Good games are few and far between: one of the reasons why chess is timeless. It has rules, they cannot be broken, yet people still play it.
Football, basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc. are arguably not games as the rules have been slowly evolving. They are systems. Systems tend to persist longer than games.
What exactly are you talking about? Re: Chess, see: Go. As for chess or those sports games, the rules don't/during/ the games, and the changing of rules between games is not/part/ of the game in any way.
Is 'Oblivion' really a sandbox? It has a very specific set of tasks that must be completed to 'win' the game. You can go further by doing side quests, collecting things, talking to everyone, and even after you 'win' you can still keep playing. But, for people that need direction their is a story arc that takes you from 'start' to 'finish'.
The "main quest" is really more just the biggest quest. You can do a million different quests; that ones just the biggest and best. Personally, I've yet to pay any attention at all to it.
Being hated and having people calling for removal from office by force is one of the perks of being President of the United States, and is about as normal as toilet paper-- it's so common nobody gives it a second thought.
You responded to the statement that read "I bet you that advocating a coup d'etat would get you arrested for treason, terrorism or threats against the president." This doesn't really apply to the actual subject at hand (censorship of games in Germany) but any government WOULD throw you in jail for calling for a coup if it feared that one actually might happen. Free speech (or absolutely anything else) is always banned - if it does less harm than good to do so - once it becomes a threat to the established order.
You do know that the propaganda machine re-designed children's board games to teach hatred of the Jews? That paramilitary training for boys in the Hitler Youth began at around age ten? If Hitler had the tech he would have used the tech.
He probably would have made a war sim called "Germany's Army".
A true maximize button that doesn't only sometimes work, and an extra button or two on my laptop and I'll consider Macs to be a good choice. (As it is, I run Windows for the games or I run GNU/Linux so I guess I'm not the target consumer)
I got about two paragraphs into the article, then decided it was computer-generated essay designed to see how many people would actually think it meant something.
I think I may have to agree with you. There are few things in this world I'm more interested in than psychology, and the subject of this article/paper/whatever got me excited.
But it's almost unreadable. I couldn't force myself to read it. If it actually is serious, it's very poorly written. There are no arguments for the statements - and many of the statements seriously need some - that would make it academically valuable, and there's absolutely no attempt to make it readable by the curious.
I must say, I am in a state of semi-shock from reading such a genuinely insightful comment here on Slashdot. I was in the middle of coming up with a coherent explanation for myself to explain the problem I had with the article (well, the summary anyway), and a Slashdot commenter of all people gives it to me already completed.
What the heck is the point of the premise of this article? Why in the world would you group games by what the latest version of Windows was when they were released? Unlike many Slashdotters, I'm not one to bitch about the job the editors do, but it seems to me that they were seriously trolled by these 20 pages of ads.
Unless of course you were talking about the US, which I would like to remind you is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
God, are you people just hiding around every corner waiting to remind people of this important "fact"? Do you even understand the importance of the distinction (they're not mutually exclusive)? His point (valid or not) was that it's undemocratic, which our republic (which he wasn't actually talking about, but anyway) is supposed to be.
First, the Russian Social Democrats split over some incredibly petty detail over how to phrase who should be allowed to join the party. Also, the proletarian class was not "insignificant", just very small. I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the first paragraph at all, but if it was to make yourself sound like an expert, you failed. Your jump from the temporary rise of the more moderate Menshiviks and Socialist (not "Social") Revolutionaries following the upheaval of Febuary to War Communism is no less unimpressive.
But here's the thing that gets me: you say "What followed was the period of War Communism, the brutal policies that helped the Bolsheviks to win the Russian Civil War. Much of the framework that was later used during the purges of the 1930's was created at this time, such as the secret police" as though this somehow proves it was only a matter of time till Communist Totalitarianism. Again, I'm not really interested in speculation about what could have been, but pointing out that a state created a reppressive apparatus during a time of civil war isn't exactly a scathing indictment.
