Those guys are playing entry-level power-user lingo to attract idiot "i-can-open-cmd.exe" users.
This is one of the main hallmarks of pseudoscience. Throw a bunch of random terms at a generally clueless audience. The terms sound familiar enough to lend an air of legitimacy, but are complicated enough to make the marks' eyes glaze over.
Why does everyone rag on E.T. so much? I thought it was an amusing game. I mean, if you want to point to a high-profile POS game for the 2600, may I humbly suggest you look in Pac-Man's general direction?
Thanks for the reminders. My poor brain ain't what it used to be. Yeah, I hate all games that include those slider puzzles. It's such a pain. And I somehow completely forgot about the part of Riven where Gehn tries to make you touch the book before him. Trapping him was whole point! I are dumb.
Oh yeah, and a self-correction: Where I said "Zork: Grand Inquisitor" I meant "Zork: Nemesis". ZGI was actually a return to the whimsical roots of the series.
Has it occurred to you that maybe people need to actually understand a product before they can write documentation for it? Now, who understands better how a piece of software works: the original developer(s), or potential customers?
I remember when i was a poor jr. high school student and i *ahem* "found" a copy of the original Civilization. I was able to figure out the entire game just from the Civlopedia.
How did you deal with the usurper (Civ's copy protection)? There were a lot of times when I couldn't put the symbol to the advance, and needed the manual.
I loved Civilization. It was the last game I could play on my Tandy 1000 HX (640K RAM, no HD, PCjr graphics, 3-voice sound). The only drawback was the startup: the Tandy ran at 7MHz, so randomly generating a new world took most of a day (ran while I slept).
I guess it's been too long... I can't remember what you mean by the "H" puzzle, and I don't remember how one could die in Riven (I've played so many cheap knock-offs in the intervening years that it's all blending together).
I, too, read that entire creation tale. I took notes and everything, because of games like Riven, where little details can come back to haunt you.
I'd also like to nominate Zork: Grand Inquisitor. It's very dark, and was thus despised by a lot of Zork fans, but I found it a good game on its own, and only had a couple of "points of no return."
You're still conferring an advantage to gamers with more free time. To wit:
...utilizing their experience from other, similar games.
Also, if you "[m]ake success more dependent on skill at mouse or joystick," you hand the advantage over to people who are younger (because their reaction speeds are faster). This tends to be the same people who have all day to play games.
This is a fundamental "problem" with competitive gameplay, be it video games or sports. Whoever is willing to devote the most time/effort in playing will, on average, be the superior player.
What does rationality have to do with it? If people were rational, Columbus would never have believed Japan was only 4500 km away from the Canary Islands. It's not unreasonable, given a limited knowledge of the world, for people to think they were living on a Pangaea-like continent. Stranger things have happened.
Columbus could be fairly sure to encounter habitable land (in fact, he wanted to reach Japan and China; contrary to a popular myth, the idea that the earth was round was reasonably well spread in his time).
I understand the point you're making, but I don't think it's fair to say that "Columbus could be fairly sure to encounter habitable land." As I heard it, the reason everyone considered Columbus's expedition to be foolish was because he assumed the Earth's diameter to be about half what everyone else thought it was, and that China was just a hop, skip, and a jump away to the west. It was just dumb luck that there happened to be another continent in his path.
Sorry chum, not everyone thinks non-excessive pride is bad.
And neither do I.
Historically speaking, the seven deadly sins weren't supposed to be things you should never do. They were actually considered positive things. What made them deadly is that it seems to be human nature to over-indulge in them, and that can lead to serious problems. The deadly sins were acts that (initially) monks needed to be mindful of within themselves. "All things in moderation," as it were.
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that I consider this excessive. Now, reasonable men may differ on this, and if you disagree, fine. But don't assume that just because I'm less of a braggart than most, that I take no pride in what I do. Announcing that someone less prideful than you must have no pride at all is yet another false dichotomy.
We have pride in our accomplishments. I'm sorry if you're jealous of our feats, but too bad.
