Ok, I know I'm going against your "typical" female stereotype, but I HATE meeting people, creating friendships, and chatting within a game. I want to play.
As for the type of games I like- Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, puzzle games (minesweeper, Dr. Mario, etc.(though I don't like tetris)), building games (sims, civ, etc.(though most of these simply take too long to play). In general, the best games for me are ones that don't take too long to learn and have short scenarios (or can be saved and are quick to get back to and don't take a "remembering what you were doing" phase). I also hate complicated keyboard (or mouse, joystick, whatever)strokes. I want to be able to sit down when I have a few minutes to burn and play. I can be addicted, so I studiously avoid games I'm addicted to because I don't want to waste my whole day playing a game. I played Civ III for only a few days, but it took so long to get anywhere in the game, and I was wasting too much time doing it, that I gave up. It would have been funner if it could go a lot faster like the old sim city game did. So, if there were more games a person could sit down and play, then get up when they wanted, I would buy more games and play a wider variety.
The only downside that immediately comes to mind for me is that sometimes people think they've returned something they have not, and the library sending them an overdue notice causes them to look for the item.
This problem could be eliminated if, in order to have funds returned to your card, you have to present both card and book, instead of the common dropbox. Of course, that requires more time and standing in line.
My in-laws have one of these styrofoam houses. The main problem they have is woodpeckers building homes in their walls. The peck right through the shotcrete and pull out the styrofoam. The in-laws use some spray foam goop to fill up the holes. I think they used foam block with rebar coming up through the middle.
if I read it right, it's only for new users, so I should be safe to keep using outlook express to access hotmail.
Nope, that was "news users." The article also says, "MSN plans to transition current WebDAV users to subscription plans in the next few months as well."
This reminded me of the old soda bottles that you needed a bottle opener for. Of course, if you didn't have an opener handy, there were all sorts of ingenious ways to open a bottle, and they were NOT illegal. The difference here is that we now have the DMCA, so being creative is illegal.
Corporations keep calling us consumers. They lobby so our laws reflect us as consumers. They want us to believe that that's all we are-- consumers. We are NOT consumers, we are people. People can be creative, we can invent new things, we can make things better. If we are merely consumers, we are drones who buy into whatever corporations say. We cannot invent. We are not an asset to society, and society cannot progress beyond where we are.
JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
If Mr. Valenti truly believed that, the law would not have been written in the first place. Let me put it this way: How many of those 284 million people in this country actually copy DVDs for distribution? "You can't have public policy that is aimed at" the few "when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way."
This was not cloning. They are using similar technology here, but cloning is embedding the full DNA in an egg, whereas here they only embedded the mother's partial (egg) DNA, then fertilized the egg with the father's sperm.
Hmm. I submitted this story yesterday, but it was rejected. I'm a little upset that it was accepted when somebody else submitted it. Here was my source, from newsday.com.
When I started working in a firmware test lab, we had an email address that you could send large numbers of large test emails to, and they would all just get deleted. It was called 'tester'.
After several misunderstandings resulting in lost email, I renamed the account 'blackhole'.
Yeah, but all of the light pollution and atmospheric diffraction etc makes for worse images than the Hubble can provide. A 1500dpi scan of a fuzzy photo is no better than a 300dpi scan.
Without file transfers IM doesn't take much bandwidth. Think about it, messages of of a few dozen bytes only take 1 packet to send!
No, you'd have to have hundreds of IMs to add up to a few piddly Kbps. Problem is allowing IM and diallowing file transfers. Or, as one poster stated, monitoring IM traffic. In that case, they could run their own jabberd server, and with firewall rules force users to use it. Since it's GPL/OS they should be able to modify the code to allow "snooping", if jabberd doesn't already.
What use to sane adults have for a water-proof book?
I can think of several uses to this kind of technology. Cookbooks for one always get things spilled on them.
I am an avid book collector. I like the classics besides several newer books out. They don't have to print all new books with this new technology, just a few for the collectors. I have a series of books that are out of print, and the ones I can get a hold of to finish my collection are trashed. With these books I wouldn't have the same problem with finding a book in good condition (of books in print right now, of course).
Other things these books are good for: There are times I read in the tub to relax. There are times my 2 year old gets hold of my books with a crayon. (with a plastic book, you could possibly just wipe it off) There are times when I eat while reading and end up with unintended greasy fingerprints.
These books could last a long time and not be subject to the hazards of paper books. Of course, it wouldn't be practical to print all books on plastic (not to mention the environmental hazards) But I can see printing special editions for fans and collectors of these virtually indestructable books.
Muscular, being fit, etc are also sexually appealing and calling them just intimidating or powerful reveals your bias. Overweight and out of shape guys don't do so well in the singles scene compared the guy who works out as the gym twice a week. Its a no-brainer.
