Microsoft had program-specific buttons almost right off the bat when optical mice came around. The intellimouse explorer allowed you to bind button configurations specifically for each program.
This feature got patched away in "updates" for the mouse, but the version that had this feature is still available from microsoft's website(4.12 or thereabouts IIRC). Still no clue why they decided to jettison this feature.
This feature dissapeared from the main-stream mouse market until rather recently with the new mouse setup program in Logitech's laser mice.
Case in point, my rather popular gamer mouse the mx510 came way way later than the intellimouse explorer but still requires LogiGamer a 3rd-party utility, in order to get this functionality.
Program specific buttons allow for a close button on your mouse in firefox that can also be used in games for other purposes. Back and forward can be jettisoned in favor of a shift-button comboed with mousewheeling up and down. Shift+click for opening new windows.
Functionality that appeared at the debut of optical mice and then dissapeared until the start of laser mice.
I don't know if the episodic medium did anything to help improve quality.
However, at the same time, I didn't feel that quality suffered in anyway either. Getting the same amount of play hours and effectively the same price.
However, I though EP1 was better than HL2. And I loved HL2. I just can't attribute this quality to the medium is all. I think Episode 1 was better than HL2 primarily because they've just grown more experienced. HL2 taught them some lessons, and after playing through the commentary you see what those lessons are and can compare them to how HL1 and HL2 played out.
EP1 was a much tighter overall experience since the developers are just getting a better feel for pacing and gamer moods. They're used to their tools now too. I'm definitely buying EP2 and EP3.
Seconded. I HATE when someone tries to foist "natural" foods on me.
"Why should I eat it?" "Because it's natural!" "So...?" "...So it's better!"
I'm really not that interested where it came from. I'm more concerned about the relevant end-product which is all I ever see or deal with. If the chemicals have a negative effect on me, then it's bad. If the chemicals have a positive effect on me, then it's good! But just calling it "natural" means nothing to me.
And really, humans naturally evolved, naturally developed technology, and are now naturally applying technology with natural materials to create...artifical foods? *roll eyes* How is this less "natural". The term has no bearing on the quality of the food. Talk to me about the difference in the product's properties and pricing, "natural" doesn't really tell me anything.
I remember in the SNES Zela, there was not a single available patch of grass I hadn't cut at least once. It was my top priority everytime the game opened up a new area. The rest of the game was a distraction from my lawn mowing.
The parent is right, there are very few that believe in a strong form of efficient markets where a profit cannot be made off information.
However, most people agree that publicly available information will be absorbed by the market and eat available profit from that information. The key point of dispute is how quickly this information will be absorbed. So having a program to mull through the flood of information quickly to help capitalize on it is not too hard to believe. Particularly when the guidelines for this program are being revised and set constantly.
Another form of efficient markets is one where you can also make money off of non-public information. Insider trading of course is illegal, but accurate and the in-depth analysis generated off the public information can hold value as well before this analysis is revealed or independently completed by the market.
I've heard stories about made-up claims of free energy all the way back in middle school. Looks like they didn't pan out. I have little confidence in more of the same.
And yet, I'll bet a conspiracy theorist will come along and blame the failure of this magical technology on big oil hitmen.
This isn't really news until this theory is proven to be replicable and documentable by someone else.
Certain moral and philisophical values come up here.
I can try to phrase it this way, I know who Adam Sandler is, and I have never heard of this Grigori guy until today. Most likely, after today, I will never hear of him or his work every again. Same with the Poincare Conjecture.
While future generations and the academic community may benefit tremendously from what I understand to be an impressive achievement, this means absolutely nothing to me. If this happened, or if it didn't happen, it has no bearing on me today in my lifetime or within my personal sphere of awareness(in terms of foresight of the future).
