One thing I'll never understand is why patent laws weren't changed the minute people started acquiring patents and not using them. The whole point is to feed innovation, so why not add a clause saying any patent that is held but not being developed against is void after X period of time? This way people still get to claim patents, but we don't have to worry about dipshits like Intellectual Ventures hoarding patents they have no intention of ever using.
Just because I agree that there is a finite supply on energy and a potential harm to our environment, doesn't mean that I agree that there needs to be a solution.
I... Wait, what? o.O So, if your house is on fire, there's no reason to put it out? I'm sorry, but you can't say that something is a problem but that there's no need for a solution. If nothing needs to be changed, then there is no problem.
The only way out of this problem is through technology that replaces oil and natural gas, any other suggestion is merely redecorating and burden shifting.
So there is a problem? Hmmm... Right, I'm done. Either you're simply trolling me and attempting to raise my blood pressure, in which case we're both wasting our time, or you're simply not capable of the level of cognition required to carry on an intelligent debate, in which case I'm wasting my time. *waves*
Are you one person, or two? Your last post was very well articulated and to the point, and this one seems to have reverted to not actually reading the parent post.
Imposing your solution on someone else, after you decide that you have "won" the debate, is not the natural outcome of a debate.
This was not the topic. You said I was attempting to claim my way was right, and I said that the entire point of a debate was for the debaters to claim that their way was right. We said nothing about how to decide who had "won" or how to implement the winning paradigm.
In terms of resources, they certainly tend to create inefficiencies. I would argue that, historically speaking, cities can only exist when resources are plentiful enough to allow excess.
I think to debate this one, I'd have to ask for a far too detailed definition of "city", so I'll agree to your point. This does not, however, negate the possibility of changing the way humans view life within cities or the way a city is organized such that they become feasible.
Where exactly? Seems there is very little arable land that hasn't been put to productive use, or is being used for timber. We are truly dependent on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides to sustain such high yields that we have.
When did this turn into a debate about food production? We do not have a food production issue in America, only a distribution problem. My comment was that there are places where people can live, not that there are places where people can perform agriculture. (Although if you want to go back to individuals producing enough food for their family, we can have that discussion. My family did a decent job of it when I was growing up, so while I don't endorse it as a good idea, I certainly think it's possible.)
You were hardly using words of encouragement. You were using words, politically charged words, crafted to make it easier to scapegoat a class of people so that we might harm them without feeling guilty later on. You have too many kids, charge a fee. You drive too many miles then surcharge. These ideas are designed to increase control over others by the political classes, not actually addressing the real challenges in a substantial way.
When this discussion started, it wasn't about a solution, it was about getting people to see that there is a problem, so charged words were the best to use to get someone involved in the discussion. (And it worked, didn't it?) Now that we agree we have an energy problem, what potential solutions are their other than imposing penalties on people who use more than they need? Given that the typical American attitude seems to have become "I'll do what I want and damn the consequences," it seems that penalties are the logical first step. Again, because it will focus people's attention. Once more people are aware that there are problems, it is time to remove the penalties and work on incentives. Note: This is a purely hypothetical course of action. Given the current state of government in America, granting the ability to impose extra fees hardly seems like a good idea. Now, as the person with the opposing viewpoint, it's your idea to present an alternate solution to our agreed-upon problem, and provide reasons that it works. I mention this so that maybe you'll stay a little closer on point with the next post.
To me greater authoritarianism isn't worth a little perceived safety. And I don't think it is within your right to say otherwise.
And you were accusing me of using politically-charged words?:) Nice try, but as I stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think extra power for government to punish is a great idea, it's simply one potential course. Let's hear another one.
Not that I feel the need to justify my self or my SUV but to explain that just because you see some people waling around with 4+ kids doesn't mean (always) they don't know about / use birth control.
You're quite correct, but the fact that you, as a foster parent, had seven children at one point does mean that somewhere there are humans reproducing who likely needed a lesson in birth control. (Yes, I'm discounting the possibility of orphans for the purpose of that statement.)
You're doing a wonderful thing by providing a stable home for children who need it, and you certainly fall into a category of people who need larger vehicles. The fact that people like you exist does not, however, prove that there are not people who have no need of the SUV they're driving around town.
Very valid points. Thank you for turning this back into an actual debate.
