I had way more fun with Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Left 4 Dead than I ever did with Quake or Unreal. Warcraft 3 and Company of Heroes and Starcraft 2 are absolutely better than their predecessors.
Game makers have gotten smarter and design their games with better mechanics. TF2 and L4D, for example, have exceptionally well-balanced asymmetrical modes. Weapon and ability variety has increased tremendously. Map design has become more objective. Frustration factors have been reduced. Lobby systems have been improved. Mod-ability still exists, and has led to great modes like DotA.
I think the real problems with gaming today are the same ones the movie industry has been facing for a while. Simply put, studios have realized that a well-hyped turd with name recognition can make more money than a quality title. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever for proof. They never intended that game to be good, but it will make plenty of money for them. Even with good games, it's easier to make incremental improvements than risky innovative titles (see: Call of Duty, the Sims, any sports title).
There are a few companies that still focus on putting out groundbreaking titles, but even then, those titles will then be milked for at least a few sequels before the next innovation comes along. However, there is a way to reliably find innovation among modern games -- look among indie developers. They can take more risks, and as a result you get titles like Braid and Minecraft.
As for DRM, with a few exceptions (lookin' at you, Ubisoft), it's less intrusive now. I have not-so-fond memories of looking up page after page of text in the back of the manual during Interplay's Lord of the Rings. Cat pissed on the manual? Can't play that game anymore! Or CD checks that deprived me of my copy of Tie Fighter after the disc got scratched. I'll take Steam over that any day.
I have an Android phone, but I assume my method works just as well for iOS and tablets.
Step 1) Store all of your passwords in KeePass Step 2) Make a long and complex password for your KeePass file, using non-alphanumerics, whitespace, repeated characters and look-alike characters. No one looking over your shoulder will memorize "S0l|ll x####ffe3EE zxp5", unless they get hi-res video of you typing it in. Step 3) Use the DropBox app to sync your password file to your phone Step 4) Run the KeePass app in the background, and copy-paste passwords into the necessary fields. Step 5) Make sure to turn KeePass off whenever not actively using your phone. Step 6) Profit, by way of not having your bank account looted.
Only one password is ever visible, and it's complex enough that it would be near impossible to steal. Your other passwords can be just as complex as the KeePass one, since you won't need to memorize them. However, if you'd prefer they be easier to remember for times that you don't have access to KeePass, you can keep them simple. Regardless, the only way you'll ever get fucked is if you leave KeePass running, and someone manages to steal you phone in the five minute window before it turns itself off. And if you're extra paranoid, you can shorten that window to 30 seconds.
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
This is true. The problem is that most atheists also believe that that's all there is to religion. So they're mocking something they don't even try to understand. Surely you can see the problem with that? It's like when congressmen get up and complain about "a million dollars spent studying hornets in China" without any idea as to what the research is about.
But anyway, my core point is that mockery makes people harden their views. If your goal is to reach a point where religion doesn't interfere with science, then mockery is counter-productive.
But this wasn't an important fight. This was one guy trying to make it so that Jews are forced to remove their yarmulkes to get their picture taken. Basically, he's just being a dick to a bunch of people with deeply held beliefs, because he disagrees with those beliefs. The people who read about it, if religious, won't reconsider their views. They'll just know they're being mocked, and harden those views.
If a "pastafarian" manages to undo an abortion ban, or help gays marry, I'll rethink my views on the fake religion. But as it stands, it sure as hell seems like it does more harm than good.
Do you think that religion's utility as a smokescreen is unrelated to the degree of reverence that common opinion affords it? (or, for that matter, that every would-be theocrat is, in fact, insincere?)
Yes, and irrelevant.
Yes to the first, because the people who are fooled by the smokescreen are going to become even more likely to vote based on faith when they feel under attack. Those who wouldn't fall for the smoke screen weren't going to vote for the guy using it anyway.
Irrelevant to the second, because whether the theocrats are sincere or just using religion as a tool, either way they're not going to be swayed by some internet trolls.
Oh, it moves the unmovable. Just not in the direction you want. They go from luke-warm "church on easter and christmas" Christians to "Ban abortions and gays and evolution!" Christians, because they feel under attack. Whereas if you simply engage people and talk to them as equals, you can still sway fence sitters, without stirring up a hornets' nest.
But really, your first phrase says it all. It keeps the faithless entertained. That's what it's really about. Trolling.
I dare say I understand statistics better than you do. But my anecdote wasn't meant as one.
