Oh yeah, QIX, I think I wasted most of my youth sitting in front of my C64 cussing at the damn squiggly thing. Simple, yet confounding. You know if there are any ports/clones of this floating around?
Tradewars, definately! Don't forget LoRD, though. One of my local BBSs had EVERY module for LoRD, it was happy days.
And of course MULE, the other game that kept me chained to the C64, refusing to upgrade to a real PC, until I learned that it was on the NES. The NES version always seemed to lack something though...
Total Annihilation is the timeless game. I've been playing it once a month since it came out. Graphics rival any RTS up until WarcraftIII or C&C:G, game play beats both since there is no resouce whoring.
Quake 3 amazed me when I got a modern graphics card, it was VERY pretty. Same for the original UT, though, with a decent modern system it pulls a good FPS, and is still very fun (without the weapon nerfs!).
Of course Civ2, which I think is superiour to Civ3, is still VERY playable.
And of course Fallout1/2, which I still install and play from time to time.
And Dungeon Keeper 2, with the D3d patch. That game still can keep me amused for hours.
To be un/.ish, you got several good points. I'm gonna have to ponder them for awhile, and see if I can find away to rectify humanity and capitolism ethically. I'm not saying I quiet agree philosophically though.
Don't forget prostate cancer, which is more fatal than breast cancer, just men don't talk about it as much.
Don't get me wrong, cronic depression does exist, I wouldn't deny that. Just 90% of the psychoactive drugs prescribed doesn't go to treat it, they go to treat neurotic housewives. If everyone who gets depression drugs were actually seriously depressed, then it no longer is an illness, it is the norm. Samething with ridalin, over diagnosed, over pushed.
How much of these wonderdrugs are psychoactive mood enhancers, and how many of them are for a real problem?
I think that the profiteering has come to the point where these wonderous drug companies are doing more harm than good. We often (here in the US) forget that these drugs can be used to save LIVES... Individual lives. I put life over profit, no matter what, as any sane individual would. Sure, we can take the unbridled capitolist approach and say "they make money, it must be good for everyone", but in the end it comes down to the simple fact that people are dying, and some people are getting rich because of it.
A solution would be to scalp the silly neurotic housewives, and charge MASSIVE money for their prozac. And charge huge amounts of money for ridalin as well, and use that to develop and distribute real drugs to the third-world. Take advantage of first-world stupidity for the greater good. But charging an arm-and-a-leg for something that can save lives is unexcusable.
Your examples are insightful, though different from the context. These are active groups, not passive agents contributing a meager amount of influence to a very large system. My passive action (not buying CD A), is not going to change the actions of the thousands of people who will. And in not buying CD A, I'm depriving myself from some a good work of music, it seems that the sacrafice is not worth the price.
I try to tell my friends about the nastyness of the RIAA, which is an active responce, and hopefully a fruitful one. I try to compromise with the burning circle idea. I figure spreading the word enough might help. But until someone develops a better mechanism for the distribution of polished music, I have a feeling that it is all moral masterbation.
I would gladly support indie bands, if the grand majority of them didn't suck, or offerend some sort of quality production values on their CDs. But then again, supporting indie bands isn't like supporting freedom fighters, most of them would sign with an RIAA company is the chance presented itself.
I agree, it is that type of thinking that lets these big nasties exist. But, sadly (and contrary to the cliche) one person does not make a difference, especially in a world where 90% of the people don't give a shit, or are just plain ignorant. Also, how would my not buying a CD tranfer my intent to the artist? Abscence does not contain any clear meaning, it could attributed to piracy, or lack of interest, or a myriad of other things that would lead to a (minute) drop in sales.
I've only bought one new CD in the last 3 years (A Perfect Circle: Thirteenth Step), and for that I got 10 people to chip in $1.50, then burned 10 copies of it. I figured this plan is a good compromise between supporting bands I respect, and screwing those nasty RIAA people.
