Which is why it makes no sense that the age requirments for 'M' and 'AO' are only 1 year apart (17 and 18 respectively). On average, you can't tell the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old.
The batteries typically last the full year, yet the current scheme has them changed every six months "just in case." An extra two months won't make a difference, and most of us will continue to change the batteries when the damned things start beeping instead of when the clocks change anyway. To top it off, new construction has the detectors wired in to house current and uses detectors with rechargeable batteries anyway.
Of course really people should just realize that the sun is up for the same number of hours a day regardless of what the clocks say and we should get rid of DST completely.
Have you checked the teenage pregnancy rate lately? They AREN'T ready for that stuff.
I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying two things:
- That changing the age you're allowed to buy this stuff by one year isn't going to make any difference, and that there are much bigger fish to fry (kids having *actual* sex) than kids seeing something that is almost, but not quite, sex in a video game.
- That parents should wake up if they think their kids aren't exposed to sex anyway.
When people say things like this, what do they mean? You could use this argument to completely abrogate any parental guidance whatsoever. Should I let my 8-year old say "fuck" whenever they want?
When I say this, whay I mean is that parents should unpucker their assholes when they think that their kid might do something "unwholesome." Being realistic will give you a better chance to be more in touch with the day to day life of your child. Instead of being worried all the time that your kid might swear, or drink, or do drugs, or have sex, you should come to terms with the possiblity that it might be happening so that you can deal with it properly. The parents who are uppity about what their kids might do or be exposed to are invariably the ones that are too busy worring to notice it's actually happening. I certainly don't mean that parents should let their kids do things because they're going to do it anyway. I mean that parents need to realize that they can't influence their kids behavior by hiding things they disapprove of. Kids are going to be exposed to stuff their parents consider bad whether their parents like it or not, and the kid is more likely to react to that exposure in a way that the parent approves of if the parent has taught the kid how to deal with it instead of pretending it didn't exist.
If you ask me (and I should know since I went through it) this is the biggest reason why all the things you hear about, for example, catholic school girls are true. Their parents are too busy trying to create an environment where their precious daughter will be protected from sex that they fail to notice that she's screwing around left and right.
You argument is ridiculous. So fine, let's set it to 17...
You think my argument is rediculous because you aren't paying attention.
The game was rated "M" which means you can only buy it if you're age 17 or over. Changing the rating to "AO" means you can only buy the game if you are 18 or over. What's rediculous is moving the line a tiny bit because because of this. We put the line somewhere. My point is that moving it such a small amount doesn't really make any difference at all. We drew the line, now leave it alone.
While you're at it you can put some words in my mouth and make assumptions about me and my family.
Parent however you want. Just don't expect the government and entertainment industries to do it for you. If you want your daughter to stay sweet and innocent for as long as possible, it's your job to make sure that happens in a way that doesn't infinge on my and my family's freedoms. Last I checked being offensive wasn't against the law, and can't be because *everything* will offend somebody.
Clearly in that critical year you become mature enough to be allowed to consume renderings of fully clothed individuals in sexual positions.
Seventeen year-olds just aren't ready for that kind of stuff yet. Their exposure to sexual situations should be limited to what they do with their boyfriends/girlfriends in the back seat of their parent's car when they're "at the movies."
Oh, BTW, to all the parents out there... Your 8 year old probably says 'fuck' all the time when he knows you're not around, so you can get over yourself already.
I'm constantly amazed by how much faster my P3 800 is than the 1.8Ghz P4 I use daily at work. It's most likely a hard drive speed issue, since I have a fast SCSI drive in the P3, but still... For every day tasks, high end P3s are more than enough computer.
Who the hell cares what it looks like. Is it fun to play? Is it $350 (Xbox 360 + overpriced game disc) more fun than the racing game I have from 7 years ago? Too bad nobody has announced a console with next-generation improved gameplay yet. Somehow we're supposed to get all excited because Microsoft is giving us a box that can play what our PC from 2003 is capable of. Woo-hoo.
To top it off, I have to go out and buy a $1000+ TV if I want it to look that good, because it's going to look just like all the PS2 racing games that are out there on my old NTSC screen...
Anyway... What I was working up to is that I bet they started the "fake" rumor to get publicity. I doubt anybody in their right mind would see the shitty reflections and lighting in that screenshot I linked to and think "that's a real photo".
