((What I'm trying to say is that when you mention DoE to Joe Schmoe on the street, my guess is that nine times out of 10, Joe's going to be thinking about nukes.))
Actually, having had discussions like this, I can say fairly surely that the _average_ Joe Schmoe is going to think that that's the department that backs the electric companies. Nukes aren't exactly the biggest things on most people's minds these days, and frankly the _average_ person ain't all that bright.
Go ahead, ask them things on the street. Cripes, show them basic high-school math - many won't be able to do it, even if it can be puzzled out with logic and without training (we're talking _basic_ high-school math, not calculus).
Also, most people I've asked about it think the FBI and the CIA are the ones who 'own' and operate the nukes. They don't even know who/what the DoE is, let alone what it does. See what I mean?
-Elthia I'm not posting much lately - waiting for cat5 cables to come in so I can get my own box back online. :/
((We all know the guy usually gets the girl, and the hero never dies.))
Maybe not dies, but he doesn't always survive... intact. See the director's cut of Brazil.
I did that for the first time at 2AM one night. I'd never seen the 'release' 'happy' version, so no prejudices... *shiver* I didn't sleep that night, and when I did the next night my dreams were WEIRD.
I agree, however - the movies I remember the most are the ones I've seen only recently or the ones that touched me the most. Brazil, Bulworth (yeah, believe it or not, that one actually got to me), Wayne's World (ask a musician - I was laughing so hard my stomach hurt, partly because of the inside jokes), Matrix, and a whole load of others have stuck in my mind. I remember them. That's not to say I don't enjoy other things, like Monty Python or Tim Burton's usual work. It's just that those aren't the movies that hit the intellectual g-spot. It's got to mean something big to me, or it doesn't go deep into long-term memory.
I don't know if Burton can do that with this one. We'll see.
Actually, I saw some of what happened as a result of this.
I decided I didn't want anything to do with DoubleClick. I got a list of all of their 'associates' - the people who run their ads, give them info, etc. It's a disappointing list, just about _everyone_ uses DoubleClick. I almost stopped shopping online completely. However, I also sent letters to the people I would have otherwise shopped at. One example:
I was looking for a particular skirt, to replace one which had been damaged beyond repair. I couldn't find it until I went to a site called catalogcity. But they used doubleclick. I sent them a letter, telling them how happy I was to have found the skirt, but that I would not buy it until either DoubleClick backed out of their current invasive policy or this site stopped using DoubleClick. I told them that, while I use cookies on a regular basis, and am perfectly fine with targeted ads, I don't approve of anyone tying that in with what my income is, or my real address, or other such personal info.
I received a very polite, well-written response, saying that they were unhappy with it too, and that, for now, they were removing the doubleclick integration from their site - not to be reinstated until Doubleclick backed away from that policy.
This was a pleasant surprise, as I had expected no reply at all - the usual response to letters indicating a single lost sale is 'oh well, we've got plenty of happy customers, this one must be a fluke'.
It appears that catalogcity wasn't the only one, however. UserFriendly, Advance Internet (who run a number of the 'state' sites, like nj.com, oregonlive.com, and (I think) alabama.com), and a few others I spoke with were all looking for new adservers, or simply disabling doubleclick entirely for the duration of this mess.
Somehow, I don't think this is some sort of sneaky move. Doubleclick was feeling the heat, from consumers and from its affiliates, in a major way. I know for a fact that Advance, for example, generated a _lot_ of advertising for them (we're talking millions of pageviews a day, and that's just in ONE of the physical sites). When your major customers start complaining about something, you listen or you go under. The thing that makes me happy is that the major customers of DoubleClick were on the ball and listening well enough to put the heat on in the first place.
As a kid (read, early teens), I went to the library looking for all kinds of information (and entertainment). One time, out of sexual curiosity, I found and took out the 'Kama Sutra', 'The Joy of Sex', and a couple of other _extremely_ explicit books. I found information I couldn't find in most other places. Yes, it encouraged me to try some of the things I read (I learned, through that, that most of these books are bull____, and they're definitely wrong about what women will like (usually written by men, big surprise)). But you know, I'd probably have tried some of those things anyway, and I'd be less happy if I hadn't been able to learn. Sexual repression sucks. Having those books publicly accessible is actually a good thing, to my mind.
Thankfully my mother, while not great in some other things, was easy to ask about just about anything. She always answered with logic, and explanations. Even if she simply believed something to be wrong, she explained why and let us make up our own minds. She didn't approve of sex as teenagers, but she knew it would happen anyway, so she made sure we had Planned Parenthood classes and an anonymous drawer in the bathroom, supplied with condoms from the local chapter of PP and the AIDS info groups, which we could use or hand out to friends however we wanted. No questions asked, and it was always full.
If books like these can be in our libraries, why can't the web? And as for filtering, what's wrong with children seeing sex? If you _explain_ your views to them, they will likely follow in your footsteps (at least in some ways). Are we to filter the books then, too? Because, let me tell you, there are some very explicit books in libraries (I found 'The Story of O' in a library once, not to mention others). What's next? Can't talk dirty, even among consenting adults? No flirting at all? Where is the line? Where does it end?
It ends in revolution - the totalitarian control over our minds and bodies would become too much, and people would revolt. People don't like to be chained. Some part of me thinks that the RR knows this, and that would be why they push it slowly and in places we might not think of. If we don't see it coming, maybe we won't revolt against it. Thinking like that gives me the creeps.
Thank you. Hopefully they'll actually come out with them. I'd love to see 3d images on a screen. See, now, THIS is cool technology. Using two images is just a copout - actually producing images with different viewpoints from different places is _cool_.
(When will AC's learn that some 'defects' don't LOOK like anything weird? The strange look to my eyes was gone after the surgery, the imperfection is invisible to the naked eye.(and don't any of you comment on the strange look IN my eyes >:) )
In their defence, I haven't heard 'shit' be spoken that much in any of the previous episodes. Yes, it's a show that says not-much about random-news-we-already-know. It's more of a way to get to know the guys and laugh at their silliness (with their silliness?) than a 'Real Radio Show'. The last couple of episodes have been pretty immature. I've gotten the feeling that they've been drinking prior to doing them, or maybe that someone is finally hitting puberty or something.
I like Geeks in Space, for the most part. They have almost-stereotypical personalities for it (Rob is the big-ego star-of-the-show, Jeff is the highly-sarcastic, slightly-uptight guy, Pater's the one everyone wants to hang out with, and Nate is the Invisible Male who says little but does much). They're funny, and they play off of each other well.
