I just read that thread on ubuntuforums. Wow, you are a jerk and I hope I never have to help you out with anything. One post refers to using the Windows install cd to fix the MBR. That would have gotten you back into your windows partition, not ubuntu. They tried to help and all you could do was be sarcastically mean about it. And I quote:
I don't know where my install disc is. Again, I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work. Guess that's not the case.
Like I said, you didn't need MS software to fix Ubuntu, it would have gotten you into Windows. I quote from you again:
I don't have a Live CD. Naive me, I thought that by downloading just the install disc, I wouldn't be locked out of both Windows AND Linux. But it's my fault, really. I should never have believed all that crap about "providing access to all".
Again with the mean saracasm. Go ahead and admit you were looking for defeat so that you could rant about it not working and prove to us all that it's terrible. I installed Windows and then Visual Studio and then Windows would give me nothing but a blank screen after a reboot. No seriously. It really happened. Pardon me while I make an announcement...
Windows should never be used because it never works with their own software!!!"
My one experience should do it. I expect the MS empire to start crumbling any day now.
What's that you say? It's only one experience? How about this: The first time I tried dual-booting I was unaware that you should install Windows first. I installed RH 7.1 and it worked fine so I went ahead and installed Windows on a seperate Hard-drive in the computer. A totally seperate hard-drive. And when I rebooted I got...wait for it...Windows only. Where did RH 7.1 go? I later found that Windows doesn't like to play nice with other non-MS OS's and share a boot record or even to bother looking for them. I hope you don't mind, but I will borrow a quote from you. It reads:
Sorry, but any OS that locks you out of all OS's for installing it does not have high "usability" and so forth.
There's more proof that Windows suffers from serious "usability" problems.
See, isn't it fun to be sarcastically mean to others. See what kind of wonderful responses it gets from people, especially those who honestly try to help you out with no recompense? That concludes today's lesson.
It's not just shopping clubs. I used to always buy corn flakes at a wal-mart for $1.17 per box. Did it for several months. One day I walk in and suddenly it's on sale...for $1.17. The sign said it was normally $1.33.
The issue is not that the submitter stands to get money. The issue is that when a submitter stands to get money, the community, regardless of the quality of the submission, only wants to talk about the submitter. Perhaps the problem is jealousy on the community's part. If the story is good so what if the submitter made a nickel from it. It didn't come out of your pocket so why are you whining. I say if a good story comes a long and no one else submits a better version of it, or one at all, then publish it regardless of the personal gain of the submitter.
For example, if some company comes up with a really cool new gadget that everyone here would be interested but nobody else knows about it, would you get upset if they submitted a story about it? If AMD was the submitter for the release of their FX-60 CPU and linked to their site in addition to extremetech's benchmarks, would that be unacceptable? I would hope not. At least not if someone else didn't submit at least as good a submission.
the closed-source method of developing means there are vulnerabilities which likely will never be found.
While I am a big fan of Linux and open-source in general, I think it is safe to say that if a vulnerability is never found then it doesn't matter that it is there or how severe it is. Now, if it's found by one evil hacker and no one else, then it is a problem, but if nobody ever finds it, then good for it.
Ah, the analog hole. It cannot be closed though. What about those small tape players people use to record class lectures or business meetings or even just short notes to them selves? What about personal still and video cameras. They can record anything and there is no way they will be able to tell if you are recording something that is copyrighted. As long as there is a distance between the output and the brain, there will be a way to record it. And even if there isn't a measurable distance, it will still likely be recordable.
So maybe what they are really trying is to make it so difficult to program for the consoles that many companies just won't be able to develop and will drop out of the market. The ones that remain will only be able to develop for one console. Thus it is easier for one company to grab the majority of developers. A risky move, but seemingly in line with Microsoft's previous business practices./puts on tin foil hat
I did specifically leave out upgrading, as that does not need to happen nearly as often with less system-intensive applications, of which games are not the only ones.
Even so, if you own a computer, you should patch it, you should get new drivers, and you should defrag it anyway.