Did the image change when you (for example) pressed the shift key? Could you display animations on the keyboard when the terminal was locked? Randomize the key layout for typing in passowrds without somebody in the distance figuring out what you typed?
I'm sorry, but there's a lot patentable here.... As long as they've actually managed to build one.
You also say to kill the union. If teachers aren't making more money now *with* the union, do you really think it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening without?
Sure, because they could fire all the crabby old bitches that gave up on kids ages ago and deserve exactly as much money as the amount of effort and care they put into their jobs and spend the money on good teachers instead. It's hard to pay higher salaries when you can't cut the dead weight and you have to give the money to people with seniority first.
I'm sorry, but Quake 3 is about as far as you can push the graphics on your standard issue office PC. Perhaps in your college dorm, or with all your buddies that have GeForce 4s or better you're right, but the game around the office has been Quake 3 for ages. And I'm not just talking about my office either.
I'm not talking about 'gamers'. For every 'gamer' there are 50 people who play casually.
And you know this because? Based oin the lack of a available servers to log into? What? I know lots of people still playing Morrowind a year later.
Everyone plays ut2k4, hl2, CS, whatever because it's fun either sneaking around and sniping people, or jumping around flinging rockets.
I'll bet money that there are still more people playing Quake 3 than all those games put together. Tens of thousands of people every day on their office LANs. It's not generating any new revenue for Id, but Id is still the king by far if you're counting numbers of current players. "Hardcore" gamers and the gaming rags are so far out of touch with the mainsteram that it's rediculous.
Now if only we could convince more developers than just Bethesda Softworks that they should make a game like you describe that isn't online so people with, you know, jobs can play it at their own pace... It's also nice when the gameplay can be designed to reward something other than total hours played which is what seems to happen when the goal is to keep the monthly fees coming in.
Why? Maybe because I don't run my apps maximized to full screen.
Are you seriously so wedded to the concept of virtual dekstops that [...]
Neither do I. I have my windows programatically grouped based on task, and there's typically between 3 and 6 windows on the screen at once. Hit a hotkey for a task, and the set of windows I need for the task appears. If, for some reason I forget what tasks I have defined, or I just want one app and not the set, the menu will allow for that. Depending on the task there might be a virtual desktop involved, but virtual desktops are just a tool. At no time is it ever useful for me to minimize a window into an icon or, worse, a taskbar button. Both of those things take up screen-space that could be used to display useful information. If you can come up with a reason that a constant, static visual reminder that you have a program running that you're currently not focused on is a value-add and not just a waste of pixel real-estate I'd like to hear it.
Why on earth you're so defensive about that fact now
I'm not. I just think that the lack of functionality you used as an example was terrible. Enlightenment had faults... Instability, high CPU usage, poor customization interface, etc. Hell, it still has issues, which is why I don't run it, but the lock of ability to minimize an application to an icon wasn't one of E's faults.
Recall that Enlightenment had themes and skins a full year before they even got around to letting you minimize a running application.
Minimizing is broken anyway (the concept, not the code). Why minimize when you could switch to another virtual screen or another conceptually grouped window set? It's less efficient too. 'Minimize this then restore that', as opposed to 'select task x.' The only reason it was added was to check the 'me too' box, and because people who learned on windows or MacOs have a hard time letting go of the 'desktop' model. E also had window shading from practically the beginning.
Enlightenment was perfectly functional if you worked in the style it was designed for, even back in the early days.... As long as you had the CPU for it anyway. If you want your statement to be accurate you have to say "In 1998 E was pretty and useless if you wanted to work like you did in Windows."
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Exactly right...
Which is why it makes no sense that the age requirments for 'M' and 'AO' are only 1 year apart (17 and 18 respectively). On average, you can't tell the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old.
The batteries typically last the full year, yet the current scheme has them changed every six months "just in case." An extra two months won't make a difference, and most of us will continue to change the batteries when the damned things start beeping instead of when the clocks change anyway. To top it off, new construction has the detectors wired in to house current and uses detectors with rechargeable batteries anyway.
Of course really people should just realize that the sun is up for the same number of hours a day regardless of what the clocks say and we should get rid of DST completely.
I said it better in this thread... You should read my response there.
