I'd think if you're playing with her over a network like XBOX Live and you're paying for it, she'd at least be using a microphone. Not that that's a completely accurate way to tell a person's gender.
But what about his other child? Or the fact that the mother was within three feet of the 3 year old girl as she shot herself? Come on, criminal charges need to be filed and these people need to have their other child taken away from them. I support the right for people to own guns, but they need to take responsibility for what they do with them.
A lot of colleges have many of your classes (especially higher level ones) in classroom settings. And while the title of the article says "Lecture Hall" the articles say "class" and "classroom"; so we're not only talking about 100+ students, we're also taking anywhere from 15+.
Just do point out your thing on cell phones, I don't know a single professor that doesn't get bothered by students blatantly texting or playing on their cell phones during class.
I've had a lecture set up in stadium style seating where the guy in front of my enjoyed playing video games instead of paying attention to the lecture. Having bright flashing colors and motion slightly down and to the right of your field of vision is a bit of a distraction. Now it didn't go as far as stopping me from taking notes and I still got an A. So it certainly wasn't a situation where it affected me a great but it was slightly annoying. Not sure if I ban laptops entirely because of it, I guess that would depend on how many student complaints I'd received about it.
I've found (from attending two schools myself due to transferring and from friends at other schools) that professors taking attendance is fairly common. I don't know how new it is, but a good number of them are doing it. I've had everything from miss three classes and you drop by a letter grade to you must show up for at least 50% of classes or you fail. I've also had a good number of professors that don't take any attendance at all.
I think they meant dangerous as in when you're car's fuel injector breaks and the car stops your biggest risk is getting hit by the car behind you, with a jetpack you just fall out of the sky. In fact, with almost any failure you just fall out of the sky. So if these things start going like 20 or 50ft up, you're gonna miss for just a plain old car accident.
What I find even more astounding is that gaming companies don't seem to understand that customers don't only think about brands in terms of titles for specific games (Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, etc.) but that we also think about brand in terms of the company that produces it (Acitivision Blizzard, EA, etc.). If they start making a bunch of low quality CoD games, customers will keep that in mind when looking at other Activision franchises. If you can build yourself up as a reputable game studio that always puts a lot of effort into their games then customers are going to be more likely to try new things (not just established franchise sequels) you produce than if you're known for corner-cutting and churning out sequels/spin-offs just for the cash.
they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation)
This is seems like something that would be extremely likely in games where people join clans/guilds/etc. Clan war breaks out? Give bad reviews to anyone displaying the other clan's tag. Plus the same thing could happen anyone that just doesn't get along with a clan member. And if the clan agreed to give each other 100% ratings after every game they played together, belonging in a clan might even turn out to raise your rating enough that you never have to worry about your behavior.
Then besides the whole group mentality, there's the game that these games are much more antagonistic than Amazon/eBay. When you're buying something you and the shop both have a mutual goal. You want something and they want you to pay them for it. There's little odds that a normal sale is going to result in negative attitudes on either side. You're only likely to get annoyed with a seller/buyer if there's a problem. A game in which you work against each other is much more likely to bring out bad feelings towards each other even if both play properly. Also if a member of the team feels like another player isn't pulling his weight, they might hold a grudge and give them negative feedback. You wouldn't want to end up getting labelled as someone not to play with just because you're new.
I don't think commercialization makes a holiday "fake". I mean, they're imaginary. It all depends on how we decide to celebrate them.
As for Hanukkah, I consider it to be even more commercialized than Christmas. I mean Hanukkah is actually a fairly unimportant Jewish holiday, that's been sort of promoted in recent years to compete with Christmas. And there's the people that have Hanukkah bushes...
It's been around for a few hundred years, so it's really not a fake holiday. I mean, it's not any faker than Christmas, Easter, President's Day, or almost any other holiday you can think of. The only "real" holidays are stuff like New Years (where it's actually a day something happened/is happening). But holidays only exist because we decide to celebrate them.
And if you think it's fake because it's over commercialized, would you consider Christmas or Hanukkah fake holidays?
I really liked all the text in Dragon Age, but then again I really liked the characters and love just spending time talking to them. I thought the game had some of the most fleshed out characters I've ever seen in a video game. My only real problem with the game was that I've found that mages aren't really as fun or powerful as the other classes.