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people. Which supports my original statement, that atheists enjoy trolling religious people. Either with comments about the FSM, or invisible sky men, or talking about events from hundreds or even thousands of years ago as if modern day people are responsible for them.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist. If a Jew really wants to wear a skullcap in their picture, let them. You know it's important to them. Far more so than it is to you to be able to wear a baseball cap. So why mock them? Why go through this complicated three year ordeal just to try to convince people that the Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats?
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough. All they're really doing is causing social strife and making people miserable. But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
Bullshit. This isn't about corrupt politicians using religion as an excuse to pass vile laws. You really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument has any effect on them?
This is about mocking strangers in order to get your jollies. That's as far as it goes. And I'm telling you, it's stupid, childish, and counter-productive.
Oh no! Someone rang your doorbell?! Or asked you to pause ten seconds before a meal??! Tried to hand you a slip of paper!!!!?!? How did you survive?
And on issues like euthanasia and gay marriage, I think you will find an awful lot of religious people on both sides of those issues. Personally, I'm for both. Pro-choice, too. But it would be a hell of a lot easier to win people over if you didn't go out of your way to mock them at every opportunity.
I'm not "trolling" anyone. I am pointing out that anyone who pretends to believe in a fake religion to mock real ones is a troll.
You say:
People might not get so upsed about beliefs if everyone did indeed ''keep their faith to themselves'', but this generally does not happen with the result that you irritate non believers and induce those who adhere to different myths to shout back to show that their myths are the true ones...
A few days ago some mormons knocked on my door, and spoke to me for about thirty seconds before I politely told them I wasn't interested. This was noteworthy, because it was the first time in years that I was approached by people pushing religion. And yet I can hardly read a single discussion on the internet without finding some smug asses trying to show off how smart they are by making fun of the religious. Ask yourself.... when was the last time you read a discussion on/. in which someone brought up religion without someone first mocking it?
I'm willing to bet that you can't think of an example unless you go to hot button issues like abortion or homosexuality. In those cases, fine. Emotions run high, people will bring up their beliefs regardless. But otherwise, people are generally quiet about their beliefs until they start getting mocked.
Stop mocking people, and you might find they become a lot more agreeable.
"Pastafarianism" is absolutely about mocking religion. The whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is akin to asking how magnets work. It ignores any modern philosophical arguments for or against the existence of god, and instead mocks the "invisible (straw)man in the sky" view of religion.
From the story I read on another site (I forget which), part of the reason for the delay was to perform a court ordered psychiatric evaluation. They needed to confirm that the man who wanted to wear a colander wasn't insane, just smug.
Anyone who defines their personality by the mockery of others is a complete and irredeemable asshole. I don't care how superior it makes you feel. It's stupid and childish, and frankly is harmful to society. Atheists seem to revel in trolling religious people. Those people, who ordinarily would keep their faith to themselves, get pissed off at the trolls and fight back. Next thing you know, we can't get through a winter without this ridiculous "war on christmas" talk all over the place. We get assholes on the one side demanding to teach creationism in schools, while assholes on the other side demand that we tear down old memorials because they have religious meanings.
I know you atheists love the smug feeling of being smarter than everyone else, so please... put that massive brainpower to good use, and figure out that you aren't helping things. All this mockery just adds fuel to the fire. Live and let live. It's not hard.
Cue a million posts by smarmy fuckers about how religion is the only thing harming society, and if we could just make one more smug internet post about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would all go away!
To play devil's advocate... one can argue that the search is "reasonable". It's not as cut and dry as you're making it sound. Of course, it's not reasonable, but until someone challenges it and gets the Supreme Court to rule in their favor, that doesn't matter.
There may even be a chance of the SCOTUS ruling against the scans. They did decide 8-1 against that case where a school principal had a teenage girl strip-searched to look for ibuprofen. (The one dissenter was Clarence Thomas, just in case you ever find yourself wondering who the worst human being in the country is.)
Christ dude, wanna enlighten us about all the fluoride they're putting in the water to corrupt your precious bodily fluids?
There are legitimate complaints to be made about the TSA. This paranoid schizophrenic stuff just makes it that much harder for the sane among us to make our arguments. It's like some stoner showing up at a town hall and arguing for marijuana to be legalized because it can cure cancer (which is just a fungus!).
That's not the goal. It's an effect, certainly, but not the goal. Politicians are not comic book villains. They have very clear goals in mind: money and power.