Sorry guys, if I played everquest, I'd gladly load you down with whatever I could spare. I've done similar in other games of that ilk. Maybe sometime when I actually get the game;P
-Elthia PS - Mr. Rob "I don't USE that OS" Malda seems to be playing EQ also. Hum. *grin*
Slightly more important (to me) question:
on
3D LCD's for Sale
·
· Score: 1
What about those of us who do NOT have stereoscopic vision? The stupid glasses don't work for me. Will this? Somehow I doubt it.
Ask anyone who was born with a lazy eye. Frequently, even if surgery is done (as it was - twice - in my case), they cannot get it _quite_ perfect. The eyes might _look_ right, but they aren't. Stereoscopic vision (seeing the two images combined as one 3d image) doesn't happen if your eyes are not in the same places in the sockets. I get two images. I tend to block one out unconsciously, and look through the other eye. I've even learned to imitate depth vision like that (I can hit a basketball hoop with the ball even from weird angles - I don't need the backboard, because I use the ground between me and it to get my bearings). Unfortunately, I can't do that for 3d stuff. It has to be really 3d, or all I see is a red (or green) image (or both, one of each, if I'm tired and can't block properly - THAT gets confusing).
Holograms work though. Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to make a holographic-type screen system? Or is someone working on a different way to make it possible to see 3d, for those of us who don't have the vision for the normal way?
This is the same site which comes FIRST in the listing if you go to google and type in "linux newbies". The article that comes up then is SUGGESTING USE OF LINUXONE'S LINUX LITE!
Somehow I think www.currents.net is an evil evil place full of true morons. Someone please prove me wrong, tell me these articles have been revoked somewhere or something.
I wrote a reply to this and posted it, yesterday. Apparently it never showed up. *sigh*
The gist of it was that I don't think there really _is_ anything different about people who make it through as opposed to those who whine and don't do anything. It's a choice. I could easily have ignored what I saw myself becoming. I could have just decided to complain about how awful my life had been, how I had every right to be screwed up, and blamed it all on those who had hurt me. The society we live in would have supported that. Laziness would have made it easy. I chose pride over laziness. I don't think it's a matter of having some amorphous determination or whatever that others don't have. I think it's that I looked at all the options with a clear mind (or as clear as I could get at the time), and decided to make the effort, even if I thought I would fail.
Just because the majority of people does what's easy doesn't mean that they _couldn't_ do it the other way if they wanted to. I know a lot of Windows users who could easily switch to Linux, if they felt like it. They just don't feel like it.
That's why I have a hard time putting up with it when people whine at me about how awful things are when they haven't even tried to change it. It's their choice, and pity only makes it worse.
((it still takes time to change your attitudes and to relearn how to deal with people without the same fears that have always haunted you or the same problems that have always plagued you.))
Wrong. I don't think we _ever_ can deal without our own fears and problems. We simply learn how to recognize them and account for them in our dealing with ourselves and others. Noone said it does happen overnight. I do, however, reserve the right to tell someone when I feel they are whining - and to get annoyed when I feel they are doing so rather than actually deal with something they could fix.
As for using my experience to make others feel dashed aside and unimportant, my comment was in response to an inflammatory 'you are so shallow' comment, aimed at someone with whose expressed views I agreed. I _was_ reacting to what the person was saying.
Being a Real Geek(TM)? I don't think many are that any more than Real Men(TM). Except for the stereotypical ones, who are almost parodies of themselves, it doesn't happen too often. Some of my favorite geeks also happen to be musicians, or artists (neither of which is a 'geeky' pursuit, from what I've heard). And yes, the problem is very similar to that with Gamer chicks. Been there:)
Part of it is also the inherent competition. Face it, guys, as much as I hate the stereotype, I DO fall into the typical female as far as a desire to work _with_, rather than _against_, those I'm around. That means I would love to have a group working on a project, but I'd hate it if ideas were challenged and beaten into the ground before they could take off. Geeks, and male geeks in particular (there go those generalizations again), tend to be very opinionated. Not always the nicest environment for work to get done.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking people's bodies - or smaller parts of their anatomies (a girl's bosom, Garrett's voice, femme legs, the scent of certain guys, etc). The problem arises when that part is seen and nothing else can be seen _because_ of it. It's a sad thing when women in a field can be pretty OR respected, but not both.
Oh, and I couldn't decide whether your 'you' was aimed at me or at readers in general - I'm female myself. So whether I'm like that or not isn't the point. *grin* (I do, however, tend to find the mind attractive well and truly before the body, so even if it was the point I don't think I'd fit that one).
I agree, though - the ones with the least maturity are also frequently the loudest, especially in a forum where their faces (names, whatever) won't be seen.
((Very few humans in this planet have been able to 'wish themselves' a new backbone, or anything else for that matter, and most who have it (or anything else in this world) did't get it _purely_ due to their own 'efforts'. I *doubt* you're responsible for your own backbone.))
Hot damn, you have NO respect for the power of the human mind, do you? Well, if you think they're that few, then count me among the few. As a child, I was repeatedly raped and beaten, periodically homeless, and generally considered a lost cause by the world. As a teenager, I was an obsessive wreck. As an adult, I am a productive member of society who has had to LEARN how to say no to people, and how to fight back when I'm insulted or hurt. I didn't get my backbone by following other people around. It doesn't work that way. I got it by taking a step back and seeing what I had become - and deciding that I didn't like it, and it was time to grab the damn bootstraps and pick myself up for once. My backbone came _solely_ from determination to become something other than what I was. Yes, I had (and have) role models. I sought them out. Some of them are well-known names, others are people noone here would probably know. But they didn't directly give me my backbone, they just gave me something to shoot for.
((but to say that everyone is in *complete* control of their world or destiny is to ignore))
She didn't say that everyone was in complete control, she simply told someone to get a backbone. In other words, 'I don't want to deal with your whining - cut it out or take it elsewhere'.
Ceren may be young, but she is by no means shallow.
((the fact that you live in a world created by those around you, and limited by what has been burned into your own sould during the first 20 years of your life))
Bull. Limits are for losers. What was burned into my soul for the first 20 years of my life was how useless and pathetic I was, and how little I was worth. I was taught how horrible it was to be female, that you could fight and become a monster, and be shunned forever, or you could submit and become worthless, perhaps accepted by one or two but never worth anything.
I refuse to accept that anymore, and I refuse to be limited by it. YOU can be limited by your past if you want, but that is a choice YOU make. Don't try to claim it as a destiny, your boundaries are your own.
