Oh, damn it. I had a 2150 node cluster supercomputer that I had been using to simulate nuclear explosions. I was trying to get rid of it, and China was my number one option. I guess that's out the window then...
Well, I don't know if the percentage is quite that high... maybe only about 75% of Americans are unreasonable. I too am an American, and I am constantly disappointed by the stupidity of so many of my countrymen.
I know. But "a person who is being repressed by other natinos with such superior firepower that they have no other possible way of defending themselves" is so... I don't know, bland? And it sure isn't as catchy as "suicide-bomber."
Every reasonable person on the planet knows the US is the most violent and unjust nation in the world (at least in foreign policy issues).
Which might go further towards proving my point. People download proprietary software from the internet without paying for it, but would not call themselves a "pirate." Perhaps they disagree with the terminology.
And if I may ask one question about your little rant in the middle of that, what would you call a "suicide bomber?" Isn't that a person who blows you up with a bomb attached to themselves that in turn kills them (suicide)? I mean, what else can they be called?
Actually, at least some of that 45% might be attributed to people who get their stuff for free from the internet, but would not consider themselves pirates. A lot of people don't want to admit that they are a "pirate." Of course, I'm practically certain a large portion of that 45% is open source. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet that's an improvement over a few years ago.
Huge mats of something in the ocean producing oil? Doesn't that seem like a great way to synthesize oil spills? I mean, the occasional crashed ship is bad enough, but whenever a plant decides to go on the fritz could get a little ludicrous, right? And how could you collect all the oil they're pumping out into the sea?
It's a two-way translator, is it? Wouldn't it be hilarious if they forgot to prevent feedback loops? Someone says something in English, and it gets translated into Spanish, and upon hearing something said in Spanish, translates it back into English, and so on. "Hello-Hola-Hello-Hola-Hello..."
You apparently cannot see your own contradictions and hypocrisy. You accuse "liberals" (by which I assume you mean everyone to the left of you) of seeing labels and smears as a replacement for reason, but in the previous sentence you use such labels as "I feel your pain liberalism," "anti-Americanism," and "subjectivist" and call it reason. Now, I don't live in the South so my take may not be skewed quite enough, but those labels and/or smears appear to be used as a replacement for reason. Conservatism's main emphasis may be focused on individual's rights, and what is good for one man at one moment, but liberalism tries to focus on what is best for the entire human race over the long run. That may make liberals seem like they disagree with each other a lot and are very factionalized, because different people have different opinions about what is best for humanity as a whole, but in the end it all gets worked out. On the other hand, conservatives appear very close together and non-factionalized, because the thing that is good for one person is easy to translate to another (in one's mind), so people are quicker to agree. Take taxes, for example: a conservative will say "cut taxes," and other conservatives will say "he's right, I want my money back." A liberal will say "we can't cut taxes, because we need to spend this money to do this for the country," but all the other liberals will say "well, you're right about the taxes, but we should spend the money on this and this, not that or that."
The last time I saw a small group of conservatives use insults, threats or threats of violence... Well, September 11th immediately comes to mind (though I hate to bring it up). The conservative bin Laden used violence to attempt to shut down the comparatively liberal US. A better example would be the crowds of people outside abortion clinics every single day who shout at the doctors and the patients, block the entrance, and do various other things to prevent people from being allowed to have an abortion. These conservatives have not stopped short of murder to have their views heard. Killing a doctor who performs abortions is wrong, and it sure doesn't emphasize reason or individual rights (think about the doctor's rights). And what about all this talk about having a female priest in Christianity? Some liberal Christians said "great, what's the difference, go ahead and let a woman be a priest. After all, that's more rights for her." But a group of conservative Southerners traveled the country lambasting women and men who supported this apparently idiotic idea. At a church just blocks from my house (in Minnesota) a couple hundred people from the South (it was either Tennessee or Alabama) blocked off the church for an entire Sunday and threatened to kill a woman before she became a priest. That's a threat of violence used to shut down a liberal event, isn't it?
