And thus instead we become the "behind the back" pricks in the women's eyes. Either way we somehow ended up doing something wrong. For every one female we please we piss off five others in the workplace. Next you're gonna blame us for women not getting as many raises or making the same amount as men. (Ok, that was flame bait I admit it. From what I've seen and what I have read/heard about it, it may be due to men generally demanding/negotiating their pay far more often and aggressively then women, which may also partially explain the current discussion.)
Now here's a question, why is it hostile? So far the only answers I've heard have been along the lines of "hurts my feelings", "makes me uncomfortable", "creates a hostile workplace" (that one I honestly can't even fathom, hostile usually means imminent physical danger to me), etc... I faintly recall getting those kinda reactions to everything out of the way back in 3rd grade.
Maybe it's just guys are well guarded against such things. Is it upbringing? Instinct? Male Comradery? Effect of Society on Males? I don't know, but we have no problem living with it. So instead of trying to change us, how about you learn to live with it? Or better yet, throw it back at us. Come on, bring it, we can take it!(And to whoever thinks I'm a callous asshole at this point thanks for proving my point!)
While someone may truly be offended at such humor or ridicule depending on the circumstances, what is commonly ignored is that men do this to each other constantly. You are not getting special treatment because you are female, we are in fact showing acceptance by treating you as "one of the guys". If you don't like it then we end up pampering, which ironically also gets us yelled at for not treating females as "one of the guys". Which honestly is just a small part of the whole men never understanding women and vice-versa problem which is as we know, one of those age old dilemmas.
Disclaimer: There is of course a percentage that is completely and utterly sexual harassment, and it is a very bad thing. However, I am addressing the portion that is mislabeled.
I'm sorry, I should clarify my point. While your observation is true, the cycle can be traced as far back as we have documents for. The groups change (or morph/split depending on how you look at it) but not the inherent conflict. The particular geographical area we are discussing happens to be the cradle of "civilization", so it's a tad easier to see how far back all this bullshit goes. The christian/muslim thing is just the "modern" version.
I'm not trying to belittle your point, it is correct for a specific example, I was trying to point out that specific instances usually have a much larger range than first assumed. The complete ramifications of any given conflict throughout history have not been determined until, usually, much later. Hell, your example is talking about the crusades (which started about 900 years ago) being used as justification in the present day. While invalid by any rational mind, so long as someone out there uses it as their justification (and God forbid succeeds) it could be said that the crusades shaped a modern day event.
Now that last statement could derive a whole new series of thoughts on whether it's "legit" justification that has been passed on for generations and is definitively believed, or if it's just a feeble attempt to find some bullshit justification. The level of complexity is quite astounding. But that's a conversation for another time.
And before that they were Roman lands! Before that, they were Greek. Before that, they were part of the Persian Empire. I think they were Jewish lands right before that, maybe, I'm not sure actually. And way earlier they were the clusterfuck of Ur, Uruk, and Babylonia! Dam you history!
Hell, that region has been conquered more times than France! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
From my understanding of Ion Drives, while being simple (in principle) and comparatively low-cost fuel wise, they are incredibly slow in building velocity (as in takes weeks or months to reach target speeds) and could not be used as a reliable means of thrust for manned craft. Especially if maneuverability is a factor since quite literally, Ion Drive craft are only slightly more maneuverable than a brick in space, they make the Shuttle look like a gymnast. Of course that is current technology, I do not know if it's possible to make a more powerful version of Ion Drives, guess we'll have to wait and see.
I semi-touched on the cost part in a post above, but you also bring up another point. Does gameplay eventually get boring? Well yes, but thats not necessarily unique to WoW or other MMORPGs. I've gotten bored of other types of games, I think thats part of the cycle of gaming. I mean come on, how often is their a totally unique game nowadays?
Most games out are all basically the same with some slightly different twists or methods of doing the exact same thing. Hell, I dismissed Halo as a crappy Quake2 clone. So technically, if you enjoy a game like WoW, and the changes they make every couple of months keep it fresh enough that you keep playing, you technically are getting a bargain. If you're paying $15 a month to play a game that takes up a large portion of your gaming time, if not all of your time in general, instead of buying a new $50+ game every 3-4 weeks you come out on top.
That said, if you find the game boring don't buy it. I mean, come one we all do it to some degree, we all have preferences. I personally find that I play WoW in between releases of other games (or other entertainment in general, mainly books for me) the most, but since I have something to fall back on when I'm waiting instead of buying something thats crappy just to fill the time, I feel that I do pretty well entertainment wise.
While that's a mildly amusing observation, you are making an invalid comparison. Considering that the monthly fee for MMORPGs is technically for the right to play, your context assumption is incorrect. Primarily because you only pay to have an account, nothing else is determined by how much you pay, unlike the article you are referencing. Secondly, the monthly fees are used to keep the servers up practically 24/7 (weekly maintenance and those few buggy servers aside), moderating and updating the game, and compensating the employees for the fact that their life is basically keeping the game up and running, oh and yes I think they deserve a profit for doing this all so you can play a freaking video game. So yes while you are technically right, they are in fact two completely different examples of pay-to-play, one being valid and the other not. If you naively think it could or should be otherwise for an MMORPG of this depth/size/complexity/etc.., you sir, are a fucking moron.
