And it looks like the guy in the red shirt does always die.
What would be ironic is if the actors who played the "red shirts" on the old series actually outlived all the principle actors. I wonder if any of the "expendable ensigns" have passed on?
But the onus of punishment is on the government, not the general public.
I never said anything about whose responsibility it was to mete out punishment. I'm not sure why you appear to think I'm advocating vigilantism. You are absolutely correct that it's the government's job to mete out punishment, not the general public's.
Basically this comes down to the moral idea of whether or not iit's ok to do things to those guilty of crimes that would not be ok to do to an innocent person or entity.
WTF are you smoking? Of course it's okay to do things to those guilty of a crime that would not be okay to do to someone innocent. The concept of "punishment" is built on this. The concept of "justice" demands it.
What would you have us do if someone commits a crime? Just say "oh well" and let them go on their merry way simply because you would never throw an innocent man in jail?
It is absolutely okay to do things to the guilty that you would not do to the innocent. In fact, it would be morally wrong not to do so (that is, failure to punish wrongdoing is, in itself, wrong). And the punishment should always be commensurate with the crime.
"This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out..."
Darl McBride went on to comment that he will also pursue copyright violations in which other documents have touched documents containing SCO code.
Hey, come on. Give the submitter a break. Are you all 100% certain that Cowboy Neal hasn't seen some new special edition of Star Wars in which Lucas changed Tatooine into a gas giant and gave it another sun?
...
Because Lucas finally has the technology now to create the movie he originally wanted to make.
The word "innovate" is not a magic word. It's a real English word that has a definite meaning. It's not some sort of trigger for the subconscious that means "buy our stuff". Stop using that word unless you are actually using it properly.
Or, to quote a semi-famous Spaniard, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
I was thinking of something a little more complex. I guess, at the heart of my post, was the concept of a random story generator; an engine that picks from several design elements and randomly builds a story out of it.
Or, perhaps, the story could remain static, but the levels could simply be somewhat random. e.g. "Your job is to infiltrate this factory and retrieve the secret plans from a hidden safe"...and the factory layout is different everytime you play it. It can be smaller or larger, depending on the desired length of play. And it would never be the same twice.
But, again, this could be a very complicated thing to do.
From the article: "In brief, White Wolf is requesting that those who wish to charge players to play White Wolf games (beyond standard fees at a convention) obtain a license to do so from us. We request this both in order to ensure we can provide a consistent level of support and play experience to those fans looking to play our games and in order to protect our rights in terms of trademark and so forth.
"Q. All I charge my players is a share of the fee the facility where we play charges us. Do I still need this license?
"A. Yes. Even though you aren't making a profit, you are still collecting and disbursing money -- money earned through the use of White Wolf games and settings."
I said it before and I'll say it again: We need to seriously fix the problems caused by the notions of "Intellectual Property" soon or it will destroy our society faster than we think. Sure something like this is unenforceable and would be laughed out of court, but not until after having financially destroyed some poor gamers.
And sooner or later some idiot judge (it seems like there are no other kinds these days) is going to side against common sense and start giving corporations the power to actually force their customers to do things like this.
I know some people out there are going to somehow take this as a pro-piracy rant, or switch into "IP makes the world go round" mode, but this kind of crap has gone way, way too far for far too long. Intellectual Property laws have to be seriously reworked. If we keep going the way we've been going for the past few decades. We're going to self destruct as not only a nation, but as a society.
I think games with a large element of randomness lend themselves better to having a flexible playing length. Take a look at the Civilization series of games. With the latest installments, you can shorten or extend the length of a game by deciding how large the world will be and how many opponents you will have. Plus, with a randomly generated map, every game is different. However, this can backfire and lead to horrible tedium (e.g. *cough*Daggerfall*cough*).
I think the next greatest breakthrough in gaming will be the widespread creation game engines that can be tweaked for length of play and randomness. Imagine playing an FPS where the levels are always different and where you could determine how many levels need to played until you reach the end. Or an RPG where story elements and characters are randomly chosen or mixed up. Or a space exploration game where the universe is always different.
Yes, this kind of thing really increases the complexity of game design, and it can fail spectacularly if one is not careful, but I would definately like to see more games with the randomness and customizeability of Civilization III.
