Sounds like lazy programming to me. Especially considering how common marriage is. That's great marketing: "Buy this box, and you and your wife will spend more time apart." (Well, maybe that works for most people, but I happen to prefer spending time with my wife, who likes pretty much all the same things I do.)
All those other issues you talked about -- would still exist if we bought 2 PS2s and played separately in the same room. It's not truly a function of split-screen, it is a function of being in the same room as the other player.
And netcode? Wah wah! That's definitely lazy programming. Considering the server end handles multiple connections!
Oh well -- score one for co-op / head-to-head games (which I don't really like that much; I prefer deathmatch, but Timesplitters: Future Perfect was fun, and I look forward to someday getting around to playing We Love Katamari. And if only my back injury would heal I would be playing DDR every day again.)
But losing is how you learn to play good. If you always win, you have nothing to learn. That's interesting though. Always good to know what motivates "the other side".
But party games are so lite, the point is to have fun, not to win. Fusion Frenzy, Shrek Party, Muppets Party Cruise, Pac Man party, etc, etc. Or DDR. Or racing games where you both have steering wheel controllers at once. Or strategy games (I recommend Culdcept). Must stop. Nyquil getting to me.
Of course there are exceptions to any rule, so I gave them up front. I generally do not play 1player games. In the past 1,000 hours of gaming, less than 50 hrs have been 1-player games. Happy pappy?
I wont play 1-player games. At all. Ever. None. Zero Zilch. Nada.
I can't stand watching other people play.
Well, I've played a few 1-player games... Frequency, Amplitude, Grand Theft Auto... Ultima 4... I dunno.
One of my favorite Atari 2600 games is Combat.
I had 3-computer DOOM set up in 1995. I used a BBS that allowed people with modems to play 4-player DOOM for 14 cents an hour.
I prefer 4-player games. I get really pissed off at games that offer me vs. wife via splitscreen, but when we go online, only one of us can go online. Totally ruins the whole point of online if I can't play at the same time as my wife.
Yes. Our choices are limited. I'm glad to finally be identified as a group, but I've said "I'm a social gamer" many times in the past. I've also complained that there aren't a lot of options for couples to play.
In Ocean City. On vacation. Walking around town with some friends, pretty buzzed. They told Barney to hug me. I said no. Barney started chasing me. I had to run a block to escape his clutches.
True story. I have disliked Barney significantly more since that incident.
Say what you want about the drivers... but ATI has the highest quality TV out. Since I have been using my computers almost exclusively on televisions for 11 years now, over 5 ATI cards -- this is very important to me. I'm more than willing to try out a few drivers to fix things. Once I know what driver set works, I denote that information so I don't have to go through the hassle next time I re-install (if ever.. My Windows 2000 installation is 3.5 yrs old with 280 programs installed, and still ticking..)
Now, I do use open-source drivers for my video capture card, which I had to buy when my VFW-to-WDM driver wrapper for the ATI card stopped working, preventing me from capturing video anymore. That was annoying. . .
Insightful. However, aren't there cross supports and the like that could be burned through? Like areas where the 47 (I think that's the number) beams intersect with horizontal supports? I mean the official explanation involves not the steel melting, but the supports that bind the steel to the building.
(I apologize for not being able to explain this better.)
Also -- maybe it wasn't just thermite. Maybe it was something completely different. It's kind of hard to tell when the government disposes of the evidence right away. They carted all the steel out of there and sold it as fast as possible.
One thing I would definitely not agree on is that "the collapsing started where the impact was". That would mean that floors in the middle started falling before the very top floors, and the top floors fell at the same time. The entire thing roughly fell at the same time. Many people think the pancake theory is bogus. Why would a floor collapse, unable to hold up a weight that it had been holding up for decades?. Furthremore, watching the collapse from all angles (i have videos of all angles for both towers) simply doesn't seem to show what you're saying you saw.