I have a Gamecube so I'm not really a PC fanboy, but I like the PC more, probably more because of my preferred games (RTS and FPS). However, if you have to upgrade every few months to play the newest FPS, you are an absolute idiot, or cash is of no concern to you. Also, if you own a computer, patching, getting new drivers, defragging your harddrive, etc. is something you should be doing anyway, whether or not you play games.
Either you had a really old computer or some really crappy parts. I built my current computer in October of 2001 (1.2 Ghz AMD Athlon, 512 MB of RAM, and an ATI Radeon 7200 with 64MB of RAM.) I paid only $1100 (19" monitor, keyboard, optical mouse, 2.1 speakers and 40GB hdd included).
My point is I can play Half-Life 2 on it with some of the bells and whistles at a higher resolution than a TV. If I turned those off I could increase the res close to true high def (1920x1080). So you buy a $300 computer and a $400 game console. That's $700. So you've saved only $400 from what I did. Of course I'm guessing that in that $700 you did not get a monitor -- definitely not one with high-def capabilities.
You can say I'm comparing apples to oranges because of the time frame, but I'm going to buy a new computer soon and it will cost me about the same. Assuming trends will continue as they have, that $1100 will go for the same amount of time, that is, 4-5 years.
So, if you have to buy everything (all input/output devices), and you're getting both a computer and a game machine (be it a console or computer), the computer is the better buy.
You are correct. A game cannot have anything original if the setting has been done already. That's why WarCraft is so unoriginal; Tolkien already did orcs and elves. That's why saving Private Ryan was unoriginal; The Sound of Music already did Europe during World War II. That's why Beyond Good and Evil had no originality; Mario 64 already did third-person action adventure.
Why tech anyway? We already saw that in Warhammer 40,000. Wild West? John Wayne. 1775 in New York, American Revolution. Samurai-timed Japan? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Stone Age? History books. Planet of the Apes? Movie of the same name. I'm telling you, all these settings have been done already. We need new settings in order for any originality to come forth.
/sarcasm
Now you tell me; why do we even need originality in game play for every single game? I'm not saying all games should be the same. But why can't we just have different story lines and that's it. I love stories and big into epic ones at that. Lord of the Rings, Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, WarCraft, even Indiana Jones. I revel in great stories, though what I consider great may be different than what others do. So keep coming out with all the RPGs, RTSs, FPSs, etc. just make sure they have a good story line and good gameplay. If it's original, then yay for you. If it's not then just make a good story and fun play.
well if you look here you will find that most definitions concern only substances that one becomes dependent on physiologically. There are some however that allow for things that aren't physical substances, like this one: "Strong dependence or habitual use of a substance or practice, despite the negative consequences of its use." (source).
But you could have looked that up and didn't ask for that. You asked what I think an addicition is. I think I'd go along with that last defintion -- the one that I quoted -- but I would have to say that just because some negative consequnces arise doesn't mean the substance or practice falls under addiction. For example, I'm in college and many times instead of doing homework, I play video games. I play video games a lot, and it is certainly a negative consequence because I don't get my homework done. But there is no addiction. The vast majority of the time I get my homework done.
Specifically, if you are distracted by gambling, then to what extent do you take it? Do you just gamble as a distraction from work, or do you not do work because you're gambling? A subtle difference I know but a big one. That's not enough though. When you gamble, do you gamble your life savings away, your house, your car, lose your family, your job, all your dignity? Or do you always gamble for just pennies with some friends?
Most of the world is not black and white and trying to come up with a definition that is broad and far reaching so as to include everyone that is addicted will usually end up just including a lot of people who truly aren't. You have to take it on a case by case basis and really get into the nitty gritty details. For example, if you do gamble only for pennies with friends, how rich are you? If you are homeless, then perhaps it is an addiction. If you are wealthy, then what is pennies? Then again, if you are wealthy and only gambling pennies, how much time do you spend on it? Are you waking up in the morning solely to gamble and hate having to go to sleep because you can't gamble then? Details are important.
There is also things like obsessive-compulsive disorders. No one would consider someone who washes their hands every 5 minutes addicted. Is it something they do instead of work? Possibly. Is it harmful? Eventually. Your hands will get really dry, perhaps start to crack, and then you're in a situation where infections can happen easily. Is that an addiction? No, most likely not. It's called obsessive-compulsive. Which is also not a good thing, but let's call things what they are.
