You attack Microsoft's offering, and then talk about your most wanted thing being head tracking which is exactly what Natal is capable of and the other two aren't? What's more, it can do it without the need for something to be attached to your head.
What makes you think the Lionhead demo was faked? Sure the kid wasn't actually understanding and interpreting what was being said to him, AI isn't that advanced and wont be any time soon. It certainly seemed to be able to map what was being said and what actions were being performed and was able to map that to specific actions though. That's effectively all that happens in current games, where you get pre-scripted responses to actions. The only difference here is that they were using Natal for input rather than a controller which made it appear far more immersive. I see little reason why it would need to be faked when all it was showing was a new input device being used to interface with existing widespread technology.
To see that you can increase the level of immersion without the need for holding a controller that provides force feedback?
Force feedback and 3D graphics cater to the idea that a game world is still something displayed on a flat screen and interacted with only via the controller. As the above demo shows, there are better ways to interact with the game world than simply by playing around with a controller using your hands.
Natal will be able to perform head tracking without the physical controllers in the above demo.
But despite all that, I'm not sure why the assumption is being made that you wont be able to use the controller as well or even use custom controllers. There is little reason for example you couldn't control an FPS in the classic manner with the controller but use your body to physically duck out the way of incoming projectiles etc. using Natal or even use your feet to kick enemies. This is the sort of place where Natal comes into it's own and separates away from the Wii - whether you use the controller or not you have a much greater direct connection to the game world.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the potential that Natal actually opens up. It is not simply a direct copy of the Wii mote, whilst it can have similar applications it also has a whole range of other applications that are not possible with the Wii mote or Sony's offering and that's before you even take into account the ability for it to effectively be able to scan in real world objects on the fly.
The reality is that we wont recognise the real potential of Natal until it's actually released, but it certainly looks promising and has application far beyond any way of currently interfacing with games including the Wii mote and nunchuk.
It was designed to try and help immerse people in games better but within the limitation that you still had to use a controller.
The whole idea of Natal is moving beyond the controller, immersing people in the game by allowing them to interact directly. Will it work? I have no idea, but to suggest force feedback is important to something like this (hell, Sony didn't even think it was important to their normal controllers but the PS3 still sold well) misses the point of what Natal is trying to achieve completely.
I used to assume when I worked in support that all users were like this across all companies.
It's simply not true. Different companies are completely different social experiences, I'm fortunate that where I work now everyone treats each other with respect, people understand that everyone is busy and try and get things done. We have had arseholes but inevitably they're always the ones that get weeded out, i.e. when we made job cuts at the depth of the recession the only people we lost were those no one really wanted there and were a mistake to employ in the first place.
I guess the problem arises when you end up with more arseholes at your company than nice people so you reach a tipping point where even the nice people have had enough and just end up being arseholes too. The problem is how do you solve that? Once the tipping point has been reached it's hard to go back, morale is lower, people are bitter but inevitably it's bad for the company so something really should be done. It's really upper management that has to realise the problem and deal with it. Of course, the other side of it is that some sectors are more prone to this than others - I work in an engineering firm and engineers seem to be a generally friendly bunch and have a mindset similar to that of IT people so perhaps that's why there is harmony in the first place. When I worked in public sector that attitude was quite the opposite, 90% of staff were simply incompetent, and so those that weren't just ended up getting pissed off at having to cover the arse of the other 90% of people, then you had those full of self-importance and so on who in reality were non-factors but treated you like you were their personal servants, it really wasn't pretty.
Really, your options are simply to discuss the problem with management, move to another company, or simply put up with it - if management aren't willing to try and resolve the situation it doesn't matter if you turn into a BOFH or not, things will end up just the same. For what it's worth, when I was job hunting last I turned down 2 jobs because I got a sense of the atmosphere in the office just from the interview stage and it was clear that it wasn't somewhere I'd want to work having had to put up with that kind of environment for the previous 5 years. Here's the main thing though, both those jobs offered me less (and wanted longer hours - 45hrs vs. my current 37hrs) than the job I ended up getting and taking, where the people are nice, so I'd imagine it really has a lot to do with how well a company treats it's staff too. Better wages, better hours, better benefits ultimately almost certainly means a happier and hence friendlier work force. I understand shopping around for a job isn't easy if it's your first job, but as you now have a job perhaps the best option is to start looking? Don't jump ship to the first that comes along, just wait until you find one that really does seem worth taking. It depends how responsive management are to your concerns I suppose.