Have you checked the teenage pregnancy rate lately? They AREN'T ready for that stuff.
I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying two things:
- That changing the age you're allowed to buy this stuff by one year isn't going to make any difference, and that there are much bigger fish to fry (kids having *actual* sex) than kids seeing something that is almost, but not quite, sex in a video game.
- That parents should wake up if they think their kids aren't exposed to sex anyway.
When people say things like this, what do they mean? You could use this argument to completely abrogate any parental guidance whatsoever. Should I let my 8-year old say "fuck" whenever they want?
When I say this, whay I mean is that parents should unpucker their assholes when they think that their kid might do something "unwholesome." Being realistic will give you a better chance to be more in touch with the day to day life of your child. Instead of being worried all the time that your kid might swear, or drink, or do drugs, or have sex, you should come to terms with the possiblity that it might be happening so that you can deal with it properly. The parents who are uppity about what their kids might do or be exposed to are invariably the ones that are too busy worring to notice it's actually happening. I certainly don't mean that parents should let their kids do things because they're going to do it anyway. I mean that parents need to realize that they can't influence their kids behavior by hiding things they disapprove of. Kids are going to be exposed to stuff their parents consider bad whether their parents like it or not, and the kid is more likely to react to that exposure in a way that the parent approves of if the parent has taught the kid how to deal with it instead of pretending it didn't exist.
If you ask me (and I should know since I went through it) this is the biggest reason why all the things you hear about, for example, catholic school girls are true. Their parents are too busy trying to create an environment where their precious daughter will be protected from sex that they fail to notice that she's screwing around left and right.
You argument is ridiculous. So fine, let's set it to 17...
You think my argument is rediculous because you aren't paying attention.
The game was rated "M" which means you can only buy it if you're age 17 or over. Changing the rating to "AO" means you can only buy the game if you are 18 or over. What's rediculous is moving the line a tiny bit because because of this. We put the line somewhere. My point is that moving it such a small amount doesn't really make any difference at all. We drew the line, now leave it alone.
While you're at it you can put some words in my mouth and make assumptions about me and my family.
Parent however you want. Just don't expect the government and entertainment industries to do it for you. If you want your daughter to stay sweet and innocent for as long as possible, it's your job to make sure that happens in a way that doesn't infinge on my and my family's freedoms. Last I checked being offensive wasn't against the law, and can't be because *everything* will offend somebody.
Clearly in that critical year you become mature enough to be allowed to consume renderings of fully clothed individuals in sexual positions.
Seventeen year-olds just aren't ready for that kind of stuff yet. Their exposure to sexual situations should be limited to what they do with their boyfriends/girlfriends in the back seat of their parent's car when they're "at the movies."
Oh, BTW, to all the parents out there... Your 8 year old probably says 'fuck' all the time when he knows you're not around, so you can get over yourself already.
Both machines have the same administrator.... Me. :)
Were the old machines slow crappy Dell P4s?
I'm constantly amazed by how much faster my P3 800 is than the 1.8Ghz P4 I use daily at work. It's most likely a hard drive speed issue, since I have a fast SCSI drive in the P3, but still... For every day tasks, high end P3s are more than enough computer.
Have you seen how much computer you can get for $300? And PC monitors are way cheaper than HDTVs.
Call me when that happens.
This stuff is possible on mid-range computers.
Fake?
s /mtv_sagaris2.jpg doesn't look realistic enough to convince me that they faked it.
This: http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/news_image
Who the hell cares what it looks like. Is it fun to play? Is it $350 (Xbox 360 + overpriced game disc) more fun than the racing game I have from 7 years ago? Too bad nobody has announced a console with next-generation improved gameplay yet. Somehow we're supposed to get all excited because Microsoft is giving us a box that can play what our PC from 2003 is capable of. Woo-hoo.
To top it off, I have to go out and buy a $1000+ TV if I want it to look that good, because it's going to look just like all the PS2 racing games that are out there on my old NTSC screen...
Anyway... What I was working up to is that I bet they started the "fake" rumor to get publicity. I doubt anybody in their right mind would see the shitty reflections and lighting in that screenshot I linked to and think "that's a real photo".
They're not IP brokers. They use all the technology in their patents to do business. They don't pimp IP for a living.
