I skimmed the article and disagree with both the premise and his point by point breakdown of the idea. I speak with some authority here, as my priest on Alleria was a founding officer of Risen, which is currently the most advanced guild in the game world-wide (furthest progression in AQ), and while I no longer play, I'm sure most players will agree with what I'm about to say.
Firstly, in order to measure if time or skill is more important, we must have a basis of measurement for what the goal behind the game truely is. Items? Level? Wealth? Influence? Content defeated? Some people have preferences for any of the above, but I argue that skill is the determining factor in dominance of any of these options.
Time is not the primary requirement needed to advance in World of Warcraft. At the very minimum, a level of skill is necessary to even advance to the second level; surely Mr. Sirlin (the writer of the article we're discussing...) agrees with this concept. In order to advance to the second level, one must have knowledge of how to use skills, read quest dialogs, or at the very least, hit auto-attack. This is the Minimum Requirement necessary to advance to the next level. As you progress through the game, content becomes more difficult. No matter how much time you give the game, if you do not learn more about your class as you progress (thus, upping your "skill"), then you will not advance towards level 60. Thus, some measure of skill is required to reach level 60. In addition, if you are RACING towards level 60, in hopes of beating other players, skill determines the rate at which you advance (meaning that you can do so in less time than other players). I've done this. I promise you, while time is important, skill is four times so. We used a large pool of those first to reach 60 to form our guild on Alleria, and ended up with an extremely talented base of players upon which to build what has become now an incredibly powerful force. You can argue this, but I have emperical data to support my conclusion: skill > time, when leveling.
Wealth: it's all about knowing where to go. This pillar requires more time than anything else, but your skill at the various money-making methods determines your strength in this area too. No matter the time you throw, those who know how to work markets or the best money making areas will have a leg up over the average joe aqcuiring wealth. I'd say it's a fair balance between the two, but some people are just increadibly skilled at making money, and do so without effort, while others struggle to get their level 40 horse by level 45. Conclusion: skill > time.
Items: the best items in the game are only available in dungeons, moreso in raid dungeons. This means that those with the skills necessary to defeat the most difficult content in the game are allowed the best items. You can not walk into a top tier raiding dungeon with 40 random talentless shmucks and expect to defeat anything. It takes practice, knowledge of your class, knowledge of your allies classes, and knowledge of the encounters (which can only be earned through time; but the time required to learn the encounters is directly attributable to talent and skill at the game). The first ones with the best items are generally the best players for their time, who have "mastered" key concepts required to get to the level of play they are at.
Influence... those with the most sway over server politics are those with the most sway with people in general. It takes knowledge of how to work people, and how to get what you want from them. There are some people who are simply incredible at this; it's a skill that can be learned, though some people are just talented to begin with. Time again plays an important role, in that the more time you spend working people, the more influence you have over them. Regardless, if you're a 14 year old speaking leet 24/7, respect will be the last thing you get in return for all of that time. Skill > time, again.
Content. You can't defeat content with time. You can thro
It depends, are they armed and/or moving at a bone-breaking speed? Is the 0.6 nuke radioactive, or is the shielding still in place? Do they have pointy protrusions or other harmful objects on the casign? Ohhhh, you meant do we want to collide with the energy of 4.6 Hydrogen Bombs. Why didn't you say that!
Did anybody else read this headline and for a brief moment believe they were talking about that island in the east Atlantic that is expected to wipe out the entire eastern seaboard of the US someday? Scary moment:(
In high school, I used to listen to my music at a very low volume, coming from a CD player in my backpack wired to earbuds that went up my shirt... I found it effective enough to ignore the whispering in the room, but not distracting to the point of ignoring the teacher's lectures. I find music incredibly useful when repeating things I already know (such as crapping out answers for a quiz, or filling out worksheets), but extremely harmful when I'm trying to learn new things. Which is probably why I never had a problem listening to music in school;)
I work at a Kmart in Niceville, Florida (just north of Destin, 40 minutes east of Pensacola) in the panhandle. The number of refugees in our city is astounding, and I've heard of several families coming to Kmart and asking either the service desk or checkout employees for handouts. I've spoken with people from both Biloxi and New Orleans, and it's upsetting that there is very little I can do for those who will be returning home; our area is out of gas, out of gas cans, out of air conditioners, out of battery powered fans,... you get the idea.