It'd be interesting to hear from anyone who has worked at a company that had severe morale problems and that had people that just seemed like a bunch of arseholes but did manage to turn the company around into a nice place to work? I'm wondering if that ever actually happens?
Well no, this is the problem. It's not advertised on physical game boxes (i.e. see Dawn of War II) that your access to the game is dependent on Valve's servers, it only states that you have to register with them, not activate with them, not update from them, and not depend on them for access. The downsides are absolutely not advertised up front.
There's also no way to get a copy of Dawn of War II without Steam, and as games are as different as movies, it's not as simple. Cars all effectively provide the same services and can provide the same features, games do not so your stretching of the analogy stops making any sense at all around this point. You also make the assumption when you talk of losing your keys that you wont also lose access to digital content 5 years down the road - can you guarantee absolutely that Valve will continue supporting all their games, all their services and will continue to be in business 5 years down the road? If this recession has taught us anything it's that no, you can't. You cannot guarantee when you put a product in a 3rd party company's hands that you will be able to access it indefinitely as has been demonstrated by the likes of Microsoft's music service and many others in the past.
If you buy a hard copy game it should remain a stand alone item, if you buy it online then fair enough yes, you should receive the services and downsides you state. People should have the choice rather than be effectively forced into accepting the downsides of electronic distribution when buying a physical product making the physical product a complete waste of resources in the first place. At very least the packaging of the physical product should make it clear that all you are buying is basically a husk of the game and that if you want to play it you'll have to get the rest of it online anyway but again it doesn't, it merely states you have to register it and nothing more, it doesn't even state that you have to sign up to Games for Windows Live let alone explain the fact that you may not be able to access the game when Valve's servers screw up. If they at least were honest about the downsides when buying a physical product that has to be activated like you suggest they are it'd be one thing, but as I say they don't even do that.
Personally I don't mind the fact that pure DLC is tied to an account, although I see your argument, because what I don't like is when you buy a game on physical media and then have to activate it via Steam and so can't sell the game on because when it's tied to your account and e-mail address the physical media effectively then has no value so you either bin it which is wasteful or have it sat lying around.
I'd rather they kept it separate - DLC is DLC, physical media is a product that can be used and sold on independently. I wouldn't expect my car, my toaster, a book, a loaf of bread to be tied to my e-mail address, I wouldn't expect a DVD to be tied to my e-mail address so why the fuck should a game bought on physical media be tied to an e-mail address and account? I can live with the idea of it when we're talking about a purely non-physical entity like a DLC game although like you say it'd be better if I could sell it on, but when they take it to the extreme of tying physical media to a virtual account and/or e-mail address that's what annoys me!
"If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith: "The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm."
And on that note, can anyone tell me why we apparently think it's a good idea to fly metal tubes full of people and sensitive equipment through electrically charged balls of flying ice/water and strong winds in the first place?
Is flying aircraft through severe storms really the greatest of ideas? Are they simply too hard to avoid? Are they less harmful to aircraft than people like me might assume? or is there something to this, like airlines just wanting to cut their costs as much as possible and so follow the shortest path to their destination, danger be damned?
Seriously, I like the Warcraft IP, what I didn't like is that WoW was just a combined clone of every MMO that had existed before it, just like every other MMO now is a clone of WoW.
Until we can move away from the situation where enemies are more stupid than your average rock and quests are about as exciting as your weekly shopping trip to the supermarket (Well in fact less so, my average shopping list has more variation than your average quest task list) then I don't see anything to get excited about.
Apart from Eve I don't even see much variation in the style of MMOs we're getting - what happened to the old style isometric (or 3D isometric) style MMOs like UO or an FPS shooter MMO like Planetside?
The MMO market doesn't need new IP, existing IP is fine, it needs innovation and new ideas, or in some cases, to even bring back some of the old ideas that seem to be long forgotten. To twist a common saying, the originality of your IP doesn't matter, it's what you do with it that counts.
The WoW model works for first time MMO players, but chances are if you've played an MMO in the last 10years, with the exception of a few of them like Eve, then you've played every MMO in the last 10 years. Did you play Everquest back in 1999? Well, not much has really changed, graphics got better, Dark Age of Camelot bought some minor innovations to PvP and not a lot else has happened.
