My bad. I usually edit that stuff out and this one slipped passed me in my haste to get it posted. It's a bit late not to change it in any case and all I can do is say that I'll try harder to make sure this kind of stuff gets edited out in the future.
This tidbit comes thru email from Slashdot Reader Walt Scacchi:
Hello Cliff,
Given your interest in the emerging topic of formulating a corporate policy for developing and deploying free/open source software, I have been asked to speak on this subject recently, specifically for audiences such as the University of California IT Leadership Council (CIOs and senior staff at the 10 UC campuses--this is the business and operations side of the UC, a >100K employee >$10B/yr enterprise, not the academic research side) and others. My focus is less of a "why to invest in F/OSS" but more of a "given that you want to invest in F/OSS, here's what to consider and how to proceed".
I have a presentation (PDF, PPT) on my Web site from this presentation, if that may be of value to you. You can find it here.
Hope this helps.
Walt Scacchi
Institute for Software Research
School of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine F/OSS Research Site
It's quite possible that the game designers have implemented some of the suggestions above, and if they have, great!
However it seems to me that much of SWG is being constantly revamped. One of the first things they should have done was handle the intricacies of being a Jedi, and instead it seems like this character class was added as an after-thought to satisfy the audience.
Having not played the game, yet -- I'm still reserving judgement. I just hope that once the revamping of the class has been finished, that it is done in a manner that attempts to draw more from the Staw Wars mythos rather than classic MMORPG lore. Camping Single Mobs is one of the worst designs that has come from the MMORPG revolution and I'm hoping that more creative solutions can be employed in making the Jedi Path challenging, as opposed to mind-numblingly frustrating.
While I agree that being a Jedi should be unreachable to all but the most dedicated of players, I can't see why the game designers can't implement something easy to limit the number of "in-game Jedi" without destroying gameplay and player enjoyment.
Allow me to propose an idea: Have an in-game Jedi limit comprised of a hard and a soft threshhold. Both thressholds are based on a small percentage of the number of accounts in the system (note, this is accounts, not players). Once the soft threshhold is reached, the game becomes slightly more difficult for all Jedi in the game (for example: mobs will target Jedi characters more than regulars with a greater chance to hit and greater damage as well). As Jedi attrition increases the in-game number may drop below the soft threshhold and the game is as normal. Of course, this assumes permadeath for force-sensitive characters -- which I think is fair. If you don't want permadeath, don't play a Jedi. Obviously, if the hard threshhold is reached, no more force-sensitive characters will be allowed.
With this scheme, it would seem that a soft-threshhold of 0.25-0.6% and a hard-threshhold of 1-1.5% would be along the lines of what was seen in the movies, and could be adjusted dynamically by the game developers, and could be server dependent.
This seems to me to be a simple way to allow players to reach being a Jedi, give them challenges while being a Jedi and also allow for new players to become Jedi if they are willing to go through the trials and tribulations necessary to activate their Force-Sensitive character slot.
Disclaimer: I have never played SWG, as I am waiting for SOE to finally deliver on the promises they have made from the beginning, however I have been following the game and am wondering why the game designers haven't thought about implementing such a system on top of hard-to-find Jedi-oriented quests. I agree that being a Jedi should be difficult to extremely hard, but establishing population limits on top of that seems to be a no-brainer.
I can't preview this comment due to a bug in Slashdot, so I apologize in advance for any errors in formating/spelling/etc.
maybe no specific written policy, but they usually include a catch-all statement somewhere in case something new happens to justify punishment. sometimes falls under some sort of common code of discipline that loosely defines what is acceptable rather than what is not.
I'll believe that when and if I ever find a copy of those guidelines to inspect.
what this kid did was disruptive, anyone at a terminal when that "Hey!" message popped up were unnecessarily distracted from what they were doing, even though most probably brushed it off (like the principal). you certainly dont like getting spam, or pop-up windows while browsing, but you brush it off anyway because it's routine. recall back to the very first spam email you got - what went through your head? did you even know what spam was? that's what went through the heads of most people at that school.
