Well, to be fair, I wasn't talking in the sense of the 'best' games, but more in the tone of 'risk taking' games. The games people haven't done before. (like Dance Dance Revolution.)
Japan has it's share of me-too games as well, but one could easily make the argument that different stuff materializes there more frequently than here.
'Best' is a different unit of measure, not something I'd want to engage in. At that point, it's a matter of taste.
"Am I really the only one getting bored of Nintendo's games? Mario Sunshine was a dissapointment and so was Zelda - as was Mario Kart 64 and Yoshi's Story. "
You're jaded. I can understand that. I feel that way about shooting games. I would defend Nintendo, though, because their franchises are nearly always significantly different from their predecessors. While you're complaining about rupees and arrows and swords, I'm happy that the puzzles are more interesting, the are other things to get into (like the leaf or the bird bait), and the way some places it makes more sense to be stealthy than to just go in and attack. If that stuff bothers you, then off ya go. No harm done. But anybody who's played Mario Sunshine for any real length of time will see that it's a huge step from Mario 64, and you just plain don't play it the same.
There's nothing wrong with starting with an established set of rules. Why confuse the user? Why turn off the ability to slice bushes and get rupees in them?
Man, you can see the similarities, but can't see the differences.
"With all of Miyamoto's great ideas, he should have no problem finding a job after Nintendo..."
If I were a bettin man, I'd say that 'after Nintendo', Miyamoto will retire. Nintendo takes very good care of him, and he feels very good about that place. He's a creative guy. Nintendo nurtures that creativity and lets him take risks. I can't imagine he'd get that treatment elsewhere.
Also, factor in that he loves his job. I don't think money is his big pull in life. I doubt he gets hired away from there either.
"Yes franchise leveraging is what I'm talking about in that example. Its exactly what he rails against American companies for doing. "
No it's not. He rails against taking the previous game and making a few subtle upgrades to it. "oo we have 10 guns instead of 6." The Mario Bros series is comprised of games that are very different elements. 'Sequal', in Nintendo speak, doesn't mean "upgrade what we got", it means "do something new".
Thing is, though, I'm pretty sure you haven't spent any time with these games. I think you're going to try to argue with me on this based on impressions you've been left with by looking at a few screenshots. Go ahead and try, doesn't bother me. But I'd encourage you to look at what happened to Sonic the Hedgehog. Now there was a trilogy of games you couldn't tell apart. Big surprise that Sonic to Sega was never what Mario was to Nintendo.
" OMFG. And Wind Waker wasn't exactly the same as Ocarina of Time?"
Nope. Play it.
"What are they on, Super Mario Bros 104 including all the GBA versions? "
What are you on? What's the BFD? All the Mario games are very different from each other. We're not talking about new levels to Pacman here. Hint: Oversimplification never enlightens.
"For Nintendo to gain ground in America they need to drop the nationalistic Japan is #1 crap and step up to 2003."
He wasn't impressed with American games as of late. Do you blame him? We're "let's milk the formula for sequals!" happy right now. It's been proven time and time again that Americangame companies have difficulty taking risks and doing something *gasp* original. I can't even name a whole lot of American game companies because they don't leave much of an impression on me. (Go Rockstar, though!)
"But does he have to be so condesending about it?"
A.) He has a point. B.) Sugarcoating it would just take longer to read. He's being honest. He's certainly earned his right to judge. C.) condescending is not the word I'd use. He's disappointed. What's he supposed to say?
I guess this comment just bugs me because I'm sick of the "I need to be nice to everybody for fear of lawsuits" crap that figureheads like Miyamoto end up hiding behind. I much prefer to hear it like it is. One can take a comment like his and get upset over it, or they can take it as a criticism and learn from it. I think you've already picked the path you want to take. Pity, really. If I were working for a game company, I'd be thinking really hard about what he's saying instead of thinking of a rebuttal.
"I'd like to post that quote next to the Gamecube at Toys R Us. If people knew how Nintendo really felt about America they would sell zero consoles."
Doubtful. Shooting games are overrated and a lot of people are quite sick of going through it over and over again. It's refreshing to hear "we're not doing guns just because they're today's fad". I'm sure mothers would be glad to hear about it too.
The mistake you're making is that you think he's talking about America as a whole. He was talking about what the current formula over here is for a 'good game'. The comments he quoted were akin to people leaving a theater disappointed rattling off what would have made the movie better. "There should have been boobs and bigger explosions."
Sorry, but I found this dude enlightening, not offensive.
"Mention Paradise Hotel and how the John Ravolta look-alike got on last night and I guarantee you can start up a conversation."
The little known (at least to Slashdot) downside of having a girlfriend, the f'in reality shows. My girlfriend better hope a Star Trek marathon doesn't come up soon.
Eh sorta. The way I think of it, a comic is funny if he does what it takes to make the audience laugh. If he won't do what it takes to make them laugh under the guise of artistic license, then he's a terrible comic.
"This upgrade raises the concern of the choked bus. I mean, who really wants to run a 3000+ on a 133MHz system bus?"
Depends on what you're doing. I did some informal (and unscientific I should mention) tests using Lightwave on an an Athlon vs. a P4 with Hyperthreading etc. The specs on the P4 sounded like should have blown the doors off of the Athlon. Nope. The Athlon was surprisingly quick. It's not even a modern Athlon, either. It's got a 266 bus.
