In D&D, as well as most derivative type games, Intelligence is the capacity for information. Greater intelligence scores represent the ability to learn and retain information quickly. Wisdom, on the other hand, is the ability to take known information and draw conclusions from it. A high wisdom score represents the ability to make the best possible decisions based on the given information. Generally, Intelligence is something you're born with, wisdom is something you develop (ie. the wise village elders).
While the two are often correlated, they are not dependent on each other.
Honestly, because he has this gene and has proven that he can't control it, it makes me want to put him in prison for a longer term, not shorter. Why put a known "aggressive" person back on the street, when you know there is the possibility that he will be "aggressive" again and kill someone?
You know, except for ease of use for those who don't use Latin characters in their daily lives. But who cares about them? They should just go back to their own country and create their own internet.
Actually, a lot of people benefit just from having the roads in their area whether they drive or not. Emergency response personnel can reach your house. Areas with roads are more attractive to businesses which can then be utilized by those who don't drive to them.
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
I don't know how many people really remember this, but there was a sequence in GTA: Vice City in which you had to chase down and kill the wife of some kingpin while she begged for mercy. Playing through this sequence had a real, visceral effect on me. I hated the fact that I *had* to chase down and kill an innocent person in order to advance the storyline. I was sick to my stomach listening to her pleas for help and mercy, even if she was just numbers on a machine.
I imagine that Activision had that exact intent when they created this portion of the game. They wanted you to do this in order to force you to have these feelings of hatred for what you were doing. They wanted you to feel "true evil" and make you hate it.
On a side note, even though I played through this scene, I still have yet to chase down and kill someone's wife in real life and I have no intent to do so.
You seem to not realize exactly what a "safety feature" is. A safety feature doesn't just encompass airbags and the other things that give you a higher crash-test rating. There are a lot of high-tech features on a lot of cars that are designed to help avoid accidents, or at least make them less severe in general.
For starters, there are anti-lock breaks and traction control systems. There are higher tech tires and low tire pressure warning gauges. These are commonly featured on most new cars on the market. For the luxury car buyer, there are considerably more features. Blind spot and lane departure warning systems, rear view cameras & radars, and radar assisted cruise control make up just a few. So yes, there are plenty of safety features that help prevent accidents.
I'm completely with you. This won't change the way I do things one bit. I love all of the "screw the man" rhetoric that's all over the place, but really, how is this going to affect most people?
There will be a few people too impatient to wait for a rental so the run out and buy it right away, but most people who want to see a movie that bad will have already seen it in the theaters. There are obviously a few anti-authoritarian types who are going to use this shift in policy to justify breaking the rules. The rest of us will just continue operating the same way we've been operating. We'll buy it if it is a movie we wanted to buy or we'll rent it if it is a movie that we want to rent.
Last I checked it was related to a video game. I believe that the marketing ploy itself would indeed be slashdot worthy. The actual link, however, does not appear to be so.
Just because you were modded down doesn't mean that those users disagreed with you. It means that your post was filled with bigotry and, at best, a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.
Don't get me wrong, many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things. That's what humans do. When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects, however, it is not a fault of the religion, but rather the humans in charge. Many religions have gone on to do good things, even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights, science and freedom in general.
Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument. Rather, attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using. Open mindedness works both ways, my friend.
Security appliances don't just provide security; they can also be used for performance and bandwidth management, and enforcing acceptable use policies.
Slashdot just better hope that many of our employers don't find out about this.
It is a lot easier to think about this whole concept if you think about the publisher as simply an investor. Investors are going to do everything they can to make sure they make their money back and publishers are the same way. If that means forcing developers to alter games to give them more mass market appeal, so be it. Does this suck? Yeah, sure, but it's nothing that you and I wouldn't do if it was our money on the line. There is a reason a shareholder gets a vote in the company whose stock he owns. The publisher just holds a lot more stock in the games than an ordinary investor holds in any company.
If a developer doesn't want to compromise on his (or her) game, then he's going to have trouble finding the financial backing needed to make a quality product.
One more reason to move all sensitive data offline, at least in relation to certain sectors of both the government and economy. It takes just one idiot to put everything in danger.
