While that's all great...I do find it consistently irritating to always hear somebody pat ourselves on the back for not being an absolute disaster. Instead of comparing ourselves to some backwater nation where people slaughter each other, shouldn't we be comparing ourselves to, say, the scandanavian or european countries that rate higher then us on freedom of press and democracy? I mean, saying "YAY WE DIDN'T GO TO WAR, GO US!" is sort of a very low bar isn't it?
Yeah, part of me wants to pack up and move to a civilized country. The but the other, much larger part, wants to scream: COME BACK you bastards! We need you here! This is our country dammit, and we need to fight for it, not just quit. Every quitter makes life even harder for those that remain. And remember, when they came for me, there was no one left to object...
Considering that almost anybody that has attended public school knows how to fill out a Scan-Tron sheet blindfoled and upside down, I'd say that is a good criteria for usability. Well, I guess if you're not blind or something, in which case the electronic machines don't really help either. I don't understand why we need full-on generic purpose computing processors and on-screen displays and bullshit, just to perform a multiple choice selection. Come on, it's not that hard. It's embarrassing.
I does when dishonest reporters report decisively on an election result which is undecisive, and all the other moron news channels copy them creating an aura of legitimacy and...
By that definition anything popular is wrong, so you have to do the _opposite_ just to make sure you don't inadvertently look like you are being trendy. Anti-trendy is the new trendy! Lots of people think murder is wrong. Such sheep! Why don't they think for themselves instead of "going with the herd"! It still seems anti-war and anti-president is sure UNtrendy from what I see. Face it, no matter who you vote for, there is going to be an idiot somewhere ALSO voting for that person. You have to vote on your own beliefs not how popular or unpopular the belief is.
I think it was in Outfoxed that it was said: perhaps countries whose populace has instilled in them an inherent trust of the media are the easiest to deceive, as they will be the least likely to accept that they are being deceived.
I'm not sure if I believe that, but I don't think it's a far stretch to manufacturing consent. It's interesting just how well thought can be manipulated by fabricating a false diversity of view.
Depends on whether you consider kernel modules "in the kernel". It allows kernel modules to be written in C++ (they give 2 sample modules) which before apparently was required lots of extra redundant support code. Nobody is forcing kernel (proper) developers to use C++.
Grub understands ext file systems and gives you a console that is pretty flexible, so unless you intentionally deleted all backup bootable kernels (shame on you) you should still be able to boot in some manner.
So how does it stack up agains McKoi and HypersonicSQL, both of which are pure java, and "embeddable" databases. Do we need another?
Personally I wish instead of more databases, the various vendors/projects would just decide on common freakin SQL syntax...it's embarassing and stupid to have to many copies of the same SQL scripts that are only slightly different because the keywords are slightly difference.
"you're missing out on the exclusive right to farm the land"
You only need exclusive right to farm land, because land is finite. However, art can be replicated digitally indefinately, and is does not need to be exclusive to a single person. One person can "farm" it, or two people can "farm" it, or 6 billion people can "farm" it. In fact, it's this "farming" that we call culture. The "media industry" isn't the be-all end-all source of culture...it in fact feeds off popular culture. I mean, did Fox ask permission to place their 70s show in Wisconson? Or use period clothing and products and automobiles? You can tell when copyright has gone awry when you see people sing "Happy Happy Birthday Birthday *clap* *clap*" in TV shows because some fucker has perpetual right to that stupid song which is legitimately part of the culture.
It could be. And in fact it's a point I agree with. Are you assuming I disagree with it? If you are interested in an elaboration, stopping paying for a mmorpg implies a cost other than simply that month's entertainment...presumably you lose your investment in time and relationships, etc. that you put into the game. But that's your choice if you want to make it and I never implied it couldn't be made.
[...some angry blather deleted...] "If you want a game where female characters are treated equally then BUY A GAME WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY AREN'T IN THIS ONE."
Yeah, it would be great to know that ahead of time. Before you purchase. As an informed consumer. Did you get that point, or are you in an entirely different cartesian plane?
"What are you advocating gets done about this game, anyway? The government ban it?"
I haven't advocated doing ANYTHING about it. It would be a shame if it were an obligatory step in the game, but now that the wiki is up it seems it was just a sub-quest that the players were able to work around.
"Let's have the government ban books that criticize Christianity. And I can't wait for you to revert to calling me a misogynist because I'm not outraged that a game is exercising it's right to free expression."
