Or were you genetically predisposed to alcoholism? But what about willpower to fight that alcoholism? You could just choose not to drink, right? Well, sure -- unless you're genes say that you lack willpower. But it's still your fault, because you chose to drive to the bar, rather than take a cab... Only you live somewhere where you can't get a cab easily. You live there because that's where you were born, so it's not your fault either.
The thing is, there will always be great reasons, excuses and explanations for things. That's great. It increases knowledge. But it's a mistake that just because there's a reason for something means that there's an excuse for it, and that punishment should be lighter.
If I lop off my neighbor's head in a fit of rage, and people discover that I have a genetic abnormality, a chemical dependency, or a troubled upbringing that made it harder for me to control myself, that doesn't make the neighbor any less dead, and shouldn't necessarily make my punishment any less severe. What it should definitely do is affect the nature of my rehabilitation (anger management therapy vs. chemical treatment vs. gene therapy), and it should possibly be used to help spot other people with the same problem before they go nuts.
If my genes, upbringing and chemicals dictate I'm a controlled, rational, thinking person and I kill my neighbor because I'm bored, I should be punished for that action. If instead, I'm an alcoholic with a troubled upbringing with a genetic predisposition to fits of rage, I should perhaps be held less accountable for losing it and killing my neighbor. On the other hand, knowing that I have problems like this, I should be punished for having alcohol nearby, and having a deadly weapon nearby. The sum of these various punishments should probably be essentially the same as the person without excuses. On the other hand, if I didn't know I had all these issues, then maybe I shouldn't be punished as severely... but maybe I should be punished for not bothering to investigate problems I'd had with alcohol in the past, or with rage, etc. If someone has all these problems, it's not like they manifest themselves suddenly, out of the blue. That is when they should start looking into their problems and trying to make sure that they don't allow themselves to get into a situation where they lose control. If they don't, then that's why they should be punished.
Seeing as the greek armies were spear-based, I'd say the Javelin was probably there a long time ago. The new sports are complicated, judged ones, like synchronized swimming, diving, baseball, etc.
They would ever think Canada is roughly the same size, let alone bigger
Newfoundland would ever show up on that map
They'd get Canada's shape roughly right, with Hudson's Bay present and in roughly the right spot, and the St. Laurence roughly correct too
They'd get the relative geography of the US mainland and Alaska right. Alaska and Hawaii (which I don't think they'd forget) area always depicted in cut-away sections
Surianame: population 436,935, area 163,270 sq km., per capita GDP: $1,274.00
Guyana: population 705,803, area 214,970 sq km., per capita GDP: $1,063.00
French Guiana: population 191,309, area 91,000 sq. km....
Given that there are fewer than 200 countries in the world, it's not unreasonable to expect someone to have heard of all of them, and to know roughly where they are. On the other hand, those seem to be 3 pretty unremarkable entries on that list.
They're small, but not tiny, poor, but not starving, relatively peaceful, and don't have oil. I don't think it's too ridiculous that someone would not know about them.
On the other hand, I grew up in the capital of Canada. With a population of just over 1,000,000, it is the 4th biggest city in Canada. Canada is the biggest trading partner of the US, with almost double the trade of the next closest competitor. Canada is also in about a 3-way heat with Mexico and Saudi Arabia for the most oil exports to the US. Yet now that I live a 4 hour drive south of the border (7 hours from my hometown) and tell people I'm from "Ottawa", they look at me with a blank stare.
I think that's a scary thought right there. There's far more to this battle than consumers and lobbyists. There are non-consumers, and they deserve just as much governmental protection as consumers.
If I don't buy a movie, but I want to make use of a short clip of it, I should have just as many rights as a "consumer".
Then there's that whole "open source" thing, where copyrighted works are produced, but no consumption is involved. There are no consumers, but that doesn't mean open-source copyrights are not as valid.
The battle should be between "the public" and "the copyright holders". The word "consumer" should never enter the picture.
Well said. I think it's pretty obvious that right now, the United States is a relatively benevolent plutocracy, and has a large number of oligarchical tendencies.
Elections are there more to appease people than to make any significant change. The two main candidates have very similar views on most things, and it's only the differences that are at issue. One opposes gay marriage enough to try to have a constitutional ban (although it would never pass and he knows it). The other opposes gay marriage, but doesn't think it is important enough to have a constitutional amendment. He's content to let states decide. Both supported the war in Iraq, both support "the war on Terror". Both support the USAPATRIOT act.
That's not where the differences end though. Both spent a lot of their youth in New England, and were educated at Yale, and both are reputed to be members of the Skull and Bones society.