If he did something immediately useful and applicable in a way that would affect me, like a supremely efficient harddrive that will hit the commercial market within the next 5 years or so, I would be extremely excited. This math is so far beyond the realm of my meager mind, it's nipping at the feet of an imaginary God. As far as/I'm/ concerned, it doesn't exist.
I can understand valuing this achievement from a relatively objective perspective of humanity as a whole over decades or centuries, but that's an alien value to me, and this all remains largely irrelevant me and the rest of the laymen who do not share a far-reaching value set. Adam sandler is worthless from the "big perspective", while this mathematical achievement is significant in a larger perspective. We can expand this even further to a galactic timeline where humanity may cease to exist...and then this mathematical achievement would also be largely moot unless you continue to hold onto a human-centered value system even after humanity becomes extinct.
If humanity remains a center of value, the math here isn't valuable in and of itself by having been formed. It comes from its relevant value to humanity. My case is a microscopic view here, the relevant value to me. Which is pretty much none.
My immediate concern is finding out how to get my diploma if I didn't walk at graduation and instead completed my B.A over the summer. Then I want an entry-level job in finance. Then a girlfriend, then wife, then kids. Poincare's Conjecture will never factor in until it becomes applied to something in my life. Sandler's crappy movies are a cheap way for me to kill an hour or two, more than the 30 minutes I've spent on this post.
I can expect condescension for my very narrow viewpoint, and I can understand where it must come from. But I must confess, this is really how I see things and parse them into my little world. It will take something dramatic to change this. I suspect that the world at large shares my narrow view or else the masses would actively pursue reformation in government or environmental issues, human rights, corruption, all the problems that are bigger than the individual. However, it seems that most share my life, living as just that. An individual.
Like the parent poster said, those that check the radar before firing on friendlies are aware of where their teammates are. And if those gunshots/footsteps aren't coming from a teammate location, you know where the enemy is and can make a pretty good guess about where they're going based on a whole bunch of clues. (Enemy playstyle, death locations of other players, time of death, runspeed, yadda yadda.) Experienced players already have a pretty good mental radar going.
This will probably help the newer players the most.
I like realism too, but I wouldn't go looking for it in CS.
There are indeed slower paced games that are far far far more realistic than CS. They appeal to a different kind of taste, whether they are successful or not in doing so. The Rainbow Six line for example. They're striving for a certain level of realism. They want the game to be fun because it's realistic, but this assumes you find realism fun.
CS isn't really driving for realism as a core focus. It's shooting for it's own particular gameplay style that I'm sure many are familiar with by this point. A CS-gameplay type of fun is being prioritized over realism. Sort of like the heartbeat sensors in Rainbow Six. Both are making sacrifices for realism in favor of fun, just to different degrees.
A much better argument for these changes would be explaining how fun they would be for the players. Realism for the sake of fun. Realism for the sake of realism alienates CS's current target audience who play for a CS experience rather than a Rainbow Six feel.
There's more than one person on the staff. They just felt that a product of this magnitude(There are an awful lot of people playing it.) was worth supporting with at least a few people. Other projects will have staff hired and fired according to need. The staff members who'd be responsible for creating new content and innovating are most likely at work on other projects in the company. Those assigned to "keeping-things-up-to-date" are probably just working their way up the ladder.
It didn't break new ground really in any way I can think of. However, that's not a prerequisite for a good game. The problem we have with games that don't innovate isn't the lack of new mechanics/technology, but that they're relying on old mechanics/technology to carry the game on its own, when it has already lost its glitz.
THIS game however, was very well done, the mechanics/tech were not front-line features. It took a backseat to the game's atmosphere and storytelling ability. Even plot outlines don't need to be tremendously unique so long as the presentation and details are strong.
Great soundtrack, Great voice acting, Fantastic art design(Here they do have to be original, and they did a great job in crafting a distinct look). The developers had a very strong vision of this world and the story they wanted to tell. Despite the cartoon style, there were heart-breaking moments in regards to the children. They were able to quickly draw me in and hold me to the end.