Also, for those missing it in Fallout 3, Dragon Age does give you the opportunity to kill a small child.
I actually wonder if quickly improving 3D TV could hurt the market. I think this will definitely be a market people are going to be very wary entering into it and companies constantly saying a newer better 3D TV will be out in a year or two (pretty soon to be changing TVs) might confuse people about when exactly they should jump in.
Somehow I doubt this will be used by anybody. Seems too risky for the police/military and I don't see many people that own guns for self-defense wanting stringent conditions imposed on when they can use their gun even if they're already in danger.
I thought that was really weird too. Why have the summary tell us this is coming to the United States and here's how much it costs in Euros. Also though it was funny that they give the distance in centimeters rather than inches.
Warren Buffett donated $30 billion dollars to the B&M Gates Foundation. So it's entirely possible that none of this money is Bill's.*
*Okay, not is not. B&M were getting the $30B in 5% annual increments starting in either 2006 or 2007, but can't we pretend for the sake of hundreds of thousands of live?
The problem I see with this is what very few games would make sense for one player on the device. And the article mostly focuses on everyone getting around an iPad at the table. Even their picture shows the board taking up an entire screen. Where are each player's cards and money count? You can't fit all the cards and be able to read them, so you need a pop up larger view. You'd also need a pop up menu for trading, building, and mortgaging. Also, the article tries to make it sound cool to integrate the iPhone to be able to hold your letters during a Scrabble game. But that's really just missing a larger draw back. Any game where you have to hide your cards is out unless you just pass around the iPad to however's turn it is. And I don't own an iPhone/iPod Touch and I'm not planning on getting one. Am I going to be expected to drop $300 for an iPod Touch if my friend buys an iPad and has people over to play it?
Then the article goes on to talk about being able to play board games over the internet with people all over the world. I'd love to see it explain to me how the iPad is better than my lap at that. The only thing it seems to have me beat on is a touchscreen, and I'm not that impressed.
That may be a problem in the US, but I have no doubt other more progressive countries will begin using it. And there's no way we're not gonna follow if we see someone else start to implement a large scale operation to kick oil. Plus, I think it will be far more likely that big oil companies like Exxon will jump onto of this technology if it's proven viable. I mean, they'll need money to implement it. So Exxon invests in and sets up Exxon Laser Fusion Centers that power your city. So what if they can't make billions off gas, they'll make billions powering your houses/businesses. Keep in mind that big oil companies are doing serious research into alternative fuels already, it's unlikely that they won't get into the next big thing in power as long as they still have control over it.
I'm not vouching for digital readouts, but I'm assuming a guy that can build a flying time machine car and a flying time machine train (which was originally a train he turned into a time machine in 1885) wouldn't have too much of a problem creating an extremely accurate speedometer.
You don't really understand why certain laws are put into place do you? Speeding is not put into place because you might crash your car and hurt yourself, it's because you might crash into someone else and hurt them. Pollution only hurts the person polluting? Bribery and corruption don't affect anyone besides the person giving the bribe and the person receiving it? And how is theft/destruction of public property a crime where the perpetrator is also the victim?
In fact, except for the first two, all of your examples involve an individual hurting more than just themselves. And do you really into that getting busted for drug use while you're under 18 is the type of crime where you should have to register as a junkie for the rest of your life? Or what about suicide? Should you even have to go to jail for attempted suicide? Honestly, why is that an offense that you're arguing against decriminalizing? A person was depressed enough to attempt suicide, let's give them more problems.
Two underage teenagers giving each other nude photos (that they even took themselves) does not warrant any type of involvement from the state. If it's reported the only thing that should happen is that the kids' parents are told and they should punish them (not because the whole situation is so indecent so society but because you probably want to teach your kids it's probably just not a good idea). I find it hard to believe that a majority of us on here never had any sexual experiences (even just making out with someone) while both people were under the age of consent. It's completely natural, and as long as these kids didn't intend to sell the photos or give them out to friends after a bad breakup then nothing happened that should have a legal recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think if you're playing with her over a network like XBOX Live and you're paying for it, she'd at least be using a microphone. Not that that's a completely accurate way to tell a person's gender.
