What's your point? You give one example of something that illustrates your point. There are plenty of examples of the government has done positive things. Capitalism wouldn't abolish slavery. Too much government is bad. Not enough government is bad. Why don't people get this?
And newer versions of Linux are slower than ones from 5 years ago. Where have you been? As computers get more memory and processing power, OSs are updated with more features to take advantage of them. Microsoft decided to incorporate more security and features and this slightly slows down game performance. Your idea that new OSs are supposed to speed everything up is false. That has never been the case for any OS unless it was specifically designed to be fast and light rather than a full featured OS.
You are unreasonable. This is a hardware flaw that presented itself over time. No one designs their product to have a 1 in 3 failure rate. Microsoft did what was ethical and replaces all of these machines for free. Further penalizing them would accomplish what exactly? Their bottom line and reputation were hurt? What more do you want...for them to sacrifice virgins?
In any case, doing what you suggest is a horrible idea because it is going to hurt small businesses more than the giant companies. Microsoft could pay your fine or whatever penalties you want because it has other business sectors. It would completely destroy a smaller company. People, and companies, make mistakes. Do we really need more government involvement when we have capitalism to punish or reward people?
That is and old concept. Something that is designed to do one thing is better than something designed to do many things. I disagree and I offer up a counter example: the PC. It is able to do so many things remarkable well because it is designed to do various functions. Cell phones are just small PCs. As memory and processing get more efficient, it makes sense to build in more functionality to them. If they fail to deliver good phone quality, that just means whoever designed it did a poor job. There is no reason why a cell phone can't be a great phone and so much more.
Yes, let's stunt technological innovation because you are worried that some people can't take care of their finances. Are you kidding me? Anything that makes my life simpler and faster, I appreciate. Don't take away my freedom to wave and pay just because some people are irresponsible. It is the same idea of taking away video games because some people can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Or banning books like Harry Potter because it talks about witchcraft and you are scared your kid won't grow up to be a good Christian. People will always find new ways to be stupid. That doesn't mean you should prevent responsible people from taking advantage of technology.
Re:Why people watch movies..
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 1
I usually can block it out. But I can't help but at least get amused if not annoyed when the hacker is hacking in to a system and is doing this by typing very, very fast.
Is a GUI done in Visual Basic that far-fetched? I mean, people do do that. I wouldn't cringe at that. I do cringe whenever a news channel attempts to describe something that has to do with technology or gaming. I cringed when I read the summary too.
As soon as you give up your crappy consoles and play FPS's on the platform God ordained them to be played on: the PC. (I am kidding, I like both platforms...I don't understand people who have to belittle one or the other. Maybe they are too poor to afford both or something and are bitter, angry little people)
Your testicle analogy is stupid. Analogies are only needed for subjects that are too hard to explain without simplification. This doesn't need to be simplified.
There are different philosophies on how to run the country. Obama's policies are different than what Limbaugh wants them to be. He believes he is right. The problem is he doesn't know for a fact that he is. Limbaugh's party has screwed up the country over the past 8 years. Very badly. Now he hopes that things get worse to soothe his ego? I think you are blinded by Republican lust. You want so much for the Republicans to be right you can't give a Democratic president a chance to execute his philosophy. You are the one tainted, not the person you are attacking.
And as a side note, most economists are liberals. Makes you wonder why...maybe Obama might have an answer to our problems. Why don't you give him a chance and see? You gave Bush a chance to screw up the nation, now it is our turn.
But if Obama's policies succeed on making America better then he is wrong. And America would be better, not worse...which is good. Therefore the only reason he wants Obama to fail is so that he doesn't have to be wrong. And if he is wrong, he won't admit to it and make some other reason up why things got better. Sounds like he is a petty asshole to me. People who believe Limbaugh have shut their brains down. He is an entertainer. If you buy in to his politically divisive garbage that causes people to move farther apart rather than work together...well, then I feel sorry for you. People like Limbaugh are what is fundamentally wrong with this nation.
Actually, you were making an assertion as much as the post you replied to did. You can't counter someone by saying you read a bunch of stuff that says something else but then not bother to back it up by linking them.
Could bombs and poison be more effective? Sure. Have we had a big attack on college campuses using those? No. Most likely if they didn't have guns they would use the easily available tools like swords and knives which would mean many fewer losses. So many things can go wrong with bombs and poison which would would probably take out the attacker before he attacked. Or they would be duds. In any case, I can tell you are one of those people who get emotional and irrational when it comes to guns so this will be a bit pointless. But eh, I need a break.
