I was under the impression that the PS3 came to the party late and doesn't have many AAA exclusive titles; sure there's GOW III and MGS, but otherwise, many of the games available for PS3 are there for the XBOX 360. For me, DRM is less of an issue on a console than it is for a PS3 because: you'll always have a copy of the game, whose permission doesn't get revoked and invasive root-kits aren't being installed on to my home machine. Plus, pirating gets annoying, especially for dvd games because of the time and effort involved: a day or two of downloading a 4gb+ game and a few more hours burning it to dvd. At that point, I'd rather shell out the 40$ or 20$ if you wait a few months than run through that hassle. So, I don't think DRM and pirating are a major factor in selling a console, versus what software and experience the console can provide and what it's potential lasting appeal might be.
I wouldn't say the several billion they invested to enter the market was nothing...
The problem with the PS3 is not that it doesn't have software but that it's software and features don't distinguish it enough from the cheaper competitor: Microsoft. The Wii OTOH did a couple of things right: target a broader audience, secure exclusive titles for their system, and set a lower price. Software is certainly a significant part of selling a console, but there are other contributing factors like price and accessibility.
Mass Effect didn't have explicit sex scenes. They had some boobage along with the implication that there was sex. Same goes for The Witcher, where you have hints of eroticism by having two characters holding each other, but once anything serious is about to happen, the camera blanks out and wonders off. This amount of 'sex' is already fairly common in most media, from the cover of swimsuit issues to your basic cable show (e.g. Battle Star Galactica). So games are pretty much in the safe zone when they advertise sex and show only the periphery of action.
What's sad is that we as a culture treat sex as a constant juvenile taboo but are pretty much ok with most graphic violence and subtle racism. I suppose the former is more likely to happen than the latter (fun copulation versus violent killing spree), that it would require some responsibility on the parent's part. Since that would be awkward and take effort, we shift the blame elsewhere.
Why? From the story it sounds like he's a mean drunk. He'd probably cuss you out, take a swing, and then piss on your leg. Out of all the people I'd want to have a drink with, he'd probably be last.
Just imagine if we all started mailing each other burned copies of music over the postal system. The RIAA would then demand to open all mail and screen for it. This whole business of screening all content seems to be bordering on unconstitutional to me. If I'm a copyright holder, does that give me the right to root through downloads and uploads on your personal computer for possible violations? It's certainly an interesting gray area for the legal system. On one hand you have the copyright holder's rights and on the other the computer user's rights. Whose rights are more important?
He's successfully managed two multi-billion dollar companies that have had huge cultural impacts on our society and have probably done a lot to push technology forward. But I'm sure that pales in comparison to your accomplishments.
I believe that is very much an illusion right now, which most U.S. citizens are shielded from due to rampant borrowing. The current U.S. debt is 82.5% of GDP (according to wikipedia : P). So I don't think I'm cherry picking facts here and it is fact very irrational to assume that the U.S. can maintain it's multi-trillion dollar spending spree just because it had a history of being wealthy and still has a bit of cash left over.
Erm, which country are we talking about here? The US which is currently experience:
- Near economic collapse and worst recession since the great depression.
- The demise of its auto industry.
- A nearly 1 trillion in un-accountable bailout money.
- Excessive borrowing from foreign countries like China and Sweeden (who will probably stop loaning us money if they think we can't pay it back).
- 10-20% unemployement in many areas.
- The burden of supporting the day-to-day operations of a major military presence in Iraq.
- The rising costs of oil in an oil addicted economy.
- The immanent healthcare crisis in which a major population of the U.S. (the baby boomers) will actually transfer from working status to government sponsored programs.
So yes, which country are you talking about? And if it's the U.S., well... that must be some really nice shit you're smoking.
Actually I posted the arguments my parents have made whenever the topic has come up. My point was not that socialized medicine wasn't feasible or couldn't work, but rather there's a counter argument that's not based on rich people hating poor people. Personally, I don't know enough details about the US plan to know how the distribution of healthcare will pan out. I just think a discussion on the topic should be done more rationally by outlining the pros and cons rather than pointing fingers. Otherwise you get into an argument over irreconcilable ideals because all parties refuse to listen/communicate with one another.
Eh? Now you're going on a biased rant.
Those who are conservative argue that in rationing health care, you won't have the option to go for some critical operations: transplants, care over 60, etc, because the care will shift over to what the majority needs: care for chronic obesity and substance addiction (alcohol and cigarettes). Their mentality is why should 60-80 year-old who's been living in relatively good health be of a lower priority then a 30-40 year-old whose afflicted with heart disease and liver disease due to poor life choices.
