If I've got the boxed copy, it's still mine and I can still play it, sell it or whatever I want.
Can you? I guess it depends on the game as it seems like, more and more, games require you to register online to install and/or play them. Most of my EA games (Battlefield 2, Spore, etc) required me to sign into EA's launcher before playing even though I had the hard copy. BioShock required me to register the game online before I could install.
I do prefer having a physical CD for a game, but I foresee a lot more games, single player or otherwise will start coming with fine print on the back that says, "requires internet connection to play" even if the game isn't of the online variety. If that happens, there won't be much difference between a digital and physical copy of a game.
I wholeheartedly agree but feel I need to include an addendum.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs
...as long as the timer for the lights and the speed limit follow a safe standard.
For instance, the length of a yellow light should, at the very least, take into account the speed limit of the road and the distance from one end to the other. If the speed limit is 45 mph and it's 100 feet from one side to another, 2 seconds is not enough time for the average motorist to come to a stop.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, but motorists, pedestrians, and all other people on the road should have the right to expect the town, state, and government to create a safe driving environment by creating a formula for calculating speed limits, traffic lights, and other elements of the road with the safety of everyone as the highest priority.
Although I have no basis for this observation, this new, violent behavior is clearly a result of exposure to violent video games. I'm proposing a measure to restrict the same of video games to primates. Won't someone please think about our zoo-faring children?
I understand and agree with your concerns but I put the responsibility on the game developer to take care of those issues that can make someone "unreasonably good". Greatly diminishing the accuracy of a player running or jumping is good place to start. The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming.
Clearly, it will vary by game. My game of choice has always been the Battlefield series and, in that series, it's often a lot better to stop, crouch and aim than it is to just spray someone with bullets. Also, although I can't speak for the Halo series, it seems a lot of console FPSes make up for the lower accuracy by auto-aiming. Warhawk for the PS3 is such an example. There's a circle around your crosshairs that represents your accuracy. If your target is within that circle, you will auto-aim at them. In the games I've played, fights come down to who has the bigger weapon with very little depending on skill. Not exactly my cup of tea.
What happens if they hadn't scheduled him in the first place for fear of losing state funding? What happens if a vocal minority on campus objects and the University revokes the offer?
I believe I read somewhere that the power of an oppressive government is that it gets your to censor yourself. If the university should censor itself or its guests, then shame on it. However, the article isn't about the university or a minority of students. It's about the state.
(Oh, wait, it's OK for that to happen when the speaker is a conservative. I guess there's no problem with it happening to Dawkins.)
You're opinion. Not mine.
Do you really believe that a state legislature is going to refuse to fund the state university over this? Do you understand how many people, meaning voters, have students going to that university? Do you think they'll be happy to hear that the tuition for the university is going to triple because the state stopped funding it?
I don't know enough about the state, the university, or its people to tell you what will happen in the next few years. I presented my concerns based on what I know of people specifically people in public office.
No, that ain't gonna happen. This measure says what it says -- strongly oppose. If they had wanted to say "prohibit", they could have. If they intended to tell the university that they were going to stop funding them over this, they'd be doing so informally so that nothing could be tied back to anyone.
I don't believe they could directly prevent someone from speaking as that would be a violation of the first amendment.
The resolution is only an ass covering for the legislature to make those who oppose Dawkins (not oppose Evolution, but Dawkins' particular lack of perspective on the subject) happy. I mean, someone who writes a book "The God Delusion" has clearly stepped outside the bounds of science and is practicing religion. Science has no means to either prove or disprove God. By calling it a "delusion", he's making a claim under the pretense of science, and he's wrong for doing that. (I don't particularly care what his personal view is, when he pretends that he's being a scientist while making such claims he's overstepped his rights, and as a scientist I object to that.)
I will not respond to criticism against a person's character, views, or ideals nor will I criticize someone's character, views or ideals unless they infringe on the freedoms of another.
You are correct: the state legislature is not banning the speaker. However, what happens if the university rescinds its invitation to the speaker for fear of losing any state funding? You don't have to state, "we forbid you for doing something we don't like" in order to get that message across.
While I certainly don't know all the details of this incident, can you blame your employer for reprimanding you? You called in sick to go to a concert and then you got caught.
If you told your child to mow the lawn and they claimed they couldn't because they were sick and then sneaked out to play with a friend, what would you have done?
I understand the metaphor you're trying to make there, but I have to disagree with your overall point. There's a big difference between stalking someone (online or in the physical world) and looking at what they willingly post online.
Whether the content is meant to be private or not, if someone posts to their blog that they hate their job and are cutting corners until they quit, I'm much less likely to give them a job at my company.
