And it's not even per person; it is per per person per machine. So you can only watch it on the machine you recorded it on if you're the only one in the room.
Sure, there are exceptions (as there are to any rule)
That is a logical fallacy. If a rule 'A' exists that states "there exist no rules that do not have an exception", then an exception exists to 'A' which means, there exists another rule 'B' which has no exceptions. But 'A' stated that every rule has an exception. Therfore 'B' cannot exist. But if 'B' does not exist then there is no exception to 'A', therefore 'A' cannot exist.
Therefore, by contradiction, we cannot say that there are exceptions to every rule.
If I were a soldier, I think I would be more afraid of obeying than not obeying. If I obey, I get to face a lot of people with a lot of weapons that do a lot of nasty things to a human body. If I disobey I am discharged dishonorably.
Tell us, is it the fear of what the enemy will do to you, or the fear of what the general will do to you that keeps you out of the military?
People doing things in the name of religion have probably also killed more people than you have. What is your point? Your grasp of logic is seriously lacking. For the bulk of the last at least 6,000 years mankind has been religious, or at least professed to be so. Many of those religions are very different, some even going so far as to say they are the only worthy ones to be alive. But whether they were actually religious or using religion as a motivator, and whether they were doing what they honestly thought their god(s) wanted them to do or were making it up, is a moot point. That's the history of mankind and you are comparing it to a single person who, while he did have a lot of people killed, was still only around for less than 60 years.
And while we're at it, let's make it a broad attack. I am sure there is no one that is opposed to abortion who is also not religious. Certainly no person can make up their own mind on their own set of ethics and decide they disagree with abortion.
Amazingly enough, a lot of people want others to live in a certain way. For example, you wanting us to live in a free society are forcing a free society upon others. Maybe they don't want to live in that society. "How could you, you jerk," they might say. Or some who would be so extreme as to say "Why ban murder? The animal kingdom doesn't disallow it." Or as a less extreme example, look at all the rules for the businesses. Not everyone would agree, and yet we are being forced to live that way for what I would think are not religious based reasons.
And about fairy tales. Besides that being inflammatory and sensationalistic, talk to some philosophers sometime. Some philosophies through the ages argue that we exist only in our minds. They would say, in all seriousness, that you don't exist. I just made you up./. doesn't exist and neither does this post. I am only making it up. If that is the case, and you don't like religious "fairy tales", then why did you make them up? Just cease to think of them and they will no longer exist. Some people believe this. You probably don't. They would say you believe in a fairy tale world of things that actually exist.
Oh, but logic doesn't suit your purpose here, which is to be sensational and inflammatory. By all means, continue to support the ignorance of the populace. Go watch the news. That's also sensational and inflammatory, reducuing complex ideas into sound bite drivel. You'd fit right in.
Your money that you pay to Blizzard goes directly to the Vivendi corporate bottom line to fill the pockets of some effite Frenchman living the good life while the poor of his country riot in desperation.
Not True! It also goes to fill the pockets of the people at Blizzard.
What if First4Internet distributed the source code to Sony? Then F4I wouldn't be breaking the GPL at all. It would be Sony and only Sony. I too would like to see Sony fall. I used to think that they were the epitome of good quality products. But in recent years they have been falling and fast. Now it would be nice to see them get really hurt by some idiot's decision to take this whole thing too far. I do, however, wish they would have taken it even farther and made an even louder uproar. Then DRM would have been shot dead now instead of later.
So what you are saying is you bought one copy and want it to be able to play with more than one account? What seems to be the problem. It appears to them that you sold it to someone else.
And no, they aren't bound to machines. I installed my copy both at work and at home. I had no problems there.
Re:What's wrong with games just they way they are.
on
But Is It Art?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am in awe at your amazing ability to miss the point.
You say that he cannot know how to make games if all he knows is how to make a random number guessing game. To be pedantic, you admit that it's a game, he wrote it, and therefore you must admit that he knows how to make games. Maybe it's not going to be a great hit with your type of crowd, but he might find hours of fun with it.
Now to pull apart your fantasy of how to make "games."
Polymorphism is method of programming. Not every language uses it. But not every game is even a computer game that needs a computer language. This particular argument I will not repeat, though it is valid everywhere.
Huffman compression is a method of lossless compression. Not every file needs to be compressed. You could use bitmap sprites and other uncompressed files. Or even use an off-the-shelf system that does not require you to know anything about it, neither in the creation of the file, nor the use of it.
How many poly's are acceptable is totally dependent on your graphics engine and machine you are running it on. This might be something you would have to be aware of if you used someone elses software, but if you wrote your own, it would be totally up to you. But this also assumes that you are making a graphical game. Lots of people like the old text based games.
Path finding is only necessary for certain games where there is some AI that needs it. Not all AI needs it and not all path finding even needs to be recursive.
