Ever watch Halo 3 in MLG? Some people are wicked good snipers even with a controller. The difference is it takes a lot of practice. Unlike with a mouse, where everyone is pretty much an expert sniper after playing for two weeks. Personally, I like that the skill cap is so high with a controller. But to each their own, I suppose.
I really don't understand this argument. I mean, I can see how you prefer M+K, but it's not really that hard to play with a controller, once you get used to it. I know like a dozen people who all had that M+K only mentality and used to complain so much about controllers. I ask them now and they still say they prefer M+K, but don't mind playing with a controller at all so long as everyone else is. It's really not that hard to get used to. Try it out. You're missing out on some pretty good games.
I agree with you. I always remember some guy saying he enjoyed a certain pc game but got tired of it when everyone got good enough to bunny hop through a corridor with a sniper rifle pulling off headshot after headshot. I feel like the ease of aiming with a mouse is almost detrimental to FPS games and makes them campy sniper fests. The difficulty in aiming with a controller broadens the width skill and makes the game less about point-and-click and more about movement and strategy.
I like to compare it to racing. Ask any driver if he would prefer to race with an automatic or a manual gear shift, and I bet most of them would say manual. It's just more fun that way, even if automatic is easier.
Well, what I actually meant was, do they have to give up there privacy rights just because they're at work? If an office worker was working for the government, would it be okay for their boss to videotape them secretly just because they are a government employee. Granted, this isn't quite the same as an officer on duty handing out tickets, but my question is more about how being a "public servant" limits their expectation of privacy? Should it?
Technically, I agree with you. But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government? Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?
I thought about doing a mix. Like, I have a series of numbers, symbols and letters that I've memorized. It's a very secure password, and I like using it because I can remember it.
But of course, using the same password on every site isn't good practice, so I've made various little changes to the series. Only problem is, it gets hard to remember what series fits what site. So I thought of using the same series for every site, and then simply attaching the first and last alphanumeric character of the website address to the password. That way I'll have a secure password on every site that is easy to remember wherever I use it.
I hate this argument. There's plenty of mature games out there. Portal 2, Mass Effect, Bioshock. These are just three games off the top of my head that are definitely at a level of maturity with complex themes and sophisticated story-lines. Your post reeks of pseudo-elitism.
That's not fair. There are contractors who care. I've seen one. In fact, let me check something... um... yup, I dvr'd that episode of Ripley's Believe it or not. I'll see if I can find a clip of it on you tube and post it for ya.
I had the unfortunate experience of having to play 2 without my save file. It really irked me to find out a certain character I saved in the first game was dead in the second one because of this. I don't see why they don't give you the option of setting up the things you did in the first game for those players who don't have their save file. Is it really a big deal if someone lies and setups their data inaccurately?
I hate the word "could." It's so inconclusive. I always think of the Geico commercial. "15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on your car insurance." Yeah, and if I buy a lottery ticket, I could win millions of dollars. I probably won't, but I could.
I'm probably just being too cynical. This is an interesting development, and I should be more supportive. But I can't get excited when there's so much "could" in an article. Just not in my nature.
You're right, but you're arguing semantics. I, too, take the position that it's possible there is a god, just like it's possible there are purple car driving monkeys, it's possible that we're all trapped in the matrix, or it's possible Gary Busey is god. Anything possible it the super pedantic philosophical sense. But we don't go around being super careful to say "I don't believe in purple car driving monkey but I recognize the possibility." No, we just say "Purple car driving monkeys don't exist." This whole tiptoeing around semantics that so many atheists and agnostics to really only gives ammunition to theists. It's okay to say "There is no god" in the same way as it's okay to say "there are no purple car driving monkeys". You don't always have to through in that awkward disclaimer.
Great for them. Seems a little unfair that "God" picks and chooses who he wants to prove his existence to, but it really does me no good if I can't replicate their proof, does it? I could tell you right now I've seen proof that purple car-driving monkeys exists. How much good would that do you?
