A journalist is a researcher with an additional goal: to provide the general public with the results. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the biggest problem that you (and many others) are experiencing is that you (and they) expect journalists to report to your biases, rather than the public's, or their own. For example, there are a great many people out there who want to hear about the investigations into terrorist activities, but to a smaller minority, this is perceived as fearmongering to sell papers. Yes, it is superficially to sell papers, but there fear was there first, and it's the public who want that fear addressed.
If your biases aren't mainstream enough, then journalism is just going to seem like a bunch of bullshit.
You know the biggest problem is that you make, just like Concerned Onlooker up there when he says "Everybody thinks every other profession is less valuable than their own", childish assumptions of people other than yourself. I don't want jounalists to report anything of even remote bias, I want a report to be a report and not a fairytale. Why do you assume that I want to hear what makes me smile? Is it that hard for you to imagine that some people just want to know the plain fucking truth? If Jimmy, 5, falls down the fucking well I want the head line to say "Jimmy, 5, falls down the well" and not "WELLS SLAUGHTERING OUR CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT IGNORING". There is little room for sense, and more often people, like yourself and Onlooker, draw conclusions based on assumptions which were never justified. This leads to what? That's right -- misunderstandings. And that is what you just did -- misunderstood me.
I'd say calling journalism a "bullshit job" is an insult to bullshit.
You know -- if there was a foundation representing the rights of male cow fecal matter I would apologize this instant. I'm serious -- you make a very valid point.
Yes, it's a bullshit job. Then again, so is being a programmer, lawyer, salesman, investment banker, teacher.... Everybody thinks every other profession is less valuable than their own.
I'm sorry, is that what you think I meant? That I'm a researcher and hence I think that journalism is bullshit? You must have misunderstood me, I'm not a researcher thus it is not my profession. I still find journalism to be a complete and utter bullshit job and researcher not to be. Also I don't think that other professions are less valuable than mine. You seem to be a very egocentric person who thinks that the world thinks like you do which, I can assure you my friend, is not the case.
Not all journalism is good, just like not all programmers are good. But journalism is not a bullshit job. There are some bad ones out there, but the very idea of journalism is reporting, not interpreting, and that is an extremely valuable service. If you would like your information thoroughly researched and verified experimentally then good luck trying to negotiate the real fast-paced world where getting the latest information has strategic value.
There are poor programmers, there are poor doctors, there are poor pizza bakers, yet I have never in my life seen a good journalist. They only seem to be writing sensationalistic bullshit with the end purpose which is not to report, but is to sell a copy.
This is not a defense of sloppy reporting or for not verifying sources and facts, it's mostly a rebuttal to an incredibly broad and useless generalization about the profession of journalism.
No my dear sir, saying that there are a few journalists out there (whom by the way I would be very curious to know about) that don't write sensationalistic nonsense, and thus the profession of journalism should be respected IS an incredibly broad and useless generalization.
Journalism is bullshit, journalists cannot be trusted and they never report the truth unless the truth means monetary gain. They are as biased as your next door neighbour. But please, feel free to disprove me. I have a feeling most people relate with my side of the story already.
Journalists get caught up in the moment; we get excited and we post stupid crap from a foreign language student blog and call it news.
Isn't this every journalists job description?
Disclaimer: Yes I'm trying to say that journalism is a bullshit job. The non bullshit version of a journalist is called a researcher. A researcher provides data, often in form of experimental results, along with their conclusion. A journalist interprets (they say cites, but anybody who's ever been cited knows this is bullshit) "sources".
A religious al-Qaeda scientist, without a name. Why do I not believ this. Especially because al-Qaeda is not a group anymore because the US have already kicked their asses and al-Qaeda is now reffered to as people that want to commit terrorism under the name, just because they desire to use the titel. This is allowed by al-Qaeda btw...
You don't believe this because it reeks of conspiracy. You know, I've always stated one thing: I'm probably the easiest person to persuade, just give me proof and I'll believe you. This however is as proven as the existance of Santa. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. But I'll stick to bullshit until proven truth.