Are you sometimes distracted from gettings things done? Are you sometimes tempted to put off work?
Oh wait, that sounds like almost everyone. So one person decides to be distracted by the internet. Others may be by books. I know a lot of people who put off work by sleeping, and I mean more than the regular 8 hours per night. Let's just all find the things that distract us or pick those things we do while putting off work and call ourselves addicted. It is getting to be a sham.
I'm not saying that there is no such thing as addiction. I'm also not saying that addictions aren't serious things. But let's stop calling things addictions when they are simply things people do. That actually lessens the seriousness of real addictions that people have.
It was a LOT LESS THAN 30. It was basically a two person job, which means that even for a game like Doom 3, the team size has gone up an entire order of magnitude.
I wouldn't say 9 people is a lot less than 30. And I certainly wouldn't say that the difference between 9 and 30 people is an order of magnitude. Here is my reference. Granted, the people that make up id Software are some of the brightest and most talented in the industry.
I think a PC would suit you. You may have heard of them. I've hooked my computer up to my TV before (with an old Radeon 7200 no less) and played WarCraft III on the couch with wireless keyboard and mouse. 32" of undead goodness; that's fun. The resolution was crappy, but then if you're talking about an affordable monitor > 19" that's what you get. You could just as easily hook it up to an HDTV, but then you're out of the affordable range. Unless you consider those affordable. But then, if you did, then you might be interested in some projectors, where you can get even bigger than big screen TV's.
For your handheld fix, may I recommend a cracked PSP, or perhaps some PDA's. That few or none are written or that are to your suiting, was not your argument, and rightly so, as that is a different bird altogether.
Since you bring it up, let's look at Doom. Doom 3 even. Maybe it's just the exception, but Doom 3 was made up by less than 30 people. It's one of the most advanced engines around as well. Valve Software only has 58 employees according to their website. They seemed to do fine making a very well received game; again with a very advanced engine. Raven, has less than 50 people as well, and they are constantly selling very high quality games.
So here are three companies that are doing really well, making very environmentally immersive, life-like games. I don't know what they're operating costs are but they aren't seeming to have any problems financially. Maybe it is because they make good games that sell well. I see that you work at Bioware. I'm not into a lot of your games but I understand they sell well also. So what seems to be the issue? Yes, games cost a lot of money. But it seems that the ones making the biggest hoopla are the ones that aren't selling well. Not that a good game is guaranteed to be a big seller, nor vice versa, but it is a good indicator. So if a company wants more money from the game, perhaps they should look into making it a better game.
I have to agree with the GP. If a few companies with a relatively few employees can make blockbuster games, then there is a high chance that a lot of companies are either 1) wasting too much production costs on silly things, or 2) they need to make better games. But even 2) can be explained usually by 1). That is, if your game is not that great, don't spend a lot of money thinking that great voice acting, marketing, IP licenses, are a certain CEO will make it such. In fact, if you're game bombs, a lot of the times you can look at the CEO and say he didn't do his job as he should be directing the company to where they will make money. But that is a whole banana to peel on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where my install disc is. Again, I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work. Guess that's not the case.
Like I said, you didn't need MS software to fix Ubuntu, it would have gotten you into Windows. I quote from you again:
I don't have a Live CD. Naive me, I thought that by downloading just the install disc, I wouldn't be locked out of both Windows AND Linux. But it's my fault, really. I should never have believed all that crap about "providing access to all".
Again with the mean saracasm. Go ahead and admit you were looking for defeat so that you could rant about it not working and prove to us all that it's terrible. I installed Windows and then Visual Studio and then Windows would give me nothing but a blank screen after a reboot. No seriously. It really happened. Pardon me while I make an announcement...
Windows should never be used because it never works with their own software!!!"
My one experience should do it. I expect the MS empire to start crumbling any day now.
