The controversy. The versions of Lucas' beloved films that are on these new DVDs are not the original theatrical releases but the special editions that played in theaters in 1997. Rumor have circulated about additional changes, but Ward would not deny or confirm them. "We want to encourage our fans to check them out themselves."
Now, you mind answering my question, since the article didn't? Or do you have other posts to troll?
See the bit where it says that they are "the special editions that played in theaters in 1997?"
Remember Greedo shooting first in the special editions that played in theaters in 1997?
Me too.
All snarkiness aside, I simply can't imagine Lucas ever admitting to making a mistake. So the only way you'll ever see Han shoot first is if you get a hold of the Laserdisk version. sorry.
"...shouldn't we concentrate more on doing things to make mad people NOT want to blow us all up?"
Like caving in to extremist demands?
... yes. Yes that is exactly what he is saying here. As long as you equate "not acting in a way that pissed off most of the planet" as an extremist demand. Which, alas, many in the current administration seem to do...
Because as anybody who would rather think about this for two seconds (rather than just whoring up for +5 insightful, as you have) could see, protection in a real and complex world is not about *absolute* protection, it's about decreasing the *rate* of violation/infringement.
True. But it is also a question of balance. And at a cost of over 6 billion pounds, "decreasing the rate" just isn't that impressive. Even if I grit my teeth and ignore the huge civil rights issues, I would expect to see a large to very large reduction in violation/infringement to justify that price tag.
Since Blunkett himself has said that these cards will not help against terrorism, I see no logical case for the introduction of ID cards unless the benefits can be proved to be worth the cost. At this point, this had not been proved to my satisfaction.
I may be mistaken, but that should provide some legal clout in the event they get h4xx0r3d (so to speak) and their users sued like so many others.
I love those legal disclaimers that sites put such as "law enforcement people and RIAA members or affiliates are not permitted to enter this site." this attempt to hide from copyright infringement culpability is as laughable as it is juvenile.
for the record, they carry absolute zero clout, and doubly so in this era of DMCA. however, they probably make for good search terms.
Heh. Of course you could argue that a member of the RIAA entering the site despite you telling them not to consitutes overcoming a security measure and hence contravenes the DMCA...
ok, perhaps not. although it'd be funny to see someone try that argument in court!
Just as a followup, I should say that I tend to agree. Most of the actual citizens of a country seem to be, by and large, decent people. Even most of the French:-D.
My significant other hails from Pittsburgh, so I'm out there a lot of the time. Other than a background level of unthinking racism, and a rather distressing tendency to hang flags everywhere, I've never had a problem with actual Americans.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat beside the point. It is very difficult to disassociate the actions of a government and those citizens whom the government represents. When the US (or UK or any other government) acts in a way that is irresponsible, dangerous, provocative or just plain irritating, the natural response is to blame the country as a whole. After all, a govt. is acting in the name of their people. A democracy is assumed to be responsible for those in power.
What seems to be happening in the US at the moment is that the administration is not representing the will of the electorate, but rather the will of a small number of very rich businessmen. Therefore, policies that are advantageous to these people, but tend to be bad for the rest of the world, are carried out obstensibly in the name of the American people.
I do take slight issue with the idea that there is no longer such a thing as genuine kindness. I would like to think that international aid (such as for the recent earthquake in Iran) comes with no real strings attached. Maybe I am (even now) still not cynical enough.
When they volunteered by their own free will? Unless you know of a law that forces Adobe to do this, this is simply Adobe being a responsible company. Don't like it? Buy something else.
That would be the plan, yes. Or use something free. *cough* GIMP *cough*
Europeans seem to foam at the mouth over the merest mention of Bush much more quickly than Americans. The "Bush is an Idiot" meme seems even more popular in the EU than in my part of the world (SF Bay!). They all seem to have fixed on an image of Bush as nothing more than a chimpanzee in cowboy gear. The truth is, of course, much more complicated, but I think it must fit nicely with their opinion of Americans in general.
See, this isn't true. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I have no problems with Americans. The main reason why I hate Bush and didn't hate Clinton is that Clinton didn't go out of his way to make my life worse. What the President of the USA does in his own country isn't really my concern, any more than I care about what Chirac does in France, but Bush has, through his decimation of pollution laws and reckless warmongering attitude, made the world a much less safe place than his predecessor. That is why we hate him. It's our world too, y'know?
Of course, when he jumps around the world, screaming insults at his supposed allies, yelling things like "if you're not with us, you're against us" and throwing verbal faeces at other world leaders, the image of a chimp in a cowboy hat is somewhat apt.