The factors of this argument are not solely based on rich vs poor, but on the dynamics of economics in social medicine vs private medicine. Social medicine is about rationing health care to everyone at the expense of the tax payer. Private medicine is about those who can afford it do get healthcare. To put it in another light, would you give up some life-saving operation for a family member, in exchange for distributing 100 cold-&-flu medications to bums on the street?
You should try considering the other point of view to this argument and not just the one corresponding to your gross bias. Otherwise you'll end up sounding as bad and impassioned as the pundits on Fox news.
It would be interesting, if somehow the synergy of gravity+car (gas+battery) produced more energy than the car alone. Any force gained on pressing down on the plate will be lost when the car has to drive up, off the plate; or the process is reversed and the car drives up, onto the plate. Worse, it's probably wasting small amounts of energy on other forces like friction. Slashies should be skeptical because any advertisement might lead one to believe that the setup is disobeying the laws of thermodynamics and creating energy for free. It is not. That energy comes from the cars and is siphoning money away from the drivers. It's niave at best and a scam at worst.
A program language should be taught on the basis that it teaches the student programming and not that it jigsaws them into the world of business. I student that can transcend languages is likely to be a better programmer anyways, as they'll have more tools and models with which to get a task done. Note that some languages are more suitable than others. For example, Python is useful in the academic setting, where a quick turnaround is important for meeting deadlines and finding solutions. In the business world, languages like C/C++/Cobol/Java might be more suitable for performance or legacy code. That being said, any student interested in programming should be taught languages that are based on different paradigms like structural, functional, object oriented, or shits-n-giggles code (intercal, befunge), that will ultimately enable the student to learn other languages which were not taught, more easily.
My favorite class with respect to this was assembly. It was fairly easy to pick up and taught you how the computer interpreted commands at a relatively low level.
Hmm... in terms of having tech that's expensive and easy to lose, why not have the school keep copies for each class, and loan em out to students during and at the end of the day? A lost book might constitute a fine, like broken glassware in a chem lab. Of course the possible negatives to this are if there are bullies who purposely steal or break netbooks or if the students live in a particularly bad neighborhood where theft is likely. To counter the latter, it might be useful to low-jack the devices and put some kind of passworded security on them. The former, is a bit trickier. I think replacing textbooks with netbooks is an interesting idea, but should be done a classroom, and then a school, at a time, and not wholesale, to see if it's feasible or not.
Interesting. At first, in reading the summary, I thought this was the governments attempt to censor various sites. However, the article seems to imply that this is some passive aggressive form at protesting the censorship by major social websites. It's kinda like having an enemy go on a hunger strike to protest killing his people. It sounds interesting, in the current environment, it'll probably have the same effect as online petitions.
The issue I take with Lucas Arts is not that they want to make money, but that they are willing to sacrifice artistic integrity, and in doing so, create shoddy products. To me at least, Starwars 1-3, the mounds of merchandising, and recent cgi cartoons, are evidence of the company's lack of innovation over the recent years. Now in saying that, there are some developers who appear to have a passion for making good games, which show through the quality in gameplay, story, graphics, and music: Valve, Bioware, Rockstar, Doublefine, Team Ico, Stardock, Bioware, etc; really too many to name. Lucas Arts certainly has the capacity to be innovative, but they seem to opt for a more conservative approach. So yes, before Lucas Arts was the juggernaut they are today, they were a happy Santa's Workshop which churned out toys for all the good little girls and boys. In growing up, I find that the old Lucas Arts games still hold their charm while the newer ones, not so much. So yes, it is a tragic loss because once they were a mecca of artistic talent and now they are simply a factory which produces cheap plastic shells of childhood dreams.
they recruited Tim Shafer to help manage the project. He was there for MI 1 + 2. This guy had a talent for helping producing some of Lucas Art's more creative adventure games: Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango, and Full Throttle... skip the last one, they force him to do that. Since Lucas Arts killed their adventure games department and focused on rehashing Star Wars themes, its been hard for me to get excited about anything they announce lately, as it's probably motivated by money more than anything else. Oh well, at least Brutal Legends is coming out soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that the PS3 came to the party late and doesn't have many AAA exclusive titles; sure there's GOW III and MGS, but otherwise, many of the games available for PS3 are there for the XBOX 360. For me, DRM is less of an issue on a console than it is for a PS3 because: you'll always have a copy of the game, whose permission doesn't get revoked and invasive root-kits aren't being installed on to my home machine. Plus, pirating gets annoying, especially for dvd games because of the time and effort involved: a day or two of downloading a 4gb+ game and a few more hours burning it to dvd. At that point, I'd rather shell out the 40$ or 20$ if you wait a few months than run through that hassle. So, I don't think DRM and pirating are a major factor in selling a console, versus what software and experience the console can provide and what it's potential lasting appeal might be.