Now there's something that would be interesting to see: a movie with an alternate audio track that simulates the sounds of a theatre. You'd get the normal audio track overlayed with the occasional person talking, bag of chips being opened, rustling of clothes, etc.
I totally agree. Case in point: Cheers. The show ranked dead last in the first year, but because NBC had nothing else to put on TV at the time, the show continued. It became one of the greatest sitcoms ever.
I think this shortsightedness is just a sign of the times, though. Everyone seems to be looking to mazimize short term gain at the lowest risk. Sadly, greatness is rarely born out of such a world-view.
I have no problem paying full price for a game that will give me many hours of enjoyment.
Neither do I. But it's so rare today that a game is sufficiently fun and fresh to warrant a high price.
While it would be nice to see lower priced games, I don't want to sacrifice innovation and creativity to save a few bucks.
IMHO, innovation and creativity are not exactly commonplace in the gaming market today. In fact, many developers seem to have incredible difficulty even including the bare minimum requirements for a playable game. Case in point, the latest medal of honor game (I can't remember what it was called). An FPS game with only one controller set up? Did these people want their game to tank?
I would gladly pay a higher price for games that built on past innovations. Sadly, the majority of game developers seem to have chronic memory problems when it comes to keeping features that work.
There have been a few articles speculating that the current pricing system hasn't adjusted for inflation since the last console generation, and that we, as consumers, should reasonable expect to pay as much as US$70 for a new launch title for the next gen systems.
I've kind of wondered about that, too. But then I think about how many more systems games are available for and how many more copies of each are sold. Does this inflation adjustment take into account the increase in the total number of sales?
I'm just pulling this out of my butt, but let's assume, twenty years ago, a game was $50, but it was only available for one console with a base of, say, a million owners. Now, assume the price of a game, after adjustment for inflation, is $70, but does that adjustment now take into account the fact that the game is available for three systems with a total base of five million users?
But then there's the counter-argument that it used to take one or two people to make a $50 game, and now it takes dozens. I think it's a complicated issue.
I wonder if the more-or-less static price of video games has anything to do with the fact that video games are a reasonably new fad and that main game buying demographic has been getting older. This might be tied in with the concept of people resisting change in prices (e.g. an old man complaining about how things are much more expensive than when he was young). The end result is a huge demographic that expects games to always be a certain price. It's just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I've ever seen that in a game, and rarely have I seen in in movies. Screwing and fucking in lust, yes, but never what you described.
What would be ironic is if the actors who played the "red shirts" on the old series actually outlived all the principle actors. I wonder if any of the "expendable ensigns" have passed on?
It's about time we get another First Person Shooter game! This one's automatically on my "to buy" list!
Ugh.
A keyboard that transforms into a tractor semitrailer? Cool!
I never said anything about whose responsibility it was to mete out punishment. I'm not sure why you appear to think I'm advocating vigilantism. You are absolutely correct that it's the government's job to mete out punishment, not the general public's.
WTF are you smoking? Of course it's okay to do things to those guilty of a crime that would not be okay to do to someone innocent. The concept of "punishment" is built on this. The concept of "justice" demands it.
What would you have us do if someone commits a crime? Just say "oh well" and let them go on their merry way simply because you would never throw an innocent man in jail?
It is absolutely okay to do things to the guilty that you would not do to the innocent. In fact, it would be morally wrong not to do so (that is, failure to punish wrongdoing is, in itself, wrong). And the punishment should always be commensurate with the crime.
Bite my shiny metal butt!
Darl McBride went on to comment that he will also pursue copyright violations in which other documents have touched documents containing SCO code.
...
Because Lucas finally has the technology now to create the movie he originally wanted to make.
...
And you all know it could happen.
Don't try to use fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent, Joal Ryan. It all backfires when you get your singulars and plurals all mixed up.
Stupid article aside, I hope this is going to be a good movies.
Is there anyway we can mod Cory Doctorow up?
This just in: The 8" Floppy Disk is Dead!
It seems like every day I see worse and worse examples of human stupidity. And this from educated professionals! I weep for the future.
