Except we're not talking "a gun that's hard to not respect." It was a gun that the guy said he, himself, as a trained marksman and fully grown adult, would only be able to fire 30 rounds from. And you're expecting a 13 year old to be able to shoot this thing as his FIRST gun, and not have some damage done? Kid was smarter than he sounded. He probably would have ended up with fractures if he'd tried to fire it.
Heck, probably the most baffling weapon-related example comes from the post-NGE SWG, where one quest gives you a sniper scope for a sword.
I read this incorrectly twice. And yet both misreadings were less baffling. The first time, instead of sword, I thought it said "reward." Made sense, until I got to pommel. Then I read it as using the scope itself as a sword. Why did I read it that way? Because it's less retarded than having a long-range sword (I'm assuming that really it just ups your accuracy, but that's STILL stupid). It's like that picture of the sniper crowbar.
If game designers have to take an realistic approach to level design, what are they doing designing games? They should design buildings.
Faulty argument. Many things in architecture are hidden, and simply do not need to be considered when modelling a venue that will never be actually used. Ensuring proper support for upper floors, routing ducting and other essential systems, and other similar concerns are all irrelevant in a game world. The building stays up because you programmed it to, and no player is going to calculate that the photo copier in the middle of the room should actually crash through because the floor is an inch thick. You can make extremely realistic settings without them being at all possible, and have it completely impossible to tell that they're impossible without having the original design schematics. However, the entire premise here is that people ARE able to tell that the guns aren't possible, or wouldn't work THAT way, or, or, or.
What is any game but a long sequence of taps and clicks? All any game on Facebook, Farmeville, Mafia Wars, etc., is only a simpler sequence.
If that were true, then people would be able to entertain themselves with a disconnected keyboard on their lap while a slideshow of random pictures played on a monitor.
No, not "any game" is a sequence of taps and clicks, but inputting the *correct* taps and clicks, and possibly the need to determine for oneself what the correct taps and clicks are. With the Facebook games, however, it isn't even a sequence. You cannot lose, you cannot fail. The only thing you control is how quickly or slowly you progress by picking your own rate of taps and clicks. There aren't even any significant choices of taps and clicks, it's simply the rate of clicking that determines your status. That is why they are simple, and derided, and massively successful.
In a world where the Vice President of the United States shoots a friend while bird hunting, and 9/11 is by some considered to be a cover-up and/or inside job, and the Prime Minister of Canada personally choked a protester, etc etc, satire is dead. Reality is so far-fetched that it is impossible to create anything any more that people can realize universally as parody/satire. It is not a failure of the creator to take the parody to a ludicrous extreme, but instead a failure of the audience to properly analyse and logically consider the individual matter at hand. Instead, people are all too willing to simply take everything at face value, as long as it is presented in an official enough manner.
Sure there is! I've been there. You just need your Horadric Cube, Wirt's wooden leg, and a tome of town portal. Be careful though, those fuckers are MEAN.
No, correctly, as well. Look at paper, where the terms originated. Glossy paper tends to be brighter and sharper, and matte papers tend to be duller and fuzzier (because the ink is absorbed and diffused, rather than drying in place, like on glossy), but there are reasons to chose matte over glossy, never the less.
what do I do when I want to replace my laptop? I think 16:9 is horrid for actual computing.
... You know you can resize a program's window, correct? It doesn't have to be displayed full-screen? That means you can MANUALLY set a window to a 4:3 sizing. Yes, you'd have space on the edges, but if that's bothering you THAT MUCH, then you seriously need to see a psychiatrist. Not being mean or anything, but you'd probably have serious OCD issues that you should have examined before they snowball and do some serious harm.
Insert "that try and" or "hopefully," or similar where appropriate, for reality, but he's talking about it in relation to marketing. And as we all know, marketing has nothing in common with reality.
I thought once documents were submitted to the court they became a matter of public record, and thus weren't subject to copyright restriction in regards to news usage?
If you're into RTS games, there's a lot more that you can do, such as splitting up the AI between cores, running path finding on it's own core and similar.