You are calling a class of people selfish based on the way they allocate resources for themselves, yet you are the one that wants to allocate resources for them based on your own value system.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of your statement. Of course I want to see my value system used; it's the reason people argue about anything. The core of a debate is that person A is doing something person B thinks is ill-advised, and person B thinks they have a better way.
Even if you go off, buy a hundred acres and live in a way that is individually carbon neutral then you are still taking up space that means that someone else is probably forced into a city where they will ultimately pollute more, burn fossil fuels and obliterate any semblance of a natural habitat.
I don't think the assumption that cities are a bad thing is valid. Given current usage of fossil fuels and the general setup of sanitation systems, etc., cities are indeed a detriment to the environment, but there are technologies we could use to reduce their impact. I also take issue with the assumption that moving into the country will force other people into a city. Island nations are the only nations that currently have housing space issues. (At least to my knowledge; I welcome correction here.) America, for example, has vast tracts of land that are habitable but simply not used. Granted, many are places where people don't want to live, but that's another discussion. Buying land and using it to reduce my impact on the environment doesn't cause someone else to have a greater impact if the land I'm purchasing was currently unused. It's almost exactly the reverse of using energy that doesn't need to be used, actually, as it takes an unused resource that was having zero impact and turns it into a positive impact.
This is not an issue of morality. We must solve our energy problems not by nominal increases in efficiency. If you think that we can save civilization by saving 5% then we are doomed.
And I agree with you, at least in thinking we need to do more than minor tweaks to the efficiency of internal combustion engines. However, your stance seems to be that there's nothing else we can do at the moment, so a minor increase in efficiency should be discarded entirely. What logic is there in continuing as we are simply because we can't completely change the system right now? We should definitely strive to find new sources of energy, but in the meantime, why shouldn't people who use more energy than they require be encouraged to reduce their consumption? Given that we have no way of knowing when a breakthrough in energy production and/or consumption will happen, why shouldn't we reduce our energy consumption by 5% in an effort to extend the amount of time we have to search for a better way?
Way to debate. I can see you took a special course in college. *sigh* If you're not going to carry your end of the discussion, we're both wasting our time here.
I'm not going to bother replying to most of this post, as you're illustrating exactly the kind of thing I was asking: Do they need the extra space the gas-guzzler provides. If so, great! Drive the gas guzzler!
And yes, there is a reason rich people ride around in big limos going from one business deal to another outside you thinking they look like a hotshot or cool in doing it.
The key phrase there is "business deal". Once again, you're taking my perfectly reasonable request for people to drive the vehicle they need and twisting it to imply that I'm telling everyone to drive a Geo. I can no more accurately claim that everyone can do what they need to in a commuter car than you can claim that there aren't people who ride around in limos just because they can.
I fail to see how that point isn't clear in my original post, but I guess I'll keep reiterating it until our test database is restored and I can get back to work.:P
Didn't know that not trying to put everyone in neat little buckets was "head-in-the-sand". Sure go ahead, blame that one guy driving an SUV for no reason while you are destroying the world 99% just as much as that guy. I hope you are content blaming others for your own problems.
So...did you even read my post? I was questioning, not accusing. If the person has 4-5 kids, why do they have that many kids? We don't live in an agrarian society anymore, so there's no need for that many children. Do they have a religious reason for it, or are they just too ignorant/uninformed to know about birth control? And what about the person driving the Hummer? Do they have a big family? Do they need to haul cargo/tow trailers, or are they just trying to impress people with the amount of money they can afford to waste?
The point is that unless you have a definite, consistent use for a vehicle that only gets 18 miles per gallon, you're wasting a resource that could be put to better use.
I think you've failed to grasp the typical American mentality on this, Malc. Actually, that probably speaks very well of your ability to think critically.:/
What I'd like to know is when this became a polarized topic. I was just called an enviro-fascist for asking why people are having 4-5 children and/or driving Hummers when there are no obvious advantages to either. Would the same apply if I asked someone why they had bought six laptops when they only needed one? *shrug*
I know the earthy crunchy types don't have much compassion for those people with 4-5 kids, but that is a situation where you can't always just ferry your children a couple at a time back and forth from places.
And that's a valid point. Oh, wait. We've got cheap, plentiful prophylactics and no shortage of people. Why do they have 4-5 kids, again?
Suck it up and buy the vehicle that fits your needs. Nobody's saying that you can't own a SUV or truck if you honestly need the towing/hauling capacity. What people are saying is that people who buy a Hummer because they have to take their only child to soccer practice and want to impress the Joneses should have been sterilized before they could pass on the stupid gene.
