I disagree. Either gift can be irresponsible or either gift can be responsible.
Giving an 11 year old GTA3 is flat irresponsible.
Giving an 11 year old a gun and telling him to run off and play is worse.
But, to use myself as an example, giving an 11 year old a gun of his own and teaching him how to use it responsibly and only letting him use it under the supervision of responsible adults is perfectly responsible and a lot more responsible than giving the same kid GTA3 and no supervision.
Of course, that leaves the case of giving the kid a GTA3 and supervising his use of that but I feel that is less likely to be developmentally positive than the supervised gun use is.
I don't see the problem with your vision of the hardcore mmo fans leaving for EQ2 while the more casual gamers hang out and enjoy WOW.
It strikes me as kind of odd to believe that unless you plan to devote your life to a game then you are not a "true" player of the game and have no business having a game in the genre that you can enjoy.
It's good, I suppose, that you've found something you enjoy so much that you actually want to spend a dozen hours a day doing it, but the fact that others only want to dabble in it shouldn't threaten you and if you don't enjoy games that cater to them, what's wrong with just not playing them?
In short, I guess I just don't see the problem. It seems like you really wanted to love WOW but found that it just wasn't enough for your outsized involvement in these types of games. Okay, so what? You've found a game in EQ2 that meets with your approval. So WOW isn't for you and EQ2 is. Where's the problem?
I haven't yet seen "House" but I've been meaning to check it out, I've heard really good things.
And I had exactly the same reaction when I saw the first promo for it: "Did they say that's Hugh Laurie? Can't possibly be that same Hugh Laurie who played Bertie Wooster..." But when I looked it up, sure enough it was.
Where is your point system used? I've never heard of that system.
The most common use of "point" in that respect that I've ever heard is in the US is to use "point" interchangeably with "percentage point", i.e. 1 point = 1% = 1/100.
The US Financail community will occasionally use "point" as short hand for "basis point" which is 1/100 of a percentage point or.01%.
But I've never heard of a semantic system that uses "point" to mean 10% and I'd be curious as to its origin.
So given that if one is thinking of ever trying to build an hdtv pvr one should by the hdtv input cards before this July's onset of the crippling law...
My understanding, and this all took place a while ago and I don't follow it all that closely, was that in mid-2001 we learned that they had been pursuing their nuclear ambitions in a separate facility from pretty much the time the Clinton accords were signed.
I've never heard of the foolproof camera system that was keeping them totally and incontrovertibly away from nuclear research, but again I don't follow all this that closely.
The little moveable thumb-thingy was worse than useless but the black circle on the outside beat any D-pad all to hell for diaganol movement.
Add the turbo buttons and the ergonomic (for 10-year old hands) shape to the magical black circle of diaganol movement and it was in a league of it's own.
Best. Controller. Ever.
(Maybe just because that's what I had growing up...)
I'm fairly decent at math, do it for a living, and am fine with doing arithmetic in my head. The problem with dividing up checks, for me, is that I'm usually drunk by the time the check comes around at which point I would classify myself as not only incapable of math but also of appreciating reading material aimed at 10-year olds.
There's a guy in my office (who also does math for a living) who is famously bad at arithmetic, especially in his head. He always gets it wrong, but give him calculus or stats and he's off to the races.
I don't think he was adding the two, he was comparing the two.
I believe he was making the point that this would cost half as much as he pays for broadband and would be significantly less than half as useful. Thus: not an attractive price for him.
Actually those folks have mostly switched from VHS to DVD now.
And I saw the one who used to sell on the corner near my office get busted a few months ago and nobody's come to reclaim her spot.
In truth, while I feel the busting was absolutely the right thing to do, I felt sorry for the girl herself. She seemed to be a very recent immigrant with no concept that what she was doing was wrong.
I think your mates logic might be a little flawed.
