Just to clarify my personal view here...I'm not afraid of vehicles fire in an EV, I'm afraid of how public opinion of EV's might unfairly change after one well-publicized EV fire.
Seriously! That's about the one of the most closed-minded, stupidest ideas around these days. So it's not acceptable for me to jerk off at some piece of animated porn anymore because I'm an adult now. It doesn't fit with the "rules of society".
Excuse me? Where did I even suggest that it was wrong to do any of that?
Please. That's almost as closed-minded as the bastards who despise gay marriages. Let everyone have their sexual preferences, let anyone jerk off at whatever they want. Heck, if you want to jerk off while reading math equations, by all means do so. That doesn't make you any weirder, or any less of a "man" or "person".
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say ANYTHING about jerking off? WHere did I even say that I wanted to prevent anyone from doing anything at all? *Someone* is just a little oversensitive about their fetish!
You're either lying or neutered. Preferring to look at beautiful/handsome examples of the opposite sex is wired into the human brain. Jessica Alba (and, for that matter, Chris Evans) sure as hell weren't in Fantastic Four for their acting abilities.
They're also real people. I'm not lying or neutered. I just don't drool over drawings or 3D models of the opposite sex... certainly not the 10 polygon asses in WoW. Besides, there are so many more interesting reasons to pick a particular character/gender in any role playing game worth playing. Which real life gender I prefer to look at never even enters the equation. Maybe it will in the future as avatars get more photorealistic, I dunno.
You should also understand that it's possible to engage in conversation without being condescending or using straw men. "Prefer to look at" != "have a sexual fixation on."
I'd say that if your choice in avatar comes down to looking at a "butt," there is probably some sexual fixation involved. Fantasy characters in general tend to be rather sexualized.
Would it help the condescension factor if I admitted to engaging in juvenile behavior myself from time to time? I don't really have a problem with it, per se, I just think it is important to acknowledge that choosing an avatar so that you can look at a 3D model of of a female's ass for 8 hours is rather juvenile. If you think that is perfectly mature, adult behavior, I don't know know what else to say other than I'm sorry that you feel condescended to.
A different form of "affection" than was being hinted at before.
AFAIK, "affection" wasn't used and it does have specific connotations. Affect, on the other hand, is a generic term which refers to any emotional response. And being visually stimulated to enjoyment certainly qualifies.
How is playing as a different gender (or race or hair color) not part of role playing?
The question is, are you really playing a female character or just playing a male with a female avatar? Certainly there are more interesting or practical reasons to play a female than simply because you like to look at 3D models of females. I know that is the easy, most socially acceptable reason, but it is kinda lame.
I wish to see things that I like seeing. That's why I buy playboy and not playgirl, have a girlfriend and not a boyfriend and have a female avatar and not a male one.
This has a few interesting possible implications. First, by comparing having a female avatar as a preference to having a girlfriend as a preference, you are saying that you are sexually attracted to your avatar. Or at least it elicits sexual desire in some way. And that having a male avatar threatens your sexuality as would having a boyfriend. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it?
What is juvenile about that?
It is a friekin' 3D model/avatar, not a real female, that's what juvenile about it. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being juvenile every now and then, but one should at least acknowledge it.
Jeebus save us! What part of "prefer to look at women's butts" don't you understand?!?!?
I understand that it is a really juvenile reason to pick a computer animated avatar. I dunno about you, but I stopped drooling over animated/drawn characters (or even prefering to look at one gender versus the other) somewhere around 14 years old.
Zxeses did by saying, "I play a female because I'm/not/ deviant and because I'm not a gay man." As if playing a male and looking at a male avatar would make you gay or mean that you were gay.
I'm sure that holds true for the person you replied to as well.
Maybe, but that isn't what he said.
Or do you call it "insecurity" when I check out the gals and not the guys when I visit the local bar?
Only if you note that you feel gay when you look at another male and make a conscious effort to not look at them. Yeah, I'd call that insecure.
Amen. Everyone thinks I'm weird when I play mostly female characters in games. Well, hell....look at the trailing camera view. Why would I wanna spend all of my gaming time staring at some dude's ass?
Because, presumably, you're role playing as a male character. And because it is just a 3D model. And because staring at some dude's ass shouldn't be a issue for anyone secure in their sexuality.
Very well said. I don't want to spend 8 hours a day starring at some MALE avatars butt. To each his own, but I play a female because I'm/not/ deviant and because I'm not a gay man.
How insecure do you have to be to have your sexuality threated by a male avatar in a freaking ROLE PLAYING game? You're either gay or you aren't. Looking at a male avatar doesn't make you gay.
When I first explained this to my friends, and they realized they have spent days upon days looking at a male characters butt, they switched as well.
Are all your friends 14 years old?
I've heard some good practical reason to play as a woman (free shit from other players, for example), but feeling insecure about looking at a male avatar? WTF?
