I think this was a fine post that gave me something to think about, but I disagree.
Generally, people on forums get angry if they DO NOT get any feedback. Then things get ugly because that is frustrating.
If developers are relatively active (they should at least answer when they are directly asked something) then a forum will most likely run nicely and be a constructive place.
Also, people have to feel that problems are being fixed, or they will get annoyed.
Of course, there are always morons (this is the Internet we are talking about, after all) so there is need for moderators to warn/ban in order to ensure that the community is as pleasant as possible.
I have two examples to back up my views.
The Sports Interactive forum (they make the Football Manager series): http://community.sigames.com/
This is an example of a very good forum that is quite constructive. Sure, sometimes there are rants and so on, but it doesn't seem to scare the developers who post A LOT, and certainly answer all (semi-)important questions. This ensures a constructive atmosphere. Of course, the moderators are very active also in order to close ridiculous threads and so on.
An example of an impossibly bad forum, on the other hand, is the EA Sports FIFA forum: http://forum.ea.com/uk/categories/show/10.page
In here, the developers NEVER answer anything, and a few worthless community managers once in a while (rarely) give the most feeble and useless replies.
Also, people are NEVER banned or even warned no matter how amazingly stupid they act. The result is a forum that is a complete mess. A billion threads are created and people are almost constantly angry and abusive (it sure doesn't help either, of course, that almost no problems in FIFA are fixed).
Probably the target audience for FIFA is somewhat less mature than that for FM, but still I think moderation and developer replies are key to having a constructive community.
That 90 % of the people using a game are using a pirated version in no way means that these 90 % would have bought the game if it had not been possible to pirate it, though.
I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
Can't see how saying, especially in this case, that making fun of people's death is disgusting, is especially gloomy.
But apparently the predominant attitude on/. is different from mine, seeing as your post and the other reply to my original post mysteriously have been modded higher than mine.
Of course. But what has that got to do with making fun of it?
You can make fun of death in a general sense. To make it easier to bear. But making fun of individual deaths is disgusting.
How the hell can anyone here argue that what the cops did was anything but sick and twisted beyond measure.
I have NEVER understood how the death of another person can be FUNNY.
The same goes for the Darwin Awards stuff. We are talking about people who DIE. Their lives end, their loved ones have to bury them in the cold, cold earth and will never see them again.
Also, WHERE is the logic that says that because people do something stupid they DESERVE to die? And suddenly it's actually OK to even make fun of them.
Sure, driving under the influence of cocaine or whatever is very stupid, but who the hell knows what issues that girl had.
hehe.
You can't tell me I'm wrong for thinking they suck, though.
And I definitely don't agree with the fact that some Futurama is better than none. The movies have actually destroyed Futurama a bit for me.
The series is SO BRILLIANT. And the movies are actually just, well, boring at best. But at worst they don't fit in with the overall Futurama story and destroy the characters. Of course they are a bit funny here and there but all in all, I THINK, they should not have been made.
THE MOVIES ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!
WORNSTRUM!
You could respond to my critique, though. That would be nice.
One of my points was that if the new episodes suck as much as the movies, they should not be made.
Why has no one mentioned that almost everything in the movies sucked?
If they continue down that line, the new episodes will, more or less, not be worth watching.
It's like the movies were not made by the same people who made the original! (but they were, weren't they?)
The jokes generally were not anywhere near as funny as those in the series. But the worst part was that they actually just seemed not to care for the overall story, characters and feel from the series. Some examples:
- Why SUDDENLY is the mighty race of Niblonians all captured by Mom?! How does that fit with them, more or less, knowing everything and saving the universe in the series?
- Why are the Niblonians defeated by "the mighty brooms" of those scammer people? It just doesn't make sense.
- Why is Bender suddenly a murderous psychopath. He throws his own son into burning lava?! Those who wrote that seem to forget that, yes, Bender is "evil" but you have to be able to think he is alright deep down. You can't really think that when he burns his own son.
- Why are many of the animations made a lot more gory? There is no need for that. There are parts here and there that are actually disgusting.
- Kiff gets KILLED! I mean WHAT? OK, he gets revived but it still sucks.
The list goes on (but not here!). In general, I don't think the movies are hated as much as they deserve. They suck, plain and simple.
