Didn't they just fool the students with odd / non-standard use of symbols?
I presume that 4+3+2=( )+2 is supposed to mean the same as 4+3+2=x+2.
If they had presented the equation with x, surely (almost) everyone would have solved it?
I'm from the UK, is 4+3+2=( )+2 a commonly used / commonly understood way of presenting the problem in the US?
It depends on the context.
Most commonly you'd use an x... Not exactly sure why x is so popular, but that's what you'd normally see. And if there's a couple more variables you'd see a y and maybe a z.
But here in the US you'll frequently see something more visual before you get to actual letters as placeholders. If you just throw an x into a mathematical equation, before teaching the kid that it's supposed to be a placeholder/variable, they're not going to know what to do. Frequently you'll see introductory textbooks using an empty box instead of a letter... Or maybe empty parenthesis or brackets. It's not that unusual.
Furthermore, if you understand math, you know that something typically goes inside of parenthesis. You know that the bit inside the parenthesis would be calculated before the bit outside of the parenthesis. And you know that what is on the left should be equal to what is on the right. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what those parenthesis are doing there.
Honestly, if the problem is simply non-standard notation, that seems like an equally big issue. Are you suggesting that everybody would have done just fine if there'd been an x instead of ()? So... What if somebody picked a different symbol? What if it was an a or a q or an r? What if they used [] instead?
There's obviously some lack of understanding here. Regardless of the syntax used, it's pretty clear that the expression on the left ( 4+3+2 ) is not actually equal to the expression on the right ( ( )+2 ). Depending on the format of the test, you could maybe answer 'false'... But if they're looking for some kind of numeric response, I think it's fairly clear that you're supposed to make the two sides equal. That's what you do in math.
Are they saying the quantity denoted by the braces () is an unknown and we should solve for it.
Yes.
It's an empty pair of parenthesis. Something usually goes within in them. And we've got an equals sign... So whatever is on the left should be equal to whatever is on the right.
One cause of the problem might be the textbooks, the research shows.
Which sounds a lot like the true cause, not the students - who in my case has an honours degree in physics.
Nobody is suggesting that the students are somehow incapable of understanding an equals sign.
What is being suggested is that students are not being properly educated on what an equals sign is.
The textbooks are largely irrelevant, because they shouldn't be used in a void. You should have a teacher who is actually teaching what is contained in the textbook.
Somewhere along the line, regardless of how bad the textbook is, somebody should have explained what an equals sign means.
This is one reason why we home school...public school systems fail in so many ways.
A better solution is to find a better school. A better public school, or a private school, or a charter school, or something.
Yes, home schooling can be used to impart better information. You've got a much smaller class size. You've got more attachment to your pupil. You can devote as much time and effort to educating your kid as you feel necessary.
But home schooling pretty much fails to develop a kid's social skills. And I've always felt that one of the more important things that public schooling does is develop social skills.
Home schooled kids don't generally have to put up with schoolyard bullies. They don't have to make friends. They don't learn about compromises and sharing and common interests the way you do when you're surrounded by other people all day long. They don't learn to file the rough edges off their own personality, so that they can get along with others. They don't learn how to put up with other people's quirks and issues. They don't learn diplomacy and tact.
Yes, you can supplement your home schooling with some good social exposures... Send your kid to the park for a good chunk of the day, or get them involved in some kind of sports or clubs... But, from what I've seen, an awful lot of folks who are doing home schooling aren't interested in exposing their kids to much of anything. They're more concerned about sheltering their kid either from harm, or from opposing viewpoints.
Some of the hardest people I've had to work with are those who've been home schooled. They're generally very smart, very well-educated, and completely unable to deal with other human beings.
"was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with."
Now your equally "shocked and appalled" with how much the Obama admin. is getting away with, right?
Yes and no.
I'm not terribly shocked by the administration these days. I didn't expect Obama to live up to the hype, and I'm still numb after 8 years of Bush. That said, I'm not at all happy with what Obama is doing these days.
It's the individual Senators and Representatives who are really horrifying me these days. Yes, even those on the left side of the aisle.
Perhaps, in your opinion, Bush wasn't held all that accountable for the crap he pulled was because he was really trying to cater to the left with his domestic policies.
Nah.
I didn't like Bush's politics. I thought a lot of what he did was counter-productive. I'm generally of a more liberal bent. But that wasn't my problem with him.
I can accept that this is a democracy, and folks get out-voted. And, despite the fact that the 2000 election looked a little fishy... I'm not even one of those bitter folks who think it was all a conspiracy.
My problem was with the outright lies, blatant misinformation, and straight-up illegal things done by that administration.
Which isn't to say that he was the first president to lie... Or that his administration was the first one to do anything underhanded... Or that I think Obama is some infallible paragon of virtue...
But things seem to be going downhill.
There was a time when good, solid, investigative journalism went a long way towards keeping our politicians honest.
These days there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely resembling good, solid, investigative journalism. It's all just entertainment. Warring pundits with shiny infographics and scripted diatribes screaming about how one side or the other is going to ruin the nation.
And the few little stories here and there that actually dig in to what is really going on are completely ignored in favor of the louder and shinier opinion pieces.
When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft.
Agreed.
The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
I guess that depends on what "press" you're listening to.
I was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with. It didn't seem like anybody was holding them accountable. Sure, there was some noise about this or that... Primarily on the "liberal" channels like MSNBC... But nothing of any substance at all.
