"for an impressive example of stylesheets, java, and scripting, check out www.klat.com"
Sorry, not impressed. The chat thing just cleared the chat history and forgot my nickname when I tried to send anything, then it crashed the JVM when I closed the page. (I am using Mozilla)
You make some very good points about bias and motives, but your central line of reasoning that MS probably doesn't care or know that Opera handles MSN differently is bogus.
You're spinning it like MSN is simply unaware that Opera handles their site any differently. But... their site SPECIFICALLY CHECKS for the "Opera" string in the browser and gives it different files! Obviously someone there designed this mechanism, and they would certainly have Opera installed. You can't say "how would they know about this?"... someone there DESIGNED it this way. Why? Well, that's inconclusive. But they can't claim ignorance on this one. This didn't "just happen" through carelessness. This took deliberate steps on someone's part.
And changing the margin from 23 to -30 is not a typo, nor is delivering a larger size page with less content.
They specifically designed their web site to send a different style sheet, (and '30' is not a typo.. '33' or '34' or something I'd believe) AND a larger page with less content, JUST to Opera. That seems pretty far from "an honest typo". This is MSN's HOME PAGE. You don't think they know what it looks like in different browsers? I work at a 4 person company, and we know what all our websites look like in IE, Moz/Netscape, and Opera. Furthermore, they have a motive to make it look better in IE, and they've shown in the past OVER and OVER that these kinds of underhanded tactics are their bread and butter. Someone at MS knew about this, and also knew it could never be proven in court.
By the way, the full quotation is:
"Never ascribe to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence" - Napolean Bonaparte.
I think one of Microsoft's new unwritten policies is "When accused of malice, always hide behind incompetence".
"No no... we'd love to, but we simply CAN'T remove IE from Windows." Sound familiar?
Heh.. not with me though. Actually I'm not a big Farscape fan, only seen maybe a few episodes and I don't really get the big deal... I like B5 way better, and Firefly when it was on. I have seen one or two episodes that were really good though, which hinted at a more interesting, larger storyline. The acting and characters seem pretty interesting at least.
It seems to have such a huge following who swear by its originality though, so I thought I'd at least mention it.
Maybe because we've now been exposed to truly exceptional television sci-fi, like B5 and Farscape, the same old recycled cliched Trek plots just seem so vacant and derivative.
I know you're just kidding (well, sorta anyway.. one person's funny is another's flamebait;).. but seriously, what better place to get a large, moderated sample of opinions from Star Trek's target demo?
It's basically a fantasy film (in space), and they released it amidst far superior genre competition: Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, not to mention lots of other late year Oscar candidates. They should've picked a deader time of year to release it.
"first off, your a knee jerking moron looking for an excuse to smoke pot."
Well, I'm not going to descend to your level, but I will say this: I don't NEED an "excuse" to smoke pot. I enjoy it, that's all. It has no noticeable adverse effects on my health, in stark contrast to cigarettes, which I quit a number of years ago. Furthermore, this discussion really has nothing to do with my own personal choices, although I'm sure you will tell yourself I am completely biased and unreliable, despite all the objective studies and research I have made direct reference to.
The other reply already answered your points on legality and usefulness pretty thoroughly, so I won't go there. The point is, hemp cultivation is suppressed by the United States. The evidence is everywhere, if you do some objective research instead of just attacking people's positions because you don't like what they say.
"You can certianly create a car that would operate that way, but if you dump a gallon of the stuff in your ordinary car, ity will not work. Do you kow anything about agriculture? how many acres would a person need to get the 10 gallons a week they need to get to work?"
*Sigh...* You're either not very good at abstract reasoning, or you're being deliberately dense. I never said a gasoline engine would run on the stuff, nor did I claim that running a car on what you could produce in your backyard would be feasible. You're interpreting what I say very narrowly. All I was saying is this: Hemp is a renewable fuel source that anyone can grow very easily. Large scale domestic cultivation could provide for all or most of our energy needs, and totally reduce air pollution and dependance on foreign oil. Most non-toxic, environmentally friendly products made with hemp back in the 30's (like paint and varnish) have since been replaced by toxic oil based products. We're literally choking our planet in the name of industrial profit.
"less harm full does not = harmless."
