Giving someone access to *cough*"deleted" mail is no worse than giving them access to mail in the first place. If you want to argue about something, say that they have no right to go digging through someone's mail looking for maybes.
Apple has a monopoly? On what? Did somebody patent "an online store, which sells things" now? Apple has lots of marketshare, a marketing department that makes catchy "silhouette"[who knew it was spelled like that? Google knew.. I didn't] ads, and UI-experts as opposed to engineers designing their products.
Just don't make it illegal to modify the iPod (or any other device) to allow it to play "other" media. End of story.
Governments seem to half-get things all the time:)
"Forcing people to act a certain way is bad.. " "Agreed" "So we should force different people to act a different way!"
Given a thousand cheese-eating surrender monkeys at a thousand typewriters.. eventually they'll come up with a sensible legal system? I suppose somebody thought it was a worthy experiment.
Why would I buy a player that's so broken it listens to a "output worse image quality lol kthx bi" bit? I already won't buy a player that listens to a "don't play me because I'm only for germany lol kthx bi" bit or a "don't skip me because I'm really important lol kthx bi" bit.
Re:A creature evolves and then forms a relgion!
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 1
I reserve final judgements until after I play for a while, of course. But I think I'd just prefer a nice physics simulator. I've said before that a really good game is going to be one where you are free to not actually play the game- that's why I liked San Andreas so much, but I'd prefer to not even need to us a car, whatever.
What I really want is a "game" which is dynamic enough that nobody looks down on you for releasing only modules for the game. A game should be like an operating system- a world where you can create whatever fun you want. Right now they're more like high-level frameworks- an abstraction of how to create specific types of fun.
As for Ender, I'd like to believe that we'll come up with a dynamic game sometime before we create God.
haven't you ever played an ORPG? Repeatedly pressing a single button tends to be the whole of it.
Re:A creature evolves and then forms a relgion!
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 1
You don't need to leave the difficulty selection room in Quake, but the game designers haven't built any incentive to stay and have built the entire game around the supposition that you will eventually leave. No matter how long you stay, once you have the ability to leave there is nothing there for you. That's what linear gameplay is. He isnt making judgement calls on values, he's making a half-assed game because it's easier than making an in-depth game. That's not a put-down, that's just a fact. I seriously doubt we'll have a game which can really let you choose your own path for another ten or twenty years.
Yeah, I'm going to buy the game, but I'm a Moron.
Re:A creature evolves and then forms a relgion!
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 1
From the video I saw, this one also does bubble-cities. I think it would be impractical and over-complicate things to try to add 3d to such a 2.5d environment. Still, this is only from one video. But the whole thing seemed like a collection of disconnected mini-games. "Here's the single-celled organism game. And once you're done with that, it never effects anything again, and here's the fish game, and once yu're done, it's gone forever, and now you crawl on land and that's the only part of the game that does anything, and then you get a spaceship and can stage battles between civilizations, but it doesnt actually effect anything, and neither does thhe part on land, for that matter."
It's like playing with pla-doh, only you can't be as creative about what happens.
Re:A creature evolves and then forms a relgion!
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 1
What part of your designing something is evolution? I was actually put off by some of the previews of this at the complete lack of evolution in this game. Would have much preferred to see computer extrapolations of where some of the evolutionary paths I chose to ignore would lead. (if I used to make a creature which was exactly the same, but had four arms, and later I decided to turn the arms into legs, I'd love to someday find a colony of four-armed beasts which then evolved on their own and built their own societal thingy)
The whole game seems abysmally static and linear. I'm sure that contradicts everything everyone else is thinking of this game, but it seems like such a shallow attempt at letting people make their own fun. "This is how you will make your own fun. This is the exact way your own fun will be made and this is what it will consist of" Nevermind if I don't actually want my creatures to live in a bunch of seperate tiny cities, nevermind if one day I think it would be fine to stay underwater, Will Right has declared that no matter what you can think of, there is only one evolutionary path beyond the merest physical eye-candy which is at all viable.
And I came to that conclusion based on one article and one video. I'm so advanced!
Generally I agree, but this is completely different. Saying "Government, help us! We other business can't compete with this company which only releases songs in one format! Make them release things in another format!" is completely different from "Government, don't listen to these dipshits when they say 'Government, help us! We sold somebody a song and they want to listen to it on a less expensive player! Make it illegal for them to attempt to do so!'"
It is not the government's responsibility to support a broken business model. That cuts both ways.