Nice way to take the situation out of context with the snippet here on/. I think the important question isn't whether public, for-pay security hunting is a good idea, but rather if it's ethical for an outside firm to pay for it. Would anyone have batted an eye if Apple had been the one advertising for a hack for the Mac? I don't think so, they'd probably have been lauded for having the wherewithal to offer good money to people to help them find exploits of their software.
Some routers share their IP public addresses with a DMZ computer
That's a damn good point. I knew there was something tickling in the back of my mind about that whole "I can prove it wasn't a wireless router" BS. Thanks for pointing it out!
After you get done with the cell phone conversation can you remember what happened during your drive? for example what car you followed, what car(s) followed behind you, if you stopped for that traffic light on first street, the pedestrian trying to cross the street, the car trying to pull out of the driveway
See, the real issue here isn't about talking on a cell phone; it's about whether or not talking on a cell phone distracts you from what's going on during your drive, and even this ascerbic, self-righteous Anonymous Coward admits it with the above question.
Do cell phones contribute to accidents due to added distraction while driving? Certainly. But driving a stick shift as opposed to an automatic also contributes to accidents...when you take into account the general coordination and skill level of the driver. I'm certain there are a myriad of factors that also relate to how dangerous a given person becomes while talking on a cell phone.
This study is interesting, and potentially useful, but everyone should take a step back, get their personal feelings about people on cell phones out of the equation, and actually think about what's being said. I honestly expected a less emotional response from/. readers although in hindsight, I couldn't tell you what led me to that reality disconnect.;)
The problem, though, is that they're setting a precedent in patent cases. This is an absurdly wide-ranging patent, and should never have been upheld, especially as the patent is being enforced on games nearly 20 years after it was granted. I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought the failure of the patent holder to offer due dilligence on any other game in that span (say...Quake? System Shock? Descent?) would have given the companies a much easier time in fending it off.
I'm just scared of where software patents are leading. Speaking as a professional software developer, there's hardly anything I do in day-to-day app design that hasn't been done before, and isn't more specific than this patent.
Actually, this is an important point that keeps getting missed in Corporate America. They pay us, but they wouldn't make the money to pay us with if we didn't work for them. Nice little cirle, eh?
Personally, I don't advocate looking like a total slob at work, but I don't see the point in forcing your employees to wear a button-down shirt, slacks and a tie to work every day. Appearances are important, but the typical corporation puts far too much emphasis on it. People work better when they're relaxed and comfortable, and I know a very, very few people who are really comfortable in a tie, or high heels, hose and a dress. "Dressy" clothes are typically uncomfortable clothes. (I think that's part of the qualifier.:D)
Now the flipside is people whose jobs focus entirely on interaction with others. Talking about changing the culture in the corporate world is one thing; changing the attitude of every person on the planet is something else entirely. It boils down to this: If you're in sales or other public-facing positions, you're going to have to wear uncomfortable, slick-looking clothes to fit the image people are expecting of you. If you're in a job that isn't public-facing, then the people who are depnding on you to do your job (be it your employer or people working with your employer and visiting on-site) should know enough about what you do to know that your dress isn't neccesarally linked to your performance.
To make an analogy; do you buy a screwdriver because it's got silver flecks in the handle and a pretty package, or because it comes with an assortment of tips from phillips to flat to torx? It should be the latter. Sadly, many people still buy it because of the former. We need to try and change that.
...that the people who tout realism tend to talk about explosions, bullet impacts and sound like psycopathic gun-nuts, and the people who tout Nintendo's "charm" and the unrealistic graphics tend to sound like overprotective parents of three-year-olds who would blanch if someone said "poo"?
Maybe the fact is that our culture, our personal biases, and our views about what the world is or should be are a large part of what determines if we enjoy a given game's presentation. Wind Waker took a threat to the lives of everyone in the world and scaled it down to a stylized, sanitized level of violence that could be applied to pre-teens. The people who want their children to be playing games without body parts flying everywhere loved it. The people who want to play games where they can make body parts fly everywhere didn't.
