Hey, face? You know what? Fuck you, I'm going to cut my nose off, how you like THEM apples?!?!
The tags about DRM, defective by design, don't buy it... It's an important issue that needs to be adressed, but for the love of God, this is not the way to do it. If you're going to boycott, then boycott, don't just go online and rant about how people shouldn't buy it. Get organized. As such, you're at best going to annoy a PR grunt, not get one of the decisionmakers at the top of EA to quit using DRM. If you're just upset at DRM and are personally not buying the game and that's all, then all you're doing is denying yourself what are otherwise great games.
Unfortunately, I also think that more attention being called to DRM issues means more gamers AND developers saying "screw it, consoles don't have these problems." That has certaintly been my reaction. Rock and a hard place. I'm not saying live with DRM and be happy, don't misinterpret, just speculating.
1. Trying to learn more about computers. I know, I know,/. is about claiming you know more than you do, not learning. I'm also coming to realize also that although people here can come up with a fix to any computer issue, it usually is much more of a hassle than the issue, only works in theory, and even then only under specific circumstances (namely, it might be able to work for the angry IT guy who suggested it, but if your machine is configured differently it won't, and by the way you're an idiot for not having X Y and Z)
2. More importantly, keeping up to date on actual important news, IE from the science, games, politics, or other (coughidlecough) sections.
My point was that fast boot would have a use for those of us who have little control over the computers we use, not whining. Way to assume and make an ass out of u and me.
Me, for one. Even new, my laptop took at least 5 minutes to load it up. My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process. I don't have administrator status and wouldn't know what I'm doing anyway.
I think most of us users would agree that spending more time figuring out how to get our computers to load in less than 5 minutes would be a waste of more time. I would definitely prefer it if my computer turned on instantly without having to tinker around with it and likely break it.
(Note that I'm not asking for advice here, I don't want to mess with it and am fine with how my computers work right now.)
Liberal means minarchist with various opinions on exactly how much the state should be allowed to do.
Just to clarify, you are talking about the UK specific term, since in the US there's an element of social welfare programs run by the state.
Couldn't you guys start spelling it differently so that we'd know which definition of liberal you were talking about? Logically we would be the ones to change our spelling since we were the ones who started using it differently, but... well... let's be honest about a few things. First, slashdot at least seems to have more US users than UK users. Second, without going into flaming my own country, we tend to insist we're right, I could be giving too much credit to the brittish, but you guys seem more amenable to changing your spelling than we are, and being less confused after the change. Third, for whatever reason, US liberals have allowed US conservatives to turn it into an insult some places. For us to dirty the word up and then give it back to you would just be cowardly.
Yes, I promise you there are a lot more people looking for ways to call Obama an arab without actually calling him an arab. That's a dumber thing to research. There are people who are testing what is the best way to make large groups of schoolchildren believe in creationism, that's a dumber study. Nearly all market research provides us with more trivial insights into human nature than this. What colors make us want to buy laundry detergent is something that has far less impact than what makes us choose the course for the country.
Someone tagged that with "correlationisnotcausation." Yeah. Great. Really insightful there. Clearly no claim of causation was made, but it's important to remind us of that bumper-sticker bit of wisdom. Anything else? Can we get a "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag in there? Because really, something could ALWAYS unexpectedly go wrong. Maybe some more basic logic, like "adhominemattacksdontproveyourpoint?"
modern "liberals" are no more liberal than "conservatives."
You know what the word means these days, so does everyone else. How come every time someone uses "Liberal" with the current, widely accepted use, someone on/. inevitably pipes up about how it used to mean something else? Words change, that one changed. Come on out of the 18th century already.
I'd rather they promise us more so that if I like it, I have something to look forward too. The ending of psychonauts was clearly setting up a sequel, even though I knew in advance it didn't sell I was sad to know it would never happen.
And like others have said, announcing it's going to be a trillogy is much better than trying to turn an individual thing into a trilogy afterward.
Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!
A 19 year old kid can go out and get drunk with his buddies and moon people out of a moving car window, get caught and convicted of indecent exposure (a little girl said she saw the guys butt!) and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, despite being no threat whatsoever to children.
Kind of depends on the butt. Hairy and chunky could give kids nightmares!
However, there is (as far as I know, feel free to educate me) no working scientific model on how fluctuating magnetic fields can treat brain injuries, so causation isn't quite reasonable.
I would start out assuming that employed researchers have a model for whatever they are testing when they test discrete things like this. This researcher probably did not throw a dart at a wall to decide what she was going to do to try to wake up coma patients.