Also, CYA - export your email files, now, to a USB stick/CD/whatever and take that offsite. Set up a cc/forward rule for all email post-export, and take any other relevant docs (signed hardcopies of previous performance reviews, for example) offsite -- best to CYA in case you get escorted out ahead of schedule.
That is very risky since most companies set up rules that say that they own anything you write, send, create, etc at work. If you're leaving the company, getting caught exporting company information could get you into big trouble.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE.
Well, the venues were bought out by huge corporations so things like the food and drinks costs went higher (and lets face it, they weren't exactly reasonable to begin with) and the tickets for those venues are all sold by a monopolistic ticket sales company with plenty of service charges, convenience charges, and whatever else they sneak in there now.
Musicians most likely get a cut of the ticket sales and not the $40 worth of extra charges that get tacked on.
Just out of curiousity, what class did you play? I played a rune priest specced for over-time healing and damage. There were a few times where I wasn't able to kill a mob fast enough and it reset on me.
Additionally, I played Wow since day one, so I remember well the big issues. On day one, anytime you looted an item for the first time, there was a huge delay. But major game issues like that were fixed early on. Yeah, I continued to have issues casting arcane missiles a year after WoW came out, but those bugs were the exceptions and not the rules. In WoW 1.0.x, there was easily enough of a working game to keep players interested until the next patch.
Also, you mention that WoW only recently introduced quests other than "Kill X" or "Collect Y", but in Wow 1.0.x there were definitely quests like "Escort X", "Explore Y", and "Use item Z at location". I did not do every quest in Warhammer, but I did play two or three classes in both Order and Destruction up to the mid-to-late 20s and I don't recall any quests other than Kill X/Collect Y/Deliver Z. The Public Quests were supposed to be one of the reasons PvE in Warhammer was better than WoW, but they screwed that up because the "contribution bonus" was fraudulent, didn't represent your contribution and, worst of all, persisted after the PQ ended. Add to that a lack of ability to "pass". A single character could (and did) amass all of the gear whether they needed it or not while the rest of the group would get the shaft.
Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.
Rating systems are NOT good. They're bias opinions created by the person doing the rating. I don't need someone else to tell me for whom they think the media is appropriate. Tell us what's in it (violence, gore, nudity, drug use, etc) and let the buyer decide if it's appropriate.
You think that's bad? Wait until it's ported to the PS3 and 360 which will have all of the turtles on the disc, but you can only unlock them by purchasing "downloadable content"
Interesting statement. Have you considered, though, that some people are drawn to video games because they are socially awkward and not the other way around?
That seems like a silly thing to say... I mean, with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate and a democrat in the White House, they're going to get a lot done. The only question is "For whom?"
I think you missed the grand-parents last paragraph where he/she clearly states that he/she is referring to people who create their own poor health through bad habits and NOT referring to people who have suffer from conditions beyond their control. Allow me to quote it as I feel it bears repeating.
I'm not arguing about providing care to people with something beyond their control. That's a completely different discussion. But, completely absolving people of any responsibility leads to nothing but utter destruction of the system. It's also completely unfair to those that have legitimate problems beyond their control. They end up having to wait in line (especially when you start seeing the inevitable rationing that comes from socialized medicine) for the bums that chose to live poorly and have health issues because of it.
In contrast, I'm having a hard time understanding what point your trying to make with your comment. You claim that the grand parent is racist and seeking to punish you because of the actions of others but in no way do you attempt to debate or point out any logical or scientific fallacy in his or her point.
Color me ignorant, but why should they?
Compare it to office supplies. What if your company took $20 out of every paycheck to cover the office supplies? Then, one day you realize that someone is printing every personal e-mail she receives in color. Are you saying you would not feel you're being punished for someone else's bad habits?
I say there better be a damn good reason why anything I earn is taken and given to someone else. I would not ask you to live, to work, or to pay for me. Why should I live, work or pay for you?
I understand the point you're trying to make: driving tends to be more more influenced by choice than a medical condition. However, you can choose to eat a Big Mac instead of a salad. That action involves more choice than, say, hitting a patch of black ice and bumping into a guard rail, flood damage, or having your car broken into all of which can affect your insurance.
Alright, then let me make it clear: using the same user name and password for every site, service, forum, etc, is a horrible idea.
I seriously hope you're just trying to be funny.
"I see you've ordered a double whopper. In accordance with government mandatory health regulations, we've gone ahead an notified your health insurance company about the increase of harmful chemicals to your diet. You will see this reflected on your next insurance bill. Have a nice day."
Slashdot Mirror
If I've got the boxed copy, it's still mine and I can still play it, sell it or whatever I want.