I wouldn't say the several billion they invested to enter the market was nothing...
The problem with the PS3 is not that it doesn't have software but that it's software and features don't distinguish it enough from the cheaper competitor: Microsoft. The Wii OTOH did a couple of things right: target a broader audience, secure exclusive titles for their system, and set a lower price. Software is certainly a significant part of selling a console, but there are other contributing factors like price and accessibility.
With all the plastic that gets buried in landfills, there most certainly will be underground repositories of plastic for us to mine.
If we're lucky. Odds are MS will use this as an opportunity and say: See why you need Win7? Upgrade now for the measly price of 99.99$.
Mass Effect didn't have explicit sex scenes. They had some boobage along with the implication that there was sex. Same goes for The Witcher, where you have hints of eroticism by having two characters holding each other, but once anything serious is about to happen, the camera blanks out and wonders off. This amount of 'sex' is already fairly common in most media, from the cover of swimsuit issues to your basic cable show (e.g. Battle Star Galactica). So games are pretty much in the safe zone when they advertise sex and show only the periphery of action.
What's sad is that we as a culture treat sex as a constant juvenile taboo but are pretty much ok with most graphic violence and subtle racism. I suppose the former is more likely to happen than the latter (fun copulation versus violent killing spree), that it would require some responsibility on the parent's part. Since that would be awkward and take effort, we shift the blame elsewhere.
Why? From the story it sounds like he's a mean drunk. He'd probably cuss you out, take a swing, and then piss on your leg. Out of all the people I'd want to have a drink with, he'd probably be last.
"It would be cheaper to fill the tank with Nobel prize winner's sperm"
-Leela
If no one clicks a link, does the site still get slashdotted?
Just imagine if we all started mailing each other burned copies of music over the postal system. The RIAA would then demand to open all mail and screen for it. This whole business of screening all content seems to be bordering on unconstitutional to me. If I'm a copyright holder, does that give me the right to root through downloads and uploads on your personal computer for possible violations? It's certainly an interesting gray area for the legal system. On one hand you have the copyright holder's rights and on the other the computer user's rights. Whose rights are more important?
He's successfully managed two multi-billion dollar companies that have had huge cultural impacts on our society and have probably done a lot to push technology forward. But I'm sure that pales in comparison to your accomplishments.
I believe that is very much an illusion right now, which most U.S. citizens are shielded from due to rampant borrowing. The current U.S. debt is 82.5% of GDP (according to wikipedia : P). So I don't think I'm cherry picking facts here and it is fact very irrational to assume that the U.S. can maintain it's multi-trillion dollar spending spree just because it had a history of being wealthy and still has a bit of cash left over.
Erm, which country are we talking about here? The US which is currently experience:
... that must be some really nice shit you're smoking.
- Near economic collapse and worst recession since the great depression.
- The demise of its auto industry.
- A nearly 1 trillion in un-accountable bailout money.
- Excessive borrowing from foreign countries like China and Sweeden (who will probably stop loaning us money if they think we can't pay it back).
- 10-20% unemployement in many areas.
- The burden of supporting the day-to-day operations of a major military presence in Iraq.
- The rising costs of oil in an oil addicted economy.
- The immanent healthcare crisis in which a major population of the U.S. (the baby boomers) will actually transfer from working status to government sponsored programs.
So yes, which country are you talking about? And if it's the U.S., well
Actually I posted the arguments my parents have made whenever the topic has come up. My point was not that socialized medicine wasn't feasible or couldn't work, but rather there's a counter argument that's not based on rich people hating poor people. Personally, I don't know enough details about the US plan to know how the distribution of healthcare will pan out. I just think a discussion on the topic should be done more rationally by outlining the pros and cons rather than pointing fingers. Otherwise you get into an argument over irreconcilable ideals because all parties refuse to listen/communicate with one another.
Eh? Now you're going on a biased rant. Those who are conservative argue that in rationing health care, you won't have the option to go for some critical operations: transplants, care over 60, etc, because the care will shift over to what the majority needs: care for chronic obesity and substance addiction (alcohol and cigarettes). Their mentality is why should 60-80 year-old who's been living in relatively good health be of a lower priority then a 30-40 year-old whose afflicted with heart disease and liver disease due to poor life choices.
