I'd hardly consider that 'luck' - more like 'yuck'. It's like saying, "hey, you can sell your 2002 Ford Taurus and get this Yugo - it has a CD player now!"
And yet, they still pursue our destruction in the same vigor that they perceivably would were we the devil, as opposed to just one minor devil.
We are a threat to Iran in the same fashion as I would be to that guy across the street who keeps buying guns, all the while making progressively threatening statements towards me for walking to our mutual neighbor's house to borrow sugar.
No, it's because they have repeatedly stated that they intend to eliminate the "great Satan" - namely, the United States - from the world power, and the West in general.
Those other things are important, but completely secondary to the primary concern.
Because it's been patented by the large pharmacutical companies which make the marginally successful but wildly expensive cancer drugs and treatments currently on the market. If they were to sell the patent, or to utilize it themselves, they'd effectively be getting rid of their revenue.
However, I am somewhat concerned about the technology's application. Currently (afaik), technology has gotten good enough to fool the human eye in photographs, and in many cases analytical software, as to what is 'real' and what is not. Even then, validation tools are not always used.
What if, down the line in years, it was trivial to create 'real' looking news footage, or alter existing footage? Not necessarily by the individual, but the corporation or government which has massive resources available. What could be done? Could they create a ficticious conflict somewhere in the world, or create 'evidence' of someone's crime so as to convict them? A hell of a lot can be done today with body doubles and masks; what of the future, where it's trivial to make almost every characteristic of an individual digitally duplicate simply by analysis of previously existing video footage?
Yes, it could lead to some pretty neat things - John Wayne acting alongside Bruce Willis, or Charlie Chaplin with Jim Carrey. Or Maralynn Monroe with Angelina Jolie - whatever. But it could also be used to convict (in the eyes of the public) a political rival of paedophilia, child abuse, rape, or any number of socially unacceptable (and career-ending) deeds. The government already has the technology to do this with audio. A future in which you can not trust the video you see or the audio you hear is not a future in which I care to live in, personally.
Yeah, but you still run into the situation where batteries cost a lot of money over the long run. Even with cheap rechargeables you can still run through $50-$100 or more per Christmas in battery costs alone.
Uh, first off, she wasn't researching cancer. She was researching indigestion or something like that. She just happened to be using cancer cells.
Second, the compound she was working with has already been patented, and therefore can not be used to cure cancer. In other words, someone else already found this out; she just stumbled on some previous research which invalidated using that specific compound any further.
Of course I do - just like I do with 'fun' movies (as opposed to serious, cinematic, etc. movies). I want to identify with my 'group', and I want my characters to identify with me. That means their race must be similar to mine.
It also means their basic behavior, modeling, and other things should be, preferably, like me. Or the idealized version of me - what I'd like to look and act like - at least.
Think some of the more wildly popular FPS shooters in the last couple years: - Max Payne - spindly white guy who thinks he's Clint Eastwood with a closet-geek personality who kicks ass and gets the women. - Half-Life - Mr. Freeman is the typical geek - but he kicks ass and doesn't take names. - Any of the war games (Red Orchestra, COD, MOH, etc.), where the characters are all 'common man' type personalities.
The more the player identifies with the characters or the more interesting the characters are, the more likely people are to like the game and its characters. It's the same as it is in movies. Gams like Duke Nukem 3D didn't have a realistic character, but there were qualities which appealed to the gaming demographic sufficient to create a dedicated (cult) following a full 10 years into the 'development' of a sequel.
Contrast that to a game like Doom 3, which has an almost completely forgettable protagonist and has been, as near as I can tell, forgotten.
"Pay us under the table and we'll not sue you into the ground on the basis of something which has never been proven before - but you'd rather not have to risk it, wouldn't you?"
They are also seen as 2nd class citizens (treating it lightly), being of a marginal human value. An analogous word for dhimmi is 'chattel', as they've historically been seen as property and slaves, on the level of livestock.
A Muslim suffers a stricter punishment for stealing someone's property (removal of a hand) than for killing a Christian or Jew (financial compensation).
Wow. You are entirely missing something: Islamic states.
