This is a little off topic, but it doesn't really make sense for the Boss to be at the end logically. If the enemy were truly trying to stop you why throw out all the pud guys to give you experience enough to kill the boss? I think it is a natural progression, but if evil truly wanted to win they'd throw down the hammer and hit you with the big guys all at once and be done with it.
I personally despise FPS's, but the one I liked (DoD) was definitely best played against people I know in a LAN party style. Now that they all have voice I doubt I'll touch the things again. Nothing worse then listening to a bunch of whiners complaining about something or another.
If your limited to just FPS you will probably never enjoy a single player game. I imagine the AIs would be ether way to easy or way to hard, and probably very repetitive after an hour of play or so.
Console/computer games are to app store games as the Sistine Chapel is to a Thomas Kincade painting, regardless of what even Nintendo may say. To suggest that an iPhone is a gaming system would also mean we also have to consider my old Nokia 3210 a gaming system because it had games on it too.
Based on this statement, to say anything Nintendo makes is a gaming system would mean we need to consider your old Nokia 3210 a gaming system. No Hi-Def, only stereo sound, low pixel and polygon counts. Heck iPhones have higher quality displays then you can get on a DS.
You would also have to prevent offline characters from participating in the action house but that doesn't seem like a problem to me. But then I wouldn't buy anything from it anyway.
It's all about the action house nothing. They just want to prevent people for duping items the get on their single player game and selling them for real cash.
There are several differences between DNA and Fingerprints, however I think that fingerprints should be treated the same. Fingerprints shouldn't be added to the database without a conviction either. I don't know if they are in California or not though.
I think the thing that potentially makes DNA collection worse then fingerprint collection is more of a future concern. As we become more familiar with genetics there may be a lot of things this could be used for other than identification. It could potentially be used to show individuals who may have a higher predisposition to commit a crime. I don't think this will ever be able to show someone will in fact commit a crime, but it could lead to classes of people being monitored differently by the police because of their DNA on file. Much like how particular ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested for particular crimes even when those who commit them are well distributed across ethnicity.
I think we should raise taxes some and raise the retirement age. I think that sucks because I don't want to work any longer then I have to and I don't want to pay more taxes. On the other hand the Iraq war had like 70% approval rating and the Bush Tax cuts probably had a similar approval rating while we had deficient and the war wasn't part of the budget. I know that's not where all the debt comes from but we supported that much at least so we should not be surprised to pay for it.
That is not at all what the TP wanted to do. They wanted to cut spending so that we were still meeting debt obligations but cutting back on everything else. Your analogy is flawed. What the TP wants is to order dinner at a restaurant but then leave off the expensive dessert at the end so that they can afford to pay the entire bill.
If that's not what they are saying then why did they approve the budget? Why did they agree on our spending and they say we aren't allowed to raise funds for that spending?
I disagree that it is the Democrats at fault for the downgrade. I think that goes clearly onto the Tea Party. They approved the spending budget and then decided they were not going to allow us to raise taxes or borrow more money to cover the spending. It was that refusal to allow for a method to pay for the spending that has really lead to this.
If they had wanted more cuts the should have argued for it during the budget, or they should have waited until the next budget to start complaining. To agree to spend $100 and then say we are only allowed to collect $50 is silly. Now that they've proven they are willing to refuse to pay the for the spending they voted on, it is rational for people to wonder what will happen next year. Will they refuse to pay again?
Right now all savings is done at a loss. Because interest rates are so low, it is very difficult to put your money into any kind of savings plan that will leave you with a bigger number of dollars that is still worth less then what you put in. That really doesn't encourage people to pay off all their debt and start saving.
Really? It's that simple?! Oh my God!! Hey guys, looks like Mike here solved the problem with poverty in the US, we just need to pair them up and make them get married, then they will magically have all the means to raise those kids just fine without any assistance! We'll just put them in all that low-cost private housing! You know, all those decent neighborhoods filled with benevolent landlords that are waiting to receive all the people from the projects with open arms? How could we forget about them?!
You seem to have missed something here. Republicans say that it is wrong to allow teens to have access to birth control and, it is irresponsible for us to help take care of these children with things like Medicare. His statement had nothing to do with marriage at all.
