He's not trying to revitalize NASA. He's trying to make money from his fancy rocket and saying that he's trying to revitalize NASA as a way to get good press. There's quite a big difference.
If his goal was really to revitalize NASA, he'd sell them at cost to NASA. You can bet that isn't happening.
But this bill specifically regulates P2P software, which Blizzard is installing. They will have to abide by this law, like it or not. That means that every file that is 'shared', they will have to inform the user and get confirmation.
Heck, maybe that'll mean Blizzard fights this for us.
I tried installing sshwindows on Win7 the other day and the service wouldn't start. As far as I can tell, openssh has never officially supported Windows and never will.
Sure, it's useful for 'nix to 'nix connections, but I need my Windows PC in on the action, too.
I worked computer sales at an Office Depot. At that time, they did not pay commission. I got a (really low) wage and sales was just part of my job. (The most important part, though.)
However, despite that, it doesn't change much from what you've said. Even if there are no commissions, sales (especially of warranties) are tracked and are linked to rewards or pay raises.
I was one of the few salesman I've ever met that put the customer before the company. I got a -lot- of compliments from customers because I would explain anything and everything to them and put no pressure on them whatsoever.
Why am I so special? I've done computer repair and computer programming all my life. That job was only because I couldn't get a 'real' job. I really didn't care if I lost it and the money was crap, so I got my reward by actually helping people. I even sent people to other stores when things were significantly cheaper. (It didn't happen often, though, and I saw almost every one of those people again for a future purchase.)
As for the situation you describe, it's due to the customers' ignorance. If they would educate themselves, even a little, they wouldn't fall into that trap. This is true about cars as well, though, and we all know how long that has gone on.
Going under the 'standard' price can also decrease the sales since gamers will think the game isn't worth the higher price simply because you didn't try to get it at launch. There's so much momentum for that price point that it's hard to break it unless you're a blockbuster hit, which is how we got from $50 to $60 not long ago.
It depends on the situation. At my workplace, I'm the only one in the department (other than the manager) that will stand up to the owners of the company and say 'That's a bad idea.' In the last few meetings, one of the owners has said how valuable that input is. (I think he's finally realized that nobody else thinks they can do it, or something. I think they are scared to, for the same reasons given in several posts here on why not to do it.)
I'm not always right, but at the very least, I end up with a better understanding of the project.
Actually, there was once recenty where I lost the argument by a 'do it and you'll see' and the project is completely un-used because nobody can figure out what it's really for. Including the tester who went directly to the owner and asked what it was for. Still scratching my head over that one... At least it was quick and fairly easy to build.
It's funny, I've been finding myself in this situation lately. Every time someone says to go to me with questions because I know the entire system, I think of some advice I once heard: "If someone in the company is indispensible, it's time to replace them." For those that haven't heard that before, it's about having someone in your company that can hold it for ransom at a critical moment. I do -not- want to be in that position and I've been trying to do everything I can to force things on others that would normally have been done quickly by me simply because I know it best.
Oddly, the company -used- to try to keep everything rotating so 1 person didn't end up with all the knowledge in a single area. I'm not sure where that policy went.
I did. The jerk wouldn't send what I had paid for. So I put it into dispute. They straightened him right up and he shipped it right away. (He took a picture of himself flipping me a bird with it, but he shipped it.) He then lied to them about -when- he shipped it, but I got it, and that's all that matters.
'Botnet' has never meant 'auto-infected' and if they assumed that, they were careless. The summary makes no attempt to fool them into thinking anything other than the facts.
Besides which, at this point, we don't -know- how it spreads. We just know that it exists... Which to me, is news.
I've heard the next major version of Blender is going to have an awesome interface that someone actually sat down and planned, instead of just throwing together piecemeal. I absolutely hate its interface now, so I'm anxiously awaiting this change.
As for Firefox... They've been concentrating on new features for far too long. Stability has gone to shit and about every 6 months the new major version breaks all my favorite addons, some of which never get replaced. There was nothing -wrong- with the addons, usually.
