Indeed, some do write honest reviews. Reminds me of Computer Gaming World's review of Postal 2. Absolutely priceless:
We caught a lot of flak a few years ago for using a naughty word in a preview for Majestic, and we pretty much resolved against using it again. Until we got Postal 2. So turn away if you're under 18 or weak of heart, because the only honest response we can make is this: Copulate this game.
You might argue that such a profane reaction debases us, that by saying this we only sink to Postal 2's level, and to that I can only say that this herpetic accretion of digitized hate and social retardation would have the pope swearing like the most guttermouthed drunken Tourette's sufferer. It's a relentlessly idiotic, ill-conceived, hateful, humorless romp through an infected colon.
All you really need to know about Postal 2 is "Fag Hunter." That's the title of an arcade game in the Running With Scissors offices in the game, and it pretty much sums up what passes for humor in Postal 2. RWS has turned decrying political correctness into a personal crusade, but this is simply offensive by even the most primitive metric. Everything in this product is shot through with the pathetic mewling and puking of self-pitying crybaby dilettantes so consumed with pointing out how they're being crucified they fail to notice that they're the half-wits pounding the nails in. Antiviolence protesters storm the RWS offices! Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.
In a weird way, your heart almost breaks from the concerted, energetic, woefully misdirected attempts at "edgy" humor limping throughout this dispiriting exercise in godawfulness--it's just so overwhelmingly pathetic. From the screaming Osama Arabs to the cat-and-dog-munching Asians to the lighthearted japes about Waco, everything in this shooter is pulled from the "Look I made a doody!" school of humor--only less subtle. References, politically incorrect and otherwise, are constantly made yet never put into any sort of context and therefore are about as effective and funny as a sock full of liver. Postal 2 has hanging chad jokes for crying out loud; even Jay Leno stopped making those a year ago.
But just in case you're the kind of person who's pissing on yourself with excitement at this idiocy, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid Postal 2. Excruciatingly long load times in excess of a full minute, often within moments of each other, make wandering through the graphically mediocre sprawl of the town a case study of stupidity. The alleged location-based damage model is a lie, as it takes repeated shotgun blasts at point-blank range to drop an unarmored foe. The game is built around five fun-filled days of running errands that feature real-time waiting in line and devolve into the same "some wacky politically untouchable or oversensitive group storms the building" style of mayhem. You have to escape a burning building at least twice. The voice acting sucks, the framerate drops when things get hectic, the interiors are little more than boxes with an occasional desk inside, and more.
Until someone boxes up syphilis and tries to sell it at retail, Postal 2 is the worst product ever foisted upon consumers.
I bet DARPA won't let us "private secor" folk make it useful though. You know: "because people could use it for terror and someone might be killed by that terrorist.
Yeah, and I'd bet those terrorists would just latch onto that DARPA thing they called the "entarnet" or something like that. Too bad we'll never get to use it.
You must be new around here. Either that, or you mean the fossilized bones of the shark that Slashdot jumped over and over years ago. At least it's still entertaining.
Um, it was not 2 * X X, it was the same 3 statements you just noted but without breaks and with X instead of the word album. You just did not put the breaks in the correct place (the first X is the end of one statement as the second X is the start of the next)
No, the real question is, is the 800g in WoW gold that I give to Joe for his Krol Blade taxable.
As long as you don't convert it to real-world currency, then it's just a game. So the answer is obviously no. Anything other answer is too much FUD-factor and sensationalism designed to sell banner ads.
This is for those who, like me, had a difficult time parsing the non-standard math notation -- is 2 * X X equal to 2 * X^2 or something?
In compensation, you either get 3 albums -OR- $7.50 + 1 album. We'll assume the value offered is considered by Sony to be equivalent. Let's do the math in plain English:
So 3 albums = $7.50 + 1 album. 2 albums = $7.50 1 album = $3.75
Thus, the value of 1 album according to the above assumptions is $3.75.
If you're playing Monopoly with a bunch of other people and you buy Park Place with Monopoly money, but somebody then offers you $5000 in real-world currency for control of Park Place, then you would declare that $5000 as income. Really, the concept isn't that strange. Just because income came as a result of a game, it has nothing to do with in-game economics or taxing your game playing. It's when you take the game item and sell it in the real world that it is subject to tax just like anything else you sell. If you bottle your farts and sell them, the government isn't taxing flatulence -- it's taxing the money you collected from other people in exchange for property, whether tangible or intangible.
