I think he's referring to 2 things: - The massive (at the time) system requirements - The repetitive gameplay (turn corner; monster jumps out of hiding; rinse & repeat) It wasn't even the high system requirements. It was that, well, Doom 3 just wasn't Doom. I spent many a night playing Doom and Doom II. I absolutely loved those games. And Doom 3 was DINO... Doom In Name Only. None of the monsters or demons looked like Doom monsters and demons, and they weren't an improvement. And in an attempt to make the game scary, they made everything too dark, which more often than not, just made Doom 3 frustrating instead.
I don't want to stumble around in the dark with generic monsters. I want to take badass weapons and go into the pits of hell (or hell on earth), and fight off legions of imps, cacodemons, and Baron's of Hell. Real Doom characters.
Doom 3 just didn't look, feel, and play like Doom. Want to make a good Doom game for version four? Go back to Final Doom, and recreate that exactly, but with finer graphics and movement options.
"Works is a real piece of work, FYI... my signature heavily applies to that software in this case. "
While Microsoft justifiably gets ripped for their bad software (Hello Windows Vista, the Biblical Plague of operating systems), the fact is they make some really good software too. Sharepoint is popular for a reason. Office had marketing help beating out Wordperfect Suite, but frankly, it was better than WS. Windows Server 2003 was good, and Server 2008 looks like it may be great. So it's not like Microsoft doesn't do anything right. And Works has always been one of their better products, IMHO. I think that had they not pushed Office so heavily in the 90's, Works would be more popular today, even for small businesses. It's always been light, fast, and stable for me. In the mid 90's, I did most of my college work in Works... term papers, spreadsheets... it's simple, easy to learn, and cheap, all of which are great virtues for a student. Before the advent of free office alternatives like Open Office, if you didn't have access to MS Office (which was still expensive), Works was by far your best bet. Otherwise, you just had typewriters or simple text editors like Notepad and Wordpad on Windows. I used Works 3.0 for DOS, Works 4.0 on Windows 95, and then Works 4.5 on Windows 98. I've got fond memories of using them. I loved the old unified base code model that MS used for Works from 1.0 to 4.5; it made Works incredibly fast on just about any hardware.
Microsoft made some hellish software, but Works was not among them. I've still got Works 6 on a home PC that my son uses for school papers as well.
That limit would be generous for the vast majority of their users, and you can always get another provider. Keep in mind that the people they're targeting with this are using up more bandwidth than some higher cost business accounts. If you want unlimited bandwidth per month, then buy a more expensive plan.
they've spent a fortune on litigation, to obtain a judgement they can't collect on & a worthless injunction, against a site that was never any good in the first place and shut down a few month ago anyway.
More fool them. They never expected to collect any money. This was all about sending a message to other Torrent sites and P2P networks. "We've got legal precedent and unlimited resources. We're coming after you."
look like the Six Apart place, only less well decorated. I hate cube farms and am glad they're not the fashion in the UK. Open Plan for the win. As far as I'm concerned, most "open" workspaces are nothing but a variance on the cubicle model. I count myself very lucky indeed to have an office and that I never had to do time in a cubicle myself. And knowing too many people that had (and still have to) work in that kind of set up, "doing time" is exactly what I consider it.
So you're saying for all that the TSA exists only to violate the US Constitution, "they're good people at heart who are only following orders". Yeah. The TSA doesn't violate the Constitution unless courts say they do. And courts haven't ruled that way. Flying on airplanes... a private business regulated by the federal government... isn't a right last time I checked. So its well within federal power to regulate security at airports.
Now, is the TSA approach the wisest one to take? No, personally, I don't think so. But "unwise" doesn't equal "unconstitutional", and claiming that its so destroys your argument.
"All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.""
And where was he wrong on this?
Multiple Wives
Female Circumcision
A culture of allowing slavery of non-Abrahmic peoples
And of course, the big one, Sharia.
So tell me how many of those things you'd tolerate a western country allowing? Fess up and be honest.