These days the "liberal" channels don't seem all that concerned about what Obama is doing. The "conservative" channels like Fox News, however, are plenty noisy. And you still get the occasional complaint out of someone on MSNBC that Obama isn't being "liberal" enough. But again it's still just noise with no substance at all.
Nobody is holding any of these folks accountable for their actions. It doesn't matter if there's a D or an R next to the name, they're all lying through their teeth and getting away with it.
Not even the usual campaign promise white lies either... Straight-up, stupidly blatant stuff like saying "I support this" on Monday, and then claiming on Tuesday that you never said you supported anything, even while the tape rolls on-screen. And nobody cares!
Cars don't need wireless sensors. In fact they don't need most of the electronics that gets built in at all. This may seem old-fashioned but for nearly a century a complicated non-electronic system called 'THE DRIVER" would monitor the state of the car and act appropriately when a deflating tyre is detected. I believe this system is moderately effective and not subject to radio spoofing.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are an awful lot of idiots driving around out there.
Folks who don't even respond when the car clearly informs them that their tires are low.
And you want to rely on these idiots to accurately sense and diagnose everything that can go wrong with their vehicles?
If they were all driving on some closed course somewhere and their assorted issues only affected them, it would be one thing. But that isn't the case. I'm sharing the road with them. And when one of them loses control of their vehicle because a part didn't get serviced and broke, it's suddenly my problem.
I don't even need ABS.
Maybe... Depending on where you live and how you drive... You might never use ABS. If you never, ever drive under any conditions where you could lose traction then you're probably correct.
But if you ever drive in rain, or on any kind of loose gravel or sand, or in the snow, or on ice, you really do need ABS.
Sure, yes, you can pump your brakes. But you can't pump the brakes on just one slipping wheel while leaving the rest of them spinning normally. And you certainly can't pump the brakes anywhere near as fast as the ABS does.
Speaking as someone who would rather not have you careen into me because you've lost control of your car - yes, you do need ABS.
Uh....I think its time to take off the rose colored glasses. Doom looks pretty god awful compared to modern games. As soon as you get too close to a wall or enemy it just falls apart. Also objects don't rotate in 3d. Doom looks like a bunch of cardboard cutouts anymore. Quaint? Surely. But to say that something like Doom 3 or Half-Life is not superior then I think you must have a really funny idea about what constitutes good graphics.
Realism is not the same as "good graphics."
Modern games are, generally speaking, more realistic visually. But that doesn't necessarily make their visuals better - just different.
It's kind of like comparing a photograph to a painting.
A painting may be less realistic, but it may evoke emotion that a photograph does not. Or it may inspire deeper thoughts. Or it may simply look more dramatic.
Similarly, I find the simple graphics of yore frequently have more impact than the realistic ones we see today. You didn't have much to work with, so everything had to be (almost literally) iconic. You had to represent your character, or a gun, or an enemy, or a bush with just a handful of pixels and a few colors. You wound up with some very simple designs that simply screamed I'm a monster or I'm a hero. Like distilling the visuals down to their most essential form.
When we can start to approach real-time ray tracing things are going to start looking a lot more natural and realistic because lighting will become far more accurate.
But is that necessarily a good thing?
Look at Dwarf Fortress. The game, by default, is pure ASCII. Even if you throw a tileset over the top of it the graphics are still incredibly primitive. But the game is tremendously fun. And folks develop quite a bit of depth and backstory around their forts and the dwarves that populate them. They happily fill in all the details with their imagination.
These days you've got games crammed full of realism. You've got enough pixels to give folks individual wrinkles, and facial hair, and scars, and jewelry, and whatever else... But a lot of the time it comes across as a soulless creation. Some kind of hollow automaton or a fabulously realistic mannequin. It looks good... But I don't necessarily find myself as engaged by the incredible graphics. Without some kind of substance to back it up, it's just a pile of pretty pictures. And frequently so much time/effort/money is spent on visuals that there isn't much left over to give depth or purpose to those visuals.
Right. Each credit represents approximately 15 minutes of playtime (hypothetically).
And then someone comes along and hadukens you a few times. So you die. And you have to use one of your credits to continue. And you die again. And again.
So those 15 minutes of playtime are all actually gone in 2 minutes.
Effectively, they've used an in-game attack to deplete your playtime.
wanting to play a game that doesn't "hurt" you doesn't make you a "pussy" it makes you a well adjusted person.
I never claimed that there was anything wrong with playing a game that doesn't hurt you. I never called anyone a pussy. I lamented the lack of challenge in modern games, nothing more.
wanting to play a game that DOES hurt you, makes you a masochist.
Trust me, playing EVE does not make you a masochist. There is absolutely nothing masochistic about internet space ships.
personally I'll just stick to starcraft. I can play a game and within about 20 minutes I either have won or lost.
I also enjoy quick and simple games... Although I've never been much of a Starcraft fan. I do enjoy Gratuitous Space Battles though.
And it doesn't give people who've played longer any advantage other than the skills they've leaned.
And neither does EVE, but you wouldn't know that, since you don't play it.
To me, games where players who've invested more time get an advantage over people just starting are for pussies. The truly hardcore are willing to leave everything up to their own skills.
If I started playing eve right now you'd be sure to completely own me. But only because you've done the grind long enough to increment some numbers in a database in Iceland.
This is one of the least-accurate things folks think they understand about EVE.
There is a finite set of skills that is actually beneficial at any given point in time. If I'm flying around in my frigate blasting people in PvP, there's only so many skills I can use. All that time I spent training battleships? Useless. All that time I spent learning how to mine? Useless. All those trade skills? Useless. Only that small set of skills that relate directly to flying and fighting in a frigate are useful.
