So now I won't have a witness to the fact that my girlfriend is being TOTALLY FUCKING UNREASONABLE when she calls me in the middle of an important design project meeting to complain about some store clerk being rude to her at the supermarket. Just great.
And that's a pretty good idea. But the problem is that they've gimped a bunch of other stuff besides just the level. You would be playing such a stripped down version of the game that you really wouldn't be getting a taste of it. Even with Guild Wars (which was free to play all the way through), I had access to chat and trading (guilds too).
Unable to trade via the Auction House, mailbox, or player-to-player. In-game access to public chat channels unavailable. Players are limited to communicating using only say, party, or whisper.
When I first heard about this, I was actually excited. I never really got into MMO's much (I did play some MUD's back in the day pretty addictively). I've tried out a few, like Eve Online and City of Heroes, but usually got bored with them after a while (Guild Wars was the only one I played for any length of time). People keep raving about WoW, and I've been tempted to try it out a few times. But paying $50, plus buying a bunch of expansion packs, *ON TOP OF* $15 a month?!?!? Christ, why don't I just give them my house too? That's a lot to go into an MMO, sight unseen.
But the more I read about how much they've gimped this trial, the less interested I am. No chat, no auction houses, no guilds (basically no social interaction of any kind, which kind of defeats the whole point of an MMO). If it were JUST the level 20 thing, or the skills cap, or even the guild thing, I could live with giving it a shot. But basically, they've stripped it of *everything* that makes it a MMO. That's a shame. I really would like to give it a try. And I'm not above paying if I get into it (I'm not a cheapass who pirates all his movies). But I don't think this ultra-gimped version is going to get me into it.
Yeah, but the expert panel in this case includes many of his competitors. It would be like Apple being forced to show MS their source code, with the promise that MS wouldn't steal it.
According to the article the panel is actually made up of his competitors, past and present. An NDA won't cut it (certainly wouldn't for me anyway). They should have at least given him a more impartial jury.
If he was just ripping off two other engines, why did his win?
Sounds like he at least made improvements to them, and isn't that what open source is supposed to be all about? In fact, the article even acknowledges "ICGA isn’t even disqualifying Rybka because it copies Fruit — rather, it’s simply upset that Rajlich claims his engine is original, and refuses to give credit where it’s due." Okay, so maybe he should have given the other coders credit, but why should that disqualify him from winning? He still won. He didn't cheat. He didn't steal the code from the other engines (it was open source). His biggest offense is denying the other coders credit.
I think he should have to share the prize with the other coders (since they contributed code to the final product). But it still doesn't take away from the fact that his fork won. It doesn't justify taking away the win, as if he had cheated. His engine is still the best, open source code and all.
And, nothing against FOSS, but why on earth would you even release code designed for competition as open source, BTW? Aren't you essentially unzipping your fly and telling you competitors all your secrets? Couldn't releasing the source code wait until after the software was "retired" from competition?
The only difference is that L.A. Noire was apparently developed by a bunch of Aussie programmers who had never worked in big-time game development before. The fact that they were shocked by 60-80 hour work weeks and crunch times just shows how little experience they've had working on A-list titles.
Any programmer who thinks that the game development world is similar in scale or kind to the software development world in general just hasn't been paying attention.
Because management would fire them, move to an at-will state, and hire a new staff from the pool of young developers who would gladly line up and hand over their left nuts to work on a Rockstar game.
This wasn't the case of some phone-phreaker or wardriver getting hired. Hotz was an actual skilled hacker, with some pretty serious reverse-engineering and programming abilities. He wasn't just some asshole who figured out a password or slightly modified some virus code.
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids?
Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions that DID have real-world implications).
You're arguing about an individual tree and missing the forest around you. He is part of a PATTERN. Almost every foreign leader who has crossed the U.S. in the last year has ended up on rape charges. Do you REALLY think that is just a coincidence?
The womanizing was the weakness that could be exploited.
For some people it's greed. They get a bribe. For some it's ego. They get a high-status position. For some it's sex. They get a pretty girl knocking on their door, wanting to sleep with them.
Don't think it's a tool that intelligence services use? Too bad JFK isn't here to tell you about the pretty German girl who knocked on his door one night in 1941.
Tell me, before a few weeks ago (when the recent Libyan revolution started), had you ever heard even a single allegation that he had?
Had you ever heard any allegations of earlier rapes BEFORE Strauss-Kahn was charged recently (just a few days after he had delivered a speech criticizing the valuation of the dollar, and pulled ahead of Sarkozy in the polls)?
Had you every heard any allegations that Julian Assange had raped anyone before he started leaking U.S. secret documents?