Are you sure? Some phones can be unlocked just by typing in a code on the keypad. I'd say that's probably easier than any method for unlocking the iPhone to be fair.
Of course, some aren't locked in the first place also.
I'm not really sure I understand your point, you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Masturbation is about physical pleasure, a simulator cannot fulfil that. Similarly a simulator cannot give you the enjoyment that you may gain from say a roller coaster.
The feeling of control or power is however something that can be fulfilled by a game. In fact, games like The Sims are built entirely around the concept of being able to play with the lives of virtual people.
Can you clarify what point you were actually trying to make? You seem to accept in your post that masturbation is a physical pleasure whilst the feeling of need for power is not. You also seem to accept that computers can't give you physical pleasure. About the only suggestion I can guess from your post is that you feel computers can't fill phsycological needs? If that is the case then you are simply wrong - look at anything from MMO addiction, to soldiers in the field finding an attachment to bomb disposal units and so forth for obvious examples. Go watch The King of Kong if you want to see a documentary about people using high score boards to fulfil their need for power and/or fame.
"I can't think of any case for free speech helped by defending a rape simulator."
How about the idea that it may act as an outlet to help suppress desires aluded to in your link in point 1 from being acted out for real?
I wont try and pretend I can give an answer to whether it does or not either way, but it's possible. Similar cases have been made for the likes of GTA, where if kids can joyride round some virtual streets on a console they're less likely to get bored and go and joyride for real. It seems plausible.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be any real research either way, presumably because it's a tough subject to research because if the findings aren't those that the "think of the children" crew like then expect complete character and possibly career assassination. As such, we just end up with this situation where it just gets released anyway without actually knowing the merits (or lack of) of it.
What'd also be interesting is to also see how many of those rapes in Japan are performed by foreigners compared to those who have always lived in Japan and been brought up in it's culture.
Ironically there have been a few cases through the years of Americans committing rape in Japan.
"banning guns in the US causes violent crime rates to rise (see: Washington DC)"
Speaking of rape, you just managed to rape some statistics quite spectacularly.
Slashdot of all places, where the mantra "Correlation does not imply causation" is repeated regularly is somewhere I would not expect to see quite such a spectular bastardisation of statistic.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but please, if you're going to make a point actually use firm evidence to back it up rather than simply resorting to speculation based on mangled statistics else you're effectively no better than the politicians you talk down.
I know a lot of Americans are touchy about their guns and gun control but come on, that doesn't give you an excuse to stoop to the level of politicians and rape statistics to claim something as fact when it may well not be. Please, you're better than that.
Yes, it has much better intellisense which is the most glaring feature because it's the one that you encounter every second whilst programming.
Makes writing code a breeze, as a fairly fast touch typist, not having to type the full variable never ever because the intellisense is generally good enough to get the right variable/function name the first time (due to the fact it narrows down not just by name, but by context) I can churn out code like no tommorrow. You can put together a full, fairly complex line of code with only a few keypresses.
Apparently you need to go and read a book on namespaces.
You can use namespaces that horribly badly in other languages too including Java and C++ if you really want to, but any professional programmer should be at a level where they're not that bad at it.
Same thing, people think of a level as a fixed unit of gameplay which is really what a campaign is. It doesn't really change anything, it's still much too little content.
Far less people play L4D than Gears of War 2 or Halo 3 online.
If you check www.majornelson.com you'll see the most recent online popularity stats:
1 Halo 3 2 Call of Duty: WaW 3 Call of Duty 4 4 Gears of War 2 5 GTA IV 6 UFC 2009 Undisputed Demo 7 FIFA 09 8 UFC 2009 Undisputed 9 Left 4 Dead 10 Fallout 3
Of course, the number of PC users might increase things for L4D a bit, but Halo 3 and Gears 2 aren't out on the PC. Even then it's unlikely the PC stats increase it's positioning enough to put it up with Halo 3 and the Call of Duty games as it's not even above the UFC 2009 demo.
WGA checks that your version of Windows is legitimate, this is a different issue.
If you are not willing to activate your version of Windows to confirm that it is genuine then yes, it will keep asking.
This is more of an issue with Windows in general than it is anything to do with Windows updates and I agree, I'm not a fan of it. Legitimate users should not have to deal with software phoning home to Microsoft.
Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,
You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.
