Please shut the fuck up in civilized discussion from now on if you can't see past someone's religion and judge the individual, and please shut the fuck up if you feel the urge to bring flame wars into what was once a civilized, quiet chat.
You shouldn't. Neither Obama nor McCain will be a decent president, as has been discussed to death on/. many times. Obama is just a corrupt, self-serving politician like the rest of 'em. The only way we'll have a half-decent president in January is if a miracle happens, and a third party gets elected... course, that won't happen, but a man can dream.
No, it couldn't, because Microsoft does not actually suck. Parts of Microsoft suck (some products, their general business practices), but the whole does not, in fact, suck.
And more to the point of what this article addresses,.NET certainly does not suck.
Can you think of other issues where the politicians have similarly entirely avoided the issue?
The one that springs to mind immediately is a question that was asked during the VP debate (and the moderator also mentioned that it had been asked to the presidential candidates, but I didn't see that myself): in light of the major events that have happened this past week, what are some promises that your campaign has made that you will not be able to keep?
Great question, and of course, Palin and Biden both completely sidestepped it. I was disgusted, if not surprised.
Are you kidding? The Spark client is the biggest piece of shit I've ever used. Random freezing (the UI will just freeze for up to a minute on my work PC), stops remembering what group you put buddies into... it blows ass.
Er... because it's a bad idea. I never said it was a good idea. I'm saying that if we have nationalized health care, it must be even-handed. That's all.
Not saying you're wrong. I'm talking about how things should be, not necessarily how they will be... experience teaches me that people tend to fuck things up pretty badly in practice.
Exactly, I wouldn't. That's why I don't run around proposing that we all share grocery bills. IF I were to do such a stupid thing, then I'd have to accept the consequences of having that system.
I suppose it's nice to know that the issues that matter to the Slashdot crowd are so unimportant to the rest of society that they're not worth bothering to answer.
And when has either of those two gave a real answer to a question that wouldn't make them look absolutely glowing? This is a problem with how politicians behave, not issues being unimportant to society (although that could be the case too).
On top of that if you nationalize healthcare you also nationalize the costs of obesity, therefore such a lifestyle should be taxed higher to cover their added cost to society.
No. If people don't want to pay a greater health care cost for some people who could reasonably lower their cost, that's fine. I have no issue with that. However, if we have a nationalized health care system, it applies equally to all. Period. If people want to get an essentially free ride on health care, that's cool, but everyone gets a ride.
I don't want to help pay for healthcare of the most overweight country in the world.
I'm not asking you to. That said, if you want nationalized health care, you better be prepared to pay for the health care for people who don't keep themselves in as good shape as they could. It's a consequence of having a system that covers everyone.
4. Goverment says (And this has been kicked around, it's not that far fetched.) "This health care is expensive for out of shape people, lets tell them to get in shape or they don't get care"
Whoever supports an idea like that should be smacked. Not because it'd inconvenience me, but because if we have nationalized health care, either it applies to everyone, or it doesn't. Yes, some people may be at higher risk than they could otherwise be. No, we're not going to do anything about it, because that's just a drawback of the system.
With an obesity epidemic... which candidate has the best answers?
That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I'm a big guy, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to manage their weight properly, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving themselves.
Well said. I'd wager that 99.9% of consumers don't give a fuck, want to play their game, and will crack it if the DRM ever becomes an issue. That's not being a sheep, that's pragmatism.
My god, this isn't a move to get rid of all the people who annoy us online.
How do you purport to know this? Telepathy?
Considering I've seen players beg Blizzard to do exactly this on the WoW forums, I'd say it's entirely plausible that this is a move to try to get rid of legitimately disruptive forum posters.
Anyone gets to decide what appropriate speech is on their own turf. There may not be legal consequences, but you can kick people out of your turf (real or online) whenever you want.
I always bitch when I see grown adults dedicating weeks of their time developing skills in inane games of pretend.