-Elthia Destiny decided I would be born unto a rapist. _I_ decided to survive it.
((#1:You are subjected to only what you allow yourself to be subjected to. Get a backbone.))
Thank you, Eleanor Roosevelt, for giving us the words to fight back with. *smile*
((#2: I saw fit to "subject" myself? *laugh* No. I actually got to go to Linuxworld, and between the OS-related questions I was answering at the booth, the contacts I was making, and the posing with people with a sense of humor, I had a very productive time. Worth my effort (and sweat, ewww) in spades. What did you spend your week doing?))
*laugh* hi, Ceren. To be honest, folks, I _liked_ the BSD girls. Yes, it was a sexist, silly thing for *BSD to be doing. And I had my bit of fun at that, by 'flirting' with them while I was in the Giant Dust Puppy (what a laugh when I saw their faces as they realized later that I was female). We need more bouncy, happy female-types around, so I don't feel like I don't belong when I want to wear my leather miniskirt and tall boots. I like to look good, thank you - even if it's not entirely the 'geeky' thing to do.:P
I think part of the problem with having more 'linuxchix' is that it's very hard to be female and smart at the same time. If you're pretty, and look good (or dress in latex even!), people will complain about the objectification. You can't make the choice to use your looks in any way, even to get attention, without taking flack for it. However, if you aren't pretty, they generally ignore you. Of what use is a woman, if she isn't good to look at? *sigh*
I know I felt a twinge of jealousy at the BSD girls being on everyone's mind. I'm not usually prone to that sort of thing, either, it's just that this was amazing. Put virile, pretty females into suggestive outfits and drop them into a veritable well of male hormones. The result? Lots of probably jealous, possibly angry other females and lots and lots of drooling idiots (and a few who can look beyond it and see the people behind the latex).
Oh, and hon, if you need a source for beads, let me know, I'll set you up. *wicked, evil grin*
If the government had this data for five years and cannot crack it, they are either trying to mess with him (we could, but we want YOU to do it), or he was using an encryption algorithm that is immensely powerful - and hitherto unknown. To me, that would mean that _they_ _want_ _that_ _weapon_.
So the more appropriate example would probably be...
He has a previously unknown weapon, something that cannot be stopped. It has to have a specific code to operate, though. They take it during a search for weapons, say, or drugs. They realize what he has and they want it, so they insist that he open it up - without the code, they can't examine it and learn how to make one of their own.
This would be a good idea, _if_ you could enforce it. Bluffing doesn't work, only the facts do. If you can manage to enforce it however, understand that you will then be entering into a contract with DoubleClick, and you should seriously think about what goes into that contract.
Aside from that, there is something noone seems to have noticed, but that stuck out at me like a sore thumb. When you opt-out, they promise not to send you any OTHER cookies. They say nothing about the ones you already have! If they have already ID'd you, it doesn't matter if you have opted out, they have and can use your information. Also, if everyone's opt-out cookie ID is not the same, they could track you with that one. Might want to compare - if they're handing out unique opt-out ID's, then even the opt-out isn't operational and you don't win that way.
'Some kid' hacked an encryption algorithm so that he could play his DVD's on his machine, thereby going around the brand-forcing done to him by a company that sought to prevent him from READING (not copying) a DVD.
DoubleClick is taking personal information (name, address, credit history, purchase history, phone number), and using it for their own purposes, and LYING to people, saying that they do NOT take it.
Two completely different situations. I don't know HOW you jumped to this conclusion, unless you work for the MPAA or something.
Well, Baron Munchausen doesn't say anything but "all rights reserved", that I can find. A few of the Monty Python and Star Trek ones I have don't say anything at all, save the copyright info on the movies themselves. The vast majority of my DVD's, however, have something to the effect of "this is licensed for home use only, not to be resold, distributed, publicly exhibited, copied, or loaned". Usually with slightly stronger language. Yes, they include lending it to friends as unauthorized use, and copying it for home use. I don't see 'for windows only' on anything though. Even my Matrix DVD, with the enhanced features, only says that the enhanced features will only work on Windows, not that you aren't allowed to view it on anything else.
I hope that's what you meant, not that they state that you cannot use them on anything but windows. That _would_ be enforcing a brand.
The 'lending and copying' thing got me, though - according to that, you can't even lend it to a friend for him to watch without authorisation from the copyright owner. However, that has nothing to do with DeCSS, except to point out that they didn't _expressly_ forbid us from being allowed to view the things in our own home on our own machines.
(((Wouldn't they have to provide tech support for people trying to read their USPS emails? That's a LOT of stupid people asking a LOT of stupid questions.)
No reason to be nasty. It's a lot of ignorant people asking a lot of ignorant questions. ))
It's both, actually. There are ignorant people who call tech support, but there are also a LOT of very _stupid_ people who do it.
It was a good point, however. Do we really want to work for the USPS? No? Didn't think so. So where are they going to get the geeks to do the job - the many, many, many geeks it would take? *snort* Not going to be an easy task, that.
((A cost effective "business" run by the government... somebody's dreamin'. ))
*cackle*
Another good point. Why in heck are they considering this, anyway? They'll never catch up to ISP's in popularity, and by the time they could implement the system all their hardware will be obsolete - and probably very very overloaded, they'll underestimate it almost without doubt. It's not like the system they've got, the main parts of it DO go obsolete within a few years rather than 20 or more. *sigh*
Is this really any different in concept than ZIP+4?
Extremely. People would complain that the USPS wasn't forwarding the mail meant for them to their current address, etc. They would have to do it by name at least. As it stands now, paper mail can be forwarded. If you move, you file the form and the PO will forward every piece of mail that goes to you to the new addy. In theory anyway. I've moved a _lot_ in my life. They usually get it right, though some things tend to get lost in the transfer. Doing that with email? How would you manage it? If it's done only by address then emails would go to the wrong person, or the wrong place, all the time. Not a solution. Names work for that - file the paper or whatever, and they can simply change the physical address to which your name-mail is tied to.
An email address for every physical address is not really do-able. It would be a pain, and, as has been stated, would lead to unheard-of amounts of spam. Which would mean the expenses for bandwidth that people would only complain about.
I'm thinking the most likely way for them to be doing this is to offer a free receiving-account for every person who is willing to give their social security number (NOONE is supposed to use that but the SSA, but everyone does). Probably lastnamefirstinitialnumber@postoffice.gov or something like that. Or perhaps just number@postoffice.gov, to make it easier on them. Yes, very predictable. However, you charge for _sending_ an email.