If I am playing a MMORPG, I am going to be spending a lot of time looking at my avatar. Why can't my avatar be something I like looking at?
I dunno, maybe because role playing goes beyond the visual appeal of your avatar? Presumably, if you are role playing (the RP in MMORPG), you would base the gender of the avatar on the character you were role playing.
Don't get me wrong, it is fine if you aren't really into role playing. Not everyone gets into that... even in role playing games. I'm just wondering if you feel you are role playing when really you're just picking a character that is most visually appealing.
IMO, it would be better if you actually liked to role play as a woman. Picking an female avatar based on visual appeal is somewhat juvenile.
One doesn't necessarily have to be a (gaming) geek to play an online game. I'd even hesitate to call your average WoW player a gaming geek... no matter how many hours a week s/he might spend at it. IMO, a gaming geek is really into many games (and the associated hardware), not just one specific game.
Also, I should point out that IF we find that there are 80% or more men in a game that bans men playing as women, we should consider that maybe the registration requirements alienated real women by making registration a hassle causing them to a) find another MMORPG or b) play as men. Really, it is a stupid move. Just let people role play however they want. I presume the motivation behind this banning is men tired of flirting with women that turn out to be men. Maybe it is time for guys to learn that anonymity is not an excuse to flirt with anyone that claims to be a woman.
The satirical news quiz "Have I got news for you" get away with saying things which may or may not be provable on a regular basis by means of the word "allegedly". As in: "Mr. X spent all night having sex with his secretary. Allegedly."
Are you sure it is the use of the word "allegedly" or that the source is well known for satire? I don't know about the UK, but in the US satire is protected speech even if you don't use words like "allegedly" or "in my opinion." Of course, the satiracal nature of the source has to be pre-established, AFAIK.
Second Life was big because it had potential that was killed by trolls and the ability to change the world too much. If google can make a good version, it's possible that it'll succeed and be something worth looking at. Not likely, but possible.
According to the article, the goal is not to rival 2nd Life in any of its fantasy/moneymaking aspects. I guess they want to tie to the "real world" in the form of Google Earth. So you won't be creating or doing much of anything. Overall, it sounds pretty darn pointless and boring.
Two words: Transcoding DVDs. I don't think it is really too uncommon to want to convert DVDs to a smaller, more storable format. iPod video, anyone? A dual core processor can really help. I would agree that *many* people could get away comfortably with a pentium 300, but certainly not 95.5%.
The subtract from that anyone that might want to play a non-trivial game. I'm not talking about hardcore gamers either. Just anyone who wants to play a modern game every once in a while. My mom, for example, was really into Myst years ago.
Heck, WoW players alone would include a pretty sizable chunk of users. Can't play that on a 300Mhz pentium.
The key point is that if you buy solar today and it works at a basically fixed cost for 25 years, you will probably be paying 1/3 the price for power at that point.
I think you'd be hard pressed to get a solar setup that will run for 25 years with little or not maintenence. Batteries, if nothing else, would need regular replacement. And I doubt you coudl get 25 good years out of any solar panel.
Of course, to be fair, you also have to ask if you put $50,000 in the bank now, would it be $150k in 20 years? And it probably would be.
But according to your made up rate of inflation, $150k will only be worth $50k of today's money in 20 years. So you wouldn't actually earn anything.:)
And then there is the interest you're paying on the loan (part of your mortgage?)...
As I understand the problem - the outside temp is so low that the refrigerant cannot reclaim any heat from it at those temps yes?
Correct, heat pumps do not work well in extreme climates. I wasn't saying that it is a perfect technology, just that it can be more efficient than simply burning fuel. Either way, electricity is AT LEAST as efficient at generating heat as anything else. The problem is the cost per Joule. Using electricity for heat, while efficent, is not necessarily economical.
I've got a 2 zone system with gas downstairs and heat pump upstairs. I was pretty apprehensive about the heat pump having had nightmare experiences growing up where the damned things just never put out HEAT. I'll grant that we do not get super cold in my area, NOVA, but so far this new system is working out pretty well. Super insulating the upstairs (spray foam everywhere, Tyvek, rigid foil covered foam boards etc.) has helped I'm sure as does having gas heat rising from downstairs. The new heatpumps certainly seem much better, just glad I'm not 100% reliant on one though:-)
Have you ever considered using one of those setups where you draw heat from the ground? It is expensive to get the pipes deep enough, but it is much more consistent than using the outside air. Pump the ground full of heat in the summer and take it back during the winter.
in about 80 years, we could reasonably expect the price of electricity to be 3x3x3x3 (81 timex) as expensive as today.
That is not a reasonable extrapolation. Certainly there are practical limits on how expensive electricity can get. Your average person simply coudl not afford electricity at 80x the cost. Especially if we assume that fuels such as natural gas will also be more expensive... if not prohibitively so.
