I'm sorry, I can't agree with this steam love fest.
I bought several games on steam. Then I moved - we're having some problems getting internet set up at the new house, so I thought "hey, I'll play through all these great valve games that I hadn't had time before between WoW raids and moving."
"Sorry, this game can not be played in offline mode."
They'd already been activated once, I just haven't played them in a month or two.
I bought the games on CD even:P
Live without internet at home for a couple weeks then tell me about how online DRM requirements aren't a big deal. I'd much rather have the OPTION of the cd case I can bring with me than be unable to play my SINGLE PLAYER games when the net goes down.
Fun thing to point out for all of the Ron Paul supporters here - he didn't vote for it, but he wasn't around to rail against it and vote against it either. I'm disappointed.
And of course the second half of this is that the geek girls are even more misogynist toward the "vapid", "brainless", and "shallow" normal girls than most guys are. Guys will excuse a whole lot because of the genetic predispositions toward getting laid. Most women have no similar impulse.
My wife complains all the time about having to work with women, because they are "crazy."
It's a funny thing about "justice" how in the public perception once someone's been convicted (accused?) of a crime they're no longer human. I agree, it's been a constant for years, apparently it's in our nature.
Whereas if you asked someone, outside of a specific case, whether sexual humiliation and death by disease was a reasonable crime for making money off of annoying people, they probably wouldn't think so:)
Did you miss the part where I said that I make rape jokes?:)
It's not about lightening up - jokes are perfectly fine. The cultural attitude of behind them is not.
Everything is a joking matter - but some things we should be laughing at so we don't cry, not because we think it's slapstick.
I make the point about this because I don't think most people consider male rape a real social problem... it's just funny. Whereas a girl getting raped, that's serious business.
I guess I say it's the difference between making Pollack or Nigger jokes tongue in cheek and actually being racist. The jokes are fine - meaning them isn't.
It's one of the sickest little bits of our culture that prison rape jokes aren't considered offensive.
I mean, I still make them, but I make rape jokes in general, and am occasionally considered an ass for it. Your grandma can make a "guy gets raped in prison" joke on the morning news and no one would get offended.
There are multiple cases where a man sentenced for non-violent crimes was turned into a sex slave for years, given HIV, and sent to the hospital multiple times for internal injuries relating to his treatment, and the prison guards said "tough it up and don't be a pansy."
I think in your examples, there is a difference between a port and something that was developed to be cross platform.
Developing with the original intent to be cross platform requires some fundamental changes in how you design the system.
Porting something means things tend to be buggy, slower, and "foreign" feeling on the port system.
I think you see a big difference in quality between titles from companies that traditionally release cross platform games, and ones that either pay a porting house to do the work or decide to add a second platform as an afterthought.
Although you're definitely right that the guy's claim makes no sense.
Just to let you know, Jefferson (and quite a few of the other founding fathers) were more "Deists" than what you would consider Christians. Jefferson himself wrote his own version of the New Testament, where he removes all of the supposed miracles worked by Jesus, dismissing them as superstitious nonsense, and just leaves the philosophies of Christ.
I don't think it's too much of a logical jump to consider "Christianity" in general a religion that could be established by the state.
The midwest (Columbus, OH, specifically) may be a little boring compared to San Francisco, but I can buy a nice big four bedroom/two bath 2500 sq ft house for 200-250k almost anywhere around here, and if I'm willing to drive an extra ten minutes it'll even have a treed lot. 700k would buy you something close to a mansion.
The pay's a bit less ($50k for a starting software engineering instead of $70k) but that's a 40% difference, as opposed to the ghastly jump in housing prices. And very few of my software engineering buddies have had a hard time getting a job out here.
If you don't mind renting, living in Cali is supposed to work out better financially (because xboxes and tv's cost the same everywhere in the US), but if you want to plant a garden and not have your landlord tell you what kind of pet you can have, I highly recommend... well, anywhere but California:)
I think one of the most interesting studies I saw found that in situations like that an initial parry and/or cover is the most important aspect.
They had a well trained officer take on three recruits in a gunfight. If he just fired, no matter what order or speed he used one of them would always kill him before he could finish them off. However, if he found cover immediately while returning fire his odds of success improved significantly. I think the most interesting part of the study was that he had greatest success while jumping/falling backwards and simultaneously firing his weapon - yes, like in a john woo movie - as that presented a small target while allowing him to keep his sight picture undisturbed.
The FBI has some very interesting studies on these sorts of things.