"Type"? What is "Type"? Everyone speaks to their computers on star trek:) But for that matter, have you ever seen anyone on star trek actually use a tablet to/input/ data? They just seemed to be a way to pass around multimedia documents- how's that for security, don't even have the document on your system, just hand someone the system!
What "amazing attention to detail" is actually present? I see lots of major points, sure, but I actually dont see/any/ details. Some things which might be considered details are done entirely wrong, the timing seems completely off. Did they film this without any room left to "fudge" and then do as best they could in the editing room with what they had to work with? "nice", I guess, but I really would like a reply which mentioned what details are actually present. I see a decent tribute which fails to capture any of the subtle details which made simpsons good.
"mirror detection" would be nice.. and if google already has that, then "better mirror detection" would be nice. So it can group all those together and you can still say "find me one that/works/", but they wont all be the same thing.
try configuring the clients to set the environmental variable PROMPT_COMMAND to "eval alias dir='ls -l' ; eval alias del='rm -i' ; eval PROMPT_COMMAND="
Playstation 3 will change the very definition of "spring". The rebirth of each year's springtime will become a shallow metaphore for the huge sweeping cultural and artistic changes which PS3 will bring to humanity as a whole.
(wandering from the topic and getting into "conversation" mode now..) I've always hated "focus follows mouse", because it forces me to hide whatever I'm typing on, even if it's just a single character (maybe you . It also forces me to be "too accurate" with the mouse, and generally means a lot more taking my hand off the keyboard. "Focus Follows Mouse" has always seemed like one of those archaic unixy-things like "select to copy" which may have been great to show off this new "GUI" concept, but which is actually more limiting.
For one thing, it eliminates the "default field" for a new dialog, which slows everything down as you move your hand off the keyboard in order to point where you want to type. The alternative is of course "automatically jump the mouse to the 'default' field", but an application taking control of the mouse pointer in any sense is generally a UI no-no.
The "select to copy" thing would be absolutely wonderful if everyone in the world knew that there are seperate buffers for "copy and paste" and "select". (and if absolutely everything supported a standard method of copy/cut & paste which was unrelated to the select buffer). The primary example is of replacing text in a URL bar. With windows-style copy&paste, you'd select the url you want, copy it, then click where you want it to go, usually hit home, then shift+end to select the existing url, and then paste. [*as an aside, everything would be better if it just worked like vi anyway] Of course, with "select to copy", the 'old' URL squashes the 'new' URL the moment it's selected. Yeah, there are many ways of getting around this other than avoiding the "select to copy" method, but this is my preferred method- you know, because that's easier than convincing every text field to accept input rules based on a globe/etc/viinputrc.conf or something:)
Don't remember if this is in reply to your post or another in this thread, but regarding "you must be someone who uses one program all day", the truth is I do pretty much use just xterms and vim all day, and I have dozens of individual windows, one for each vim, usually one document per vim window. However, each of those vim windows is completely self-contained. I don't need to worry about needing something which isn't displayed.. well, vim is a bad example. I only use one "button" in gvim, the make button, because my mouse is already moving anyway in order to get back to an xterm to actually run the program. Yeah, vim is a/really/ bad example..
(a while back I left "conversation mode" and entered "ramble"..)
going back to the "focus follows mouse" thing, I'd say it's really really rare that I want to type somewhere and not.. see the whole thing at the same time. Hmm, actually, that opinion might also be because of vim.
Anyway, as for MDIs, you generally just need to think about what functionality would be added because of them. Pretty much everyone has been in favor of tabbed browsing in firefox, I'd say that's a strong endorsement of MDI-like features. But then if you look at Opera, a true MDI, it's obvious how much more functionality you are given.
Of course, it's also worth noting that photoshop's toolbars are much smaller than the gimp's toolbars. This isn't a major factor, but it just shows that if you were designing something in terms of an MDI, you would find a way to use less space anyway.
Yes, I'm someone who uses a single-document interface which is controlled entirely through the keyboard and I complain about the lack of MDIs and the limitations of certain mouse interfaces.
This is mostly because I would love to use the gimp, but I absolutely can't stand it. Photoshop "just works", the gimp.. well it has many UI abnormalities, and the lack of an MDI isn't even the worst of them (some basic manipulation features are just missing), it's just a major one, which forces me to get lost often. Gimp seems to be designed with the mindset of "Use multiple desktops o
Slashdot Mirror
Giving someone access to *cough*"deleted" mail is no worse than giving them access to mail in the first place.
If you want to argue about something, say that they have no right to go digging through someone's mail looking for maybes.
Apple has a monopoly? On what? Did somebody patent "an online store, which sells things" now?