This city was hardest hit, since I've moved here, by Ivan last summer. Everybody lost power, some people in city limits had no power for up to two weeks. I personally had no power for five days, and the heat and humidity get to working on you while the storm is still blowing outside...and it only gets worse from there. Although I truley fill for those who lost their homes or worse from Katrina, I also can't imagine the suffering of the hundreds of thousands who are still without power in this insane southern-sun heat. It's a difficult situation for everybody, and I hope that the supplies my area recieved post-Ivan haven't been forgotten for those who may not have been so bad off, but still need help this time around (ICE!).
At first I was planning on volunteering, but I'm just a scrawny geek, not to mention young (20). Perhaps I'll go over in about a month to relieve those who are there now, perhaps I'll just donate part of each paycheck to the Red Cross; I still haven't decided (though I have donated). Something tells me that I have plenty of time...Pensacola and other areas in the panhandle of Florida are still recovering from Ivan nearly a year later. I expect we'll be cleaning up from Katrina for much, much longer.
Our area may have been spared Katrina's wrath, but some of us will have scars none the less. For people on the gulf coast and all across the southeast, this is just the start of things to come; now comes the problem of how to deal with the sudden homeless crisis.
Just a little brainstorming that may be relevant to your situation, neo. You had a very strong response to GTA with things like stopping at a red light. Stopping at a red light is such a common occurance in real life driving that it becomes almost like instinct, and the action takes place so quickly that you probably don't have time to conscioussly think about it to begin with. GTA trains you to ignore all lights or other traffic 'suggestions,' and this easily passes into the real world because of that lack of conscious thought regarding the decision. You're trained to ignore lights in GTA, and the influence is so powerful that when you're forced to instinctively respond to a light in the real world, you respond with your newly honed GTA instinct.
It's likely that the influence of other actions within the game are just as strong on us, HOWEVER, because most of the other actions require some forethought, you generally make the decisions you deem proper. You are obviously conscious of the fact that running a red light in the real world is a Bad Idea, however your unconscious is confused and thus attempts to decide to fly right through them. Pay a little attention, and you'll stop yourself. Some people, however, will not have such self-control; a little sleep deprivation, a little less practice in overriding unconscious behavior, whatever... and they'd skip right through that light.
Pay careful attention, however, and I suspect you would notice a difference in how you immediately respond to some situations: your first impulse in some cases may be to respond more physically or aggressively than you would have before influencing yourself with GTA. I've personally noticed that I've become more instant-aggressive than I'd prefer I be, after a former Navy hardass began work with me recently and also began exerting his influence of guns and machomachoness and violence...a little self control and I've kept myself within the boundaries that I'd like, but it's interesting that even another person around me, whom I spend less than 20 hours a week even working with, has influenced me to such a degree. I'm more maleable than I care to admit:\
Excuse me if I've rambled a little, I'm heading to bed immediately after submitting this;) I hope you've taken something interesting from this, at least.
"but only an extremely facist government could hope to prevent crimes before they occur."
And I quote: "So we had to make a shift in the way we thought about things. So being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime, didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people." - John Ashcroft; June 5th, 2003
How many (total) channels were actively run on Yahoo Chat--basically, how hidden were these channels in the first place? Did Yahoo make an effort to police their chat channels, or were they neglected entirely (and thus encouraged to degrade to the point they were at)? Is Yahoo even liable for the actions of other people? Why is congress discussing MORE LAWS when obviously they're being sued so they already (may have) violated existing ones?
I seem to recall similar channels all over the fricking place when I was kid, on AOL. Why was AOL never nailed like this (or was I just too young to care/remember)?
The lawsuit by the family of one child porn victim said Yahoo! could have removed the sites, but instead chose to make money on them. Oh. Okay. Nice big accusation at the bottom from an anonymous source and no support to follow it. Now that's inciteful writing!
Eh, it looks like the Religious Uptight learned how to astroturf.
Re:Will this Dr. Who tackle harsh political issues
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
And sometime lots of people die in a day from terrorism (World Trade Center).
I'm sorry, besides the Americans that we've placed in Iraq for the terrorist's convenience, about 10 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11, worldwide. That's like 3 people per year? Compared to the hundreds, neigh, THOUSANDS of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Brits that have died as the result of the wars we started since then...
So they get lucky once, and we make people who had nothing to do with it (innocent citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, caught in the crossfire of us and their defending armies) suffer. Excuse me, suffer is too weak a word here: We make them die.
