Uh, you know that it still does? You just have to pick and choose what you want. If Linux doesn't run in 16 MB of Ram, how do people get it running on things like the Nintendo DS with a whopping 4 MB?
Sometimes I think that people should be FORCED to not eat fast food. After all, it's making the USA horribly overweight, and doing this might put a dent in that terrible problem.
Logic has very little to do with scientific facts. How, indeed, can a spacecraft maneuver in space, if it has nothing to push against? There's no air, so how do rockets move things around? A 1st year physics class will tell you the answer, but, my point being that something may seem internally consistant to a certain logical point of view, not whether anything's right or wrong.
You don't need double blind tests to know that there is a God and the bible is always right.
You don't need double blind tests to know that the world was intelligently designed.
My point being, while you may "know" something, your very knowledge of it may be wrong, as it stems from a belief in that knowledge. Not too long ago in history it was provable that motion was impossible and that the world is an illusion. Or any number of examples. Remember that your own "knowledge" may be what is at fault, which is why we have science and experimentation in the first place.
Uh, did you even read my post? I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I said that the non-free (until recently) Opera browser was better than the free (beer and speech) Firefox. Nobody owes me anything, it's just in this case, freedom sucks.
What in the world is your point? The very article you link to says that "Classical Liberalism" and "Libertarianism" are almost always interchangable. But that's not what the word "Liberal" has come to mean. If I say to you, "liberal", you don't think "laissez-faire, both economic and social". The word has come to mean a world view entailing "freedom in social aspects, restrictions in economic aspects". Or, at least here in America. Which is what we're talking about, considering TFA is from the Los Angeles Times.
The funny thing about Opera is that it is stable (Firefox crashes on me irregularly and recently decided to delete my profile; Opera has never crashed. Ever.), portable (Here's the list, and this doesn't even include the mobile versions), can block ads (has its on inbuilt adblocker, which while weaker than firefox's, well, I just use a massive HOSTS file anyways), and, well, a quick google search revealed at least 3 ways to synchronize bookmarks on Opera.
And the benifits of "open source software", while they may be real, seem to have instead caused firefox to have a massive memory footprint and become incredibly inefficient at rendering pages.
I love Firefox, don't get me wrong, but Opera is a better browser, plain and simple.
The Mac OS argument holds as Windows in inherintley more insecure. Windows runs almost exclusively in Administrator mode, while Mac OS requires you to input a password for any root-alike actions. Which means that, even if it gets infected, the virus still has to deal with privelige escalation - something viruses on Windows don't have to care about.
If I had mod points I would totally give them to you right now. Absolutely correct. Hell, I'd buy one for christmas if they weren't prohibitively expensive.
I for one would rather be brainwashed and happy than "free" and a complete ass.
And besides, lemmie give you a hint. You catch more flies with sugar than shit. You'll never convince anyone by calling them "fuckwads" and "brainwashed". Unless, of course, your point is NOT to convince anyone, just to point out that you have a different opinion than other people. In which case you really, really need to get a life.
The center of a Torus is hardly "insignificant". Indeed, it's one of the defining parts of the torus itself. To use your example, the average did not give us quite what we wanted, but the information is definitely still useful.
There sure is. It lets you do things like "Tie a firm not" and "splice two ropes together." Why they thought people needed to be skilled in this is beyond me. It could be handled with Dexterity checks or go with the Profession skill (sailor, perhaps?)
And, I can't help but agree. When you're into the story, rules only come up when you need to know for absolutely sure that you can jump that ravine.
WoW's lore? Four words buddy: Lord. Of. The. Rings. D&D managed to get away from LotR after 1st edition (sure, it's based off it). I'm not saying there's no lore nobody could like. To give a good example of what I'm trying to say, I happen to also be a huge fan of the MegaMan games, which the latest incarnations of have gotten scores in the mid 7s at BEST from most popular critics. Many consider them bad games. I love them all the same. There is a clear delineation between good and bad material, and WoW's "Lore" slides much more so towards the medicore or bad end of the spectrum than the good. To give another example, I love the anime series Bleach. However, every episode I watch it I know that the storyline is horribly shounen and simplistic, and some of the characters are downright bad. Yet, I love the show anyways. People like bad things. It may sound elitist, and that's because it is. However you're the only person I know who says "The WoW storyline is GREAT!". Most people play it for the grind, the instances, and the raids. Not the storyline and roleplaying.