And who says science and religion can't work together? ;-)
Or, to quote a semi-famous Spaniard, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
Or, perhaps, the story could remain static, but the levels could simply be somewhat random. e.g. "Your job is to infiltrate this factory and retrieve the secret plans from a hidden safe"...and the factory layout is different everytime you play it. It can be smaller or larger, depending on the desired length of play. And it would never be the same twice.
But, again, this could be a very complicated thing to do.
"Q. All I charge my players is a share of the fee the facility where we play charges us. Do I still need this license?
"A. Yes. Even though you aren't making a profit, you are still collecting and disbursing money -- money earned through the use of White Wolf games and settings."
I said it before and I'll say it again: We need to seriously fix the problems caused by the notions of "Intellectual Property" soon or it will destroy our society faster than we think. Sure something like this is unenforceable and would be laughed out of court, but not until after having financially destroyed some poor gamers.
And sooner or later some idiot judge (it seems like there are no other kinds these days) is going to side against common sense and start giving corporations the power to actually force their customers to do things like this.
I know some people out there are going to somehow take this as a pro-piracy rant, or switch into "IP makes the world go round" mode, but this kind of crap has gone way, way too far for far too long. Intellectual Property laws have to be seriously reworked. If we keep going the way we've been going for the past few decades. We're going to self destruct as not only a nation, but as a society.
I think games with a large element of randomness lend themselves better to having a flexible playing length. Take a look at the Civilization series of games. With the latest installments, you can shorten or extend the length of a game by deciding how large the world will be and how many opponents you will have. Plus, with a randomly generated map, every game is different. However, this can backfire and lead to horrible tedium (e.g. *cough*Daggerfall*cough*).
I think the next greatest breakthrough in gaming will be the widespread creation game engines that can be tweaked for length of play and randomness. Imagine playing an FPS where the levels are always different and where you could determine how many levels need to played until you reach the end. Or an RPG where story elements and characters are randomly chosen or mixed up. Or a space exploration game where the universe is always different.
Yes, this kind of thing really increases the complexity of game design, and it can fail spectacularly if one is not careful, but I would definately like to see more games with the randomness and customizeability of Civilization III.
Slashdot just posted another story about a great developer tool you can use to get started in your game programming career!
(Think about it)
Now there's something that would be interesting to see: a movie with an alternate audio track that simulates the sounds of a theatre. You'd get the normal audio track overlayed with the occasional person talking, bag of chips being opened, rustling of clothes, etc.
Okay, it's a stupid idea. I'm sorry.
I think this shortsightedness is just a sign of the times, though. Everyone seems to be looking to mazimize short term gain at the lowest risk. Sadly, greatness is rarely born out of such a world-view.
Neither do I. But it's so rare today that a game is sufficiently fun and fresh to warrant a high price.
While it would be nice to see lower priced games, I don't want to sacrifice innovation and creativity to save a few bucks.
IMHO, innovation and creativity are not exactly commonplace in the gaming market today. In fact, many developers seem to have incredible difficulty even including the bare minimum requirements for a playable game. Case in point, the latest medal of honor game (I can't remember what it was called). An FPS game with only one controller set up? Did these people want their game to tank?
I would gladly pay a higher price for games that built on past innovations. Sadly, the majority of game developers seem to have chronic memory problems when it comes to keeping features that work.
I've kind of wondered about that, too. But then I think about how many more systems games are available for and how many more copies of each are sold. Does this inflation adjustment take into account the increase in the total number of sales?
I'm just pulling this out of my butt, but let's assume, twenty years ago, a game was $50, but it was only available for one console with a base of, say, a million owners. Now, assume the price of a game, after adjustment for inflation, is $70, but does that adjustment now take into account the fact that the game is available for three systems with a total base of five million users?
But then there's the counter-argument that it used to take one or two people to make a $50 game, and now it takes dozens. I think it's a complicated issue.
I wonder if the more-or-less static price of video games has anything to do with the fact that video games are a reasonably new fad and that main game buying demographic has been getting older. This might be tied in with the concept of people resisting change in prices (e.g. an old man complaining about how things are much more expensive than when he was young). The end result is a huge demographic that expects games to always be a certain price. It's just a thought.