Terrorism is a nuisance, at best, when compared to the hundreds of other more common causes of death in America (which the $BILLIONS we've spent in oversea wars could help remedy). Let's do some more comparisons, shall we? Just to show how ridiculous our reaction to 9/11 has been:
Leading causes of death (Year of 2001) [1]: Heart Disease: 696,947 Cancer: 557,271 Stroke: 162,672 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742 Diabetes: 73,249 Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681 Alzheimer's disease: 58,866 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974 Septicemia: 33,865
So let's see... top 10 sources of death in the US; total number of causalties to these total 1,921,083 people. Or (very) roughly 0.7% of the nation's population. Terrorism related deaths in the US in the year 2001 was um.... 2,986. A statistically insignificant number, once put into proper perspective. The ECONOMIC toll was obviously far greater, and is really immeasureable (though likely just as trivial...our economy recovered before Bush's first term ended). But terrorism is typically aimed at ending lives, not harming economies, which is what makes 9/11 quite distinctive, in my mind. Well, besides the whole crusade that followed.
So, let's take the (rough estimate, but easily agreeable) number of 80 billion dollars. Eighty billion spent in Iraq and Afganistan combined, to kill citizens and defending armies in the name of fighting terrorism. Well, we did catch some terrorists too. (Wait, are you a terrorist before or after you cause an act of terror? Nevermind, that's neither here nor there.)
Let's "fight" the five leading causes of death in 2001, and distribute this $80,000,000,000 proportionately amongst them:
#1 - Heart Disease: 696,947 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $33,823,183,988.82 Let's write $33.8 Billion in checks to various Heart Disease research facilities and charities, and better educate people on the need to exercise and eat right. Hell, we could give a tax cut to people who eat right. Better than a tax cut "just for the hell of it," as per Bush's policy.
#2 - Cancer: 557,271 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $27,044,638,350.74 Let's write $27 Billion in checks to research facilities and charities to investigate new treatments to various cancers, and to better educate the population on prevention. Hell, we can find out what causes most of them while we're at it.
#3 - Stroke: 162,672 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $7,894,552,937.07 Let's give $7.89 Billion to stroke researches. Find a way to detect possible strokes before they occur. Find treatments to help mend damage which may lead to a stroke. Educate people on how to stay healthy (*cough*...)
#4 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $6,057,382,459.14 Let's give $6.06 Billion to figure out what Chronic lower respiratory diseases are... Think emphysema is included in this? Asthma? So let's raise air quality levels with that $6.06 Billion, and educate people as to why they shouldn't smoke.
#5 - Accidents: 106,742 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = Hell, do I even need to bother here? After spending billions on the above, people should get the point that their unhealthy lifestyles are s
You know, I find it completely surprising that we don't yet have a game company which specializes in innovation. Most companies focus on their own particular niche, both in the gaming world and out. For instance, Blizzard typically takes a game genre and explores its boundaries--never creating a new genre, but their method generally leaves you with games that *feel* fresh. Other companies focus on a particular model which has proven to make them money in the past: EA with their sports titles (which admittedly still makes them $crazy), SOE with online titles (they're better at milking titles than creating them, imo), Square with Final Fantasy and their dabblings in other genres. With all of these companies able to not only stay afloat, but PROFIT, from focusing (or dominating) a particular slice of the market, why has none been formed to soley focus on genre-breaking titles? At the very least, there must be a market for ONE company to put out an innovative and unique title every 2-4 years. It would be profitable, though perhaps not to the level of other companies, but with such an easy-in to the market you would think someone would have tried by now.
I'd have to pick GTA3 as the most innovative title in a while; if the freeform world was a genre before GTA3, it had never actually been realized in a game yet. Unfortunately, Rockstar saw the dollars from their creativity, rather than the POTENTIAL for more new titles, and is currently farming the golden eggs. Perhaps this is the problem? A company comes along, creates their breakthrough title, then gets stuck in a vicious cycle of sequel-lock.
Or perhaps human creativity is limited, and there are just some titles that can't be created until technology catches up. GTA3 was the realization of one of my own dreams from the N64 era, and the PS2 was possibly the first console able to realize it (DVD media + fully 3d graphics). Was GTA3 the product of creativity, or simply technology catching up with our dreams? Are there other dreams which are simply waiting for technology to catch up? Probably. Are there dreams that could be realized with current technology and have simply failed to be recognized as a possibility? Probably.
That's my optomistic half. The other, grouchy half says that games are just another form of drama/comedy, and are limited to branches of the same two genres that mankind has been limited to since we started writing entertainment. I hope this half is wrong.
Eh, it doesn't matter anyways. We'll probably have chemical or electrical or surgical induced pure euphoria before we get another groundbreaking game from this dying market.