Nearly all criminals surveyed in a study I read said that if handguns were not available, they would use a sawed off shotgun. You can't really make the sale of shotguns illegal without making bird hunting illegal as well.
I would much rather some punk kid shot me with a 22 pistol than a sawed up 12 gauge.
I would also ask you why you don't think a handgun would be a useful tool to protect a woman from rape, or an elderly person from assault and battery. Not everyone who owns a gun aspires to be Rambo.
Most rebel forces are a combination of militia volunteers and ex-soldiers. Having legal guns around means that the militia will be trained in their use and likely bring one with them to augment the real military weapons being used by the soldiers.
Actually, most studies show that if the person with their gun out hesitates at all, the person drawing their gun will fire first. It comes up in studies about shootings where a cop killed someone who ended up not being armed, has something to do with how our action time is faster than our reaction time.
Also, most conflicts are resolved without anyone firing their gun. And it extends to quite a few situations beyond an armed robber and an unarmed civilian. Take, for example, a young man against an older person, a man against a woman, a group against one, or a large football player sized man against a smaller man. A gun in trained hands equalizes all of those situations. Even prolonged martial arts study will not do so as effectively.
I don't remember you or the government being my friend.
If you're not a friend, then it's meddling in my rights and civil liberties, and you can keep your ideas of what would make me better or healthier to yourself.
It's a form of group identification, just like proper grammar or spelling. Educated grammar or a proper accent identify you as part of the educated class. Cursing and slang identify you as the lower unprivileged class. Or in the specific case of cursing, as the "moral" class.
It's more likely older people. I know several who find it much easier to get in and out of a van or SUV than a car. Not that they need one of the giant ones for that:P
Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if passenger cars did have CB radios so you could say "sorry" or "coming through."
Then we brought a CB with us on a road trip and all I could think was "Trucker IRC." Same inane comments, same treatment toward any female member, same idiot with the green flashing text (or in CB case, idiot sounds effects). And I realized that I didn't really want my morning commute to be the equivalent of Barrens Chat.
Still.. something point to point would be awesome.
Would you please actually read the Geneva Convention! They do not qualify for POW status - but POW status is an extension of rights granted to all citizens in a conflict area, regardless of their status. There is no unlawful enemy combatant classification in the geneva convention - they still get basic rights, which includes (among other things) an actual court to determine that they are, in fact, not POWs, and basic legal protections (including habeas corpus) found in all western legal systems.
Then they should be treating them like POWs, who still get habeas corpus, and holding them as such.
Or as non-POWs, as defined in the Geneva Treaty, which *also* gives them habeas corpus.
There's a big difference between giving them full protection under American law and having to provide evidence to *someone* that your *suspected* terrorist is not some random guy who ticked off the wrong informant.
I learned skepticism by having my dad consistently and conscientiously ripping apart my hare-brained utopian ideas every time I came up with them as a kid.
Me: "If I were president, I'd (solve random social problem."
My Dad: Well how are you going to get to be president? With whose army? How will you pay for them? What if people disagree? What about the people gaming the system? How will you maintain your power?
I'd try to come up with ways around his questions for a while, until the conversation finally resolved with a "I'd come up with something." But by that point I knew that I was just being overly optimistic and stubborn.
It's a twisted bit of personality that I am looking forward to crushing my own children's misguided dreams in order to make them better people.
It's an interesting problem that leaders like MLK or Ghandi can only exist in countries that do have in general a rule of law and some right to free expression.
How long do you think either of them would have lasted in the USSR, Mao's China, or most African dictatorships?
And for the record, Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross for his support of being peaceful - he was nailed to the cross for directly challenging the theocracy's right to rule. He walked into temples and trashed the place (read the bible closely in the story about the money lenders - no offense intended, but it sounds like a standard moderately violent protest to me). He claimed that people went to heaven through *him*, not through the established hierarchy. He was also a charismatic demagogue of a conquered people - one of many claiming to be the Jewish Messiah who would lead his people to freedom - most of the others leaned toward freedom in the military sense. So whether you hold he was set up by the Jews for challenging the established hierarchy or by the Romans for rebellion... it's not so much because he was preaching peace and people didn't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
He mocks everyone constantly, but there is a bit of a difference in how he does it that betrays his bias.
His mockery of republicans is usually along the lines of "what are those crazy people thinking?"
Whereas against democrats he tends to be more "come on, guys, I was counting on you and then you sucked."
He doesn't give anyone a free pass (which I greatly appreciate) but he does betray his bias a bit.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with this steam love fest.