The parent poster is a cockmaster. Since I haven't named you, does that exempt me from libel? Playing devil's advocate here, but anybody who knew the student likely would have figured out who it was based on context.
Perhaps clever, but I did say "strictly speaking"... check out the Wikipedia article under the strong and weak atheism section. It is the weak atheism definition to which I refer. For those who don't RTFLinks:
"Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist."
I consider myself agnostic because (to me at least) atheism is the "no" checkbox on the part of the questionaire that asks if you believe in anything beyond the physical world. I'm not comfortable answering "yes" or "no," because there's no way for me to know either way, or even form a reasonable theory.
Atheist, strictly speaking, means non-theist... in exactly the same way that atypical means non-typical. So if you're not a theist, then you are by definition an atheist. Atheism doesn't imply an active belief that there is no god/gods, but rather a lack of belief in a god/gods.
I got the same impression. Also, consider this question:
Q: OK, well let's talk about the man behind the money. Who is David Jasinski and what was his role in the development of RoT?
You'll notice this is the first mention of the names David or Jasinski in the entire interview. Either it's an extremely well-prepared interviewer, a case of two former employees interviewing each other, or one former employee interviewing himself. After this, the interviewer starts calling him "Dave" which indicates a level of familiarity.
I looked for a bit of background and it's in plain sight on the homepage:
Friday, December 9th, 2005: Spoonbender recieved an email from one of the former developers of Mourning a few months ago asking what had happened to the game. At that point the game had been taken offline and the forums were down. Spoon sent off an email detailing his experience with the developers and with the game itself, and the former developer replied with a few stories of his own. Spoon forwarded the email to Shintuk, Shintuk to Jdodger, and JD showed it to me. JD then conducted an interview with the former developer. His insights and personal stories about the behind-the-scenes events during his time working on the project constitute the best and most accurate picture we have of who was to blame for the mismanagement that Mourning suffers from. He will talk at length about Ado's 'unconventional' game designing style, Ego's tragic inability to grasp the true problems until it was too late, and even individual incidents with the development team that illustrate both the potential Mourning had and how that potential was, with almost criminal negligence, squandered.
I feel that it is nessecary that those that followed Mourning and devoted time and money to its success see where their time and money went. In short, they should know the truth.
You can read the interview and draw your own conclusions.
So that provides some background. Rebuttal from "Adonys" can be found here.
And switching OSes isn't as radical or difficult of a change as most people seem to think.
Personally, it's a huge undertaking for most people. And corporately, good luck convincing your employers that they need to discard potentially millions of dollars in a Windows-based infrastructure, try and find non-Windows based software to replace the functionality they've lost, migrate all of their data, retrain all the users on the new operating system, etc. Maybe WINE will handle all the existing software... maybe not. But when what you have works really well and people know it, any change in a sufficiently large organization is much more costly than mere software licensing costs.
When are we going to start demanding quality from those who get rich quick? Is it even possible to get quality anything from the likes of Calcanis? Do the creators of quality products ever get rich from their products, or is that the preserve of the peddlers?
This "In Soviet Russia" moment brought to you by Ayn Rand.
I think switching OSs is a less difficult proposition for someone who has time to read slashdot than picking up your family and moving is for someone who can barely feed his or her own kids.
Of course. But it's still not very helpful. The next time there's some Linux exploit in the wild, would your advice also be to switch operating system?
Haha analysed by Steve Gibson, well NOW I feel safe.
Security researcher he isn't (really), but I do respect his ability to code. At any rate, for those who don't know why that's potentially laughable, see the GRC sucks website.
It's more like telling people for 10 years that it's a bad idea to live in hurricane territory, below sea level, behind a flimsy patchwork of levees. It's no fault but their own when the hurricane comes along, blows down their levees, and the sea floods in.
From TFA: "Last year we attempted to sum up the whole of the microprocessor news for the year and were accused by some (*cough* Slashdot readers *cough*) of being biased."
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, some do write honest reviews. Reminds me of Computer Gaming World's review of Postal 2. Absolutely priceless:
We caught a lot of flak a few years ago for using a naughty word in a preview for Majestic, and we pretty much resolved against using it again. Until we got Postal 2. So turn away if you're under 18 or weak of heart, because the only honest response we can make is this: Copulate this game.