You can max-out a finite set of skills pretty quickly. You can be damn good at flying and fighting in a frigate within a few weeks. And you'll do just as good as somebody who's been playing for years (aside from the real-world knowledge that they've gained).
Playing for years opens up more possibilities. Maybe you can fly a frigate, or a cruiser, or a battleship, or a titan... So you have more things to pick from. But once you're actually flying something specific, all those other skills become meaningless.
And somebody who's only been playing for a couple months, but they've focused on frigate skills, can kick your ass just fine.
EVE's mechanics actually make the whole "hardcore" versus "casual" discussion largely irrelevant.
In most MMOGs you only progress while you're logged in. So somebody who is willing to log in and play for 12 hours a day has an advantage over someone who only plays 1 hour a day.
In EVE, training happens in real time. If the two of us start a skill training at the same time, and then you play for 12 hours a day and I only play for 1 hour a day, we'll both finish training that skill at the same time (assuming our stats are the same). You can even earn ISK while you're offline.
So, unlike most MMOGs out there, I don't have to log in every single day to make progress.
And surprise, newer games are getting more players.
Which isn't really relevant.
Different strokes for different folks and all that.
I enjoy a game where I feel like there's a real challenge. I enjoy the cutthroat environment that EVE provides. Others don't.
I don't have a problem with that.
I'm not going to suggest that all games should be built like EVE. I wish other folks (not necessarily you) would stop suggesting that all games should be built like WoW.
You don't have to have a terminal case of testosterone poisoning to play anymore.
In which case, all you had to do is read the numerous responses. Not post your own complaining about the lack of definitions.
I'd just as soon not go digging around to find some wiki article or website that explains it all on five different pages when I was pretty sure someone familiar with the game could give a better description here.
Did I suggest you go read any wiki? Did I suggest that you go read anything more than the summary and the article itself? An article which you had obviously read, since the summary here on Slashdot made no mention at all of CCP or ISK.
to get angry that I don't particularly care about the game enough to spend more than 5 minutes reading about it.
I do enjoy EVE, but that's pretty much irrelevant to my response.
My criticism was of your apparent lack of reading comprehension. Not how interested you were, or weren't, in the subject of the discussion.
In other online games things like that are special, in that they can't be destroyed unless specifically called for. As in times when you use them, never at any other time. Sure it breaks the narrative a bit, but it ensures that this sort of thing only happens when you turn the items over to scammers.
Lots of other online games have all sorts of restrictions to make sure you don't do something stupid.
EVE isn't one of those games.
If you want to do something stupid, you are free to.
The only reason I even started playing EVE was because its not a pussied out game where you basically do nothing but grind and even death has no real loss to it.
Indeed.
Games these days seem to be getting easier, simpler, less challenging.
I remember getting killed in EverQuest and being welcomed back to my previous level because I'd lost enough XP to de-level. And then I had to run back, naked, to recover my corpse.
These days getting killed is barely even a speedbump. If you get killed in WoW it'll cost you some in-game gold, and nothing else. No time lost. No gear lost. No real pain at all. Hardly any real reason to avoid dying. Hell, folks will even use the death mechanics to travel through areas that would normally be impassable. Can you imagine stripping off your armor and dying repeatedly just to make it to the next town in EverQuest? You'd be back down to level 1 by the time you made it there.
EVE not only makes it hurt to get killed again... But gives you plenty of tools to avoid that fate. If you die, it really is your own damn fault. And this is coming from someone who has died plenty of times.
It is designed specially for people who love to make others miserable. It is a griefer's paradise.
I enjoy EVE. I do not like to make other miserable. "Griefing" - as it is generally defined in other MMOs - simply doesn't exist in EVE.
One of the main things would be the destructibility of so much in the game that takes so much time to get. You can lose nearly everything under the right circumstances.
You can... But you have to allow those circumstances to occur.
Unless you're trading your stuff away, nobody can steal your stuff inside a station.
And if you undock with something you cannot afford to lose, that's your own fault.
It would be like a single player game that goes and deletes your saves if you screw up.
So, something like hardcore mode in Diablo II or Torchlight? Or the normal behavior of just about any Rogue-like?
Also there's a real caste type system in that it takes real time to increase skills, as in you set the game to increase a skill and after a fixed amount of Earth time has passed it does. As such those that got in early have a permanent advantage.
This is a very common misconception.
Once I've trained a specific skill to 5/5, there's no further way to improve that skill.
So I train my missiles to 5/5 and they're going to do as much damage as possible. I can keep playing the game for another year, but those missiles aren't going to do any more damage. I can train my lasers to 5/5, and my guns, and my engines, and whatever else... But those missiles aren't getting any better.
Folks who've been playing for years aren't necessarily "better", they just have more options. They can choose to use things other than simply missiles. But if it comes down to a straight missile versus missile fight, they're on equal footing with anyone else who has trained it to 5/5.
It is a kind of game that most people would really hate, however it appeals to a small subset of gamers. Those that derive their pleasure from causing pain to others love it.
How do you explain, then, the nurturing environment surrounding EVE? There are some truly terrific people who play EVE. Kind, caring folks. I've met some absolutely terrific people playing EVE.
I can't explain why people like that kind of thing but there you go. For them, there is EVE. For everyone else, there is WoW:D.
That seems to be an awfully narrow view...
So, either you enjoy causing others pain, or you play a very simple fantasy MMOG?
What about City of Heroes? Or Guild Wars? Or EverQuest?
Honestly, things aren't nearly as black and white as you portray them.