Some bands under RIAA labels are still decent musicians, capable of decent and creative music. I wish there was a decent way to support them, and not their corporate overlords. I'm not going to boycott good music just because the RIAA sucks, this is shooting off my nose to spite my face.
Also most indie bands suck. I know this is a sin to say in some circles, where obscurity equals good. The sad fact is that most obscure bands suck. My local scene is choked with bad punk bands (whos only talent is producing mildly amusing covers, too bad that isn't my thing), amatuer death metal, and the garage band ressurection. Nothing I really want to hear. Though there are a couple small-venue bands that I have purchased CDs from, but most of those CDs are of poor quality.
I was thinking that if I stopped supporting RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they might get a clue, and start some independant release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb. The majority of people will continue buying from RIAA folk, because that is what is available, and being with a big company affords visibility. Fleh.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
I don't think, in the US at least, that our lack of morality is going to be fixed by any secular means, the system is screwed beyond repair in my eyes, and most people would disagree that the system is even broken. A quick religious fix would at least keep us from further becoming uncontrolled, impulsive, monsters. Thats all that matters to me, restoring some form of humanity into the next generation, humanity being something that the Xers and whatever the ones after them are called now completely lack.
Religion would also remove some of the relativism from our culture, and relativism is one of the things that is destroying modern society. If you haven't noticed, I'm being purely pragmatic with religion, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to work.
Religion also adds meaning to life, and when this meaning goes away, fundamentalism comes to fill the need, and we can see (with the US and her enemies) what evils fundamentalism leads to. I'm not saying that areligiosity is the only cause, but it is a major one.
The problem with schools taking on an increasing moral burden is that children get stupider, like that fact that 1 in 5 5th graders in California don't know where the bloody pacific ocean is.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
On your second and third comments, I can agree to a point, law of averages and all that. Though I think God is God, whether you view him/her/it as personal or not. I was wrong about the xtian thing though, he was a Jew, I don't know how I forgot that point.
I really don't think *I* need more moral spirituality, I think our culture (Americans at least) do, being that we're in sever need of some form of moral influence, or at least our children are. Their not getting it at home, they don't go to church, and school is not the proper institution for it. I speak for social good, not religiosity, or personal "philosophy"
How is my last comment trolling? It is in the declaration of independance? And in philosophically the US government is a really good thing and being that we lost a solid moral background, and gained hollow situational ethics, it is a corrupt cesspool of idiocy. All I was saying is that not only were terrible atrocities commited in the name of the Judeo-Christian God, but also great things were inspired by him, or his idea.
And as clarification, I am not Christian, I do not believe one lick in the judeo-christian god, I am an atheist with semi-buddhist leanings. I am horrified by ignorant fundamentalism, but think that some form of spirituality is needed on behalf of the masses, since there is no secular moral education in the US (as of yet).
i.e. the troll was unintentional.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Erm... Einstien was a christian, hence the "god does not play dice" comment. Gutenburg was definatly a christian, hence the Gutenburg Bible. Actually most intelligent men of the past were religious. And most scientists now are christian.
The dark ages are also called such because the collapse of Rome destabalized their empire, which was most of Europe. Also that nasty plague. Corrupt goverments... etc... Xtianity played a role, sure, but was it was only a necissary cause.
Insulting Augustine doesn't seem quite fair. How was he an apologist, eh? His work is (was, sadly) the foundation of all western morality and ethics up until the silly situational ethics and meaningless of the current post-modern world? I'd would say that we were better off with Augies system, than with what we have now.
Galileo was also a ferverant christian, though. BTW, even if the Church didn't like him.
Mind you I'm not an "apologist" for religion, I just think that some form of moral spirituality is needed. And think that God has brought us some good things too, great art in his honor, great music, and of course great government (like the US, and its GOD GIVEN rights).
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Opening a whole big can-o-worms, and deviating karma-scortchingly-offtopic:
I doubt that he used these examples as a purposful falacy, probably just an honest rhetorical mistake.