And as a true test of your preperations to strike out alone, we'll slashdot your server(s) and drive you bankrupt from the resulting bandwidth fees. No no, I insist, there is no need to thank us!
You misinterpret the meaning behind that quote (or maybe I have?)...
"If piracy is outlawed, only outlaws will pirate." The people who are pirating remain the same, and continue the same practice...it's just outside the boundaries of the law now. It suggests that the change in law was meaningless, unless the law's intent was to persecute particular people rather than changing the behavior of the citizens.
I was in the same situation as you, and I voted Kerry (early voting in Florida, THE swing state). Here's why; maybe it'll help you or others.
If these three items are not true, you can either abstain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate. Please note that it is not possible, in the US, to vote against a candidate. The most you can do is vote for one of the competetion
Your reasoning here is sound to start, until you claim that you can't vote against a candidate. I disagree. Let's use my situation as an example.
Of all the people on the presidential ballot, only one of two people will win: Bush or Kerry. It's too late to add a third name to this "list." So you are now left with three options:
Vote for Bush
Vote for Kerry
Vote for neither (third party, no-vote)
In a perfect system, voting third party is a great idea. You'd have more candidates to better match the varying personalities and opinions of the people. I'm sure we both agree that this would be a good thing. Unfortunately, our system is not perfect and, in this election at least, a third party candidate will not win.
You could say that I'm just repeating the shouts you've already heard: "But, he doesnt have a chance to win!" "This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
However, think about this for a moment. If you vote for a third party candidate--for a person who has no chance of winning--you may as well not vote for a presidential candidate, right? Both choices would have the same effect on the 2004-2008 presidency. But you seem to have opinions on the presidency, or why else would you have found somebody to vote for (Badnarik)? In my case, I am sick of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and their cronies. So I voted against Bush. I voted for the only guy with a chance to overtake Bush: Kerry. YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST BUSH, by voting for the competition. Because in the end, one of two people is going to win; there is no black hole in politics. You either choose, or you let other people choose for you. I would rather make a choice between these two, than throw away my chance to affect change. So I voted for Kerry.
If this were another election in a perfect world, I would have voted Nader.:)
You misplaced some words; or perhaps you believed you were correct. Allow me to explain:
The war was ALWAYS about terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change, or making the world a safer place. It was never about securing oil resources and securing a military foothold in the middle-east.
The war in Iraq was directly related to Bush's plan to eliminate terrorism. The Bush Doctrine your one-shop stop to understanding how Bush's brain ticks. [1] You see, Bush believes that the best way to eliminate terrorism, and other forms of hatred, is through the expansion of Democracy. [2] He's practiced this twice now; in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban regime, and in Iraq after destroying Saddam's government. While I think the expansion of democracy could help to eliminate a lot of the world's problems, I think Bush has been going about the process incorrectly. Instead of toppling nations with military might and, consequently, angering the nation's citizens...he should work with the citizens to reform their government. It could end with a civil war, sure, but at least it would be supported by the people who would then have to take up reigns once America believes the job is done..
Granted, having placed two governments (both coincidently placed on either side of Iran) will make converting other nations in the area to Democracy easier, as these nations are more likely to consider the US political/military allies.
I'd really like to discuss this more, but I've got classes to go to. Check out this link, and drop the tired oil mantra:)
(FYI: I voted for Kerry.)
[1]: Bush Doctrine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine [2]: Extending Democracy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine#Extendi ng_Democracy.2C_Liberty.2C_and_Security_to_All_Reg ions
Wrong! That's called guerilla warfare, not terrorism. There are clear, defining borders between terrorism and acts of war. It's all about intent. Please read the definitions I supplied.
You're right, I doubt the grieving families care who was targetted and who was not. That does not change the fact that our goal in Iraq is to wage war, not terrorize the citizens.
You're right. We're terrorists. We attack with the intent of terrorizing citizens. Wait, you mean we only target military and government targets? Well that's not terrorism, that's just plain war.
9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a terrorist attack by a fundamentalist group aimed at destroying America and everything we stand for. Military supported attacks aren't terrorism, they're war. War is messy, but the intent is usually a little more devious than simply scaring people. Copyright infringement is not stealing; Terrorism is not war. Don't let the Bush administration's doublespeak get to you so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I skimmed the article and disagree with both the premise and his point by point breakdown of the idea. I speak with some authority here, as my priest on Alleria was a founding officer of Risen, which is currently the most advanced guild in the game world-wide (furthest progression in AQ), and while I no longer play, I'm sure most players will agree with what I'm about to say.
