Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
You could probably sell the hard drive on eBay, make a few bucks. I wouldn't worry about scrubbing it tho. Nobody checks those things.
I'll back that up. I grew up in fairly conservative protestant church, and went to school at a fairly conservative protestant bible college. I don't think that you can say "Protestants generally..." but a large number of the more conservative protestants differentiate between "Catholic" and "Christian". In some of those circles, Catholicism is viewed as a cult. Enough so that if you search for the words "catholic" and "cult" you'll get a large number of pages debating the subject.
I was working at my desk, and our wonderful DoItAll was building up a server for us on a table behind me. Once he got to the point that it needed a name, he asked out loud, to no one in particular:
"Ok. What do you guys want me to call this?"
Without looking up, I said:
"Fred"
That's the name of the server to this day. It's the backbone of our intranet. No one has asked me to name a server since.
No. His statement was a lot more profound. He was questioning the wisdom of EVER perscribing powerful psychotropic drugs to teenagers who are acting normally (depression, violent behavior, and suicide attempts are normal for teenagers) given their brains are not yet fully developed.
He didn't say that even a little. In fact, he was pretty clear on them being prescribed by a medical doctor.
But, to address the point you are raising, I more or less agree to a point. I believe that medication of any kind should not be prescribed to anyone, regardless of their age or development, without careful consideration of the consequences. And I believe that as a culture, we tend to drug ourselves too much. Partially because we're told that it will make things better, and partially because we're just lazy.
However, I think you missed my primary point. So I'll restate it.
I think associating SSRIs with suicide as a side effect is a bit of a red herring. I think the bigger problem is that parents have a child with serious depression, pump them up with drugs, and consider that "doing something" instead of dealing with actual issues. Like the fact that you're a lousy parent.
Unless you know the full case history of the person in question, and unless you posses the professional knowledge required to discuss the case with other qualified individuals, you cannot make a reasonable judgment.
Are you familiar enough with Megan's medical history, her treatment history, her symptoms and her prescribed medications and dosages to speak intelligently about them with the treating physician? If so, then you should write a paper, or at least an article on the subject.
However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.
What happened here was pretty messed up. I don't know exactly where I fall in all this, legally speaking. Morally speaking, I'm pretty clear on the subject. But to blame Megan's parents for letting her be prescribed antidepressants, without being able to speak in depth about what was being treated, how and by whom, is pretty weak. Being a parent is hard enough as it is.
I strongly suspect that there's not many of us reading Slashdot in actual danger of starvation, or starving our families. Many of us might live paycheck to paycheck, but that's not the same thing. There's lots of people that do with less than what you have, and some of them are fine with that.
I'm no stranger to what you're talking about, I just don't think it's high minded principles in the least. Speaking generally here, if you're working a job you hate, and it's making you miserable, and you're only doing it to provide for your family, you should figure out what;'s more important to your family: money or happiness. They aren't the same thing, and you aren't doing any favors to anyone if you work yourself to misery and bring that home to roost.
We're not talking here about lower class working families - though I don't think it's any less true there. Most of us have it pretty good by comparison, and we get by with a lot more than we NEED.
Why do people in this country feel so obligated to work for companies that treat them like crap?
Somewhere along the line here is some element of choice, and it's an element that people have somehow been taught that they don't really have anymore. "It's the best job I can get" or "that's how this industry works."
I don't accept that, and I don't think anyone else should. Once you're working at a certain level, probably just above the poverty line, you make a choice what you're going to do to earn money, and who you're going to work for. We all make these choices based on supporting the kind of lifestyle we want. If your entire industry works this way, and you hate it so badly, you should work in ways that don't make you miserable. That might mean adjusting your lifestyle. But seriously, find something that makes you happy and do it. Don't spend your life working for people that treat you like crap. I won't, even if it means living in a tent. I'm not for sale.
Does anyone have audio of this speech that I could download illegally? I'd love to release an album using only his speech as source material. That and maybe a chainsaw.
If anyone does find audio, if you could email mungo HAT downwithpants DAWT org and tell me where to find it. I'll totally send you a signed copy of the album when it's done.
I think I'm using "The Story" in a somewhat broader context than may be recognized, and that's probably my fault for capitalizing it. When you say "that they had a cool fight top of a speeding train as it heads toward a damaged bridge is more important than that the scene was a proper climax after several scenes of rising action preceded by exposition" you are dead on.
I am not talking about the players telling the story that the GM has laid out - I covered that in another post. I mean more generally - the story that's being told by the players through their decisions and role playing. And that's the fight on top of the train, the players working through the emotional sides of their characters, working through challenges, being cool and being your character in a forum. And I do believe that these things are more important than figuring out how much actual damage you take from getting hit in the face with a cream pie at light speed.
