My cell phone has voice recognition. My 486 @ 25mhz had voice recognition, are you saying my 400mhz PocketPC can't?! Regardless, I personally think voice recognition is a bad idea just because it IS way too loud, and I don't always want people to hear what I'm entering into my PDA.
Bravo! I can just imagine the idiots we already have yelling confidential information to the whole street... I imagine someone browsing to some ecommerce site and sitting on the train screaming 'Visa - 1234 5678 8765 4321' 'expires 01/02' etc. Imagine them having to repeat the card number multiple times because the device keeps getting a number wrong... Now...I'm sure most of you are saying, 'that'll never happen! no one's that stupid!' I heard some guy in a restaurant giving his company's bank account number to someone on his cellular phone. Even if you're not giving out financial info...how about having to say 'open brittney.mpeg' or 'open slashdot.org' out loud!
I'll take your allergy, and you can have whatever it is about me that makes the mangy little buggers think I like them.
My mom had the same problem. Turns out she unconsciously narrowed her eyes whenever she saw a cat, and among cats, this is a sign of affection. Don't narrow your eyes at them. (yes they can tell the difference between someone narrowing their eyes and someone with narrow eyes, they are looking for the movement as well) I'm not sure if this is what you're doing, but it's something to check. If you just want them to not like you, show your teeth. Give 'em a real big smile, and they'll usually take off, as that's a sign of aggression among many animals. Now, why it is that humans show teeth for friendliness and narrow eyes for anger I dunno, i just know that it's backwards from a lot of other animals.
Here's a potential problem with that scenario. Say some genegeneered species is released into the wild. It's able to overcome the natural indigenous species quickly, but then later entirely dies off due to not being able to handle some other natural circumstance such as a common bacteria or virus, or unnaturally cold or hot season, that the previous, natural species could. Then BOTH species are gone, leaving a big-ass void in the ecosystem. Then the things that depended on there being a species in that part of the "cycle of life" start being effected. It gets progressively uglier from there.
Umm...sure...the new version is going to just supplant the old version worldwide, immediately, including seed banks/embryo banks and agricultural storehouses.....and then have some weakness that would kill it *all* off, again instantly, before us poor dumb bastards could do anything about it. I mean, I would imagine that whoever created the new super mutant would have some stock samples stored away. Then the scientists could just release some stock back into the wild until they can make a newer version that has no weakness to whatever killed it before. You can wash, rinse, repeat forever. Of course, since any takeover of an entire species would take a long enough for us to notice, I don't think that what you're speculating about could ever happen. If any species is made extinct becase of genegineering, it will most likely be one that doesn't contribute much, like the dodo bird. New species are coming into being regularly and old species are going bye-bye. Welcome to planet Earth.
Wow. I thought I was the only one who remembered CP/M. I dug the crazy filesystem. I think I still have a copy of it around here somewhere, on low-density diskettes.
Ok, perhaps this whole MENSA disclaimer was completely dry humor and you were actually already aware of the two grammitcal mistakes...?
If that's the case, it IS funny. =D
Reading a few of mensa babe's other posts, I find myself concluding that mensa babe is a decent troll. Look, at the writing style, (s)he uses. (please don't correct that last sentance for me. I was emulating mensa babe's style) Commas all over the place...it's like kipling on crack. There seem to be many carefully crafted spelling and grammatical mistakes. If 'mensa babe' is either a member of mensa or a babe, I would be very surprised.
Do you think metallica really cares what your opioions are ? Real fans never left Metallica, you are just one of the fringe thiefs and wanna be metallica fan.
I don't care what *their* 'opioions are. I never d/l any of their music, because I own all the albums up to and including justice, and after that, I didn't want any of their shit music. I am no longer a metallica fan, but I still listen to their *good* albums. Real fans insist that their bands make decent music. If you blindly love/buy everything a band makes, even when it totally sucks dick, you're not a fan, you're an idiot.
While we are here, shall we talk about how Halliburton got the Iraq oil contracts without any bidding or other businesses being considered?
IIRC, there were at least 3 bids submitted. While that number may sound small, there really are very few companies with not only the resources to do the job, but who can be mobilised quickly and Halliburton turned in the lowest bid. In my experience, almost all contracts go to a company that *someone* involved in decision making knows something about. People tend to favor those they know, and it does not *have* to be a conflict of interest. For example, I'd rather have my car fixed by someone I know well, and trust, because while another company may be cheaper, I *know* my neighborhood mechanic and trust him to do a good job. I buy computer parts from the computer store I once worked for. I also have recommended that store to many many clients during my time as a consultant. However I don't get any kickbacks for this, I'm just familiar with how that store works, and I trust their hardware. I don't think I'm sinister for doing that. If you think that there's really much true objectivity *anywhere* in this world today....well, I can only hope you'll wake up eventually. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Always has been, always will be.