Is this any more damaging and disruptive than passing notes back and forth in class? Speaking out of turn? Making fun of the class geek? I'd probably find any or all of the former more disruptive than a simple popup box saying "Hey!" with an OK button. You don't see any of the children guilty of the above being suspended for three days do you? Most of those behaviors barely rate a visit to the principle. Just because this behavior happens on a computer it's worth the schoolyard equivalent of solitary confinement?
by punishing the kid for what he did, the principal made it known that such use of school machines are not tolerated, which will be better in the long run. even if the punishment he imposed was out of line.
School principles are supposed to be wise enough to pick their battles better than this. I have less problems with what this kid did than I do with the school's reaction to it. If anything, I find it more likely that this principle's reaction, instead of illustrating discipline, will make these kids less likely to be willing to experiment and learn with the computer, even in the proper fashion.
What lesson is this 8 year old and his peers going to take home from this?
None worth learning, IMHO.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, jeffy.
however, what the kid did was wrong, and that's that. his punishment was overkill, and we'll all (/.'ers, that is) agree. detention or a mandatory essay was probably more appropriate.
Sorry, jeffy. I'm afraid I disagree. First off, there were no written policies against this. No teacher told the kids that the "net" command was offlimits. All of the machines were configured to let this through.
He learned this command from his father and decided to experiment with it at school. Are educators now in the business of making children afraid to experiment and learn?
Back when I was in elementary school we were encouraged to experiment with computers as long as we followed the guidelines. If we encountered an issue where the guidelines were unclear on, our teacher told us what we did that may proove to be problematic later and the guidelines were updated.
It would be interesting to note if the school has updated their guidelines on this topic and have take the (simple) steps necessary to insure this doesn't happen again, but saying that what this kid did was wrong is borderlining on the dangerous.
Is it any wonder why some people grow up afraid to learn computers? I'd hazard to say maybe we'd do well to have better trained educators and more concise guidelines rather than knee-jerk suspensions and "computer educators" that don't know how to secure their own networks, nor how to handle the children whom the parents put in their care!
Don't get me wrong, I agree. However, your boss may not see it that way and, unless you are absolutely sure you can get another job in this economy, may need something directly tangible to his bottom line, to sell the idea.
My comments were just suggestions. Adjust them to taste, or don't follow them at all.
do you think that this would be a good idea, overall? think about where this winds up going if it becomes a trend in, say, 3-5 years time: it becomes a price war, and it's one that domestic employees cannot win. cost of living is just higher here than in a number of other countries.
Well, in case you haven't noiticed, domestic employees are losing, anyways! Outsourcing is no guarantee of lowering labor costs, it's a gamble. Why gamble on an unknown quantity when, if labor costs are a problem, you can gamble on a known one?
i think this is a very, very bad idea, and one that's not just bad for you personally, but also for people in the industry overall. it would have the effect of dropping IT salaries across the board. in essence, you would be arguing that you're overpaid. not a good idea, IMHO.
As it is, since "outsourcing" is the growing trend, management has already decided that domestic programming labor is "overpaid", otherwise why outsource?
It might be a bad idea in the long run, I don't know. It's why I was asking, and hoping would be, or existing managers could tell me the flaw in my logic. IT salaries, with the current trend in outsourcing, may have to start dropping to keep up, anyways. What really are the advantages to an American company that outsources their code, vs one that keeps American workers working for a decent wage? I'm not talking about perceived advantages, but real advantages that can be shown, both on paper and in practice?
Based on the description of the problem this doesn't seem to have anything to do with oversea's labour. It's just that he was replaced by an outsourcing company (in his own country).
About the reduction in pay comment, if you were sent home with a 50% pay cut would you be happy about it? Or would you be hitting monster.com on your 'extended' lunch breaks. I don't think it's really practical to half-way lay-off people, because the employees won't be at all loyal after that.