If the government was more forthright about things, we would not have any of these questions. But even the 9-11 comission believes the pentagon lied about the events! Damn I wish I'd added that article to my links when I read it ( http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/911 ), so that I could give you a link to it. NOW I'm frustrated!
But anyway, you made some good points about thermite. That doesn't disqualify all the other interesting facts and situations surrounding 9/11...
I think his point is that the thermite was ALREADY there. Have you seen the Larry Silverstein clip? He was the leaseholder of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. These are the only 3 steel-framed buildings to ever collapse from fire. The demolition industry uses the term "pull", as in "we pulled the building", to denote controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein said, on PBS, that they decided the loss of life was too great, so they pulled the building. He admitted that there was a controlled demolition of WTC7. This is one fo the largest mistakes in the 9-11 coverup. The clip is everywhere; I'm sure it's on youtube. I have it on my harddrive. He said it.
When you have the leaseholder admitting that WTC7 was 'pulled', the next logical question is: "How?" It takes days or weaks to set up explosive charges in advance. Therefore, they were setup in advance. If they were setup in advance for WTC7, it's not hard to realize they were set up in advance for WTC1 & WTC2 as well.
Remember, the administration knew this attack was coming. Condi Rice submitted a report basically titled "Al Queda plans to use planes to fuck us up". Okay, that's not the real title, I'm too lazy to google, but they knew this would happen. So, they planted some thermite. Osama Bin Laden was quoted saying he was surprised the towers full. Of course he was. What he did would not crash the towers. Our adminstration wanted to make the attack worse, so that they could push their agenda, make blood money, and take away our freedoms. George Bush is a greater threat to the average american's freedom than Osama Bin Ladin ever was.
You know, I have enough problems with carpal tunnel / RSI. Holding down the shift key while typing an entire word is simply MORE PAINFUL than hitting the caps lock key before and after typing the word. A 2-key extended stretch is much harder on the muscles/nerves/joints. Keep your laws off my body! (hahahaha)
And yes, I used the CAPS LOCK key to type "MORE PAINFUL" as well as "CAPS LOCK". MUCH MUCH MUCH less "work" than holding down the shift.
Oh, so it's all about accidents now? How can a priviledge to drive a car be used as justification to deny a basic right (to use your own body as you see fit), when the priviledge itself can simply be denied? AND EXPLAIN ALCOHOL. You use an anti-drug argument about a drug causing car accidents yet completely (and convenientyl) gloss over the fact that alcohol causes more accidents than anything else! (Alcohol also kills over 100 times as many people each year as all illegal drugs combined -- and that is *NOT* counting automobile accidents. Look it up. I did when I was in college. Amazing stuff you can find in the government research section of a university library.)
Furthremore, cocaine was made illegal (in response to racist attitudes against blacks) before the car was invented, as was opium (in response to racist attitudes against asians). What would you have argued then? Oh, right. You just parrot arguments from people who don't actually know, which means that back then you would have made the "black men raping white woman" argument that "your type" used circa 1890. It's a tiring re-broadcast of inaccurate groupthink that is based on hysteria.
You are just so messed up that I can't even begin to gather my thoughts for an appropriate response; you are too far gone. I pray for the sake of our species that your ideals and D.N.A. propagate as little as possible, because your thoughts alone cause harm the rest of us. The thoughts of those like you actually cause more harm, violence, and injustice than the drugs that you are so "valiantly" fighting. Millions of innocent people's lives ruined because of the attitudes of people like you who honestly don't know what the hell you are talking about. So quick to pass judgment on something you have no experience with, based on the hearsay and propaganda of others. So quick to support record trampling of rights, simply because someone told you to.
I especially find the fact that you would stop consuming alcohol if it were made illegal EXTREMLY funny, and indicative of what a spineless member of the human species you are. More spineless even than the other currently-law-abiding people who only consume alcohol, yet went to speakeasies during the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. You have no spirit of your own; you simply obey and wish others to obey too. And you never, ever, ever, would have married a black woman before 1950, because that would be illegal, and therefore you should obey. All laws should be obeyed. And Sharia (Islamic) law should be obeyed by those people too, because obeying the law of the land is the only thing that matters, right?
