MTV had one good show called Austin Stories from 1997. I watched it again about a month ago and it still holds up. I'm not sure how you'd go about watching without buying it or borrowing from someone who owns it.
I used the contact form and got a reply that the company was legally restricted from taking suggestions via email. The CSR suggested I post my ideas at the battle.net suggestions forum for D2:http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?ForumName=suggestions. Sure enough, there are a couple of threads there with suggestions for D3. I figure something like this could take the form of a petition. I don't have the credentials at the moment to login to post on the forum. Sadly, I'm considering buying D2 again since I can't find mine. Or I could keep looking. It's sad, really:)
I was kind of surprised to see the difference in priorities for members of each party:
The top issues for Obama supporters in the survey were middle-class tax cuts, an improved health-care system, a change in trade policy that supports U.S. jobs, increased support for alternative energy sources, and an improved education system.
Top issues for McCain supporters were stopping congressional earmarks and wasteful government spending, reforming defense spending, cutting taxes, improving pay and support for military families, and modernizing and increasing the size of the U.S. military.
Given that none of them are the same in those lists, how can Powell be a good choice for both at the same time? Is it simply because he's a yes man like other posters are saying?
Depending on where you apply to college, you may get no credits for your AP courses, as the program has been diluted by schools' efforts to get more students enrolled in them.
Also the point about character builds is key. Patch 1.10 changed the game and made existing character builds stop working. That's because people generally hadn't considered survivability. Once you started thinking and planning for survivability, the problems of solo play dissipated.
Lack of skill point redistribution made this very discouraging. Let's hope Blizz includes some relief for bad point choices or experiment failures.
At certain times, you do feel like one cog in a RTS machine. It depends on whether you play to the game design or try to find ways to play against it. In the past, for example, priests were pigeonholed as healers, and if you took on that role, what you did was basically the same as what any other priest did. With gear sets standard for the priest class, you even looked identical to the other priests. Also in the past were engagements with 40 players on one side and a boss monster on the other. At those times, you could feel that this was still Warcraft even though the game genre was completely different.
That is true, and it could just be that I clicked on the teaser first and that's when I got the age prompt. There is a ton of blood flying around in the gameplay demo.
You should be right, but yet there is something about Diablo's art direction and sound direction that draws me back.
There's room for both clickfest games and more sophisticated games. I can't think, offhand, of any computer game with deep characters that were interesting to interact with. Maybe you can suggest something? The closest I've seen is probably Planescape: Torment.
I'm sure the game will have a single player mode. Wait, here from the FAQ:
Will there be a single-player component in addition to multiplayer?
Yes. In addition to battling the hordes of the Burning Hells cooperatively with friends over Battle.net, players will be able to adventure through the world of Diablo III solo. More details on both the single-player and multiplayer experience will be revealed at a later date.
You might also look into TOG, a multi-game guild with a minimum age of 25. This is when men's brains are finally fully formed, so you get a decent group of folks there.
Fair enough, but the www site asked me to enter my date of birth before showing me the cinematic teaser trailer. Then I watched the teaser trailer and didn't see anything even remotely offensive in it. Did anyone else see like a bare tit or extreme violence in there that I missed?
Just the existence of demons and monsters is an issue?
The people producing high efficiency windows and air conditioners are not the same folks who want to sell you more gas, electricity, and a bigger truck.
"There's an upside to the gas crisis: it's a great time to be an oil conglomerate!" - Stephen Colbert
I was on a jury one time and was instructed thus by the judge:
The court makes no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.
my point being that equating "circumstantial" with "unreliable" is a conceit of television shows. It can't be the only evidence to prove someone's guilt or exonerate them, since court cases are very much about who did something. If the police enter a kitchen and see a tray of ice cubes on the counter, that's circumstantial evidence that someone was in the room recently. Other facts have to be collected to determine who it was.
That's not to mention that in organisms with very short lifespans it is possible to observe physical evolution, is it not?
I'm not a lawyer or scientist, so maybe someone in one of those communities can help me here, esp with the nature of circumstantial evidence.
As I understand it, the issue for the military in Iraq is that the fundamental problems there are not military, but political. If the military on their own could solve the problems there, I'm sure they would do it. It's a competent army. The troop surge, for example, was supposed to be a way to bring down the violence levels so that political progress could be made and allow the military mission to conclude. Keeping the violence down and making the country safe isn't the ultimate goal of the US military. The goal is to make it so the country can be safe without the US there.
The idea is that in the immediate days after the attack, things were so confused and frenzied that legal protections may have fallen by the wayside. The idea is to protect people who were overzealous due to the heat of emotion. That doesn't explain why HR 6304 provides lawsuit dismissal for a period of six years following the attack.
That's the only thing that makes any kind of sense to me (I've read it in a few places.) Eliminating the basic principles that make America the land of the free seems more like capitulation to terrorists than what the current administration thinks.
