Wow... thanks for the complete non-response. Can you give an actual response or point to some place that does? I have yet to see it. I would like an explanation for the inconsistencies other than simply being told that I'm dumb.
If I knew who I was talking to, maybe I would feel compelled to care further. But until you decide to stop posting anonymously, I can hardly push a fart in your direction to provide a whiff of information -- for lack of knowing which direction I even need to send it.
It isn't an ad hominem. it is a criticism and a supportive suggestion. That is why I made the example of indicating questions about other focus-specific questions.
There is a time when a person needs to realize that they do not know what they are talking about and should either 1) take what is shown by those who do as good enough or 2) take part in the process by way of personal effort.
How many anti-AGW skeptics are going into sciences to learn and understand the actual field? Little to none.
I'm sure if I went into watching a surgical operation I might have many many questions... and if I did not heed my ignorance, I might have many many skeptical curiosities. But I have humility, I know what I do not know, and I don't pretend I am qualified beyond that.
If you were a scientist with a relevant education in the field, you could answer all of those questions.
Why did the dentist use a UV light on your teeth? Why did the doctor's hammer have a rubber coating on it when he hit your knee? What are your brake pads made out of? Why?
There are lots of questions. But if you're not going to try to answer them the right way, by finding out on your own, you're just another Troll (aka Glenn Beck).
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You said 'whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas', as if it isn't well understood by now. It is. CO2 is dense relative to other gasses in our atmosphere and it has a property of retaining heat. This is basic chemistry you're attempting to trivialize with questions that already have answers.
I'm just having a good time watching you eat sour lemons all day for sheer lack of appreciation.
Life sucks huh?! Its so horrible!
Like I said, your prejudice is ridiculous, and thats why you're such a clown. The game mechanics in U2 are amazing. You'd never know, though.. You're still waiting for them to make it 2d and require the pressing of one button and down to keep it slow enough for you.
I'm 28. Kid, no. Been gaming over 20 years. I've tried it all and, unlike you, i've found a way to appreciate great things. Should I start judging you based on your lack of appreciation? Should I start assuming you've got a trust fund and have never worked for anything?
Bye coward. Your life sucks because your eyes make it that way.
A single competent developer can easily turn even something as old as the original *QW* engine into something that is technically on par with anything currently available....
If this were true, I would think most developers would do so with the freely available older engines. That isnt' the case. Companies like Epic sell their Unreal Engine to many companies. If it were so simple, people wouldn't need to buy.
Or maybe my facts aren't perfect in that assumption. I'm just a speculating gamer. Tell me something about this biz.:)
dude... big entertainment (yes, these GREAT big games, like GTA, Gears of War, Modern Warfare, Uncharted, etc.... They take millions of dollars to develop. GTA 4 cost TONS and was worth every penny.
They gotta be driven by profits, and people gladly pay for good games. Its not something that really *needs* to be done for free. People love games like they love everything else they do a lot of in life. You like to skate, you buy skateboard and wheels n stuff. YOu like to rock climb, you get into it, you buy the gear and spend money going places that are nice for it. You get into some solid new games and, well, why not pay for it!
I'm not saying its not a great option to have or for people to do. I'm just saying that we all pay gladly, and aside from early buyers being kinda treated like beta testers on many games, we're pretty happy! Games are REALLY good now. They are a little too easy, but still VERY good. I'm in movies now man. That's what its like. I'm in a van damme movie. I'm all hero.
Its nuts. Games are worth every penny. Artists earn it hardcore. The coders make stuff happen thats never been done in software before. They make visual fx that are amazing.. the whole industry drives shader standards and gfx processor development needs... even when many are pirating some games, it doesn't matter really. The great companies that invest a lot end up taking the cake so long as its not wasted on jets and CEO bonus. I don't even know if that kinda stuff happens in the game industry. I'd guess the good companies are just playing smart.
All hail iD, Epic, EA (yeah, i hate ot say it), Infinity Ward, Nintendo, capcom, acclaim, sony, naughty dog. etc etc etc. Thank you!
... I'm always curious why the open source FPS games look like they are about 7 or 8 years behind the closed-source industry.
Its like they're not even trying to compete. Go to the Game Developers Conference, guys... Take some notes... See what the top devs are doing in the future and start doing that NOW. Then you'll catch the wave at the right point.
open source FPS always catch my attention long enough to notice this consistent failure to get with the times.
