What I mean by that is you're constantly button mashing while you watch your model ship circle around your target shooting at something. When eve players talk about "skill" they're talking about it in the same sense as WoW players do, knowing when to mash the right buttons and when to run away.
Actually, no. When those of us who actually have it talk about skill we take things into account such as:
- Should I focus on trying to take him down asap or should I destroy some of his drones to reduce the amount of damage I'm taking myself? - What distance between myself and the target is the most ideal? This varies from ship to ship(and there's well over a hundred different ships) and loadouts. - Does he have any help coming in? Are any of the other people in the area interfering in the fight? - What is my opponent trying to do? Fight, flee, stall, what's going on inside his head?
Add to that managing the supplies of the various kinds of ammunition, the status of your own ship etc...and then consider that this is just for a situation involving 1 ship on each side and now extrapolate that to 10 vs 10 where ships take on specialized roles.
Ow...and one of the skills in EVE is to prevent other people from running away...heck, it's probably the single most important one in PvP;-)
It's their understandable embarrassment over having to have the US save their asses twice in the last century.
Actually, no. It's the way you guys pissed away every last shred of credibility in the years following 9/11, which is quite an accomplishment. You get attacked, you have the entire civilized world on your side, and within a few years you manage to piss every last one of us off to the extent that saying "we're going to distance ourselves just a wee bit from the US" is a surefire way of grabbing a few more votes.
I honestly doubt Osama bin Laden could have possibly imagined just how much of a success his attack would turn out to be. He set the opportunity for the US to show the world what it is all about and well, it did.
It's lots and lots of grinding for money so you can experience a battle for a few minutes and then you're back to 10h of grinding.
Then you're doing at wrong. When your character is still young and you're still inexperienced you should be flying cheap crap. Especially if you join a corp(like mine) that specializes in pvp you can still make a contribution even in a simple rifter with a total cost of less than 1 million, and any corpmate can have a 100 of those for you in 2 mouse clicks.
One mistake a lot of EVE players make is to assume that bigger is better. Each and every ship in the game fills a particular niche, and the tournament shows this off quite well.
Still, in my line of work we sit on gates for hours waiting for someone we don't know is actually at his computer to undock his ship. I guess you could call that grinding as well;-)
It shouldn't really be a debate -- sailors have done this for decades. Essentially you turn your vessel/vehicle at an angle to the wind such that you utilize both the positive pressure from the wind and the negative pressure created by the curved sails which create an air foil.
Ahhh, but the debate is about going faster than the wind while going downwind. So no angles involved.
Really? The hard numbers say otherwise, putting the balance at 1.06-1.13 male to 1 female depending on which age group you look at.
In fact, the problem is precisely the opposite, women are far too picky and insist that a man own property and a car before marriage will even be considered.
Ehmm, how is that the opposite? It actually disproves what you just said. Since there are fewer women(supply) and relatively more men(demand)...prices go up. Good to know that when it comes to doing the dirty the free market is alive and kicking;-)
If you'd read some of the provided links, you'd have seen that the requirement was for the vehicle to be powered solely by wind, so no gravity involved except in its usual role of keeping the wheels on the ground;-)
In other news, scientists actually getting their hands dirty turn out to know more about their chosen field than a bunch of people on the interwebz.
You know what, I'm not even going to bother and explain to you just how wrong you are and instead will leave it as a little exercise. Here's 2 words for you to start with: Trias Politica.
Europeans don't even allow you to record and publish murderers and criminals.
Yes, god fucking forbid we protect the rights of those who are still presumed to be innocent. Or aren't you referring to the fact that we disallow the publishing of names and faces of folks when they get arrested?
Try recording a police officer in Europe doing something unflattering and posting that video on YouTube; you'll get prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Well, yes, the same thing happens if you film *me* and do the same. One of our civil liberties is privacy, even in public places. You don't get to record me without my permission and vice versa.
In Europe, they're effectively already gone, but the people don't even notice.