It isn't arrogant elitism to be concerned about being put at risk.
Although I do confess to getting annoyed when people don't see what is self-evident to me, that by any yardstick GWB is worse for America than Clinton was. How can a Five Trillion Dollar national debt be construed as a good thing?
I'm sure we can recall an instance when some Mayor/Newscaster/Governor/Councilwoman/Banker/CEO made some (apparently) anti- (mexican/black/jewish/chinese/mexican/...) remarks and was taken to task to apologise.
C'mon, Pulling a gun is nothing like pointing a mouse at someone. If people could learn skills by playing computer games (as opposed to simulations) everyone would be able to drive like a prop from playing too much Need for Speed.
But then again, how much skill and talent is really involved in pointing a gun at someone? I've been doing that since I played "cowboys and injuns" when I was 4...
"By listening to the "fans", who never seemed to understand the point of the game, they turned one of the most innovative games of recent times into a sub-par FPS."
Only if you're a supremely sub-par player, I'd guess. I did one level guns-a-blazin, decided it wasn't for me, and went for super stealth the rest of the game.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that you bought the game, played one level as an FPS, decided it wasn't for you and went super stealth for the rest of the game. This apparently invalidates my claim that the game does not work as an FPS.
If you loved the stealth aspect of Hitman 2 then do yourself a favour and check out the first one. Hell, just download the demos and see if it your thing. You might be surprised. The graphics might not be as pretty but the gameplay is so much more tight and involving.
you got different ratings dependant on HOW you completed the level with wicked unlockables being the reward. play before posting
Oh, right, yes. The "wicked unlockables". Heaven forfend that I forget about unlocking three extra types of gun.
You're missing my point. By effectively making the whole "stealth" aspect optional, a lot of the allure of the game was removed.
Sure, you can go for the challenge of getting a "silent assassin" ranking and I guess you could force yourself to restart the level each time you died, but there is no tension, no suspense. Nothing compared to, say, the final docks mission in the original where just one single mistake would cost you the game.
Hitman : Code 47 was a fantastic game. It was all about the suspense. You could spend fifteen minutes getting yourself into a position for the perfect shot, knowing that if you fouled up, you had to start all over again. It was tense, exciting and something entirely different from anything else out there. It was also as buggy as hell, but what can you expect when the publishing house tells the developers that they will be releasing it on a certain date, whether it is finished or not?
Of course, what happened when it was released? The whining began. "It's too difficult", "you can't save midlevel", "I can't circle-strafe" etc. etc.
And so they made some changes to the sequel. Now you could easily finish a level by just charging in, all guns blazing. Things getting a bit tricky? No problem, just quicksave! Sure, you could hide your guns in a tray of groceries, pose as a postman to pass through the gate, duck into the kitchen, collect your weaponry, sneak up the stairs, bludgeon your target to death with a golfclub and escape without a shot being fired.. but why go to all that bother when the game doesn't penalise you for just shooting everyone in the head?
By listening to the "fans", who never seemed to understand the point of the game, they turned one of the most innovative games of recent times into a sub-par FPS.
The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.
I dunno about that. Samba De Amigo was a fun game for the Dreamcast that tracked hand movements to see where you were shaking a pair of maracas. Combine that with the fancy footwork of a DDR game and you've got yourself the ultimate body workout!
If you can't look at yourself in the mirror and say "i did the right thing" you have to live with guilt. This hurts more than hunger. Never compromise. You slowly kill yourself and a part of you dies with every inch you give.
Admirable though this sentiment is, I can't help but wonder if it is being opined by someone who has never felt real hunger. Me? Given the choice between dying honest and living in guilt, I'd choose to live in guilt. There are very, very few things in this world worth dying for.
Slashdot Mirror
> then they study it intensley for a minute trying to imagine a way that one could impale someone with 128mb of MSaccess files.
128mb of MSaccess files make for a more dangerous weapon then any knife I'd say...
Hey, with 128mb of MSaccess files, you can Take over a country...
I did. The closest I found was this:
The controversy. The versions of Lucas' beloved films that are on these new DVDs are not the original theatrical releases but the special editions that played in theaters in 1997. Rumor have circulated about additional changes, but Ward would not deny or confirm them. "We want to encourage our fans to check them out themselves."
Now, you mind answering my question, since the article didn't? Or do you have other posts to troll?
See the bit where it says that they are "the special editions that played in theaters in 1997?"
Remember Greedo shooting first in the special editions that played in theaters in 1997?
Me too.