Never said it was harmless. Just about everything can be abused. But alcohol, which is far worse than marijuana, required a constitutional amendment to be prohibited. Why? Because, constitutionally speaking, it's not the government's place to dictate what we are allowed to do with our bodies in private, as long as we're not violating someone else's rights. Land of the free, remember? Or do you want a future like the one in "Demolition Man", where everything bad for you, from salt to "fluid transfer", is illegal?
"People smoke far less pot than cigarettes" "perhaps because it is illegal?"
I wasn't talking about overall usage, I was talking about individual usage. You think a pot smoker sitting in his basement bases his intake level on its legality? "Oh.. I want another joint, but I better not, because it's against the law!" I think not. People smoke less pot than tobacco because the effects of pot last longer than a cigarette, and it's not physically addictive. Sometimes when I am out of town, I go without pot for weeks, and barely even notice. No cravings.
But, since you brought it up, let's talk about overall usage and legality. Marijuana consumption in Holland has decreased 40% since it was legalized in 1976. Consumption in every single state that has decriminalized it has decreased. This argument was over a long time ago.. the facts are easy to find, here's one reference.
"but it is addictive all the same, very powerfully addictive."
EVERYTHING enjoyable can be addictive. Video games. Sex. Chocolate. Coding. We going to outlaw everything that makes you want to do it again? Or are we going to encourage moderation, and responsible usage? As for how marijuana compares to other substances, go here, and check out the charts at the very bottom of the page. Marijuana is at or next to the bottom of every scale, even below caffeine.
Criminalizing it just drives it underground, makes it harder for us to spot people who DO have a real problem, that need help. (There will always be a certain percentage of abusers, just like alcohol. Do we help these people, like AA, or throw them in prison and destroy their life even further?) And statistically (see above), criminalization tends to INCREASE usage.
"well that shows how bad cigerattes are, not how good Pot is."
It DOES show how good pot is, RELATIVE to cigarettes. What do you think comparisons are for?
"you seem to think if it was legal, it would threaten the big companies out of some profit, when in fact, the tobacco industry would make a ton of cash"
Who the hell is talking about tobacco companies? You keep trying to turn this into a smoking issue. This is mainly about oil/petrochemicals, timber, and fibres such as cotton. These commodities would be seriously devalued if a cheaper, superior alternative (hemp) developed into a major industry. But when this was poised to happen in the 30's (because a machine to automate hemp processing was invented), the oil and timber players saw an opportunity to sabotage the hemp industry before it even got started... through media hype, bribery-- er I meant special interest contributions, a biased committee, the false promise that industrial hemp cultivation would not be affected by a "tax act" on marijuana, and not a shred of scientific medical evidence whatsoever.
"New study shows that pot has 4xs the carcenogens of cigarettes"
What study? Do you have a reference? Some medical journal perhaps, that describes the testing methodology? Other posters in this thread have already provided plenty of references to material that refutes your claim. You can't just declare otherwise and expect us to take your word over documented, published medical research. You can't even spell rebuttal, for fuck's sake. (No, I'm not picking on your writing. I haven't even STARTED)
Hurrah... Bush is gonna throw 1.2 billion at hydrogen vehicles. I do applaud that (although it's a drop in the pond next to what they spend on hemp prohibition), but it doesn't erase history. The American government and media has still been supressing the truth about pot for a long, long time. They've been extremely successful at spreading misinformation. You're living proof.
"If Hemp is such a wonderful product then why don't the paper industries import it?"
BECAUSE THEY CAN CHARGE MORE FOR WOOD PULP BY SUPRESSING HEMP. Same reason the oil companies don't want everyone producing hemp oil.
"Truely, if there was any real use, it would be put to use."
Oh, THERE'S a watertight argument. It's obviously bad, because if it were good, it would be everywhere. That's self-fulfilling, circular reasoning. Spare me your kindergarten logic, the world's political/economic landscape is a bit more complicated than that. I've tried explaining the reasons to you, but your mind is closed to them. And as for whether hemp has any "real use", Popular Mechanics seems to think it has some real uses... about 25,000 of them. (And that was back in 1938) Renewable fuel, fibre, paper, plastics.. it goes on and on.
"Common sense would tell you that, and judging by your comments--you have none."
