Firsly, if you are going to capitalize the 'n' in Vietnam then the correct way is to write Viet Nam.
You are ignorant of what was going on in Vietnam. The north was being supported by the China, a big enemy and threat, since they were supported by Russia as well. The south, while not a nice government, was much more desireable than a communist one, and so the US supported them to balance out China's support. Also they were only supposed to be two seperate countries for a short time after they defeated the French, and then the North and the South were to hold an election to unite the countries under one government. They never held that election. Instead the North decided to just use military force to make the South communist. At first the US's involvement was to protect the South. As the conflict wore on though, the US decided to go all the way and defeat the North.
There are many more subtle details in this, just like a lot of conflicts. Just up and saying that one country are jerks because they did such and such is a very simple minded view and is a major problem with news and views now-a-days. Everyone wants to simplify into sound bites and clever witty sayings rather than talk at length about details.
I'm interested to know however, who was that democratically elected leader. Ho Chi Minh started the Viet Minh to war against Japan, and France and with that army decided that he would be the leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Because he was communist the Chinese helped him and the Viet Minh defeat France. The treaty took France out, divided the country and gave the North to China, which then gave it to Ho Chi Minh, because of his affiliations. If that's democracy, I want nothing to do with it.
I suggest that they always have been. Many theories put the beginning of our universe at somewhere between 13 and 20 billion years ago. They may be right but it also may be that is just it, only "our" universe. The first law of thermodynamics states that you cannot create matter, and we also know that matter and energy are interchangeable. My biggest beef with the big bang theory is that it flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. Not that science has never been wrong, and it could be here in both cases, but if we take the laws of thermodynamics into consideration then we must conclude that since matter is not created or destroyed, then it has always been here. And it always will be. Pretend we're at 0, then. The "beginning" occured at negative infinite, and the end will occur at positive infinite. But you can't ever declare a beginning or an end because then that wouldn't be infinite. I realize that thinking this way is hard, just like countably and uncountably infinite is difficult, but maybe we just have to accept that there was no "beginning", no creation of the universe, because it has always been, and will always be. Just like counting numbers.
I disagree and if you look at it from a wholly mathematical perspective you will see as well. We seem to have no problem getting from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and so on. Neither do we have a problem getting from -1 to -2, -2 to -3, -3 to -4 and so on. But what is the first number? There is none. You can pick any number to start with and go forward, but as long as you can go backwards, then you haven't picked the first number. And you can always go backwards.
I will tell you why I like the fact that my wife plays video games: When I go to a LAN party, she comes with me and I stay until it's over, instead of her calling me and whining about when I am going to come home. I've seen other guys have to deal with it. I am so glad I don't.
Well of course you need someone who can play. It's the same with movies. I wouldn't trust a movie review from someone who isn't a movie watcher, or a book review from someone who isn't a book worm, or even a review about some new hardware from anybody's grandma. And typically I would rather read a review from someone who I've agreed with in the past. That's how the review becomes meaningful. Someone you trust saying "this sucks" or "that's awesome" means I can take their word for it. Some random schmoe saying the same thing means absolutely nothing to me.
But it is obvious that with gaming "journalism" you cannot trust any of them because they're all shills. Again that doesn't mean you can just read what they say and pretend it is opposite day, either. Even if you consistently disagree with them you can still form a basic opinion from that. It's when you don't know if they're just re-hashing a press release to fill their coffers or they're actually reviewing the game. That is the problem we face.
How is it any less free (liberated, unrestricted, etc)? You can still go get the source code for FreeDOS. So no loss there. I can see how it would be less free if they had somehow erased the source code in all other places and now only they have access to it. If Windows Vista comes out and we find that MS just slapped in the Linux Kernel without telling anyone, does the Linux Kernel suddenly become more restricted? No, nothing would change in that scenario, (with the exception of MS using the linux kernel).
Please expound how information has become less Free?
Sounds like a lot of arguments we hear about the legitamacy of pirating. "They make so much money anyway," "Yeah but they screw over the artists," "It's all crap that I wouldn't have bought anyway," etc.
