large scale. The AI still has a finite set of needs and plots that it can select. These needs and plots have to be created by a human programmer. Eventually you'd probably see a quest repeated, given that there are thousands upon thousands of players.
What you need is an AI "DM" that is smart enough to draw from data it knows (perhaps extensive knowledge from fantasy novels, fairy tales, world legends, etc) to create new events worldwide. Perhaps the AI can create an event such as a "war" between two kingdoms. Then the AI must create quests in realtime appropriate for every level range / class of player that are associated with this event. I don't know of any AI that fits this qualification. Essentially the AI must have the creative capacity of a human as well as the capacity to keep track of every single player's actions.
Such a MMORPG might exist in the future, but I don't think it is a realistic expectation for at least 10 years. I might be wrong, however.
I want animals to come from the breading of two other animals, and to be hunted and eaten and the related things.
Do you want to wait that long for animals to do that? While hunting and eating animals is not an unreasonable request, I really don't see a practicle reason to waste time programming animal breeding cycles into a game, when it serves no practical purpose unless you become an animal breeder, or something.
And as far as missions go, they should be based on something and never repeated.
In a single player RPG, if you rescue the Princess from the Dragon, the king won't ask you to do it AGAIN. Events can't be repeated.
On the other hand, in an MMORPG type setting, you have to repeat basic quests like this. There is NO WAY that you can avoid repeating quests for a game with thousands of players on a server.
The more transparent you mike the line between reality and game, the more fun I will have killing people or whatever it is I want to do.
No, sorry, I disagree. I don't want a computer / console RPG to become so realistic in what I have to do that it becomes a job for me. The amounts of time you have to throw into games like EQ and DAOC are crazy enough.
If you want a multiplayer RPG to be the way you want it, you should consider grabbing a group of friends and a Dungeons and Dragons book (or other REAL RPG of your persuasion).
In your example, you were specifically targeting people in the US. I'm sure your country (if you're not a Citizen of the US. Would extradite you. Technically, you've committed an act of war, anyway.
Murder and Copyright are two different ballgames, as well.
Sklyarov, a Russian citizen, wrote a program, in Russia, that supposedly violates the DMCA. His company was the one that sold it to parties in the US. He did not personally sell anything. His country might be accountable, since they had dealings with US parties, but he should not be.
He came to the US for a conference and was arrested for something he did in Russia, which was legal under Russian law.
He should not be held, since he never commit a crime in the US.
"I cared about not violating the law of the country I am operating in," Sklyarov said.
Sklyarov should not have had a responsibility to know or obey the laws of the United States, as a Russian doing work in Russia. What his employer does with the product he makes is none of his concern.
Putting the fact that I don't agree with the DMCA (I believe it is Unconstitutional) aside, the company sold the product in the USA, and should be the one held responsible.
Holding Sklyarov accountable is just plain wrong. US citizens wonder why foreigners hate our guts. One of the reasons is that our government feels that its laws should forced upon everyone worldwide.
If you are a foreign programmer who deals with security issues, I'd be cautious about stepping foot in the US, at least while Bush and his administration hold power. As you can see, our government is out of control right now, and it'll take a lot of US citizens to wake up to that fact before things can really change.
I think the reference was that the movie industry says all their films barely break even, no matter how the movie actually does.
Senator: Why is it that you think we should give you vigilante abilities to hunt down pirates, at your own discression?
Movie Exec: Because, Senator! As you can see by our numbers, we're barely breaking even! Chinese street vendors have our movies before they are made and are killing us, even though we don't have a market in China! Without vigilante powers, we won't be able to stay in business much longer. It is our God given right to stay in business, no matter what!
No, not at all. I am in agreement with you that Dmitri should not have been arrested in the manner he was. That was pretty shameful of the US Government. I believe US jurisdiction should cover the US, ONLY. I believe that Australian jurisdiction should cover Australia, ONLY.
However, it seems that the governments of many countries, the US and Australia included, are now under some delusion that their laws should extend beyond their borders. The US is a huge offender in this area, no doubt. It doesn't make me happy that my country is doing this.
This is not necessarily an answer, just an observation. This is in no way meant to bash the parents, either. I'm sure it is pretty confusing when your kid seems to have "behavior problems," and sometimes the only resource you have to turn to is a doctor who is gung-ho on the latest fad diagnosis and drugs.
While I'm not very familiar with this sort of thing first hand, I know that ADHD and other similar "diseases" are diagnosed quite a bit to children that don't fit into the mold. Many people feel that doctors are too quick to diagnose this.