Interestingly enough, the only game to ever max out my Q6600 was an RTS game: the original Supreme Commander. Granted, I had to do it by having 7 AI opponents running on a large map in order to really tell, but it eventually made everything slow to a crawl. The in-game time would start counting seconds closer to 5 seconds around mid-game (end-game would speed back up as factions were eliminated, of course).
Don'tcha know? The only suitable replacement for "Big Government" is an Unregulated Free Market, since BP clearly would have spent billions of dollars fixing everything if there was no one to hold them accountable. No way they simply would have walked away and disavowed all knowledge.
Gasoline? No. I suppose not. Assuming you live close enough you can bike to work. Like to see you get by without buying anything petrolium-based, though. "Nobody's forcing you" is absolutely the WORST cop-out argument to use when someone's bitching about something. Usually because in some fashion, you are being forced, or at least aren't fully free to do otherwise.
But there's a difference between "Music industry" and "RIAA." How many people in the "music industry" would be directly unemployed by the RIAA going out of business? I don't think many, since usually they're employees of studios, or producers and such, rather than the RIAA directly. The RIAA going under would be akin to the MPAA going under. The actor's guild, screenwriter's guild, etc. would still be alive and viable, and able to conduct business.
I don't think it's illegal. It's their airtime. They're free to charge what they want, and apportion it how they want. If they want to say "we only have 4 minutes of commercial space during this show" rather than the standard 6 minutes, and run their stuff in the other 2 minutes, they can. Changing their minds later, or being offered enough money to change their minds, isn't illegal.
I think it's only illegal if they collude with other networks to limit airtime and raise prices, or something. I'm not exactly fully up-to-date on my American statutes.
No, I don't think any one lawsuit is going to do anything to them. Probably not even a dozen. Doesn't mean I don't support them haemorrhaging as much money as possible, ya know?
If by "tax writeoff" you mean "classed as operational expenditures and applied against gross profits," then of course they're going to. That's standard. Legal fees are always placed against revenue by every company.
You're not looking at it the same way the RIAA is though. They don't think people will stop listening to music completely if they choke off downloads and YouTube usage, etc. No, they think that people will turn to licenced usage. OTA Radio, Satellite Radio, Bars/Nightclubs that have paid performance fees, etc. Thus, they will be getting paid for people's initial exposure to the music, and for when people purchase it.
What they fail to realize is that a lot of people are people similar to me. I don't listen to the radio for any number of various reasons, I don't go to bars/clubs, I don't pay attention to music in malls. The only exposure I have is by word of mouth, which I then go track down online so that I can find out myself, rather than hoping to get lucky through licenced exposure, where I can't often control what plays.
So, while you and I know that illicit downloads can help drive sales, they, instead, look at it as a chance to get paid twice.
Yep. In a case like this, running ads for their own products means they didn't sell that space to someone else, so they needed to air something. It's also occasionally used to keep ad costs up at the network, since they can "restrict" ad space to drive demand up, and then release some to get more buy-in.
Uh, no. Since the music industry is too big to fail, the RIAA is too big to fail by extension
I find this unlikely. The RIAA does not employ as many people directly and indirectly as auto manufacturers, nor is as much money tied up with them as the banks. Since music artists have proven capable of existing outside the RIAA's structure, it cannot even be sold as necessary to the industry. Thus, they are incredibly unlikely to get bailout money.
No, the only thing they're likely to get is some laws, maybe, in their favour, and those laws aren't likely to be anything the RIAA actually likes, in the long term, since it'll probably come at the expense of their corporate structure.
Actually, neither necessarily needs to be true. For the EPA standard, it could simply be unreasonable in the way of being unrealistic. For the massive exposure, long term effects and general decrease in life expectancy and resistance to other health issues could be the result when it's not health issues directly caused by exposure. Remember, an LD 50 is what kills 50% of a population. Safe exposure levels similarly don't translate directly to "shit's gonna go down like this for every person."
Slashdot Mirror
Except we're not talking "a gun that's hard to not respect." It was a gun that the guy said he, himself, as a trained marksman and fully grown adult, would only be able to fire 30 rounds from. And you're expecting a 13 year old to be able to shoot this thing as his FIRST gun, and not have some damage done? Kid was smarter than he sounded. He probably would have ended up with fractures if he'd tried to fire it.