Yeah, they're going to have to learn to make movies to use the tech... No big surprise there. The same thing happened with the initial movies, then sound, then color, etc etc. Things change and directors/etc have to improve their abilities to keep up.
Yes, but you can avoid 'gritty realism' without going formulaic.
BTW, are you holding up LotR as an example of 'gritty realism'? Because if that's the case, then it isn't very gritty or realistic... It's still pretty straight-up fantasy with very little real consequence to anything they do, and very little negative actually happens to them. Almost none, if you count things that are reversed later, like Gandolf's death.
I agree that there has to be some negative to balance the positive... I sometimes even like books that are more negative than positive. But they have to -have- the positive.
I loved Potter and hated Narnia, but I can't see how 'gritty realism' would help either of them.
I love books that make you think and explore concepts, too. Harry Potter had some of that... Ayn Rand's stuff had a lot of it. But of course, her stuff wasn't 'fantasy', just fiction.
You can't actually read the text on the page -as- you are turning it, because there's a small amount of time that the page is too vertical to read either side of it. So it's not 'instant'.
Granted, e-ink might still be longer than this time, but read pages are not 'instant'.
Gritty realism?
on
The Magicians
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Who reads fantasy for 'gritty realism'? Sounds like it'd just be a major drag, to me. And deliberately basing your school on another magic school in a recent book? Isn't that just a cop-out?
Yeah, the way I heard it, he swore the 11th book would be the last even if it was 2000 pages... And then went right on to the 12th. And now the 12th is 3 books worth and we'll definitely going out to the 14th.
He apparently lost his way when the book started writing itself... If he'd just kept control of the book, instead of throwing everything in that came to mind, the books would have been a lot better. I've sometimes wondered if someone couldn't take books 5-9 and condense them to make a better series.
Unless you're 13 right now, this has absolutely no relevance. Computers have invaded our society at an amazing rate in the last 20 years. Typewriters were not very useful for elementary and middle school students, unlike computers. It doesn't surprise me a bit that you didn't use them... -When you were a kid.-
Today is different, and that is what this discussion is about.
Anyhow, that assumes current technology, anyhow. Until recently, we didn't have 3D TVs at all. (Yes, we had some harder on PCs that emulated it with a CRT, but that's not -quite- the same as having it built in. And some of the new TVs don't require shutter glasses, either.)
Is anyone really surprised that anti-hatespeech laws violate the basic 'free speech' right? I mean, either a person is free to say what they want or not.
I'm not condoning hate speech. I think it's still immoral and unethical... But it's still covered under 'free speech' no matter how much I hate it.
They also don't worry about blind people being able to see, or deaf people being able to hear. You aren't the target audience and your disability doesn't prevent you from playing the game.
With a decent 3D display and the video cameras they are now pushing for consoles, a single-player experience really -could- be 3D. I'm talking about the Johnny Lee demo where he moves around and the camera tracks his head, changing the angle of everything on the TV.
With a really, really good 3D display they could do it for multiple players. But I don't really see that happening any time soon.
On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?
I refuse to guess. If people state things poorly at work, I tell them so and demand that they clarify before I will act on their words. My time and the company's money are too valuable to guess.
And stopped people from buying it that weren't going to buy games and accessories with it.
Yes, some gamers also installed Linux, but there were -many- people who bought it just to install Linux, for various reasons. Each of those sales was an absolute loss for Sony and it doesn't make sense to encourage it.
I don't blame them one bit. Besides, I installed linux and it wasn't a very good experience on the PS3, between horrible installs and slowness and general awkwardness like having to choose what to load on reboot/etc. I ended up just putting a PC in the room instead.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Some of my favorite games (Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts) had crappy marketing and are 'underground hits' instead of massive money-makers. Had they been marketed correctly, I think they would have been massive.
So no, you can't skimp on the marketing money no matter how good the game is. However, you can skimp on the development if your marketing is up to snuff.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not trying to revitalize NASA. He's trying to make money from his fancy rocket and saying that he's trying to revitalize NASA as a way to get good press. There's quite a big difference.
