Agreed, that is the most likely scenario because, in many ways, it is already like that to a lesser extent. Games, like movies, tv, music, and books, are just another form of entertainment(albeit a more interactive form). As such, the general rules and trends of the entertainment industry will likely apply to a certain extent.
Independant games tend to have the potential of having far more innovative gameplay and/or unique storylines because they have the freedom to take a chance with a concept while gaming houses are generally more restricted because development costs money and publishers like to stick with safe bets.
On the flip side, dependant games(ie games developed at cost by a gaming house) will generally have superior graphics and sound because those two areas require a lot of man hours to "get right". Thus, gaming houses are better suited to coordinate efforts to supply a superior graphic experience quickly enough before the graphics become dated by hardware advances.
That said, as we slowly begin to approach the photo-realism barrier, and as the tools to assemble graphics improve, we are once again begining to turn back towards the days when gameplay and innovation were what set a game apart from its peers.
In this, independant game designers will have the upper hand, as evidenced by the current generation of "big names in the industry" all having been independant designers back during the last time graphics were less involved(80s and early 90s).
Independant game designers are on the rise again, and you can see proof in the concern the publishing companies are having as they slowly fall away, consolidate, and/or have paniced knee jerk reactions out of concern for their future(Valve vs. Vivendi, EA's buyout frenzy, etc).
Well yeah. Opinions are always subjective due to personal bias. Now, nothing, not even facts, can usually be presented without some form of bias, but this is, in truth, the one advantage of edited encyclopedia's and the like. While they too, contain bias and sometimes opinions, they try to limit such as much as possible.
The bottom line is use proper judgement and use the wikipedia for what it is intended to be(a consolidation of knowledge and facts) and not a opinion sounding board. That said, the non-fact based entries are often interesting to read purely out of a sociological context, as it is a fascinating example of how personal opinion and bias can completely alter the perspective of a given situation.
As always, take anything you read tha tyou have not personally experienced with a grain of salt. The same is true for anything you read(even history books) because unless you were there or have done whatever it is you are reading about yourself, you can never get a total perspective on the subject through someone else's eyes.
Is that the wikipedia is designed around the original intent of the Internet in the first place. Nevermind what the internet has become in the modern era, it was originally designed to share and consolidate information from all its users.
The Wikipedia is designed specifically to facilitate that. And, while in its default mode, it does leave itself open to people who want to make an arse of themselves, there are plenty of counter measures and options to such problems.
All in all, it is satisfying to see the success of the project purely because it is nice to see the internet used for what it was intended for and do it well.
The flaws posted on Firefox/Thunderbird are, and have been, fixed in the current versions. Those flaws only affect the non-1.0 versions of both pieces of software.
Now, knowing that one could say "Well why on earth was that a big deal then if its already fixed?". The answer is a lot of businesses tend to stick to something they know works. Which means they sadly tend to not update as often.
So, it was a recent enough flaw that, despite having already been fixed, needed to be made known. All that said, a lot of the articles on the flaw were misleading because few clearly mentioned that if you had the latest version, you didn't have that problem.
As for IE, its real problems these days are:
1) ActiveX
2) Integration with OS opens up too many potential pitfalls
That's it really in terms of security. And, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, this isn't a problem that is going away despite this endless patching. Until MS comes up with a new and viable alternative to activex, and until they seperate the browser out from the operating system, they will never be able to truly secure IE.
Is anything ever perfectly secure? No, everything has some sort of flaw somewhere that has any level of complexity to it. But, as in the case of many alternative browsers, you can make them secure enough so that any secondary watchdog programs(spyware catchers, anti-virus, etc) can nail anything that slips through the cracks.
It is just Giant rebranded with a few things missing(which I assume is just because it is in beta). Giant was a very good anti-spyware program so I expect the MS rebrand will be just the same.
The real question will just be how much effort MS puts into keeping the definitions and program updated as new types of spyware come down the pipeline. As effective as the program is right now, it is how effective it will remain in the ever changing world of spyware that is what really matters.
No beta will answer that question, only the test of time will. But, this is just Giant rebranded and it is a very solid platform, which is why MS bought it in the first place.
All those are big ones for sure, but the Descent series(not to be confused with the Freespace series) equally deserves to be in the top 10. That series had a lot of FPS firsts.
I have yet to find a FPS quite like it since the license got shelved when Outrage and Volition(formally the two companies were Parallax) moved to THQ thus putting the Descent(and Freespace) license into Limbo.:(
Both Freespace and Descent are games that truly deserve sequels as both series were excellent. I personally put Descent 1/2/3 right up at the top of my favorite FPS of all time along with Half Life and some others.
I have fond memories of played Doom 2, Descent 1, Descent 2, and Duke 3D over Kali back in the starting days of modern "internet gaming". Back when we had to convert those darned IPX packets:)
Fairly typical these days
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Although Google is a bit more on the extreme side hiring process wise, this is definitely very typical for the market today. Anyone planning on getting a job in the tech industry, here are the key things your employer is looking for:
1) Ability to work well with others and in a team environment. This is pretty much critical in tech industry today.