While Islam is not a requisite for its state inhabitants, they don't exactly have immigration, either. Many Muslim states (Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind), while they do not have an explicit state religion, have state laws which essentially require a person to practice the minuate of that religion. Use a newspaper with Quranic verse on it? Prison/jail/beatings. You're a female and don't behave 'modestly' by wearing a burqua and move in the least bit suggestively (ie raise your head)? Beating/jail. On and on. Have sex out of marriage? Death penalty.
I can very easily see an Islamic state using such technology to enforce Islamic rules (sharia), if they could get their hands on it.
No, I don't think so. Either you don't recall being a child, or your childhood was particularly berift of the most essential ingredient of childhood (something excuseable if you went to a public school): creativity.
I can think of many times where my brother and I would make an army out of LEGOS and fight back the evil hordes with our GI Joes, or play for hours with cap guns or supersoakers.
We didn't need complex toys, but we needed toys that allowed us to be creative. Games didn't do that for me, personally, until the mid-90s on the PC - console games just weren't complex enough. That doesn't mean they weren't fun; they just didn't have much depth.
Anemic toy sales? Try something traditional.
on
The Return of Toys
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If toy sales are anemic, why don't they try making something traditionally American, like firearms or cap guns, or toy guns, or something 'gun' related? That's big business - Nerf and Supersoaker are hugely popular (or, at least, they were when I was a kid just 10 years ago).
I mean, c'mon: boys are more likely to play video games, particularly the ones with videos and weapons. Sure, they might like a remote-controlled helicopter, and they'll likely play with it for hours. But it gets stale: there's little replay value, batteries are expensive (for kids), and it's not really an 'open platform' in terms of creativity and play. Now, if you were to give the same boy a (say) military-styled toy gun, maybe a low-velocity airsoft, nerf, or heck even a 'lasertag' gun costing roughly the same amount as either a
As for those who are going to bitch about giving kids 'toy weapons' and training them for war: bullshit. It is natural for boys (in particular) to play war games all on their own, even if you restrict them from seeing things like guns on TV or in movies. If you prohibit them from having guns, they'll use a pencil or a coat hanger for a gun (I've seen it). I've seen 4-year-olds who were prohibited by their parents from playing with such thigns by their 'progressive' moms come over and be nearly euphoric at the possibility of hunting dinosaurs and monsters, playing cowboys and indians, and various other such things. It was not something that was encouraged - it was their preference.
When I was a kid, I had an NES. My brother and I would play hours and hours of video games; our mom didn't want us to have violent ones, with Rampage being disallowed because it was 'graphical and violent'. However, that didn't prevent us from saving up for games on our own and hding them from her (GI Joe, Contra, Jackal) or borrowing from friends. For whatever reason she let us have toy guns, though - and even though we had those prohibited games which we could play only while not being scrutinized, we still generally preferred to be outdoors throwing 'bombs' or 'hand grenades' at each other (snowballs), shooting each other and our neighbors with supersoakers, or just playing pretend with cap guns. We had RC cars and stuff too, but they didn't get nearly as much use due to their limited creative applications.
From what I gather, such activities are fairly unique for my generation, even though I'm by no means 'old'... I guess most parents from my parents generation were much more restrictive.
Besides, it's not like Mattel hasn't made rifles in the past (ok, not really, but it's still funny).:P
How about, "I don't know. You could try messing around with it for a couple hours by resetting everything/reinstalling/performing a maintanance task, but aside from that there's nothing I can do to help you."
Yep. And the 'religion' comment is quite valid, too.
Linux is just an operating system. It's a technical tool. If people have problems with Windows, I will recommend what is better for them. If someone is complaining that their car keeps dying on them, I'm not going to say "oh, get a Peterbilt 16-wheeler, they're really powerful and you can do a lot with all their controls". I'm going to say, "Well, get a Honda. They're pretty reasonably priced, and don't break as often as your Ford."
In other words, I'm going to recommend for people who are unwilling and/or unable to remain using Windows (even if it's simply because they're unable to keep up with basic maintanance like virus removal) to get a Mac.
That is normal Windows behavior. Even on OEM machines like laptops where the hardware is consistent across tens of thousands of machines, I will commonly see 'default' setups wihch are unstable, glitchy, and rife with driver problems. If the companies that distribute the laptops/computers would maybe sit a person down in front of each of their machine models just once for an hour or two before shipping a specific disk image, they'd likely be able to fix most of these problems which are endemic to Windows machines.