Okay, first of all, I don't remember reading anything in the article about Atzanteol's contribution to the Messenger program, so calling it one of "our" feats is stretching it a bit.
Second, I'm from Ohio. Insofar as anyone not connected to NASA can take credit for this, I can, too. I just don't see any reason to scatter litter all over the cosmos. "Give a hoot; don't pollute." Remember that one?
I'd prefer NASA's shrinking budget get spent on things like... oh, let's say... science.
I'm hopeful that (more) future spacecraft will have bold company logos on them instead of national flags. THAT would get rid of this silly flag debate.:)
Oh, I'm sure it'll happen.
When space travel ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything: the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks...
--The Narrator, Fight Club
See? Proof by Bartlett's.:-)
[N]ot everyone has Christian beliefs or has a negative view of pride in one's accomplishments.
True. I was hedging my bets, though. American jingoists, in my personal (and thus necessarily limited) experience, tend to be the same sort who assert that America is a Christian nation.
Do I really need all that for a gaming machine, though? I mean, are save-games so important that I really need RAID?
Another thing to consider is inflation. I realize skermit's info is anecdotal, but let's use it as a demonstration. This site says the Pentium 90 appeared in 1994. The Inflation Calculator says that $3000 in 1994 dollars is $3645.04 in 2003 dollars (the most recent data available).
Assuming you aren't just putting stuff in your PC because it's possible to do so, I'm pretty sure a top gaming PC today is certainly no more expensive than the analogous PC of a decade ago, and I suspect it'll be cheaper.
Anyone care to compile actual numbers, instead of relying on skermit's and Dragoon412's estimates?
I know if I need help there's going to be walkthroughs on GameFAQs hours after it's released.
At least 150 hours afterward, right?;-)
I know what you mean, though. For the last two, I played through in my usual bumbling way: ignored packages unless I happened to be walking past one, etc. Then, after I got to the "end" I'd head to GameFAQs so I could get the 100%.
Some people have faith there is/are god(s), others have faith that there is/are no god(s). Both are reasonable hypothesis with no supporting evidence one way or the other.
Here is where you and I must part ways. Yes, there is no evidence one way or the other; I'll agree to that. What I cannot agree to, though, is the assertion that both resulting stances are reasonable. I don't see how it can be reasonable to conclude, on a total absence of evidence, that something exists. To be fair, I have not declared that there are no gods. I simply state that in the absence of evidence, it is not reasonable to conclude they exist. The only rational stance is, Not Proved.
Let me approach this another way: If the evidence for or against gods is silent, then all choices carry the same empircal weight. The Judeo-Christian God exists, or the Hindu pantheon exists, or the Greek pantheon exists, or no gods exist, among countless other possibilities. In all but one scenario, one must show preferential treatment to one set of gods over another. This kind of discrimination is necessarily based on personal preference, since evidence is lacking.
But using personal prejudices to make decalrations about what's real or not is not by any means reasonable. The only consistent approach is the one where all gods are treated equally: Assume none exist. Then, to be fair about it, allow for the introduction of new evidence, see how well it comports to your world-view and, if it does not fit, adjust your world-view accordingly.
If evidence for any particular god or gods appears, I'll be among the first to accept their reality. Until such time, though, it doesn't make sense to do so. I might as well buy into the notion that there's an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage.
Though I do tend to think (this is only a personal opinion) that precluding the notion of a god all together is a sign of mental damage (at least psychologically).
As opposed to the other types of mental damage? Hey, I have an idea: How about we ask an expert in psychology if atheism is a sign of mental damage, instead of just believing whatever we want?
Your statement is designed to discredit your opponents, and is thus an ad hominem attack. It is a logical fallacy.
Since all the evidence isn't in yet.
ROFL! I'll tell you what: Let's reconvene this discussion in a month; I hear all the evidence is due to be in by then.
Are you seriously suggesting we never, ever preclude the existence of gods, despite a complete lack of evidence, just because we're not omniscient?