Back before the internet they might even have called such names "Nicknames". From what I understand of those pre-enlightened days having such a name was often a sign of some sort of close relationship with those who referred to you by this "Nickname".
There is no real difference. If someone uses the same pseudonym on multiple sites that name invariably becomes just another label for that particular person.
I think Slashdot has just proven that search warrants for peoples' homes are unconstitutional. After all it would be just as wrong to compel a suspect to allow police inside their home when that may incriminate them.
And how do you think this should affect the SCA, Airsoft, and Paintball?
I haven't seen any studies that show playing a violent video game increases violent behavior more then watching a violent movie. If it's true that video games cause more violent behavior then I imagine playing cops and robbers is the last thing you should allow your children to do since that is significantly closer to PERFORMING violence then pushing a few buttons is.
What is the chance of your kid being the perpetrator or victim of a murder as opposed to becoming a teen parent? One would argue that the threat of unplanned pregnancy in minors is a much more prevalent issue.
I agree that unplanned teenage pregnancy is much more prevalent. I am less certain that it should be as big of a problem as it is perceived to be. I may be wrong about this, but it seems like some of the damage caused by teenage pregnancy is caused by society rather then the actual event itself. I don't think teenage pregnancy has to be as destructive to the mother's life as it seems to be. It seems to me that if the mother had a good support group she should be able to finish school and college if she wants without negatively affecting the child. Really I think that is one of the advantages adult parents often have is better support.
I don't want to sound like I support teenage pregnancy, but I feel like it is harder then it should be. There are plenty of adults who are bad at raising children. I think it is more of an issue of how willing the parents are to support and nurture tier child, and how much outside help they can get doing this. I don't think most parents are naturally able to be the best parents of all time, I think most of them get that way by talking to their friends, their parents, and reading books on the topic.
Porn received a special exemption to free speech, violence hasn't. Maybe violence should have a similar exemption, but that isn't what this law was trying to do. This law was saying that video games should be considered a special class of media which should be prevented from displaying violence to children. It said that it is ok for other forms of media to do so, but not video games. If there was some evidence showing that video games deserved to be treated differently from other media than it might have been ok, but that evidence doesn't exist.
Here in the UK we have a ratings system for both movies and video games. This results in many films and games being rated as unfit for children and not for sale to them. They are still available in shops on the high street and supermarkets, its just that the retailer has to look at the person buying it and make a judgement about their age.
One of the problems here in the US is your second sentence there. Any games with an Adult Only rating will not be available in any of those locations. The console makers will not allow an AO game to exist for their devices and the only place you can purchase AO PC games are in stores that specialize in selling sex toys. As a society we don't have the same respect for video games that we do for Movies and Books. We believe the only reason to make a video game Adult Only is because of sexual content which means only a "deranged pervert" would buy such a game. There are a lot of people here in the US who would consider you a menace to society just because you entered such a store.
On top of that, as others have mentioned, we don't have laws like that for Movies or Books. Books don't even have a voluntary rating system here. All our age restrictions on Movies are based on industry self-regulation, which is in place for video games. This law was essentially saying video games require special treatment.
The only reason "shark attack" stories make it to the news is because they are uncommon. If it shows up on the news it is automatically something that is uncommon enough you don't need to worry about it. However people don't normally take it that way.
One of the problems is market research says most Americans would switch away from banks who implemented such security measures. I know from experience that customers get angry when you make them use a secure email portal because the email you sent to them contains account numbers. They would much rather receive it in plain text.
Its the same as people complaining about the lack of encryption on Apple's iPhone location cache, come on now, the phone needs to read and write that data, guess what that means? Even if it were encrypted the keys would need to be on the device too and the 'attack' already relies on access to the device so any 'encryption' added would be DRM style obfuscation not secure encryption. The same type of encryption the same people complain about when it is used.
That's not entirely true. The location file was backed up with ITunes so the data was stored on locations other than the iPhone. Probably easily accessible by family members who might want to see where you've been at the very least.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a little off topic, but it doesn't really make sense for the Boss to be at the end logically. If the enemy were truly trying to stop you why throw out all the pud guys to give you experience enough to kill the boss? I think it is a natural progression, but if evil truly wanted to win they'd throw down the hammer and hit you with the big guys all at once and be done with it.