Wow...and you base this on what exactly? My free speech seems to be working just fine. I get to do a lot of stuff you guys can't even dream about. The only thing I can't have is a gun and that's historically something nobody but the 'Merkins gives a shit about anyway.
They're flouting their obligations, to get some short-term gain, at the risk of damaging them and the rest of the world in the long term.
Ehmm, no. You see, a government has obligations to 1 party and 1 party alone, being the citizens that elected it. I know the concept is dazzling, but that is how it is supposed to work.
Try this one on for fun: put a US politician on a podium, give him a microphone and let him say the following words: "Dear citizens, because of international Intellectual Property laws, the cure for disease X will no longer be available to us, resulting in an estimated $massive_number of deaths over the following year."
We've already seen what the US thinks of international treaties when it doesn't suit them. Why the hell should the rest of the world give a flying fuck what your corporate overlords whisper into the ear of your government?
You're on the way down, the countries that rip you off are on the way up. What are you gonna do about it? Shoot them?
- Corporate officials have a duty to run the corporation, within the constraints of the rule of law, to attempt to maximize the value to the stockholders. "Value to the stockholders" is usually financial, though stockholders may decree that other values are to be primary or considered in the mix. (i.e. Hershey's, Google,...).
You know, I keep seeing this particular piece of wisdom parrotted over and over again, yet I have never been able to find any kind of evidence that this is in fact the case. Where does it say that this has to be the case? I fully understand that in the majority of cases potential shareholder will be looking to invest where it makes them the most money, and that if a company does not make the profits the shareholders expect heads will roll.
Where exactly is this law that says a company must do everything within its power to maximize profits? Citation please?
Wow, that is one of the single most simplified views of capitalism is had ever been my displeasure to see. Then again, judging from your writing style you're still in highschool, so perhaps your complete and utter lack of actual real-world experience is to blame.
Google, which I'm sure you have heard of, seems to be quite fond of throwing new technology out there even when there is no (immediate) ROI. Managers in corporations all over the world tell their underlings to do stuff using the latest shiny technologies even though they don't have a clue what it is. Indie game designers bring out products that work on Windows, Mac OS and Linux precisely because they do want to target those few remaining percentage points of the market.
There is the theoretical implementation of free market capitalism and then there is the cold hard reality of everyday life. Oddly enough those that fail to see the difference between these two are the first ones to point out the differences between other economic models that sounded appealing in theory but failed miserably in practice.
No, it doesn't. But that is mainly because I read beyond the inflammatory (as usual) summary and decided to enlighten myself on the actual issue before spouting off.
Feel free to keep banging that drum though. USA! USA! USA!
So how's that broadband rollout going for you guys lately?
Nah, that is not how it works. Being able to tell the difference between someone just blurting out the usual or someone trying to make a genuine effort to be courteous is something almost all human beings are capable of, and I can say from personal experience that it both works and is very rewarding. Who cares if you don't know the girl ringing up your groceries? Make her smile, brighten her day for a few seconds and your own will be that much better for it.
Doesn't cost anything and massively improves the mood of both yourself and all those around you.
Actually, you're wrong. First they came for all the dickheads who use that quote when it's not relevant and complete hyperbole, thereby demeaning its original meaning.
When the bulk of your country's military actions since its conception have been for purely economic reasons, and you join that country's military, you're signing up to be a corporate soldier, a tool of capitalism. And frankly, you are as much to blame for signing up to follow illegal orders (any order in support of an illegal action is itself illegal) and then following them as those who give them.
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. I'm a leftist hippie european and there are a lot of things I dislike about the US, but to blame the soldiers for the wars is beyond ridiculous.
Congress determines the military budget. Congress has the power to declare war. You elect congress.
If there is to be blame, then let it fall squarely where it belongs, the electorate of the United States of America. You choose to elect based on truck ownership, christianity, white teeth and perfect hair. You gobble up whatever the corporate mouthpieces feed you. You get the leadership you deserve.