There are certainly worse forms of government, but it is an illusion to think that what we have now bears any strong resemblance to a true Greek-style democracy. While there would be significant differences in how each of them ran the country, one thing is virtually guaranteed, they wouldn't mess with the plutocracy. They may slightly increase or decrease taxes on the plutocrats. They may (given enough pressure) write laws trying to reform the election process so money plays less of a role, but they'll always leave loopholes.
I just wish more people would accept that the United States isn't a democracy. Even the CIA World Factbook doesn't claim it is. They only tag it as having "a strong democratic tradition". Really, the only hope to really change what the US is is to become one of the plutocrats and then try to make changes.
Back then,
Democracy meant exactly what the parent poster said. In those times, the populations were small enough to get a true Democracy to actually work.
According to the
CIA World Factbook the government of the United States is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition".
The operative word there is "
republic", "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president". In the US, the head of the republic is chosen by indirect democratic means. That very delegation to have the country run by a president rather than by direct choice of the people is what makes the US a Republic rather than a direct Democracy.
Before you start mouthing off about people misusing terms, you really should look those terms up yourself.
Actually, I'm one of those unfortunate people caught in the middle. A Canadian. We say "colour", "litre", "metre", "night", but we do say "tire" and "jail" (gaol? WTF?).
And yeah, we sometimes shorten gasoline to "gas", but you have to admit that "petrol" is odd. It seems to be a contraction for "petroleum", but is a very different thing.
Yeah, and besides, if you're not careful a torch is going to burn you. I mean, who would want something burning right close to your ammunition anyhow!? Wouldn't that be a recipe for suicide? I say carry your torch in your other hand, and be damn careful you don't burn yourself with it.
I know, I know, to silly people from England and possibly Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, a "torch" can mean one of them battery-operated lighting devices. But you gotta admit it sounds ridiculous to us North Americans. I can't help but picture a flaming torch strapped to a gun. Not the most safe way of doing things, if you ask me.
C'mon. It's obvious. Say the game had a limitation like "You can't turn left, only right", or "Every time you use the minigun you have to sing a song first". Those would be just as intrusive and unrealistic as the flashlight thing.
Nobody is saying the game is realistic, in the sense that it might happen to you tomorrow. However, what they've done is set up a framework. It's the year 2145, you're a Marine in a base on Mars, and you're fighting demonic creatures. That's the world you have to accept. If you can't accept that framework, well the game won't be very interesting to you. Once you've accepted the framework, everything else should fit into that framework.
There are other unrealistic things in the game, like how you can sprint while carrying a minigun, shotgun, machine gun and pistol, along with tons of ammo and armor. That's a long-established convention of first person shooters though. Same with knowing with absolute precision how damaged you are, and being able to instantly heal by picking up some random medkit. But the whole "choose a flashlight or a weapon, but not both" convention really ruins your suspension of disbelief. Wy would it be that you can carry 10 weapons easily, but somehow can't manage to hold both a flashlight and a pistol at the same time?
Right. I think their design is somewhat flawed there. If they're going to make light such an important part of the game, they might as well make stealth part of it. Making it so the only effect of light is to reveal things to the player is so one-dimensional. I'm not saying they should have made it Spliter Cell or Thief, but why not make the whole light situation more realistic?
Imagine that using the flashlight had more of a trade off. If you used it, you would ruin your night vision, and give away your position to enemies. So if you keep it off you might be able to sneak up on enemies. On the other hand, some of the enemies have much better night vision than you, and they'll have the advantage if you don't use the flashlight. Another option would have been limited battery life for the flashlight. They did a pretty good job of limiting ammo, so why not do the same for battery charge. If you run out, you're forced to use a lighter or something. Or, another realistic change -- the smaller the weapon, the more easily you can use a flashlight. Pistol and flashlight? No problem. One per hand. Shotgun and flashlight? Sure, just attach them. Machine gun and flashlight? Sure, but sometimes shooting might bump the light and turn it off! Minigun and flashlight? Nope. Nowhere to attach it. Grenades? Nope.
Instead, they seemed to make it so that only zombie marines don't always notice you, but everything else starts tracking you the instant it spawns. This actually makes the game easier, unfortunately. If you just creep around you'll eventually hit a "trigger point" and something will come after you. 95% of the time, it will come from in front of you, and it will seek you out.
It seems to me like they weren't sure whether they wanted a storyline or not, wanted realism or not. In some ways, they try for realism (the computer screens, PDAs, etc). In other ways, like the flashlight vs. gun decision, it seems like when it came to story vs. gameplay, gameplay won. That's great, only it didn't have to be one or the other. Instead, they could have adjusted the gameplay to keep the story realistic.