I personally despise FPS's, but the one I liked (DoD) was definitely best played against people I know in a LAN party style. Now that they all have voice I doubt I'll touch the things again. Nothing worse then listening to a bunch of whiners complaining about something or another.
If your limited to just FPS you will probably never enjoy a single player game. I imagine the AIs would be ether way to easy or way to hard, and probably very repetitive after an hour of play or so.
Don't forget CheckPoint and Sourcefire.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11382
Console/computer games are to app store games as the Sistine Chapel is to a Thomas Kincade painting, regardless of what even Nintendo may say. To suggest that an iPhone is a gaming system would also mean we also have to consider my old Nokia 3210 a gaming system because it had games on it too.
Based on this statement, to say anything Nintendo makes is a gaming system would mean we need to consider your old Nokia 3210 a gaming system. No Hi-Def, only stereo sound, low pixel and polygon counts. Heck iPhones have higher quality displays then you can get on a DS.
You would also have to prevent offline characters from participating in the action house but that doesn't seem like a problem to me. But then I wouldn't buy anything from it anyway.
It's all about the action house nothing. They just want to prevent people for duping items the get on their single player game and selling them for real cash.
There are several differences between DNA and Fingerprints, however I think that fingerprints should be treated the same. Fingerprints shouldn't be added to the database without a conviction either. I don't know if they are in California or not though.
I think the thing that potentially makes DNA collection worse then fingerprint collection is more of a future concern. As we become more familiar with genetics there may be a lot of things this could be used for other than identification. It could potentially be used to show individuals who may have a higher predisposition to commit a crime. I don't think this will ever be able to show someone will in fact commit a crime, but it could lead to classes of people being monitored differently by the police because of their DNA on file. Much like how particular ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested for particular crimes even when those who commit them are well distributed across ethnicity.
I think we should raise taxes some and raise the retirement age. I think that sucks because I don't want to work any longer then I have to and I don't want to pay more taxes. On the other hand the Iraq war had like 70% approval rating and the Bush Tax cuts probably had a similar approval rating while we had deficient and the war wasn't part of the budget. I know that's not where all the debt comes from but we supported that much at least so we should not be surprised to pay for it.
That is not at all what the TP wanted to do. They wanted to cut spending so that we were still meeting debt obligations but cutting back on everything else. Your analogy is flawed. What the TP wants is to order dinner at a restaurant but then leave off the expensive dessert at the end so that they can afford to pay the entire bill.
If that's not what they are saying then why did they approve the budget? Why did they agree on our spending and they say we aren't allowed to raise funds for that spending?
I disagree that it is the Democrats at fault for the downgrade. I think that goes clearly onto the Tea Party. They approved the spending budget and then decided they were not going to allow us to raise taxes or borrow more money to cover the spending. It was that refusal to allow for a method to pay for the spending that has really lead to this.
If they had wanted more cuts the should have argued for it during the budget, or they should have waited until the next budget to start complaining. To agree to spend $100 and then say we are only allowed to collect $50 is silly. Now that they've proven they are willing to refuse to pay the for the spending they voted on, it is rational for people to wonder what will happen next year. Will they refuse to pay again?
Right now all savings is done at a loss. Because interest rates are so low, it is very difficult to put your money into any kind of savings plan that will leave you with a bigger number of dollars that is still worth less then what you put in. That really doesn't encourage people to pay off all their debt and start saving.
Really? It's that simple?! Oh my God!! Hey guys, looks like Mike here solved the problem with poverty in the US, we just need to pair them up and make them get married, then they will magically have all the means to raise those kids just fine without any assistance! We'll just put them in all that low-cost private housing! You know, all those decent neighborhoods filled with benevolent landlords that are waiting to receive all the people from the projects with open arms? How could we forget about them?!
You seem to have missed something here. Republicans say that it is wrong to allow teens to have access to birth control and, it is irresponsible for us to help take care of these children with things like Medicare. His statement had nothing to do with marriage at all.
Back before the internet they might even have called such names "Nicknames". From what I understand of those pre-enlightened days having such a name was often a sign of some sort of close relationship with those who referred to you by this "Nickname".