I don't think LW cares too much about the bus. Then again, my results aren't exactly conclusive so take what I've said with a grain of salt. I had to admit, though, I was pretty stunned by my 1.5 year old Athlon's performance. (happy too!)
"It is? If you're having trouble with the stability of your system, it's most probably either your Power Supply Unit or RAM, don't blame the CPU."
Though I can support your stability claim, I learned a lesson about cooling those things. When I lived in my centrally air conditioned apartment, my athlon worked great. When I moved into an apartment that was considerably warmer, I started seeing instabilities plus the bios would scream at me to shut it down.
The truth of the matter is that the CPU can be blamed, particularly if the environment exceeds its configuration. I suppose one could blame the user, but then again, if there's already a fan on it what do they do?
My dual athlon at work has impressive uptimes, even with Win2k, but darned if it doesn't sound like I work in an airport runway. *Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*
Yeah, that could be said. (though the formula for it makes people question the artistic nature of it...)
However, art is not just about self expression, it's about entertainment. Read on.
"So should sidewalk chalk artists not be allowed to make drawings?"
If their goal is to entertain, then sidewalk chalk artists wouldn't have much of a living. You have to admit, though, you have reached a ridiculous extreme here.
"So, should publishers not be allowed to print a book in whatever size they want, then distribute it on tape/cd/ebook/etc if they want?"
In any case where art is mass produced for consumption, then a reasonable attempt has to be made to satisfy the target audience. An artist would be a fucking moron if he published a book as at 8' by 8'. If he just made a few of these books for individual sale, that'd be one thing. If Barnes and Noble carried it, a lot of people would be saying 'WTF? If I mass-produced an album called "60 minutes of Silence", and it really contained 60 minutes of silence, I'd be making 'art' but I wouldn't be entertaining. As a matter of fact, I'd probably be up on charges of fraud.
"So should a painter have to check with the buyer before he decides oil versus pastels, canvas versus illustration board, small versus mural, etc.? "
If an artist was mass-producing art that was intended to be pasted on the side of a house, he'd be in serious trouble if it couldn't withstand sunlight or rain. I'm not sure what the legality of that would be, on the other hand he's failing to entertain, thus his mission would fail.
"Sure you can hang it/display it/listen to it wherever you want once you get it home, but as to where you can buy art, it's not 'unfair' that you have to go to a gallery contracted to sell the piece."
I really tried to understand your side of it here, but there's still the little matter of supply and demand. When one can easily produce something to your satisfaction, it's hard to fathom that they'd try to force you into buying an expensive product you had no intention of ever purchasing. Again, this isn't art as expression here, it's art as entertainment. You'd like to be entertained, but they have to meet you half way. I'm curious if you'd be posting this if movie theaters required climbing a gym rope to buy a ticket.
" Art isn't public domain (despite p2p advocates)/"
I don't recall any P2p advocates claiming art is public domain. BTW, I'm an artist who hopes to one day have content to release on the net. I'm a P2P advocate. If I sell something that people want, but can't stand the format, then I need to fill that demand. Competition is good, even in the art arena. P2P is competition, not a war.
" It's a product, and if you choose to enjoy it, you are stuck with how the artist/rep choose to let you partake in it. "
You're right. It is a product. And as such, there are expectations that have to be met. The recent court case against copy restricted CDs comes to mind. CDs were created that don't work in some CD players all in the name of fighting piracy. As a result, some people couldn't access the content. A lawsuit was issued, and the consumers won. The point here is that as a product, they can't just dictate every little detail about it. If it's intended to work a certain way, then it must work a certain way. Sure, they can release the soundtrack to LXG only on iTunes. However, their goal of entertain is being thoughtlessly restricted to a very narrow audience. They're choking themselves for money and potentially (assuming the soundtrack is any good) creating demand they refuse to fill. Illegal? No. Unethical? Grey Area. Stupid? Yes.
An artist whose goal is to entertain should never EVER ignore the comments of his customers involving delivery of the product. If they say "we want higher quality", he shouldn't say "I'm the artist and I say it's this way."
"How do Kate and John just waltz into a top secret military research facility? No ID? No search to see if they're armed? "Sure ma'am just bring in that AK-47 and those C4 charges. It's cool."
Don't forget they had a Terminator with them.
"Then the T-X is about to incinerate them at Crystal Peak, John actually takes the time to stop and thank the T-800. WHAT?!?!?!?! It's a F***ING MACHINE! It doesn't care about your gratitude."
So he's not going to be human anyway? Anybody would have done that. Besides, Arnie did something rather selfless.
" I guess I can understand that the internet was designed to operate in the event of a nuclear war, but when the power plants go out, so do all of the computers that make up Skynet."
Skynet was born within the complex. It had the resources it needed there, and the other T-1s were protecting it. Nobody outside of the facility even knew what was going on.
No plot hole here, move along.
"If Skynet is no longer a central machine, how then can John and Kyle Reese "smash" its defense grid and defeat in 20 or so years?"
Who say's its not a central machine 30 years from now?
"I also thought that it was stupid that Kate starts to fall for John the SAME F'ING DAY that her fiance gets murdered by the T-X. Maybe a brief period of mourning would have been in order."
1.) She liked him already. 2.) Who said anybody fell for anybody? The best you got was a handhold while John was stepping into the role he didn't want to be in.
"John is also a pill popping boozer. I'm not sure how that plays into his future role as "leader" of humanity."
