Because the skeptics have to prove an arguement, rather than the "Scientists" have to prove their findings beyond doubt. Oh what a wonderful world that would be, we could claim that the sky was brown and no one could prove us wrong so it'd be right, and the sun would just be an orange.
Sorry, buddy, I live in reality, where scientific claims have to be backed up with proof instead of mass acceptance. Too bad so many people are willing to accept a convincing sounding claim rather than actually look at the flawed evidence they've already tried to hand us. My statement is hardly as vague as some of their finger pointing evidence towards weather patterns and fictional BS. 50 years ago we were talking about global cooling. Now we have global warming... oh but they are right now.
Why is it that even the most outlandish predictions talk about a change of 5 degrees? And yet no one mentions that this will happen over 100 years, but we have to act TODAY because we can't study it? Why is that? Why is it that anyone who discounts the idea of global warming is mocked ridiculed and hounded until they are discredited or they give up? Why is any proof refuting global warming shoved to one side, and the space afforded them shrunk until it's not worth it. Yet a spread on global warming evidence/politics can take up 4 pages itself detailing the fight, but not the science of it.
The simple question that anyone should be able to answer is shouldn't the evidence be enough to stand by itself so that anyone studying it should be able to find the same correlation with out someone hounding them or hand holding until they find the "right answer".
Nah You know what... I'm sure global warming is real, because those are the tactics of scientists who have absolute proof and are assured that anyone can reproduce their answers. I'm going to start accepting it because what else could this tactics be?
And next year when you're shivering because of a long weather they'll say "Well global warming creates freak weather" don't think so? They have multiple times. During the massive hurricane seasons they pointed to it and said "We told you next year it's going to be worse" then the year after it was tame and they pointed and said "It's unpredictable".
Yeah, because weather modeling is easy for them to do so they can obviously show cause and effect for all this stuff, can't they.... Or can they just lie about it and you'll be willing to listen one more year? Nah couldn't be that.
Btw Just because you post to both of my posts, doesn't make you twice as right.
So when they claim they have evidence that shows that the world will be covered in water in 50 years, we shouldn't expect to see any evidence?
There's actually quite a few scientists in the global warming debate that has constantly made claims with out showing evidence, or with showing completely faulty evidence and when someone disproves it, the disproving evidence is ignored and the fictions evidence is still regarded as undeniable proof.
That doesn't mean there isn't people proving their thoughts, but there's a great many who are fearmongering and claiming conclusive evidence who isn't putting their science where their politicizing is.
I listed two. But you might have missed them or think they are common place enough that they arn't a problem.
A. Visas are granted with little or no thought. Can you pretend you're going to college? You can probably get a Visa. Technically fixed now, but having actual rules about them wouldn't be a bad thing.
B. ID is becoming to the point where different states have completely different rules. Why not have a standardized rule that says if you have these X pieces of identification? You can get an ID. If not you can't. Instead I've seen every single state that I've lived in (4 in the last 5 years) has different laws. 2 of them didn't require proof of residency, One required just my old ID which they just looked at and assumed it's ok, they didn't even scrutinize the picture (and they don't have access to that state's database so they definitely didn't pull up the database to look at the official picture).
One state I went to allowed you to use ID from certain states... why? Because those states had "adequate" security measures. I didn't have that state's license and I had to go through the official process of proving who I was, which was easy.
So why should we have such a variety in the ways we gain ID and have states having different levels of security but everyone assuming that the two drivers licenses from different states are both the same level of proof of your identity, when even the states themselves know certain states are more secure? Oh right, because it's not a problem....
I'm not trying to tell you Real ID is right, but at the same time let's find a way to make the law better than yelling about it and trying to get it completely thrown out, which just won't happen.
No, because Kerry was the best person they ran against him.
You can only blame Bush so much when the democrats do so much to destroy themselves. Hell Clinton is the front runner for 2008? Obama is slightly better but no track record, and Gore who everyone seems to want lost last time he ran to what everyone seemed to think is a boob. And that was before we knew Gore loves to throw tantrums instead of being a good sport. Those are the proposed alternatives to who ever the republicans put up. Notice the word alternatives. I'll get back to this.
As for this situation the Real ID, why are you against it. And if you tell me it's because you want privacy I'll give you a shack out in the middle of nowhere. Want to be part of any community or country you're going to be giving up some freedoms.
Worried about Identity theft? Oh right because that's what the media runs tons of stories about and doesn't give statistics about how rare it happens. Guess what? Work on getting safeguards around that rather then bitching about the ID system itself.