Basic inflation.. and not as scary as it seems since our wages will be close to correspondingly higher.
Well, if you're just talking about inflation, then it is a moot point.
Not to quibble, but electricity isn't most inefficient in terms of energy usage. It is just a more expensive form of energy (MUCH more expensive, Joule for Joule). For heating it can often be most efficient. With an electric heat pump you can get more energy into your house than you use in electricity. When burning a fuel, you can never get more heat into your house than you burn in fuel. Unless, perhaps, you were to devise some sort of steam powered heat pump. In which case you'd get the heat from burning the fuel PLUS the heat extracted from the outside air or ground.
Since this may seem implausible consider this. The world is on track to double its energy consumption by 2040.
But "energy" in what form? I bet a good portion of that increase will be used for automobies in developing countires in the form of fossil fuels... at least initially. So what does it mean for developed countries with established patterns of energy use and stable populations?
To reach that point in a linear fashion--not geometric one--would mean bringing on line three gigawatt class power plants every day from now until then. Right now the figure is about 10 GW plants per year because we are in early long tails of that geometric growth curve.
This would only be true if electricity were the only form of energy consumed. It is not.
About now your jaw should be dropping as you ponder the implications.
Nah, i'm still stuck on your lack of consideration of the different possible forms of energy and WHO exactly who will be consuming it... and for what.
Thus what has to happen, other than permanent blackouts in most of the world and carbon poisoning of the planet, is that the growth rate must be stifled. And that is going to happen when the price of electricity hits ~$10/KW-hour and all then people will economize and buy energy saving appliances.
$10/kW-hour!? How in the world do you predict a hundred fold increase in the cost of electricity?
Of and by the way, note that the plant for solars cells will produce 200MW/year. That's a drop in the GW/day bucket.
Perhaps, but it is good enough to power small towns/villages.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, the public has a short memory.
Well, i don't think it is necessary to elevate the viewing of a female avatars in an MMORPG to the level of porno, but OK.
Excuse me? Where did I even suggest that it was wrong to do any of that?
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say ANYTHING about jerking off? WHere did I even say that I wanted to prevent anyone from doing anything at all? *Someone* is just a little oversensitive about their fetish!
You've heard the joke about the engineer and the talking frog, right?
They're also real people. I'm not lying or neutered. I just don't drool over drawings or 3D models of the opposite sex... certainly not the 10 polygon asses in WoW. Besides, there are so many more interesting reasons to pick a particular character/gender in any role playing game worth playing. Which real life gender I prefer to look at never even enters the equation. Maybe it will in the future as avatars get more photorealistic, I dunno.
I'd say that if your choice in avatar comes down to looking at a "butt," there is probably some sexual fixation involved. Fantasy characters in general tend to be rather sexualized.
Would it help the condescension factor if I admitted to engaging in juvenile behavior myself from time to time? I don't really have a problem with it, per se, I just think it is important to acknowledge that choosing an avatar so that you can look at a 3D model of of a female's ass for 8 hours is rather juvenile. If you think that is perfectly mature, adult behavior, I don't know know what else to say other than I'm sorry that you feel condescended to.
I have no idea where you were going wit that and it is really fucked up. You may want to seek some counseling.
AFAIK, "affection" wasn't used and it does have specific connotations. Affect, on the other hand, is a generic term which refers to any emotional response. And being visually stimulated to enjoyment certainly qualifies.
The question is, are you really playing a female character or just playing a male with a female avatar? Certainly there are more interesting or practical reasons to play a female than simply because you like to look at 3D models of females. I know that is the easy, most socially acceptable reason, but it is kinda lame.
This has a few interesting possible implications. First, by comparing having a female avatar as a preference to having a girlfriend as a preference, you are saying that you are sexually attracted to your avatar. Or at least it elicits sexual desire in some way. And that having a male avatar threatens your sexuality as would having a boyfriend. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it?
It is a friekin' 3D model/avatar, not a real female, that's what juvenile about it. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being juvenile every now and then, but one should at least acknowledge it.
I understand that it is a really juvenile reason to pick a computer animated avatar. I dunno about you, but I stopped drooling over animated/drawn characters (or even prefering to look at one gender versus the other) somewhere around 14 years old.
Zxeses did by saying, "I play a female because I'm
Maybe, but that isn't what he said.
Only if you note that you feel gay when you look at another male and make a conscious effort to not look at them. Yeah, I'd call that insecure.
-matthew
A table-top RP snob? ;)
Because, presumably, you're role playing as a male character. And because it is just a 3D model. And because staring at some dude's ass shouldn't be a issue for anyone secure in their sexuality.
What do you think affect is? Enjoying something *is* being affected.
The question is, why aren't you role playing in a role playing game?