1.) He was drinking to get over the trauma he suffered. That hardly makes him a boozer. Even if it did, it's tough to imagine booze was widely available during the war. 2.) He was pill popping because he injured his leg. 3.) What's one got to do with the other? He had more knowledge about what was to happen than anybody else did. In a sense, the Terminators created John Connor.
I know it's way too late to expect you to see this, but I caught your post after spotting the topic during metamod. I think you're overanalyzing the movie looking for faults in it, thus removing the fun for yourself.
Just so ya know, this thread will time out any day now. So if you say something and I don't respond, please consider that the 'reply to this' feature has disappeared. In that case, I'd recommend you look at other posts you made to see if I responded.
Re:it's about time...
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
" For crying out loud, you had a greater chance of dying by slipping in your bathtub. Even in China. "
I'm not a big fan of reasoning like this. I may have a chance of slipping in the bathtub, but I can also take steps to prevent it. I also know exactly when and where it can happen so I can be on my guard. In the case of infection, I don't know when somebody else has it. That's what's truely scary about it.
Your heart's in the right place, but the "worry over greater risks" reasoning could use some tuning.:)
Overtated? Aww c'mon, I was trying to answer the guy's question. I was saying that the term 'contained' works because we can't execute everybody who shows signs of SARS. Even if we could do that, it's hard to imagine that it couldn't reappear again at some point.
There are some people with mod points that I wish would just discuss instead of mod.
"How can they say they have the disease contained if they say, in their next breath, that they expect it to come back again?"
A year after his escape, Houdini has finally been re-captured. The world is now safe from his antics. We should caution you, though, that he may find a way to escape again. Afterall, it would be immoral to execute him.
"I think the Linux community should stop trying to emulate the bloat of XP. What are they smoking? The point of Linux is to be alternative. And if the alternative is the same, looks the same, and takes the same amount of memory to run. Then whats the point? Arg. "
So... it should be behind then? XP should look like it's a generation ahead of Linux? Brilliant. *eyeroll*
Menu shadows are helpful, incidentally. They're not going to save the world from alien invaders, but they do provide a nice extra visual cue to let you know that help you figure out where you are. This 'eye candy' lets you know that a dialog is on top of the parent app.
Nothing wrong with that. Computers are fast, and it can be disabled.
"Sounds just like the "Do not click on this link!" found on my prof's course webpage. (And yes, I did click on the link.)"
His testing of his hypothesis is flawed. He claims that clicking that link has to do with people wanting to open every door and see everything that is concealed from them. Though his hypothesis may well be right and may even be true in a lot of cases, he's still getting polluted data. I didn't click on the link because it said "do not click on this link", I clicked on it because every time I've seen "do not click on this link" it was because somebody was trying to use reverse psychology to get more attention. Frankly, I wouldn't have clicked on it if had said "members only". I wouldn't have even cared, that that would have flown right in the fac eof his hypothesis.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating my idea too clearly or not. So here's a test that I think would help filter out the noise: password protect the next page and watch how hard people try to figure out the password.
Now, as for the RIAA (gotta drag myself back on topic here), I do not believe the growth is due in part to people feeling like they're 'bad-boys' about it. Rather, I believe it is a mixture of reasons. Two pop into mind. 1.) Lots of people flipping off the RIAA and saying "no, if you're going to be like this, then I'll hurt you in the way that I know best." and 2.) I better get what I can while I can.
As for Napster's growth (I realize it was the parent poster and not you that said this), I think that had more to do with people being made aware of it than anything else.
In any case, I'm a little off-topic. Sorry about that. The RIAA has been way off in understanding the psychology of its customers, and yes that includes file swappers too. Suing individual users will only cause music trading to evolve and resist. Sooner or later, it'll be impossible to know who's downloading what.
The funny thing is that I think this movement can outlive the RIAA's abilities to sue it. I can't remebmer the last time I've thought that about the little guy.
" this thread, for example, you assumed to be either all serious from a fool, or all trolling."
Fair enough. I see what you mean. To be fair, though, the constant "you are a fucking idiot" does make you sound like one with a one-tracked mind. Not intended as an insult, but rather a reason as to why I have been absolute. So yes, you're right, I'm gulity of the absolutism charge.
"That's why I dont expect you to understand this post, and it's why I didnt expect you to be able to understand other things, for the most part."
Actually, I have a better opinion about you now after reading this post. I had some errands to do today, during those errands I put some run-time into chewing on this post a bit. I wanted to actually understand your view of it instead of just responding. Hope that makes some sense. I have respect for you now that I didn't have before. I'm sure AnonV will as well. (Incidentally, we are not the same person. We are, however, coworkers that spend entirely too much time on ICQ. We've actually sat at the same computer figuring out how to respond to you, in some cases brainstorming out how to make you react. I never claimed I'm not a shithead. Hehe. For the record, though, I had to twist his arm into posting a few times. He was bored with this ages ago.) I'll make sure he reads this.
"This thread has been both an attempt to enlighten you, and an attempt to entertain. These can co-exist easily, despite cancelling eachother out. It's no secret that I'm not the best at communicating ideas"
True, true. (The coexisting ideas I mean.) I know all about that. I've dealt like that with people before actually. That's why I came to the conclusion I did about you actually. I have performed a similar stunt to get somebody to fall into their own trap. I actually had one guy claiming he was saying the opposite of what he said all along. hehehe So yes, I can see where you're coming from. I do think you'd have an easier time enlightening people if you would focus a little more on getting them to understand what you mean. It's easy to dismiss people who say the same things over and over again.