It all depends on your current position. If it were me, I know I'd at least like the choice, if my job were the one up for potential outsourcing. Hey, if it doesn't work for you and you'd prefer your old salary, you can do what most are already having to do now: find a new job.
But if you have bills to pay, and live in an uncertain economy: a paycheck might be better than no paycheck.
It's all about the choice, and if you are a good worker, why should you not have that choice?
In the Salon Politics article "Florida's flawed 'voter-cleansing' program," it was incorrectly stated that Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a company, ChoicePoint, to create a voter "purge" list. The company was hired in 1998 before Harris was elected to her post. Also, Rick Rozar was incorrectly identified as a founder of ChoicePoint. Rozar was the president of a company, CDB Infotek, of which Choicepoint owned 70 percent, and which ChoicePoint eventually bought. Salon regrets the errors.'
Note that it says that Harris didn't hire ChoicePoint, her predecessor did. That doesn't say that ChoicePoint wasn't under Harris' control when she did take office. It also seems that most of the facts presented in that story still remain uncontested.
When you can't attack the facts, you attack the person. Nice strategy, but sometimes it's the messege and not the messenger that should matter, and for these issues, you might do well to at least keep an open mind. Politics is power, and there are people out there that, dispite what you think, want nothing more to keep that power.
What was the message, then? Well, the message here is that political elements in Florida did their best to steal votes to sway the outcome of the 2000 election. Note the non-partisan language there! If roles were reversed, I'd still feel the same way: it bothers me, as it should anyone who cares about a democracy. (even an approximation of one, like America's) As soon as we let this happen, we start the slow slide of power away from the people.
If you believe me in error about this issue, please point me to the corrections, and I'll gladly re-evaluate my stance.
Kickass! This was going to be my answer too. I was afraid I would be the only person to mention it and would, of course, date myself. But someone has gladly gone and done it for me.;D
I'd have to agree with you here. FZero-GX is a great game hampered by crappy gameplay due to a LACK of fine-control on tracks that require it. It doesn't help that I can't progress any further in the game (after completing only the first Grand Prix track) since the last tracks in the next set of races are completely designed to throw you off the track (thus "retiring" you, and you get nothing for the races you did complete if this happens).
It sucks, because everything else about the game is great, and I'd love to be playing it, but I generally play games to be entertained, not frustrated. Sadly, it's the later that game designers seem to be accomplishing with this latest crop of games. Games on the 'cube suffer from this as much as games on the other systems, even the PC [ Yes, I'm looking at you, Tron 2.0 ].
Also, I'd probably say what I said 8 years ago, which is if you want a gaming machine, get a PS2 (well, 8 years ago I said PSX;) or GameCube (I'm omitting one large gaming system here for obvious reasons:). The games and graphics are much better quality than you'll get on a PC, as it's a dedicated system, and it's cheaper than a PC, too. Or Mac.:)
Sorry, this is also a cop out.
I know consoles, I own 3, and while console games have come a long way, they just can't compete with a well-done PC game. I'm not going to go into this much, except for one of my major peeves: console controllers. I'm sorry, but I can't stand the controllers of today's console, and more often than not, I'm a lot more comfortable with a keyboard + mouse than I am with a D-pad, or even worse, a small analog controllers that more often than not, are worse at fine control than D-Pads.
IMHO, analog controller + D-pad + Triggers and maybe 4 buttons, doesn't make for a very rich control set. It may work for console games, now, but just barely. Most games just don't offer the configurability some people need to feel comfortable with it. I'm one of these people.
No, consoles are not yet the be-all-end-all to video games...yet. The potential is there, and the progress is there, but for some things (complex games, ala Ultima Underworld, or Tron 2.0) are better on the PC.
SKUs are generally inventory numbers or stock keeping units. By asking users to watch their webpage for "additional SKUs", they are basically asking the users of other OSes (ala Macs) to hold their breath until they decide to release to something other than Windows.
What I want to know is what is so different about this latest version of Myst where they couldn't have completed a Mac version to begin with. They had 2 versions of Myst under their belt, already, so it's not like they haven't had experience developing for the Mac.
