Yes, in fact you can. And then use it to cure the common cold. I have a working prototype if you're willing to send me six hundred dollars. More will get you an even bigger share of the profits when they come rolling in!
Well, yeah, and this has gotten massively off topic, but my daily computing tasks at home are mostly checking my e-mail in the morning. We've considered getting a new computer, it's not worth it even if we had excess money. The thing it gets down to is the computer I have is fine for everything, I just can't play TF2.
Anyway, I would be loathe to buy TF2 again even if I did suddenly get a new computer, particularly since Valve has treated me like a 2nd class customer.
Okay, change "thousands" to "400-500." Whatever. Still too much to spend for the one or two games that I want to play that are nominally better on a PC, still have to do what I consider to be work to play a game.
Edit: it is nice of course that the judge acknowledged it was a stupid idea to "chip away at the first amendment." And I realize of course the type of ban I am wanting, the judge saying nothing of the type will ever be passed in any form, is not within the judge's powers.
Basically I'm whining about it not being perfect, which is itself a fundamentally flawed idea that will never come to pass.
I'd be more apt to believe that if the judge had struck it down on the principle that parents need to protect their kids rather than the world needs to make itself kid-friendly in all ways. An extended investigation to it and then turning it down because it would be poorly implemented and ineffective on top of all that is a win I guess, but it's not the resounding "this is flawed and stupid on a fundamental level, cannot be made to work, and shall never come to pass in any form" I would have hoped for. As it is, the "other side" will simply go back to work, maybe making exceptions, but will bring it back in a few years.
I have an 8 year old PC that serves my computing needs but can't run TF2 and can't be updated to that point. Spending thousands of dollars on a gaming rig for one game (two maybe, I would probably play the updated HL1) is a decision so stupid even I wouldn't do it. I also don't even have enough free time to where I should be posting this, so I do not have enough time to set up said computer.
Therefore, please send me a gaming computer set up and ready to play TF2 and I will indeed play it as it was "meant" to be played. Until then, try not to assume what works for you will work for everyone.
I love that console users *expect* updates now. Even last-gen consoles never got updates.
That would have been pretty amazing if they did. Hard drives and broadband were only standard on the XBOX. Current gen consoles could and do handle it just fine. TF2 has been updated a few times, but that seems to have been just to prevent cheating. Halo has had substantial updates.
Buying for the console is silly anyway. You pay $10-$20 more than you do for the PC version so that you can play the game using a terrible controller.
How is the used PC-game market treating you? And you have to love that DRM. Also the games that don't get to PCs. And then there's the computer maintenece and updates, which we all know are more fun than actually playing games as soon as you turn on the console. You pay hundreds of dollars every so often just to play a smaller selection of games!
Disclaimer: I do PC game, but you have to realize that PC gaming is not perfect either.
The grenades were removed because of very valid reasons, like the stupid spamming at the beginning of every map.
I agree. The grenades in TF1 were really unbalanced to where they were more important than the other weapons. In principle the different classes having different grenades was very interesting and could have furthered the different class concept, but in practice it made every class equally good at offense.
Medics in TF1 for example could be played on offense. The medpacks poisoned the other team and that seemed to be the primary use, and of course there were the grenades (I think, it's been a while). I can't remember what the medic's specific grenade did, but they were all devastating. A medic VS a heavy weapons guy was actually fairly evenly matched, you just lob a grenade, or poison him. It made the classes were pretty superficial. Sure you could heal people as a medic, provided they stood still and you ran right up to them, but this was rarely used from my experience. It was all about grenades. In TF2 on the other hand, a medic has to get pretty lucky to take out an enemy. As a medic, you heal your own team and stay away from the enemy at all costs, it's a totally different game play style.
The classes have completely different styles of play based largely on the removal of grenades.
I'm also confused. Why's everything got to be a phone app these days? Why does my sniper rifle need an ipod? Why's my doctor have to use his blackberry to tell me if I have the clap? Why can I use my phone when the plane is on the ground but not a calculator?...I guess that last one really didn't have much to do with what I was whining about, but 3 examples just seems better than 2.
If that was their plan, then that's a foolish one. It would have to be an EXTREMELY slow news day for this to get picked up on by the major news outlets, and even slower for most viewers to bother understanding it. And it's going to be picked up by people who are interested, like here, reguardless.
Burying it effectively would be waiting for something like the newest release of some major open source software, or waiting until China or Australia or other nation did something major about censorship.
But either way, if Obama tries to do even 5% of what he's said he wants to do, I'm having a hard time imagining how things could be run much worse than what we've survived through for the past eight years.
You don't have a very good imagination then. He controls our nukes now! If his plan for solving the problems in Iraq involve blowing it up, that would probably top Bush right there. Probably.
Not to ruin a good joke, but it was noon on the east coast. The AC may have been posting from elsewhere. Like CA where it was 9 AM, or Hawaii, where it would have been like 7 AM.