I'd guess you're pretty big on the concept of separation of Church and State, correct? Then why are you giving Islam a pass when that faith explicitly denies any such separation? In the Koran, there's no difference between political and religious leadership. They're one in the same, for the whole body, the Umah. Sharia is both a religious and a civil law.
And suppose you say "but Muslim immigrants will westernize"... and many new immigrants do. But the biggest rise in fundamentalism is among the western born children of those Muslim immigrants. The London bombings were carried out by young men born in Britain, well educated, with all of the advantages that citizenship and life in Britain could provide them. Many of them had parents that set up happy lives and successful businesses here.
And yet they chose Jihad and Sharia in their Mosques. They chose to bring the sword of Islam to the people of London. So please don't make the tired old argument that Islamic terrorism is mainly about poverty or secular politics. Islamic terrorism is mainly about religious ideas, and in short, mainly about Islam, or at least their idea of what pure Islam really is.
So... why is Pipes, or anyone else for that matter, guilty of racism or one of your other isms for pointing out that there are major, and in some cases, irreconcilable differences between us? After all, something has to give. Either we have to accept things like Sharia, or Muslim immigrants have to give it up. Why is it wrong to point that out?
"he had to be hustled out of the room by his hosts after failing to respond to valid criticism of his borderline racist/fascist agenda."
He probably had to be "hustled out" because some of the little brownshirts-in-training wouldn't let him speak, which seems to be a favorite tactic of leftist protesters at schools. Why argue when you can simply overwhelm a speaker and his audience with your friends... often physically taking over a speaking hall... and gamble that the university administration will be too cowed to do anything to you about it? It seems to work that way a lot lately. From the sound of it, it seems like your commitment to free speech ends at those that agree with you.
I always thought that terrorists were anyone designated by the United States State Department, or Department of Fatherland Security as being opposed to US foreign policy. This is what passes for insightful on Slashdot these days? Even if you hate Bush and his policies, making a blanket statement that anyone opposed to current policy is considered a terrorist is the ranting of a petulant child. Jacques Chirac's government wasn't considered "terrorist", and there was no greater opponent of the Bush Administration in Europe. Very few agencies of established governments are considered sponsors of terrorism, with Iran's Revolutionary Guards being a prominent example.
And "Department of Fatherland Security"? Godwin must be so proud.
While I completely agree that the creation of the TSA bureaucracy was a bad move (and one hell of an inconvenience to us in the Airport sector), I work with some of these people, and saying things like "can they even read?" is kind of trollish. They've got good people working for TSA. They seem to be bright, hard working, and some are very well educated (there are some good federal pay grades at TSA that attract these people, after all). So if you have a problem with TSA, you need to take it up with the Federal Government, not the actual TSA agents that are just doing their jobs as they're instructed to. And while I bemoan the fact that we have a huge new bureaucracy, the fact is, these TSA people are far and away better at their jobs than the minimum wage part-timers they replaced. For all of our gripes about TSA from the Airport/Airline side of things, we don't miss the days of the old baggage screeners.
We've proven that tax cuts are not a fiscally responsible way to balance a budget or stimulate an economy. You're mistaking your politics for "fiscal responsibility". While we've indeed been running up a big debt, cutting spending, not raising taxes, would be the truly responsible thing to do. You know, that whole limited government thing we were founded on?
The Democratic philosophy is one of higher tax responsibility, true. That's a tough pill to swallow, but the theory is that greater services are delivered as a result That theory got us nanny government and stagflation. The most economically successful Democrats (not including FDR's and LBJ's military production stimulus wartime economy) have always included at least some tax cuts in their policies. Which President justified tax cuts by saying "a rising tide lifts all boats"? Not a Republican... JFK.
Big government is incompatible with limited government, simply because, by its sheer size, it tries to swallow everything near it. So feeding it with tax increases is just dumb.
Reagan didn't win the Cold War, you ignorant twat. Quit rewriting history. Rewriting history? Are you kidding me? Only a tard of the lowest order would argue that Reagan wasn't instrumental in bringing the USSR down. He had help (some of it from inept Soviet leaders themselves), but all but the most partisan moonbats would agree that Reagan put a stake in the Soviet heart. In the late 70's, the Soviets were well and truly poised to dominate the world. In little more than a decade, they disappeared. To say that people like Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II had little or nothing to do with it is the most blatant rewriting of history of all.