You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to.NET, no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves. No one is forcing you to even use the.NET framework. If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.
The fact is though, it's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply cannot be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and shouldn't be installed for you. Again though, if that's the case don't start whining if you don't like Microsoft's decisions.
No, people clicking things they shouldn't and not being behind a firewall is the reason we have botnets.
If your machine is NAT'd or you're behind a specific firewall and you do not use any vulnerable outgoing applications (i.e. you browse with Firefox and don't have Javascript enabled for sites that cannot be trusted) and you use an e-mail client that is secure and do not open random attachments or files sent to you on memory sticks then there is no reason you should get infected no matter how out of date you are on Windows updates.
Even if you're fully uptodate on Windows updates as many people are if they go to a site with some Javascript exploit that isn't patched or they open an e-mail attachment you're still going to end up with botnets.
There are ever less and less people in the world connecting to the internet directly such that vulnerable Windows services needing to be patched are the main attack vector. Most people are NAT'd through a router that prevents direct connection to their machine nowadays. Dodgy e-mail attachments and dodgy websites/downloads are almost certainly the primary attack vector for trojans nowadays.
Why should I pay £35 for that when I can pay the same for something like Halo 3 or Gears of War 2 and get better graphics, more weapons, a massive single player campaign, more maps, more multiplayer modes, better gameplay?
In other words, what does L4D actually bring to the table if you're going to play it only as a multiplayer 4 vs 4 game when there are other games out for the same price with far more content which is much better?
The main selling point with L4D was the uniqueness of a 4 player coop zombie survival game.
HL was built on a modified version of the Quake 1 source, one of the most major changes being that it was switched to C++ and the code base made object oriented.
L4D doesn't seem like it's really had any engine changes. It also has the lower amounts and quality of content you would expect from a mod than a full priced game.
Yeah, you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options, one where you accept the terms and one where you don't?
That's where you gave permission.
If you didn't install it explicitly, the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.
If you don't want these things on your system, then don't give permission. Don't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it wouldn't have installed in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, I think you may be a little biased.
You attack Microsoft's offering, and then talk about your most wanted thing being head tracking which is exactly what Natal is capable of and the other two aren't? What's more, it can do it without the need for something to be attached to your head.
What makes you think the Lionhead demo was faked? Sure the kid wasn't actually understanding and interpreting what was being said to him, AI isn't that advanced and wont be any time soon. It certainly seemed to be able to map what was being said and what actions were being performed and was able to map that to specific actions though. That's effectively all that happens in current games, where you get pre-scripted responses to actions. The only difference here is that they were using Natal for input rather than a controller which made it appear far more immersive. I see little reason why it would need to be faked when all it was showing was a new input device being used to interface with existing widespread technology.
May I direct you here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
To see that you can increase the level of immersion without the need for holding a controller that provides force feedback?
Force feedback and 3D graphics cater to the idea that a game world is still something displayed on a flat screen and interacted with only via the controller. As the above demo shows, there are better ways to interact with the game world than simply by playing around with a controller using your hands.
Natal will be able to perform head tracking without the physical controllers in the above demo.
But despite all that, I'm not sure why the assumption is being made that you wont be able to use the controller as well or even use custom controllers. There is little reason for example you couldn't control an FPS in the classic manner with the controller but use your body to physically duck out the way of incoming projectiles etc. using Natal or even use your feet to kick enemies. This is the sort of place where Natal comes into it's own and separates away from the Wii - whether you use the controller or not you have a much greater direct connection to the game world.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the potential that Natal actually opens up. It is not simply a direct copy of the Wii mote, whilst it can have similar applications it also has a whole range of other applications that are not possible with the Wii mote or Sony's offering and that's before you even take into account the ability for it to effectively be able to scan in real world objects on the fly.
The reality is that we wont recognise the real potential of Natal until it's actually released, but it certainly looks promising and has application far beyond any way of currently interfacing with games including the Wii mote and nunchuk.
Force feedback is a hack.
It was designed to try and help immerse people in games better but within the limitation that you still had to use a controller.
The whole idea of Natal is moving beyond the controller, immersing people in the game by allowing them to interact directly. Will it work? I have no idea, but to suggest force feedback is important to something like this (hell, Sony didn't even think it was important to their normal controllers but the PS3 still sold well) misses the point of what Natal is trying to achieve completely.
