"No, not really. The Dreamcast died when Sega was in it's last days as a hardware vendor. They could or would not properly advertise or support the system. "
Close. Sega was in financial trouble. In order to really see profit from the DC, they needed to sell another 10 million units. Unfortunately, they didn't have anywhere close to amount of money they needed to actually build those 10 million systems. They were forced to give up.
"What is with everyone thinking Lucas should never do anything Star Wars again because it won't be as good as the originals?"
Not as good as the originals? If the prequels were 3/4ths as good as the originals there'd be far less negativity towards the franchise.
What is with Star Wars prequel fans not getting the complaints about the films even though they've been talked to death since 99? "Annakin accidently got into a ship, accidently took off, accidently joined the battle, and accidently destroyed the Trade Federation's capital ship. My hero!"
"for use of vulgar language in meetings... how can getting fired be healthy for you? (unless your in a dead end job and need the catalyst to get off your duff and go get a career)"
Just read the fucking article and shut the fuck up.
(Actually I didn't pay a lot of attention reading your post, I've just always wanted to say that and get modded up for it.)
"How the F%$^ can this be a problem? A file copy is a simple operation. "
The file copy isn't what's broken. Windows generates a list of all the files that need copying and it goes one by one and copies them. If that list grows out of bounds (easy enough to do as storage has been growing at a rapid rate), it'll crash.
I agree with you that there's no excuse for it and that Vista should never have been released with that problem. But 'infinite' is not a concept that computers understand. There's problems happen, and not just in Redmond.
"(perhaps the cost of the ramps for N people in wheelchairs could have been spent on delivering stuff to N+1 people who aren't able to leave home at all)"
Erm... I see two problems with that. First, how do you divvy up which company donates how much? In the case of building ramps, it's clear how much should be spent, and they're in charge of who builds what and what they spend on it. Second, Target builds the ramp, and it's done. But if they pour in money to help with the suggestions you've put forward, it never ends.
Is this really all that useful? How many of you scan business cards? I never do. If I need to email somebody who's given me a business card, I type in the email address, and then it's in my address book...probably takes less time than scanning and OCR'ing the thing...on the occasion that I need their phone number too, I type it into my phone and hit 'store'. I can't imagine wanting to scan every business card that I get... The article says the card can be scanned in one second. That's significantly faster than the methods you mentioned. Also, from personal experience, I'd rather that data stayed with the card than filling up my address book with numbers from people I won't remember a week later.
Killer? Nah. Useful? Well, if they keep their promises, sure.
"Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?"
I don't really know the answer, but I can offer you some speculation: If you're offering your services to the general public, then you'd be unfairly discriminating against disabled people. (This is assuming, of course, that the changes are reasonable. Ramps leading to the doorway aren't the same as denying wheelchair access to a roller coaster.) Now, that's a little broad/extreme, so I'll water it down a bit. A place like Target sells everyday needs to a broad range of people. If a wheelchair-bound person cannot buy something like toilet paper, they're in trouble. I think the idea is to make the world a little easier on people that have these problems.
"Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt? Is it my fault someone else can't see, hear, walk, or think clearly? Frankly, too bad on them. You got a shitty roll of the dice. Life sucks."
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, that's not something you'd be saying if you were stuck in a wheelchair. Those people with a shitty roll of the dice are doing the best they can with the technology available to them to continue to lead a productive life. If common everyday tasks are difficult because a big company like Target didn't spare a little extra expense to resolve the issue, it becomes offensive. "Why is it so frickin hard to build a ramp?! I just want some f'n toilet paper!"
Okay, that's wheelchair access to a physical property, so that example doesn't work well in this discussion. So what about this particular case? From what I've gathered, they could, without a lot of effort or expense, update their site to work for the blind. They're not doing that. In theory, they could just take their business and move on to Wal-mart or Amazon or something. But the problem is that disabled people have had to fight battles like this for decades. If they don't win something like this, the risk is other companies will ignore them because they're not big enough to be profitable.