Actually, that's interesting, and a distinct possibility I'd not considered. See, I met this girl who looked a hell of a lot like the 'older' Feiss in those movie screen caps, and man did I have the hots for her. And she was a stoner. Weird coincidence, particularly since I can't stand that shit.
I think you're missing the fact that she is no longer a stoned-looking 14-year-old, but a very hot redhead 19-year-old college student.:P I mean, my god man! Look at her eyes here!
Don't fall in! The lips aren't that unattractive, either. Ok, yeah, the rest may not be so hot (I've not seen any of her 'film acumen') but that much, at least, is.
Hillary isn't even serious about protecting us from surveillance and digital security. Heck, she's all for it when it comes to the government doing it; hre record speaks for such measures. She just wants to give us privacy - or the perception of such - in the civilian arena. Which is like saying, "you can have whatever you want to eat, except for days of the week which are on an even day of the month, a weekend, or end in 'day'".
Bullshit. You're just being dishonest to yourself, here.
Simply: which 'other guys'? It's still over a full year and a half before the next election. Which other candidates have announced themselves so far? Guliani from NY, what's-his-name from Jersey, McCain (obviously), Obama and Tarantino? Her record alone is maybe the 3rd best out of the currently known potentials - and that's just privacy. Privacy is pretty damn amorpheous, and that's why she's standing for it: she's not not much else to stand on.
I'm sorry, but can a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act twice really claim, in honesty, to 'support privacy'? That sounds somewhat contradictive.
And that doesn't even go into her influence in the White House when Bill Clinton was President. That's not to say anything specific, as I don't recall any specifics, but I do recall something about spying.
As far as the argument of 'privacy' itself: it's a bit of a misnomer, and it overlooks a lot of things which I'm certain Hillary Clinton would attempt to do. Do I have the 'privacy' to do in my own home, and on my own property - provided I don't harm anyone - anything I want? Will I be scrutinized for such acts? How about shooting guns - can I do that on my own property, provided it's not in town (ie noise/safety issues)? Even if they're so-called evil black 'assault weapons'? I seriously doubt she thinks that's 'allowable'. Bill didn't.
Nationalism does not invariably lead to 'evil'. Counterexample: the US response to imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany. It required an immense amount of nationalist pride to pull that one off.
Borders do not only apply to the poor. The rich and goods both have a system by which they must petition to gain admittance - claiming otherwise is simply ignorance. Furthermore, the US immigration policies are now fashioned towards allowing more poor, unskilled workers than skilled workers, what with their large quotas for 3rd world countries and special concensus for certain ethnic backgrounds. Don't even bother applying if you're white and from a 1st world nation. I've got several friends who have been trying to get to the US for years from South Africa and Britain, and they've been repeatedly denied, despite having no criminal records, and saleable skillsets in a much needed field - machinists.
Furthermore, the people who suffer the most from unbridled immigration are those in the middle class, not the rich (as it would appear you would prefer). When the size of the available 'unskilled labor' pool grows substantially larger than the available unskilled labor jobs, the smarter people in those roles seek out jobs wherever they can find them - including jobs which would not be considered 'unskilled'. These jobs pay more, but the unskilled laborer is willing to work for substantially less, driving the wage of that field down when repeated over and over. The people that have then been kicked out of their field by people willing to work for less are then forced to look upwards, possibly requiring schooling to get their job done. This trend continues until it downwardly impacts the income of almost everyone who is not independently wealthy, the owner of a business with a substantial number of employees, or the power elite.
Meanwhile, the cost of living doesn't decrease significantly (if at all), because the business owners and the power elite are pocketing all the extra money taken in through labor savings. People still have their college loans and can not pay them back due to only making $30K/year. Crime rates are up significantly due to increased poverty, and property values - of the middle class, mostly - decrease as a result.
Eh, personally, I didn't care for Descent 2 so much, except for multiplayer. Descent 3 had entirely too many weapons, I thought - it took the strategy and skill out of the game.
Freelancer was basically an attempted rehash of Privateer in almost every fashion - except it only implimented maybe 20% of the things that made Privateer good.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd hardly consider that 'luck' - more like 'yuck'. It's like saying, "hey, you can sell your 2002 Ford Taurus and get this Yugo - it has a CD player now!"