I can live with a month delay, that's not too bad, especially if it helps. At the very least it shows they do care about the quality of their product. I'm sure I can find something else to amuse me for a month, actually I'm pretty sure theirs a couple other games I need to play this month.
The Wii is a gimmick. A very cool gimmick when implemented correctly, but a gimmick none the less. The problem I foresee, which is the same problem other consoles eventually run into: it will become stale rapidly. How long till they can't think of any other cool things to do with a Wiimote? They've covered most of them already, with varying levels of success.
Which brings us to the question spawned from the other next-gen consoles: Why do we need better graphics? Because basic gameplay has barely changed in the 5+ years. Theres innovation here and there, but when was their a completely new style of game or a truly unique idea? The Wii and... oh shit I see where this is going.
That aside since it's mainly a "gamer's" concern, I will admit that the Wii gets non-gamers playing...much like the Gamecube party games also got people playing, though not nearly as much. I give Nintendo some credit, they realize they will eventually lose the hardcore gamers, so they cut them off before they wasted too much time and effort on a losing battle. Instead they are focusing on the niche market, the "party" games, and to reach outside the gamer mainstream market that's the only thing they can do.
Something thats fun not always because of the game itself, but because you're playing it with other people. I mean honestly, Mario Party, Strikers,Smash, Wii Sports, etc... are rather boring by yourself. Get a few people together and you find yourself playing 235 matches of strikers in an evening...err and technically the next morning.
Sorry about the insult but I'm currently laughing at this whole thread. Most of you realize, others not so much, that you are arguing about Apple's overall design practices. The iPhone is nothing new in term of design from Apple, and most of us with any amount of tech savvy know this, and summarily reject it due to this.
To those that don't: Apple makes pretty, compact devices, that do a few functions very well under restricted conditions (ignoring dedicated hacking of such devices, which is beyond the scope used to create the device). Everything from their desktops to the new iPhone is this way, always have been, probably always will be.
If you are buying an iPhone (a $500 gimmick, imo) either you love Apple products or you need the latest new tech toy, either way you should be intimately familiar with the way Apple does business, since you've seen it all before. To assume differently would be naive. Now, I'm sure there is a small percentage of truly clueless consumers, and I feel a little bad for them, but then again the information is available if you care to find it. And while people love to ignore it: You, as a consumer, do have some responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
And thus instead we become the "behind the back" pricks in the women's eyes. Either way we somehow ended up doing something wrong. For every one female we please we piss off five others in the workplace. Next you're gonna blame us for women not getting as many raises or making the same amount as men. (Ok, that was flame bait I admit it. From what I've seen and what I have read/heard about it, it may be due to men generally demanding/negotiating their pay far more often and aggressively then women, which may also partially explain the current discussion.)
Now here's a question, why is it hostile? So far the only answers I've heard have been along the lines of "hurts my feelings", "makes me uncomfortable", "creates a hostile workplace" (that one I honestly can't even fathom, hostile usually means imminent physical danger to me), etc... I faintly recall getting those kinda reactions to everything out of the way back in 3rd grade.
Maybe it's just guys are well guarded against such things. Is it upbringing? Instinct? Male Comradery? Effect of Society on Males? I don't know, but we have no problem living with it. So instead of trying to change us, how about you learn to live with it? Or better yet, throw it back at us. Come on, bring it, we can take it!(And to whoever thinks I'm a callous asshole at this point thanks for proving my point!)
While someone may truly be offended at such humor or ridicule depending on the circumstances, what is commonly ignored is that men do this to each other constantly. You are not getting special treatment because you are female, we are in fact showing acceptance by treating you as "one of the guys". If you don't like it then we end up pampering, which ironically also gets us yelled at for not treating females as "one of the guys". Which honestly is just a small part of the whole men never understanding women and vice-versa problem which is as we know, one of those age old dilemmas.
Disclaimer: There is of course a percentage that is completely and utterly sexual harassment, and it is a very bad thing. However, I am addressing the portion that is mislabeled.
I'm sorry, I should clarify my point. While your observation is true, the cycle can be traced as far back as we have documents for. The groups change (or morph/split depending on how you look at it) but not the inherent conflict. The particular geographical area we are discussing happens to be the cradle of "civilization", so it's a tad easier to see how far back all this bullshit goes. The christian/muslim thing is just the "modern" version.
I'm not trying to belittle your point, it is correct for a specific example, I was trying to point out that specific instances usually have a much larger range than first assumed. The complete ramifications of any given conflict throughout history have not been determined until, usually, much later. Hell, your example is talking about the crusades (which started about 900 years ago) being used as justification in the present day. While invalid by any rational mind, so long as someone out there uses it as their justification (and God forbid succeeds) it could be said that the crusades shaped a modern day event.
Now that last statement could derive a whole new series of thoughts on whether it's "legit" justification that has been passed on for generations and is definitively believed, or if it's just a feeble attempt to find some bullshit justification. The level of complexity is quite astounding. But that's a conversation for another time.