If his goal was really to revitalize NASA, he'd sell them at cost to NASA. You can bet that isn't happening.
But this bill specifically regulates P2P software, which Blizzard is installing. They will have to abide by this law, like it or not. That means that every file that is 'shared', they will have to inform the user and get confirmation.
Heck, maybe that'll mean Blizzard fights this for us.
Yes but, does it run on Windows 7?
I tried installing sshwindows on Win7 the other day and the service wouldn't start. As far as I can tell, openssh has never officially supported Windows and never will.
Sure, it's useful for 'nix to 'nix connections, but I need my Windows PC in on the action, too.
I worked computer sales at an Office Depot. At that time, they did not pay commission. I got a (really low) wage and sales was just part of my job. (The most important part, though.)
However, despite that, it doesn't change much from what you've said. Even if there are no commissions, sales (especially of warranties) are tracked and are linked to rewards or pay raises.
I was one of the few salesman I've ever met that put the customer before the company. I got a -lot- of compliments from customers because I would explain anything and everything to them and put no pressure on them whatsoever.
Why am I so special? I've done computer repair and computer programming all my life. That job was only because I couldn't get a 'real' job. I really didn't care if I lost it and the money was crap, so I got my reward by actually helping people. I even sent people to other stores when things were significantly cheaper. (It didn't happen often, though, and I saw almost every one of those people again for a future purchase.)
As for the situation you describe, it's due to the customers' ignorance. If they would educate themselves, even a little, they wouldn't fall into that trap. This is true about cars as well, though, and we all know how long that has gone on.
Going under the 'standard' price can also decrease the sales since gamers will think the game isn't worth the higher price simply because you didn't try to get it at launch. There's so much momentum for that price point that it's hard to break it unless you're a blockbuster hit, which is how we got from $50 to $60 not long ago.
It depends on the situation. At my workplace, I'm the only one in the department (other than the manager) that will stand up to the owners of the company and say 'That's a bad idea.' In the last few meetings, one of the owners has said how valuable that input is. (I think he's finally realized that nobody else thinks they can do it, or something. I think they are scared to, for the same reasons given in several posts here on why not to do it.)
I'm not always right, but at the very least, I end up with a better understanding of the project.
Actually, there was once recenty where I lost the argument by a 'do it and you'll see' and the project is completely un-used because nobody can figure out what it's really for. Including the tester who went directly to the owner and asked what it was for. Still scratching my head over that one... At least it was quick and fairly easy to build.
It's funny, I've been finding myself in this situation lately. Every time someone says to go to me with questions because I know the entire system, I think of some advice I once heard: "If someone in the company is indispensible, it's time to replace them." For those that haven't heard that before, it's about having someone in your company that can hold it for ransom at a critical moment. I do -not- want to be in that position and I've been trying to do everything I can to force things on others that would normally have been done quickly by me simply because I know it best.
Oddly, the company -used- to try to keep everything rotating so 1 person didn't end up with all the knowledge in a single area. I'm not sure where that policy went.
I did. The jerk wouldn't send what I had paid for. So I put it into dispute. They straightened him right up and he shipped it right away. (He took a picture of himself flipping me a bird with it, but he shipped it.) He then lied to them about -when- he shipped it, but I got it, and that's all that matters.
It was pretty painless for me, as far as it went.
'Botnet' has never meant 'auto-infected' and if they assumed that, they were careless. The summary makes no attempt to fool them into thinking anything other than the facts.
Besides which, at this point, we don't -know- how it spreads. We just know that it exists... Which to me, is news.
I've heard the next major version of Blender is going to have an awesome interface that someone actually sat down and planned, instead of just throwing together piecemeal. I absolutely hate its interface now, so I'm anxiously awaiting this change.
As for Firefox... They've been concentrating on new features for far too long. Stability has gone to shit and about every 6 months the new major version breaks all my favorite addons, some of which never get replaced. There was nothing -wrong- with the addons, usually.