2) Ability to learn quickly and on your own. No one realistically expects you to know *everything*, there is just too much for most people to absorb. What they do expect you to do though, is to be able to teach yourself the things you need to know and learn quickly.
3) Background experience. What companies analyze out of your background really varies from company to company. But, in the end all they are looking for is data that backs up point number 1 and 2. They want evidence that you are balanced, that you can learn well, that you can work well with others. Be it college background, work experience, tech demos you build yourself, etc, all that stuff really is just hard data to confirm your background.
As for the aptitude tests, those are just a way for companies to narrow down the potential applicants. With so many people looking for a job, it helps to shrink the applicant pool any way you can. Trust me, your potential future employer knows you are going to BS on the aptitude test. In fact, they are pretty much expecting it. They just want to ween out the people who aren't serious enough about getting the job and who aren't smart enough or serious enough to BS the test based on what they feel the employeer is looking for.
Honestly, aptitude tests are just a quick and easy filter to get the dumbest of dumb out of the way. What really and truly matters when you apply for a job is the interview(s). That is where your potential bosses can really judge you.
80% of what matters in the hiring proces is all about the interviews. 10% is background, and the last 10% is your BS filter(aptitude tests, on the spot programming challenges, etc).
Don't get me wrong, I love OS X and have enjoyed every time I have used it on a friend's machine, in the workplace, etc. But this bundle is basically having you pay $600 for the OS and some so/so hardware to run it on. No thank you.
I understand why Apple prices such exorbidant prices for their machines, they really sort of have to since they are so proprietary. But, as long as their prices are so out of scale with the rest of the PC universe, they are just missing the price point that is right for me.
I wish that Apple would release OS X for PC machines, and I know they are capable of it. But, I also know they will never do it while they are determined to stay in the hardware business. OSX is a great OS and a lot of people would use it over Windows in a heartbeat, but at the same time many would stop buying Apple hardware because of its cost. So, I don't see that happening anytime soon sadly.
So, no, I'm not going to pay $600 for an OS, I can get by just fine with my Windows and Linux workstations. This is a nice move by Apple, but it isn't what I'm looking for still.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, that is the most likely scenario because, in many ways, it is already like that to a lesser extent. Games, like movies, tv, music, and books, are just another form of entertainment(albeit a more interactive form). As such, the general rules and trends of the entertainment industry will likely apply to a certain extent.
Independant games tend to have the potential of having far more innovative gameplay and/or unique storylines because they have the freedom to take a chance with a concept while gaming houses are generally more restricted because development costs money and publishers like to stick with safe bets.
On the flip side, dependant games(ie games developed at cost by a gaming house) will generally have superior graphics and sound because those two areas require a lot of man hours to "get right". Thus, gaming houses are better suited to coordinate efforts to supply a superior graphic experience quickly enough before the graphics become dated by hardware advances.
That said, as we slowly begin to approach the photo-realism barrier, and as the tools to assemble graphics improve, we are once again begining to turn back towards the days when gameplay and innovation were what set a game apart from its peers.
In this, independant game designers will have the upper hand, as evidenced by the current generation of "big names in the industry" all having been independant designers back during the last time graphics were less involved(80s and early 90s).
Independant game designers are on the rise again, and you can see proof in the concern the publishing companies are having as they slowly fall away, consolidate, and/or have paniced knee jerk reactions out of concern for their future(Valve vs. Vivendi, EA's buyout frenzy, etc).
Well yeah. Opinions are always subjective due to personal bias. Now, nothing, not even facts, can usually be presented without some form of bias, but this is, in truth, the one advantage of edited encyclopedia's and the like. While they too, contain bias and sometimes opinions, they try to limit such as much as possible.
The bottom line is use proper judgement and use the wikipedia for what it is intended to be(a consolidation of knowledge and facts) and not a opinion sounding board. That said, the non-fact based entries are often interesting to read purely out of a sociological context, as it is a fascinating example of how personal opinion and bias can completely alter the perspective of a given situation.
As always, take anything you read tha tyou have not personally experienced with a grain of salt. The same is true for anything you read(even history books) because unless you were there or have done whatever it is you are reading about yourself, you can never get a total perspective on the subject through someone else's eyes.
Is that the wikipedia is designed around the original intent of the Internet in the first place. Nevermind what the internet has become in the modern era, it was originally designed to share and consolidate information from all its users. The Wikipedia is designed specifically to facilitate that. And, while in its default mode, it does leave itself open to people who want to make an arse of themselves, there are plenty of counter measures and options to such problems. All in all, it is satisfying to see the success of the project purely because it is nice to see the internet used for what it was intended for and do it well.
The flaws posted on Firefox/Thunderbird are, and have been, fixed in the current versions. Those flaws only affect the non-1.0 versions of both pieces of software.
Now, knowing that one could say "Well why on earth was that a big deal then if its already fixed?". The answer is a lot of businesses tend to stick to something they know works. Which means they sadly tend to not update as often.