But what about his other child? Or the fact that the mother was within three feet of the 3 year old girl as she shot herself? Come on, criminal charges need to be filed and these people need to have their other child taken away from them. I support the right for people to own guns, but they need to take responsibility for what they do with them.
A lot of colleges have many of your classes (especially higher level ones) in classroom settings. And while the title of the article says "Lecture Hall" the articles say "class" and "classroom"; so we're not only talking about 100+ students, we're also taking anywhere from 15+.
Just do point out your thing on cell phones, I don't know a single professor that doesn't get bothered by students blatantly texting or playing on their cell phones during class.
I've had a lecture set up in stadium style seating where the guy in front of my enjoyed playing video games instead of paying attention to the lecture. Having bright flashing colors and motion slightly down and to the right of your field of vision is a bit of a distraction. Now it didn't go as far as stopping me from taking notes and I still got an A. So it certainly wasn't a situation where it affected me a great but it was slightly annoying. Not sure if I ban laptops entirely because of it, I guess that would depend on how many student complaints I'd received about it.
I've found (from attending two schools myself due to transferring and from friends at other schools) that professors taking attendance is fairly common. I don't know how new it is, but a good number of them are doing it. I've had everything from miss three classes and you drop by a letter grade to you must show up for at least 50% of classes or you fail. I've also had a good number of professors that don't take any attendance at all.
I think they meant dangerous as in when you're car's fuel injector breaks and the car stops your biggest risk is getting hit by the car behind you, with a jetpack you just fall out of the sky. In fact, with almost any failure you just fall out of the sky. So if these things start going like 20 or 50ft up, you're gonna miss for just a plain old car accident.
You'll get Duke Nukem Forever when you strap in a pig onto one of those.
What I find even more astounding is that gaming companies don't seem to understand that customers don't only think about brands in terms of titles for specific games (Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, etc.) but that we also think about brand in terms of the company that produces it (Acitivision Blizzard, EA, etc.). If they start making a bunch of low quality CoD games, customers will keep that in mind when looking at other Activision franchises. If you can build yourself up as a reputable game studio that always puts a lot of effort into their games then customers are going to be more likely to try new things (not just established franchise sequels) you produce than if you're known for corner-cutting and churning out sequels/spin-offs just for the cash.
I'm voting for PerspectivePanda.
they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation)
This is seems like something that would be extremely likely in games where people join clans/guilds/etc. Clan war breaks out? Give bad reviews to anyone displaying the other clan's tag. Plus the same thing could happen anyone that just doesn't get along with a clan member. And if the clan agreed to give each other 100% ratings after every game they played together, belonging in a clan might even turn out to raise your rating enough that you never have to worry about your behavior.
Then besides the whole group mentality, there's the game that these games are much more antagonistic than Amazon/eBay. When you're buying something you and the shop both have a mutual goal. You want something and they want you to pay them for it. There's little odds that a normal sale is going to result in negative attitudes on either side. You're only likely to get annoyed with a seller/buyer if there's a problem. A game in which you work against each other is much more likely to bring out bad feelings towards each other even if both play properly. Also if a member of the team feels like another player isn't pulling his weight, they might hold a grudge and give them negative feedback. You wouldn't want to end up getting labelled as someone not to play with just because you're new.
Why is this informative? People have been pointing out that other people don't have the same opinion as them for several years now.
I don't think commercialization makes a holiday "fake". I mean, they're imaginary. It all depends on how we decide to celebrate them.
As for Hanukkah, I consider it to be even more commercialized than Christmas. I mean Hanukkah is actually a fairly unimportant Jewish holiday, that's been sort of promoted in recent years to compete with Christmas. And there's the people that have Hanukkah bushes...
It's medieval, so it's been celebrated since before there was an America.
It's been around for a few hundred years, so it's really not a fake holiday. I mean, it's not any faker than Christmas, Easter, President's Day, or almost any other holiday you can think of. The only "real" holidays are stuff like New Years (where it's actually a day something happened/is happening). But holidays only exist because we decide to celebrate them.
And if you think it's fake because it's over commercialized, would you consider Christmas or Hanukkah fake holidays?