CCP? ISK? PLEX? Can someone maybe translate this into English? Or at least give some sort of three line tutorial so those of us who've never ventured into the game can at least know what's going on. That article is clearly written for people who play the game regularly. If you want me to be indignant, angry, belligerent, uncaring, etc. about it I'd like to at least understand what's going on.
Help?
Seriously?
The summary here on Slashdot explains what a PLEX is pretty clearly.
The player in question was carrying 74 PLEX in their ship's cargo hold — in-game 'Pilot's License Extensions' that award 30 days of EVE Online time when used on your account.
It is certainly true that neither "CCP" nor "ISK" are explicitly defined anywhere...
But you could probably infer what both of them are just from the context in the article.
Like many MMOs, EVE Online has a problem with players buying ISK from shady websites to short-cut the ISK-making process. On the other end of the spectrum, many players are great at making ISK but unable to afford the monthly subscription.
This strongly suggests that ISK are some kind of in-game currency, like gold or rupees or gil or whatever else.
To kill two birds with one stone, CCP created PLEX. Sixty-day game time codes purchased for cash can be converted into two 30-day Pilots License Extensions, which become items in the game.
This suggests that CCP created PLEX - an in-game item that is redeemable for subscription time. So it must be somebody with the authority to create in-game items and redeem subscription time. Either the game's publisher or developer.
I mean, really... As far as Slashdot summaries go, this one is pretty damn good. And if you go read the article (which you had to do, because neither CCP nor ISK appears anywhere in the summary) it's fairly clear what they're talking about from the context.
The right headline for this article is, "CCP takes $1200 from subscriber."
I'm trying to imagine if Blizzard created a World of Warcraft monster that could eat your monthly subscription if it killed you. Players would be furious, and accuse Blizzard of stealing from them. By setting up the system so that PLEX can be destroyed, CCP is doing the same thing.
But in the cutthroat capitalism uber alles world of EVE, it's all part of the game.
This is just one isolated incident, but I assume ships carrying small quantities of PLEX get destroyed all the time. Can anyone estimate how much real money CCP earns from this?
You are correct in that EVE is a cutthroat game.
The first rule of EVE is that you do not undock with anything you cannot afford to lose. Ships, weapons, implants, PLEXes... It doesn't matter. If you leave the station it is entirely possible that you will lose those items.
If you undock with a PLEX in your hold, you're accepting that it may not remain in your possession.
Nobody is forcing anyone to undock with PLEXes in their hold. Certainly not 74 of them.
Wow, that seems pretty harsh. It's one thing to destroy in-game things that took time to build, and call that a loss of the real-world assets that you had to spend in order to build those objects. But to create a game such that your future assets are vulnerable to in-game attack is really too harsh.
Future assets? What future assets?
It's as though in Street Fighter II you could execute a special move that would decrement your opponents' Credits, instead of their health meter.
In SF2 you fight until defeated. If you are a good player, and remain undefeated, you can keep playing all day long. If somebody better than you comes along and defeats you, your game is over and you must pay more to continue.
If you're playing against folks who are worse than you, $0.25 == 3 hours of playtime.
If you're playing against folks who are better than you, $0.25 == 5 minutes of playtime.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you just described?
They should made so the only way to lose it was trade or useing it for time this opens the door for the law to come in and for real world jails and courts for in game stuff.
No money changed hands. No real, physical items were lost.
Somebody originally purchased a game time card. They redeemed this card for a couple in-game PLEXes. At this point they basically have no monetary value. You can redeem them for a couple months of playtime, but you can't turn them back into cash.
As far as any police are concerned, those game time cards have been spent/redeemed. They no longer exist.
the system is set up that you can't take PLEX outside of a station (or at least thats how it was about 3 months ago).
This is no longer true. PLEXes are treated just like any other item now. You can haul them around wherever you like. They are no longer stuck in a station.
Interesting... it almost sounds like a 'gift card' type situation, in which case there are some fairly decent consumer protection laws depending on the state (ie, in CA they are transferable and never expire). It would be an interesting lawsuit if the player tried to claim they were equivalent and that by allowing them to be permanently "destroyed" the company was cancelling/expiring the certificates (though I doubt any lawyer would take it unless it was common enough that they were able to establish a class action).
It isn't a gift card, it's an in-game item. Same as any other item in the game. Subject to the same rules and regulations as any other item in the game.
In EVE, this means that you don't undock unless you can afford to lose it.
You certainly don't undock with 74 of them in your hold unless you're damn sure you can afford to lose it.
Nobody forced anyone to haul even a single PLEX out of the station.
Exactly. Digital information can be destroyed with a click of a button. It's called backups, don't put all your eggs in one basket and backups.
That has basically no relevance to this story.
The ship was carrying PLEXes. They're in-game items representing a one month subscription. You purchase them with real money, and get an in-game item, that you can then sell for in-game money.
This allows people to fund their EVE addition without having to pay real money.
It allows people with lots of real money to burn to get lots of in-game money to burn.
And there is absolutely no way to make a backup of a PLEX.
No, it isn't very smart to carry all 74 of them with you at one time. You certainly shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket. But you cannot create a backup.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't they just fool the students with odd / non-standard use of symbols?
I presume that 4+3+2=( )+2 is supposed to mean the same as 4+3+2=x+2.
If they had presented the equation with x, surely (almost) everyone would have solved it?
I'm from the UK, is 4+3+2=( )+2 a commonly used / commonly understood way of presenting the problem in the US?
It depends on the context.