I can understand if they gave an explicit reason as to why a Mac version wasn't created, but saying "watch this space", is kind of a cop-out. Generally, and at least in this industry, when you say "watch this space", what it really means is "yeah, keep looking. We might do another version, but we want to keep the hype machine going at your expense"
In all fairness, I'll have to take a look at the trailer and see what the new game looks like, but the preponderance of the "games only sell on Windows" attitude, I'm wondering if game studios are willing to live with the fact that they are making this a self-fulfilling prophesy and if any of them are ever interested in trying to get out from under Microsoft's shadow.
I am anti-Microsoft, and I own a Macintosh. Does this make me an anti-MS Mac zealot too?
Please help me resolve my confusion, pudge! You are my only hope!:-D
OK, OK. Now to cease my impersonation of your average brain-dead troll and being completely honest, I think you can be anti-MS and own a Mac and not be an "anti-MS Mac zealot". I subscribe to the camp that drops the word "zealot" from that title since my life doesn't revolve around criticisizing Microsoft at every wrong turn (no, my job revolves around that, which is a totally different critter), I have begrudgingly recommended Microsoft products at several turns, which defintely eliminates me from the "zealot" camp.
Honestly, folks. I think you all need new labels. Computer users are growing up.
This story is something that would probably better fit as a comment, or at least be verified. This is just some story submission by a dumb bastard who didn't thoroughly research the subject ("cd/Applications/iTunes.app/ && ls" works wonders) before he submitted it, and had it approved by some person (evidently you) who didn't bother to do anything before clicking the "Post it to Slashdot!" button.
OK, so if you are so knowledgeable then why didn't you do the same thing to see if the original poster was spouting bullshit or not? It's easy to criticize others on things they should have done, but if ("cd/Applications/iTunes.app/ && ls") is so easy, and you feel so superior, then I would be real interested in seeing if you could research the issue and post something that would be "news, factual OR interesting".
For the record, I am technically on vacation. I am posting to Slashdot because it is something I love to do and I will post the topics that interest me, and I have every intent of trying to see if I can figure out what is going on...just as soon as I can get back to my Powerbook which is 250 miles away (and was 250 miles away when I posted this article).
Seriously, if you feel there is a void, why don't you make your best attempts to fill it rather than bitching, whining and moaning about something that you have in your power to fix?
This is the the kind of mindset I'm in, right now. I'm sorry it doesn't jive with yours, but I don't think it all that impossible that Apple would code an easter egg in iPhoto for Christmas, and figured it would be interesting to see if anyone else ran in to this kind of behavior.
Heck, this is a sectional story, so I figured it was appropriate. How else are you going to know what is going on around the computing world without polling your peers?
Some days I wonder the same thing, but with many of these submissions, it's kinda hard to verify some of the claims.
Yes, the submissions bin can be a multi-edged sword, and I have the scars to proove it.:(
For Those Complaining About This Article...
on
Broken .Mac?
·
· Score: 2
People, please read the article!
For those not having problems, FINE. That's good. That's part of what I wanted to hear when I posted this story, and the other part was to see who was having problems and to hopefully offer solutions. However, what dissapoints me the most is those of you who have no problems with the service calling those who do "stupid" or "morons". That is rude, and I would advise those who have to step back and realize that not everyone who uses the.MAC service might have your skills with it.
I have had problems with.MAC, myself. Nothing really serious and I'm not a user, but it has certainly crashed my PowerBook with a repeatable error, and this was part of the impetus behind my posting (especially since, as one poster mentioned, the submission didn't include any links or other information to bring his point across). Maybe I should have posted a link to my comment in the article, but I just didn't think about it at the time.
So, to clarify: NO, this article is not a troll. This article is a call for help to see if anyone has experience the problem. If things work fine for you, please say so. If you are aware of some of the issues, please post links (Note to those who think that Slashdot Editors read all the comments on Slashdot: No. I don't. I have a lifelet, as pathetic as that may be which precludes me from engaging in such a brain-numbing excercise) Many of you have done this and I offer my heartfelt thanks, but this "This story is a troll, it works for me!" bullshit is unnecessary. "It works for me!" is all anyone really needs.