The game is fun, no doubt. It is also creepy, because when something comes for you, it normally comes really fast. The graphics are stunning, the sound is great, except for the ridiculous sound of your own footsteps.
Anyhow, the main reason I'm happy I bought the game is the potential for mods. Id has made a great engine, and the potential is huge. I can't wait to see what else people will do with it.
The game this most reminds me of is Aliens vs. Predator 1 for PC. That game was super creepy when you played as the human. Instead of a flashlight, they gave the Space Marines flares, but you could only have 4 or so active at a time. You also had night vision goggles, but they were sorta fuzzy, and if you used them, you lost your motion sensor. The Predator and Alien modes were great too. Predator had unique weapons and gear, but they mostly used energy, and when that energy was gone, you were in trouble. And the Alien -- my favourite mode. No ranged attacks, and no numeric HUD things. Very organic feeling, but the ability to walk on walls and such. Man was that fun!
So modders... please oh please work on an AvP mod for this engine? Not like AvP 2 though, go back to the original goodness...
I wonder if she's having problems with people filling out
this form? You'd think that with such an easy way to vent their frustrations, thousands of annoyed internet users would be using the form for purposes she probably didn't intend.
The unit is "people". 500 people liked pineapple. 200 people liked ice cream.
Have you ever used a moveable pulley? For every Newton of force you apply (unit: newtons), you get two Newtons of force at the other end (unit: newtons). That gives you a mechanical advantage of 2. No units there... but is that an opinion? Nope, it's mechanical fact.
When measuring an inherently subjective question (which tastes better), an inherently subjective measurement is all you can hope for. Does that mean the measurement is invalid? No. Does it mean the thing being measured is unimportant? No.
True enough, Fascism is not automatically bad. Just like National Socialism is not automatically bad. Even Anarchy is not automatically bad. But history has shown that whatever their abstract flaws or benefits, in practice, they seem to be bad both for their neighbors and for the citizens.
I didn't claim that the USA is "Fascist", but I said it was farther along the continuum between Fascism and an open, free society than most other countries in the world. While it is true that the Supreme Court has recently ruled against Bush, the very fact that he was claiming that authority for a while says something. Name me another country where the head of state has exercised that sort of authority lately. Again, I can only think of North Korea and Cuba. Possibly China too... but really, do you want to be "slightly more free than North Korea"?
Same deal with that "extreme pride in country and race". If you've ever travelled outside the US, you would see how skewed the US is in this regard. I have never visited a country that was as fiercely patriotic as the US. Now, most countries I've visited have had some degree of patriotism. The people like certain things about their countries, but they don't like everything. The US is the only place I've ever visited where anybody has expressed an attitude that if you don't love the country, there's something wrong with you, and you should leave. I'm not saying everybody says that, but the fact that anybody says that makes the US unique, and it's not a good thing, in my opinion.
As for substituting religion for race... well that was a reasonable substitution. Most dictionaries seem to mention racism as tied to fascism, but it's not a fundamental requirement. The important distinction is drawing a line between "us" and "them". Religion does that just as well as race. And substituting Republicans for Nazis? Well... that's just too easy.
You're free to claim that there's nothing wrong with Fascism. You can even try to start a Fascist party and try to win a few elections. I don't think you'll have much support though. Even if you called it the "America First" party, I don't think you'd get much support. There has been some grudging acceptance of the Fascist-leaning policies that Bush has put into place, but I think if you tried to go too far in that direction, people would resist.
You say there's nothing inherently wrong with fascism until you start burning inferior races in furnaces. But it is the very qualities of fascism that make that more likely. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying there's nothing wrong with cocking a gun and pointing it at somebody's head. It's only pulling the trigger that's bad.
You know, I have mod points, and could just mod you down, but I thought I'd reply instead.
Godwin's Law isn't a rule about winning or losing arguments. It's a law of nature. It's like gravity. If a thread goes on for long enough, someone will mention Nazis or Hitler. But notice, I'm the first one in this thread to do so. Fascism is bigger than just Nazis. The Italian government under Mussolini was fascist as well.
Before you say that fascism requires burning racially inferior people in furnaces, you might want to at least read the
definition:
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed
Let's compare that to the current state of affairs in the US of A:
a very powerful leader -- I think unilaterally declaring US citizens to be enemy combattants qualifies here
extreme pride in country and race -- substitute religion for race, and this clearly describes a lot of Bush's supporters
political opposition is not allowed -- well they haven't won this battle yet, but remember many people argued that protesting the war was unamerican, remember how the republicans tried to shut down Farenheit 911, notice the tiny, dangerous, hidden "Free Speech Zone" at the democratic convention
There's no question, we're a long way from Italy or Germany in the '30s. At the same time, there's a continuum between an open society and a fascist one. The US is much closer to the fascist side of that spectrum than any other western (or modern eastern) country. Sure, Cuba is worse, and so is North Korea, but when those are the only countries that are more fascist than you... it's a pretty bad sign.