Being the post office, they could charge whatever they wanted, though they'd do better with it if they charged less than a stamp to do it. They will get spam - from the companies that would be spending more on paper ads. However, I don't think the internet spammers, who could get it for free, would be as likely to switch over to a per-email charge system. Not to mention that a credit card would be the most likely payment system, _verifying_ the sender of the spam and letting the lawsuits begin.
I wouldn't send anything other than 'Hi, Mom, how are you?' type letters though. Sending anything through a government agency that you don't want them to see is just asking for it. Not that I have anything to hide, I'm just really paranoid.
The fact that it is an enforced government monopoly is a different issue, and one that I don't think is really on-topic, though interesting. And scary.:)
-Elthia We _are_ headed for Shadow-run, or perhaps a combination of that and the states in Snow Crash. The advantage: remember what the United States looked like in Snow Crash? *giggle*
((...they wouldn't do it if it didn't sell. Ads are created to get revenue, and I'm sure companies have found that, bluntly, bigger tits sell more games))
Correction: Bigger tits sell more games _to_ the people they're _aiming_ for. They sell more games to the teenage (and mentally teenaged) male population. They certainly don't sell more games to females, thank you very much.
((The truth is that games are easier to program for boys.We like points, action, motion, and triggers. Women (stereotypically, but also truthfully) like conversations, complex rewards, stories, and... thinking ))
I would be insulted, but you just shot yourself in the foot. You just implied that men don't like thinking. *snicker*
Actually, I like motion. I like the thinking aspect of games, but sometimes it feels really good to shoot the s--t out of something. Currently I spend a lot of time playing Planescape: Torment. I got it for my birthday, along with a new soundcard (creative live x-gamer in case you want to know). Heh, I didn't sleep all last weekend until I passed out on Sunday because of that damn game.:) Intelligence, charisma, for once these things make a difference in a game. The conversations are different, the moves are different. It takes thought, yes. But y'know, lazy programmers do not a good game make. And a bad game might sell to teenage boys, but it won't sell the huge numbers of copies that will be sold by a game which appeals to both genders AND to those who like to think.
((What's the point of getting killed if there are no repercutions? ))
Hey! You don't get repercussions in Torment for dying, and I love that. It's not repercussions... the problem I've had with Quake is that there's _no_point_ to it. You go in, you shoot, you kill, you die. Period. Sure, you can brag to your friends about how many frags you got, or compete with them for numbers. Who cares? I don't need a high frag-count to boost my self-esteem.
Ok, sometimes it's fun to do, but I tend to like sims more for that. Heavy Gear rocked. And yes, to pop the bubble of the males who will raise eyebrows at that, I kicked @$$ at it. I was not-quite-unbeatable. I used NO armor on my mechs (too much weight, can't RUN with armor), and I could - and frequently did - outrun zookfire without problems. And I got a real kick out of kicking the butts of the teenaged idiots who claimed that 'girls don't play 'games like this' '. Or the ones who assumed I was no threat because I was female. Slight revenge, but it was satisfying. It was more fun for me to work WITH people, though. There were a few people I truly enjoyed playing with, people who were both good at the game and accepting of me as a player, and they made the game, for me.
Incidentally, I liked a lot of the pics in D+D books - I just wish the males had been as bare as the females, or maybe built a little less like Bubby the Bodybuilder and a little more like the wiry, strong, slim people they were usually supposed to represent. You don't need bulk to make strength, and you don't need bulging muscles to make a sexy man, although strength (wire, not bulge) does help.
((What games do _you_ want to play?))
Well, Torment is pretty obvious I'd guess.:)
Heavy Gear 2 is a pretty good bet too, when I get it. Dungeon Keeper was cool, but I want a male monster too. Horny was just too short-lived. Hmm... maybe a slaveboy for the mistresses to play with. Yes, I'm that evil. >:) I liked Myst enough to play it through once, but it had no replay value for me. Bleh. Same with Jewels of the Oracle. And Hexen. And Warcraft. SimCity was fun, but it got boring. No point to it, the same as Quake etc. I liked Daggerfall, but it was unplayable and annoying. Hmm... Baldur's Gate was fun, but once you played it through it was over, and not really fun to replay. Games I did NOT like include BattleZone (oh, I would have loved it, but the motion made me nauseous), Daggerfall (it was a bug-based love/hate relationship), and any game that puts graphics above gameplay. Quake Arena bores me, did quake already, don't need the multi-only version.
I like editors, actually. I was waiting with baited breath for the Unreal editor to come out in a real form so I could buy it and read the manual and PLAY with it... but it never did:( The version that came with the game was complex and looked like fun, but without a manual or prior experience in making my own textures (:P ), I gave up on it. The HOMM editors sucked, but they could be fun - and the game was just silly enough for me to like. Same with warcraft. But with warcraft and homm and things like that, there is this... lack... you go through a level and say 'oh, cool, new creature, neat'....'wow, look what it does'....'ok, now can I move on please? No? *sigh* cleanup phase now... kill all the enemies, build up... *sigh*'. Bah.
Frankly I prefer pencil and paper for RPG's, but good gamers and good DM's are hard to find.
So tell me... since I _do_ like games that have a dark, evil cast to them, along with games that are not typically 'female' in nature, why are there no ads targetting me? None _at_all_? I'm not unusual, you know. I know lots of women who game the way I do - pretty eclectic. Now, while I like the phallic form, that doesn't mean I need to see it on everything. And while I don't mind the female form, I don't need to constantly see it half-naked, standing near fully-clothed males. The implication of female submission there is just not for me.
Publishers, unfortunately, don't go for the idea of a gaming magazine geared to women - and if they did, they'd probably fill it up with fluff and pink-ness, and then claim the supposed lack of female gamers on its failure to capture an audience. *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
This report (the one about hackers in North Korea) originally came from the government of South Korea. It looks like a bait-to-attack, to me.
:P
I say we let them blow each other off the map. They deserve each other.
Ah, it seems some did. Recently. LOL why did noone on the first page of comments think of this?!?!
Has it occured to anyone that there are no flies in Antarctica? Or Death Valley... or the centers of volcanoes...
How are they planning to send this robot into toxic environments, when the thing they're using as fuel won't exist in those environments?
*puzzled look*
((What I'm trying to say is that when you mention DoE to Joe Schmoe on the street, my guess is that nine times out of 10,
Joe's going to be thinking about nukes.))
Actually, having had discussions like this, I can say fairly surely that the _average_ Joe Schmoe is going to think that that's the department that backs the electric companies. Nukes aren't exactly the biggest things on most people's minds these days, and frankly the _average_ person ain't all that bright.
