The equivalent to the entire population of your city will die today.
Most of these deaths will be meaningless, avoidable, tragic deaths that come too soon. Many of them will be murders, committed by soldiers, or criminals. Some of them were paid for directly with money you earned, given to the government through taxes.
Why should any of us care about this particular tragedy, besides the potential inconvenience?
Sounds like Final Fantasy Tactics. I've been playing it on my PSP, and one interesting thing is that team members can die permanently if they're not revived within 3 turns or they're not alive when combat ends.
Changes your playing style substantially. Levelling up a soldier is a non-trivial time investment, so you protect them jealously.
I wonder if we can apply this to anything where you'd have to be fucking retarded not to realise the limitations?
"I'm sorry your honour, I figured you could just issue a judgement that my parents were no longer dead. You guys rule on the laws of man, so why not the laws of physics?"
If you believe that proliferation of violent video games should cause a proportional increase in violent crime (the only justification for warnings like this), then the statistics should show increasing incidence of violent crime.
Since there is no obvious threat to public safety posed by video games, as shown by statistics, I think all these congressmen should shut their whore mouths and follow the constitution.
From where I'm standing, your problem is you're paying way too much for every step of the process. low level PCs are virtually free(I've been given two in the past couple months, just because people didn't want them anymore). CRT monitors are being virtually given away (or literally given away -- I've got three). Games are being literally given away, as long as you know where to look.
You know what? Providing citations for facts is like bringing a knife to a nuke fight. Nobody else, including you "[citation needed]" assholes, ever backs up their ridiculous assertions.
I've tried actually backing up my assertions with sources. Know what happens? You spend hours researching a post and forming a strong arguement only to be derailed by the first jackass who says "no it isn't" and pulls some fantasy out of their ass.
I agree, but they are slowly getting better. The initial cost of 800 dollars was insane. I'd rather buy a used car than a PS3 at that price point. It's more fun bag driving a vehicle than playing video games anyway. Now you can get a pretty nice version for around 400-500 bucks, They're almost there.
I haven't heard about enough cool games on the PS3 to justify buying one yet, but as the price goes down, it's only a matter of time before the games get there. If my PSP is any indication, they've also got the now standard on-line store, which means once you get the console for the bigger games, you won't have to worry about having a console that literally can't do anything. Among the three consoles, it seems like Sony's store has the best games for the lowest prices, which is a nice perk.
With respect, this is the Internet. If you cite sources, you're at a disadvantage.
I've tried debating using pure facts to support every assertion I make. The problem is, even the more technically minded people on the Internet are so full of shit they'll say ridiculous things without citations.
It's like bringing a knife to a nuclear war. You've got facts, they've got megatonnes of explosive bullshit.
You fail. I design boiler control systems for a living, and one of the things our boilers do is run the three turbogenerators on site.
Of course, we can't just throw imaginary feel good crap around. If were going to run on biomass or waste oil (it's hilarious that people actually think we RECYCLE that stuff!), there has to be a real reason to do so, because we can't afford to pay someone for a bunch of energy that costs more gas to get than energy it creates.
My post correctly pointed out that Bush doesn't look 70 or 80. This easily derails this idea that he's aged faster than a normal person. He looks to be in his 60s, and frankly, he looks good for someone that age. Probably thanks to all the vacation time he took.
Yes you did. "Which are more valuable to our overall environment? A few less cubic feet of CO2, or a few more salmon, a couple of ducks, some crayfish and a sturgeon?" explicitly compares hydroelectric power to forms of energy which release CO2.
I do agree that idiots need to think more about the true and full costs of technologies before running off and saying they're the be-all end-all of human existence. I did a simple study of biofuels, and found that if hydrocarbon fuels disappeared tomorrow, it would take 2/3 of humanity's entire electricity generating reserves just to create enough hydrogen (through electrolysis) to create ammonia which would be used for fertilizer to feed humanity.
When they're not subsidized by fossil fuels, most "alternative fuels" are shown to be false idols. Hydrogen being one of the best examples, since it's created almost exclusively from natural gas.
This doesn't qualify as qualitative research. They don't know anything about Google's facilities -- not even where they are. How can they pretend to know what the carbon footprint is?