"... I figure that it can't be too long that, were someone actually trying to think of a new way to look at something, they may stumble accross it."
Yep, you're right. The problem is that if somebody is being dense like I was, then you have to build up the small ideas. In my case, an ineterpretation of what was said would probably have helped. The problem was, I was on a different mission than you. You wanted me to see that I was a 'fucking idiot' and I wanted you to stew in your own juices for your shitty response to my friend. I thought you were trolling, so I looked at your other posts for evidence to support that idea. (You can fault me for not looking for evidence to support otherwise...) I am curious, though, when you first called me an idiot back when I said you forgot to post anonymously, why did you call me an idiot? Also, why weren't you a little nicer to my friend over the warranty post he made? That's why I got involved. He had just bought a laptop around christmas time, it broke, and Dell was quick to replace it. No money involved. So he replied to the guy wondering if he had to pay $80 or if he was making shit up to be funny. Then here you come telling him to shut the fuck up. I just don't see the need for that kind of hostility. If you had just said "he was trying to be funny, you can tell because...." then you would have 'enlightened' AnonV. I have an issue with people who respond as if everybody else should have known all along. I give people shit when they give other people shit. And that's how you got on my shitlist. Funny thing is Anon didn't really care a whole lot, though he did find some of your responses amusing.
"(The 'FUCKING IDIOT' lines were mostly for entertainment, though I do still hold that opinion of you)"
"I'm having doubts that you'll actually read this, and many that you'll believe that first word of it (more awake now)"
I saw this. I promise I'll read it carefully and respond. But I'm going to be away the next few hours to get some stuff done. Just wanted to make sure you know I'm not ignoring you.:)
"1st) NO FUCKING SHIT, YOU MORON. The PROBLEM is that you still havent got a clue what I'm trying at."
That's your failure to communicate, not my inability to comprehend.
"2nd) You foolishly think that enlightenment is an absolute. There are no absolutes. In the subject of this particular thread, I have a more enlightened view than you. That's as far as it goes in either direction."
I don't recall saying anothing that was absolute. Actually I agree with you that there's no such thing as 'absolute', I've argued that many times here. As for having a more enlightened view: Bzzt sorry, wrong. Your view is extremely narrow and based on minimal info. You didn't even draw a good conclusion with what little you had. As I mentioned before, spare me the enlightenment talk. "3rd) Why the FUCK do you think you're so fucking important that everything I tell you is supposed to 'bother' you? This isnt about BOTHERING you, you fuckwit. If you're important enough that bothering you would be an accomplishment, I am not aware of it, so bothering you is not the intent here. YOU FUCKING IDIOT."
Who said anything about anybody being important? You know damn well that you're just trying to get under my skin. Your attempt to turn that into a flaw on my part is further evidence of that. Was that really the best you could do?
"4th)Please reject them somewhere other than only in your head. That is, explain your rejections, much as you are doing now for this particular post."
Already did in my last post. Take your own advice, and read what I said. I'll give you a hint: it involves the number 0.
"5th)I have no idea where this one even came from. True enough that I was at first attempting to get you to see your faults for yourself, giving as few hints as possible so that you came to it more or less on your own, but I think the point where I gave up on that is pretty clear, and since then the conversation has seemed quite unbalanced on the opposite end."
Again, we get back to your inability to communicate. Your strategy of using "as few hints as possible so taht it more or less came on my own" was not employed because you are operating on a higher level of reasoning, it's because you take joy in calling people names. I've looked at your other posts, and yes it's painfully obvious that you just enjoy pointing out flaws in people. In this particular case, it backfired when you attacked me without a strong leg to stand on.
"6th)I dont think that I have, anywhere throughout this post, implied that I am not black."
I'm not sure what you meant here. Are you saying that you're not denying that you're fulfilling your own definition of what an idiot is? I'm not asking to insult, I'm genuinely curious what you really meant by that particular comment.
"7th) If only you knew the real purpose of this thread, you would see them. Yes, I did say those things to make you second-guess yourself, but take a first guess at this what: You haven't yet made that second guess. I dont expect you to get it in only two tries, but it would be a start. So far, I've only seen one guess, and you're way off (though right on target for the obvious and incorrect answer)"
Liar. You're trying to get under my skin and make me mad. You're deluding yourself if you think it's more than that. If you were really trying to make a point, you'd be after AnonV and not me. If by some chance I am wrong, then you can thank your own reluctance to clear up any of it. Don't be offended by my 'idiocy' if you're going to be one yourself.
"The point is not something for me to show, but for you to find, you fucking idiot."
I'm not the one with a track record of trolling, lying, and being overly judgemental. Your accusation that I'm an idiot carries no weight as you are completely unfit to judge.
Gonna give up, or are you going to keep insisting that you're trying at something other than trying to rile me up?
Slashdot Mirror
"How do you envision the world changing if energy costs became a trivial part of economic equations?"
Hmmmm... I wonder if anybody'd notice the extinction of the Energizer Bunny.
Well, to be fair, I wasn't talking in the sense of the 'best' games, but more in the tone of 'risk taking' games. The games people haven't done before. (like Dance Dance Revolution.)
