These are mainly services people, performing services for somebody. These somebodies are still going to need services even if it is not with IBM anymore. It is not like they are closing down a manufacturing plant; they are dumping customers, but these customers will just find someone else to do the work. Whoever picks up these contracts will probably need more employees. There will probably be net increase in unemployed people, but a portion much smaller than 100,000.
He was saying "yeah, maybe that is how you judge the size of a company, but one of the reasons it seemed huge to me was..."
Re:MIght not be enforcable...
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I would have to call bullshit. You are stretching quite a bit to defend Google.
Most NDA's and non-competes seemed to be designed to intimidate the employee first, stand up in court second. If NDA issues end up in court, the employee is already screwed by having to pay the legal fees.
Re:If you think that is evil
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It does seem pretty extreme just to do an interview. Especially about never mentioning the word "Google" ever again, even if you don't get the job.
It seems the NDA could make it hard to ever get another job after Google, since you are not allowed to even mention Google or say what your salary was. That might make a resume look pretty funny, and it could be an awkward interview. "Yes, I used to work for an internet search engine company, but I can't tell you which one."
It does seem kind of extreme just for an interview. I would expect an employee to have to sign something like this, but not somebody that just wants to talk about job possibilities.
This is the argument that is being made by those trying to legalize poker, but I don't know how much headway they are making.
I agree with this argument in terms of poker for the most part (I used to play online a lot), but there is a significant chance element. One of the main factors in the poker craze was seeing some amateur win the big tournament over the world's top pros. I don't think poker would be as popular as it is if the best player always won, but that kind supports the view that poker is gambling. I wish poker was legal, but I do see where they have a point in calling it gambling.
In poker, on any given day, an average player can beat the best player in the world. Online poker also had a several year run of fresh meat due to all the TV shows and media attention. Many players dropped out, but there was even more to replace them. I have heard it said that at poker to be profitable you don't have to be the best player at any given table, you only have to be better than a couple of the other players.
I have heard this argument before about why you will never see large buy-in tournaments for chess, tennis, etc... where luck is not a factor.
Collusion could be a problem as well. In comparison to online poker, collusion here would be much more effective in terms of winning and would be more difficult to control. An unofficial "team" could fill up all but one spot in a tournament and gang up on the loner. Once the buy-ins get a little bigger, even a 5-way split of the winnings could be pretty good money.
It has been 20 years since the last time I read LotR, but if I remember my impressions correctly the elves themselves seemed magical and mysterious. I think that comes a lot as well from the way the tale was told, but that is one element I am kind of disappointed in with the game. The elves don't seem particulary special, and because of game balance, I don't know if they really can be for the game to work as a game. Maybe they could have given the elves more special properties that did not directly affect gameplay but would contribute to the overall experience, particulary since a lot of people who are playing are more LotR fans than necessarily MMORPG fans. I have been pretty impressed that it appears that a pretty high percentage of people have used the suggested Tolkien conventions for naming their character.
Actually, they are aware of Thorin being dead. I think they know the lore pretty well. Thorin shows up in the introductory quest for those who choose to be dwarves. Your dwarf is hanging around when Thorin and Gandalf begin their quest to the lonely mountain. This sequence is just to introduce you to the gameplay, and afterwards the story moves to the time of the fellowship. If you choose to be an elf, your introductory sequence begins a few hundred years earlier I believe.
I don't think magic is that rare in the books, but that extravagant displays of magic are rare. You have elven swords that glow when orcs are near, the palantir, the gates of Moria respond to voice commands, trolls that turn to stone in sunlight, etc... The one ring and the 3 elven rings are of course magical.
I like that they limit magic wielding players, but I hope the developers don't get caught up in the whole "magic is rare" thing in terms of player experience.
And... do you really want to see Gandalf getting his ass kicked by a slimy frog or a big rat when he is only level 1? Gandalf you know and love is probably like level 100 or something.
I don't know if they actually need to end the game - Frodo could become perpetually lost in Mordor. The events immediately prior to the destruction of the ring could be a good ending to the main storyline, but the quests could continue as the war rages over all of middle earth. You would come more concerned at fighting the War of the Ring and holding back the tide so that Frodo could someday finish the main quest, but there could be thousands of quests all over middle earth coinciding with the war effort.
