His stance is probably just that the government shouldn't be regulating it. It's on the customers to prevent the ISPs from telling you what you can and can't download. The vote seems completely consistent with that. Regulating the internet as the government (in this case slapping down comcast) and then saying the government shouldn't have a part in it would sort of be contradictory.
Of course, a middle road approach of "the government should prevent limitations on the internet by buisness and should not limit the internet itself for consumers" is probably the best approach.
God of war 1 and 2 were even balances of puzzles, timing battles, slaughtering minions, and bosses with predictable patterns. Aside from the minions, that could be considered 3 types of puzzles.
Portal mentioned twice is good, but additionally there were sorts of puzzles in half life 2.
Zac and Wiki, one of the best known hidden gems on the Wii is a point and click puzzle game.
Zelda and the Phantom hourglass certainly has it's share of very VERY innovative puzzles, making good use of the touch screen and even at parts the FOLDING of the DS (it says to touch a symbol on the top screen to a map, after about an hour of tapping everything in the dungeon I realized it was just you had to close, then open the DS, brilliant nintendo!) and I'm aware that the rest of the series relied on puzzles too.
Metroid prime 3 had quite a few puzzles and that's an FPS (although some who drink too much nintendo koolaid inist it's it's own "FPA" genre.)
Lego Star wars had many.
Halo 3 did not. Katamari didn't. Mario doesn't so much.
Furthermore, Tetris has been sold well on every system ever, Lumines is quite popular, Meteos did well...
In my limited experience, puzzles are still a staple of many, in fact I'd even say MOST games (aside from racing and strict FPS.) The author only mentioned two games to support his argument, and the fact that kids don't like puzzles. Well, kids don't like a lot of good stuff. When I was a kid, I thought macaroni and cheese was the greatest thing ever invented, so did my friends, yet you never saw any articles suggesting that fine dining is going extinct because MacDonalds does well and a lot of kids think steak is gross.
He's obviously picking a few games that don't have puzzles in them that he's played recently and jumped to the conclusion that developers and gamers all have ADD and don't want puzzles. He's wrong.
Sorry for the double post, forgot to make my point:
If someone is excited enough about a movie to see it opening night, they're probably not going to want to ruin it by seeing it on terrible quality. I don't believe that the people I saw dressed up as batman waiting at the theater in small college town california are going to be interested in seeing it on the very very small and fuzzy screen, even if it is streaming as the movie is shown at midnight.
If it's a movie they don't mind seeing at low quality if it's free, they might not be interested enough to see it in high quality for the price of a movie ticket, and they are even less likely to wait in line and brave the crowds to do it.
I am unable to belive that there is real competition between early cam releases and opening-weekend ticket sales.
Of course, this doesn't need to be pointed out to slashdotters, and movie executives are doing their thing more out of ego than because they're losing money.
Ah, perhaps I just didn't understand the reasons behind what I was making fun of. Maybe I should have my own conservative talk radio show...
Anyway, the one time I've watched a bootlegged movie, it was to "The Punisher," a terrible movie all around. It was about a month after it came out, a cam version is all I could find. It was free, and I thoroughly got what I paid for: bad bad quality, bad acting, bad writing, and John Travolta.
Well, I was all excited to see bootlegged batman on my TV on opening day, all fuzzy and jumpy recorded an hour prior. In fact I camped out the night before at my local bootlegger. Imagine my dissapointment when he didn't get so much as a spanish version.
After I heard it would be 37 hours I was like "no way am I going to wait THAT long" and promptly bought tickets. Because you know, if I'm going to watch a shitty bootleg of a movie, I'm going to do it in the first day of the movie's release.
Google drives past a pot farm taking pictures and everyone starts screaming at them about snitching
Everyone? Screaming? It was marked funny (although I'm somewhat puzzled that someone marked it insighful). The hysterics came when someone thought joking about the "Stop snitching" was in poor taste.
There was a story on Digg about 200 pounds of marijuana that went to the wrong address, and the recipient immediately called the police. Everyone there was incredulous. Someone remarked that the only phone call they'd make would be to Pizza Hut.
Well, comments on Digg ARE a good index of what sane people think of the story (~!) but I have to say, if 200 pounds of pot shows up on your doorstep by accident, you should be worried about who it was supposed to go to and what they're going to do to get it back. Smoking it yourself is among the dumbest of things you could do.
People are constantly exposed to this message through clothes (many varieties of 'no snitchin' shirts, hats) and primarily through rap.
And now slashdot. Brxndxn has made me uncomfortable snitching about my neighbor's P2P program he's making for sharing homemade porn. I'm worried he'll flood my inbox with spam because of this "no snitching" cyber culture.
Not to make a valid point in a joke thread (clearly the NOAA is not going to worry about personal digicams) but you could bolt the tripod to your spaceship. Would be more stable than holding it or trying to push the button and let it go without making it rotate.
