Cool, don't think it made it on this side of the pond (UK)
I'm pretty sure I remember being jealous that the UK run was complete and in order, as opposed to incomplete, out of order, and at random shifting times in the original Fox run.
I don't understand GP. The level of hype surrounding Serenity is no where near the level of...well, anything mainstream hollywood.
I think he hates it simply because people like it.
Some people are like that, they define their tastes by rejecting what others like. "If they like it," they say, "I must NOT like it! That will set me appart!". It's... well it's pretty fucking stupid, if you ask me, but they tend to see this as some kind of unique and clever position, and not as the sad and all to common reactionary stance it is.
Pounds to pennies he's never seen an episode.
I'm pretty sure he never has. His sounds like a clear case of prejudice.
I won't even say the name of this movie franchise I'm so sick of hearing about it never mind sick of the incessant ways it gets squirreled into being mentioned.
.sig since xmas 2002: The day the last nail in the TV show's coffin was given it's final blow (when the last of the networks passed on it).
Not to mention loaning the DVDs to many people who had no idea what the hell I was babbling on about. Once they watched, they understood, approved, and started participating.
...and I didn't name anything, since I know you hate that with an everlasting burning fury.
Where is there a law that says that you aren't allowed to use bots in an online game? At absolute worst, he broke the EULA and should be banned from the game.
The law is in Japan, apparently, and you are MISSING THE ISSUE, which is that he (and his accomplices) used the bots to cheat people out of money. Real money is involved, hence real police is involved. They used a game as a medium to commit fraud, the fact that it's a game does not make it ok.
You need to get a grasp of reality: He wasn't playing a game, he was STEALING REAL MONEY FROM REAL PEOPLE who were playing a game. Real money. Real people. The game was only the medium through which the crime was commited.
The bots are cheating, the rolls of quarters in boxing gloves are cheating.
Yes, and neither of them should get you arrested.
"Hiding a metal object in a boxing glove, causing physical injury to the other boxer, should not get you arrested."???
Riiiiiight, how about I just add you to my list of idiots who's opinions aren't worth the bandwith it's carried on then?
The analogy is off because laws are preventative, whereas games are implemented.
Computer users who hacked into the popular online game "Lineage 2"
used a special program that enabled them to automatically defeat the characters of other users and steal their game items, it has been learned.
The users from China who illegally accessed the game obtained credits using the program. They are thought to have sold these credits over the Internet, exchanging them for Japanese yen.
Someone had to implement a Mug() function.
And someone else made the botMugSploit() function that abuses it. THAT someone, and the someone who uses it, is to blame for the abuse. Because they are the one who actually commited the act.
Should using an in-game ability lead to real life jail? Me thinks he'd have a good case against the developers if that were so.
Why not blame the phone companies for phone-scams? The scammers were only using the phone, it's not their fault! The phone company should have foreseen the possibility to scam someone and implementted a voice-recognition tool that automatically cuts the line as soon as someone tries to scam someone using their lines!
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is a GAME. Beating people up and stealing stuff from them is part of the game.
Not by using bots it isn't. That's an exploit, used for illegal financial gain.
If you want an analogy, it'd be like a boxer complaining that his nose was broken in a sanctioned fight....because the other boxer put a couple rolls of quarters in his gloves.
The bots are cheating, the rolls of quarters in boxing gloves are cheating.
Get it? Cheating at a game to make money is not ok.
The issue is not that the perpetrator didn't do anything wrong
I was replying to: "If it is possible to become 'invincible' in the game, its not the fault of the person who used it, its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen. The game involves real money and looting, this should be expected and the players know the risk coming into the game. No crime, IMHO, was committed."
Where the original poster seemed to think that anything that can be done in the game is the resposibility of those who didn't specifically take steps to completely prevent it, and not the responsibility of the person who did it.
I don't know what "the" issue is. My issue is: Just because someone didn't stop you from doing something doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.