Most commonly you'd use an x... Not exactly sure why x is so popular, but that's what you'd normally see. And if there's a couple more variables you'd see a y and maybe a z.
But here in the US you'll frequently see something more visual before you get to actual letters as placeholders. If you just throw an x into a mathematical equation, before teaching the kid that it's supposed to be a placeholder/variable, they're not going to know what to do. Frequently you'll see introductory textbooks using an empty box instead of a letter... Or maybe empty parenthesis or brackets. It's not that unusual.
Furthermore, if you understand math, you know that something typically goes inside of parenthesis. You know that the bit inside the parenthesis would be calculated before the bit outside of the parenthesis. And you know that what is on the left should be equal to what is on the right. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what those parenthesis are doing there.
Honestly, if the problem is simply non-standard notation, that seems like an equally big issue. Are you suggesting that everybody would have done just fine if there'd been an x instead of ()? So... What if somebody picked a different symbol? What if it was an a or a q or an r? What if they used [] instead?
There's obviously some lack of understanding here. Regardless of the syntax used, it's pretty clear that the expression on the left ( 4+3+2 ) is not actually equal to the expression on the right ( ( )+2 ). Depending on the format of the test, you could maybe answer 'false'... But if they're looking for some kind of numeric response, I think it's fairly clear that you're supposed to make the two sides equal. That's what you do in math.
Are they saying the quantity denoted by the braces () is an unknown and we should solve for it.
Yes.
It's an empty pair of parenthesis. Something usually goes within in them. And we've got an equals sign... So whatever is on the left should be equal to whatever is on the right.
One cause of the problem might be the textbooks, the research shows.
Which sounds a lot like the true cause, not the students - who in my case has an honours degree in physics.
Nobody is suggesting that the students are somehow incapable of understanding an equals sign.
What is being suggested is that students are not being properly educated on what an equals sign is.
The textbooks are largely irrelevant, because they shouldn't be used in a void. You should have a teacher who is actually teaching what is contained in the textbook.
Somewhere along the line, regardless of how bad the textbook is, somebody should have explained what an equals sign means.
This is one reason why we home school...public school systems fail in so many ways.
A better solution is to find a better school. A better public school, or a private school, or a charter school, or something.
Yes, home schooling can be used to impart better information. You've got a much smaller class size. You've got more attachment to your pupil. You can devote as much time and effort to educating your kid as you feel necessary.
But home schooling pretty much fails to develop a kid's social skills. And I've always felt that one of the more important things that public schooling does is develop social skills.
Home schooled kids don't generally have to put up with schoolyard bullies. They don't have to make friends. They don't learn about compromises and sharing and common interests the way you do when you're surrounded by other people all day long. They don't learn to file the rough edges off their own personality, so that they can get along with others. They don't learn how to put up with other people's quirks and issues. They don't learn diplomacy and tact.
Yes, you can supplement your home schooling with some good social exposures... Send your kid to the park for a good chunk of the day, or get them involved in some kind of sports or clubs... But, from what I've seen, an awful lot of folks who are doing home schooling aren't interested in exposing their kids to much of anything. They're more concerned about sheltering their kid either from harm, or from opposing viewpoints.
Some of the hardest people I've had to work with are those who've been home schooled. They're generally very smart, very well-educated, and completely unable to deal with other human beings.
I was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with.
That's because you're a rube.
Both "parties" want the same thing. Obama's policies are the same as Bush, and likewise he's getting "away with" it.
Why is it that when you express displeasure at how Bush did things, everyone assumes you must just love what Obama is doing?
Did you actually read the things I wrote?
I'm not happy with any of them.
@Ephemeriis:
"was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with."
Now your equally "shocked and appalled" with how much the Obama admin. is getting away with, right?
Yes and no.
I'm not terribly shocked by the administration these days. I didn't expect Obama to live up to the hype, and I'm still numb after 8 years of Bush. That said, I'm not at all happy with what Obama is doing these days.
It's the individual Senators and Representatives who are really horrifying me these days. Yes, even those on the left side of the aisle.
Perhaps, in your opinion, Bush wasn't held all that accountable for the crap he pulled was because he was really trying to cater to the left with his domestic policies.
Nah.
I didn't like Bush's politics. I thought a lot of what he did was counter-productive. I'm generally of a more liberal bent. But that wasn't my problem with him.
I can accept that this is a democracy, and folks get out-voted. And, despite the fact that the 2000 election looked a little fishy... I'm not even one of those bitter folks who think it was all a conspiracy.
My problem was with the outright lies, blatant misinformation, and straight-up illegal things done by that administration.
Which isn't to say that he was the first president to lie... Or that his administration was the first one to do anything underhanded... Or that I think Obama is some infallible paragon of virtue...
But things seem to be going downhill.
There was a time when good, solid, investigative journalism went a long way towards keeping our politicians honest.
These days there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely resembling good, solid, investigative journalism. It's all just entertainment. Warring pundits with shiny infographics and scripted diatribes screaming about how one side or the other is going to ruin the nation.
And the few little stories here and there that actually dig in to what is really going on are completely ignored in favor of the louder and shinier opinion pieces.
When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft.
Agreed.
The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
I guess that depends on what "press" you're listening to.
I was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with. It didn't seem like anybody was holding them accountable. Sure, there was some noise about this or that... Primarily on the "liberal" channels like MSNBC... But nothing of any substance at all.
These days the "liberal" channels don't seem all that concerned about what Obama is doing. The "conservative" channels like Fox News, however, are plenty noisy. And you still get the occasional complaint out of someone on MSNBC that Obama isn't being "liberal" enough. But again it's still just noise with no substance at all.
