If I were Joe Anthony, I'd sue the Obama campaign if I could.
First of all, if he really supported Obama (which is evident since he made a fansite for him), then sueing the campaign will only further damage the benefits of his hard work. Second of all, he can't sue the Obama campaign because they weren't the ones that transfered the URL to another Myspace page. The responsibility lies on MySpace. If he got $10,000 for it, he should be very happy. Most people don't get ANY money when they volunteer to do something.
The only difference between this new scenario and the Obama MySpace flap is that there's no "real" property involved. Still a crappy way to treat someone who volunteered for you for 2.5 years./i>
Umm, there are quite a bit more differences then that. Like for example, updating a myspace page and answering emails is alot easier the developing a machine that walks dogs.
If the guy wasn't smart enough to get a patent on the machine, then you really can't blame the animal shelter taking the invention from him. Animal shelters are under staffed and under funded, if the guy really cared about animals, he should proud and happy he helped a good cause. If he was expecting to get full compensation for the value of the machine, he should have made sure that he was going to get paid beforehand.
A better analogy for you would be if that dog walker had spent 2.5 years of his own time and money developing a leash that allows one person to walk 160,000 dogs at once, and is now being asked to turn over control of that leash to the shelter. I don't know about you, but I'd think that dog walker deserves some compensation.
That's not a better analogy. Updating a myspace page and developing a new invention are two completely different things. He updated a myspace and answered emails. While his work became very valuable, the main point of my arguement is that he did the work as a volunteer, not as an employee. If he wanted to get paid as an employee, he should have refused to have done the work in the first place, unless he got compensated.
He's being asked for a number to give up 2.5 years worth of work.
2.5 years of volunteering to maintain a MySpace page is hardly work. He was putting the effort because he wanted to. No one ever agreed to pay him, so why should he expect the same amount of money as someone that is hired through a contract previously agreed upon?
Say after a few years, an animal shelter no longer needs the services of a volunteer dog walker because a group of professional dog handlers agree to walk the dogs. Wouldn't you think it would be a little unfair if the dog walker asked for compensation as if he worked there? The guy probably does deserve a dinner or some nice gifts for his services, but he agreed to work as a volunteer, not as an employee.
I don't blame Obama's campaign for being offended by his offer. While 50k might seem like a drop in the bucket, to successfully run a campaign for presidency, you need all the money you can get. They probably should have just given him an amount that they thought was fair, instead of asking him though.
For example: I am completely desensitized to the games I play: Counter-Strike: Source, Quake 3, etc. CS:S, for example: I can shoot a fairly realistic-looking human in the face, watch them crumple to the ground, blood splattered on the wall behind them, and feel nothing at all. I can do this all day -- in general, games, especially multiplayer ones, do not give me any kind of adrenaline rush.
You know, the whole "video games desensitizes players to violence" arguement never really made to sense to me. Would you be completely comfortable if you watched some one get shot in the face in real life? I've been playing Counter-Strike and other violent fps's for the better part of my life, and I still feel faint at the sight of signficant amounts of blood. I know if I personally saw someone get shot in the head, I would probably pass out. I've seen real people getting shot and killed on videos before, and I didn't like it one bit, and I got sick to my stomach.
Maybe some people who aren't sane enough to realize the difference between fantasy and reality will be affected by video games, but I have yet to see proof the video games actaully desensitizes us to actaul real-life violence.
Yeah, Eve-Online is good if you like playing with elitists who think that the clunky, confusing, and unintuitive user interface just makes the game more "complex and deep."
Here are some good "murder simulators" for you to "train" on:
-Doom -Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The Video Game) -Resident Evil 4 -Gears of War
Each of these games have chainsaws in them, and according to JT, you can become quite skilled at using weapons in real life if you practice using them in the game. So after playing these games, you should be a great chainsaw murderer! Good luck!
Yeah, offensive linemen are fucking geniouses. The ability to remember which way is left and which is right takes more intelligence than what any programmer has.