It's very ironic that there isn't a prohibition on alcohol or cigarettes -- considering both kill a far higher percentage of their users than pretty much every illegal drug on the market! If, say, alcohol was criminalized tomorrow, and they could actually enforce it, and marijuana was legalized tomorrow -- we would see in excess of 150,000 fewer deaths each year. But the fact that the law literally causes people to have to maek choices to kill them is just fine with you, because obeying is what's important.
I have no doubt that you'll try to dispute some of these facts, but I think I'm done arguing for now. If you wont open your eyes up to the truth, or are already too stubborn and set in your ways to possibly consider another viewpoint, there's no point wasting my time with you any further. However I can guarantee that if you do your research accurately, and from accurate sources, that you would be able to verify everything I've said. Even more terrifying to me than anything you've said is the fact that even after you did all that -- you might still believe and behave the way you do. And that in and of itself is a sad thing that lowers my hope for the entire human species. You really make me sick, and it takes a lot for me to consider another human being to be as negative as you. You'd be about as great a president as a Bush, whom I somehow suspect you would vote for simply as a function of a flawed personality.
I'm done. Good-bye, and go to hell, where you belong.
Are you implying that you do not ever drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, drink caffeine? Because if you do, then you are certainly a hypocrite. I'll type a longer response this weekend.
You have friends that do drugs, and you have co-workers that do drugs. People who do drugs don't tell stuck-up straight-edge people like yourself that they do drugs. 1 in 3 americans tries an illicit drug at some point in their life; there are more weekly pot smokers in America than homosexuals. In the mid-atlantic area where I live, in my age group, weekly pot smokers are 1 in 9. They are around you; you just don't realize it because of your arrogant attitude of "anything I don't need, no one else needs". You are naive.
Drug users need drugs like gay people need gay sex:) It's not something you can, apparantly, understand. Don't force the parameters of your life onto others. People are not all the same. I daresay your attitude is actually evil, and certainly counter to personal freedom. I shudder to think that people like you vote to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
My original analogy was not between motorcycles and cars, it was actually between bicycles & marijuana.
Anyway, I could argue that people don't need to drive, because it's a priviledge, not a right. But I'd much rather argue the fact that people do need to do drugs. That's precisely why there is a neverending demand for them. People need to be free, and domain over your own body is an important part of that. Some people prefer to hack their own conciousness rather than a computer. You can't just declare that people don't need X or Y. (And, actually, I do think driving should be a right, actually. At the very least, there should be better public transportation, but iI digress.)
I'm not sure why you're bothering to talk about motorcycle death rates. It was an analogy. YOu said, "First of all, riding a motorcycle (versus driving a car) does not at all increase the probability of injuring another person versus driving a car." That is fine, and I agree with you, but it has nothing to do with either of our points whatsoever. I just don't understand why you went into that. Then later you said, "Thirdly, using some sort of motorized vehicle is necessary for many people to whom public transportation is not available". Again, it was an analogy. We're not debating motorcycles vs. cars. I'm not, anyway. We're debating logical fallacy.
The percentages don't matter as much as you say they do. Car accidents, or motorcycle accidents, affect society as a whole with a greater amount of deaths than, say, smoking crack. Even if the percentage of crack smokers who die as a result is five times higher than the percentage of drivers -- it doesn't matter. More people still die from driving, and driving is still a greater threat to society as a whole. The percentages don't matter when assessing the damage a certain policy has on the entire country.