Nobody is holding any of these folks accountable for their actions. It doesn't matter if there's a D or an R next to the name, they're all lying through their teeth and getting away with it.
Not even the usual campaign promise white lies either... Straight-up, stupidly blatant stuff like saying "I support this" on Monday, and then claiming on Tuesday that you never said you supported anything, even while the tape rolls on-screen. And nobody cares!
Cars don't need wireless sensors. In fact they don't need most of the electronics that gets built in at all. This may seem old-fashioned but for nearly a century a complicated non-electronic system called 'THE DRIVER" would monitor the state of the car and act appropriately when a deflating tyre is detected. I believe this system is moderately effective and not subject to radio spoofing.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are an awful lot of idiots driving around out there.
Folks who don't even respond when the car clearly informs them that their tires are low.
And you want to rely on these idiots to accurately sense and diagnose everything that can go wrong with their vehicles?
If they were all driving on some closed course somewhere and their assorted issues only affected them, it would be one thing. But that isn't the case. I'm sharing the road with them. And when one of them loses control of their vehicle because a part didn't get serviced and broke, it's suddenly my problem.
I don't even need ABS.
Maybe... Depending on where you live and how you drive... You might never use ABS. If you never, ever drive under any conditions where you could lose traction then you're probably correct.
But if you ever drive in rain, or on any kind of loose gravel or sand, or in the snow, or on ice, you really do need ABS.
Sure, yes, you can pump your brakes. But you can't pump the brakes on just one slipping wheel while leaving the rest of them spinning normally. And you certainly can't pump the brakes anywhere near as fast as the ABS does.
Speaking as someone who would rather not have you careen into me because you've lost control of your car - yes, you do need ABS.
Uh....I think its time to take off the rose colored glasses. Doom looks pretty god awful compared to modern games. As soon as you get too close to a wall or enemy it just falls apart. Also objects don't rotate in 3d. Doom looks like a bunch of cardboard cutouts anymore. Quaint? Surely. But to say that something like Doom 3 or Half-Life is not superior then I think you must have a really funny idea about what constitutes good graphics.
Realism is not the same as "good graphics."
Modern games are, generally speaking, more realistic visually. But that doesn't necessarily make their visuals better - just different.
It's kind of like comparing a photograph to a painting.
A painting may be less realistic, but it may evoke emotion that a photograph does not. Or it may inspire deeper thoughts. Or it may simply look more dramatic.
Similarly, I find the simple graphics of yore frequently have more impact than the realistic ones we see today. You didn't have much to work with, so everything had to be (almost literally) iconic. You had to represent your character, or a gun, or an enemy, or a bush with just a handful of pixels and a few colors. You wound up with some very simple designs that simply screamed I'm a monster or I'm a hero. Like distilling the visuals down to their most essential form.
When we can start to approach real-time ray tracing things are going to start looking a lot more natural and realistic because lighting will become far more accurate.
But is that necessarily a good thing?
Look at Dwarf Fortress. The game, by default, is pure ASCII. Even if you throw a tileset over the top of it the graphics are still incredibly primitive. But the game is tremendously fun. And folks develop quite a bit of depth and backstory around their forts and the dwarves that populate them. They happily fill in all the details with their imagination.
These days you've got games crammed full of realism. You've got enough pixels to give folks individual wrinkles, and facial hair, and scars, and jewelry, and whatever else... But a lot of the time it comes across as a soulless creation. Some kind of hollow automaton or a fabulously realistic mannequin. It looks good... But I don't necessarily find myself as engaged by the incredible graphics. Without some kind of substance to back it up, it's just a pile of pretty pictures. And frequently so much time/effort/money is spent on visuals that there isn't much left over to give depth or purpose to those visuals.
Each credit represents future playtime
Right. Each credit represents approximately 15 minutes of playtime (hypothetically).
And then someone comes along and hadukens you a few times. So you die. And you have to use one of your credits to continue. And you die again. And again.
So those 15 minutes of playtime are all actually gone in 2 minutes.
Effectively, they've used an in-game attack to deplete your playtime.
wanting to play a game that doesn't "hurt" you doesn't make you a "pussy" it makes you a well adjusted person.
I never claimed that there was anything wrong with playing a game that doesn't hurt you. I never called anyone a pussy. I lamented the lack of challenge in modern games, nothing more.
wanting to play a game that DOES hurt you, makes you a masochist.
Trust me, playing EVE does not make you a masochist. There is absolutely nothing masochistic about internet space ships.
personally I'll just stick to starcraft. I can play a game and within about 20 minutes I either have won or lost.
I also enjoy quick and simple games... Although I've never been much of a Starcraft fan. I do enjoy Gratuitous Space Battles though.
And it doesn't give people who've played longer any advantage other than the skills they've leaned.
And neither does EVE, but you wouldn't know that, since you don't play it.
To me, games where players who've invested more time get an advantage over people just starting are for pussies. The truly hardcore are willing to leave everything up to their own skills.
If I started playing eve right now you'd be sure to completely own me. But only because you've done the grind long enough to increment some numbers in a database in Iceland.
This is one of the least-accurate things folks think they understand about EVE.
There is a finite set of skills that is actually beneficial at any given point in time. If I'm flying around in my frigate blasting people in PvP, there's only so many skills I can use. All that time I spent training battleships? Useless. All that time I spent learning how to mine? Useless. All those trade skills? Useless. Only that small set of skills that relate directly to flying and fighting in a frigate are useful.