Granted, there are middle views to those two extremes, and my argument is deliberately over-simplified...but I still think it's a valid point. I'll go put on my asbestos underwear now.:)
"If the rendering had been more stylized (like in Japanese anime), viewers may not have focused only on rendering flaws, but on the story and characters"
Ah, I think there's a big flaw in your argument right there. The first time I watched FF, I was focused entirely on the rendering. Then I watched it again so I could pay attention to the story. Gods, I want my time back from that second viewing. The presentation was the only good thing about that movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than the swiss-cheese they called a plot or the unmotivated drivel they called dialog.
For Wind Waker, the presentation was nicely stylized, and I had no problem accepting it as the reality I was being dropped into. Then I found that the reality I was in wasn't treating the story with any kind of seriousness. There's a great evil on the loose, and I'm fighting his minions. Well, his minions are presented in a way that makes them feel like opponents that the Three Stooges could make short work of. It detracted from the feeling of doing something important for the world, and I think if the graphics had been slightly less simplified, it would have helped me feel like the plot I was involved in actually mattered.
"every person over the age of 25 that I've heard comment on the cell shading has been supportive of it."
Sorry to be an anomoly in your data, but I'm 30, and didn't like the presentation of Wind Waker.
I'll grant that it was a very original style, and in a game that I didn't have certain expectations of, I probably would have enjoyed it greatly. For a Zelda game, however, it was just wrong.
The Zelda franchise has always been stylized (with the exception of The Adventures of Link, which tried to go more realistic and side-scroller...eyuch), and it works for the game. However, Zelda has also been a good high fantasy game for its whole life. The themes are relatively serious; The princess is in trouble, possibly or certainly in danger of dying, and the entire kingdom will perish unless you help! I think that the cel-shading they used in Wind Waker was partially responsible for the overall flippant tone of the game. It just didn't FEEL epic anymore. The protagonist is an eight-year-old boy, and one of your greatest sources of information at one point in your quest is a man named Tingle who is quite possibly mentally damaged.:P With the exception of the scene in sunken Hyrule castle with the huge melee that was frozen in time, NOTHING about this game made me feel like I was involved in something important. I mean, one of the enemies was a suit of armor that, when properly attacked, grabbed its butt and danced around like a cartoon character who'd been stuck with a pin!
So, basically, my complaint about Wind Waker was that it didn't take itself seriously enough to be a member of the Zelda franchise, and I think the visual presentation was a large portion of why that happened. Will the more realistic graphics in the new Zelda game fix that? I think the odds are good.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you don't get entered into a $10,000 raffle just for clicking "vote up" on all of the items? =( Damn, there go my vacation plans...
What, you can't read 1400 WPM? Better buy new eyes.
One thing I'll never understand is why patent laws weren't changed the minute people started acquiring patents and not using them. The whole point is to feed innovation, so why not add a clause saying any patent that is held but not being developed against is void after X period of time? This way people still get to claim patents, but we don't have to worry about dipshits like Intellectual Ventures hoarding patents they have no intention of ever using.
I... Wait, what? o.O So, if your house is on fire, there's no reason to put it out? I'm sorry, but you can't say that something is a problem but that there's no need for a solution. If nothing needs to be changed, then there is no problem.
The only way out of this problem is through technology that replaces oil and natural gas, any other suggestion is merely redecorating and burden shifting.So there is a problem? Hmmm... Right, I'm done. Either you're simply trolling me and attempting to raise my blood pressure, in which case we're both wasting our time, or you're simply not capable of the level of cognition required to carry on an intelligent debate, in which case I'm wasting my time. *waves*
Are you one person, or two? Your last post was very well articulated and to the point, and this one seems to have reverted to not actually reading the parent post.
Imposing your solution on someone else, after you decide that you have "won" the debate, is not the natural outcome of a debate.This was not the topic. You said I was attempting to claim my way was right, and I said that the entire point of a debate was for the debaters to claim that their way was right. We said nothing about how to decide who had "won" or how to implement the winning paradigm.
In terms of resources, they certainly tend to create inefficiencies. I would argue that, historically speaking, cities can only exist when resources are plentiful enough to allow excess.I think to debate this one, I'd have to ask for a far too detailed definition of "city", so I'll agree to your point. This does not, however, negate the possibility of changing the way humans view life within cities or the way a city is organized such that they become feasible.
Where exactly? Seems there is very little arable land that hasn't been put to productive use, or is being used for timber. We are truly dependent on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides to sustain such high yields that we have.When did this turn into a debate about food production? We do not have a food production issue in America, only a distribution problem. My comment was that there are places where people can live, not that there are places where people can perform agriculture. (Although if you want to go back to individuals producing enough food for their family, we can have that discussion. My family did a decent job of it when I was growing up, so while I don't endorse it as a good idea, I certainly think it's possible.)