The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative. Even though it's made up of people, the freedom from knowing you operate without a moral imperative makes life much easier for certain kinds of people. I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it.
What exactly constitutes a corrupt company? Corporations have no moral imperative.
You should read Free Lunch, wherein David Cay Johnston basically spells out in detail the truth of your observation. My conclusion from this is that capitalism doesn't perpetuate itself, it eliminates itself. Which is weird.
Here is the statement from Dodd's website. It doesn't say anything about a filibuster, which is disappointing. That doesn't necessarily mean he won't filibuster I guess.
I cannot support the so-called 'compromise' legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.
As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American's[sic] civil liberties by rejecting this measure.
Actually have you tried both? And what payoff are you talking about? Who's getting the reward? Do brilliant people always go on to do great things or I guess contribute a lot to society?
Also I think you might have a limited view of intelligence, as though location on a continuum completely determines a student's educational needs. I'll use special education. I teach regular education high school math, wherein I have a small number of kids with special needs each year. They have average intelligence or above average intelligence, but it's like someone has put a lock on their learning, or like you're teaching them over a noisy phone line. If you can find the key or combination, or some way to reduce the effects of the noise, you're in and they're your better performing kids.
Gifted students also come under the heading of special education, but their problems are different. Some of them shut down without immediate explanations for everything. Others understand material pretty fast, and use their spare time to enact a different program called "find people's buttons and push them." There are ways to help those kids too, but as the word "special" suggests, it's different for each student. Putting a group of gifted students together doesn't necessarily make for a higher-quality classroom.
Ability grouping is fine and good, but have you taught a class comprised entirely of bottom of the barrel students? The real issue I had with that was how students came to be at that ability level. Some of them were hard workers for whom math was just not their best subject. Others had a drug habit. If we could remove students who couldn't get with the school program (or find a program more suited to their interests) we would have more success. Low performing kids need role models. Teachers can say we are role models or model appropriate behaviors and attitudes all we want, but kids become more and more focused on their peers as they get older. And why not? As you get older, your peer group has much more influence over your life than people "in charge."
There's a private school down the road from us that was established to fight integration, and their success comes largely from the fact that they can kick out students who aren't performing academically or have a discipline problem. We suspend students or make them hang out for an hour when something goes wrong. For some kids, maybe that's enough. For most of the troublemaking population, they're just ruining the environment for everyone else and forcing me to be more of a psychiatrist than a teacher. Which I can do, and I try to help those kids as much as I can while they're in my care. But it's not math.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to quibble, but don't they have a de jure monopoly? That is, if it were not protected by the state, it wouldn't last?
MTV had one good show called Austin Stories from 1997. I watched it again about a month ago and it still holds up. I'm not sure how you'd go about watching without buying it or borrowing from someone who owns it.
I didn't even notice that for some reason. So I guess Powell stands so strongly for tax cuts that he's the man for the job.
I used the contact form and got a reply that the company was legally restricted from taking suggestions via email. The CSR suggested I post my ideas at the battle.net suggestions forum for D2:http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?ForumName=suggestions. Sure enough, there are a couple of threads there with suggestions for D3. I figure something like this could take the form of a petition. I don't have the credentials at the moment to login to post on the forum. Sadly, I'm considering buying D2 again since I can't find mine. Or I could keep looking. It's sad, really :)
I was kind of surprised to see the difference in priorities for members of each party:
Given that none of them are the same in those lists, how can Powell be a good choice for both at the same time? Is it simply because he's a yes man like other posters are saying?
Depending on where you apply to college, you may get no credits for your AP courses, as the program has been diluted by schools' efforts to get more students enrolled in them.
Oh somehow I thought it was different for women. Do you have a source for this? I like trivia too.
Oh yes I can second Amazon Basin.
Also the point about character builds is key. Patch 1.10 changed the game and made existing character builds stop working. That's because people generally hadn't considered survivability. Once you started thinking and planning for survivability, the problems of solo play dissipated.
Lack of skill point redistribution made this very discouraging. Let's hope Blizz includes some relief for bad point choices or experiment failures.
At certain times, you do feel like one cog in a RTS machine. It depends on whether you play to the game design or try to find ways to play against it. In the past, for example, priests were pigeonholed as healers, and if you took on that role, what you did was basically the same as what any other priest did. With gear sets standard for the priest class, you even looked identical to the other priests. Also in the past were engagements with 40 players on one side and a boss monster on the other. At those times, you could feel that this was still Warcraft even though the game genre was completely different.
This is why Bill Gates retired so he would have more time to model for mocap.
That is true, and it could just be that I clicked on the teaser first and that's when I got the age prompt. There is a ton of blood flying around in the gameplay demo.
You should be right, but yet there is something about Diablo's art direction and sound direction that draws me back.