Perhaps I'm just part of a dying breed of gamers, but when I sit down at the table to play D&D, on either side of the screen, it's like writing a book. It's taking my own ideas and making them somewhat real. WoW can't do that, no matter how hard it tries. I'm sure that many people don't play D&D like that, in which case it's not Wizards that is dying off, it's the true roleplaying style of gaming.
You're right: D&D is just a set of combat rules, surrounded with thousands and thousands of pages of flavor and written word describing any number of worlds and ideas. D&D has something people like to call a "rich tapestry", and the world feels alive, if you let it. By what I've seen of WoW (and believe me, the ~100 hours or so were enough), there may very well have been "quality storytelling", but it was about characters I didn't care about in a world I couldn't believe. The example of the bandit quest only makes your point weaker - how is a "bandit organization" quality storytelling? How is one of the most cliche fantasy ideas something that can capture the minds and hearts of the players? Maybe that's something that gets you going, but not me. On this point we will have to agree to disagree. Some people love bad storylines and generic characters. Some of us don't. Some people love the grind of power, some of us don't. Some of us feel that games should be like an interactive book, some of us feel they should be filled with level griding, jumping around, and farming bosses for gold and random drops. One may not be better than the other, but my opinion will always be that a real storyline is better than anything I've seen from an MMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, you know that it still does? You just have to pick and choose what you want. If Linux doesn't run in 16 MB of Ram, how do people get it running on things like the Nintendo DS with a whopping 4 MB?
Sometimes I think that people should be FORCED to not eat fast food. After all, it's making the USA horribly overweight, and doing this might put a dent in that terrible problem.
Logic has very little to do with scientific facts. How, indeed, can a spacecraft maneuver in space, if it has nothing to push against? There's no air, so how do rockets move things around? A 1st year physics class will tell you the answer, but, my point being that something may seem internally consistant to a certain logical point of view, not whether anything's right or wrong.
You don't need double blind tests to know that there is a God and the bible is always right.
You don't need double blind tests to know that the world was intelligently designed.
My point being, while you may "know" something, your very knowledge of it may be wrong, as it stems from a belief in that knowledge. Not too long ago in history it was provable that motion was impossible and that the world is an illusion. Or any number of examples. Remember that your own "knowledge" may be what is at fault, which is why we have science and experimentation in the first place.
Holy balls, did you just do that?
Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon too. I'm an idiot. Give me free karma!
Dude... at my university (WMU), we learned that stuff 1st semester of Computer Engineering. Where the hell are these people coming from?
Yeah, cuz thinking about a subject and changing your opinion due to changing evidence is clearly a bad thing *roll eyes*.
Do we REALLY have to get into this again? The whole thing's baseless rhetoric on both sides.
I will agree with you that the article is rubbish.
Uh, did you even read my post? I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I said that the non-free (until recently) Opera browser was better than the free (beer and speech) Firefox. Nobody owes me anything, it's just in this case, freedom sucks.
What in the world is your point? The very article you link to says that "Classical Liberalism" and "Libertarianism" are almost always interchangable. But that's not what the word "Liberal" has come to mean. If I say to you, "liberal", you don't think "laissez-faire, both economic and social". The word has come to mean a world view entailing "freedom in social aspects, restrictions in economic aspects". Or, at least here in America. Which is what we're talking about, considering TFA is from the Los Angeles Times.
The funny thing about Opera is that it is stable (Firefox crashes on me irregularly and recently decided to delete my profile; Opera has never crashed. Ever.), portable (Here's the list, and this doesn't even include the mobile versions), can block ads (has its on inbuilt adblocker, which while weaker than firefox's, well, I just use a massive HOSTS file anyways), and, well, a quick google search revealed at least 3 ways to synchronize bookmarks on Opera.
And the benifits of "open source software", while they may be real, seem to have instead caused firefox to have a massive memory footprint and become incredibly inefficient at rendering pages.
I love Firefox, don't get me wrong, but Opera is a better browser, plain and simple.