Ever wonder why the music industry is losing money?
Nope. They have (on balance) fewer acts and (in my opinion) a lot of the acts they have sound like each other. They have been reducing the number of CDs which get released, and that, coupled with fewer artists and (in my opinion) similar sounding CDs is why the music industry is losing money. I find it reprehensible that they can knowingly reduce sales and then turn around and blame the reduction on piracy. They *knew* they were releasing fewer CDs. They *knew* they had fewer artists. However, they continue to blame weak sales on piracy. I haven't purchased a CD from a chain store/big record company in years, and I have no need to. I can find excellent free and cheap music on the internet; I don't need the ??AA telling me what to like. My favorite artist would have to be MC Front-a-lot, and you can download his MP3s right off his page. Fuck the ??AA. I'd personally rather listen to music that was made for the love of it rather than for cash. This may not be best for the artist, in terms of being able to pay bills, but that's not my concern. If someone can make a living doing what they love to do, they're lucky. If not, they'll just have to do it in their spare time like the rest of the world.
An idiot would place him a the 3 year old level and this 3 year-old is filling his pockets with RIAA money. With dolts like this in office, our problems will only get worse.
I'd like to submit that as a U.S. senator, raking in craploads of money both legally and illegally as most politicians do, he is not an idiot. He simply doesn't care about his constituents or their rights. He cares about getting said RIAA money, and keeping his powerful and influential position. Rather than excusing his behavior by implying he is not capable of more, I would prefer to see people condemning him as evil, which I feel to be more appropriate. One does not get as far in politics as Borin' Orrin if one is an idiot. However, being evil (or at least amoral) sure does help.
I mean, this is a game where you pull drivers out of cars, beat them to death, and run over pedestrians while trying to avoid the cops.
No. This is a game where *YOU* apparently did that stuff. The actual game can be 100% completed without ever running over a pedestrian, beating any civilian to death, or harming a single cop. Just because you let your dark side go doesn't mean the game *forces* you to do those things. You can choose to play within most of society's rules (although you do have to kill some criminals, i haven't seen anyone bitching about that) or you can choose to kill innocents and cops. Of course, you aren't really killing anyone, but apparently some people can't tell the difference between GTA and real life. (not the parent poster, i have no problem with people not enjoying the game, only with saying that it forces you to kill innocent 'people')
... if there was a "Star Wars: Death to Ewoks (and Jar Jar)", I'd buy it and play it frequently.
I'd like to see Star Wars: Ewok Autopsy. That would combine my love for cheesy alien autopsy stuff *and* my desire to cut ewoks into pieces. If there was a Jar-Jar expansion, they could charge me full price for it.
This isn't a review. This is a freaking ad for these things. I've seen more in-depth info on freaking packaging. This isn't even a good *description* of these things, just a tiny blurb. I wouldn't buy *anything* based on information this limited. Well, maybe if it had really complex and shiny packaging. That makes *any* product better.
Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then?;-)
Sure! Just provide me a list of names and addresses, and whether you'd like a nutzkick too or just me asking them not to use specious arguments. (and I'll even throw in circular logic, ad hoc assumptions, either/or fallacies and the other major logical missteps that are seen everywhere these days)
Note: For pickers of nits: I'm not saying I'm immune to logical fallacies!! I'm not saying I've never committed them!! All I'm saying is I *try* not to, or at least to qualify or identify them when I do.:)
Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.
I didn't use that as my argument. I simply stated that most Americans were familiar with.com because it started here, and that's all most have ever known. Please read my post again. I said ' Now, does that give us the right to steal all the.coms and not use.co.us? I dunno.' I wouldn't say that I used any argument to say that Americans *should* steal all the.coms.
The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use.co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)
Yeah, well...there wasn't a.co.us for a long time. Maybe people in the U.S. are just used to getting.com since we like...invented the internet. (not algore, but Americans even so) Now, does that give us the right to steal all the.coms and not use.co.us? I dunno. But people here in the U.S. aren't used to using.co.us, or even knowing it exists. Whether it's good or bad or indifferent, most American people assume.com sites are located in the U.S., unless it says different in really big letters on the home page. The reality of the situation doesn't change popular perception, and when most U.S. citizens go to register a domain, they want.com or.net or.org, not any of the other ones available, which I believe is because they're the most familiar to the most American people.