But instead of editorializing my opinions, on this matter in-article, I'm placing them here, instead...
When a commercial entity makes a mistake, I believe that it falls on them to correct it via the most simple and expedient method available. A "No refunds or exchanges" policy shouldn't affect this simple rule since it was the commercial entity itself that made the mistake.
However, in reality things are much different, and hence, consumers are put at risk every time money changes hands. Why should such policies be legal even though it wasn't the consumers fault. Shouldn't the entity accepting the money have some form of obligation to the person paying them to get the service they intended?
Now, I can see the problems with changing shows like this (the show in question is T-16h:12m and counting, as I type this), but there are bound to be other folks who are in the same boat, and I feel that the theater should at least make a token effort to see how many people got screwed in this manner and whether trades between them would work. If they don't refunds should be provided for those who can't attend the time the theater imposed on them (not their tickets since the tickets state the right time!).
Of course, there is always the option of trying to sneak in using the existing ticket, but why should consumers resort to subterfuge to get what they intended to in the first place.
This, quite frankly, is Capitalism Gone Wrong, and I don't think there are any ready solutions, although I would be interested in hearing how the rest of you think.
Oh, but they have. Fox has announced that Firefly is truly cancelled. They have the pilot and then 2-3 other episodes that they plan on airing..."sometime", and then the show is done.
This has truly not been a good year of TV, for me.
Being the kind of guy I am, when a likely potential presents itself, which does not depend on me thinking the worse of other human beings, I will tend to latch on to it in the hopes that such common sense thinking will prevail.
Let's look at another likely occurance here before throwing up the age old (but experience-proven, I will grant you that) addage of the average intelligence of your network executive and *gasp* give them the benefit of the doubt here for a second.
Firefly episodes will run thru December.
Farscape, which also airs in that exact same "Timeslot of Doom" will begin its run of final (Yes. I know. That argument is neither here nor there. Save it for 2003. I'll be there in the trenches with you.) 11 episodes starting in January.
Can we see a pattern here?
So a hiatus with the provision that the show will return in a different timeslot than it's main competition in the genre this year makes a bit of...well..sense, doesn't it?
Quite possibly Firefly will move to Monday's at 9pm, but I don't know how well that will fit, with Boston Public likely to stay in the preceeding timeslot. But as long as I don't have to compete with Farscape and Firefly on at the same time, my scheduling duties will be that much less of a hassle and if this prooves to be true, I will be grateful to the execs at Fox...
That's assuming we all aren't right back here again within 6 months.
Experience-worn truths are usually that way for a damned good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw....
;)
Global Thermonuclear War
"Shall we play a game, Professor Falken?"
Wargames wouldn't have anything on that puppy!
I figure I should mention an older YRO Article from 2000 that indicts MAPS as censorware. If I had remembered the URL before this story went to press-time, it would have included it.
Now, 5 years later, it looks like the indictment still holds.
My bad. I usually edit that stuff out and this one slipped passed me in my haste to get it posted. It's a bit late not to change it in any case and all I can do is say that I'll try harder to make sure this kind of stuff gets edited out in the future.
This tidbit comes thru email from Slashdot Reader Walt Scacchi:
It's quite possible that the game designers have implemented some of the suggestions above, and if they have, great!
However it seems to me that much of SWG is being constantly revamped. One of the first things they should have done was handle the intricacies of being a Jedi, and instead it seems like this character class was added as an after-thought to satisfy the audience.
Having not played the game, yet -- I'm still reserving judgement. I just hope that once the revamping of the class has been finished, that it is done in a manner that attempts to draw more from the Staw Wars mythos rather than classic MMORPG lore. Camping Single Mobs is one of the worst designs that has come from the MMORPG revolution and I'm hoping that more creative solutions can be employed in making the Jedi Path challenging, as opposed to mind-numblingly frustrating.