And I can't wait until you release your pent up insecurities by charicaturing me based on wild assumptions that massage and solidify your own philosophical beliefs. Does it feel better. Wait, I'll get a bow tie and throw on a sweater, that will make it more fun.
Wow you're right! I'm wasting my time trying to prove that my feelings were hurt because people in some fantasy game were offended by something! I should get off my pansy liberal ass and put up siding or something, right!? I'm just totally blinded by my overreaction to somebody somewhere getting their feelings hurt!
Was that what you wanted to say? My point all along is that if this is required for some sort of advancement, and excludes portions of the player population arbitrarily, and that WASN'T made clear to purchasers of the game then they have a right to be upset and of course they can vote with their wallets and stop playing, although that doesn't recoup the time they invested already. My mistake of course was responding this this original troll which invited more trolling on me. I do think it is disingenuous to sponsor an event which people spent time waiting on only to find out they are excluded for arbitrary reasons but not _told beforehand_ so they can make their own decision whether to waste their time or not, or to stop playing. Now that the wiki is back UP, it seems there was a way around this and that this event was not obligatory, points the article and blog entry posted did not make clear.
This is just more of that post-modern victim shit. Some chicks got bent outta shape because a CHARACTER in a GAME set in ANCIENT EGYPT didn't treat their characters like empowered 21st century soccer-moms.
The only hot air is that produced by you after you jumped on MY comment to this post with your own comment here which was moderated TROLL.
I didn't invite you to wheedle me about my post, you decided to start this yourself.
What does that have to do with anything? I never implied you had any "responsibility" to buy their product. If it disappoints then stop paying for it. My simple point, which I will apparently have to repeat in the multitudinous responses, is that if the game does not advertise that it is going exclude you in the future, it is understandable when players get upset about it. However, since the wiki is back up I see that it is simply a sub-quest that does not exclude people from advancing by doing other sub-quests so the whole issue is moot.
Really, what is your problem? What "high horse" do you think I'm on? If you buy a product that does not advertise that it does not fulfill a reasonable expectation for a product of that type, it is not unreasonable to be upset. I don't have anything to say about city of heroes because it is OBVIOUS by the packaging what the game is like and is returnable the second you install it and find out if you are offended. This is all academic because it turns out the event in question was simply a sub-quest when did NOT apparently bar people from participation in other quests etc. and did not exclude people form advancement. Now that the wiki is up I can see that. If it had excluded players from advancement, that would first of all be a bad business move, but secondly a shame for players who would be rightfully upset that they had invested wasted time.
And since you agree with me that excluding something isn't a suggestion that it didn't exist, then it would be permissible to exclude all sorts of things that would otherwise make games not fun to play.
But this is all academic now, because since the wiki is accessible, I see that this just concerns some sort of sub-quest and that the players were able to role-play around by expelling the trader or whatever he was, and it wasn't arbitrarily blocking advancement.
Uh no. My point is that if there is no mechanism to "role-play their parts in the situation appropriately" then it is unfair and a waste of time for those playing. I was unable to verify whether this was true or not since the wiki was slashdotted. Now that it is accessible I see that this was just some sort of non-critical quest, and presumably there are other quests which are not exclusionary. In fact, if I read the wiki correctly, expelling this trader or whatever he was was exactly how the players reacted. So they did indeed role play their way out of the situation as anticipated.
Now if there weren't any other way around it, then it would be arbitrary and unfair.
What a stupid argument. Did I promise not to run you over?! Woops?! What a ridiculous presumption of yours! Why don't you get into the ROLE of getting run over! Come on sheesh!
I guess you think it is an unreasonable expectation to pay for a game and then be arbitrarily excluded from participating in some manner not under your control and not made known to you before purchase. That would easily be solved if they simply made that known up front and you could decide before buying (let me make a wild guess and predict that those who would be excluded aren't going to purchase then). That didn't seem to be the case with ATITD1 although it's possible it was the case with ATITD2 in which case, no they don't have any reason to complain if they were aware of the circumstances. This is not on their site, and I can't check the wiki because it's slashdotted.
Yeah. For an entertainment product. One would expect to be pleased.
"The company has no responsibility to cater to your whims."
h0 h0 h0! Except of course if it wants money in exchange for catering to my whims. Which as it turns out almost all companies do.