You can max-out a finite set of skills pretty quickly. You can be damn good at flying and fighting in a frigate within a few weeks. And you'll do just as good as somebody who's been playing for years (aside from the real-world knowledge that they've gained).
Playing for years opens up more possibilities. Maybe you can fly a frigate, or a cruiser, or a battleship, or a titan... So you have more things to pick from. But once you're actually flying something specific, all those other skills become meaningless.
And somebody who's only been playing for a couple months, but they've focused on frigate skills, can kick your ass just fine.
EVE's mechanics actually make the whole "hardcore" versus "casual" discussion largely irrelevant.
In most MMOGs you only progress while you're logged in. So somebody who is willing to log in and play for 12 hours a day has an advantage over someone who only plays 1 hour a day.
In EVE, training happens in real time. If the two of us start a skill training at the same time, and then you play for 12 hours a day and I only play for 1 hour a day, we'll both finish training that skill at the same time (assuming our stats are the same). You can even earn ISK while you're offline.
So, unlike most MMOGs out there, I don't have to log in every single day to make progress.
And surprise, newer games are getting more players.
Which isn't really relevant.
Different strokes for different folks and all that.
I enjoy a game where I feel like there's a real challenge. I enjoy the cutthroat environment that EVE provides. Others don't.
I don't have a problem with that.
I'm not going to suggest that all games should be built like EVE. I wish other folks (not necessarily you) would stop suggesting that all games should be built like WoW.
You don't have to have a terminal case of testosterone poisoning to play anymore.
What does testosterone have to do with anything?
I wanted background on what all this is.
In which case, all you had to do is read the numerous responses. Not post your own complaining about the lack of definitions.
I'd just as soon not go digging around to find some wiki article or website that explains it all on five different pages when I was pretty sure someone familiar with the game could give a better description here.
Did I suggest you go read any wiki? Did I suggest that you go read anything more than the summary and the article itself? An article which you had obviously read, since the summary here on Slashdot made no mention at all of CCP or ISK.
to get angry that I don't particularly care about the game enough to spend more than 5 minutes reading about it.
I do enjoy EVE, but that's pretty much irrelevant to my response.
My criticism was of your apparent lack of reading comprehension. Not how interested you were, or weren't, in the subject of the discussion.
In other online games things like that are special, in that they can't be destroyed unless specifically called for. As in times when you use them, never at any other time. Sure it breaks the narrative a bit, but it ensures that this sort of thing only happens when you turn the items over to scammers.
Lots of other online games have all sorts of restrictions to make sure you don't do something stupid.
EVE isn't one of those games.
If you want to do something stupid, you are free to.
The only reason I even started playing EVE was because its not a pussied out game where you basically do nothing but grind and even death has no real loss to it.
Indeed.
Games these days seem to be getting easier, simpler, less challenging.
I remember getting killed in EverQuest and being welcomed back to my previous level because I'd lost enough XP to de-level. And then I had to run back, naked, to recover my corpse.
These days getting killed is barely even a speedbump. If you get killed in WoW it'll cost you some in-game gold, and nothing else. No time lost. No gear lost. No real pain at all. Hardly any real reason to avoid dying. Hell, folks will even use the death mechanics to travel through areas that would normally be impassable. Can you imagine stripping off your armor and dying repeatedly just to make it to the next town in EverQuest? You'd be back down to level 1 by the time you made it there.
EVE not only makes it hurt to get killed again... But gives you plenty of tools to avoid that fate. If you die, it really is your own damn fault. And this is coming from someone who has died plenty of times.
It is designed specially for people who love to make others miserable. It is a griefer's paradise.
I enjoy EVE. I do not like to make other miserable. "Griefing" - as it is generally defined in other MMOs - simply doesn't exist in EVE.
One of the main things would be the destructibility of so much in the game that takes so much time to get. You can lose nearly everything under the right circumstances.
You can... But you have to allow those circumstances to occur.
Unless you're trading your stuff away, nobody can steal your stuff inside a station.
And if you undock with something you cannot afford to lose, that's your own fault.
It would be like a single player game that goes and deletes your saves if you screw up.
So, something like hardcore mode in Diablo II or Torchlight? Or the normal behavior of just about any Rogue-like?
Also there's a real caste type system in that it takes real time to increase skills, as in you set the game to increase a skill and after a fixed amount of Earth time has passed it does. As such those that got in early have a permanent advantage.
This is a very common misconception.
Once I've trained a specific skill to 5/5, there's no further way to improve that skill.
So I train my missiles to 5/5 and they're going to do as much damage as possible. I can keep playing the game for another year, but those missiles aren't going to do any more damage. I can train my lasers to 5/5, and my guns, and my engines, and whatever else... But those missiles aren't getting any better.
Folks who've been playing for years aren't necessarily "better", they just have more options. They can choose to use things other than simply missiles. But if it comes down to a straight missile versus missile fight, they're on equal footing with anyone else who has trained it to 5/5.
It is a kind of game that most people would really hate, however it appeals to a small subset of gamers. Those that derive their pleasure from causing pain to others love it.
How do you explain, then, the nurturing environment surrounding EVE? There are some truly terrific people who play EVE. Kind, caring folks. I've met some absolutely terrific people playing EVE.
I can't explain why people like that kind of thing but there you go. For them, there is EVE. For everyone else, there is WoW :D.
That seems to be an awfully narrow view...
So, either you enjoy causing others pain, or you play a very simple fantasy MMOG?
What about City of Heroes? Or Guild Wars? Or EverQuest?
Honestly, things aren't nearly as black and white as you portray them.
