It was advertised as an adult game. The only things truly adult about it was the blood. We've seen that before. The grafics sucked. The bugs sucked.
The only cool thing? There was an almost completely nude cutie in the artbook.
What prompted me to stop playing was the fact they would only accept Euro payments from a Swiss credit card. And that fee was about 30 to 50% higher. Rip-off.
Oh, my bad. Forgot to add that I cut the TV programme altogether. Shitty content doesn't get better just because you can see more details. If anything, it upsets my stomech just that much more.
I know I am way too late to enter this discussion, still I would like to mention that my Panasonic plasma tv does a beautiful upscaling. Frankly, when I was watching Casino Royale (BluRay) on the LCD TV of a friend of mine, I had a headache because the whole thing was too damn sharp, especially with fast movement. I just don't have that problem with upscaled DVDs.
And frankly, while a new release on DVD costs 22 Swiss Francs (about 18 US$) a BluRay is anywhere between 35 and 50 CHF (about 29 to 41 US$). I just don't see even ONE good reason to give the movie industry that kind of money.
I'd also like to submit fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. If they want to do something about shitty graphics, they should have gone vector based or something but this 3D crap is... well, crap.
Then again, there is a distinction to be made. After all, Soul Calibur (and we don't talk about IV. It never happened and if it did, it was a spectacular pile of fail) can hardly be compared to Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat should never have tried to go 3D. It's a different sub-genre altogether.
Well, after they've been made aware of the wrong price, they can no longer claim that it was a mistake, see? Then this price becomes legitimate and they have to sell the stuff at that price.
SO... as long as, in good faith, a price cannot possibly be for real, you have no claim to the item at said price. But once made aware of the price tag, not changing it immediately would, in good faith again, be a sign that the price must be correct.
Remember, though, that IANAL. It's just how I understand it here. I may be wrong:).
I don't know about US economic laws but in Switzerland, if something is obviously too good to be true and there has been a mistake, the company can actually declare any contracts made invalid.
Or if it's a real life product in a real life windows with a hilariously low price, the sales people are not obligated to make the sale at that price.
So if it's too good to be true you'll have to expect it to actually BE too good to be true.
The tough question just is: Is 55% off unrealistic?
I agree. I was bullied a lot during school and it stopped when I actually threw the guy on the teachers desk. Sure, during the next break I got some but the fact that I didn't run away actually did the rest. Never had a problem again.
Bullying is just to easy. The consequences are minor and the work involved is negligible. Since you can't do anything about the work it takes, change something about the consequences.
What I never understood was that often teachers took the side of the bully. I always assumed that probably the parents of those kids weren't much better and the teachers were just afraid.
I, for one, will teach my kids that when someone tries to bully them they have to retaliate decisively, brutally and make sure everyone knows that crossing them means physical damage.
School is like the world during the cold war. You need to demonstrate your power just enough so you never have to actually use it.
What you failed to understand was that he did not say that. He did not imply the guy was anything like Hitler. He just used an object as a reference where we'd all agree that they were bad and then pointing out that THOSE people had support as well.
Being able to read is worth your weight in gold, but actually grasping what you've read is invaluable.
You are, basically, full of shit (hey, I'm earning my second troll rating today. Don't stop me, I'm on a roll).
Godwyn's Law refers to the practice of comparing your rhetoric opponent to Hitler or someone else of that caliber in order to discredit the person instead of countering the person's arguments.
This, instead, was an analogy. Just because emotionally loaded subjects were used does not mean it incured Godwyn's Law.
Now if you'd like to mark this one troll as well, just do so. It just goes to show that obviously, the average intelligence of a troll is way above that of certain people on here who happen to come across mod points.
Erm, I really don't have time to read it all but...
"The laws of nature are omnipresent and eternal."
Where did you hear that fairytale? There is no such thing as laws of nature. Every so called law of nature is mankinds attempt to put the things mankind perceives into understandable terms. But all we have are theories. And as long as we haven't seen all there is to see of nature and the universe, they remain just theories.
Just because every time someone let go of a ball it dropped towards the earth doesn't mean this has suddenly become a law. Ever think that perhaps our perception of gravity is rather limited?
So far, what I see in the media isn't really convincing. I still believe that what we see today can and did happen in earth's history and is therefore rather natural.
Cutting back on our production of harmful and questionable stuff and especially cutting back on what of it we release into nature is surely a good thing. Common sense dictates that just dumping anything in too big quantities anywhere can't be good. But we must be careful not to confuse useful behavior with what this blatant reactionism demands of us. Reactionism and outcry are ALWAYS easily abused tools to sell stuff. Be it a political agenda or newspapers.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
There is also no way that I need to decide what clothes I want to wear. Someone else could do it for me and I still wouldn't suffer cold or make a fool of myself by walking around in the nude.