The difference is that I'm paying for your computer, internet, gaming subscription, food, rent, and power. I'm not too fond of paying for your PhD, either. Your freedom to live the way you want to should stop somewhere around the point it deprives me of property.
You aren't paying for my anything.:) Although I would be happy to offer my consulting services to you. My rates aren't very reasonable, but I can make a mean gimlet.... I think you missed the part where I said 'if they can afford it.' I don't think anywhere in any of my posts have I advocated a welfare state. If someone is on welfare or other public assistance, then they are not free to spend their time as they wish; in theory, at least. No, I specifically inserted the 'if they can afford it' part as a caveat to my position. If someone is sponging off the government, they shouldn't be able to afford a good computer, fast connection, and AO subscription fee anyway. If they're sponging off friends, parents, etc, then it's up to those providing the cash to set the rules.
While you do make excellent points, I don't believe that the activity's value has any relevance. The question is: should we dictate people's behavior, whether it would be 'better' for them or not? (I'm not referring to dictating behavior with regards to other people. I'm just talking about telling people what they can and cannot do with their own time or money.) I don't believe we should, even if *I* think they would be using their time more positively. I've learned a lot because of TV. I'm not saying I learned it all *on* TV. However, there have been many times I've seen something on TV that encourages me to research. Now, not everyone's going to do that. I apply this to just about anything. You get out of anything (even watching TV) what you put into it. You can learn from TV, or sleep through a symphony or play. If someone can have a truly happy life by playing games, or watching TV, or even listening to crap pop, then I think they have done very well for themselves. Now, they may not be able to comport themselves with dignity at high tea with the Queen, but I doubt they will need to. I imagine that back when books were just starting to become popular, people had the same sorts of arguments against them. "Why, all my Johnny does these days is sit around with a stupid book! He doesn't even participate in the oral tradition anymore! I remember the classics, like Arunamagar the Storyteller....now *that* was worthwhile! How can an inanimate object tell a story like a person can? Kids aren't going to get anywhere with these mindless 'books.'"
Tv, movies, books, gardening etc. are all things that are viable alternatives to gaming. In disagreeing (flaming) with me, you actually wound up paraphrasing me. Go garden, read a book, get your offline affairs in order IN ADDITION TO your online ones. A UPO degree was just an example of a "more constructive" use of time. "more constructive" of course is completely subjective and my example was just a for instance. Calm down
Don't worry, I'm plenty calm. However, you missed my point entirely. I was saying that people have the right to spend their time however they wish; they are not obligated to diversify if they do not wish to. I was simply pointing out that one may choose to spend *all* of one's time on the aforementioned activites, and that this would not generally be considered a 'less constructive' use of time, even did they exclude gaming! I did not flame you. I simply refuted your post. I also did not paraphrase you. I understood that you meant IN ADDITION TO. I, however, did not. I meant EXCLUSIVELY. I would like to point out that forcing people to diversify their activities is just as wrong as forcing people to narrow them. Let me encapsulate my point in one sentance for you, so that you may see I am in no way paraphrasing you: People can spend their time in whatever way they wish, and are able to. (This includes spending 12 hours a day online, if they can afford to.) Please point out to me where I flamed you, and also please know that no matter how you *read* my words, I'm typing them very calmly.:) Life's too short to think everyone who disagrees with you is personally attacking you.
I have to ask the question, how many people want to be hardcore gamers?
I don't think true hard-core gamers aspire to that title. They just are. Like hard-core anything else, the majority do it because they love it, and don't care if someone else thinks they are hard-core or not. Hint: if someone talks about how hard-core they are about anything, they're usually just talking. Not always, but usually. This applies anywhere there is a scene.
It appears that magazines such as EDGE (UK) are always raving at hard-core gamers as if they were the elite of gaming style.
That's because they *are*, for better or worse.
Although games should be recognised as an art form, I find the term to be alienating for people who don't have the time or resources to choose the latest hits.