The factors of this argument are not solely based on rich vs poor, but on the dynamics of economics in social medicine vs private medicine. Social medicine is about rationing health care to everyone at the expense of the tax payer. Private medicine is about those who can afford it do get healthcare. To put it in another light, would you give up some life-saving operation for a family member, in exchange for distributing 100 cold-&-flu medications to bums on the street?
You should try considering the other point of view to this argument and not just the one corresponding to your gross bias. Otherwise you'll end up sounding as bad and impassioned as the pundits on Fox news.
Hope those songs were on a gold or platinum record.
It would be interesting, if somehow the synergy of gravity+car (gas+battery) produced more energy than the car alone. Any force gained on pressing down on the plate will be lost when the car has to drive up, off the plate; or the process is reversed and the car drives up, onto the plate. Worse, it's probably wasting small amounts of energy on other forces like friction. Slashies should be skeptical because any advertisement might lead one to believe that the setup is disobeying the laws of thermodynamics and creating energy for free. It is not. That energy comes from the cars and is siphoning money away from the drivers. It's niave at best and a scam at worst.
There, fixed that for you. Now you'll be able to properly find all the tentacle porn you were originally looking for.
A program language should be taught on the basis that it teaches the student programming and not that it jigsaws them into the world of business. I student that can transcend languages is likely to be a better programmer anyways, as they'll have more tools and models with which to get a task done. Note that some languages are more suitable than others. For example, Python is useful in the academic setting, where a quick turnaround is important for meeting deadlines and finding solutions. In the business world, languages like C/C++/Cobol/Java might be more suitable for performance or legacy code. That being said, any student interested in programming should be taught languages that are based on different paradigms like structural, functional, object oriented, or shits-n-giggles code (intercal, befunge), that will ultimately enable the student to learn other languages which were not taught, more easily.
My favorite class with respect to this was assembly. It was fairly easy to pick up and taught you how the computer interpreted commands at a relatively low level.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new Chinese overlords.
Maybe when that happens, we'll get a better education system in place.
I believe there are four movies out now:
1. Bender's Big Score
2. Beast with a Billion Backs
3. Bender's Game
4. Into the Wild Green Yonder
IMHO Bender's Game was brilliant and the best out of the collection (haven't seen 4, but it didn't seem as interesting).
Hmm ... in terms of having tech that's expensive and easy to lose, why not have the school keep copies for each class, and loan em out to students during and at the end of the day? A lost book might constitute a fine, like broken glassware in a chem lab. Of course the possible negatives to this are if there are bullies who purposely steal or break netbooks or if the students live in a particularly bad neighborhood where theft is likely. To counter the latter, it might be useful to low-jack the devices and put some kind of passworded security on them. The former, is a bit trickier. I think replacing textbooks with netbooks is an interesting idea, but should be done a classroom, and then a school, at a time, and not wholesale, to see if it's feasible or not.
It works for marriage.
Interesting. At first, in reading the summary, I thought this was the governments attempt to censor various sites. However, the article seems to imply that this is some passive aggressive form at protesting the censorship by major social websites. It's kinda like having an enemy go on a hunger strike to protest killing his people. It sounds interesting, in the current environment, it'll probably have the same effect as online petitions.
The issue I take with Lucas Arts is not that they want to make money, but that they are willing to sacrifice artistic integrity, and in doing so, create shoddy products. To me at least, Starwars 1-3, the mounds of merchandising, and recent cgi cartoons, are evidence of the company's lack of innovation over the recent years. Now in saying that, there are some developers who appear to have a passion for making good games, which show through the quality in gameplay, story, graphics, and music: Valve, Bioware, Rockstar, Doublefine, Team Ico, Stardock, Bioware, etc; really too many to name. Lucas Arts certainly has the capacity to be innovative, but they seem to opt for a more conservative approach. So yes, before Lucas Arts was the juggernaut they are today, they were a happy Santa's Workshop which churned out toys for all the good little girls and boys. In growing up, I find that the old Lucas Arts games still hold their charm while the newer ones, not so much. So yes, it is a tragic loss because once they were a mecca of artistic talent and now they are simply a factory which produces cheap plastic shells of childhood dreams.
they recruited Tim Shafer to help manage the project. He was there for MI 1 + 2. This guy had a talent for helping producing some of Lucas Art's more creative adventure games: Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango, and Full Throttle ... skip the last one, they force him to do that. Since Lucas Arts killed their adventure games department and focused on rehashing Star Wars themes, its been hard for me to get excited about anything they announce lately, as it's probably motivated by money more than anything else. Oh well, at least Brutal Legends is coming out soon.