I used to assume when I worked in support that all users were like this across all companies.
It's simply not true. Different companies are completely different social experiences, I'm fortunate that where I work now everyone treats each other with respect, people understand that everyone is busy and try and get things done. We have had arseholes but inevitably they're always the ones that get weeded out, i.e. when we made job cuts at the depth of the recession the only people we lost were those no one really wanted there and were a mistake to employ in the first place.
I guess the problem arises when you end up with more arseholes at your company than nice people so you reach a tipping point where even the nice people have had enough and just end up being arseholes too. The problem is how do you solve that? Once the tipping point has been reached it's hard to go back, morale is lower, people are bitter but inevitably it's bad for the company so something really should be done. It's really upper management that has to realise the problem and deal with it. Of course, the other side of it is that some sectors are more prone to this than others - I work in an engineering firm and engineers seem to be a generally friendly bunch and have a mindset similar to that of IT people so perhaps that's why there is harmony in the first place. When I worked in public sector that attitude was quite the opposite, 90% of staff were simply incompetent, and so those that weren't just ended up getting pissed off at having to cover the arse of the other 90% of people, then you had those full of self-importance and so on who in reality were non-factors but treated you like you were their personal servants, it really wasn't pretty.
Really, your options are simply to discuss the problem with management, move to another company, or simply put up with it - if management aren't willing to try and resolve the situation it doesn't matter if you turn into a BOFH or not, things will end up just the same. For what it's worth, when I was job hunting last I turned down 2 jobs because I got a sense of the atmosphere in the office just from the interview stage and it was clear that it wasn't somewhere I'd want to work having had to put up with that kind of environment for the previous 5 years. Here's the main thing though, both those jobs offered me less (and wanted longer hours - 45hrs vs. my current 37hrs) than the job I ended up getting and taking, where the people are nice, so I'd imagine it really has a lot to do with how well a company treats it's staff too. Better wages, better hours, better benefits ultimately almost certainly means a happier and hence friendlier work force. I understand shopping around for a job isn't easy if it's your first job, but as you now have a job perhaps the best option is to start looking? Don't jump ship to the first that comes along, just wait until you find one that really does seem worth taking. It depends how responsive management are to your concerns I suppose.
It'd be interesting to hear from anyone who has worked at a company that had severe morale problems and that had people that just seemed like a bunch of arseholes but did manage to turn the company around into a nice place to work? I'm wondering if that ever actually happens?
Well no, this is the problem. It's not advertised on physical game boxes (i.e. see Dawn of War II) that your access to the game is dependent on Valve's servers, it only states that you have to register with them, not activate with them, not update from them, and not depend on them for access. The downsides are absolutely not advertised up front.
There's also no way to get a copy of Dawn of War II without Steam, and as games are as different as movies, it's not as simple. Cars all effectively provide the same services and can provide the same features, games do not so your stretching of the analogy stops making any sense at all around this point. You also make the assumption when you talk of losing your keys that you wont also lose access to digital content 5 years down the road - can you guarantee absolutely that Valve will continue supporting all their games, all their services and will continue to be in business 5 years down the road? If this recession has taught us anything it's that no, you can't. You cannot guarantee when you put a product in a 3rd party company's hands that you will be able to access it indefinitely as has been demonstrated by the likes of Microsoft's music service and many others in the past.
If you buy a hard copy game it should remain a stand alone item, if you buy it online then fair enough yes, you should receive the services and downsides you state. People should have the choice rather than be effectively forced into accepting the downsides of electronic distribution when buying a physical product making the physical product a complete waste of resources in the first place. At very least the packaging of the physical product should make it clear that all you are buying is basically a husk of the game and that if you want to play it you'll have to get the rest of it online anyway but again it doesn't, it merely states you have to register it and nothing more, it doesn't even state that you have to sign up to Games for Windows Live let alone explain the fact that you may not be able to access the game when Valve's servers screw up. If they at least were honest about the downsides when buying a physical product that has to be activated like you suggest they are it'd be one thing, but as I say they don't even do that.
Not if I can't sell it on when I've finished with it and not if the manufacturer can randomly deny access to said car through faults at their end, no.
Personally I don't mind the fact that pure DLC is tied to an account, although I see your argument, because what I don't like is when you buy a game on physical media and then have to activate it via Steam and so can't sell the game on because when it's tied to your account and e-mail address the physical media effectively then has no value so you either bin it which is wasteful or have it sat lying around.