I was unaware that when the next generation comes out that suddenly all old stuff dies. Tell us, when DVD came out, did your VHS collection suddenly go up in flames?
re-buy a compatible HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player
You already have one!?!! Wow, you must be on the inside, somewhere!
I'm not saying they don't deserve to be compensated in some way for their "hard effort"
You may not be, but the original poster who said, "entertainment should be free" is saying that, and that is where this all comes from.
As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself.
I did. By that, I would say anyone in the entertainment business is productive.
But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.
That's what I was asking; what it means to you. If you mean in terms of economy, you must think that the music and movies, and games industries of billions of dollars each are totally unproductive to the economy. Weird. I would think all that money floating around and people with jobs, etc., would be healthy for the economy. Also, maybe you think that people are mindless automatons, but most of us after working all day like to have some form of entertainment to relax the brain, be it movies, TV, music, books, or even, for some, coding or math or time with family. It makes us able to keep going with life, psychologically. Sounds productive to me.
And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it?
That was just a general rant to those who bring that up every time we talk about piracy. Specifically you were complaining about it. You said because you think it is worth less than the producers of it think. Let the market decide. I agree most of it is crap. But a lot of people disagree with you and I. $Insert_band_here didn't sell a million albums because everyone thought it was crap.
There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more?
There are also so many websites that could fall under the same category. The same with math books. The same with businesses that make software. Why do we need more? Because someone finds a need and fills it. Or thinks they can do better. Another poster to your comment said that there was a lot of good entertainmentin the 1200's and then asked why we didn't stop then. You replied that that wasn't what you were saying. Then what is that you are saying? Because we have decades of entertainment we should stop, but not because there are centuries of it? Are you saying that the stuff from the '50s isn't any different than the stuff now? Would you say Elvis and Linkin Park make the same stuff? What are you trying to say?
As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.
AFAICS, you haven't talked about what a real job is. You haven't made anything any clearer. Again, if we look at it from a pure economic standpoint, any job that creates money is a "real" job. Thus entertainment is just as "real" as the job that demands a suit and tie and 8-5 hours. Please explain what you think is a "real" job. I'm just curious to know.
Whether you think it is crap or not is not the point. Whether you think entertainment is productive or not is not the point. I personally don't see any reason why anybody "needs" a PDA. Should they be free? Why not? I don't find them productive, so they should be free then, right? Wrong. Somebody put their effort into it and they want to paid for your use of that effort. Same thing goes for entertainment. Someone puts effort into it and if they want to be paid for your use of that effort, then you have no right to demand that they don't. But if you don't want to pay for it, then don't. There are lots of people out there that do give away their efforts for free. If that's what you want, then take that. But don't demand that someone should give away their efforts for free. They can do so if they wish, but that is up to them.
And another thing. Why does everyone always bring up that this or that is crap and so it should be free or whatever. If you don't like then ignore it. There are not any laws or moral obligations that say you have to participate in it. If it's crap and you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you downloading it? If it's crap and you don't want it, why are you complaining about it?
What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already?
I know some people who listen to oldies CDs and still buy the new stuff. Yes they are well aware that there are decades worth of music. I am sure most people are. Most people also have heard of "Leave it to Beaver" but still want to watch new TV shows. Most people have heard of Jimmy Stewart but like to watch new Movies. All gamers know about Pong but still like to play Halo. In fact, everyone has heard of Shakespeare but quite a few still like whatever Andrew Lloyd Weber might come out with next. Just because there is some old time equivalent doesn't mean that people won't like new stuff.
Curiously I wonder: Why do you think that being in the entertainment business is not a "real" job? What are your standards for "productive"?
You can have all the free entertainment you want. Don't you know how to entertain yourself? There are libraries for books and some audio/video entertainment even if you can't entertain yourself. I'm sure you could also find other free entertainments. But no matter how much you wish or think something should be free, it is not logical to think someone should entertain you for free. They are creative, and some work hard for what they do, be it creating books, songs, movies, comedy routines, etc. and demanding that they give you it for free is the same as the grandparent said, "It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
I don't know what to think of it myself but according to Marshall Brain and howstuffworks.com the Revolution will be about as powerful as the XBox360, but it will also have a PPU in it. That's pretty cool if true.