Thank you for the compliment. Common sense (otherwise known as "herd-think") is an excuse not to reason things out for ourselves. Albert Einstein once defined common sense as "the collection of predjudices acquired by age eighteen".
Not quite sure I follow you... wouldn't eliminating "very expensive agencies", and vastly reducing the police force, and prison infrastructure, SAVE money?
The War on Drugs costs 40 billion dollars a year. I don't have a link to back this up, but IIRC, I read somewhere that marijuana convictions account for roughly half of that.
"American farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several million dollars, all because a machine has been invented...it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.
"Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability...and can be used to produce 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.
"The natural materials in Hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose (plastic) products our chemists have developed.
"All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home-grown Hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms...all of this income can be made available to Americans."
"The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry, it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that, eighty percent is imported. But Hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to Hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average (timber) pulp land.
"The connection of Hemp as a crop and Marijuana seems to be exaggerated. If federal regulations can be drawn to protect the public without preventing the legitimate culture of Hemp, this crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry."
Boy are you clueless. Go back to the 1930's and get a job with William Randolph Hearst, he's got some tabloid articles for you to write.
You know why pot is really illegal? It's because HEMP threatens the profits of the industrialists. You can make any grade of paper with it. It's the toughest natural fibre aside from spider silk. You can run a car on hemp oil. People could be growing gas in their backyards. Can't have that! Dubya's family has been heavily into oil for decades. Step up the War on Drugs! No conflict of interest here, move along.
In 1937, when marijuana was banned, the American Medical Association OPPOSED it. They had been prescribing it safely for over a hundred years.
Everyscientificstudy of marijuana has concluded that it is substantially less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. Very recently, a senate committee here in Canada which studied it in depth, recommended unanimously to the government that pot is far less dangerous than smoking and drinking, and should be regulated accordingly.
Perhaps, gram for gram, there are more carcinogens in marijuana than tobacco. So what? People smoke far less pot than cigarettes, because pot is not chemically addictive. I've been smoking pot regularly for about 8 years. You know how much I smoke now? A small pipe bowl when I get home from work, and maybe a shared joint when my roommate gets home. Now compare that to a smoker who measures their habit in packs per day, and is only getting worse.
"There is why pot is illegial [...] I can tell by your wording that you are a pothead"
I can tell by your wording that you make the average pothead look pretty bright.
Well, taking a quick glance at BestBuy.com, you can get a 120GB hard drive for $190. That works out to about 3.8 GB per $6. How much do those tapes hold?
"With a game that's taken a very long time to develop, I would assume it was a very complicated game to make"
Or you could assume it's taking a long time because they're putting it through rigorous QA. Neither is really founded in fact. In this case, I think it's both. (Complicated, and rigorously tested)
Actually, it is first place for the letters "MOO". The first one listed is actually for M followed by an infinity symbol, not a pair of O's. (Marathon Infinity)
Um, no. Gold means (and has always meant) they're finished development for the initial release, and it's ready for mass duplication, packaging, and distribution.
"It's pretty much a guaruntee that it will have at least one major bug, and many minor ones. [...] Especially with a game that has been in development a long time. That generally means they want to get it out as soon as every major feature is in, and don't have too much time for bug testing and the smaller things."
Your logic completely escapes me. How does longer overall development time equate to less time for bug testing? How does a very long development time mean they are putting it "out as soon as every major feature is in"?? Wouldn't that be something you'd expect from something with a SHORT development time?
The original Master of Orion came out about a decade ago, and has always been referred to as "MOO". It (along with the sequel) are probably the best selling turn based strategy games of all time.
MUDs were in their barest infancy back then, I don't think the Object Oriented sort even existed yet.
But anyway, who cares? Acronyms can stand for more than one thing. Unless you're the WWF. Nice shamless plug for your site though.
Slashdot Mirror
"for an impressive example of stylesheets, java, and scripting, check out www.klat.com"
Sorry, not impressed. The chat thing just cleared the chat history and forgot my nickname when I tried to send anything, then it crashed the JVM when I closed the page. (I am using Mozilla)
Dude, you just called the /. staff childish. I don't think you appreciate the full magnitude of what you've just done.
CowboyNeal is on his way to your house RIGHT NOW.
And he's hungry!!!
You make some very good points about bias and motives, but your central line of reasoning that MS probably doesn't care or know that Opera handles MSN differently is bogus.