My mother-in-law is now several years into serious Alzheimer's, and she drank coffee every day of her adult life. Same with my paternal grandfather... he was diagnosed with it before he died, and he was a heavy coffee drinker.
I've been suspicious of the "Food X has effect Y on people" studies since the 90's, when we found out that all of those "bran can prevent cancer" studies were essentially bullshit. Followup studies showed that the only thing all of those people got out of eating millions of bran muffins in the 80's was tasteless food.
Its a political opinion site. Obviously they talk about the news, and thus you can get news from it, but breaking news is not their primary purpose. Discussing it in a certain political vein is. The Huffington Post is more like National Review or The New Republic. Newspapers should at least attempt to be non-partisan in their reporting, and that's the big difference.
"I don't see anything clandestine about a software/hardware company providing software/hardware solutions to the Federal government, especially when said information is printed in a nationally recognized newspaper and linked on a major news aggregator."
BSOD jokes aside, I think if it were Microsoft providing NSA (or the military, or any security agency) software for the purposes of intelligence gathering, you'd see quite the different reaction here, and I think most of the threads would be about how evil both Microsoft and NSA are for collaborating for "spying on us". I don't think the problem is Google hating here. On the contrary, I think there would be a double standard in this situation.
According to you, nearly everything in the news is either fearmongering or propoganda, not news. But that argument is silly. If a newspaper reports that X number of people are losing their homes because of subprime loans, is that fearmongering? Al Sadr announces a ceasefire, and that's "nearly propoganda"? While I have lots of criticism of the modern media, your criticism goes totally over the cliff. Its rank with paranoia.
What the hell counts as news to you then? The black helicopters hovering over your house?
Wright's comments were not "taken out of context", and even your link only attempts to excuse his 9/11 sermon. What's your excuse for the other things he's been saying all along?
He's giving you new material to work with as well, this time mocking Italians:
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.
"From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style.
"wait, what? You have no idea what it's like, therefore you definitely know it's terrible?"
I said I'd never buy a copy. I never said that I don't know what its like. I do, as I've evaluated it. As I work in IT, I also talk to my peers, and we seem to be of the same opinion. It can bring even newer hardware to a crawl. On equivalent hardware, XP kicks the living shit out of it performance wise. As for security, the new method MS has invoked for security in Vista isn't just a pain in the ass, it can also be a cramp on productivity. Vista is no safer than XP, provided you have proper usage policies in place in the workspace. The latest round of hardware purchased at my workplace was ordered with XP instead of Vista, from Dell. And we're not alone in this. I've talked to several IT departments that have made a decision to avoid Vista if at all possible.
You know who benefits from this? Apple. Expect Apple to really crank up the "move to the Mac" ads.
Vista's reputation is justifiably bad, and I'm never buying a copy. If I suddenly need a new Wintel machine, there's always someone like tigerdirect that has overstocked machines with XP pre-installed, and they'll probably be selling them for a year after XP is pulled from the shelves. But I think MS is only going to cause customers to truly hate their guts for this. They'd be smarter to allow XP sales until Windows 7 is ready (assuming they don't fuck that up.... a big if).
"So instead of cheer leading for a pack of consumerist egocentric gas guzzling war mongering Luddites (AMERICA) how about you try to understand why they hate us and why they have some valid grievances, not to justify any of their reactions however."
You're either the biggest moonbat on Slashdot, or a really terrible troll. Either way, 1 - I'm proud to be American, and if you don't approve, tough shit, and 2 - get thee under the bridge.
"His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs."
One, calling John McCain... a man absolutely roasted by his own party for his moderate immigration reform proposals... "anti-immigration" is sheer bullshit. But I suspect you know that already.
Two... why in the hell should anyone in government "protect" jobs? Just because I don't want to see the visa system abused to bring in cheap labor doesn't mean I want Uncle Sugar in the business of shielding jobs in the free market.
"This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed."
