... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.
From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.
From what I've heard, you're supposed to clench your asshole.
Actually, you raise an interesting point. The diamond planet can be used as an example of how common diamonds really are, how their supply is intentionally kept artificially low by companies such as DeBeers for the sake of fixing extremely high prices.
I think if more people understood diamonds scientifically and economically they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry.
That example really fails the precautionary principle in most cases because most vaccines prevent serious illnesses which often cannot be overcome once one becomes infected.
However, I refuse to take flu shots. I'm young and healthy, no reason for me to fear the flu (and really, getting a flu shot isn't like a measles vaccine where it prevents you from ever getting it -- it only prevents you from getting some strains of the flu before it mutates more).
Also, there's empirical evidence that vaccines work. There's no empirical evidence that they interfere with the natural development of the immune system. The precautionary principle doesn't state that we should all hide in our basements tomorrow because I make a wild claim that a meteor may hit with no logical or empirical support whatsoever.
Yeah, it's Al Gore's fault that the guy you're describing is a moron.
Even if Al Gore had never said a word about climate change, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind. It's not Al Gore who Joe Average hates, it's the ideas that Al Gore represents. If George W. Bush all of a sudden became a defender of climate science and green technology, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind about climate science and green technology, he'd change his mind about George W. Bush.
Subsistence farmers in third world countries probably won't be affected by any first world legislation that attempts to protect the environment.
This is Slashdot, not some debate between mindless politicians where you can hide behind unverifiable talking points. People call you on your bullshit here, which I'm about to do:
Your argument is set up thus: Attempting to counteract the climate change scientists believe humans have caused is so catastrophic to the world's economy that doing so would be morally reprehensible. But one does not follow the other. Those who benefit from treating the planet poorly are multi-billion dollar corporations, not subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. Not primitive tribes in Brazil. Not your sweatshop worker in China. Brown people eating isn't the cause of our environmental problems. What does brown people eating have to do with all the crude oil that's floating around in the Gulf of Mexico? Beef production has a costly toll on the environment, but most brown people I know don't eat beef (http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/menu.html).
Furthermore, I would argue that treating the planet with more respect would cost these multi-billion dollar companies a lot of money. And that money would go into the economy rather than sit in some corporation's bank account.
I'm not confirming or denying that climate change is leading the planet to disaster. But it is better to err on the side of caution. To argue that treating the planet responsibly could result in the starvation for anybody is absurd (not to mention that, it's not evident that feeding a few takes moral priority over sustaining the planet that EVERYONE depends on - it definitely fails the utilitarian model). You have less evidence that heeding climate scientists' warnings will cause starvation than the climate scientists have that the climate is changing for the worse.
The main characters in all six Star Wars films are R2D2 and C3P0. Kasdan tried to get away from it in Empire Strikes Back, which is everyone's favorite, so it's understandable why this fact is so conveniently overlooked.
I love how everyone becomes an expert film critic when bashing Star Wars episodes 1-3. The fact of the matter is, if the prequels would have lived up to contemporary critical standards they would have felt out of place next to episodes 4-6. The same goofiness we hate about Jar-Jar Binks was central to C3P0. We just have fond childhood memories of C3P0 which blind us to how annoying he really was.
I'm sure you would have been just ecstatic if Michael Bay made episodes 1-3. They would do everything 'right' and by doing so fail to actually hold all six movies together as a single cinematic experience. The point of the CGI enhancements to the older ones was an obvious means to this end. They came out before the prequels and Lucas wanted to make them fit together cinematically.
People seem to really forget that Star Wars is a series of adventure films. They get into some dark territory when they climax (episodes III/VI), but they build up to these climaxes with stories of adventure and fun. It's obvious that many filmgoers such as yourself wanted the prequels to be like Batman Begins compared to the Tim Burton films. But Lucas wasn't trying to redefine what Star Wars was -- he was just finishing a project he started a long time ago.
Hayden Christensen may have been a wholly mediocre actor, but so was Mark Hamill. Wouldn't it have felt weird for 1-3 to have stellar acting/writing and then move on to the ridiculousness in 4-6? I say keep it ridiculous the whole way through, which is just what Lucas did.