I see most MMOs as a race where they keep moving the finish line further away.
That's the nice thing about EVE... There is no finish line.
Or, at least, no objective one.
Depending on what you want to accomplish, you can "beat" the game on day 1.
CCP? ISK? PLEX? Can someone maybe translate this into English? Or at least give some sort of three line tutorial so those of us who've never ventured into the game can at least know what's going on. That article is clearly written for people who play the game regularly. If you want me to be indignant, angry, belligerent, uncaring, etc. about it I'd like to at least understand what's going on.
Help?
Seriously?
The summary here on Slashdot explains what a PLEX is pretty clearly.
The player in question was carrying 74 PLEX in their ship's cargo hold — in-game 'Pilot's License Extensions' that award 30 days of EVE Online time when used on your account.
It is certainly true that neither "CCP" nor "ISK" are explicitly defined anywhere...
But you could probably infer what both of them are just from the context in the article.
Like many MMOs, EVE Online has a problem with players buying ISK from shady websites to short-cut the ISK-making process. On the other end of the spectrum, many players are great at making ISK but unable to afford the monthly subscription.
This strongly suggests that ISK are some kind of in-game currency, like gold or rupees or gil or whatever else.
To kill two birds with one stone, CCP created PLEX. Sixty-day game time codes purchased for cash can be converted into two 30-day Pilots License Extensions, which become items in the game.
This suggests that CCP created PLEX - an in-game item that is redeemable for subscription time. So it must be somebody with the authority to create in-game items and redeem subscription time. Either the game's publisher or developer.
I mean, really... As far as Slashdot summaries go, this one is pretty damn good. And if you go read the article (which you had to do, because neither CCP nor ISK appears anywhere in the summary) it's fairly clear what they're talking about from the context.
The right headline for this article is, "CCP takes $1200 from subscriber."
I'm trying to imagine if Blizzard created a World of Warcraft monster that could eat your monthly subscription if it killed you. Players would be furious, and accuse Blizzard of stealing from them. By setting up the system so that PLEX can be destroyed, CCP is doing the same thing.
But in the cutthroat capitalism uber alles world of EVE, it's all part of the game.
This is just one isolated incident, but I assume ships carrying small quantities of PLEX get destroyed all the time. Can anyone estimate how much real money CCP earns from this?
You are correct in that EVE is a cutthroat game.
The first rule of EVE is that you do not undock with anything you cannot afford to lose. Ships, weapons, implants, PLEXes... It doesn't matter. If you leave the station it is entirely possible that you will lose those items.
If you undock with a PLEX in your hold, you're accepting that it may not remain in your possession.
Nobody is forcing anyone to undock with PLEXes in their hold. Certainly not 74 of them.
This may fail under them and the lost ones may have to be given back to him.
There is no gift card.
The gift card that was originally purchased was redeemed when it was turned into PLEXes.
That gift card no longer exists.
Wow, that seems pretty harsh. It's one thing to destroy in-game things that took time to build, and call that a loss of the real-world assets that you had to spend in order to build those objects. But to create a game such that your future assets are vulnerable to in-game attack is really too harsh.
Future assets? What future assets?
It's as though in Street Fighter II you could execute a special move that would decrement your opponents' Credits, instead of their health meter.
In SF2 you fight until defeated. If you are a good player, and remain undefeated, you can keep playing all day long. If somebody better than you comes along and defeats you, your game is over and you must pay more to continue.
If you're playing against folks who are worse than you, $0.25 == 3 hours of playtime.
If you're playing against folks who are better than you, $0.25 == 5 minutes of playtime.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you just described?
They should made so the only way to lose it was trade or useing it for time this opens the door for the law to come in and for real world jails and courts for in game stuff.
No money changed hands. No real, physical items were lost.
Somebody originally purchased a game time card. They redeemed this card for a couple in-game PLEXes. At this point they basically have no monetary value. You can redeem them for a couple months of playtime, but you can't turn them back into cash.
As far as any police are concerned, those game time cards have been spent/redeemed. They no longer exist.
the system is set up that you can't take PLEX outside of a station (or at least thats how it was about 3 months ago).
This is no longer true. PLEXes are treated just like any other item now. You can haul them around wherever you like. They are no longer stuck in a station.
Interesting... it almost sounds like a 'gift card' type situation, in which case there are some fairly decent consumer protection laws depending on the state (ie, in CA they are transferable and never expire). It would be an interesting lawsuit if the player tried to claim they were equivalent and that by allowing them to be permanently "destroyed" the company was cancelling/expiring the certificates (though I doubt any lawyer would take it unless it was common enough that they were able to establish a class action).
It isn't a gift card, it's an in-game item. Same as any other item in the game. Subject to the same rules and regulations as any other item in the game.
In EVE, this means that you don't undock unless you can afford to lose it.
You certainly don't undock with 74 of them in your hold unless you're damn sure you can afford to lose it.
Nobody forced anyone to haul even a single PLEX out of the station.
Exactly. Digital information can be destroyed with a click of a button. It's called backups, don't put all your eggs in one basket and backups.
That has basically no relevance to this story.
The ship was carrying PLEXes. They're in-game items representing a one month subscription. You purchase them with real money, and get an in-game item, that you can then sell for in-game money.
This allows people to fund their EVE addition without having to pay real money.
It allows people with lots of real money to burn to get lots of in-game money to burn.
And there is absolutely no way to make a backup of a PLEX.
No, it isn't very smart to carry all 74 of them with you at one time. You certainly shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket. But you cannot create a backup.