The fact that someone LIKES to do something should be enough of a point not have a discussion about who needs to do what. As long as a person, no matter the age, does not influence someone else's life overly negatively, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
Ah, I see your problem... you don't understand likenesses.
I can't remember one instance where I have stated that V for Vendetta was actually meant to show us where the British were headed. What the movie did was show as a totalitarian state where the people was downtrodden in the name of security. Where personal rights were stripped away and law enforcement was on a power-high. The fact that the chosen country was British does NOT matter AT ALL.
The irony lies in the fact that the country that has been, possibly by chance, chosen to build the scene is now headed exactly that way.
THAT is why V for Vendetta pops up time and again. Irony, dude. Look it up.
But curfew is to put the cart before the donkey. If your problem is that kids are out doing crazy stuff because their parents are not able to handle the kids the way they need to, then you need to either give them the means to change that situation (e.g. chance the economy in such a way that they have both the time and resources to parent their kids) or make sure they just don't have kids.
I don't understand when this belief manifested that anyone was entitled to ruining a child's life.
As disgusting as I find that (and saying that as someone who is regularly disturbed at night be drunk teenagers), it still doesn't equal a nationwide curfew for everyone.
A curfew for kids is actually taking the parents rights away to decide whether their kids are mature enough to be out past 10 pm. So it does go in a similar direction. Still, it's a far cry from a curfew for all adults.
That's today's paradox for you... while personal freedom is toted at every corner and we can see half naked girls walking around in public thinking they're dressed (and I'm 27 not 67, mind you), we're actually censoring more than we used to.
I remember in the late 80s, early 90s there were actual boobs in comedy shows/movies. Remember Benny Hill and all the scantily clad women? You don't see that nowadays but in its place we have talk shows where people ridicule themselves to no end.
So basically, having FUN with sex is frowned upon, but being extreme about it sells.
Slashdot Mirror
As little sense as that conclusion makes, you might just be right about this.
Yes, EA still owes me money for Spore. You can't return opened PC games after all.
I might pirate GTAIV. I hear it works better that way and, again, they still owe me one.
And compassionate as I am I even gave you some more reason to make an ass of yourself, how about that? ;)
I'm Swiss, that's my excuse for macking a spelling mistake. What's yours for being an ass?
I'm not surprised.
It was advertised as an adult game. The only things truly adult about it was the blood. We've seen that before. The grafics sucked. The bugs sucked.
The only cool thing? There was an almost completely nude cutie in the artbook.
What prompted me to stop playing was the fact they would only accept Euro payments from a Swiss credit card. And that fee was about 30 to 50% higher. Rip-off.
There were Ghostbusters games... but back in those times, video gaming was not the mainstream hobby it is today.
Oh, my bad. Forgot to add that I cut the TV programme altogether. Shitty content doesn't get better just because you can see more details. If anything, it upsets my stomech just that much more.
I know I am way too late to enter this discussion, still I would like to mention that my Panasonic plasma tv does a beautiful upscaling. Frankly, when I was watching Casino Royale (BluRay) on the LCD TV of a friend of mine, I had a headache because the whole thing was too damn sharp, especially with fast movement. I just don't have that problem with upscaled DVDs.
And frankly, while a new release on DVD costs 22 Swiss Francs (about 18 US$) a BluRay is anywhere between 35 and 50 CHF (about 29 to 41 US$). I just don't see even ONE good reason to give the movie industry that kind of money.
I'd also like to submit fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. If they want to do something about shitty graphics, they should have gone vector based or something but this 3D crap is... well, crap.
Then again, there is a distinction to be made. After all, Soul Calibur (and we don't talk about IV. It never happened and if it did, it was a spectacular pile of fail) can hardly be compared to Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat should never have tried to go 3D. It's a different sub-genre altogether.
Okay, I'll bite... from all the bad stuff you could have chosen to call that post, how on earth did you end up on 'racist'?
Well, after they've been made aware of the wrong price, they can no longer claim that it was a mistake, see? Then this price becomes legitimate and they have to sell the stuff at that price.
SO... as long as, in good faith, a price cannot possibly be for real, you have no claim to the item at said price. But once made aware of the price tag, not changing it immediately would, in good faith again, be a sign that the price must be correct.
Remember, though, that IANAL. It's just how I understand it here. I may be wrong :).
I don't know about US economic laws but in Switzerland, if something is obviously too good to be true and there has been a mistake, the company can actually declare any contracts made invalid.
Or if it's a real life product in a real life windows with a hilariously low price, the sales people are not obligated to make the sale at that price.
So if it's too good to be true you'll have to expect it to actually BE too good to be true.
The tough question just is: Is 55% off unrealistic?