Haha wait, you are trying to lecture us on economics? First off, sir Idiot (this is what I'm going to call you since you are probably one of the biggest ones ever seen) market is supposed to go where consumers want it to go, it's called supply and demand. The demand part being the consumers end. By playing the system you can create cartels and monopolies through anticompetative behaviour. Meaning if you own 51% you own 100%, because with 51% you have to power to undermine the remaining 49%. Now this is quantified as you can be a part of something that owns 51%, and in that part you own 51%, meaning you potentially already own 100% of that sub part. This type of behaviour can only exist in a flawed economy, such as the one we have, where consumers always draw the shortest straw on any trade made. The fundamental concept of trading is a tug of war, where the buyer, aka consumer, is fighting for lower pricing and higher quality, which can only be reached through competition by variety. The consumer chooses what's best, not the seller, as in this case. So you see at the end of the day you're either a troll, or just too retarded to understand this. I'm guessing you're too stupid because your trolling doesn't seem to be well thought through, but rather a case where your nose is longer than your imagination. So sir Idiot, as the consumer that you are, stop trying to fuck yourself in the ass and just shut up.
What about Pepsi coupon attached on Coca Cola can?
Usually I don't respond to trolls, but I'll make an exception. It's about the operating system Windows bundling the browser IE inside it. The proper paralell, which seems to be too hard for your thick head to understand, would be that a store which owns almost 90% of the market refuses to sell Coca Cola, but happily sells Pepsi. Or even worse as in this case, makes its own brand of cola and refuses to sell any other.
As a cancer survivor myself, and somebody that has undergone Chemo, I am very intrigued and hopeful about this type of research. Lets hope it all pans out as we all hope.
First off congrats on the victory. Secondly I too am very excited about this, but also all the paralell cancer research that is ongoing. Everything from this hardcore study to almost stumble upon ones. In 20 years I've seen cancer going from something horrible, to something very treatable. And in 20-30 years time it will hopefully be as silly as say -- the common flu.
He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.
I'm not flaming. France really does suck.
Here's the kicker, no matter how much we trash the French here, only a few of them will be able to defend themselves, since only a few of them even read English. As a European from a country that has its own native language and English as secondary language I have the right to say A) Ignorant idiots, B) I have never in my life had one single negative consequence caused by the fact that I speak English, C) Ignorant idiots. Oh and I speak 4 languages, 3 from childhood and one "by choice".
Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked a Tardigrade, but nothing happened. One would think that the Tardigrade would then mock Chuck Norris for being so weak, but alas the Tardigrade didn't even care. He just went back to space -- and went on being awesome -- alone.
The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point.
Allow me to rephrase because this is only a misunderstanding. All citizens were not allowed to view the surveillance. This makes all the difference in the world. I'm sorry if I left my sentence open for interpretation.
Freedom is hard fought for and easily lost. Those that try and take rights and freedoms away try and do so under the radar. For instance who would have thought that RIPA would be used to spy on half a million uk citizens a year [itpro.co.uk]. Most uk citizens I speak to don't know about the eborders scheme [bbc.co.uk], where everyone is catalogued each time they enter or leave the country (with up to 2.5 billion journeys stored at any one time).
That's given. However the underlying problem with this picture is not the surveillance, it's the motives of the government. The UK is one of many countries in the world, and whatever the UK does doesn't reflect humanity. I disagree with a lot of the Brittish way of doing things, but in the end I don't live in the UK thus it's not my problem to deal with. I'm not saying though that ultimately we all benefit from a surveyed society -- I'm saying that I don't know if we do. What we do know without speculating is that we already live in a surveyed society and that we are already using this technology to survey eachother. I agree thought that I don't have the information about cell phone locations, but perhaps one day I will.
The vast amount of information being gathered, as you say via your phone, cards, internet, etc, is worrying. You merge this into one coherent database and you have no privacy left.