And yet, they still pursue our destruction in the same vigor that they perceivably would were we the devil, as opposed to just one minor devil.
We are a threat to Iran in the same fashion as I would be to that guy across the street who keeps buying guns, all the while making progressively threatening statements towards me for walking to our mutual neighbor's house to borrow sugar.
No, it's because they have repeatedly stated that they intend to eliminate the "great Satan" - namely, the United States - from the world power, and the West in general.
Those other things are important, but completely secondary to the primary concern.
Because it's been patented by the large pharmacutical companies which make the marginally successful but wildly expensive cancer drugs and treatments currently on the market. If they were to sell the patent, or to utilize it themselves, they'd effectively be getting rid of their revenue.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly.
However, I am somewhat concerned about the technology's application. Currently (afaik), technology has gotten good enough to fool the human eye in photographs, and in many cases analytical software, as to what is 'real' and what is not. Even then, validation tools are not always used.
What if, down the line in years, it was trivial to create 'real' looking news footage, or alter existing footage? Not necessarily by the individual, but the corporation or government which has massive resources available. What could be done? Could they create a ficticious conflict somewhere in the world, or create 'evidence' of someone's crime so as to convict them? A hell of a lot can be done today with body doubles and masks; what of the future, where it's trivial to make almost every characteristic of an individual digitally duplicate simply by analysis of previously existing video footage?
Yes, it could lead to some pretty neat things - John Wayne acting alongside Bruce Willis, or Charlie Chaplin with Jim Carrey. Or Maralynn Monroe with Angelina Jolie - whatever. But it could also be used to convict (in the eyes of the public) a political rival of paedophilia, child abuse, rape, or any number of socially unacceptable (and career-ending) deeds. The government already has the technology to do this with audio. A future in which you can not trust the video you see or the audio you hear is not a future in which I care to live in, personally.
Somethign to keep in mind, at least.
Yeah, but you still run into the situation where batteries cost a lot of money over the long run. Even with cheap rechargeables you can still run through $50-$100 or more per Christmas in battery costs alone.
Uh, first off, she wasn't researching cancer. She was researching indigestion or something like that. She just happened to be using cancer cells.
Second, the compound she was working with has already been patented, and therefore can not be used to cure cancer. In other words, someone else already found this out; she just stumbled on some previous research which invalidated using that specific compound any further.
Of course I do - just like I do with 'fun' movies (as opposed to serious, cinematic, etc. movies). I want to identify with my 'group', and I want my characters to identify with me. That means their race must be similar to mine.
It also means their basic behavior, modeling, and other things should be, preferably, like me. Or the idealized version of me - what I'd like to look and act like - at least.
Think some of the more wildly popular FPS shooters in the last couple years:
- Max Payne - spindly white guy who thinks he's Clint Eastwood with a closet-geek personality who kicks ass and gets the women.
- Half-Life - Mr. Freeman is the typical geek - but he kicks ass and doesn't take names.
- Any of the war games (Red Orchestra, COD, MOH, etc.), where the characters are all 'common man' type personalities.
The more the player identifies with the characters or the more interesting the characters are, the more likely people are to like the game and its characters. It's the same as it is in movies. Gams like Duke Nukem 3D didn't have a realistic character, but there were qualities which appealed to the gaming demographic sufficient to create a dedicated (cult) following a full 10 years into the 'development' of a sequel.
Contrast that to a game like Doom 3, which has an almost completely forgettable protagonist and has been, as near as I can tell, forgotten.
It's legal? It sounds like blackmail to me.
"Pay us under the table and we'll not sue you into the ground on the basis of something which has never been proven before - but you'd rather not have to risk it, wouldn't you?"
No, I did that. We also played a lot of Rampart. ExciteBike wasn't all that exciting, is all.
They are also seen as 2nd class citizens (treating it lightly), being of a marginal human value. An analogous word for dhimmi is 'chattel', as they've historically been seen as property and slaves, on the level of livestock.
A Muslim suffers a stricter punishment for stealing someone's property (removal of a hand) than for killing a Christian or Jew (financial compensation).
Wow. You are entirely missing something: Islamic states.