I hear about 100 complaints from people about all sorts of crap but no one is ever offering an actual alternative. With Bush you had Kerry, Bush won. Sorry if you wanted Clinton/Gore/Mccain or any other politician to win but you had 2 (or a few more) choices. Want to stop the Real ID act? Have a proposal about what to do instead of it? So far I haven't heard any real options other than "just keep doing the same shit that gives anyone a visa, and any illegal immegrant a ID." Oh wait that's fine by some people.
How is counter-strike hostage or assassination different than CTF? it's one sided but it's the same exact thing. I'm not saying have the SAME flag and same style, but some idea in guarding a base and obtaining a goal is a good idea. The idea behind it is these are freaking SIMPLE to do, take a month of time at the most and normally are done to prove that your multiplayer are done.
Battlefield 2 would be great with team deathmatch, solo deathmatch probably not as much but a smaller map would work or a solo King of the hill style game would prove the same levels as solo deathmatch. Then again Battlefield did good on their own.
I'm more talking about games like Gears of war, it's popular but it's dull they originally gave us 3 versions of deathmatch and now are giving us a objective based mode finally. I've seen a couple games that think deathmatch is unneeded (I work at a company considering it) or deathmatch is all you need (I've seen that in a lot of games).
If you're going to do online at the very least do the three modes I suggested, but for gods sake make something unique if you're willing.
I've always liked the idea of the game actively playing against you in some fashion in some sort of "third team" situation. I'd like the idea of an on the fly map change as if some spectators were judging you. For instance if your team is up by 30 points maybe your base gets worse vantage points, maybe the other team gets extra spawn points, or so on. Sort of a way to balance the game as you play a single map. And even better every time you are down by 30 points a different "mutator" if you'll allow me to use UT termonology is applied. Maybe the other team slows down to taunt, maybe the other team gets weaker weapons, maybe you're weapons just get more powerful. Different locations, different level design. Essentially you're world will change randomly as if some overlord is toying with you.
That being said that's a hard proposal.
On the other hand this sounds great as well, creating a new challenge, and longevity that most games seem to lack as well as keeping with the old tried and true gameplay, which a lot of games ignore (seriously Capture the flag should be in all these games, even if you make 5 new modes, why isn't CTF and deathmatch and team deathmatch not mandatory?)
I was going to say Legend of Zelda Link to the Past because it's a favorite, or one of the Elder scrolls with the editor. But damn if this one doesn't take the cake. Best answer.
Still have yet to ascend. I'm sure when the rescue boat comes I'll turn and wave and shout "Just one more game".
The full interview shows how biased the magazine is. Even the linked story has it. They basically laid out the obvious flaws with the xbox 360 and all Houser could do is say yes. What a shock for the Playstation Magazine.
But on the other hand they at least mentioned he said both systems have issues. And trust me from what I've seen with the PS3 and how my company is handling it, the HD issue and the Disc capacity should be the least of their worries. The 360's issues are easy to enumerate and resolve.. the PS3, not so much.
Seriously the 360 has proven itself over and over. We have Oblivion, yet if Rockstar can't get their head out of their ass and figure out how to do the work they don't deserve your money. We have at least 4 major open world games on the 360 (hell Just Cause was also available on the PS2, at the same size world which was "fucking enormous".) And Rockstar the guys who everyone seems to think can piss gold can't figure this one out?
Seriously, come on Dvorak, get you're head out of your ass. Are you next going to tell me the cops created the LA riots? The lawyers were trying to litigate, it's what they were going to do. Nothing to surprising. Anything about the MPAA or RIAA is always going to get little rebel johnny's panties in a twist because he wants to be different and fight the establishment... with everyone else. It doesn't matter if the lawyers litigated or not.
The blame for the Digg revolt lands on two groups. The users and the site admins, they were the direct cause for it. If the admins didn't start censoring the numbers posts the users wouldn't have tried to be so clever to post it again. If they had adequate screening tools they might have at least stemmed some of the flood. The lawyers might not have told Digg to censor it and they could have banned it for another reason and the revolt would have happened along another line.
On the other hands the only people actually involved in the revolt are the users. You can go blame anyone else but the users were the ones posting the number. Just because someone else buys a guy, and another person loads it but puts the safety on, if a third person takes that gun turns off the safety and shoots someone, it's the fault of the third person, not the first two people. This country has a complex of "who's fault is it" and we seem to always ignore the person who did the crime/action.
OK A couple facts, Napster was the biggest file sharing system for music for years before it's downfall, The Pirate bay is one of the biggest torrent sites out there.