Your point is basically: "But you should be excited about it because it's _new_!!" That _is_ what you're saying, or are you going to do a verbose dodge again?
No my point was never that. My point was to the guy who said that he is for innovation and then turns around and says he would rather play Halo 2 with a keyboard and mouse, and keeps referring to FPSs, and lastly states that it will be used to play some stupid games. If the same old genres are all you want, then fine. This actually has the ability to let you play RTSs on a console since you can use it as a mouse, and much faster and more intuitively than current controllers.
In a way I am saying let's get excited about someone actually changing something. Not necessarily that we should all buy one simply because it's different. Being different for the sake of difference is just as bad as being the same for the sake of being the same. How many times have you heard the game industry talk about being in a rut, and then nobody does anything about it. MS and Sony are releasing ever more powerful consoles. What new genres does that have the possibility to create? Games that require more processing power I suppose. But then Nintendo will have a more powerful console as well. I said I was going to upgrade my PC soon. Will I suddenly find that I am inundated with cool new genres? Probably not. Why? Because nothing has changed.
So why then am I excited about this controller? Because of the possibility of added genres, and new ways to play old ones. Nintendo is getting rid of old methods. The Revolution will be accept old controllers, in addition to the revolution controller, and all of its add-ons. So we have lost nothing but gained the possibility of new genres, and perhaps better ways to play old genres.
You do not have to be excited just because something is new. That would be stupid. But there is a lot of possibility here that no one else is trying, and from a company that has a track record of succes in innovation. Yes they have failed at some things, like the Virtual Boy. At least they're trying. That's what happens. You try a lot of stuff and sometimes you fail, and sometimes you succeed. Thomas Edison is attributed as saying, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." So here is Nintendo trying something new, and I am excited about its possibilities. I am not getting excited about it new simply because it is new, nor I am going to guarantee its success.
So why not get excited about a possibility? Maybe you're a cynic. Maybe you're some MS/Sony fanboy. Maybe you just don't think it will work. I don't know. But I am excited for the possibilities that MS and Sony and others haven't bothered to try.
Now I have addressed all your points, to my knowledge. Why didn't you say anything about what I said, rather than just putting words in my mouth? What about those actors and the pre-rendered stuff? That really hurts your credibility and makes me wonder if you know anything about it other than that it looks like a remote and you wave it in the air. You also must have ignored the part where I said "Firstly, neither he nor I, said anything about trying something new for the sake of it being new."
For all your learning you are really stupid. You may have noticed that I qualified my statement as a pedantic response. Firstly, neither he nor I, said anything about trying something new for the sake of it being new. So your utterly stupid scenario is out the door. Secondly, the next guy might just maybe have a little to do with who he was talking to, who, oddly enough, wanted to try the new controller.
And now to address your misinformation. Nintendo did not just show actors in front of pre-rendered scenes. To demonstate, I have here the article that was posted on slashdot the day the revolution controller was first shown. You can read along, too. Specifically, we'll go about half way down where they talk about the demos. The author claimed they weren't games, just "super-simple, graphically crude offerings designed solely to show off different aspects of how the controller can work." (Though that sounds a lot like the games from the NES days.) Then as he lists each one he gives his impressions on how easy it was for him to control. No prerendered stuff, no actors. Real people, doing the actual controlling on screen.
I applaud you for thinking on your own. I, too, will wait for the games. It's just that I can see this as opening doors to new games. I may or may not like those new games. I dont' even know what they'll be. But to say this isn't exciting (this is important) simply because you can't think of any cool games is stupid, and a logical fallacy as well. Which is why I gave the quote from the Patent Commissioner. He said that in the late 1800s. He couldn't see any thing new. Well, duh. If he could, then he would already have patented it. The same goes here.
Someone else already discussed your rant about the virtual boy. To me, that also could have changed the way we game. A neat idea, not exactly implemented the best way. But I'll let you read their response.