The fact that you are blind to exactly half of the injustices that occur every day is interesting and depressing. It does not happen only to conservatives, nor does it only happen to liberals. You say I ignore the fact that there is a liberal bias in the moderation of this site, and that there is a liberal bias on the part of the newsmedia. Well, the moderation of this site reflects the views of its patrons. Just because you disagree with them gives you protection from moderation? A conservative is equally likely to mod down a liberal opinion as a liberal is to mod down a conservative opinion. It appears that there are just more liberals here than conservatives, eh? And the bias on the part of the newsmedia is completely subjective, and depends on the eye of the beholder. You think it is too liberal, and I know some people who think it is too conservative. If looked at objectively, the popular newsmedia is pretty moderate, sometimes swaying slightly to the left, sometimes to the right. If it seems too far left for you, maybe that's because you are pretty far to the right. If its sway to the left seems prolonged, perhaps you are much farther to the right than most other Americans. You can't ask the media not to pander to the majority, can you?
For someone who claims to emphasize reason over all else, you are pretty blind.
From everything I said in my post it sounded like I was denying the fact that "it happens," doesn't it? However, I would disagree that one only gets modded down for holding conservative viewpoints. A person is also likely to be modded down for a liberal viewpoint. As was once pointed out in a.sig: "The only way to/. karma glory is through humor. Actually having an opinion will only get you modded down."
A lot of people are intolerant of opposing viewpoints, especially those who see those who differ from them as "opponents." Intolerance is not strictly assigned to liberals, nor only to conservatives. Rather, it is usually the extremist who is intolerant of a different opinion, though an extremist's opinion is also more likely to irk the majority of people than someone who is mildly to the left or the right. If you have had trouble with being modded down for your views, perhaps you are an extremist. You should work on that, it may be dangerous in the long run.
Hmmm, a particular political position? I don't think anybody did claim that the moderation doesn't favor a particular philosophy. In fact, it only makes sense that the moderation would reflect the views of the moderators, who apparently may or may not subscribe to a political viewpoint. A lot of moderators disagree with a lot of other moderators, and they all disagree with a lot of posters. But you did not make clear your political position, rather you just revealed the fact that you are a spiteful man who may well be a dullard and an idiot.
Yeah, I know that, but the good ol' gov't may not know that. A giant cockpit in someone's backyard may seem just a little more sinister than a $50 program sitting on the shelf at Best Buy. If you know what I mean.
That's pretty close to the first thing I thought when I read that. 500 meters? Is that all over the planet? That must be a pretty flat planet then. I then thought to myself that everything I'd heard previously had led me to believe that Mars was not flat at all, and in fact has a couple of gigantic mountains on it. I agree with you, this seems like an odd statement, and they could impress me more with better statistics.
People who are not American citizens have had large FBI files. And I resent the implication that I am paranoid. I think it's great that he's building this, and was only pointing out that he should be careful lest he draw attention to himself that might possibly cause trouble with the local/national/international law enforcement.
Whoever wrote that article is a moron. He provides no evidence to suggest that Sony and Nintendo break even on each sale, though he does justify that by saying it, oh, about 25 times (that makes it true, right?). He doesn't take into account the fact that Microsoft also makes a lot of the software, raising the profit they make on a game up from "$5" to probably something closer to $30. Don't believe me that MS makes games? Try Halo. NFL Fever. Fusion Frenzy. Amped. And dozens of others that I haven't yet run out to purchase. But take me. I've bought 4 MS games and 2 third party games. That's [4*30+2*5] $130. So say they lost $100 on each console, and each cusomer buys 7 (the author's assumption) games throughout the course of the console's life. Since over half of the games are written by Microsoft or a company owned by Microsoft, it might be safe to assume that half of the titles purchased would be Microsoft titles. Then you get into the fact that the MS games are better, and it might be possible that someone would buy more than half of their games from MS. Well, then MS is making a profit after 6 titles.
The Monday Morning CEO also neglects to mention the economics of the PS2 and the GameCube, though he does blatantly try to make us believe that they are both making money out the ass. This article is by no means a detailed breakdown of the economics of selling game consoles, it is an article written by somebody that doesn't like Microsoft and has their own website. That, of course, gives them the necessary credentials to be cited all over the internet, right? If you read the "About the Author," this guy doesn't exactly sound like the most qualified person ever. Just because 10 consoles came out while he was counting doesn't mean he had anything to do with them, and he sure as hell had nothing to do with the fact that only two were "major successes." Both of which he inexplicably mentions in his "credentials." And what about his other articles, perhaps they would redeem him? Well, he's written only two other articles, and both of them are over a year old. One article states that "Wireless Blows," and the other article is entitled "You've Got to Spend Money to Lose Money." At first the second sounds as if it might make sense, but the article is nothing but a pitced battle against the old adage, "you've got to spend money to make money." He says nothing new, and all his data could have been gleaned from watching the news a couple of days a week.