I suppose you do have a point that players who like to focus on rules need games to play. I just think that exist the realm of RPGs.
Also, I've used your mission blender. Small world.
I think we're splitting hairs on "The Story" versus "Immediate Experience". The examples you cite - diving out the window, huddling in fear, the inevitable betrayal - these are story elements. What made them satisfying moments? Was it rolling X on YdZ and consulting charts Alpha and Beta (considering effects from the Resistance table)? Or was it the imagery that was invoked, the players expressions, and the fact that it actually got your heart pumping for real?
I suspect is was the latter, and I suspect what you refer to as 'immediate experience' is the same thing I call 'the story'.
As for GMs using structure to control the players, I'll say this: If the players need anything to protect themselves from the GM, then the GM should be sacked. I know of what you speak, and I know the type of GM you refer to. I won't sit at the table with them, on either side. A GM's job is to let the players play and provide the landscape. Not use the players to tell the GM's story. It's usually what happens when a GM has a story he wants to tell and hasn't gotten to tell it in his own roleplaying. THe Players should tell the story. The GM should provide the setting.
And I say the the GM often needs structure to control the players, because experience shows that players will take everything they can get, and GENERALLY tend toward wanting bigger and better weapons. Sometimes you need a reason to be able to say "No, you can't have 200 tons of putty."
Framework should aid the GM, I agree, and let him focus on the creative aspects of the game. But the more complicated the framework, the more the GM has to memorize to provide off the cuff answers, or else your games turn into long sessions of looking in the index. The simpler a framework is, the less it can possibly get in the way, the less the GM has to memorize and explain, the less the players need to remember. How important is it, really, to be absolutely certain that a.38 revolver does 1d6 damage but a.45 does 1d6+1? Getting shot in the chest with one is going to suck and it's going to knock you on your hinder. Sure, that +1 might make the difference between tripping the self destruct sequence and dying before you get to the button, but that's exactly the case where the framework has hindered the story.
I won't support any game, indie or mainstream, that puts their system ahead of the story and the players enjoyment and experience. I am not saying Indie is better just because it's Indie. Some Indie games are crap. At least you're not out a lot when you buy them. And no amount of money spent on books will make a game good. If you don't have the chops to make a good game out of a bad system, the best system in the world won't help you. And that's a fact. Systems don't make bad roleplaying games good, but people can turn bad systems into good roleplaying experiences. And once you go that far, it seems pointless to invest large money into books of charts for one system, when you can spend the same money and get 15 different ideas and settings to mine for material.
As for wanting to play in one of my games, if you ever make it to the bay area cons, I can point you to the games I run. The Computer is always looking for volunteers.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'the community'. Good Indie games get far better support from the authors themselves than big games, and dedicated fans will support their game regardless of its size.
And I will conceed that d20 did show that yes, people do enjoy book gaming. But a small market is not best served by a large entity. For dozens of reasons.
If you can't play Star Wars without a chart to tell you if a heavy blaster kills you more than a light rifle, you've missed the entire point of roleplaying games.
The Story.
Don't get me wrong. I understand some people need structure in their gaming experiences, and sometimes GMs need structure to control the players. But you don't need to spend 30-50 bucks on a main book and a hundred dollars on More Books just to play Star Wars. When you were a kid, you probably did it with sticks and no dice at all.
Imagine watching d20 Star Wars on the big screen. Before Luke and Leia go for that famous swing, there'd be 10 minutes of measuring the distance of the swing, checking the working load on the cable, verifying the sturdiness of the pipes the grapple attached too, checking Luke's strength vs Leia's weight, and rolling constantly for the Stormtroopers trying to open the door.
At that point, I've stopped eating popcorn.
Write your own system. Throw out the charts. Tell stories. It's more fun, more memorable, and a heck of a lot cheaper.
If you like spending money, then take that 150 bucks and buy 10 indie games you've never heard of, and spend some time reading their systems and learning how to take a few rules a long way. Check out octaNe or Dust Devils or Shambles or any of a hundred others.
Slashdot Mirror
irony - noun : the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
You could probably sell the hard drive on eBay, make a few bucks. I wouldn't worry about scrubbing it tho. Nobody checks those things.
They don't.
Inflammable is when it's MORE than Flammable.
Just ask the Infamous El Guapo.
I'll back that up. I grew up in fairly conservative protestant church, and went to school at a fairly conservative protestant bible college. I don't think that you can say "Protestants generally..." but a large number of the more conservative protestants differentiate between "Catholic" and "Christian". In some of those circles, Catholicism is viewed as a cult. Enough so that if you search for the words "catholic" and "cult" you'll get a large number of pages debating the subject.
Are these metric handfuls? or nautical?
I was working at my desk, and our wonderful DoItAll was building up a server for us on a table behind me. Once he got to the point that it needed a name, he asked out loud, to no one in particular:
"Ok. What do you guys want me to call this?"