I think the writer's thoughts on the subject of spying on citizen's is actually voiced with Morgan Freeman's concerns, which is decidedly anti-surveillance.
Plus, Morgan Freeman is the only one who can be trusted with it. I'd be okay with wiretapping if Morgan Freeman had sole discresion over it. Those who set up the system (Batman here) and the enforcement (again Batman) should not be the ones in control of it.
The writer is explicitly saying we should not be wiretapping or spying on citizens, and is saying even if we did need it, we can only trust it to Morgan Freeman... or at least not Bush, congress, or law enforcement.
Some of those were valid points as to why Bush isn't that bad, but I was listing ways in which Batman in "The Dark Knight" is not a praising metaphor for Bush.
I'm not, for example, saying that Bush shouldn't kill terrorists because Batman doesn't kill the Joker: I'm saying Batman is not a metaphor for Bush and one difference is that Batman turns them over to the police rather than holding a military tribunal.
It did say it was temporary. Beautiful ancient relics is also disputable. TFA doesn't say that, these aren't ancient roman walls crumbling. Actually kind of looks like walls about a hundred years old in alleys that no one gives a crap about.
And given that apperantly every fucking teen in Europe must at some point spray paint his or her name across some public fixture, putting legos next to a crumbling wall is not bad.
He may have taken blame that didn't belong to him, but he still hasn't turned himself in. Why not? Probably because he justifies his actions by saying, "Gotham needs someone to do the dirty work." If he was actually tough on crime, he'd turn himself in, just like the Joker wanted.
That's a good point and is true, but I was meaning more along the lines of "batman doesn't defend himself while bush has a press secretary."
Not a perfect example, because of course Batman does run from the law which is somewhat equivalent to the press spinning. Still, running from the law to get away with vigilanteism is substantially different than spinning the press to get away with war crimes. Batman needs to break the law to save it, then he runs from the cops so he can save more lives. Bush breaks the law ostensibly to save the country, and then lies about it to save face.
I guess though that's not really ways in which the movie is not praising Bush, as that's more my interpretation.
While we're on that subject though, Batman breaks the law to save Gotham, which was actually threatened. Bush broke the law not to save the union: it was never in danger. Al Qaeda never posed a significant threat, their actions were thoroughly counterproductive even absent a heavy-handed military response.
Yeah, no, just no. That's idiotic and is looking for deeper meaning then the meaning that is there. Have you seen the movie?
*****SPOILER ALERT***********
1. Harvey Dent attempts to torture a captured underling to get information out of him, Batman stops this, pointing out he's not going to get anything useful out of him. It was russian roulette torture, not waterboarding, but the connections should be obvious
2. Some city-wide cell-phone based surveillance system is set up by batman, and while it does work the movie makes the point that batman can't be trusted with it, he gives it to the CEO of Wayne enterprises and it gets destroyed right after the joker is caught. Again, they don't actually call it the patriot act, but the parallels are not easy to miss. Bush isn't giving the patriot act to France with the string that they destroy it once osama is caught.
3. While Batman does operate outside the law to get things done, he doesn't make that excuse to duck punishment. At the end, he actually takes on blame that shouldn't be his.
4. Batman uses his own money to fund his fight against the joker, wheras Bush spends my tax money and gives his friends tax breaks.
5. Batman refuses to kill villians and instead turns them over to the justice system. Bush attempts to kill terrorist sympathizers, and refuses to give terror suspects due process.
Man, fuck that. I don't want a robot car, I want a full-on gundam wing. Gundam car would be alright I guess, but I'd much prefer an evangelion motorcycle.
Evolution doesn't happen really all that much on an individual organismal level. Real evolution happens when whole species thrive or go extinct. "Survival of the fittest" (a phrase coined by an economist, of all things) doesn't work much within species. As far as the scale of human inteligence goes, I may be much smarter than you (assuming from your post there) but I don't actually have that much greater chances of not being killed by a drunk driver.
Now homo-superior, with their mutant powers and such, would have much better chances if they all had spider senses. So if we're going to do survival of the fittest, all humans would have to die out and homo-superior would take our place.
(Sorry in advance for muddling both punctuated equalibrium and Marvel comic universe in one post, but I needed to check that off the list of things to accomplish before I die.)
I think pretty much anyone except the courts and big buisness would agree with you.
But isn't it always nice when EA becomes the only one who gets to make a game? This way we'll be able to see scrabulous 2009, followed by scrabulous 2010, the difference being that even more ads are crammed in. Scrabulous 2011 will disable all words that are not product names of sponsors. Scrabulous 2012 will give you extra points for purchasing those products. Then the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world, or so I've been told.
