>Meanwhile, the really dangerous criminals get to go about their business... >Much easier to just round up some petty criminals like pot smokers and "console hackers".
I'm inclined to say the really dangerous criminals are going about their business right there.
Interesting that this was posted today without announcing that today was also the day that DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online, Turbine Entertainment) announced it was going free to play. Just a thought.
PC's are too "open" for the comfort of many industries. By moving focus to more restrictive consoles, companies regain their control. Once they have control, the ability to push ads you can't block, monitor what you're doing for marketing, and limit what you are allowed to do or not do with media, consoles will eventually come full-circle so that users will eventually be using them for the same things PC users have been, only in safe, friendly, controlled environment.
Embarrassed? No. I know that I will gladly purchase a game that I feel deserves my money, but I have a great appreciation of piracy for allowing me to preview a product freely in advance. Developers are not losing any money on Piracy from me. I truly wish that were the case for everyone, and we probably wouldn't be in this predicament.
But who can honestly say those who pirate rampantly are going to buy the damn games anyway? Most of them I assume are kids who don't even have an income in the first place.
Regardless, though I'm certainly not embarrassed by that, I am increasingly afraid of losing my job, or suffering some other form of corporate backlash. I WORK in the damn game industry. Pretty much everyone I know downloads games, and buys the ones they like. But in the last few years it's gone from something that "everyone does", to something "everyone does unofficially". Something that still confuses me are the kids nowadays that come in chanting copyright slogans and poo-pooing on people who bit torrent stuff. That grade-school brainwashing really does work wonders...
I took a look too, at the male avatars though, and noticed that aside from the midget-chibi character all the guys look like total assholes. One chews his gum and poses obnoxiously with a sarcastic look on his face, and the other poses with some sort of bravado with a sarcastic look on his face.
Who did they think they were appealing to here? If I can't find a slightly overweight, meek looking dork-type character then it's a no-go for me. (But maybe I'm one of the few who's trying to *accurately* portray my online self)...
I absolutely love Ubuntu, it's phenomenal, but as you said yourself it doesn't run the apps that I need for work and play. Work-wise, alternatives are not acceptable either (sorry Blender and Gimp). Play-wise, that legacy support for my 20 year old catalog of MS apps is critical to me. It doesn't matter how polished and user friendly the user interface becomes.
"Nothing terribly flashy..."
See that's PERFECT. I want solid, fast, usable software to operate my system. Linux really is the way to go there, and interestingly it's been that way for years and years already. After the grandparent comment though I thought to myself - "what are the real reasons I don't switch to linux?" and decided to share. My situation is pretty specific to me anyway, but for the time being, just like the last few years, Linux will remain a hobby-box only. Great fun to tinker with, useless for work and play.:(
You know what sucks? I hate microsoft a LOT. More than most people possibly, but it doesn't matter how screwed up their OS's get, I will never switch to Linux which I love dearly (in its use and philosophy). That's because Linux will most probably NEVER:
-Let me run my old PC games -Let me run current PC games (without great hassle) -Let me run applications specific to my line of work (3d studio max, maya, premiere, photoshop, and various game engines)
I've a relatively good idea that a large number of people are stuck at the same problem. There's just no way, no matter how good Linux gets, that it can make up for years of an MS-owned market. They've clinched two decades of my life and PC usage, and my investigations have shown me that I need to do a great deal of tweaking to get a linux install to the level of a crippled windows OS. It totally. Fucking. Blows. The open source Windows OS project someone pointed out a few months back was the only sign of a real, working alternative I've ever seen.:(
The trick was that they completed the game before seeking a publisher. If you seek out a publisher with a completed product, chances are you will find a deal there. The reason more developers don't do this is because the operating costs of funding the development of a game are so high. Not many people can fund a number of full-time employees out of their own pocket for the duration of a games construction. These guys didn't have to worry about operating costs because they stole all their art assets and used a free-ware engine.
on a sidenote, i have to ask - has it become a tradition to hire iditos for top level management positions in gaming firms ? You say that as a joke, but it's not. You have no idea...
I was looking for info on this. I blocked its net access with my firewall because I felt the game would probably try to connect to their servers (something acceptable considering the games psuedo-online design), but I didn't know if I was going to buy into the full version (of Spore, not creature creator) until I found out exactly what EA was pulling across my network.
So what exactly does this thing do in terms of information sharing? (or stealing)
It's very telling to look at the disparity in scores between the two cards in 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 06. The two cards perform almost the same on the 06 version, whereas there's almost a 2x gap between them for Vantage. I don't think I trust that.
When Bush made the statement that history would see his actions in a different light, I'm certain he was speaking in the perspective that the US invasion of the middle east had succeeded.
If the US invasion of Iraq (and soon, sadly I fear, Iran?) were to "succeed", the US would be one step closer to a one-world government by controlling resources and economy in those areas. If that longshot were to actually work out for our government, then history would most definitely look back on Bush as the catalyst that took the first step to uniting world government (even though by force).