To sum up, The rights we enjoy (including the right to view what we please) are natural, they are part of our being. They are not conferred upon us by government, and therefore cannot be withdrawn at the government's whim. Rather, government is erected by the people to secure these rights, not the other way around..
Which is a very nice philosophical point of view...right up to the point where reality rears its ugly head.
You have no rights, be they given by an invisible man in the sky or wherever else from. Zip, nada, zilch. The rights we enjoy we have because the people with the guns allow them. And so long as the people with the guns consider themselves to be in the employment of we, the people, that'll remain the status quo. We have collectively decided that these are basic rights for human beings...yet when 2 countries in Africa start sending children at one another with machetes...does that still apply?
When push comes to shove, you can have all the fancy constitions, bills of rights and other wonderful documents written by very enlightened men. When the tanks roll through the streets...none of that matters anymore. Well, I guess that isn't entirely true. You're free to think of yourself as being in pursuit of happiness, but life and liberty might turn out to be quite hard to maintain under those circumstances.
Or is BP also going to keep every single business going tits-up thanks to their little effort afloat as long as it takes for things to go back to the situation pre-spill?
Slashdot Mirror
What I mean by that is you're constantly button mashing while you watch your model ship circle around your target shooting at something. When eve players talk about "skill" they're talking about it in the same sense as WoW players do, knowing when to mash the right buttons and when to run away.
Actually, no. When those of us who actually have it talk about skill we take things into account such as:
- Should I focus on trying to take him down asap or should I destroy some of his drones to reduce the amount of damage I'm taking myself?
- What distance between myself and the target is the most ideal? This varies from ship to ship(and there's well over a hundred different ships) and loadouts.
- Does he have any help coming in? Are any of the other people in the area interfering in the fight?
- What is my opponent trying to do? Fight, flee, stall, what's going on inside his head?
Add to that managing the supplies of the various kinds of ammunition, the status of your own ship etc...and then consider that this is just for a situation involving 1 ship on each side and now extrapolate that to 10 vs 10 where ships take on specialized roles.
Ow...and one of the skills in EVE is to prevent other people from running away...heck, it's probably the single most important one in PvP ;-)
It's their understandable embarrassment over having to have the US save their asses twice in the last century.
Actually, no. It's the way you guys pissed away every last shred of credibility in the years following 9/11, which is quite an accomplishment. You get attacked, you have the entire civilized world on your side, and within a few years you manage to piss every last one of us off to the extent that saying "we're going to distance ourselves just a wee bit from the US" is a surefire way of grabbing a few more votes.
I honestly doubt Osama bin Laden could have possibly imagined just how much of a success his attack would turn out to be. He set the opportunity for the US to show the world what it is all about and well, it did.
TV...wtf are you talking about?
I looked up the numbers in response to your post. Besides, I don't live in the US so I have to go online to find my corporate overlord sponsored news.
It's lots and lots of grinding for money so you can experience a battle for a few minutes and then you're back to 10h of grinding.
Then you're doing at wrong. When your character is still young and you're still inexperienced you should be flying cheap crap. Especially if you join a corp(like mine) that specializes in pvp you can still make a contribution even in a simple rifter with a total cost of less than 1 million, and any corpmate can have a 100 of those for you in 2 mouse clicks.
One mistake a lot of EVE players make is to assume that bigger is better. Each and every ship in the game fills a particular niche, and the tournament shows this off quite well.
Still, in my line of work we sit on gates for hours waiting for someone we don't know is actually at his computer to undock his ship. I guess you could call that grinding as well ;-)
It shouldn't really be a debate -- sailors have done this for decades. Essentially you turn your vessel/vehicle at an angle to the wind such that you utilize both the positive pressure from the wind and the negative pressure created by the curved sails which create an air foil.
Ahhh, but the debate is about going faster than the wind while going downwind. So no angles involved.