If your home is being repossessed, the likelihood is high that its no one's fault but yours, especially if you're a sub-prime borrower. This is a problem of people that couldn't really afford homes buying them at high interest rates from banks that lent money to said people that couldn't afford them. If you want to truly fix the problem, you'd let both parties suffer and the market would quickly fix things. However, it increasingly looks like Uncle Sugar will bail both parties out, in essence rewarding them for their bad choices. Meanwhile, people that followed a budget and bought houses they could actually afford must feel like utter chumps right now. Uncle Sugar could have got them a bigger house too.
"Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today"
Dvorkin, you're a complete and utter troll. I don't even like McCain much... I supported someone else in the primary.... but to say that John McCain has no principles is a sheer lie. Just out and out bullshit. This guy has bucked his own party so many times, he's infamous for it. A good chunk of the party base hates him for it, but he won't waver on big issues. Even when he took a beating on amnesty, he didn't fundamentally change his position. And he took one hell of a beating on that issue. To hit this guy on the issue of integrity is nothing but a Democratic Party talking point, and you're just being their parrot.
" He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool."
A coward? Are you kidding me? You are a piece of shit. You couldn't survive one tenth of what that man went through. It doesn't automatically qualify him to be President, but to call that man a coward is low, lower than I have words for. A sincere Fuck You is in order here.
Slashdot Mirror
- The massive (at the time) system requirements
- The repetitive gameplay (turn corner; monster jumps out of hiding; rinse & repeat) It wasn't even the high system requirements. It was that, well, Doom 3 just wasn't Doom. I spent many a night playing Doom and Doom II. I absolutely loved those games. And Doom 3 was DINO... Doom In Name Only. None of the monsters or demons looked like Doom monsters and demons, and they weren't an improvement. And in an attempt to make the game scary, they made everything too dark, which more often than not, just made Doom 3 frustrating instead.
I don't want to stumble around in the dark with generic monsters. I want to take badass weapons and go into the pits of hell (or hell on earth), and fight off legions of imps, cacodemons, and Baron's of Hell. Real Doom characters.
Doom 3 just didn't look, feel, and play like Doom. Want to make a good Doom game for version four? Go back to Final Doom, and recreate that exactly, but with finer graphics and movement options.
"Works is a real piece of work, FYI ... my signature heavily applies to that software in this case. "
While Microsoft justifiably gets ripped for their bad software (Hello Windows Vista, the Biblical Plague of operating systems), the fact is they make some really good software too. Sharepoint is popular for a reason. Office had marketing help beating out Wordperfect Suite, but frankly, it was better than WS. Windows Server 2003 was good, and Server 2008 looks like it may be great. So it's not like Microsoft doesn't do anything right. And Works has always been one of their better products, IMHO. I think that had they not pushed Office so heavily in the 90's, Works would be more popular today, even for small businesses. It's always been light, fast, and stable for me. In the mid 90's, I did most of my college work in Works... term papers, spreadsheets... it's simple, easy to learn, and cheap, all of which are great virtues for a student. Before the advent of free office alternatives like Open Office, if you didn't have access to MS Office (which was still expensive), Works was by far your best bet. Otherwise, you just had typewriters or simple text editors like Notepad and Wordpad on Windows. I used Works 3.0 for DOS, Works 4.0 on Windows 95, and then Works 4.5 on Windows 98. I've got fond memories of using them. I loved the old unified base code model that MS used for Works from 1.0 to 4.5; it made Works incredibly fast on just about any hardware.
Microsoft made some hellish software, but Works was not among them. I've still got Works 6 on a home PC that my son uses for school papers as well.
That limit would be generous for the vast majority of their users, and you can always get another provider. Keep in mind that the people they're targeting with this are using up more bandwidth than some higher cost business accounts. If you want unlimited bandwidth per month, then buy a more expensive plan.
More fool them. They never expected to collect any money. This was all about sending a message to other Torrent sites and P2P networks. "We've got legal precedent and unlimited resources. We're coming after you."
Now, is the TSA approach the wisest one to take? No, personally, I don't think so. But "unwise" doesn't equal "unconstitutional", and claiming that its so destroys your argument.