But you are right that there are things I believe that are based on faith. For example, every time I go to a doctor, he gives me a diagnosis, and I accept on faith that he is giving me the right treatment. It could be called faith, as I don't have necessary education to really test is. But if it is faith, it's definitely not a blind faith. That's the difference between faith in a doctor and faith in a God. It's okay to be 95% sure that the doctor is right, and believe what he says, while still keeping your mind open to the possibilities that he could be wrong. But there is still evidence at hand to base my conclusions on, namely the fact that he's been to school, that his diagnosis makes sense, that its corroborated by other doctors, that going to the doctors has repeatedly ended up in the curing of my ailment. Sure, I can't prove 100% that the cream he's giving me for my rash is going to work, but that's not the evidence I'm basing decision on. It's all the other things.
This is how "faith based beliefs" SHOULD be made. I'd hardly even call it faith at that point. It's more reason then faith. In absence of proof, you weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable solution. But this is NOT how religious faith works. In spite of zero evidence, and even sometimes evidence clearly contradicting the doctrines entailed in religious beliefs, most theists believe 100% that there is a God (and incidentally, he hates gay people or he doesn't want you to eat meat or he wants you to pray five times a day, etc.). This is a blind faith based on nothing more than stories handed down through generations with no anchor in tangibility. In fact, it's so ambiguous that thousands of religions have been formed throughout history and no one religion has had any substantial argument capable of refuting another.
These ideas of belief are two very separate things. Blind faith in religion and faith in a doctor are not the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever watch Halo 3 in MLG? Some people are wicked good snipers even with a controller. The difference is it takes a lot of practice. Unlike with a mouse, where everyone is pretty much an expert sniper after playing for two weeks. Personally, I like that the skill cap is so high with a controller. But to each their own, I suppose.
Right. Cause competitive and comfortable are mutually exclusive.
I really don't understand this argument. I mean, I can see how you prefer M+K, but it's not really that hard to play with a controller, once you get used to it. I know like a dozen people who all had that M+K only mentality and used to complain so much about controllers. I ask them now and they still say they prefer M+K, but don't mind playing with a controller at all so long as everyone else is. It's really not that hard to get used to. Try it out. You're missing out on some pretty good games.
I agree with you. I always remember some guy saying he enjoyed a certain pc game but got tired of it when everyone got good enough to bunny hop through a corridor with a sniper rifle pulling off headshot after headshot. I feel like the ease of aiming with a mouse is almost detrimental to FPS games and makes them campy sniper fests. The difficulty in aiming with a controller broadens the width skill and makes the game less about point-and-click and more about movement and strategy.
I like to compare it to racing. Ask any driver if he would prefer to race with an automatic or a manual gear shift, and I bet most of them would say manual. It's just more fun that way, even if automatic is easier.
Well, what I actually meant was, do they have to give up there privacy rights just because they're at work? If an office worker was working for the government, would it be okay for their boss to videotape them secretly just because they are a government employee. Granted, this isn't quite the same as an officer on duty handing out tickets, but my question is more about how being a "public servant" limits their expectation of privacy? Should it?
Again, just playing devil's advocate.
Technically, I agree with you. But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government? Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?
Well I live there, so I think I know enough.
Yeah cause the entire city of Las Vegas can be summarized by what it's like to drive on the strip... c'mon
Because it's easier just to have the password in my head. Yup, I'm that lazy
I thought about doing a mix. Like, I have a series of numbers, symbols and letters that I've memorized. It's a very secure password, and I like using it because I can remember it.
But of course, using the same password on every site isn't good practice, so I've made various little changes to the series. Only problem is, it gets hard to remember what series fits what site. So I thought of using the same series for every site, and then simply attaching the first and last alphanumeric character of the website address to the password. That way I'll have a secure password on every site that is easy to remember wherever I use it.
Disgusting. I'd rather eat soylent green.
So, when this starts happening in the US, I'm guessing Yucca mountain will sound a lot more appealing to all those naysayers. Just a guess, though.