There's room for both clickfest games and more sophisticated games. I can't think, offhand, of any computer game with deep characters that were interesting to interact with. Maybe you can suggest something? The closest I've seen is probably Planescape: Torment.
I'm sure the game will have a single player mode. Wait, here from the FAQ:
You might also look into TOG, a multi-game guild with a minimum age of 25. This is when men's brains are finally fully formed, so you get a decent group of folks there.
Fair enough, but the www site asked me to enter my date of birth before showing me the cinematic teaser trailer. Then I watched the teaser trailer and didn't see anything even remotely offensive in it. Did anyone else see like a bare tit or extreme violence in there that I missed?
Just the existence of demons and monsters is an issue?
The people producing high efficiency windows and air conditioners are not the same folks who want to sell you more gas, electricity, and a bigger truck.
"There's an upside to the gas crisis: it's a great time to be an oil conglomerate!" - Stephen Colbert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I was on a jury one time and was instructed thus by the judge:
my point being that equating "circumstantial" with "unreliable" is a conceit of television shows. It can't be the only evidence to prove someone's guilt or exonerate them, since court cases are very much about who did something. If the police enter a kitchen and see a tray of ice cubes on the counter, that's circumstantial evidence that someone was in the room recently. Other facts have to be collected to determine who it was.
That's not to mention that in organisms with very short lifespans it is possible to observe physical evolution, is it not?
I'm not a lawyer or scientist, so maybe someone in one of those communities can help me here, esp with the nature of circumstantial evidence.
As I understand it, the issue for the military in Iraq is that the fundamental problems there are not military, but political. If the military on their own could solve the problems there, I'm sure they would do it. It's a competent army. The troop surge, for example, was supposed to be a way to bring down the violence levels so that political progress could be made and allow the military mission to conclude. Keeping the violence down and making the country safe isn't the ultimate goal of the US military. The goal is to make it so the country can be safe without the US there.
The idea is that in the immediate days after the attack, things were so confused and frenzied that legal protections may have fallen by the wayside. The idea is to protect people who were overzealous due to the heat of emotion. That doesn't explain why HR 6304 provides lawsuit dismissal for a period of six years following the attack.
That's the only thing that makes any kind of sense to me (I've read it in a few places.) Eliminating the basic principles that make America the land of the free seems more like capitulation to terrorists than what the current administration thinks.
How can you be a former founder of something? Someone else can't come along later and found it again can they?
The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative. Even though it's made up of people, the freedom from knowing you operate without a moral imperative makes life much easier for certain kinds of people. I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it.
Here's one more for you. Kit Bond (R-MO) on NPR this morning:
Here is a link to the NPR story itself, with audio.What exactly constitutes a corrupt company? Corporations have no moral imperative.
You should read Free Lunch, wherein David Cay Johnston basically spells out in detail the truth of your observation. My conclusion from this is that capitalism doesn't perpetuate itself, it eliminates itself. Which is weird.
Here is the statement from Dodd's website. It doesn't say anything about a filibuster, which is disappointing. That doesn't necessarily mean he won't filibuster I guess.
Actually have you tried both? And what payoff are you talking about? Who's getting the reward? Do brilliant people always go on to do great things or I guess contribute a lot to society?
Also I think you might have a limited view of intelligence, as though location on a continuum completely determines a student's educational needs. I'll use special education. I teach regular education high school math, wherein I have a small number of kids with special needs each year. They have average intelligence or above average intelligence, but it's like someone has put a lock on their learning, or like you're teaching them over a noisy phone line. If you can find the key or combination, or some way to reduce the effects of the noise, you're in and they're your better performing kids.
Gifted students also come under the heading of special education, but their problems are different. Some of them shut down without immediate explanations for everything. Others understand material pretty fast, and use their spare time to enact a different program called "find people's buttons and push them." There are ways to help those kids too, but as the word "special" suggests, it's different for each student. Putting a group of gifted students together doesn't necessarily make for a higher-quality classroom.
Ability grouping is fine and good, but have you taught a class comprised entirely of bottom of the barrel students? The real issue I had with that was how students came to be at that ability level. Some of them were hard workers for whom math was just not their best subject. Others had a drug habit. If we could remove students who couldn't get with the school program (or find a program more suited to their interests) we would have more success. Low performing kids need role models. Teachers can say we are role models or model appropriate behaviors and attitudes all we want, but kids become more and more focused on their peers as they get older. And why not? As you get older, your peer group has much more influence over your life than people "in charge."
There's a private school down the road from us that was established to fight integration, and their success comes largely from the fact that they can kick out students who aren't performing academically or have a discipline problem. We suspend students or make them hang out for an hour when something goes wrong. For some kids, maybe that's enough. For most of the troublemaking population, they're just ruining the environment for everyone else and forcing me to be more of a psychiatrist than a teacher. Which I can do, and I try to help those kids as much as I can while they're in my care. But it's not math.