Be honest now. No retroactive "Well I'm sure I did, but I just don't actually recall it..." or "Well, I'm sure I would have if I had been keeping up with them..." or "Well, they had probably just covered it up before..." allowed.
No tin-foil hats for me, thank you. I don't believe in faked moon landings, little green men with anal probes, armies of assassins on the grassy knoll, etc.
But I do believe in a long and well-established history of nastiness when it comes to U.S. foreign affairs, and the lengths to which the government will go to protect American interests. Public discreditation is a long-established tool in a deep toolbox that can be used to advance those interests, when necessary. And I don't believe for a second that Julian Assange, Strauss-Kahn, Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, and Moammar Gaddafi all being charged with rape right after crossing the U.S. in recent months was just a very convenient coincidence.
In fact, I expect that any day now we will hear about all the child porn found on some Lulzsec or Anon hackers' hard drives. We'll see if I'm psychic.
Funny how the pro-U.S. candidate always seems to win, and people who cross the U.S. always seem to end up on rape charges. In a completely unrelated story, did you hear that the ICC decided today to prosecute Moammar Gadhafi for rape? Apparently some new evidence has come in recently linking him and his allies to all sorts of nasty sex crimes. Guess he was a womanizer too.
Yes, it's all just a conspiracy from the US government.
Yes, just like it was a conspiracy that the CIA propped-up numerous South American dictators and assassinated their opponents, tried to assassinate Castro several times, funded the Contras, secretly financed the Shah and his revolution, and did hundreds of other super-nasty things that stayed classified for decades after-the-fact.
And the CIA rarely assassinates high-profile figures anymore. They've found that it's much cleaner and easier to discredit them with a nice sex offense or corruption charge. Of course, sometimes (as recently with that stubborn Moammar Gadhafi) they have to resort to attempting *both* forms of assassination.
Slashdot Mirror
So now I won't have a witness to the fact that my girlfriend is being TOTALLY FUCKING UNREASONABLE when she calls me in the middle of an important design project meeting to complain about some store clerk being rude to her at the supermarket. Just great.
And that's a pretty good idea. But the problem is that they've gimped a bunch of other stuff besides just the level. You would be playing such a stripped down version of the game that you really wouldn't be getting a taste of it. Even with Guild Wars (which was free to play all the way through), I had access to chat and trading (guilds too).
Well, at this point I'm going to prove it by not buying or playing the game.
From the FAQ I read:
Unable to trade via the Auction House, mailbox, or player-to-player.
In-game access to public chat channels unavailable. Players are limited to communicating using only say, party, or whisper.
Well, it would be nice to at least have some way to prove I'm *not* a spammer, bot, or gold farmer--and at least get access to chat and auctions.
When I first heard about this, I was actually excited. I never really got into MMO's much (I did play some MUD's back in the day pretty addictively). I've tried out a few, like Eve Online and City of Heroes, but usually got bored with them after a while (Guild Wars was the only one I played for any length of time). People keep raving about WoW, and I've been tempted to try it out a few times. But paying $50, plus buying a bunch of expansion packs, *ON TOP OF* $15 a month?!?!? Christ, why don't I just give them my house too? That's a lot to go into an MMO, sight unseen.
But the more I read about how much they've gimped this trial, the less interested I am. No chat, no auction houses, no guilds (basically no social interaction of any kind, which kind of defeats the whole point of an MMO). If it were JUST the level 20 thing, or the skills cap, or even the guild thing, I could live with giving it a shot. But basically, they've stripped it of *everything* that makes it a MMO. That's a shame. I really would like to give it a try. And I'm not above paying if I get into it (I'm not a cheapass who pirates all his movies). But I don't think this ultra-gimped version is going to get me into it.
Here's your money back and a couple of holiday vouchers.
Graham Chapman
Completed.
come out stronger if it didn't need to rely on obscurity
Yeah, that's a great idea when applied to cryptography. Not so much when you're talking trade secrets.
Yeah, but the expert panel in this case includes many of his competitors. It would be like Apple being forced to show MS their source code, with the promise that MS wouldn't steal it.
According to the article the panel is actually made up of his competitors, past and present. An NDA won't cut it (certainly wouldn't for me anyway). They should have at least given him a more impartial jury.
If he was just ripping off two other engines, why did his win?
Sounds like he at least made improvements to them, and isn't that what open source is supposed to be all about? In fact, the article even acknowledges "ICGA isn’t even disqualifying Rybka because it copies Fruit — rather, it’s simply upset that Rajlich claims his engine is original, and refuses to give credit where it’s due." Okay, so maybe he should have given the other coders credit, but why should that disqualify him from winning? He still won. He didn't cheat. He didn't steal the code from the other engines (it was open source). His biggest offense is denying the other coders credit.