You might argue that such a profane reaction debases us, that by saying this we only sink to Postal 2's level, and to that I can only say that this herpetic accretion of digitized hate and social retardation would have the pope swearing like the most guttermouthed drunken Tourette's sufferer. It's a relentlessly idiotic, ill-conceived, hateful, humorless romp through an infected colon.
All you really need to know about Postal 2 is "Fag Hunter." That's the title of an arcade game in the Running With Scissors offices in the game, and it pretty much sums up what passes for humor in Postal 2. RWS has turned decrying political correctness into a personal crusade, but this is simply offensive by even the most primitive metric. Everything in this product is shot through with the pathetic mewling and puking of self-pitying crybaby dilettantes so consumed with pointing out how they're being crucified they fail to notice that they're the half-wits pounding the nails in. Antiviolence protesters storm the RWS offices! Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.
In a weird way, your heart almost breaks from the concerted, energetic, woefully misdirected attempts at "edgy" humor limping throughout this dispiriting exercise in godawfulness--it's just so overwhelmingly pathetic. From the screaming Osama Arabs to the cat-and-dog-munching Asians to the lighthearted japes about Waco, everything in this shooter is pulled from the "Look I made a doody!" school of humor--only less subtle. References, politically incorrect and otherwise, are constantly made yet never put into any sort of context and therefore are about as effective and funny as a sock full of liver. Postal 2 has hanging chad jokes for crying out loud; even Jay Leno stopped making those a year ago.
But just in case you're the kind of person who's pissing on yourself with excitement at this idiocy, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid Postal 2. Excruciatingly long load times in excess of a full minute, often within moments of each other, make wandering through the graphically mediocre sprawl of the town a case study of stupidity. The alleged location-based damage model is a lie, as it takes repeated shotgun blasts at point-blank range to drop an unarmored foe. The game is built around five fun-filled days of running errands that feature real-time waiting in line and devolve into the same "some wacky politically untouchable or oversensitive group storms the building" style of mayhem. You have to escape a burning building at least twice. The voice acting sucks, the framerate drops when things get hectic, the interiors are little more than boxes with an occasional desk inside, and more.
Until someone boxes up syphilis and tries to sell it at retail, Postal 2 is the worst product ever foisted upon consumers.
VERDICT: No.
If you're going to put a link to your website on every post, put it in your signature. That is what they are for.
Signatures don't get indexed by Google, hence posting his/her sig in every post -- likely for perhaps some additional pagerank.
Mainstream journalism is dieing.
Spelling is dying too.
Wow, Titanium Bytes. Now that's serious storage. Oh, wait...
I bet DARPA won't let us "private secor" folk make it useful though. You know: "because people could use it for terror and someone might be killed by that terrorist.
Yeah, and I'd bet those terrorists would just latch onto that DARPA thing they called the "entarnet" or something like that. Too bad we'll never get to use it.
Slashdot has jumped the shark.
You must be new around here. Either that, or you mean the fossilized bones of the shark that Slashdot jumped over and over years ago. At least it's still entertaining.
Um, it was not 2 * X X, it was the same 3 statements you just noted but without breaks and with X instead of the word album. You just did not put the breaks in the correct place (the first X is the end of one statement as the second X is the start of the next)
Thus, the preview option when commenting.
No, the real question is, is the 800g in WoW gold that I give to Joe for his Krol Blade taxable.
As long as you don't convert it to real-world currency, then it's just a game. So the answer is obviously no. Anything other answer is too much FUD-factor and sensationalism designed to sell banner ads.
This is for those who, like me, had a difficult time parsing the non-standard math notation -- is 2 * X X equal to 2 * X^2 or something?
In compensation, you either get 3 albums -OR- $7.50 + 1 album. We'll assume the value offered is considered by Sony to be equivalent. Let's do the math in plain English:
So 3 albums = $7.50 + 1 album.
2 albums = $7.50
1 album = $3.75
Thus, the value of 1 album according to the above assumptions is $3.75.
If you're playing Monopoly with a bunch of other people and you buy Park Place with Monopoly money, but somebody then offers you $5000 in real-world currency for control of Park Place, then you would declare that $5000 as income. Really, the concept isn't that strange. Just because income came as a result of a game, it has nothing to do with in-game economics or taxing your game playing. It's when you take the game item and sell it in the real world that it is subject to tax just like anything else you sell. If you bottle your farts and sell them, the government isn't taxing flatulence -- it's taxing the money you collected from other people in exchange for property, whether tangible or intangible.
Why not use a circle? A similar design decision worked well for H&R Block.