I bought several games on steam. Then I moved - we're having some problems getting internet set up at the new house, so I thought "hey, I'll play through all these great valve games that I hadn't had time before between WoW raids and moving."
"Sorry, this game can not be played in offline mode."
They'd already been activated once, I just haven't played them in a month or two.
I bought the games on CD even :P
Live without internet at home for a couple weeks then tell me about how online DRM requirements aren't a big deal. I'd much rather have the OPTION of the cd case I can bring with me than be unable to play my SINGLE PLAYER games when the net goes down.
Fun thing to point out for all of the Ron Paul supporters here - he didn't vote for it, but he wasn't around to rail against it and vote against it either. I'm disappointed.
People skills in medicine? Ha, you should meet my med school friends. :)
And of course the second half of this is that the geek girls are even more misogynist toward the "vapid", "brainless", and "shallow" normal girls than most guys are. Guys will excuse a whole lot because of the genetic predispositions toward getting laid. Most women have no similar impulse.
My wife complains all the time about having to work with women, because they are "crazy."
It's a funny thing about "justice" how in the public perception once someone's been convicted (accused?) of a crime they're no longer human. I agree, it's been a constant for years, apparently it's in our nature.
Whereas if you asked someone, outside of a specific case, whether sexual humiliation and death by disease was a reasonable crime for making money off of annoying people, they probably wouldn't think so :)
Did you miss the part where I said that I make rape jokes? :)
It's not about lightening up - jokes are perfectly fine. The cultural attitude of behind them is not.
Everything is a joking matter - but some things we should be laughing at so we don't cry, not because we think it's slapstick.
I make the point about this because I don't think most people consider male rape a real social problem... it's just funny. Whereas a girl getting raped, that's serious business.
I guess I say it's the difference between making Pollack or Nigger jokes tongue in cheek and actually being racist. The jokes are fine - meaning them isn't.
Wish I had mod points.
It's one of the sickest little bits of our culture that prison rape jokes aren't considered offensive.
I mean, I still make them, but I make rape jokes in general, and am occasionally considered an ass for it. Your grandma can make a "guy gets raped in prison" joke on the morning news and no one would get offended.
There are multiple cases where a man sentenced for non-violent crimes was turned into a sex slave for years, given HIV, and sent to the hospital multiple times for internal injuries relating to his treatment, and the prison guards said "tough it up and don't be a pansy."
I think in your examples, there is a difference between a port and something that was developed to be cross platform.
Developing with the original intent to be cross platform requires some fundamental changes in how you design the system.
Porting something means things tend to be buggy, slower, and "foreign" feeling on the port system.
I think you see a big difference in quality between titles from companies that traditionally release cross platform games, and ones that either pay a porting house to do the work or decide to add a second platform as an afterthought.
Although you're definitely right that the guy's claim makes no sense.
Just to let you know, Jefferson (and quite a few of the other founding fathers) were more "Deists" than what you would consider Christians. Jefferson himself wrote his own version of the New Testament, where he removes all of the supposed miracles worked by Jesus, dismissing them as superstitious nonsense, and just leaves the philosophies of Christ.
I don't think it's too much of a logical jump to consider "Christianity" in general a religion that could be established by the state.
We only need a few donation to send a pair of these http://www.bullsballs.com/truck/nutz/ to every democrat in the senate who voted for this.
Honestly? Screw that.
The midwest (Columbus, OH, specifically) may be a little boring compared to San Francisco, but I can buy a nice big four bedroom/two bath 2500 sq ft house for 200-250k almost anywhere around here, and if I'm willing to drive an extra ten minutes it'll even have a treed lot. 700k would buy you something close to a mansion.
The pay's a bit less ($50k for a starting software engineering instead of $70k) but that's a 40% difference, as opposed to the ghastly jump in housing prices. And very few of my software engineering buddies have had a hard time getting a job out here.
If you don't mind renting, living in Cali is supposed to work out better financially (because xboxes and tv's cost the same everywhere in the US), but if you want to plant a garden and not have your landlord tell you what kind of pet you can have, I highly recommend... well, anywhere but California :)
I think one of the most interesting studies I saw found that in situations like that an initial parry and/or cover is the most important aspect.
They had a well trained officer take on three recruits in a gunfight. If he just fired, no matter what order or speed he used one of them would always kill him before he could finish them off. However, if he found cover immediately while returning fire his odds of success improved significantly. I think the most interesting part of the study was that he had greatest success while jumping/falling backwards and simultaneously firing his weapon - yes, like in a john woo movie - as that presented a small target while allowing him to keep his sight picture undisturbed.