You were hardly using words of encouragement. You were using words, politically charged words, crafted to make it easier to scapegoat a class of people so that we might harm them without feeling guilty later on. You have too many kids, charge a fee. You drive too many miles then surcharge. These ideas are designed to increase control over others by the political classes, not actually addressing the real challenges in a substantial way.When this discussion started, it wasn't about a solution, it was about getting people to see that there is a problem, so charged words were the best to use to get someone involved in the discussion. (And it worked, didn't it?) Now that we agree we have an energy problem, what potential solutions are their other than imposing penalties on people who use more than they need? Given that the typical American attitude seems to have become "I'll do what I want and damn the consequences," it seems that penalties are the logical first step. Again, because it will focus people's attention. Once more people are aware that there are problems, it is time to remove the penalties and work on incentives. Note: This is a purely hypothetical course of action. Given the current state of government in America, granting the ability to impose extra fees hardly seems like a good idea. Now, as the person with the opposing viewpoint, it's your idea to present an alternate solution to our agreed-upon problem, and provide reasons that it works. I mention this so that maybe you'll stay a little closer on point with the next post.
To me greater authoritarianism isn't worth a little perceived safety. And I don't think it is within your right to say otherwise.And you were accusing me of using politically-charged words? :) Nice try, but as I stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think extra power for government to punish is a great idea, it's simply one potential course. Let's hear another one.
You're quite correct, but the fact that you, as a foster parent, had seven children at one point does mean that somewhere there are humans reproducing who likely needed a lesson in birth control. (Yes, I'm discounting the possibility of orphans for the purpose of that statement.)
You're doing a wonderful thing by providing a stable home for children who need it, and you certainly fall into a category of people who need larger vehicles. The fact that people like you exist does not, however, prove that there are not people who have no need of the SUV they're driving around town.
Very valid points. Thank you for turning this back into an actual debate.
You are calling a class of people selfish based on the way they allocate resources for themselves, yet you are the one that wants to allocate resources for them based on your own value system.I'm not sure I see the relevance of your statement. Of course I want to see my value system used; it's the reason people argue about anything. The core of a debate is that person A is doing something person B thinks is ill-advised, and person B thinks they have a better way.
Even if you go off, buy a hundred acres and live in a way that is individually carbon neutral then you are still taking up space that means that someone else is probably forced into a city where they will ultimately pollute more, burn fossil fuels and obliterate any semblance of a natural habitat.I don't think the assumption that cities are a bad thing is valid. Given current usage of fossil fuels and the general setup of sanitation systems, etc., cities are indeed a detriment to the environment, but there are technologies we could use to reduce their impact. I also take issue with the assumption that moving into the country will force other people into a city. Island nations are the only nations that currently have housing space issues. (At least to my knowledge; I welcome correction here.) America, for example, has vast tracts of land that are habitable but simply not used. Granted, many are places where people don't want to live, but that's another discussion. Buying land and using it to reduce my impact on the environment doesn't cause someone else to have a greater impact if the land I'm purchasing was currently unused. It's almost exactly the reverse of using energy that doesn't need to be used, actually, as it takes an unused resource that was having zero impact and turns it into a positive impact.
This is not an issue of morality. We must solve our energy problems not by nominal increases in efficiency. If you think that we can save civilization by saving 5% then we are doomed.And I agree with you, at least in thinking we need to do more than minor tweaks to the efficiency of internal combustion engines. However, your stance seems to be that there's nothing else we can do at the moment, so a minor increase in efficiency should be discarded entirely. What logic is there in continuing as we are simply because we can't completely change the system right now? We should definitely strive to find new sources of energy, but in the meantime, why shouldn't people who use more energy than they require be encouraged to reduce their consumption? Given that we have no way of knowing when a breakthrough in energy production and/or consumption will happen, why shouldn't we reduce our energy consumption by 5% in an effort to extend the amount of time we have to search for a better way?
Way to debate. I can see you took a special course in college. *sigh* If you're not going to carry your end of the discussion, we're both wasting our time here.
I'm not going to bother replying to most of this post, as you're illustrating exactly the kind of thing I was asking: Do they need the extra space the gas-guzzler provides. If so, great! Drive the gas guzzler!