"Just because you decided to invest in something that has no material good, is, again, nobody's fault but yours."
Huh? It did have some "good" until that "good" was destroyed.
"Did you ever think that I, as another customer, welcome the immersion that a sexist character brings to a game like this? What if I belong to the majority?"
Ok, I'll play your surreal mindgame. You mean that you welcome being abused by admins? Or you welcome others being abused by admins? If you welcome being disenfranchised of the product "entertainment" being sold to you, by all means continue supporting it. If you welcome others being abused then by all means continue supporting it and they will likewise decide to stop purchasing the game, and eventually your amusement will end.
What ever gave you the impression that I didn't think people should "vote with their wallet"? What exactly are you reacting against?
If I read a book I don't like I can stop reading it, and return it to the library or sell it to somebody else.
If I buy a car and it turns out it can't make right turns or go in reverse, but that fact was not made clear at the time of purchase I will 1) complain to the manufacturer (or perhaps since you have such a reactionary grudge against "complaining" you would prefer "politely inform" instead) since it is undoubtedly a reasonable expectation that such a product should have such a feature (and likewise it is a reasonable expectation that a game which does not otherwise advertise the fact that it may arbitrarily prevent you from participating, doesn't do so) and 2) "vote with my dollars" and never buy from them again.
If I build my house out of some material which doesn't advertise it self destructs in 5 years... you get the point (hopefully?).
Of course something else you haven't factored in is whatever value was accumulated during the time playing the game which of course will be lost if you just stop playing. Of course you can vote with your wallet that doesn't necessarily make arbitrary admin actions fair or good business sense.
Huh? You make no sense. Are you arguing with ME, or YOURSELF? Your first two sentences are exactly my point. It sounds a lot like you are arguing against yourself. Nobody is suggesting "banning" anything except for the individual consumer "banning" the game by simply not paying any more for a game which randomly imposes undisclosed and arbitrary rules that prevent their advancement and enjoyment of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
While that's all great...I do find it consistently irritating to always hear somebody pat ourselves on the back for not being an absolute disaster. Instead of comparing ourselves to some backwater nation where people slaughter each other, shouldn't we be comparing ourselves to, say, the scandanavian or european countries that rate higher then us on freedom of press and democracy? I mean, saying "YAY WE DIDN'T GO TO WAR, GO US!" is sort of a very low bar isn't it?
Except of course if you pay $350 or can find an immigrant to replace you.
Yeah, part of me wants to pack up and move to a civilized country. The but the other, much larger part, wants to scream: COME BACK you bastards! We need you here! This is our country dammit, and we need to fight for it, not just quit. Every quitter makes life even harder for those that remain. And remember, when they came for me, there was no one left to object...
Considering that almost anybody that has attended public school knows how to fill out a Scan-Tron sheet blindfoled and upside down, I'd say that is a good criteria for usability. Well, I guess if you're not blind or something, in which case the electronic machines don't really help either. I don't understand why we need full-on generic purpose computing processors and on-screen displays and bullshit, just to perform a multiple choice selection. Come on, it's not that hard. It's embarrassing.
Good code is self documenting. However, the language may be incomprehensible.
I does when dishonest reporters report decisively on an election result which is undecisive, and all the other moron news channels copy them creating an aura of legitimacy and...
oh nevermind
By that definition anything popular is wrong, so you have to do the _opposite_ just to make sure you don't inadvertently look like you are being trendy. Anti-trendy is the new trendy! Lots of people think murder is wrong. Such sheep! Why don't they think for themselves instead of "going with the herd"! It still seems anti-war and anti-president is sure UNtrendy from what I see. Face it, no matter who you vote for, there is going to be an idiot somewhere ALSO voting for that person. You have to vote on your own beliefs not how popular or unpopular the belief is.
You can clearly see the trend that those ballots started to go missing BEFORE Bush took office. The ballot bubble burst. It's not Bush's fault.
I think it was in Outfoxed that it was said: perhaps countries whose populace has instilled in them an inherent trust of the media are the easiest to deceive, as they will be the least likely to accept that they are being deceived.
I'm not sure if I believe that, but I don't think it's a far stretch to manufacturing consent. It's interesting just how well thought can be manipulated by fabricating a false diversity of view.