Doing something wrong in a silly little MMOG means you should get punished in the silly little MMOG, not the real world.
He did something wrong in the real world, outside the game, when he sold his ill-gotten virtual loot. That is why he is facing out-of-the-game consequences.
The fact that these items get sold for cash in the real world only further reinforces how MMOGs are simply being taken too far.
True, but irrelevant to the question of responsibility on the part of the perpetrator of the act, and not on the part of the people who did not make it impossible to do said act.
Your analogy is completely off.
Why? Because I refer to behaviour in the real world to make a point about behaviour in the game's world?
analogy Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE Function: noun 2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike
It would be your fault because the government DID outlaw stabbing people.
Exactly right... except if you follow FortKnox (169099)'s logic ("its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen."): then it's the fault of the government for allowing it to happen.
I didn't read the EULA of that game, I don't know if they "outlawed" bots. But saying "if you do this, there will be consequences" still allows people to do it nonetheless.
Your grasp of the difference of reality and fantasy
Is better than your grasp of the concept of personal responsibility, or of the concept of an analogy.
If someone initiates an action, that individual is responsible for the action, not someone else. Even if that someone else could have done more to prevent it. The game company is not responsible for that person's choice to abuse their flawed game.
Nowhere online will you find anyone so attached to items, parcels of land, or characters that they are willing to risk their real lives to protect them.
The police in South Korea - a country as mad about gaming as the UK is about football - report that of the 40,000 or so cybercrimes reported in the first six months of 2003, more than half (22,000) had something to do with online gaming.
when a child beats a dog. You just know in 10 years that kid will become a murderer. The kid lacks apathy, and that is a serious personality flaw.
While I agree that a lack of apathy can be a serious personality flaw, the fictional kid you describe is chuck full of apathy.
You clearly need to watch more educational TV shows. I believe you meant "empathy", which, along with "cleavalicious", was one of counselor Troi's main characteristics on Star Trek: The Next Generation.
If it is possible to become 'invincible' in the game, its not the fault of the person who used it, its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen.
Same logic: If I stab someone, it's not MY fault, it's the fault of the government for not outlawing knives.
People sign things like NDAs, record deals, and professional sports contracts, and then expect us to be sympathetic when they decide not to honor their agreements? Want your music to be free (speech)? Great! Then don't sign a contract with a major label! It's that simple!
Megacorporations insert unfair clauses in contracts, using obfuscated legal language to screw over the little guy, and then expect us to be sympathetic when they decide to enforce them?
Want to be stuck playing in dives and highschool proms for the rest of your life? Great! Then don't sign a contract with a major label! It's that simple!
Re:HDTV and Surround Sound aren't Status Symbols
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
It has an average rating of 93%. Maybe you personally didn't like it, but with a rating that high you can't deny it's one of the best games this console generation.
I can and will! Ranking is meaningless, reviews are published by hacks, who are dependant on publisher-supplied freebies that'll dry up if they don't get a score that pleases them.
I bought the damn thing, not based on reviews, but on trying a demo, talking to Ubi employees (shoulda known better) and after recommendations from a flesh and blood gamer, who, it turns out, hadn't played it much and was still wowed by the originality.
Unfortunatly, like I said, it's great at first, and then it turns out that the rest is just filler. Like a cake covered in delicious icing, but made of mushed up cardboard.
You know what enemy killed me the most? The camera. The damn, stupid camera. Oh, how I hate that camera!
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, don't think it made it on this side of the pond (UK)
I'm pretty sure I remember being jealous that the UK run was complete and in order, as opposed to incomplete, out of order, and at random shifting times in the original Fox run.
Googling... right: Summer 2003.
screwing up "Five by five".
DOH!
I don't understand GP. The level of hype surrounding Serenity is no where near the level of...well, anything mainstream hollywood.
I think he hates it simply because people like it.
