No, Amway was a multi-level marketing system that paid people for getting others to join. Amway would get a chunk of the money from the products they sell to members. It was a concept where money flowed upstream. Making the people who got in early extremely rich without having to do any work.
With Firefox there isn't any money involved, so it isn't anything like Amway.
It's more like Pepsi, really. Asking someone to switch from Coke to Pepsi and offering to give them a free case of Pepsi for doing so. Pepsi loses money on the deal, but they gain more customers. See the difference?
20-40 hours? I haven't seen a game that's taken me more than 10 hours to beat in years.
I've become so upset at the time it takes to finish a game, I've had to switch over to playing the Final Fantasy series. FPS, RTS, and Strategy games are just too quick.
It's one of the core problems with games right now.. Everyone is taken in by the 'awesome graphics' of the new games coming out when it's really the least vital part to a good game. Give me a good plot line, replay value, and 100 hours of gameplay. Deus Ex 1 came close to offering all I wanted in a computer game. Sadly, DX2 was a dissappointment because they fell in line with the masses and made a short game with fancy hyped up graphics and an silly plot line.
Too much of a liability. What would happen to all the independant contractors you'd have to hire if the thing was blown up before it was completed? You'd have the weight of your conscience bearing down on you, plus the outrageous lawsuits that would ensue.
Personally, that's a job I would pass on. Independant contractors have to choose their jobs wisely.
The best reference I can come up with is Deus Ex.. The AI programs in the game are both named Daedelus and Icarus.. They are programs inherent in every communications device, and are linked at a central hub.
So, I guess if you want to stop the UNoF, You'd have to blow up Area 51 and bring down the global communication array.
What about when it's possible to beat a game in under seven hours of play? Take The Matrix reloaded, for example. I was impressed by the engine and gameplay, but the simple fact that I was able to beat it with both characters in under 7 hours of total play really speaks to the time investment game programmers are making these days. Stop worrying about whether a game looks good or not, and focus on making the plot and length better.
The new Neverwinter Nights expansion is another good example. I beat that in less than a day, and I don't even consider myself an avid gamer.
The LENGTH of games is what is at fault. Worrying about loading times is just like splitting hairs. It doesn't matter so long as the game is good and you get massive hours of enjoyment out of it.
Hasn't this point been proven before with GTA3? Give me a game like Deus Ex that has 80 hours or more of game play. Give me clever strategy and dynamic plotline. Don't give me a game I can beat in less than a day. I hate spending 50 bucks on a game that I'll play for an afternoon and then just stick up on a shelf.
Lots of teams all around the country. Best way to get involved is find a college that offers it as a sport or intramural. There are probably people floating around that want to play if you enquire.
Not sure what Ultimate Frisbee is? Kinda like a mix between freeze tag and soccer, but with a Frisbee. Want more? Do a google on it.
I've been severely depressed by the recent video game releases. Most notably, The Matrix Reloaded. While it was highly original in style and gameplay, It was stereotypically simplistic and linear in design which lead to me beating the game with both Ghost and Naiobi in less than 6 hours combined, on the hard setting of the game. Come on! Why can't there be more games like Deus Ex which takes days and weeks of commitment to finish? Sure, the occasional quick wham-bam game is okay, but we haven't seen a game that can live up to the dynamic, complex and intricate plot line that Deus Ex had.
The root of the problem is that game companies want to publish neat-looking games as fast as they can because neat-looking games bring in the most money the fastest. If game designers would pay more attention to level design, puzzles, strategy, plot and overall length as opposed to how many cool graphics they can plug into it, then maybe we'd have better games on the shelves. I blame money.
It's getting right down to the whole problem I have with professional sports. Players getting paid millions to play basketball is absurd. The players are playing because they want to get paid, not because they love the game and that for me ruins the sport. Same goes with Video games. If the designers are not designing because they want to produce the best product available, then they're obviously designing for money. Wrong wrong wrong.
The point is, Lack of originallity is not the problem, it is the primary symptom that money rules the game industry, not designers.