While Islam is not a requisite for its state inhabitants, they don't exactly have immigration, either. Many Muslim states (Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind), while they do not have an explicit state religion, have state laws which essentially require a person to practice the minuate of that religion. Use a newspaper with Quranic verse on it? Prison/jail/beatings. You're a female and don't behave 'modestly' by wearing a burqua and move in the least bit suggestively (ie raise your head)? Beating/jail. On and on. Have sex out of marriage? Death penalty.
I can very easily see an Islamic state using such technology to enforce Islamic rules (sharia), if they could get their hands on it.
No, I don't think so. Either you don't recall being a child, or your childhood was particularly berift of the most essential ingredient of childhood (something excuseable if you went to a public school): creativity.
I can think of many times where my brother and I would make an army out of LEGOS and fight back the evil hordes with our GI Joes, or play for hours with cap guns or supersoakers.
We didn't need complex toys, but we needed toys that allowed us to be creative. Games didn't do that for me, personally, until the mid-90s on the PC - console games just weren't complex enough. That doesn't mean they weren't fun; they just didn't have much depth.
If toy sales are anemic, why don't they try making something traditionally American, like firearms or cap guns, or toy guns, or something 'gun' related? That's big business - Nerf and Supersoaker are hugely popular (or, at least, they were when I was a kid just 10 years ago).
:P
I mean, c'mon: boys are more likely to play video games, particularly the ones with videos and weapons. Sure, they might like a remote-controlled helicopter, and they'll likely play with it for hours. But it gets stale: there's little replay value, batteries are expensive (for kids), and it's not really an 'open platform' in terms of creativity and play. Now, if you were to give the same boy a (say) military-styled toy gun, maybe a low-velocity airsoft, nerf, or heck even a 'lasertag' gun costing roughly the same amount as either a
As for those who are going to bitch about giving kids 'toy weapons' and training them for war: bullshit. It is natural for boys (in particular) to play war games all on their own, even if you restrict them from seeing things like guns on TV or in movies. If you prohibit them from having guns, they'll use a pencil or a coat hanger for a gun (I've seen it). I've seen 4-year-olds who were prohibited by their parents from playing with such thigns by their 'progressive' moms come over and be nearly euphoric at the possibility of hunting dinosaurs and monsters, playing cowboys and indians, and various other such things. It was not something that was encouraged - it was their preference.
When I was a kid, I had an NES. My brother and I would play hours and hours of video games; our mom didn't want us to have violent ones, with Rampage being disallowed because it was 'graphical and violent'. However, that didn't prevent us from saving up for games on our own and hding them from her (GI Joe, Contra, Jackal) or borrowing from friends. For whatever reason she let us have toy guns, though - and even though we had those prohibited games which we could play only while not being scrutinized, we still generally preferred to be outdoors throwing 'bombs' or 'hand grenades' at each other (snowballs), shooting each other and our neighbors with supersoakers, or just playing pretend with cap guns. We had RC cars and stuff too, but they didn't get nearly as much use due to their limited creative applications.
From what I gather, such activities are fairly unique for my generation, even though I'm by no means 'old'... I guess most parents from my parents generation were much more restrictive.
Besides, it's not like Mattel hasn't made rifles in the past (ok, not really, but it's still funny).
How about, "I don't know. You could try messing around with it for a couple hours by resetting everything/reinstalling/performing a maintanance task, but aside from that there's nothing I can do to help you."
Yep. And the 'religion' comment is quite valid, too.
Linux is just an operating system. It's a technical tool. If people have problems with Windows, I will recommend what is better for them. If someone is complaining that their car keeps dying on them, I'm not going to say "oh, get a Peterbilt 16-wheeler, they're really powerful and you can do a lot with all their controls". I'm going to say, "Well, get a Honda. They're pretty reasonably priced, and don't break as often as your Ford."
In other words, I'm going to recommend for people who are unwilling and/or unable to remain using Windows (even if it's simply because they're unable to keep up with basic maintanance like virus removal) to get a Mac.
That is normal Windows behavior. Even on OEM machines like laptops where the hardware is consistent across tens of thousands of machines, I will commonly see 'default' setups wihch are unstable, glitchy, and rife with driver problems. If the companies that distribute the laptops/computers would maybe sit a person down in front of each of their machine models just once for an hour or two before shipping a specific disk image, they'd likely be able to fix most of these problems which are endemic to Windows machines.