Japan has it's share of me-too games as well, but one could easily make the argument that different stuff materializes there more frequently than here.
'Best' is a different unit of measure, not something I'd want to engage in. At that point, it's a matter of taste.
"Am I really the only one getting bored of Nintendo's games? Mario Sunshine was a dissapointment and so was Zelda - as was Mario Kart 64 and Yoshi's Story. "
You're jaded. I can understand that. I feel that way about shooting games. I would defend Nintendo, though, because their franchises are nearly always significantly different from their predecessors. While you're complaining about rupees and arrows and swords, I'm happy that the puzzles are more interesting, the are other things to get into (like the leaf or the bird bait), and the way some places it makes more sense to be stealthy than to just go in and attack. If that stuff bothers you, then off ya go. No harm done. But anybody who's played Mario Sunshine for any real length of time will see that it's a huge step from Mario 64, and you just plain don't play it the same.
There's nothing wrong with starting with an established set of rules. Why confuse the user? Why turn off the ability to slice bushes and get rupees in them?
Man, you can see the similarities, but can't see the differences.
"With all of Miyamoto's great ideas, he should have no problem finding a job after Nintendo..."
If I were a bettin man, I'd say that 'after Nintendo', Miyamoto will retire. Nintendo takes very good care of him, and he feels very good about that place. He's a creative guy. Nintendo nurtures that creativity and lets him take risks. I can't imagine he'd get that treatment elsewhere.
Also, factor in that he loves his job. I don't think money is his big pull in life. I doubt he gets hired away from there either.
"Yes franchise leveraging is what I'm talking about in that example. Its exactly what he rails against American companies for doing. "
No it's not. He rails against taking the previous game and making a few subtle upgrades to it. "oo we have 10 guns instead of 6." The Mario Bros series is comprised of games that are very different elements. 'Sequal', in Nintendo speak, doesn't mean "upgrade what we got", it means "do something new".
Thing is, though, I'm pretty sure you haven't spent any time with these games. I think you're going to try to argue with me on this based on impressions you've been left with by looking at a few screenshots. Go ahead and try, doesn't bother me. But I'd encourage you to look at what happened to Sonic the Hedgehog. Now there was a trilogy of games you couldn't tell apart. Big surprise that Sonic to Sega was never what Mario was to Nintendo.
" OMFG. And Wind Waker wasn't exactly the same as Ocarina of Time?"
Nope. Play it.
"What are they on, Super Mario Bros 104 including all the GBA versions? "
What are you on? What's the BFD? All the Mario games are very different from each other. We're not talking about new levels to Pacman here. Hint: Oversimplification never enlightens.
"For Nintendo to gain ground in America they need to drop the nationalistic Japan is #1 crap and step up to 2003."
He wasn't impressed with American games as of late. Do you blame him? We're "let's milk the formula for sequals!" happy right now. It's been proven time and time again that Americangame companies have difficulty taking risks and doing something *gasp* original. I can't even name a whole lot of American game companies because they don't leave much of an impression on me. (Go Rockstar, though!)
"But does he have to be so condesending about it?"
A.) He has a point. B.) Sugarcoating it would just take longer to read. He's being honest. He's certainly earned his right to judge. C.) condescending is not the word I'd use. He's disappointed. What's he supposed to say?
I guess this comment just bugs me because I'm sick of the "I need to be nice to everybody for fear of lawsuits" crap that figureheads like Miyamoto end up hiding behind. I much prefer to hear it like it is. One can take a comment like his and get upset over it, or they can take it as a criticism and learn from it. I think you've already picked the path you want to take. Pity, really. If I were working for a game company, I'd be thinking really hard about what he's saying instead of thinking of a rebuttal.
"I'd like to post that quote next to the Gamecube at Toys R Us. If people knew how Nintendo really felt about America they would sell zero consoles."
Doubtful. Shooting games are overrated and a lot of people are quite sick of going through it over and over again. It's refreshing to hear "we're not doing guns just because they're today's fad". I'm sure mothers would be glad to hear about it too.
The mistake you're making is that you think he's talking about America as a whole. He was talking about what the current formula over here is for a 'good game'. The comments he quoted were akin to people leaving a theater disappointed rattling off what would have made the movie better. "There should have been boobs and bigger explosions."
Sorry, but I found this dude enlightening, not offensive.
"Mention Paradise Hotel and how the John Ravolta look-alike got on last night and I guarantee you can start up a conversation."
The little known (at least to Slashdot) downside of having a girlfriend, the f'in reality shows. My girlfriend better hope a Star Trek marathon doesn't come up soon.
"I had to look quite a few things up before I understood the conversations."
Damn I hate when an opportunity to knock Slashdot's spelling comes up and I can't think of anything witty to say.
"In promulgating your esoteric cogitations and articulating your superficial, psychological and sentimental observation."
Hmm... more of this, or the airlock. Damn.
Eh sorta. The way I think of it, a comic is funny if he does what it takes to make the audience laugh. If he won't do what it takes to make them laugh under the guise of artistic license, then he's a terrible comic.
"This upgrade raises the concern of the choked bus. I mean, who really wants to run a 3000+ on a 133MHz system bus?"
Depends on what you're doing. I did some informal (and unscientific I should mention) tests using Lightwave on an an Athlon vs. a P4 with Hyperthreading etc. The specs on the P4 sounded like should have blown the doors off of the Athlon. Nope. The Athlon was surprisingly quick. It's not even a modern Athlon, either. It's got a 266 bus.