Way to mischaracterize it. They aren't dedicating weeks of time to developing skills, they're dedicating weeks of time to playing a fun game. The skill development is a natural consequence of spending time, not the goal.
Particularly when they start trying to show off how "awesome" they are at it like they're looking for a cookie. It's disgusting.
Agreed, but the vast majority of people who play the game don't do this, so you're being an asshole to 75% of the players for the actions of 25% (numbers pulled from thin air). Hardly fair of you. More to the point, I have NEVER seen someone on/. bashing the game after someone brags about their skills, they just bring it up out of thin air. Hell, I have NEVER seen someone bragging about their skills for that matter... because they understand that it's just a fucking game.
If you couldn't communicate to your kids good taste in music as a professional musician...
Taste is purely subjective. If they don't like the Beatles, then they don't, and there's nothing that can be done about it (and nothing wrong with it, either). I myself can't stand the Beatles (which is not because they're old, I just hate that particular old band), and no one could have instilled a liking for that band in me. It's just how it is.
Because it's a fun game, and they aren't uptight dickwads about it.
Are all these people idiots?
No, but you certainly are. Games don't have to model something you can't do in real life to be fun. No one bitches about how people playing Call of Duty should pick up a real gun and join the real army. The only people who bitch about games like Rock Band are musicians who act all fucking cool about it. Grow the fuck up.
And yes, I play real guitar (as my nick might indicate). I don't feel the need to be a prick about it to everyone who doesn't, though.
Seriously? What kind of glutton for punishment are you? I have no trouble with RPGs as a rule, but I had to quit Oblivion because I was getting murdered by monsters for quests at the beginning of the game. Oblivion was fucking hard, who would want it harder?
Slashdot Mirror
For a human to choose death is not always wrong.
No, but for a human to choose death for another human is always wrong.
- a very strongly pro-life non-Christian.
Please shut the fuck up in civilized discussion from now on if you can't see past someone's religion and judge the individual, and please shut the fuck up if you feel the urge to bring flame wars into what was once a civilized, quiet chat.
You shouldn't. Neither Obama nor McCain will be a decent president, as has been discussed to death on /. many times. Obama is just a corrupt, self-serving politician like the rest of 'em. The only way we'll have a half-decent president in January is if a miracle happens, and a third party gets elected... course, that won't happen, but a man can dream.
No, it couldn't, because Microsoft does not actually suck. Parts of Microsoft suck (some products, their general business practices), but the whole does not, in fact, suck.
And more to the point of what this article addresses, .NET certainly does not suck.
The new metamod system is totally NOT meta at all -- in fact, it's completely braindead.
Agreed. I used to metamod all the time, but I refuse to touch the mess that is the new metamod system.
Can you think of other issues where the politicians have similarly entirely avoided the issue?
The one that springs to mind immediately is a question that was asked during the VP debate (and the moderator also mentioned that it had been asked to the presidential candidates, but I didn't see that myself): in light of the major events that have happened this past week, what are some promises that your campaign has made that you will not be able to keep?
Great question, and of course, Palin and Biden both completely sidestepped it. I was disgusted, if not surprised.
Are you kidding? The Spark client is the biggest piece of shit I've ever used. Random freezing (the UI will just freeze for up to a minute on my work PC), stops remembering what group you put buddies into... it blows ass.
Er... because it's a bad idea. I never said it was a good idea. I'm saying that if we have nationalized health care, it must be even-handed. That's all.
Not saying you're wrong. I'm talking about how things should be, not necessarily how they will be... experience teaches me that people tend to fuck things up pretty badly in practice.
Exactly, I wouldn't. That's why I don't run around proposing that we all share grocery bills. IF I were to do such a stupid thing, then I'd have to accept the consequences of having that system.
I suppose it's nice to know that the issues that matter to the Slashdot crowd are so unimportant to the rest of society that they're not worth bothering to answer.
And when has either of those two gave a real answer to a question that wouldn't make them look absolutely glowing? This is a problem with how politicians behave, not issues being unimportant to society (although that could be the case too).
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
That's a foreign concept in the US these days.