"All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.""
And where was he wrong on this?
Multiple Wives
Female Circumcision
A culture of allowing slavery of non-Abrahmic peoples
And of course, the big one, Sharia.
So tell me how many of those things you'd tolerate a western country allowing? Fess up and be honest.
I'd guess you're pretty big on the concept of separation of Church and State, correct? Then why are you giving Islam a pass when that faith explicitly denies any such separation? In the Koran, there's no difference between political and religious leadership. They're one in the same, for the whole body, the Umah. Sharia is both a religious and a civil law.
And suppose you say "but Muslim immigrants will westernize"... and many new immigrants do. But the biggest rise in fundamentalism is among the western born children of those Muslim immigrants. The London bombings were carried out by young men born in Britain, well educated, with all of the advantages that citizenship and life in Britain could provide them. Many of them had parents that set up happy lives and successful businesses here.
And yet they chose Jihad and Sharia in their Mosques. They chose to bring the sword of Islam to the people of London. So please don't make the tired old argument that Islamic terrorism is mainly about poverty or secular politics. Islamic terrorism is mainly about religious ideas, and in short, mainly about Islam, or at least their idea of what pure Islam really is.
So... why is Pipes, or anyone else for that matter, guilty of racism or one of your other isms for pointing out that there are major, and in some cases, irreconcilable differences between us? After all, something has to give. Either we have to accept things like Sharia, or Muslim immigrants have to give it up. Why is it wrong to point that out?
"he had to be hustled out of the room by his hosts after failing to respond to valid criticism of his borderline racist/fascist agenda."
He probably had to be "hustled out" because some of the little brownshirts-in-training wouldn't let him speak, which seems to be a favorite tactic of leftist protesters at schools. Why argue when you can simply overwhelm a speaker and his audience with your friends... often physically taking over a speaking hall... and gamble that the university administration will be too cowed to do anything to you about it? It seems to work that way a lot lately. From the sound of it, it seems like your commitment to free speech ends at those that agree with you.
"His father was one of the main hawks against Stalinist Eastern Block style Communism during the 60's."
And this was a bad thing because... ?
And "Department of Fatherland Security"? Godwin must be so proud.
While I completely agree that the creation of the TSA bureaucracy was a bad move (and one hell of an inconvenience to us in the Airport sector), I work with some of these people, and saying things like "can they even read?" is kind of trollish. They've got good people working for TSA. They seem to be bright, hard working, and some are very well educated (there are some good federal pay grades at TSA that attract these people, after all). So if you have a problem with TSA, you need to take it up with the Federal Government, not the actual TSA agents that are just doing their jobs as they're instructed to. And while I bemoan the fact that we have a huge new bureaucracy, the fact is, these TSA people are far and away better at their jobs than the minimum wage part-timers they replaced. For all of our gripes about TSA from the Airport/Airline side of things, we don't miss the days of the old baggage screeners.
Big government is incompatible with limited government, simply because, by its sheer size, it tries to swallow everything near it. So feeding it with tax increases is just dumb.
My mother-in-law is now several years into serious Alzheimer's, and she drank coffee every day of her adult life. Same with my paternal grandfather... he was diagnosed with it before he died, and he was a heavy coffee drinker.
I've been suspicious of the "Food X has effect Y on people" studies since the 90's, when we found out that all of those "bran can prevent cancer" studies were essentially bullshit. Followup studies showed that the only thing all of those people got out of eating millions of bran muffins in the 80's was tasteless food.
Its a political opinion site. Obviously they talk about the news, and thus you can get news from it, but breaking news is not their primary purpose. Discussing it in a certain political vein is. The Huffington Post is more like National Review or The New Republic. Newspapers should at least attempt to be non-partisan in their reporting, and that's the big difference.
"I don't see anything clandestine about a software/hardware company providing software/hardware solutions to the Federal government, especially when said information is printed in a nationally recognized newspaper and linked on a major news aggregator."