Keep in mind that the article referenced is not the peer-reviewed journal article that will be forthcoming if this is real and not a scam. "New scientist" may have omitted the model that suggested this treatment because it required a deeper knowledge of neurophysiology than their average reader had, and didn't bother. That should be the assumption, not that the researcher was wildly trying to waste research grants by doing stuff completely at random to the patients, one woke up, and she jumped up and down saying she had proven it will work always and forever.
I predict some people are going to knock peer-review (it's so fun and easy to criticise, especially when there's no viable alternative), so I'll pre-empt that by saying I wasn't saying that wouldn't make it true, just that the technical article will give the model, wait for that before you accuse people of scientific misconduct.
Who do we vote for if we want Nader to be president?
You realize that if your ideal canidate doesn't have a nomination of one of the two major parties, you have to either give it up or do a lot more than just voting in november. You get off your butt and work to raise awareness of the issues he stands for far in advance of an election. If you haven't convinced a significant number of americans of his platform by the election, then you check to see if you're in a swing state or a close race. If you're not, then you can go ahead and vote for your ideal canidate. If you are, you vote for whichever of the two major canidates that you like better, since those are the choices you gave yourself, and as florida proved in 2000, voting for your ideal canidate without reguard to the real race will get you someone you REALLY don't want. If the roughly 2000 floridians who voted for nader in 2000 had voted for Gore, we wouldn't have had Bush (surely now in hindsight even the most ardent Nader supporter has to conceed that there WAS in fact a big difference), and it wouldn't have made any difference for Nader. He still would have lost.
I have to say you seem to know quite a bit about economics. I'm not convinced by the interpretations, and I think you're too quick to take this as proof that government programs to increase home ownership is an inherently flawed approach, but you are at least a lot more knowledgeable than most, including me, on this issue.
The marxism is another story though...
...you live in academia where the reality of marxism is carefully suppressed. Marx's ideas have lead to prison states and mass graves each and every time they have been allowed to be fully implemented. Zero exceptions.
We don't really talk about international economics in biology, except around the water cooler when they affect us personally. The undergrads may be talking about Marx, and it might be an issue in some departments like economics or political science. I don't know, but I can tell you it's absolutely not all of academia. Don't paint us all with the same red brush, we're too busy trying to cure cancer.
Yup. The current crisis is a result of marxism, not a failure of capitalism.
I don't know much about economics, so maybe this is my ignorance coming through, but I'm doubtfull that Fannie Mae is an example of marxism. Even if it is, it's my understanding that it was private banks which gleefully picked up the home loans, for some reason assuming it was a good investment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the lesson here, if anything, that private enterprise and government enterprises don't always interface well? It seems unjustified to me to say it was the government half of the equation that was the entire problem, not at all greed and carelessness on the other side.
I also don't know much about the previous depression, but I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression it was because of a lack of government controls. That said, I don't remember how or if that was explained.... Feeling a little self conscious about my ignorance here, so I have to say the following: I know a lot more about my field of expertise (cell biology) than economics.
The War isn't over until we face up to and defeat the 5th column still working it's way through American Society spreading rot and ruin behind it.
I'm really going to need you to explain some of that. I know you say the current economic mess is clearly a result of communism, any other examples? I work in acadamia, biology specifically. Am I or my colleagues communist and how are we destroying american society?
Anyway, for most of us, "marxist" is not an insult, anymore than calling someone a "yankee" is.
Normally I recommend against trusting Wikipedia...
You don't trust wiki or the articles it cites but you DO trust a guy who has devoted his life to taking down a nobel-laureate economist because he doesn't like what he's saying? Why is it most conservatives are so skeptical about anything that doesn't agree with their worldview, but are so gullible when it does?
Somehow I trust somebody talking about economics who has actually DONE things more than a crazy old marxist ranting tired old BSD drivel in a dying (Netcraft confirms it!) newspaper
You're right, the current economic crisis clearly proves that bankers, presidents with MBAs, and other people who have actually done "things" know economics much better than nobel laureates.
Also, "marxist" as an insult? Really? Get with the times, the cold war is over.
This is the same bunch of useful idiots who gave a Nobel to Al Gore after all.
See, now I was about to say "These are the same forward thinking people who awarded Al Gore a prize for his important work raising awareness of the dangers of global warming." Just kidding, but surely you don't think that's at all convincing to those people who don't already hate Krugman and the Nobel comittee for awarding him.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, face? You know what? Fuck you, I'm going to cut my nose off, how you like THEM apples?!?!
The tags about DRM, defective by design, don't buy it... It's an important issue that needs to be adressed, but for the love of God, this is not the way to do it. If you're going to boycott, then boycott, don't just go online and rant about how people shouldn't buy it. Get organized. As such, you're at best going to annoy a PR grunt, not get one of the decisionmakers at the top of EA to quit using DRM. If you're just upset at DRM and are personally not buying the game and that's all, then all you're doing is denying yourself what are otherwise great games.