Power, by showing people they're "tough on national security", thus allowing them to be re-elected. Money, by forcing every major airport in America to buy these new million dollar x-ray machines, even if they don't actually do anything.
The rubdowns are just a way to defuse the health complaints about the x-ray machines... give people an (extremely unappealing) alternative.
I know how the experiment worked. It is established that people given power with no (or poor) guidance on how to use that power will abuse it. But if people are made acutely aware of that fact, will they think "Hey, I don't want to be like that" and make a conscious effort to control their own actions?
For example, if you give unlimited alcohol and no ground rules to a bunch of teens, they're probably going to get drunk out of their minds. But once they've learned about alcohol abuse, and gone to a few parties and seen how drunken idiots act, they'll drink more responsibly, simply because they don't want to be that guy. This experiment is repeated all across the country every year, and it seems to work out.
But that doesn't make them intelligent. It just means they have good programming. Intelligence is defined as the ability to think and learn. Birds almost certainly don't think about flying any more than you do about walking.
It's too bad they say the experiment should never be performed again. Every student should be required to go through it, and maybe we can mitigate the revival of the savagery we are going through now. Simply reading up on it is not enough.
I've often wondered what would happen if the experiment were repeated with people who were aware of the original outcome. And I mean really aware of it, not just that they heard about it in passing. Would knowledge of how low people can sink keep them on the straight and narrow? If so, it could become a useful training exercise for prison guards.
Cops in Afghanistan have a good excuse to be paranoid. There legitimately are thousands of people trying to murder them and their loved ones, every day. A cop asking questions, and then registering the names and equipment of the people, really doesn't seem bad at all. If those people had been setting up a rocket launcher, and the cops saw it and did nothing, wouldn't that be far worse?
You might want to check a mirror. But first take a nap, because the sheer unmitigated rage emanating from you right now would probably shatter glass. The GP didn't even really say anything offensive, except tell you to grow up, which is apparently needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally disagree.
I had way more fun with Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Left 4 Dead than I ever did with Quake or Unreal. Warcraft 3 and Company of Heroes and Starcraft 2 are absolutely better than their predecessors.
Game makers have gotten smarter and design their games with better mechanics. TF2 and L4D, for example, have exceptionally well-balanced asymmetrical modes. Weapon and ability variety has increased tremendously. Map design has become more objective. Frustration factors have been reduced. Lobby systems have been improved. Mod-ability still exists, and has led to great modes like DotA.
I think the real problems with gaming today are the same ones the movie industry has been facing for a while. Simply put, studios have realized that a well-hyped turd with name recognition can make more money than a quality title. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever for proof. They never intended that game to be good, but it will make plenty of money for them. Even with good games, it's easier to make incremental improvements than risky innovative titles (see: Call of Duty, the Sims, any sports title).
There are a few companies that still focus on putting out groundbreaking titles, but even then, those titles will then be milked for at least a few sequels before the next innovation comes along. However, there is a way to reliably find innovation among modern games -- look among indie developers. They can take more risks, and as a result you get titles like Braid and Minecraft.
As for DRM, with a few exceptions (lookin' at you, Ubisoft), it's less intrusive now. I have not-so-fond memories of looking up page after page of text in the back of the manual during Interplay's Lord of the Rings. Cat pissed on the manual? Can't play that game anymore! Or CD checks that deprived me of my copy of Tie Fighter after the disc got scratched. I'll take Steam over that any day.
I have an Android phone, but I assume my method works just as well for iOS and tablets.
Step 1) Store all of your passwords in KeePass
Step 2) Make a long and complex password for your KeePass file, using non-alphanumerics, whitespace, repeated characters and look-alike characters. No one looking over your shoulder will memorize "S0l|ll x####ffe3EE zxp5", unless they get hi-res video of you typing it in.
Step 3) Use the DropBox app to sync your password file to your phone
Step 4) Run the KeePass app in the background, and copy-paste passwords into the necessary fields.
Step 5) Make sure to turn KeePass off whenever not actively using your phone.
Step 6) Profit, by way of not having your bank account looted.
Only one password is ever visible, and it's complex enough that it would be near impossible to steal. Your other passwords can be just as complex as the KeePass one, since you won't need to memorize them. However, if you'd prefer they be easier to remember for times that you don't have access to KeePass, you can keep them simple. Regardless, the only way you'll ever get fucked is if you leave KeePass running, and someone manages to steal you phone in the five minute window before it turns itself off. And if you're extra paranoid, you can shorten that window to 30 seconds.