Let's see what happened after Napster, oh yeah music stopped being shared.
Except on Gnutella.
And Grokster. And Kazaa. And Edonkey, and Limewire, and Bearshare.
Oh and on the IRC channels where it was before and after napster, and private FTPs, and some program I remember using in college, and others.
Oh and Bittorrent. No one needed Bittorrent for music before Napster but now it's a major program for it.
Essentially when they destroyed Napster they didn't stop the file sharing they just fractured it to the point where all the shards of File sharing was split up and created 10 times the problem.
It's just an example as these lawsuit doesn't matter for us. The owners of Pirate bay will care, but in the end the destruction of that site will only create new tools and sites for everyone to use to share their warez. The MPAA needs to find substitutes for this, even Pirate bay has said that if they are sued they'll move to a country that will allow them to exist with out being accused of wrong doing. The only ones not getting this is the corporations who think litigation not innovation is the answer.
Are you restricting the character, forcing her to partake in the experience and making that all she or he's doing?
Didn't think so. I don't know how Second Life works, but typing "Sticks his big dong in you" is very interactive. If you replay "hates this" then your participating. There's multiple ways to handle this such as...
Ignoring the person with in game tools Going somewhere else Logging off
All of these should be preceded by "informing the admins".
To my knowledge there's no way for the person to stop you and force you to interact (again I don't play second life, my primary life is annoying enough). This IS harassment, and since it's sexual most games allow for banning for that type of of harassment. However a crime? Not unless spammers, or people who troll are also a crime, and it's been pretty clear they aren't.
I'm going to go "HELL NO!" here. Now Obama's run a very clean campaign and my comment's aren't going to relate to him persay, but in general politics are a nasty business. Bush has constantly been bashed because his comments are taken out of context. What happens when Obama steps up and says something completely innocent, then Clinton's aides get their hands on it and start picking comments that make Obama look bad to the democratic party, and only show that?
The one thing I've understood about politics and rumors is that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. If people want to believe the lie (Bush is a moron) than no matter what the truth might be (He was elected, still graduated from Yale, is running this country better than the average person) they will believe it.
Now we add in hours of footage that looks official but can be edited any way people want? Yeah that's a great idea, because no one will ever misquote anyone in politics, would they?
I find most programmers I work with seem to consider them "C# conventions" even though you're right they were available at C++. Of course most of the discussions involving this is about C# style conventions vs. C style conventions (or assembly)
Now I like this guy, but he no longer has a job... anywhere.
Sorry people this is sadly the way the world works now and it sucks ass. Advertisers always get a good score, and everyone gets good stores unless you totally fuck up. Go to http://www.gamerankings.com/http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.asp average scores from some of these sites are jokes. Yet people continue to claim that 5 is average? BS.
A friend mentioned a good idea as a way to solve this, find a way to get reviews for games written 20 years after the game comes out, to see if the game really does stand the test of time, because otherwise you get this overly biased bullshit where advertising dollars affect the review scores.
The bottom line I've found is every review site and magazine is biased. It's just the simple fact of life that we have to understand when seeking out reviews and articles.
Hell someone patent crappy C# conventions in C++ programs. Take your functors and your constant defined members of classes and stay out of my code.
I can just imagine 50 patents, such as "string" because someone wants to make sure everyone only uses char, and the char arrays so people only use pointers and of course pointers because someone wanted to only use arrays.
Ok he got magazines, not filled, but empty magazines, get over it people!
Seriously, Ebay has changed the way we interact. Why are we quibbling over this? Oh yeah people want to shame ebay for this and blame it on anyone other than the student who commited the murder. They didn't tell him to do it, they didn't pull the trigger, this is one sale out of a couple million?
Ebay and the founders deserve this award, hell they deserve another award for taking an idea from the dot com bubble and making a couple billion dollars off of it (kudos to them for that). Trying to throw dirt on them now is petty as hell, and Kdawson needs to figure out if he wants to keep posting biased and muck racking summaries or if he wants to actually post interesting news.
My point wasn't that he's a genius candidate. My point was he wasn't a troglodyte to the point where anyone who runs against him is assured a win. Personally I think both parties need to remember to put the best candidate for the COUNTRY forward instead of the one who will win the most votes, but of course this is America, land of partisan politics, where you're either for us or against us.
Personally I like Joesph Lieberman, he's a fair man who will work for his country rather than blindly for the party. I actually think the fact the democratic party tried to ignore him in 2006 gives him more credit in my book than anything. While I disagree with his stance on video games the fact he's proven he's willing to work with Democrats and Republicans makes him the best candidate. He'll never get the nomination but I'd still like to cast a vote for him some day.
