And level 90 isn't in the game, and tier 7 gear is nubbish and...
I started thinking those thoughts reading this post, and then thought: does knowledge of the game make me an addict?
For full disclosure, I'm not currently playing the game, I usually cancel my account in the summer, and have stopped playing for extended periods before. I've been pretty hardcore in the past but I've also had periods where I played more casually. I've thought I may be addicted, but I never had trouble canceling my account and stopping. I usually re-subscribe because I'm bored and have no other interesting games to play, not because I want to play the game as such.
But to come back to the main point, does deep knowledge of a field makes one an addict? Does knowing a lot about wine/spirits makes one an alcoholic? Does knowing a lot about WoW makes you an addict? How about computers, the internet, technology? Am I addicted to philosophy because I read a lot of philosophy books? Or then maybe I'm addicted to reading!
The problem is that addiction is hard to define. Because deep involvement and knowledge in a subject, game or activity is not a sign of addiction as such. It is only so if it becomes exclusive and prevents other activities: social interaction, other ludic activities, work. If I know a lot about the game, but in the same period I've also had time to immerse myself in other hobbies, read Dostoyevsky and had fun with friends in RL, is it a problem?
Yep, Wing Commander is a game series that could really use a good reboot. Start with the same premise with the same characters, and see where it can take you. I liked 1/2 and loved 3/4, I wonder what modern graphics technology could do with this series. And as others mentioned, space sim games are really lacking nowadays. The last good one I played was Freespace 2.
CD-Rs first appeared in 1988, and came to market in the years following. The first CD recorders were very expensive.
What I was talking about predates the computer age, when LPs were the standard. Things started changing when digital editing and CD-Rs became affordable in the early 90s, but it's a big, monolithic industry that takes a while to move.
"can always self-publish" is only true if you were born in 1988. But then maybe you were.
The problem is since US copyright allows the artists to give away their rights, the sheer power of the music cartel has forced the musicians to either accept their terms or not get their music put on disc at all.
The situation in Europe, Canada and elsewhere is slightly different where some inalienable rights cannot be signed away, making the situation a bit better in other markets, but since musicians sign away their copyrights for the US market anyway it doesn't help that much. In fact it makes for weird and annoying situations like Hulu's where they can't publish their material in other countries without obtaining the necessary rights from the artists.
Of course, the internet age of music has been changing things: the powers of the music cartel is waning, and self-publishing is much more possible than it ever was. You can hire private studios for reasonable amounts of money and sell and promote your music on the net. Although self-distribution is easy, self-promotion is still a problem for new artists because of payola and the hold the cartel still has on a lot of attached industries.
And you know, I think copyright violation for non-profit use should be legal. Yet I buy my music (online).
Put these people in a faraday cage with a WiFi router without being able to see the unit, and have them report when it's on/off, double-blind the test and report and see if they're more than 60% reliable over a good number of tests. We'll see if it's real.
No, his problem is that objective methods of measurement are irrelevant in a free market, because of marketing and human nature make it so the louder, most garish voice wins out.
No. NTFS is not perfect, but to think FAT is as bad is deluded. I've honestly never seen a HD formatted with NTFS that I couldn't repair with built-in tools, unless it had physical defects, and in such a case ANY file system would have problems. But I've seen so many FAT drives get hosed by little problems, it's not even funny.
Seriously, don't trust your data to a FAT partition - not worth it.
By "coming from Hollywood" I guess you mean something that's an original script, and not an adaptation.
So after reading your post I started to think about every movie I've enjoyed lately and either they were Hollywood-produced adaptions of other works (Iron Man, TDK, LotR) or not Hollywood-produced at all (Let the right one in).
I've watched all three movies (theatrical versions) once in a theater in one day, for the release of RotK. I watched all three movies (extended version) at home the day they released the extended version of RotK. It was great, but I wouldn't do it again. Since then, I usually watch one disc per day over a week or so when I want to watch them.
Arda, his created world (of which Middle-Earth and the events of Lord of the Rings are but a part), was not built as an allegory of christianity, but Tolkien was directed in his efforts by his catholic beliefs, and it was part of his intention to make his world one compatible with Catholic theology, and infused by his christian ideals.
Actually, Scientology claims they offer immediate benefits. No one has ever demonstrated or proven such benefits, which makes the whole business even stranger.