Go ahead, ask them things on the street. Cripes, show them basic high-school math - many won't be able to do it, even if it can be puzzled out with logic and without training (we're talking _basic_ high-school math, not calculus).
Also, most people I've asked about it think the FBI and the CIA are the ones who 'own' and operate the nukes. They don't even know who/what the DoE is, let alone what it does. See what I mean?
-Elthia
I'm not posting much lately - waiting for cat5 cables to come in so I can get my own box back online.
:/
((We all know the guy usually gets the girl, and the hero never dies.))
Maybe not dies, but he doesn't always survive... intact. See the director's cut of Brazil.
I did that for the first time at 2AM one night. I'd never seen the 'release' 'happy' version, so no prejudices... *shiver* I didn't sleep that night, and when I did the next night my dreams were WEIRD.
I agree, however - the movies I remember the most are the ones I've seen only recently or the ones that touched me the most. Brazil, Bulworth (yeah, believe it or not, that one actually got to me), Wayne's World (ask a musician - I was laughing so hard my stomach hurt, partly because of the inside jokes), Matrix, and a whole load of others have stuck in my mind. I remember them. That's not to say I don't enjoy other things, like Monty Python or Tim Burton's usual work. It's just that those aren't the movies that hit the intellectual g-spot. It's got to mean something big to me, or it doesn't go deep into long-term memory.
I don't know if Burton can do that with this one. We'll see.
-Elthia
don't ask.
Actually, I saw some of what happened as a result of this.
I decided I didn't want anything to do with DoubleClick. I got a list of all of their 'associates' - the people who run their ads, give them info, etc. It's a disappointing list, just about _everyone_ uses DoubleClick. I almost stopped shopping online completely. However, I also sent letters to the people I would have otherwise shopped at. One example:
I was looking for a particular skirt, to replace one which had been damaged beyond repair. I couldn't find it until I went to a site called catalogcity. But they used doubleclick. I sent them a letter, telling them how happy I was to have found the skirt, but that I would not buy it until either DoubleClick backed out of their current invasive policy or this site stopped using DoubleClick. I told them that, while I use cookies on a regular basis, and am perfectly fine with targeted ads, I don't approve of anyone tying that in with what my income is, or my real address, or other such personal info.
I received a very polite, well-written response, saying that they were unhappy with it too, and that, for now, they were removing the doubleclick integration from their site - not to be reinstated until Doubleclick backed away from that policy.
This was a pleasant surprise, as I had expected no reply at all - the usual response to letters indicating a single lost sale is 'oh well, we've got plenty of happy customers, this one must be a fluke'.
It appears that catalogcity wasn't the only one, however. UserFriendly, Advance Internet (who run a number of the 'state' sites, like nj.com, oregonlive.com, and (I think) alabama.com), and a few others I spoke with were all looking for new adservers, or simply disabling doubleclick entirely for the duration of this mess.
Somehow, I don't think this is some sort of sneaky move. Doubleclick was feeling the heat, from consumers and from its affiliates, in a major way. I know for a fact that Advance, for example, generated a _lot_ of advertising for them (we're talking millions of pageviews a day, and that's just in ONE of the physical sites). When your major customers start complaining about something, you listen or you go under. The thing that makes me happy is that the major customers of DoubleClick were on the ball and listening well enough to put the heat on in the first place.
-Elthia
As a kid (read, early teens), I went to the library looking for all kinds of information (and entertainment). One time, out of sexual curiosity, I found and took out the 'Kama Sutra', 'The Joy of Sex', and a couple of other _extremely_ explicit books. I found information I couldn't find in most other places. Yes, it encouraged me to try some of the things I read (I learned, through that, that most of these books are bull____, and they're definitely wrong about what women will like (usually written by men, big surprise)). But you know, I'd probably have tried some of those things anyway, and I'd be less happy if I hadn't been able to learn. Sexual repression sucks. Having those books publicly accessible is actually a good thing, to my mind.
Thankfully my mother, while not great in some other things, was easy to ask about just about anything. She always answered with logic, and explanations. Even if she simply believed something to be wrong, she explained why and let us make up our own minds. She didn't approve of sex as teenagers, but she knew it would happen anyway, so she made sure we had Planned Parenthood classes and an anonymous drawer in the bathroom, supplied with condoms from the local chapter of PP and the AIDS info groups, which we could use or hand out to friends however we wanted. No questions asked, and it was always full.
If books like these can be in our libraries, why can't the web? And as for filtering, what's wrong with children seeing sex? If you _explain_ your views to them, they will likely follow in your footsteps (at least in some ways). Are we to filter the books then, too? Because, let me tell you, there are some very explicit books in libraries (I found 'The Story of O' in a library once, not to mention others). What's next? Can't talk dirty, even among consenting adults? No flirting at all? Where is the line? Where does it end?
It ends in revolution - the totalitarian control over our minds and bodies would become too much, and people would revolt. People don't like to be chained. Some part of me thinks that the RR knows this, and that would be why they push it slowly and in places we might not think of. If we don't see it coming, maybe we won't revolt against it. Thinking like that gives me the creeps.
-Elthia
Oooooooh...
*coos happily at that thought*
Thank you. Hopefully they'll actually come out with them. I'd love to see 3d images on a screen.
See, now, THIS is cool technology. Using two images is just a copout - actually producing images with different viewpoints from different places is _cool_.
(When will AC's learn that some 'defects' don't LOOK like anything weird? The strange look to my eyes was gone after the surgery, the imperfection is invisible to the naked eye.(and don't any of you comment on the strange look IN my eyes >:) )
-Elthia
In their defence, I haven't heard 'shit' be spoken that much in any of the previous episodes. Yes, it's a show that says not-much about random-news-we-already-know. It's more of a way to get to know the guys and laugh at their silliness (with their silliness?) than a 'Real Radio Show'. The last couple of episodes have been pretty immature. I've gotten the feeling that they've been drinking prior to doing them, or maybe that someone is finally hitting puberty or something.
;P
I like Geeks in Space, for the most part. They have almost-stereotypical personalities for it (Rob is the big-ego star-of-the-show, Jeff is the highly-sarcastic, slightly-uptight guy, Pater's the one everyone wants to hang out with, and Nate is the Invisible Male who says little but does much). They're funny, and they play off of each other well.