I guess "outside the country" would be covered by "no one's around". Too vague? :)
Doesn't take much courage to throw a rock into a window when you're wearing a ski mask and there's no one around.
Sure they could. Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance, my friend.
I hate this argument. There's plenty of mature games out there. Portal 2, Mass Effect, Bioshock. These are just three games off the top of my head that are definitely at a level of maturity with complex themes and sophisticated story-lines. Your post reeks of pseudo-elitism.
That's not fair. There are contractors who care. I've seen one. In fact, let me check something... um... yup, I dvr'd that episode of Ripley's Believe it or not. I'll see if I can find a clip of it on you tube and post it for ya.
I had the unfortunate experience of having to play 2 without my save file. It really irked me to find out a certain character I saved in the first game was dead in the second one because of this. I don't see why they don't give you the option of setting up the things you did in the first game for those players who don't have their save file. Is it really a big deal if someone lies and setups their data inaccurately?
Could mean the end of self-serve pumps.
I hate the word "could." It's so inconclusive. I always think of the Geico commercial. "15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on your car insurance." Yeah, and if I buy a lottery ticket, I could win millions of dollars. I probably won't, but I could.
I'm probably just being too cynical. This is an interesting development, and I should be more supportive. But I can't get excited when there's so much "could" in an article. Just not in my nature.
Could be fraud charges related less to them cheating, and more to them duping people into thinking they were applying for a job. But I'm not a lawyer.
You're right, but you're arguing semantics. I, too, take the position that it's possible there is a god, just like it's possible there are purple car driving monkeys, it's possible that we're all trapped in the matrix, or it's possible Gary Busey is god. Anything possible it the super pedantic philosophical sense. But we don't go around being super careful to say "I don't believe in purple car driving monkey but I recognize the possibility." No, we just say "Purple car driving monkeys don't exist." This whole tiptoeing around semantics that so many atheists and agnostics to really only gives ammunition to theists. It's okay to say "There is no god" in the same way as it's okay to say "there are no purple car driving monkeys". You don't always have to through in that awkward disclaimer.
Will this really pass in the senate? I'm hoping it wont.
Great for them. Seems a little unfair that "God" picks and chooses who he wants to prove his existence to, but it really does me no good if I can't replicate their proof, does it? I could tell you right now I've seen proof that purple car-driving monkeys exists. How much good would that do you?
But you are right that there are things I believe that are based on faith. For example, every time I go to a doctor, he gives me a diagnosis, and I accept on faith that he is giving me the right treatment. It could be called faith, as I don't have necessary education to really test is. But if it is faith, it's definitely not a blind faith. That's the difference between faith in a doctor and faith in a God. It's okay to be 95% sure that the doctor is right, and believe what he says, while still keeping your mind open to the possibilities that he could be wrong. But there is still evidence at hand to base my conclusions on, namely the fact that he's been to school, that his diagnosis makes sense, that its corroborated by other doctors, that going to the doctors has repeatedly ended up in the curing of my ailment. Sure, I can't prove 100% that the cream he's giving me for my rash is going to work, but that's not the evidence I'm basing decision on. It's all the other things.
This is how "faith based beliefs" SHOULD be made. I'd hardly even call it faith at that point. It's more reason then faith. In absence of proof, you weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable solution. But this is NOT how religious faith works. In spite of zero evidence, and even sometimes evidence clearly contradicting the doctrines entailed in religious beliefs, most theists believe 100% that there is a God (and incidentally, he hates gay people or he doesn't want you to eat meat or he wants you to pray five times a day, etc.). This is a blind faith based on nothing more than stories handed down through generations with no anchor in tangibility. In fact, it's so ambiguous that thousands of religions have been formed throughout history and no one religion has had any substantial argument capable of refuting another.
These ideas of belief are two very separate things. Blind faith in religion and faith in a doctor are not the same.
Sarcasm, hedwards. Learn it. Love it.