It's the first rule of PR: If a company/political canidate/etc says they are not doing something or will stop doing something, it means they do it using a middleman.
Belkin doesn't do it. Now, if this guy types up a favorable review to his own product and has his brother push send, that's something else...
Or better yet, someone will come up with a cheap cure that isn't some tailor made weekly supplement drug designed to make pharma corps money until the patient dies.
The whole "drug companies want to keep you alive and dependant, not cured" thing sounds a lot like a bogus conspiracy theory to me. I know next to nothing about medicine, and I'm open to the possibility that I'm totally wrong.
First of all, I never hear any concrete examples, which is a good sign.
Second, drug companies aren't the CIA, when they do things wrong, like testing in 3rd world countries without real informed consent, it becomes public knowledge before too long. If they were sitting on an effective cure in favor of constant treatments, someone is going to let that slip.
Third, if a company comes up with a cure to a disease, especially a common one, that's a lot of money they get for it. They're going to rush it to market. Supressing that to market a costly treatment is a bad investment even aside from the ethics and scandal: you're lucky to have cured a disease, coming up with a weekly suplement form of it takes more money if it works in the end. Factor in the other stuff, and that goes from a foolish decision to one not even a large corporation would make.
It is possible that having come up with a costly prolonged treatment they'll relax on trying to find an actual cure, but their competitors will still be.
So let's make slashdot sound a little less tinfoil hatish. If there's an actual example of big pharma keeping patients dependant when they could cure them instead, I retract my objection, but I really think this is just a common conspiracy theory passed off as wisdom.
And he'll have to start working on "Halflife 2009." The hard part will be working the in-game ads into the plot. "Gordon, you've saved city 18, have a coke!"
Slashdot Mirror
You can tell the truth but still be wrong.
This has been "High school logic." Tune in next week for an in-depth look at why correlation is NOT causation!
I refuse to use any sort of boat that doesn't maim or injure an endangered species.
Well, my shipping line doesn't maim endangered species, but the engines do burn babies to run, does that qualify?
They could also make what I call a "whale chariot."
360. Which I can't play at work. Poor logic.
Yes, in fact you can. And then use it to cure the common cold. I have a working prototype if you're willing to send me six hundred dollars. More will get you an even bigger share of the profits when they come rolling in!
Well, yeah, and this has gotten massively off topic, but my daily computing tasks at home are mostly checking my e-mail in the morning. We've considered getting a new computer, it's not worth it even if we had excess money. The thing it gets down to is the computer I have is fine for everything, I just can't play TF2.
Anyway, I would be loathe to buy TF2 again even if I did suddenly get a new computer, particularly since Valve has treated me like a 2nd class customer.
Okay, change "thousands" to "400-500." Whatever. Still too much to spend for the one or two games that I want to play that are nominally better on a PC, still have to do what I consider to be work to play a game.
Edit: it is nice of course that the judge acknowledged it was a stupid idea to "chip away at the first amendment." And I realize of course the type of ban I am wanting, the judge saying nothing of the type will ever be passed in any form, is not within the judge's powers.
Basically I'm whining about it not being perfect, which is itself a fundamentally flawed idea that will never come to pass.
I'd be more apt to believe that if the judge had struck it down on the principle that parents need to protect their kids rather than the world needs to make itself kid-friendly in all ways. An extended investigation to it and then turning it down because it would be poorly implemented and ineffective on top of all that is a win I guess, but it's not the resounding "this is flawed and stupid on a fundamental level, cannot be made to work, and shall never come to pass in any form" I would have hoped for. As it is, the "other side" will simply go back to work, maybe making exceptions, but will bring it back in a few years.
Dear cornflake,
I have an 8 year old PC that serves my computing needs but can't run TF2 and can't be updated to that point. Spending thousands of dollars on a gaming rig for one game (two maybe, I would probably play the updated HL1) is a decision so stupid even I wouldn't do it. I also don't even have enough free time to where I should be posting this, so I do not have enough time to set up said computer.
Therefore, please send me a gaming computer set up and ready to play TF2 and I will indeed play it as it was "meant" to be played. Until then, try not to assume what works for you will work for everyone.
I love that console users *expect* updates now. Even last-gen consoles never got updates.
That would have been pretty amazing if they did. Hard drives and broadband were only standard on the XBOX. Current gen consoles could and do handle it just fine. TF2 has been updated a few times, but that seems to have been just to prevent cheating. Halo has had substantial updates.
Buying for the console is silly anyway. You pay $10-$20 more than you do for the PC version so that you can play the game using a terrible controller.
How is the used PC-game market treating you? And you have to love that DRM. Also the games that don't get to PCs. And then there's the computer maintenece and updates, which we all know are more fun than actually playing games as soon as you turn on the console. You pay hundreds of dollars every so often just to play a smaller selection of games!