Sorry guys, if I played everquest, I'd gladly load you down with whatever I could spare. I've done similar in other games of that ilk. Maybe sometime when I actually get the game
-Elthia
PS - Mr. Rob "I don't USE that OS" Malda seems to be playing EQ also. Hum. *grin*
What about those of us who do NOT have stereoscopic vision? The stupid glasses don't work for me. Will this? Somehow I doubt it.
Ask anyone who was born with a lazy eye. Frequently, even if surgery is done (as it was - twice - in my case), they cannot get it _quite_ perfect. The eyes might _look_ right, but they aren't. Stereoscopic vision (seeing the two images combined as one 3d image) doesn't happen if your eyes are not in the same places in the sockets. I get two images. I tend to block one out unconsciously, and look through the other eye. I've even learned to imitate depth vision like that (I can hit a basketball hoop with the ball even from weird angles - I don't need the backboard, because I use the ground between me and it to get my bearings). Unfortunately, I can't do that for 3d stuff. It has to be really 3d, or all I see is a red (or green) image (or both, one of each, if I'm tired and can't block properly - THAT gets confusing).
Holograms work though. Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to make a holographic-type screen system? Or is someone working on a different way to make it possible to see 3d, for those of us who don't have the vision for the normal way?
-Elthia
This is the same site which comes FIRST in the listing if you go to google and type in "linux newbies". The article that comes up then is SUGGESTING USE OF LINUXONE'S LINUX LITE!
Somehow I think www.currents.net is an evil evil place full of true morons. Someone please prove me wrong, tell me these articles have been revoked somewhere or something.
-Elthia
I wrote a reply to this and posted it, yesterday. Apparently it never showed up. *sigh*
The gist of it was that I don't think there really _is_ anything different about people who make it through as opposed to those who whine and don't do anything. It's a choice. I could easily have ignored what I saw myself becoming. I could have just decided to complain about how awful my life had been, how I had every right to be screwed up, and blamed it all on those who had hurt me. The society we live in would have supported that. Laziness would have made it easy. I chose pride over laziness. I don't think it's a matter of having some amorphous determination or whatever that others don't have. I think it's that I looked at all the options with a clear mind (or as clear as I could get at the time), and decided to make the effort, even if I thought I would fail.
Just because the majority of people does what's easy doesn't mean that they _couldn't_ do it the other way if they wanted to. I know a lot of Windows users who could easily switch to Linux, if they felt like it. They just don't feel like it.
That's why I have a hard time putting up with it when people whine at me about how awful things are when they haven't even tried to change it. It's their choice, and pity only makes it worse.
-Elthia
((it still takes time to change your attitudes and to relearn how to deal with people without the same fears that have always haunted you or the same problems that have always plagued you.))
:)
Wrong. I don't think we _ever_ can deal without our own fears and problems. We simply learn how to recognize them and account for them in our dealing with ourselves and others. Noone said it does happen overnight. I do, however, reserve the right to tell someone when I feel they are whining - and to get annoyed when I feel they are doing so rather than actually deal with something they could fix.
As for using my experience to make others feel dashed aside and unimportant, my comment was in response to an inflammatory 'you are so shallow' comment, aimed at someone with whose expressed views I agreed. I _was_ reacting to what the person was saying.
Being a Real Geek(TM)? I don't think many are that any more than Real Men(TM). Except for the stereotypical ones, who are almost parodies of themselves, it doesn't happen too often. Some of my favorite geeks also happen to be musicians, or artists (neither of which is a 'geeky' pursuit, from what I've heard). And yes, the problem is very similar to that with Gamer chicks. Been there
Part of it is also the inherent competition. Face it, guys, as much as I hate the stereotype, I DO fall into the typical female as far as a desire to work _with_, rather than _against_, those I'm around. That means I would love to have a group working on a project, but I'd hate it if ideas were challenged and beaten into the ground before they could take off. Geeks, and male geeks in particular (there go those generalizations again), tend to be very opinionated. Not always the nicest environment for work to get done.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking people's bodies - or smaller parts of their anatomies (a girl's bosom, Garrett's voice, femme legs, the scent of certain guys, etc). The problem arises when that part is seen and nothing else can be seen _because_ of it. It's a sad thing when women in a field can be pretty OR respected, but not both.
Oh, and I couldn't decide whether your 'you' was aimed at me or at readers in general - I'm female myself. So whether I'm like that or not isn't the point. *grin* (I do, however, tend to find the mind attractive well and truly before the body, so even if it was the point I don't think I'd fit that one).
I agree, though - the ones with the least maturity are also frequently the loudest, especially in a forum where their faces (names, whatever) won't be seen.
-Elthia
((Very few humans in this planet have been able to 'wish themselves' a new backbone, or anything else for that matter, and most who have it (or anything else in this world) did't get it _purely_ due to their own 'efforts'. I *doubt* you're responsible for your own backbone.))
Hot damn, you have NO respect for the power of the human mind, do you? Well, if you think they're that few, then count me among the few. As a child, I was repeatedly raped and beaten, periodically homeless, and generally considered a lost cause by the world. As a teenager, I was an obsessive wreck. As an adult, I am a productive member of society who has had to LEARN how to say no to people, and how to fight back when I'm insulted or hurt. I didn't get my backbone by following other people around. It doesn't work that way. I got it by taking a step back and seeing what I had become - and deciding that I didn't like it, and it was time to grab the damn bootstraps and pick myself up for once. My backbone came _solely_ from determination to become something other than what I was. Yes, I had (and have) role models. I sought them out. Some of them are well-known names, others are people noone here would probably know. But they didn't directly give me my backbone, they just gave me something to shoot for.
((but to say that everyone is in *complete* control of their world or destiny is to ignore))
She didn't say that everyone was in complete control, she simply told someone to get a backbone. In other words, 'I don't want to deal with your whining - cut it out or take it elsewhere'.
Ceren may be young, but she is by no means shallow.
((the fact that you live in a world created by those around you, and limited by what has been burned into your own sould during the first 20 years of your life))
Bull. Limits are for losers. What was burned into my soul for the first 20 years of my life was how useless and pathetic I was, and how little I was worth. I was taught how horrible it was to be female, that you could fight and become a monster, and be shunned forever, or you could submit and become worthless, perhaps accepted by one or two but never worth anything.
I refuse to accept that anymore, and I refuse to be limited by it. YOU can be limited by your past if you want, but that is a choice YOU make. Don't try to claim it as a destiny, your boundaries are your own.
-Elthia
Destiny decided I would be born unto a rapist. _I_ decided to survive it.
((#1:You are subjected to only what you allow yourself to be subjected to. Get a backbone.))