I'd rather they kept it separate - DLC is DLC, physical media is a product that can be used and sold on independently. I wouldn't expect my car, my toaster, a book, a loaf of bread to be tied to my e-mail address, I wouldn't expect a DVD to be tied to my e-mail address so why the fuck should a game bought on physical media be tied to an e-mail address and account? I can live with the idea of it when we're talking about a purely non-physical entity like a DLC game although like you say it'd be better if I could sell it on, but when they take it to the extreme of tying physical media to a virtual account and/or e-mail address that's what annoys me!
"If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith: "The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm."
And on that note, can anyone tell me why we apparently think it's a good idea to fly metal tubes full of people and sensitive equipment through electrically charged balls of flying ice/water and strong winds in the first place?
Is flying aircraft through severe storms really the greatest of ideas? Are they simply too hard to avoid? Are they less harmful to aircraft than people like me might assume? or is there something to this, like airlines just wanting to cut their costs as much as possible and so follow the shortest path to their destination, danger be damned?
I want original content.
Seriously, I like the Warcraft IP, what I didn't like is that WoW was just a combined clone of every MMO that had existed before it, just like every other MMO now is a clone of WoW.
Until we can move away from the situation where enemies are more stupid than your average rock and quests are about as exciting as your weekly shopping trip to the supermarket (Well in fact less so, my average shopping list has more variation than your average quest task list) then I don't see anything to get excited about.
Apart from Eve I don't even see much variation in the style of MMOs we're getting - what happened to the old style isometric (or 3D isometric) style MMOs like UO or an FPS shooter MMO like Planetside?
The MMO market doesn't need new IP, existing IP is fine, it needs innovation and new ideas, or in some cases, to even bring back some of the old ideas that seem to be long forgotten. To twist a common saying, the originality of your IP doesn't matter, it's what you do with it that counts.
The WoW model works for first time MMO players, but chances are if you've played an MMO in the last 10years, with the exception of a few of them like Eve, then you've played every MMO in the last 10 years. Did you play Everquest back in 1999? Well, not much has really changed, graphics got better, Dark Age of Camelot bought some minor innovations to PvP and not a lot else has happened.
Are you sure? Some phones can be unlocked just by typing in a code on the keypad. I'd say that's probably easier than any method for unlocking the iPhone to be fair.
Of course, some aren't locked in the first place also.
I'm not really sure I understand your point, you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Masturbation is about physical pleasure, a simulator cannot fulfil that. Similarly a simulator cannot give you the enjoyment that you may gain from say a roller coaster.
The feeling of control or power is however something that can be fulfilled by a game. In fact, games like The Sims are built entirely around the concept of being able to play with the lives of virtual people.
Can you clarify what point you were actually trying to make? You seem to accept in your post that masturbation is a physical pleasure whilst the feeling of need for power is not. You also seem to accept that computers can't give you physical pleasure. About the only suggestion I can guess from your post is that you feel computers can't fill phsycological needs? If that is the case then you are simply wrong - look at anything from MMO addiction, to soldiers in the field finding an attachment to bomb disposal units and so forth for obvious examples. Go watch The King of Kong if you want to see a documentary about people using high score boards to fulfil their need for power and/or fame.
"I can't think of any case for free speech helped by defending a rape simulator."
How about the idea that it may act as an outlet to help suppress desires aluded to in your link in point 1 from being acted out for real?
I wont try and pretend I can give an answer to whether it does or not either way, but it's possible. Similar cases have been made for the likes of GTA, where if kids can joyride round some virtual streets on a console they're less likely to get bored and go and joyride for real. It seems plausible.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be any real research either way, presumably because it's a tough subject to research because if the findings aren't those that the "think of the children" crew like then expect complete character and possibly career assassination. As such, we just end up with this situation where it just gets released anyway without actually knowing the merits (or lack of) of it.
What'd also be interesting is to also see how many of those rapes in Japan are performed by foreigners compared to those who have always lived in Japan and been brought up in it's culture.
Ironically there have been a few cases through the years of Americans committing rape in Japan.
"banning guns in the US causes violent crime rates to rise (see: Washington DC)"
Speaking of rape, you just managed to rape some statistics quite spectacularly.