Apple has lots of marketshare, a marketing department that makes catchy "silhouette"[who knew it was spelled like that? Google knew.. I didn't] ads, and UI-experts as opposed to engineers designing their products.
Just don't make it illegal to modify the iPod (or any other device) to allow it to play "other" media. End of story.
:)
Governments seem to half-get things all the time
"Forcing people to act a certain way is bad.. "
"Agreed"
"So we should force different people to act a different way!"
Given a thousand cheese-eating surrender monkeys at a thousand typewriters.. eventually they'll come up with a sensible legal system? I suppose somebody thought it was a worthy experiment.
If it comes with linux, all those video cables.. if it just came with a video /in/...
this isn't informative, it's a question. I have no idea if the author is a mediocre satirist or merely a shitty writer.
Why would I buy a player that's so broken it listens to a "output worse image quality lol kthx bi" bit? I already won't buy a player that listens to a "don't play me because I'm only for germany lol kthx bi" bit or a "don't skip me because I'm really important lol kthx bi" bit.
Sacred Bits are even worse than encrypted discs.
This is satire, right? It certainly seems to be a huge "stay the hell away from linux!" warning message.
here is? where is?
I reserve final judgements until after I play for a while, of course. But I think I'd just prefer a nice physics simulator. I've said before that a really good game is going to be one where you are free to not actually play the game- that's why I liked San Andreas so much, but I'd prefer to not even need to us a car, whatever.
What I really want is a "game" which is dynamic enough that nobody looks down on you for releasing only modules for the game. A game should be like an operating system- a world where you can create whatever fun you want. Right now they're more like high-level frameworks- an abstraction of how to create specific types of fun.
As for Ender, I'd like to believe that we'll come up with a dynamic game sometime before we create God.
haven't you ever played an ORPG? Repeatedly pressing a single button tends to be the whole of it.
You don't need to leave the difficulty selection room in Quake, but the game designers haven't built any incentive to stay and have built the entire game around the supposition that you will eventually leave. No matter how long you stay, once you have the ability to leave there is nothing there for you. That's what linear gameplay is.
He isnt making judgement calls on values, he's making a half-assed game because it's easier than making an in-depth game. That's not a put-down, that's just a fact. I seriously doubt we'll have a game which can really let you choose your own path for another ten or twenty years.
Yeah, I'm going to buy the game, but I'm a Moron.
From the video I saw, this one also does bubble-cities. I think it would be impractical and over-complicate things to try to add 3d to such a 2.5d environment. Still, this is only from one video. But the whole thing seemed like a collection of disconnected mini-games. "Here's the single-celled organism game. And once you're done with that, it never effects anything again, and here's the fish game, and once yu're done, it's gone forever, and now you crawl on land and that's the only part of the game that does anything, and then you get a spaceship and can stage battles between civilizations, but it doesnt actually effect anything, and neither does thhe part on land, for that matter."
It's like playing with pla-doh, only you can't be as creative about what happens.
What part of your designing something is evolution? I was actually put off by some of the previews of this at the complete lack of evolution in this game. Would have much preferred to see computer extrapolations of where some of the evolutionary paths I chose to ignore would lead. (if I used to make a creature which was exactly the same, but had four arms, and later I decided to turn the arms into legs, I'd love to someday find a colony of four-armed beasts which then evolved on their own and built their own societal thingy)
The whole game seems abysmally static and linear. I'm sure that contradicts everything everyone else is thinking of this game, but it seems like such a shallow attempt at letting people make their own fun. "This is how you will make your own fun. This is the exact way your own fun will be made and this is what it will consist of" Nevermind if I don't actually want my creatures to live in a bunch of seperate tiny cities, nevermind if one day I think it would be fine to stay underwater, Will Right has declared that no matter what you can think of, there is only one evolutionary path beyond the merest physical eye-candy which is at all viable.
And I came to that conclusion based on one article and one video. I'm so advanced!
Generally I agree, but this is completely different.
Saying "Government, help us! We other business can't compete with this company which only releases songs in one format! Make them release things in another format!" is completely different from "Government, don't listen to these dipshits when they say 'Government, help us! We sold somebody a song and they want to listen to it on a less expensive player! Make it illegal for them to attempt to do so!'"
It is not the government's responsibility to support a broken business model. That cuts both ways.
and turn your computer into a BOMB!
"Type"? What is "Type"? Everyone speaks to their computers on star trek :) /input/ data? They just seemed to be a way to pass around multimedia documents- how's that for security, don't even have the document on your system, just hand someone the system!