Also, he never told anyone to reject "right and wrong". Why do people think that you need religion to obtain any form of morality, of right and wrong? I'm pretty much an atheist, but I still (in my experience), have a deeper morality than my religious friends, because, unlike them, my morality is well thought out, and deep. While most of their morality was handed to them by their parents/church, and is based on a concept that they really don't understand, or fully beleive.
I do agree with you, that it is a shame that the postmodern view endorses the meaninglessness of morality. Situational ethics are a great evil facing western culture.
Edward Abbey is my hero! A statement most/.'ers would object to, since he was so anti-progress. EA is why I choose to go to NAU, up on The Colorado Plateau...
Read his non-fiction, it is much better than his fiction, much more real. It might inspire someone to blow up that damn dam. It might inspire you to realize that the (if you are in the SouthWest) power that is running your computer right now is coming at the expense of a VERY BEAUTIFUL expanse of desert (that I know very well, and love dearly).
No writing for you... I'm going to school for philosophy (so useless am I!), and have learned that a codified language is necissary for deep communications. We all have to agree with a conventional language to communicate in a meaningful way. Also we need a large vocabulary. Meaning that we must READ books. BOOKS = COMMON HERITAGE = COMMUNICATION.
I personally, in my elitist way, hate people who eschew books for reality television, blogging, and IM. For an analogy (especially for/.) imagine if none of us could agree to what Internet, or Communicate meant... We NEED a standard language to communicate.
Problem being, I was unemployed, meaning $100ish was somewhat out of reach, considering living expenses. And the fact that I had no other (as I said) need or want of Microsofts crap product, and was only going to use it for the semester. Not a good investment.
I think I've already commented to you several times, based on your sig.
I really just think the issue is more complicated, and thats it. Piracy existed "back-in-the-day", but was too complicated for the average user. Think of warez BBSes, Newsgroups, IRC. Now it requires typing "*program name* warez" into Google, something that most americans can do with no problems.
Remember, though, that only one person bought DoomII, the rest downloaded it from warez boards. Piracy has probably been around as long as there has been computers that allowed you to ul/dl stuff. I don't think that being a spoiled brat has anything to do with it, just availability. Before Napster, I used to copy my friends tapes, even some of his super-nifty software (starcon 1, being the first). As a child, some guy gave me a shoe-box full of 5 3/4 disks of commodore games, all with handwritten logos. I also used to by commercial games from a swap-meet, also with handwritten labels.... Piracy is as old as it has been possible.
Though it would be interesting to see if per capita physical theft has gone up too...
I really do sound like I'm advocateing it, no? I'm not. Just saying that it is a real complicated ethical issue, and UNPRECIDENTED ethical issue.
As a Philsophy major: Ethics have been around for 1000's of years because no one has been quite able to grasp them in a concrete manor. Ethics are part of philosophy, and philosophy is a 2000+ year old ARGUMENT.
A societies ethics change over time. No where is there a codified ethic of "though shalt not pirate software/music/movies" Theft is wrong, granted, by our modern American standards, but piracy is of a different character than "classic" theft, with no actual property disapearing.
If society wants piracy to be unethical to the individual, we will have to create said ethic. Thats how it works.
I dare someone to find a clause against intellectual property piracy in any of the "universal" ethical systems, such as that proposed by Augustine.
Your company makes a billion dollars, I make slighly over minimum wage, its hard to defend the company. They overprice things (everyone does, its capitalism) grossly, make 150% profit, all that. Their CEOs are obscenely rich, often at the expense of all human virtue. They screw their employees. They screw their customers. It really is hard to care about their profits.
I guess people care about as much for these companies, as they care for them. Hard to blaim the average Joe downloading stuff for free. Hard to see some deep moral issue.
Mind you, I don't advocate piracy. I'm just saying that it is REALLY hard to see the "poor" companies point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
please tell me your either trolling or being humorous... PLEASE!
Oh yeah, QIX, I think I wasted most of my youth sitting in front of my C64 cussing at the damn squiggly thing. Simple, yet confounding. You know if there are any ports/clones of this floating around?
Tradewars, definately! Don't forget LoRD, though. One of my local BBSs had EVERY module for LoRD, it was happy days.