All snarkiness aside, I simply can't imagine Lucas ever admitting to making a mistake. So the only way you'll ever see Han shoot first is if you get a hold of the Laserdisk version. sorry.
What Would Gav Do?
Like caving in to extremist demands?
Which, alas, many in the current administration seem to do...
Than buy the DVD, the commentary alone is worth it.
Uh... that link goes to a DDR pad, doesn't it? Colour me confuzzled...
Because as anybody who would rather think about this for two seconds (rather than just whoring up for +5 insightful, as you have) could see, protection in a real and complex world is not about *absolute* protection, it's about decreasing the *rate* of violation/infringement.
True. But it is also a question of balance. And at a cost of over 6 billion pounds, "decreasing the rate" just isn't that impressive. Even if I grit my teeth and ignore the huge civil rights issues, I would expect to see a large to very large reduction in violation/infringement to justify that price tag.
Since Blunkett himself has said that these cards will not help against terrorism, I see no logical case for the introduction of ID cards unless the benefits can be proved to be worth the cost. At this point, this had not been proved to my satisfaction.
I may be mistaken, but that should provide some legal clout in the event they get h4xx0r3d (so to speak) and their users sued like so many others.
I love those legal disclaimers that sites put such as "law enforcement people and RIAA members or affiliates are not permitted to enter this site." this attempt to hide from copyright infringement culpability is as laughable as it is juvenile.
for the record, they carry absolute zero clout, and doubly so in this era of DMCA. however, they probably make for good search terms.
Heh. Of course you could argue that a member of the RIAA entering the site despite you telling them not to consitutes overcoming a security measure and hence contravenes the DMCA...
ok, perhaps not. although it'd be funny to see someone try that argument in court!
I think their whole tradmark is bunk. This is like naming a program "email" or "compiler" and tradmarking it.
Or, indeed, "word"...
Just as a followup, I should say that I tend to agree. Most of the actual citizens of a country seem to be, by and large, decent people. Even most of the French :-D.
My significant other hails from Pittsburgh, so I'm out there a lot of the time. Other than a background level of unthinking racism, and a rather distressing tendency to hang flags everywhere, I've never had a problem with actual Americans.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat beside the point. It is very difficult to disassociate the actions of a government and those citizens whom the government represents. When the US (or UK or any other government) acts in a way that is irresponsible, dangerous, provocative or just plain irritating, the natural response is to blame the country as a whole. After all, a govt. is acting in the name of their people. A democracy is assumed to be responsible for those in power.
What seems to be happening in the US at the moment is that the administration is not representing the will of the electorate, but rather the will of a small number of very rich businessmen. Therefore, policies that are advantageous to these people, but tend to be bad for the rest of the world, are carried out obstensibly in the name of the American people.
I do take slight issue with the idea that there is no longer such a thing as genuine kindness. I would like to think that international aid (such as for the recent earthquake in Iran) comes with no real strings attached. Maybe I am (even now) still not cynical enough.
When they volunteered by their own free will? Unless you know of a law that forces Adobe to do this, this is simply Adobe being a responsible company. Don't like it? Buy something else.
That would be the plan, yes. Or use something free. *cough* GIMP *cough*
3. Not acting like arrogant pricks.
Europeans seem to foam at the mouth over the merest mention of Bush much more quickly than Americans. The "Bush is an Idiot" meme seems even more popular in the EU than in my part of the world (SF Bay!). They all seem to have fixed on an image of Bush as nothing more than a chimpanzee in cowboy gear. The truth is, of course, much more complicated, but I think it must fit nicely with their opinion of Americans in general.
See, this isn't true. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I have no problems with Americans. The main reason why I hate Bush and didn't hate Clinton is that Clinton didn't go out of his way to make my life worse. What the President of the USA does in his own country isn't really my concern, any more than I care about what Chirac does in France, but Bush has, through his decimation of pollution laws and reckless warmongering attitude, made the world a much less safe place than his predecessor. That is why we hate him. It's our world too, y'know?
Of course, when he jumps around the world, screaming insults at his supposed allies, yelling things like "if you're not with us, you're against us" and throwing verbal faeces at other world leaders, the image of a chimp in a cowboy hat is somewhat apt.
It isn't arrogant elitism to be concerned about being put at risk.
Although I do confess to getting annoyed when people don't see what is self-evident to me, that by any yardstick GWB is worse for America than Clinton was. How can a Five Trillion Dollar national debt be construed as a good thing?