As I read that, I couldn't help but laugh at the silly intern, idolizing Bill Gates and his mansion.
We entered the home via what seemed to be the entertainment entrance and, at that, it was quite understated. The entrance organically rose from the hill in distinct pacific northwest style and was elegantly adorned by perfectly oriented halogen lighting that just screamed, "experience like no other."
Ya gotta love that understated screaming.
Elegantly non-intrusive but screaming geekhood were sparsely placed digital canvases that, ever so often, changed the artwork on the wall.
A lot of things seem to scream (in non-intrusive ways) at this place.
Initially you find an elevator driven only by a single hydraulic column and completely cableless. Are you beginning to feel like you are in Myst (the video game), because I was.
Yeah, your textual description is just so powerful (in an understated way), it screams "Myst, the videogame".
To the left was a room with a design so powerful that it could only exist in the home of the richest man in the world.
Wow. That's a mighty powerful design indeed.
I left the home only to be greeted by a backyard adorned by cocktail tables and a catering staff dressed to match the adornment of the tables...
I hope the adornment of the tables wasn't a floral adornment, otherwise the adornment of the catering staff must have really looked silly.
On a final note, I'll say that the grass was groomed. It was groomed in a way that requires handheld scissors to prune daily.
Wow, that Bill Gates sure is rich! He seems to waste his money, but still, rich!
Instantly there started a massive migration from around the lawn to within four feet of Bill. In ten minutes there was a donut or toroid of geekdom surrounding Bill that was three or four people deep, but after a few minutes I had worked my way to the front and got to spend about two hours standing with him...
Gotta love those 4 geeks thick toroid or donuts of geekdom. This is actually one of the few good descriptions in the blog. I can just picture a spindly little fellow, squeezing his way through 4 layers of geekness so he can gaze at his idol from up close.
His response (verbatim, might I add), "well it was the dumbest thing I've ever read!" Now, one could argue, being that he owns 24% of MSFT stock, that Bill can't possibly answer that question in any other way. This is, of course, true.
So... what you're saying is that his assessment is meaningless?
"Bill, what are your hobbies?" "Medicine and bio-tech." Ok. We all have intellectually stimulating pastimes but am I wrong in saying that most of us don't come home from work and fiddle around with medicine and bio-tech.
Um, buddy, I don't think he means that he has an experimental surgery room in the back. He probably means that he throws a few million at those things for interest, rather than for profit.
I thought, "no way!" Turns out, I was right.
You were right about being wrong?
[His daughter] came up to Bill, held hands with him, and sat down. They talked and interacted.
Ooh, talked and interacted, you say. You mean rich people talk and interact too?? Wow!!
I hope this guy is a better programmer than he is a writer. If you're reading this, here's a hint -- stop drinking the kool-aid at work. Rich people are human too, even the very rich (P.S. Gates isn't the richest person in the world, he's just the richest with a public fortune). And by the way, things that scream aren't understated. Hmm, Maurone... Moran... any relation to
this guy?
We entered the home via what seemed to be the entertainment entrance and, at that, it was quite understated. The entrance organically rose from the hill in distinct pacific northwest style and was elegantly adorned by perfectly oriented halogen lighting that just screamed, "experience like no other."
Yeah, there's nothing like an "understated entrance" that screams.
Read the quote carefully: "Anything you need to quanitfy can be measured in some way that is superior to not measuring it at all."
He's not saying that *any* measurement is better than no measurement. He's saying that there exists a measurement that is better than no measurement.
Which tastes better, ice cream or fresh pineapple? I don't know, but rather than say "It's impossible to say! Any measurement will be flawed." You could do a survey and see what most people think tastes better. That may not be the measurement that is better than no measurement, but for certain purposes it may be.
In the end, it depends on what your reason for doing the measurement is. If you're going to be marketing a new bubble gum flavour, then this survey is better than no information at all.
You say that not voting is like deserting your post in the army. Interesting. Do you know why that isn't allowed, even when it won't affect the outcome of a war? Because it undermines the authority of the officers, and of the army itself. If that's the case, and not voting is like desertion, then great. Undermining the system is *exactly* what I want to do.
I hope that not voting clues elected officials into the fact that a whole lot of people don't believe that they should be doing what they're doing in our names. Low voter turnout should clue them in to the fact that their jobs are in jeopardy, not because people are going to vote for "the other guy", but because people don't believe in the system itself.
