Go find a definition of Godwin's law and actually read it. It says that someone will eventually make a Hitler or Nazi reference, it doesn't say anything about the discussion being over. The meme-tards are the ones who jump in and shout Godwin like it means the thread is over.
So yes, it does Godwin the thread, but that doesn't matter, as it was a cynical observation about the dregs of the internet, not a proscriptive statement about how discussions should unfold.
I think a lot of video games are more space invaders than they are murder fantasy, so I'm not sure how much empathizing is really going on. I'm sure that there are people who derive a great deal of satisfaction from imagining that they are killing, but I see those people in the same light as the people who are using software to act out rape fantasies.
I really don't think it is ridiculous to compare a lot of violent video games to tag; emotionally, they are often quite similar, even if tagging is a graphic depiction of violence in one of them.
I'm not really opposed to edgy content, I'm just spelling out a reason that I don't think it will be taken particularly seriously, namely that it will often simply be gratuitous.
As far as the drugs, using it in the video game isn't going to hold a candle to the real thing so I don't think it will ever be interesting to most people (I mean, "Oh man, sweet, you activated weed mode" is about the best they are going to do as far as engagement).
I don't know, I think if we polled on "hah-hah funny" vs "a bit of a crank for doing that" we might have a horse race (note that I am trying not to imply broad conclusions from a bit of info related in an anecdote on the internet here).
Is that directed at me? My comment refers to the expected public reaction towards a depiction of drug use, not to my personal attitude. I find it eye-rollingly boring as video game content (and I stand by the statement that there is nothing challenging about simply showing it).
I mean, I think using stuff like cocaine and heroin is pretty stupid, but I don't really give a shit about people who want to do it, I'd rather society find a way to keep them safe (and other people safe from people who use too much and get out of control) that doesn't involve expensive incarceration leading to minimal rehabilitation. A lot of other drugs seem to require even less action from society.
(If you never told them who you were, I don't see why you would ever expect that they would know where your house was, or even be able to stop delivering papers to that crank who brings the paper back on Mondays)
I fear video games as high art will be extremely dull. I don't mean that in some snobby way that implies I think I am an expert on art, I mean that I see a clear distinction between content where you know what you are getting into on the way in and content that presents more of an intellectual and emotional challenge.
Simply including drug use or extreme violence, without putting it in a context that shows the protagonist is somehow conflicted will forever condemn these games to my definition of 'low' art (especially when the content is calculated to provoke outrage for marketing reasons). In many cases, that context is going to awfully hard to establish, or it will be weak, making that aspect of the game rather hollow.
The rape games provide an excellent example of what I am talking about. I simply see no way to empathize or sympathize with rape; it is an act of extreme weakness and arrogance. If you accept that, then you have to accept that someone playing the game is playing it because they want to invoke the emotions surrounding the action, not because they think that relating to the act of rape will help them grow.
Perhaps my perspective is limiting me here; I enjoy games like Tetris (which is nearly devoid of emotional content) or the Arcade-style death match from Goldeneye a great deal more than I enjoy more involving story/fantasy oriented games.
I'm really starting to think that all these people that need extensive training to use office software should be out back shoveling sand over a wall. I mean, if they can't get the basics in 10 minutes of clickly-clicky, I shudder to think the pearls of wisdom that will emerge once they get down to 'work'.
Enterprise was pretty decent television. It was terrible Star Trek, as it failed to present a tiresome, obvious, black and white (in the there are two simple sides sense, not the racial one) morality play (lots of things they did were edgy in the 60s, but there isn't really any reason to do them over and over again).
Somewhat entertainingly (to me), there isn't actually a universe where Nemesis happened. And I don't mean if I ignore it I can pretend it didn't happen, I mean that you are worrying a bit too much about what some hacky writers in Hollywood did to make some money.
Yeah, I have no idea. I think the fact that the sounds are not consistent (regardless of their exact nature) is a bit of a deal breaker though (I speak a slightly nasal Midwestern variant of American newscaster English, so it probably isn't my accent making me think that).
Getting poisoned by gamma was far better than sea-cucumber man vs electro-absorbo-vac.
(Beyond that, I don't think there is much reason to compare the movies, they were made for different audiences, but the idea that the one with sea cucumbers provides for better suspension of disbelief borders on tragic)
(There are lots of entries about it on that blog, that one is the final 'yay')
There are plenty of situations where people are buying something to listen to, watch or play it immediately, not to keep forever and ever as something precious; DRM isn't such a big deal for those people (but they should certainly factor it into their value calculations...).
How much is enjoying the game worth to you? If you think you will enjoy the game enough in the first 2 weeks to make up for what it costs, why does the DRM enter into it?
I say this as someone who avoids DRM but owns DVDs, so it must not be on principle.
I would say that you are paying for the IP either way, it just seems like it should benefit the state a lot more if they pay to generate it, rather than per book. Say California needs 1 million copies of some book; each $1 million they spend getting the book together only adds $1 to the cost of the book, instead of whatever overhead the publisher charges.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that from Men in Black?
There are various usb widgets that provide the same electronics without the 'cool' vertical plug in stuff:
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=353&name=Adapters-Gender-Changers
Many of them also attach to both SATA and PATA drives (which it seems might be trickier for a bay style device).
Go find a definition of Godwin's law and actually read it. It says that someone will eventually make a Hitler or Nazi reference, it doesn't say anything about the discussion being over. The meme-tards are the ones who jump in and shout Godwin like it means the thread is over.