Of course grossly overweight and out of shape guys don't do well on the single scene. It just shows they don't care about their looks, and if they don't care about themselves, they're not going to care about me. Men think women care about physical characteristics more than anything else. What women really find sexually attractive is when men find them sexually attractive. Why else would they "pretty" themselves up? Why do you think the make-up industries booms? And fashion magazines? If men find the models attractive, we want to look like the models. What women actually want is sensitivity, caring, kindness, and for men to think they are beautiful no matter what they look like. No wonder most guys don't get the romantism thing. You think we want muscles? You think we want you to intimidate us? No, we just want you to love us, no matter what we look like. Is that so hard? Why do you think women who are not built like Lara Croft take offense to unrealistic (for them) images of the female stereotype? Because we CANNOT be like them! We can't measure up to the male generated stereotype, and many feel because of this men won't be sexually attracted to them. Yes, it's a videogame. But because of it, many men want their women to look like that, and by the same merits, women do NOT want their men to look like the videogame steotype. And you wonder why women are offended!
And if there is nothing wrong with having a sex drive, like you say, then why is there something wrong with fantasies or characters or appearances that stimulate it? And if there is nothing wrong with that, why is there something wrong with "objectification"?
Of course there is nothing wrong with it. That's not the point. But why do men wonder why women don't like these personifications? It doesn't appeal to our sex drive.
D. A woman who looks like a normal woman. (Most women who have large breasts are also a little larger around the middle. Many thin women have small breasts. Haven't you guys noticed?)
why would a woman without big breasts have to be:
B. An woman without sexual charactistics. (That would just show that male game players were intimidated by the female sexuality, and cannot provide female archetypes in games: men being sexist.)
I've noticed they often feature men in games with "desireable" characteristics, such as muscles, or at least looking like they posess certain skills. All the women I've seen portrayed in games are either scantily clad, big breasted (with a choker waist), or looking like a man.
Do you guys have a skewed sense of reality? If she's exploring or rambling about in the bush, give her pants and a long sleeved shirt. If it's cold out, let her coat zip all the way up. (How many women do you know that wear coats in the winter that don't zip up past the middle of the chest? If my coat were too small around my breasts, I'd buy a new coat!(even at the risk of looking flat chested)) If she's in the military, give her a uniform with a cut that fits *and* give her pleasant features. Why can't a woman just look like a woman!?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I know I'm going against your "typical" female stereotype, but I HATE meeting people, creating friendships, and chatting within a game. I want to play.
As for the type of games I like- Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, puzzle games (minesweeper, Dr. Mario, etc.(though I don't like tetris)), building games (sims, civ, etc.(though most of these simply take too long to play). In general, the best games for me are ones that don't take too long to learn and have short scenarios (or can be saved and are quick to get back to and don't take a "remembering what you were doing" phase). I also hate complicated keyboard (or mouse, joystick, whatever)strokes. I want to be able to sit down when I have a few minutes to burn and play. I can be addicted, so I studiously avoid games I'm addicted to because I don't want to waste my whole day playing a game. I played Civ III for only a few days, but it took so long to get anywhere in the game, and I was wasting too much time doing it, that I gave up. It would have been funner if it could go a lot faster like the old sim city game did. So, if there were more games a person could sit down and play, then get up when they wanted, I would buy more games and play a wider variety.
The only downside that immediately comes to mind for me is that sometimes people think they've returned something they have not, and the library sending them an overdue notice causes them to look for the item.
This problem could be eliminated if, in order to have funds returned to your card, you have to present both card and book, instead of the common dropbox. Of course, that requires more time and standing in line.
My in-laws have one of these styrofoam houses. The main problem they have is woodpeckers building homes in their walls. The peck right through the shotcrete and pull out the styrofoam. The in-laws use some spray foam goop to fill up the holes. I think they used foam block with rebar coming up through the middle.
if I read it right, it's only for new users, so I should be safe to keep using outlook express to access hotmail.
Nope, that was "news users." The article also says, "MSN plans to transition current WebDAV users to subscription plans in the next few months as well."
Isn't that what grokdoc is for, to begin a documentation project? Why don't ya'll just contribute to that?
This reminded me of the old soda bottles that you needed a bottle opener for. Of course, if you didn't have an opener handy, there were all sorts of ingenious ways to open a bottle, and they were NOT illegal. The difference here is that we now have the DMCA, so being creative is illegal.
Corporations keep calling us consumers. They lobby so our laws reflect us as consumers. They want us to believe that that's all we are-- consumers. We are NOT consumers, we are people. People can be creative, we can invent new things, we can make things better. If we are merely consumers, we are drones who buy into whatever corporations say. We cannot invent. We are not an asset to society, and society cannot progress beyond where we are.
JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
If Mr. Valenti truly believed that, the law would not have been written in the first place. Let me put it this way: How many of those 284 million people in this country actually copy DVDs for distribution? "You can't have public policy that is aimed at" the few "when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way."