Well, if you don't *find* the time or resources for the latest and greatest games, you probably are not a hard-core gamer. I've been in and out of poverty many times in my life, but I've always found ways to pursue the things that are most important to me. I'm not a hard-core gamer, although I love playing games of all types and I own quite a few consoles and various accessories, as well as many PC games. I don't feel insulted by this, cause the whole point of 'hard-core' is the relatively few individuals that make up the 'core' of the scene, with many many times their number being in the casual to devoted fan range. To be hard-core means to value (activity X) more than just about anything else. There are those kind of people in every scene I can think of. Don't be insulted if you aren't a hard-core gamer. Just play games when you want to, and don't feel you *have* to be hard-core.
Actually it was a serious question. I really want to know why gaming is a "skill". When I was 12 I played the piano, I was in swimming lessons, played baseball and was active in scouts.
I'd say playing the piano or knowing how to revive humans or being able to survive [to a limited degree] in the woods is a heck of alot better than being a lvl200 Daemon dude with a +12 Sword.
So I suppose someone who is good at baseball has no skills? If you don't believe gaming takes skill, then why don't we have a small competition some time? I'll pick something that I consider myself to be 'skilled' in, and if you can beat me without developing skills of your own, I'll concede the point. Also, why does what *you* consider to be 'better' apply to anyone else? Perhaps playing the piano or reviving humans or surviving in the woods is someone else's idea of 'wasted time,' but no one's suggesting that if you do those things, you should be forced to stop and play games. Why don't people use their time in the way they want to? What business is it of *yours* if they're 'wasting time' or not? Isn't it theirs to waste?
Games like Everquest, DAOC, Shadowbane, AO, UO, etc. are great ways to kill some time and be relatively sociable at the same time, but if you took the average gamer's log of online gaming hours and re-invested those same hours in something like The University of Pheonix Online, they would have a Ph. D or two by now.
Sure, if *any* college cost 12.95 a month for access limited only to available time. Of course, since a degree from UPO costs around 50 grand.... it would only take you around 3861 months to pay for it with the same money you're spending on AO. How is a person playing a ton of games any different from people that read 30+ books a month? Aren't they spending all their time in a virtual universe too? You know, *they* could just get a degree instead....of course, I guess it doesn't matter that each individual person makes their own choices. *You* think time would be better spent a certain way, so if someone doesn't spend it that way, they are 'losing sight of reality.' Perhaps the millions of TV junkies, game addicts, book freaks, gardening fools, etc don't *want* a University of Phoenix Online degree. Maybe they don't *want* to substitute whatever *your* personal choice would be. Maybe they *like* to spend their time how *they* choose to. When you start telling people how to spend their time, even if you think it's 'better,' we get a little closer to living in a country where an elite few impose their will on everyone. You'd probably be up in arms about someone telling you you had to drop out of school to watch tv, or just sit around....but the principle is the same. I fear people who say they know what's 'best for everyone' because they don't know *me* and I may not agree with them. Not that it matters, but I play video games, watch TV, watch movies, read about 15 books a month, and build things out of wood, metal, and plastic for fun. I'm not a rabid gaming fanboy, but I don't think games are any less valid as entertainment or escape than any other form of entertainment. You can learn from just about any activity, even watching TV.
All Americans should be given maps and be made to study it. It is embarrasing!!
I know my geology. Dutch is right over there by Swedenland. I think what's embarrassing is your command (or lack thereof) of the English language. All Danes should be given books of the Enlgish language and be made to study it.
Yes, there would still be a *possibility* for making money, but there wouldn't be any *need* for it. Money is a way for most people to get goods and services, and is a way for rich people to keep score. If anything could be freely copied, the need to use money to get goods diminishes to nothing in a very short time, and the rich people lose their way to keep score. Wahh. I think one big problem would be standards. It would be like OSS, only truly applied to everything. There wouldn't be a relatively small group with the power to introduce new tech, either. If you think the rate of change is high *now*, imagine what it would be if people could freely innovate without regard to cost. I don't think the problem a few posts back about a 'monocar' culture would be the problem. Rather, the problem would be in determining what's *worth* copying and what isn't. Perhaps you could receive social status by introducing copy-worthy designs and innovations, rather than by possessing the most colored squares of clothy paper. Of course, the question would be: if there was no need to have a job to feed your family, who would maintain the roads? Who would pick up trash? Who would make sure the sanitation plants were still functioning? Would doctors and nurses still do their jobs? What would we do with the dictators that wouldn't allow access to replicators for their citizens, while copying massive amounts of weapons? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd want some budding world-ruler-wannabe copying cruise missles or bombers....also, if you could copy *anything*...what happens to the first guy that accidentally clones himself? Which one is the 'real' one? I guess there are just a lot of things that we couldn't possibly predict; the law of unintended consequences will probably kill us all, sooner or later. That's why I smoke and eat food that tastes good and flirt with women and try to stress less. Worry will kill you before most of the things you're worrying about will.