It feels to me as if the reasoning in many cases is "This kid isn't normal. So we should give him/her drugs to make him/her act like normal kids do."
Doesn't this miss the fact that this girl (and many others like her) is NOT normal? Her IQ (147) is MUCH higher than an average person's (100). Provided her IQ test was done correctly, this qualifies her as a "genius" (I believe genius is defined as being 140-145 or above, depending on who you ask). I've heard that people with even higher IQs have even more extreme "behavior tendencies."
Obviously, she is going to act much differently than most of the other students in her school! She is attending a school where the lessons were designed for people with average mental capabilities. She is also going to have a hard time following instructions designed for children in the 85-115 IQ. Even people with IQs in the 120s and 130s have some problems adjusting to these settings. It is probably even more unnatural for someone with an IQ close to 150 or higher.
Even though she has been diagnosed with ADHD by a doctor, I question giving drugs to "correct" the behavior of such an individual. I don't know what long term effects drugs like the dreaded "r" have, but I'd be afraid of neutering my child with such drugs if I found they had a high IQ.
It seems someone like this would not benefit at all from a traditional school setting, at least at such a young age, and would be better off in a school designed for people gifted with high IQs.
It seems to make more sense to nurture someone's high IQ with activities that they can relate to, rather than give them a drug to force them to become "normal."
#1. How can they enforce this sort of thing on everyone?
For example:
Let us say that I say something mean about someone in Australia on the web. That person then files suit against me in an Australian court.
I have no presence in Australia. Even if they manage to serve the suit to me via mail or something, what inclines me to go to the court? What can they do to me, since I'm in the USA? Would they try to get the US Government to extradite me? Sure, it might just prevent me from ever visiting Australia, but I don't see how they could get someone over there to trial.
Since Dow Jones probably has some sort of presence in Australia, I can see how they might be more inclined to follow the court's orders... but what about everyone else?
Just a disclaimer that I'm a Libertarian before my response...
* It's illegal for a US party or candidate to accept political contributions from overseas.
This didn't stop Clinton. Even though he was scrutinized, he ended up getting away with it. Plus many international corporations have a US office that they can use to get around this little inconvenience.
* Multiple parties don't matter much unless they're so fractured that it takes many to form a majority coalition.
Under a parlimentary system, yes. However, in the US system, strong third parties would keep eachother in line, IMO, because of plurality voting. A party that has its members do unpopular things could be threatened with a complete loss of power.
Realistically, it is hard to say exactly what would happen if we had more than two powerful parties in modern times, since it has been almost a century since a third party candidate has had a realistic shot at being President.
* Parties and candidates NEED money because most voters don't go out of their way to educate themselves, hence the emphasis on TV and radio ads. Blame the voters for that one.
This is debatable. I (perhaps optimistically) believe that if these trashy TV and radio ads were cut back, voters would begin to educate themselves again. In other words, the very presence of these ads (which are all marketing and mudslinging, they contain little substance) is what causes American voters to have no motivation to educate themselves.
* The Green Parties remain fringe parties because most people don't agree with their agenda. Sorry, their brand of socialism just isn't very popular.
Most people don't even KNOW the agenda of the Green Party beyond the perception that they are "more liberal" than the Democrats, or that they are just "Communists with another name."
The Democrats would like it very much to stay that way. They even go so far as to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore losing.
* The Reform Party disintegrated on its own accord, being split by wacko personalities such as the paranoid protectionist Perot and the tactless, part-time-Governor/part-time-XFL-announcer Ventura.
The reform party had some problems, agreed. However, Perot proved that MONEY is one of the most important factors in getting noticed. The only reason the reform party did so well in 1992 was because Perot was pretty much able to buy himself into the debates.
As for Governor Ventura, there is a wide range of opinions on him. Since I'm not a resident of Minnesota, I can't say very much, except for the fact that at least he has the fortitude to stand up against the Republicrats.
* The Socialist Party and Communist Party likewise don't get that many recruits outside of college campuses, and that's not because of money. They weren't very popular even when the Soviet government was funneling money to them and in return getting recruits for the KGB, either.
Of course these parties aren't very popular. After all, most Americans have been taught from birth to hate all commies unconditionally. It doesn't matter what the platforms or people in the parties are like, people will continue to associate the terms "communist" and "socialist" with the Soviet Union for years to come.