It's already there, as long as you don't look for it.
The parent poster is a cockmaster. Since I haven't named you, does that exempt me from libel? Playing devil's advocate here, but anybody who knew the student likely would have figured out who it was based on context.
Perhaps clever, but I did say "strictly speaking"... check out the Wikipedia article under the strong and weak atheism section. It is the weak atheism definition to which I refer. For those who don't RTFLinks:
"Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist."
I consider myself agnostic because (to me at least) atheism is the "no" checkbox on the part of the questionaire that asks if you believe in anything beyond the physical world. I'm not comfortable answering "yes" or "no," because there's no way for me to know either way, or even form a reasonable theory.
Atheist, strictly speaking, means non-theist... in exactly the same way that atypical means non-typical. So if you're not a theist, then you are by definition an atheist. Atheism doesn't imply an active belief that there is no god/gods, but rather a lack of belief in a god/gods.
I got the same impression. Also, consider this question:
Q: OK, well let's talk about the man behind the money. Who is David Jasinski and what was his role in the development of RoT?
You'll notice this is the first mention of the names David or Jasinski in the entire interview. Either it's an extremely well-prepared interviewer, a case of two former employees interviewing each other, or one former employee interviewing himself. After this, the interviewer starts calling him "Dave" which indicates a level of familiarity.
I looked for a bit of background and it's in plain sight on the homepage:
Friday, December 9th, 2005: Spoonbender recieved an email from one of the former developers of Mourning a few months ago asking what had happened to the game. At that point the game had been taken offline and the forums were down. Spoon sent off an email detailing his experience with the developers and with the game itself, and the former developer replied with a few stories of his own. Spoon forwarded the email to Shintuk, Shintuk to Jdodger, and JD showed it to me. JD then conducted an interview with the former developer. His insights and personal stories about the behind-the-scenes events during his time working on the project constitute the best and most accurate picture we have of who was to blame for the mismanagement that Mourning suffers from. He will talk at length about Ado's 'unconventional' game designing style, Ego's tragic inability to grasp the true problems until it was too late, and even individual incidents with the development team that illustrate both the potential Mourning had and how that potential was, with almost criminal negligence, squandered.
I feel that it is nessecary that those that followed Mourning and devoted time and money to its success see where their time and money went. In short, they should know the truth.
You can read the interview and draw your own conclusions.
So that provides some background. Rebuttal from "Adonys" can be found here.
The whole things reminds me of Battlecruiser.
"Every sysadmin wants to configure networks, and work with them, with the possibility of doing everything alone."
Also, every generalization is false.
And switching OSes isn't as radical or difficult of a change as most people seem to think.
Personally, it's a huge undertaking for most people. And corporately, good luck convincing your employers that they need to discard potentially millions of dollars in a Windows-based infrastructure, try and find non-Windows based software to replace the functionality they've lost, migrate all of their data, retrain all the users on the new operating system, etc. Maybe WINE will handle all the existing software... maybe not. But when what you have works really well and people know it, any change in a sufficiently large organization is much more costly than mere software licensing costs.
When are we going to start demanding quality from those who get rich quick? Is it even possible to get quality anything from the likes of Calcanis? Do the creators of quality products ever get rich from their products, or is that the preserve of the peddlers?
This "In Soviet Russia" moment brought to you by Ayn Rand.
I think switching OSs is a less difficult proposition for someone who has time to read slashdot than picking up your family and moving is for someone who can barely feed his or her own kids.
Of course. But it's still not very helpful. The next time there's some Linux exploit in the wild, would your advice also be to switch operating system?
Haha analysed by Steve Gibson, well NOW I feel safe.
Security researcher he isn't (really), but I do respect his ability to code. At any rate, for those who don't know why that's potentially laughable, see the GRC sucks website.
It's more like telling people for 10 years that it's a bad idea to live in hurricane territory, below sea level, behind a flimsy patchwork of levees. It's no fault but their own when the hurricane comes along, blows down their levees, and the sea floods in.
Hurricane != tsunami.
kfg... now you're just being biased!
From TFA: "Last year we attempted to sum up the whole of the microprocessor news for the year and were accused by some (*cough* Slashdot readers *cough*) of being biased."
That's about as helpful as advising tsunami victims that they move.
For those who want actual advice: http://www.hexblog.com/ -- a fix which creates a hook to disable the affected code. The fix has been analyzed by Steve Gibson.