Look at the way history views Ghengis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc. It seems if you're a big enough warlord to conquer country after country, history will always hold you on a pedestal.
Look forward to watching the second hand sale value of your vehicle plummet even while fuel costs rise to the point where you can no longer afford to drive your (now) useless vehicle. Actually I've got a couple acquaintances that are trying to trade their SUVs in for more affordable cars. One has a Bronco and one has an Expedition. Neither of these people can get a dealer to take their old vehicles for trade in value at all. Personally I find this hilarious.
It would be easier to focus on making a more moral society to bring people up in. Making laws against things doesn't keep people from doing them. Raising them in an environment that teaches what's productive vs. counter productive to society does. That goes right to the source and allows an educated person to use their own judgment when it comes to questionable issues like this. If a person is "cyber-bullying" then they've got issues of their own that haven't been worked out. I wish the people who throw fits and make laws about things like this, school shootings, road rage and all the other crap we have to deal with today would realize covering up issues with intangible limitations (i.e. laws) doesn't do shit.
Now excuse me while I go pound some faces in anger.
Honestly I don't like all the new terms and "presentational" stuff. I feel in their attempt to make the browser more accessible they're doing the exact opposite. Why do we need a little officer named Larry to identify the websites? Why does he have to turn different colors? Is the presence of absence of information in the site-lookup not enough? Favicons? Why not just give the site identifier a "?" icon so its function is more readily understandable? Have we forgotten how important universal symbolism is to the user experience?
The method all these new features take to presenting themselves seem to bog the experience down more than make it valuable and usable. My mother, whose PC I've recently transitioned to Firefox, is not going to remember "favicons" and what it means when Larry the site-identifying-police-officer-icon turns different colors.
.. by not watching at all! This is trite, but I stopped watching TV specifically because of advertising. If I had a DVR, I would most definitely skip them, but from the few shows I've downloaded in the past I can see they're just putting the ads in the show itself now, so... Guess I'll keep not watching TV instead.
I just really hate that everything in our society has to be about selling you something, or pushing something else into your view.
That's interesting, but don't you have problems with the brightness in a well-lit room? Or do you game solely in the dark? Or have projectors gotten to the point in recent years where they can match the luminescence of a TV?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but were you just complaining about poor 3D on a handheld?? Were you born before 2002?
Take some shit for granted why don't you...
>Meanwhile, the really dangerous criminals get to go about their business...
>Much easier to just round up some petty criminals like pot smokers and "console hackers".
I'm inclined to say the really dangerous criminals are going about their business right there.
Interesting that this was posted today without announcing that today was also the day that DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online, Turbine Entertainment) announced it was going free to play. Just a thought.
You mean they weren't arrested for breaking the law??
That's the biggest and most successful meta-spoiler I've ever read.
Thanks asshole!
PC's are too "open" for the comfort of many industries. By moving focus to more restrictive consoles, companies regain their control. Once they have control, the ability to push ads you can't block, monitor what you're doing for marketing, and limit what you are allowed to do or not do with media, consoles will eventually come full-circle so that users will eventually be using them for the same things PC users have been, only in safe, friendly, controlled environment.
Suckers.
It's just going to be Fallout 3 with swords...
Embarrassed? No. I know that I will gladly purchase a game that I feel deserves my money, but I have a great appreciation of piracy for allowing me to preview a product freely in advance. Developers are not losing any money on Piracy from me. I truly wish that were the case for everyone, and we probably wouldn't be in this predicament.
But who can honestly say those who pirate rampantly are going to buy the damn games anyway? Most of them I assume are kids who don't even have an income in the first place.
Regardless, though I'm certainly not embarrassed by that, I am increasingly afraid of losing my job, or suffering some other form of corporate backlash. I WORK in the damn game industry. Pretty much everyone I know downloads games, and buys the ones they like. But in the last few years it's gone from something that "everyone does", to something "everyone does unofficially".
Something that still confuses me are the kids nowadays that come in chanting copyright slogans and poo-pooing on people who bit torrent stuff. That grade-school brainwashing really does work wonders...
I took a look too, at the male avatars though, and noticed that aside from the midget-chibi character all the guys look like total assholes. One chews his gum and poses obnoxiously with a sarcastic look on his face, and the other poses with some sort of bravado with a sarcastic look on his face.
Who did they think they were appealing to here? If I can't find a slightly overweight, meek looking dork-type character then it's a no-go for me. (But maybe I'm one of the few who's trying to *accurately* portray my online self)...
I absolutely love Ubuntu, it's phenomenal, but as you said yourself it doesn't run the apps that I need for work and play. Work-wise, alternatives are not acceptable either (sorry Blender and Gimp). Play-wise, that legacy support for my 20 year old catalog of MS apps is critical to me. It doesn't matter how polished and user friendly the user interface becomes.