:P
Thank you, Eleanor Roosevelt, for giving us the words to fight back with. *smile*
((#2: I saw fit to "subject" myself? *laugh* No. I actually got to go to Linuxworld, and between the OS-related questions I was answering at the booth, the contacts I was making, and the posing with people with a sense of humor, I had a very productive time. Worth my effort (and sweat, ewww) in spades. What did you spend your week doing?))
*laugh* hi, Ceren. To be honest, folks, I _liked_ the BSD girls. Yes, it was a sexist, silly thing for *BSD to be doing. And I had my bit of fun at that, by 'flirting' with them while I was in the Giant Dust Puppy (what a laugh when I saw their faces as they realized later that I was female). We need more bouncy, happy female-types around, so I don't feel like I don't belong when I want to wear my leather miniskirt and tall boots. I like to look good, thank you - even if it's not entirely the 'geeky' thing to do.
I think part of the problem with having more 'linuxchix' is that it's very hard to be female and smart at the same time. If you're pretty, and look good (or dress in latex even!), people will complain about the objectification. You can't make the choice to use your looks in any way, even to get attention, without taking flack for it. However, if you aren't pretty, they generally ignore you. Of what use is a woman, if she isn't good to look at? *sigh*
I know I felt a twinge of jealousy at the BSD girls being on everyone's mind. I'm not usually prone to that sort of thing, either, it's just that this was amazing. Put virile, pretty females into suggestive outfits and drop them into a veritable well of male hormones. The result? Lots of probably jealous, possibly angry other females and lots and lots of drooling idiots (and a few who can look beyond it and see the people behind the latex).
Oh, and hon, if you need a source for beads, let me know, I'll set you up. *wicked, evil grin*
-Elthia
((Irrelevant. He did it without permission))
Do I need permission to enlarge the chest of my clothes to fit my bosom? I thought not. I bought 'em, I can make them fit.
((Riiiiight. That's why they give you an option to turn it off. ))
You don't. They say they will not send you any OTHER cookies. They don't say anything about the information they have ALREADY TAKEN.
I'm ignoring the snide personal insult, on grounds that it has nothing to do with this discussion.
-Elthia
If the government had this data for five years and cannot crack it, they are either trying to mess with him (we could, but we want YOU to do it), or he was using an encryption algorithm that is immensely powerful - and hitherto unknown. To me, that would mean that _they_ _want_ _that_ _weapon_.
So the more appropriate example would probably be...
He has a previously unknown weapon, something that cannot be stopped. It has to have a specific code to operate, though. They take it during a search for weapons, say, or drugs. They realize what he has and they want it, so they insist that he open it up - without the code, they can't examine it and learn how to make one of their own.
Creepy.
-Elthia
YES, I'm paranoid.
This would be a good idea, _if_ you could enforce it. Bluffing doesn't work, only the facts do. If you can manage to enforce it however, understand that you will then be entering into a contract with DoubleClick, and you should seriously think about what goes into that contract.
Aside from that, there is something noone seems to have noticed, but that stuck out at me like a sore thumb. When you opt-out, they promise not to send you any OTHER cookies. They say nothing about the ones you already have! If they have already ID'd you, it doesn't matter if you have opted out, they have and can use your information. Also, if everyone's opt-out cookie ID is not the same, they could track you with that one. Might want to compare - if they're handing out unique opt-out ID's, then even the opt-out isn't operational and you don't win that way.
-Elthia
Your logic is far from accurate.
'Some kid' hacked an encryption algorithm so that he could play his DVD's on his machine, thereby going around the brand-forcing done to him by a company that sought to prevent him from READING (not copying) a DVD.
DoubleClick is taking personal information (name, address, credit history, purchase history, phone number), and using it for their own purposes, and LYING to people, saying that they do NOT take it.
Two completely different situations. I don't know HOW you jumped to this conclusion, unless you work for the MPAA or something.
-Elthia
Well, Baron Munchausen doesn't say anything but "all rights reserved", that I can find. A few of the Monty Python and Star Trek ones I have don't say anything at all, save the copyright info on the movies themselves. The vast majority of my DVD's, however, have something to the effect of "this is licensed for home use only, not to be resold, distributed, publicly exhibited, copied, or loaned". Usually with slightly stronger language. Yes, they include lending it to friends as unauthorized use, and copying it for home use. I don't see 'for windows only' on anything though. Even my Matrix DVD, with the enhanced features, only says that the enhanced features will only work on Windows, not that you aren't allowed to view it on anything else.
I hope that's what you meant, not that they state that you cannot use them on anything but windows. That _would_ be enforcing a brand.
The 'lending and copying' thing got me, though - according to that, you can't even lend it to a friend for him to watch without authorisation from the copyright owner. However, that has nothing to do with DeCSS, except to point out that they didn't _expressly_ forbid us from being allowed to view the things in our own home on our own machines.
-Elthia
(((Wouldn't they have to provide tech support for people trying to read their USPS emails? That's a LOT of stupid people asking a LOT of stupid questions.)
No reason to be nasty. It's a lot of ignorant people asking a lot of ignorant questions. ))
It's both, actually. There are ignorant people who call tech support, but there are also a LOT of very _stupid_ people who do it.
It was a good point, however. Do we really want to work for the USPS? No? Didn't think so. So where are they going to get the geeks to do the job - the many, many, many geeks it would take? *snort* Not going to be an easy task, that.
((A cost effective "business" run by the government... somebody's dreamin'. ))
*cackle*
Another good point. Why in heck are they considering this, anyway? They'll never catch up to ISP's in popularity, and by the time they could implement the system all their hardware will be obsolete - and probably very very overloaded, they'll underestimate it almost without doubt. It's not like the system they've got, the main parts of it DO go obsolete within a few years rather than 20 or more. *sigh*
-Elthia
Is this really any different in concept than ZIP+4?
Extremely. People would complain that the USPS wasn't forwarding the mail meant for them to their current address, etc. They would have to do it by name at least. As it stands now, paper mail can be forwarded. If you move, you file the form and the PO will forward every piece of mail that goes to you to the new addy. In theory anyway. I've moved a _lot_ in my life. They usually get it right, though some things tend to get lost in the transfer. Doing that with email? How would you manage it? If it's done only by address then emails would go to the wrong person, or the wrong place, all the time. Not a solution. Names work for that - file the paper or whatever, and they can simply change the physical address to which your name-mail is tied to.
-Elthia
An email address for every physical address is not really do-able. It would be a pain, and, as has been stated, would lead to unheard-of amounts of spam. Which would mean the expenses for bandwidth that people would only complain about.