And yes, there is a reason rich people ride around in big limos going from one business deal to another outside you thinking they look like a hotshot or cool in doing it.The key phrase there is "business deal". Once again, you're taking my perfectly reasonable request for people to drive the vehicle they need and twisting it to imply that I'm telling everyone to drive a Geo. I can no more accurately claim that everyone can do what they need to in a commuter car than you can claim that there aren't people who ride around in limos just because they can.
I fail to see how that point isn't clear in my original post, but I guess I'll keep reiterating it until our test database is restored and I can get back to work. :P
So...did you even read my post? I was questioning, not accusing. If the person has 4-5 kids, why do they have that many kids? We don't live in an agrarian society anymore, so there's no need for that many children. Do they have a religious reason for it, or are they just too ignorant/uninformed to know about birth control? And what about the person driving the Hummer? Do they have a big family? Do they need to haul cargo/tow trailers, or are they just trying to impress people with the amount of money they can afford to waste?
The point is that unless you have a definite, consistent use for a vehicle that only gets 18 miles per gallon, you're wasting a resource that could be put to better use.
I think you've failed to grasp the typical American mentality on this, Malc. Actually, that probably speaks very well of your ability to think critically. :/
What I'd like to know is when this became a polarized topic. I was just called an enviro-fascist for asking why people are having 4-5 children and/or driving Hummers when there are no obvious advantages to either. Would the same apply if I asked someone why they had bought six laptops when they only needed one? *shrug*
No problem. Glad to help keep a balance with the head-in-the-sand, screw-the-consequences perspective. ;)
And that's a valid point. Oh, wait. We've got cheap, plentiful prophylactics and no shortage of people. Why do they have 4-5 kids, again?
Suck it up and buy the vehicle that fits your needs. Nobody's saying that you can't own a SUV or truck if you honestly need the towing/hauling capacity. What people are saying is that people who buy a Hummer because they have to take their only child to soccer practice and want to impress the Joneses should have been sterilized before they could pass on the stupid gene.
Nice way to take the situation out of context with the snippet here on /. I think the important question isn't whether public, for-pay security hunting is a good idea, but rather if it's ethical for an outside firm to pay for it. Would anyone have batted an eye if Apple had been the one advertising for a hack for the Mac? I don't think so, they'd probably have been lauded for having the wherewithal to offer good money to people to help them find exploits of their software.
Odd. I could swear that's about a 2:1 ratio. But that couldn't POSSIBLY have any relation to the 2:1 sales of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD. :)
Why hasn't this thread branch been modded "Troll" or "flamebait" yet?
After you get done with the cell phone conversation can you remember what happened during your drive? for example what car you followed, what car(s) followed behind you, if you stopped for that traffic light on first street, the pedestrian trying to cross the street, the car trying to pull out of the driveway
See, the real issue here isn't about talking on a cell phone; it's about whether or not talking on a cell phone distracts you from what's going on during your drive, and even this ascerbic, self-righteous Anonymous Coward admits it with the above question.
Do cell phones contribute to accidents due to added distraction while driving? Certainly. But driving a stick shift as opposed to an automatic also contributes to accidents...when you take into account the general coordination and skill level of the driver. I'm certain there are a myriad of factors that also relate to how dangerous a given person becomes while talking on a cell phone.
This study is interesting, and potentially useful, but everyone should take a step back, get their personal feelings about people on cell phones out of the equation, and actually think about what's being said. I honestly expected a less emotional response from /. readers although in hindsight, I couldn't tell you what led me to that reality disconnect. ;)
The problem, though, is that they're setting a precedent in patent cases. This is an absurdly wide-ranging patent, and should never have been upheld, especially as the patent is being enforced on games nearly 20 years after it was granted. I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought the failure of the patent holder to offer due dilligence on any other game in that span (say...Quake? System Shock? Descent?) would have given the companies a much easier time in fending it off.
I'm just scared of where software patents are leading. Speaking as a professional software developer, there's hardly anything I do in day-to-day app design that hasn't been done before, and isn't more specific than this patent.
You should dress not for your current position, but dress for the position to which you aspire.
And where is it written that managers must wear a suit? And more importantly, WHY is that written, if it is?
They pay you, not the other way around.
Actually, this is an important point that keeps getting missed in Corporate America. They pay us, but they wouldn't make the money to pay us with if we didn't work for them. Nice little cirle, eh?