* The Libertarian party is on the fringe because most people don't like their agenda; most prefer/some/ social programs, parents go nuts if you threaten the Dept. of Education, and their candidates are often a bit on the strange side e.g. answering questions in a debate by tearing up a dollar bill rather than giving a rational explanation. It's not JUST about the money.
* The Constitution Party is similar, except that it's limited to New York, if memory serves.
Again, as with most third parties, most people don't even really know what the Libertarian or Constitution parties are about. A lot of people are under the false impression that Libertarians are anarchists.
Of course, there are some "interesting" personalities in third parties. This is because many of the people running as third party candidates aren't completely polished and faked, like the Republicrat candidates are.
At first thought, it is a little strange to see the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor of California posing with his Ferret. He doesn't seem very much like a politician.
Then if you think about it a bit more, it is more strange to vote for some PR-designed, party controlled, Republicrat drone who has next to nothing in common with a normal person.
Of course third party platforms also appear a bit shocking at first, because they call for an ACTUAL change rather than the status-quo that Republicrats maintain.
It is no surprise that this scares voters. They've been trained by the Republicrats to resist huge change like those proposed by the Libertarian, Constitution, or Green Parties...
When the Libertarian party calls for the removal of a Federal Agency, the first reaction is to believe the lie spouted by Republicrats, that they can not live without the Federal Government "protecting" them. They fail to see the reality that the Federal Government has grown, and continues to grow, far beyond Constitutional levels. In the process it wastes BILLIONS of dollars every year.
The true platform of the Republicrats,is to increase the personal wealth and power of the top members. To do so, they will continue to step all over the Constitution, make their votes available to the top bidder, and ignore the real needs of the public.
I tried playing EQ way back when. I didn't find it very fun at all, mainly because I felt the setting lacked personality, the players lacked personality moreso.
I then tried the Anarchy Online Beta for... about a week during the summer. I thought the game sucked. Probably a good thing.
I tried playing DAOC. This lasted a bit longer, because the setting was much more interesting. I started playing close to the time the game began. I actually had some fun going out and killing things, unlike EQ. I thought the people in the game were a bit better as well. I even joined a guild. Unfortunately, the fun didn't really last too long.
When I got to around level 15 or so, I began to realize that the game was quickly turning into a part time job. I had to spend more and more time on the parts of the game I didn't like. To make matters worse, quite a few people from the EQ community seemed to have discovered the game, and the servers started to get filled with lamers.
Since I was only taking one class at the time that was really that difficult, it didn't really hurt me that much... but I felt that I would just have to keep pouring more and more hours into the unrewarding aspects of the game. At the same time, I began to feel alienated from my guild because a lot of the members were putting in 60+ hours a week! I decided to quit the game, which was a good thing.
I think the real reason I tried these MMORPGs was to recreate the fun I had playing D&D during high school.
The reason I think I enjoy NWN so much right now is that it isn't an MMORPG. I can play once a week, or less, and not worry about being left behind by the people I know. I'm not playing a monthly fee, either, so if I don't play very much, it isn't like I'm wasting cash.
Well, your post was pretty crude... but you are essentially right about what I think you're trying to say. Bush/Ashcroft and the federal government at large seem to be doing their best to undermine the Constitution as well as criminalize as many people they can.
Err... I should have mentioned that I was talking about GOOD players, not average players who think that the fact their parents bought them a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 for their birthday makes them God's gift to FPS games.
I have yet to find an FPS where I felt the bots had really believable AI.
In most FPS games, the bots simply have really good "aim" and really good "dodging ability" in the higher difficulty levels, coupled with the fact that the computer technically knows where you are all the time. Even so, a player will usually develop reflexes that will allow them to outgun the bots.
Players without the "reflexes" to beat the bots' super aim can still beat them, as the bots will repeatedly fall for the same tricks over and over.
To have realistic bots, they need to be able to learn from their mistakes. Bots fail to learn things such as the following:
1) The player's favorite weapons. A common technique in games like Quake is to "control" the weapons. If you are playing against someone who is great with the rocket launcher, but not so hot with the other weapons, you can try to limit their access to that weapon. Bots don't pick up that you use the RL all the time, and thus don't really do a great job of stopping you from getting it.
2) The player's techniques. Obviously, if a player likes to re-use certain techniques (circle strafing, etc.) too much, other players will pick up on it. Bots, however, don't really anticipate what the player might do in this fashion.