True, but on the other hand I'm afraid it would be a bad thing for innovation. Who will be motivated enough to put lots of time, effort and money in developing new stuff, if they know they won't ever sell more than a few items?
This is the same argument the RI** uses: if no one thought they could get rich, they wouldn't bother making music/movies. That's demonstrably crap. There have been musicians and entertainers as long as there have been humans. Why would that change, just because we got rid of the outdated, bloated overlords of entertainment? It's not the artists these guys are afraid of losing. It's the executives.
Slashdot Mirror
My cell phone has voice recognition. My 486 @ 25mhz had voice recognition, are you saying my 400mhz PocketPC can't?! Regardless, I personally think voice recognition is a bad idea just because it IS way too loud, and I don't always want people to hear what I'm entering into my PDA.
Bravo! I can just imagine the idiots we already have yelling confidential information to the whole street...
I imagine someone browsing to some ecommerce site and sitting on the train screaming 'Visa - 1234 5678 8765 4321' 'expires 01/02' etc.
Imagine them having to repeat the card number multiple times because the device keeps getting a number wrong...
Now...I'm sure most of you are saying, 'that'll never happen! no one's that stupid!'
I heard some guy in a restaurant giving his company's bank account number to someone on his cellular phone. Even if you're not giving out financial info...how about having to say 'open brittney.mpeg' or 'open slashdot.org' out loud!
I'll take your allergy, and you can have whatever it is about me that makes the mangy little buggers think I like them.
My mom had the same problem. Turns out she unconsciously narrowed her eyes whenever she saw a cat, and among cats, this is a sign of affection. Don't narrow your eyes at them. (yes they can tell the difference between someone narrowing their eyes and someone with narrow eyes, they are looking for the movement as well)
I'm not sure if this is what you're doing, but it's something to check. If you just want them to not like you, show your teeth. Give 'em a real big smile, and they'll usually take off, as that's a sign of aggression among many animals.
Now, why it is that humans show teeth for friendliness and narrow eyes for anger I dunno, i just know that it's backwards from a lot of other animals.
Here's a potential problem with that scenario. Say some genegeneered species is released into the wild. It's able to overcome the natural indigenous species quickly, but then later entirely dies off due to not being able to handle some other natural circumstance such as a common bacteria or virus, or unnaturally cold or hot season, that the previous, natural species could. Then BOTH species are gone, leaving a big-ass void in the ecosystem. Then the things that depended on there being a species in that part of the "cycle of life" start being effected. It gets progressively uglier from there.
Umm...sure...the new version is going to just supplant the old version worldwide, immediately, including seed banks/embryo banks and agricultural storehouses.....and then have some weakness that would kill it *all* off, again instantly, before us poor dumb bastards could do anything about it. I mean, I would imagine that whoever created the new super mutant would have some stock samples stored away. Then the scientists could just release some stock back into the wild until they can make a newer version that has no weakness to whatever killed it before. You can wash, rinse, repeat forever. Of course, since any takeover of an entire species would take a long enough for us to notice, I don't think that what you're speculating about could ever happen. If any species is made extinct becase of genegineering, it will most likely be one that doesn't contribute much, like the dodo bird. New species are coming into being regularly and old species are going bye-bye. Welcome to planet Earth.
Wow. I thought I was the only one who remembered CP/M. I dug the crazy filesystem. I think I still have a copy of it around here somewhere, on low-density diskettes.
Ok, perhaps this whole MENSA disclaimer was completely dry humor and you were actually already aware of the two grammitcal mistakes...?
If that's the case, it IS funny. =D
Reading a few of mensa babe's other posts, I find myself concluding that mensa babe is a decent troll. Look, at the writing style, (s)he uses. (please don't correct that last sentance for me. I was emulating mensa babe's style) Commas all over the place...it's like kipling on crack. There seem to be many carefully crafted spelling and grammatical mistakes. If 'mensa babe' is either a member of mensa or a babe, I would be very surprised.
Do you think metallica really cares what your opioions are ? Real fans never left Metallica, you are just one of the fringe thiefs and wanna be metallica fan.
I don't care what *their* 'opioions are. I never d/l any of their music, because I own all the albums up to and including justice, and after that, I didn't want any of their shit music. I am no longer a metallica fan, but I still listen to their *good* albums. Real fans insist that their bands make decent music. If you blindly love/buy everything a band makes, even when it totally sucks dick, you're not a fan, you're an idiot.