He isn't a moron. You said that there were no helicopters in GTA3. He simply pointed out that there was. If you meant that there were no helicopters that were usable by the player, then you should have been more specific.
Oooh!!! What now, Jah-Wren Ryel!?!? 2short just took your shit and rubbed all up against your grill! You gonna let the muthafucka do that shit to ya, man? You just got ho-slapped with a side of milk, son. Don't bring that weak shit no mo'. Dis be 2short's house now, biatch!
I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but you are aware John Carmack also is the founder and lead engineer of Armadillo Aerospace, which has nothing to do with video games...right?
Did you not even read my post? Your volleyball friend example has nothing to do with video games. You are making it totally clear, but it's still a retarded idea.
There are already individual servers that have admins that ban players for being too good. Some of them even have "complaint" systems (a.k.a forums). Why does it have to be a global thing? Instead of players like me getting banned from individual servers, I get banned from the whole game for doing nothing wrong? Bah, if you can't get why your idea is so stupid at this point, you never will.
There are so many different systems out there that work so much better in balancing the players. Xbox live create random servers that match people based on their rank. Nintendo Wi-Fi only allows friends to play with each other. I'm sure there a bunch of others that don't involve banning players for doing nothing wrong.
Why should online gaming be any different? First of all, your friend isn't pulled off the volleyball court if he tries too hard. Second of all, in gaming you have hundreds if not other "volleyball courts" that you can join if your friend is being too tough on you. Third of all, volley ball is a sport where people can get hurt (bloody noses) if he spikes the ball into someones face. Fourth of all, he is the one that asked every one to play with HIM. It's in is best interest to keep everyone happy or they won't ever play with him again.
Face it dude, your idea won't work. Not only will it piss off good players. People can use the complaint system to "grief" people and make up B.S. complaints. The admins aren't gonna check up on every damn cheat complaint. Especially for popular games with 10,000 servers like CS. Tons of new people would have to be hired to handle all the complaints. It would be a waste of money. No company is going to pay money to unjustly ban good players, when newbs can just join newbie servers that are regulated by their own admins and can ban people for being too good or whatever other retarded reason.
You're essentially saying they should cater FPS's to people who suck. I used to play CS at very competetive levels, and I still like to play on public servers every once in while. I rarely get done playing before some one accuses me of cheating. Am I actaully cheating? Nope! And I know I'm not the only one. Almost all the teams I've played were full of people who would get accused cheating if they played on public servers. The truth is that people most people who make the accusations are very new to the game and are ignorant about the differences between cheating and being good. It's not hard to consistently make headshots: You aim for the head and you burst-fire. It's also not hard to kill people who hide behind boxes: You see someone run behind a box, you shoot the area of the box where they are most likely hiding.
If you implement some sort of complaint system like that, no one will want to be good at the game because then they won't be able to play with their less competent friends. No one will want a game that discourages people from being good. Your idea might improve experience for sucky players but it totally alienates good players. Not very smart if you're trying to expand the demographics of people who play your game.
You actually think people should be forced to pretend that they are sucking? The current system works fine. If you are getting your ass kicked and you aren't having a good time, join a different server.
Well here in the US, it's hard for a "pro" gamer to make a living. Pro Starcraft players in South Korea make over $200k a year. This could easily be happening here if the pro gaming leagues played their cards right. Fatal1ty has his name on Sound Blaster cards and he has other product lines. While I think it's rather lame (especially having to see some nerds face on the box), I'm pretty sure the guy is making a healthy sum of money from it.
This is just an instance of advertisers being told to fuck off by the game companies about ads in their games. I'm not really sure what "this" is refering to. I don't know how you can tie in professional gaming with in-game ads, thats a pretty big stretch. Pandemic is sponsored by Subway, Panasonic, and some other no-name companies. I never heard of a team being sponsored by the game companies themselves. I doubt Blizzard had anything to do with these gaming teams recruiting WoW guilds.