Personally, I think Star Wars as a whole series is the greatest work of cinematic art ever created. Yeah, I said it. Citizen Kane doesn't have shit on Star Wars.
Just by using it they're supporting it. They bring legitimacy to LibreOffice that OOo's been trying to achieve since its inception. All those managers who scoffed at the idea of using non-MS Office software because "it's not Microsoft, and in business everyone uses Microsoft" will take pause. When they need to trim the budget, they may remember reading some story about saving millions by going with LibreOffice. They may talk about it with their golf buddies.
Every large business that relies on LibreOffice is one less large business paying an unnecessary tax to Microsoft for software functionality that is extremely dated. Office is one of the most overpriced pieces of software on the market and it maintains that price by leveraging compatibility and this perception that a business has to use Microsoft to be taken seriously. OOo and its forks are taking care of the compatibility with OpenDocument and support for Word -- it's businesses that take the plunge and actually use the software that will take care of the perception problem. So just by using the software, they're supporting it. Doing so publicly supports FOSS even more.
I hate these meaningless bits of research. So they quizzed 30 people about 12 stories they read and as a result they're making a sweeping conclusion about how all people enjoy stories. This isn't serious research. How do things like this get published? Publishing things like this dilutes the value of serious research that follows a logical methodology. Reports like these are why no one takes statistics and research seriously.
Did the morons who decided to put this study together ever consider the fact that some people don't mind spoilers and some do? That some plots depend on plot twists whereas some do not? Could it be that the stories with the 'spoiler' paragraphs contained nothing more than heavy foreshadowing, which isn't really a 'spoiler?'
There's nothing complete enough about this 'research' that one could draw real conclusions from. BUT:
"You get this significant reverse-spoiler effect," study author and professor of social psychology Nicholas Christenfeld said.
The moron in charge of the research does so anyway. Social psychology? No wonder. The quacks of science strike again!
Anecdotes don't account for much, but since neither does this research, so here we go: I don't watch movie trailers because they spoil the movie for me. I can usually guess the end of a movie and its major plot points from a trailer. The 'Snape kills Dumbledoor' bullshit really pissed me off and ruined that one for me. Here's an alternate theory: some people hate spoilers and some people don't. It all depends on what we enjoy about stories.
Considering that all planets are composed of material that was once floating about in space, this is kind of obvious. It's just a matter of when it arrived. Being part of a meteor sounds cool and all, but it's not like in the movies where there's a magic meteor that can give super powers (which seems to be the summary's interpretation). It just means this specific matter arrived on earth after the planet was already pretty well formed.
[I for one, have no understanding of why the rest of the United States is so damn fond of watching 'football']
Do you understand why many geeks are so fond of chess? How about Starcraft? It's the same reason football is so popular. Believe it or not, these games have a whole lot in common. In each case Sun Tzu's Art of War can be used as a strategy guide. Football fans are no different than S. Korean Starcraft fans despite the vast differences in lifestyle.
It seems that no one took Google seriously when they labeled Google+ as a beta project. The thing is still under construction and people are complaining that it doesn't work perfectly. Gee, I wonder why.
I'm not into the social networking stuff so I haven't bothered trying to get an invite, but representatives from Google have stated that Google+ deactivation shouldn't deactivate Gmail and other services. This Marcheschi guy didn't get his G+ account banned, the article didn't even say whether he has one, he got his main Google account banned for posting questionable pictures in Picasa.
In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws.
So he set out to get his account banned and it worked. Then he publicly griped about it because he's an attention whore. Nothing to see here.
Anyway, what type of sick fuck wants to show images of minors being sexualized, legal or not? Apparently Mr. Marcheschi is fairly computer illiterate considering he doesn't know where to find a picture that was on his computer at one point. Or maybe he just knows no one would defend him if he actually made it public. After all, how is an image of a child being sexualized not child porn?
1. Relying on the inspector is an appeal to authority, not an independent confirmation. An independent confirmation would be becoming an expert yourself and doing the inspection yourself.
2. Have you done this for every building you've ever entered?
An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority. With the exception of the scientists working for BP, Exxon, and the like who don't really qualify as legitimate experts b/c they're paid to make a case rather than objectively obtain knowledge, there is a near consensus among the scientific community that humans have caused climate change which can have disastrous effects.