Oh, and forced collectivization was very much a hallmark of Stalinism in particular, so I don't understand that assumption. And this talk of "failed industrialisation" is obviously an example of letting ideology blind you from reality. Suffice it for me to remind you that no other nation has ever industrialized as rapidly as the Soviet Union, and that Russia went from being a backwards, mostly feudal nation (as you yourself admitted) to becoming a world superpower AFTER suffering the majority of the Nazi war machine's wrath.
Please, is there some class everyone takes in college called "Marx for Bullshitters" or something?
I know you put a footnote there, but I have to disagree with your use of the word "Bolshevism" (and actually, "Marxism" would have been a hundred time more inappropriate). Perhaps by "Bolshevism" you meant to refer to the style of government in the Soviet Union, etc. specifically, rather than bother with socialism as a whole. Perhaps you meant to imply that, though the Chinese economy is mostly capitalist, it still has a "Bolshevik" government.
Bolshevism (as a kind of state) didn't have much time to be in power during peacetime. Given the civil war and the invasion that followed, free speech and such was not at the very top of their priority list, to be sure. Anyhow, the system of government never really solidified until after the death of Lenin, under Stalin. "Blaming Stalin for everything would be historical simplism", as Fidel Castro said, but what we can be sure of is that Stalin killed Bolshevism. We can only speculate what would have happened if Trotsky or someone else had won the battle for leadership, but know is that Stalin killed all democracy or especially dissent of any kind in the government itself. One may be a bit surprised to hear that the Communist Party was effectively powerless, but it's the truth (though they still weren't allowed to dissent). Stalin slowly gave all power to government institutions under his direct control.
Trotskyists like to call every government created that was modeled on the Soviet Union after Lenin died (which is all of them) "Stalinist." This is a bit simplistic. Certainly Khrushchev decried Stalin, and so eventually did almost all other communists (other than Moaists). But Khrushchev is very much descended from Stalinism... Call it "post-Stalinist".
So my point is, if you have to call it any one word, call it "Stalinist". It's not perfect, for the reason I stated and others, but it works.
According to some other replies to my comment, I was talking about the wrong Jose Padilla.
But since we're now talking about the one I was thinking of, let me clarify to you: the Constitution is being ignored for HIS sake. He is not being victimized, he is being, as I said, harbored. Furthermore, he isn't an American citizen, but I don't see what difference that should make if we have any respective for the aforementioned document.
Slashdot Mirror
Sir, please don't feed the trolls.
We're only allowed one.
Microsoft has crossed the line from ordinary villainy to cartoonish supervillainy.
Dude hasn't been born yet. What the heck are you talking about?
I don't think (s)he meant "on my own" to mean "solo". I think (s)he meant independently - solo or as a group.
What exactly are you talking about? Re: Chess, see: Go. As for chess or those sports games, the rules don't
The "main quest" is really more just the biggest quest. You can do a million different quests; that ones just the biggest and best. Personally, I've yet to pay any attention at all to it.
You responded to the statement that read "I bet you that advocating a coup d'etat would get you arrested for treason, terrorism or threats against the president." This doesn't really apply to the actual subject at hand (censorship of games in Germany) but any government WOULD throw you in jail for calling for a coup if it feared that one actually might happen. Free speech (or absolutely anything else) is always banned - if it does less harm than good to do so - once it becomes a threat to the established order.
He probably would have made a war sim called "Germany's Army".
A true maximize button that doesn't only sometimes work, and an extra button or two on my laptop and I'll consider Macs to be a good choice. (As it is, I run Windows for the games or I run GNU/Linux so I guess I'm not the target consumer)
That's like curing your opiate addiction by switching from morphine to heroin.
Me, I tagged the story "overpriced".
But it's almost unreadable. I couldn't force myself to read it. If it actually is serious, it's very poorly written. There are no arguments for the statements - and many of the statements seriously need some - that would make it academically valuable, and there's absolutely no attempt to make it readable by the curious.