True, but social behaviour can - and does - change over time. It is, demonstrably, useful to fight for less-unjust patterns of behaviour - if you've identified one. Is life fair? Obviously not. Can it be made less-unfair, with effort? Yes.
I'd normally be the first to agree, but isn't a large portion of malware used for criminal activity? Identity theft, botnets that engage in DDoS extortion attempts, spam relays, phishing, etc, etc. It seems to me that law enforcement (i.e: government) has a legitimate interest in reducing the number of malware infections that are out there.
Of course, a call center filled with follow the script support drones probably isn't the best way to go about doing that.......
I would support the (what is likely not very costly in respect to other programs) spending of money on this kind of service to my countrymen. Rather I would prefer this kind of spending over other extremely tax-parasitic spending programs aimed at 'defending' us that cost us trillions here in the US.
Yeah, a 200 billion dollar bill to design a new fighter jet (on slashdot a few months ago), is a little excessive when 1) Our current jets and weapons are frikkin amazing and 2) people are all in a hissy about 700bn in an 'economic revival' spending plan.
Umm.... 200/700 = nearly 29%. I think the people here in the US would have been excited to know that a large chunk of the economic revival plan could be fixed by simply cutting one defense spending program. One.
Our KDR is now >>> 1:100. I think we're pretty badass, and as a vet, I *know* we are badass already.
I told you that "As best as we know, god had nothing to do with this". At first I said "god had nothing to do with this", but in that I was not absolutely true, so I refined my point to be valid (which is shown in the history).
Then you committed the fallacy with your blathering.
I'm sure you will give up since the fallacies you're making are ridiculous and your nonsensical mind will not acknowledge it. Should I reference everything you said to prove it? Oh right, its all right here and visible in the history. No need.
We don't all 'know that', and much of it is because what you said is simply untrue. The potential in our world is infinite, your view is skewed and hypercynical so your opinion on probable outcomes is simply junk.
It always struck me as a little weird that major competitors should have a seat on the board.
It would be like Microsoft having a board seat at Apple. Or Google at Microsoft. It just doesn't happen.
What made eBay and Craigslist different? Or think they were different?
How else are they supposed to get away with collusion and evade anti-trust laws?
check out www.theyrule.net and see just how interconnected various companies really are. (and then implicitly the impact on free markets and fair business practice)
... and though most of us won't want it, most of us won't really do or say anything until our friends, family, and selves, are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.
Like the opinion machine on TV is gonna spin it any other way than 'we need it, you just don't know it'.
Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other;
It's the people with the largest piles of money - their best strategy to divert attacks on those piles is to have all potential attackers fighting amongst themselves.
It is illogical to ask someone to prove a negative. I've already told you this, but you maintain your irrational request.
My 'belief system' is based on facts, which are positively evidenced, and thus rational. I cannot be, in logic, required to prove a negative.
And so I contend that for all known facts, god had nothing to do with this. You can keep making irrational demands of me, but it can't happen.
What I can say is that for lack of proof, there is no proof, and so to the best of our knowledge I am right. And you, without proof, keep demanding I provide proof of no proof. I have told you again and again that there is proof of no proof because there is no proof. You, without proof, contend that I must show proof of no proof. I say that because there is no proof, there is no proof.... Get it?
But what they don't know is that since there is no vehicle damage, you just go into the non-grassed corners at full speed and ride the wall!! SCORE!@!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow ... thanks for the complete non-response. Can you give an actual response or point to some place that does? I have yet to see it. I would like an explanation for the inconsistencies other than simply being told that I'm dumb.
If I knew who I was talking to, maybe I would feel compelled to care further. But until you decide to stop posting anonymously, I can hardly push a fart in your direction to provide a whiff of information -- for lack of knowing which direction I even need to send it.
It isn't an ad hominem. it is a criticism and a supportive suggestion. That is why I made the example of indicating questions about other focus-specific questions.
There is a time when a person needs to realize that they do not know what they are talking about and should either 1) take what is shown by those who do as good enough or 2) take part in the process by way of personal effort.
How many anti-AGW skeptics are going into sciences to learn and understand the actual field? Little to none.