Hypocrites aren't always wrong, but they lose any semblance of credibility on that subject.
And you're right, all those who disagree with gay marriage are not philandering hypocrites. However, those who make the argument about sanctity of marriage ONLY in reference to gay marriage and ignore the large amount of conservative talking heads that have been caught with their pants around their ankles, are indeed hypocrites. That's like saying "It's ok for Rush, Michael, Glenn & Bill to violate the sanctity of marriage with your divorces and sexually explicit phone calls because you agree with us, but it's definitely not ok for those pervert homos to violate the sanctity of marriage because we don't agree with them."
If you truly want to benefit the sanctity of marriage, work towards preventing and eliminating divorce. Since the divorce rate hovers around 50%, that would mean that around half the population, or more, is directly affected by divorce. By all counts, a much larger problem than the 4-5% of the population who want to get married to someone of the same sex.
If you want to defend your sanctity of marriage arguments, make sure you're working towards benefiting the sanctity of marriage on all avenues. Otherwise you're a hypocrite and lose all credibility. If you don't want to hear my same old tired argument, then do something about it.
I agree. There are many benefits to a married couple remaining married.
1) Increased financial stability 2) The children of married parents tend to be more emotionally stable later in life.
Ok, so instead of many I have two. I'm sure there are more, but I'm too lazy to look them up. Either way, you can see why the government would want to encourage marriage. Whether it is "right" to do so, is another question entirely, which is the reason for all of this bitterness and fighting.
You're absolutely right. They weren't even prevented, but there are still many, many people in an uproar that their rights were infringed upon. There is a reason anti-miscegenation were deemed unconstitutional.
The point stands: those in government do not have the right to tell others who they may or may not marry, regardless of race or sexual orientation.
And since the dawn of time, marriage was considered to be for a lifetime, yet anti-gay conservative after anti-gay conservative cheats on his wife and/or gets a divorce. If you were railing against divorce and philandering in defense of the sanctity of marriage, I would have a much easier time listening to your anti-gay rhetoric, but since the only time the "sanctity" of marriage comes up is with regards to homosexuality, I have a hard time respecting that argument. (Here's looking at you, Rush, the three time divorcee, for single handedly making this argument for me.)
Also, as to your procreation argument, many gay couples often want to adopt children but are forbidden from doing so because of state laws that use bogus logic in order to discriminate. There have been plenty of children who have grown up with gay parents, yet there is still no evidence that this harms the children, whereas there is plenty of evidence that these children are better off than kids in single-parent families and foster homes. Yet people feel that these children should be put in less advantageous positions in foster homes rather than be raised by loving same sex parents.
Finally, marriage IS a right. If a white man and a white woman were denied their right to marry, there would be holy hell to pay. There’s even a considerable backlash (as there should be), when an interracial couple is prevented from marrying, as was recently the case in Louisiana. Yet when two men decide to marry, many people feel the law should be used to prevent this from happening. This even happens even though there are progressive churches that bless same sex unions.
Personally, because of all this mess, I think the government should just back off. Marriage should be a religious choice rather than a legal one. Allow anyone to get a civil union and the legal protections afforded by it, and get out of the way when it comes to marriage.
Wouldn't the number who can't tell the difference actually be higher?
If you have two choices, and you don't know the answer, you randomly choose between the two. That means that in a random sample, the number of people who don't know the answer should split evenly between the right and wrong answer. This would mean that as many as 2/3 of the sample couldn't tell the difference between the two services.
Of course, it wouldn't be that high because some people honestly prefer a lower quality sound. There are people who still prefer the sound of vinyl records to the sound of digitally "perfect" CDs, but even so, a substantial portion of the listening public cannot tell the difference. I'd also be willing to bet that a substantial number of the ones who can tell the difference wouldn't care all that much.
To me this suggests that it would be a better business plan to stream at the lower cost, lower bit rate and put your money into other features.
I 100% agree with everything you've said. When Microsoft installed the plug-in, it was sneaky and underhanded. But that's already been covered.