Life sucks for these people, but it doesn't have to. That's the point. When a little more thought goes into the design of a building or a webspace, it makes life easier for everybody, but it also makes life livable for those with disabilities. Life can suck. That roll of the dice can happen to you at any time.
"If anything, special features generally detract from the enjoyment of a good movie as you struggle to reconcile how a group of such insipid and insincere people could have pulled it off."
I've heard stories about people who have been a little too sincere during the extras filming and have been drummed out of the industry. I couldn't tell you if those stories are true, but it's enough to make you choose your words carefully when you're in front of a camera.
That said, if you want to see something amusing, rent the Director's Cut of Star Trek II and turn on the Michael Okuda commentary. It's a sub-titled (not audio) commentary from one of the art-department guys that takes a few amusing pokes at the movie. When the Enterprise is attacked, one of the main doors closes and people go pouring through it. A sentence will appear at the bottom that says something like "See those pipes the door's cutting through?" Later in the movie, Scotty says he cannot restore main power. Another caption appears "Maybe he should just re-open that door!"
That's about as close to 'sincere' as I've seen in a DVD-extra.
These "I had a wonderful Vista Experience Posts" sound very much like they are coming straight from Redmond's PR people. They sound way too much like the official press releases and media events. They have to because of jerks like you. Anybody who wants to say something against that goes popular (and often ill-informed) opinion has to walk on eggshells or face negative moderations and a slew of heated "you must be on their payroll" rebuttals. If you don't like people sounding PR'ish when they post, then don't use moderations to enforce your opinions and don't hit 'reply' to accuse people of having Feringi-esque motives.
"Yes, the content takes time, but I suspect the controls are what the real issue is."
I'd say that's a strong possibility. Playtesting goes on for ages. I'd say that's probably the first thing to get started and the last to get completed. My only real point, though, was the vast majority of man hours in games like this is often in the art/sound creation, not the actual programming. Depending on the game, yadda yadda yadda, you could have 15 guys creating art and 2 guys doing the programming.
Each game's different, though, so there are always exceptions. My generalization shouldn't be taken too seriously.
"If you at any point took offense to anything I've said, that's all the explanation I need for the demeanor and tone that you've clearly been displaying in our discussion of this most banal, but personally somewhat important, subject."
I'm not offended. However, your tone has been such that I haven't felt all that inclined to take your comments very seriously. Now, I'll grant you that I contributed to that. If you want to have a serious discussion (as opposed to an argument), then I apologize for my behaviour. Please understand, though, I've been on Slashdot a long time and I've dealt with a lot of less-than-tactful people.
"I would like to refrain from even more wasteful non-discussion than has already been exchanged about how we have argued about it, instead of just actually talking about it."
If that's an offer to discuss the topic, then I accept. Serious. Like I said, I have nothing to 'win' here. I'd love a reboot on the topic.
"Did you assume that I was trying to offend you? Who's trying to offend whom, really? I think an objective reading of the whole thread would reveal more of the contrary."
Riiiiight. I'm sure somebody reading a post declaring that all use of the term 'SKU' outside of a retail environment means rabid fanboyism will stroke their beards and say "Mmm... how totally non-offensive."
"Should all potential customers of these products, who by your explanation would all "temporarily become enthusiasts," be expected to speak in these terms?"
Terms? We're just talking about SKU, here.
"I remain unconvinced that you've gotten it yet."
It's not like your point is very sophisticated or nuanced.
"Now read my reply in the appropriate context again."
Right, now re-read the bit you quoted. As I said, you're not listening.
"As trivial as it seems, that is an overstatement."
"I'd hate for anyone to confuse you as being elitist and proving my points for me."
Umm.. yeah... It's hard to take offense to this, sorry. I'm not the one in a tizzy over use of a relevent term.
"Seriously guys, let this one go." = "Shut up." "Sorry buddy, but of all the battles to fight, this is pretty darned petty." = "Shut up because it's unimportant to ME." Nope. 'Calm down'. Both cases.