Do you know what country had a much higher voter turnout than the US? Well, all of them. But I mean specifically which one had a much higher turnout about a year and a half ago? Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Apparently upwards of 90% of the population voted to keep him in office.
What, the election wasn't fair? Of course not. But he staged one anyhow. Why? Because elections help to legitimize those in power. Even better are elections with very high voter turnout.
In Iraq, people knew their votes were meaningless. Here, some people still have the illusion that they're really going to make significant changes with a vote. But it seems like half the population no longer believes that. It's hard to argue with them. If you live in a state where there's a vast majority supporting party 1, your vote will make no difference in who is elected, whether you vote for party 1, party 2, party 3 or whether you spoil your ballot.
If you believe the democratic process, and even democracy itself is fundamentally flawed, how hypocritical would it be to try to change it by participating? That's like agreeing to have your speech censored before you speak out against censorship.
I don't think that voting will ever fix the flaws in the government. The system can only be changed from the outside, not the inside. Revolution or takeover are the only real options. Revolution won't happen if too many people believe in the system. Low voter turnout says that many people don't believe in the system. That's great. It means that revolution is more and more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Or were you genetically predisposed to alcoholism? But what about willpower to fight that alcoholism? You could just choose not to drink, right? Well, sure -- unless you're genes say that you lack willpower. But it's still your fault, because you chose to drive to the bar, rather than take a cab... Only you live somewhere where you can't get a cab easily. You live there because that's where you were born, so it's not your fault either.
The thing is, there will always be great reasons, excuses and explanations for things. That's great. It increases knowledge. But it's a mistake that just because there's a reason for something means that there's an excuse for it, and that punishment should be lighter.
If I lop off my neighbor's head in a fit of rage, and people discover that I have a genetic abnormality, a chemical dependency, or a troubled upbringing that made it harder for me to control myself, that doesn't make the neighbor any less dead, and shouldn't necessarily make my punishment any less severe. What it should definitely do is affect the nature of my rehabilitation (anger management therapy vs. chemical treatment vs. gene therapy), and it should possibly be used to help spot other people with the same problem before they go nuts.
If my genes, upbringing and chemicals dictate I'm a controlled, rational, thinking person and I kill my neighbor because I'm bored, I should be punished for that action. If instead, I'm an alcoholic with a troubled upbringing with a genetic predisposition to fits of rage, I should perhaps be held less accountable for losing it and killing my neighbor. On the other hand, knowing that I have problems like this, I should be punished for having alcohol nearby, and having a deadly weapon nearby. The sum of these various punishments should probably be essentially the same as the person without excuses. On the other hand, if I didn't know I had all these issues, then maybe I shouldn't be punished as severely... but maybe I should be punished for not bothering to investigate problems I'd had with alcohol in the past, or with rage, etc. If someone has all these problems, it's not like they manifest themselves suddenly, out of the blue. That is when they should start looking into their problems and trying to make sure that they don't allow themselves to get into a situation where they lose control. If they don't, then that's why they should be punished.
Seeing as the greek armies were spear-based, I'd say the Javelin was probably there a long time ago. The new sports are complicated, judged ones, like synchronized swimming, diving, baseball, etc.
Close, but as a Canadian, there's no way that:
Surianame: population 436,935, area 163,270 sq km., per capita GDP: $1,274.00
Guyana: population 705,803, area 214,970 sq km., per capita GDP: $1,063.00
French Guiana: population 191,309, area 91,000 sq. km....
Given that there are fewer than 200 countries in the world, it's not unreasonable to expect someone to have heard of all of them, and to know roughly where they are. On the other hand, those seem to be 3 pretty unremarkable entries on that list.
They're small, but not tiny, poor, but not starving, relatively peaceful, and don't have oil. I don't think it's too ridiculous that someone would not know about them.
On the other hand, I grew up in the capital of Canada. With a population of just over 1,000,000, it is the 4th biggest city in Canada. Canada is the biggest trading partner of the US, with almost double the trade of the next closest competitor. Canada is also in about a 3-way heat with Mexico and Saudi Arabia for the most oil exports to the US. Yet now that I live a 4 hour drive south of the border (7 hours from my hometown) and tell people I'm from "Ottawa", they look at me with a blank stare.
I think that's a scary thought right there. There's far more to this battle than consumers and lobbyists. There are non-consumers, and they deserve just as much governmental protection as consumers.
If I don't buy a movie, but I want to make use of a short clip of it, I should have just as many rights as a "consumer".
Then there's that whole "open source" thing, where copyrighted works are produced, but no consumption is involved. There are no consumers, but that doesn't mean open-source copyrights are not as valid.
The battle should be between "the public" and "the copyright holders". The word "consumer" should never enter the picture.