I can make a skeptical case against the big bang, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical isn't logical. That leads to all sorts of conundrums such as being skeptical that one exists at all (hello insanity), or being skeptical of the structural integrity of the building you're in (hello paranoia).
Did you independently confirm that your roof is structurally sound? If not, why are you sitting under it? Perhaps you logically assumed that the framers, carpenters, roofers, et al. did their jobs correctly and proficiently.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think the Dems actually want to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Hell no! But that's the compromise they've put on the table. The only thing they're asking in return is to cut tax loopholes for the extremely wealthy and for corporations.
If all we do is make cuts to the budget then the Dems haven't compromised, they've just submitted to the Republican agenda. If the Dems were to be uncompromising their position would be, "raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, we'll do nothing else."
The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to answer all the riddles of the universe. It's just an explanation for how life developed on earth.
This is a victory. Anti-intellectuals in Texas attempted to make their schools even worse than they currently are by teaching children 'alternative theories to evolution.' The problem is, there is no viable alternative theory to evolution that is both logical and backed up by evidence. As one learns in logic 101: "knowledge is justified true believe." The scientific community has a justified and true belief in an evolutionary theory of some sort (Dawkin's version may be slightly different than Gould's, but both their theories are derived from Darwin's original premise) .
The same cannot be said for creationism. What's the best they've brought to the table? Michael Behe? His argument is essential the same as yours: talk about how mysterious and unknowable things are. That doesn't prove anything, and it certainly doesn't disprove the theory of evolution.
I'm religious but evolution doesn't threaten my spirituality. The jerk-off proponents of creationism don't understand religion or science because they're all about one thing: clinging to the childish belief in (literal) life after death. They're trying to convince themselves and convincing others affirms their beliefs. And it all starts with the humility angle: "we can't possibly know . . . the universe is so incomprehensible . . . humans are ignorant . .."
The truth does need to be defended. There are far too many ignoramuses adamantly defending falsehoods.
There was a story just a few months ago about iOS apps doing the exact same thing. There was even a lawsuit filed at the beginning of 2011. I think people put way too much stock in the iOS approval process.
I wouldn't doubt it, but Apple has demonstrated time and time again their willingness to cut people from the app store for the most minor violations of the ToS. A developer puts their company at a much higher risk by trying to pull such shenanigans on the iPhone. Just out of curiosity, was there any statistics to accompany the iPhone story? I mean, I seriously doubt 8%+ iPhone apps do this sort of thing.
So Facebook apps destroy privacy. However, that does not change the point that some Android apps are doing the same thing.
I agree. The big question now is whether Google will ban the 800+ apps from their marketplace. If they turn a blind eye to these revelations, then they're no better than Facebook and we can expect more app developers to datamine in the future. Personally, I have faith in Google to do the right thing, but we shall see. The last thing they want is for these data to justify Apple's stringent approval process.
1. Quake 3 was never king of anything but as a test for hardware. People would say things like, "sure, the specs are nice, but how well does it run Quake 3?" That contributed to the game's sales big-time. When you spend over a grand on your computer, spending $50 on Quake 3 to push it to the limits and show it off to your friends was no big deal.
2. Quake 3 was a shitty game. It's actually a good example of why people have mostly played such games on consoles since the XBox came out: those with the largest monitors, fastest hardware, fastest connections, and most twitchy mice had distinct advantages. Not that it mattered. The battles were so chaotic one was liable to be blasted by a random rocket at any time.
3. The pinnacle of game design is the exact opposite of what you described. It's Metal Gear Solid. Complex, gimmicky, creative and meaningful storyline, full of strange and sometimes useless features, and always taking risks. At the very least, if you want to put all the emphasis on 'dynamic and strategic gameplay' and 'time-tested ideas,' then Starcraft would take the crown.
lol @ dumbasses who call others 'noob' as if it's a real insult
Slashdot Mirror
... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.
From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.
From what I've heard, you're supposed to clench your asshole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE
Actually, you raise an interesting point. The diamond planet can be used as an example of how common diamonds really are, how their supply is intentionally kept artificially low by companies such as DeBeers for the sake of fixing extremely high prices.