No shortage of women.
Really? The hard numbers say otherwise, putting the balance at 1.06-1.13 male to 1 female depending on which age group you look at.
In fact, the problem is precisely the opposite, women are far too picky and insist that a man own property and a car before marriage will even be considered.
Ehmm, how is that the opposite? It actually disproves what you just said. Since there are fewer women(supply) and relatively more men(demand)...prices go up. Good to know that when it comes to doing the dirty the free market is alive and kicking ;-)
If you'd read some of the provided links, you'd have seen that the requirement was for the vehicle to be powered solely by wind, so no gravity involved except in its usual role of keeping the wheels on the ground ;-)
In other news, scientists actually getting their hands dirty turn out to know more about their chosen field than a bunch of people on the interwebz.
Wow, guess who didn't pay attention in school.
You know what, I'm not even going to bother and explain to you just how wrong you are and instead will leave it as a little exercise. Here's 2 words for you to start with: Trias Politica.
Enjoy!
Europeans don't even allow you to record and publish murderers and criminals.
Yes, god fucking forbid we protect the rights of those who are still presumed to be innocent. Or aren't you referring to the fact that we disallow the publishing of names and faces of folks when they get arrested?
Try recording a police officer in Europe doing something unflattering and posting that video on YouTube; you'll get prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Well, yes, the same thing happens if you film *me* and do the same. One of our civil liberties is privacy, even in public places. You don't get to record me without my permission and vice versa.
In Europe, they're effectively already gone, but the people don't even notice.
Wow...and you base this on what exactly? My free speech seems to be working just fine. I get to do a lot of stuff you guys can't even dream about. The only thing I can't have is a gun and that's historically something nobody but the 'Merkins gives a shit about anyway.
Bullshit. I often drive in slow speed areas, going slow but at high RPM, because I don't want to upshift.
Ahh, you're one of *those* guys. Compensating for something?
But! But! The other kid jumped off the bridge too!
Will you americans grow the fuck up?
Yup, when boys rough somebody up, there's gonna be bruises and maybe some broken bones.
When girls do it, there's gonna be a bigass yet invisible tear right through your soul which will never quite heal.
Ah, the fairer sex, don't you love them? :)
They're flouting their obligations, to get some short-term gain, at the risk of damaging them and the rest of the world in the long term.
Ehmm, no. You see, a government has obligations to 1 party and 1 party alone, being the citizens that elected it. I know the concept is dazzling, but that is how it is supposed to work.
Try this one on for fun: put a US politician on a podium, give him a microphone and let him say the following words: "Dear citizens, because of international Intellectual Property laws, the cure for disease X will no longer be available to us, resulting in an estimated $massive_number of deaths over the following year."
We've already seen what the US thinks of international treaties when it doesn't suit them. Why the hell should the rest of the world give a flying fuck what your corporate overlords whisper into the ear of your government?
You're on the way down, the countries that rip you off are on the way up. What are you gonna do about it? Shoot them?
- Corporate officials have a duty to run the corporation, within the constraints of the rule of law, to attempt to maximize the value to the stockholders. "Value to the stockholders" is usually financial, though stockholders may decree that other values are to be primary or considered in the mix. (i.e. Hershey's, Google, ...).
You know, I keep seeing this particular piece of wisdom parrotted over and over again, yet I have never been able to find any kind of evidence that this is in fact the case. Where does it say that this has to be the case? I fully understand that in the majority of cases potential shareholder will be looking to invest where it makes them the most money, and that if a company does not make the profits the shareholders expect heads will roll.
Where exactly is this law that says a company must do everything within its power to maximize profits? Citation please?
Wow, that is one of the single most simplified views of capitalism is had ever been my displeasure to see. Then again, judging from your writing style you're still in highschool, so perhaps your complete and utter lack of actual real-world experience is to blame.