Without looking up, I said:
"Fred"
That's the name of the server to this day. It's the backbone of our intranet. No one has asked me to name a server since.
There is no way the Earth could possibly support 7 billion hunter gatherers.
Sure it could. We'd just be hunting and gathering each other. Everyone can pitch in and help to serve man.
My Christmas bonus was a reduction in pay.
My ex's Christmas bonus was a reduction in work days.
My friend's Christmas bonus was a pink slip.
You'll forgive me if I fail to care that Google game their employees a smaller than expected bonus.
No. His statement was a lot more profound. He was questioning the wisdom of EVER perscribing powerful psychotropic drugs to teenagers who are acting normally (depression, violent behavior, and suicide attempts are normal for teenagers) given their brains are not yet fully developed.
He didn't say that even a little. In fact, he was pretty clear on them being prescribed by a medical doctor.
But, to address the point you are raising, I more or less agree to a point. I believe that medication of any kind should not be prescribed to anyone, regardless of their age or development, without careful consideration of the consequences. And I believe that as a culture, we tend to drug ourselves too much. Partially because we're told that it will make things better, and partially because we're just lazy.
However, I think you missed my primary point. So I'll restate it.
I think associating SSRIs with suicide as a side effect is a bit of a red herring. I think the bigger problem is that parents have a child with serious depression, pump them up with drugs, and consider that "doing something" instead of dealing with actual issues. Like the fact that you're a lousy parent.
Unless you know the full case history of the person in question, and unless you posses the professional knowledge required to discuss the case with other qualified individuals, you cannot make a reasonable judgment.
Are you familiar enough with Megan's medical history, her treatment history, her symptoms and her prescribed medications and dosages to speak intelligently about them with the treating physician? If so, then you should write a paper, or at least an article on the subject.
However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.
What happened here was pretty messed up. I don't know exactly where I fall in all this, legally speaking. Morally speaking, I'm pretty clear on the subject. But to blame Megan's parents for letting her be prescribed antidepressants, without being able to speak in depth about what was being treated, how and by whom, is pretty weak. Being a parent is hard enough as it is.
Who?
I'd have never heard of them if not for this article.
He already doesn't have health insurance.
I strongly suspect that there's not many of us reading Slashdot in actual danger of starvation, or starving our families. Many of us might live paycheck to paycheck, but that's not the same thing. There's lots of people that do with less than what you have, and some of them are fine with that.
I'm no stranger to what you're talking about, I just don't think it's high minded principles in the least. Speaking generally here, if you're working a job you hate, and it's making you miserable, and you're only doing it to provide for your family, you should figure out what;'s more important to your family: money or happiness. They aren't the same thing, and you aren't doing any favors to anyone if you work yourself to misery and bring that home to roost.
We're not talking here about lower class working families - though I don't think it's any less true there. Most of us have it pretty good by comparison, and we get by with a lot more than we NEED.
I sell my time.
I don't sell myself, my happiness, or me.
Those concepts are entirely different.
Why do people in this country feel so obligated to work for companies that treat them like crap?
Somewhere along the line here is some element of choice, and it's an element that people have somehow been taught that they don't really have anymore. "It's the best job I can get" or "that's how this industry works."
I don't accept that, and I don't think anyone else should. Once you're working at a certain level, probably just above the poverty line, you make a choice what you're going to do to earn money, and who you're going to work for. We all make these choices based on supporting the kind of lifestyle we want. If your entire industry works this way, and you hate it so badly, you should work in ways that don't make you miserable. That might mean adjusting your lifestyle. But seriously, find something that makes you happy and do it. Don't spend your life working for people that treat you like crap. I won't, even if it means living in a tent. I'm not for sale.
Does anyone have audio of this speech that I could download illegally? I'd love to release an album using only his speech as source material. That and maybe a chainsaw.
If anyone does find audio, if you could email mungo HAT downwithpants DAWT org and tell me where to find it. I'll totally send you a signed copy of the album when it's done.
"It's not a B movie! Steve McQueen was in it!"
I think I'm using "The Story" in a somewhat broader context than may be recognized, and that's probably my fault for capitalizing it. When you say "that they had a cool fight top of a speeding train as it heads toward a damaged bridge is more important than that the scene was a proper climax after several scenes of rising action preceded by exposition" you are dead on.
I am not talking about the players telling the story that the GM has laid out - I covered that in another post. I mean more generally - the story that's being told by the players through their decisions and role playing. And that's the fight on top of the train, the players working through the emotional sides of their characters, working through challenges, being cool and being your character in a forum. And I do believe that these things are more important than figuring out how much actual damage you take from getting hit in the face with a cream pie at light speed.
