SurvivorZero + Shameless plug for a game that only 4 people will play (and 3 of which are the creators) = laaaame.
I'm not developing this game and I have no affiliation with the team. You don't want to play a game where you are surrounded by zombies and you have to hack your way through it? It's gonna be fun! And I think it's gonna be free to download, but I could be mistaken.
I do. So I bought Left 4 Dead. And the second one. Do I want more competition in the zombie game arena? Sure. But... well, it's got to be COMPETITION. Not just, you know, another team making another game.
Foxconn's factories are a mini-city. I'm sure if you compare US city suicide rates to Foxconn mini-city suicide rates, they'd be comparable. It's only really an outrage if their suicide rate was 3x or more higher than US suicide rates.
I dislike Apple software but as an electrical engineer, I'm a huge fan of their hardware.
... so, yeah, let's compare an industrial-park-turned-city to a... regular city. I expect that a highly regulated, patrolled and enforced living arrangement would have less suicides because of the intense amount of oversight. Again, if you want to compare apples to oranges... you've got another point. But if you'd like to join us in the real world...
Meh... "silent story", to me, frequently means "blow lots of shit up first; we were too bored to make a story, so our fans will do that work for us". Not always, but frequently.
I tend to disagree. Some of the best games have no talking at all in them. Video game designers aren't that good at Hollywood scripts.
Dragon age : Origins + NO Hero talking = Awesome. Dragon Age 2 + Hero who talks = Not as good as the original. SurvivorZero + Shameless plug for a game that only 4 people will play (and 3 of which are the creators) = laaaame.
On the suicide note from your other troll post: the suicide rate at the Foxconn factories are less than the suicide rate at US universities.
Yeah, no nets to catch jumpers at US institutions. Or maybe it's because students at US institutions realize that there is no hope for them, since they weren't born wealthy, and the chinese aren't quite so dis-illusioned with their chances.
... or maybe paying someone for the privilege of wasting your time is more depressing than getting paid for it? No matter what, you're comparing apples to oranges... but nice try. You know there's a journal article being reported on that talks about fanbois taking criticism personally when people attack their company of choice?
You do realize that I said "version" and not "direct identical port" and that the AC is still wrong when he flat-out said "No" and that a "real computer" is required, because, in one form or another, Rage is available for iOS, right?
In the same way that the "full web browsing experience" is available on your iphone AND your computer... but only if your computer does NOT have flash installed.
I can tell a lot of work went into Borderlands, but I can't think of a game that was so well-made that I got tired of so quickly. Same thing over and over and over. No incentive at all to do the things you're supposed to do.
You're right, the hundreds of people who think it was an awesome mix of FPS and RPG are wrong, and your single, solitary idea is right. Even after YEARS of existence!
so don't you dare try to bestow your enlightened point of view on the benighted natives
I'd suggest that the reason you don't want to share your information, is because they'll resent you for telling them how to run their operations, even if it is a better way - can you imagine some guy from china showing up in your office, telling you how to be more efficient, then taking off and saying "Thanks for everything!". It's rude, and it's offensive. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes everyone feel bad, and realistically your suggestions aren't taken serious even if they're great.
The tourist can't compete with $2 a day labor. Africans who have the money will hire an African.
Going over to Africa and volunteering your time that way is an inefficient use resources but does not harm the local economy. You are building projects that would never have been created without your resources instead of competing with the local labor market.
Great argument!... if you're going over there to do volunteer work for Africans who have money.
So answer me this, which is worse, the anonymous jerk or the narcissist bully. Keep in mind the anonymous jerk will be annoying and the narcissist bully will use violence, threats and attempt to force group intimidation and ostracisation of individuals.
... Sure, in real life, you've got a point. But on the internet - the medium we're discussing - when the narcissist bully and his tool kit are rendered impotent and reduced to mildly annoying and ignorable jerks from the lack of anonymity... you have absolutely no argument.