The installation of the plugin simply was no longer news. The news was that Microsoft fixed the problem that they created, which really isn't something all that new, either, when it comes to Microsoft. This article serves solely as a soapbox to preach the evils of Microsoft and their sneaky ways. If you examine the language used in the article, you can clearly see that the author was not trying to present news, but rather to try to bash Microsoft. I really don't want that on my Slashdot front page.
On a side note, the fact that this is accepted as news point to the sad state of the media today. Opinion is frequently passed as fact and nobody blinks. Biased writing creeps through the front page of the newspaper and nobody recognizes it. In Soviet Russia, the news reads you, but in Capitalist America, the media only writes what you'll pay to hear.
"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"? The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem. But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.
What about a play level that told you that it adjusted to your skill. Then you could boast about your skill level as you advanced. This could go in one of two ways: 1) There's infinite difficulty levels or 2) There's a cap.
With infinite difficulty increases, the goal could potentially devolve from "winning" the game itself to maximizing your ability rating, like WoW arena rating, leading to people to seek ways to exploit the system. This would best be avoided if the only gain from having a higher rating is facing better competition, as those who didn't belong at the highest levels would quickly be found and forced back down the ladder by better players. I think this type would be best utilized in multiplayer games in order to match people better by ability or give people with lesser ability levels a fair shot.
The capped difficulty settings would come into play for single person games where the intent is solely to win the game. This would allow players to face an appropriate amount of challenge to maximize enjoyment. Again, there are two options with this: 1) force the difficulty to increase with player skill or 2) Give the player the option. I personally enjoy the thought of the game insulting sandbaggers who insist playing games at a skill level lower than what they are actually capable of. “Wow, you just beat the Colts 98-0, maybe you should leave the rookie setting and move up to pro, that is, unless you PREFER to be treated like a six year old.”
I think it would be really interesting to see Coca-Cola or other such companies pull out some of their old adds and have them within the old games. Obviously the market for selling ads in older games would be severely diminished if this is what they wanted to do, but it could be cool.
Slashdot Mirror
In D&D, as well as most derivative type games, Intelligence is the capacity for information. Greater intelligence scores represent the ability to learn and retain information quickly. Wisdom, on the other hand, is the ability to take known information and draw conclusions from it. A high wisdom score represents the ability to make the best possible decisions based on the given information. Generally, Intelligence is something you're born with, wisdom is something you develop (ie. the wise village elders).
While the two are often correlated, they are not dependent on each other.
Correlation != causation my friend. Just because you're dumb, doesn't mean you will be rich.
Honestly, because he has this gene and has proven that he can't control it, it makes me want to put him in prison for a longer term, not shorter. Why put a known "aggressive" person back on the street, when you know there is the possibility that he will be "aggressive" again and kill someone?
I've often wanted to see someone using the "acting out God's will" defense in court.
"Your honor, it was her time. She would have died regardless of whether or not I was driving drunk. God wanted her to die, and I was just His vessel."
You know, except for ease of use for those who don't use Latin characters in their daily lives. But who cares about them? They should just go back to their own country and create their own internet.
Actually, a lot of people benefit just from having the roads in their area whether they drive or not. Emergency response personnel can reach your house. Areas with roads are more attractive to businesses which can then be utilized by those who don't drive to them.
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
I don't know how many people really remember this, but there was a sequence in GTA: Vice City in which you had to chase down and kill the wife of some kingpin while she begged for mercy. Playing through this sequence had a real, visceral effect on me. I hated the fact that I *had* to chase down and kill an innocent person in order to advance the storyline. I was sick to my stomach listening to her pleas for help and mercy, even if she was just numbers on a machine.
I imagine that Activision had that exact intent when they created this portion of the game. They wanted you to do this in order to force you to have these feelings of hatred for what you were doing. They wanted you to feel "true evil" and make you hate it.
On a side note, even though I played through this scene, I still have yet to chase down and kill someone's wife in real life and I have no intent to do so.
You seem to not realize exactly what a "safety feature" is. A safety feature doesn't just encompass airbags and the other things that give you a higher crash-test rating. There are a lot of high-tech features on a lot of cars that are designed to help avoid accidents, or at least make them less severe in general.