What's that you say? It's only one experience? How about this: The first time I tried dual-booting I was unaware that you should install Windows first. I installed RH 7.1 and it worked fine so I went ahead and installed Windows on a seperate Hard-drive in the computer. A totally seperate hard-drive. And when I rebooted I got...wait for it...Windows only. Where did RH 7.1 go? I later found that Windows doesn't like to play nice with other non-MS OS's and share a boot record or even to bother looking for them. I hope you don't mind, but I will borrow a quote from you. It reads:
Sorry, but any OS that locks you out of all OS's for installing it does not have high "usability" and so forth.
There's more proof that Windows suffers from serious "usability" problems.
See, isn't it fun to be sarcastically mean to others. See what kind of wonderful responses it gets from people, especially those who honestly try to help you out with no recompense? That concludes today's lesson.
It's not just shopping clubs. I used to always buy corn flakes at a wal-mart for $1.17 per box. Did it for several months. One day I walk in and suddenly it's on sale...for $1.17. The sign said it was normally $1.33.
I've seen them in the bible. I suspect that predates UseNet.
For example, if some company comes up with a really cool new gadget that everyone here would be interested but nobody else knows about it, would you get upset if they submitted a story about it? If AMD was the submitter for the release of their FX-60 CPU and linked to their site in addition to extremetech's benchmarks, would that be unacceptable? I would hope not. At least not if someone else didn't submit at least as good a submission.
I am in awe. That has to be one of the best comments I have ever seen, let alone on slashdot. I take my hat off to you.
While I am a big fan of Linux and open-source in general, I think it is safe to say that if a vulnerability is never found then it doesn't matter that it is there or how severe it is. Now, if it's found by one evil hacker and no one else, then it is a problem, but if nobody ever finds it, then good for it.
Or most anything by R.A. Salvatore. If only for some more Drizzt goodness.
Ah, the analog hole. It cannot be closed though. What about those small tape players people use to record class lectures or business meetings or even just short notes to them selves? What about personal still and video cameras. They can record anything and there is no way they will be able to tell if you are recording something that is copyrighted. As long as there is a distance between the output and the brain, there will be a way to record it. And even if there isn't a measurable distance, it will still likely be recordable.
So maybe what they are really trying is to make it so difficult to program for the consoles that many companies just won't be able to develop and will drop out of the market. The ones that remain will only be able to develop for one console. Thus it is easier for one company to grab the majority of developers. A risky move, but seemingly in line with Microsoft's previous business practices. /puts on tin foil hat
True but those words aren't there
If you did it, you are guilty whether or not anyone else knows about it.
As a side note: It is not in the constitution.
Even so, if you own a computer, you should patch it, you should get new drivers, and you should defrag it anyway.
I have a Gamecube so I'm not really a PC fanboy, but I like the PC more, probably more because of my preferred games (RTS and FPS). However, if you have to upgrade every few months to play the newest FPS, you are an absolute idiot, or cash is of no concern to you. Also, if you own a computer, patching, getting new drivers, defragging your harddrive, etc. is something you should be doing anyway, whether or not you play games.
My point is I can play Half-Life 2 on it with some of the bells and whistles at a higher resolution than a TV. If I turned those off I could increase the res close to true high def (1920x1080). So you buy a $300 computer and a $400 game console. That's $700. So you've saved only $400 from what I did. Of course I'm guessing that in that $700 you did not get a monitor -- definitely not one with high-def capabilities.
You can say I'm comparing apples to oranges because of the time frame, but I'm going to buy a new computer soon and it will cost me about the same. Assuming trends will continue as they have, that $1100 will go for the same amount of time, that is, 4-5 years.
So, if you have to buy everything (all input/output devices), and you're getting both a computer and a game machine (be it a console or computer), the computer is the better buy.
Why tech anyway? We already saw that in Warhammer 40,000. Wild West? John Wayne. 1775 in New York, American Revolution. Samurai-timed Japan? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Stone Age? History books. Planet of the Apes? Movie of the same name. I'm telling you, all these settings have been done already. We need new settings in order for any originality to come forth.
/sarcasm
Now you tell me; why do we even need originality in game play for every single game? I'm not saying all games should be the same. But why can't we just have different story lines and that's it. I love stories and big into epic ones at that. Lord of the Rings, Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, WarCraft, even Indiana Jones. I revel in great stories, though what I consider great may be different than what others do. So keep coming out with all the RPGs, RTSs, FPSs, etc. just make sure they have a good story line and good gameplay. If it's original, then yay for you. If it's not then just make a good story and fun play.