Disclaimer: I do PC game, but you have to realize that PC gaming is not perfect either.
The grenades were removed because of very valid reasons, like the stupid spamming at the beginning of every map.
I agree. The grenades in TF1 were really unbalanced to where they were more important than the other weapons. In principle the different classes having different grenades was very interesting and could have furthered the different class concept, but in practice it made every class equally good at offense.
Medics in TF1 for example could be played on offense. The medpacks poisoned the other team and that seemed to be the primary use, and of course there were the grenades (I think, it's been a while). I can't remember what the medic's specific grenade did, but they were all devastating. A medic VS a heavy weapons guy was actually fairly evenly matched, you just lob a grenade, or poison him. It made the classes were pretty superficial. Sure you could heal people as a medic, provided they stood still and you ran right up to them, but this was rarely used from my experience. It was all about grenades. In TF2 on the other hand, a medic has to get pretty lucky to take out an enemy. As a medic, you heal your own team and stay away from the enemy at all costs, it's a totally different game play style.
The classes have completely different styles of play based largely on the removal of grenades.
I'm also confused. Why's everything got to be a phone app these days? Why does my sniper rifle need an ipod? Why's my doctor have to use his blackberry to tell me if I have the clap? Why can I use my phone when the plane is on the ground but not a calculator? ...I guess that last one really didn't have much to do with what I was whining about, but 3 examples just seems better than 2.
Wake me when they have edible intelligence pills.
That's actually what they are, but the side-effect is either diminished typing skills or diminished grammar skills, not sure which yet though.
If that was their plan, then that's a foolish one. It would have to be an EXTREMELY slow news day for this to get picked up on by the major news outlets, and even slower for most viewers to bother understanding it. And it's going to be picked up by people who are interested, like here, reguardless.
Burying it effectively would be waiting for something like the newest release of some major open source software, or waiting until China or Australia or other nation did something major about censorship.
So do faithhealers, used car salesmen, and other con artists.
I have never been filled with hope when dealing with a used car salesman.
But either way, if Obama tries to do even 5% of what he's said he wants to do, I'm having a hard time imagining how things could be run much worse than what we've survived through for the past eight years.
You don't have a very good imagination then. He controls our nukes now! If his plan for solving the problems in Iraq involve blowing it up, that would probably top Bush right there. Probably.
Not to ruin a good joke, but it was noon on the east coast. The AC may have been posting from elsewhere. Like CA where it was 9 AM, or Hawaii, where it would have been like 7 AM.
"Hi my name is Megan, I just moved in next door. I'm 20 and I have to inform you that I will probably force you to see me naked."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We can't let that happen.
Well, in 30 years she'll be middle aged, then you'll be glad she has to warn people.
Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.
I am?!? This is some very startling news. I didn't even know my mother was seeing someone!
To prevent kids from being sexually exploited, and from exploiting themselves, we clearly need to neuter them.
Why is this story tagged "Ronpaul?" Is it maybe because Ron Paul still has just as much of a chance of getting the presidency now as he ever did?
(Paulites note that I'm just teasing because you make it so easy)
It's the first rule of PR: If a company/political canidate/etc says they are not doing something or will stop doing something, it means they do it using a middleman.
Belkin doesn't do it. Now, if this guy types up a favorable review to his own product and has his brother push send, that's something else...
Or better yet, someone will come up with a cheap cure that isn't some tailor made weekly supplement drug designed to make pharma corps money until the patient dies.
The whole "drug companies want to keep you alive and dependant, not cured" thing sounds a lot like a bogus conspiracy theory to me. I know next to nothing about medicine, and I'm open to the possibility that I'm totally wrong.
First of all, I never hear any concrete examples, which is a good sign.
Second, drug companies aren't the CIA, when they do things wrong, like testing in 3rd world countries without real informed consent, it becomes public knowledge before too long. If they were sitting on an effective cure in favor of constant treatments, someone is going to let that slip.
Third, if a company comes up with a cure to a disease, especially a common one, that's a lot of money they get for it. They're going to rush it to market. Supressing that to market a costly treatment is a bad investment even aside from the ethics and scandal: you're lucky to have cured a disease, coming up with a weekly suplement form of it takes more money if it works in the end. Factor in the other stuff, and that goes from a foolish decision to one not even a large corporation would make.
It is possible that having come up with a costly prolonged treatment they'll relax on trying to find an actual cure, but their competitors will still be.
So let's make slashdot sound a little less tinfoil hatish. If there's an actual example of big pharma keeping patients dependant when they could cure them instead, I retract my objection, but I really think this is just a common conspiracy theory passed off as wisdom.
And he'll have to start working on "Halflife 2009." The hard part will be working the in-game ads into the plot. "Gordon, you've saved city 18, have a coke!"