I suppose you do have a point that players who like to focus on rules need games to play. I just think that exist the realm of RPGs.
Also, I've used your mission blender. Small world.
I think we're splitting hairs on "The Story" versus "Immediate Experience". The examples you cite - diving out the window, huddling in fear, the inevitable betrayal - these are story elements. What made them satisfying moments? Was it rolling X on YdZ and consulting charts Alpha and Beta (considering effects from the Resistance table)? Or was it the imagery that was invoked, the players expressions, and the fact that it actually got your heart pumping for real?
.38 revolver does 1d6 damage but a .45 does 1d6+1? Getting shot in the chest with one is going to suck and it's going to knock you on your hinder. Sure, that +1 might make the difference between tripping the self destruct sequence and dying before you get to the button, but that's exactly the case where the framework has hindered the story.
I suspect is was the latter, and I suspect what you refer to as 'immediate experience' is the same thing I call 'the story'.
As for GMs using structure to control the players, I'll say this: If the players need anything to protect themselves from the GM, then the GM should be sacked. I know of what you speak, and I know the type of GM you refer to. I won't sit at the table with them, on either side. A GM's job is to let the players play and provide the landscape. Not use the players to tell the GM's story. It's usually what happens when a GM has a story he wants to tell and hasn't gotten to tell it in his own roleplaying. THe Players should tell the story. The GM should provide the setting.
And I say the the GM often needs structure to control the players, because experience shows that players will take everything they can get, and GENERALLY tend toward wanting bigger and better weapons. Sometimes you need a reason to be able to say "No, you can't have 200 tons of putty."
Framework should aid the GM, I agree, and let him focus on the creative aspects of the game. But the more complicated the framework, the more the GM has to memorize to provide off the cuff answers, or else your games turn into long sessions of looking in the index. The simpler a framework is, the less it can possibly get in the way, the less the GM has to memorize and explain, the less the players need to remember. How important is it, really, to be absolutely certain that a
I won't support any game, indie or mainstream, that puts their system ahead of the story and the players enjoyment and experience. I am not saying Indie is better just because it's Indie. Some Indie games are crap. At least you're not out a lot when you buy them. And no amount of money spent on books will make a game good. If you don't have the chops to make a good game out of a bad system, the best system in the world won't help you. And that's a fact. Systems don't make bad roleplaying games good, but people can turn bad systems into good roleplaying experiences. And once you go that far, it seems pointless to invest large money into books of charts for one system, when you can spend the same money and get 15 different ideas and settings to mine for material.
As for wanting to play in one of my games, if you ever make it to the bay area cons, I can point you to the games I run. The Computer is always looking for volunteers.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'the community'. Good Indie games get far better support from the authors themselves than big games, and dedicated fans will support their game regardless of its size.
And I will conceed that d20 did show that yes, people do enjoy book gaming. But a small market is not best served by a large entity. For dozens of reasons.
If you can't play Star Wars without a chart to tell you if a heavy blaster kills you more than a light rifle, you've missed the entire point of roleplaying games.
The Story.
Don't get me wrong. I understand some people need structure in their gaming experiences, and sometimes GMs need structure to control the players. But you don't need to spend 30-50 bucks on a main book and a hundred dollars on More Books just to play Star Wars. When you were a kid, you probably did it with sticks and no dice at all.
Imagine watching d20 Star Wars on the big screen. Before Luke and Leia go for that famous swing, there'd be 10 minutes of measuring the distance of the swing, checking the working load on the cable, verifying the sturdiness of the pipes the grapple attached too, checking Luke's strength vs Leia's weight, and rolling constantly for the Stormtroopers trying to open the door.
At that point, I've stopped eating popcorn.
Write your own system. Throw out the charts. Tell stories. It's more fun, more memorable, and a heck of a lot cheaper.
If you like spending money, then take that 150 bucks and buy 10 indie games you've never heard of, and spend some time reading their systems and learning how to take a few rules a long way. Check out octaNe or Dust Devils or Shambles or any of a hundred others.
Money, and time, well spent.
I don't mean to alarm you... But Cryptonomicon was, in fact, entirely sci-fi.
Either that, or the vulnerability was because the guy was running Finux. As long as you don't install that you should be fine.
to me, online gambling is like the dealer saying "I'm totally thinking of a number between 1 and 10. Give me five bucks, you're wrong."
Thanks, but I like to see the cards.
I remember when Yahoo! was The Cool Company. They offered arseloads of free applications, the applications were nifty, cool, hip and where-it's-at.
Then somewhere along the line, the free email accounts and home pages got so choked with ads and bloat that I couldn't stand using them anymore.
I like Google's stuff. Lots. I've just got this nagging feeling that I've been here before, and I hope I'm wrong.
Is he trying to put himself into a less-vulnerable position?