It's like trying to guess the number of gumballs in a jar you've never seen.
WindBourne, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Look into oil, natural gas, and coal mining. Come back and try to tell me a bit of a floodwater compares to the impact of these industries, even barring CO2.
Great. So why not give everyone in America such a table? Then America's kitchens and meeting rooms would display such a majestic grace that any head of state could be used as a meeting room with heads of state, displaying our awesome economic might (except that wed be poor from the high table taxes)
If you think that George W. Bush aged 16-24 years, you're living in a dream world.
The man was 55 when he became president, and now he's around 62. Have you ever actually seen someone age, or are you just completely ignorant of the fact that people look older after a long period of time has passed?
If you think Bush looks 70 or 80, I think you need to meet some 70 or 80 year olds.
Explain the benefit of the aforementioned top-end table. How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?
I'm positive the second plane could have been stopped. The appropriate information existed. The planes were known to have turned off their transponders. The first plane hit the first world trade center. The problem was, the fucking president decided that "My Pet Goat" was more important than protecting American lives.
It's a good thing he's a christian; I'd hate for him to be confused as to why he's in hell when he dies.
I mean, no civilians can say "I killed a person with an 30 year old soviet-era assault rifle kept together with twine and duct tape from three miles away with the 30mm avenger cannon on my A10 flying armour bathtub which is impervious to small arms fire". They've never had to take that risk, to take that chance, make that sacrifice, for freedom.
Non-US citizen here. The acronym POTUS is used more than enough that anyone who wants to know what it means already does.
It's ironic that the amount of effort going into bitching back and forth about the term is about ten thousand times the amount of effort it takes to look it up.
Slashdot Mirror
The equivalent to the entire population of your city will die today.
Most of these deaths will be meaningless, avoidable, tragic deaths that come too soon. Many of them will be murders, committed by soldiers, or criminals. Some of them were paid for directly with money you earned, given to the government through taxes.
Why should any of us care about this particular tragedy, besides the potential inconvenience?
Sounds like Final Fantasy Tactics. I've been playing it on my PSP, and one interesting thing is that team members can die permanently if they're not revived within 3 turns or they're not alive when combat ends.
Changes your playing style substantially. Levelling up a soldier is a non-trivial time investment, so you protect them jealously.
I wonder if we can apply this to anything where you'd have to be fucking retarded not to realise the limitations?
"I'm sorry your honour, I figured you could just issue a judgement that my parents were no longer dead. You guys rule on the laws of man, so why not the laws of physics?"
Aha! Any rock which isn't in another rock's gravity well!
You can't "lift" that which doesn't have "up"!
"Warning: Voting for me has been linked to high blood pressure and aggression."
By the way, these guys are idiots. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the violent crime rate in the US has dropped in half during the era of violent video games.
If you believe that proliferation of violent video games should cause a proportional increase in violent crime (the only justification for warnings like this), then the statistics should show increasing incidence of violent crime.
Since there is no obvious threat to public safety posed by video games, as shown by statistics, I think all these congressmen should shut their whore mouths and follow the constitution.
From where I'm standing, your problem is you're paying way too much for every step of the process. low level PCs are virtually free(I've been given two in the past couple months, just because people didn't want them anymore). CRT monitors are being virtually given away (or literally given away -- I've got three). Games are being literally given away, as long as you know where to look.
Bullshit.
You know what? Providing citations for facts is like bringing a knife to a nuke fight. Nobody else, including you "[citation needed]" assholes, ever backs up their ridiculous assertions.
I've tried actually backing up my assertions with sources. Know what happens? You spend hours researching a post and forming a strong arguement only to be derailed by the first jackass who says "no it isn't" and pulls some fantasy out of their ass.
I agree, but they are slowly getting better. The initial cost of 800 dollars was insane. I'd rather buy a used car than a PS3 at that price point. It's more fun bag driving a vehicle than playing video games anyway. Now you can get a pretty nice version for around 400-500 bucks, They're almost there.
I haven't heard about enough cool games on the PS3 to justify buying one yet, but as the price goes down, it's only a matter of time before the games get there. If my PSP is any indication, they've also got the now standard on-line store, which means once you get the console for the bigger games, you won't have to worry about having a console that literally can't do anything. Among the three consoles, it seems like Sony's store has the best games for the lowest prices, which is a nice perk.