The FBI has some very interesting studies on these sorts of things.
Nearly all criminals surveyed in a study I read said that if handguns were not available, they would use a sawed off shotgun. You can't really make the sale of shotguns illegal without making bird hunting illegal as well.
I would much rather some punk kid shot me with a 22 pistol than a sawed up 12 gauge.
I would also ask you why you don't think a handgun would be a useful tool to protect a woman from rape, or an elderly person from assault and battery. Not everyone who owns a gun aspires to be Rambo.
Most rebel forces are a combination of militia volunteers and ex-soldiers. Having legal guns around means that the militia will be trained in their use and likely bring one with them to augment the real military weapons being used by the soldiers.
Actually, most studies show that if the person with their gun out hesitates at all, the person drawing their gun will fire first. It comes up in studies about shootings where a cop killed someone who ended up not being armed, has something to do with how our action time is faster than our reaction time.
Also, most conflicts are resolved without anyone firing their gun. And it extends to quite a few situations beyond an armed robber and an unarmed civilian. Take, for example, a young man against an older person, a man against a woman, a group against one, or a large football player sized man against a smaller man. A gun in trained hands equalizes all of those situations. Even prolonged martial arts study will not do so as effectively.
I don't remember you or the government being my friend.
If you're not a friend, then it's meddling in my rights and civil liberties, and you can keep your ideas of what would make me better or healthier to yourself.
It's a form of group identification, just like proper grammar or spelling. Educated grammar or a proper accent identify you as part of the educated class. Cursing and slang identify you as the lower unprivileged class. Or in the specific case of cursing, as the "moral" class.
It's more likely older people. I know several who find it much easier to get in and out of a van or SUV than a car. Not that they need one of the giant ones for that :P
Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if passenger cars did have CB radios so you could say "sorry" or "coming through."
Then we brought a CB with us on a road trip and all I could think was "Trucker IRC." Same inane comments, same treatment toward any female member, same idiot with the green flashing text (or in CB case, idiot sounds effects). And I realized that I didn't really want my morning commute to be the equivalent of Barrens Chat.
Still.. something point to point would be awesome.
You must not live in the rural midwest ;-)
:)
But yeah, drawing on someone's car is always rude... if occasionally funny
Would you please actually read the Geneva Convention! They do not qualify for POW status - but POW status is an extension of rights granted to all citizens in a conflict area, regardless of their status. There is no unlawful enemy combatant classification in the geneva convention - they still get basic rights, which includes (among other things) an actual court to determine that they are, in fact, not POWs, and basic legal protections (including habeas corpus) found in all western legal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Then they should be treating them like POWs, who still get habeas corpus, and holding them as such.
Or as non-POWs, as defined in the Geneva Treaty, which *also* gives them habeas corpus.
There's a big difference between giving them full protection under American law and having to provide evidence to *someone* that your *suspected* terrorist is not some random guy who ticked off the wrong informant.
I learned skepticism by having my dad consistently and conscientiously ripping apart my hare-brained utopian ideas every time I came up with them as a kid.
Me: "If I were president, I'd (solve random social problem."
My Dad: Well how are you going to get to be president? With whose army? How will you pay for them? What if people disagree? What about the people gaming the system? How will you maintain your power?
I'd try to come up with ways around his questions for a while, until the conversation finally resolved with a "I'd come up with something." But by that point I knew that I was just being overly optimistic and stubborn.
It's a twisted bit of personality that I am looking forward to crushing my own children's misguided dreams in order to make them better people.
It's an interesting problem that leaders like MLK or Ghandi can only exist in countries that do have in general a rule of law and some right to free expression.
How long do you think either of them would have lasted in the USSR, Mao's China, or most African dictatorships?
And for the record, Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross for his support of being peaceful - he was nailed to the cross for directly challenging the theocracy's right to rule. He walked into temples and trashed the place (read the bible closely in the story about the money lenders - no offense intended, but it sounds like a standard moderately violent protest to me). He claimed that people went to heaven through *him*, not through the established hierarchy. He was also a charismatic demagogue of a conquered people - one of many claiming to be the Jewish Messiah who would lead his people to freedom - most of the others leaned toward freedom in the military sense. So whether you hold he was set up by the Jews for challenging the established hierarchy or by the Romans for rebellion... it's not so much because he was preaching peace and people didn't like it.