If a car theif can build one of these devices, does it mean he can take it with him when he "goes to work"? Will cars that have Lo-Jack installed in them fail to report their location?
People have mentioned that defeating the jammer isn't too difficult, but what does that mean financially for the people who make Lo-Jack? They need to make more expensive units, or perhaps anti-jamming addons for their preexisting units?
So what you're saying is that if we unlock the genome and figure out how to program people to live to 200 (disease free) years old, we won't have a bigger population problem in the future?
You're vague on this by saying it's manageable.. How? Mass executions?
Do you support the erradication of other species so long as Humans win over?
We possess the ability to create habits and food for us to survive on, but is that the right thing to do? If we possess this technology, maybe you think we should send this all to Mars or the moon so we can colonize that? Not much life there for us to kill off, eh?
The thread's author is trying, I think, to point out that balance includes everything - plants and animals alike.
To answer your questions and clarify the points made by the original poster,
By balance, he's probably talking about the balance of humans to plants and other animals. There exists in our biosphere a concept known as "Carrying Capacity of Species in an area." Look it up in your biology textbook. This concept explains that the more of one type of organism inhabiting one area eventually will lead to the decline of another. By this, understand several things: We're clearcutting forests to make room for mini-malls and parking lots all the time. The trees have a right to life too, don't they? Do you think there are too many trees? They don't grow at the expense of others like Humans do.
The author of the original post in this thread probably was trying to say that a balance must be kept at least in some reguard, with all other forms of life. We've already killed off the Dodo bird, nearly extinctified the White Whale, the Tiger, Gorillia, etc. All because humans:
1. Consume too much 2. Are everywhere
If you exeed the carrying capacity of an area by increasing the population of one type of organism (man), 2 things will happen: We won't have enough food to go around, and hunger is ALREADY a problem in the world, and Disease will be more prone - it's a proven fact.
This ties into what he was leading to what the population should be.
There is no perfect size, as it would be changing all the time anyway. But optimally, we'd be in better proportion to everything else. I don't believe there should be only 2 dozen bangel tigers for every 6.5 billion people on the planet. That's absurd.
Additionally, I'd like to disagree with your statement that Nature isn't responsible for trying to balance it's self out. Doesn't it seem like good logic that if Humans just went away for a while, Things would eventually return to the way they were before we were around? With the exception of the dodo of course. Trees would grow, natural fire, termites, etc. would keep them under control, but not to a breaking point, such as the one we're forcing.
Hurricanes spread new and fresh soil for plants to grow, as do floods. The ancient Egyptians were able to live self-suficiently on the floods of the nile for more than 2000 years - Until industry started. I Don't support the diversion of hurricanes. Humans should learn that if they want to survive, they shouldn't live in an area where the threat is prevalent. Goes along the same line as drugs. If you want to survive, don't use them. Use them, and you die. I support Drugs as an excellent form of population control. Not only do people die off, but you clean up the genetic pool a bit.
Agent Smith actually put it into perspective during his monologue in the Matrix. He said that he is fascinated by human's likeness to a virus: They replicate, consume, and move on.
The original author's post, I feel, was well founded, but he was simply a little vague.
*sneeze* "Don't bless me! I pray for war!" - Sgt. Kirklen, US Army
Notable Ham Radio Operators...
on
Field Day 2002
·
· Score: 1
I'm a ham, yet I'm not very notable. My call is KB8WZI..
There are quite a few celebrities and personalities that are Hams, here are some just to name a few:
George Lucas Yassir Arafat President Mubarak of Egypt King Hussein II of Jordan, Jimmy Carter Tommy Lee Jones Al Gore (he invented Amateur Radio) George Wendt, the guy from Cheers Pierce Brosnan
I've actually been on frequency with the President of Jordan.He speaks pretty good english. I never got to talk to him though.
All those popups telling us that we're being watched by our wives, bosses, etc will have to be updated to include the DOJ. That could help our unemployment rates drastically. The amount of man hours needed to fix all the ads has got to be tremendous.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Amway was a multi-level marketing system that paid people for getting others to join. Amway would get a chunk of the money from the products they sell to members. It was a concept where money flowed upstream. Making the people who got in early extremely rich without having to do any work.