Yeah, they're going to have to learn to make movies to use the tech... No big surprise there. The same thing happened with the initial movies, then sound, then color, etc etc. Things change and directors/etc have to improve their abilities to keep up.
The giant magnet. Pull asteroids into Earth's orbit to rain firey hell on your enemies..
Yes, but you can avoid 'gritty realism' without going formulaic.
BTW, are you holding up LotR as an example of 'gritty realism'? Because if that's the case, then it isn't very gritty or realistic... It's still pretty straight-up fantasy with very little real consequence to anything they do, and very little negative actually happens to them. Almost none, if you count things that are reversed later, like Gandolf's death.
I agree that there has to be some negative to balance the positive... I sometimes even like books that are more negative than positive. But they have to -have- the positive.
I loved Potter and hated Narnia, but I can't see how 'gritty realism' would help either of them.
I love books that make you think and explore concepts, too. Harry Potter had some of that... Ayn Rand's stuff had a lot of it. But of course, her stuff wasn't 'fantasy', just fiction.
You can't actually read the text on the page -as- you are turning it, because there's a small amount of time that the page is too vertical to read either side of it. So it's not 'instant'.
Granted, e-ink might still be longer than this time, but read pages are not 'instant'.
Who reads fantasy for 'gritty realism'? Sounds like it'd just be a major drag, to me. And deliberately basing your school on another magic school in a recent book? Isn't that just a cop-out?
Yeah, the way I heard it, he swore the 11th book would be the last even if it was 2000 pages... And then went right on to the 12th. And now the 12th is 3 books worth and we'll definitely going out to the 14th.
He apparently lost his way when the book started writing itself... If he'd just kept control of the book, instead of throwing everything in that came to mind, the books would have been a lot better. I've sometimes wondered if someone couldn't take books 5-9 and condense them to make a better series.
Unless you're 13 right now, this has absolutely no relevance. Computers have invaded our society at an amazing rate in the last 20 years. Typewriters were not very useful for elementary and middle school students, unlike computers. It doesn't surprise me a bit that you didn't use them... -When you were a kid.-
Today is different, and that is what this discussion is about.
We're not getting off your lawn.
I did say 'really, really good', didn't I?
Anyhow, that assumes current technology, anyhow. Until recently, we didn't have 3D TVs at all. (Yes, we had some harder on PCs that emulated it with a CRT, but that's not -quite- the same as having it built in. And some of the new TVs don't require shutter glasses, either.)
Is anyone really surprised that anti-hatespeech laws violate the basic 'free speech' right? I mean, either a person is free to say what they want or not.
I'm not condoning hate speech. I think it's still immoral and unethical... But it's still covered under 'free speech' no matter how much I hate it.
They also don't worry about blind people being able to see, or deaf people being able to hear. You aren't the target audience and your disability doesn't prevent you from playing the game.
With a decent 3D display and the video cameras they are now pushing for consoles, a single-player experience really -could- be 3D. I'm talking about the Johnny Lee demo where he moves around and the camera tracks his head, changing the angle of everything on the TV.
With a really, really good 3D display they could do it for multiple players. But I don't really see that happening any time soon.
On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?
I refuse to guess. If people state things poorly at work, I tell them so and demand that they clarify before I will act on their words. My time and the company's money are too valuable to guess.
And stopped people from buying it that weren't going to buy games and accessories with it.
Yes, some gamers also installed Linux, but there were -many- people who bought it just to install Linux, for various reasons. Each of those sales was an absolute loss for Sony and it doesn't make sense to encourage it.
I don't blame them one bit. Besides, I installed linux and it wasn't a very good experience on the PS3, between horrible installs and slowness and general awkwardness like having to choose what to load on reboot/etc. I ended up just putting a PC in the room instead.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Some of my favorite games (Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts) had crappy marketing and are 'underground hits' instead of massive money-makers. Had they been marketed correctly, I think they would have been massive.
So no, you can't skimp on the marketing money no matter how good the game is. However, you can skimp on the development if your marketing is up to snuff.
It wasn't that long ago that EA laid off a bunch of people in this area. So yeah... That kind of fell apart there.