Slashdot Mirror
His stance is probably just that the government shouldn't be regulating it. It's on the customers to prevent the ISPs from telling you what you can and can't download. The vote seems completely consistent with that. Regulating the internet as the government (in this case slapping down comcast) and then saying the government shouldn't have a part in it would sort of be contradictory.
Of course, a middle road approach of "the government should prevent limitations on the internet by buisness and should not limit the internet itself for consumers" is probably the best approach.
God of war 1 and 2 were even balances of puzzles, timing battles, slaughtering minions, and bosses with predictable patterns. Aside from the minions, that could be considered 3 types of puzzles.
Portal mentioned twice is good, but additionally there were sorts of puzzles in half life 2.
Zac and Wiki, one of the best known hidden gems on the Wii is a point and click puzzle game.
Zelda and the Phantom hourglass certainly has it's share of very VERY innovative puzzles, making good use of the touch screen and even at parts the FOLDING of the DS (it says to touch a symbol on the top screen to a map, after about an hour of tapping everything in the dungeon I realized it was just you had to close, then open the DS, brilliant nintendo!) and I'm aware that the rest of the series relied on puzzles too.
Metroid prime 3 had quite a few puzzles and that's an FPS (although some who drink too much nintendo koolaid inist it's it's own "FPA" genre.)
Lego Star wars had many.
Halo 3 did not. Katamari didn't. Mario doesn't so much.
Furthermore, Tetris has been sold well on every system ever, Lumines is quite popular, Meteos did well...
In my limited experience, puzzles are still a staple of many, in fact I'd even say MOST games (aside from racing and strict FPS.) The author only mentioned two games to support his argument, and the fact that kids don't like puzzles. Well, kids don't like a lot of good stuff. When I was a kid, I thought macaroni and cheese was the greatest thing ever invented, so did my friends, yet you never saw any articles suggesting that fine dining is going extinct because MacDonalds does well and a lot of kids think steak is gross.
He's obviously picking a few games that don't have puzzles in them that he's played recently and jumped to the conclusion that developers and gamers all have ADD and don't want puzzles. He's wrong.
Exactly how many times have you tried to do this?
Sorry for the double post, forgot to make my point:
If someone is excited enough about a movie to see it opening night, they're probably not going to want to ruin it by seeing it on terrible quality. I don't believe that the people I saw dressed up as batman waiting at the theater in small college town california are going to be interested in seeing it on the very very small and fuzzy screen, even if it is streaming as the movie is shown at midnight.
If it's a movie they don't mind seeing at low quality if it's free, they might not be interested enough to see it in high quality for the price of a movie ticket, and they are even less likely to wait in line and brave the crowds to do it.
I am unable to belive that there is real competition between early cam releases and opening-weekend ticket sales.
Of course, this doesn't need to be pointed out to slashdotters, and movie executives are doing their thing more out of ego than because they're losing money.
Ah, perhaps I just didn't understand the reasons behind what I was making fun of. Maybe I should have my own conservative talk radio show...
Anyway, the one time I've watched a bootlegged movie, it was to "The Punisher," a terrible movie all around. It was about a month after it came out, a cam version is all I could find. It was free, and I thoroughly got what I paid for: bad bad quality, bad acting, bad writing, and John Travolta.
Why did I need to see it then? Morbid curiosity.
So then it was really the comic companies, marketing types, and greed that ruined comics.
Well, I was all excited to see bootlegged batman on my TV on opening day, all fuzzy and jumpy recorded an hour prior. In fact I camped out the night before at my local bootlegger. Imagine my dissapointment when he didn't get so much as a spanish version.
After I heard it would be 37 hours I was like "no way am I going to wait THAT long" and promptly bought tickets. Because you know, if I'm going to watch a shitty bootleg of a movie, I'm going to do it in the first day of the movie's release.
Unexpectedly, Tuvalu (official population of around 11,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu) is the second largest online population. Go figure.
Everyone? Screaming? It was marked funny (although I'm somewhat puzzled that someone marked it insighful). The hysterics came when someone thought joking about the "Stop snitching" was in poor taste.
Well, comments on Digg ARE a good index of what sane people think of the story (~!) but I have to say, if 200 pounds of pot shows up on your doorstep by accident, you should be worried about who it was supposed to go to and what they're going to do to get it back. Smoking it yourself is among the dumbest of things you could do.
And now slashdot. Brxndxn has made me uncomfortable snitching about my neighbor's P2P program he's making for sharing homemade porn. I'm worried he'll flood my inbox with spam because of this "no snitching" cyber culture.
Not to make a valid point in a joke thread (clearly the NOAA is not going to worry about personal digicams) but you could bolt the tripod to your spaceship. Would be more stable than holding it or trying to push the button and let it go without making it rotate.
What the heck is the NOAA going to do to stop me from taking pictures from my spaceship? Try and arrest me, I'm in space, bitches!!!