I'm sure if I went into watching a surgical operation I might have many many questions... and if I did not heed my ignorance, I might have many many skeptical curiosities. But I have humility, I know what I do not know, and I don't pretend I am qualified beyond that.
Perhaps you should close your garage door, turn on your car, and hang out for a good 15-20 minutes.
Fyi, don't do that. I'll end up being investigated for causing you to die (because you are ignorant and gullible).
But... you might find some proof.
If you were a scientist with a relevant education in the field, you could answer all of those questions.
Why did the dentist use a UV light on your teeth? Why did the doctor's hammer have a rubber coating on it when he hit your knee? What are your brake pads made out of? Why?
There are lots of questions. But if you're not going to try to answer them the right way, by finding out on your own, you're just another Troll (aka Glenn Beck).
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You said 'whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas', as if it isn't well understood by now. It is. CO2 is dense relative to other gasses in our atmosphere and it has a property of retaining heat. This is basic chemistry you're attempting to trivialize with questions that already have answers.
Relevance
Implications
Weight
Related-Information
Significance
It's not all numbers
You are so full of false assumptions you smell like manure.
B.S., and no I'm not saying you've got a bachelor's of science. lol.
I'm just having a good time watching you eat sour lemons all day for sheer lack of appreciation.
Life sucks huh?! Its so horrible!
Like I said, your prejudice is ridiculous, and thats why you're such a clown. The game mechanics in U2 are amazing. You'd never know, though.. You're still waiting for them to make it 2d and require the pressing of one button and down to keep it slow enough for you.
I'm 28. Kid, no. Been gaming over 20 years. I've tried it all and, unlike you, i've found a way to appreciate great things. Should I start judging you based on your lack of appreciation? Should I start assuming you've got a trust fund and have never worked for anything?
Bye coward. Your life sucks because your eyes make it that way.
Money is the goal. What else should we expect? Our culture embraces and promotes this kind of behaviour.
When we someday realize that each other are much more valuable than materials and control, maybe we can expect better things of our society.
I'm not on crack. I gave the games a try instead of sitting back and prejudging everything for 10 years and assuming they're all junk.
It's too bad you've let your prejucides keep you away from fun. Your own fault, I guess.
If you think tetris can even hold a fart to flame in comparison to Uncharted 2, you've either got a tetris tattoo or you've got one extra chromosome.
Either way, you're an anonymous coward. Good luck with that.
is 860M more or less than the excess profits taken by collusion on a worldwide sales scale, for 6 years.
I have a feeling they think it was worth it. This is why business will always risk it. We don't take whats really due. All of it.
A single competent developer can easily turn even something as old as the original *QW* engine into something that is technically on par with anything currently available....
If this were true, I would think most developers would do so with the freely available older engines. That isnt' the case. Companies like Epic sell their Unreal Engine to many companies. If it were so simple, people wouldn't need to buy.
Or maybe my facts aren't perfect in that assumption. I'm just a speculating gamer. Tell me something about this biz. :)
dude... big entertainment (yes, these GREAT big games, like GTA, Gears of War, Modern Warfare, Uncharted, etc.... They take millions of dollars to develop. GTA 4 cost TONS and was worth every penny.
They gotta be driven by profits, and people gladly pay for good games. Its not something that really *needs* to be done for free. People love games like they love everything else they do a lot of in life. You like to skate, you buy skateboard and wheels n stuff. YOu like to rock climb, you get into it, you buy the gear and spend money going places that are nice for it. You get into some solid new games and, well, why not pay for it!
I'm not saying its not a great option to have or for people to do. I'm just saying that we all pay gladly, and aside from early buyers being kinda treated like beta testers on many games, we're pretty happy! Games are REALLY good now. They are a little too easy, but still VERY good. I'm in movies now man. That's what its like. I'm in a van damme movie. I'm all hero.
Its nuts. Games are worth every penny. Artists earn it hardcore. The coders make stuff happen thats never been done in software before. They make visual fx that are amazing.. the whole industry drives shader standards and gfx processor development needs... even when many are pirating some games, it doesn't matter really. The great companies that invest a lot end up taking the cake so long as its not wasted on jets and CEO bonus. I don't even know if that kinda stuff happens in the game industry. I'd guess the good companies are just playing smart.
All hail iD, Epic, EA (yeah, i hate ot say it), Infinity Ward, Nintendo, capcom, acclaim, sony, naughty dog. etc etc etc. Thank you!