A circle to the screen would be a basic function of a graphics engine, yes. But again, if you're not making a graphical game, it is totally unnecessary. Again, you could also use third-party software. In which case, the method of getting a circle to the screen is very different. How to do that in the engines made by Epic, Valve, id, Blizzard, etc. is very different, though usually it is fairly simple, and could be easily learned, even if you wanted to go make your own engine.
There is a lot of work that goes into making all games, correct. But then he never said he would get up and write it in a few minutes, hours, days, or even weeks. And he didn't say which types of games he liked. Maybe he likes the old text-based MUDs. In which case, it would take a while to write a simple game, but would require none of the elements you have mentioned.
It's physically impossible for everyone to be wealthy, you should know that as a capitalist apologist.
You are correct. But with capitialism, who gets rich is open ended. With socialism, they decided that since not everyone can be rich, then everyone should be poor (excepting certain government leaders, of course).
In an economy who becomes rich and who becomes poor is not a function of hard work, I know plenty of intellectuals that are much smarter then fortune 500 CEO's.
Let's use an analogy of sports. A football team is very talented. They can run, pass, and defend all very well. But they have only one flaw. They fumble the ball every drive. I will gaurantee that they will lose. Let's do a hardware analogy. A processor is very fast, it has very fast throughput, and works very efficiently. It just has one flaw. It can't add correctly. I will gaurantee it will never be used.
IOW, being an itellectual is great for academics. But in the business world, you need to business savvy. That is why fortune 500 CEO's are in the position they are in. But that doesn't rule out hard work. Maybe if your friends went and got their MBNA (meaning they learned the material, not just get a degree) they might have the same success (meaning they will be a fortune 500 CEO). But then, being a fortune 500 CEO isn't the only way to be wealthy. If you were making enough to live comfortably, but not making as much as someone else, where do you put yourself? The wealthy or the poor? I say the wealthy. You don't need to make millions.
And your example of an ugly person as a model...awful. No, a person not very good at math cannot be a physicist either. And those who are color-blind will not make good electricians. Yes, the disabled are at a disadvantage. That's fine. We don't have a pure free-market. We do have some government regulations and safety nets, for the which, I am glad. When my wife's family came to the US, they had no job, no food, couldn't speak english and had only the clothes on their back. They had to live on welfare for a while. But now they are making enough money that my wife and two of her sisters are in college. The last two children will also be able to afford college. She and her sisters all received grades-based scholarships. My wife is working on her Master's degree. Her parent's own their home and paid for it in only 5 years. It's not a real nice one, but it suits them. They also send a lot of money back to their extended family in their native country. Are they rich? Not by many definitions. But did they have the same opportunities as those in the Bronx? Yes, they live in a similar place in Philadelphia. So I will tell you how much opportunity they have. They have a lot.
It is a simple fact that without progressive taxation wealth rapidly accumulates in the hands of a tiny minority, while the vast majority get ever poorer.
Very untrue.
The amount of wealth in the world is not a finite sized pie. Meaning if you get more, then I obviously get less. The more money that is floating around the better off we all are, whether or not we are the ones that get the wealth directly. I used to work in an Emergency Room. Lots of people got free care because they could not afford it. But they still had access to very expensive health care (though I will admit that being able to see a doctor on a regular basis would be better, an ER after a car accident or whatever is still a good thing).
The rich also spend money or save it. Very few will spend only what is necessary and leave the rest under their mattress. If they spend it, that money trickles down eventually. If they save it, that money goes into a bank, where once again it trickles down. So the poor do not get poorer.
You may say that they get poorer relatively. But relativity makes no sense. If the world consisted of you and I, you make $10/hour and I $5/hour, and then you start making $11.50/hour, then you could say that I got poorer relative to you. But it means nothing, because I didn't actually get poorer. Just because the richest people in the world now are worth billions, doesn't mean the poor got poorer.
So if you can't play 16 hours a day, play 4 hours a day and it will take you 4 times as long. Or are you afraid Blizzard is going to go bankrupt and shut down all of the WoW servers in less than a year. Don't get yourself into challenges you know you can't win if you are going to complain about it. How hard is that?
Thank you for saying that. Why do people feel that the only way to have fun is to better than someone else? WoW is not going away anytime soon. If it takes someone 3 months to get to lvl 60 that is there choice, but if it takes someone else 3 years, so what!? It's a game, play it for what it's worth. If one really wanted to get to lvl 60 so bad, then spend the time, buy a character, whatever. Don't complain that someone else has set that as their higher priority.
Games are as fun as you make them. IOW, WoW is fun to a lot of people (some like the role-playing, others enjoy the grind), but if you don't find it fun because you can't grind, that's your fault, not Blizzard's.