I think if more people understood diamonds scientifically and economically they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_p8gFmFzp4 (skip to 1:35)
That example really fails the precautionary principle in most cases because most vaccines prevent serious illnesses which often cannot be overcome once one becomes infected.
However, I refuse to take flu shots. I'm young and healthy, no reason for me to fear the flu (and really, getting a flu shot isn't like a measles vaccine where it prevents you from ever getting it -- it only prevents you from getting some strains of the flu before it mutates more).
Also, there's empirical evidence that vaccines work. There's no empirical evidence that they interfere with the natural development of the immune system. The precautionary principle doesn't state that we should all hide in our basements tomorrow because I make a wild claim that a meteor may hit with no logical or empirical support whatsoever.
Yeah, it's Al Gore's fault that the guy you're describing is a moron.
Even if Al Gore had never said a word about climate change, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind. It's not Al Gore who Joe Average hates, it's the ideas that Al Gore represents. If George W. Bush all of a sudden became a defender of climate science and green technology, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind about climate science and green technology, he'd change his mind about George W. Bush.
Subsistence farmers in third world countries probably won't be affected by any first world legislation that attempts to protect the environment.
This is Slashdot, not some debate between mindless politicians where you can hide behind unverifiable talking points. People call you on your bullshit here, which I'm about to do:
Your argument is set up thus: Attempting to counteract the climate change scientists believe humans have caused is so catastrophic to the world's economy that doing so would be morally reprehensible. But one does not follow the other. Those who benefit from treating the planet poorly are multi-billion dollar corporations, not subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. Not primitive tribes in Brazil. Not your sweatshop worker in China. Brown people eating isn't the cause of our environmental problems. What does brown people eating have to do with all the crude oil that's floating around in the Gulf of Mexico? Beef production has a costly toll on the environment, but most brown people I know don't eat beef (http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/menu.html).
Furthermore, I would argue that treating the planet with more respect would cost these multi-billion dollar companies a lot of money. And that money would go into the economy rather than sit in some corporation's bank account.
I'm not confirming or denying that climate change is leading the planet to disaster. But it is better to err on the side of caution. To argue that treating the planet responsibly could result in the starvation for anybody is absurd (not to mention that, it's not evident that feeding a few takes moral priority over sustaining the planet that EVERYONE depends on - it definitely fails the utilitarian model). You have less evidence that heeding climate scientists' warnings will cause starvation than the climate scientists have that the climate is changing for the worse.
The movie doesn't even have a main character.
The main characters in all six Star Wars films are R2D2 and C3P0. Kasdan tried to get away from it in Empire Strikes Back, which is everyone's favorite, so it's understandable why this fact is so conveniently overlooked.
I love how everyone becomes an expert film critic when bashing Star Wars episodes 1-3. The fact of the matter is, if the prequels would have lived up to contemporary critical standards they would have felt out of place next to episodes 4-6. The same goofiness we hate about Jar-Jar Binks was central to C3P0. We just have fond childhood memories of C3P0 which blind us to how annoying he really was.
I'm sure you would have been just ecstatic if Michael Bay made episodes 1-3. They would do everything 'right' and by doing so fail to actually hold all six movies together as a single cinematic experience. The point of the CGI enhancements to the older ones was an obvious means to this end. They came out before the prequels and Lucas wanted to make them fit together cinematically.
People seem to really forget that Star Wars is a series of adventure films. They get into some dark territory when they climax (episodes III/VI), but they build up to these climaxes with stories of adventure and fun. It's obvious that many filmgoers such as yourself wanted the prequels to be like Batman Begins compared to the Tim Burton films. But Lucas wasn't trying to redefine what Star Wars was -- he was just finishing a project he started a long time ago.
Hayden Christensen may have been a wholly mediocre actor, but so was Mark Hamill. Wouldn't it have felt weird for 1-3 to have stellar acting/writing and then move on to the ridiculousness in 4-6? I say keep it ridiculous the whole way through, which is just what Lucas did.
Personally, I think Star Wars as a whole series is the greatest work of cinematic art ever created. Yeah, I said it. Citizen Kane doesn't have shit on Star Wars.