Unless you're worried about real-life bullies searching you out online... at which point, I'd propose that it's not an internet problem, and solving your bullying problem by enabling thousands of annoying jerks to become anonymous annoying jerks is a poor tradeoff in everyone's books but yours.
It was a truly awful idea. Females and minorities would get harassed to hell and back. Just look at what people did to that one poor Blizzard employee who posted his name. While anonymity may cause people to act more like jerks, it also makes it more difficult for the crazier people to take things to the next level.
... you do realize, that being white is minority status, right?
That's a) a terribly sexist/racist comment, and b) completely misleading.
The entire purpose of the real-ID scheme was to discourage people from acting like jerks. Sure, there will be crazy people acting like jerks.. but there always have been, and always will be. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring them is the wrong approach. It doesn't work in real life, in part, because we have accountability for our actions.
I wish there were a more worksafe (or pre-school safe?) term for it that captured it just as well (as opposed to "deindividualization"), because it's such a good point. If you (or your kids, or your parents) experience chat with people who are effectively anonymous, a significant portion of those people may act like jerks.
Blizzard tried to work around this, and require real names to participate on their forums. The GIFT of online interaction proved to be too strong - people revolted, and blizzard was "forced" to re-evaluate it's initiative.
It may surprise and shock you, but you can be against American style anti-sodomy laws, which outlaw consenting oral and anal sex between two heterosexual adult partners, but still support laws against sodomizing little boys. I know you find that strange, but it's true. Similarly, you can oppose a law that would restrict my freedom to participate in the Nielsen surveys and sell my viewing habits for cash, but not oppose a law that restricts my freedom to shoot people in the face. You see?
I see! So, just because you can, doesn't make it logically consistent. I *can* be anti-abortion but pro-womens rights... just not at the exact same time. I get it! I'm allowed to hold contradictory viewpoints, and I'm allowed to hold opinions that aren't based in fact... I just can't be right at the same time!
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it. Sort of like I don't feel completely okay with the fact that Manhattan island was bought in exchange for some pretty shells.
The two aren't even remotely similar, and you havn't made any effort to prove that they are. You simply assume that they're the same situation, and argue from that point of view. That makes it very hard to explain anything to you - your ideas aren't even internally consistent, so adding an external voice is more likely to confuse you even further... and in response to that confusion, you'll just ignore any evidence (or logic) contrary to your opinion and keep on talking.
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.
Yes, an obvious troll. But no one said that trolling can't also be 100% truthful...
... obviously no true [STRIKE]scotsman[/STRIKE] network administrator would disagree with me...
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.
Yes, an obvious troll. But no one said that trolling can't also be 100% truthful...
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
Walk into any American home and count how many books are there
You won't find any in mine. This is 2011, not 1950. We have these things called the internet and computers now. But seriously, I have never enjoyed reading from paper. However, I can read for hours on my computer. In my mind, technology replaced the book decades ago.
So how many books have you read in the last several years on your ereader/computer? Just because you don't have physical books in the house doesn't mean you don't have immediate access to literature. A library isn't immediate access. Having an e-reader is...
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. If someone wouldn't sell their privacy in exchange for a "cheap netbook", they shouldn't be required to sell their privacy in exchange for "a piece of technology that they realistically could never afford". Their privacy shouldn't be negotiable.
I'd sell my privacy for a cheap social networking platform I could use to organize my social events and keep track of old friends, a network that realistically I could never develop or build.
Just because *YOU* wouldn't trade your privacy doesn't mean others can't/won't. You're not protecting those "poor africans" from themselves, you're protecting your ideology from new ideas.
How many Slashdot readers would let someone spy on them in exchange for getting a cheap laptop?
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
Slashdot Mirror
It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human.
I see plenty of humans walking around (or posting on the internet) with no evidence that they have a brain.
So, you see plenty of non-breathing people who cannot independently control their bodies ... in the process of controlling their bodies?