Depends on whether you consider kernel modules "in the kernel". It allows kernel modules to be written in C++ (they give 2 sample modules) which before apparently was required lots of extra redundant support code. Nobody is forcing kernel (proper) developers to use C++.
Grub understands ext file systems and gives you a console that is pretty flexible, so unless you intentionally deleted all backup bootable kernels (shame on you) you should still be able to boot in some manner.
So how does it stack up agains McKoi and HypersonicSQL, both of which are pure java, and "embeddable" databases. Do we need another?
Personally I wish instead of more databases, the various vendors/projects would just decide on common freakin SQL syntax...it's embarassing and stupid to have to many copies of the same SQL scripts that are only slightly different because the keywords are slightly difference.
"you're missing out on the exclusive right to farm the land"
You only need exclusive right to farm land, because land is finite. However, art can be replicated digitally indefinately, and is does not need to be exclusive to a single person. One person can "farm" it, or two people can "farm" it, or 6 billion people can "farm" it. In fact, it's this "farming" that we call culture. The "media industry" isn't the be-all end-all source of culture...it in fact feeds off popular culture. I mean, did Fox ask permission to place their 70s show in Wisconson? Or use period clothing and products and automobiles? You can tell when copyright has gone awry when you see people sing "Happy Happy Birthday Birthday *clap* *clap*" in TV shows because some fucker has perpetual right to that stupid song which is legitimately part of the culture.
$400 pc with Linux ~ $400
or
$100 pc with Windows XP $299 ~ $400
Yeah, we really have to get that outrageous hardware down in price, otherwise how could we expect people to pay for those expensive software bits!
"Wasn't that the entire point of his comment?"
It could be. And in fact it's a point I agree with. Are you assuming I disagree with it? If you are interested in an elaboration, stopping paying for a mmorpg implies a cost other than simply that month's entertainment...presumably you lose your investment in time and relationships, etc. that you put into the game. But that's your choice if you want to make it and I never implied it couldn't be made.
[...some angry blather deleted...]
"If you want a game where female characters are treated equally then BUY A GAME WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY AREN'T IN THIS ONE."
Yeah, it would be great to know that ahead of time. Before you purchase. As an informed consumer. Did you get that point, or are you in an entirely different cartesian plane?
"What are you advocating gets done about this game, anyway? The government ban it?"
I haven't advocated doing ANYTHING about it. It would be a shame if it were an obligatory step in the game, but now that the wiki is up it seems it was just a sub-quest that the players were able to work around.
"Let's have the government ban books that criticize Christianity. And I can't wait for you to revert to calling me a misogynist because I'm not outraged that a game is exercising it's right to free expression."
And I can't wait until you release your pent up insecurities by charicaturing me based on wild assumptions that massage and solidify your own philosophical beliefs. Does it feel better. Wait, I'll get a bow tie and throw on a sweater, that will make it more fun.
Wow you're right! I'm wasting my time trying to prove that my feelings were hurt because people in some fantasy game were offended by something! I should get off my pansy liberal ass and put up siding or something, right!? I'm just totally blinded by my overreaction to somebody somewhere getting their feelings hurt!
Was that what you wanted to say? My point all along is that if this is required for some sort of advancement, and excludes portions of the player population arbitrarily, and that WASN'T made clear to purchasers of the game then they have a right to be upset and of course they can vote with their wallets and stop playing, although that doesn't recoup the time they invested already. My mistake of course was responding this this original troll which invited more trolling on me. I do think it is disingenuous to sponsor an event which people spent time waiting on only to find out they are excluded for arbitrary reasons but not _told beforehand_ so they can make their own decision whether to waste their time or not, or to stop playing. Now that the wiki is back UP, it seems there was a way around this and that this event was not obligatory, points the article and blog entry posted did not make clear.
THIS is the post I responded to:
The only hot air is that produced by you after you jumped on MY comment to this post with your own comment here which was moderated TROLL.
I didn't invite you to wheedle me about my post, you decided to start this yourself.
What does that have to do with anything? I never implied you had any "responsibility" to buy their product. If it disappoints then stop paying for it. My simple point, which I will apparently have to repeat in the multitudinous responses, is that if the game does not advertise that it is going exclude you in the future, it is understandable when players get upset about it. However, since the wiki is back up I see that it is simply a sub-quest that does not exclude people from advancing by doing other sub-quests so the whole issue is moot.