I must say, I am in a state of semi-shock from reading such a genuinely insightful comment here on Slashdot. I was in the middle of coming up with a coherent explanation for myself to explain the problem I had with the article (well, the summary anyway), and a Slashdot commenter of all people gives it to me already completed.
Whoosh? ;) ...Sorry. :(
What the heck is the point of the premise of this article? Why in the world would you group games by what the latest version of Windows was when they were released? Unlike many Slashdotters, I'm not one to bitch about the job the editors do, but it seems to me that they were seriously trolled by these 20 pages of ads.
First, the Russian Social Democrats split over some incredibly petty detail over how to phrase who should be allowed to join the party. Also, the proletarian class was not "insignificant", just very small. I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the first paragraph at all, but if it was to make yourself sound like an expert, you failed. Your jump from the temporary rise of the more moderate Menshiviks and Socialist (not "Social") Revolutionaries following the upheaval of Febuary to War Communism is no less unimpressive.
But here's the thing that gets me: you say "What followed was the period of War Communism, the brutal policies that helped the Bolsheviks to win the Russian Civil War. Much of the framework that was later used during the purges of the 1930's was created at this time, such as the secret police" as though this somehow proves it was only a matter of time till Communist Totalitarianism. Again, I'm not really interested in speculation about what could have been, but pointing out that a state created a reppressive apparatus during a time of civil war isn't exactly a scathing indictment.
Oh, and forced collectivization was very much a hallmark of Stalinism in particular, so I don't understand that assumption. And this talk of
"failed industrialisation" is obviously an example of letting ideology blind you from reality. Suffice it for me to remind you that no other nation has ever industrialized as rapidly as the Soviet Union, and that Russia went from being a backwards, mostly feudal nation (as you yourself admitted) to becoming a world superpower AFTER suffering the majority of the Nazi war machine's wrath.
Please, is there some class everyone takes in college called "Marx for Bullshitters" or something?
... refuse to finish this joke for fear of lynching.
I know you put a footnote there, but I have to disagree with your use of the word "Bolshevism" (and actually, "Marxism" would have been a hundred time more inappropriate). Perhaps by "Bolshevism" you meant to refer to the style of government in the Soviet Union, etc. specifically, rather than bother with socialism as a whole. Perhaps you meant to imply that, though the Chinese economy is mostly capitalist, it still has a "Bolshevik" government.
Bolshevism (as a kind of state) didn't have much time to be in power during peacetime. Given the civil war and the invasion that followed, free speech and such was not at the very top of their priority list, to be sure. Anyhow, the system of government never really solidified until after the death of Lenin, under Stalin. "Blaming Stalin for everything would be historical simplism", as Fidel Castro said, but what we can be sure of is that Stalin killed Bolshevism. We can only speculate what would have happened if Trotsky or someone else had won the battle for leadership, but know is that Stalin killed all democracy or especially dissent of any kind in the government itself. One may be a bit surprised to hear that the Communist Party was effectively powerless, but it's the truth (though they still weren't allowed to dissent). Stalin slowly gave all power to government institutions under his direct control.
Trotskyists like to call every government created that was modeled on the Soviet Union after Lenin died (which is all of them) "Stalinist." This is a bit simplistic. Certainly Khrushchev decried Stalin, and so eventually did almost all other communists (other than Moaists). But Khrushchev is very much descended from Stalinism... Call it "post-Stalinist".
So my point is, if you have to call it any one word, call it "Stalinist". It's not perfect, for the reason I stated and others, but it works.
Man... Where have I been? I'm no science geek and I guess it shows. What happened to that big asteroid that was supposed to start the Ice Age?
According to some other replies to my comment, I was talking about the wrong Jose Padilla.
But since we're now talking about the one I was thinking of, let me clarify to you: the Constitution is being ignored for HIS sake. He is not being victimized, he is being, as I said, harbored. Furthermore, he isn't an American citizen, but I don't see what difference that should make if we have any respective for the aforementioned document.