Sorry, I don't mean you the parent poster. I mean you the grandparent poster and all of his ilk. It bothers me to no end when people claim they can't have fun because someone else is having more fun, or is better than them. That's a real sad life you live.
I wish the people who write these things would log in, and that they had the same username on digg.com, then we could all go over there and digg 'em down on everything they ever say.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's not even per person; it is per per person per machine. So you can only watch it on the machine you recorded it on if you're the only one in the room.
Is it really? Or is EMI just talking out of their rears.
That is a logical fallacy. If a rule 'A' exists that states "there exist no rules that do not have an exception", then an exception exists to 'A' which means, there exists another rule 'B' which has no exceptions. But 'A' stated that every rule has an exception. Therfore 'B' cannot exist. But if 'B' does not exist then there is no exception to 'A', therefore 'A' cannot exist.
Therefore, by contradiction, we cannot say that there are exceptions to every rule.
[30 seconds passes]
Run AWAY! Run AWAY!!
Tell us, is it the fear of what the enemy will do to you, or the fear of what the general will do to you that keeps you out of the military?
Until the ads for monster.com come rolling in.
Well of course. 42! = 1.196222209e+56. That's crazy.
So, why should we assume that 1up's predictions are any more accurate?Because 1up's ad revenue kickback for Zonk is much more profitable.
People doing things in the name of religion have probably also killed more people than you have. What is your point? Your grasp of logic is seriously lacking. For the bulk of the last at least 6,000 years mankind has been religious, or at least professed to be so. Many of those religions are very different, some even going so far as to say they are the only worthy ones to be alive. But whether they were actually religious or using religion as a motivator, and whether they were doing what they honestly thought their god(s) wanted them to do or were making it up, is a moot point. That's the history of mankind and you are comparing it to a single person who, while he did have a lot of people killed, was still only around for less than 60 years.
And while we're at it, let's make it a broad attack. I am sure there is no one that is opposed to abortion who is also not religious. Certainly no person can make up their own mind on their own set of ethics and decide they disagree with abortion.
Amazingly enough, a lot of people want others to live in a certain way. For example, you wanting us to live in a free society are forcing a free society upon others. Maybe they don't want to live in that society. "How could you, you jerk," they might say. Or some who would be so extreme as to say "Why ban murder? The animal kingdom doesn't disallow it." Or as a less extreme example, look at all the rules for the businesses. Not everyone would agree, and yet we are being forced to live that way for what I would think are not religious based reasons.
And about fairy tales. Besides that being inflammatory and sensationalistic, talk to some philosophers sometime. Some philosophies through the ages argue that we exist only in our minds. They would say, in all seriousness, that you don't exist. I just made you up. /. doesn't exist and neither does this post. I am only making it up. If that is the case, and you don't like religious "fairy tales", then why did you make them up? Just cease to think of them and they will no longer exist. Some people believe this. You probably don't. They would say you believe in a fairy tale world of things that actually exist.
Oh, but logic doesn't suit your purpose here, which is to be sensational and inflammatory. By all means, continue to support the ignorance of the populace. Go watch the news. That's also sensational and inflammatory, reducuing complex ideas into sound bite drivel. You'd fit right in.
Not True! It also goes to fill the pockets of the people at Blizzard.
What if First4Internet distributed the source code to Sony? Then F4I wouldn't be breaking the GPL at all. It would be Sony and only Sony. I too would like to see Sony fall. I used to think that they were the epitome of good quality products. But in recent years they have been falling and fast. Now it would be nice to see them get really hurt by some idiot's decision to take this whole thing too far. I do, however, wish they would have taken it even farther and made an even louder uproar. Then DRM would have been shot dead now instead of later.
And no, they aren't bound to machines. I installed my copy both at work and at home. I had no problems there.
You say that he cannot know how to make games if all he knows is how to make a random number guessing game. To be pedantic, you admit that it's a game, he wrote it, and therefore you must admit that he knows how to make games. Maybe it's not going to be a great hit with your type of crowd, but he might find hours of fun with it.
Now to pull apart your fantasy of how to make "games."
Polymorphism is method of programming. Not every language uses it. But not every game is even a computer game that needs a computer language. This particular argument I will not repeat, though it is valid everywhere.
Huffman compression is a method of lossless compression. Not every file needs to be compressed. You could use bitmap sprites and other uncompressed files. Or even use an off-the-shelf system that does not require you to know anything about it, neither in the creation of the file, nor the use of it.
How many poly's are acceptable is totally dependent on your graphics engine and machine you are running it on. This might be something you would have to be aware of if you used someone elses software, but if you wrote your own, it would be totally up to you. But this also assumes that you are making a graphical game. Lots of people like the old text based games.
Path finding is only necessary for certain games where there is some AI that needs it. Not all AI needs it and not all path finding even needs to be recursive.