For starters, there are anti-lock breaks and traction control systems. There are higher tech tires and low tire pressure warning gauges. These are commonly featured on most new cars on the market. For the luxury car buyer, there are considerably more features. Blind spot and lane departure warning systems, rear view cameras & radars, and radar assisted cruise control make up just a few. So yes, there are plenty of safety features that help prevent accidents.
I'm completely with you. This won't change the way I do things one bit. I love all of the "screw the man" rhetoric that's all over the place, but really, how is this going to affect most people?
There will be a few people too impatient to wait for a rental so the run out and buy it right away, but most people who want to see a movie that bad will have already seen it in the theaters. There are obviously a few anti-authoritarian types who are going to use this shift in policy to justify breaking the rules. The rest of us will just continue operating the same way we've been operating. We'll buy it if it is a movie we wanted to buy or we'll rent it if it is a movie that we want to rent.
Last I checked it was related to a video game. I believe that the marketing ploy itself would indeed be slashdot worthy. The actual link, however, does not appear to be so.
Just because you were modded down doesn't mean that those users disagreed with you. It means that your post was filled with bigotry and, at best, a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.
Don't get me wrong, many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things. That's what humans do. When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects, however, it is not a fault of the religion, but rather the humans in charge. Many religions have gone on to do good things, even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights, science and freedom in general.
Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument. Rather, attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using. Open mindedness works both ways, my friend.
Security appliances don't just provide security; they can also be used for performance and bandwidth management, and enforcing acceptable use policies.
Slashdot just better hope that many of our employers don't find out about this.
It is a lot easier to think about this whole concept if you think about the publisher as simply an investor. Investors are going to do everything they can to make sure they make their money back and publishers are the same way. If that means forcing developers to alter games to give them more mass market appeal, so be it. Does this suck? Yeah, sure, but it's nothing that you and I wouldn't do if it was our money on the line. There is a reason a shareholder gets a vote in the company whose stock he owns. The publisher just holds a lot more stock in the games than an ordinary investor holds in any company.
If a developer doesn't want to compromise on his (or her) game, then he's going to have trouble finding the financial backing needed to make a quality product.
One more reason to move all sensitive data offline, at least in relation to certain sectors of both the government and economy. It takes just one idiot to put everything in danger.
Hypocrites aren't always wrong, but they lose any semblance of credibility on that subject.
And you're right, all those who disagree with gay marriage are not philandering hypocrites. However, those who make the argument about sanctity of marriage ONLY in reference to gay marriage and ignore the large amount of conservative talking heads that have been caught with their pants around their ankles, are indeed hypocrites. That's like saying "It's ok for Rush, Michael, Glenn & Bill to violate the sanctity of marriage with your divorces and sexually explicit phone calls because you agree with us, but it's definitely not ok for those pervert homos to violate the sanctity of marriage because we don't agree with them."
If you truly want to benefit the sanctity of marriage, work towards preventing and eliminating divorce. Since the divorce rate hovers around 50%, that would mean that around half the population, or more, is directly affected by divorce. By all counts, a much larger problem than the 4-5% of the population who want to get married to someone of the same sex.
If you want to defend your sanctity of marriage arguments, make sure you're working towards benefiting the sanctity of marriage on all avenues. Otherwise you're a hypocrite and lose all credibility. If you don't want to hear my same old tired argument, then do something about it.
I agree. There are many benefits to a married couple remaining married.
1) Increased financial stability
2) The children of married parents tend to be more emotionally stable later in life.
Ok, so instead of many I have two. I'm sure there are more, but I'm too lazy to look them up. Either way, you can see why the government would want to encourage marriage. Whether it is "right" to do so, is another question entirely, which is the reason for all of this bitterness and fighting.
You're absolutely right. They weren't even prevented, but there are still many, many people in an uproar that their rights were infringed upon. There is a reason anti-miscegenation were deemed unconstitutional.
The point stands: those in government do not have the right to tell others who they may or may not marry, regardless of race or sexual orientation.
And since the dawn of time, marriage was considered to be for a lifetime, yet anti-gay conservative after anti-gay conservative cheats on his wife and/or gets a divorce. If you were railing against divorce and philandering in defense of the sanctity of marriage, I would have a much easier time listening to your anti-gay rhetoric, but since the only time the "sanctity" of marriage comes up is with regards to homosexuality, I have a hard time respecting that argument. (Here's looking at you, Rush, the three time divorcee, for single handedly making this argument for me.)