My understanding was that the name had been co-opted as a near-meaningless marketing term.
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
This is true. The problem is that most atheists also believe that that's all there is to religion. So they're mocking something they don't even try to understand. Surely you can see the problem with that? It's like when congressmen get up and complain about "a million dollars spent studying hornets in China" without any idea as to what the research is about.
But anyway, my core point is that mockery makes people harden their views. If your goal is to reach a point where religion doesn't interfere with science, then mockery is counter-productive.
But this wasn't an important fight. This was one guy trying to make it so that Jews are forced to remove their yarmulkes to get their picture taken. Basically, he's just being a dick to a bunch of people with deeply held beliefs, because he disagrees with those beliefs. The people who read about it, if religious, won't reconsider their views. They'll just know they're being mocked, and harden those views.
If a "pastafarian" manages to undo an abortion ban, or help gays marry, I'll rethink my views on the fake religion. But as it stands, it sure as hell seems like it does more harm than good.
Do you think that religion's utility as a smokescreen is unrelated to the degree of reverence that common opinion affords it? (or, for that matter, that every would-be theocrat is, in fact, insincere?)
Yes, and irrelevant.
Yes to the first, because the people who are fooled by the smokescreen are going to become even more likely to vote based on faith when they feel under attack. Those who wouldn't fall for the smoke screen weren't going to vote for the guy using it anyway.
Irrelevant to the second, because whether the theocrats are sincere or just using religion as a tool, either way they're not going to be swayed by some internet trolls.
Oh, it moves the unmovable. Just not in the direction you want. They go from luke-warm "church on easter and christmas" Christians to "Ban abortions and gays and evolution!" Christians, because they feel under attack. Whereas if you simply engage people and talk to them as equals, you can still sway fence sitters, without stirring up a hornets' nest.
But really, your first phrase says it all. It keeps the faithless entertained. That's what it's really about. Trolling.
I dare say I understand statistics better than you do. But my anecdote wasn't meant as one.
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people. Which supports my original statement, that atheists enjoy trolling religious people. Either with comments about the FSM, or invisible sky men, or talking about events from hundreds or even thousands of years ago as if modern day people are responsible for them.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist. If a Jew really wants to wear a skullcap in their picture, let them. You know it's important to them. Far more so than it is to you to be able to wear a baseball cap. So why mock them? Why go through this complicated three year ordeal just to try to convince people that the Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats?
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough. All they're really doing is causing social strife and making people miserable. But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
Thank you for at least admitting that your sole goal is to mock people until they don't dare speak against you. That puts you a step above most.
Of course, in reality, mocking people simply makes them harden their stance. But hey, don't let basic knowledge of human nature get in your way.
Bullshit. This isn't about corrupt politicians using religion as an excuse to pass vile laws. You really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument has any effect on them?
This is about mocking strangers in order to get your jollies. That's as far as it goes. And I'm telling you, it's stupid, childish, and counter-productive.
Oh no! Someone rang your doorbell?! Or asked you to pause ten seconds before a meal??! Tried to hand you a slip of paper!!!!?!? How did you survive?
And on issues like euthanasia and gay marriage, I think you will find an awful lot of religious people on both sides of those issues. Personally, I'm for both. Pro-choice, too. But it would be a hell of a lot easier to win people over if you didn't go out of your way to mock them at every opportunity.
I'm not "trolling" anyone. I am pointing out that anyone who pretends to believe in a fake religion to mock real ones is a troll.
You say:
People might not get so upsed about beliefs if everyone did indeed ''keep their faith to themselves'', but this generally does not happen with the result that you irritate non believers and induce those who adhere to different myths to shout back to show that their myths are the true ones ...
A few days ago some mormons knocked on my door, and spoke to me for about thirty seconds before I politely told them I wasn't interested. This was noteworthy, because it was the first time in years that I was approached by people pushing religion. And yet I can hardly read a single discussion on the internet without finding some smug asses trying to show off how smart they are by making fun of the religious. Ask yourself.... when was the last time you read a discussion on /. in which someone brought up religion without someone first mocking it?
I'm willing to bet that you can't think of an example unless you go to hot button issues like abortion or homosexuality. In those cases, fine. Emotions run high, people will bring up their beliefs regardless. But otherwise, people are generally quiet about their beliefs until they start getting mocked.