But you could have looked that up and didn't ask for that. You asked what I think an addicition is. I think I'd go along with that last defintion -- the one that I quoted -- but I would have to say that just because some negative consequnces arise doesn't mean the substance or practice falls under addiction. For example, I'm in college and many times instead of doing homework, I play video games. I play video games a lot, and it is certainly a negative consequence because I don't get my homework done. But there is no addiction. The vast majority of the time I get my homework done.
Specifically, if you are distracted by gambling, then to what extent do you take it? Do you just gamble as a distraction from work, or do you not do work because you're gambling? A subtle difference I know but a big one. That's not enough though. When you gamble, do you gamble your life savings away, your house, your car, lose your family, your job, all your dignity? Or do you always gamble for just pennies with some friends?
Most of the world is not black and white and trying to come up with a definition that is broad and far reaching so as to include everyone that is addicted will usually end up just including a lot of people who truly aren't. You have to take it on a case by case basis and really get into the nitty gritty details. For example, if you do gamble only for pennies with friends, how rich are you? If you are homeless, then perhaps it is an addiction. If you are wealthy, then what is pennies? Then again, if you are wealthy and only gambling pennies, how much time do you spend on it? Are you waking up in the morning solely to gamble and hate having to go to sleep because you can't gamble then? Details are important.
There is also things like obsessive-compulsive disorders. No one would consider someone who washes their hands every 5 minutes addicted. Is it something they do instead of work? Possibly. Is it harmful? Eventually. Your hands will get really dry, perhaps start to crack, and then you're in a situation where infections can happen easily. Is that an addiction? No, most likely not. It's called obsessive-compulsive. Which is also not a good thing, but let's call things what they are.
If you quit smoking, and then start smoking again, did you really quit smoking?
Are you sometimes distracted from gettings things done? Are you sometimes tempted to put off work?
Oh wait, that sounds like almost everyone. So one person decides to be distracted by the internet. Others may be by books. I know a lot of people who put off work by sleeping, and I mean more than the regular 8 hours per night. Let's just all find the things that distract us or pick those things we do while putting off work and call ourselves addicted. It is getting to be a sham.
I'm not saying that there is no such thing as addiction. I'm also not saying that addictions aren't serious things. But let's stop calling things addictions when they are simply things people do. That actually lessens the seriousness of real addictions that people have.
Prove it. I've quit several times, so I have proof that I could stop.
To answer your question about battleship and stratego, I would recommend re-reading your first sentence.
I wouldn't say 9 people is a lot less than 30. And I certainly wouldn't say that the difference between 9 and 30 people is an order of magnitude. Here is my reference. Granted, the people that make up id Software are some of the brightest and most talented in the industry.
Google disagrees.
For your handheld fix, may I recommend a cracked PSP, or perhaps some PDA's. That few or none are written or that are to your suiting, was not your argument, and rightly so, as that is a different bird altogether.
So here are three companies that are doing really well, making very environmentally immersive, life-like games. I don't know what they're operating costs are but they aren't seeming to have any problems financially. Maybe it is because they make good games that sell well. I see that you work at Bioware. I'm not into a lot of your games but I understand they sell well also. So what seems to be the issue? Yes, games cost a lot of money. But it seems that the ones making the biggest hoopla are the ones that aren't selling well. Not that a good game is guaranteed to be a big seller, nor vice versa, but it is a good indicator. So if a company wants more money from the game, perhaps they should look into making it a better game.
I have to agree with the GP. If a few companies with a relatively few employees can make blockbuster games, then there is a high chance that a lot of companies are either 1) wasting too much production costs on silly things, or 2) they need to make better games. But even 2) can be explained usually by 1). That is, if your game is not that great, don't spend a lot of money thinking that great voice acting, marketing, IP licenses, are a certain CEO will make it such. In fact, if you're game bombs, a lot of the times you can look at the CEO and say he didn't do his job as he should be directing the company to where they will make money. But that is a whole banana to peel on its own.
You have either never bought punk music, or you have and are now bitter because of the song length.