You're spinning it like MSN is simply unaware that Opera handles their site any differently. But... their site SPECIFICALLY CHECKS for the "Opera" string in the browser and gives it different files! Obviously someone there designed this mechanism, and they would certainly have Opera installed. You can't say "how would they know about this?"... someone there DESIGNED it this way. Why? Well, that's inconclusive. But they can't claim ignorance on this one. This didn't "just happen" through carelessness. This took deliberate steps on someone's part.
And changing the margin from 23 to -30 is not a typo, nor is delivering a larger size page with less content.
They specifically designed their web site to send a different style sheet, (and '30' is not a typo.. '33' or '34' or something I'd believe) AND a larger page with less content, JUST to Opera. That seems pretty far from "an honest typo". This is MSN's HOME PAGE. You don't think they know what it looks like in different browsers? I work at a 4 person company, and we know what all our websites look like in IE, Moz/Netscape, and Opera. Furthermore, they have a motive to make it look better in IE, and they've shown in the past OVER and OVER that these kinds of underhanded tactics are their bread and butter. Someone at MS knew about this, and also knew it could never be proven in court.
By the way, the full quotation is:
"Never ascribe to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
- Napolean Bonaparte.
I think one of Microsoft's new unwritten policies is "When accused of malice, always hide behind incompetence".
"No no... we'd love to, but we simply CAN'T remove IE from Windows." Sound familiar?
Whoah! Them's fighting words!
Heh.. not with me though. Actually I'm not a big Farscape fan, only seen maybe a few episodes and I don't really get the big deal... I like B5 way better, and Firefly when it was on. I have seen one or two episodes that were really good though, which hinted at a more interesting, larger storyline. The acting and characters seem pretty interesting at least.
It seems to have such a huge following who swear by its originality though, so I thought I'd at least mention it.
Maybe because we've now been exposed to truly exceptional television sci-fi, like B5 and Farscape, the same old recycled cliched Trek plots just seem so vacant and derivative.
I know you're just kidding (well, sorta anyway.. one person's funny is another's flamebait ;).. but seriously, what better place to get a large, moderated sample of opinions from Star Trek's target demo?
It's basically a fantasy film (in space), and they released it amidst far superior genre competition: Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, not to mention lots of other late year Oscar candidates. They should've picked a deader time of year to release it.
"what is it about intelligence and the desire to blow things up?"
I think that's more of a male thing than an intelligence thing.
All you destructive women out there, feel free to violently disagree. And get it on camera, for fuck's sake.
"first off, your a knee jerking moron looking for an excuse to smoke pot."
Well, I'm not going to descend to your level, but I will say this: I don't NEED an "excuse" to smoke pot. I enjoy it, that's all. It has no noticeable adverse effects on my health, in stark contrast to cigarettes, which I quit a number of years ago. Furthermore, this discussion really has nothing to do with my own personal choices, although I'm sure you will tell yourself I am completely biased and unreliable, despite all the objective studies and research I have made direct reference to.
The other reply already answered your points on legality and usefulness pretty thoroughly, so I won't go there. The point is, hemp cultivation is suppressed by the United States. The evidence is everywhere, if you do some objective research instead of just attacking people's positions because you don't like what they say.
"You can certianly create a car that would operate that way, but if you dump a gallon of the stuff in your ordinary car, ity will not work. Do you kow anything about agriculture? how many acres would a person need to get the 10 gallons a week they need to get to work?"
*Sigh...* You're either not very good at abstract reasoning, or you're being deliberately dense. I never said a gasoline engine would run on the stuff, nor did I claim that running a car on what you could produce in your backyard would be feasible. You're interpreting what I say very narrowly. All I was saying is this: Hemp is a renewable fuel source that anyone can grow very easily. Large scale domestic cultivation could provide for all or most of our energy needs, and totally reduce air pollution and dependance on foreign oil. Most non-toxic, environmentally friendly products made with hemp back in the 30's (like paint and varnish) have since been replaced by toxic oil based products. We're literally choking our planet in the name of industrial profit.
"less harm full does not = harmless."