Pick and choose? If you can pick different countries with completely different rates of violence and gun ownership that proves my point. There is no strong correlation between the two factors. Restricting the sample set to just the US and UK without normalizing for all other correlative factors and claiming you can draw conclusions based upon that is the error.
Congratulations, you just repeated what I said. Your problem is you are assuming I am completely anti-gun. I am not. I am saying using statistics and studies is a bullshit way of making your point when you can use some common sense instead.
So studies are bull shit. Yes, I can use common sense to say if people didn't have access to guns then there would have been a lot less people killed in Columbine and Virginia. It isn't emotion. Would you deny the fact that a person with a gun is potentially more deadly than a person without a gun? (chuck norris jokes aside) I don't need evidence or studies to prove that. If you can't figure this out on your own, I seriously question your ability to reason in this subject area.
It won't effect any of us who are online. People on here need to quit over-reacting to these things. If this case ever effects your life I will give you a million dollars (obviously, this doesn't count if your harass some poor kid to self harm). The woman is sick and got off with less than she deserved.
Religions, like guns, are a tool. They can be used for good purposes, or used for bad purposes. Unfortunately, too many people use them for bad purposes these days. But are there enough of these bad people out there to ban them for everyone?
In short, you aren't presenting any factual information either. You might get all your "facts" from the NRA. If we are talking about these attacks on school campuses, I think it is fairly obvious that if the killers didn't have guns, they would be a lot less effective. There will always be violent crimes. And you can pick and choose what countries you want to talk about to make the statistics look like guns make things more safe or less safe. But I think what the OP says is true. Restrict people from having guns, school attacks will be less deadly. I'm not saying ban guns, I am just stating something. But the guns rights advocates can't have rational discussions. It is their religion.
Why not blame Apple for the stupid things they do? If they did this on the XBOX 360 the Slashdot crowd would be all over that. If they did this on a PC, people would be crying about the "think of the children" mentality in this country. But because it is Apple, it gets a free pass. I don't understand the worship of companies. Yeah, there are ones that are less evil than others, but they all want as much of your money as possible and they all are capable of making bad decisions. If you are going to have morals or an opinion, try applying it equally to any company rather than allowing yourself to be blinded by zealotry.
Laptops are going to be behind the curve for gaming right out of the box. Yours is a few years old. It might be mid-range for a general purpose PC perspective, but for gaming it is on the low end. It is too bad it doesn't scale better for you. It really is an enjoyable game.
Even if the game was perfectly balanced by all the divine powers in the universe, people still would complain something was unbalanced. People are dumb like that. It's a great game and I think you are looking at the past with rose colored glasses. It's the most fun I have had in an FPS since I did it competitively in college.
You said that he would agree with you...thus you are speaking with him. I don't know what he would think. But the fact that a black man is President was certainly a part of that dream that was realized today. And people felt like this election mattered not because Obama was black, but because we had horrible leadership for the past 8 years and they had a candidate that actually gave them hope. Plenty of white people voted for him too. I'm one of them. That's a fact.
Still? It already happened. Already we have more credibility to the rest of the world. Already many wounds from slavery and abuse have been healed (still many more to go, but a big step). The guy doesn't have to do a thing and already there is change.
But really, to fix everything that Bush has screwed up is going to take a lot of time. Most people are realistic about it. People who aren't realistic...do we really care about them? Hmm, that means I probably shouldn't even be responding to you.
Actually, if you learned anything from the Bush administration is that dissent is unpatriotic. (/sarcasm) Of course, we know dissent can be both. People are dissenting before Obama has done anything. That's stupid. When people dissented and said that the Iraq war was unjustified and we should not go in, that was patriotic. Understand the difference?
Why change? Because they are selling the console extremely well but are doing a poor job selling games. Anecdotal, I know, but everyone I know who has one, doesn't touch it anymore. It might get turned on for the rare party, but that's it. If they had more games that catered to the people who play games, they would be doing better.
I really don't understand the Nintendo apologist. You are actually trying to argue against more diverse games on the Wii. How on any planet would having something more than mini-games on the Wii be a bad thing?
Uh, no, having a leveling cap does not add code to a game. If you had a higher level you would have more abilities, stats, etc. Stopping you from getting more xp and levels isn't much more than an if statement. Do you have an MBA or something?
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? You give one example of something that illustrates your point. There are plenty of examples of the government has done positive things. Capitalism wouldn't abolish slavery. Too much government is bad. Not enough government is bad. Why don't people get this?