3) Mistakes. At the same time, the bots will often reuse the same techniques as well. However, the human player will pick up on it. Bots need to learn what tactics it has used that have failed, and try something else.
Not to mention that with free software, you are free to download any and all of these office suites and then decide for yourself which one you like the best, without any money out of your wallet.
Surprise surprise! Big providers don't care about their customers.
Techs are always being fired for being too helpful. Their biggest "offense" is undermining the PHBs and the process that prevents them from _properly_ doing their jobs.
Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.
This BS has been happening for years before 9/11 as well. This is yet another injustice that has done nothing to prevent school violence, and turns innocent students into criminals.
If a high school student is caught with any sort of knife on campus (in some cases a PLASTIC knife or anything that could be mistaken for a knife, gun, or other weapon), for whatever reason, they will be expelled.
It doesn't matter if they accidentally left the knife in the bag from a hunting trip, thought a butter knife was OK, or whatever. It doesn't matter if the student has no record, is a straight A student, or whatnot.
This has extended to other sorts of things. Kids have been expelled for giving a bottle of wine to their teachers as a GIFT, bringing advil to school, being ACCUSED of hacking school comptuer systems without proof, etc.
These kids are then often shipped off to an alternative school that have purposefully been given inferior resources. There they will often will recieve an inferior education to their former peers and have little chance to get into a decent college no matter how they do at that school.
This sort of thing has been in place for over a decade now in most school districts. It didn't prevent incidents like Columbine.
Seriously, being expelled is the LAST thing a student thinks about if they intend to kill people. How is the threat of expulsion a deterrent?
Slashdot Mirror
While it is apparently true that the (defunct) Super NES CD-Rom addon project was a joint effort between Nintendo and Sony, and was codenamed "Playstation," this story is a hoax.
Stop terminating a dead horse.
Seriously, though, I don't understand why they are making this movie, or at least why they are making it the way they are now.
First off, Arnold is a bit too old now. 5-8 years ago, maybe it could have happened. Not now, though, despite the massive amounts of makeup.
Second off, looks like they are just turning this into a cheeseball cliche action movie. Very little originality, lots of mindless action, special effects, and the obligatory hot chick.
Now, the trailor gives away very little except that the machines have sent thier latest robot back in time to kill us. The original Terminator must also go back to stop that machine. Sounds a lot like the Plot of Terminator 2.
I might be wrong. It might end up being a good movie. I just doubt it.
I agree. In my opinion, the first thing a good leader would do in a time of financial hardships is to take the blame for a company's shortcomings, and cut their own salary. Instead it seems that the first thing they do is lay off people and then hope that the move "looks good" to the investors on Wall Street.
While most CEOs don't take in 65 Million a year, many CEOs could take a considerable cut in their pay and still live a life of relative ease, financially. I'm sure that there are some CEOs who do take pay cuts, but I'm sure there are far more who don't.
Unfortunately, many execs have learned to get where they are by taking credit for what others do, pinning the blame for their failures on their underlings, and looking out for themselves no matter what the circumstances.
This breed of people probably don't know what it means to make a sacrifice for others, no matter how little.
This is a good observation. I was wondering "why" to myself, as well. People have apparently gotten the game, toolset, etc. to work in Wine. I'm sure Bioware expected them to do so.
Your comment makes sense. The only question is "what" future project? Knights of the Old Republic? Maybe something they are just toying with right now? *Shrugs*
P.S. If you must play on Linux/BSD, please know that saving the game in the middle of an area to area transition (not module to module--that just plain didn't work) caused a freeze and core-dump in the server
Uh, I've been using the Linux deticated server since Day 1 it was released. Using Red Hat 7.2, I haven't had any of those problems since several patches ago. Bioware fixed the "save in the middle of a transition" bug (which existed in the Windows version too) a long time ago, for sure.
I was going to buy the game anyway, but I know some people who bought the game and still have it in the box, because they are waiting for a Linux client.
Bioware promised a simultaneous release for Linux, Mac, and Windows four years ago. At the time they even said that there was the possibility of a BeOS port as well. Just as a note, this promise was made during the "dot com" bubble. Bioware might have felt that they could have hired more people to work on the Linux and Mac versions at the time.
Up until right before the game was released, they were still promising this. Then, all of a sudden, they announced that only Windows would come out, with Linux and Mac to follow. Recall that at the beginning of the year, Bioware and Interplay had some sort of disagreement... and the game was in danger of not having a publisher. Then Infogames, the only other company with a lisence to D&D, picked it up.