Actually, that's interesting, and a distinct possibility I'd not considered. See, I met this girl who looked a hell of a lot like the 'older' Feiss in those movie screen caps, and man did I have the hots for her. And she was a stoner. Weird coincidence, particularly since I can't stand that shit.
You're right, sorta. I was just mostly trolling.
I think you're missing the fact that she is no longer a stoned-looking 14-year-old, but a very hot redhead 19-year-old college student. :P I mean, my god man! Look at her eyes here!
/ Ellen%20Feiss.jpg
http://www.faq-mac.com/mt/archives/img/escaparate
Don't fall in! The lips aren't that unattractive, either. Ok, yeah, the rest may not be so hot (I've not seen any of her 'film acumen') but that much, at least, is.
Hillary isn't even serious about protecting us from surveillance and digital security. Heck, she's all for it when it comes to the government doing it; hre record speaks for such measures. She just wants to give us privacy - or the perception of such - in the civilian arena. Which is like saying, "you can have whatever you want to eat, except for days of the week which are on an even day of the month, a weekend, or end in 'day'".
Bullshit. You're just being dishonest to yourself, here.
Simply: which 'other guys'? It's still over a full year and a half before the next election. Which other candidates have announced themselves so far? Guliani from NY, what's-his-name from Jersey, McCain (obviously), Obama and Tarantino? Her record alone is maybe the 3rd best out of the currently known potentials - and that's just privacy. Privacy is pretty damn amorpheous, and that's why she's standing for it: she's not not much else to stand on.
I'm sorry, but can a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act twice really claim, in honesty, to 'support privacy'? That sounds somewhat contradictive.
And that doesn't even go into her influence in the White House when Bill Clinton was President. That's not to say anything specific, as I don't recall any specifics, but I do recall something about spying.
As far as the argument of 'privacy' itself: it's a bit of a misnomer, and it overlooks a lot of things which I'm certain Hillary Clinton would attempt to do. Do I have the 'privacy' to do in my own home, and on my own property - provided I don't harm anyone - anything I want? Will I be scrutinized for such acts? How about shooting guns - can I do that on my own property, provided it's not in town (ie noise/safety issues)? Even if they're so-called evil black 'assault weapons'? I seriously doubt she thinks that's 'allowable'. Bill didn't.
Wow. Mate, that's some pretty thick rhetoric.
Nationalism does not invariably lead to 'evil'. Counterexample: the US response to imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany. It required an immense amount of nationalist pride to pull that one off.
Borders do not only apply to the poor. The rich and goods both have a system by which they must petition to gain admittance - claiming otherwise is simply ignorance. Furthermore, the US immigration policies are now fashioned towards allowing more poor, unskilled workers than skilled workers, what with their large quotas for 3rd world countries and special concensus for certain ethnic backgrounds. Don't even bother applying if you're white and from a 1st world nation. I've got several friends who have been trying to get to the US for years from South Africa and Britain, and they've been repeatedly denied, despite having no criminal records, and saleable skillsets in a much needed field - machinists.
Furthermore, the people who suffer the most from unbridled immigration are those in the middle class, not the rich (as it would appear you would prefer). When the size of the available 'unskilled labor' pool grows substantially larger than the available unskilled labor jobs, the smarter people in those roles seek out jobs wherever they can find them - including jobs which would not be considered 'unskilled'. These jobs pay more, but the unskilled laborer is willing to work for substantially less, driving the wage of that field down when repeated over and over. The people that have then been kicked out of their field by people willing to work for less are then forced to look upwards, possibly requiring schooling to get their job done. This trend continues until it downwardly impacts the income of almost everyone who is not independently wealthy, the owner of a business with a substantial number of employees, or the power elite.
Meanwhile, the cost of living doesn't decrease significantly (if at all), because the business owners and the power elite are pocketing all the extra money taken in through labor savings. People still have their college loans and can not pay them back due to only making $30K/year. Crime rates are up significantly due to increased poverty, and property values - of the middle class, mostly - decrease as a result.
Eh, personally, I didn't care for Descent 2 so much, except for multiplayer. Descent 3 had entirely too many weapons, I thought - it took the strategy and skill out of the game.
Freelancer was basically an attempted rehash of Privateer in almost every fashion - except it only implimented maybe 20% of the things that made Privateer good.