But for that matter, have you ever seen anyone on star trek actually use a tablet to
Why yes, I am a virgin!
Hey look! It's someone who almost got the point!
What's wrong with sleeping on the floor?!
I thought Linux stopped allowing anonymous contributions for this very reason.
What "amazing attention to detail" is actually present? I see lots of major points, sure, but I actually dont see /any/ details. Some things which might be considered details are done entirely wrong, the timing seems completely off. Did they film this without any room left to "fudge" and then do as best they could in the editing room with what they had to work with?
"nice", I guess, but I really would like a reply which mentioned what details are actually present. I see a decent tribute which fails to capture any of the subtle details which made simpsons good.
Are auto-generated demographics pages.
Why can't the "random page" button have a "no pages from these catagories:" option?
"mirror detection" would be nice.. and if google already has that, then "better mirror detection" would be nice. So it can group all those together and you can still say "find me one that /works/", but they wont all be the same thing.
try configuring the clients to set the environmental variable PROMPT_COMMAND to "eval alias dir='ls -l' ; eval alias del='rm -i' ; eval PROMPT_COMMAND="
</lame>
Playstation 3 will change the very definition of "spring". The rebirth of each year's springtime will become a shallow metaphore for the huge sweeping cultural and artistic changes which PS3 will bring to humanity as a whole.
(wandering from the topic and getting into "conversation" mode now..)
/etc/viinputrc.conf or something :)
/really/ bad example..
I've always hated "focus follows mouse", because it forces me to hide whatever I'm typing on, even if it's just a single character (maybe you . It also forces me to be "too accurate" with the mouse, and generally means a lot more taking my hand off the keyboard.
"Focus Follows Mouse" has always seemed like one of those archaic unixy-things like "select to copy" which may have been great to show off this new "GUI" concept, but which is actually more limiting.
For one thing, it eliminates the "default field" for a new dialog, which slows everything down as you move your hand off the keyboard in order to point where you want to type. The alternative is of course "automatically jump the mouse to the 'default' field", but an application taking control of the mouse pointer in any sense is generally a UI no-no.
The "select to copy" thing would be absolutely wonderful if everyone in the world knew that there are seperate buffers for "copy and paste" and "select". (and if absolutely everything supported a standard method of copy/cut & paste which was unrelated to the select buffer). The primary example is of replacing text in a URL bar. With windows-style copy&paste, you'd select the url you want, copy it, then click where you want it to go, usually hit home, then shift+end to select the existing url, and then paste. [*as an aside, everything would be better if it just worked like vi anyway]
Of course, with "select to copy", the 'old' URL squashes the 'new' URL the moment it's selected. Yeah, there are many ways of getting around this other than avoiding the "select to copy" method, but this is my preferred method- you know, because that's easier than convincing every text field to accept input rules based on a globe
Don't remember if this is in reply to your post or another in this thread, but regarding "you must be someone who uses one program all day", the truth is I do pretty much use just xterms and vim all day, and I have dozens of individual windows, one for each vim, usually one document per vim window. However, each of those vim windows is completely self-contained. I don't need to worry about needing something which isn't displayed.. well, vim is a bad example. I only use one "button" in gvim, the make button, because my mouse is already moving anyway in order to get back to an xterm to actually run the program.
Yeah, vim is a
(a while back I left "conversation mode" and entered "ramble"..)
going back to the "focus follows mouse" thing, I'd say it's really really rare that I want to type somewhere and not.. see the whole thing at the same time.
Hmm, actually, that opinion might also be because of vim.
Anyway, as for MDIs, you generally just need to think about what functionality would be added because of them. Pretty much everyone has been in favor of tabbed browsing in firefox, I'd say that's a strong endorsement of MDI-like features. But then if you look at Opera, a true MDI, it's obvious how much more functionality you are given.
Of course, it's also worth noting that photoshop's toolbars are much smaller than the gimp's toolbars. This isn't a major factor, but it just shows that if you were designing something in terms of an MDI, you would find a way to use less space anyway.
Yes, I'm someone who uses a single-document interface which is controlled entirely through the keyboard and I complain about the lack of MDIs and the limitations of certain mouse interfaces.
This is mostly because I would love to use the gimp, but I absolutely can't stand it. Photoshop "just works", the gimp.. well it has many UI abnormalities, and the lack of an MDI isn't even the worst of them (some basic manipulation features are just missing), it's just a major one, which forces me to get lost often. Gimp seems to be designed with the mindset of "Use multiple desktops o