Personally, I don't advocate looking like a total slob at work, but I don't see the point in forcing your employees to wear a button-down shirt, slacks and a tie to work every day. Appearances are important, but the typical corporation puts far too much emphasis on it. People work better when they're relaxed and comfortable, and I know a very, very few people who are really comfortable in a tie, or high heels, hose and a dress. "Dressy" clothes are typically uncomfortable clothes. (I think that's part of the qualifier. :D)
Now the flipside is people whose jobs focus entirely on interaction with others. Talking about changing the culture in the corporate world is one thing; changing the attitude of every person on the planet is something else entirely. It boils down to this: If you're in sales or other public-facing positions, you're going to have to wear uncomfortable, slick-looking clothes to fit the image people are expecting of you. If you're in a job that isn't public-facing, then the people who are depnding on you to do your job (be it your employer or people working with your employer and visiting on-site) should know enough about what you do to know that your dress isn't neccesarally linked to your performance.
To make an analogy; do you buy a screwdriver because it's got silver flecks in the handle and a pretty package, or because it comes with an assortment of tips from phillips to flat to torx? It should be the latter. Sadly, many people still buy it because of the former. We need to try and change that.
</end rant>...that the people who tout realism tend to talk about explosions, bullet impacts and sound like psycopathic gun-nuts, and the people who tout Nintendo's "charm" and the unrealistic graphics tend to sound like overprotective parents of three-year-olds who would blanch if someone said "poo"?
Maybe the fact is that our culture, our personal biases, and our views about what the world is or should be are a large part of what determines if we enjoy a given game's presentation. Wind Waker took a threat to the lives of everyone in the world and scaled it down to a stylized, sanitized level of violence that could be applied to pre-teens. The people who want their children to be playing games without body parts flying everywhere loved it. The people who want to play games where they can make body parts fly everywhere didn't.
Granted, there are middle views to those two extremes, and my argument is deliberately over-simplified...but I still think it's a valid point. I'll go put on my asbestos underwear now. :)
"If the rendering had been more stylized (like in Japanese anime), viewers may not have focused only on rendering flaws, but on the story and characters"
Ah, I think there's a big flaw in your argument right there. The first time I watched FF, I was focused entirely on the rendering. Then I watched it again so I could pay attention to the story. Gods, I want my time back from that second viewing. The presentation was the only good thing about that movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than the swiss-cheese they called a plot or the unmotivated drivel they called dialog.
For Wind Waker, the presentation was nicely stylized, and I had no problem accepting it as the reality I was being dropped into. Then I found that the reality I was in wasn't treating the story with any kind of seriousness. There's a great evil on the loose, and I'm fighting his minions. Well, his minions are presented in a way that makes them feel like opponents that the Three Stooges could make short work of. It detracted from the feeling of doing something important for the world, and I think if the graphics had been slightly less simplified, it would have helped me feel like the plot I was involved in actually mattered.
"every person over the age of 25 that I've heard comment on the cell shading has been supportive of it."
Sorry to be an anomoly in your data, but I'm 30, and didn't like the presentation of Wind Waker.
I'll grant that it was a very original style, and in a game that I didn't have certain expectations of, I probably would have enjoyed it greatly. For a Zelda game, however, it was just wrong.
The Zelda franchise has always been stylized (with the exception of The Adventures of Link, which tried to go more realistic and side-scroller...eyuch), and it works for the game. However, Zelda has also been a good high fantasy game for its whole life. The themes are relatively serious; The princess is in trouble, possibly or certainly in danger of dying, and the entire kingdom will perish unless you help! I think that the cel-shading they used in Wind Waker was partially responsible for the overall flippant tone of the game. It just didn't FEEL epic anymore. The protagonist is an eight-year-old boy, and one of your greatest sources of information at one point in your quest is a man named Tingle who is quite possibly mentally damaged. :P With the exception of the scene in sunken Hyrule castle with the huge melee that was frozen in time, NOTHING about this game made me feel like I was involved in something important. I mean, one of the enemies was a suit of armor that, when properly attacked, grabbed its butt and danced around like a cartoon character who'd been stuck with a pin!
So, basically, my complaint about Wind Waker was that it didn't take itself seriously enough to be a member of the Zelda franchise, and I think the visual presentation was a large portion of why that happened. Will the more realistic graphics in the new Zelda game fix that? I think the odds are good.