I am hearing bad things about bugs in the GC version. My experience was on the PC. Gameplay itself was smooth but fairly simplistic(though judiciously paced so as not to become repetitive), there were a bunch of minigames throughout to change things up at least. This was probably the game's main flaw, and what/I/ would blame its failure on. Not the competing games in the market. Some might enjoy the story elements more than the gameplay, like me. I'm the minority opinion and the sales reflected this. But if you think you share my tastes, I strongly recommend this game. It costs like 15-20 dollars these days:P
Re:All new 3D Shooters are missing one thing...
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
The "innovations" were indeed a natural evolution of the FPS. I also agree that other companies would have come up with the same ideas months afterwards. So why would stagnation be Half-Life's fault?
I don't think you can pin blame for industry failure on any one game. But you can pin success, since competitors would want to flee failure and follow success.
Really, half-life was just a good FPS, it didn't make dramatic changes. Only new thing it did was try to push story-line without stealing control of the player. Halo was just a good FPS, it didn't make dramatic changes. The difference was that it appeared on a console(whereas the other console FPSes were terrible). And it had the recharging shields that appeared in other games afterward.
No pioneering in either of them, just natural progression.
You're a nobody at first, the game factions move on with or without you and start to respond after you start shaking things up. Each species only shows up in the territory it's shown in which makes things a little easier. The encounters are semi-avoidable too.
This Escape Velocity Nova sounds like Star Control 2 to me. Which is a good thing. Definitely going try out that demo.
One of the things that struck me in Star Control was how/vast/ it was. So many unique species, and each having history with the others. As the game moved on, you felt the game history moving as the territory of each species moved, even getting wiped out! If you don't keep up, you might not even discover a species before a war finishes them off.
Saving the P'kunk from destruction at the hands of the Ilwrath was a big win for me. They die off fast(aided by their hippie suicide warfare), and your intervention changes the end-game. Lots of little mini-goals like this to hit on the path to the end-game. By the time it was over, a player who'd seen and done it all would have a considerably different universe over the player who ploughed to the finish line. Felt great to be able to change the "world" so much, you really were the small ship that made a big difference.
The quick little summary of species on GameFaqs for Star Control 2 is a great read for any who've forgotten the experience. Not really a nostalgia trip, I'm only 21, and game is still fresh in the memory because I finished replaying it again recently after downloading the freeware conversion.
The media companies aren't a big fan of DVR because of the way it lets people skip ads. The ads are what pay the costs of making these shows. Locking the commercials in gives advertisers the confidence that somebody's going to see the ads so they'll pay the price to get the ads onto the show.
I'm not a fan of watching commercial breaks either, but it's not a big price to pay.
Something that was covered, but not in detail, was that people like to watch these episodes conveniently, on their own schedule.
I'm waiting for somebody to wise up to this and invent a way to let us download episodes for free, while forcing us to watch the commercials, just like when we watch TV. Maybe allow them to skip commercials for 50 cents or so.
Perhaps a new file format that streams in interchangeable ads? Just need to figure out a seek mechanism that won't circumvent advertisements.
I had the same reservations at first. There's all this worry on Slashdot about keeping your private information private...
But I let Google track my internet usage and stuff. I let them give me ads based off the text in my e-mails. Now I'm letting them track my online purchases as well as keep my credit card information on file. I can't think of anything more private than my credit card information besides my sexual history. And unlike the others, they have access to all of this information together, allowing them to build a file on me from multiple sources.
I'm letting Google have this information but I'm all paranoid about giving any of it out to other companies or websites, even the major ones. I'm not sure why I've let Google become an exception.
It sounds naive in my head, it looks even more naive as I type this...but I guess I trust Google? They're just another profit-maximizing company like all the others, that do-no-evil phrase doesn't mean jack-diddly since it's so general with no self-regulating qualifications on that line. Nothing stops them from just throwing that line out and screwing me like any other company.