I'm not developing this game and I have no affiliation with the team. You don't want to play a game where you are surrounded by zombies and you have to hack your way through it? It's gonna be fun! And I think it's gonna be free to download, but I could be mistaken.
I do. So I bought Left 4 Dead. And the second one. Do I want more competition in the zombie game arena? Sure. But ... well, it's got to be COMPETITION. Not just, you know, another team making another game.
Foxconn's factories are a mini-city. I'm sure if you compare US city suicide rates to Foxconn mini-city suicide rates, they'd be comparable. It's only really an outrage if their suicide rate was 3x or more higher than US suicide rates.
I dislike Apple software but as an electrical engineer, I'm a huge fan of their hardware.
... so, yeah, let's compare an industrial-park-turned-city to a ... regular city. I expect that a highly regulated, patrolled and enforced living arrangement would have less suicides because of the intense amount of oversight. Again, if you want to compare apples to oranges ... you've got another point. But if you'd like to join us in the real world ...
I tend to disagree. Some of the best games have no talking at all in them. Video game designers aren't that good at Hollywood scripts.
Dragon age : Origins + NO Hero talking = Awesome.
Dragon Age 2 + Hero who talks = Not as good as the original.
SurvivorZero + Shameless plug for a game that only 4 people will play (and 3 of which are the creators) = laaaame.
On the suicide note from your other troll post: the suicide rate at the Foxconn factories are less than the suicide rate at US universities.
Yeah, no nets to catch jumpers at US institutions. Or maybe it's because students at US institutions realize that there is no hope for them, since they weren't born wealthy, and the chinese aren't quite so dis-illusioned with their chances.
... or maybe paying someone for the privilege of wasting your time is more depressing than getting paid for it? No matter what, you're comparing apples to oranges... but nice try. You know there's a journal article being reported on that talks about fanbois taking criticism personally when people attack their company of choice?
You do realize that I said "version" and not "direct identical port" and that the AC is still wrong when he flat-out said "No" and that a "real computer" is required, because, in one form or another, Rage is available for iOS, right?
In the same way that the "full web browsing experience" is available on your iphone AND your computer... but only if your computer does NOT have flash installed.
wait, am I arguing with an AC? *doh!*
I can tell a lot of work went into Borderlands, but I can't think of a game that was so well-made that I got tired of so quickly. Same thing over and over and over. No incentive at all to do the things you're supposed to do.
You're right, the hundreds of people who think it was an awesome mix of FPS and RPG are wrong, and your single, solitary idea is right. Even after YEARS of existence!
why would your server need a graphics card?
Yes, why would your server need a cheap but massively powerful parallel computing platform?
The brown-grey palette just gets boring after a while.
Good thing X-com is being rebooted (as Xcom) ... in the cheery 1950s.
so don't you dare try to bestow your enlightened point of view on the benighted natives
I'd suggest that the reason you don't want to share your information, is because they'll resent you for telling them how to run their operations, even if it is a better way - can you imagine some guy from china showing up in your office, telling you how to be more efficient, then taking off and saying "Thanks for everything!". It's rude, and it's offensive. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes everyone feel bad, and realistically your suggestions aren't taken serious even if they're great.
The tourist can't compete with $2 a day labor. Africans who have the money will hire an African. Going over to Africa and volunteering your time that way is an inefficient use resources but does not harm the local economy. You are building projects that would never have been created without your resources instead of competing with the local labor market.
Great argument! ... if you're going over there to do volunteer work for Africans who have money.
So answer me this, which is worse, the anonymous jerk or the narcissist bully. Keep in mind the anonymous jerk will be annoying and the narcissist bully will use violence, threats and attempt to force group intimidation and ostracisation of individuals.
... Sure, in real life, you've got a point. But on the internet - the medium we're discussing - when the narcissist bully and his tool kit are rendered impotent and reduced to mildly annoying and ignorable jerks from the lack of anonymity ... you have absolutely no argument.