I've heard three candidates, Gore, Obama, and Clinton are the front runners, and all I can say is the republicans are going to win. Why? Because democrats are dumbasses.
Let's assume Clinton gets the nod. Well now you have people who hated her husband, people who don't want a woman president, people who don't like her. Even the democratic female vote is cooling off on her. She'd be a hard sell to win if she was a man, having her as woman is going to make it near impossible.
Obama looks good, except he's joined in on the democratic chanting that "bush is bad". He doesn't seem to consider the war, and has become as the parent mentioned a Republicrat (which is a good term, hiding their politics by pretending to be on one side, and it worked in 2006, though I think people realized that the democrats who got elected arn't going to do what they promised, no real surprise) The big problem with Obama is he has NO track record worth mentioning, he's a junior senator, he wrote a book, whoopie. He has no reason to run for president except that he's black and well spoken. Sadly this makes him the best candidate in the democratic party.
Gore is passionate about the environment, and great for him. However he's also been described as the most polarizing figure by members of the side of environment on the debate on global warming. That's not a good trait. Outside of his favorite idea It's a downhill drop. He's got negative charisma, he's boring, and he doesn't have the quick thinking which will kill him in debates unless he over-reherses. He already lost to Bush which the Democrats seemed to think was the worse possible choice that the republicans could have made (at least that's what they have been saying for 7+ years). What makes you think he'll win now?
I mean there's Kucinch and others also running but come on. The democrats burnt a lot of bridges this year and last year, and pretty much the last 6 years, and 2 years from now when we see that congress has done nothing they promised and everything they didn't, then we'll start hearing "it's because of Bush". But it's the fact that they want to grandstand and grab as much power as they can now.
Remember the Republican are looking at Mccain and Guiliani, not bad candidates. They aren't going to try to elect a Hitler so you can run anyone who isn't Hitler. Bush won the last election by a decent margin, so apparently no matter what the democrats try to make us believe the country still thinks the war is right or Bush is the right man for the job over a Kerry type candidate. So why isn't the democrats thinking a little smarter about this?
As opposed to the fact that Geraldo was able to essentially give our troop movements and positions away and still leave the country with his freedom.
I completely agree that there needs to be some censorship, I think the real question is what's the time frame about this and what will be cut out? Probably nothing important but I'm sure the bleeding hearts would scream about the fact the army can't bitch about the war any more. Still I find it more distasteful that anyone who is under and distress or any pain is held up by certain people as a public figure.
A woman recently posted on a craigslist lashing out at the goverment and army, she was in the army, and her husband was too, and she was on leave (I forget if it was maternity or otherwise) and lost her husband, likely quite recently and she was quite understandably angry (multiple swears, and the overall tone). However the problem I have is that almost immediately people singled out her post and was trying to use her pain to push their agenda. Now I don't blame her, but the fact that people are so fast to use ANYTHING the army says to try to shame it is something that requires at least some level of consideration.
First off Digg is a site for user content, but just as a note even a user content site can't allow just anything on their site. there's laws in the country and the best way to avoid crippling yourself is simple complying with them.
Essentially the fans in this case are killing digg because now the MPAA will either get pissed off and sue digg, or digg will get pissed off and close the site. Either way the only people the fans will hurt is digg, the site they frequent.
Btw the people telling Digg to stand up to the MPAA, shut the fuck up unless you got the money for their defense. Oh wait you arn't willing to pay millions for their legal fee? Digg is a site that's run for the fans, there's no huge cash pile of money hidden in the backroom. They arn't getting rich off Digg, they are just people who are creating a fan created news "blog" or link site. Asking them to stand up and fight for the right here is a joke as it will only cause them to close.
And don't think slashdot will stand up to the MPAA if it comes to it. I'd like to believe they would but I doubt it. I respect this site but I also understand the simple fact, the MPAA can bankrupt pretty much any site like this, and while we should fight against this, unless you have the money for the legal fund don't demand anyone fight it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the skeptics have to prove an arguement, rather than the "Scientists" have to prove their findings beyond doubt. Oh what a wonderful world that would be, we could claim that the sky was brown and no one could prove us wrong so it'd be right, and the sun would just be an orange.
Sorry, buddy, I live in reality, where scientific claims have to be backed up with proof instead of mass acceptance. Too bad so many people are willing to accept a convincing sounding claim rather than actually look at the flawed evidence they've already tried to hand us. My statement is hardly as vague as some of their finger pointing evidence towards weather patterns and fictional BS. 50 years ago we were talking about global cooling. Now we have global warming... oh but they are right now.