Never said it was harmless. Just about everything can be abused. But alcohol, which is far worse than marijuana, required a constitutional amendment to be prohibited. Why? Because, constitutionally speaking, it's not the government's place to dictate what we are allowed to do with our bodies in private, as long as we're not violating someone else's rights. Land of the free, remember? Or do you want a future like the one in "Demolition Man", where everything bad for you, from salt to "fluid transfer", is illegal?
"People smoke far less pot than cigarettes"
"perhaps because it is illegal?"
I wasn't talking about overall usage, I was talking about individual usage. You think a pot smoker sitting in his basement bases his intake level on its legality? "Oh.. I want another joint, but I better not, because it's against the law!" I think not. People smoke less pot than tobacco because the effects of pot last longer than a cigarette, and it's not physically addictive. Sometimes when I am out of town, I go without pot for weeks, and barely even notice. No cravings.
But, since you brought it up, let's talk about overall usage and legality. Marijuana consumption in Holland has decreased 40% since it was legalized in 1976. Consumption in every single state that has decriminalized it has decreased. This argument was over a long time ago.. the facts are easy to find, here's one reference.
"but it is addictive all the same, very powerfully addictive."
EVERYTHING enjoyable can be addictive. Video games. Sex. Chocolate. Coding. We going to outlaw everything that makes you want to do it again? Or are we going to encourage moderation, and responsible usage? As for how marijuana compares to other substances, go here, and check out the charts at the very bottom of the page. Marijuana is at or next to the bottom of every scale, even below caffeine.
Criminalizing it just drives it underground, makes it harder for us to spot people who DO have a real problem, that need help. (There will always be a certain percentage of abusers, just like alcohol. Do we help these people, like AA, or throw them in prison and destroy their life even further?) And statistically (see above), criminalization tends to INCREASE usage.
"well that shows how bad cigerattes are, not how good Pot is."
It DOES show how good pot is, RELATIVE to cigarettes. What do you think comparisons are for?
"you seem to think if it was legal, it would threaten the big companies out of some profit, when in fact, the tobacco industry would make a ton of cash"
Who the hell is talking about tobacco companies? You keep trying to turn this into a smoking issue. This is mainly about oil/petrochemicals, timber, and fibres such as cotton. These commodities would be seriously devalued if a cheaper, superior alternative (hemp) developed into a major industry. But when this was poised to happen in the 30's (because a machine to automate hemp processing was invented), the oil and timber players saw an opportunity to sabotage the hemp industry before it even got started... through media hype, bribery-- er I meant special interest contributions, a biased committee, the false promise that industrial hemp cultivation would not be affected by a "tax act" on marijuana, and not a shred of scientific medical evidence whatsoever.
"New study shows that pot has 4xs the carcenogens of cigarettes"
What study? Do you have a reference? Some medical journal perhaps, that describes the testing methodology? Other posters in this thread have already provided plenty of references to material that refutes your claim. You can't just declare otherwise and expect us to take your word over documented, published medical research. You can't even spell rebuttal, for fuck's sake. (No, I'm not picking on your writing. I haven't even STARTED)
Hurrah... Bush is gonna throw 1.2 billion at hydrogen vehicles. I do applaud that (although it's a drop in the pond next to what they spend on hemp prohibition), but it doesn't erase history. The American government and media has still been supressing the truth about pot for a long, long time. They've been extremely successful at spreading misinformation. You're living proof.
"If Hemp is such a wonderful product then why don't the paper industries import it?"
BECAUSE THEY CAN CHARGE MORE FOR WOOD PULP BY SUPRESSING HEMP. Same reason the oil companies don't want everyone producing hemp oil.
"Truely, if there was any real use, it would be put to use."
Oh, THERE'S a watertight argument. It's obviously bad, because if it were good, it would be everywhere. That's self-fulfilling, circular reasoning. Spare me your kindergarten logic, the world's political/economic landscape is a bit more complicated than that. I've tried explaining the reasons to you, but your mind is closed to them. And as for whether hemp has any "real use", Popular Mechanics seems to think it has some real uses... about 25,000 of them. (And that was back in 1938) Renewable fuel, fibre, paper, plastics.. it goes on and on.
"Common sense would tell you that, and judging by your comments--you have none."
Thank you for the compliment. Common sense (otherwise known as "herd-think") is an excuse not to reason things out for ourselves. Albert Einstein once defined common sense as "the collection of predjudices acquired by age eighteen".