Now you see you can call me a pedantic fool or a semantic wizard or whatever, but that right there is not true. Even with this information I still have some privacy. There are things I have done that nobody knows, but me. The same goes for you. The same goes for all of us. If you don't understand that you are merely oversimplifying the concept then there's no use in continuing this as I already know this will be the focus point of the discussion no matter what we say. If we come to the point where we have absolutely no privacy, and right now we're far from it, I would be the first one to call for a revolution. But privacy is a relative term, and I don't feel like my privacy is invaded, not yet at least. Still once again your mistake, just like any other frightened person here, is that you assume that the totalitarian state is inevitable. Why is it inevitable? Because George Orwell wrote a book about it? Because the UK government has tricked its citizens? This not evidence, this is speculation. Don't let your fear come in the way of your rationalisation.
Many laid down their lives to earn the freedoms we take for granted today, and it would be disrespectful to give them away for temporary convenience.
Now you see that's just flag waving, patriotic, nonsensical rhetorics. I don't fall for that kind of nonsense, that's the kind of bullshit that justifies war. It truly pains me to see that you repeat that like a brainwashed parrot.
You know, I for one have always welcomed our water bear bringer of life to earth from space overlords. They probably even brought the water with them, being water bears and all. Coolest creatures on earth, without a doubt.
While I agree with you that the blood is not needed, it's still pretty strange to be shooting at zombies with no visible damage done to them.
Frankly, as it stands they could just remove the zombies altogether and replace them with fuzzy forest animals and they could replace the guns with paintball markers. The game would not lose any more immersion, I believe.
AFAIK, this game is supposed to be one of those "You're all alone (as a group) surrounded by zombies. Will you survive the adrenalin?". Now it's just a game of tag.
It is, and it's very fun. I have played it with my friend who owns an Xbox 360. It's a rather difficult game, but it has the same type of adrenaline rush that the game Phobia gave me, many, many years ago. For those who don't know Phobia was a 2D top-down perspective zombie game.
This is why I said correct me if I'm wrong, because my assumptions are based on hearsay, and not facts. I like to draw a very clear line between those two.
This is me and this is what I based this post on, well actually the response to the response. The paralell I drew was that where I'm from, and the countries I've visited (unfortunately not Australia yet) same phenomenon exists. Where christian moralists try to cram their world view (and you have to admit, ultimately it's cramming their religion) down peoples throats. At least where I'm from this is true, and that is observed by myself, not overheard such as the assumptions in the post.
"L4d2 in Australia now significantly less entertaining."
In soldier of fortune it was just gratuitous, in an over the top zombie game the gore fits perfectly.
You know as much as I agree that the Australian government is just plain silly, I wouldn't say that the game becomes less entertaining. I don't know if it's just me but I'm from the generation where blood is completely irrelevant. It could be gushing and it could be sipping, I would be indifferent because it wouldn't affect me. I grew up watching so many movies with so much blood in them that blood doesn't entertain me anymore. However I do think that it's the Australian governments need to force their christian morals (this is the way I've understood it, that there are many christian politicians pushing nonsensical things, such as this, correct me if I'm wrong though) on their citizens is far more disgusting than any amount of gore. I just hope the Australian citizens won't take this kind of bullshit. It's up to generation Y to make shit right.
I hope you get modded up. I think it is an important distinction. But the privacy-at-all cost people on here may want to suppress your post because it doesn't agree with their freaking out.
