He can probably figure out chess too - but that doesn't make him a grand master. Thanks for your snootie comment. Go back to your level treadmill.
Seriously, this game is driven by creative thinking. There are differnet kinds of puzzles though they mostly all involve arranging shapes and colors. The point is if you are good at this, you will win against others who are not as good.
However, time invested does not count for nothing - you can invest in better tools with your credits ("swords") that give you a little leg up in dueling.
See this. Game Rankings really got an unbalanced percentage. Anyway, onto my comments.
I played this game for a while. It has a lot of depth and it solves the BIGGEST problem in MMORPG - namely idiots with a lot of time can dominate you. With this game, intelligence counts for a lot - namely your ability to do tetris-style puzzles.
It also has a lot of teamwork - you need to work together to get a ship from port to port. It also has a big time element - it takes time to build new swords, to buy a new ship, etc.
Or if you want, you can just stand in the town center and duel people for money.
Hiya,
Wow. Lotta comments on my 'sig.' True, it's not in the proper 'sig' location - mostly cause I didn't take the time to do that. I was just making the post because I honest to God wanted to know how much it cost, and though - hey, I should include my referral link at the end.
I'm sorry it hurt your feelings and angered you so much that you had to see my referral to get a game system. I really don't see what the big deal is. It's not a scam - I got an Ipod from these guys.
Anyone know what a registrar has to pay per domain?
I get mine for $5 at icdsoft. I just had a client go out and pay $140 for two years with NetworkSolutions. There is a big variation. I can bet that when Google starts letting people register, no one will be paying Network Solutions that much anymore.
Sig: Be one of the 4 to complete an offer to help me get a free console and I paypal you $10. Help me out!
Just because it's government funded doesn't mean it can be restricted.
Actually, yes it does. There are several types of speech not protected by the first amendment. Clearly, religious expression is not one of them (as in the case you cited), but obscinity certainly is and that is the basis the principal can veto it.
Similarly, notice the restrictions that the govment puts on the public airwaves that it liscences. Contitutional, yes. Good policy? That is up for discussion.
X% of students think the government should approve news stories before they are published, and X% of students think that flag burning should be illegal.
Editors wet their panties saying "THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT."
No, the amendment is irrelevant to the question the student was asked. Yes, there is an amendment that under current court jurisprudence makes both of those things the students favor unconstitutional, but that amendment, nor the jurisprudence, are absolute. Both may be over-written or abandoned at any time. In time, these students will be old enough to approve such changes to the Constitution through their representatives, or to elect such representatives who will appoint justices who do not share the current court's opinion on these matters.
And why should they? The education system today tries to ram such ideas into children's minds - 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'the First Amendment' - as though they are dogma without explaining the reasons why they are valid ideas. It grows out of a mentality in education and other academic fields that rejects reason - these students don't need to know why these concepts are valid or not.
Ironically, isn't this the result of the kind of 'critical thinking' that is suppose to be encouraged towards more conservative ideas?
It is clear from the language that you are dealing with a non-US based, frontline tech support guy who uses English as a second language - barely. And you are surprised?
So you would rather they not have had that donated, 100mhz machine at all to search for missing people? The only reason they have that is because the parent poster donated so he could buy a 4ghz machine to look at farm animals being molested.
No, I think there is definitly enough in there for them to be able to grab onto. Much of it, yes, out of reach, but you can still get some basic good novels in there.
In the great tradition of/., you didn't RTFA.Maybe if you had you'd have seen that your concern is addressed in the Xbox2. They are going to have the unique textures that normally consume a lot of artist time be generated by the GPU with random elements, eliminating the need for nearly as many artist.
It does always choose the best options - even in the examples you give. VHS was the "best" because it did not have the licensing policies. That is what made it "best." Amiga was not the best option because there was poor information on it? Or maybe its cost was out of line? You can't build a supercomputer in your basement and not tell anyone about it, and then blame the market for not choosing the "best" option.
One of the great things about the market is we don't have armchair morons deciding what is really "best" and we can make that decision as individuals.