... at which point, I'd propose that it's not an internet problem, and solving your bullying problem by enabling thousands of annoying jerks to become anonymous annoying jerks is a poor tradeoff in everyone's books but yours.
Unless you're worried about real-life bullies searching you out online
Also, institutional racism is alive and well, and it still favors white middle and upper-class males predominantly.
In certain areas of the business world, sure, it's alive and well. In other areas, it favors non-white and non-males. Take, say, teaching or nursing.
It was a truly awful idea. Females and minorities would get harassed to hell and back. Just look at what people did to that one poor Blizzard employee who posted his name. While anonymity may cause people to act more like jerks, it also makes it more difficult for the crazier people to take things to the next level.
... you do realize, that being white is minority status, right?
That's a) a terribly sexist/racist comment, and b) completely misleading.
The entire purpose of the real-ID scheme was to discourage people from acting like jerks. Sure, there will be crazy people acting like jerks.. but there always have been, and always will be. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring them is the wrong approach. It doesn't work in real life, in part, because we have accountability for our actions.
I wish there were a more worksafe (or pre-school safe?) term for it that captured it just as well (as opposed to "deindividualization"), because it's such a good point. If you (or your kids, or your parents) experience chat with people who are effectively anonymous, a significant portion of those people may act like jerks.
Blizzard tried to work around this, and require real names to participate on their forums. The GIFT of online interaction proved to be too strong - people revolted, and blizzard was "forced" to re-evaluate it's initiative.
Go teach some proverbial men to fish, or do something else were you are sure there isn't local labor available to do the work.
It's so true! Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
It may surprise and shock you, but you can be against American style anti-sodomy laws, which outlaw consenting oral and anal sex between two heterosexual adult partners, but still support laws against sodomizing little boys. I know you find that strange, but it's true. Similarly, you can oppose a law that would restrict my freedom to participate in the Nielsen surveys and sell my viewing habits for cash, but not oppose a law that restricts my freedom to shoot people in the face. You see?
I see! So, just because you can, doesn't make it logically consistent. I *can* be anti-abortion but pro-womens rights ... just not at the exact same time. I get it! I'm allowed to hold contradictory viewpoints, and I'm allowed to hold opinions that aren't based in fact... I just can't be right at the same time!
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it. Sort of like I don't feel completely okay with the fact that Manhattan island was bought in exchange for some pretty shells.
The two aren't even remotely similar, and you havn't made any effort to prove that they are. You simply assume that they're the same situation, and argue from that point of view. That makes it very hard to explain anything to you - your ideas aren't even internally consistent, so adding an external voice is more likely to confuse you even further ... and in response to that confusion, you'll just ignore any evidence (or logic) contrary to your opinion and keep on talking.
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.
Yes, an obvious troll. But no one said that trolling can't also be 100% truthful...
... obviously no true [STRIKE]scotsman[/STRIKE] network administrator would disagree with me...
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.
Yes, an obvious troll. But no one said that trolling can't also be 100% truthful...
The whole premise of this article is bunk.
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
You won't find any in mine. This is 2011, not 1950. We have these things called the internet and computers now. But seriously, I have never enjoyed reading from paper. However, I can read for hours on my computer. In my mind, technology replaced the book decades ago.
So how many books have you read in the last several years on your ereader/computer? Just because you don't have physical books in the house doesn't mean you don't have immediate access to literature. A library isn't immediate access. Having an e-reader is...
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. If someone wouldn't sell their privacy in exchange for a "cheap netbook", they shouldn't be required to sell their privacy in exchange for "a piece of technology that they realistically could never afford". Their privacy shouldn't be negotiable.
I'd sell my privacy for a cheap social networking platform I could use to organize my social events and keep track of old friends, a network that realistically I could never develop or build.
Just because *YOU* wouldn't trade your privacy doesn't mean others can't/won't. You're not protecting those "poor africans" from themselves, you're protecting your ideology from new ideas.
How many Slashdot readers would let someone spy on them in exchange for getting a cheap laptop?
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.