Consoles are about the games, pal. People who shun the Xbox because of the manufacturer despite its technological superiority are trying their hardest to be zealous, but trying even harder to justify their (honestly) unjustifiable stand. This article is just one more way for a person to try to justify himself for hating the Xbox. A poor way, but a way nonetheless.
Does this make anyone else think of September 11th and training to fly a commercial airliner? If he actually manages to get it working, the current administration may well send some goons over to check out the situation. This is also probably a pretty good way to get a really big FBI file on yourself.
That's not to say that I don't think he should be allowed to do this, in fact I wish I had one of these things.
A friend of mine actually built something exactly like the Dragon Runner a few months ago. He's a real big RC Car aficionado, so he had a bunch of different cars sitting around, and he wanted to do something more interesting with one of them. He got a couple of those X10 cameras, and mounted them on one of his cars, and had them broadcast back to a little battery powered TV that he carried around with him as he controlled the car. It had a range of.5 miles and could go full speed (40 MPH) for about 45 minutes before he needed to replace his batteries.
I should hope that the Marines could get something at least on par with something my 17 year old friend built in his spare time.
This is totally offtopic, but what media players do you people use (on Windows) in lieu of the windows media player? Quicktime for PC is a veritable piece of crap, RealPlayer is absolutely the most abhorrent software ever written, and Windows Media isn't actually that bad. I use it for all my video needs, which are extensive. Out of curiosity, I want to know what other people use.
Since when is Congress controlled by the Democrats? The Senate is now controlled by the Democratic party, but all budget-related bills must, by law, originate in the House of Representatives, which is still under the control of the Republicans. Wow, you posted something totally incorrect!
The Army isn't trying to make a game that balances realism and fun (for everyone). They want a game that is as realistic as possible, and the people that are still good at it and still find it fun are the people that the Army would want to look at for possible recruitment.
Just pointing this out. I'm going to get it because it's free, but I'm going to deliberately (as if that's necessary) suck at it so that I can stay the h out of the Army.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, damn it. I had a 2150 node cluster supercomputer that I had been using to simulate nuclear explosions. I was trying to get rid of it, and China was my number one option. I guess that's out the window then...
I doubt it is Microsoft that would be supplying the patches.
Well, I don't know if the percentage is quite that high... maybe only about 75% of Americans are unreasonable. I too am an American, and I am constantly disappointed by the stupidity of so many of my countrymen.
I know. But "a person who is being repressed by other natinos with such superior firepower that they have no other possible way of defending themselves" is so... I don't know, bland? And it sure isn't as catchy as "suicide-bomber."
Every reasonable person on the planet knows the US is the most violent and unjust nation in the world (at least in foreign policy issues).
Which might go further towards proving my point. People download proprietary software from the internet without paying for it, but would not call themselves a "pirate." Perhaps they disagree with the terminology.
And if I may ask one question about your little rant in the middle of that, what would you call a "suicide bomber?" Isn't that a person who blows you up with a bomb attached to themselves that in turn kills them (suicide)? I mean, what else can they be called?
Actually, at least some of that 45% might be attributed to people who get their stuff for free from the internet, but would not consider themselves pirates. A lot of people don't want to admit that they are a "pirate." Of course, I'm practically certain a large portion of that 45% is open source. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet that's an improvement over a few years ago.
I'm going to try not to ever swim in oil, if you follow me...
Huge mats of something in the ocean producing oil? Doesn't that seem like a great way to synthesize oil spills? I mean, the occasional crashed ship is bad enough, but whenever a plant decides to go on the fritz could get a little ludicrous, right? And how could you collect all the oil they're pumping out into the sea?
It's a two-way translator, is it? Wouldn't it be hilarious if they forgot to prevent feedback loops? Someone says something in English, and it gets translated into Spanish, and upon hearing something said in Spanish, translates it back into English, and so on. "Hello-Hola-Hello-Hola-Hello..."
