I disagree. That's the advantage of Wikipedia. Not that it has articles for South Park episodes per se, but the fact that it's a resource where you could, in theory, have an article for every episode of every TV show. Useful? Maybe not, but I consider it worth having, as it can make for interesting reading if nothing else.
Agree and disagree. Agreed that cut scenes should always be in between missions or at breaks in the action, but Half-Life's refusal to use cut scenes is bloody awful. There are things I like about Half-Life, and others I don't, but Half-Life's storytelling is crap because they don't have cut scenes. Games without cut scenes are cool if there's no story, but if you want to have your game have a story, they're mandatory, imho.
No, it didn't. FFIX had short animations most of the time (it was random, and the first FF to have shorter summons), but summons also hit noticeably harder when you got the full animation, so you felt gypped when the animation was shortened.
That said, I never had an issue with the summon animations in FFVII, and I've played it tons of times.
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but is the controversy over the fact that they're including proprietary software? If so, that's damnably stupid... it's like saying that you can choose whatever software you want to use, as long as it's only the software I approve of.
Anyways, you're correct, there shouldn't be controversy regardless. Don't like it, don't buy it. Its availability doesn't harm you in any way.
And, of course, the best part is that you can still get DLC for the PS3. The PS3 is just warming up to DLC, but it does have it... Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band have plans for downloadable songs, for example.
And critical reading isn't taught where you come from either. I was also talking about institutions. Some branches of the church are good, some are bad. The thing is, these institutions are all made up of people, so any discussion of either part is likely to involve the other (talk about the institutions, and the people probably get dragged into it, and vice versa).
Finally, I feel the need to point out that I am a member of no church and no religion, however, when I see people who are likely to be good people, and the institutions they form, accused of putting on a charitable facade just to gain power, I get irritated. No group should be lumped together and judged as one.
I don't have the tokens, and the trophys and high score boards don't flash a message up on your screen in the middle of gameplay.
I'm also bitter against achievements because I've actually seen reviews where a cross-platform game had the non-360 versions marked down for not having achievements... which is pretty much the biggest load of crap I've ever seen in a review.
I'm not saying that Nintendo's service is ideal, just that it's free. And achievements are the stupidest thing gaming has ever put forth, I'm damn glad Nintendo doesn't have them.
I'm curious, what made you change your mind about Xbox Live? I have a 360 as well, but I absolutely refuse to give money to Microsoft to play online, especially because my understanding is that Microsoft doesn't even guarantee dedicated servers for your games. Then again, I'm also a PC gamer, and thus I'm used to free online play as a matter of course, so paying to get basic online play is pretty damn low in my book. Microsoft is really the only company that has it wrong, Nintendo and Sony also have free online play... and Microsoft doesn't even give you anything decent for your money (like dedicated servers). So, I wonder why you changed your mind about it, because I can't fathom anything it has that would win someone over.
What I would give for mod points right now. Did you ever stop to think, you self-righteous ass, that not all people of any group are the same? I'm sure that there are some churches which operate as you described, but even if most churches operated that way (and I don't believe that to be true for a second), NOT ALL OF THEM DO. The people at the church my parents attend, for example, are wonderful, caring people who really do want to do good in the world and live a good life. I'm sure there are many other churches like this out there.
God forbid you look past your hatred and see that there are good Christians out there, even if you disagree with what some of them are doing.
You are correct, however, Sony's real hopes lie with the 40 GB model, not the 80. To not include such a major feature in the lower-priced model (this new price point may actually save them from total failure in this console generation, but we'll have to see) is pretty stupid, imho. It's like getting rid of the biggest problem, but introducing a new big problem at the same time... there isn't going to be that much of an overall improvement.
How about we don't muck around with key characters? Seriously, what he did to Faramir was shameful. Faramir was a cool character in the books because he was an example of how men, even though they can be corrupt, can also be strong, and resist temptation. In the movies, he became just another guy, who wanted the ring, and was prepared to use it for his own ends. He may have changed later, but the damage was already done, and he was already vastly different from the "Not even if I found it on the highway would I take it" Faramir in the books.
Hell, how about Frodo and Sam? Another great theme, which got completely raped by Jackson, was how Frodo and Sam were indivisble. Their bond of friendship was so strong, nothing whatsoever could tear them apart! Not in Jackson's mind, though. Instead, he figured that we should alter this so that we could have Frodo tell Sam to GTFO of his quest.
The scouring of the Shire is another one which really irritates me, because it shows how the hobbits change, and become more self-sufficient. That should never have been left out.
Don't assume that everyone who has major issues with Peter Jackson's mucking around with LOTR is a Tom Bombadil fan. I'm a fan, but I was able to get past the fact that he was left out, that is NOT my issue with those movies. In fact, Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite part of the trilogy. You do yourself a disservice by assuming that your opponents can only have one possible complaint, and dismissing it as invalid.