Just by using it they're supporting it. They bring legitimacy to LibreOffice that OOo's been trying to achieve since its inception. All those managers who scoffed at the idea of using non-MS Office software because "it's not Microsoft, and in business everyone uses Microsoft" will take pause. When they need to trim the budget, they may remember reading some story about saving millions by going with LibreOffice. They may talk about it with their golf buddies.
Every large business that relies on LibreOffice is one less large business paying an unnecessary tax to Microsoft for software functionality that is extremely dated. Office is one of the most overpriced pieces of software on the market and it maintains that price by leveraging compatibility and this perception that a business has to use Microsoft to be taken seriously. OOo and its forks are taking care of the compatibility with OpenDocument and support for Word -- it's businesses that take the plunge and actually use the software that will take care of the perception problem. So just by using the software, they're supporting it. Doing so publicly supports FOSS even more.
I hate these meaningless bits of research. So they quizzed 30 people about 12 stories they read and as a result they're making a sweeping conclusion about how all people enjoy stories. This isn't serious research. How do things like this get published? Publishing things like this dilutes the value of serious research that follows a logical methodology. Reports like these are why no one takes statistics and research seriously.
Did the morons who decided to put this study together ever consider the fact that some people don't mind spoilers and some do? That some plots depend on plot twists whereas some do not? Could it be that the stories with the 'spoiler' paragraphs contained nothing more than heavy foreshadowing, which isn't really a 'spoiler?'
There's nothing complete enough about this 'research' that one could draw real conclusions from. BUT:
"You get this significant reverse-spoiler effect," study author and professor of social psychology Nicholas Christenfeld said.
The moron in charge of the research does so anyway. Social psychology? No wonder. The quacks of science strike again!
Anecdotes don't account for much, but since neither does this research, so here we go: I don't watch movie trailers because they spoil the movie for me. I can usually guess the end of a movie and its major plot points from a trailer. The 'Snape kills Dumbledoor' bullshit really pissed me off and ruined that one for me. Here's an alternate theory: some people hate spoilers and some people don't. It all depends on what we enjoy about stories.
Considering that all planets are composed of material that was once floating about in space, this is kind of obvious. It's just a matter of when it arrived. Being part of a meteor sounds cool and all, but it's not like in the movies where there's a magic meteor that can give super powers (which seems to be the summary's interpretation). It just means this specific matter arrived on earth after the planet was already pretty well formed.
If it does a job better than a human, then it is an advance.
I think that's what scares a lot of people.
Fix computer security?
hehe, that's a good one. Make it better, I can understand. Fix is asking the impossible.
This is why William Gibson started writing novels that take place in the present. The world caught up with his dystopian ideas.
[I for one, have no understanding of why the rest of the United States is so damn fond of watching 'football']
Do you understand why many geeks are so fond of chess? How about Starcraft? It's the same reason football is so popular. Believe it or not, these games have a whole lot in common. In each case Sun Tzu's Art of War can be used as a strategy guide. Football fans are no different than S. Korean Starcraft fans despite the vast differences in lifestyle.
People - men in particular - love simulating war.
It seems that no one took Google seriously when they labeled Google+ as a beta project. The thing is still under construction and people are complaining that it doesn't work perfectly. Gee, I wonder why.
I'm not into the social networking stuff so I haven't bothered trying to get an invite, but representatives from Google have stated that Google+ deactivation shouldn't deactivate Gmail and other services. This Marcheschi guy didn't get his G+ account banned, the article didn't even say whether he has one, he got his main Google account banned for posting questionable pictures in Picasa.
In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws.
So he set out to get his account banned and it worked. Then he publicly griped about it because he's an attention whore. Nothing to see here.
Anyway, what type of sick fuck wants to show images of minors being sexualized, legal or not? Apparently Mr. Marcheschi is fairly computer illiterate considering he doesn't know where to find a picture that was on his computer at one point. Or maybe he just knows no one would defend him if he actually made it public. After all, how is an image of a child being sexualized not child porn?
1. Relying on the inspector is an appeal to authority, not an independent confirmation. An independent confirmation would be becoming an expert yourself and doing the inspection yourself.
2. Have you done this for every building you've ever entered?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority. With the exception of the scientists working for BP, Exxon, and the like who don't really qualify as legitimate experts b/c they're paid to make a case rather than objectively obtain knowledge, there is a near consensus among the scientific community that humans have caused climate change which can have disastrous effects.