So yes, it does Godwin the thread, but that doesn't matter, as it was a cynical observation about the dregs of the internet, not a proscriptive statement about how discussions should unfold.
You obviously block ads. This here website has big honking graphic ads served up by none other than Google.
Well skippy, get too it.
Yet another case of Firefox code bloat, there is no reason such a feature couldn't be provided by an extension.
Read it. Even just the headings:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
There is no patent risk (well, no more than any other Apache 2.0 licensed software) involved in this particular instance.
I think a lot of video games are more space invaders than they are murder fantasy, so I'm not sure how much empathizing is really going on. I'm sure that there are people who derive a great deal of satisfaction from imagining that they are killing, but I see those people in the same light as the people who are using software to act out rape fantasies.
I really don't think it is ridiculous to compare a lot of violent video games to tag; emotionally, they are often quite similar, even if tagging is a graphic depiction of violence in one of them.
I'm not really opposed to edgy content, I'm just spelling out a reason that I don't think it will be taken particularly seriously, namely that it will often simply be gratuitous.
As far as the drugs, using it in the video game isn't going to hold a candle to the real thing so I don't think it will ever be interesting to most people (I mean, "Oh man, sweet, you activated weed mode" is about the best they are going to do as far as engagement).
I don't know, I think if we polled on "hah-hah funny" vs "a bit of a crank for doing that" we might have a horse race (note that I am trying not to imply broad conclusions from a bit of info related in an anecdote on the internet here).
I have a pretty good sense of humor. That one wasn't funny for me. Sorry.
Is that directed at me? My comment refers to the expected public reaction towards a depiction of drug use, not to my personal attitude. I find it eye-rollingly boring as video game content (and I stand by the statement that there is nothing challenging about simply showing it).
I mean, I think using stuff like cocaine and heroin is pretty stupid, but I don't really give a shit about people who want to do it, I'd rather society find a way to keep them safe (and other people safe from people who use too much and get out of control) that doesn't involve expensive incarceration leading to minimal rehabilitation. A lot of other drugs seem to require even less action from society.
I peed in the ocean once. It continues to rain.
(If you never told them who you were, I don't see why you would ever expect that they would know where your house was, or even be able to stop delivering papers to that crank who brings the paper back on Mondays)
I suspect you've got it backwards -- the wife will likely render far more oil and the kids should be quite a bit more tender.
You're officially in the penalty box.
I fear video games as high art will be extremely dull. I don't mean that in some snobby way that implies I think I am an expert on art, I mean that I see a clear distinction between content where you know what you are getting into on the way in and content that presents more of an intellectual and emotional challenge.
Simply including drug use or extreme violence, without putting it in a context that shows the protagonist is somehow conflicted will forever condemn these games to my definition of 'low' art (especially when the content is calculated to provoke outrage for marketing reasons). In many cases, that context is going to awfully hard to establish, or it will be weak, making that aspect of the game rather hollow.
The rape games provide an excellent example of what I am talking about. I simply see no way to empathize or sympathize with rape; it is an act of extreme weakness and arrogance. If you accept that, then you have to accept that someone playing the game is playing it because they want to invoke the emotions surrounding the action, not because they think that relating to the act of rape will help them grow.
Perhaps my perspective is limiting me here; I enjoy games like Tetris (which is nearly devoid of emotional content) or the Arcade-style death match from Goldeneye a great deal more than I enjoy more involving story/fantasy oriented games.
Feeling inquisitive, are you?
It's too bad it is not raining today.
I'm really starting to think that all these people that need extensive training to use office software should be out back shoveling sand over a wall. I mean, if they can't get the basics in 10 minutes of clickly-clicky, I shudder to think the pearls of wisdom that will emerge once they get down to 'work'.
Enterprise was pretty decent television. It was terrible Star Trek, as it failed to present a tiresome, obvious, black and white (in the there are two simple sides sense, not the racial one) morality play (lots of things they did were edgy in the 60s, but there isn't really any reason to do them over and over again).
Somewhat entertainingly (to me), there isn't actually a universe where Nemesis happened. And I don't mean if I ignore it I can pretend it didn't happen, I mean that you are worrying a bit too much about what some hacky writers in Hollywood did to make some money.
Yeah, I have no idea. I think the fact that the sounds are not consistent (regardless of their exact nature) is a bit of a deal breaker though (I speak a slightly nasal Midwestern variant of American newscaster English, so it probably isn't my accent making me think that).
Getting poisoned by gamma was far better than sea-cucumber man vs electro-absorbo-vac.
(Beyond that, I don't think there is much reason to compare the movies, they were made for different audiences, but the idea that the one with sea cucumbers provides for better suspension of disbelief borders on tragic)
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fairuse4wm-strips-windows-media-drm/
And MLB remedied their shittery:
http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-alert-on-main-download-page.html
(There are lots of entries about it on that blog, that one is the final 'yay')
There are plenty of situations where people are buying something to listen to, watch or play it immediately, not to keep forever and ever as something precious; DRM isn't such a big deal for those people (but they should certainly factor it into their value calculations...).
How much is enjoying the game worth to you? If you think you will enjoy the game enough in the first 2 weeks to make up for what it costs, why does the DRM enter into it?
I say this as someone who avoids DRM but owns DVDs, so it must not be on principle.
I would say that you are paying for the IP either way, it just seems like it should benefit the state a lot more if they pay to generate it, rather than per book. Say California needs 1 million copies of some book; each $1 million they spend getting the book together only adds $1 to the cost of the book, instead of whatever overhead the publisher charges.