I mean, honestly, I'm up for something new as much as the next guy but the controller just seems overhyped to me.
The pedantic response here is that if you really were up to something new as much as the next guy, you would be up to the revolution's controller. But what it really sounds like is that you are the kind who spouts off wanting new genres but only to sound like you're hardcore. "Yeah man, I play so much I'm bored to death with FPS's...oooh look, Halo 2!"
And really, are people going to competitively play FPS games by pointing a stick at a screen and shooting?
Maybe, maybe not. While the controller will allow for such, it wasn't necessarily made for it. Who knows, it may be better at FPSs then current controllers. If it isn't, then plug in a regular controller; they'll still work.
It'll more likely be used for some dorky version of "bubble bobble" where bubbles fall from the top of the screen and you pop them with the pointer.
I see that you are like Charles Duell. He was the commissioner of the patent office who said "Everything that can be invented has been invented," found here. IOW, you are saying that since you cannot see a use for something, obviously it has no use. If you can't see into the future all you have shown is that you cannot see into the future. Everyone thought gaming was dead in the early '80s and then Nintendo revitalized it with, of all things, the D-Pad. Nintendo has a long history of changing the way games are played, and I have no doubts that if this next generation of consoles fails that Nintendo won't. What are my reasons? They are the only company doing something different. Soon, I will upgrade my PC. Does that suddenly mean games are going to be so much cooler? Of course not. If a game sucked before, it will still suck; turning up the resolution isn't going to change a thing.
While I will still play FPSs, RTSs, RPGs, etc., I am looking forward to what can be done with the Revolution's controller. If nothing else, it will present a new way to play old genres. I suspect, however, that it will introduce at least one new genre. And mark my words, if it is successful to any degree, MS and Sony will have one on their next-next-generation consoles.
Anyway, doesn't this already exist? In gameplay to some degree, at least. It's called a stylus for the DS...
Not hardly. The sylus lets you go left and right and up and down, and to do so rather quickly. The revolution's controller let's you go left and right, in and out, up and down, pitch, yaw, and roll, and all fairly quickly. I can see gaming on the revolution being very fast paced if need be. Maybe even more of a twitch-fest than PC gaming is now. The only problem I see is someone might accidentally hit someone else while swinging it around.
Yeah but according to Moore's law, the robot cars should be able to break Mach 1 sometime around 2010.
Moore's law states the number of transistor's per square inch will double every 18 months. What does this have to do with speed of a vehicle, especially since it doesn't even have anything to do with the speed of a processor? According to this Moore's law can also be interpreted to be a doubling of data storage every 18 months. But that doesn't have anything to do with going faster.
No matter how many patents Microsoft has, they have no leverage against a company that doesn't produce anything.
While I despise the patent farmers of the world, it seems that they are only playing the same game. It's also pretty neat to think that some day, they might cause the big companies like MS, IBM, and Amazon, to go against software patents. That would be cool. The big companies start a game of patent hoarding to keep each other at bay, then small timers start doing it but have nothing for the big timers to hold them hostage, and thus the big timers get rid of patents all together. Wow. I just might go get some silly patents and sue the trash out of all of them. I hereby declare war by patent hoarding. May all of you find your new way of life as patent hoarders suing patent hoarders a success.
I hope that we never have unbiased news. The reason is partly because that is impossible. And since it's impossible to have completely unbiased news, all I ask is that people tell me what their bias is. Then I know how much to trust it and how much salt I need for any given piece of information. I can listen to someone and know what direction they are coming from. Unbiasedness should not be the goal for a news agency. Correct information should, and part of that correct information is the bias of said agency. I want to know if the information I'm getting is from a group that supports x, or is it from a group that doesn't support x. Then I want two different sources.
Why is it impossible to be unbiased? Because we all have opinions. Even down to the events that an article chooses to relate, to the emphasis given can show our bias. Even if that bias is unintentional. A fly on the wall only sees certain things from a certain view. Give me two flys, on opposite walls, and I will have all the much more information to base a decision on. Three flys on differing walls is even more info.