But for some reason, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt even though I know I shouldn't. Probably due in part to my youth. Part of my mind is aware that I'm bent over with my pants around my ankles, but I'm willing to do this only because it's Google standing behind me.
I wouldn't say many...how many people are going to the school on an athletic scholarship? Probably not many.
Actually, considering the small size of this group, it shouldn't be too hard for them to organize the non-scholarshipped athletes together to all put up facebook profiles in protest. Call a reporter and give them a chance to talk about new oppression at Kent State. It's a small group, easily rallied since they're close together and already associated, and the group members get high-visibility due to their status as the college's entertainers.
They can't really just kick everyone off their sports teams, it'd take the college out of the running in every sport till they can grab new ones. These non-scholarshipped athletes are risking publicized exercise in exchange for protecting their freedom of speech. It seems like it's a worthwhile endeavor that has a strong likelihood of success. If they protest Kent State would be getting bad publicity just like it was trying to avoid.
Kent state would probably rather give in and take the possible bad publicity of facebook profiles over the guarenteed bad publicity of trying to squash students protecting their free speech.
Thank you for phrasing this better than I ever could.
IANA(I Am Not Anything)
I'm just a dumb college kid. A layman. I only believe in the moon and stars because other people told me they're more than pictures on the ceiling of the world. I don't have any other evidence except/that other people told me so/, I've never looked into a telescope so I'll just take them at their word. I really don't have time to analyze studies in chemistry, astrology, geology, physics, medicine, and what have you. For the most part I have to rely on experts to disseminate the information and report back to the general public.
So when all/I/ can see is two sides claiming the other is wrong, there's little else I can do except wait for a real answer(and as mentioned throughout the rest of this forum, there will always be someone willing to contest a final decision on the matter).
We have a problem because the media profits from reporting disasters. So we have a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. I'm still waiting for SARS to kill me, to be killed by human-borne bird flu, to be blown up by terrorists, to die of cancer, to die of obesity, to die of cancer(again), see economic disaster in social security, peak oil, man-made disasters from nukes, or anthrax... Because of the mostly BS catastrophes above, I get a very high noise-to-signal ratio, so much so that I'm increasingly disenchanted with listening at all.
Without real scientific reports that follow the filter requirements of the parent poster, I just have to listen to what the "experts" say. And there's so much crap out there that I have to pick and choose which reports to follow(but which ones?!) or just tune the whole deal out and get back to my job pumping out 401k distribution confirmations here in HR.
And if we do reach a good consensus(which the majority here says we have) what do/I/ do about it? I honestly don't know, and am willing to try some REASONABLE suggestions. Buy a Prius(I can't even afford to get rid of my 1993 Ford Taurus Stationwagon)? Conserve and recycle(I already do this)? I can vote Democrat or Republican? I can maybe write my representatives some letters instead of posting here on/. and hope somebody actually reads it. Maybe we could all quit our jobs and become full-time political campaigners. It's the only real contribution I can make because I don't think I can get enough vacation time from work to go on an armed revolution to overthrow a corrupt government into throwing off Big Business influences and declare environment friendly regulations.
Me, Mr. Average Joe, lives on a diet of work, leisure, and sleep. The news is 90% entertainment, and maybe 10% relevant news. I don't feel like there's a whole lot I can really do at the moment with my meager resources, and there are more pressing issues. This "global" perspective stuff is great, but I/live/ on an individual basis, and step one is to find a job that has opportunity for real career growth, and step two is to settle down with a nice girl. Saving the world from Global Disaster is going to have to be step four or five.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft had program-specific buttons almost right off the bat when optical mice came around. The intellimouse explorer allowed you to bind button configurations specifically for each program.
This feature got patched away in "updates" for the mouse, but the version that had this feature is still available from microsoft's website(4.12 or thereabouts IIRC). Still no clue why they decided to jettison this feature.