I think he should have to share the prize with the other coders (since they contributed code to the final product). But it still doesn't take away from the fact that his fork won. It doesn't justify taking away the win, as if he had cheated. His engine is still the best, open source code and all.
And, nothing against FOSS, but why on earth would you even release code designed for competition as open source, BTW? Aren't you essentially unzipping your fly and telling you competitors all your secrets? Couldn't releasing the source code wait until after the software was "retired" from competition?
The only difference is that L.A. Noire was apparently developed by a bunch of Aussie programmers who had never worked in big-time game development before. The fact that they were shocked by 60-80 hour work weeks and crunch times just shows how little experience they've had working on A-list titles.
Any programmer who thinks that the game development world is similar in scale or kind to the software development world in general just hasn't been paying attention.
Why don't the developers form/join a union?
Because management would fire them, move to an at-will state, and hire a new staff from the pool of young developers who would gladly line up and hand over their left nuts to work on a Rockstar game.
This wasn't the case of some phone-phreaker or wardriver getting hired. Hotz was an actual skilled hacker, with some pretty serious reverse-engineering and programming abilities. He wasn't just some asshole who figured out a password or slightly modified some virus code.
I don't see any shifty looks at all on these programmer's faces, so I think they're probably being honest.
And that says a lot, because you should NEVER choose truth unless you're absolutely sure.
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids?
Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions that DID have real-world implications).
If it helps you sleep, you just tell yourself that when it happens. You sleep soundly, pretending that it wasn't a setup.
The article you sent was dated May 16th 2011. Where are the reports of previous rapes from BEFORE his recent arrest?
No?
You're arguing about an individual tree and missing the forest around you. He is part of a PATTERN. Almost every foreign leader who has crossed the U.S. in the last year has ended up on rape charges. Do you REALLY think that is just a coincidence?
The womanizing was the weakness that could be exploited.
For some people it's greed. They get a bribe.
For some it's ego. They get a high-status position.
For some it's sex. They get a pretty girl knocking on their door, wanting to sleep with them.
Don't think it's a tool that intelligence services use? Too bad JFK isn't here to tell you about the pretty German girl who knocked on his door one night in 1941.
Are you claiming Gadhafi hasn't raped anybody?
Tell me, before a few weeks ago (when the recent Libyan revolution started), had you ever heard even a single allegation that he had?
Had you ever heard any allegations of earlier rapes BEFORE Strauss-Kahn was charged recently (just a few days after he had delivered a speech criticizing the valuation of the dollar, and pulled ahead of Sarkozy in the polls)?
Had you every heard any allegations that Julian Assange had raped anyone before he started leaking U.S. secret documents?
Be honest now. No retroactive "Well I'm sure I did, but I just don't actually recall it..." or "Well, I'm sure I would have if I had been keeping up with them..." or "Well, they had probably just covered it up before..." allowed.
No tin-foil hats for me, thank you. I don't believe in faked moon landings, little green men with anal probes, armies of assassins on the grassy knoll, etc.
But I do believe in a long and well-established history of nastiness when it comes to U.S. foreign affairs, and the lengths to which the government will go to protect American interests. Public discreditation is a long-established tool in a deep toolbox that can be used to advance those interests, when necessary. And I don't believe for a second that Julian Assange, Strauss-Kahn, Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, and Moammar Gaddafi all being charged with rape right after crossing the U.S. in recent months was just a very convenient coincidence.
In fact, I expect that any day now we will hear about all the child porn found on some Lulzsec or Anon hackers' hard drives. We'll see if I'm psychic.
Funny how the pro-U.S. candidate always seems to win, and people who cross the U.S. always seem to end up on rape charges. In a completely unrelated story, did you hear that the ICC decided today to prosecute Moammar Gadhafi for rape? Apparently some new evidence has come in recently linking him and his allies to all sorts of nasty sex crimes. Guess he was a womanizer too.
Yes, it's all just a conspiracy from the US government.
Yes, just like it was a conspiracy that the CIA propped-up numerous South American dictators and assassinated their opponents, tried to assassinate Castro several times, funded the Contras, secretly financed the Shah and his revolution, and did hundreds of other super-nasty things that stayed classified for decades after-the-fact.
And the CIA rarely assassinates high-profile figures anymore. They've found that it's much cleaner and easier to discredit them with a nice sex offense or corruption charge. Of course, sometimes (as recently with that stubborn Moammar Gadhafi) they have to resort to attempting *both* forms of assassination.
It is currently in beta
Am I to understand that this is notable information?