-matthew
How insecure do you have to be to have your sexuality threated by a male avatar in a freaking ROLE PLAYING game? You're either gay or you aren't. Looking at a male avatar doesn't make you gay.
Are all your friends 14 years old?
I've heard some good practical reason to play as a woman (free shit from other players, for example), but feeling insecure about looking at a male avatar? WTF?
-matthew
I dunno, maybe because role playing goes beyond the visual appeal of your avatar? Presumably, if you are role playing (the RP in MMORPG), you would base the gender of the avatar on the character you were role playing.
Don't get me wrong, it is fine if you aren't really into role playing. Not everyone gets into that... even in role playing games. I'm just wondering if you feel you are role playing when really you're just picking a character that is most visually appealing.
IMO, it would be better if you actually liked to role play as a woman. Picking an female avatar based on visual appeal is somewhat juvenile.
-matthew
One doesn't necessarily have to be a (gaming) geek to play an online game. I'd even hesitate to call your average WoW player a gaming geek... no matter how many hours a week s/he might spend at it. IMO, a gaming geek is really into many games (and the associated hardware), not just one specific game.
Also, I should point out that IF we find that there are 80% or more men in a game that bans men playing as women, we should consider that maybe the registration requirements alienated real women by making registration a hassle causing them to a) find another MMORPG or b) play as men. Really, it is a stupid move. Just let people role play however they want. I presume the motivation behind this banning is men tired of flirting with women that turn out to be men. Maybe it is time for guys to learn that anonymity is not an excuse to flirt with anyone that claims to be a woman.
-matthew
Are you sure it is the use of the word "allegedly" or that the source is well known for satire? I don't know about the UK, but in the US satire is protected speech even if you don't use words like "allegedly" or "in my opinion." Of course, the satiracal nature of the source has to be pre-established, AFAIK.
According to the article, the goal is not to rival 2nd Life in any of its fantasy/moneymaking aspects. I guess they want to tie to the "real world" in the form of Google Earth. So you won't be creating or doing much of anything. Overall, it sounds pretty darn pointless and boring.
-matthew
Two words: Transcoding DVDs. I don't think it is really too uncommon to want to convert DVDs to a smaller, more storable format. iPod video, anyone? A dual core processor can really help. I would agree that *many* people could get away comfortably with a pentium 300, but certainly not 95.5%.
The subtract from that anyone that might want to play a non-trivial game. I'm not talking about hardcore gamers either. Just anyone who wants to play a modern game every once in a while. My mom, for example, was really into Myst years ago.
Heck, WoW players alone would include a pretty sizable chunk of users. Can't play that on a 300Mhz pentium.
-matthew
I think you'd be hard pressed to get a solar setup that will run for 25 years with little or not maintenence. Batteries, if nothing else, would need regular replacement. And I doubt you coudl get 25 good years out of any solar panel.
But according to your made up rate of inflation, $150k will only be worth $50k of today's money in 20 years. So you wouldn't actually earn anything.
And then there is the interest you're paying on the loan (part of your mortgage?)...
-matthew
Correct, heat pumps do not work well in extreme climates. I wasn't saying that it is a perfect technology, just that it can be more efficient than simply burning fuel. Either way, electricity is AT LEAST as efficient at generating heat as anything else. The problem is the cost per Joule. Using electricity for heat, while efficent, is not necessarily economical.
Have you ever considered using one of those setups where you draw heat from the ground? It is expensive to get the pipes deep enough, but it is much more consistent than using the outside air. Pump the ground full of heat in the summer and take it back during the winter.
-matthew
-matthew
That is not a reasonable extrapolation. Certainly there are practical limits on how expensive electricity can get. Your average person simply coudl not afford electricity at 80x the cost. Especially if we assume that fuels such as natural gas will also be more expensive... if not prohibitively so.
Well, if you're just talking about inflation, then it is a moot point.
-matthew
Not to quibble, but electricity isn't most inefficient in terms of energy usage. It is just a more expensive form of energy (MUCH more expensive, Joule for Joule). For heating it can often be most efficient. With an electric heat pump you can get more energy into your house than you use in electricity. When burning a fuel, you can never get more heat into your house than you burn in fuel. Unless, perhaps, you were to devise some sort of steam powered heat pump. In which case you'd get the heat from burning the fuel PLUS the heat extracted from the outside air or ground.
But "energy" in what form? I bet a good portion of that increase will be used for automobies in developing countires in the form of fossil fuels... at least initially. So what does it mean for developed countries with established patterns of energy use and stable populations?
This would only be true if electricity were the only form of energy consumed. It is not.
Nah, i'm still stuck on your lack of consideration of the different possible forms of energy and WHO exactly who will be consuming it... and for what.
$10/kW-hour!? How in the world do you predict a hundred fold increase in the cost of electricity?
Perhaps, but it is good enough to power small towns/villages.
-matthew