You apparently cannot see your own contradictions and hypocrisy. You accuse "liberals" (by which I assume you mean everyone to the left of you) of seeing labels and smears as a replacement for reason, but in the previous sentence you use such labels as "I feel your pain liberalism," "anti-Americanism," and "subjectivist" and call it reason. Now, I don't live in the South so my take may not be skewed quite enough, but those labels and/or smears appear to be used as a replacement for reason. Conservatism's main emphasis may be focused on individual's rights, and what is good for one man at one moment, but liberalism tries to focus on what is best for the entire human race over the long run. That may make liberals seem like they disagree with each other a lot and are very factionalized, because different people have different opinions about what is best for humanity as a whole, but in the end it all gets worked out. On the other hand, conservatives appear very close together and non-factionalized, because the thing that is good for one person is easy to translate to another (in one's mind), so people are quicker to agree. Take taxes, for example: a conservative will say "cut taxes," and other conservatives will say "he's right, I want my money back." A liberal will say "we can't cut taxes, because we need to spend this money to do this for the country," but all the other liberals will say "well, you're right about the taxes, but we should spend the money on this and this, not that or that."
The last time I saw a small group of conservatives use insults, threats or threats of violence... Well, September 11th immediately comes to mind (though I hate to bring it up). The conservative bin Laden used violence to attempt to shut down the comparatively liberal US. A better example would be the crowds of people outside abortion clinics every single day who shout at the doctors and the patients, block the entrance, and do various other things to prevent people from being allowed to have an abortion. These conservatives have not stopped short of murder to have their views heard. Killing a doctor who performs abortions is wrong, and it sure doesn't emphasize reason or individual rights (think about the doctor's rights). And what about all this talk about having a female priest in Christianity? Some liberal Christians said "great, what's the difference, go ahead and let a woman be a priest. After all, that's more rights for her." But a group of conservative Southerners traveled the country lambasting women and men who supported this apparently idiotic idea. At a church just blocks from my house (in Minnesota) a couple hundred people from the South (it was either Tennessee or Alabama) blocked off the church for an entire Sunday and threatened to kill a woman before she became a priest. That's a threat of violence used to shut down a liberal event, isn't it?
The fact that you are blind to exactly half of the injustices that occur every day is interesting and depressing. It does not happen only to conservatives, nor does it only happen to liberals. You say I ignore the fact that there is a liberal bias in the moderation of this site, and that there is a liberal bias on the part of the newsmedia. Well, the moderation of this site reflects the views of its patrons. Just because you disagree with them gives you protection from moderation? A conservative is equally likely to mod down a liberal opinion as a liberal is to mod down a conservative opinion. It appears that there are just more liberals here than conservatives, eh? And the bias on the part of the newsmedia is completely subjective, and depends on the eye of the beholder. You think it is too liberal, and I know some people who think it is too conservative. If looked at objectively, the popular newsmedia is pretty moderate, sometimes swaying slightly to the left, sometimes to the right. If it seems too far left for you, maybe that's because you are pretty far to the right. If its sway to the left seems prolonged, perhaps you are much farther to the right than most other Americans. You can't ask the media not to pander to the majority, can you?
For someone who claims to emphasize reason over all else, you are pretty blind.
From everything I said in my post it sounded like I was denying the fact that "it happens," doesn't it? However, I would disagree that one only gets modded down for holding conservative viewpoints. A person is also likely to be modded down for a liberal viewpoint. As was once pointed out in a .sig: "The only way to /. karma glory is through humor. Actually having an opinion will only get you modded down."
A lot of people are intolerant of opposing viewpoints, especially those who see those who differ from them as "opponents." Intolerance is not strictly assigned to liberals, nor only to conservatives. Rather, it is usually the extremist who is intolerant of a different opinion, though an extremist's opinion is also more likely to irk the majority of people than someone who is mildly to the left or the right. If you have had trouble with being modded down for your views, perhaps you are an extremist. You should work on that, it may be dangerous in the long run.
Hmmm, a particular political position? I don't think anybody did claim that the moderation doesn't favor a particular philosophy. In fact, it only makes sense that the moderation would reflect the views of the moderators, who apparently may or may not subscribe to a political viewpoint. A lot of moderators disagree with a lot of other moderators, and they all disagree with a lot of posters. But you did not make clear your political position, rather you just revealed the fact that you are a spiteful man who may well be a dullard and an idiot.
What do you mean? It worked in Jurassic Park...
Yeah, I know that, but the good ol' gov't may not know that. A giant cockpit in someone's backyard may seem just a little more sinister than a $50 program sitting on the shelf at Best Buy. If you know what I mean.
That's pretty close to the first thing I thought when I read that. 500 meters? Is that all over the planet? That must be a pretty flat planet then. I then thought to myself that everything I'd heard previously had led me to believe that Mars was not flat at all, and in fact has a couple of gigantic mountains on it. I agree with you, this seems like an odd statement, and they could impress me more with better statistics.