And of course MULE, the other game that kept me chained to the C64, refusing to upgrade to a real PC, until I learned that it was on the NES. The NES version always seemed to lack something though...
Get the direct 3D patch for DK2... It is sweet!
Total Annihilation is the timeless game. I've been playing it once a month since it came out. Graphics rival any RTS up until WarcraftIII or C&C:G, game play beats both since there is no resouce whoring.
Quake 3 amazed me when I got a modern graphics card, it was VERY pretty. Same for the original UT, though, with a decent modern system it pulls a good FPS, and is still very fun (without the weapon nerfs!).
Of course Civ2, which I think is superiour to Civ3, is still VERY playable.
And of course Fallout1/2, which I still install and play from time to time.
And Dungeon Keeper 2, with the D3d patch. That game still can keep me amused for hours.
/. got /.ed... ain't it cute...
To be un/.ish, you got several good points. I'm gonna have to ponder them for awhile, and see if I can find away to rectify humanity and capitolism ethically. I'm not saying I quiet agree philosophically though.
Don't forget prostate cancer, which is more fatal than breast cancer, just men don't talk about it as much.
Don't get me wrong, cronic depression does exist, I wouldn't deny that. Just 90% of the psychoactive drugs prescribed doesn't go to treat it, they go to treat neurotic housewives. If everyone who gets depression drugs were actually seriously depressed, then it no longer is an illness, it is the norm. Samething with ridalin, over diagnosed, over pushed.
Not trolling...
How much of these wonderdrugs are psychoactive mood enhancers, and how many of them are for a real problem?
I think that the profiteering has come to the point where these wonderous drug companies are doing more harm than good. We often (here in the US) forget that these drugs can be used to save LIVES... Individual lives. I put life over profit, no matter what, as any sane individual would. Sure, we can take the unbridled capitolist approach and say "they make money, it must be good for everyone", but in the end it comes down to the simple fact that people are dying, and some people are getting rich because of it.
A solution would be to scalp the silly neurotic housewives, and charge MASSIVE money for their prozac. And charge huge amounts of money for ridalin as well, and use that to develop and distribute real drugs to the third-world. Take advantage of first-world stupidity for the greater good. But charging an arm-and-a-leg for something that can save lives is unexcusable.
Actually, this was before I got turned on to iTMS, now I probably would.
The action was as close to a compromise I could think of, if someone could think of a better one (besides iTMS and indie bands), please enlighten me.
I have made some use of iTMS since I discovered it, though some of the tracks I want are quite old and obscure, and not offered.
Your examples are insightful, though different from the context. These are active groups, not passive agents contributing a meager amount of influence to a very large system. My passive action (not buying CD A), is not going to change the actions of the thousands of people who will. And in not buying CD A, I'm depriving myself from some a good work of music, it seems that the sacrafice is not worth the price.
I try to tell my friends about the nastyness of the RIAA, which is an active responce, and hopefully a fruitful one. I try to compromise with the burning circle idea. I figure spreading the word enough might help. But until someone develops a better mechanism for the distribution of polished music, I have a feeling that it is all moral masterbation.
I would gladly support indie bands, if the grand majority of them didn't suck, or offerend some sort of quality production values on their CDs. But then again, supporting indie bands isn't like supporting freedom fighters, most of them would sign with an RIAA company is the chance presented itself.
I agree, it is that type of thinking that lets these big nasties exist. But, sadly (and contrary to the cliche) one person does not make a difference, especially in a world where 90% of the people don't give a shit, or are just plain ignorant. Also, how would my not buying a CD tranfer my intent to the artist? Abscence does not contain any clear meaning, it could attributed to piracy, or lack of interest, or a myriad of other things that would lead to a (minute) drop in sales.
I've only bought one new CD in the last 3 years (A Perfect Circle: Thirteenth Step), and for that I got 10 people to chip in $1.50, then burned 10 copies of it. I figured this plan is a good compromise between supporting bands I respect, and screwing those nasty RIAA people.