I didn't want to say it, but you took the words out of my mouth. Truth is, no matter how many books we've read or how many movies we've seen we're never going to be able to foresee a scenario at such a large scale. There are just too many factors in play. What people do know is their fear, and their fear will unfortunately play on many of their decisions in life causing irrational behaviour. Maybe we will have a surveyed society, and maybe it will turn out ok, I know I don't suffer from hubris, thus I cannot tell either way. I can speculate, but I will never throw myself to the ground screaming "my god can you not see what awaits ahead!?", such as many here do. Fundamentally we humans are curious creatures, and we will always try to snoop on our neighbours, but there's a difference between invading privacy and monitoring public domain. I agree the thought of Orwells world is frightening, but he was no god, and his books are not prophecies. They are merely the product of a curious human playing with the thought of what could be. I believe that if a government becomes the way that Orwell describes in 1984, then there's a good chance the effects will also be as described. However this is not the only outcome of a surveyed society. We are already surveyed, just at different levels. That cell phone you carry: it is used to track your location to prove your guilt or innocence. Those keycards you use: same thing. Internet: need I continue? And apart from this there's already a series of cameras on public locations. Every person should have the right to privacy, that is given. My property is not public domain, thus I should have all the rights to decide if I want a camera in my house, or even aimed at my property, or not. However the streets are not mine, they are ours. And fundamentally it is a choice we make. If you truly feel that you want to fight something, then do it. The further you take it, the more people will listen to you. Ultimately it's up to you. If you believe that politics is all corrupted business then fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no room for honest opinions -- look at all the pirate parties merging around the world. There's a swedish pirate in the european parliament, who's actually one of 14 members in charge of developing the new telecom package! That is change my friends. Or you could just waste your time speculating, in fear, about what horrors the future may hold you.
In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.
RTFN
I did read the novel, but there's a big difference. The citizens in 1984 were never allowed to view surveillance, so they were never on an equal scale as the government. And fundamentally this is what frightens people, that someone with an upper hand controlls you. When that upper hand is given to everyone the concept isn't the same, and you taking things out of context doesn't make it so.
Alright, I'll make sure to remember that. On a side note I'd love to rat on those leaving their dogs turds on the street. I'm serious, there is no easier way to ruin someones day than to leave dog shit behind for him to step on. When I see someone leaving dog shit on the street I always lecture their ignorant asses, and if they don't listen I walk behind them screaming "hey everybody, you know that dog shit you try to dodge everyday, forcing you to stare down at the street with every step you take, the shit you occasionally step on, this guy is the reason for that, he refuses to take his responsibility", and repeat. I'll be honest -- I don't even care that it's against the law, but if your actions affect me, then I'll make sure that my actions affect you. Fair and square. I just hope there were less pussies in the world and more people like me, at least in that sense.
Oh and by the way I've worked both at kindergardens and elderly homes when I was younger, and I've had to clean up more shit than you'd even imagine -- asshole. And there's your paragraph.
In a way that's very non-Orwellian. You see the fundamental concept of the Orwellian idea is to have one instance impose on your privacy, in which case this instance uses this data against you, but if we're all imposing on eachothers privacy, what has changed? Other than the very extension of our privacy. I'll give a comparison. Say that none of us had eyes, thus no vision (no echo location isn't allowed either), our privacy would extend much further than it does today, but what if one person, or a group of people suddenly gained vision, these people could use this to receive information about you when you thought you weren't being observed. That would be Orwellian. In the case where everybody (well except the few blind people) get to have vision it no longer becomes Orwellian. It might still be frightening, mostly for those that fear getting something unwanted caught on tape, but in the end it's equal for everyone. If (when) we have a surveyed society I hope that we all get access to the footage at anytime, live or recorded. Equal makes it fair, might be right or wrong -- but still fair.
IANAVet but I think it's the size contra noise, and by size I don't mean that it's big, it's just big enough to produce a potential threat. No dog is threatened by an elephant, or a giraffe, but animals their size, or slightly larger, can be lethal.
Slashdot Mirror
A journalist is a researcher with an additional goal: to provide the general public with the results. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the biggest problem that you (and many others) are experiencing is that you (and they) expect journalists to report to your biases, rather than the public's, or their own. For example, there are a great many people out there who want to hear about the investigations into terrorist activities, but to a smaller minority, this is perceived as fearmongering to sell papers. Yes, it is superficially to sell papers, but there fear was there first, and it's the public who want that fear addressed.