You can be a better player than Jonny549, but he has that [Crown of Destruction] and full Teir 2 set while you don't, so the odds are atrificially stacked in his favor. Not because he's better, not because he's done better in previous rounds...but because he got lucky on a few loot drops or has more free time. Well, in the first season or two this will be the case. But any team that would consider themselves "professional" or at least be able to compete at the top ranking of the Arena probably has players that play often enough that their gear will be pretty much maxed out quickly. Also, we probably won't see another expansion for a while, so there will be plenty of time for the "more casual" players to catch up with the more dedicated gamers. I'm thinking another year or so we will see many teams competing with maxed-out, optimum gear. The deciding factor will be what builds each player chooses, how they use their build to help the team, and how well the team communicates and works together.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were Joe Anthony, I'd sue the Obama campaign if I could.
First of all, if he really supported Obama (which is evident since he made a fansite for him), then sueing the campaign will only further damage the benefits of his hard work. Second of all, he can't sue the Obama campaign because they weren't the ones that transfered the URL to another Myspace page. The responsibility lies on MySpace. If he got $10,000 for it, he should be very happy. Most people don't get ANY money when they volunteer to do something.
The only difference between this new scenario and the Obama MySpace flap is that there's no "real" property involved. Still a crappy way to treat someone who volunteered for you for 2.5 years./i>
Umm, there are quite a bit more differences then that. Like for example, updating a myspace page and answering emails is alot easier the developing a machine that walks dogs.
If the guy wasn't smart enough to get a patent on the machine, then you really can't blame the animal shelter taking the invention from him. Animal shelters are under staffed and under funded, if the guy really cared about animals, he should proud and happy he helped a good cause. If he was expecting to get full compensation for the value of the machine, he should have made sure that he was going to get paid beforehand.
A better analogy for you would be if that dog walker had spent 2.5 years of his own time and money developing a leash that allows one person to walk 160,000 dogs at once, and is now being asked to turn over control of that leash to the shelter. I don't know about you, but I'd think that dog walker deserves some compensation.
That's not a better analogy. Updating a myspace page and developing a new invention are two completely different things. He updated a myspace and answered emails. While his work became very valuable, the main point of my arguement is that he did the work as a volunteer, not as an employee. If he wanted to get paid as an employee, he should have refused to have done the work in the first place, unless he got compensated.
He's being asked for a number to give up 2.5 years worth of work.
2.5 years of volunteering to maintain a MySpace page is hardly work. He was putting the effort because he wanted to. No one ever agreed to pay him, so why should he expect the same amount of money as someone that is hired through a contract previously agreed upon?
Say after a few years, an animal shelter no longer needs the services of a volunteer dog walker because a group of professional dog handlers agree to walk the dogs. Wouldn't you think it would be a little unfair if the dog walker asked for compensation as if he worked there? The guy probably does deserve a dinner or some nice gifts for his services, but he agreed to work as a volunteer, not as an employee.
I don't blame Obama's campaign for being offended by his offer. While 50k might seem like a drop in the bucket, to successfully run a campaign for presidency, you need all the money you can get. They probably should have just given him an amount that they thought was fair, instead of asking him though.
For example: I am completely desensitized to the games I play: Counter-Strike: Source, Quake 3, etc. CS:S, for example: I can shoot a fairly realistic-looking human in the face, watch them crumple to the ground, blood splattered on the wall behind them, and feel nothing at all. I can do this all day -- in general, games, especially multiplayer ones, do not give me any kind of adrenaline rush.
You know, the whole "video games desensitizes players to violence" arguement never really made to sense to me. Would you be completely comfortable if you watched some one get shot in the face in real life? I've been playing Counter-Strike and other violent fps's for the better part of my life, and I still feel faint at the sight of signficant amounts of blood. I know if I personally saw someone get shot in the head, I would probably pass out. I've seen real people getting shot and killed on videos before, and I didn't like it one bit, and I got sick to my stomach.
Maybe some people who aren't sane enough to realize the difference between fantasy and reality will be affected by video games, but I have yet to see proof the video games actaully desensitizes us to actaul real-life violence.
The developers that made Starcraft are no longer with Blizzard as well.