Some bands under RIAA labels are still decent musicians, capable of decent and creative music. I wish there was a decent way to support them, and not their corporate overlords. I'm not going to boycott good music just because the RIAA sucks, this is shooting off my nose to spite my face.
Also most indie bands suck. I know this is a sin to say in some circles, where obscurity equals good. The sad fact is that most obscure bands suck. My local scene is choked with bad punk bands (whos only talent is producing mildly amusing covers, too bad that isn't my thing), amatuer death metal, and the garage band ressurection. Nothing I really want to hear. Though there are a couple small-venue bands that I have purchased CDs from, but most of those CDs are of poor quality.
I was thinking that if I stopped supporting RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they might get a clue, and start some independant release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb. The majority of people will continue buying from RIAA folk, because that is what is available, and being with a big company affords visibility. Fleh.
I don't think, in the US at least, that our lack of morality is going to be fixed by any secular means, the system is screwed beyond repair in my eyes, and most people would disagree that the system is even broken. A quick religious fix would at least keep us from further becoming uncontrolled, impulsive, monsters. Thats all that matters to me, restoring some form of humanity into the next generation, humanity being something that the Xers and whatever the ones after them are called now completely lack.
Religion would also remove some of the relativism from our culture, and relativism is one of the things that is destroying modern society. If you haven't noticed, I'm being purely pragmatic with religion, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to work.
Religion also adds meaning to life, and when this meaning goes away, fundamentalism comes to fill the need, and we can see (with the US and her enemies) what evils fundamentalism leads to. I'm not saying that areligiosity is the only cause, but it is a major one.
The problem with schools taking on an increasing moral burden is that children get stupider, like that fact that 1 in 5 5th graders in California don't know where the bloody pacific ocean is.
On your second and third comments, I can agree to a point, law of averages and all that. Though I think God is God, whether you view him/her/it as personal or not. I was wrong about the xtian thing though, he was a Jew, I don't know how I forgot that point.
I really don't think *I* need more moral spirituality, I think our culture (Americans at least) do, being that we're in sever need of some form of moral influence, or at least our children are. Their not getting it at home, they don't go to church, and school is not the proper institution for it. I speak for social good, not religiosity, or personal "philosophy"
How is my last comment trolling? It is in the declaration of independance? And in philosophically the US government is a really good thing and being that we lost a solid moral background, and gained hollow situational ethics, it is a corrupt cesspool of idiocy. All I was saying is that not only were terrible atrocities commited in the name of the Judeo-Christian God, but also great things were inspired by him, or his idea.
And as clarification, I am not Christian, I do not believe one lick in the judeo-christian god, I am an atheist with semi-buddhist leanings. I am horrified by ignorant fundamentalism, but think that some form of spirituality is needed on behalf of the masses, since there is no secular moral education in the US (as of yet).
i.e. the troll was unintentional.
Erm... Einstien was a christian, hence the "god does not play dice" comment. Gutenburg was definatly a christian, hence the Gutenburg Bible. Actually most intelligent men of the past were religious. And most scientists now are christian.
The dark ages are also called such because the collapse of Rome destabalized their empire, which was most of Europe. Also that nasty plague. Corrupt goverments... etc... Xtianity played a role, sure, but was it was only a necissary cause.
Insulting Augustine doesn't seem quite fair. How was he an apologist, eh? His work is (was, sadly) the foundation of all western morality and ethics up until the silly situational ethics and meaningless of the current post-modern world? I'd would say that we were better off with Augies system, than with what we have now.
Galileo was also a ferverant christian, though. BTW, even if the Church didn't like him.
Mind you I'm not an "apologist" for religion, I just think that some form of moral spirituality is needed. And think that God has brought us some good things too, great art in his honor, great music, and of course great government (like the US, and its GOD GIVEN rights).
Opening a whole big can-o-worms, and deviating karma-scortchingly-offtopic:
I doubt that he used these examples as a purposful falacy, probably just an honest rhetorical mistake.