Admittedly, they _did_ deliver on the Linux server fairly quickly. That is a good thing for me, but the client would be nice as well.
There are a few differing opinions on why the Linux client delay has occured.
My personal opinion is that the publisher of the game, Infogames, was holding Bioware to a June release date very strictly (probably so the game would release two weeks before Warcraft III). This explains the extremely short Beta period, as well as the relatively high amount of bugs (compared to previous Bioware releases).
I also believe that Infogames is still pushing Bioware to focus on adding new content to the game and begin work on expansions, rather than focus on getting the Linux client done, and that is why they only seem to have a few people on the Linux client. I personally believe that if Interplay were still the publisher, the game would have likely been pushed back to fall, and the simultaneous client release would have been a reality.
Some people believe that, from the beginning, the Linux client was just a marketing ploy to get more people to buy the game and to get the game advertised on Linux sites. I really question the validity of this accusation. Bioware has a history of making good RPGs, so it isn't as if they had to rely on a cheap marketing tactic to sell the game. Mentioning that this was from the "Makers of Baldur's Gate" is enough for most RPG enthusiasts to buy the game.
The third point of view is that Bioware really is trying their hardest to get the Linux client out, but these few problems are really causing them hell. Personally, I could care less if the movies don't work.
What I believe Bioware ought to do is release a "beta" of the client as it is. No matter how crappy the sound is, I believe that it would probably at least keep Linux folks happy that Bioware is working on it.
What really hurts the Linux client right now, in my eyes, is that Bioware has mentioned NOTHING about porting the two expansions they've announced to Linux.
On the bright side, people say they've gotten NWN to run Wine. I haven't tried it myself, but at this point, it looks like Wine will be the only way to play in Linux for at least a few more months.
in today's world, the author doesn't receive a royalty everytime someone reads a book from the library. Will they in the future?
The ultimate goal of most publishers is likely to be pay-per-read. In other words, royalties for the PUBLISHER. The author might recieve 0.00000001% of this, or something like that, if they are lucky.
I think that perhaps the Q2 and Q3 icons are merely sample icons. They don't present any screenshots of Quake 3 running, afterall.
If so, why is it that everyone who plays MMORPGs seems to care mainly about leveling up, camping for the most ph4t l3wt in the game, earning cash as easily as possible, and generally having the most "uber" character stat wise?
Ask a warrior why he is using a particular weapon in an MMORPG, and he'll say it is because it is the most damaging weapon that is available to him at the time.
He probably won't say something like, "this sword was my father's. I carry it to remind myself of what a powerful and honorable warrior he was. One day I will use my father's sword to slay the one who murdered him!"
Sure there is. Have NPCs run as AI processes with random needs and plots, in response to player action or the plots of other NPCs.
This would work on a small scale. However, there are still problems on the large scale. The AI still has a finite set of needs and plots that it can select. These needs and plots have to be created by a human programmer. Eventually you'd probably see a quest repeated, given that there are thousands upon thousands of players.
What you need is an AI "DM" that is smart enough to draw from data it knows (perhaps extensive knowledge from fantasy novels, fairy tales, world legends, etc) to create new events worldwide. Perhaps the AI can create an event such as a "war" between two kingdoms. Then the AI must create quests in realtime appropriate for every level range / class of player that are associated with this event. I don't know of any AI that fits this qualification. Essentially the AI must have the creative capacity of a human as well as the capacity to keep track of every single player's actions.
Such a MMORPG might exist in the future, but I don't think it is a realistic expectation for at least 10 years. I might be wrong, however.
I don't know in what sense you're talking about.
I want animals to come from the breading of two other animals, and to be hunted and eaten and the related things.
Do you want to wait that long for animals to do that? While hunting and eating animals is not an unreasonable request, I really don't see a practicle reason to waste time programming animal breeding cycles into a game, when it serves no practical purpose unless you become an animal breeder, or something.
And as far as missions go, they should be based on something and never repeated.
In a single player RPG, if you rescue the Princess from the Dragon, the king won't ask you to do it AGAIN. Events can't be repeated.
On the other hand, in an MMORPG type setting, you have to repeat basic quests like this. There is NO WAY that you can avoid repeating quests for a game with thousands of players on a server.
The more transparent you mike the line between reality and game, the more fun I will have killing people or whatever it is I want to do.