If your biases aren't mainstream enough, then journalism is just going to seem like a bunch of bullshit.
You know the biggest problem is that you make, just like Concerned Onlooker up there when he says "Everybody thinks every other profession is less valuable than their own", childish assumptions of people other than yourself. I don't want jounalists to report anything of even remote bias, I want a report to be a report and not a fairytale. Why do you assume that I want to hear what makes me smile? Is it that hard for you to imagine that some people just want to know the plain fucking truth?
If Jimmy, 5, falls down the fucking well I want the head line to say "Jimmy, 5, falls down the well" and not "WELLS SLAUGHTERING OUR CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT IGNORING". There is little room for sense, and more often people, like yourself and Onlooker, draw conclusions based on assumptions which were never justified. This leads to what? That's right -- misunderstandings. And that is what you just did -- misunderstood me.
I'd say calling journalism a "bullshit job" is an insult to bullshit.
You know -- if there was a foundation representing the rights of male cow fecal matter I would apologize this instant. I'm serious -- you make a very valid point.
Yes, it's a bullshit job. Then again, so is being a programmer, lawyer, salesman, investment banker, teacher.... Everybody thinks every other profession is less valuable than their own.
I'm sorry, is that what you think I meant? That I'm a researcher and hence I think that journalism is bullshit? You must have misunderstood me, I'm not a researcher thus it is not my profession. I still find journalism to be a complete and utter bullshit job and researcher not to be. Also I don't think that other professions are less valuable than mine. You seem to be a very egocentric person who thinks that the world thinks like you do which, I can assure you my friend, is not the case.
Not all journalism is good, just like not all programmers are good. But journalism is not a bullshit job. There are some bad ones out there, but the very idea of journalism is reporting, not interpreting, and that is an extremely valuable service. If you would like your information thoroughly researched and verified experimentally then good luck trying to negotiate the real fast-paced world where getting the latest information has strategic value.
There are poor programmers, there are poor doctors, there are poor pizza bakers, yet I have never in my life seen a good journalist. They only seem to be writing sensationalistic bullshit with the end purpose which is not to report, but is to sell a copy.
This is not a defense of sloppy reporting or for not verifying sources and facts, it's mostly a rebuttal to an incredibly broad and useless generalization about the profession of journalism.
No my dear sir, saying that there are a few journalists out there (whom by the way I would be very curious to know about) that don't write sensationalistic nonsense, and thus the profession of journalism should be respected IS an incredibly broad and useless generalization.
Journalism is bullshit, journalists cannot be trusted and they never report the truth unless the truth means monetary gain. They are as biased as your next door neighbour. But please, feel free to disprove me. I have a feeling most people relate with my side of the story already.
Journalists get caught up in the moment; we get excited and we post stupid crap from a foreign language student blog and call it news.
Isn't this every journalists job description?
Disclaimer: Yes I'm trying to say that journalism is a bullshit job. The non bullshit version of a journalist is called a researcher. A researcher provides data, often in form of experimental results, along with their conclusion. A journalist interprets (they say cites, but anybody who's ever been cited knows this is bullshit) "sources".
A religious al-Qaeda scientist, without a name. Why do I not believ this. Especially because al-Qaeda is not a group anymore because the US have already kicked their asses and al-Qaeda is now reffered to as people that want to commit terrorism under the name, just because they desire to use the titel. This is allowed by al-Qaeda btw...
You don't believe this because it reeks of conspiracy. You know, I've always stated one thing: I'm probably the easiest person to persuade, just give me proof and I'll believe you. This however is as proven as the existance of Santa. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. But I'll stick to bullshit until proven truth.