Can you? I guess it depends on the game as it seems like, more and more, games require you to register online to install and/or play them. Most of my EA games (Battlefield 2, Spore, etc) required me to sign into EA's launcher before playing even though I had the hard copy. BioShock required me to register the game online before I could install.
I do prefer having a physical CD for a game, but I foresee a lot more games, single player or otherwise will start coming with fine print on the back that says, "requires internet connection to play" even if the game isn't of the online variety. If that happens, there won't be much difference between a digital and physical copy of a game.
Why the hell would I waste my time lying about my opinion of a video game on an internet forum, anyway? I gain nothing from it.
Internet Troll
I'm not claiming you are one. I'm just answering your question.
I wholeheartedly agree but feel I need to include an addendum.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs
...as long as the timer for the lights and the speed limit follow a safe standard.
For instance, the length of a yellow light should, at the very least, take into account the speed limit of the road and the distance from one end to the other. If the speed limit is 45 mph and it's 100 feet from one side to another, 2 seconds is not enough time for the average motorist to come to a stop.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, but motorists, pedestrians, and all other people on the road should have the right to expect the town, state, and government to create a safe driving environment by creating a formula for calculating speed limits, traffic lights, and other elements of the road with the safety of everyone as the highest priority.
Although I have no basis for this observation, this new, violent behavior is clearly a result of exposure to violent video games. I'm proposing a measure to restrict the same of video games to primates. Won't someone please think about our zoo-faring children?
I understand and agree with your concerns but I put the responsibility on the game developer to take care of those issues that can make someone "unreasonably good". Greatly diminishing the accuracy of a player running or jumping is good place to start. The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming.
Clearly, it will vary by game. My game of choice has always been the Battlefield series and, in that series, it's often a lot better to stop, crouch and aim than it is to just spray someone with bullets. Also, although I can't speak for the Halo series, it seems a lot of console FPSes make up for the lower accuracy by auto-aiming. Warhawk for the PS3 is such an example. There's a circle around your crosshairs that represents your accuracy. If your target is within that circle, you will auto-aim at them. In the games I've played, fights come down to who has the bigger weapon with very little depending on skill. Not exactly my cup of tea.
What happens if they hadn't scheduled him in the first place for fear of losing state funding? What happens if a vocal minority on campus objects and the University revokes the offer?
I believe I read somewhere that the power of an oppressive government is that it gets your to censor yourself. If the university should censor itself or its guests, then shame on it. However, the article isn't about the university or a minority of students. It's about the state.
(Oh, wait, it's OK for that to happen when the speaker is a conservative. I guess there's no problem with it happening to Dawkins.)
You're opinion. Not mine.
Do you really believe that a state legislature is going to refuse to fund the state university over this? Do you understand how many people, meaning voters, have students going to that university? Do you think they'll be happy to hear that the tuition for the university is going to triple because the state stopped funding it?
I don't know enough about the state, the university, or its people to tell you what will happen in the next few years. I presented my concerns based on what I know of people specifically people in public office.
No, that ain't gonna happen. This measure says what it says -- strongly oppose. If they had wanted to say "prohibit", they could have. If they intended to tell the university that they were going to stop funding them over this, they'd be doing so informally so that nothing could be tied back to anyone.
I don't believe they could directly prevent someone from speaking as that would be a violation of the first amendment.
The resolution is only an ass covering for the legislature to make those who oppose Dawkins (not oppose Evolution, but Dawkins' particular lack of perspective on the subject) happy. I mean, someone who writes a book "The God Delusion" has clearly stepped outside the bounds of science and is practicing religion. Science has no means to either prove or disprove God. By calling it a "delusion", he's making a claim under the pretense of science, and he's wrong for doing that. (I don't particularly care what his personal view is, when he pretends that he's being a scientist while making such claims he's overstepped his rights, and as a scientist I object to that.)
I will not respond to criticism against a person's character, views, or ideals nor will I criticize someone's character, views or ideals unless they infringe on the freedoms of another.
You are correct: the state legislature is not banning the speaker. However, what happens if the university rescinds its invitation to the speaker for fear of losing any state funding? You don't have to state, "we forbid you for doing something we don't like" in order to get that message across.
While I certainly don't know all the details of this incident, can you blame your employer for reprimanding you? You called in sick to go to a concert and then you got caught.
If you told your child to mow the lawn and they claimed they couldn't because they were sick and then sneaked out to play with a friend, what would you have done?
I understand the metaphor you're trying to make there, but I have to disagree with your overall point. There's a big difference between stalking someone (online or in the physical world) and looking at what they willingly post online.