- Cliff
Wishing I had a working Preview.
While I agree that being a Jedi should be unreachable to all but the most dedicated of players, I can't see why the game designers can't implement something easy to limit the number of "in-game Jedi" without destroying gameplay and player enjoyment.
Allow me to propose an idea: Have an in-game Jedi limit comprised of a hard and a soft threshhold. Both thressholds are based on a small percentage of the number of accounts in the system (note, this is accounts, not players). Once the soft threshhold is reached, the game becomes slightly more difficult for all Jedi in the game (for example: mobs will target Jedi characters more than regulars with a greater chance to hit and greater damage as well). As Jedi attrition increases the in-game number may drop below the soft threshhold and the game is as normal. Of course, this assumes permadeath for force-sensitive characters -- which I think is fair. If you don't want permadeath, don't play a Jedi. Obviously, if the hard threshhold is reached, no more force-sensitive characters will be allowed.
With this scheme, it would seem that a soft-threshhold of 0.25-0.6% and a hard-threshhold of 1-1.5% would be along the lines of what was seen in the movies, and could be adjusted dynamically by the game developers, and could be server dependent.
This seems to me to be a simple way to allow players to reach being a Jedi, give them challenges while being a Jedi and also allow for new players to become Jedi if they are willing to go through the trials and tribulations necessary to activate their Force-Sensitive character slot.
Disclaimer: I have never played SWG, as I am waiting for SOE to finally deliver on the promises they have made from the beginning, however I have been following the game and am wondering why the game designers haven't thought about implementing such a system on top of hard-to-find Jedi-oriented quests. I agree that being a Jedi should be difficult to extremely hard, but establishing population limits on top of that seems to be a no-brainer.
I can't preview this comment due to a bug in Slashdot, so I apologize in advance for any errors in formating/spelling/etc.
Priceless
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.
What lesson is this 8 year old and his peers going to take home from this?
None worth learning, IMHO.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, jeffy.
He learned this command from his father and decided to experiment with it at school. Are educators now in the business of making children afraid to experiment and learn?
Back when I was in elementary school we were encouraged to experiment with computers as long as we followed the guidelines. If we encountered an issue where the guidelines were unclear on, our teacher told us what we did that may proove to be problematic later and the guidelines were updated.
It would be interesting to note if the school has updated their guidelines on this topic and have take the (simple) steps necessary to insure this doesn't happen again, but saying that what this kid did was wrong is borderlining on the dangerous.
Is it any wonder why some people grow up afraid to learn computers? I'd hazard to say maybe we'd do well to have better trained educators and more concise guidelines rather than knee-jerk suspensions and "computer educators" that don't know how to secure their own networks, nor how to handle the children whom the parents put in their care!
Don't get me wrong, I agree. However, your boss may not see it that way and, unless you are absolutely sure you can get another job in this economy, may need something directly tangible to his bottom line, to sell the idea.
My comments were just suggestions. Adjust them to taste, or don't follow them at all.
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
It might be a bad idea in the long run, I don't know. It's why I was asking, and hoping would be, or existing managers could tell me the flaw in my logic. IT salaries, with the current trend in outsourcing, may have to start dropping to keep up, anyways. What really are the advantages to an American company that outsources their code, vs one that keeps American workers working for a decent wage? I'm not talking about perceived advantages, but real advantages that can be shown, both on paper and in practice?
But if you have bills to pay, and live in an uncertain economy: a paycheck might be better than no paycheck.
It's all about the choice, and if you are a good worker, why should you not have that choice?
When you can't attack the facts, you attack the person. Nice strategy, but sometimes it's the messege and not the messenger that should matter, and for these issues, you might do well to at least keep an open mind. Politics is power, and there are people out there that, dispite what you think, want nothing more to keep that power.