Haha wait, you are trying to lecture us on economics? First off, sir Idiot (this is what I'm going to call you since you are probably one of the biggest ones ever seen) market is supposed to go where consumers want it to go, it's called supply and demand. The demand part being the consumers end. By playing the system you can create cartels and monopolies through anticompetative behaviour. Meaning if you own 51% you own 100%, because with 51% you have to power to undermine the remaining 49%. Now this is quantified as you can be a part of something that owns 51%, and in that part you own 51%, meaning you potentially already own 100% of that sub part. This type of behaviour can only exist in a flawed economy, such as the one we have, where consumers always draw the shortest straw on any trade made.
The fundamental concept of trading is a tug of war, where the buyer, aka consumer, is fighting for lower pricing and higher quality, which can only be reached through competition by variety. The consumer chooses what's best, not the seller, as in this case. So you see at the end of the day you're either a troll, or just too retarded to understand this. I'm guessing you're too stupid because your trolling doesn't seem to be well thought through, but rather a case where your nose is longer than your imagination.
So sir Idiot, as the consumer that you are, stop trying to fuck yourself in the ass and just shut up.
What about Pepsi coupon attached on Coca Cola can?
Usually I don't respond to trolls, but I'll make an exception. It's about the operating system Windows bundling the browser IE inside it. The proper paralell, which seems to be too hard for your thick head to understand, would be that a store which owns almost 90% of the market refuses to sell Coca Cola, but happily sells Pepsi. Or even worse as in this case, makes its own brand of cola and refuses to sell any other.
You're welcome.
Microsoft has responded by implementing the ballot screen as a web page inside IE.
Oh fuck off Microsoft. This is just taunting.
Actually, another approach to this is to activate the particles is by way of low-level and non-invasive radio frequency energy.
This man was the one that started a lot of the research into this kind of stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius
As a cancer survivor myself, and somebody that has undergone Chemo, I am very intrigued and hopeful about this type of research. Lets hope it all pans out as we all hope.
First off congrats on the victory. Secondly I too am very excited about this, but also all the paralell cancer research that is ongoing. Everything from this hardcore study to almost stumble upon ones. In 20 years I've seen cancer going from something horrible, to something very treatable. And in 20-30 years time it will hopefully be as silly as say -- the common flu.
Do we get mad at Intel?
This is a sad day.
Competition is good, I'm sorry.
This is competition. Just not one of the occasions that you like.
No seriously, google it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+culture+minister+young+thai+boys&cts=1255098089473
He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.
I'm not flaming.
France really does suck.
Here's the kicker, no matter how much we trash the French here, only a few of them will be able to defend themselves, since only a few of them even read English. As a European from a country that has its own native language and English as secondary language I have the right to say A) Ignorant idiots, B) I have never in my life had one single negative consequence caused by the fact that I speak English, C) Ignorant idiots. Oh and I speak 4 languages, 3 from childhood and one "by choice".
Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked a Tardigrade, but nothing happened. One would think that the Tardigrade would then mock Chuck Norris for being so weak, but alas the Tardigrade didn't even care. He just went back to space -- and went on being awesome -- alone.
The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point.
Allow me to rephrase because this is only a misunderstanding. All citizens were not allowed to view the surveillance. This makes all the difference in the world. I'm sorry if I left my sentence open for interpretation.
Freedom is hard fought for and easily lost. Those that try and take rights and freedoms away try and do so under the radar. For instance who would have thought that RIPA would be used to spy on half a million uk citizens a year [itpro.co.uk]. Most uk citizens I speak to don't know about the eborders scheme [bbc.co.uk], where everyone is catalogued each time they enter or leave the country (with up to 2.5 billion journeys stored at any one time).
That's given. However the underlying problem with this picture is not the surveillance, it's the motives of the government. The UK is one of many countries in the world, and whatever the UK does doesn't reflect humanity. I disagree with a lot of the Brittish way of doing things, but in the end I don't live in the UK thus it's not my problem to deal with. I'm not saying though that ultimately we all benefit from a surveyed society -- I'm saying that I don't know if we do. What we do know without speculating is that we already live in a surveyed society and that we are already using this technology to survey eachother. I agree thought that I don't have the information about cell phone locations, but perhaps one day I will.