I can make a skeptical case against the big bang, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical isn't logical. That leads to all sorts of conundrums such as being skeptical that one exists at all (hello insanity), or being skeptical of the structural integrity of the building you're in (hello paranoia).
Did you independently confirm that your roof is structurally sound? If not, why are you sitting under it? Perhaps you logically assumed that the framers, carpenters, roofers, et al. did their jobs correctly and proficiently.
I've been waiting for this for years, I always knew we'd get there eventually. I'm going to go buy a carton of Marlboros to celebrate.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think the Dems actually want to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Hell no! But that's the compromise they've put on the table. The only thing they're asking in return is to cut tax loopholes for the extremely wealthy and for corporations.
If all we do is make cuts to the budget then the Dems haven't compromised, they've just submitted to the Republican agenda. If the Dems were to be uncompromising their position would be, "raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, we'll do nothing else."
The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to answer all the riddles of the universe. It's just an explanation for how life developed on earth.
This is a victory. Anti-intellectuals in Texas attempted to make their schools even worse than they currently are by teaching children 'alternative theories to evolution.' The problem is, there is no viable alternative theory to evolution that is both logical and backed up by evidence. As one learns in logic 101: "knowledge is justified true believe." The scientific community has a justified and true belief in an evolutionary theory of some sort (Dawkin's version may be slightly different than Gould's, but both their theories are derived from Darwin's original premise) .
The same cannot be said for creationism. What's the best they've brought to the table? Michael Behe? His argument is essential the same as yours: talk about how mysterious and unknowable things are. That doesn't prove anything, and it certainly doesn't disprove the theory of evolution.
I'm religious but evolution doesn't threaten my spirituality. The jerk-off proponents of creationism don't understand religion or science because they're all about one thing: clinging to the childish belief in (literal) life after death. They're trying to convince themselves and convincing others affirms their beliefs. And it all starts with the humility angle: "we can't possibly know . . . the universe is so incomprehensible . . . humans are ignorant . . ."
The truth does need to be defended. There are far too many ignoramuses adamantly defending falsehoods.
Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
More like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers do!
There was a story just a few months ago about iOS apps doing the exact same thing. There was even a lawsuit filed at the beginning of 2011. I think people put way too much stock in the iOS approval process.
I wouldn't doubt it, but Apple has demonstrated time and time again their willingness to cut people from the app store for the most minor violations of the ToS. A developer puts their company at a much higher risk by trying to pull such shenanigans on the iPhone. Just out of curiosity, was there any statistics to accompany the iPhone story? I mean, I seriously doubt 8%+ iPhone apps do this sort of thing.
That's my point. I didn't mean 'justify' in an objective sense, I meant in the minds of consumers. I guess I could have worded it better.
So Facebook apps destroy privacy. However, that does not change the point that some Android apps are doing the same thing.
I agree. The big question now is whether Google will ban the 800+ apps from their marketplace. If they turn a blind eye to these revelations, then they're no better than Facebook and we can expect more app developers to datamine in the future. Personally, I have faith in Google to do the right thing, but we shall see. The last thing they want is for these data to justify Apple's stringent approval process.
Exactly. We love you Linux -- now where's my money!?!
1. Quake 3 was never king of anything but as a test for hardware. People would say things like, "sure, the specs are nice, but how well does it run Quake 3?" That contributed to the game's sales big-time. When you spend over a grand on your computer, spending $50 on Quake 3 to push it to the limits and show it off to your friends was no big deal.
2. Quake 3 was a shitty game. It's actually a good example of why people have mostly played such games on consoles since the XBox came out: those with the largest monitors, fastest hardware, fastest connections, and most twitchy mice had distinct advantages. Not that it mattered. The battles were so chaotic one was liable to be blasted by a random rocket at any time.
3. The pinnacle of game design is the exact opposite of what you described. It's Metal Gear Solid. Complex, gimmicky, creative and meaningful storyline, full of strange and sometimes useless features, and always taking risks. At the very least, if you want to put all the emphasis on 'dynamic and strategic gameplay' and 'time-tested ideas,' then Starcraft would take the crown.
lol @ dumbasses who call others 'noob' as if it's a real insult