And newer versions of Linux are slower than ones from 5 years ago. Where have you been? As computers get more memory and processing power, OSs are updated with more features to take advantage of them. Microsoft decided to incorporate more security and features and this slightly slows down game performance. Your idea that new OSs are supposed to speed everything up is false. That has never been the case for any OS unless it was specifically designed to be fast and light rather than a full featured OS.
You are unreasonable. This is a hardware flaw that presented itself over time. No one designs their product to have a 1 in 3 failure rate. Microsoft did what was ethical and replaces all of these machines for free. Further penalizing them would accomplish what exactly? Their bottom line and reputation were hurt? What more do you want...for them to sacrifice virgins?
In any case, doing what you suggest is a horrible idea because it is going to hurt small businesses more than the giant companies. Microsoft could pay your fine or whatever penalties you want because it has other business sectors. It would completely destroy a smaller company. People, and companies, make mistakes. Do we really need more government involvement when we have capitalism to punish or reward people?
That is and old concept. Something that is designed to do one thing is better than something designed to do many things. I disagree and I offer up a counter example: the PC. It is able to do so many things remarkable well because it is designed to do various functions. Cell phones are just small PCs. As memory and processing get more efficient, it makes sense to build in more functionality to them. If they fail to deliver good phone quality, that just means whoever designed it did a poor job. There is no reason why a cell phone can't be a great phone and so much more.
Yes, let's stunt technological innovation because you are worried that some people can't take care of their finances. Are you kidding me? Anything that makes my life simpler and faster, I appreciate. Don't take away my freedom to wave and pay just because some people are irresponsible. It is the same idea of taking away video games because some people can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Or banning books like Harry Potter because it talks about witchcraft and you are scared your kid won't grow up to be a good Christian. People will always find new ways to be stupid. That doesn't mean you should prevent responsible people from taking advantage of technology.
I usually can block it out. But I can't help but at least get amused if not annoyed when the hacker is hacking in to a system and is doing this by typing very, very fast.
Is a GUI done in Visual Basic that far-fetched? I mean, people do do that. I wouldn't cringe at that. I do cringe whenever a news channel attempts to describe something that has to do with technology or gaming. I cringed when I read the summary too.
As soon as you give up your crappy consoles and play FPS's on the platform God ordained them to be played on: the PC. (I am kidding, I like both platforms...I don't understand people who have to belittle one or the other. Maybe they are too poor to afford both or something and are bitter, angry little people)
Your testicle analogy is stupid. Analogies are only needed for subjects that are too hard to explain without simplification. This doesn't need to be simplified.
There are different philosophies on how to run the country. Obama's policies are different than what Limbaugh wants them to be. He believes he is right. The problem is he doesn't know for a fact that he is. Limbaugh's party has screwed up the country over the past 8 years. Very badly. Now he hopes that things get worse to soothe his ego? I think you are blinded by Republican lust. You want so much for the Republicans to be right you can't give a Democratic president a chance to execute his philosophy. You are the one tainted, not the person you are attacking.
And as a side note, most economists are liberals. Makes you wonder why...maybe Obama might have an answer to our problems. Why don't you give him a chance and see? You gave Bush a chance to screw up the nation, now it is our turn.
But if Obama's policies succeed on making America better then he is wrong. And America would be better, not worse...which is good. Therefore the only reason he wants Obama to fail is so that he doesn't have to be wrong. And if he is wrong, he won't admit to it and make some other reason up why things got better. Sounds like he is a petty asshole to me. People who believe Limbaugh have shut their brains down. He is an entertainer. If you buy in to his politically divisive garbage that causes people to move farther apart rather than work together...well, then I feel sorry for you. People like Limbaugh are what is fundamentally wrong with this nation.
Actually, you were making an assertion as much as the post you replied to did. You can't counter someone by saying you read a bunch of stuff that says something else but then not bother to back it up by linking them.
Could bombs and poison be more effective? Sure. Have we had a big attack on college campuses using those? No. Most likely if they didn't have guns they would use the easily available tools like swords and knives which would mean many fewer losses. So many things can go wrong with bombs and poison which would would probably take out the attacker before he attacked. Or they would be duds. In any case, I can tell you are one of those people who get emotional and irrational when it comes to guns so this will be a bit pointless. But eh, I need a break.