People who are not American citizens have had large FBI files. And I resent the implication that I am paranoid. I think it's great that he's building this, and was only pointing out that he should be careful lest he draw attention to himself that might possibly cause trouble with the local/national/international law enforcement.
Whoever wrote that article is a moron. He provides no evidence to suggest that Sony and Nintendo break even on each sale, though he does justify that by saying it, oh, about 25 times (that makes it true, right?). He doesn't take into account the fact that Microsoft also makes a lot of the software, raising the profit they make on a game up from "$5" to probably something closer to $30. Don't believe me that MS makes games? Try Halo. NFL Fever. Fusion Frenzy. Amped. And dozens of others that I haven't yet run out to purchase. But take me. I've bought 4 MS games and 2 third party games. That's [4*30+2*5] $130. So say they lost $100 on each console, and each cusomer buys 7 (the author's assumption) games throughout the course of the console's life. Since over half of the games are written by Microsoft or a company owned by Microsoft, it might be safe to assume that half of the titles purchased would be Microsoft titles. Then you get into the fact that the MS games are better, and it might be possible that someone would buy more than half of their games from MS. Well, then MS is making a profit after 6 titles.
The Monday Morning CEO also neglects to mention the economics of the PS2 and the GameCube, though he does blatantly try to make us believe that they are both making money out the ass. This article is by no means a detailed breakdown of the economics of selling game consoles, it is an article written by somebody that doesn't like Microsoft and has their own website. That, of course, gives them the necessary credentials to be cited all over the internet, right? If you read the "About the Author," this guy doesn't exactly sound like the most qualified person ever. Just because 10 consoles came out while he was counting doesn't mean he had anything to do with them, and he sure as hell had nothing to do with the fact that only two were "major successes." Both of which he inexplicably mentions in his "credentials." And what about his other articles, perhaps they would redeem him? Well, he's written only two other articles, and both of them are over a year old. One article states that "Wireless Blows," and the other article is entitled "You've Got to Spend Money to Lose Money." At first the second sounds as if it might make sense, but the article is nothing but a pitced battle against the old adage, "you've got to spend money to make money." He says nothing new, and all his data could have been gleaned from watching the news a couple of days a week.
Consoles are about the games, pal. People who shun the Xbox because of the manufacturer despite its technological superiority are trying their hardest to be zealous, but trying even harder to justify their (honestly) unjustifiable stand. This article is just one more way for a person to try to justify himself for hating the Xbox. A poor way, but a way nonetheless.
Does this make anyone else think of September 11th and training to fly a commercial airliner? If he actually manages to get it working, the current administration may well send some goons over to check out the situation. This is also probably a pretty good way to get a really big FBI file on yourself.
That's not to say that I don't think he should be allowed to do this, in fact I wish I had one of these things.
Ha- I think you mean RIAA against Al Gore for creating the Internet...
A friend of mine actually built something exactly like the Dragon Runner a few months ago. He's a real big RC Car aficionado, so he had a bunch of different cars sitting around, and he wanted to do something more interesting with one of them. He got a couple of those X10 cameras, and mounted them on one of his cars, and had them broadcast back to a little battery powered TV that he carried around with him as he controlled the car. It had a range of .5 miles and could go full speed (40 MPH) for about 45 minutes before he needed to replace his batteries.
I should hope that the Marines could get something at least on par with something my 17 year old friend built in his spare time.
This is totally offtopic, but what media players do you people use (on Windows) in lieu of the windows media player? Quicktime for PC is a veritable piece of crap, RealPlayer is absolutely the most abhorrent software ever written, and Windows Media isn't actually that bad. I use it for all my video needs, which are extensive. Out of curiosity, I want to know what other people use.
Am I so very unusual in thinking
Hmmm... Actually, if you live in America: yes. You are unusual in thinking.
On the record, Clinton did not run in this last election.
Since when is Congress controlled by the Democrats? The Senate is now controlled by the Democratic party, but all budget-related bills must, by law, originate in the House of Representatives, which is still under the control of the Republicans. Wow, you posted something totally incorrect!
The Army isn't trying to make a game that balances realism and fun (for everyone). They want a game that is as realistic as possible, and the people that are still good at it and still find it fun are the people that the Army would want to look at for possible recruitment.
Just pointing this out. I'm going to get it because it's free, but I'm going to deliberately (as if that's necessary) suck at it so that I can stay the h out of the Army.