A circle to the screen would be a basic function of a graphics engine, yes. But again, if you're not making a graphical game, it is totally unnecessary. Again, you could also use third-party software. In which case, the method of getting a circle to the screen is very different. How to do that in the engines made by Epic, Valve, id, Blizzard, etc. is very different, though usually it is fairly simple, and could be easily learned, even if you wanted to go make your own engine.
There is a lot of work that goes into making all games, correct. But then he never said he would get up and write it in a few minutes, hours, days, or even weeks. And he didn't say which types of games he liked. Maybe he likes the old text-based MUDs. In which case, it would take a while to write a simple game, but would require none of the elements you have mentioned.
I think you misspelled "boogers."
So is the 's' a recent invention?
I seem to remember a time when the western world was feudalistic. It seems that they lifted themselves out of it.
You are correct. But with capitialism, who gets rich is open ended. With socialism, they decided that since not everyone can be rich, then everyone should be poor (excepting certain government leaders, of course).
In an economy who becomes rich and who becomes poor is not a function of hard work, I know plenty of intellectuals that are much smarter then fortune 500 CEO's.
Let's use an analogy of sports. A football team is very talented. They can run, pass, and defend all very well. But they have only one flaw. They fumble the ball every drive. I will gaurantee that they will lose. Let's do a hardware analogy. A processor is very fast, it has very fast throughput, and works very efficiently. It just has one flaw. It can't add correctly. I will gaurantee it will never be used.
IOW, being an itellectual is great for academics. But in the business world, you need to business savvy. That is why fortune 500 CEO's are in the position they are in. But that doesn't rule out hard work. Maybe if your friends went and got their MBNA (meaning they learned the material, not just get a degree) they might have the same success (meaning they will be a fortune 500 CEO). But then, being a fortune 500 CEO isn't the only way to be wealthy. If you were making enough to live comfortably, but not making as much as someone else, where do you put yourself? The wealthy or the poor? I say the wealthy. You don't need to make millions.
And your example of an ugly person as a model...awful. No, a person not very good at math cannot be a physicist either. And those who are color-blind will not make good electricians. Yes, the disabled are at a disadvantage. That's fine. We don't have a pure free-market. We do have some government regulations and safety nets, for the which, I am glad. When my wife's family came to the US, they had no job, no food, couldn't speak english and had only the clothes on their back. They had to live on welfare for a while. But now they are making enough money that my wife and two of her sisters are in college. The last two children will also be able to afford college. She and her sisters all received grades-based scholarships. My wife is working on her Master's degree. Her parent's own their home and paid for it in only 5 years. It's not a real nice one, but it suits them. They also send a lot of money back to their extended family in their native country. Are they rich? Not by many definitions. But did they have the same opportunities as those in the Bronx? Yes, they live in a similar place in Philadelphia. So I will tell you how much opportunity they have. They have a lot.
Very untrue.
The amount of wealth in the world is not a finite sized pie. Meaning if you get more, then I obviously get less. The more money that is floating around the better off we all are, whether or not we are the ones that get the wealth directly. I used to work in an Emergency Room. Lots of people got free care because they could not afford it. But they still had access to very expensive health care (though I will admit that being able to see a doctor on a regular basis would be better, an ER after a car accident or whatever is still a good thing).
The rich also spend money or save it. Very few will spend only what is necessary and leave the rest under their mattress. If they spend it, that money trickles down eventually. If they save it, that money goes into a bank, where once again it trickles down. So the poor do not get poorer.
You may say that they get poorer relatively. But relativity makes no sense. If the world consisted of you and I, you make $10/hour and I $5/hour, and then you start making $11.50/hour, then you could say that I got poorer relative to you. But it means nothing, because I didn't actually get poorer. Just because the richest people in the world now are worth billions, doesn't mean the poor got poorer.
I think people are stupid who do things because they are hard to do. Maybe we should go for equality because it is right.
You must be on the inside! How did you find out that was when Halo 3 would be released?
I type with my toes.
So if you can't play 16 hours a day, play 4 hours a day and it will take you 4 times as long. Or are you afraid Blizzard is going to go bankrupt and shut down all of the WoW servers in less than a year. Don't get yourself into challenges you know you can't win if you are going to complain about it. How hard is that?
Games are as fun as you make them. IOW, WoW is fun to a lot of people (some like the role-playing, others enjoy the grind), but if you don't find it fun because you can't grind, that's your fault, not Blizzard's.
Sorry, I don't mean you the parent poster. I mean you the grandparent poster and all of his ilk. It bothers me to no end when people claim they can't have fun because someone else is having more fun, or is better than them. That's a real sad life you live.
I wish the people who write these things would log in, and that they had the same username on digg.com, then we could all go over there and digg 'em down on everything they ever say.
Or the Unsinkable Molly Brown.