I really liked all the text in Dragon Age, but then again I really liked the characters and love just spending time talking to them. I thought the game had some of the most fleshed out characters I've ever seen in a video game. My only real problem with the game was that I've found that mages aren't really as fun or powerful as the other classes.
Also, for those missing it in Fallout 3, Dragon Age does give you the opportunity to kill a small child.
I actually wonder if quickly improving 3D TV could hurt the market. I think this will definitely be a market people are going to be very wary entering into it and companies constantly saying a newer better 3D TV will be out in a year or two (pretty soon to be changing TVs) might confuse people about when exactly they should jump in.
Somehow I doubt this will be used by anybody. Seems too risky for the police/military and I don't see many people that own guns for self-defense wanting stringent conditions imposed on when they can use their gun even if they're already in danger.
I thought that was really weird too. Why have the summary tell us this is coming to the United States and here's how much it costs in Euros. Also though it was funny that they give the distance in centimeters rather than inches.
Warren Buffett donated $30 billion dollars to the B&M Gates Foundation. So it's entirely possible that none of this money is Bill's.*
*Okay, not is not. B&M were getting the $30B in 5% annual increments starting in either 2006 or 2007, but can't we pretend for the sake of hundreds of thousands of live?
Maybe all the fanatics will die out leaving only the sane among us alive? I know, I know, wishful thinking.
The problem I see with this is what very few games would make sense for one player on the device. And the article mostly focuses on everyone getting around an iPad at the table. Even their picture shows the board taking up an entire screen. Where are each player's cards and money count? You can't fit all the cards and be able to read them, so you need a pop up larger view. You'd also need a pop up menu for trading, building, and mortgaging. Also, the article tries to make it sound cool to integrate the iPhone to be able to hold your letters during a Scrabble game. But that's really just missing a larger draw back. Any game where you have to hide your cards is out unless you just pass around the iPad to however's turn it is. And I don't own an iPhone/iPod Touch and I'm not planning on getting one. Am I going to be expected to drop $300 for an iPod Touch if my friend buys an iPad and has people over to play it?
Then the article goes on to talk about being able to play board games over the internet with people all over the world. I'd love to see it explain to me how the iPad is better than my lap at that. The only thing it seems to have me beat on is a touchscreen, and I'm not that impressed.
That may be a problem in the US, but I have no doubt other more progressive countries will begin using it. And there's no way we're not gonna follow if we see someone else start to implement a large scale operation to kick oil. Plus, I think it will be far more likely that big oil companies like Exxon will jump onto of this technology if it's proven viable. I mean, they'll need money to implement it. So Exxon invests in and sets up Exxon Laser Fusion Centers that power your city. So what if they can't make billions off gas, they'll make billions powering your houses/businesses. Keep in mind that big oil companies are doing serious research into alternative fuels already, it's unlikely that they won't get into the next big thing in power as long as they still have control over it.
I'm not vouching for digital readouts, but I'm assuming a guy that can build a flying time machine car and a flying time machine train (which was originally a train he turned into a time machine in 1885) wouldn't have too much of a problem creating an extremely accurate speedometer.
You don't really understand why certain laws are put into place do you? Speeding is not put into place because you might crash your car and hurt yourself, it's because you might crash into someone else and hurt them. Pollution only hurts the person polluting? Bribery and corruption don't affect anyone besides the person giving the bribe and the person receiving it? And how is theft/destruction of public property a crime where the perpetrator is also the victim?
In fact, except for the first two, all of your examples involve an individual hurting more than just themselves. And do you really into that getting busted for drug use while you're under 18 is the type of crime where you should have to register as a junkie for the rest of your life? Or what about suicide? Should you even have to go to jail for attempted suicide? Honestly, why is that an offense that you're arguing against decriminalizing? A person was depressed enough to attempt suicide, let's give them more problems.
Two underage teenagers giving each other nude photos (that they even took themselves) does not warrant any type of involvement from the state. If it's reported the only thing that should happen is that the kids' parents are told and they should punish them (not because the whole situation is so indecent so society but because you probably want to teach your kids it's probably just not a good idea). I find it hard to believe that a majority of us on here never had any sexual experiences (even just making out with someone) while both people were under the age of consent. It's completely natural, and as long as these kids didn't intend to sell the photos or give them out to friends after a bad breakup then nothing happened that should have a legal recourse.