Now if you really want to talk mortality percentages, fine. You'll be skeptical until you look it up yourself: cocaine kills 1/3rd as many of its daily users as alcohol does, and only 1/15th as many casual users as alcohol does. (It's very easy to overdose on alcohol, I've read that the LD50 for alcohol is only about 3 times higher than the amount to intoxicate. With marijuana, for example, it's 50,000 times, and this has only been done with mice, because there has never been a marijuana overdose, ever.) Unfortunately I don't bookmark everything I read, or I'd be indexing my life instead of living it, but I have read this before, with numbers sourced from NIDA & U.S. Beareau of Mortality statistics. And percentage fatalities from marijuana? 0%. (Don't come back with the predictable 'drugged driving' response, please. That is another issue entirely. Having sex while driving is illegal, y'know. Something can be legal without being legal to drive with. Like walkmans, for example. Not allowed in VA. I've been pulled over for it.)
Everyone who rode a motorcycle rode a bicycle. Does that mean that riding a bicycle is a "gateway vehicle" to motorcyling? If so, we should keep our kids away from bicyles so that they don't grow up to drive motorcycles (which are much more dangerous than any illegal drug, and vehicular accidents kill approximately 10-20 times as many people every year [~40,000] as illegal drugs do [~3000] [look up U.S. Beareu of Mortality Statistics in your local library: I did.]
Anyway, the fallacy has some latin name that basically means "this follows that", or something to that effect. That thinking that event B coming after event A means that event A caused event B. I'd be pretty sure it would be listed in wikipedia's "logical fallacies" page.
You, sir, are an insult to freedom and the ideals this country was born on. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington -- all would bitch-slap you for what you just said.
Well, that is just too bad for Adobe then. And kind of stupid on their part.
They are alienating what's left of the market share.... That's not smart business.
(Unfortunately that doesn't mean Linux is actually any better, though.)
(But it does mean that corporations fighting each other -- Microsoft Vs. Adobe -- hurt the consumer. Capitalism is supposed to have competition helping the consumer, but clearly this isn't what is happening here...)
Slashdot Mirror
i believe it is http://www.sexualmutilatedchild.org/ .... After reading it, I changed my mind on my beliefs.
I hear that a lot. But... practice makes perfect! :) Try some less-intelligent bots to work your way up. (Hey, that's technically 1-player!)
All those other issues you talked about -- would still exist if we bought 2 PS2s and played separately in the same room. It's not truly a function of split-screen, it is a function of being in the same room as the other player.
And netcode? Wah wah! That's definitely lazy programming. Considering the server end handles multiple connections!
Oh well -- score one for co-op / head-to-head games (which I don't really like that much; I prefer deathmatch, but Timesplitters: Future Perfect was fun, and I look forward to someday getting around to playing We Love Katamari. And if only my back injury would heal I would be playing DDR every day again.)
But party games are so lite, the point is to have fun, not to win. Fusion Frenzy, Shrek Party, Muppets Party Cruise, Pac Man party, etc, etc. Or DDR. Or racing games where you both have steering wheel controllers at once. Or strategy games (I recommend Culdcept). Must stop. Nyquil getting to me.
Of course there are exceptions to any rule, so I gave them up front. I generally do not play 1player games. In the past 1,000 hours of gaming, less than 50 hrs have been 1-player games. Happy pappy?
I can't stand watching other people play.
Well, I've played a few 1-player games... Frequency, Amplitude, Grand Theft Auto... Ultima 4... I dunno.
One of my favorite Atari 2600 games is Combat.
I had 3-computer DOOM set up in 1995. I used a BBS that allowed people with modems to play 4-player DOOM for 14 cents an hour.
I prefer 4-player games. I get really pissed off at games that offer me vs. wife via splitscreen, but when we go online, only one of us can go online. Totally ruins the whole point of online if I can't play at the same time as my wife.
Yes. Our choices are limited. I'm glad to finally be identified as a group, but I've said "I'm a social gamer" many times in the past. I've also complained that there aren't a lot of options for couples to play.
And if your windows key is disabled by IHateThisKey or somesuch program, remember Ctrl-Esc = Windows key.
True story. I have disliked Barney significantly more since that incident.
You are an asshole and an enemy of freedom. I hope you get anally raped, and then die.