Why is it that even the most outlandish predictions talk about a change of 5 degrees? And yet no one mentions that this will happen over 100 years, but we have to act TODAY because we can't study it? Why is that? Why is it that anyone who discounts the idea of global warming is mocked ridiculed and hounded until they are discredited or they give up? Why is any proof refuting global warming shoved to one side, and the space afforded them shrunk until it's not worth it. Yet a spread on global warming evidence/politics can take up 4 pages itself detailing the fight, but not the science of it.
The simple question that anyone should be able to answer is shouldn't the evidence be enough to stand by itself so that anyone studying it should be able to find the same correlation with out someone hounding them or hand holding until they find the "right answer".
Nah You know what... I'm sure global warming is real, because those are the tactics of scientists who have absolute proof and are assured that anyone can reproduce their answers. I'm going to start accepting it because what else could this tactics be?
And next year when you're shivering because of a long weather they'll say "Well global warming creates freak weather" don't think so? They have multiple times. During the massive hurricane seasons they pointed to it and said "We told you next year it's going to be worse" then the year after it was tame and they pointed and said "It's unpredictable".
Yeah, because weather modeling is easy for them to do so they can obviously show cause and effect for all this stuff, can't they.... Or can they just lie about it and you'll be willing to listen one more year? Nah couldn't be that.
Btw Just because you post to both of my posts, doesn't make you twice as right.
So when they claim they have evidence that shows that the world will be covered in water in 50 years, we shouldn't expect to see any evidence?
There's actually quite a few scientists in the global warming debate that has constantly made claims with out showing evidence, or with showing completely faulty evidence and when someone disproves it, the disproving evidence is ignored and the fictions evidence is still regarded as undeniable proof.
That doesn't mean there isn't people proving their thoughts, but there's a great many who are fearmongering and claiming conclusive evidence who isn't putting their science where their politicizing is.
Hell then the state of Lousiana can then sue Jack Thompson for scaring them into making an unconstitutional bill about video games.
And maybe we can finally hold some of the loudest mouthpieces for global warming until they finally either shut up or prove their rantings.
I listed two. But you might have missed them or think they are common place enough that they arn't a problem.
A. Visas are granted with little or no thought. Can you pretend you're going to college? You can probably get a Visa. Technically fixed now, but having actual rules about them wouldn't be a bad thing.
B. ID is becoming to the point where different states have completely different rules. Why not have a standardized rule that says if you have these X pieces of identification? You can get an ID. If not you can't. Instead I've seen every single state that I've lived in (4 in the last 5 years) has different laws. 2 of them didn't require proof of residency, One required just my old ID which they just looked at and assumed it's ok, they didn't even scrutinize the picture (and they don't have access to that state's database so they definitely didn't pull up the database to look at the official picture).
One state I went to allowed you to use ID from certain states... why? Because those states had "adequate" security measures. I didn't have that state's license and I had to go through the official process of proving who I was, which was easy.
So why should we have such a variety in the ways we gain ID and have states having different levels of security but everyone assuming that the two drivers licenses from different states are both the same level of proof of your identity, when even the states themselves know certain states are more secure? Oh right, because it's not a problem....
I'm not trying to tell you Real ID is right, but at the same time let's find a way to make the law better than yelling about it and trying to get it completely thrown out, which just won't happen.
No, because Kerry was the best person they ran against him.
You can only blame Bush so much when the democrats do so much to destroy themselves. Hell Clinton is the front runner for 2008? Obama is slightly better but no track record, and Gore who everyone seems to want lost last time he ran to what everyone seemed to think is a boob. And that was before we knew Gore loves to throw tantrums instead of being a good sport. Those are the proposed alternatives to who ever the republicans put up. Notice the word alternatives. I'll get back to this.
As for this situation the Real ID, why are you against it. And if you tell me it's because you want privacy I'll give you a shack out in the middle of nowhere. Want to be part of any community or country you're going to be giving up some freedoms.
Worried about Identity theft? Oh right because that's what the media runs tons of stories about and doesn't give statistics about how rare it happens. Guess what? Work on getting safeguards around that rather then bitching about the ID system itself.
I hear about 100 complaints from people about all sorts of crap but no one is ever offering an actual alternative. With Bush you had Kerry, Bush won. Sorry if you wanted Clinton/Gore/Mccain or any other politician to win but you had 2 (or a few more) choices. Want to stop the Real ID act? Have a proposal about what to do instead of it? So far I haven't heard any real options other than "just keep doing the same shit that gives anyone a visa, and any illegal immegrant a ID." Oh wait that's fine by some people.