Does the included software run on Linux? It sounds like that's what he wants.
Well said. I think it's pretty obvious that right now, the United States is a relatively benevolent plutocracy, and has a large number of oligarchical tendencies.
Elections are there more to appease people than to make any significant change. The two main candidates have very similar views on most things, and it's only the differences that are at issue. One opposes gay marriage enough to try to have a constitutional ban (although it would never pass and he knows it). The other opposes gay marriage, but doesn't think it is important enough to have a constitutional amendment. He's content to let states decide. Both supported the war in Iraq, both support "the war on Terror". Both support the USAPATRIOT act.
That's not where the differences end though. Both spent a lot of their youth in New England, and were educated at Yale, and both are reputed to be members of the Skull and Bones society.
There are certainly worse forms of government, but it is an illusion to think that what we have now bears any strong resemblance to a true Greek-style democracy. While there would be significant differences in how each of them ran the country, one thing is virtually guaranteed, they wouldn't mess with the plutocracy. They may slightly increase or decrease taxes on the plutocrats. They may (given enough pressure) write laws trying to reform the election process so money plays less of a role, but they'll always leave loopholes.
I just wish more people would accept that the United States isn't a democracy. Even the CIA World Factbook doesn't claim it is. They only tag it as having "a strong democratic tradition". Really, the only hope to really change what the US is is to become one of the plutocrats and then try to make changes.
Back then, Democracy meant exactly what the parent poster said. In those times, the populations were small enough to get a true Democracy to actually work.
According to the CIA World Factbook the government of the United States is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition".
The operative word there is " republic", "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president". In the US, the head of the republic is chosen by indirect democratic means. That very delegation to have the country run by a president rather than by direct choice of the people is what makes the US a Republic rather than a direct Democracy.
Before you start mouthing off about people misusing terms, you really should look those terms up yourself.
Which one, FAIR or USE?
Actually, I'm one of those unfortunate people caught in the middle. A Canadian. We say "colour", "litre", "metre", "night", but we do say "tire" and "jail" (gaol? WTF?).
And yeah, we sometimes shorten gasoline to "gas", but you have to admit that "petrol" is odd. It seems to be a contraction for "petroleum", but is a very different thing.
Yeah, and besides, if you're not careful a torch is going to burn you. I mean, who would want something burning right close to your ammunition anyhow!? Wouldn't that be a recipe for suicide? I say carry your torch in your other hand, and be damn careful you don't burn yourself with it.
I know, I know, to silly people from England and possibly Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, a "torch" can mean one of them battery-operated lighting devices. But you gotta admit it sounds ridiculous to us North Americans. I can't help but picture a flaming torch strapped to a gun. Not the most safe way of doing things, if you ask me.
C'mon. It's obvious. Say the game had a limitation like "You can't turn left, only right", or "Every time you use the minigun you have to sing a song first". Those would be just as intrusive and unrealistic as the flashlight thing.
Nobody is saying the game is realistic, in the sense that it might happen to you tomorrow. However, what they've done is set up a framework. It's the year 2145, you're a Marine in a base on Mars, and you're fighting demonic creatures. That's the world you have to accept. If you can't accept that framework, well the game won't be very interesting to you. Once you've accepted the framework, everything else should fit into that framework.
There are other unrealistic things in the game, like how you can sprint while carrying a minigun, shotgun, machine gun and pistol, along with tons of ammo and armor. That's a long-established convention of first person shooters though. Same with knowing with absolute precision how damaged you are, and being able to instantly heal by picking up some random medkit. But the whole "choose a flashlight or a weapon, but not both" convention really ruins your suspension of disbelief. Wy would it be that you can carry 10 weapons easily, but somehow can't manage to hold both a flashlight and a pistol at the same time?
Right. I think their design is somewhat flawed there. If they're going to make light such an important part of the game, they might as well make stealth part of it. Making it so the only effect of light is to reveal things to the player is so one-dimensional. I'm not saying they should have made it Spliter Cell or Thief, but why not make the whole light situation more realistic?
Imagine that using the flashlight had more of a trade off. If you used it, you would ruin your night vision, and give away your position to enemies. So if you keep it off you might be able to sneak up on enemies. On the other hand, some of the enemies have much better night vision than you, and they'll have the advantage if you don't use the flashlight. Another option would have been limited battery life for the flashlight. They did a pretty good job of limiting ammo, so why not do the same for battery charge. If you run out, you're forced to use a lighter or something. Or, another realistic change -- the smaller the weapon, the more easily you can use a flashlight. Pistol and flashlight? No problem. One per hand. Shotgun and flashlight? Sure, just attach them. Machine gun and flashlight? Sure, but sometimes shooting might bump the light and turn it off! Minigun and flashlight? Nope. Nowhere to attach it. Grenades? Nope.