I mean, if I were to proclaim that after you die, you'd go to a place where you would be able to eat as much as you want without gaining any weight, it's not a scientifically valid proposition, as it cannot be tested, and cannot be proven wrong; and I can see how some people would have faith in such a proclamation.
If I instead suggest that after following my sessions (which will cost you a few hundred thousand dollars), you will be able to eat as much as you want without gaining any weight. Well, such a proposition IS valid as it can be tested. Even better, much as in the Black Swan experiment, you have only to provide a single example of such a person who successfully followed your training and you clearly demonstrate you are right. But they have never proven their assertions, yet people still believe it.
Their best example so far is Tom Cruise. Does he seem like a superman to you?
Except economics is not science, it's mathematical hand-waving. Changing the laws of economics just means finding another model you can regress on past data but which predicts something different i the future.
But the Germans were also working on one. So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?
Except that the Germans were going the wrong way about it, thanks to the fact many of the scientists working for them were actually working against them.
Anyway... Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.
Actually, yes it does. If you have an atomic bomb and no one else does, you win the war. The atomic bomb is a dissuasion weapon more than a destructive one. Its destructive power is incredible obviously, which is why it is so dissuasive, but at that level of destruction, you don't need to use it. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops were more demonstrative than actually effective.
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload. Stealth jets could make this more difficult. Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb. Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.
No, not really. You'd have to know where the bases are that host the weapon, and be able to reach them without the enemy knowing that. The fact that the Nazi codes had been broken repeatedly whereas the allied codes were much more effective makes this a very tenuous proposition at best.
Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?
No. We could have bombed any German city with a single bomb, and they would have capitulated, just like Japan did.
Slashdot Mirror
And level 90 isn't in the game, and tier 7 gear is nubbish and...
I started thinking those thoughts reading this post, and then thought: does knowledge of the game make me an addict?
For full disclosure, I'm not currently playing the game, I usually cancel my account in the summer, and have stopped playing for extended periods before. I've been pretty hardcore in the past but I've also had periods where I played more casually. I've thought I may be addicted, but I never had trouble canceling my account and stopping. I usually re-subscribe because I'm bored and have no other interesting games to play, not because I want to play the game as such.
But to come back to the main point, does deep knowledge of a field makes one an addict? Does knowing a lot about wine/spirits makes one an alcoholic? Does knowing a lot about WoW makes you an addict? How about computers, the internet, technology? Am I addicted to philosophy because I read a lot of philosophy books? Or then maybe I'm addicted to reading!
The problem is that addiction is hard to define. Because deep involvement and knowledge in a subject, game or activity is not a sign of addiction as such. It is only so if it becomes exclusive and prevents other activities: social interaction, other ludic activities, work. If I know a lot about the game, but in the same period I've also had time to immerse myself in other hobbies, read Dostoyevsky and had fun with friends in RL, is it a problem?
He's trying to treat your WoW addiction by getting you into bullying?
Do rats with blue eyes pray to earthworms?
I wouldn't mind being a Fremen myself...
Yep, Wing Commander is a game series that could really use a good reboot. Start with the same premise with the same characters, and see where it can take you. I liked 1/2 and loved 3/4, I wonder what modern graphics technology could do with this series. And as others mentioned, space sim games are really lacking nowadays. The last good one I played was Freespace 2.
So? You only did that so you would turn green yourself. Green really IS better.
CD-Rs first appeared in 1988, and came to market in the years following. The first CD recorders were very expensive.
What I was talking about predates the computer age, when LPs were the standard. Things started changing when digital editing and CD-Rs became affordable in the early 90s, but it's a big, monolithic industry that takes a while to move.
"can always self-publish" is only true if you were born in 1988. But then maybe you were.
The problem is since US copyright allows the artists to give away their rights, the sheer power of the music cartel has forced the musicians to either accept their terms or not get their music put on disc at all.
The situation in Europe, Canada and elsewhere is slightly different where some inalienable rights cannot be signed away, making the situation a bit better in other markets, but since musicians sign away their copyrights for the US market anyway it doesn't help that much. In fact it makes for weird and annoying situations like Hulu's where they can't publish their material in other countries without obtaining the necessary rights from the artists.
Of course, the internet age of music has been changing things: the powers of the music cartel is waning, and self-publishing is much more possible than it ever was. You can hire private studios for reasonable amounts of money and sell and promote your music on the net. Although self-distribution is easy, self-promotion is still a problem for new artists because of payola and the hold the cartel still has on a lot of attached industries.