With Firefox there isn't any money involved, so it isn't anything like Amway.
It's more like Pepsi, really. Asking someone to switch from Coke to Pepsi and offering to give them a free case of Pepsi for doing so. Pepsi loses money on the deal, but they gain more customers. See the difference?
What games are you playing?
20-40 hours? I haven't seen a game that's taken me more than 10 hours to beat in years.
I've become so upset at the time it takes to finish a game, I've had to switch over to playing the Final Fantasy series. FPS, RTS, and Strategy games are just too quick.
It's one of the core problems with games right now.. Everyone is taken in by the 'awesome graphics' of the new games coming out when it's really the least vital part to a good game. Give me a good plot line, replay value, and 100 hours of gameplay. Deus Ex 1 came close to offering all I wanted in a computer game. Sadly, DX2 was a dissappointment because they fell in line with the masses and made a short game with fancy hyped up graphics and an silly plot line.
Too much of a liability. What would happen to all the independant contractors you'd have to hire if the thing was blown up before it was completed? You'd have the weight of your conscience bearing down on you, plus the outrageous lawsuits that would ensue.
Personally, that's a job I would pass on. Independant contractors have to choose their jobs wisely.
The best reference I can come up with is Deus Ex.. The AI programs in the game are both named Daedelus and Icarus.. They are programs inherent in every communications device, and are linked at a central hub.
So, I guess if you want to stop the UNoF, You'd have to blow up Area 51 and bring down the global communication array.
What about when it's possible to beat a game in under seven hours of play? Take The Matrix reloaded, for example. I was impressed by the engine and gameplay, but the simple fact that I was able to beat it with both characters in under 7 hours of total play really speaks to the time investment game programmers are making these days. Stop worrying about whether a game looks good or not, and focus on making the plot and length better.
The new Neverwinter Nights expansion is another good example. I beat that in less than a day, and I don't even consider myself an avid gamer.
The LENGTH of games is what is at fault. Worrying about loading times is just like splitting hairs. It doesn't matter so long as the game is good and you get massive hours of enjoyment out of it.
Hasn't this point been proven before with GTA3? Give me a game like Deus Ex that has 80 hours or more of game play. Give me clever strategy and dynamic plotline. Don't give me a game I can beat in less than a day. I hate spending 50 bucks on a game that I'll play for an afternoon and then just stick up on a shelf.
Lots of teams all around the country. Best way to get involved is find a college that offers it as a sport or intramural. There are probably people floating around that want to play if you enquire.
Not sure what Ultimate Frisbee is? Kinda like a mix between freeze tag and soccer, but with a Frisbee. Want more? Do a google on it.
I've been severely depressed by the recent video game releases. Most notably, The Matrix Reloaded. While it was highly original in style and gameplay, It was stereotypically simplistic and linear in design which lead to me beating the game with both Ghost and Naiobi in less than 6 hours combined, on the hard setting of the game. Come on! Why can't there be more games like Deus Ex which takes days and weeks of commitment to finish? Sure, the occasional quick wham-bam game is okay, but we haven't seen a game that can live up to the dynamic, complex and intricate plot line that Deus Ex had.
The root of the problem is that game companies want to publish neat-looking games as fast as they can because neat-looking games bring in the most money the fastest. If game designers would pay more attention to level design, puzzles, strategy, plot and overall length as opposed to how many cool graphics they can plug into it, then maybe we'd have better games on the shelves. I blame money.
It's getting right down to the whole problem I have with professional sports. Players getting paid millions to play basketball is absurd. The players are playing because they want to get paid, not because they love the game and that for me ruins the sport. Same goes with Video games. If the designers are not designing because they want to produce the best product available, then they're obviously designing for money. Wrong wrong wrong.
The point is, Lack of originallity is not the problem, it is the primary symptom that money rules the game industry, not designers.
If a car theif can build one of these devices, does it mean he can take it with him when he "goes to work"? Will cars that have Lo-Jack installed in them fail to report their location?