Instead, they seemed to make it so that only zombie marines don't always notice you, but everything else starts tracking you the instant it spawns. This actually makes the game easier, unfortunately. If you just creep around you'll eventually hit a "trigger point" and something will come after you. 95% of the time, it will come from in front of you, and it will seek you out.
It seems to me like they weren't sure whether they wanted a storyline or not, wanted realism or not. In some ways, they try for realism (the computer screens, PDAs, etc). In other ways, like the flashlight vs. gun decision, it seems like when it came to story vs. gameplay, gameplay won. That's great, only it didn't have to be one or the other. Instead, they could have adjusted the gameplay to keep the story realistic.
The game is fun, no doubt. It is also creepy, because when something comes for you, it normally comes really fast. The graphics are stunning, the sound is great, except for the ridiculous sound of your own footsteps.
Anyhow, the main reason I'm happy I bought the game is the potential for mods. Id has made a great engine, and the potential is huge. I can't wait to see what else people will do with it.
The game this most reminds me of is Aliens vs. Predator 1 for PC. That game was super creepy when you played as the human. Instead of a flashlight, they gave the Space Marines flares, but you could only have 4 or so active at a time. You also had night vision goggles, but they were sorta fuzzy, and if you used them, you lost your motion sensor. The Predator and Alien modes were great too. Predator had unique weapons and gear, but they mostly used energy, and when that energy was gone, you were in trouble. And the Alien -- my favourite mode. No ranged attacks, and no numeric HUD things. Very organic feeling, but the ability to walk on walls and such. Man was that fun!
So modders... please oh please work on an AvP mod for this engine? Not like AvP 2 though, go back to the original goodness...
I wonder if she's having problems with people filling out this form? You'd think that with such an easy way to vent their frustrations, thousands of annoyed internet users would be using the form for purposes she probably didn't intend.
She's at least 18. I believe 20-something. The incident occurred when she was 14, but that's a long time ago.
"You've not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."
--- Chancellor Gorkon
Everybody says that until they need soldiers to die for them.
Soldiers always say that, not realizing that most people don't want them to die, especially not for the cause their government has chosen.
The unit is "people". 500 people liked pineapple. 200 people liked ice cream.
Have you ever used a moveable pulley? For every Newton of force you apply (unit: newtons), you get two Newtons of force at the other end (unit: newtons). That gives you a mechanical advantage of 2. No units there... but is that an opinion? Nope, it's mechanical fact.
When measuring an inherently subjective question (which tastes better), an inherently subjective measurement is all you can hope for. Does that mean the measurement is invalid? No. Does it mean the thing being measured is unimportant? No.
True enough, Fascism is not automatically bad. Just like National Socialism is not automatically bad. Even Anarchy is not automatically bad. But history has shown that whatever their abstract flaws or benefits, in practice, they seem to be bad both for their neighbors and for the citizens.
I didn't claim that the USA is "Fascist", but I said it was farther along the continuum between Fascism and an open, free society than most other countries in the world. While it is true that the Supreme Court has recently ruled against Bush, the very fact that he was claiming that authority for a while says something. Name me another country where the head of state has exercised that sort of authority lately. Again, I can only think of North Korea and Cuba. Possibly China too... but really, do you want to be "slightly more free than North Korea"?
Same deal with that "extreme pride in country and race". If you've ever travelled outside the US, you would see how skewed the US is in this regard. I have never visited a country that was as fiercely patriotic as the US. Now, most countries I've visited have had some degree of patriotism. The people like certain things about their countries, but they don't like everything. The US is the only place I've ever visited where anybody has expressed an attitude that if you don't love the country, there's something wrong with you, and you should leave. I'm not saying everybody says that, but the fact that anybody says that makes the US unique, and it's not a good thing, in my opinion.
As for substituting religion for race... well that was a reasonable substitution. Most dictionaries seem to mention racism as tied to fascism, but it's not a fundamental requirement. The important distinction is drawing a line between "us" and "them". Religion does that just as well as race. And substituting Republicans for Nazis? Well... that's just too easy.
You're free to claim that there's nothing wrong with Fascism. You can even try to start a Fascist party and try to win a few elections. I don't think you'll have much support though. Even if you called it the "America First" party, I don't think you'd get much support. There has been some grudging acceptance of the Fascist-leaning policies that Bush has put into place, but I think if you tried to go too far in that direction, people would resist.
You say there's nothing inherently wrong with fascism until you start burning inferior races in furnaces. But it is the very qualities of fascism that make that more likely. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying there's nothing wrong with cocking a gun and pointing it at somebody's head. It's only pulling the trigger that's bad.
