According to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (A UK charity), there are nearly nine million people deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK alone. I'm sure a fair proportion of these would benefit from subtitling for online content - I certainly would. I am deaf in one ear, and wear a hearing aid to help boost what remains of my hearing in the other, and have difficulty understanding a lot of online content. I find the only reliable medium for subtitles to be DVDs - TV subtitling in the UK differs widely depending on network. And when the content is available online, for example from the BBC, subtitling is not present - even for content that was subtitled on TV!
Whilst it needs to be done, I doubt it will be - seems there's just not enough money in it. Guess I'll have to keep on buying those DVDs, or missing out on a lot of content.
Of course, literacy is also a part of the world - hence it's nessecary to teach that too.
I said technology should only be part of schools for a reason - not that it should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.
And yes, there is nothing you can do on a computer on a schooldesk that you cannot do with books, pencils and paper. But what good is it being able to write really good stories, for example, without having been exposed to a word processor in your life?
It's a skill you're pretty much gonna have to learn sometime.
The job of schools is to teach, or to provide a starting point in this world.
As I don't see technology becoming any less a part of this world, I'd argue that it's entirely relevent to use it in schools. People need to be brought up around technology to be able to readily accept it and take it for grante, otherwise the lurning curve is that much steeper. Just as long as it only remains a part of schools, rather than becoming the schools themselves.
The way I see it, at least they're considering if this is a good idea, rather than going down the "games=bad" route. All of the skills they want to teach the kids, from the article, are present in games.
I'd be interested to see how this turns out, and if it's actually teacher-led "gaming", as it were, rather than "I'll sit here with a cup of tea catching up on my mountain of paperwork when you play these games and hopefully learn something".
Well, it makes sense - when people complain about the price of the "deluxe" package, it can be pointed out that the "standard" package is cheaper.
A potential customer looks at the price of the standard package, then looks at the price of the deluxe one... "So I get all this stuff for a little bit more money? Ring me up!"
Plus it'll look nice in the catalogue... "Xbox 360, only $299!". Joe Average buys it for his kids, as it's "cheaper than those other consoles", not knowing it's about as useful as a brick without a hard drive.
I've got copies of both Evil Genius and Republic sitting on my shelf... I enjoyed playing both of them.
Republic was clunky, but once you get past that, it's a good game. It was deep, and you did have to micromanage everything. It's an acquired taste, it seems.
Evil Genius was a great game. Yes, there was a LOT of micromanagement in there, but I really enjoyed the little touches... at the end of the day, it made me laugh, which I guess is the whole point for something designed for entertainment. I haven't completed it, but I fully intend to someday - It just got swept away in all those other games that came out in autumn 2004, like Halo 2, Dawn of War, et al.
Give them both another shot, Republic's on budget at the moment, and Evil Genius isn't that pricey.
In fact, I want to play Evil Genius again now... that shrink-rayed Eiffel Tower is looking lonely in the corner of my Evil Office, next to the Evil Potted Plant...
Different people play the games for different reasons. I used to play Anarchy Online back in the day, and I played for the social aspect - I didn't really level that much once I hit level 60 (the level cap was 200 in the basic game). And I still played for a good few months after hitting level 60, until other circumstances meant I had to stop playing.
Some people are hardcore grinders and powerlevellers - who want to get ahead however they can. Including buying stuff with real money. But... since they're paying for their game with real money anyway... isn't that their choice? How does it really hurt your experience... apart from that flash of jealousy when someone runs past you with a bigger sword? Can't you just shrug and keep on playing the game the way you want to, and get just the same enjoyment out of it? Or do you get hung up on the fact that people aren't playing the game the way you want them to?
For the record, I play several pen and paper RPGs, including D&D, Cyberpunk, and GURPS.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (A UK charity), there are nearly nine million people deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK alone. I'm sure a fair proportion of these would benefit from subtitling for online content - I certainly would. I am deaf in one ear, and wear a hearing aid to help boost what remains of my hearing in the other, and have difficulty understanding a lot of online content. I find the only reliable medium for subtitles to be DVDs - TV subtitling in the UK differs widely depending on network. And when the content is available online, for example from the BBC, subtitling is not present - even for content that was subtitled on TV!
Whilst it needs to be done, I doubt it will be - seems there's just not enough money in it. Guess I'll have to keep on buying those DVDs, or missing out on a lot of content.
Shalebridge Cradle.
A level so perfectly designed, it scares the crap out of me just thinking about it!
Play.com don't charge for shipping within the UK.