:)
I'm thinking the most likely way for them to be doing this is to offer a free receiving-account for every person who is willing to give their social security number (NOONE is supposed to use that but the SSA, but everyone does). Probably lastnamefirstinitialnumber@postoffice.gov or something like that. Or perhaps just number@postoffice.gov, to make it easier on them. Yes, very predictable. However, you charge for _sending_ an email.
Being the post office, they could charge whatever they wanted, though they'd do better with it if they charged less than a stamp to do it. They will get spam - from the companies that would be spending more on paper ads. However, I don't think the internet spammers, who could get it for free, would be as likely to switch over to a per-email charge system. Not to mention that a credit card would be the most likely payment system, _verifying_ the sender of the spam and letting the lawsuits begin.
I wouldn't send anything other than 'Hi, Mom, how are you?' type letters though. Sending anything through a government agency that you don't want them to see is just asking for it. Not that I have anything to hide, I'm just really paranoid.
The fact that it is an enforced government monopoly is a different issue, and one that I don't think is really on-topic, though interesting. And scary.
-Elthia
We _are_ headed for Shadow-run, or perhaps a combination of that and the states in Snow Crash. The advantage: remember what the United States looked like in Snow Crash? *giggle*
You know something, you're right. I had the wrong person. :)
:) :P
That's when I learned that viewing a web page based in Oregon could be a crime. Among other random little weirdnesses of the law.
-Elthia
thanks
Yeah, I'm not a True Geek (TM) - I don't know Perl.
Yet.
((...they wouldn't do it if it didn't sell. Ads are created to get revenue, and I'm sure companies have found that, bluntly, bigger tits sell more games))
... thinking ))
:)
:)
:( The version that came with the game was complex and looked like fun, but without a manual or prior experience in making my own textures (:P ), I gave up on it.
Correction: Bigger tits sell more games _to_ the people they're _aiming_ for. They sell more games to the teenage (and mentally teenaged) male population. They certainly don't sell more games to females, thank you very much.
((The truth is that games are easier to program for boys.We like points, action, motion, and triggers. Women (stereotypically, but also truthfully) like conversations, complex rewards, stories, and
I would be insulted, but you just shot yourself in the foot. You just implied that men don't like thinking. *snicker*
Actually, I like motion. I like the thinking aspect of games, but sometimes it feels really good to shoot the s--t out of something. Currently I spend a lot of time playing Planescape: Torment. I got it for my birthday, along with a new soundcard (creative live x-gamer in case you want to know). Heh, I didn't sleep all last weekend until I passed out on Sunday because of that damn game.
Intelligence, charisma, for once these things make a difference in a game. The conversations are different, the moves are different. It takes thought, yes. But y'know, lazy programmers do not a good game make. And a bad game might sell to teenage boys, but it won't sell the huge numbers of copies that will be sold by a game which appeals to both genders AND to those who like to think.
((What's the point of getting killed if there are no repercutions? ))
Hey! You don't get repercussions in Torment for dying, and I love that. It's not repercussions... the problem I've had with Quake is that there's _no_point_ to it. You go in, you shoot, you kill, you die. Period. Sure, you can brag to your friends about how many frags you got, or compete with them for numbers. Who cares? I don't need a high frag-count to boost my self-esteem.
Ok, sometimes it's fun to do, but I tend to like sims more for that. Heavy Gear rocked. And yes, to pop the bubble of the males who will raise eyebrows at that, I kicked @$$ at it. I was not-quite-unbeatable. I used NO armor on my mechs (too much weight, can't RUN with armor), and I could - and frequently did - outrun zookfire without problems. And I got a real kick out of kicking the butts of the teenaged idiots who claimed that 'girls don't play 'games like this' '. Or the ones who assumed I was no threat because I was female. Slight revenge, but it was satisfying. It was more fun for me to work WITH people, though. There were a few people I truly enjoyed playing with, people who were both good at the game and accepting of me as a player, and they made the game, for me.
Incidentally, I liked a lot of the pics in D+D books - I just wish the males had been as bare as the females, or maybe built a little less like Bubby the Bodybuilder and a little more like the wiry, strong, slim people they were usually supposed to represent. You don't need bulk to make strength, and you don't need bulging muscles to make a sexy man, although strength (wire, not bulge) does help.
((What games do _you_ want to play?))
Well, Torment is pretty obvious I'd guess.
Heavy Gear 2 is a pretty good bet too, when I get it. Dungeon Keeper was cool, but I want a male monster too. Horny was just too short-lived. Hmm... maybe a slaveboy for the mistresses to play with. Yes, I'm that evil. >:)
I liked Myst enough to play it through once, but it had no replay value for me. Bleh. Same with Jewels of the Oracle. And Hexen. And Warcraft. SimCity was fun, but it got boring. No point to it, the same as Quake etc. I liked Daggerfall, but it was unplayable and annoying. Hmm... Baldur's Gate was fun, but once you played it through it was over, and not really fun to replay. Games I did NOT like include BattleZone (oh, I would have loved it, but the motion made me nauseous), Daggerfall (it was a bug-based love/hate relationship), and any game that puts graphics above gameplay. Quake Arena bores me, did quake already, don't need the multi-only version.
I like editors, actually. I was waiting with baited breath for the Unreal editor to come out in a real form so I could buy it and read the manual and PLAY with it... but it never did
The HOMM editors sucked, but they could be fun - and the game was just silly enough for me to like. Same with warcraft. But with warcraft and homm and things like that, there is this... lack... you go through a level and say 'oh, cool, new creature, neat'....'wow, look what it does'....'ok, now can I move on please? No? *sigh* cleanup phase now... kill all the enemies, build up... *sigh*'. Bah.
Frankly I prefer pencil and paper for RPG's, but good gamers and good DM's are hard to find.
So tell me... since I _do_ like games that have a dark, evil cast to them, along with games that are not typically 'female' in nature, why are there no ads targetting me? None _at_all_? I'm not unusual, you know. I know lots of women who game the way I do - pretty eclectic. Now, while I like the phallic form, that doesn't mean I need to see it on everything. And while I don't mind the female form, I don't need to constantly see it half-naked, standing near fully-clothed males. The implication of female submission there is just not for me.
Publishers, unfortunately, don't go for the idea of a gaming magazine geared to women - and if they did, they'd probably fill it up with fluff and pink-ness, and then claim the supposed lack of female gamers on its failure to capture an audience. *sigh*
Did the gaming industry EVER have common sense?
-Elthia