Unfortunately, I also think that more attention being called to DRM issues means more gamers AND developers saying "screw it, consoles don't have these problems." That has certaintly been my reaction. Rock and a hard place. I'm not saying live with DRM and be happy, don't misinterpret, just speculating.
What are these "users" doing posting on Slashdot?
1. Trying to learn more about computers. I know, I know, /. is about claiming you know more than you do, not learning. I'm also coming to realize also that although people here can come up with a fix to any computer issue, it usually is much more of a hassle than the issue, only works in theory, and even then only under specific circumstances (namely, it might be able to work for the angry IT guy who suggested it, but if your machine is configured differently it won't, and by the way you're an idiot for not having X Y and Z)
2. More importantly, keeping up to date on actual important news, IE from the science, games, politics, or other (coughidlecough) sections.
My point was that fast boot would have a use for those of us who have little control over the computers we use, not whining. Way to assume and make an ass out of u and me.
Has to reboot at least once during the boot process? So you're saying you never reach the desktop?
Yes, but I never use it anyway, I'm too busy with the infinite loop of washing my hair: Lather, rinse, repeat... FOREVER
I feel like your post was a shorter, blunter version of mine.
Me, for one. Even new, my laptop took at least 5 minutes to load it up. My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process. I don't have administrator status and wouldn't know what I'm doing anyway.
I think most of us users would agree that spending more time figuring out how to get our computers to load in less than 5 minutes would be a waste of more time. I would definitely prefer it if my computer turned on instantly without having to tinker around with it and likely break it.
(Note that I'm not asking for advice here, I don't want to mess with it and am fine with how my computers work right now.)
Liberal means minarchist with various opinions on exactly how much the state should be allowed to do.
Just to clarify, you are talking about the UK specific term, since in the US there's an element of social welfare programs run by the state.
Couldn't you guys start spelling it differently so that we'd know which definition of liberal you were talking about? Logically we would be the ones to change our spelling since we were the ones who started using it differently, but... well... let's be honest about a few things. First, slashdot at least seems to have more US users than UK users. Second, without going into flaming my own country, we tend to insist we're right, I could be giving too much credit to the brittish, but you guys seem more amenable to changing your spelling than we are, and being less confused after the change. Third, for whatever reason, US liberals have allowed US conservatives to turn it into an insult some places. For us to dirty the word up and then give it back to you would just be cowardly.
All pretty stupid reasons, I know.
Yes, I promise you there are a lot more people looking for ways to call Obama an arab without actually calling him an arab. That's a dumber thing to research. There are people who are testing what is the best way to make large groups of schoolchildren believe in creationism, that's a dumber study. Nearly all market research provides us with more trivial insights into human nature than this. What colors make us want to buy laundry detergent is something that has far less impact than what makes us choose the course for the country.
Someone tagged that with "correlationisnotcausation." Yeah. Great. Really insightful there. Clearly no claim of causation was made, but it's important to remind us of that bumper-sticker bit of wisdom. Anything else? Can we get a "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag in there? Because really, something could ALWAYS unexpectedly go wrong. Maybe some more basic logic, like "adhominemattacksdontproveyourpoint?"
modern "liberals" are no more liberal than "conservatives."
You know what the word means these days, so does everyone else. How come every time someone uses "Liberal" with the current, widely accepted use, someone on /. inevitably pipes up about how it used to mean something else? Words change, that one changed. Come on out of the 18th century already.
I'd rather they promise us more so that if I like it, I have something to look forward too. The ending of psychonauts was clearly setting up a sequel, even though I knew in advance it didn't sell I was sad to know it would never happen.
And like others have said, announcing it's going to be a trillogy is much better than trying to turn an individual thing into a trilogy afterward.
Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!
No we're not. The legislature, on the other hand...
... that we elected is clear proof that we are?
A 19 year old kid can go out and get drunk with his buddies and moon people out of a moving car window, get caught and convicted of indecent exposure (a little girl said she saw the guys butt!) and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, despite being no threat whatsoever to children.
Kind of depends on the butt. Hairy and chunky could give kids nightmares!
However, there is (as far as I know, feel free to educate me) no working scientific model on how fluctuating magnetic fields can treat brain injuries, so causation isn't quite reasonable.
I would start out assuming that employed researchers have a model for whatever they are testing when they test discrete things like this. This researcher probably did not throw a dart at a wall to decide what she was going to do to try to wake up coma patients.
Keep in mind that the article referenced is not the peer-reviewed journal article that will be forthcoming if this is real and not a scam. "New scientist" may have omitted the model that suggested this treatment because it required a deeper knowledge of neurophysiology than their average reader had, and didn't bother. That should be the assumption, not that the researcher was wildly trying to waste research grants by doing stuff completely at random to the patients, one woke up, and she jumped up and down saying she had proven it will work always and forever.