BSOD jokes aside, I think if it were Microsoft providing NSA (or the military, or any security agency) software for the purposes of intelligence gathering, you'd see quite the different reaction here, and I think most of the threads would be about how evil both Microsoft and NSA are for collaborating for "spying on us". I don't think the problem is Google hating here. On the contrary, I think there would be a double standard in this situation.
"Go commit a felony and you'll see."
Don't commit one and you'll never have that problem.
According to you, nearly everything in the news is either fearmongering or propoganda, not news. But that argument is silly. If a newspaper reports that X number of people are losing their homes because of subprime loans, is that fearmongering? Al Sadr announces a ceasefire, and that's "nearly propoganda"? While I have lots of criticism of the modern media, your criticism goes totally over the cliff. Its rank with paranoia.
What the hell counts as news to you then? The black helicopters hovering over your house?
He's giving you new material to work with as well, this time mocking Italians:
"wait, what? You have no idea what it's like, therefore you definitely know it's terrible?"
I said I'd never buy a copy. I never said that I don't know what its like. I do, as I've evaluated it. As I work in IT, I also talk to my peers, and we seem to be of the same opinion. It can bring even newer hardware to a crawl. On equivalent hardware, XP kicks the living shit out of it performance wise. As for security, the new method MS has invoked for security in Vista isn't just a pain in the ass, it can also be a cramp on productivity. Vista is no safer than XP, provided you have proper usage policies in place in the workspace. The latest round of hardware purchased at my workplace was ordered with XP instead of Vista, from Dell. And we're not alone in this. I've talked to several IT departments that have made a decision to avoid Vista if at all possible.
You know who benefits from this? Apple. Expect Apple to really crank up the "move to the Mac" ads.
Vista's reputation is justifiably bad, and I'm never buying a copy. If I suddenly need a new Wintel machine, there's always someone like tigerdirect that has overstocked machines with XP pre-installed, and they'll probably be selling them for a year after XP is pulled from the shelves. But I think MS is only going to cause customers to truly hate their guts for this. They'd be smarter to allow XP sales until Windows 7 is ready (assuming they don't fuck that up.... a big if).
"So instead of cheer leading for a pack of consumerist egocentric gas guzzling war mongering Luddites (AMERICA) how about you try to understand why they hate us and why they have some valid grievances, not to justify any of their reactions however."
You're either the biggest moonbat on Slashdot, or a really terrible troll. Either way, 1 - I'm proud to be American, and if you don't approve, tough shit, and 2 - get thee under the bridge.
"His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs."
One, calling John McCain... a man absolutely roasted by his own party for his moderate immigration reform proposals... "anti-immigration" is sheer bullshit. But I suspect you know that already.
Two... why in the hell should anyone in government "protect" jobs? Just because I don't want to see the visa system abused to bring in cheap labor doesn't mean I want Uncle Sugar in the business of shielding jobs in the free market.
"This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed."
If your home is being repossessed, the likelihood is high that its no one's fault but yours, especially if you're a sub-prime borrower. This is a problem of people that couldn't really afford homes buying them at high interest rates from banks that lent money to said people that couldn't afford them. If you want to truly fix the problem, you'd let both parties suffer and the market would quickly fix things. However, it increasingly looks like Uncle Sugar will bail both parties out, in essence rewarding them for their bad choices. Meanwhile, people that followed a budget and bought houses they could actually afford must feel like utter chumps right now. Uncle Sugar could have got them a bigger house too.
"Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today"
Dvorkin, you're a complete and utter troll. I don't even like McCain much... I supported someone else in the primary.... but to say that John McCain has no principles is a sheer lie. Just out and out bullshit. This guy has bucked his own party so many times, he's infamous for it. A good chunk of the party base hates him for it, but he won't waver on big issues. Even when he took a beating on amnesty, he didn't fundamentally change his position. And he took one hell of a beating on that issue. To hit this guy on the issue of integrity is nothing but a Democratic Party talking point, and you're just being their parrot.
" He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool."
A coward? Are you kidding me? You are a piece of shit. You couldn't survive one tenth of what that man went through. It doesn't automatically qualify him to be President, but to call that man a coward is low, lower than I have words for. A sincere Fuck You is in order here.