Also, he never told anyone to reject "right and wrong". Why do people think that you need religion to obtain any form of morality, of right and wrong? I'm pretty much an atheist, but I still (in my experience), have a deeper morality than my religious friends, because, unlike them, my morality is well thought out, and deep. While most of their morality was handed to them by their parents/church, and is based on a concept that they really don't understand, or fully beleive.
I do agree with you, that it is a shame that the postmodern view endorses the meaninglessness of morality. Situational ethics are a great evil facing western culture.
GTA OTG?
Edward Abbey is my hero! A statement most /.'ers would object to, since he was so anti-progress. EA is why I choose to go to NAU, up on The Colorado Plateau...
Read his non-fiction, it is much better than his fiction, much more real. It might inspire someone to blow up that damn dam. It might inspire you to realize that the (if you are in the SouthWest) power that is running your computer right now is coming at the expense of a VERY BEAUTIFUL expanse of desert (that I know very well, and love dearly).
No writing for you... I'm going to school for philosophy (so useless am I!), and have learned that a codified language is necissary for deep communications. We all have to agree with a conventional language to communicate in a meaningful way. Also we need a large vocabulary. Meaning that we must READ books. BOOKS = COMMON HERITAGE = COMMUNICATION.
/.) imagine if none of us could agree to what Internet, or Communicate meant... We NEED a standard language to communicate.
I personally, in my elitist way, hate people who eschew books for reality television, blogging, and IM. For an analogy (especially for
Anonymous Coward
As a jackass who has to hide thier identity...
Problem being, I was unemployed, meaning $100ish was somewhat out of reach, considering living expenses. And the fact that I had no other (as I said) need or want of Microsofts crap product, and was only going to use it for the semester. Not a good investment.
I think I've already commented to you several times, based on your sig.
I really just think the issue is more complicated, and thats it. Piracy existed "back-in-the-day", but was too complicated for the average user. Think of warez BBSes, Newsgroups, IRC. Now it requires typing "*program name* warez" into Google, something that most americans can do with no problems.
Remember, though, that only one person bought DoomII, the rest downloaded it from warez boards. Piracy has probably been around as long as there has been computers that allowed you to ul/dl stuff. I don't think that being a spoiled brat has anything to do with it, just availability. Before Napster, I used to copy my friends tapes, even some of his super-nifty software (starcon 1, being the first). As a child, some guy gave me a shoe-box full of 5 3/4 disks of commodore games, all with handwritten logos. I also used to by commercial games from a swap-meet, also with handwritten labels.... Piracy is as old as it has been possible.
Though it would be interesting to see if per capita physical theft has gone up too...
I really do sound like I'm advocateing it, no? I'm not. Just saying that it is a real complicated ethical issue, and UNPRECIDENTED ethical issue.
As a Philsophy major:
Ethics have been around for 1000's of years because no one has been quite able to grasp them in a concrete manor. Ethics are part of philosophy, and philosophy is a 2000+ year old ARGUMENT.
A societies ethics change over time. No where is there a codified ethic of "though shalt not pirate software/music/movies" Theft is wrong, granted, by our modern American standards, but piracy is of a different character than "classic" theft, with no actual property disapearing.
If society wants piracy to be unethical to the individual, we will have to create said ethic. Thats how it works.
I dare someone to find a clause against intellectual property piracy in any of the "universal" ethical systems, such as that proposed by Augustine.
knew I shouldn't have posted...
mod parent up, please.
people hate rich people... br
Your company makes a billion dollars, I make slighly over minimum wage, its hard to defend the company. They overprice things (everyone does, its capitalism) grossly, make 150% profit, all that. Their CEOs are obscenely rich, often at the expense of all human virtue. They screw their employees. They screw their customers. It really is hard to care about their profits.
I guess people care about as much for these companies, as they care for them. Hard to blaim the average Joe downloading stuff for free. Hard to see some deep moral issue.
Mind you, I don't advocate piracy. I'm just saying that it is REALLY hard to see the "poor" companies point of view.