Also, as to your procreation argument, many gay couples often want to adopt children but are forbidden from doing so because of state laws that use bogus logic in order to discriminate. There have been plenty of children who have grown up with gay parents, yet there is still no evidence that this harms the children, whereas there is plenty of evidence that these children are better off than kids in single-parent families and foster homes. Yet people feel that these children should be put in less advantageous positions in foster homes rather than be raised by loving same sex parents.
Finally, marriage IS a right. If a white man and a white woman were denied their right to marry, there would be holy hell to pay. There’s even a considerable backlash (as there should be), when an interracial couple is prevented from marrying, as was recently the case in Louisiana. Yet when two men decide to marry, many people feel the law should be used to prevent this from happening. This even happens even though there are progressive churches that bless same sex unions.
Personally, because of all this mess, I think the government should just back off. Marriage should be a religious choice rather than a legal one. Allow anyone to get a civil union and the legal protections afforded by it, and get out of the way when it comes to marriage.
Wouldn't the number who can't tell the difference actually be higher?
If you have two choices, and you don't know the answer, you randomly choose between the two. That means that in a random sample, the number of people who don't know the answer should split evenly between the right and wrong answer. This would mean that as many as 2/3 of the sample couldn't tell the difference between the two services.
Of course, it wouldn't be that high because some people honestly prefer a lower quality sound. There are people who still prefer the sound of vinyl records to the sound of digitally "perfect" CDs, but even so, a substantial portion of the listening public cannot tell the difference. I'd also be willing to bet that a substantial number of the ones who can tell the difference wouldn't care all that much.
To me this suggests that it would be a better business plan to stream at the lower cost, lower bit rate and put your money into other features.
As an interesting and almost totally unrelated sidenote, you're saying that this product could help me keep track of my keys? Sweet.
I 100% agree with everything you've said. When Microsoft installed the plug-in, it was sneaky and underhanded. But that's already been covered.
The installation of the plugin simply was no longer news. The news was that Microsoft fixed the problem that they created, which really isn't something all that new, either, when it comes to Microsoft. This article serves solely as a soapbox to preach the evils of Microsoft and their sneaky ways. If you examine the language used in the article, you can clearly see that the author was not trying to present news, but rather to try to bash Microsoft. I really don't want that on my Slashdot front page.
On a side note, the fact that this is accepted as news point to the sad state of the media today. Opinion is frequently passed as fact and nobody blinks. Biased writing creeps through the front page of the newspaper and nobody recognizes it. In Soviet Russia, the news reads you, but in Capitalist America, the media only writes what you'll pay to hear.
"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"? The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem. But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.
What about a play level that told you that it adjusted to your skill. Then you could boast about your skill level as you advanced. This could go in one of two ways: 1) There's infinite difficulty levels or 2) There's a cap.
With infinite difficulty increases, the goal could potentially devolve from "winning" the game itself to maximizing your ability rating, like WoW arena rating, leading to people to seek ways to exploit the system. This would best be avoided if the only gain from having a higher rating is facing better competition, as those who didn't belong at the highest levels would quickly be found and forced back down the ladder by better players. I think this type would be best utilized in multiplayer games in order to match people better by ability or give people with lesser ability levels a fair shot.
The capped difficulty settings would come into play for single person games where the intent is solely to win the game. This would allow players to face an appropriate amount of challenge to maximize enjoyment. Again, there are two options with this: 1) force the difficulty to increase with player skill or 2) Give the player the option. I personally enjoy the thought of the game insulting sandbaggers who insist playing games at a skill level lower than what they are actually capable of. “Wow, you just beat the Colts 98-0, maybe you should leave the rookie setting and move up to pro, that is, unless you PREFER to be treated like a six year old.”
I think it would be really interesting to see Coca-Cola or other such companies pull out some of their old adds and have them within the old games. Obviously the market for selling ads in older games would be severely diminished if this is what they wanted to do, but it could be cool.
Probably because you're never going to overdose on commercials. I could be wrong, though.