Ah, yes, that is the term for it.
I also had an operation for it a lot of years ago and my eyes are also "almost" parallel. Part of my vision definitely cuts out when I close the "lazy eye".
I would like to try some of the new methods but I am not optimistic.
Oh, well, I guess I could be worse off. For example my eyes could have fallen out!
Thank you for the reply.
I know that I am able to watch the movies though!
What I meant, naturally, was if I could use some of the new techniques and actually watch them in 3d like "normal" people. For example the active shutter glasses or something like that - it shuts down one eye at a time, as far as I know. Maybe I can use that, although I doubt it.
My "nightmare" scenario is for all this fancy 3d to become sort of a standard over the comming years and me missing totally out on it.:-(
Would someone please think of us!
I have what I think is called monovision - that is, I only focus with one eye at a time. I do see with the other eye too but it more, sort of, along for the ride. It's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that.
However, I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses. Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition?
I am a little worried about all these fine new 3d techniques. The reason is I don't have binocular vision. That is, I don't use both my eyes equally much at the same time.
Because of that I have never been able to see 3d using, for instance, the old red-green glasses. Simply because they require a normal vision that combined the input from both eyes.
This also causes me to have impaired depth perception in real life - it's not that much of a problem, though. I have learned to compensate.
I am interested in knowing if the active shutter glasses can be uses by people with my problem? (that is people who were not first in line when eyes were handed out)
Yes it's stupid. But do stupid people deserve to die? I think it is a dangerous statement.
I could accept laughing at it if they were only lightly injured but since they are dead I find it disgusting and inhumane.
I agree. I find it absolutely disgusting to be laughing at other peoples death.
What the hell is this?! Two people have sex on a roof - it's stupid no doubt - but they DIE. Understand that word?!
I really have trouble understanding what's so funny about it. As if none of you've never done anything stupid. Do you deserve to die because of it? And what about the relatives and friends of the dead persons? They probably find it real nice that the world is laughing at their dead loved ones. It really makes me sick.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but they are more of a problem when the person is very intelligent, as he mentioned.
I think this was a fine post that gave me something to think about, but I disagree. Generally, people on forums get angry if they DO NOT get any feedback. Then things get ugly because that is frustrating. If developers are relatively active (they should at least answer when they are directly asked something) then a forum will most likely run nicely and be a constructive place. Also, people have to feel that problems are being fixed, or they will get annoyed.
Of course, there are always morons (this is the Internet we are talking about, after all) so there is need for moderators to warn/ban in order to ensure that the community is as pleasant as possible.
I have two examples to back up my views.
The Sports Interactive forum (they make the Football Manager series): http://community.sigames.com/
This is an example of a very good forum that is quite constructive. Sure, sometimes there are rants and so on, but it doesn't seem to scare the developers who post A LOT, and certainly answer all (semi-)important questions. This ensures a constructive atmosphere. Of course, the moderators are very active also in order to close ridiculous threads and so on.
An example of an impossibly bad forum, on the other hand, is the EA Sports FIFA forum: http://forum.ea.com/uk/categories/show/10.page
In here, the developers NEVER answer anything, and a few worthless community managers once in a while (rarely) give the most feeble and useless replies. Also, people are NEVER banned or even warned no matter how amazingly stupid they act. The result is a forum that is a complete mess. A billion threads are created and people are almost constantly angry and abusive (it sure doesn't help either, of course, that almost no problems in FIFA are fixed).
Probably the target audience for FIFA is somewhat less mature than that for FM, but still I think moderation and developer replies are key to having a constructive community.
That 90 % of the people using a game are using a pirated version in no way means that these 90 % would have bought the game if it had not been possible to pirate it, though.
I know man, I'm just joking.
I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
Get back to work!
Thus solving the problem once and for all!
Eh, I am "light" enough.
/. is different from mine, seeing as your post and the other reply to my original post mysteriously have been modded higher than mine.
Can't see how saying, especially in this case, that making fun of people's death is disgusting, is especially gloomy.
But apparently the predominant attitude on
Of course. But what has that got to do with making fun of it?
You can make fun of death in a general sense. To make it easier to bear. But making fun of individual deaths is disgusting.