What was the message, then? Well, the message here is that political elements in Florida did their best to steal votes to sway the outcome of the 2000 election. Note the non-partisan language there! If roles were reversed, I'd still feel the same way: it bothers me, as it should anyone who cares about a democracy. (even an approximation of one, like America's) As soon as we let this happen, we start the slow slide of power away from the people.
If you believe me in error about this issue, please point me to the corrections, and I'll gladly re-evaluate my stance.
Kickass! This was going to be my answer too. I was afraid I would be the only person to mention it and would, of course, date myself. But someone has gladly gone and done it for me. ;D
I'd have to agree with you here. FZero-GX is a great game hampered by crappy gameplay due to a LACK of fine-control on tracks that require it. It doesn't help that I can't progress any further in the game (after completing only the first Grand Prix track) since the last tracks in the next set of races are completely designed to throw you off the track (thus "retiring" you, and you get nothing for the races you did complete if this happens).
It sucks, because everything else about the game is great, and I'd love to be playing it, but I generally play games to be entertained, not frustrated. Sadly, it's the later that game designers seem to be accomplishing with this latest crop of games. Games on the 'cube suffer from this as much as games on the other systems, even the PC [ Yes, I'm looking at you, Tron 2.0 ].
I know consoles, I own 3, and while console games have come a long way, they just can't compete with a well-done PC game. I'm not going to go into this much, except for one of my major peeves: console controllers. I'm sorry, but I can't stand the controllers of today's console, and more often than not, I'm a lot more comfortable with a keyboard + mouse than I am with a D-pad, or even worse, a small analog controllers that more often than not, are worse at fine control than D-Pads.
IMHO, analog controller + D-pad + Triggers and maybe 4 buttons, doesn't make for a very rich control set. It may work for console games, now, but just barely. Most games just don't offer the configurability some people need to feel comfortable with it. I'm one of these people.
No, consoles are not yet the be-all-end-all to video games...yet. The potential is there, and the progress is there, but for some things (complex games, ala Ultima Underworld, or Tron 2.0) are better on the PC.
SKUs are generally inventory numbers or stock keeping units. By asking users to watch their webpage for "additional SKUs", they are basically asking the users of other OSes (ala Macs) to hold their breath until they decide to release to something other than Windows.
What I want to know is what is so different about this latest version of Myst where they couldn't have completed a Mac version to begin with. They had 2 versions of Myst under their belt, already, so it's not like they haven't had experience developing for the Mac.
I can understand if they gave an explicit reason as to why a Mac version wasn't created, but saying "watch this space", is kind of a cop-out. Generally, and at least in this industry, when you say "watch this space", what it really means is "yeah, keep looking. We might do another version, but we want to keep the hype machine going at your expense"
In all fairness, I'll have to take a look at the trailer and see what the new game looks like, but the preponderance of the "games only sell on Windows" attitude, I'm wondering if game studios are willing to live with the fact that they are making this a self-fulfilling prophesy and if any of them are ever interested in trying to get out from under Microsoft's shadow.
Please help me resolve my confusion, pudge! You are my only hope! :-D
OK, OK. Now to cease my impersonation of your average brain-dead troll and being completely honest, I think you can be anti-MS and own a Mac and not be an "anti-MS Mac zealot". I subscribe to the camp that drops the word "zealot" from that title since my life doesn't revolve around criticisizing Microsoft at every wrong turn (no, my job revolves around that, which is a totally different critter), I have begrudgingly recommended Microsoft products at several turns, which defintely eliminates me from the "zealot" camp.
Honestly, folks. I think you all need new labels. Computer users are growing up.
For the record, I am technically on vacation. I am posting to Slashdot because it is something I love to do and I will post the topics that interest me, and I have every intent of trying to see if I can figure out what is going on...just as soon as I can get back to my Powerbook which is 250 miles away (and was 250 miles away when I posted this article).
Seriously, if you feel there is a void, why don't you make your best attempts to fill it rather than bitching, whining and moaning about something that you have in your power to fix?
And a Happy New Year to you, too.