So why do you ask for unbiasedness? Why not take what he has to say, then read the EFF website and see what they have to say, and base your decision on the arguments given. Listening to only one source, no matter how unbiased you think that source is, is a very shallow way of learning, and you are simply asking them to give you an opinion. That's not to say you will always walk away with their opinion, you may hate them so much that whatever they say you'll disagree with simply to spite them. Either way though, they are giving you your opinion.
An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right. (Note I am not saying that the exact middle is the right way. But typically there is some give and take, where both sides have a point).
I'm reminded of the old saying, "If I wanted your opinion, I'd tell it to you."
Slashdot Mirror
#include "stdio.h"
#define SACRED Count[11] = a;Count[14] = a;Count[28] = a;
#define FOR Count[1] = 32;Count[15] = 32;Count[18] = 97;
#define THE Count[7] = 0x20;Count[12] = ' ';Count[23] = 0x20;
#define LOVE Count[26] = 0x61;Count[3] = count;Count[9] = count;
#define OF Count[5] = weird;Count[2] = orange;Count[21] = count;
#define ALL Count[8] = orange;Count[17] = count;Count[22] = time3;
#define THAT Count[25] = time3;Count[27] = weird;Count[19] = orange;
#define IS Count[16] = time_3;Count[20] = 131 % 33;Count[0] = monkey_jar;
#define HOLY Count[24] = monkey_Jar;Count[6] = oh_holy_crap;Count[4] = mangledMuttFace;
#define AND Count[10] = mangledMuttFace;Count[13] = mangledMuttFace;Count[29] = (holy_crap == oh_holy_crap);
#define OH char mangledMuttFace = 105;char oh_holy_crap = 107;char monkey_Jar = 109;char holy_crap = 110;char monkey_jar = 73;char Count[' ' - 2];char orange = 116;char time_3 = 119;char count = 104;char weird = 110;char time3 = 101;char a = 115;
int main()
{
OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND SACRED
printf("%s \n", Count);
return 0;
}
You are ignorant of what was going on in Vietnam. The north was being supported by the China, a big enemy and threat, since they were supported by Russia as well. The south, while not a nice government, was much more desireable than a communist one, and so the US supported them to balance out China's support. Also they were only supposed to be two seperate countries for a short time after they defeated the French, and then the North and the South were to hold an election to unite the countries under one government. They never held that election. Instead the North decided to just use military force to make the South communist. At first the US's involvement was to protect the South. As the conflict wore on though, the US decided to go all the way and defeat the North.
There are many more subtle details in this, just like a lot of conflicts. Just up and saying that one country are jerks because they did such and such is a very simple minded view and is a major problem with news and views now-a-days. Everyone wants to simplify into sound bites and clever witty sayings rather than talk at length about details.
I'm interested to know however, who was that democratically elected leader. Ho Chi Minh started the Viet Minh to war against Japan, and France and with that army decided that he would be the leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Because he was communist the Chinese helped him and the Viet Minh defeat France. The treaty took France out, divided the country and gave the North to China, which then gave it to Ho Chi Minh, because of his affiliations. If that's democracy, I want nothing to do with it.
I suggest that they always have been. Many theories put the beginning of our universe at somewhere between 13 and 20 billion years ago. They may be right but it also may be that is just it, only "our" universe. The first law of thermodynamics states that you cannot create matter, and we also know that matter and energy are interchangeable. My biggest beef with the big bang theory is that it flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. Not that science has never been wrong, and it could be here in both cases, but if we take the laws of thermodynamics into consideration then we must conclude that since matter is not created or destroyed, then it has always been here. And it always will be. Pretend we're at 0, then. The "beginning" occured at negative infinite, and the end will occur at positive infinite. But you can't ever declare a beginning or an end because then that wouldn't be infinite. I realize that thinking this way is hard, just like countably and uncountably infinite is difficult, but maybe we just have to accept that there was no "beginning", no creation of the universe, because it has always been, and will always be. Just like counting numbers.