Stop mocking people, and you might find they become a lot more agreeable.
"Pastafarianism" is absolutely about mocking religion. The whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is akin to asking how magnets work. It ignores any modern philosophical arguments for or against the existence of god, and instead mocks the "invisible (straw)man in the sky" view of religion.
Really? What percent of people, in your day to day life, throw their religion in your face?
Now, what percent of internet atheists post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity?
From the story I read on another site (I forget which), part of the reason for the delay was to perform a court ordered psychiatric evaluation. They needed to confirm that the man who wanted to wear a colander wasn't insane, just smug.
Anyone who defines their personality by the mockery of others is a complete and irredeemable asshole. I don't care how superior it makes you feel. It's stupid and childish, and frankly is harmful to society. Atheists seem to revel in trolling religious people. Those people, who ordinarily would keep their faith to themselves, get pissed off at the trolls and fight back. Next thing you know, we can't get through a winter without this ridiculous "war on christmas" talk all over the place. We get assholes on the one side demanding to teach creationism in schools, while assholes on the other side demand that we tear down old memorials because they have religious meanings.
I know you atheists love the smug feeling of being smarter than everyone else, so please... put that massive brainpower to good use, and figure out that you aren't helping things. All this mockery just adds fuel to the fire. Live and let live. It's not hard.
Cue a million posts by smarmy fuckers about how religion is the only thing harming society, and if we could just make one more smug internet post about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would all go away!
To play devil's advocate... one can argue that the search is "reasonable". It's not as cut and dry as you're making it sound. Of course, it's not reasonable, but until someone challenges it and gets the Supreme Court to rule in their favor, that doesn't matter.
There may even be a chance of the SCOTUS ruling against the scans. They did decide 8-1 against that case where a school principal had a teenage girl strip-searched to look for ibuprofen. (The one dissenter was Clarence Thomas, just in case you ever find yourself wondering who the worst human being in the country is.)
"Steal your blood"?
Christ dude, wanna enlighten us about all the fluoride they're putting in the water to corrupt your precious bodily fluids?
There are legitimate complaints to be made about the TSA. This paranoid schizophrenic stuff just makes it that much harder for the sane among us to make our arguments. It's like some stoner showing up at a town hall and arguing for marijuana to be legalized because it can cure cancer (which is just a fungus!).
That's not the goal. It's an effect, certainly, but not the goal. Politicians are not comic book villains. They have very clear goals in mind: money and power.
Power, by showing people they're "tough on national security", thus allowing them to be re-elected.
Money, by forcing every major airport in America to buy these new million dollar x-ray machines, even if they don't actually do anything.
The rubdowns are just a way to defuse the health complaints about the x-ray machines... give people an (extremely unappealing) alternative.
I know how the experiment worked. It is established that people given power with no (or poor) guidance on how to use that power will abuse it. But if people are made acutely aware of that fact, will they think "Hey, I don't want to be like that" and make a conscious effort to control their own actions?
For example, if you give unlimited alcohol and no ground rules to a bunch of teens, they're probably going to get drunk out of their minds. But once they've learned about alcohol abuse, and gone to a few parties and seen how drunken idiots act, they'll drink more responsibly, simply because they don't want to be that guy. This experiment is repeated all across the country every year, and it seems to work out.
But that doesn't make them intelligent. It just means they have good programming. Intelligence is defined as the ability to think and learn. Birds almost certainly don't think about flying any more than you do about walking.
It's too bad they say the experiment should never be performed again. Every student should be required to go through it, and maybe we can mitigate the revival of the savagery we are going through now. Simply reading up on it is not enough.
I've often wondered what would happen if the experiment were repeated with people who were aware of the original outcome. And I mean really aware of it, not just that they heard about it in passing. Would knowledge of how low people can sink keep them on the straight and narrow? If so, it could become a useful training exercise for prison guards.
Cops in Afghanistan have a good excuse to be paranoid. There legitimately are thousands of people trying to murder them and their loved ones, every day. A cop asking questions, and then registering the names and equipment of the people, really doesn't seem bad at all. If those people had been setting up a rocket launcher, and the cops saw it and did nothing, wouldn't that be far worse?
Western police don't have that excuse.
You might want to check a mirror. But first take a nap, because the sheer unmitigated rage emanating from you right now would probably shatter glass. The GP didn't even really say anything offensive, except tell you to grow up, which is apparently needed.