Firstly, in order to measure if time or skill is more important, we must have a basis of measurement for what the goal behind the game truely is. Items? Level? Wealth? Influence? Content defeated? Some people have preferences for any of the above, but I argue that skill is the determining factor in dominance of any of these options.
Time is not the primary requirement needed to advance in World of Warcraft. At the very minimum, a level of skill is necessary to even advance to the second level; surely Mr. Sirlin (the writer of the article we're discussing...) agrees with this concept. In order to advance to the second level, one must have knowledge of how to use skills, read quest dialogs, or at the very least, hit auto-attack. This is the Minimum Requirement necessary to advance to the next level. As you progress through the game, content becomes more difficult. No matter how much time you give the game, if you do not learn more about your class as you progress (thus, upping your "skill"), then you will not advance towards level 60. Thus, some measure of skill is required to reach level 60. In addition, if you are RACING towards level 60, in hopes of beating other players, skill determines the rate at which you advance (meaning that you can do so in less time than other players). I've done this. I promise you, while time is important, skill is four times so. We used a large pool of those first to reach 60 to form our guild on Alleria, and ended up with an extremely talented base of players upon which to build what has become now an incredibly powerful force. You can argue this, but I have emperical data to support my conclusion: skill > time, when leveling.
Wealth: it's all about knowing where to go. This pillar requires more time than anything else, but your skill at the various money-making methods determines your strength in this area too. No matter the time you throw, those who know how to work markets or the best money making areas will have a leg up over the average joe aqcuiring wealth. I'd say it's a fair balance between the two, but some people are just increadibly skilled at making money, and do so without effort, while others struggle to get their level 40 horse by level 45. Conclusion: skill > time.
Items: the best items in the game are only available in dungeons, moreso in raid dungeons. This means that those with the skills necessary to defeat the most difficult content in the game are allowed the best items. You can not walk into a top tier raiding dungeon with 40 random talentless shmucks and expect to defeat anything. It takes practice, knowledge of your class, knowledge of your allies classes, and knowledge of the encounters (which can only be earned through time; but the time required to learn the encounters is directly attributable to talent and skill at the game). The first ones with the best items are generally the best players for their time, who have "mastered" key concepts required to get to the level of play they are at.
Influence... those with the most sway over server politics are those with the most sway with people in general. It takes knowledge of how to work people, and how to get what you want from them. There are some people who are simply incredible at this; it's a skill that can be learned, though some people are just talented to begin with. Time again plays an important role, in that the more time you spend working people, the more influence you have over them. Regardless, if you're a 14 year old speaking leet 24/7, respect will be the last thing you get in return for all of that time. Skill > time, again.
Content. You can't defeat content with time. You can thro
"Do you want to collide with 4.6 Hydrogen Bombs?"
It depends, are they armed and/or moving at a bone-breaking speed? Is the 0.6 nuke radioactive, or is the shielding still in place? Do they have pointy protrusions or other harmful objects on the casign? Ohhhh, you meant do we want to collide with the energy of 4.6 Hydrogen Bombs. Why didn't you say that!
Did anybody else read this headline and for a brief moment believe they were talking about that island in the east Atlantic that is expected to wipe out the entire eastern seaboard of the US someday? Scary moment :(
There is video of children playing with the bubbles on the company's website:
http://www.zubbles.com/gallery/index.asp
Screw Hurricane Katrina, somebody make this guy Person of the Year.
In high school, I used to listen to my music at a very low volume, coming from a CD player in my backpack wired to earbuds that went up my shirt... I found it effective enough to ignore the whispering in the room, but not distracting to the point of ignoring the teacher's lectures. I find music incredibly useful when repeating things I already know (such as crapping out answers for a quiz, or filling out worksheets), but extremely harmful when I'm trying to learn new things. Which is probably why I never had a problem listening to music in school ;)
Never has the name "Anonymous Coward" been so applicable.
I work at a Kmart in Niceville, Florida (just north of Destin, 40 minutes east of Pensacola) in the panhandle. The number of refugees in our city is astounding, and I've heard of several families coming to Kmart and asking either the service desk or checkout employees for handouts. I've spoken with people from both Biloxi and New Orleans, and it's upsetting that there is very little I can do for those who will be returning home; our area is out of gas, out of gas cans, out of air conditioners, out of battery powered fans,... you get the idea.