This was not cloning. They are using similar technology here, but cloning is embedding the full DNA in an egg, whereas here they only embedded the mother's partial (egg) DNA, then fertilized the egg with the father's sperm.
Hmm. I submitted this story yesterday, but it was rejected. I'm a little upset that it was accepted when somebody else submitted it. Here was my source, from newsday.com.
I'm more concerned about the 15 represntatives who didn't bother to show up and take a position on this issue.
Do you know their names? I'd like to know if I'm in one of their districts, so I can remember to consider voting against them at the next election.
When I started working in a firmware test lab, we had an email address that you could send large numbers of large test emails to, and they would all just get deleted. It was called 'tester'.
After several misunderstandings resulting in lost email, I renamed the account 'blackhole'.
It's called elevator seeking, and Novell Netware 6 and later already does it. Or so my Novell class teacher said.
Yeah, but all of the light pollution and atmospheric diffraction etc makes for worse images than the Hubble can provide. A 1500dpi scan of a fuzzy photo is no better than a 300dpi scan.
Without file transfers IM doesn't take much bandwidth. Think about it, messages of of a few dozen bytes only take 1 packet to send! No, you'd have to have hundreds of IMs to add up to a few piddly Kbps. Problem is allowing IM and diallowing file transfers. Or, as one poster stated, monitoring IM traffic. In that case, they could run their own jabberd server, and with firewall rules force users to use it. Since it's GPL/OS they should be able to modify the code to allow "snooping", if jabberd doesn't already.
What use to sane adults have for a water-proof book?
I can think of several uses to this kind of technology. Cookbooks for one always get things spilled on them.
I am an avid book collector. I like the classics besides several newer books out. They don't have to print all new books with this new technology, just a few for the collectors. I have a series of books that are out of print, and the ones I can get a hold of to finish my collection are trashed. With these books I wouldn't have the same problem with finding a book in good condition (of books in print right now, of course).
Other things these books are good for:
There are times I read in the tub to relax.
There are times my 2 year old gets hold of my books with a crayon. (with a plastic book, you could possibly just wipe it off)
There are times when I eat while reading and end up with unintended greasy fingerprints.
These books could last a long time and not be subject to the hazards of paper books. Of course, it wouldn't be practical to print all books on plastic (not to mention the environmental hazards)
But I can see printing special editions for fans and collectors of these virtually indestructable books.
Muscular, being fit, etc are also sexually appealing and calling them just intimidating or powerful reveals your bias. Overweight and out of shape guys don't do so well in the singles scene compared the guy who works out as the gym twice a week. Its a no-brainer. Of course grossly overweight and out of shape guys don't do well on the single scene. It just shows they don't care about their looks, and if they don't care about themselves, they're not going to care about me. Men think women care about physical characteristics more than anything else. What women really find sexually attractive is when men find them sexually attractive. Why else would they "pretty" themselves up? Why do you think the make-up industries booms? And fashion magazines? If men find the models attractive, we want to look like the models. What women actually want is sensitivity, caring, kindness, and for men to think they are beautiful no matter what they look like. No wonder most guys don't get the romantism thing. You think we want muscles? You think we want you to intimidate us? No, we just want you to love us, no matter what we look like. Is that so hard? Why do you think women who are not built like Lara Croft take offense to unrealistic (for them) images of the female stereotype? Because we CANNOT be like them! We can't measure up to the male generated stereotype, and many feel because of this men won't be sexually attracted to them. Yes, it's a videogame. But because of it, many men want their women to look like that, and by the same merits, women do NOT want their men to look like the videogame steotype. And you wonder why women are offended!
And if there is nothing wrong with having a sex drive, like you say, then why is there something wrong with fantasies or characters or appearances that stimulate it? And if there is nothing wrong with that, why is there something wrong with "objectification"?
Of course there is nothing wrong with it. That's not the point. But why do men wonder why women don't like these personifications? It doesn't appeal to our sex drive.
Or maybe you should have:
D. A woman who looks like a normal woman.
(Most women who have large breasts are also a
little larger around the middle. Many thin women
have small breasts. Haven't you guys noticed?)
why would a woman without big breasts have to be:
B. An woman without sexual charactistics.
(That would just show that male game players
were intimidated by the female sexuality, and
cannot provide female archetypes in games: men being sexist.)
I've noticed they often feature men in games with "desireable" characteristics, such as muscles, or at least looking like they posess certain skills. All the women I've seen portrayed in games are either scantily clad, big breasted (with a choker waist), or looking like a man.
Do you guys have a skewed sense of reality? If she's exploring or rambling about in the bush, give her pants and a long sleeved shirt. If it's cold out, let her coat zip all the way up. (How many women do you know that wear coats in the winter that don't zip up past the middle of the chest? If my coat were too small around my breasts, I'd buy a new coat!(even at the risk of looking flat chested)) If she's in the military, give her a uniform with a cut that fits *and* give her pleasant features. Why can't a woman just look like a woman!?