How the hell can anyone here argue that what the cops did was anything but sick and twisted beyond measure.
I have NEVER understood how the death of another person can be FUNNY.
The same goes for the Darwin Awards stuff. We are talking about people who DIE. Their lives end, their loved ones have to bury them in the cold, cold earth and will never see them again.
Also, WHERE is the logic that says that because people do something stupid they DESERVE to die? And suddenly it's actually OK to even make fun of them.
Sure, driving under the influence of cocaine or whatever is very stupid, but who the hell knows what issues that girl had.
hehe. You can't tell me I'm wrong for thinking they suck, though. And I definitely don't agree with the fact that some Futurama is better than none. The movies have actually destroyed Futurama a bit for me. The series is SO BRILLIANT. And the movies are actually just, well, boring at best. But at worst they don't fit in with the overall Futurama story and destroy the characters. Of course they are a bit funny here and there but all in all, I THINK, they should not have been made. THE MOVIES ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!
WORNSTRUM! You could respond to my critique, though. That would be nice. One of my points was that if the new episodes suck as much as the movies, they should not be made.
Why has no one mentioned that almost everything in the movies sucked? If they continue down that line, the new episodes will, more or less, not be worth watching. It's like the movies were not made by the same people who made the original! (but they were, weren't they?) The jokes generally were not anywhere near as funny as those in the series. But the worst part was that they actually just seemed not to care for the overall story, characters and feel from the series. Some examples: - Why SUDDENLY is the mighty race of Niblonians all captured by Mom?! How does that fit with them, more or less, knowing everything and saving the universe in the series? - Why are the Niblonians defeated by "the mighty brooms" of those scammer people? It just doesn't make sense. - Why is Bender suddenly a murderous psychopath. He throws his own son into burning lava?! Those who wrote that seem to forget that, yes, Bender is "evil" but you have to be able to think he is alright deep down. You can't really think that when he burns his own son. - Why are many of the animations made a lot more gory? There is no need for that. There are parts here and there that are actually disgusting. - Kiff gets KILLED! I mean WHAT? OK, he gets revived but it still sucks. The list goes on (but not here!). In general, I don't think the movies are hated as much as they deserve. They suck, plain and simple.
I'm from Denmark.
Ah, yes, that is the term for it. I also had an operation for it a lot of years ago and my eyes are also "almost" parallel. Part of my vision definitely cuts out when I close the "lazy eye". I would like to try some of the new methods but I am not optimistic. Oh, well, I guess I could be worse off. For example my eyes could have fallen out!
Thank you for the reply. I know that I am able to watch the movies though! What I meant, naturally, was if I could use some of the new techniques and actually watch them in 3d like "normal" people. For example the active shutter glasses or something like that - it shuts down one eye at a time, as far as I know. Maybe I can use that, although I doubt it. My "nightmare" scenario is for all this fancy 3d to become sort of a standard over the comming years and me missing totally out on it. :-(
Would someone please think of us! I have what I think is called monovision - that is, I only focus with one eye at a time. I do see with the other eye too but it more, sort of, along for the ride. It's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that. However, I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses. Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition?
I am a little worried about all these fine new 3d techniques. The reason is I don't have binocular vision. That is, I don't use both my eyes equally much at the same time. Because of that I have never been able to see 3d using, for instance, the old red-green glasses. Simply because they require a normal vision that combined the input from both eyes. This also causes me to have impaired depth perception in real life - it's not that much of a problem, though. I have learned to compensate. I am interested in knowing if the active shutter glasses can be uses by people with my problem? (that is people who were not first in line when eyes were handed out)
Thus solving the problem once and for all!
Yes it's stupid. But do stupid people deserve to die? I think it is a dangerous statement. I could accept laughing at it if they were only lightly injured but since they are dead I find it disgusting and inhumane.
I agree. I find it absolutely disgusting to be laughing at other peoples death. What the hell is this?! Two people have sex on a roof - it's stupid no doubt - but they DIE. Understand that word?! I really have trouble understanding what's so funny about it. As if none of you've never done anything stupid. Do you deserve to die because of it? And what about the relatives and friends of the dead persons? They probably find it real nice that the world is laughing at their dead loved ones. It really makes me sick.