According to your calculation, if all he could get was a 2% pre-tax return on his money, then in order to pay for cable he'd have to have:
60*12/.014 (after 30% tax) or 51,429 "tied up" and thus cable looks like an even *worse* deal.
Thus, according to this logic, the lower the return on investment, the less likely you should be to spend anything on cable tv.
But this is exactly the opposite of what fiscal prudence, common sense or any thought at all would dictate: as returns get lower investment becomes *less* attractive and immediate consumption becomes *more* attractive.
I supposse if you were actually living off of a fixed amount of principle that you expected to fund your entire life without ever contributing to it through anything but interest payments, your logic would hold, but in the real world where people have to finance both savings and investment through income, exactly the oppossite logic should apply.
If the changes are solely meant to 'complete' the movies, why make a change like that? It would have been no more difficult in the original filming to have Greedo shoot first.
Your use of "crackwhore" and "liquid love" in the same sentence has left me with positively pornographic images in my head.;)
BTW, I agree with you on China's abysmality (is that a word? should be.) and the Ill-ness of the Il regime is uncontestable. Your arguments would be some of the many good ones against the war to which I alluded in my post.
The post I was responding to, however, seemed to make the simple point that we should not remove Saddam because we're not removing all the other bad guys.
Arguing that we should remove the more dangerous ones first and that Saddam doesn't fit the bill is valid. Arguing that we shouldn't remove any of them unless we're going to remove all of them is not.
To slightly modify your analogy, I agree that the police should take out the guy in the clock tower before they take out the potentially menacing guy on the corner. But saying that they shouldn't take either of them out unless they take both of them out is still idiotic.
I don't usually comment on these political flamewars, but the argument that because we can't stop every evil person we shouldn't stop any is particularly specious.
Would you argue that because the police don't catch every murderer they shouldn't bother stopping any?
There are lots of good points to be made both for an against the war in Iraq, but arguing that because we can't do everything we should do nothing is just idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Rodd and Todd - "Can we play now, Bart?"
Bart - "You are playing. We're a team!"
Rodd and Todd - "Yay!!!"
I, too, thought it was a great deal, and it was.
It became an even better deal every time I bought another used game and used the card for my 10% discount.
Sadly for Gamestop's used game sales, I now have a job and a girlfriend and so have found my videogame time dwindling...
2pi radians == 360 degrees
(radians are an alternate metric for angular measurement based on the unit circle -- which is a circle with a radius of 1 unit)
Giving an 11 year old GTA3 is flat irresponsible.
Giving an 11 year old a gun and telling him to run off and play is worse.
But, to use myself as an example, giving an 11 year old a gun of his own and teaching him how to use it responsibly and only letting him use it under the supervision of responsible adults is perfectly responsible and a lot more responsible than giving the same kid GTA3 and no supervision.
Of course, that leaves the case of giving the kid a GTA3 and supervising his use of that but I feel that is less likely to be developmentally positive than the supervised gun use is.
It strikes me as kind of odd to believe that unless you plan to devote your life to a game then you are not a "true" player of the game and have no business having a game in the genre that you can enjoy.
It's good, I suppose, that you've found something you enjoy so much that you actually want to spend a dozen hours a day doing it, but the fact that others only want to dabble in it shouldn't threaten you and if you don't enjoy games that cater to them, what's wrong with just not playing them?
In short, I guess I just don't see the problem. It seems like you really wanted to love WOW but found that it just wasn't enough for your outsized involvement in these types of games. Okay, so what? You've found a game in EQ2 that meets with your approval. So WOW isn't for you and EQ2 is. Where's the problem?
And I had exactly the same reaction when I saw the first promo for it: "Did they say that's Hugh Laurie? Can't possibly be that same Hugh Laurie who played Bertie Wooster..." But when I looked it up, sure enough it was.
Amazingly skilled actor.
Sorry, fairly serious PG Wodehouse fan here. ;)
The most common use of "point" in that respect that I've ever heard is in the US is to use "point" interchangeably with "percentage point", i.e. 1 point = 1% = 1/100.