The fans, MGM, and Zaentz all want Jackson to direct. No, the fans are divided on this issue. I guarantee you that the number of fans who don't want him to direct (I'm one) is not insignificant. MGM and Zaentz want him, maybe, but not "the fans".
look at Transformers -- not that I was holding out hope for it, not being a nerdy adult fan or anything, but by Azathtoth that was an awful bit of cinematic diarrhea. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
No, seriously, how could you hate that movie? It was easily the best movie of the summer, I loved it. Of course, your lack of Transformers-nerdishness probably hurt your experience a great deal, as my favorite part of the movie was how well it scratched that particular itch. Still, though, even without that, it doesn't come close to being "cinematic diarrhea".
Agreed 100%. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but some of the extreme changes Peter Jackson made ("Go home, Sam!", "I'm Faramir, the example of how men can be strong and resist temptation, but I'm gonna capture you and take the Ring to my daddy!") sickened me. Didn't Tolkien's estate, though, say that if Peter Jackson were to direct a movie based on The Hobbit, that he had to have a person, approved by them, who got veto power over his decisions (as a balance to prevent further mucking around with the original plot)?
Agreed. I always considered the excellent backwards compatibility to be one of the PS3's strongest points (I have the 60 GB model). I bought mine, in fact, specifically because my PS2 died, and I knew that since I wanted a PS3 anyway, it made more sense to get a PS3 than another PS2, and a PS3 later. Without the backwards compatibility, I wouldn't own a PS3 right now, and I probably wouldn't be planning on buying one, at the very least, until FF13 comes out.
Presumably, his computer behaves as responsively and well as a clean computer should, thus, he concludes he has no virus. I mean, for all you know, you have some super-stealthy virus that your AV doesn't catch. You would rightly conclude you don't, because your computer is running fine. And on the off chance you have a virus that doesn't affect your computer, and can't be detected... can it really be called a virus any more?
Solution #3: No computer for you! Come back, one year! I think you seriously overestimate the Geek Squad's responsiveness. It'd take 2 years, at least!
To be fair, he has a point. Far too many Linux people (especially here...) are also Microsoft-haters. They don't give a flying fuck if Windows does what they want, they'll say it doesn't, and use a tiny, almost unnoticeable snag as their excuse (eg: this app won't let me configure {minor behavior x}, thus it sucks, and is unusable!!). This isn't all of them, of course, just like not all Mac users are Jobs cultists... but in both cases, there are enough to give the group as a whole a horrible image. Bad apples, and all that.
Linux doesn't have fear on its side. There is not nor have there ever been choice in computers. What keeps people using Windows is what will happen if they stop. I for example, against my will will have to install a Windows Server 2003 machine in a VM because my university Class requires it, otherwise, the teacher will fail me. (There are certain assignments I can get by on with Linux, but maybe one or two where he has INSISTED on seeing screenshots of a Windows Desktop, as for Application. Big whoop. We all have had to do stupid things for classes that we didn't want to... there's nothing particularly special about using Windows. If you don't like it, fine, but don't blame Windows for that fact. That'd be like blaming the author of a book I hated for the fact that I had to read his book for class. The fault here lies with your instructor for setting stupid and arbitrary rules, not the dominance of one OS.
Now with the release of Windows Vista I've realized that it has no new features I want. I'll be migrating to openSUSE today or tomorrow... You are of course welcome to use whatever OS you want, but your logic absolutely befuddles me. "The new version of Windows doesn't offer any real improvement over the version I have and am happy with, so I'm going to drop Windows altogether!!"
No one said it wasn't extreme, we said it isn't censorship. There's a big difference between the two things. The block seems unrelated to the content of the site, thus, it isn't censorship. Moreover, government office or not, they're under no obligation whatsoever to provide their employees with access to any web site at all. The response is certainly extreme, and this situation should have been dealt with differently... however, it is in no way censorship.
And as for the censorship issue. Yep, it is censorship. It doesn't matter whether it may be justified or not, but it still is censorship. You could look up that word on wikipedia.org if it is not being censored from you. No, it would be censorship if the site were being blocked for its content. Instead, it's being blocked because it's wasting their employees' time. An extreme response, yes, but hardly censorship.
And why not through in one last rebuttal, even though it may seem quite redundant to the / community; Wikipedia and Slashdot are not bandwidth hogs. Sorry mate but your "wastes network resources" has not weight with me. Good for you, but it does have weight with some network admins/employers. Whether it has weight with you is not the issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. That's the advantage of Wikipedia. Not that it has articles for South Park episodes per se, but the fact that it's a resource where you could, in theory, have an article for every episode of every TV show. Useful? Maybe not, but I consider it worth having, as it can make for interesting reading if nothing else.
Agree and disagree. Agreed that cut scenes should always be in between missions or at breaks in the action, but Half-Life's refusal to use cut scenes is bloody awful. There are things I like about Half-Life, and others I don't, but Half-Life's storytelling is crap because they don't have cut scenes. Games without cut scenes are cool if there's no story, but if you want to have your game have a story, they're mandatory, imho.