Some people are like that, they define their tastes by rejecting what others like. "If they like it," they say, "I must NOT like it! That will set me appart!". It's... well it's pretty fucking stupid, if you ask me, but they tend to see this as some kind of unique and clever position, and not as the sad and all to common reactionary stance it is.
Pounds to pennies he's never seen an episode.
I'm pretty sure he never has.
His sounds like a clear case of prejudice.
How come no catch phrases as prevalent at that one came out of Buffy?
"Five for five!"
"Bored now."
Hmmm... I'm focusing on the psycho chicks with loose morals aren't I? Ah well.
I won't even say the name of this movie franchise I'm so sick of hearing about it never mind sick of the incessant ways it gets squirreled into being mentioned.
.sig since xmas 2002: The day the last nail in the TV show's coffin was given it's final blow (when the last of the networks passed on it).
...and I didn't name anything, since I know you hate that with an everlasting burning fury.
Not to mention loaning the DVDs to many people who had no idea what the hell I was babbling on about. Once they watched, they understood, approved, and started participating.
There was no money stolen.
It's funny how the article, and the police, don't see it that way, but you manage to.
responding to my post
Also not in accordance to reality, since that was said in reply to someone else. But reality clearly has no bearing on your opinions, so, carry on.
Hehehe, I thought it was a neat lil' cyberpunk touch to have flat screen video displays embedded in every tombstone in the cemetary in Invader Zim.
Fun to see reality catching up to dystopic visions of a horrible nightmarish future. I hope Super Toast is next.
The law is in Japan, apparently, and you are MISSING THE ISSUE, which is that he (and his accomplices) used the bots to cheat people out of money. Real money is involved, hence real police is involved.
They used a game as a medium to commit fraud, the fact that it's a game does not make it ok.
You need to get a grasp of reality: He wasn't playing a game, he was STEALING REAL MONEY FROM REAL PEOPLE who were playing a game. Real money. Real people. The game was only the medium through which the crime was commited.
Yes, and neither of them should get you arrested.
"Hiding a metal object in a boxing glove, causing physical injury to the other boxer, should not get you arrested."???
Riiiiiight, how about I just add you to my list of idiots who's opinions aren't worth the bandwith it's carried on then?
Someone had to implement a Mug() function.
And someone else made the botMugSploit() function that abuses it. THAT someone, and the someone who uses it, is to blame for the abuse. Because they are the one who actually commited the act.
Should using an in-game ability lead to real life jail? Me thinks he'd have a good case against the developers if that were so.
Why not blame the phone companies for phone-scams? The scammers were only using the phone, it's not their fault! The phone company should have foreseen the possibility to scam someone and implementted a voice-recognition tool that automatically cuts the line as soon as someone tries to scam someone using their lines!
Sheesh.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is a GAME. Beating people up and stealing stuff from them is part of the game.
...because the other boxer put a couple rolls of quarters in his gloves.
Not by using bots it isn't. That's an exploit, used for illegal financial gain.
If you want an analogy, it'd be like a boxer complaining that his nose was broken in a sanctioned fight.
The bots are cheating, the rolls of quarters in boxing gloves are cheating.
Get it? Cheating at a game to make money is not ok.
The issue is not that the perpetrator didn't do anything wrong
I was replying to: "If it is possible to become 'invincible' in the game, its not the fault of the person who used it, its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen.
The game involves real money and looting, this should be expected and the players know the risk coming into the game. No crime, IMHO, was committed."
Where the original poster seemed to think that anything that can be done in the game is the resposibility of those who didn't specifically take steps to completely prevent it, and not the responsibility of the person who did it.
I don't know what "the" issue is. My issue is: Just because someone didn't stop you from doing something doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.
Doing something wrong in a silly little MMOG means you should get punished in the silly little MMOG, not the real world.
He did something wrong in the real world, outside the game, when he sold his ill-gotten virtual loot.
That is why he is facing out-of-the-game consequences.
The fact that these items get sold for cash in the real world only further reinforces how MMOGs are simply being taken too far.