This city was hardest hit, since I've moved here, by Ivan last summer. Everybody lost power, some people in city limits had no power for up to two weeks. I personally had no power for five days, and the heat and humidity get to working on you while the storm is still blowing outside...and it only gets worse from there. Although I truley fill for those who lost their homes or worse from Katrina, I also can't imagine the suffering of the hundreds of thousands who are still without power in this insane southern-sun heat. It's a difficult situation for everybody, and I hope that the supplies my area recieved post-Ivan haven't been forgotten for those who may not have been so bad off, but still need help this time around (ICE!).
At first I was planning on volunteering, but I'm just a scrawny geek, not to mention young (20). Perhaps I'll go over in about a month to relieve those who are there now, perhaps I'll just donate part of each paycheck to the Red Cross; I still haven't decided (though I have donated). Something tells me that I have plenty of time...Pensacola and other areas in the panhandle of Florida are still recovering from Ivan nearly a year later. I expect we'll be cleaning up from Katrina for much, much longer.
Our area may have been spared Katrina's wrath, but some of us will have scars none the less. For people on the gulf coast and all across the southeast, this is just the start of things to come; now comes the problem of how to deal with the sudden homeless crisis.
Just a little brainstorming that may be relevant to your situation, neo. You had a very strong response to GTA with things like stopping at a red light. Stopping at a red light is such a common occurance in real life driving that it becomes almost like instinct, and the action takes place so quickly that you probably don't have time to conscioussly think about it to begin with. GTA trains you to ignore all lights or other traffic 'suggestions,' and this easily passes into the real world because of that lack of conscious thought regarding the decision. You're trained to ignore lights in GTA, and the influence is so powerful that when you're forced to instinctively respond to a light in the real world, you respond with your newly honed GTA instinct.
:\
;) I hope you've taken something interesting from this, at least.
It's likely that the influence of other actions within the game are just as strong on us, HOWEVER, because most of the other actions require some forethought, you generally make the decisions you deem proper. You are obviously conscious of the fact that running a red light in the real world is a Bad Idea, however your unconscious is confused and thus attempts to decide to fly right through them. Pay a little attention, and you'll stop yourself. Some people, however, will not have such self-control; a little sleep deprivation, a little less practice in overriding unconscious behavior, whatever... and they'd skip right through that light.
Pay careful attention, however, and I suspect you would notice a difference in how you immediately respond to some situations: your first impulse in some cases may be to respond more physically or aggressively than you would have before influencing yourself with GTA. I've personally noticed that I've become more instant-aggressive than I'd prefer I be, after a former Navy hardass began work with me recently and also began exerting his influence of guns and machomachoness and violence...a little self control and I've kept myself within the boundaries that I'd like, but it's interesting that even another person around me, whom I spend less than 20 hours a week even working with, has influenced me to such a degree. I'm more maleable than I care to admit
Excuse me if I've rambled a little, I'm heading to bed immediately after submitting this
[quote]It's almost like I feel I have gone "underground"[/quote]
:)
Welcome to the internet; enjoy your stay
"but only an extremely facist government could hope to prevent crimes before they occur."
And I quote:
"So we had to make a shift in the way we thought about things. So being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime, didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people." - John Ashcroft; June 5th, 2003
How many (total) channels were actively run on Yahoo Chat--basically, how hidden were these channels in the first place? Did Yahoo make an effort to police their chat channels, or were they neglected entirely (and thus encouraged to degrade to the point they were at)? Is Yahoo even liable for the actions of other people? Why is congress discussing MORE LAWS when obviously they're being sued so they already (may have) violated existing ones?
I seem to recall similar channels all over the fricking place when I was kid, on AOL. Why was AOL never nailed like this (or was I just too young to care/remember)?
The lawsuit by the family of one child porn victim said Yahoo! could have removed the sites, but instead chose to make money on them.
Oh. Okay. Nice big accusation at the bottom from an anonymous source and no support to follow it. Now that's inciteful writing!
Eh, it looks like the Religious Uptight learned how to astroturf.
And sometime lots of people die in a day from terrorism (World Trade Center).
I'm sorry, besides the Americans that we've placed in Iraq for the terrorist's convenience, about 10 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11, worldwide. That's like 3 people per year? Compared to the hundreds, neigh, THOUSANDS of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Brits that have died as the result of the wars we started since then...
So they get lucky once, and we make people who had nothing to do with it (innocent citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, caught in the crossfire of us and their defending armies) suffer. Excuse me, suffer is too weak a word here: We make them die.