The vast amount of information being gathered, as you say via your phone, cards, internet, etc, is worrying. You merge this into one coherent database and you have no privacy left.
Now you see you can call me a pedantic fool or a semantic wizard or whatever, but that right there is not true. Even with this information I still have some privacy. There are things I have done that nobody knows, but me. The same goes for you. The same goes for all of us. If you don't understand that you are merely oversimplifying the concept then there's no use in continuing this as I already know this will be the focus point of the discussion no matter what we say. If we come to the point where we have absolutely no privacy, and right now we're far from it, I would be the first one to call for a revolution. But privacy is a relative term, and I don't feel like my privacy is invaded, not yet at least.
Still once again your mistake, just like any other frightened person here, is that you assume that the totalitarian state is inevitable. Why is it inevitable? Because George Orwell wrote a book about it? Because the UK government has tricked its citizens? This not evidence, this is speculation. Don't let your fear come in the way of your rationalisation.
Many laid down their lives to earn the freedoms we take for granted today, and it would be disrespectful to give them away for temporary convenience.
Now you see that's just flag waving, patriotic, nonsensical rhetorics. I don't fall for that kind of nonsense, that's the kind of bullshit that justifies war. It truly pains me to see that you repeat that like a brainwashed parrot.
You know, I for one have always welcomed our water bear bringer of life to earth from space overlords. They probably even brought the water with them, being water bears and all. Coolest creatures on earth, without a doubt.
While I agree with you that the blood is not needed, it's still pretty strange to be shooting at zombies with no visible damage done to them.
Frankly, as it stands they could just remove the zombies altogether and replace them with fuzzy forest animals and they could replace the guns with paintball markers. The game would not lose any more immersion, I believe.
AFAIK, this game is supposed to be one of those "You're all alone (as a group) surrounded by zombies. Will you survive the adrenalin?". Now it's just a game of tag.
It is, and it's very fun. I have played it with my friend who owns an Xbox 360. It's a rather difficult game, but it has the same type of adrenaline rush that the game Phobia gave me, many, many years ago. For those who don't know Phobia was a 2D top-down perspective zombie game.
This is why I said correct me if I'm wrong, because my assumptions are based on hearsay, and not facts. I like to draw a very clear line between those two.
This is me and this is what I based this post on, well actually the response to the response. The paralell I drew was that where I'm from, and the countries I've visited (unfortunately not Australia yet) same phenomenon exists. Where christian moralists try to cram their world view (and you have to admit, ultimately it's cramming their religion) down peoples throats. At least where I'm from this is true, and that is observed by myself, not overheard such as the assumptions in the post.
"L4d2 in Australia now significantly less entertaining."
In soldier of fortune it was just gratuitous, in an over the top zombie game the gore fits perfectly.
You know as much as I agree that the Australian government is just plain silly, I wouldn't say that the game becomes less entertaining. I don't know if it's just me but I'm from the generation where blood is completely irrelevant. It could be gushing and it could be sipping, I would be indifferent because it wouldn't affect me. I grew up watching so many movies with so much blood in them that blood doesn't entertain me anymore. However I do think that it's the Australian governments need to force their christian morals (this is the way I've understood it, that there are many christian politicians pushing nonsensical things, such as this, correct me if I'm wrong though) on their citizens is far more disgusting than any amount of gore. I just hope the Australian citizens won't take this kind of bullshit. It's up to generation Y to make shit right.
I hope you get modded up. I think it is an important distinction. But the privacy-at-all cost people on here may want to suppress your post because it doesn't agree with their freaking out.
I didn't want to say it, but you took the words out of my mouth. Truth is, no matter how many books we've read or how many movies we've seen we're never going to be able to foresee a scenario at such a large scale. There are just too many factors in play. What people do know is their fear, and their fear will unfortunately play on many of their decisions in life causing irrational behaviour.