This feature dissapeared from the main-stream mouse market until rather recently with the new mouse setup program in Logitech's laser mice.
Case in point, my rather popular gamer mouse the mx510 came way way later than the intellimouse explorer but still requires LogiGamer a 3rd-party utility, in order to get this functionality.
Program specific buttons allow for a close button on your mouse in firefox that can also be used in games for other purposes. Back and forward can be jettisoned in favor of a shift-button comboed with mousewheeling up and down. Shift+click for opening new windows.
Functionality that appeared at the debut of optical mice and then dissapeared until the start of laser mice.
This is bad news, no need for any commenters to try to spin it. I'm still going to buy a Wii.
There's no reason to expect the Wii to be perfect. I hope this information is false. But if not, I'll just deal with it.
I don't know if the episodic medium did anything to help improve quality.
However, at the same time, I didn't feel that quality suffered in anyway either. Getting the same amount of play hours and effectively the same price.
However, I though EP1 was better than HL2. And I loved HL2. I just can't attribute this quality to the medium is all. I think Episode 1 was better than HL2 primarily because they've just grown more experienced. HL2 taught them some lessons, and after playing through the commentary you see what those lessons are and can compare them to how HL1 and HL2 played out.
EP1 was a much tighter overall experience since the developers are just getting a better feel for pacing and gamer moods. They're used to their tools now too. I'm definitely buying EP2 and EP3.
Seconded. I HATE when someone tries to foist "natural" foods on me.
"Why should I eat it?" "Because it's natural!" "So...?" "...So it's better!"
I'm really not that interested where it came from. I'm more concerned about the relevant end-product which is all I ever see or deal with. If the chemicals have a negative effect on me, then it's bad. If the chemicals have a positive effect on me, then it's good! But just calling it "natural" means nothing to me.
And really, humans naturally evolved, naturally developed technology, and are now naturally applying technology with natural materials to create...artifical foods? *roll eyes* How is this less "natural". The term has no bearing on the quality of the food. Talk to me about the difference in the product's properties and pricing, "natural" doesn't really tell me anything.
I remember in the SNES Zela, there was not a single available patch of grass I hadn't cut at least once. It was my top priority everytime the game opened up a new area. The rest of the game was a distraction from my lawn mowing.
The parent is right, there are very few that believe in a strong form of efficient markets where a profit cannot be made off information.
However, most people agree that publicly available information will be absorbed by the market and eat available profit from that information. The key point of dispute is how quickly this information will be absorbed. So having a program to mull through the flood of information quickly to help capitalize on it is not too hard to believe. Particularly when the guidelines for this program are being revised and set constantly.
Another form of efficient markets is one where you can also make money off of non-public information. Insider trading of course is illegal, but accurate and the in-depth analysis generated off the public information can hold value as well before this analysis is revealed or independently completed by the market.
I've heard stories about made-up claims of free energy all the way back in middle school. Looks like they didn't pan out. I have little confidence in more of the same.
And yet, I'll bet a conspiracy theorist will come along and blame the failure of this magical technology on big oil hitmen.
This isn't really news until this theory is proven to be replicable and documentable by someone else.
Certain moral and philisophical values come up here.
/I'm/ concerned, it doesn't exist.
I can try to phrase it this way, I know who Adam Sandler is, and I have never heard of this Grigori guy until today. Most likely, after today, I will never hear of him or his work every again. Same with the Poincare Conjecture.
While future generations and the academic community may benefit tremendously from what I understand to be an impressive achievement, this means absolutely nothing to me. If this happened, or if it didn't happen, it has no bearing on me today in my lifetime or within my personal sphere of awareness(in terms of foresight of the future).