Whether the content is meant to be private or not, if someone posts to their blog that they hate their job and are cutting corners until they quit, I'm much less likely to give them a job at my company.
A - the contact info of your company's customers
B - the trade secrets of your company and
C - the security practices and vulnerabilities of your company
If A+B+C > D - the cost of litigation, it makes financial sense for your company to stop you from taking e-mail files from the company.
Also, CYA - export your email files, now, to a USB stick/CD/whatever and take that offsite. Set up a cc/forward rule for all email post-export, and take any other relevant docs (signed hardcopies of previous performance reviews, for example) offsite -- best to CYA in case you get escorted out ahead of schedule.
That is very risky since most companies set up rules that say that they own anything you write, send, create, etc at work. If you're leaving the company, getting caught exporting company information could get you into big trouble.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE.
Well, the venues were bought out by huge corporations so things like the food and drinks costs went higher (and lets face it, they weren't exactly reasonable to begin with) and the tickets for those venues are all sold by a monopolistic ticket sales company with plenty of service charges, convenience charges, and whatever else they sneak in there now.
Musicians most likely get a cut of the ticket sales and not the $40 worth of extra charges that get tacked on.
If only the other MMOs would follow in EVE's footsteps. Banditry and wanted posters in my WoW? Yes, please!
Additionally, I played Wow since day one, so I remember well the big issues. On day one, anytime you looted an item for the first time, there was a huge delay. But major game issues like that were fixed early on. Yeah, I continued to have issues casting arcane missiles a year after WoW came out, but those bugs were the exceptions and not the rules. In WoW 1.0.x, there was easily enough of a working game to keep players interested until the next patch.
Also, you mention that WoW only recently introduced quests other than "Kill X" or "Collect Y", but in Wow 1.0.x there were definitely quests like "Escort X", "Explore Y", and "Use item Z at location". I did not do every quest in Warhammer, but I did play two or three classes in both Order and Destruction up to the mid-to-late 20s and I don't recall any quests other than Kill X/Collect Y/Deliver Z. The Public Quests were supposed to be one of the reasons PvE in Warhammer was better than WoW, but they screwed that up because the "contribution bonus" was fraudulent, didn't represent your contribution and, worst of all, persisted after the PQ ended. Add to that a lack of ability to "pass". A single character could (and did) amass all of the gear whether they needed it or not while the rest of the group would get the shaft.
Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.
Rating systems are NOT good. They're bias opinions created by the person doing the rating. I don't need someone else to tell me for whom they think the media is appropriate. Tell us what's in it (violence, gore, nudity, drug use, etc) and let the buyer decide if it's appropriate.
You think that's bad? Wait until it's ported to the PS3 and 360 which will have all of the turtles on the disc, but you can only unlock them by purchasing "downloadable content"
Interesting statement. Have you considered, though, that some people are drawn to video games because they are socially awkward and not the other way around?
That seems like a silly thing to say... I mean, with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate and a democrat in the White House, they're going to get a lot done. The only question is "For whom?"
My wife is a tank, you insensitive clod!
I'm not arguing about providing care to people with something beyond their control. That's a completely different discussion. But, completely absolving people of any responsibility leads to nothing but utter destruction of the system. It's also completely unfair to those that have legitimate problems beyond their control. They end up having to wait in line (especially when you start seeing the inevitable rationing that comes from socialized medicine) for the bums that chose to live poorly and have health issues because of it.
In contrast, I'm having a hard time understanding what point your trying to make with your comment. You claim that the grand parent is racist and seeking to punish you because of the actions of others but in no way do you attempt to debate or point out any logical or scientific fallacy in his or her point.
Color me ignorant, but why should they? Compare it to office supplies. What if your company took $20 out of every paycheck to cover the office supplies? Then, one day you realize that someone is printing every personal e-mail she receives in color. Are you saying you would not feel you're being punished for someone else's bad habits? I say there better be a damn good reason why anything I earn is taken and given to someone else. I would not ask you to live, to work, or to pay for me. Why should I live, work or pay for you?
I understand the point you're trying to make: driving tends to be more more influenced by choice than a medical condition. However, you can choose to eat a Big Mac instead of a salad. That action involves more choice than, say, hitting a patch of black ice and bumping into a guard rail, flood damage, or having your car broken into all of which can affect your insurance.
Alright, then let me make it clear: using the same user name and password for every site, service, forum, etc, is a horrible idea. I seriously hope you're just trying to be funny.
"I see you've ordered a double whopper. In accordance with government mandatory health regulations, we've gone ahead an notified your health insurance company about the increase of harmful chemicals to your diet. You will see this reflected on your next insurance bill. Have a nice day."
+1 for common sense