Slashdot of all places, where the mantra "Correlation does not imply causation" is repeated regularly is somewhere I would not expect to see quite such a spectular bastardisation of statistic.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but please, if you're going to make a point actually use firm evidence to back it up rather than simply resorting to speculation based on mangled statistics else you're effectively no better than the politicians you talk down.
I know a lot of Americans are touchy about their guns and gun control but come on, that doesn't give you an excuse to stoop to the level of politicians and rape statistics to claim something as fact when it may well not be. Please, you're better than that.
It's the official XBox blog, the figures are straight from Microsoft who track this.
Sorry if that upsets you.
Yes, it has much better intellisense which is the most glaring feature because it's the one that you encounter every second whilst programming.
Makes writing code a breeze, as a fairly fast touch typist, not having to type the full variable never ever because the intellisense is generally good enough to get the right variable/function name the first time (due to the fact it narrows down not just by name, but by context) I can churn out code like no tommorrow. You can put together a full, fairly complex line of code with only a few keypresses.
Apparently you need to go and read a book on namespaces.
You can use namespaces that horribly badly in other languages too including Java and C++ if you really want to, but any professional programmer should be at a level where they're not that bad at it.
Same thing, people think of a level as a fixed unit of gameplay which is really what a campaign is. It doesn't really change anything, it's still much too little content.
Far less people play L4D than Gears of War 2 or Halo 3 online.
If you check www.majornelson.com you'll see the most recent online popularity stats:
1 Halo 3
2 Call of Duty: WaW
3 Call of Duty 4
4 Gears of War 2
5 GTA IV
6 UFC 2009 Undisputed Demo
7 FIFA 09
8 UFC 2009 Undisputed
9 Left 4 Dead
10 Fallout 3
Of course, the number of PC users might increase things for L4D a bit, but Halo 3 and Gears 2 aren't out on the PC. Even then it's unlikely the PC stats increase it's positioning enough to put it up with Halo 3 and the Call of Duty games as it's not even above the UFC 2009 demo.
WGA checks that your version of Windows is legitimate, this is a different issue.
If you are not willing to activate your version of Windows to confirm that it is genuine then yes, it will keep asking.
This is more of an issue with Windows in general than it is anything to do with Windows updates and I agree, I'm not a fan of it. Legitimate users should not have to deal with software phoning home to Microsoft.
Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,
You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.
You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to .NET, no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves. No one is forcing you to even use the .NET framework. If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.
The fact is though, it's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply cannot be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and shouldn't be installed for you. Again though, if that's the case don't start whining if you don't like Microsoft's decisions.
No, people clicking things they shouldn't and not being behind a firewall is the reason we have botnets.
If your machine is NAT'd or you're behind a specific firewall and you do not use any vulnerable outgoing applications (i.e. you browse with Firefox and don't have Javascript enabled for sites that cannot be trusted) and you use an e-mail client that is secure and do not open random attachments or files sent to you on memory sticks then there is no reason you should get infected no matter how out of date you are on Windows updates.
Even if you're fully uptodate on Windows updates as many people are if they go to a site with some Javascript exploit that isn't patched or they open an e-mail attachment you're still going to end up with botnets.
There are ever less and less people in the world connecting to the internet directly such that vulnerable Windows services needing to be patched are the main attack vector. Most people are NAT'd through a router that prevents direct connection to their machine nowadays. Dodgy e-mail attachments and dodgy websites/downloads are almost certainly the primary attack vector for trojans nowadays.
Okay, to put it another way.
Why should I pay £35 for that when I can pay the same for something like Halo 3 or Gears of War 2 and get better graphics, more weapons, a massive single player campaign, more maps, more multiplayer modes, better gameplay?
In other words, what does L4D actually bring to the table if you're going to play it only as a multiplayer 4 vs 4 game when there are other games out for the same price with far more content which is much better?
The main selling point with L4D was the uniqueness of a 4 player coop zombie survival game.
Mods don't have engine changes.
HL was built on a modified version of the Quake 1 source, one of the most major changes being that it was switched to C++ and the code base made object oriented.
L4D doesn't seem like it's really had any engine changes. It also has the lower amounts and quality of content you would expect from a mod than a full priced game.
Yeah, you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options, one where you accept the terms and one where you don't?
That's where you gave permission.
If you didn't install it explicitly, the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.
If you don't want these things on your system, then don't give permission. Don't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it wouldn't have installed in the first place.