Should all potential customers of these products, who by your explanation would all "temporarily become enthusiasts," be expected to speak in these terms? I'm all for raising the common awareness, but the slow and forced leakage of marketing and sales jargon into the common tongue by way of the enthusiast press seems a bit overboard. You just asked if millions of people should suddenly know a bunch of terms inside and out, of course it seems a bit overboard. Try asking a sensible question.
"I think the reference to non-hobby sales completely escaped you..."
Nope. You're just not listening.
"...along with the fact that nobody ever stated that the term SKU should be banned from retail use."
BTW, Flavors != Styles != Versions != Revisions != Packages. What the store store sells you (SKU) is what the store will exchange for you. For example: I bought a PSP giga-pack. It was defective. I took it back wanting an exchange. They were out. I told them to take one of those other PSPs and take it from there. They said no, different SKU. They refunded my money, but refused the exchange, even though the other PSP was the same model, style, version, and revision. But it wasn't the same SKU.
Believe it or not, it actually is a term you should be familiar with, especially when shopping at places like Best Buy.
Heh. I've re-read this thread and I'm still losing track of what the debate's actually about. Re-imagined and re-make are two very different things. Doom 3 is not a remake of Doom. Star Fox 64 is not a remake of Star Fox. Super Mario 64 is not a remake of anything. I'm not who's actually disagreeing with who about what, here.
Slashdot Mirror
"How do you take a USB? People are actually ripping the USB controller out of their machine and taking it with them? What's the point? "
I wish that I was so smart that simple things like that would baffle me.
"No, not really. The Dreamcast died when Sega was in it's last days as a hardware vendor. They could or would not properly advertise or support the system. "
Close. Sega was in financial trouble. In order to really see profit from the DC, they needed to sell another 10 million units. Unfortunately, they didn't have anywhere close to amount of money they needed to actually build those 10 million systems. They were forced to give up.
"They tried that and it didn't work too well. Remember the 3DO?"
That's hardly a useful metric considering that the 3DO's failure was a combination of a high price and next-to-zero killer apps.
"So glad I bought 3 extra Wii-motes, now that SSBB will use the classic controller... Thanks Nintendo!"
I'd take that over:
"The motion controls suck in a fighting game like this! Thanks Nintendo!"
Oh, and btw, you'll still need those remotes to use the classic controllers. That's why they're inexpensive, yet still wireless.
I don't blame you for being annoyed, but try to keep a little perspective.
"What is with everyone thinking Lucas should never do anything Star Wars again because it won't be as good as the originals?"
Not as good as the originals? If the prequels were 3/4ths as good as the originals there'd be far less negativity towards the franchise.
What is with Star Wars prequel fans not getting the complaints about the films even though they've been talked to death since 99? "Annakin accidently got into a ship, accidently took off, accidently joined the battle, and accidently destroyed the Trade Federation's capital ship. My hero!"
"for use of vulgar language in meetings...
how can getting fired be healthy for you? (unless your in a dead end job and need the catalyst to get off your duff and go get a career)"
Just read the fucking article and shut the fuck up.
(Actually I didn't pay a lot of attention reading your post, I've just always wanted to say that and get modded up for it.)
"How the F%$^ can this be a problem? A file copy is a simple operation. "
The file copy isn't what's broken. Windows generates a list of all the files that need copying and it goes one by one and copies them. If that list grows out of bounds (easy enough to do as storage has been growing at a rapid rate), it'll crash.
I agree with you that there's no excuse for it and that Vista should never have been released with that problem. But 'infinite' is not a concept that computers understand. There's problems happen, and not just in Redmond.
"(perhaps the cost of the ramps for N people in wheelchairs could have been spent on delivering stuff to N+1 people who aren't able to leave home at all)"
Erm... I see two problems with that. First, how do you divvy up which company donates how much? In the case of building ramps, it's clear how much should be spent, and they're in charge of who builds what and what they spend on it. Second, Target builds the ramp, and it's done. But if they pour in money to help with the suggestions you've put forward, it never ends.