I disagree and if you look at it from a wholly mathematical perspective you will see as well. We seem to have no problem getting from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and so on. Neither do we have a problem getting from -1 to -2, -2 to -3, -3 to -4 and so on. But what is the first number? There is none. You can pick any number to start with and go forward, but as long as you can go backwards, then you haven't picked the first number. And you can always go backwards.
I will tell you why I like the fact that my wife plays video games: When I go to a LAN party, she comes with me and I stay until it's over, instead of her calling me and whining about when I am going to come home. I've seen other guys have to deal with it. I am so glad I don't.
I figure if you are a very budget conscious person, you are not building a ten foor tall 8000x4500 screen.
But it is obvious that with gaming "journalism" you cannot trust any of them because they're all shills. Again that doesn't mean you can just read what they say and pretend it is opposite day, either. Even if you consistently disagree with them you can still form a basic opinion from that. It's when you don't know if they're just re-hashing a press release to fill their coffers or they're actually reviewing the game. That is the problem we face.
If you want companies that consistently make good games you may be interested in Valve, Blizzard, Nintendo, Raven, and id, at least in my opinion.
Please expound how information has become less Free?
Sounds like a lot of arguments we hear about the legitamacy of pirating. "They make so much money anyway," "Yeah but they screw over the artists," "It's all crap that I wouldn't have bought anyway," etc.
There, I fixed it for you.
I was unaware that when the next generation comes out that suddenly all old stuff dies. Tell us, when DVD came out, did your VHS collection suddenly go up in flames?
re-buy a compatible HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player
You already have one!?!! Wow, you must be on the inside, somewhere!
You may not be, but the original poster who said, "entertainment should be free" is saying that, and that is where this all comes from.
As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself.
I did. By that, I would say anyone in the entertainment business is productive.
But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.
That's what I was asking; what it means to you. If you mean in terms of economy, you must think that the music and movies, and games industries of billions of dollars each are totally unproductive to the economy. Weird. I would think all that money floating around and people with jobs, etc., would be healthy for the economy. Also, maybe you think that people are mindless automatons, but most of us after working all day like to have some form of entertainment to relax the brain, be it movies, TV, music, books, or even, for some, coding or math or time with family. It makes us able to keep going with life, psychologically. Sounds productive to me.
And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it?
That was just a general rant to those who bring that up every time we talk about piracy. Specifically you were complaining about it. You said because you think it is worth less than the producers of it think. Let the market decide. I agree most of it is crap. But a lot of people disagree with you and I. $Insert_band_here didn't sell a million albums because everyone thought it was crap.
There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more?
There are also so many websites that could fall under the same category. The same with math books. The same with businesses that make software. Why do we need more? Because someone finds a need and fills it. Or thinks they can do better. Another poster to your comment said that there was a lot of good entertainmentin the 1200's and then asked why we didn't stop then. You replied that that wasn't what you were saying. Then what is that you are saying? Because we have decades of entertainment we should stop, but not because there are centuries of it? Are you saying that the stuff from the '50s isn't any different than the stuff now? Would you say Elvis and Linkin Park make the same stuff? What are you trying to say?
As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.
AFAICS, you haven't talked about what a real job is. You haven't made anything any clearer. Again, if we look at it from a pure economic standpoint, any job that creates money is a "real" job. Thus entertainment is just as "real" as the job that demands a suit and tie and 8-5 hours. Please explain what you think is a "real" job. I'm just curious to know.
And another thing. Why does everyone always bring up that this or that is crap and so it should be free or whatever. If you don't like then ignore it. There are not any laws or moral obligations that say you have to participate in it. If it's crap and you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you downloading it? If it's crap and you don't want it, why are you complaining about it?
What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already?
I know some people who listen to oldies CDs and still buy the new stuff. Yes they are well aware that there are decades worth of music. I am sure most people are. Most people also have heard of "Leave it to Beaver" but still want to watch new TV shows. Most people have heard of Jimmy Stewart but like to watch new Movies. All gamers know about Pong but still like to play Halo. In fact, everyone has heard of Shakespeare but quite a few still like whatever Andrew Lloyd Weber might come out with next. Just because there is some old time equivalent doesn't mean that people won't like new stuff.