Not quite sure I follow you... wouldn't eliminating "very expensive agencies", and vastly reducing the police force, and prison infrastructure, SAVE money?
The War on Drugs costs 40 billion dollars a year. I don't have a link to back this up, but IIRC, I read somewhere that marijuana convictions account for roughly half of that.
From "Popular Mechanics", February 1938:
"Billion Dollar Crop"
"American farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several million dollars, all because a machine has been invented...it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.
"Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability...and can be used to produce 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.
"The natural materials in Hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose (plastic) products our chemists have developed.
"All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home-grown Hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms...all of this income can be made available to Americans."
"The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry, it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that, eighty percent is imported. But Hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to Hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average (timber) pulp land.
"The connection of Hemp as a crop and Marijuana seems to be exaggerated. If federal regulations can be drawn to protect the public without preventing the legitimate culture of Hemp, this crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry."
Boy are you clueless. Go back to the 1930's and get a job with William Randolph Hearst, he's got some tabloid articles for you to write.
You know why pot is really illegal? It's because HEMP threatens the profits of the industrialists. You can make any grade of paper with it. It's the toughest natural fibre aside from spider silk. You can run a car on hemp oil. People could be growing gas in their backyards. Can't have that! Dubya's family has been heavily into oil for decades. Step up the War on Drugs! No conflict of interest here, move along.
In 1937, when marijuana was banned, the American Medical Association OPPOSED it. They had been prescribing it safely for over a hundred years.
Every scientific study of marijuana has concluded that it is substantially less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. Very recently, a senate committee here in Canada which studied it in depth, recommended unanimously to the government that pot is far less dangerous than smoking and drinking, and should be regulated accordingly.
Perhaps, gram for gram, there are more carcinogens in marijuana than tobacco. So what? People smoke far less pot than cigarettes, because pot is not chemically addictive. I've been smoking pot regularly for about 8 years. You know how much I smoke now? A small pipe bowl when I get home from work, and maybe a shared joint when my roommate gets home. Now compare that to a smoker who measures their habit in packs per day, and is only getting worse.
"There is why pot is illegial [...] I can tell by your wording that you are a pothead"
I can tell by your wording that you make the average pothead look pretty bright.
...if artists are happy that their fans are being put into prison for listening to their music.
Listen to the radio, no problem (but don't skip the commercials you criminal!). Download an MP3, huge fine and jail time.
Land of the free. *puke*. What a fucked up world we live in.
Hell, a 4x CD burner could handle that.
Well, taking a quick glance at BestBuy.com, you can get a 120GB hard drive for $190. That works out to about 3.8 GB per $6. How much do those tapes hold?
I stand corrected. I didn't get into MUDs until more mid nineties.. one called Farside. I wish it was still up.
It's BOTH! Spork! Foon!
Moderation totals: -1 Trite, -1 Useless
"With a game that's taken a very long time to develop, I would assume it was a very complicated game to make"
Or you could assume it's taking a long time because they're putting it through rigorous QA. Neither is really founded in fact. In this case, I think it's both. (Complicated, and rigorously tested)
"Master of Orion, 2nd place"
Actually, it is first place for the letters "MOO". The first one listed is actually for M followed by an infinity symbol, not a pair of O's. (Marathon Infinity)
Um, no. Gold means (and has always meant) they're finished development for the initial release, and it's ready for mass duplication, packaging, and distribution.
"It's pretty much a guaruntee that it will have at least one major bug, and many minor ones. [...] Especially with a game that has been in development a long time. That generally means they want to get it out as soon as every major feature is in, and don't have too much time for bug testing and the smaller things."
Your logic completely escapes me. How does longer overall development time equate to less time for bug testing? How does a very long development time mean they are putting it "out as soon as every major feature is in"?? Wouldn't that be something you'd expect from something with a SHORT development time?
The original Master of Orion came out about a decade ago, and has always been referred to as "MOO". It (along with the sequel) are probably the best selling turn based strategy games of all time.
MUDs were in their barest infancy back then, I don't think the Object Oriented sort even existed yet.
But anyway, who cares? Acronyms can stand for more than one thing. Unless you're the WWF. Nice shamless plug for your site though.
...then it'll be on the Internet, what, second week of February? Place your bets here.