No, sorry, I disagree. I don't want a computer / console RPG to become so realistic in what I have to do that it becomes a job for me. The amounts of time you have to throw into games like EQ and DAOC are crazy enough.
If you want a multiplayer RPG to be the way you want it, you should consider grabbing a group of friends and a Dungeons and Dragons book (or other REAL RPG of your persuasion).
In your example, you were specifically targeting people in the US. I'm sure your country (if you're not a Citizen of the US. Would extradite you. Technically, you've committed an act of war, anyway.
Murder and Copyright are two different ballgames, as well.
Sklyarov, a Russian citizen, wrote a program, in Russia, that supposedly violates the DMCA. His company was the one that sold it to parties in the US. He did not personally sell anything. His country might be accountable, since they had dealings with US parties, but he should not be.
He came to the US for a conference and was arrested for something he did in Russia, which was legal under Russian law.
He should not be held, since he never commit a crime in the US.
"I cared about not violating the law of the country I am operating in," Sklyarov said.
Sklyarov should not have had a responsibility to know or obey the laws of the United States, as a Russian doing work in Russia. What his employer does with the product he makes is none of his concern.
Putting the fact that I don't agree with the DMCA (I believe it is Unconstitutional) aside, the company sold the product in the USA, and should be the one held responsible.
Holding Sklyarov accountable is just plain wrong. US citizens wonder why foreigners hate our guts. One of the reasons is that our government feels that its laws should forced upon everyone worldwide.
If you are a foreign programmer who deals with security issues, I'd be cautious about stepping foot in the US, at least while Bush and his administration hold power. As you can see, our government is out of control right now, and it'll take a lot of US citizens to wake up to that fact before things can really change.
I think the reference was that the movie industry says all their films barely break even, no matter how the movie actually does.
Senator: Why is it that you think we should give you vigilante abilities to hunt down pirates, at your own discression?
Movie Exec: Because, Senator! As you can see by our numbers, we're barely breaking even! Chinese street vendors have our movies before they are made and are killing us, even though we don't have a market in China! Without vigilante powers, we won't be able to stay in business much longer. It is our God given right to stay in business, no matter what!
No, not at all. I am in agreement with you that Dmitri should not have been arrested in the manner he was. That was pretty shameful of the US Government. I believe US jurisdiction should cover the US, ONLY. I believe that Australian jurisdiction should cover Australia, ONLY.
However, it seems that the governments of many countries, the US and Australia included, are now under some delusion that their laws should extend beyond their borders. The US is a huge offender in this area, no doubt. It doesn't make me happy that my country is doing this.
This is not necessarily an answer, just an observation. This is in no way meant to bash the parents, either. I'm sure it is pretty confusing when your kid seems to have "behavior problems," and sometimes the only resource you have to turn to is a doctor who is gung-ho on the latest fad diagnosis and drugs.
While I'm not very familiar with this sort of thing first hand, I know that ADHD and other similar "diseases" are diagnosed quite a bit to children that don't fit into the mold. Many people feel that doctors are too quick to diagnose this.
It feels to me as if the reasoning in many cases is "This kid isn't normal. So we should give him/her drugs to make him/her act like normal kids do."
Doesn't this miss the fact that this girl (and many others like her) is NOT normal? Her IQ (147) is MUCH higher than an average person's (100). Provided her IQ test was done correctly, this qualifies her as a "genius" (I believe genius is defined as being 140-145 or above, depending on who you ask). I've heard that people with even higher IQs have even more extreme "behavior tendencies."
Obviously, she is going to act much differently than most of the other students in her school!
She is attending a school where the lessons were designed for people with average mental capabilities. She is also going to have a hard time following instructions designed for children in the 85-115 IQ. Even people with IQs in the 120s and 130s have some problems adjusting to these settings. It is probably even more unnatural for someone with an IQ close to 150 or higher.
Even though she has been diagnosed with ADHD by a doctor, I question giving drugs to "correct" the behavior of such an individual. I don't know what long term effects drugs like the dreaded "r" have, but I'd be afraid of neutering my child with such drugs if I found they had a high IQ.
It seems someone like this would not benefit at all from a traditional school setting, at least at such a young age, and would be better off in a school designed for people gifted with high IQs.
It seems to make more sense to nurture someone's high IQ with activities that they can relate to, rather than give them a drug to force them to become "normal."
#1. How can they enforce this sort of thing on everyone?
For example:
Let us say that I say something mean about someone in Australia on the web. That person then files
suit against me in an Australian court.