Maybe we will have a surveyed society, and maybe it will turn out ok, I know I don't suffer from hubris, thus I cannot tell either way. I can speculate, but I will never throw myself to the ground screaming "my god can you not see what awaits ahead!?", such as many here do. Fundamentally we humans are curious creatures, and we will always try to snoop on our neighbours, but there's a difference between invading privacy and monitoring public domain. I agree the thought of Orwells world is frightening, but he was no god, and his books are not prophecies. They are merely the product of a curious human playing with the thought of what could be. I believe that if a government becomes the way that Orwell describes in 1984, then there's a good chance the effects will also be as described. However this is not the only outcome of a surveyed society. We are already surveyed, just at different levels. That cell phone you carry: it is used to track your location to prove your guilt or innocence. Those keycards you use: same thing. Internet: need I continue? And apart from this there's already a series of cameras on public locations.
Every person should have the right to privacy, that is given. My property is not public domain, thus I should have all the rights to decide if I want a camera in my house, or even aimed at my property, or not. However the streets are not mine, they are ours. And fundamentally it is a choice we make. If you truly feel that you want to fight something, then do it. The further you take it, the more people will listen to you. Ultimately it's up to you. If you believe that politics is all corrupted business then fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no room for honest opinions -- look at all the pirate parties merging around the world. There's a swedish pirate in the european parliament, who's actually one of 14 members in charge of developing the new telecom package! That is change my friends. Or you could just waste your time speculating, in fear, about what horrors the future may hold you.
Yeah, but now everyone knows your password is 'stewardesses'
I thought it was 123456.
In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.
RTFN
I did read the novel, but there's a big difference. The citizens in 1984 were never allowed to view surveillance, so they were never on an equal scale as the government. And fundamentally this is what frightens people, that someone with an upper hand controlls you. When that upper hand is given to everyone the concept isn't the same, and you taking things out of context doesn't make it so.
Alright, I'll make sure to remember that. On a side note I'd love to rat on those leaving their dogs turds on the street. I'm serious, there is no easier way to ruin someones day than to leave dog shit behind for him to step on. When I see someone leaving dog shit on the street I always lecture their ignorant asses, and if they don't listen I walk behind them screaming "hey everybody, you know that dog shit you try to dodge everyday, forcing you to stare down at the street with every step you take, the shit you occasionally step on, this guy is the reason for that, he refuses to take his responsibility", and repeat. I'll be honest -- I don't even care that it's against the law, but if your actions affect me, then I'll make sure that my actions affect you. Fair and square. I just hope there were less pussies in the world and more people like me, at least in that sense.
Oh and by the way I've worked both at kindergardens and elderly homes when I was younger, and I've had to clean up more shit than you'd even imagine -- asshole. And there's your paragraph.
In a way that's very non-Orwellian. You see the fundamental concept of the Orwellian idea is to have one instance impose on your privacy, in which case this instance uses this data against you, but if we're all imposing on eachothers privacy, what has changed? Other than the very extension of our privacy. I'll give a comparison. Say that none of us had eyes, thus no vision (no echo location isn't allowed either), our privacy would extend much further than it does today, but what if one person, or a group of people suddenly gained vision, these people could use this to receive information about you when you thought you weren't being observed. That would be Orwellian. In the case where everybody (well except the few blind people) get to have vision it no longer becomes Orwellian. It might still be frightening, mostly for those that fear getting something unwanted caught on tape, but in the end it's equal for everyone. If (when) we have a surveyed society I hope that we all get access to the footage at anytime, live or recorded. Equal makes it fair, might be right or wrong -- but still fair.
IANAVet but I think it's the size contra noise, and by size I don't mean that it's big, it's just big enough to produce a potential threat. No dog is threatened by an elephant, or a giraffe, but animals their size, or slightly larger, can be lethal.
One of the open firmware shortcomings is "WPA and WPA2 are not working." That is a pretty big shortcoming.
Or as in this case, one of the open firmware shortcomings: not being open. Epic fail Netgear, epic fucking fail.