That screenshot looks suspiciously like a reskinned version of XP... looks very similar to the Avalon skin.
Or is that the whole point?
It's the Halo fan movie awards - vids made using the Halo engine, not the actual movie itself.
Of course, literacy is also a part of the world - hence it's nessecary to teach that too.
I said technology should only be part of schools for a reason - not that it should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.
And yes, there is nothing you can do on a computer on a schooldesk that you cannot do with books, pencils and paper. But what good is it being able to write really good stories, for example, without having been exposed to a word processor in your life?
It's a skill you're pretty much gonna have to learn sometime.
The job of schools is to teach, or to provide a starting point in this world.
As I don't see technology becoming any less a part of this world, I'd argue that it's entirely relevent to use it in schools. People need to be brought up around technology to be able to readily accept it and take it for grante, otherwise the lurning curve is that much steeper. Just as long as it only remains a part of schools, rather than becoming the schools themselves.
With the Revolution, PS3, and Xbox 360 coming out soon, won't this disappear without a trace?
It really does sound like emulation with a different box... especially with reguards to the "Contra with better graphics" line in TFA.
Also, if people aren't gonna browse for it, and are gonna stumble upon it by accident, what's to say they'll buy it?
Sell it to me, sell it to me...
... how long til they get the rest of their equipment?
The British army is woefully underequipped... but hey, as long as they've got pants and tea, they'll be fine!
The way I see it, at least they're considering if this is a good idea, rather than going down the "games=bad" route. All of the skills they want to teach the kids, from the article, are present in games.
I'd be interested to see how this turns out, and if it's actually teacher-led "gaming", as it were, rather than "I'll sit here with a cup of tea catching up on my mountain of paperwork when you play these games and hopefully learn something".
At the very least, it's a start.
In other words, sell as many consoles as possible... the trick is, people still need to buy games for them.
Well, it makes sense - when people complain about the price of the "deluxe" package, it can be pointed out that the "standard" package is cheaper.
A potential customer looks at the price of the standard package, then looks at the price of the deluxe one... "So I get all this stuff for a little bit more money? Ring me up!"
Plus it'll look nice in the catalogue... "Xbox 360, only $299!". Joe Average buys it for his kids, as it's "cheaper than those other consoles", not knowing it's about as useful as a brick without a hard drive.
So, basically, for the FCC to track down everything wifi, they need to check Google?
Damn, they sure clamped down on THAT idea fast!
So, the age rating of the game, clearly printed on the box, isn't clear enough?
I fail to see how stating something clearly, ON THE BOX, can be considered misleading or deceptive.
Surely common sense will prevail here?
(As an aside - in the UK, GTA-SA is rated 18 - highest rating you can get without getting into the really nasty side of things)
I've got copies of both Evil Genius and Republic sitting on my shelf... I enjoyed playing both of them.
Republic was clunky, but once you get past that, it's a good game. It was deep, and you did have to micromanage everything. It's an acquired taste, it seems.
Evil Genius was a great game. Yes, there was a LOT of micromanagement in there, but I really enjoyed the little touches... at the end of the day, it made me laugh, which I guess is the whole point for something designed for entertainment. I haven't completed it, but I fully intend to someday - It just got swept away in all those other games that came out in autumn 2004, like Halo 2, Dawn of War, et al.
Give them both another shot, Republic's on budget at the moment, and Evil Genius isn't that pricey.
In fact, I want to play Evil Genius again now... that shrink-rayed Eiffel Tower is looking lonely in the corner of my Evil Office, next to the Evil Potted Plant...
Well... I guess it's something different... after all, it's not a number of sides you see used every day!
Must give it that extra "Oooh... shiny" factor.
Different people play the games for different reasons. I used to play Anarchy Online back in the day, and I played for the social aspect - I didn't really level that much once I hit level 60 (the level cap was 200 in the basic game). And I still played for a good few months after hitting level 60, until other circumstances meant I had to stop playing.
Some people are hardcore grinders and powerlevellers - who want to get ahead however they can. Including buying stuff with real money. But... since they're paying for their game with real money anyway... isn't that their choice? How does it really hurt your experience... apart from that flash of jealousy when someone runs past you with a bigger sword? Can't you just shrug and keep on playing the game the way you want to, and get just the same enjoyment out of it? Or do you get hung up on the fact that people aren't playing the game the way you want them to?
For the record, I play several pen and paper RPGs, including D&D, Cyberpunk, and GURPS.
Microsoft, for all your counter-terrorism needs.