If he did something immediately useful and applicable in a way that would affect me, like a supremely efficient harddrive that will hit the commercial market within the next 5 years or so, I would be extremely excited. This math is so far beyond the realm of my meager mind, it's nipping at the feet of an imaginary God. As far as
I can understand valuing this achievement from a relatively objective perspective of humanity as a whole over decades or centuries, but that's an alien value to me, and this all remains largely irrelevant me and the rest of the laymen who do not share a far-reaching value set. Adam sandler is worthless from the "big perspective", while this mathematical achievement is significant in a larger perspective. We can expand this even further to a galactic timeline where humanity may cease to exist...and then this mathematical achievement would also be largely moot unless you continue to hold onto a human-centered value system even after humanity becomes extinct.
If humanity remains a center of value, the math here isn't valuable in and of itself by having been formed. It comes from its relevant value to humanity. My case is a microscopic view here, the relevant value to me. Which is pretty much none.
My immediate concern is finding out how to get my diploma if I didn't walk at graduation and instead completed my B.A over the summer. Then I want an entry-level job in finance. Then a girlfriend, then wife, then kids. Poincare's Conjecture will never factor in until it becomes applied to something in my life. Sandler's crappy movies are a cheap way for me to kill an hour or two, more than the 30 minutes I've spent on this post.
I can expect condescension for my very narrow viewpoint, and I can understand where it must come from. But I must confess, this is really how I see things and parse them into my little world. It will take something dramatic to change this. I suspect that the world at large shares my narrow view or else the masses would actively pursue reformation in government or environmental issues, human rights, corruption, all the problems that are bigger than the individual. However, it seems that most share my life, living as just that. An individual.
Like the parent poster said, those that check the radar before firing on friendlies are aware of where their teammates are. And if those gunshots/footsteps aren't coming from a teammate location, you know where the enemy is and can make a pretty good guess about where they're going based on a whole bunch of clues. (Enemy playstyle, death locations of other players, time of death, runspeed, yadda yadda.) Experienced players already have a pretty good mental radar going.
This will probably help the newer players the most.
I like realism too, but I wouldn't go looking for it in CS.
There are indeed slower paced games that are far far far more realistic than CS. They appeal to a different kind of taste, whether they are successful or not in doing so. The Rainbow Six line for example. They're striving for a certain level of realism. They want the game to be fun because it's realistic, but this assumes you find realism fun.
CS isn't really driving for realism as a core focus. It's shooting for it's own particular gameplay style that I'm sure many are familiar with by this point. A CS-gameplay type of fun is being prioritized over realism. Sort of like the heartbeat sensors in Rainbow Six. Both are making sacrifices for realism in favor of fun, just to different degrees.
A much better argument for these changes would be explaining how fun they would be for the players. Realism for the sake of fun. Realism for the sake of realism alienates CS's current target audience who play for a CS experience rather than a Rainbow Six feel.
There's more than one person on the staff. They just felt that a product of this magnitude(There are an awful lot of people playing it.) was worth supporting with at least a few people. Other projects will have staff hired and fired according to need. The staff members who'd be responsible for creating new content and innovating are most likely at work on other projects in the company. Those assigned to "keeping-things-up-to-date" are probably just working their way up the ladder.
It didn't break new ground really in any way I can think of. However, that's not a prerequisite for a good game. The problem we have with games that don't innovate isn't the lack of new mechanics/technology, but that they're relying on old mechanics/technology to carry the game on its own, when it has already lost its glitz.
/I/ would blame its failure on. Not the competing games in the market. Some might enjoy the story elements more than the gameplay, like me. I'm the minority opinion and the sales reflected this. But if you think you share my tastes, I strongly recommend this game. It costs like 15-20 dollars these days:P
THIS game however, was very well done, the mechanics/tech were not front-line features. It took a backseat to the game's atmosphere and storytelling ability. Even plot outlines don't need to be tremendously unique so long as the presentation and details are strong.
Great soundtrack, Great voice acting, Fantastic art design(Here they do have to be original, and they did a great job in crafting a distinct look). The developers had a very strong vision of this world and the story they wanted to tell. Despite the cartoon style, there were heart-breaking moments in regards to the children. They were able to quickly draw me in and hold me to the end.