... I'm always curious why the open source FPS games look like they are about 7 or 8 years behind the closed-source industry.
Its like they're not even trying to compete. Go to the Game Developers Conference, guys... Take some notes... See what the top devs are doing in the future and start doing that NOW. Then you'll catch the wave at the right point.
open source FPS always catch my attention long enough to notice this consistent failure to get with the times.
True, but social behaviour can - and does - change over time. It is, demonstrably, useful to fight for less-unjust patterns of behaviour - if you've identified one. Is life fair? Obviously not. Can it be made less-unfair, with effort? Yes.
try harder, i'm not getting it
lol.
1. This isn't the role of government.
I'd normally be the first to agree, but isn't a large portion of malware used for criminal activity? Identity theft, botnets that engage in DDoS extortion attempts, spam relays, phishing, etc, etc. It seems to me that law enforcement (i.e: government) has a legitimate interest in reducing the number of malware infections that are out there.
Of course, a call center filled with follow the script support drones probably isn't the best way to go about doing that.......
I would support the (what is likely not very costly in respect to other programs) spending of money on this kind of service to my countrymen. Rather I would prefer this kind of spending over other extremely tax-parasitic spending programs aimed at 'defending' us that cost us trillions here in the US.
Yeah, a 200 billion dollar bill to design a new fighter jet (on slashdot a few months ago), is a little excessive when 1) Our current jets and weapons are frikkin amazing and 2) people are all in a hissy about 700bn in an 'economic revival' spending plan.
Umm.... 200/700 = nearly 29%. I think the people here in the US would have been excited to know that a large chunk of the economic revival plan could be fixed by simply cutting one defense spending program. One.
Our KDR is now >>> 1:100. I think we're pretty badass, and as a vet, I *know* we are badass already.
I told you that "As best as we know, god had nothing to do with this". At first I said "god had nothing to do with this", but in that I was not absolutely true, so I refined my point to be valid (which is shown in the history).
Then you committed the fallacy with your blathering.
I'm sure you will give up since the fallacies you're making are ridiculous and your nonsensical mind will not acknowledge it. Should I reference everything you said to prove it? Oh right, its all right here and visible in the history. No need.
We don't all 'know that', and much of it is because what you said is simply untrue. The potential in our world is infinite, your view is skewed and hypercynical so your opinion on probable outcomes is simply junk.
It always struck me as a little weird that major competitors should have a seat on the board.
It would be like Microsoft having a board seat at Apple. Or Google at Microsoft. It just doesn't happen.
What made eBay and Craigslist different? Or think they were different?
How else are they supposed to get away with collusion and evade anti-trust laws?
check out www.theyrule.net and see just how interconnected various companies really are. (and then implicitly the impact on free markets and fair business practice)
... and though most of us won't want it, most of us won't really do or say anything until our friends, family, and selves, are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.
Like the opinion machine on TV is gonna spin it any other way than 'we need it, you just don't know it'.
It's the people with the largest piles of money - their best strategy to divert attacks on those piles is to have all potential attackers fighting amongst themselves.
That makes too much sense. :)
I like you.
read my other reply, but here is a link to a definition of the fallacy you are making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It is illogical to ask someone to prove a negative. I've already told you this, but you maintain your irrational request.
My 'belief system' is based on facts, which are positively evidenced, and thus rational. I cannot be, in logic, required to prove a negative.
And so I contend that for all known facts, god had nothing to do with this. You can keep making irrational demands of me, but it can't happen.
What I can say is that for lack of proof, there is no proof, and so to the best of our knowledge I am right. And you, without proof, keep demanding I provide proof of no proof. I have told you again and again that there is proof of no proof because there is no proof. You, without proof, contend that I must show proof of no proof. I say that because there is no proof, there is no proof. ... Get it?
Did you miss logic in college?
Probably true, and GT5:P is pretty legit.
But what they don't know is that since there is no vehicle damage, you just go into the non-grassed corners at full speed and ride the wall!! SCORE!@!!!!
Do THAT in real life!
No they use ArmA2 for training
Yeah, go ahead and just make crap up. It seems right, huh?
pffft...
As a veteran, I lmfao all day when people think we train with video games.
You don't know what you are talking about and you know it.