You know, I have mod points, and could just mod you down, but I thought I'd reply instead.
Godwin's Law isn't a rule about winning or losing arguments. It's a law of nature. It's like gravity. If a thread goes on for long enough, someone will mention Nazis or Hitler. But notice, I'm the first one in this thread to do so. Fascism is bigger than just Nazis. The Italian government under Mussolini was fascist as well.
Before you say that fascism requires burning racially inferior people in furnaces, you might want to at least read the definition:
Let's compare that to the current state of affairs in the US of A:
There's no question, we're a long way from Italy or Germany in the '30s. At the same time, there's a continuum between an open society and a fascist one. The US is much closer to the fascist side of that spectrum than any other western (or modern eastern) country. Sure, Cuba is worse, and so is North Korea, but when those are the only countries that are more fascist than you... it's a pretty bad sign.
It wouldn't be so damn funny if it weren't so obvious he was trying so damn hard.
As I read that, I couldn't help but laugh at the silly intern, idolizing Bill Gates and his mansion.
Ya gotta love that understated screaming.
A lot of things seem to scream (in non-intrusive ways) at this place.
Yeah, your textual description is just so powerful (in an understated way), it screams "Myst, the videogame".
Wow. That's a mighty powerful design indeed.
I hope the adornment of the tables wasn't a floral adornment, otherwise the adornment of the catering staff must have really looked silly.
Wow, that Bill Gates sure is rich! He seems to waste his money, but still, rich!
Gotta love those 4 geeks thick toroid or donuts of geekdom. This is actually one of the few good descriptions in the blog. I can just picture a spindly little fellow, squeezing his way through 4 layers of geekness so he can gaze at his idol from up close.
So... what you're saying is that his assessment is meaningless?
Um, buddy, I don't think he means that he has an experimental surgery room in the back. He probably means that he throws a few million at those things for interest, rather than for profit.
You were right about being wrong?
Ooh, talked and interacted, you say. You mean rich people talk and interact too?? Wow!!
I hope this guy is a better programmer than he is a writer. If you're reading this, here's a hint -- stop drinking the kool-aid at work. Rich people are human too, even the very rich (P.S. Gates isn't the richest person in the world, he's just the richest with a public fortune). And by the way, things that scream aren't understated. Hmm, Maurone... Moran... any relation to this guy?
Yeah, there's nothing like an "understated entrance" that screams.
Read the quote carefully: "Anything you need to quanitfy can be measured in some way that is superior to not measuring it at all."
He's not saying that *any* measurement is better than no measurement. He's saying that there exists a measurement that is better than no measurement.
Which tastes better, ice cream or fresh pineapple? I don't know, but rather than say "It's impossible to say! Any measurement will be flawed." You could do a survey and see what most people think tastes better. That may not be the measurement that is better than no measurement, but for certain purposes it may be.
In the end, it depends on what your reason for doing the measurement is. If you're going to be marketing a new bubble gum flavour, then this survey is better than no information at all.
You say that not voting is like deserting your post in the army. Interesting. Do you know why that isn't allowed, even when it won't affect the outcome of a war? Because it undermines the authority of the officers, and of the army itself. If that's the case, and not voting is like desertion, then great. Undermining the system is *exactly* what I want to do.
I hope that not voting clues elected officials into the fact that a whole lot of people don't believe that they should be doing what they're doing in our names. Low voter turnout should clue them in to the fact that their jobs are in jeopardy, not because people are going to vote for "the other guy", but because people don't believe in the system itself.
Do you know what country had a much higher voter turnout than the US? Well, all of them. But I mean specifically which one had a much higher turnout about a year and a half ago? Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Apparently upwards of 90% of the population voted to keep him in office.
What, the election wasn't fair? Of course not. But he staged one anyhow. Why? Because elections help to legitimize those in power. Even better are elections with very high voter turnout.
In Iraq, people knew their votes were meaningless. Here, some people still have the illusion that they're really going to make significant changes with a vote. But it seems like half the population no longer believes that. It's hard to argue with them. If you live in a state where there's a vast majority supporting party 1, your vote will make no difference in who is elected, whether you vote for party 1, party 2, party 3 or whether you spoil your ballot.
If you believe the democratic process, and even democracy itself is fundamentally flawed, how hypocritical would it be to try to change it by participating? That's like agreeing to have your speech censored before you speak out against censorship.
I don't think that voting will ever fix the flaws in the government. The system can only be changed from the outside, not the inside. Revolution or takeover are the only real options. Revolution won't happen if too many people believe in the system. Low voter turnout says that many people don't believe in the system. That's great. It means that revolution is more and more likely.