There is no real difference. If someone uses the same pseudonym on multiple sites that name invariably becomes just another label for that particular person.
I think Slashdot has just proven that search warrants for peoples' homes are unconstitutional. After all it would be just as wrong to compel a suspect to allow police inside their home when that may incriminate them.
True, that was quite an understatement.
In the US we are concerned that gas might reach 4 USD/gallon.
Is it hacking when you guess the passcode? 1-2-3-4?
Yes. If someone steals your care because you left the keys in while you went back in the house and grabbed something it's still theft.
In the US at least if you hire a PI for something you are responsible for anything they do that is illegal.
And how do you think this should affect the SCA, Airsoft, and Paintball?
I haven't seen any studies that show playing a violent video game increases violent behavior more then watching a violent movie. If it's true that video games cause more violent behavior then I imagine playing cops and robbers is the last thing you should allow your children to do since that is significantly closer to PERFORMING violence then pushing a few buttons is.
What is the chance of your kid being the perpetrator or victim of a murder as opposed to becoming a teen parent? One would argue that the threat of unplanned pregnancy in minors is a much more prevalent issue.
I agree that unplanned teenage pregnancy is much more prevalent. I am less certain that it should be as big of a problem as it is perceived to be. I may be wrong about this, but it seems like some of the damage caused by teenage pregnancy is caused by society rather then the actual event itself. I don't think teenage pregnancy has to be as destructive to the mother's life as it seems to be. It seems to me that if the mother had a good support group she should be able to finish school and college if she wants without negatively affecting the child. Really I think that is one of the advantages adult parents often have is better support.
I don't want to sound like I support teenage pregnancy, but I feel like it is harder then it should be. There are plenty of adults who are bad at raising children. I think it is more of an issue of how willing the parents are to support and nurture tier child, and how much outside help they can get doing this. I don't think most parents are naturally able to be the best parents of all time, I think most of them get that way by talking to their friends, their parents, and reading books on the topic.
Porn received a special exemption to free speech, violence hasn't. Maybe violence should have a similar exemption, but that isn't what this law was trying to do. This law was saying that video games should be considered a special class of media which should be prevented from displaying violence to children. It said that it is ok for other forms of media to do so, but not video games. If there was some evidence showing that video games deserved to be treated differently from other media than it might have been ok, but that evidence doesn't exist.
Here in the UK we have a ratings system for both movies and video games. This results in many films and games being rated as unfit for children and not for sale to them. They are still available in shops on the high street and supermarkets, its just that the retailer has to look at the person buying it and make a judgement about their age.
One of the problems here in the US is your second sentence there. Any games with an Adult Only rating will not be available in any of those locations. The console makers will not allow an AO game to exist for their devices and the only place you can purchase AO PC games are in stores that specialize in selling sex toys. As a society we don't have the same respect for video games that we do for Movies and Books. We believe the only reason to make a video game Adult Only is because of sexual content which means only a "deranged pervert" would buy such a game. There are a lot of people here in the US who would consider you a menace to society just because you entered such a store.
On top of that, as others have mentioned, we don't have laws like that for Movies or Books. Books don't even have a voluntary rating system here. All our age restrictions on Movies are based on industry self-regulation, which is in place for video games. This law was essentially saying video games require special treatment.
The only reason "shark attack" stories make it to the news is because they are uncommon. If it shows up on the news it is automatically something that is uncommon enough you don't need to worry about it. However people don't normally take it that way.
One of the problems is market research says most Americans would switch away from banks who implemented such security measures. I know from experience that customers get angry when you make them use a secure email portal because the email you sent to them contains account numbers. They would much rather receive it in plain text.
All that was lost was the web page to change the password. If I'm reading this right it is still possible to change it from the PS3.
Its the same as people complaining about the lack of encryption on Apple's iPhone location cache, come on now, the phone needs to read and write that data, guess what that means? Even if it were encrypted the keys would need to be on the device too and the 'attack' already relies on access to the device so any 'encryption' added would be DRM style obfuscation not secure encryption. The same type of encryption the same people complain about when it is used.
That's not entirely true. The location file was backed up with ITunes so the data was stored on locations other than the iPhone. Probably easily accessible by family members who might want to see where you've been at the very least.