Granted, I'm not a terribly huge fan of government controls of what goes on over the internet, since most of these laws are hyper-reactionary, invasive, corporate-biased, or just plain stupid. But it is really refreshing to see a regular human being can actually WIN once in a while, without being forced to become bankrupt doing it.
Yes, I'm just plain asking for it this time. :-)
on
Excerpt From "Geeks"
·
· Score: 1
Ok, couple of questions for everbody:
1. What the Hell is it about JK that brings out the worst in you guys? Granted he can be a bit elitest and occasionally arrogant, but it's not like we don't slip into that from time to time as well. So, lay it on for the table for me, what SPECIFICALLY is your problem with him? And try and put it in a concise, logical arguement for a change.
2. Why do you guys [ you know who you are! ] jump down his throat everytime JK, or anyone else for that matter, tries to expand the definition of "geek" beyond the most rigid stereotype of the 'hacker geek'? It's that kind of judgemental, exclusionary crap that most of us have been regularly slapped with since childhood and frankly you should know better. IMHO, while the term 'hacker' is intimately tied with the almost obsessive interest in computers, 'geek' doesn't nessecarily have to be. I know I'm going to get flamed to Hell for this but I think Katz may be right on this point: being a 'geek' has more with a kind of "screw you people, I'll do what I want" passion about the things you're interested in, whether it be computers, music, or whatever, than the classic stereotype's strictly compu-centric view. Maybe that also would answer a question that's come up numerous times here on slashdot and other places: where are all the female geeks? Perhaps we've only been looking using the primarily male hacker geek image as the template. Making the same mistake the rest of world has with us, seeing only that someone doesn't fit our precise self-definition and is therefore not 'one of us.' I would like to think that we as a community are more insightful and understanding then that, so I would ask that you read this and consider it.
A geek is ultimately a person who passionate about what interests them and will do involve themselves in it for the shear love of it, often forgoing that which others consider essential to life. A geek is an artist at heart, whether it be an artist of code or another medium, who uses the tools at hand to bring their ideas into being. Technology has provided them with the most powerful tools in the history of mankind and they are fully prepared to use them to there utmost to pursue what they are passionate about. Geeks, by a combination of circumstance and personality, are at once idealistic and cynical. They consider themselves the equal of anyone with supposed 'authority' and are ultimately only accountable to their own conscience.....
I don't know which is more hilarious: AOL claiming they are only trying to protect their users privacy rights or Microsoft accusing someone of using unfair business practices to maintain a monopoly.....
This is, bar none, the best argument I have ever seen for allowing Player-Killing in online games. Sure, go ahead, let some clueless yuppie spend a few thousand dollars to get a high-ranked, rich character. What he doesn't get with that purchase is the skill that comes with hours of work on a good game. While the rest of us are refining our character controlling abilities till they become second nature, this chump is nothing more than a clueless newbie with a lot of valuables. I have a name for people like that: walking-targets. So what if he has high level abilities. As it says in a favorite book of mine, "The most powerful dragon can be brought down by a big enough pack of wolves." and god knows they'll be enough loot to go around. So let the yuppies think they have found a shortcut thru the dark woods of level building; they learn soon enough why no one takes that trail.....;)
Slashdot Mirror
...once in a while, anyway
Granted, I'm not a terribly huge fan of government controls of what goes on over the internet, since most of these laws are hyper-reactionary, invasive, corporate-biased, or just plain stupid. But it is really refreshing to see a regular human being can actually WIN once in a while, without being forced to become bankrupt doing it.
Ok, couple of questions for everbody:
1. What the Hell is it about JK that brings out the worst in you guys? Granted he can be a bit elitest and occasionally arrogant, but it's not like we don't slip into that from time to time as well. So, lay it on for the table for me, what SPECIFICALLY is your problem with him? And try and put it in a concise, logical arguement for a change.
2. Why do you guys [ you know who you are! ] jump down his throat everytime JK, or anyone else for that matter, tries to expand the definition of "geek" beyond the most rigid stereotype of the 'hacker geek'? It's that kind of judgemental, exclusionary crap that most of us have been regularly slapped with since childhood and frankly you should know better. IMHO, while the term 'hacker' is intimately tied with the almost obsessive interest in computers, 'geek' doesn't nessecarily have to be. I know I'm going to get flamed to Hell for this but I think Katz may be right on this point: being a 'geek' has more with a kind of "screw you people, I'll do what I want" passion about the things you're interested in, whether it be computers, music, or whatever, than the classic stereotype's strictly compu-centric view. Maybe that also would answer a question that's come up numerous times here on slashdot and other places: where are all the female geeks? Perhaps we've only been looking using the primarily male hacker geek image as the template. Making the same mistake the rest of world has with us, seeing only that someone doesn't fit our precise self-definition and is therefore not 'one of us.' I would like to think that we as a community are more insightful and understanding then that, so I would ask that you read this and consider it.
A geek is ultimately a person who passionate about what interests them and will do involve themselves in it for the shear love of it, often forgoing that which others consider essential to life. A geek is an artist at heart, whether it be an artist of code or another medium, who uses the tools at hand to bring their ideas into being. Technology has provided them with the most powerful tools in the history of mankind and they are fully prepared to use them to there utmost to pursue what they are passionate about. Geeks, by a combination of circumstance and personality, are at once idealistic and cynical. They consider themselves the equal of anyone with supposed 'authority' and are ultimately only accountable to their own conscience.....
Just my opinions, take it or leave it...
Any and all comments would be welcome.
I don't know which is more hilarious: AOL claiming they are only trying to protect their users privacy rights or Microsoft accusing someone of using unfair business practices to maintain a monopoly.....
You can't buy this kind of entertainment...
This is, bar none, the best argument I have ever seen for allowing Player-Killing in online games. Sure, go ahead, let some clueless yuppie spend a few thousand dollars to get a high-ranked, rich character. What he doesn't get with that purchase is the skill that comes with hours of work on a good game. While the rest of us are refining our character controlling abilities till they become second nature, this chump is nothing more than a clueless newbie with a lot of valuables. I have a name for people like that: walking-targets. So what if he has high level abilities. As it says in a favorite book of mine, "The most powerful dragon can be brought down by a big enough pack of wolves." and god knows they'll be enough loot to go around. So let the yuppies think they have found a shortcut thru the dark woods of level building; they learn soon enough why no one takes that trail..... ;)