So, it was a recent enough flaw that, despite having already been fixed, needed to be made known. All that said, a lot of the articles on the flaw were misleading because few clearly mentioned that if you had the latest version, you didn't have that problem.
As for IE, its real problems these days are:
1) ActiveX
2) Integration with OS opens up too many potential pitfalls
That's it really in terms of security. And, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, this isn't a problem that is going away despite this endless patching. Until MS comes up with a new and viable alternative to activex, and until they seperate the browser out from the operating system, they will never be able to truly secure IE.
Is anything ever perfectly secure? No, everything has some sort of flaw somewhere that has any level of complexity to it. But, as in the case of many alternative browsers, you can make them secure enough so that any secondary watchdog programs(spyware catchers, anti-virus, etc) can nail anything that slips through the cracks.
Bad math there. 8% of the existing ice. So to keep things simple, lets say there are 100 tons of sea ice(I know its more, just an example).
:P
Year 1, remove 8%, now its 92 tons.
Year 2, remove another 8% from the 92 tons(not the original 100), now its 84.64 tons.
Year 3, remove another 8% from the 84.64 tons. Now its 77.8688 tons.
Etc. The number is roughly 8% per year of whatever ice is left over. So it isn't 240% lost
When Toyota's Robots inhert the earth from us they do a better job of managing it than us.
"Look, our devouring of resources is causing the ice in the artic to melt!"
"Well then, lets go devour some more boys."
Seriously, only man could screw up the planet and see it as an economic opportunity.
It is just Giant rebranded with a few things missing(which I assume is just because it is in beta). Giant was a very good anti-spyware program so I expect the MS rebrand will be just the same.
The real question will just be how much effort MS puts into keeping the definitions and program updated as new types of spyware come down the pipeline. As effective as the program is right now, it is how effective it will remain in the ever changing world of spyware that is what really matters.
No beta will answer that question, only the test of time will. But, this is just Giant rebranded and it is a very solid platform, which is why MS bought it in the first place.
All those are big ones for sure, but the Descent series(not to be confused with the Freespace series) equally deserves to be in the top 10. That series had a lot of FPS firsts. I have yet to find a FPS quite like it since the license got shelved when Outrage and Volition(formally the two companies were Parallax) moved to THQ thus putting the Descent(and Freespace) license into Limbo. :(
:)
Both Freespace and Descent are games that truly deserve sequels as both series were excellent. I personally put Descent 1/2/3 right up at the top of my favorite FPS of all time along with Half Life and some others.
I have fond memories of played Doom 2, Descent 1, Descent 2, and Duke 3D over Kali back in the starting days of modern "internet gaming". Back when we had to convert those darned IPX packets
Although Google is a bit more on the extreme side hiring process wise, this is definitely very typical for the market today. Anyone planning on getting a job in the tech industry, here are the key things your employer is looking for:
1) Ability to work well with others and in a team environment. This is pretty much critical in tech industry today.
2) Ability to learn quickly and on your own. No one realistically expects you to know *everything*, there is just too much for most people to absorb. What they do expect you to do though, is to be able to teach yourself the things you need to know and learn quickly.
3) Background experience. What companies analyze out of your background really varies from company to company. But, in the end all they are looking for is data that backs up point number 1 and 2. They want evidence that you are balanced, that you can learn well, that you can work well with others. Be it college background, work experience, tech demos you build yourself, etc, all that stuff really is just hard data to confirm your background.
As for the aptitude tests, those are just a way for companies to narrow down the potential applicants. With so many people looking for a job, it helps to shrink the applicant pool any way you can. Trust me, your potential future employer knows you are going to BS on the aptitude test. In fact, they are pretty much expecting it. They just want to ween out the people who aren't serious enough about getting the job and who aren't smart enough or serious enough to BS the test based on what they feel the employeer is looking for.
Honestly, aptitude tests are just a quick and easy filter to get the dumbest of dumb out of the way. What really and truly matters when you apply for a job is the interview(s). That is where your potential bosses can really judge you.
80% of what matters in the hiring proces is all about the interviews. 10% is background, and the last 10% is your BS filter(aptitude tests, on the spot programming challenges, etc).
Don't get me wrong, I love OS X and have enjoyed every time I have used it on a friend's machine, in the workplace, etc. But this bundle is basically having you pay $600 for the OS and some so/so hardware to run it on. No thank you. I understand why Apple prices such exorbidant prices for their machines, they really sort of have to since they are so proprietary. But, as long as their prices are so out of scale with the rest of the PC universe, they are just missing the price point that is right for me. I wish that Apple would release OS X for PC machines, and I know they are capable of it. But, I also know they will never do it while they are determined to stay in the hardware business. OSX is a great OS and a lot of people would use it over Windows in a heartbeat, but at the same time many would stop buying Apple hardware because of its cost. So, I don't see that happening anytime soon sadly. So, no, I'm not going to pay $600 for an OS, I can get by just fine with my Windows and Linux workstations. This is a nice move by Apple, but it isn't what I'm looking for still.