Terrorism is a nuisance, at best, when compared to the hundreds of other more common causes of death in America (which the $BILLIONS we've spent in oversea wars could help remedy). Let's do some more comparisons, shall we? Just to show how ridiculous our reaction to 9/11 has been:
Leading causes of death (Year of 2001) [1]:
Heart Disease: 696,947
Cancer: 557,271
Stroke: 162,672 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742
Diabetes: 73,249
Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681
Alzheimer's disease: 58,866
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974
Septicemia: 33,865
So let's see... top 10 sources of death in the US; total number of causalties to these total 1,921,083 people. Or (very) roughly 0.7% of the nation's population. Terrorism related deaths in the US in the year 2001 was um.... 2,986. A statistically insignificant number, once put into proper perspective. The ECONOMIC toll was obviously far greater, and is really immeasureable (though likely just as trivial...our economy recovered before Bush's first term ended). But terrorism is typically aimed at ending lives, not harming economies, which is what makes 9/11 quite distinctive, in my mind. Well, besides the whole crusade that followed.
So, let's take the (rough estimate, but easily agreeable) number of 80 billion dollars. Eighty billion spent in Iraq and Afganistan combined, to kill citizens and defending armies in the name of fighting terrorism. Well, we did catch some terrorists too. (Wait, are you a terrorist before or after you cause an act of terror? Nevermind, that's neither here nor there.)
Let's "fight" the five leading causes of death in 2001, and distribute this $80,000,000,000 proportionately amongst them:
#1 - Heart Disease: 696,947 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $33,823,183,988.82
Let's write $33.8 Billion in checks to various Heart Disease research facilities and charities, and better educate people on the need to exercise and eat right. Hell, we could give a tax cut to people who eat right. Better than a tax cut "just for the hell of it," as per Bush's policy.
#2 - Cancer: 557,271 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $27,044,638,350.74
Let's write $27 Billion in checks to research facilities and charities to investigate new treatments to various cancers, and to better educate the population on prevention. Hell, we can find out what causes most of them while we're at it.
#3 - Stroke: 162,672 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $7,894,552,937.07
Let's give $7.89 Billion to stroke researches. Find a way to detect possible strokes before they occur. Find treatments to help mend damage which may lead to a stroke. Educate people on how to stay healthy (*cough*...)
#4 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = $6,057,382,459.14
Let's give $6.06 Billion to figure out what Chronic lower respiratory diseases are... Think emphysema is included in this? Asthma? So let's raise air quality levels with that $6.06 Billion, and educate people as to why they shouldn't smoke.
#5 - Accidents: 106,742 / 1,648,448 * 80,000,000,000 = Hell, do I even need to bother here? After spending billions on the above, people should get the point that their unhealthy lifestyles are s
Informative AND Insightful! This is the result of having a religious president. :\
You know, I find it completely surprising that we don't yet have a game company which specializes in innovation. Most companies focus on their own particular niche, both in the gaming world and out. For instance, Blizzard typically takes a game genre and explores its boundaries--never creating a new genre, but their method generally leaves you with games that *feel* fresh. Other companies focus on a particular model which has proven to make them money in the past: EA with their sports titles (which admittedly still makes them $crazy), SOE with online titles (they're better at milking titles than creating them, imo), Square with Final Fantasy and their dabblings in other genres. With all of these companies able to not only stay afloat, but PROFIT, from focusing (or dominating) a particular slice of the market, why has none been formed to soley focus on genre-breaking titles? At the very least, there must be a market for ONE company to put out an innovative and unique title every 2-4 years. It would be profitable, though perhaps not to the level of other companies, but with such an easy-in to the market you would think someone would have tried by now.
I'd have to pick GTA3 as the most innovative title in a while; if the freeform world was a genre before GTA3, it had never actually been realized in a game yet. Unfortunately, Rockstar saw the dollars from their creativity, rather than the POTENTIAL for more new titles, and is currently farming the golden eggs. Perhaps this is the problem? A company comes along, creates their breakthrough title, then gets stuck in a vicious cycle of sequel-lock.
Or perhaps human creativity is limited, and there are just some titles that can't be created until technology catches up. GTA3 was the realization of one of my own dreams from the N64 era, and the PS2 was possibly the first console able to realize it (DVD media + fully 3d graphics). Was GTA3 the product of creativity, or simply technology catching up with our dreams? Are there other dreams which are simply waiting for technology to catch up? Probably. Are there dreams that could be realized with current technology and have simply failed to be recognized as a possibility? Probably.
That's my optomistic half. The other, grouchy half says that games are just another form of drama/comedy, and are limited to branches of the same two genres that mankind has been limited to since we started writing entertainment. I hope this half is wrong.
Eh, it doesn't matter anyways. We'll probably have chemical or electrical or surgical induced pure euphoria before we get another groundbreaking game from this dying market.