DONE!
Though it might come a week late with a couple weird characters on the screen.
How is counter-strike hostage or assassination different than CTF? it's one sided but it's the same exact thing. I'm not saying have the SAME flag and same style, but some idea in guarding a base and obtaining a goal is a good idea. The idea behind it is these are freaking SIMPLE to do, take a month of time at the most and normally are done to prove that your multiplayer are done.
Battlefield 2 would be great with team deathmatch, solo deathmatch probably not as much but a smaller map would work or a solo King of the hill style game would prove the same levels as solo deathmatch. Then again Battlefield did good on their own.
I'm more talking about games like Gears of war, it's popular but it's dull they originally gave us 3 versions of deathmatch and now are giving us a objective based mode finally. I've seen a couple games that think deathmatch is unneeded (I work at a company considering it) or deathmatch is all you need (I've seen that in a lot of games).
If you're going to do online at the very least do the three modes I suggested, but for gods sake make something unique if you're willing.
I've always liked the idea of the game actively playing against you in some fashion in some sort of "third team" situation. I'd like the idea of an on the fly map change as if some spectators were judging you. For instance if your team is up by 30 points maybe your base gets worse vantage points, maybe the other team gets extra spawn points, or so on. Sort of a way to balance the game as you play a single map. And even better every time you are down by 30 points a different "mutator" if you'll allow me to use UT termonology is applied. Maybe the other team slows down to taunt, maybe the other team gets weaker weapons, maybe you're weapons just get more powerful. Different locations, different level design. Essentially you're world will change randomly as if some overlord is toying with you.
That being said that's a hard proposal.
On the other hand this sounds great as well, creating a new challenge, and longevity that most games seem to lack as well as keeping with the old tried and true gameplay, which a lot of games ignore (seriously Capture the flag should be in all these games, even if you make 5 new modes, why isn't CTF and deathmatch and team deathmatch not mandatory?)
No they gave us what we wanted (a lower price) at the cost of something (our freedom to use the mp3).
Personally I'd pay 30 cents more to buy a track for real, but I'm not interested in buying DRM music, so I don't.
I was going to say Legend of Zelda Link to the Past because it's a favorite, or one of the Elder scrolls with the editor. But damn if this one doesn't take the cake. Best answer.
Still have yet to ascend. I'm sure when the rescue boat comes I'll turn and wave and shout "Just one more game".
The full interview shows how biased the magazine is. Even the linked story has it. They basically laid out the obvious flaws with the xbox 360 and all Houser could do is say yes. What a shock for the Playstation Magazine.
But on the other hand they at least mentioned he said both systems have issues. And trust me from what I've seen with the PS3 and how my company is handling it, the HD issue and the Disc capacity should be the least of their worries. The 360's issues are easy to enumerate and resolve.. the PS3, not so much.
Seriously the 360 has proven itself over and over. We have Oblivion, yet if Rockstar can't get their head out of their ass and figure out how to do the work they don't deserve your money. We have at least 4 major open world games on the 360 (hell Just Cause was also available on the PS2, at the same size world which was "fucking enormous".) And Rockstar the guys who everyone seems to think can piss gold can't figure this one out?
Please.
Seriously, come on Dvorak, get you're head out of your ass. Are you next going to tell me the cops created the LA riots? The lawyers were trying to litigate, it's what they were going to do. Nothing to surprising. Anything about the MPAA or RIAA is always going to get little rebel johnny's panties in a twist because he wants to be different and fight the establishment... with everyone else. It doesn't matter if the lawyers litigated or not.
The blame for the Digg revolt lands on two groups. The users and the site admins, they were the direct cause for it. If the admins didn't start censoring the numbers posts the users wouldn't have tried to be so clever to post it again. If they had adequate screening tools they might have at least stemmed some of the flood. The lawyers might not have told Digg to censor it and they could have banned it for another reason and the revolt would have happened along another line.
On the other hands the only people actually involved in the revolt are the users. You can go blame anyone else but the users were the ones posting the number. Just because someone else buys a guy, and another person loads it but puts the safety on, if a third person takes that gun turns off the safety and shoots someone, it's the fault of the third person, not the first two people. This country has a complex of "who's fault is it" and we seem to always ignore the person who did the crime/action.
OK A couple facts, Napster was the biggest file sharing system for music for years before it's downfall, The Pirate bay is one of the biggest torrent sites out there.
Let's see what happened after Napster, oh yeah music stopped being shared.
Except on Gnutella.