Now, I do use open-source drivers for my video capture card, which I had to buy when my VFW-to-WDM driver wrapper for the ATI card stopped working, preventing me from capturing video anymore. That was annoying. . .
Yea, he's wrong. The boxes were indeed found. It was the news of their findings that was somewhat suppressed.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
(I apologize for not being able to explain this better.)
Also -- maybe it wasn't just thermite. Maybe it was something completely different. It's kind of hard to tell when the government disposes of the evidence right away. They carted all the steel out of there and sold it as fast as possible.
One thing I would definitely not agree on is that "the collapsing started where the impact was". That would mean that floors in the middle started falling before the very top floors, and the top floors fell at the same time. The entire thing roughly fell at the same time. Many people think the pancake theory is bogus. Why would a floor collapse, unable to hold up a weight that it had been holding up for decades?. Furthremore, watching the collapse from all angles (i have videos of all angles for both towers) simply doesn't seem to show what you're saying you saw.
If the government was more forthright about things, we would not have any of these questions. But even the 9-11 comission believes the pentagon lied about the events! Damn I wish I'd added that article to my links when I read it ( http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/911 ), so that I could give you a link to it. NOW I'm frustrated!
But anyway, you made some good points about thermite. That doesn't disqualify all the other interesting facts and situations surrounding 9/11...
When you have the leaseholder admitting that WTC7 was 'pulled', the next logical question is: "How?" It takes days or weaks to set up explosive charges in advance. Therefore, they were setup in advance. If they were setup in advance for WTC7, it's not hard to realize they were set up in advance for WTC1 & WTC2 as well.
Remember, the administration knew this attack was coming. Condi Rice submitted a report basically titled "Al Queda plans to use planes to fuck us up". Okay, that's not the real title, I'm too lazy to google, but they knew this would happen. So, they planted some thermite. Osama Bin Laden was quoted saying he was surprised the towers full. Of course he was. What he did would not crash the towers. Our adminstration wanted to make the attack worse, so that they could push their agenda, make blood money, and take away our freedoms. George Bush is a greater threat to the average american's freedom than Osama Bin Ladin ever was.
And yes, I used the CAPS LOCK key to type "MORE PAINFUL" as well as "CAPS LOCK". MUCH MUCH MUCH less "work" than holding down the shift.
Furthremore, cocaine was made illegal (in response to racist attitudes against blacks) before the car was invented, as was opium (in response to racist attitudes against asians). What would you have argued then? Oh, right. You just parrot arguments from people who don't actually know, which means that back then you would have made the "black men raping white woman" argument that "your type" used circa 1890. It's a tiring re-broadcast of inaccurate groupthink that is based on hysteria.
You are just so messed up that I can't even begin to gather my thoughts for an appropriate response; you are too far gone. I pray for the sake of our species that your ideals and D.N.A. propagate as little as possible, because your thoughts alone cause harm the rest of us. The thoughts of those like you actually cause more harm, violence, and injustice than the drugs that you are so "valiantly" fighting. Millions of innocent people's lives ruined because of the attitudes of people like you who honestly don't know what the hell you are talking about. So quick to pass judgment on something you have no experience with, based on the hearsay and propaganda of others. So quick to support record trampling of rights, simply because someone told you to.
I especially find the fact that you would stop consuming alcohol if it were made illegal EXTREMLY funny, and indicative of what a spineless member of the human species you are. More spineless even than the other currently-law-abiding people who only consume alcohol, yet went to speakeasies during the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. You have no spirit of your own; you simply obey and wish others to obey too. And you never, ever, ever, would have married a black woman before 1950, because that would be illegal, and therefore you should obey. All laws should be obeyed. And Sharia (Islamic) law should be obeyed by those people too, because obeying the law of the land is the only thing that matters, right?