And you know, I think copyright violation for non-profit use should be legal. Yet I buy my music (online).
Seriously, this is 100% psychosomatic.
Put these people in a faraday cage with a WiFi router without being able to see the unit, and have them report when it's on/off, double-blind the test and report and see if they're more than 60% reliable over a good number of tests. We'll see if it's real.
Not everyone has the time to read Slashdot five hours a day
No, his problem is that objective methods of measurement are irrelevant in a free market, because of marketing and human nature make it so the louder, most garish voice wins out.
Exactly. It's funny that they are suing themselves, but it's absurd that they are DEFENDING themselves. Against themselves.
You over-exploit the natural and human resources of the area where you operate, strip it bare, then move on to the next one?
The problem is that the "next area" is another planet, and we kinda lack the technology to get there for now...
Except that we have access to Wikipedia's edit history.
Vanilla WoW? you're joking right? They were only good for debuffing mobs for the mages who would roll ignites all night long.
The OP class in Vanilla wow was the mage. They were not as good in BC but now they're OP in LK again.
"Server not found"
I'm probably not on the cabal's DNS servers.
No. NTFS is not perfect, but to think FAT is as bad is deluded. I've honestly never seen a HD formatted with NTFS that I couldn't repair with built-in tools, unless it had physical defects, and in such a case ANY file system would have problems. But I've seen so many FAT drives get hosed by little problems, it's not even funny.
Seriously, don't trust your data to a FAT partition - not worth it.
By "coming from Hollywood" I guess you mean something that's an original script, and not an adaptation.
So after reading your post I started to think about every movie I've enjoyed lately and either they were Hollywood-produced adaptions of other works (Iron Man, TDK, LotR) or not Hollywood-produced at all (Let the right one in).
Bah.
I've watched all three movies (theatrical versions) once in a theater in one day, for the release of RotK. I watched all three movies (extended version) at home the day they released the extended version of RotK. It was great, but I wouldn't do it again. Since then, I usually watch one disc per day over a week or so when I want to watch them.
Arda, his created world (of which Middle-Earth and the events of Lord of the Rings are but a part), was not built as an allegory of christianity, but Tolkien was directed in his efforts by his catholic beliefs, and it was part of his intention to make his world one compatible with Catholic theology, and infused by his christian ideals.
Actually, Scientology claims they offer immediate benefits. No one has ever demonstrated or proven such benefits, which makes the whole business even stranger.
I mean, if I were to proclaim that after you die, you'd go to a place where you would be able to eat as much as you want without gaining any weight, it's not a scientifically valid proposition, as it cannot be tested, and cannot be proven wrong; and I can see how some people would have faith in such a proclamation.
If I instead suggest that after following my sessions (which will cost you a few hundred thousand dollars), you will be able to eat as much as you want without gaining any weight. Well, such a proposition IS valid as it can be tested. Even better, much as in the Black Swan experiment, you have only to provide a single example of such a person who successfully followed your training and you clearly demonstrate you are right. But they have never proven their assertions, yet people still believe it.
Their best example so far is Tom Cruise. Does he seem like a superman to you?
Except economics is not science, it's mathematical hand-waving. Changing the laws of economics just means finding another model you can regress on past data but which predicts something different i the future.
Religions really have the best take on this business method: claim the reward/product/proof will come after you're dead!
Hahahahaha
That's hilarious.
You really believe this pseudo-scientific hogwash?
But the Germans were also working on one. So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?
Except that the Germans were going the wrong way about it, thanks to the fact many of the scientists working for them were actually working against them.
Anyway... Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.
Actually, yes it does. If you have an atomic bomb and no one else does, you win the war. The atomic bomb is a dissuasion weapon more than a destructive one. Its destructive power is incredible obviously, which is why it is so dissuasive, but at that level of destruction, you don't need to use it. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops were more demonstrative than actually effective.
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload. Stealth jets could make this more difficult. Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb. Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.
No, not really. You'd have to know where the bases are that host the weapon, and be able to reach them without the enemy knowing that. The fact that the Nazi codes had been broken repeatedly whereas the allied codes were much more effective makes this a very tenuous proposition at best.
Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?
No. We could have bombed any German city with a single bomb, and they would have capitulated, just like Japan did.
Except for laches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)