I'm sure we can recall an instance when some Mayor/Newscaster/Governor/Councilwoman/Banker/CEO made some (apparently) anti- (mexican/black/jewish/chinese/mexican/...) remarks and was taken to task to apologise.
You mean like niggardly?
"Get real. Violence leads to more violence, even if it starts with fantasy violence. "
How often do baseball players take a swing at people with their bat?
Um.. how exactly is a non-contact sport like baseball violent? Isn't it just a glorified game of Rounders? I'm confused.
C'mon, Pulling a gun is nothing like pointing a mouse at someone. If people could learn skills by playing computer games (as opposed to simulations) everyone would be able to drive like a prop from playing too much Need for Speed.
But then again, how much skill and talent is really involved in pointing a gun at someone? I've been doing that since I played "cowboys and injuns" when I was 4...
Are you really less afraid of a lunatic holding a bat or a knife than one holding a gun?
Fuck yes. I can outrun a bat or a knife.
"By listening to the "fans", who never seemed to understand the point of the game, they turned one of the most innovative games of recent times into a sub-par FPS."
Only if you're a supremely sub-par player, I'd guess. I did one level guns-a-blazin, decided it wasn't for me, and went for super stealth the rest of the game.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that you bought the game, played one level as an FPS, decided it wasn't for you and went super stealth for the rest of the game. This apparently invalidates my claim that the game does not work as an FPS.
If you loved the stealth aspect of Hitman 2 then do yourself a favour and check out the first one. Hell, just download the demos and see if it your thing. You might be surprised. The graphics might not be as pretty but the gameplay is so much more tight and involving.
Which was kinda my point.
I just got Rez (with the Adapter), but we haven't had a chance to "test it out".
How?
Don't ask
you got different ratings dependant on HOW you completed the level with wicked unlockables being the reward. play before posting
.
Oh, right, yes. The "wicked unlockables". Heaven forfend that I forget about unlocking three extra types of gun
You're missing my point. By effectively making the whole "stealth" aspect optional, a lot of the allure of the game was removed.
Sure, you can go for the challenge of getting a "silent assassin" ranking and I guess you could force yourself to restart the level each time you died, but there is no tension, no suspense. Nothing compared to, say, the final docks mission in the original where just one single mistake would cost you the game.
Hitman : Code 47 was a fantastic game. It was all about the suspense. You could spend fifteen minutes getting yourself into a position for the perfect shot, knowing that if you fouled up, you had to start all over again. It was tense, exciting and something entirely different from anything else out there. It was also as buggy as hell, but what can you expect when the publishing house tells the developers that they will be releasing it on a certain date, whether it is finished or not?
Of course, what happened when it was released? The whining began. "It's too difficult", "you can't save midlevel", "I can't circle-strafe" etc. etc.
And so they made some changes to the sequel. Now you could easily finish a level by just charging in, all guns blazing. Things getting a bit tricky? No problem, just quicksave! Sure, you could hide your guns in a tray of groceries, pose as a postman to pass through the gate, duck into the kitchen, collect your weaponry, sneak up the stairs, bludgeon your target to death with a golfclub and escape without a shot being fired.. but why go to all that bother when the game doesn't penalise you for just shooting everyone in the head?
By listening to the "fans", who never seemed to understand the point of the game, they turned one of the most innovative games of recent times into a sub-par FPS.
Not taking the first no for the final answer, and working a bit with the company, goes a long way towards fixing most issues.
Yeah, but y'know so would not being given the first no by the company in the first place.
I mean come on, what, we're all telemarketers now and have to ignore the first three times a company says "no" until we get what we want?
The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.
I dunno about that. Samba De Amigo was a fun game for the Dreamcast that tracked hand movements to see where you were shaking a pair of maracas. Combine that with the fancy footwork of a DDR game and you've got yourself the ultimate body workout!
I too think it sucks that you can't open the window on the airplane.
Ironic, considering that it would suck if you could...
Uh.. for the sake of those of us who haven't quite learned every new acronym, what is FP? :[
:-)
I am living the dream. Finally I can, without fear of being offtopic, do what I have always dreamed of but have never dared...
FIRST POST!!!!!!!!111!!111!1!!!!!!
I can now die happy.
Thank you
If you can't look at yourself in the mirror and say "i did the right thing" you have to live with guilt. This hurts more than hunger. Never compromise. You slowly kill yourself and a part of you dies with every inch you give.
Admirable though this sentiment is, I can't help but wonder if it is being opined by someone who has never felt real hunger.
Me? Given the choice between dying honest and living in guilt, I'd choose to live in guilt. There are very, very few things in this world worth dying for.