The Mac OS argument holds as Windows in inherintley more insecure. Windows runs almost exclusively in Administrator mode, while Mac OS requires you to input a password for any root-alike actions. Which means that, even if it gets infected, the virus still has to deal with privelige escalation - something viruses on Windows don't have to care about.
If I had mod points I would totally give them to you right now. Absolutely correct. Hell, I'd buy one for christmas if they weren't prohibitively expensive.
The very article you link to says that the 3rd is imperfect. And it is.
I bet that guy's a DBZ fan. Oozaru and all that. Dimes to dollars, I bet he is.
I for one would rather be brainwashed and happy than "free" and a complete ass.
And besides, lemmie give you a hint. You catch more flies with sugar than shit. You'll never convince anyone by calling them "fuckwads" and "brainwashed". Unless, of course, your point is NOT to convince anyone, just to point out that you have a different opinion than other people. In which case you really, really need to get a life.
I agree with everything you said, but it doesn't stop the government from being a fucker. You're mistaking my position.
Read it again. He did.
As it turns out, the DMCA has an exception for this (unlocking phones), so it's not illegal after all.
However, it is a reasonable assumption that, since it is a specifically called out exception, it would normally be covered by the law.
Once again, just because something is law doesn't mean the law is right.
Note that he said "under such law" and not "the law is always right". An understanding of the law does not imply agreement.
Not to be confused with the "Hackers on Steroids" and their "Internet Hate Machine", of course.
The center of a Torus is hardly "insignificant". Indeed, it's one of the defining parts of the torus itself. To use your example, the average did not give us quite what we wanted, but the information is definitely still useful.
There sure is. It lets you do things like "Tie a firm not" and "splice two ropes together." Why they thought people needed to be skilled in this is beyond me. It could be handled with Dexterity checks or go with the Profession skill (sailor, perhaps?)
And, I can't help but agree. When you're into the story, rules only come up when you need to know for absolutely sure that you can jump that ravine.
You're once again reading things into my words that I'm not saying, but I'll let this conversation drop, as we're getting nowhere.
WoW's lore? Four words buddy: Lord. Of. The. Rings. D&D managed to get away from LotR after 1st edition (sure, it's based off it). I'm not saying there's no lore nobody could like. To give a good example of what I'm trying to say, I happen to also be a huge fan of the MegaMan games, which the latest incarnations of have gotten scores in the mid 7s at BEST from most popular critics. Many consider them bad games. I love them all the same. There is a clear delineation between good and bad material, and WoW's "Lore" slides much more so towards the medicore or bad end of the spectrum than the good. To give another example, I love the anime series Bleach. However, every episode I watch it I know that the storyline is horribly shounen and simplistic, and some of the characters are downright bad. Yet, I love the show anyways. People like bad things. It may sound elitist, and that's because it is. However you're the only person I know who says "The WoW storyline is GREAT!". Most people play it for the grind, the instances, and the raids. Not the storyline and roleplaying.
Perhaps I'm just part of a dying breed of gamers, but when I sit down at the table to play D&D, on either side of the screen, it's like writing a book. It's taking my own ideas and making them somewhat real. WoW can't do that, no matter how hard it tries. I'm sure that many people don't play D&D like that, in which case it's not Wizards that is dying off, it's the true roleplaying style of gaming.
You're right: D&D is just a set of combat rules, surrounded with thousands and thousands of pages of flavor and written word describing any number of worlds and ideas. D&D has something people like to call a "rich tapestry", and the world feels alive, if you let it. By what I've seen of WoW (and believe me, the ~100 hours or so were enough), there may very well have been "quality storytelling", but it was about characters I didn't care about in a world I couldn't believe. The example of the bandit quest only makes your point weaker - how is a "bandit organization" quality storytelling? How is one of the most cliche fantasy ideas something that can capture the minds and hearts of the players? Maybe that's something that gets you going, but not me. On this point we will have to agree to disagree. Some people love bad storylines and generic characters. Some of us don't. Some people love the grind of power, some of us don't. Some of us feel that games should be like an interactive book, some of us feel they should be filled with level griding, jumping around, and farming bosses for gold and random drops. One may not be better than the other, but my opinion will always be that a real storyline is better than anything I've seen from an MMO.