If you want *real* examples of the best not being chosen, look to where there is no free market. The US Postal service, the Soviet grocery store, the French equity market, the US military's M-16, etc.
Ignore these clowns. They are trying to argue with me about what is essentially gravity and are picking at a really lame point. Namely because I said if you "buy" the car you can put it in your movie, and because most major TV/movies get the cars for free (unless they destroy them on-screen), my whole argument is invalid.
You can use a real car, one you own or not, driving down the street, along with a building that is publicly visable - with no legal problem. You just can't re-create it in a video game. It's comparable to starting to build and sell a 'Ferrari' out of your garage. You can't do that. It's really pretty simple but this being/. don't expect that to affect anything.
Keep this in mind when you think about window's dominance in the market, or any other product that rose to the top through whatever questionable means. The paper in which these two economists wrote about Dvorak not being better than Qwerty was actually a paper in which they were saying "The market always chooses the best option." The keyboards were just the whipping boy they chose to use.
The market does always choose the best option. Always. There are two flaws in your analysis:
1) You are not considering all the costs of the Dvorak keyboard - namely the transition costs of re-learning for everyone, including myself. Are you saying things would be better if something other than the market choose what kind of keyboard I should have? Are you aware how much of the established market efficiency would be broken by the establishment of such a regime? Also, these days, the gains from such a switch would be minimal compared to the costs.
2) In the example of Strong, it did not involve a 'market', but a government. Government results are often in contravention of market forces because they are not succeptable to all of the consequences of their decisions in a market environment.
Not that this matters terribly - we are probably a generation away from a neural interface for keyboarding anyway.
No, you not have a right in US law to plastic toilet seats. On that note, I think low-flow toilets are mandated by law.
So similarly, there is no right to anonymity - in the law.
But the moral basis to allows you to have plastic toilet seats is that property rights are causal. Life is good, life requires property, property is only created if property rights for the creator come with them. No one builds cars for someone else - without compensation.
But a right to anonymity? Is it in the law? No. Is it moral? No. Can you even explain what you mean by a right to anonymity? Should you be able to board a plane anonymously - without your name even being revealed to the airline who may or may not voluntarily give it over to a government agency?
Where did this right come from? What document can you find it in? When did anyone vote to establish it? What is it's historical precedence? What is the moral basis of this right?
Slashdot Mirror
In this situation, it's probably much easier to slightly alter the puzzle than to create a program to keep up with the changes.
Seriously, this game is driven by creative thinking. There are differnet kinds of puzzles though they mostly all involve arranging shapes and colors. The point is if you are good at this, you will win against others who are not as good.
However, time invested does not count for nothing - you can invest in better tools with your credits ("swords") that give you a little leg up in dueling.
I played this game for a while. It has a lot of depth and it solves the BIGGEST problem in MMORPG - namely idiots with a lot of time can dominate you. With this game, intelligence counts for a lot - namely your ability to do tetris-style puzzles.
It also has a lot of teamwork - you need to work together to get a ship from port to port. It also has a big time element - it takes time to build new swords, to buy a new ship, etc.
Or if you want, you can just stand in the town center and duel people for money.
Why do you ask? Thanks for signing up - once it shows me you as completing I'll paypal you the $10. Thanks.
I'm sorry it hurt your feelings and angered you so much that you had to see my referral to get a game system. I really don't see what the big deal is. It's not a scam - I got an Ipod from these guys.
Besides, if you have time to argue so much on /., surely you are in need of $10 for completing an offer.
Oh. Ok. That's all I wanted to know. I suppose that ICDSoft and Yahoo are selling them at a loss.
I have never been able to spell that word correctly.
I get mine for $5 at icdsoft. I just had a client go out and pay $140 for two years with NetworkSolutions. There is a big variation. I can bet that when Google starts letting people register, no one will be paying Network Solutions that much anymore.
Sig: Be one of the 4 to complete an offer to help me get a free console and I paypal you $10. Help me out!
Actually, yes it does. There are several types of speech not protected by the first amendment. Clearly, religious expression is not one of them (as in the case you cited), but obscinity certainly is and that is the basis the principal can veto it.