And before that they were Roman lands! Before that, they were Greek. Before that, they were part of the Persian Empire. I think they were Jewish lands right before that, maybe, I'm not sure actually. And way earlier they were the clusterfuck of Ur, Uruk, and Babylonia! Dam you history!
Hell, that region has been conquered more times than France! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
From my understanding of Ion Drives, while being simple (in principle) and comparatively low-cost fuel wise, they are incredibly slow in building velocity (as in takes weeks or months to reach target speeds) and could not be used as a reliable means of thrust for manned craft. Especially if maneuverability is a factor since quite literally, Ion Drive craft are only slightly more maneuverable than a brick in space, they make the Shuttle look like a gymnast. Of course that is current technology, I do not know if it's possible to make a more powerful version of Ion Drives, guess we'll have to wait and see.
I semi-touched on the cost part in a post above, but you also bring up another point. Does gameplay eventually get boring? Well yes, but thats not necessarily unique to WoW or other MMORPGs. I've gotten bored of other types of games, I think thats part of the cycle of gaming. I mean come on, how often is their a totally unique game nowadays? Most games out are all basically the same with some slightly different twists or methods of doing the exact same thing. Hell, I dismissed Halo as a crappy Quake2 clone. So technically, if you enjoy a game like WoW, and the changes they make every couple of months keep it fresh enough that you keep playing, you technically are getting a bargain. If you're paying $15 a month to play a game that takes up a large portion of your gaming time, if not all of your time in general, instead of buying a new $50+ game every 3-4 weeks you come out on top. That said, if you find the game boring don't buy it. I mean, come one we all do it to some degree, we all have preferences. I personally find that I play WoW in between releases of other games (or other entertainment in general, mainly books for me) the most, but since I have something to fall back on when I'm waiting instead of buying something thats crappy just to fill the time, I feel that I do pretty well entertainment wise.
While that's a mildly amusing observation, you are making an invalid comparison. Considering that the monthly fee for MMORPGs is technically for the right to play, your context assumption is incorrect. Primarily because you only pay to have an account, nothing else is determined by how much you pay, unlike the article you are referencing. Secondly, the monthly fees are used to keep the servers up practically 24/7 (weekly maintenance and those few buggy servers aside), moderating and updating the game, and compensating the employees for the fact that their life is basically keeping the game up and running, oh and yes I think they deserve a profit for doing this all so you can play a freaking video game. So yes while you are technically right, they are in fact two completely different examples of pay-to-play, one being valid and the other not. If you naively think it could or should be otherwise for an MMORPG of this depth/size/complexity/etc.., you sir, are a fucking moron.
I can live with a month delay, that's not too bad, especially if it helps. At the very least it shows they do care about the quality of their product. I'm sure I can find something else to amuse me for a month, actually I'm pretty sure theirs a couple other games I need to play this month.
At E3 (July 11th to be specific) it was announced that MGS4 will stay exclusive to the PS3.
The Wii is a gimmick. A very cool gimmick when implemented correctly, but a gimmick none the less. The problem I foresee, which is the same problem other consoles eventually run into: it will become stale rapidly. How long till they can't think of any other cool things to do with a Wiimote? They've covered most of them already, with varying levels of success. Which brings us to the question spawned from the other next-gen consoles: Why do we need better graphics? Because basic gameplay has barely changed in the 5+ years. Theres innovation here and there, but when was their a completely new style of game or a truly unique idea? The Wii and... oh shit I see where this is going. That aside since it's mainly a "gamer's" concern, I will admit that the Wii gets non-gamers playing...much like the Gamecube party games also got people playing, though not nearly as much. I give Nintendo some credit, they realize they will eventually lose the hardcore gamers, so they cut them off before they wasted too much time and effort on a losing battle. Instead they are focusing on the niche market, the "party" games, and to reach outside the gamer mainstream market that's the only thing they can do. Something thats fun not always because of the game itself, but because you're playing it with other people. I mean honestly, Mario Party, Strikers,Smash, Wii Sports, etc... are rather boring by yourself. Get a few people together and you find yourself playing 235 matches of strikers in an evening...err and technically the next morning.
Sorry about the insult but I'm currently laughing at this whole thread. Most of you realize, others not so much, that you are arguing about Apple's overall design practices. The iPhone is nothing new in term of design from Apple, and most of us with any amount of tech savvy know this, and summarily reject it due to this.
To those that don't: Apple makes pretty, compact devices, that do a few functions very well under restricted conditions (ignoring dedicated hacking of such devices, which is beyond the scope used to create the device). Everything from their desktops to the new iPhone is this way, always have been, probably always will be.
If you are buying an iPhone (a $500 gimmick, imo) either you love Apple products or you need the latest new tech toy, either way you should be intimately familiar with the way Apple does business, since you've seen it all before. To assume differently would be naive. Now, I'm sure there is a small percentage of truly clueless consumers, and I feel a little bad for them, but then again the information is available if you care to find it. And while people love to ignore it: You, as a consumer, do have some responsibility.