That said, I never had an issue with the summon animations in FFVII, and I've played it tons of times.
Anyways, you're correct, there shouldn't be controversy regardless. Don't like it, don't buy it. Its availability doesn't harm you in any way.
And, of course, the best part is that you can still get DLC for the PS3. The PS3 is just warming up to DLC, but it does have it... Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band have plans for downloadable songs, for example.
Hot damn! Thanks for that info, I had no idea.
Finally, I feel the need to point out that I am a member of no church and no religion, however, when I see people who are likely to be good people, and the institutions they form, accused of putting on a charitable facade just to gain power, I get irritated. No group should be lumped together and judged as one.
I'm also bitter against achievements because I've actually seen reviews where a cross-platform game had the non-360 versions marked down for not having achievements... which is pretty much the biggest load of crap I've ever seen in a review.
I'm not saying that Nintendo's service is ideal, just that it's free. And achievements are the stupidest thing gaming has ever put forth, I'm damn glad Nintendo doesn't have them.
I'm curious, what made you change your mind about Xbox Live? I have a 360 as well, but I absolutely refuse to give money to Microsoft to play online, especially because my understanding is that Microsoft doesn't even guarantee dedicated servers for your games. Then again, I'm also a PC gamer, and thus I'm used to free online play as a matter of course, so paying to get basic online play is pretty damn low in my book. Microsoft is really the only company that has it wrong, Nintendo and Sony also have free online play... and Microsoft doesn't even give you anything decent for your money (like dedicated servers). So, I wonder why you changed your mind about it, because I can't fathom anything it has that would win someone over.
God forbid you look past your hatred and see that there are good Christians out there, even if you disagree with what some of them are doing.
You are correct, however, Sony's real hopes lie with the 40 GB model, not the 80. To not include such a major feature in the lower-priced model (this new price point may actually save them from total failure in this console generation, but we'll have to see) is pretty stupid, imho. It's like getting rid of the biggest problem, but introducing a new big problem at the same time... there isn't going to be that much of an overall improvement.
Hell, how about Frodo and Sam? Another great theme, which got completely raped by Jackson, was how Frodo and Sam were indivisble. Their bond of friendship was so strong, nothing whatsoever could tear them apart! Not in Jackson's mind, though. Instead, he figured that we should alter this so that we could have Frodo tell Sam to GTFO of his quest.
The scouring of the Shire is another one which really irritates me, because it shows how the hobbits change, and become more self-sufficient. That should never have been left out.
Don't assume that everyone who has major issues with Peter Jackson's mucking around with LOTR is a Tom Bombadil fan. I'm a fan, but I was able to get past the fact that he was left out, that is NOT my issue with those movies. In fact, Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite part of the trilogy. You do yourself a disservice by assuming that your opponents can only have one possible complaint, and dismissing it as invalid.
No, seriously, how could you hate that movie? It was easily the best movie of the summer, I loved it. Of course, your lack of Transformers-nerdishness probably hurt your experience a great deal, as my favorite part of the movie was how well it scratched that particular itch. Still, though, even without that, it doesn't come close to being "cinematic diarrhea".
Agreed 100%. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but some of the extreme changes Peter Jackson made ("Go home, Sam!", "I'm Faramir, the example of how men can be strong and resist temptation, but I'm gonna capture you and take the Ring to my daddy!") sickened me. Didn't Tolkien's estate, though, say that if Peter Jackson were to direct a movie based on The Hobbit, that he had to have a person, approved by them, who got veto power over his decisions (as a balance to prevent further mucking around with the original plot)?
Sony, you are making a huge mistake.
Presumably, his computer behaves as responsively and well as a clean computer should, thus, he concludes he has no virus. I mean, for all you know, you have some super-stealthy virus that your AV doesn't catch. You would rightly conclude you don't, because your computer is running fine. And on the off chance you have a virus that doesn't affect your computer, and can't be detected... can it really be called a virus any more?
To be fair, he has a point. Far too many Linux people (especially here...) are also Microsoft-haters. They don't give a flying fuck if Windows does what they want, they'll say it doesn't, and use a tiny, almost unnoticeable snag as their excuse (eg: this app won't let me configure {minor behavior x}, thus it sucks, and is unusable!!). This isn't all of them, of course, just like not all Mac users are Jobs cultists... but in both cases, there are enough to give the group as a whole a horrible image. Bad apples, and all that.
No one said it wasn't extreme, we said it isn't censorship. There's a big difference between the two things. The block seems unrelated to the content of the site, thus, it isn't censorship. Moreover, government office or not, they're under no obligation whatsoever to provide their employees with access to any web site at all. The response is certainly extreme, and this situation should have been dealt with differently... however, it is in no way censorship.
I can accept this, only if every one takes off.