I am hearing bad things about bugs in the GC version. My experience was on the PC. Gameplay itself was smooth but fairly simplistic(though judiciously paced so as not to become repetitive), there were a bunch of minigames throughout to change things up at least. This was probably the game's main flaw, and what
The "innovations" were indeed a natural evolution of the FPS. I also agree that other companies would have come up with the same ideas months afterwards. So why would stagnation be Half-Life's fault?
I don't think you can pin blame for industry failure on any one game. But you can pin success, since competitors would want to flee failure and follow success.
Really, half-life was just a good FPS, it didn't make dramatic changes. Only new thing it did was try to push story-line without stealing control of the player. Halo was just a good FPS, it didn't make dramatic changes. The difference was that it appeared on a console(whereas the other console FPSes were terrible). And it had the recharging shields that appeared in other games afterward.
No pioneering in either of them, just natural progression.
You're a nobody at first, the game factions move on with or without you and start to respond after you start shaking things up. Each species only shows up in the territory it's shown in which makes things a little easier. The encounters are semi-avoidable too.
This Escape Velocity Nova sounds like Star Control 2 to me. Which is a good thing. Definitely going try out that demo.
/vast/ it was. So many unique species, and each having history with the others. As the game moved on, you felt the game history moving as the territory of each species moved, even getting wiped out! If you don't keep up, you might not even discover a species before a war finishes them off.
One of the things that struck me in Star Control was how
Saving the P'kunk from destruction at the hands of the Ilwrath was a big win for me. They die off fast(aided by their hippie suicide warfare), and your intervention changes the end-game. Lots of little mini-goals like this to hit on the path to the end-game. By the time it was over, a player who'd seen and done it all would have a considerably different universe over the player who ploughed to the finish line. Felt great to be able to change the "world" so much, you really were the small ship that made a big difference.
The quick little summary of species on GameFaqs for Star Control 2 is a great read for any who've forgotten the experience. Not really a nostalgia trip, I'm only 21, and game is still fresh in the memory because I finished replaying it again recently after downloading the freeware conversion.
The plot in real life kinda sucks. I've been working here for years and I haven't gotten to a cutscene yet.
Plenty of fan service in the summer at least.
The media companies aren't a big fan of DVR because of the way it lets people skip ads. The ads are what pay the costs of making these shows. Locking the commercials in gives advertisers the confidence that somebody's going to see the ads so they'll pay the price to get the ads onto the show.
I'm not a fan of watching commercial breaks either, but it's not a big price to pay.
Something that was covered, but not in detail, was that people like to watch these episodes conveniently, on their own schedule.
I'm waiting for somebody to wise up to this and invent a way to let us download episodes for free, while forcing us to watch the commercials, just like when we watch TV. Maybe allow them to skip commercials for 50 cents or so.
Perhaps a new file format that streams in interchangeable ads? Just need to figure out a seek mechanism that won't circumvent advertisements.
Just reading this comment sent a chill up my spine.
God I hate going to the dentist...and I think I'm about due for another check-up.*sigh*
I had the same reservations at first. There's all this worry on Slashdot about keeping your private information private...
But I let Google track my internet usage and stuff. I let them give me ads based off the text in my e-mails. Now I'm letting them track my online purchases as well as keep my credit card information on file. I can't think of anything more private than my credit card information besides my sexual history. And unlike the others, they have access to all of this information together, allowing them to build a file on me from multiple sources.
I'm letting Google have this information but I'm all paranoid about giving any of it out to other companies or websites, even the major ones. I'm not sure why I've let Google become an exception.
It sounds naive in my head, it looks even more naive as I type this...but I guess I trust Google? They're just another profit-maximizing company like all the others, that do-no-evil phrase doesn't mean jack-diddly since it's so general with no self-regulating qualifications on that line. Nothing stops them from just throwing that line out and screwing me like any other company.