Killer? Nah. Useful? Well, if they keep their promises, sure.
"Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?"
I don't really know the answer, but I can offer you some speculation: If you're offering your services to the general public, then you'd be unfairly discriminating against disabled people. (This is assuming, of course, that the changes are reasonable. Ramps leading to the doorway aren't the same as denying wheelchair access to a roller coaster.) Now, that's a little broad/extreme, so I'll water it down a bit. A place like Target sells everyday needs to a broad range of people. If a wheelchair-bound person cannot buy something like toilet paper, they're in trouble. I think the idea is to make the world a little easier on people that have these problems.
"Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt? Is it my fault someone else can't see, hear, walk, or think clearly? Frankly, too bad on them. You got a shitty roll of the dice. Life sucks."
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, that's not something you'd be saying if you were stuck in a wheelchair. Those people with a shitty roll of the dice are doing the best they can with the technology available to them to continue to lead a productive life. If common everyday tasks are difficult because a big company like Target didn't spare a little extra expense to resolve the issue, it becomes offensive. "Why is it so frickin hard to build a ramp?! I just want some f'n toilet paper!"
Okay, that's wheelchair access to a physical property, so that example doesn't work well in this discussion. So what about this particular case? From what I've gathered, they could, without a lot of effort or expense, update their site to work for the blind. They're not doing that. In theory, they could just take their business and move on to Wal-mart or Amazon or something. But the problem is that disabled people have had to fight battles like this for decades. If they don't win something like this, the risk is other companies will ignore them because they're not big enough to be profitable.
Life sucks for these people, but it doesn't have to. That's the point. When a little more thought goes into the design of a building or a webspace, it makes life easier for everybody, but it also makes life livable for those with disabilities. Life can suck. That roll of the dice can happen to you at any time.
"Way to add distracting snark. Face it, you're not John Stewart."
Well, to be fair, Jon Stewart's not even John Stewart!
"As opposed to figuratively?"
Gah, don't be so literal.
"If anything, special features generally detract from the enjoyment of a good movie as you struggle to reconcile how a group of such insipid and insincere people could have pulled it off."
I've heard stories about people who have been a little too sincere during the extras filming and have been drummed out of the industry. I couldn't tell you if those stories are true, but it's enough to make you choose your words carefully when you're in front of a camera.
That said, if you want to see something amusing, rent the Director's Cut of Star Trek II and turn on the Michael Okuda commentary. It's a sub-titled (not audio) commentary from one of the art-department guys that takes a few amusing pokes at the movie. When the Enterprise is attacked, one of the main doors closes and people go pouring through it. A sentence will appear at the bottom that says something like "See those pipes the door's cutting through?" Later in the movie, Scotty says he cannot restore main power. Another caption appears "Maybe he should just re-open that door!"
That's about as close to 'sincere' as I've seen in a DVD-extra.
very much like they are coming straight from Redmond's
PR people. They sound way too much like the official
press releases and media events. They have to because of jerks like you. Anybody who wants to say something against that goes popular (and often ill-informed) opinion has to walk on eggshells or face negative moderations and a slew of heated "you must be on their payroll" rebuttals. If you don't like people sounding PR'ish when they post, then don't use moderations to enforce your opinions and don't hit 'reply' to accuse people of having Feringi-esque motives.
Is that a no, then?
"More likely your program is not popular enough to be worth pirating."
Possible, but if he's still there a month later, the odds are good that they are enjoying at least a modest success.
"**cough** slashvertisement **cough**"
It's a strange coincidence that the things that geeks enjoy reading about are often products.
"Yes, the content takes time, but I suspect the controls are what the real issue is."