I agree. I was bullied a lot during school and it stopped when I actually threw the guy on the teachers desk. Sure, during the next break I got some but the fact that I didn't run away actually did the rest. Never had a problem again.
Bullying is just to easy. The consequences are minor and the work involved is negligible. Since you can't do anything about the work it takes, change something about the consequences.
What I never understood was that often teachers took the side of the bully. I always assumed that probably the parents of those kids weren't much better and the teachers were just afraid.
I, for one, will teach my kids that when someone tries to bully them they have to retaliate decisively, brutally and make sure everyone knows that crossing them means physical damage.
School is like the world during the cold war. You need to demonstrate your power just enough so you never have to actually use it.
And AGAIN the US knows this because they left them there themselves ;).
What you failed to understand was that he did not say that. He did not imply the guy was anything like Hitler. He just used an object as a reference where we'd all agree that they were bad and then pointing out that THOSE people had support as well.
Being able to read is worth your weight in gold, but actually grasping what you've read is invaluable.
You are, basically, full of shit (hey, I'm earning my second troll rating today. Don't stop me, I'm on a roll).
Godwyn's Law refers to the practice of comparing your rhetoric opponent to Hitler or someone else of that caliber in order to discredit the person instead of countering the person's arguments.
This, instead, was an analogy. Just because emotionally loaded subjects were used does not mean it incured Godwyn's Law.
Now if you'd like to mark this one troll as well, just do so. It just goes to show that obviously, the average intelligence of a troll is way above that of certain people on here who happen to come across mod points.
Why was this marked Troll? I find it a very valid statement.
Erm, I really don't have time to read it all but...
"The laws of nature are omnipresent and eternal."
Where did you hear that fairytale? There is no such thing as laws of nature. Every so called law of nature is mankinds attempt to put the things mankind perceives into understandable terms. But all we have are theories. And as long as we haven't seen all there is to see of nature and the universe, they remain just theories.
Just because every time someone let go of a ball it dropped towards the earth doesn't mean this has suddenly become a law. Ever think that perhaps our perception of gravity is rather limited?
Oh sure, make us choose between the devil and Beelzebub...
Global Warming is real. The only questions are:
How much of it is really caused by us?
And
How much of it actually harmful?
So far, what I see in the media isn't really convincing. I still believe that what we see today can and did happen in earth's history and is therefore rather natural.
Cutting back on our production of harmful and questionable stuff and especially cutting back on what of it we release into nature is surely a good thing. Common sense dictates that just dumping anything in too big quantities anywhere can't be good. But we must be careful not to confuse useful behavior with what this blatant reactionism demands of us. Reactionism and outcry are ALWAYS easily abused tools to sell stuff. Be it a political agenda or newspapers.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
There is also no way that I need to decide what clothes I want to wear. Someone else could do it for me and I still wouldn't suffer cold or make a fool of myself by walking around in the nude.
The fact that someone LIKES to do something should be enough of a point not have a discussion about who needs to do what. As long as a person, no matter the age, does not influence someone else's life overly negatively, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
Ah, I see your problem... you don't understand likenesses.
I can't remember one instance where I have stated that V for Vendetta was actually meant to show us where the British were headed. What the movie did was show as a totalitarian state where the people was downtrodden in the name of security. Where personal rights were stripped away and law enforcement was on a power-high. The fact that the chosen country was British does NOT matter AT ALL.
The irony lies in the fact that the country that has been, possibly by chance, chosen to build the scene is now headed exactly that way.
THAT is why V for Vendetta pops up time and again. Irony, dude. Look it up.
But curfew is to put the cart before the donkey. If your problem is that kids are out doing crazy stuff because their parents are not able to handle the kids the way they need to, then you need to either give them the means to change that situation (e.g. chance the economy in such a way that they have both the time and resources to parent their kids) or make sure they just don't have kids.
I don't understand when this belief manifested that anyone was entitled to ruining a child's life.
As disgusting as I find that (and saying that as someone who is regularly disturbed at night be drunk teenagers), it still doesn't equal a nationwide curfew for everyone.
A curfew for kids is actually taking the parents rights away to decide whether their kids are mature enough to be out past 10 pm. So it does go in a similar direction. Still, it's a far cry from a curfew for all adults.
That's today's paradox for you... while personal freedom is toted at every corner and we can see half naked girls walking around in public thinking they're dressed (and I'm 27 not 67, mind you), we're actually censoring more than we used to.
I remember in the late 80s, early 90s there were actual boobs in comedy shows/movies. Remember Benny Hill and all the scantily clad women? You don't see that nowadays but in its place we have talk shows where people ridicule themselves to no end.
So basically, having FUN with sex is frowned upon, but being extreme about it sells.
I dunno... I don't get it either.