Yeah, Eve-Online is good if you like playing with elitists who think that the clunky, confusing, and unintuitive user interface just makes the game more "complex and deep."
Here are some good "murder simulators" for you to "train" on:
-Doom
-Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The Video Game)
-Resident Evil 4
-Gears of War
Each of these games have chainsaws in them, and according to JT, you can become quite skilled at using weapons in real life if you practice using them in the game. So after playing these games, you should be a great chainsaw murderer! Good luck!
There's a difference between nice full breasts, and breasts that sag. It's okay, I wouldn't expect a slashdotter to know such things.
Chicks in low G will develop new curves? Cool!
They will develop sagging breasts which is not new and definately not cool.
Yeah, offensive linemen are fucking geniouses. The ability to remember which way is left and which is right takes more intelligence than what any programmer has.
Yeah, and you totally won't be able cheat/hack the PC version.
He isn't a moron. You said that there were no helicopters in GTA3. He simply pointed out that there was. If you meant that there were no helicopters that were usable by the player, then you should have been more specific.
ur full of shit u stupid fuktard
Signed:
Cornflake917, 24-yr old male
Wasn't the PSP already aimed at at teen users?
Oooh!!! What now, Jah-Wren Ryel!?!? 2short just took your shit and rubbed all up against your grill! You gonna let the muthafucka do that shit to ya, man? You just got ho-slapped with a side of milk, son. Don't bring that weak shit no mo'. Dis be 2short's house now, biatch!
I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but you are aware John Carmack also is the founder and lead engineer of Armadillo Aerospace, which has nothing to do with video games...right?
Is that you Jesus?
Did you not even read my post? Your volleyball friend example has nothing to do with video games. You are making it totally clear, but it's still a retarded idea.
There are already individual servers that have admins that ban players for being too good. Some of them even have "complaint" systems (a.k.a forums). Why does it have to be a global thing? Instead of players like me getting banned from individual servers, I get banned from the whole game for doing nothing wrong? Bah, if you can't get why your idea is so stupid at this point, you never will.
There are so many different systems out there that work so much better in balancing the players. Xbox live create random servers that match people based on their rank. Nintendo Wi-Fi only allows friends to play with each other. I'm sure there a bunch of others that don't involve banning players for doing nothing wrong.
Face it dude, your idea won't work. Not only will it piss off good players. People can use the complaint system to "grief" people and make up B.S. complaints. The admins aren't gonna check up on every damn cheat complaint. Especially for popular games with 10,000 servers like CS. Tons of new people would have to be hired to handle all the complaints. It would be a waste of money. No company is going to pay money to unjustly ban good players, when newbs can just join newbie servers that are regulated by their own admins and can ban people for being too good or whatever other retarded reason.
Most... retarded... idea... ever.
You're essentially saying they should cater FPS's to people who suck. I used to play CS at very competetive levels, and I still like to play on public servers every once in while. I rarely get done playing before some one accuses me of cheating. Am I actaully cheating? Nope! And I know I'm not the only one. Almost all the teams I've played were full of people who would get accused cheating if they played on public servers. The truth is that people most people who make the accusations are very new to the game and are ignorant about the differences between cheating and being good. It's not hard to consistently make headshots: You aim for the head and you burst-fire. It's also not hard to kill people who hide behind boxes: You see someone run behind a box, you shoot the area of the box where they are most likely hiding.
If you implement some sort of complaint system like that, no one will want to be good at the game because then they won't be able to play with their less competent friends. No one will want a game that discourages people from being good. Your idea might improve experience for sucky players but it totally alienates good players. Not very smart if you're trying to expand the demographics of people who play your game.
You actually think people should be forced to pretend that they are sucking? The current system works fine. If you are getting your ass kicked and you aren't having a good time, join a different server.
Now I can play Metroid: Prime Hunters and other DS multiplayer games online!
Ummm, you do realize by making that comment, you increased the likelyhood that someone will "go there," right?
If you don't want people to "go there" then maybe you should stay outta "there" yourself.