What you have said is probably true if the objective is to build a cutting-edge game. But people still play cribbage, UNO, and scrabble, even with hi-res 3D MMORPGs and FPSs. The simple (and often social) games are still enticing because the wheels of evolution grind slowly and people's brains aren't really changing with the technology. I still get a pretty steady stream of geeks and freaks to play Galactic Trader, despite its decided lack of sophistication. Some of the minigames on my site are popular as well. People still like Tetris and Arkanoid/Breakout!
I'm sure a lot of UK customers are automatically pleasantly disposed towards my company when they realise I'm a bit 'local' to them, but the same thing isn't an option in the US.
Yes it is. The problem is that.us didn't have open registration until a few years ago. It was reserved for the federal, state, and local governments.
When Republicans are talking about increasing the size of government through bureaucracy and entitlements (No child left behind, national health care, amnesty for illegal immigrants), they aren't on the far right.
We already had WWIII and Ronald Reagan won it. We're losing WWIV as it's starting because people believe that global warming, scapegoating, and gay marriage are more important than stable energy policies, terrorism, or national security.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. He is against federal regulation of pregnancy, which is the de facto situation right now and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as that right is reserved to the states and the people by default. I also fail to see how the legality of abortion, regardless of one's position on the matter, has anything to do with privacy. If abortion is currently legal, but one was required to report all abortions to the newspaper, that would be a privacy issue.
What's wrong with amending the Constitution? It was made to be amended. It's the people who try to breach the Constitution without legally amending it that are the problem. As far as Roe vs. Wade, just because the current political climate seems to be pro-abortion (we'll assume that for argument's sake), does that mean we shouldn't entertain further discourse? And where in the Constitution does it plainly say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT reserves the right to regulate pregnancies? In fact, it says that all rights not granted to the federal government are reserved for the STATES or the PEOPLE. If the residents of a particular state or county decide they don't want to allow abortions in their community, shouldn't they be allowed to decide?
I like how this post was moderated as "insightful," as if no one has ever heard this tired-out pessimism before-- just a bunch of whining without offering a solution.
There's also more garbage about carbon storage. How do you store carbon without producing more carbon? I don't see anything in the article about increasing our use of nuclear, solar, or wind power (which are non-chemical processes that don't emit carbon compounds)-- so are they going to invent a perpetual motion machine to squirrel away the carbon?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, we get it!
Those black turtlenecks aren't free, you know!
Maybe a Shakespeare game just isn't marketable.
What you have said is probably true if the objective is to build a cutting-edge game. But people still play cribbage, UNO, and scrabble, even with hi-res 3D MMORPGs and FPSs. The simple (and often social) games are still enticing because the wheels of evolution grind slowly and people's brains aren't really changing with the technology. I still get a pretty steady stream of geeks and freaks to play Galactic Trader, despite its decided lack of sophistication. Some of the minigames on my site are popular as well. People still like Tetris and Arkanoid/Breakout!
So instead, you'll get cancer in your bojangles. Brilliant!
Back in my day, only Milton Berle was allowed to try on women's clothing! That was family entertainment!
I, for one, welcome our new transvestite Slashdotter overlords.
Huh? I ran OS/2 4.0 and Windows 95 on a 486 with 16 MB RAM. It ran well.
S.O.S. is chipped beef.
Well, hey... it WAS Clinton's executive order for regime change.
This is probably the dumbest attempt at a straw man argument I have ever seen on Slashdot. Congrats!
When Republicans are talking about increasing the size of government through bureaucracy and entitlements (No child left behind, national health care, amnesty for illegal immigrants), they aren't on the far right.
If the Republicans are "extreme right," where the hell does someone like Ahmadinejad fit in?
Don't waste any more time on that willfully ignorant fool. He doesn't want to understand.
We already had WWIII and Ronald Reagan won it. We're losing WWIV as it's starting because people believe that global warming, scapegoating, and gay marriage are more important than stable energy policies, terrorism, or national security.
Since when is Visual Basic not compiled? Maybe you mean "vbscript" instead of "vb"?
Excel is for spreadsheets?
Your reading comprehension needs some work. He is against federal regulation of pregnancy, which is the de facto situation right now and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as that right is reserved to the states and the people by default. I also fail to see how the legality of abortion, regardless of one's position on the matter, has anything to do with privacy. If abortion is currently legal, but one was required to report all abortions to the newspaper, that would be a privacy issue.
Did you even read the one about religious freedom?
What's wrong with amending the Constitution? It was made to be amended. It's the people who try to breach the Constitution without legally amending it that are the problem. As far as Roe vs. Wade, just because the current political climate seems to be pro-abortion (we'll assume that for argument's sake), does that mean we shouldn't entertain further discourse? And where in the Constitution does it plainly say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT reserves the right to regulate pregnancies? In fact, it says that all rights not granted to the federal government are reserved for the STATES or the PEOPLE. If the residents of a particular state or county decide they don't want to allow abortions in their community, shouldn't they be allowed to decide?
I like how this post was moderated as "insightful," as if no one has ever heard this tired-out pessimism before-- just a bunch of whining without offering a solution.
Yes, but companies are not required to buy back the power in most states.
There's also more garbage about carbon storage. How do you store carbon without producing more carbon? I don't see anything in the article about increasing our use of nuclear, solar, or wind power (which are non-chemical processes that don't emit carbon compounds)-- so are they going to invent a perpetual motion machine to squirrel away the carbon?