I predict some people are going to knock peer-review (it's so fun and easy to criticise, especially when there's no viable alternative), so I'll pre-empt that by saying I wasn't saying that wouldn't make it true, just that the technical article will give the model, wait for that before you accuse people of scientific misconduct.
Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008
So... when did the "Getting rid of the sexual predators and deviants already on the internet act" get passed?
The part of his brain that thought out the following
1. Decide to put DRM on a game, without determining whether it would do anything besides annoy people
2. Realize it's a huge problem, but try to convince the annoyed that they don't really care about it
3. ???
4. Profit!!
Gore lost florida, and therefore the election, by only 537 votes.
Who do we vote for if we want Nader to be president?
You realize that if your ideal canidate doesn't have a nomination of one of the two major parties, you have to either give it up or do a lot more than just voting in november. You get off your butt and work to raise awareness of the issues he stands for far in advance of an election. If you haven't convinced a significant number of americans of his platform by the election, then you check to see if you're in a swing state or a close race. If you're not, then you can go ahead and vote for your ideal canidate. If you are, you vote for whichever of the two major canidates that you like better, since those are the choices you gave yourself, and as florida proved in 2000, voting for your ideal canidate without reguard to the real race will get you someone you REALLY don't want. If the roughly 2000 floridians who voted for nader in 2000 had voted for Gore, we wouldn't have had Bush (surely now in hindsight even the most ardent Nader supporter has to conceed that there WAS in fact a big difference), and it wouldn't have made any difference for Nader. He still would have lost.
I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.
I have to say you seem to know quite a bit about economics. I'm not convinced by the interpretations, and I think you're too quick to take this as proof that government programs to increase home ownership is an inherently flawed approach, but you are at least a lot more knowledgeable than most, including me, on this issue.
The marxism is another story though...
...you live in academia where the reality of marxism is carefully suppressed. Marx's ideas have lead to prison states and mass graves each and every time they have been allowed to be fully implemented. Zero exceptions.
We don't really talk about international economics in biology, except around the water cooler when they affect us personally. The undergrads may be talking about Marx, and it might be an issue in some departments like economics or political science. I don't know, but I can tell you it's absolutely not all of academia. Don't paint us all with the same red brush, we're too busy trying to cure cancer.
Yes, the devious socialist scam to redistribute wealth, which is why the bailout is going to our poorest citizens! Mwhahah- uh...
Wait a minute guys, I think I may have spotted a problem with our plan...
Yup. The current crisis is a result of marxism, not a failure of capitalism.
I don't know much about economics, so maybe this is my ignorance coming through, but I'm doubtfull that Fannie Mae is an example of marxism. Even if it is, it's my understanding that it was private banks which gleefully picked up the home loans, for some reason assuming it was a good investment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the lesson here, if anything, that private enterprise and government enterprises don't always interface well? It seems unjustified to me to say it was the government half of the equation that was the entire problem, not at all greed and carelessness on the other side.
I also don't know much about the previous depression, but I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression it was because of a lack of government controls. That said, I don't remember how or if that was explained. ... Feeling a little self conscious about my ignorance here, so I have to say the following: I know a lot more about my field of expertise (cell biology) than economics.
The War isn't over until we face up to and defeat the 5th column still working it's way through American Society spreading rot and ruin behind it.
I'm really going to need you to explain some of that. I know you say the current economic mess is clearly a result of communism, any other examples? I work in acadamia, biology specifically. Am I or my colleagues communist and how are we destroying american society?
Anyway, for most of us, "marxist" is not an insult, anymore than calling someone a "yankee" is.
...plus it's PORN! WOOOO!
Normally I recommend against trusting Wikipedia...
You don't trust wiki or the articles it cites but you DO trust a guy who has devoted his life to taking down a nobel-laureate economist because he doesn't like what he's saying? Why is it most conservatives are so skeptical about anything that doesn't agree with their worldview, but are so gullible when it does?
Somehow I trust somebody talking about economics who has actually DONE things more than a crazy old marxist ranting tired old BSD drivel in a dying (Netcraft confirms it!) newspaper
You're right, the current economic crisis clearly proves that bankers, presidents with MBAs, and other people who have actually done "things" know economics much better than nobel laureates.
Also, "marxist" as an insult? Really? Get with the times, the cold war is over.
This is the same bunch of useful idiots who gave a Nobel to Al Gore after all.
See, now I was about to say "These are the same forward thinking people who awarded Al Gore a prize for his important work raising awareness of the dangers of global warming." Just kidding, but surely you don't think that's at all convincing to those people who don't already hate Krugman and the Nobel comittee for awarding him.