Heck, probably the most baffling weapon-related example comes from the post-NGE SWG, where one quest gives you a sniper scope for a sword.
I read this incorrectly twice. And yet both misreadings were less baffling. The first time, instead of sword, I thought it said "reward." Made sense, until I got to pommel. Then I read it as using the scope itself as a sword. Why did I read it that way? Because it's less retarded than having a long-range sword (I'm assuming that really it just ups your accuracy, but that's STILL stupid). It's like that picture of the sniper crowbar.
(and even then, it's still a perfectly legitimate tactic).
"Oh you fucking camping bitch!"
"It's a legitimate strategy!"
Just Frank West. He's covered wars, you know.
If game designers have to take an realistic approach to level design, what are they doing designing games? They should design buildings.
Faulty argument. Many things in architecture are hidden, and simply do not need to be considered when modelling a venue that will never be actually used. Ensuring proper support for upper floors, routing ducting and other essential systems, and other similar concerns are all irrelevant in a game world. The building stays up because you programmed it to, and no player is going to calculate that the photo copier in the middle of the room should actually crash through because the floor is an inch thick. You can make extremely realistic settings without them being at all possible, and have it completely impossible to tell that they're impossible without having the original design schematics. However, the entire premise here is that people ARE able to tell that the guns aren't possible, or wouldn't work THAT way, or, or, or.
What is any game but a long sequence of taps and clicks? All any game on Facebook, Farmeville, Mafia Wars, etc., is only a simpler sequence.
If that were true, then people would be able to entertain themselves with a disconnected keyboard on their lap while a slideshow of random pictures played on a monitor.
No, not "any game" is a sequence of taps and clicks, but inputting the *correct* taps and clicks, and possibly the need to determine for oneself what the correct taps and clicks are. With the Facebook games, however, it isn't even a sequence. You cannot lose, you cannot fail. The only thing you control is how quickly or slowly you progress by picking your own rate of taps and clicks. There aren't even any significant choices of taps and clicks, it's simply the rate of clicking that determines your status. That is why they are simple, and derided, and massively successful.
In a world where the Vice President of the United States shoots a friend while bird hunting, and 9/11 is by some considered to be a cover-up and/or inside job, and the Prime Minister of Canada personally choked a protester, etc etc, satire is dead. Reality is so far-fetched that it is impossible to create anything any more that people can realize universally as parody/satire. It is not a failure of the creator to take the parody to a ludicrous extreme, but instead a failure of the audience to properly analyse and logically consider the individual matter at hand. Instead, people are all too willing to simply take everything at face value, as long as it is presented in an official enough manner.
Sure there is! I've been there. You just need your Horadric Cube, Wirt's wooden leg, and a tome of town portal. Be careful though, those fuckers are MEAN.
No, correctly, as well. Look at paper, where the terms originated. Glossy paper tends to be brighter and sharper, and matte papers tend to be duller and fuzzier (because the ink is absorbed and diffused, rather than drying in place, like on glossy), but there are reasons to chose matte over glossy, never the less.
what do I do when I want to replace my laptop? I think 16:9 is horrid for actual computing.
... You know you can resize a program's window, correct? It doesn't have to be displayed full-screen? That means you can MANUALLY set a window to a 4:3 sizing. Yes, you'd have space on the edges, but if that's bothering you THAT MUCH, then you seriously need to see a psychiatrist. Not being mean or anything, but you'd probably have serious OCD issues that you should have examined before they snowball and do some serious harm.
Insert "that try and" or "hopefully," or similar where appropriate, for reality, but he's talking about it in relation to marketing. And as we all know, marketing has nothing in common with reality.
I thought once documents were submitted to the court they became a matter of public record, and thus weren't subject to copyright restriction in regards to news usage?
IANAL, so I could be wrong.
Yeah, but Crysis hasn't been running well on systems for YEARS.
If you're into RTS games, there's a lot more that you can do, such as splitting up the AI between cores, running path finding on it's own core and similar.