You mean to tell me those nice Bolsheviks who conquered Berlin weren't Americans?
Next you'll be telling me that the 40 years of communist rule in east Germany wasn't the work of the Americans.
Laserdisk was promoted pretty heavily too. Nobody I know ever owned one.
With respect, this is the Internet. If you cite sources, you're at a disadvantage.
I've tried debating using pure facts to support every assertion I make. The problem is, even the more technically minded people on the Internet are so full of shit they'll say ridiculous things without citations.
It's like bringing a knife to a nuclear war. You've got facts, they've got megatonnes of explosive bullshit.
You fail. I design boiler control systems for a living, and one of the things our boilers do is run the three turbogenerators on site.
Of course, we can't just throw imaginary feel good crap around. If were going to run on biomass or waste oil (it's hilarious that people actually think we RECYCLE that stuff!), there has to be a real reason to do so, because we can't afford to pay someone for a bunch of energy that costs more gas to get than energy it creates.
My post correctly pointed out that Bush doesn't look 70 or 80. This easily derails this idea that he's aged faster than a normal person. He looks to be in his 60s, and frankly, he looks good for someone that age. Probably thanks to all the vacation time he took.
Yes you did. "Which are more valuable to our overall environment? A few less cubic feet of CO2, or a few more salmon, a couple of ducks, some crayfish and a sturgeon?" explicitly compares hydroelectric power to forms of energy which release CO2.
I do agree that idiots need to think more about the true and full costs of technologies before running off and saying they're the be-all end-all of human existence. I did a simple study of biofuels, and found that if hydrocarbon fuels disappeared tomorrow, it would take 2/3 of humanity's entire electricity generating reserves just to create enough hydrogen (through electrolysis) to create ammonia which would be used for fertilizer to feed humanity.
When they're not subsidized by fossil fuels, most "alternative fuels" are shown to be false idols. Hydrogen being one of the best examples, since it's created almost exclusively from natural gas.
This is the sort of post we need to see more of.
Kudos for actually citing facts.
This doesn't qualify as qualitative research. They don't know anything about Google's facilities -- not even where they are. How can they pretend to know what the carbon footprint is?
It's like trying to guess the number of gumballs in a jar you've never seen.
WindBourne, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It's hard to take your appeal seriously.
Look into oil, natural gas, and coal mining. Come back and try to tell me a bit of a floodwater compares to the impact of these industries, even barring CO2.
Great. So why not give everyone in America such a table? Then America's kitchens and meeting rooms would display such a majestic grace that any head of state could be used as a meeting room with heads of state, displaying our awesome economic might (except that wed be poor from the high table taxes)
If you think that George W. Bush aged 16-24 years, you're living in a dream world.
The man was 55 when he became president, and now he's around 62. Have you ever actually seen someone age, or are you just completely ignorant of the fact that people look older after a long period of time has passed?
If you think Bush looks 70 or 80, I think you need to meet some 70 or 80 year olds.
Explain the benefit of the aforementioned top-end table. How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?
Let's never forget the incompetence on that day.
I'm positive the second plane could have been stopped. The appropriate information existed. The planes were known to have turned off their transponders. The first plane hit the first world trade center. The problem was, the fucking president decided that "My Pet Goat" was more important than protecting American lives.
It's a good thing he's a christian; I'd hate for him to be confused as to why he's in hell when he dies.
Civilians are pussies.
I mean, no civilians can say "I killed a person with an 30 year old soviet-era assault rifle kept together with twine and duct tape from three miles away with the 30mm avenger cannon on my A10 flying armour bathtub which is impervious to small arms fire". They've never had to take that risk, to take that chance, make that sacrifice, for freedom.
If you'd ever seen the supreme court of the united states, you'd realise that's completely accurate.
Non-US citizen here. The acronym POTUS is used more than enough that anyone who wants to know what it means already does.
It's ironic that the amount of effort going into bitching back and forth about the term is about ten thousand times the amount of effort it takes to look it up.
President
Of
The
United
States
Ok, everyone knows what it means. Give it a rest.