It's very ironic that there isn't a prohibition on alcohol or cigarettes -- considering both kill a far higher percentage of their users than pretty much every illegal drug on the market! If, say, alcohol was criminalized tomorrow, and they could actually enforce it, and marijuana was legalized tomorrow -- we would see in excess of 150,000 fewer deaths each year. But the fact that the law literally causes people to have to maek choices to kill them is just fine with you, because obeying is what's important.
I have no doubt that you'll try to dispute some of these facts, but I think I'm done arguing for now. If you wont open your eyes up to the truth, or are already too stubborn and set in your ways to possibly consider another viewpoint, there's no point wasting my time with you any further. However I can guarantee that if you do your research accurately, and from accurate sources, that you would be able to verify everything I've said. Even more terrifying to me than anything you've said is the fact that even after you did all that -- you might still believe and behave the way you do. And that in and of itself is a sad thing that lowers my hope for the entire human species. You really make me sick, and it takes a lot for me to consider another human being to be as negative as you. You'd be about as great a president as a Bush, whom I somehow suspect you would vote for simply as a function of a flawed personality.
I'm done. Good-bye, and go to hell, where you belong.
Are you implying that you do not ever drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, drink caffeine? Because if you do, then you are certainly a hypocrite. I'll type a longer response this weekend.
Drug users need drugs like gay people need gay sex :) It's not something you can, apparantly, understand. Don't force the parameters of your life onto others. People are not all the same. I daresay your attitude is actually evil, and certainly counter to personal freedom. I shudder to think that people like you vote to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Anyway, I could argue that people don't need to drive, because it's a priviledge, not a right. But I'd much rather argue the fact that people do need to do drugs. That's precisely why there is a neverending demand for them. People need to be free, and domain over your own body is an important part of that. Some people prefer to hack their own conciousness rather than a computer. You can't just declare that people don't need X or Y. (And, actually, I do think driving should be a right, actually. At the very least, there should be better public transportation, but iI digress.)
The percentages don't matter as much as you say they do. Car accidents, or motorcycle accidents, affect society as a whole with a greater amount of deaths than, say, smoking crack. Even if the percentage of crack smokers who die as a result is five times higher than the percentage of drivers -- it doesn't matter. More people still die from driving, and driving is still a greater threat to society as a whole. The percentages don't matter when assessing the damage a certain policy has on the entire country.
Now if you really want to talk mortality percentages, fine. You'll be skeptical until you look it up yourself: cocaine kills 1/3rd as many of its daily users as alcohol does, and only 1/15th as many casual users as alcohol does. (It's very easy to overdose on alcohol, I've read that the LD50 for alcohol is only about 3 times higher than the amount to intoxicate. With marijuana, for example, it's 50,000 times, and this has only been done with mice, because there has never been a marijuana overdose, ever.) Unfortunately I don't bookmark everything I read, or I'd be indexing my life instead of living it, but I have read this before, with numbers sourced from NIDA & U.S. Beareau of Mortality statistics. And percentage fatalities from marijuana? 0%. (Don't come back with the predictable 'drugged driving' response, please. That is another issue entirely. Having sex while driving is illegal, y'know. Something can be legal without being legal to drive with. Like walkmans, for example. Not allowed in VA. I've been pulled over for it.)
Anyway, the fallacy has some latin name that basically means "this follows that", or something to that effect. That thinking that event B coming after event A means that event A caused event B. I'd be pretty sure it would be listed in wikipedia's "logical fallacies" page.
You, sir, are an insult to freedom and the ideals this country was born on. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington -- all would bitch-slap you for what you just said.
They are alienating what's left of the market share.... That's not smart business.
(Unfortunately that doesn't mean Linux is actually any better, though.)
(But it does mean that corporations fighting each other -- Microsoft Vs. Adobe -- hurt the consumer. Capitalism is supposed to have competition helping the consumer, but clearly this isn't what is happening here...)
My point was that until Linux can adapt things properly, it sucks too.
Well, that doesn't happen for me, so my guess is you are running an inferior implementation on a less-popular OS.