Did the image change when you (for example) pressed the shift key? Could you display animations on the keyboard when the terminal was locked? Randomize the key layout for typing in passowrds without somebody in the distance figuring out what you typed?
I'm sorry, but there's a lot patentable here.... As long as they've actually managed to build one.
How this thing won't have a manufacturing cost around $3-4 a key...
That said... If they build these and they have good action, I'll drop $500 on one.
It's not BS.
He forgot to tell you that his laptop weighs 13 pounds.
What does the PS3 being $400 have to do with it? These HD-DVD players are in the high $300+ range already...
Also, you're crazy if you think people aren't going to flock to the PS3 at $399 anyway. People drop $399 on iPods all the time.
You also say to kill the union. If teachers aren't making more money now *with* the union, do you really think it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening without?
Sure, because they could fire all the crabby old bitches that gave up on kids ages ago and deserve exactly as much money as the amount of effort and care they put into their jobs and spend the money on good teachers instead. It's hard to pay higher salaries when you can't cut the dead weight and you have to give the money to people with seniority first.
Troll? I hoe whoever modded this get's meta-moderated to hell. How is the painfull truth a troll?
Yeah....
Too bad the non-LAN world probably isn't even half the picture. Game playing is blocked at the firewall of almost every tech company in existance.
I'm sorry, but Quake 3 is about as far as you can push the graphics on your standard issue office PC. Perhaps in your college dorm, or with all your buddies that have GeForce 4s or better you're right, but the game around the office has been Quake 3 for ages. And I'm not just talking about my office either.
I'm not talking about 'gamers'. For every 'gamer' there are 50 people who play casually.
FPS games that are single-player only never last.
And you know this because? Based oin the lack of a available servers to log into? What? I know lots of people still playing Morrowind a year later.
Everyone plays ut2k4, hl2, CS, whatever because it's fun either sneaking around and sniping people, or jumping around flinging rockets.
I'll bet money that there are still more people playing Quake 3 than all those games put together. Tens of thousands of people every day on their office LANs. It's not generating any new revenue for Id, but Id is still the king by far if you're counting numbers of current players. "Hardcore" gamers and the gaming rags are so far out of touch with the mainsteram that it's rediculous.
Bingo...
Now if only we could convince more developers than just Bethesda Softworks that they should make a game like you describe that isn't online so people with, you know, jobs can play it at their own pace... It's also nice when the gameplay can be designed to reward something other than total hours played which is what seems to happen when the goal is to keep the monthly fees coming in.
Why? Maybe because I don't run my apps maximized to full screen.
Are you seriously so wedded to the concept of virtual dekstops that [...]
Neither do I. I have my windows programatically grouped based on task, and there's typically between 3 and 6 windows on the screen at once. Hit a hotkey for a task, and the set of windows I need for the task appears. If, for some reason I forget what tasks I have defined, or I just want one app and not the set, the menu will allow for that. Depending on the task there might be a virtual desktop involved, but virtual desktops are just a tool. At no time is it ever useful for me to minimize a window into an icon or, worse, a taskbar button. Both of those things take up screen-space that could be used to display useful information. If you can come up with a reason that a constant, static visual reminder that you have a program running that you're currently not focused on is a value-add and not just a waste of pixel real-estate I'd like to hear it.
Why on earth you're so defensive about that fact now
I'm not. I just think that the lack of functionality you used as an example was terrible. Enlightenment had faults... Instability, high CPU usage, poor customization interface, etc. Hell, it still has issues, which is why I don't run it, but the lock of ability to minimize an application to an icon wasn't one of E's faults.
Recall that Enlightenment had themes and skins a full year before they even got around to letting you minimize a running application.
Minimizing is broken anyway (the concept, not the code). Why minimize when you could switch to another virtual screen or another conceptually grouped window set? It's less efficient too. 'Minimize this then restore that', as opposed to 'select task x.' The only reason it was added was to check the 'me too' box, and because people who learned on windows or MacOs have a hard time letting go of the 'desktop' model. E also had window shading from practically the beginning.
Enlightenment was perfectly functional if you worked in the style it was designed for, even back in the early days.... As long as you had the CPU for it anyway. If you want your statement to be accurate you have to say "In 1998 E was pretty and useless if you wanted to work like you did in Windows."