And Grokster.
And Kazaa.
And Edonkey, and Limewire, and Bearshare.
Oh and on the IRC channels where it was before and after napster, and private FTPs, and some program I remember using in college, and others.
Oh and Bittorrent. No one needed Bittorrent for music before Napster but now it's a major program for it.
Essentially when they destroyed Napster they didn't stop the file sharing they just fractured it to the point where all the shards of File sharing was split up and created 10 times the problem.
It's just an example as these lawsuit doesn't matter for us. The owners of Pirate bay will care, but in the end the destruction of that site will only create new tools and sites for everyone to use to share their warez. The MPAA needs to find substitutes for this, even Pirate bay has said that if they are sued they'll move to a country that will allow them to exist with out being accused of wrong doing. The only ones not getting this is the corporations who think litigation not innovation is the answer.
Are you restricting the character, forcing her to partake in the experience and making that all she or he's doing?
Didn't think so. I don't know how Second Life works, but typing "Sticks his big dong in you" is very interactive. If you replay "hates this" then your participating. There's multiple ways to handle this such as...
Ignoring the person with in game tools
Going somewhere else
Logging off
All of these should be preceded by "informing the admins".
To my knowledge there's no way for the person to stop you and force you to interact (again I don't play second life, my primary life is annoying enough). This IS harassment, and since it's sexual most games allow for banning for that type of of harassment. However a crime? Not unless spammers, or people who troll are also a crime, and it's been pretty clear they aren't.
I'm going to go "HELL NO!" here. Now Obama's run a very clean campaign and my comment's aren't going to relate to him persay, but in general politics are a nasty business. Bush has constantly been bashed because his comments are taken out of context. What happens when Obama steps up and says something completely innocent, then Clinton's aides get their hands on it and start picking comments that make Obama look bad to the democratic party, and only show that?
The one thing I've understood about politics and rumors is that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. If people want to believe the lie (Bush is a moron) than no matter what the truth might be (He was elected, still graduated from Yale, is running this country better than the average person) they will believe it.
Now we add in hours of footage that looks official but can be edited any way people want? Yeah that's a great idea, because no one will ever misquote anyone in politics, would they?
I find most programmers I work with seem to consider them "C# conventions" even though you're right they were available at C++. Of course most of the discussions involving this is about C# style conventions vs. C style conventions (or assembly)
Now I like this guy, but he no longer has a job... anywhere.
p average scores from some of these sites are jokes. Yet people continue to claim that 5 is average? BS.
. floor.article.overall_rating=9&constraint.return_a ll=is_true&sort.attribute=article.overall_rating&s ort.order=desc this link which is all the 9s and above for the Xbox. If you've played most of these games you'll know they are in no way 9s or at least not as high as they are given.
Sorry people this is sadly the way the world works now and it sucks ass. Advertisers always get a good score, and everyone gets good stores unless you totally fuck up. Go to http://www.gamerankings.com/ http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.as
But even more than that, I recently felt like checking out old Xbox games so I went to http://xbox.ign.com/index/reviews.html?constraint
A friend mentioned a good idea as a way to solve this, find a way to get reviews for games written 20 years after the game comes out, to see if the game really does stand the test of time, because otherwise you get this overly biased bullshit where advertising dollars affect the review scores.
The bottom line I've found is every review site and magazine is biased. It's just the simple fact of life that we have to understand when seeking out reviews and articles.
I laugh and then I realize I love it.
Hell someone patent crappy C# conventions in C++ programs. Take your functors and your constant defined members of classes and stay out of my code.
I can just imagine 50 patents, such as "string" because someone wants to make sure everyone only uses char, and the char arrays so people only use pointers and of course pointers because someone wanted to only use arrays.
The saddest thing is it might actually work.
Ok he got magazines, not filled, but empty magazines, get over it people!
Seriously, Ebay has changed the way we interact. Why are we quibbling over this? Oh yeah people want to shame ebay for this and blame it on anyone other than the student who commited the murder. They didn't tell him to do it, they didn't pull the trigger, this is one sale out of a couple million?
Ebay and the founders deserve this award, hell they deserve another award for taking an idea from the dot com bubble and making a couple billion dollars off of it (kudos to them for that). Trying to throw dirt on them now is petty as hell, and Kdawson needs to figure out if he wants to keep posting biased and muck racking summaries or if he wants to actually post interesting news.
My point wasn't that he's a genius candidate. My point was he wasn't a troglodyte to the point where anyone who runs against him is assured a win. Personally I think both parties need to remember to put the best candidate for the COUNTRY forward instead of the one who will win the most votes, but of course this is America, land of partisan politics, where you're either for us or against us.