Interestingly enough, the only game to ever max out my Q6600 was an RTS game: the original Supreme Commander. Granted, I had to do it by having 7 AI opponents running on a large map in order to really tell, but it eventually made everything slow to a crawl. The in-game time would start counting seconds closer to 5 seconds around mid-game (end-game would speed back up as factions were eliminated, of course).
Don'tcha know? The only suitable replacement for "Big Government" is an Unregulated Free Market, since BP clearly would have spent billions of dollars fixing everything if there was no one to hold them accountable. No way they simply would have walked away and disavowed all knowledge.
Nobody forces you to buy gas.
*snerk*
Gasoline? No. I suppose not. Assuming you live close enough you can bike to work. Like to see you get by without buying anything petrolium-based, though. "Nobody's forcing you" is absolutely the WORST cop-out argument to use when someone's bitching about something. Usually because in some fashion, you are being forced, or at least aren't fully free to do otherwise.
But there's a difference between "Music industry" and "RIAA." How many people in the "music industry" would be directly unemployed by the RIAA going out of business? I don't think many, since usually they're employees of studios, or producers and such, rather than the RIAA directly. The RIAA going under would be akin to the MPAA going under. The actor's guild, screenwriter's guild, etc. would still be alive and viable, and able to conduct business.
I don't think it's illegal. It's their airtime. They're free to charge what they want, and apportion it how they want. If they want to say "we only have 4 minutes of commercial space during this show" rather than the standard 6 minutes, and run their stuff in the other 2 minutes, they can. Changing their minds later, or being offered enough money to change their minds, isn't illegal.
I think it's only illegal if they collude with other networks to limit airtime and raise prices, or something. I'm not exactly fully up-to-date on my American statutes.
No, I don't think any one lawsuit is going to do anything to them. Probably not even a dozen. Doesn't mean I don't support them haemorrhaging as much money as possible, ya know?
If by "tax writeoff" you mean "classed as operational expenditures and applied against gross profits," then of course they're going to. That's standard. Legal fees are always placed against revenue by every company.
You're not looking at it the same way the RIAA is though. They don't think people will stop listening to music completely if they choke off downloads and YouTube usage, etc. No, they think that people will turn to licenced usage. OTA Radio, Satellite Radio, Bars/Nightclubs that have paid performance fees, etc. Thus, they will be getting paid for people's initial exposure to the music, and for when people purchase it.
What they fail to realize is that a lot of people are people similar to me. I don't listen to the radio for any number of various reasons, I don't go to bars/clubs, I don't pay attention to music in malls. The only exposure I have is by word of mouth, which I then go track down online so that I can find out myself, rather than hoping to get lucky through licenced exposure, where I can't often control what plays.
So, while you and I know that illicit downloads can help drive sales, they, instead, look at it as a chance to get paid twice.
Yep. In a case like this, running ads for their own products means they didn't sell that space to someone else, so they needed to air something. It's also occasionally used to keep ad costs up at the network, since they can "restrict" ad space to drive demand up, and then release some to get more buy-in.
Uh, no. Since the music industry is too big to fail, the RIAA is too big to fail by extension
I find this unlikely. The RIAA does not employ as many people directly and indirectly as auto manufacturers, nor is as much money tied up with them as the banks. Since music artists have proven capable of existing outside the RIAA's structure, it cannot even be sold as necessary to the industry. Thus, they are incredibly unlikely to get bailout money.
No, the only thing they're likely to get is some laws, maybe, in their favour, and those laws aren't likely to be anything the RIAA actually likes, in the long term, since it'll probably come at the expense of their corporate structure.
I look at it more like taking more away from the RIAA. Lawyers are better. After all, a lawyer is actually useful once in a while.
Actually, neither necessarily needs to be true. For the EPA standard, it could simply be unreasonable in the way of being unrealistic. For the massive exposure, long term effects and general decrease in life expectancy and resistance to other health issues could be the result when it's not health issues directly caused by exposure. Remember, an LD 50 is what kills 50% of a population. Safe exposure levels similarly don't translate directly to "shit's gonna go down like this for every person."