But for some reason, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt even though I know I shouldn't. Probably due in part to my youth. Part of my mind is aware that I'm bent over with my pants around my ankles, but I'm willing to do this only because it's Google standing behind me.
Too damn true. Already thrown out 2 chairs for this.
I wouldn't say many...how many people are going to the school on an athletic scholarship? Probably not many.
Actually, considering the small size of this group, it shouldn't be too hard for them to organize the non-scholarshipped athletes together to all put up facebook profiles in protest. Call a reporter and give them a chance to talk about new oppression at Kent State. It's a small group, easily rallied since they're close together and already associated, and the group members get high-visibility due to their status as the college's entertainers.
They can't really just kick everyone off their sports teams, it'd take the college out of the running in every sport till they can grab new ones. These non-scholarshipped athletes are risking publicized exercise in exchange for protecting their freedom of speech. It seems like it's a worthwhile endeavor that has a strong likelihood of success. If they protest Kent State would be getting bad publicity just like it was trying to avoid.
Kent state would probably rather give in and take the possible bad publicity of facebook profiles over the guarenteed bad publicity of trying to squash students protecting their free speech.
Sorry but I gotta ask, why didn't you try taping the construction paper onto the top?
Thank you for phrasing this better than I ever could.
/that other people told me so/, I've never looked into a telescope so I'll just take them at their word. I really don't have time to analyze studies in chemistry, astrology, geology, physics, medicine, and what have you. For the most part I have to rely on experts to disseminate the information and report back to the general public.
/I/ can see is two sides claiming the other is wrong, there's little else I can do except wait for a real answer(and as mentioned throughout the rest of this forum, there will always be someone willing to contest a final decision on the matter).
/I/ do about it? I honestly don't know, and am willing to try some REASONABLE suggestions. Buy a Prius(I can't even afford to get rid of my 1993 Ford Taurus Stationwagon)? Conserve and recycle(I already do this)? I can vote Democrat or Republican? I can maybe write my representatives some letters instead of posting here on /. and hope somebody actually reads it. Maybe we could all quit our jobs and become full-time political campaigners. It's the only real contribution I can make because I don't think I can get enough vacation time from work to go on an armed revolution to overthrow a corrupt government into throwing off Big Business influences and declare environment friendly regulations.
/live/ on an individual basis, and step one is to find a job that has opportunity for real career growth, and step two is to settle down with a nice girl. Saving the world from Global Disaster is going to have to be step four or five.
IANA(I Am Not Anything)
I'm just a dumb college kid. A layman. I only believe in the moon and stars because other people told me they're more than pictures on the ceiling of the world. I don't have any other evidence except
So when all
We have a problem because the media profits from reporting disasters. So we have a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. I'm still waiting for SARS to kill me, to be killed by human-borne bird flu, to be blown up by terrorists, to die of cancer, to die of obesity, to die of cancer(again), see economic disaster in social security, peak oil, man-made disasters from nukes, or anthrax... Because of the mostly BS catastrophes above, I get a very high noise-to-signal ratio, so much so that I'm increasingly disenchanted with listening at all.
Without real scientific reports that follow the filter requirements of the parent poster, I just have to listen to what the "experts" say. And there's so much crap out there that I have to pick and choose which reports to follow(but which ones?!) or just tune the whole deal out and get back to my job pumping out 401k distribution confirmations here in HR.
And if we do reach a good consensus(which the majority here says we have) what do
Me, Mr. Average Joe, lives on a diet of work, leisure, and sleep. The news is 90% entertainment, and maybe 10% relevant news. I don't feel like there's a whole lot I can really do at the moment with my meager resources, and there are more pressing issues. This "global" perspective stuff is great, but I
Um...wow.
/not/ know that stuff was in there...I usually just skip reading the long books I encounter.
I did