This is the the kind of mindset I'm in, right now. I'm sorry it doesn't jive with yours, but I don't think it all that impossible that Apple would code an easter egg in iPhoto for Christmas, and figured it would be interesting to see if anyone else ran in to this kind of behavior.
Heck, this is a sectional story, so I figured it was appropriate. How else are you going to know what is going on around the computing world without polling your peers?
Yes, the submissions bin can be a multi-edged sword, and I have the scars to proove it. :(
For those not having problems, FINE. That's good. That's part of what I wanted to hear when I posted this story, and the other part was to see who was having problems and to hopefully offer solutions. However, what dissapoints me the most is those of you who have no problems with the service calling those who do "stupid" or "morons". That is rude, and I would advise those who have to step back and realize that not everyone who uses the .MAC service might have your skills with it.
I have had problems with .MAC, myself. Nothing really serious and I'm not a user, but it has certainly crashed my PowerBook with a repeatable error, and this was part of the impetus behind my posting (especially since, as one poster mentioned, the submission didn't include any links or other information to bring his point across). Maybe I should have posted a link to my comment in the article, but I just didn't think about it at the time.
So, to clarify: NO, this article is not a troll. This article is a call for help to see if anyone has experience the problem. If things work fine for you, please say so. If you are aware of some of the issues, please post links (Note to those who think that Slashdot Editors read all the comments on Slashdot: No. I don't. I have a lifelet, as pathetic as that may be which precludes me from engaging in such a brain-numbing excercise) Many of you have done this and I offer my heartfelt thanks, but this "This story is a troll, it works for me!" bullshit is unnecessary. "It works for me!" is all anyone really needs.
But instead of editorializing my opinions, on this matter in-article, I'm placing them here, instead...
When a commercial entity makes a mistake, I believe that it falls on them to correct it via the most simple and expedient method available. A "No refunds or exchanges" policy shouldn't affect this simple rule since it was the commercial entity itself that made the mistake.
However, in reality things are much different, and hence, consumers are put at risk every time money changes hands. Why should such policies be legal even though it wasn't the consumers fault. Shouldn't the entity accepting the money have some form of obligation to the person paying them to get the service they intended?
Now, I can see the problems with changing shows like this (the show in question is T-16h:12m and counting, as I type this), but there are bound to be other folks who are in the same boat, and I feel that the theater should at least make a token effort to see how many people got screwed in this manner and whether trades between them would work. If they don't refunds should be provided for those who can't attend the time the theater imposed on them (not their tickets since the tickets state the right time!).
Of course, there is always the option of trying to sneak in using the existing ticket, but why should consumers resort to subterfuge to get what they intended to in the first place.
This, quite frankly, is Capitalism Gone Wrong, and I don't think there are any ready solutions, although I would be interested in hearing how the rest of you think.
This has truly not been a good year of TV, for me.
Step back. Breathe. Now chill out a bit.
Being the kind of guy I am, when a likely potential presents itself, which does not depend on me thinking the worse of other human beings, I will tend to latch on to it in the hopes that such common sense thinking will prevail.
Let's look at another likely occurance here before throwing up the age old (but experience-proven, I will grant you that) addage of the average intelligence of your network executive and *gasp* give them the benefit of the doubt here for a second.
Firefly episodes will run thru December.
Farscape, which also airs in that exact same "Timeslot of Doom" will begin its run of final (Yes. I know. That argument is neither here nor there. Save it for 2003. I'll be there in the trenches with you.) 11 episodes starting in January.
Can we see a pattern here?
So a hiatus with the provision that the show will return in a different timeslot than it's main competition in the genre this year makes a bit of...well..sense, doesn't it?
Quite possibly Firefly will move to Monday's at 9pm, but I don't know how well that will fit, with Boston Public likely to stay in the preceeding timeslot. But as long as I don't have to compete with Farscape and Firefly on at the same time, my scheduling duties will be that much less of a hassle and if this prooves to be true, I will be grateful to the execs at Fox...
That's assuming we all aren't right back here again within 6 months.
Experience-worn truths are usually that way for a damned good reason.