Your statement is an appeal to ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.
Many great minds believed in [God], and many of those minds are the ones you claim to be your intellectual forbearer's.
See, here's the thing: Scientists put stock in the great minds of yore, but only within their field of expertise. I would defer to Stephen Hawking about questions of cosmology, but I give his opinions on economics or child rearing no special weight. As soon as a scientist starts talking about religion, he becomes a member of laiety.
Your statement is an appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
PNG is lossless.
"Do you like to have sex with people the same gender as yourself?"
50/50? Not bloody likely.
Your patent from 1965 has long since expired. I'll have you in court for barratry.
This is one of the main hallmarks of pseudoscience. Throw a bunch of random terms at a generally clueless audience. The terms sound familiar enough to lend an air of legitimacy, but are complicated enough to make the marks' eyes glaze over.
Why does everyone rag on E.T. so much? I thought it was an amusing game. I mean, if you want to point to a high-profile POS game for the 2600, may I humbly suggest you look in Pac-Man's general direction?
Thanks for the reminders. My poor brain ain't what it used to be. Yeah, I hate all games that include those slider puzzles. It's such a pain. And I somehow completely forgot about the part of Riven where Gehn tries to make you touch the book before him. Trapping him was whole point! I are dumb.
Oh yeah, and a self-correction: Where I said "Zork: Grand Inquisitor" I meant "Zork: Nemesis". ZGI was actually a return to the whimsical roots of the series.
Touche.
Has it occurred to you that maybe people need to actually understand a product before they can write documentation for it? Now, who understands better how a piece of software works: the original developer(s), or potential customers?
How did you deal with the usurper (Civ's copy protection)? There were a lot of times when I couldn't put the symbol to the advance, and needed the manual.
I loved Civilization. It was the last game I could play on my Tandy 1000 HX (640K RAM, no HD, PCjr graphics, 3-voice sound). The only drawback was the startup: the Tandy ran at 7MHz, so randomly generating a new world took most of a day (ran while I slept).
I guess it's been too long... I can't remember what you mean by the "H" puzzle, and I don't remember how one could die in Riven (I've played so many cheap knock-offs in the intervening years that it's all blending together).
I, too, read that entire creation tale. I took notes and everything, because of games like Riven, where little details can come back to haunt you.
I'd also like to nominate Zork: Grand Inquisitor. It's very dark, and was thus despised by a lot of Zork fans, but I found it a good game on its own, and only had a couple of "points of no return."
You're still conferring an advantage to gamers with more free time. To wit:
Also, if you "[m]ake success more dependent on skill at mouse or joystick," you hand the advantage over to people who are younger (because their reaction speeds are faster). This tends to be the same people who have all day to play games.
This is a fundamental "problem" with competitive gameplay, be it video games or sports. Whoever is willing to devote the most time/effort in playing will, on average, be the superior player.
What does rationality have to do with it? If people were rational, Columbus would never have believed Japan was only 4500 km away from the Canary Islands. It's not unreasonable, given a limited knowledge of the world, for people to think they were living on a Pangaea-like continent. Stranger things have happened.
I understand the point you're making, but I don't think it's fair to say that "Columbus could be fairly sure to encounter habitable land." As I heard it, the reason everyone considered Columbus's expedition to be foolish was because he assumed the Earth's diameter to be about half what everyone else thought it was, and that China was just a hop, skip, and a jump away to the west. It was just dumb luck that there happened to be another continent in his path.
Such as...?
And neither do I.
Historically speaking, the seven deadly sins weren't supposed to be things you should never do. They were actually considered positive things. What made them deadly is that it seems to be human nature to over-indulge in them, and that can lead to serious problems. The deadly sins were acts that (initially) monks needed to be mindful of within themselves. "All things in moderation," as it were.
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that I consider this excessive. Now, reasonable men may differ on this, and if you disagree, fine. But don't assume that just because I'm less of a braggart than most, that I take no pride in what I do. Announcing that someone less prideful than you must have no pride at all is yet another false dichotomy.