Yeah, but do you really want 1000 Gandalfs running around...If you want to play Gandalf, a MMO is probably not the way to go. A single player game is probably more suited.
I think people will be fairly patient - they too know the closer you get to Mordor the closer the game will be to being over, so for the time being I think many people will be content to explore the areas as they become available.
An interesting part of the game is seeing aspects of the war unfold that were barely mentioned or just hinted at in the books, and right now I am content to explore that(though this may change.)
I am more interested in the war in lorien, mirkwood, the lonely mountain, the iron hills, umbar(?), etc... than Rohan and Gondor, because I do already know what the war was like there.
Re:Clearly The Solution Is...
on
The BBC On RMT
·
· Score: 1
>>Would you care to sign my petition for WoW's end?
I would be torn...it might mean Starcraft 2 would arrive sooner, but all those WoW people would move to LOTRO and clog up the chat with their whining that LOTRO is not as good as WoW.
Re:Clearly The Solution Is...
on
The BBC On RMT
·
· Score: 1
Nah, they could just put out Diablo III, or a sequel to Rock 'n' Roll Racing...
There never has been a "must have" feature that compelled me to upgrade without waiting for a new computer since Windows 3.1. Among my friends and about 5 or 6 employers since then, I personally have not seen one case where the desktop operating system was upgraded without buying a new computer. Where I work now there are a lot of Win 98 machines.
For the average consumer, I think the main advantage I noticed was that there were more and more hardware drivers built in. XP will automatically recoqnize your digital camera, whereas Win98 requires you to load a driver. Each version made it easier and easier to setup a home network, but it is likely that if you wanted a network you would have already figured it out and not waited for a new version of the OS to come out.
I think it works that way in general - if your system is already working, then all the "easier" features in the new operating system doesn't really help you at the moment. But when you buy a new computer and have to get it on the network, hook up you cameras, etc.., the "easier" features do come in handy.
As an average user, I really don't see what the complaints are about Vista. Average consumers really don't care that much about the operating system to begin with. As you said, they care about programs.
I recently built a new computer and went ahead with Vista because I could get OEM pricing now but maybe not in the future, and I already had copy of XP that I could dual boot. For routine everyday stuff Vista has been fine; I have XP set up in case I play around with any programming, but I find myself always using Vista. One of the main advantages I noticed with Vista is that for some reason the fonts are more readable on my 22" wide-screen in native resolution than they are in XP. It also doesn't seem to have the weird window re-draw problems. In general the display just seems to work better for me.
Like all versions of Windows, there is no reason for the average consumer to upgrade an existing computer - just wait until you get a new computer. The new computer will likely be equipped to better run Vista too. Vista will eventually take over because of this, like XP did. I have never understood why people would think a majority of average consumers will want to go out and spend money to replace their operating system that is working fine without going ahead and getting a faster, newer computer with all the latest hardware. Instead, it seems to be big news that people are showing some since and waiting.
I believe it is useful to tell if somebody else looked at the information though. You cannot transfer information this way, but you can use it to make sure nobody else peaked...which does have some applications in terms of security.
I've been playing the beta for a few weeks, and it is my first MMORPG. My previous experience was occasional single player RPGs like Morrowind. I think the multiplayer element does add quite a bit and helps releave the boredom factor. I'm not that social of a player, but LOTRO forces you to join up with other players in "fellowships" to complete some of the quests. I always hook up with a different group each time, and this does add some variety to the game.
In a weird way now, it would seem kind of "lonely" to play a single player RPG now for me. In LOTRO, even when you are off on a solo quest there can be all kinds of other players around you, and just the random human nature of it all makes it much more interesting for me. There is also the element of when you achieve something, there is "somebody to show" even if indirectly. The game can also be more competitve as you try to achieve more or just keep up with your counterparts.