It is definitely not AS common.
I think the writer's thoughts on the subject of spying on citizen's is actually voiced with Morgan Freeman's concerns, which is decidedly anti-surveillance.
Plus, Morgan Freeman is the only one who can be trusted with it. I'd be okay with wiretapping if Morgan Freeman had sole discresion over it. Those who set up the system (Batman here) and the enforcement (again Batman) should not be the ones in control of it.
The writer is explicitly saying we should not be wiretapping or spying on citizens, and is saying even if we did need it, we can only trust it to Morgan Freeman... or at least not Bush, congress, or law enforcement.
Some of those were valid points as to why Bush isn't that bad, but I was listing ways in which Batman in "The Dark Knight" is not a praising metaphor for Bush.
I'm not, for example, saying that Bush shouldn't kill terrorists because Batman doesn't kill the Joker: I'm saying Batman is not a metaphor for Bush and one difference is that Batman turns them over to the police rather than holding a military tribunal.
It did say it was temporary. Beautiful ancient relics is also disputable. TFA doesn't say that, these aren't ancient roman walls crumbling. Actually kind of looks like walls about a hundred years old in alleys that no one gives a crap about.
And given that apperantly every fucking teen in Europe must at some point spray paint his or her name across some public fixture, putting legos next to a crumbling wall is not bad.
That's a good point and is true, but I was meaning more along the lines of "batman doesn't defend himself while bush has a press secretary."
Not a perfect example, because of course Batman does run from the law which is somewhat equivalent to the press spinning. Still, running from the law to get away with vigilanteism is substantially different than spinning the press to get away with war crimes. Batman needs to break the law to save it, then he runs from the cops so he can save more lives. Bush breaks the law ostensibly to save the country, and then lies about it to save face.
I guess though that's not really ways in which the movie is not praising Bush, as that's more my interpretation.
While we're on that subject though, Batman breaks the law to save Gotham, which was actually threatened. Bush broke the law not to save the union: it was never in danger. Al Qaeda never posed a significant threat, their actions were thoroughly counterproductive even absent a heavy-handed military response.
Yeah, no, just no. That's idiotic and is looking for deeper meaning then the meaning that is there. Have you seen the movie?
*****SPOILER ALERT***********
1. Harvey Dent attempts to torture a captured underling to get information out of him, Batman stops this, pointing out he's not going to get anything useful out of him. It was russian roulette torture, not waterboarding, but the connections should be obvious
2. Some city-wide cell-phone based surveillance system is set up by batman, and while it does work the movie makes the point that batman can't be trusted with it, he gives it to the CEO of Wayne enterprises and it gets destroyed right after the joker is caught. Again, they don't actually call it the patriot act, but the parallels are not easy to miss. Bush isn't giving the patriot act to France with the string that they destroy it once osama is caught.
3. While Batman does operate outside the law to get things done, he doesn't make that excuse to duck punishment. At the end, he actually takes on blame that shouldn't be his.
4. Batman uses his own money to fund his fight against the joker, wheras Bush spends my tax money and gives his friends tax breaks.
5. Batman refuses to kill villians and instead turns them over to the justice system. Bush attempts to kill terrorist sympathizers, and refuses to give terror suspects due process.
No you insensitive clod, because if it was done by men the quantification would be way off!
Won't someone PULLEEEZZE think of the security!?!
Have you people forgotten 9/11!?!
Man, fuck that. I don't want a robot car, I want a full-on gundam wing. Gundam car would be alright I guess, but I'd much prefer an evangelion motorcycle.
Almost a real LOL there.
Although I'm pretty sure cattle would require more than a reinforced bumper.
Evolution doesn't happen really all that much on an individual organismal level. Real evolution happens when whole species thrive or go extinct. "Survival of the fittest" (a phrase coined by an economist, of all things) doesn't work much within species. As far as the scale of human inteligence goes, I may be much smarter than you (assuming from your post there) but I don't actually have that much greater chances of not being killed by a drunk driver.
Now homo-superior, with their mutant powers and such, would have much better chances if they all had spider senses. So if we're going to do survival of the fittest, all humans would have to die out and homo-superior would take our place.
(Sorry in advance for muddling both punctuated equalibrium and Marvel comic universe in one post, but I needed to check that off the list of things to accomplish before I die.)
Higgs boston thingies or girl-types?
I think pretty much anyone except the courts and big buisness would agree with you.
But isn't it always nice when EA becomes the only one who gets to make a game? This way we'll be able to see scrabulous 2009, followed by scrabulous 2010, the difference being that even more ads are crammed in. Scrabulous 2011 will disable all words that are not product names of sponsors. Scrabulous 2012 will give you extra points for purchasing those products. Then the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world, or so I've been told.