I don't think LW cares too much about the bus. Then again, my results aren't exactly conclusive so take what I've said with a grain of salt. I had to admit, though, I was pretty stunned by my 1.5 year old Athlon's performance. (happy too!)
"It is? If you're having trouble with the stability of your system, it's most probably either your Power Supply Unit or RAM, don't blame the CPU."
Though I can support your stability claim, I learned a lesson about cooling those things. When I lived in my centrally air conditioned apartment, my athlon worked great. When I moved into an apartment that was considerably warmer, I started seeing instabilities plus the bios would scream at me to shut it down.
The truth of the matter is that the CPU can be blamed, particularly if the environment exceeds its configuration. I suppose one could blame the user, but then again, if there's already a fan on it what do they do?
My dual athlon at work has impressive uptimes, even with Win2k, but darned if it doesn't sound like I work in an airport runway. *Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*
"I've had an Athalon box running 24/7 for over a year now. No problems at all."
"Of course, you wouldn't believe how much I spend a month on refridgerating that thing. Wowsers!"
"Music is art."
Yeah, that could be said. (though the formula for it makes people question the artistic nature of it...)
However, art is not just about self expression, it's about entertainment. Read on.
"So should sidewalk chalk artists not be allowed to make drawings?"
If their goal is to entertain, then sidewalk chalk artists wouldn't have much of a living. You have to admit, though, you have reached a ridiculous extreme here.
"So, should publishers not be allowed to print a book in whatever size they want, then distribute it on tape/cd/ebook/etc if they want?"
In any case where art is mass produced for consumption, then a reasonable attempt has to be made to satisfy the target audience. An artist would be a fucking moron if he published a book as at 8' by 8'. If he just made a few of these books for individual sale, that'd be one thing. If Barnes and Noble carried it, a lot of people would be saying 'WTF? If I mass-produced an album called "60 minutes of Silence", and it really contained 60 minutes of silence, I'd be making 'art' but I wouldn't be entertaining. As a matter of fact, I'd probably be up on charges of fraud.
"So should a painter have to check with the buyer before he decides oil versus pastels, canvas versus illustration board, small versus mural, etc.? "
If an artist was mass-producing art that was intended to be pasted on the side of a house, he'd be in serious trouble if it couldn't withstand sunlight or rain. I'm not sure what the legality of that would be, on the other hand he's failing to entertain, thus his mission would fail.
"Sure you can hang it/display it/listen to it wherever you want once you get it home, but as to where you can buy art, it's not 'unfair' that you have to go to a gallery contracted to sell the piece."
I really tried to understand your side of it here, but there's still the little matter of supply and demand. When one can easily produce something to your satisfaction, it's hard to fathom that they'd try to force you into buying an expensive product you had no intention of ever purchasing. Again, this isn't art as expression here, it's art as entertainment. You'd like to be entertained, but they have to meet you half way. I'm curious if you'd be posting this if movie theaters required climbing a gym rope to buy a ticket.
" Art isn't public domain (despite p2p advocates)/"
I don't recall any P2p advocates claiming art is public domain. BTW, I'm an artist who hopes to one day have content to release on the net. I'm a P2P advocate. If I sell something that people want, but can't stand the format, then I need to fill that demand. Competition is good, even in the art arena. P2P is competition, not a war.
" It's a product, and if you choose to enjoy it, you are stuck with how the artist/rep choose to let you partake in it. "
You're right. It is a product. And as such, there are expectations that have to be met. The recent court case against copy restricted CDs comes to mind. CDs were created that don't work in some CD players all in the name of fighting piracy. As a result, some people couldn't access the content. A lawsuit was issued, and the consumers won. The point here is that as a product, they can't just dictate every little detail about it. If it's intended to work a certain way, then it must work a certain way. Sure, they can release the soundtrack to LXG only on iTunes. However, their goal of entertain is being thoughtlessly restricted to a very narrow audience. They're choking themselves for money and potentially (assuming the soundtrack is any good) creating demand they refuse to fill. Illegal? No. Unethical? Grey Area. Stupid? Yes.
An artist whose goal is to entertain should never EVER ignore the comments of his customers involving delivery of the product. If they say "we want higher quality", he shouldn't say "I'm the artist and I say it's this way."
"How do Kate and John just waltz into a top secret military research facility? No ID? No search to see if they're armed? "Sure ma'am just bring in that AK-47 and those C4 charges. It's cool."
Don't forget they had a Terminator with them.
"Then the T-X is about to incinerate them at Crystal Peak, John actually takes the time to stop and thank the T-800. WHAT?!?!?!?! It's a F***ING MACHINE! It doesn't care about your gratitude."
So he's not going to be human anyway? Anybody would have done that. Besides, Arnie did something rather selfless.
" I guess I can understand that the internet was designed to operate in the event of a nuclear war, but when the power plants go out, so do all of the computers that make up Skynet."
Skynet was born within the complex. It had the resources it needed there, and the other T-1s were protecting it. Nobody outside of the facility even knew what was going on.
No plot hole here, move along.
"If Skynet is no longer a central machine, how then can John and Kyle Reese "smash" its defense grid and defeat in 20 or so years?"
Who say's its not a central machine 30 years from now?
"I also thought that it was stupid that Kate starts to fall for John the SAME F'ING DAY that her fiance gets murdered by the T-X. Maybe a brief period of mourning would have been in order."
1.) She liked him already. 2.) Who said anybody fell for anybody? The best you got was a handhold while John was stepping into the role he didn't want to be in.
"John is also a pill popping boozer. I'm not sure how that plays into his future role as "leader" of humanity."
1.) He was drinking to get over the trauma he suffered. That hardly makes him a boozer. Even if it did, it's tough to imagine booze was widely available during the war. 2.) He was pill popping because he injured his leg. 3.) What's one got to do with the other? He had more knowledge about what was to happen than anybody else did. In a sense, the Terminators created John Connor.
I know it's way too late to expect you to see this, but I caught your post after spotting the topic during metamod. I think you're overanalyzing the movie looking for faults in it, thus removing the fun for yourself.
Hey dude, our original thread finally closed. Continue here? Are you monitoring this post?
Just so ya know, this thread will time out any day now. So if you say something and I don't respond, please consider that the 'reply to this' feature has disappeared. In that case, I'd recommend you look at other posts you made to see if I responded.
" For crying out loud, you had a greater chance of dying by slipping in your bathtub. Even in China. "
:)
I'm not a big fan of reasoning like this. I may have a chance of slipping in the bathtub, but I can also take steps to prevent it. I also know exactly when and where it can happen so I can be on my guard. In the case of infection, I don't know when somebody else has it. That's what's truely scary about it.
Your heart's in the right place, but the "worry over greater risks" reasoning could use some tuning.
Overtated? Aww c'mon, I was trying to answer the guy's question. I was saying that the term 'contained' works because we can't execute everybody who shows signs of SARS. Even if we could do that, it's hard to imagine that it couldn't reappear again at some point.
There are some people with mod points that I wish would just discuss instead of mod.
"How can they say they have the disease contained if they say, in their next breath, that they expect it to come back again?"
A year after his escape, Houdini has finally been re-captured. The world is now safe from his antics. We should caution you, though, that he may find a way to escape again. Afterall, it would be immoral to execute him.
"I think the Linux community should stop trying to emulate the bloat of XP. What are they smoking? The point of Linux is to be alternative. And if the alternative is the same, looks the same, and takes the same amount of memory to run. Then whats the point? Arg. "
So... it should be behind then? XP should look like it's a generation ahead of Linux? Brilliant. *eyeroll*
Menu shadows are helpful, incidentally. They're not going to save the world from alien invaders, but they do provide a nice extra visual cue to let you know that help you figure out where you are. This 'eye candy' lets you know that a dialog is on top of the parent app.
Nothing wrong with that. Computers are fast, and it can be disabled.
"Sounds just like the "Do not click on this link!" found on my prof's course webpage. (And yes, I did click on the link.)"
His testing of his hypothesis is flawed. He claims that clicking that link has to do with people wanting to open every door and see everything that is concealed from them. Though his hypothesis may well be right and may even be true in a lot of cases, he's still getting polluted data. I didn't click on the link because it said "do not click on this link", I clicked on it because every time I've seen "do not click on this link" it was because somebody was trying to use reverse psychology to get more attention. Frankly, I wouldn't have clicked on it if had said "members only". I wouldn't have even cared, that that would have flown right in the fac eof his hypothesis.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating my idea too clearly or not. So here's a test that I think would help filter out the noise: password protect the next page and watch how hard people try to figure out the password.
Now, as for the RIAA (gotta drag myself back on topic here), I do not believe the growth is due in part to people feeling like they're 'bad-boys' about it. Rather, I believe it is a mixture of reasons. Two pop into mind. 1.) Lots of people flipping off the RIAA and saying "no, if you're going to be like this, then I'll hurt you in the way that I know best." and 2.) I better get what I can while I can.
As for Napster's growth (I realize it was the parent poster and not you that said this), I think that had more to do with people being made aware of it than anything else.
In any case, I'm a little off-topic. Sorry about that. The RIAA has been way off in understanding the psychology of its customers, and yes that includes file swappers too. Suing individual users will only cause music trading to evolve and resist. Sooner or later, it'll be impossible to know who's downloading what.
The funny thing is that I think this movement can outlive the RIAA's abilities to sue it. I can't remebmer the last time I've thought that about the little guy.
" this thread, for example, you assumed to be either all serious from a fool, or all trolling."
Fair enough. I see what you mean. To be fair, though, the constant "you are a fucking idiot" does make you sound like one with a one-tracked mind. Not intended as an insult, but rather a reason as to why I have been absolute. So yes, you're right, I'm gulity of the absolutism charge.
"That's why I dont expect you to understand this post, and it's why I didnt expect you to be able to understand other things, for the most part."
Actually, I have a better opinion about you now after reading this post. I had some errands to do today, during those errands I put some run-time into chewing on this post a bit. I wanted to actually understand your view of it instead of just responding. Hope that makes some sense. I have respect for you now that I didn't have before. I'm sure AnonV will as well. (Incidentally, we are not the same person. We are, however, coworkers that spend entirely too much time on ICQ. We've actually sat at the same computer figuring out how to respond to you, in some cases brainstorming out how to make you react. I never claimed I'm not a shithead. Hehe. For the record, though, I had to twist his arm into posting a few times. He was bored with this ages ago.) I'll make sure he reads this.