I have no presence in Australia. Even if they manage to serve the suit to me via mail or something, what inclines me to go to the court? What can they do to me, since I'm in the USA?
Would they try to get the US Government to extradite me? Sure, it might just prevent me from ever visiting Australia, but I don't see how they could get someone over there to trial.
Since Dow Jones probably has some sort of presence in Australia, I can see how they might be more inclined to follow the court's orders... but what about everyone else?
Just a disclaimer that I'm a Libertarian before my response...
/some/ social programs, parents go nuts if you threaten the Dept. of Education, and their candidates are often a bit on the strange side e.g. answering questions in a debate by tearing up a dollar bill rather than giving a rational explanation. It's not JUST about the money.
* It's illegal for a US party or candidate to accept political contributions from overseas.
This didn't stop Clinton. Even though he was scrutinized, he ended up getting away with it.
Plus many international corporations have a US office that they can use to get around this little inconvenience.
* Multiple parties don't matter much unless they're so fractured that it takes many to form a majority coalition.
Under a parlimentary system, yes. However, in the US system, strong third parties would keep eachother in line, IMO, because of plurality voting. A party that has its members do unpopular things could be threatened with a complete loss of power.
Realistically, it is hard to say exactly what would happen if we had more than two powerful parties in modern times, since it has been almost a century since a third party candidate has had a realistic shot at being President.
* Parties and candidates NEED money because most voters don't go out of their way to educate themselves, hence the emphasis on TV and radio ads. Blame the voters for that one.
This is debatable. I (perhaps optimistically) believe that if these trashy TV and radio ads were cut back, voters would begin to educate themselves again. In other words, the very presence of these ads (which are all marketing and mudslinging, they contain little substance) is what causes American voters to have no motivation to educate themselves.
* The Green Parties remain fringe parties because most people don't agree with their agenda. Sorry, their brand of socialism just isn't very popular.
Most people don't even KNOW the agenda of the Green Party beyond the perception that they are "more liberal" than the Democrats, or that they are just "Communists with another name."
The Democrats would like it very much to stay that way. They even go so far as to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore losing.
* The Reform Party disintegrated on its own accord, being split by wacko personalities such as the paranoid protectionist Perot and the tactless, part-time-Governor/part-time-XFL-announcer Ventura.
The reform party had some problems, agreed. However, Perot proved that MONEY is one of the most important factors in getting noticed. The only reason the reform party did so well in 1992
was because Perot was pretty much able to buy himself into the debates.
As for Governor Ventura, there is a wide range of opinions on him. Since I'm not a resident of Minnesota, I can't say very much, except for the fact that at least he has the fortitude to stand up against the Republicrats.
* The Socialist Party and Communist Party likewise don't get that many recruits outside of college campuses, and that's not because of money. They weren't very popular even when the Soviet government was funneling money to them and in return getting recruits for the KGB, either.
Of course these parties aren't very popular. After all, most Americans have been taught from birth to hate all commies unconditionally. It doesn't matter what the platforms or people in the parties are like, people will continue to associate the terms "communist" and "socialist" with the Soviet Union for years to come.
* The Libertarian party is on the fringe because most people don't like their agenda; most prefer
* The Constitution Party is similar, except that it's limited to New York, if memory serves.
Again, as with most third parties, most people don't even really know what the Libertarian or Constitution parties are about. A lot of people are under the false impression that Libertarians are anarchists.
Of course, there are some "interesting" personalities in third parties. This is because many of the people running as third party candidates aren't completely polished and faked, like the Republicrat candidates are.
At first thought, it is a little strange to see the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor of California posing with his Ferret. He doesn't seem very much like a politician.
Then if you think about it a bit more, it is more strange to vote for some PR-designed, party controlled, Republicrat drone who has next to nothing in common with a normal person.
Of course third party platforms also appear a bit shocking at first, because they call for an ACTUAL change rather than the status-quo that Republicrats maintain.
It is no surprise that this scares voters. They've been trained by the Republicrats to resist huge change like those proposed by the Libertarian, Constitution, or Green Parties...
When the Libertarian party calls for the removal of a Federal Agency, the first reaction is to believe the lie spouted by Republicrats, that they can not live without the Federal Government "protecting" them. They fail to see the reality that the Federal Government has grown, and continues to grow, far beyond Constitutional levels. In the process it wastes BILLIONS of dollars every year.