Okay, first of all, I don't remember reading anything in the article about Atzanteol's contribution to the Messenger program, so calling it one of "our" feats is stretching it a bit.
Second, I'm from Ohio. Insofar as anyone not connected to NASA can take credit for this, I can, too. I just don't see any reason to scatter litter all over the cosmos. "Give a hoot; don't pollute." Remember that one?
I'd prefer NASA's shrinking budget get spent on things like... oh, let's say... science.
Oh, I'm sure it'll happen.
See? Proof by Bartlett's. :-)
True. I was hedging my bets, though. American jingoists, in my personal (and thus necessarily limited) experience, tend to be the same sort who assert that America is a Christian nation.
False dichotomy. One could opt not to put any flag there.
Isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?
Do keep in mind, though, that when a company goes under, it may auction off its assets to cover debts, including copyrights.
Do I really need all that for a gaming machine, though? I mean, are save-games so important that I really need RAID?
Another thing to consider is inflation. I realize skermit's info is anecdotal, but let's use it as a demonstration. This site says the Pentium 90 appeared in 1994. The Inflation Calculator says that $3000 in 1994 dollars is $3645.04 in 2003 dollars (the most recent data available).
Assuming you aren't just putting stuff in your PC because it's possible to do so, I'm pretty sure a top gaming PC today is certainly no more expensive than the analogous PC of a decade ago, and I suspect it'll be cheaper.
Anyone care to compile actual numbers, instead of relying on skermit's and Dragoon412's estimates?
Some motions are still pending.
No, it doesn't. That question isn't worth considering until after a trial has at least started.
At least 150 hours afterward, right? ;-)
I know what you mean, though. For the last two, I played through in my usual bumbling way: ignored packages unless I happened to be walking past one, etc. Then, after I got to the "end" I'd head to GameFAQs so I could get the 100%.
But "free as in beer" does not imply "free as in speech," which was the OP's point.
Here is where you and I must part ways. Yes, there is no evidence one way or the other; I'll agree to that. What I cannot agree to, though, is the assertion that both resulting stances are reasonable. I don't see how it can be reasonable to conclude, on a total absence of evidence, that something exists. To be fair, I have not declared that there are no gods. I simply state that in the absence of evidence, it is not reasonable to conclude they exist. The only rational stance is, Not Proved.
Let me approach this another way: If the evidence for or against gods is silent, then all choices carry the same empircal weight. The Judeo-Christian God exists, or the Hindu pantheon exists, or the Greek pantheon exists, or no gods exist, among countless other possibilities. In all but one scenario, one must show preferential treatment to one set of gods over another. This kind of discrimination is necessarily based on personal preference, since evidence is lacking.
But using personal prejudices to make decalrations about what's real or not is not by any means reasonable. The only consistent approach is the one where all gods are treated equally: Assume none exist. Then, to be fair about it, allow for the introduction of new evidence, see how well it comports to your world-view and, if it does not fit, adjust your world-view accordingly.
If evidence for any particular god or gods appears, I'll be among the first to accept their reality. Until such time, though, it doesn't make sense to do so. I might as well buy into the notion that there's an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage.
As opposed to the other types of mental damage? Hey, I have an idea: How about we ask an expert in psychology if atheism is a sign of mental damage, instead of just believing whatever we want?
Your statement is designed to discredit your opponents, and is thus an ad hominem attack. It is a logical fallacy.
ROFL! I'll tell you what: Let's reconvene this discussion in a month; I hear all the evidence is due to be in by then.
Are you seriously suggesting we never, ever preclude the existence of gods, despite a complete lack of evidence, just because we're not omniscient?
Your statement is an appeal to ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.
See, here's the thing: Scientists put stock in the great minds of yore, but only within their field of expertise. I would defer to Stephen Hawking about questions of cosmology, but I give his opinions on economics or child rearing no special weight. As soon as a scientist starts talking about religion, he becomes a member of laiety.
Your statement is an appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy.