"I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment. It appeared you just went on ranting on that same line of thought for a few pages, so I passed it over."
"You said that your ability to download a show from someone else, somehow proves that the same system would work on a much larger scale, with a great many more people taxing that system..."
If you were being ironic, point taken. That wasn't what you were arguing with me about with, but whatever.
Too bad you had to be a shithead about it, we could have come to an understanding on both sides.
I dunno, the way I see it, the person willing to sell billboard space on a grave is really the one commiting any form of 'wrong'.
When I die, if my family can make money off of my gravestone, I say have at it. If it were against my wishes, and my family did it anyway, I'd be mad at them instead of being mad at the company that wanted that spot.
I'm not taking back the comment about semantic games. You're WRONG.
"The topic is "One Terabyte On a 12cm Disk"."
No. The topic is what the article covered. You can talk about the media itself, that's on topic. You can talk about quotes in the article, that's on topic. You can make fun of the sudden correction in the headline, that's on topic. In this particular case, the moderator that modded the AC down had a very strict idea (just like you do) about what is on-topic. He actually used the subject of the article in his post and he still got an offtopic moderation for it. Did you look at the mods he got? He didn't challenge the 'overrated' mods, he challenged the offtopic one. It was wrong. He had every right to fight it. The answer is not to have the users 'just take it and move on'.
Modding a comment as funny is basically the moderator's way of expressing "This comment was funny.", or in other words, he's expressing his point of view. If somebody responds to one of my posts and says "no, your idea won't work.", then it is not Off-Topic to say "Why don't you think my idea will work?" There isn't a difference there. So if I a moderator makes a moderation that I find confusing, there should be no punishment for asking why. Instead, the right thing to do is for the moderator (or anybody else who knows the answer) to pipe in and say "he probably thought you meant something else. Your wording is a little ambiguous." That is so much better than modding me down to shut me up.
Seeing as how Slashdot provides us with 0 ways of reporting bad moderations, then you're just going to have to shut up and deal with the noise it generates.
There might be a solution that makes us both happy: Create a forum dedicated to challening bad moderations. Got a questionable moderation? Think you can provide concise proof that the moderation sucked? (or want to know if it was misinterpretable?) Go post over there and keep it out of the main discussion area. That way you don't get your noise, and when I get mod bombed I can do something about it.
Heh. My coworker had me type 'make love'. The response was like "unable to make love". heh. That was a while ago, I don't think it works today, but it was funny.:)
"You are saying 'look, I can record a weekly show. That's proof I could record every show on every channel all the time.'"
That's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. Here's what I really said:
My suggestion is that people build their own PC based PVRs and capture the shows.
I never said 'all shows'. I probably should have ended that sentence with 'the shows that they like'. I figured that was obvious, but I guess not. I don't know why you thought I meant capturing shows 24 hours a day. That assumption was moronic, as you put it. With so many people involved, it'd just be a matter of grabbing the shows important to you. Wish I had caught that particular line if your original reply, I could have explained that sooner and not riled you up so much.
I have a P2 400 that I had set up as PVR for a while. The TV card cost $100 ($50 for mono) and $50 for the software to schedule it. It automatically captured the entire run of Quantum Leap. All I had to do was point Kazaa to that folder and people'd be able to get new eps of QL from me within 2 minutes of the show being over. In an evening or two, I could write a quick and dirty VB app that lets me watch the show, mark the commercials, and have it spit out an edited version when I'm done watching.
If I like Quantum Leap, and Joe Blow likes Deep Space Nine, and Stephany Speck likes Futurama, it's suddenly rather easy and cheap to get shows ready to download on the web within minutes of their airing. The more people that download it, the more that share it.
"The reason you can download A SINGLE show is likely because some node is making available only one thing (MST3K) to which his entire bandwdith is dedicated"
I didn't get those eps from the same guy. There were a bunch of people that had them and were actively sharing them, that's why I had several concurrent downloads at once. I guess I didn't make that clear. That's why I didn't care that it was only coming down at 5K/s.
"The fact that it takes even more effort to rip TV shows than DVDs, just goes to show that this idea is just far worse than what's already come and failed before."
As I mentioned earlier, that's not true. I could go home this evening and within 15 minutes start capturing popular shows and making them available.
Moderation is an expression of how one person interprets a post. By commenting on the moderation, you are seeking clarification. There is no difference between saying "Why was I modded down?" and "What did you mean by that?"
The explanation you gave me is a cop-out for people with moderation points to burn. You're playing games with semantics. Duh.
Wow dude, now you're getting 'Off Topic' mods for challening a moderation to your post that was on topic?
Why is challenging a moderation off-topic? Why does that result in a mod but no response? I'm serious here. The AC's original comment was a sarcastic response to the article, not some out of the blue topic change. When he got modded down, he pointed that out and challenged the validity of the moderation. Then he got modded down again. That's off-topic? The proper thing to do would have either been for a moderator to fix the crappy moderation, or for the moderator who modded him down to explain why.
I know, I'm going to get modded as 'off-topic' as well. I was only aiming for a little understanding here. I hope at least one person reads this and performs more helpful moderations down the road.
Wow, you posted without really looking into it didja?
Editing is the easy part. An hour long show has.. I think it's 6 commercial breaks. In editing terms, that's real simple. Write down a few time codes while you're watching it, cut them out with Virtual Dub. It might take 10 minutes the first time you do it. Every show I've seen off the web so far was nicely edited.
I managed to get a hold of quite a few MST3k episodes. At last count, I had 30 gigs of them. For a 'moronic' solution, it's already working better than TV does.
The only sticky part is outbound bandwidth is kinda limited. The eps of MST3k I have are roughly 600-700 meg. It took a day or two per ep. However, there were so many people sharing them that I'd start on say Monday, and by Friday I'd have around 8 ready to watch. Seeing as how I could barely watch one a night, I'd say I was doing better than I could possibly have done with TV.
You really should be careful about poo-poo'ing somebody's ideas when you don't really understand what they're talking about. The 'problems' you saw stopped you from seeing something that's already happening today. If everybody saw things that way, we would never have landed on the moon. (and yes, the moon landing did happen, so none of you send me links to sites that claim to have proof it didn't happen. That 'proof' has already been debunked.)
"My mom all of a sudden asked why her computer was running better than usual and looked cooler, when I went to investigate i discovered that i had left it booted in Linux rather then windows."
Did she also ask "What are all these programs that begin with 'K'?"
"You, as well as the story submitter, as well as hundreds of other Slashdot geeks continue to engage in treasonous acts of terrorism against the English language."
I had no idea Lisa Simpson was posting on Slashdot!! She's gotten crabby in her later years!
I see why you feel that way, but I think the reason he didn't make it to Slashdot was that he committed suicide. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that there is a difference between 'died in his sleep' and 'died at his own hand'. I'm sure the people that knew the guy don't want to be reminded of it.
I'm a little puzzled as to why your post was modded off-topic. It's all related. As you pointed out, Gene has done a lot of work to make P2P what it is today.
Doesn't really matter, does it? Their TOS is dynamically linked. All they haveta do is update it, and we're automatically updated to the most up-to-date version of TOS.
In other words, they'll just sneak it in when it bugs them.
Gotta wonder why they even bother posting a 'Terms of Service' if they're going to reserve the right to spontaneously change it.
Us 3D Users (Lightwave, 3DSMax, Maya, etc...) have high hopes that one day we'll be able to do our work on laptops. Up until about a year or two ago, it was a high cost/low benefit tradeoff. You had to spend roughly $3,000 to get a $1,500 machine, and you had limitations that were pretty sucky. (I.e. lack of CDR, low RAM, small/slow hard drive, no 3D acelleration to speak of...)
That has changed recently. Now they come with pretty decent 3D Accelleration, CD/DVD writables, respectable amounts of RAM, hard drives are big but still slow, and you can run at really high resolutions like 1600 by 1200. All this for round about $2,500. It's still a little high, but I'm due for an upgrade soon.
There's still life to my current machine, but I am going to get a new laptop to replace my desktop in the next year or so. Until this year, I felt like that was a pipe dream. I'm very excited about what's coming down the road. The nice thing is, I'm not going to need to go shopping for an LCD Screen!
err I wasn't making a definitive statement, I was showing them that I'm one of the kids that was exposed to the stuff that they're worried will affect kids. My point'd be flat if I never played games.
The difference between your example and mine is that quite a few people have died from cigs, but there's little proof of any video game induced violence.
Here is another line in my post I'd like you to pay careful attention to:
"Hopefuly you can see why it is extremely difficult for me to imagine that exposing children to violent video games results in harmful behaviour changes."
I wasn't using 'one example to disprove a point', I was explaining why I feel the way I do about it.
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your tactfulness even though it appears I disturbed you. Let me answer your last question first:
"I always assumed that people who played games realized this intrinsically, and could easily seperate fantasy from reality. Based on your post however, maybe I'm wrong. You seem to be applying information gleaned from a game to real-life situations. Please tell me I'm wrong."
Okay: You're wrong. The whole purpose to explaining my thoughts on it like I did was so the parent poster would realize that I know what I'm talking about. Any images of me fantasizing about ramming cop cars or sniping people's heads off you can just flush. As a matter of fact, you have indirectly touched onto why I am against censorship of video games.
I have been exposed to nearly every kind of video gaming experience one can have. I've played Mortal Kombat and all the GTAs and so on, so I know what's really involved there. Based on the reactions of people that claim that video game violence causes violent behaviour, I should be a hoodlum.
But I'm not. I'm 24 years old. I've already started my career. I've worked at the same job for 5 years. I have no criminal record. I've only had 1 speeding ticket in my life, and that was shortly after I got my car heh. Ive never had a parking ticket. Never done drugs. Never punched anybody. I don't even raise my voice. I'm a pretty well rounded person. Hopefuly you can see why it is extremely difficult for me to imagine that exposing children to violent video games results in harmful behaviour changes.
I told my view of GTA 3 so the parent poster would understand that the more realistic video games are, the more likely a child would realize the consequences of what he or she does. I've heard arguments like "When a child plays a game like Quake, he/she learns it's okay and fun to run around and shoot people." In my experience, instead the child learns "Guns kill people."
I think these anti-video-game types are looking at them in entirely the wrong way. In fact, I'm offended that they think kids are stupider than they really are. If you treat a child like they are incapable of making good decions, you're emotionally damaging the kid. I think saying "You're not allowed to play Mortal Kombat because it's too violent" is akin to saying "You're too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong. So I'm going to shelter you from anything that can give you ideas."
I appreciate you asking me before drawing a conclusion about me, though. It seems to be a popular thing here on Slashdot for somebody to listen to what you say and then draw the most absurd, extreme conclusion they can come up with. It's sorta like this: "I love to eat hamburgers.... I can't believe you like to murder innocent animals!"
I guess it's my own fault for not clarifying that I knew before playing the game that ramming cops was wrong. I kinda figured that'd be a default assumption that people'd make, heh. I didn't phrase it very well I suppose. Hopefully you'll understand why I didn't really worry too much about that.
Cheers
P.S. Again, I appreciate you asking before passing judgement. You have no idea how many times I've had people send me insulting messages because they came up with really bizzarre interpretations of my comments. You're a better human being than most I've run across here.
Um yah, thanks for twisting my point around to imply that I don't know right from wrong. I was arguing against the notion that kids will play these games and grow up thinking it's okay to ram Cop cars. I was saying that playing the game has the opposite effect.
I appreciate your attempt to make me look like an idiot. It allowed me to write the one line summary for those people who, like you just did, try to draw exteme conclusions about people. Funny thing is, a little applied logic would have negated your comment. "If he thought it was fun to ram cop cars before GTA3, why isn't he in jail now?" *eyeroll*
Heh. I have been playing GTA3 (way too much actually) for the last week. Let me tell you something, I about died laughing when I managed to run over a person with a boat. (That was a sight to see!) Just for giggles, I like to run around and wallop people with a bat. Sometimes, I take the sniper rifle and blow people's heads off for no real reason other than it's fun to watch. Sometimes I instigate car chases with the cops just for the thrill of seeing how many I can take out before they take me out.
So I'm somebody that's more likely to go commit a crime, right? Wrong. GTA 3 is a hell of a lot of fun to play, but let me tell you something: That game taught me that the last thing I want to do is play games with cops.
The thought of ramming a cop car and seeing how far he and his buddies will chase me scares the shit out of me. Why? Because even in a game where my car can put up with a good deal more abuse than my real car can, I can't get away from the cops. The only real chance I have of getting away involves luck. That's it, luck. They will get me.
If anything, I think GTA 3 will reduce hoodlumism. Why? Because the physics in the game are a little different than they are in real life. For example: You can mow down a stoplight and still keep tooling along at 90 mph. In real life, striking a stoplight would end the chase rather suddenly.
Things happen much faster on GTA than they would in real life. Cars acellerate faster, and you can keep the chase going much longer than you possibly could in real life. And geez, there's no way you're going to acquire grenades to lob at people. GTA 3 really spoils reality for people. It's a lot more fun to destroy stuff in GTA 3 than it could possibly be in real life.
"...but the editors always come up with lame excuses."
Funny, I thought they fixed that by using the karma system. Why write extra code when people will do the work for you and get that +1 Interesting? heh.
Besides, isn't that what Open Source is about? "If you're having a problem, YOU fix it."
Funny thing is I didn't move out of concern for the environment, I moved because parking here is too expensive heh. However, I made a health choice to walk more, so it's a plus for everybody.
Heh yeah, but that takes time. Unfortunately, I'd have to drag out the metaphor to silly extremes to make that point. Instead let me say this: When I have a problem with the mailserver (Exchange), for example, it's a pain in the ass to get to the right point in the log just to troubleshoot one problem. The reason for that is the event log logs allll kindsa silly stuff. Not all errors are indicated in red either.
If I had an intrusion detection package that made a similar kinda log, it's easy to imagine that it'd constantly fill with new log events. I wouldn't know what to look for until the damage had been done.
Take 1000 pregnancy tests and tell me which one is the accurate one. If you can't be sure you're pregnant in the first place, how can you even hope to figure that problem out?
That's basically the reason it 'failed to impress.'
Slashdot Mirror
I think Commander Data and Benny Hill are the only people that can make literalism funny.
"However, I did not say anything "mean"..."
Um yeah you did. You described my idea as 'moronic' without even clearing up the misunderstanding you had about what I said.
"I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment. It appeared you just went on ranting on that same line of thought for a few pages, so I passed it over."
"You said that your ability to download a show from someone else, somehow proves that the same system would work on a much larger scale, with a great many more people taxing that system..."
If you were being ironic, point taken. That wasn't what you were arguing with me about with, but whatever.
Too bad you had to be a shithead about it, we could have come to an understanding on both sides.
I dunno, the way I see it, the person willing to sell billboard space on a grave is really the one commiting any form of 'wrong'.
When I die, if my family can make money off of my gravestone, I say have at it. If it were against my wishes, and my family did it anyway, I'd be mad at them instead of being mad at the company that wanted that spot.
Nobody blames the RIAA when somebody 'sells out'.
I'm not taking back the comment about semantic games. You're WRONG.
"The topic is "One Terabyte On a 12cm Disk"."
No. The topic is what the article covered. You can talk about the media itself, that's on topic. You can talk about quotes in the article, that's on topic. You can make fun of the sudden correction in the headline, that's on topic. In this particular case, the moderator that modded the AC down had a very strict idea (just like you do) about what is on-topic. He actually used the subject of the article in his post and he still got an offtopic moderation for it. Did you look at the mods he got? He didn't challenge the 'overrated' mods, he challenged the offtopic one. It was wrong. He had every right to fight it. The answer is not to have the users 'just take it and move on'.
Modding a comment as funny is basically the moderator's way of expressing "This comment was funny.", or in other words, he's expressing his point of view. If somebody responds to one of my posts and says "no, your idea won't work.", then it is not Off-Topic to say "Why don't you think my idea will work?" There isn't a difference there. So if I a moderator makes a moderation that I find confusing, there should be no punishment for asking why. Instead, the right thing to do is for the moderator (or anybody else who knows the answer) to pipe in and say "he probably thought you meant something else. Your wording is a little ambiguous." That is so much better than modding me down to shut me up.
Seeing as how Slashdot provides us with 0 ways of reporting bad moderations, then you're just going to have to shut up and deal with the noise it generates.
There might be a solution that makes us both happy: Create a forum dedicated to challening bad moderations. Got a questionable moderation? Think you can provide concise proof that the moderation sucked? (or want to know if it was misinterpretable?) Go post over there and keep it out of the main discussion area. That way you don't get your noise, and when I get mod bombed I can do something about it.
Whatcha think of that?
Heh. My coworker had me type 'make love'. The response was like "unable to make love". heh. That was a while ago, I don't think it works today, but it was funny. :)
That's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. Here's what I really said: I never said 'all shows'. I probably should have ended that sentence with 'the shows that they like'. I figured that was obvious, but I guess not. I don't know why you thought I meant capturing shows 24 hours a day. That assumption was moronic, as you put it. With so many people involved, it'd just be a matter of grabbing the shows important to you. Wish I had caught that particular line if your original reply, I could have explained that sooner and not riled you up so much.
I have a P2 400 that I had set up as PVR for a while. The TV card cost $100 ($50 for mono) and $50 for the software to schedule it. It automatically captured the entire run of Quantum Leap. All I had to do was point Kazaa to that folder and people'd be able to get new eps of QL from me within 2 minutes of the show being over. In an evening or two, I could write a quick and dirty VB app that lets me watch the show, mark the commercials, and have it spit out an edited version when I'm done watching.
If I like Quantum Leap, and Joe Blow likes Deep Space Nine, and Stephany Speck likes Futurama, it's suddenly rather easy and cheap to get shows ready to download on the web within minutes of their airing. The more people that download it, the more that share it.
"The reason you can download A SINGLE show is
likely because some node is making available only one thing (MST3K) to which his entire bandwdith is dedicated"
I didn't get those eps from the same guy. There were a bunch of people that had them and were actively sharing them, that's why I had several concurrent downloads at once. I guess I didn't make that clear. That's why I didn't care that it was only coming down at 5K/s.
"The fact that it takes even more effort to rip TV shows than DVDs, just goes to show that this idea is just far worse than what's already come and failed before."
As I mentioned earlier, that's not true. I could go home this evening and within 15 minutes start capturing popular shows and making them available.
Um right.
Moderation is an expression of how one person interprets a post. By commenting on the moderation, you are seeking clarification. There is no difference between saying "Why was I modded down?" and "What did you mean by that?"
The explanation you gave me is a cop-out for people with moderation points to burn. You're playing games with semantics. Duh.
Wow dude, now you're getting 'Off Topic' mods for challening a moderation to your post that was on topic?
Why is challenging a moderation off-topic? Why does that result in a mod but no response? I'm serious here. The AC's original comment was a sarcastic response to the article, not some out of the blue topic change. When he got modded down, he pointed that out and challenged the validity of the moderation. Then he got modded down again. That's off-topic? The proper thing to do would have either been for a moderator to fix the crappy moderation, or for the moderator who modded him down to explain why.
I know, I'm going to get modded as 'off-topic' as well. I was only aiming for a little understanding here. I hope at least one person reads this and performs more helpful moderations down the road.
Wow, you posted without really looking into it didja?
.. I think it's 6 commercial breaks. In editing terms, that's real simple. Write down a few time codes while you're watching it, cut them out with Virtual Dub. It might take 10 minutes the first time you do it. Every show I've seen off the web so far was nicely edited.
Editing is the easy part. An hour long show has
I managed to get a hold of quite a few MST3k episodes. At last count, I had 30 gigs of them. For a 'moronic' solution, it's already working better than TV does.
The only sticky part is outbound bandwidth is kinda limited. The eps of MST3k I have are roughly 600-700 meg. It took a day or two per ep. However, there were so many people sharing them that I'd start on say Monday, and by Friday I'd have around 8 ready to watch. Seeing as how I could barely watch one a night, I'd say I was doing better than I could possibly have done with TV.
You really should be careful about poo-poo'ing somebody's ideas when you don't really understand what they're talking about. The 'problems' you saw stopped you from seeing something that's already happening today. If everybody saw things that way, we would never have landed on the moon. (and yes, the moon landing did happen, so none of you send me links to sites that claim to have proof it didn't happen. That 'proof' has already been debunked.)
"My mom all of a sudden asked why her computer was running better than usual and looked cooler, when I went to investigate i discovered that i had left it booted in Linux rather then windows."
Did she also ask "What are all these programs that begin with 'K'?"
Heh.
"You, as well as the story submitter, as well as hundreds of other Slashdot geeks continue to engage in treasonous acts of terrorism against the English language."
I had no idea Lisa Simpson was posting on Slashdot!! She's gotten crabby in her later years!
I see why you feel that way, but I think the reason he didn't make it to Slashdot was that he committed suicide. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that there is a difference between 'died in his sleep' and 'died at his own hand'. I'm sure the people that knew the guy don't want to be reminded of it.
I'm a little puzzled as to why your post was modded off-topic. It's all related. As you pointed out, Gene has done a lot of work to make P2P what it is today.
Doesn't really matter, does it? Their TOS is dynamically linked. All they haveta do is update it, and we're automatically updated to the most up-to-date version of TOS.
In other words, they'll just sneak it in when it bugs them.
Gotta wonder why they even bother posting a 'Terms of Service' if they're going to reserve the right to spontaneously change it.
Us 3D Users (Lightwave, 3DSMax, Maya, etc...) have high hopes that one day we'll be able to do our work on laptops. Up until about a year or two ago, it was a high cost/low benefit tradeoff. You had to spend roughly $3,000 to get a $1,500 machine, and you had limitations that were pretty sucky. (I.e. lack of CDR, low RAM, small/slow hard drive, no 3D acelleration to speak of...)
That has changed recently. Now they come with pretty decent 3D Accelleration, CD/DVD writables, respectable amounts of RAM, hard drives are big but still slow, and you can run at really high resolutions like 1600 by 1200. All this for round about $2,500. It's still a little high, but I'm due for an upgrade soon.
There's still life to my current machine, but I am going to get a new laptop to replace my desktop in the next year or so. Until this year, I felt like that was a pipe dream. I'm very excited about what's coming down the road. The nice thing is, I'm not going to need to go shopping for an LCD Screen!
err I wasn't making a definitive statement, I was showing them that I'm one of the kids that was exposed to the stuff that they're worried will affect kids. My point'd be flat if I never played games.
The difference between your example and mine is that quite a few people have died from cigs, but there's little proof of any video game induced violence.
Here is another line in my post I'd like you to pay careful attention to:
"Hopefuly you can see why it is extremely difficult for me to imagine that exposing children to violent video games results in harmful behaviour changes."
I wasn't using 'one example to disprove a point', I was explaining why I feel the way I do about it.
Turning on the hazard lights is pretty funny too. ;)
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your tactfulness even though it appears I disturbed you. Let me answer your last question first:
"I always assumed that people who played games realized this intrinsically, and could easily seperate fantasy from reality. Based on your post however, maybe I'm wrong. You seem to be applying information gleaned from a game to real-life situations. Please tell me I'm wrong."
Okay: You're wrong. The whole purpose to explaining my thoughts on it like I did was so the parent poster would realize that I know what I'm talking about. Any images of me fantasizing about ramming cop cars or sniping people's heads off you can just flush. As a matter of fact, you have indirectly touched onto why I am against censorship of video games.
I have been exposed to nearly every kind of video gaming experience one can have. I've played Mortal Kombat and all the GTAs and so on, so I know what's really involved there. Based on the reactions of people that claim that video game violence causes violent behaviour, I should be a hoodlum.
But I'm not. I'm 24 years old. I've already started my career. I've worked at the same job for 5 years. I have no criminal record. I've only had 1 speeding ticket in my life, and that was shortly after I got my car heh. Ive never had a parking ticket. Never done drugs. Never punched anybody. I don't even raise my voice. I'm a pretty well rounded person. Hopefuly you can see why it is extremely difficult for me to imagine that exposing children to violent video games results in harmful behaviour changes.
I told my view of GTA 3 so the parent poster would understand that the more realistic video games are, the more likely a child would realize the consequences of what he or she does. I've heard arguments like "When a child plays a game like Quake, he/she learns it's okay and fun to run around and shoot people." In my experience, instead the child learns "Guns kill people."
I think these anti-video-game types are looking at them in entirely the wrong way. In fact, I'm offended that they think kids are stupider than they really are. If you treat a child like they are incapable of making good decions, you're emotionally damaging the kid. I think saying "You're not allowed to play Mortal Kombat because it's too violent" is akin to saying "You're too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong. So I'm going to shelter you from anything that can give you ideas."
I appreciate you asking me before drawing a conclusion about me, though. It seems to be a popular thing here on Slashdot for somebody to listen to what you say and then draw the most absurd, extreme conclusion they can come up with. It's sorta like this: "I love to eat hamburgers.... I can't believe you like to murder innocent animals!"
I guess it's my own fault for not clarifying that I knew before playing the game that ramming cops was wrong. I kinda figured that'd be a default assumption that people'd make, heh. I didn't phrase it very well I suppose. Hopefully you'll understand why I didn't really worry too much about that.
Cheers
P.S. Again, I appreciate you asking before passing judgement. You have no idea how many times I've had people send me insulting messages because they came up with really bizzarre interpretations of my comments. You're a better human being than most I've run across here.
Um yah, thanks for twisting my point around to imply that I don't know right from wrong. I was arguing against the notion that kids will play these games and grow up thinking it's okay to ram Cop cars. I was saying that playing the game has the opposite effect.
I appreciate your attempt to make me look like an idiot. It allowed me to write the one line summary for those people who, like you just did, try to draw exteme conclusions about people. Funny thing is, a little applied logic would have negated your comment. "If he thought it was fun to ram cop cars before GTA3, why isn't he in jail now?" *eyeroll*
Heh. I have been playing GTA3 (way too much actually) for the last week. Let me tell you something, I about died laughing when I managed to run over a person with a boat. (That was a sight to see!) Just for giggles, I like to run around and wallop people with a bat. Sometimes, I take the sniper rifle and blow people's heads off for no real reason other than it's fun to watch. Sometimes I instigate car chases with the cops just for the thrill of seeing how many I can take out before they take me out.
So I'm somebody that's more likely to go commit a crime, right? Wrong. GTA 3 is a hell of a lot of fun to play, but let me tell you something: That game taught me that the last thing I want to do is play games with cops.
The thought of ramming a cop car and seeing how far he and his buddies will chase me scares the shit out of me. Why? Because even in a game where my car can put up with a good deal more abuse than my real car can, I can't get away from the cops. The only real chance I have of getting away involves luck. That's it, luck. They will get me.
If anything, I think GTA 3 will reduce hoodlumism. Why? Because the physics in the game are a little different than they are in real life. For example: You can mow down a stoplight and still keep tooling along at 90 mph. In real life, striking a stoplight would end the chase rather suddenly.
Things happen much faster on GTA than they would in real life. Cars acellerate faster, and you can keep the chase going much longer than you possibly could in real life. And geez, there's no way you're going to acquire grenades to lob at people. GTA 3 really spoils reality for people. It's a lot more fun to destroy stuff in GTA 3 than it could possibly be in real life.
Damn Im glad that modded as 'Funny'. I thought for a moment there that I wandered into bizarro.slashdot.org.
"...but the editors always come up with lame excuses."
Funny, I thought they fixed that by using the karma system. Why write extra code when people will do the work for you and get that +1 Interesting? heh.
Besides, isn't that what Open Source is about? "If you're having a problem, YOU fix it."
Yeah I think you're right.. :)
:)
Funny thing is I didn't move out of concern for the environment, I moved because parking here is too expensive heh. However, I made a health choice to walk more, so it's a plus for everybody.
Good day, man.
Heh yeah, but that takes time. Unfortunately, I'd have to drag out the metaphor to silly extremes to make that point. Instead let me say this: When I have a problem with the mailserver (Exchange), for example, it's a pain in the ass to get to the right point in the log just to troubleshoot one problem. The reason for that is the event log logs allll kindsa silly stuff. Not all errors are indicated in red either.
If I had an intrusion detection package that made a similar kinda log, it's easy to imagine that it'd constantly fill with new log events. I wouldn't know what to look for until the damage had been done.
Get what I mean?
Take 1000 pregnancy tests and tell me which one is the accurate one. If you can't be sure you're pregnant in the first place, how can you even hope to figure that problem out?
That's basically the reason it 'failed to impress.'