Curiously I wonder: Why do you think that being in the entertainment business is not a "real" job? What are your standards for "productive"?
You have been sacked!
You can have all the free entertainment you want. Don't you know how to entertain yourself? There are libraries for books and some audio/video entertainment even if you can't entertain yourself. I'm sure you could also find other free entertainments. But no matter how much you wish or think something should be free, it is not logical to think someone should entertain you for free. They are creative, and some work hard for what they do, be it creating books, songs, movies, comedy routines, etc. and demanding that they give you it for free is the same as the grandparent said, "It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
I don't know what to think of it myself but according to Marshall Brain and howstuffworks.com the Revolution will be about as powerful as the XBox360, but it will also have a PPU in it. That's pretty cool if true.
No my point was never that. My point was to the guy who said that he is for innovation and then turns around and says he would rather play Halo 2 with a keyboard and mouse, and keeps referring to FPSs, and lastly states that it will be used to play some stupid games. If the same old genres are all you want, then fine. This actually has the ability to let you play RTSs on a console since you can use it as a mouse, and much faster and more intuitively than current controllers.
In a way I am saying let's get excited about someone actually changing something. Not necessarily that we should all buy one simply because it's different. Being different for the sake of difference is just as bad as being the same for the sake of being the same. How many times have you heard the game industry talk about being in a rut, and then nobody does anything about it. MS and Sony are releasing ever more powerful consoles. What new genres does that have the possibility to create? Games that require more processing power I suppose. But then Nintendo will have a more powerful console as well. I said I was going to upgrade my PC soon. Will I suddenly find that I am inundated with cool new genres? Probably not. Why? Because nothing has changed.
So why then am I excited about this controller? Because of the possibility of added genres, and new ways to play old ones. Nintendo is getting rid of old methods. The Revolution will be accept old controllers, in addition to the revolution controller, and all of its add-ons. So we have lost nothing but gained the possibility of new genres, and perhaps better ways to play old genres.
You do not have to be excited just because something is new. That would be stupid. But there is a lot of possibility here that no one else is trying, and from a company that has a track record of succes in innovation. Yes they have failed at some things, like the Virtual Boy. At least they're trying. That's what happens. You try a lot of stuff and sometimes you fail, and sometimes you succeed. Thomas Edison is attributed as saying, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." So here is Nintendo trying something new, and I am excited about its possibilities. I am not getting excited about it new simply because it is new, nor I am going to guarantee its success.
So why not get excited about a possibility? Maybe you're a cynic. Maybe you're some MS/Sony fanboy. Maybe you just don't think it will work. I don't know. But I am excited for the possibilities that MS and Sony and others haven't bothered to try.
Now I have addressed all your points, to my knowledge. Why didn't you say anything about what I said, rather than just putting words in my mouth? What about those actors and the pre-rendered stuff? That really hurts your credibility and makes me wonder if you know anything about it other than that it looks like a remote and you wave it in the air. You also must have ignored the part where I said "Firstly, neither he nor I, said anything about trying something new for the sake of it being new."
And now to address your misinformation. Nintendo did not just show actors in front of pre-rendered scenes. To demonstate, I have here the article that was posted on slashdot the day the revolution controller was first shown. You can read along, too. Specifically, we'll go about half way down where they talk about the demos. The author claimed they weren't games, just "super-simple, graphically crude offerings designed solely to show off different aspects of how the controller can work." (Though that sounds a lot like the games from the NES days.) Then as he lists each one he gives his impressions on how easy it was for him to control. No prerendered stuff, no actors. Real people, doing the actual controlling on screen.
I applaud you for thinking on your own. I, too, will wait for the games. It's just that I can see this as opening doors to new games. I may or may not like those new games. I dont' even know what they'll be. But to say this isn't exciting (this is important) simply because you can't think of any cool games is stupid, and a logical fallacy as well. Which is why I gave the quote from the Patent Commissioner. He said that in the late 1800s. He couldn't see any thing new. Well, duh. If he could, then he would already have patented it. The same goes here.
Someone else already discussed your rant about the virtual boy. To me, that also could have changed the way we game. A neat idea, not exactly implemented the best way. But I'll let you read their response.