Similarly, notice the restrictions that the govment puts on the public airwaves that it liscences. Contitutional, yes. Good policy? That is up for discussion.
Just a quick follow-up - I know there are a bunch of grammer errors in my post, so please forgive me. I have been writing code most of the day.
Editors wet their panties saying "THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT."
No, the amendment is irrelevant to the question the student was asked. Yes, there is an amendment that under current court jurisprudence makes both of those things the students favor unconstitutional, but that amendment, nor the jurisprudence, are absolute. Both may be over-written or abandoned at any time. In time, these students will be old enough to approve such changes to the Constitution through their representatives, or to elect such representatives who will appoint justices who do not share the current court's opinion on these matters.
And why should they? The education system today tries to ram such ideas into children's minds - 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'the First Amendment' - as though they are dogma without explaining the reasons why they are valid ideas. It grows out of a mentality in education and other academic fields that rejects reason - these students don't need to know why these concepts are valid or not.
Ironically, isn't this the result of the kind of 'critical thinking' that is suppose to be encouraged towards more conservative ideas?
It is clear from the language that you are dealing with a non-US based, frontline tech support guy who uses English as a second language - barely. And you are surprised?
You stupid, dirty hippy. Take a bath.
Besides, this is a teaching opportunity.
In the great tradition of /., you didn't RTFA.Maybe if you had you'd have seen that your concern is addressed in the Xbox2. They are going to have the unique textures that normally consume a lot of artist time be generated by the GPU with random elements, eliminating the need for nearly as many artist.
This may be the least expensive item to include given Project Guttenburg.
It does always choose the best options - even in the examples you give. VHS was the "best" because it did not have the licensing policies. That is what made it "best." Amiga was not the best option because there was poor information on it? Or maybe its cost was out of line? You can't build a supercomputer in your basement and not tell anyone about it, and then blame the market for not choosing the "best" option.
One of the great things about the market is we don't have armchair morons deciding what is really "best" and we can make that decision as individuals.
If you want *real* examples of the best not being chosen, look to where there is no free market. The US Postal service, the Soviet grocery store, the French equity market, the US military's M-16, etc.
You can use a real car, one you own or not, driving down the street, along with a building that is publicly visable - with no legal problem. You just can't re-create it in a video game. It's comparable to starting to build and sell a 'Ferrari' out of your garage. You can't do that. It's really pretty simple but this being /. don't expect that to affect anything.
The market does always choose the best option. Always. There are two flaws in your analysis:
1) You are not considering all the costs of the Dvorak keyboard - namely the transition costs of re-learning for everyone, including myself. Are you saying things would be better if something other than the market choose what kind of keyboard I should have? Are you aware how much of the established market efficiency would be broken by the establishment of such a regime? Also, these days, the gains from such a switch would be minimal compared to the costs.
2) In the example of Strong, it did not involve a 'market', but a government. Government results are often in contravention of market forces because they are not succeptable to all of the consequences of their decisions in a market environment.
Not that this matters terribly - we are probably a generation away from a neural interface for keyboarding anyway.
So similarly, there is no right to anonymity - in the law.
But the moral basis to allows you to have plastic toilet seats is that property rights are causal. Life is good, life requires property, property is only created if property rights for the creator come with them. No one builds cars for someone else - without compensation.
But a right to anonymity? Is it in the law? No. Is it moral? No. Can you even explain what you mean by a right to anonymity? Should you be able to board a plane anonymously - without your name even being revealed to the airline who may or may not voluntarily give it over to a government agency?
I assert it doesn't exist. Privacy, perhaps. Anonymity? Grow up you punk loser and move out of your granny's basement. Internet != reality.
Where did this right come from? What document can you find it in? When did anyone vote to establish it? What is it's historical precedence? What is the moral basis of this right?
"companies who are considered better" - rediculous, stupid statement. And the innovation the parent was refering to was in G's copying A.
Right right, but my point was more generally that it was a useless post.
Please don't let him stop with the above post; it's far too entertaining.
So where were we... oh yeah, how about that DNF on the Phantom?