Slashdot Mirror
These are mainly services people, performing services for somebody. These somebodies are still going to need services even if it is not with IBM anymore. It is not like they are closing down a manufacturing plant; they are dumping customers, but these customers will just find someone else to do the work. Whoever picks up these contracts will probably need more employees. There will probably be net increase in unemployed people, but a portion much smaller than 100,000.
>But the Mac x86 test would be yet another "nail in the coffin" as >people move farther from Windoze.
If the coffin is a freaking mile long. There are quite a few nails to go. Reading Slashdot can give you a biased view of the real world.
He was saying "yeah, maybe that is how you judge the size of a company, but one of the reasons it seemed huge to me was..."
I would have to call bullshit. You are stretching quite a bit to defend Google.
Most NDA's and non-competes seemed to be designed to intimidate the employee first, stand up in court second. If NDA issues end up in court, the employee is already screwed by having to pay the legal fees.
Or Yahoo...nah, just kidding...
It does seem pretty extreme just to do an interview. Especially about never mentioning the word "Google" ever again, even if you don't get the job.
It seems the NDA could make it hard to ever get another job after Google, since you are not allowed to even mention Google or say what your salary was. That might make a resume look pretty funny, and it could be an awkward interview. "Yes, I used to work for an internet search engine company, but I can't tell you which one."
It does seem kind of extreme just for an interview. I would expect an employee to have to sign something like this, but not somebody that just wants to talk about job possibilities.
This is the argument that is being made by those trying to legalize poker, but I don't know how much headway they are making.
I agree with this argument in terms of poker for the most part (I used to play online a lot), but there is a significant chance element. One of the main factors in the poker craze was seeing some amateur win the big tournament over the world's top pros. I don't think poker would be as popular as it is if the best player always won, but that kind supports the view that poker is gambling. I wish poker was legal, but I do see where they have a point in calling it gambling.
Very good point.
In poker, on any given day, an average player can beat the best player in the world. Online poker also had a several year run of fresh meat due to all the TV shows and media attention. Many players dropped out, but there was even more to replace them. I have heard it said that at poker to be profitable you don't have to be the best player at any given table, you only have to be better than a couple of the other players.
I have heard this argument before about why you will never see large buy-in tournaments for chess, tennis, etc... where luck is not a factor.
I'm not so sure since this is not really a game of chance and you are not playing against the "house" but other players.
Collusion could be a problem as well. In comparison to online poker, collusion here would be much more effective in terms of winning and would be more difficult to control. An unofficial "team" could fill up all but one spot in a tournament and gang up on the loner. Once the buy-ins get a little bigger, even a 5-way split of the winnings could be pretty good money.
It has been 20 years since the last time I read LotR, but if I remember my impressions correctly the elves themselves seemed magical and mysterious. I think that comes a lot as well from the way the tale was told, but that is one element I am kind of disappointed in with the game. The elves don't seem particulary special, and because of game balance, I don't know if they really can be for the game to work as a game. Maybe they could have given the elves more special properties that did not directly affect gameplay but would contribute to the overall experience, particulary since a lot of people who are playing are more LotR fans than necessarily MMORPG fans. I have been pretty impressed that it appears that a pretty high percentage of people have used the suggested Tolkien conventions for naming their character.
Actually, they are aware of Thorin being dead. I think they know the lore pretty well. Thorin shows up in the introductory quest for those who choose to be dwarves. Your dwarf is hanging around when Thorin and Gandalf begin their quest to the lonely mountain. This sequence is just to introduce you to the gameplay, and afterwards the story moves to the time of the fellowship. If you choose to be an elf, your introductory sequence begins a few hundred years earlier I believe.
I don't think magic is that rare in the books, but that extravagant displays of magic are rare. You have elven swords that glow when orcs are near, the palantir, the gates of Moria respond to voice commands, trolls that turn to stone in sunlight, etc... The one ring and the 3 elven rings are of course magical.
I like that they limit magic wielding players, but I hope the developers don't get caught up in the whole "magic is rare" thing in terms of player experience.
And... do you really want to see Gandalf getting his ass kicked by a slimy frog or a big rat when he is only level 1? Gandalf you know and love is probably like level 100 or something.