True, but irrelevant to the question of responsibility on the part of the perpetrator of the act, and not on the part of the people who did not make it impossible to do said act.
Your analogy is completely off.
Why? Because I refer to behaviour in the real world to make a point about behaviour in the game's world?
analogy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike
It would be your fault because the government DID outlaw stabbing people.
Exactly right... except if you follow FortKnox (169099)'s logic ("its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen."): then it's the fault of the government for allowing it to happen.
I didn't read the EULA of that game, I don't know if they "outlawed" bots. But saying "if you do this, there will be consequences" still allows people to do it nonetheless.
Your grasp of the difference of reality and fantasy
Is better than your grasp of the concept of personal responsibility, or of the concept of an analogy.
If someone initiates an action, that individual is responsible for the action, not someone else. Even if that someone else could have done more to prevent it.
The game company is not responsible for that person's choice to abuse their flawed game.
One word: Korea.
Or, in more words:
when a child beats a dog. You just know in 10 years that kid will become a murderer. The kid lacks apathy, and that is a serious personality flaw.
While I agree that a lack of apathy can be a serious personality flaw, the fictional kid you describe is chuck full of apathy.
You clearly need to watch more educational TV shows.
I believe you meant "empathy", which, along with "cleavalicious", was one of counselor Troi's main characteristics on Star Trek: The Next Generation.
War crimes for doing a victory crouch-hump on their corpse.
I was giving him CPR!
If it is possible to become 'invincible' in the game, its not the fault of the person who used it, its the fault of the gaming company for allowing it to happen.
Same logic: If I stab someone, it's not MY fault, it's the fault of the government for not outlawing knives.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Playstation 3 will allow users to use standard memory like SD/Compact Flash/MemoryStick (Sony has learned from their mistakes)
I doupt that very much.
They LOVE to sell peripherals, and there's plenty of time yet to change their minds and require an official memory card.
I do think it's a mistake to sell the 360 without a HD. How is little Johnny going to save his game?
OMFG!!! I have no fucking clue! He can't! He -just- can't save!
Forcing porn site operators to operate on a .XXX
Define porn.
Are you starting to see the problem? It always comes back to what is pornographic. What's pornographic to one person might not be to another.
People sign things like NDAs, record deals, and professional sports contracts, and then expect us to be sympathetic when they decide not to honor their agreements?
Want your music to be free (speech)? Great! Then don't sign a contract with a major label! It's that simple!
Megacorporations insert unfair clauses in contracts, using obfuscated legal language to screw over the little guy, and then expect us to be sympathetic when they decide to enforce them?
Want to be stuck playing in dives and highschool proms for the rest of your life? Great! Then don't sign a contract with a major label! It's that simple!
We want total freedom from censorship and total creative control!
We want to be protected from malicious actions of both others and ourselves!
Defacing of informative wiki content by trolls is a form of censorship, where the troll objects to clear, informative content.
P.S. To anyone about to reply "only guvments censor!1!": I linked to a dictionary, go read it.
a posting that's pro-Windows is news, kinda like a Bigfoot sighting
What about a microsoft news bigfoot sighting? : )
It has an average rating of 93%. Maybe you personally didn't like it, but with a rating that high you can't deny it's one of the best games this console generation.
I can and will!
Ranking is meaningless, reviews are published by hacks, who are dependant on publisher-supplied freebies that'll dry up if they don't get a score that pleases them.
I bought the damn thing, not based on reviews, but on trying a demo, talking to Ubi employees (shoulda known better) and after recommendations from a flesh and blood gamer, who, it turns out, hadn't played it much and was still wowed by the originality.
Unfortunatly, like I said, it's great at first, and then it turns out that the rest is just filler. Like a cake covered in delicious icing, but made of mushed up cardboard.
You know what enemy killed me the most? The camera. The damn, stupid camera. Oh, how I hate that camera!