While we are here, shall we talk about how Halliburton got the Iraq oil contracts without any bidding or other businesses being considered?
IIRC, there were at least 3 bids submitted. While that number may sound small, there really are very few companies with not only the resources to do the job, but who can be mobilised quickly and Halliburton turned in the lowest bid. In my experience, almost all contracts go to a company that *someone* involved in decision making knows something about. People tend to favor those they know, and it does not *have* to be a conflict of interest. For example, I'd rather have my car fixed by someone I know well, and trust, because while another company may be cheaper, I *know* my neighborhood mechanic and trust him to do a good job. I buy computer parts from the computer store I once worked for. I also have recommended that store to many many clients during my time as a consultant. However I don't get any kickbacks for this, I'm just familiar with how that store works, and I trust their hardware. I don't think I'm sinister for doing that. If you think that there's really much true objectivity *anywhere* in this world today....well, I can only hope you'll wake up eventually. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Always has been, always will be.
Ever wonder why the music industry is losing money?
Nope. They have (on balance) fewer acts and (in my opinion) a lot of the acts they have sound like each other. They have been reducing the number of CDs which get released, and that, coupled with fewer artists and (in my opinion) similar sounding CDs is why the music industry is losing money. I find it reprehensible that they can knowingly reduce sales and then turn around and blame the reduction on piracy. They *knew* they were releasing fewer CDs. They *knew* they had fewer artists. However, they continue to blame weak sales on piracy. I haven't purchased a CD from a chain store/big record company in years, and I have no need to. I can find excellent free and cheap music on the internet; I don't need the ??AA telling me what to like.
My favorite artist would have to be MC Front-a-lot, and you can download his MP3s right off his page.
Fuck the ??AA. I'd personally rather listen to music that was made for the love of it rather than for cash. This may not be best for the artist, in terms of being able to pay bills, but that's not my concern. If someone can make a living doing what they love to do, they're lucky. If not, they'll just have to do it in their spare time like the rest of the world.
An idiot would place him a the 3 year old level and this 3 year-old is filling his pockets with RIAA money. With dolts like this in office, our problems will only get worse.
I'd like to submit that as a U.S. senator, raking in craploads of money both legally and illegally as most politicians do, he is not an idiot. He simply doesn't care about his constituents or their rights. He cares about getting said RIAA money, and keeping his powerful and influential position. Rather than excusing his behavior by implying he is not capable of more, I would prefer to see people condemning him as evil, which I feel to be more appropriate. One does not get as far in politics as Borin' Orrin if one is an idiot. However, being evil (or at least amoral) sure does help.
I mean, this is a game where you pull drivers out of cars, beat them to death, and run over pedestrians while trying to avoid the cops.
No. This is a game where *YOU* apparently did that stuff. The actual game can be 100% completed without ever running over a pedestrian, beating any civilian to death, or harming a single cop. Just because you let your dark side go doesn't mean the game *forces* you to do those things. You can choose to play within most of society's rules (although you do have to kill some criminals, i haven't seen anyone bitching about that) or you can choose to kill innocents and cops. Of course, you aren't really killing anyone, but apparently some people can't tell the difference between GTA and real life. (not the parent poster, i have no problem with people not enjoying the game, only with saying that it forces you to kill innocent 'people')
... if there was a "Star Wars: Death to Ewoks (and Jar Jar)", I'd buy it and play it frequently.
I'd like to see Star Wars: Ewok Autopsy.
That would combine my love for cheesy alien autopsy stuff *and* my desire to cut ewoks into pieces. If there was a Jar-Jar expansion, they could charge me full price for it.
This isn't a review. This is a freaking ad for these things. I've seen more in-depth info on freaking packaging. This isn't even a good *description* of these things, just a tiny blurb.
I wouldn't buy *anything* based on information this limited. Well, maybe if it had really complex and shiny packaging. That makes *any* product better.
Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then? ;-)
:)
Sure! Just provide me a list of names and addresses, and whether you'd like a nutzkick too or just me asking them not to use specious arguments. (and I'll even throw in circular logic, ad hoc assumptions, either/or fallacies and the other major logical missteps that are seen everywhere these days)
Note: For pickers of nits:
I'm not saying I'm immune to logical fallacies!!
I'm not saying I've never committed them!!
All I'm saying is I *try* not to, or at least to qualify or identify them when I do.
Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.
.com because it started here, and that's all most have ever known. Please read my post again. I said ' .coms and not use .co.us? I dunno.' .coms.
I didn't use that as my argument. I simply stated that most Americans were familiar with
Now, does that give us the right to steal all the
I wouldn't say that I used any argument to say that Americans *should* steal all the
The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)
.co.us for a long time. Maybe people in the U.S. are just used to getting .com since we like...invented the internet. (not algore, but Americans even so) .coms and not use .co.us? .co.us, or even knowing it exists. Whether it's good or bad or indifferent, most American people assume .com sites are located in the U.S., unless it says different in really big letters on the home page. The reality of the situation doesn't change popular perception, and when most U.S. citizens go to register a domain, they want .com or .net or .org, not any of the other ones available, which I believe is because they're the most familiar to the most American people.
Yeah, well...there wasn't a
Now, does that give us the right to steal all the
I dunno. But people here in the U.S. aren't used to using
The difference is that I'm paying for your computer, internet, gaming subscription, food, rent, and power. I'm not too fond of paying for your PhD, either. Your freedom to live the way you want to should stop somewhere around the point it deprives me of property.
:) Although I would be happy to offer my consulting services to you. My rates aren't very reasonable, but I can make a mean gimlet....
You aren't paying for my anything.
I think you missed the part where I said 'if they can afford it.' I don't think anywhere in any of my posts have I advocated a welfare state. If someone is on welfare or other public assistance, then they are not free to spend their time as they wish; in theory, at least. No, I specifically inserted the 'if they can afford it' part as a caveat to my position. If someone is sponging off the government, they shouldn't be able to afford a good computer, fast connection, and AO subscription fee anyway. If they're sponging off friends, parents, etc, then it's up to those providing the cash to set the rules.
While you do make excellent points, I don't believe that the activity's value has any relevance. The question is: should we dictate people's behavior, whether it would be 'better' for them or not? (I'm not referring to dictating behavior with regards to other people. I'm just talking about telling people what they can and cannot do with their own time or money.) I don't believe we should, even if *I* think they would be using their time more positively. I've learned a lot because of TV. I'm not saying I learned it all *on* TV. However, there have been many times I've seen something on TV that encourages me to research. Now, not everyone's going to do that. I apply this to just about anything. You get out of anything (even watching TV) what you put into it. You can learn from TV, or sleep through a symphony or play. If someone can have a truly happy life by playing games, or watching TV, or even listening to crap pop, then I think they have done very well for themselves. Now, they may not be able to comport themselves with dignity at high tea with the Queen, but I doubt they will need to. I imagine that back when books were just starting to become popular, people had the same sorts of arguments against them. "Why, all my Johnny does these days is sit around with a stupid book! He doesn't even participate in the oral tradition anymore! I remember the classics, like Arunamagar the Storyteller....now *that* was worthwhile! How can an inanimate object tell a story like a person can? Kids aren't going to get anywhere with these mindless 'books.'"
Tv, movies, books, gardening etc. are all things that are viable alternatives to gaming. In disagreeing (flaming) with me, you actually wound up paraphrasing me. Go garden, read a book, get your offline affairs in order IN ADDITION TO your online ones. A UPO degree was just an example of a "more constructive" use of time. "more constructive" of course is completely subjective and my example was just a for instance. Calm down
:) Life's too short to think everyone who disagrees with you is personally attacking you.
Don't worry, I'm plenty calm. However, you missed my point entirely. I was saying that people have the right to spend their time however they wish; they are not obligated to diversify if they do not wish to. I was simply pointing out that one may choose to spend *all* of one's time on the aforementioned activites, and that this would not generally be considered a 'less constructive' use of time, even did they exclude gaming!
I did not flame you. I simply refuted your post. I also did not paraphrase you. I understood that you meant IN ADDITION TO. I, however, did not. I meant EXCLUSIVELY. I would like to point out that forcing people to diversify their activities is just as wrong as forcing people to narrow them. Let me encapsulate my point in one sentance for you, so that you may see I am in no way paraphrasing you: People can spend their time in whatever way they wish, and are able to. (This includes spending 12 hours a day online, if they can afford to.)
Please point out to me where I flamed you, and also please know that no matter how you *read* my words, I'm typing them very calmly.
Ooo! Ooo! Teach me the Enlgish language too!
Hmm. Perhaps I'll be a little less subtle next time. Then perhaps you'll get it.