I'd say that's a strong possibility. Playtesting goes on for ages. I'd say that's probably the first thing to get started and the last to get completed. My only real point, though, was the vast majority of man hours in games like this is often in the art/sound creation, not the actual programming. Depending on the game, yadda yadda yadda, you could have 15 guys creating art and 2 guys doing the programming.
Each game's different, though, so there are always exceptions. My generalization shouldn't be taken too seriously.
"This is pretty much the same system as the Gamecube. Coding for it should be easy by now."
Coding may be easy, but they still have lots and lots of assets to create. Artwork takes time.
"If you at any point took offense to anything I've said, that's all the explanation I need for the demeanor and tone that you've clearly been displaying in our discussion of this most banal, but personally somewhat important, subject."
I'm not offended. However, your tone has been such that I haven't felt all that inclined to take your comments very seriously. Now, I'll grant you that I contributed to that. If you want to have a serious discussion (as opposed to an argument), then I apologize for my behaviour. Please understand, though, I've been on Slashdot a long time and I've dealt with a lot of less-than-tactful people.
"I would like to refrain from even more wasteful non-discussion than has already been exchanged about how we have argued about it, instead of just actually talking about it."
If that's an offer to discuss the topic, then I accept. Serious. Like I said, I have nothing to 'win' here. I'd love a reboot on the topic.
"Did you assume that I was trying to offend you? Who's trying to offend whom, really? I think an objective reading of the whole thread would reveal more of the contrary."
Riiiiight. I'm sure somebody reading a post declaring that all use of the term 'SKU' outside of a retail environment means rabid fanboyism will stroke their beards and say "Mmm... how totally non-offensive."
"Should all potential customers of these products, who by your explanation would all "temporarily become enthusiasts," be expected to speak in these terms?"
Terms? We're just talking about SKU, here.
"I remain unconvinced that you've gotten it yet."
It's not like your point is very sophisticated or nuanced.
"Now read my reply in the appropriate context again."
Right, now re-read the bit you quoted. As I said, you're not listening.
"As trivial as it seems, that is an overstatement."
Heh.. yeah.. speaking of overstatements...
"Really, who even cares?"
You cared enough to go into this thread and spend at least 20 seconds posting this.
Ah ok. I apologize for my snotty tone.
Umm.. yeah... It's hard to take offense to this, sorry. I'm not the one in a tizzy over use of a relevent term. "Seriously guys, let this one go." = "Shut up."
"Sorry buddy, but of all the battles to fight, this is pretty darned petty." = "Shut up because it's unimportant to ME." Nope. 'Calm down'. Both cases. Should all potential customers of these products, who by your explanation would all "temporarily become enthusiasts," be expected to speak in these terms? I'm all for raising the common awareness, but the slow and forced leakage of marketing and sales jargon into the common tongue by way of the enthusiast press seems a bit overboard. You just asked if millions of people should suddenly know a bunch of terms inside and out, of course it seems a bit overboard. Try asking a sensible question.
"I think the reference to non-hobby sales completely escaped you..."
Nope. You're just not listening.
"...along with the fact that nobody ever stated that the term SKU should be banned from retail use."
Didn't say that, either.
"BTW, flavors. Models. Styles. Versions. Revisions. PACKAGES."
BTW, Flavors != Styles != Versions != Revisions != Packages. What the store store sells you (SKU) is what the store will exchange for you. For example: I bought a PSP giga-pack. It was defective. I took it back wanting an exchange. They were out. I told them to take one of those other PSPs and take it from there. They said no, different SKU. They refunded my money, but refused the exchange, even though the other PSP was the same model, style, version, and revision. But it wasn't the same SKU.
Believe it or not, it actually is a term you should be familiar with, especially when shopping at places like Best Buy.
Heh. I've re-read this thread and I'm still losing track of what the debate's actually about. Re-imagined and re-make are two very different things. Doom 3 is not a remake of Doom. Star Fox 64 is not a remake of Star Fox. Super Mario 64 is not a remake of anything. I'm not who's actually disagreeing with who about what, here.