Pick and choose? If you can pick different countries with completely different rates of violence and gun ownership that proves my point. There is no strong correlation between the two factors. Restricting the sample set to just the US and UK without normalizing for all other correlative factors and claiming you can draw conclusions based upon that is the error.
Congratulations, you just repeated what I said. Your problem is you are assuming I am completely anti-gun. I am not. I am saying using statistics and studies is a bullshit way of making your point when you can use some common sense instead.
So studies are bull shit. Yes, I can use common sense to say if people didn't have access to guns then there would have been a lot less people killed in Columbine and Virginia. It isn't emotion. Would you deny the fact that a person with a gun is potentially more deadly than a person without a gun? (chuck norris jokes aside) I don't need evidence or studies to prove that. If you can't figure this out on your own, I seriously question your ability to reason in this subject area.
It won't effect any of us who are online. People on here need to quit over-reacting to these things. If this case ever effects your life I will give you a million dollars (obviously, this doesn't count if your harass some poor kid to self harm). The woman is sick and got off with less than she deserved.
Religions, like guns, are a tool. They can be used for good purposes, or used for bad purposes. Unfortunately, too many people use them for bad purposes these days. But are there enough of these bad people out there to ban them for everyone?
In short, you aren't presenting any factual information either. You might get all your "facts" from the NRA. If we are talking about these attacks on school campuses, I think it is fairly obvious that if the killers didn't have guns, they would be a lot less effective. There will always be violent crimes. And you can pick and choose what countries you want to talk about to make the statistics look like guns make things more safe or less safe. But I think what the OP says is true. Restrict people from having guns, school attacks will be less deadly. I'm not saying ban guns, I am just stating something. But the guns rights advocates can't have rational discussions. It is their religion.
Nice try. Except that the editors didn't tag it that. Slashdot users did.
Why not blame Apple for the stupid things they do? If they did this on the XBOX 360 the Slashdot crowd would be all over that. If they did this on a PC, people would be crying about the "think of the children" mentality in this country. But because it is Apple, it gets a free pass. I don't understand the worship of companies. Yeah, there are ones that are less evil than others, but they all want as much of your money as possible and they all are capable of making bad decisions. If you are going to have morals or an opinion, try applying it equally to any company rather than allowing yourself to be blinded by zealotry.
For someone who has enough time to play TF2, whine in multiple posts, and can afford a PS3, I'd say you are pretty much full of crap.
Laptops are going to be behind the curve for gaming right out of the box. Yours is a few years old. It might be mid-range for a general purpose PC perspective, but for gaming it is on the low end. It is too bad it doesn't scale better for you. It really is an enjoyable game.
Even if the game was perfectly balanced by all the divine powers in the universe, people still would complain something was unbalanced. People are dumb like that. It's a great game and I think you are looking at the past with rose colored glasses. It's the most fun I have had in an FPS since I did it competitively in college.
You said that he would agree with you...thus you are speaking with him. I don't know what he would think. But the fact that a black man is President was certainly a part of that dream that was realized today. And people felt like this election mattered not because Obama was black, but because we had horrible leadership for the past 8 years and they had a candidate that actually gave them hope. Plenty of white people voted for him too. I'm one of them. That's a fact.
Still? It already happened. Already we have more credibility to the rest of the world. Already many wounds from slavery and abuse have been healed (still many more to go, but a big step). The guy doesn't have to do a thing and already there is change.
But really, to fix everything that Bush has screwed up is going to take a lot of time. Most people are realistic about it. People who aren't realistic...do we really care about them? Hmm, that means I probably shouldn't even be responding to you.
Actually, if you learned anything from the Bush administration is that dissent is unpatriotic. (/sarcasm) Of course, we know dissent can be both. People are dissenting before Obama has done anything. That's stupid. When people dissented and said that the Iraq war was unjustified and we should not go in, that was patriotic. Understand the difference?
The difference is this is some random guy on Slashdot saying this rather than the Bush administration. Nice try, though.
Why change? Because they are selling the console extremely well but are doing a poor job selling games. Anecdotal, I know, but everyone I know who has one, doesn't touch it anymore. It might get turned on for the rare party, but that's it. If they had more games that catered to the people who play games, they would be doing better.
I really don't understand the Nintendo apologist. You are actually trying to argue against more diverse games on the Wii. How on any planet would having something more than mini-games on the Wii be a bad thing?
Uh, no, having a leveling cap does not add code to a game. If you had a higher level you would have more abilities, stats, etc. Stopping you from getting more xp and levels isn't much more than an if statement. Do you have an MBA or something?