Google, which I'm sure you have heard of, seems to be quite fond of throwing new technology out there even when there is no (immediate) ROI. Managers in corporations all over the world tell their underlings to do stuff using the latest shiny technologies even though they don't have a clue what it is. Indie game designers bring out products that work on Windows, Mac OS and Linux precisely because they do want to target those few remaining percentage points of the market.
There is the theoretical implementation of free market capitalism and then there is the cold hard reality of everyday life. Oddly enough those that fail to see the difference between these two are the first ones to point out the differences between other economic models that sounded appealing in theory but failed miserably in practice.
6 seconds for the initial load, 4 to switch to a different diagram...don't quite see the problem.
No, it doesn't. But that is mainly because I read beyond the inflammatory (as usual) summary and decided to enlighten myself on the actual issue before spouting off.
Feel free to keep banging that drum though. USA! USA! USA!
So how's that broadband rollout going for you guys lately?
Nah, that is not how it works. Being able to tell the difference between someone just blurting out the usual or someone trying to make a genuine effort to be courteous is something almost all human beings are capable of, and I can say from personal experience that it both works and is very rewarding. Who cares if you don't know the girl ringing up your groceries? Make her smile, brighten her day for a few seconds and your own will be that much better for it.
Doesn't cost anything and massively improves the mood of both yourself and all those around you.
For the love of all that is holy, just how fucking hard is this to understand?
CIVIL suit. No innocent, no guilty, no presumption of either. There is no threshold of reasonable doubt in a US civil lawsuit.
where the individual is found guilty.
Repeat after me: Civil suit. No guilty. No innocent. Just a finding in favor of either party where everybody loses but the lawyers.
At least my real dogs will have a shot at chewing up a thief before they get out of the house unlike the virtual counterparts. :)
Or your couch, or the neighbour, or they'll get sick and crap on the carpet.
Don't get me wrong, I'd never spend a grand on digital items, but some of them do have their advantages compared to their analog counterparts ;-)
Actually, you're wrong. First they came for all the dickheads who use that quote when it's not relevant and complete hyperbole, thereby demeaning its original meaning.
When the bulk of your country's military actions since its conception have been for purely economic reasons, and you join that country's military, you're signing up to be a corporate soldier, a tool of capitalism. And frankly, you are as much to blame for signing up to follow illegal orders (any order in support of an illegal action is itself illegal) and then following them as those who give them.
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. I'm a leftist hippie european and there are a lot of things I dislike about the US, but to blame the soldiers for the wars is beyond ridiculous.
Congress determines the military budget. Congress has the power to declare war. You elect congress.
If there is to be blame, then let it fall squarely where it belongs, the electorate of the United States of America. You choose to elect based on truck ownership, christianity, white teeth and perfect hair. You gobble up whatever the corporate mouthpieces feed you. You get the leadership you deserve.
To sum up, The rights we enjoy (including the right to view what we please) are natural, they are part of our being. They are not conferred upon us by government, and therefore cannot be withdrawn at the government's whim. Rather, government is erected by the people to secure these rights, not the other way around..
Which is a very nice philosophical point of view...right up to the point where reality rears its ugly head.
You have no rights, be they given by an invisible man in the sky or wherever else from. Zip, nada, zilch. The rights we enjoy we have because the people with the guns allow them. And so long as the people with the guns consider themselves to be in the employment of we, the people, that'll remain the status quo. We have collectively decided that these are basic rights for human beings...yet when 2 countries in Africa start sending children at one another with machetes...does that still apply?
When push comes to shove, you can have all the fancy constitions, bills of rights and other wonderful documents written by very enlightened men. When the tanks roll through the streets...none of that matters anymore. Well, I guess that isn't entirely true. You're free to think of yourself as being in pursuit of happiness, but life and liberty might turn out to be quite hard to maintain under those circumstances.
Not to mention the price for the *rest of us*.
Or is BP also going to keep every single business going tits-up thanks to their little effort afloat as long as it takes for things to go back to the situation pre-spill?