The true platform of the Republicrats,is to increase the personal wealth and power of the top members. To do so, they will continue to step all over the Constitution, make their votes available to the top bidder, and ignore the real needs of the public.
I tried playing EQ way back when. I didn't find it very fun at all, mainly because I felt the setting lacked personality, the players lacked personality moreso.
I then tried the Anarchy Online Beta for... about a week during the summer. I thought the game sucked. Probably a good thing.
I tried playing DAOC. This lasted a bit longer, because the setting was much more interesting. I started playing close to the time the game began.
I actually had some fun going out and killing things, unlike EQ. I thought the people in the
game were a bit better as well. I even joined a guild. Unfortunately, the fun didn't really last too long.
When I got to around level 15 or so, I began to realize that the game was quickly turning into a part time job. I had to spend more and more time on the parts of the game I didn't like. To make matters worse, quite a few people from the EQ community seemed to have discovered the game, and the servers started to get filled with lamers.
Since I was only taking one class at the time that was really that difficult, it didn't really hurt me that much... but I felt that I would just have to keep pouring more and more hours into the unrewarding aspects of the game. At the same time, I began to feel alienated from my guild because a lot of the members were putting in 60+ hours a week! I decided to quit the game, which was a good thing.
I think the real reason I tried these MMORPGs was to recreate the fun I had playing D&D during high school.
The reason I think I enjoy NWN so much right now is that it isn't an MMORPG. I can play once a week, or less, and not worry about being left behind by the people I know. I'm not playing a monthly fee, either, so if I don't play very much, it isn't like I'm wasting cash.
Well, your post was pretty crude... but you are essentially right about what I think you're trying to say. Bush/Ashcroft and the federal government at large seem to be doing their best to undermine the Constitution as well as criminalize as many people they can.
Err... I should have mentioned that I was talking about GOOD players, not average players who think that the fact their parents bought them a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 for their birthday makes them God's gift to FPS games.
I have yet to find an FPS where I felt the bots had really believable AI.
In most FPS games, the bots simply have really good "aim" and really good "dodging ability" in the higher difficulty levels, coupled with the fact that the computer technically knows where you are all the time. Even so, a player will usually develop reflexes that will allow them to outgun the bots.
Players without the "reflexes" to beat the bots' super aim can still beat them, as the bots will repeatedly fall for the same tricks over and over.
To have realistic bots, they need to be able to learn from their mistakes. Bots fail to learn things such as the following:
1) The player's favorite weapons.
A common technique in games like Quake is to "control" the weapons. If you are playing against someone who is great with the rocket launcher, but not so hot with the other weapons, you can try to limit their access to that weapon. Bots don't pick up that you use the RL all the time, and thus don't really do a great job of stopping you from getting it.
2) The player's techniques.
Obviously, if a player likes to re-use certain techniques (circle strafing, etc.) too much, other players will pick up on it. Bots, however, don't really anticipate what the player might do in this fashion.
3) Mistakes.
At the same time, the bots will often reuse the same techniques as well. However, the human player will pick up on it. Bots need to learn what tactics it has used that have failed, and try something else.
Not to mention that with free software, you are free to download any and all of these office suites and then decide for yourself which one you like the best, without any money out of your wallet.
Surprise surprise!
Big providers don't care about their customers.
Techs are always being fired for being too helpful.
Their biggest "offense" is undermining the PHBs and
the process that prevents them from _properly_ doing their jobs.
Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.
This BS has been happening for years before 9/11 as well. This is yet another injustice that has done nothing to prevent school violence, and turns innocent students into criminals.
If a high school student is caught with any sort of knife on campus (in some cases a PLASTIC knife or anything that could be mistaken for a knife, gun, or other weapon), for whatever reason, they will be expelled.
It doesn't matter if they accidentally left the knife in the bag from a hunting trip, thought a butter knife was OK, or whatever. It doesn't matter if the student has no record, is a straight A student, or whatnot.
This has extended to other sorts of things. Kids have been expelled for giving a bottle of wine to their teachers as a GIFT, bringing advil to school, being ACCUSED of hacking school comptuer systems without proof, etc.
These kids are then often shipped off to an alternative school that have purposefully been given inferior resources. There they will often will recieve an inferior education to their former peers and have little chance to get into a decent college no matter how they do at that school.
This sort of thing has been in place for over a decade now in most school districts. It didn't prevent incidents like Columbine.
Seriously, being expelled is the LAST thing a student thinks about if they intend to kill people. How is the threat of expulsion a deterrent?