"This thread has been both an attempt to enlighten you, and an attempt to entertain. These can co-exist easily, despite cancelling eachother out. It's no secret that I'm not the best at communicating ideas"
True, true. (The coexisting ideas I mean.) I know all about that. I've dealt like that with people before actually. That's why I came to the conclusion I did about you actually. I have performed a similar stunt to get somebody to fall into their own trap. I actually had one guy claiming he was saying the opposite of what he said all along. hehehe So yes, I can see where you're coming from. I do think you'd have an easier time enlightening people if you would focus a little more on getting them to understand what you mean. It's easy to dismiss people who say the same things over and over again.
"... I figure that it can't be too long that, were someone actually trying to think of a new way to look at something, they may stumble accross it."
Yep, you're right. The problem is that if somebody is being dense like I was, then you have to build up the small ideas. In my case, an ineterpretation of what was said would probably have helped. The problem was, I was on a different mission than you. You wanted me to see that I was a 'fucking idiot' and I wanted you to stew in your own juices for your shitty response to my friend. I thought you were trolling, so I looked at your other posts for evidence to support that idea. (You can fault me for not looking for evidence to support otherwise...) I am curious, though, when you first called me an idiot back when I said you forgot to post anonymously, why did you call me an idiot? Also, why weren't you a little nicer to my friend over the warranty post he made? That's why I got involved. He had just bought a laptop around christmas time, it broke, and Dell was quick to replace it. No money involved. So he replied to the guy wondering if he had to pay $80 or if he was making shit up to be funny. Then here you come telling him to shut the fuck up. I just don't see the need for that kind of hostility. If you had just said "he was trying to be funny, you can tell because...." then you would have 'enlightened' AnonV. I have an issue with people who respond as if everybody else should have known all along. I give people shit when they give other people shit. And that's how you got on my shitlist. Funny thing is Anon didn't really care a whole lot, though he did find some of your responses amusing.
"(The 'FUCKING IDIOT' lines were mostly for entertainment, though I do still hold that opinion of you)"
I think 'asshole' or 'shithead' would be mor
"I'm having doubts that you'll actually read this, and many that you'll believe that first word of it (more awake now)"
:)
I saw this. I promise I'll read it carefully and respond. But I'm going to be away the next few hours to get some stuff done. Just wanted to make sure you know I'm not ignoring you.
"1st) NO FUCKING SHIT, YOU MORON. The PROBLEM is that you still havent got a clue what I'm trying at."
That's your failure to communicate, not my inability to comprehend.
"2nd) You foolishly think that enlightenment is an absolute. There are no absolutes. In the subject of this particular thread, I have a more enlightened view than you. That's as far as it goes in either direction."
I don't recall saying anothing that was absolute. Actually I agree with you that there's no such thing as 'absolute', I've argued that many times here. As for having a more enlightened view: Bzzt sorry, wrong. Your view is extremely narrow and based on minimal info. You didn't even draw a good conclusion with what little you had. As I mentioned before, spare me the enlightenment talk.
"3rd) Why the FUCK do you think you're so fucking important that everything I tell you is supposed to 'bother' you? This isnt about BOTHERING you, you fuckwit. If you're important enough that bothering you would be an accomplishment, I am not aware of it, so bothering you is not the intent here. YOU FUCKING IDIOT."
Who said anything about anybody being important? You know damn well that you're just trying to get under my skin. Your attempt to turn that into a flaw on my part is further evidence of that. Was that really the best you could do?
"4th)Please reject them somewhere other than only in your head. That is, explain your rejections, much as you are doing now for this particular post."
Already did in my last post. Take your own advice, and read what I said. I'll give you a hint: it involves the number 0.
"5th)I have no idea where this one even came from. True enough that I was at first attempting to get you to see your faults for yourself, giving as few hints as possible so that you came to it more or less on your own, but I think the point where I gave up on that is pretty clear, and since then the conversation has seemed quite unbalanced on the opposite end."
Again, we get back to your inability to communicate. Your strategy of using "as few hints as possible so taht it more or less came on my own" was not employed because you are operating on a higher level of reasoning, it's because you take joy in calling people names. I've looked at your other posts, and yes it's painfully obvious that you just enjoy pointing out flaws in people. In this particular case, it backfired when you attacked me without a strong leg to stand on.
"6th)I dont think that I have, anywhere throughout this post, implied that I am not black."
I'm not sure what you meant here. Are you saying that you're not denying that you're fulfilling your own definition of what an idiot is? I'm not asking to insult, I'm genuinely curious what you really meant by that particular comment.
"7th) If only you knew the real purpose of this thread, you would see them. Yes, I did say those things to make you second-guess yourself, but take a first guess at this what: You haven't yet made that second guess. I dont expect you to get it in only two tries, but it would be a start. So far, I've only seen one guess, and you're way off (though right on target for the obvious and incorrect answer)"
Liar. You're trying to get under my skin and make me mad. You're deluding yourself if you think it's more than that. If you were really trying to make a point, you'd be after AnonV and not me. If by some chance I am wrong, then you can thank your own reluctance to clear up any of it. Don't be offended by my 'idiocy' if you're going to be one yourself.
"The point is not something for me to show, but for you to find, you fucking idiot."
I'm not the one with a track record of trolling, lying, and being overly judgemental. Your accusation that I'm an idiot carries no weight as you are completely unfit to judge.
Gonna give up, or are you going to keep insisting that you're trying at something other than trying to rile me up?