The pedantic response here is that if you really were up to something new as much as the next guy, you would be up to the revolution's controller. But what it really sounds like is that you are the kind who spouts off wanting new genres but only to sound like you're hardcore. "Yeah man, I play so much I'm bored to death with FPS's...oooh look, Halo 2!"
And really, are people going to competitively play FPS games by pointing a stick at a screen and shooting?
Maybe, maybe not. While the controller will allow for such, it wasn't necessarily made for it. Who knows, it may be better at FPSs then current controllers. If it isn't, then plug in a regular controller; they'll still work.
It'll more likely be used for some dorky version of "bubble bobble" where bubbles fall from the top of the screen and you pop them with the pointer.
I see that you are like Charles Duell. He was the commissioner of the patent office who said "Everything that can be invented has been invented," found here. IOW, you are saying that since you cannot see a use for something, obviously it has no use. If you can't see into the future all you have shown is that you cannot see into the future. Everyone thought gaming was dead in the early '80s and then Nintendo revitalized it with, of all things, the D-Pad. Nintendo has a long history of changing the way games are played, and I have no doubts that if this next generation of consoles fails that Nintendo won't. What are my reasons? They are the only company doing something different. Soon, I will upgrade my PC. Does that suddenly mean games are going to be so much cooler? Of course not. If a game sucked before, it will still suck; turning up the resolution isn't going to change a thing.
While I will still play FPSs, RTSs, RPGs, etc., I am looking forward to what can be done with the Revolution's controller. If nothing else, it will present a new way to play old genres. I suspect, however, that it will introduce at least one new genre. And mark my words, if it is successful to any degree, MS and Sony will have one on their next-next-generation consoles.
Anyway, doesn't this already exist? In gameplay to some degree, at least. It's called a stylus for the DS...
Not hardly. The sylus lets you go left and right and up and down, and to do so rather quickly. The revolution's controller let's you go left and right, in and out, up and down, pitch, yaw, and roll, and all fairly quickly. I can see gaming on the revolution being very fast paced if need be. Maybe even more of a twitch-fest than PC gaming is now. The only problem I see is someone might accidentally hit someone else while swinging it around.
I bet your a fun guy to go with to the improv on a Saturday night.
Moore's law states the number of transistor's per square inch will double every 18 months. What does this have to do with speed of a vehicle, especially since it doesn't even have anything to do with the speed of a processor? According to this Moore's law can also be interpreted to be a doubling of data storage every 18 months. But that doesn't have anything to do with going faster.
While I despise the patent farmers of the world, it seems that they are only playing the same game. It's also pretty neat to think that some day, they might cause the big companies like MS, IBM, and Amazon, to go against software patents. That would be cool. The big companies start a game of patent hoarding to keep each other at bay, then small timers start doing it but have nothing for the big timers to hold them hostage, and thus the big timers get rid of patents all together. Wow. I just might go get some silly patents and sue the trash out of all of them. I hereby declare war by patent hoarding. May all of you find your new way of life as patent hoarders suing patent hoarders a success.
Why is it impossible to be unbiased? Because we all have opinions. Even down to the events that an article chooses to relate, to the emphasis given can show our bias. Even if that bias is unintentional. A fly on the wall only sees certain things from a certain view. Give me two flys, on opposite walls, and I will have all the much more information to base a decision on. Three flys on differing walls is even more info.
So why do you ask for unbiasedness? Why not take what he has to say, then read the EFF website and see what they have to say, and base your decision on the arguments given. Listening to only one source, no matter how unbiased you think that source is, is a very shallow way of learning, and you are simply asking them to give you an opinion. That's not to say you will always walk away with their opinion, you may hate them so much that whatever they say you'll disagree with simply to spite them. Either way though, they are giving you your opinion.
An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right. (Note I am not saying that the exact middle is the right way. But typically there is some give and take, where both sides have a point).
I'm reminded of the old saying, "If I wanted your opinion, I'd tell it to you."
I'm fully aware of that. It just doesn't fit in Slashdot's sig space.