On top of that if you nationalize healthcare you also nationalize the costs of obesity, therefore such a lifestyle should be taxed higher to cover their added cost to society.
No. If people don't want to pay a greater health care cost for some people who could reasonably lower their cost, that's fine. I have no issue with that. However, if we have a nationalized health care system, it applies equally to all. Period. If people want to get an essentially free ride on health care, that's cool, but everyone gets a ride.
I don't want to help pay for healthcare of the most overweight country in the world.
I'm not asking you to. That said, if you want nationalized health care, you better be prepared to pay for the health care for people who don't keep themselves in as good shape as they could. It's a consequence of having a system that covers everyone.
4. Goverment says (And this has been kicked around, it's not that far fetched.) "This health care is expensive for out of shape people, lets tell them to get in shape or they don't get care"
Whoever supports an idea like that should be smacked. Not because it'd inconvenience me, but because if we have nationalized health care, either it applies to everyone, or it doesn't. Yes, some people may be at higher risk than they could otherwise be. No, we're not going to do anything about it, because that's just a drawback of the system.
Ah, sense. Such a rare and precious commodity.
With an obesity epidemic... which candidate has the best answers?
That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I'm a big guy, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to manage their weight properly, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving themselves.
Well said. I'd wager that 99.9% of consumers don't give a fuck, want to play their game, and will crack it if the DRM ever becomes an issue. That's not being a sheep, that's pragmatism.
My god, this isn't a move to get rid of all the people who annoy us online.
How do you purport to know this? Telepathy?
Considering I've seen players beg Blizzard to do exactly this on the WoW forums, I'd say it's entirely plausible that this is a move to try to get rid of legitimately disruptive forum posters.
Anyone gets to decide what appropriate speech is on their own turf. There may not be legal consequences, but you can kick people out of your turf (real or online) whenever you want.
Er... yeah, let's power down our backup servers that are there as a safety net. What could possibly go wrong?
I guess these guys don't care about little things like uptime, then?
I always bitch when I see grown adults dedicating weeks of their time developing skills in inane games of pretend.
Way to mischaracterize it. They aren't dedicating weeks of time to developing skills, they're dedicating weeks of time to playing a fun game. The skill development is a natural consequence of spending time, not the goal.
Particularly when they start trying to show off how "awesome" they are at it like they're looking for a cookie. It's disgusting.
Agreed, but the vast majority of people who play the game don't do this, so you're being an asshole to 75% of the players for the actions of 25% (numbers pulled from thin air). Hardly fair of you. More to the point, I have NEVER seen someone on /. bashing the game after someone brags about their skills, they just bring it up out of thin air. Hell, I have NEVER seen someone bragging about their skills for that matter... because they understand that it's just a fucking game.
And how about you learn to respect other people having harmless fun rather than belittle them for choosing one pointless hobby over another.
Sincerely, someone who actually has half a brain. As opposed to you.
If you couldn't communicate to your kids good taste in music as a professional musician...
Taste is purely subjective. If they don't like the Beatles, then they don't, and there's nothing that can be done about it (and nothing wrong with it, either). I myself can't stand the Beatles (which is not because they're old, I just hate that particular old band), and no one could have instilled a liking for that band in me. It's just how it is.
Why the hell is this popular?
Because it's a fun game, and they aren't uptight dickwads about it.
Are all these people idiots?
No, but you certainly are. Games don't have to model something you can't do in real life to be fun. No one bitches about how people playing Call of Duty should pick up a real gun and join the real army. The only people who bitch about games like Rock Band are musicians who act all fucking cool about it. Grow the fuck up.
And yes, I play real guitar (as my nick might indicate). I don't feel the need to be a prick about it to everyone who doesn't, though.
those that made the game HARDER, not easier
...
Seriously? What kind of glutton for punishment are you? I have no trouble with RPGs as a rule, but I had to quit Oblivion because I was getting murdered by monsters for quests at the beginning of the game. Oblivion was fucking hard, who would want it harder?