The US Financail community will occasionally use "point" as short hand for "basis point" which is 1/100 of a percentage point or .01%.
But I've never heard of a semantic system that uses "point" to mean 10% and I'd be curious as to its origin.
What is the best card to buy?
I've never heard of the foolproof camera system that was keeping them totally and incontrovertibly away from nuclear research, but again I don't follow all this that closely.
But they continued working on their nuclear weapons program in secret. So basically Clinton was paying for nothing.
I don't think that Bush's policy is all that great either, it's a situation that doesn't have a good solution.
But I definitely don't believe that paying off a madman to pretend not to develop nuclear weapons is a successful policy.
Especially since you only get them just after completing the game without dying...
That's like making the prize for finishing the 72 oz steak... another huge steak that you can only eat right then.
The little moveable thumb-thingy was worse than useless but the black circle on the outside beat any D-pad all to hell for diaganol movement.
Add the turbo buttons and the ergonomic (for 10-year old hands) shape to the magical black circle of diaganol movement and it was in a league of it's own.
Best. Controller. Ever.
(Maybe just because that's what I had growing up...)
There's a guy in my office (who also does math for a living) who is famously bad at arithmetic, especially in his head. He always gets it wrong, but give him calculus or stats and he's off to the races.
Different strokes, I guess.
I believe he was making the point that this would cost half as much as he pays for broadband and would be significantly less than half as useful. Thus: not an attractive price for him.
And I saw the one who used to sell on the corner near my office get busted a few months ago and nobody's come to reclaim her spot.
In truth, while I feel the busting was absolutely the right thing to do, I felt sorry for the girl herself. She seemed to be a very recent immigrant with no concept that what she was doing was wrong.
According to your calculation, if all he could get was a 2% pre-tax return on his money, then in order to pay for cable he'd have to have:
60*12/.014 (after 30% tax) or 51,429 "tied up" and thus cable looks like an even *worse* deal.
Thus, according to this logic, the lower the return on investment, the less likely you should be to spend anything on cable tv.
But this is exactly the opposite of what fiscal prudence, common sense or any thought at all would dictate: as returns get lower investment becomes *less* attractive and immediate consumption becomes *more* attractive.
I supposse if you were actually living off of a fixed amount of principle that you expected to fund your entire life without ever contributing to it through anything but interest payments, your logic would hold, but in the real world where people have to finance both savings and investment through income, exactly the oppossite logic should apply.
That's hysterical.
Cheers.
This isn't the text you're looking for.
Move along, move along...
If the changes are solely meant to 'complete' the movies, why make a change like that? It would have been no more difficult in the original filming to have Greedo shoot first.
BTW, I agree with you on China's abysmality (is that a word? should be.) and the Ill-ness of the Il regime is uncontestable. Your arguments would be some of the many good ones against the war to which I alluded in my post.
The post I was responding to, however, seemed to make the simple point that we should not remove Saddam because we're not removing all the other bad guys.
Arguing that we should remove the more dangerous ones first and that Saddam doesn't fit the bill is valid. Arguing that we shouldn't remove any of them unless we're going to remove all of them is not.
To slightly modify your analogy, I agree that the police should take out the guy in the clock tower before they take out the potentially menacing guy on the corner. But saying that they shouldn't take either of them out unless they take both of them out is still idiotic.
Would you argue that because the police don't catch every murderer they shouldn't bother stopping any?
There are lots of good points to be made both for an against the war in Iraq, but arguing that because we can't do everything we should do nothing is just idiotic.
And here I thought that human engineering and curiousity had caused them and that the mystery force was merely changing their expected behavior!
If the post had read "Mystery Force is effecting a slowdown of Probes" that would be correct.
As written, however, the correct word is "affect".
People's income is based on home and auto prices? How does that work exactly?
I would assume that the 20 works the same way too.