Personally I like Joesph Lieberman, he's a fair man who will work for his country rather than blindly for the party. I actually think the fact the democratic party tried to ignore him in 2006 gives him more credit in my book than anything. While I disagree with his stance on video games the fact he's proven he's willing to work with Democrats and Republicans makes him the best candidate. He'll never get the nomination but I'd still like to cast a vote for him some day.
What is with the democrats beating themselves?
I've heard three candidates, Gore, Obama, and Clinton are the front runners, and all I can say is the republicans are going to win. Why? Because democrats are dumbasses.
Let's assume Clinton gets the nod. Well now you have people who hated her husband, people who don't want a woman president, people who don't like her. Even the democratic female vote is cooling off on her. She'd be a hard sell to win if she was a man, having her as woman is going to make it near impossible.
Obama looks good, except he's joined in on the democratic chanting that "bush is bad". He doesn't seem to consider the war, and has become as the parent mentioned a Republicrat (which is a good term, hiding their politics by pretending to be on one side, and it worked in 2006, though I think people realized that the democrats who got elected arn't going to do what they promised, no real surprise) The big problem with Obama is he has NO track record worth mentioning, he's a junior senator, he wrote a book, whoopie. He has no reason to run for president except that he's black and well spoken. Sadly this makes him the best candidate in the democratic party.
Gore is passionate about the environment, and great for him. However he's also been described as the most polarizing figure by members of the side of environment on the debate on global warming. That's not a good trait. Outside of his favorite idea It's a downhill drop. He's got negative charisma, he's boring, and he doesn't have the quick thinking which will kill him in debates unless he over-reherses. He already lost to Bush which the Democrats seemed to think was the worse possible choice that the republicans could have made (at least that's what they have been saying for 7+ years). What makes you think he'll win now?
I mean there's Kucinch and others also running but come on. The democrats burnt a lot of bridges this year and last year, and pretty much the last 6 years, and 2 years from now when we see that congress has done nothing they promised and everything they didn't, then we'll start hearing "it's because of Bush". But it's the fact that they want to grandstand and grab as much power as they can now.
Remember the Republican are looking at Mccain and Guiliani, not bad candidates. They aren't going to try to elect a Hitler so you can run anyone who isn't Hitler. Bush won the last election by a decent margin, so apparently no matter what the democrats try to make us believe the country still thinks the war is right or Bush is the right man for the job over a Kerry type candidate. So why isn't the democrats thinking a little smarter about this?
As opposed to the fact that Geraldo was able to essentially give our troop movements and positions away and still leave the country with his freedom.
I completely agree that there needs to be some censorship, I think the real question is what's the time frame about this and what will be cut out? Probably nothing important but I'm sure the bleeding hearts would scream about the fact the army can't bitch about the war any more. Still I find it more distasteful that anyone who is under and distress or any pain is held up by certain people as a public figure.
A woman recently posted on a craigslist lashing out at the goverment and army, she was in the army, and her husband was too, and she was on leave (I forget if it was maternity or otherwise) and lost her husband, likely quite recently and she was quite understandably angry (multiple swears, and the overall tone). However the problem I have is that almost immediately people singled out her post and was trying to use her pain to push their agenda. Now I don't blame her, but the fact that people are so fast to use ANYTHING the army says to try to shame it is something that requires at least some level of consideration.
It works on Xp and Vista, the only platforms Microsoft acknowledges.
Because the losers here are digg's devs.
First off Digg is a site for user content, but just as a note even a user content site can't allow just anything on their site. there's laws in the country and the best way to avoid crippling yourself is simple complying with them.
Essentially the fans in this case are killing digg because now the MPAA will either get pissed off and sue digg, or digg will get pissed off and close the site. Either way the only people the fans will hurt is digg, the site they frequent.
Btw the people telling Digg to stand up to the MPAA, shut the fuck up unless you got the money for their defense. Oh wait you arn't willing to pay millions for their legal fee? Digg is a site that's run for the fans, there's no huge cash pile of money hidden in the backroom. They arn't getting rich off Digg, they are just people who are creating a fan created news "blog" or link site. Asking them to stand up and fight for the right here is a joke as it will only cause them to close.
And don't think slashdot will stand up to the MPAA if it comes to it. I'd like to believe they would but I doubt it. I respect this site but I also understand the simple fact, the MPAA can bankrupt pretty much any site like this, and while we should fight against this, unless you have the money for the legal fund don't demand anyone fight it.