And as a true test of your preperations to strike out alone, we'll slashdot your server(s) and drive you bankrupt from the resulting bandwidth fees. No no, I insist, there is no need to thank us!
You misinterpret the meaning behind that quote (or maybe I have?)...
"If piracy is outlawed, only outlaws will pirate." The people who are pirating remain the same, and continue the same practice...it's just outside the boundaries of the law now. It suggests that the change in law was meaningless, unless the law's intent was to persecute particular people rather than changing the behavior of the citizens.
Be sure to use a mirror and not the primary site :)
Argh I was halfway through reading your blog, and came back to see the responses to the original post. Thanks for the spoiler! :\
For those trying to understand the +5 Funny mod:
/. on /.
It's ironic because he's complaining about
Please, this is an insult to Star Trek fans everywhere.
That's okay, I've heard they're used to it.
If these three items are not true, you can either abstain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate. Please note that it is not possible, in the US, to vote against a candidate. The most you can do is vote for one of the competetion
Your reasoning here is sound to start, until you claim that you can't vote against a candidate. I disagree. Let's use my situation as an example.
Of all the people on the presidential ballot, only one of two people will win: Bush or Kerry. It's too late to add a third name to this "list." So you are now left with three options:
In a perfect system, voting third party is a great idea. You'd have more candidates to better match the varying personalities and opinions of the people. I'm sure we both agree that this would be a good thing. Unfortunately, our system is not perfect and, in this election at least, a third party candidate will not win.
You could say that I'm just repeating the shouts you've already heard:
"But, he doesnt have a chance to win!"
"This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
However, think about this for a moment. If you vote for a third party candidate--for a person who has no chance of winning--you may as well not vote for a presidential candidate, right? Both choices would have the same effect on the 2004-2008 presidency. But you seem to have opinions on the presidency, or why else would you have found somebody to vote for (Badnarik)? In my case, I am sick of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and their cronies. So I voted against Bush. I voted for the only guy with a chance to overtake Bush: Kerry. YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST BUSH, by voting for the competition. Because in the end, one of two people is going to win; there is no black hole in politics. You either choose, or you let other people choose for you. I would rather make a choice between these two, than throw away my chance to affect change. So I voted for Kerry.
If this were another election in a perfect world, I would have voted Nader.
You misplaced some words; or perhaps you believed you were correct. Allow me to explain:
:)
i ng_Democracy.2C_Liberty.2C_and_Security_to_All_Reg ions
The war was ALWAYS about terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change, or making the world a safer place. It was never about securing oil resources and securing a military foothold in the middle-east.
The war in Iraq was directly related to Bush's plan to eliminate terrorism. The Bush Doctrine your one-shop stop to understanding how Bush's brain ticks. [1] You see, Bush believes that the best way to eliminate terrorism, and other forms of hatred, is through the expansion of Democracy. [2] He's practiced this twice now; in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban regime, and in Iraq after destroying Saddam's government. While I think the expansion of democracy could help to eliminate a lot of the world's problems, I think Bush has been going about the process incorrectly. Instead of toppling nations with military might and, consequently, angering the nation's citizens...he should work with the citizens to reform their government. It could end with a civil war, sure, but at least it would be supported by the people who would then have to take up reigns once America believes the job is done..
Granted, having placed two governments (both coincidently placed on either side of Iran) will make converting other nations in the area to Democracy easier, as these nations are more likely to consider the US political/military allies.
I'd really like to discuss this more, but I've got classes to go to. Check out this link, and drop the tired oil mantra
(FYI: I voted for Kerry.)
[1]: Bush Doctrine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine
[2]: Extending Democracy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine#Extend
P2P "researchers" still unable to find suprnova.org...
Wrong! That's called guerilla warfare, not terrorism. There are clear, defining borders between terrorism and acts of war. It's all about intent. Please read the definitions I supplied.
You're right, I doubt the grieving families care who was targetted and who was not. That does not change the fact that our goal in Iraq is to wage war, not terrorize the citizens.
You're right. We're terrorists. We attack with the intent of terrorizing citizens. Wait, you mean we only target military and government targets? Well that's not terrorism, that's just plain war.
9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a terrorist attack by a fundamentalist group aimed at destroying America and everything we stand for. Military supported attacks aren't terrorism, they're war. War is messy, but the intent is usually a little more devious than simply scaring people. Copyright infringement is not stealing; Terrorism is not war. Don't let the Bush administration's doublespeak get to you so easily.