I don't know if they actually need to end the game - Frodo could become perpetually lost in Mordor. The events immediately prior to the destruction of the ring could be a good ending to the main storyline, but the quests could continue as the war rages over all of middle earth. You would come more concerned at fighting the War of the Ring and holding back the tide so that Frodo could someday finish the main quest, but there could be thousands of quests all over middle earth coinciding with the war effort.
Yeah, but do you really want 1000 Gandalfs running around...If you want to play Gandalf, a MMO is probably not the way to go. A single player game is probably more suited.
I think people will be fairly patient - they too know the closer you get to Mordor the closer the game will be to being over, so for the time being I think many people will be content to explore the areas as they become available.
An interesting part of the game is seeing aspects of the war unfold that were barely mentioned or just hinted at in the books, and right now I am content to explore that(though this may change.)
I am more interested in the war in lorien, mirkwood, the lonely mountain, the iron hills, umbar(?), etc... than Rohan and Gondor, because I do already know what the war was like there.
>>Would you care to sign my petition for WoW's end?
I would be torn...it might mean Starcraft 2 would arrive sooner, but all those WoW people would move to LOTRO and clog up the chat with their whining that LOTRO is not as good as WoW.
Nah, they could just put out Diablo III, or a sequel to Rock 'n' Roll Racing...
What do they mean by "openness" here. (Just curious - don't interpret this as troll.)
There never has been a "must have" feature that compelled me to upgrade without waiting for a new computer since Windows 3.1. Among my friends and about 5 or 6 employers since then, I personally have not seen one case where the desktop operating system was upgraded without buying a new computer. Where I work now there are a lot of Win 98 machines.
For the average consumer, I think the main advantage I noticed was that there were more and more hardware drivers built in. XP will automatically recoqnize your digital camera, whereas Win98 requires you to load a driver. Each version made it easier and easier to setup a home network, but it is likely that if you wanted a network you would have already figured it out and not waited for a new version of the OS to come out.
I think it works that way in general - if your system is already working, then all the "easier" features in the new operating system doesn't really help you at the moment. But when you buy a new computer and have to get it on the network, hook up you cameras, etc.., the "easier" features do come in handy.
As an average user, I really don't see what the complaints are about Vista. Average consumers really don't care that much about the operating system to begin with. As you said, they care about programs.
I recently built a new computer and went ahead with Vista because I could get OEM pricing now but maybe not in the future, and I already had copy of XP that I could dual boot. For routine everyday stuff Vista has been fine; I have XP set up in case I play around with any programming, but I find myself always using Vista. One of the main advantages I noticed with Vista is that for some reason the fonts are more readable on my 22" wide-screen in native resolution than they are in XP. It also doesn't seem to have the weird window re-draw problems. In general the display just seems to work better for me.
Like all versions of Windows, there is no reason for the average consumer to upgrade an existing computer - just wait until you get a new computer. The new computer will likely be equipped to better run Vista too. Vista will eventually take over because of this, like XP did. I have never understood why people would think a majority of average consumers will want to go out and spend money to replace their operating system that is working fine without going ahead and getting a faster, newer computer with all the latest hardware. Instead, it seems to be big news that people are showing some since and waiting.
I believe it is useful to tell if somebody else looked at the information though. You cannot transfer information this way, but you can use it to make sure nobody else peaked...which does have some applications in terms of security.
I've been playing the beta for a few weeks, and it is my first MMORPG. My previous experience was occasional single player RPGs like Morrowind. I think the multiplayer element does add quite a bit and helps releave the boredom factor. I'm not that social of a player, but LOTRO forces you to join up with other players in "fellowships" to complete some of the quests. I always hook up with a different group each time, and this does add some variety to the game.
In a weird way now, it would seem kind of "lonely" to play a single player RPG now for me. In LOTRO, even when you are off on a solo quest there can be all kinds of other players around you, and just the random human nature of it all makes it much more interesting for me. There is also the element of when you achieve something, there is "somebody to show" even if indirectly. The game can also be more competitve as you try to achieve more or just keep up with your counterparts.