Really, what is your problem? What "high horse" do you think I'm on? If you buy a product that does not advertise that it does not fulfill a reasonable expectation for a product of that type, it is not unreasonable to be upset. I don't have anything to say about city of heroes because it is OBVIOUS by the packaging what the game is like and is returnable the second you install it and find out if you are offended. This is all academic because it turns out the event in question was simply a sub-quest when did NOT apparently bar people from participation in other quests etc. and did not exclude people form advancement. Now that the wiki is up I can see that. If it had excluded players from advancement, that would first of all be a bad business move, but secondly a shame for players who would be rightfully upset that they had invested wasted time.
And since you agree with me that excluding something isn't a suggestion that it didn't exist, then it would be permissible to exclude all sorts of things that would otherwise make games not fun to play.
But this is all academic now, because since the wiki is accessible, I see that this just concerns some sort of sub-quest and that the players were able to role-play around by expelling the trader or whatever he was, and it wasn't arbitrarily blocking advancement.
Uh no. My point is that if there is no mechanism to "role-play their parts in the situation appropriately" then it is unfair and a waste of time for those playing. I was unable to verify whether this was true or not since the wiki was slashdotted. Now that it is accessible I see that this was just some sort of non-critical quest, and presumably there are other quests which are not exclusionary. In fact, if I read the wiki correctly, expelling this trader or whatever he was was exactly how the players reacted. So they did indeed role play their way out of the situation as anticipated.
Now if there weren't any other way around it, then it would be arbitrary and unfair.
Now that I can get to the Wiki it seems like that is exactly what they did.
What a stupid argument. Did I promise not to run you over?! Woops?! What a ridiculous presumption of yours! Why don't you get into the ROLE of getting run over! Come on sheesh!
I guess you think it is an unreasonable expectation to pay for a game and then be arbitrarily excluded from participating in some manner not under your control and not made known to you before purchase. That would easily be solved if they simply made that known up front and you could decide before buying (let me make a wild guess and predict that those who would be excluded aren't going to purchase then). That didn't seem to be the case with ATITD1 although it's possible it was the case with ATITD2 in which case, no they don't have any reason to complain if they were aware of the circumstances. This is not on their site, and I can't check the wiki because it's slashdotted.
"please please me"
Yeah. For an entertainment product. One would expect to be pleased.
"The company has no responsibility to cater to your whims."
h0 h0 h0! Except of course if it wants money in exchange for catering to my whims. Which as it turns out almost all companies do.
"Just because you decided to invest in something that has no material good, is, again, nobody's fault but yours."
Huh? It did have some "good" until that "good" was destroyed.
"Did you ever think that I, as another customer, welcome the immersion that a sexist character brings to a game like this? What if I belong to the majority?"
Ok, I'll play your surreal mindgame. You mean that you welcome being abused by admins? Or you welcome others being abused by admins? If you welcome being disenfranchised of the product "entertainment" being sold to you, by all means continue supporting it. If you welcome others being abused then by all means continue supporting it and they will likewise decide to stop purchasing the game, and eventually your amusement will end.
What ever gave you the impression that I didn't think people should "vote with their wallet"? What exactly are you reacting against?
If I read a book I don't like I can stop reading it, and return it to the library or sell it to somebody else.
If I buy a car and it turns out it can't make right turns or go in reverse, but that fact was not made clear at the time of purchase I will 1) complain to the manufacturer (or perhaps since you have such a reactionary grudge against "complaining" you would prefer "politely inform" instead) since it is undoubtedly a reasonable expectation that such a product should have such a feature (and likewise it is a reasonable expectation that a game which does not otherwise advertise the fact that it may arbitrarily prevent you from participating, doesn't do so) and 2) "vote with my dollars" and never buy from them again.
If I build my house out of some material which doesn't advertise it self destructs in 5 years... you get the point (hopefully?).
Of course something else you haven't factored in is whatever value was accumulated during the time playing the game which of course will be lost if you just stop playing. Of course you can vote with your wallet that doesn't necessarily make arbitrary admin actions fair or good business sense.
Huh? You make no sense. Are you arguing with ME, or YOURSELF? Your first two sentences are exactly my point. It sounds a lot like you are arguing against yourself. Nobody is suggesting "banning" anything except for the individual consumer "banning" the game by simply not paying any more for a game which randomly imposes undisclosed and arbitrary rules that prevent their advancement and enjoyment of the game.