People have mentioned that defeating the jammer isn't too difficult, but what does that mean financially for the people who make Lo-Jack? They need to make more expensive units, or perhaps anti-jamming addons for their preexisting units?
So what you're saying is that if we unlock the genome and figure out how to program people to live to 200 (disease free) years old, we won't have a bigger population problem in the future?
You're vague on this by saying it's manageable.. How? Mass executions?
Do you support the erradication of other species so long as Humans win over?
We possess the ability to create habits and food for us to survive on, but is that the right thing to do? If we possess this technology, maybe you think we should send this all to Mars or the moon so we can colonize that? Not much life there for us to kill off, eh?
The thread's author is trying, I think, to point out that balance includes everything - plants and animals alike.
To answer your questions and clarify the points made by the original poster,
By balance, he's probably talking about the balance of humans to plants and other animals. There exists in our biosphere a concept known as "Carrying Capacity of Species in an area." Look it up in your biology textbook. This concept explains that the more of one type of organism inhabiting one area eventually will lead to the decline of another. By this, understand several things: We're clearcutting forests to make room for mini-malls and parking lots all the time. The trees have a right to life too, don't they? Do you think there are too many trees? They don't grow at the expense of others like Humans do.
The author of the original post in this thread probably was trying to say that a balance must be kept at least in some reguard, with all other forms of life. We've already killed off the Dodo bird, nearly extinctified the White Whale, the Tiger, Gorillia, etc. All because humans:
1. Consume too much
2. Are everywhere
If you exeed the carrying capacity of an area by increasing the population of one type of organism (man), 2 things will happen: We won't have enough food to go around, and hunger is ALREADY a problem in the world, and Disease will be more prone - it's a proven fact.
This ties into what he was leading to what the population should be.
There is no perfect size, as it would be changing all the time anyway. But optimally, we'd be in better proportion to everything else. I don't believe there should be only 2 dozen bangel tigers for every 6.5 billion people on the planet. That's absurd.
Additionally, I'd like to disagree with your statement that Nature isn't responsible for trying to balance it's self out. Doesn't it seem like good logic that if Humans just went away for a while, Things would eventually return to the way they were before we were around? With the exception of the dodo of course. Trees would grow, natural fire, termites, etc. would keep them under control, but not to a breaking point, such as the one we're forcing.
Hurricanes spread new and fresh soil for plants to grow, as do floods. The ancient Egyptians were able to live self-suficiently on the floods of the nile for more than 2000 years - Until industry started. I Don't support the diversion of hurricanes. Humans should learn that if they want to survive, they shouldn't live in an area where the threat is prevalent. Goes along the same line as drugs. If you want to survive, don't use them. Use them, and you die. I support Drugs as an excellent form of population control. Not only do people die off, but you clean up the genetic pool a bit.
Agent Smith actually put it into perspective during his monologue in the Matrix. He said that he is fascinated by human's likeness to a virus: They replicate, consume, and move on.
The original author's post, I feel, was well founded, but he was simply a little vague.
*sneeze*
"Don't bless me! I pray for war!"
- Sgt. Kirklen, US Army
I'm a ham, yet I'm not very notable. My call is KB8WZI..
There are quite a few celebrities and personalities that are Hams, here are some just to name a few:
George Lucas
Yassir Arafat
President Mubarak of Egypt
King Hussein II of Jordan,
Jimmy Carter
Tommy Lee Jones
Al Gore (he invented Amateur Radio)
George Wendt, the guy from Cheers
Pierce Brosnan
I've actually been on frequency with the President of Jordan.He speaks pretty good english. I never got to talk to him though.
All those popups telling us that we're being watched by our wives, bosses, etc will have to be updated to include the DOJ. That could help our unemployment rates drastically. The amount of man hours needed to fix all the ads has got to be tremendous.
Ultimate Frisbee is a mix between soccer, football, and rugby, but Football, soccer and rugby players don't play it because it's too geeky.
Game came out of the 60's hippy generation, and is still played at major coroporations on their lunch breaks.
All kinds of websites out there for it.