"Nothing terribly flashy..."
See that's PERFECT. I want solid, fast, usable software to operate my system. Linux really is the way to go there, and interestingly it's been that way for years and years already. After the grandparent comment though I thought to myself - "what are the real reasons I don't switch to linux?" and decided to share. My situation is pretty specific to me anyway, but for the time being, just like the last few years, Linux will remain a hobby-box only. Great fun to tinker with, useless for work and play. :(
You know what sucks? I hate microsoft a LOT. More than most people possibly, but it doesn't matter how screwed up their OS's get, I will never switch to Linux which I love dearly (in its use and philosophy). That's because Linux will most probably NEVER:
-Let me run my old PC games
-Let me run current PC games (without great hassle)
-Let me run applications specific to my line of work (3d studio max, maya, premiere, photoshop, and various game engines)
I've a relatively good idea that a large number of people are stuck at the same problem. There's just no way, no matter how good Linux gets, that it can make up for years of an MS-owned market. They've clinched two decades of my life and PC usage, and my investigations have shown me that I need to do a great deal of tweaking to get a linux install to the level of a crippled windows OS. :(
It totally. Fucking. Blows. The open source Windows OS project someone pointed out a few months back was the only sign of a real, working alternative I've ever seen.
The trick was that they completed the game before seeking a publisher. If you seek out a publisher with a completed product, chances are you will find a deal there. The reason more developers don't do this is because the operating costs of funding the development of a game are so high. Not many people can fund a number of full-time employees out of their own pocket for the duration of a games construction.
These guys didn't have to worry about operating costs because they stole all their art assets and used a free-ware engine.
I was looking for info on this. I blocked its net access with my firewall because I felt the game would probably try to connect to their servers (something acceptable considering the games psuedo-online design), but I didn't know if I was going to buy into the full version (of Spore, not creature creator) until I found out exactly what EA was pulling across my network.
So what exactly does this thing do in terms of information sharing? (or stealing)
It's very telling to look at the disparity in scores between the two cards in 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 06. The two cards perform almost the same on the 06 version, whereas there's almost a 2x gap between them for Vantage. I don't think I trust that.
When Bush made the statement that history would see his actions in a different light, I'm certain he was speaking in the perspective that the US invasion of the middle east had succeeded.
If the US invasion of Iraq (and soon, sadly I fear, Iran?) were to "succeed", the US would be one step closer to a one-world government by controlling resources and economy in those areas. If that longshot were to actually work out for our government, then history would most definitely look back on Bush as the catalyst that took the first step to uniting world government (even though by force).
Look at the way history views Ghengis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc. It seems if you're a big enough warlord to conquer country after country, history will always hold you on a pedestal.
It would be easier to focus on making a more moral society to bring people up in. Making laws against things doesn't keep people from doing them. Raising them in an environment that teaches what's productive vs. counter productive to society does.
That goes right to the source and allows an educated person to use their own judgment when it comes to questionable issues like this. If a person is "cyber-bullying" then they've got issues of their own that haven't been worked out. I wish the people who throw fits and make laws about things like this, school shootings, road rage and all the other crap we have to deal with today would realize covering up issues with intangible limitations (i.e. laws) doesn't do shit.
Now excuse me while I go pound some faces in anger.
What were they thinking there?
Honestly I don't like all the new terms and "presentational" stuff. I feel in their attempt to make the browser more accessible they're doing the exact opposite.
Why do we need a little officer named Larry to identify the websites? Why does he have to turn different colors? Is the presence of absence of information in the site-lookup not enough?
Favicons? Why not just give the site identifier a "?" icon so its function is more readily understandable? Have we forgotten how important universal symbolism is to the user experience?
The method all these new features take to presenting themselves seem to bog the experience down more than make it valuable and usable. My mother, whose PC I've recently transitioned to Firefox, is not going to remember "favicons" and what it means when Larry the site-identifying-police-officer-icon turns different colors.
"...and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
Could you guys just go back and evolve Windows 2000 instead?
Definitely, but it's not just the overuse of it in our everyday world; this guy in particular can't be taken seriously if he's breathing.
"In a bold statement, game developer Peter Molyneux..."
I honestly didn't make it past that part.
.. by not watching at all! This is trite, but I stopped watching TV specifically because of advertising. If I had a DVR, I would most definitely skip them, but from the few shows I've downloaded in the past I can see they're just putting the ads in the show itself now, so... Guess I'll keep not watching TV instead.
I just really hate that everything in our society has to be about selling you something, or pushing something else into your view.
It's really nice regardless, but it looks more like a high-res CG render.
That's interesting, but don't you have problems with the brightness in a well-lit room? Or do you game solely in the dark? Or have projectors gotten to the point in recent years where they can match the luminescence of a TV?