I have to ask the question, how many people want to be hardcore gamers?
I don't think true hard-core gamers aspire to that title. They just are. Like hard-core anything else, the majority do it because they love it, and don't care if someone else thinks they are hard-core or not. Hint: if someone talks about how hard-core they are about anything, they're usually just talking. Not always, but usually. This applies anywhere there is a scene.
It appears that magazines such as EDGE (UK) are always raving at hard-core gamers as if they were the elite of gaming style.
That's because they *are*, for better or worse.
Although games should be recognised as an art form, I find the term to be alienating for people who don't have the time or resources to choose the latest hits.
Well, if you don't *find* the time or resources for the latest and greatest games, you probably are not a hard-core gamer. I've been in and out of poverty many times in my life, but I've always found ways to pursue the things that are most important to me. I'm not a hard-core gamer, although I love playing games of all types and I own quite a few consoles and various accessories, as well as many PC games. I don't feel insulted by this, cause the whole point of 'hard-core' is the relatively few individuals that make up the 'core' of the scene, with many many times their number being in the casual to devoted fan range. To be hard-core means to value (activity X) more than just about anything else. There are those kind of people in every scene I can think of. Don't be insulted if you aren't a hard-core gamer. Just play games when you want to, and don't feel you *have* to be hard-core.
Actually it was a serious question. I really want to know why gaming is a "skill". When I was 12 I played the piano, I was in swimming lessons, played baseball and was active in scouts.
I'd say playing the piano or knowing how to revive humans or being able to survive [to a limited degree] in the woods is a heck of alot better than being a lvl200 Daemon dude with a +12 Sword.
So I suppose someone who is good at baseball has no skills? If you don't believe gaming takes skill, then why don't we have a small competition some time? I'll pick something that I consider myself to be 'skilled' in, and if you can beat me without developing skills of your own, I'll concede the point.
Also, why does what *you* consider to be 'better' apply to anyone else? Perhaps playing the piano or reviving humans or surviving in the woods is someone else's idea of 'wasted time,' but no one's suggesting that if you do those things, you should be forced to stop and play games. Why don't people use their time in the way they want to? What business is it of *yours* if they're 'wasting time' or not? Isn't it theirs to waste?
Games like Everquest, DAOC, Shadowbane, AO, UO, etc. are great ways to kill some time and be relatively sociable at the same time, but if you took the average gamer's log of online gaming hours and re-invested those same hours in something like The University of Pheonix Online, they would have a Ph. D or two by now.
Sure, if *any* college cost 12.95 a month for access limited only to available time. Of course, since a degree from UPO costs around 50 grand....
it would only take you around 3861 months to pay for it with the same money you're spending on AO.
How is a person playing a ton of games any different from people that read 30+ books a month? Aren't they spending all their time in a virtual universe too? You know, *they* could just get a degree instead....of course, I guess it doesn't matter that each individual person makes their own choices. *You* think time would be better spent a certain way, so if someone doesn't spend it that way, they are 'losing sight of reality.'
Perhaps the millions of TV junkies, game addicts, book freaks, gardening fools, etc don't *want* a University of Phoenix Online degree. Maybe they don't *want* to substitute whatever *your* personal choice would be. Maybe they *like* to spend their time how *they* choose to. When you start telling people how to spend their time, even if you think it's 'better,' we get a little closer to living in a country where an elite few impose their will on everyone. You'd probably be up in arms about someone telling you you had to drop out of school to watch tv, or just sit around....but the principle is the same. I fear people who say they know what's 'best for everyone' because they don't know *me* and I may not agree with them. Not that it matters, but I play video games, watch TV, watch movies, read about 15 books a month, and build things out of wood, metal, and plastic for fun. I'm not a rabid gaming fanboy, but I don't think games are any less valid as entertainment or escape than any other form of entertainment. You can learn from just about any activity, even watching TV.
All Americans should be given maps and be made to study it. It is embarrasing!!
I know my geology. Dutch is right over there by Swedenland. I think what's embarrassing is your command (or lack thereof) of the English language. All Danes should be given books of the Enlgish language and be made to study it.
Yes, there would still be a *possibility* for making money, but there wouldn't be any *need* for it. Money is a way for most people to get goods and services, and is a way for rich people to keep score. If anything could be freely copied, the need to use money to get goods diminishes to nothing in a very short time, and the rich people lose their way to keep score. Wahh. I think one big problem would be standards. It would be like OSS, only truly applied to everything. There wouldn't be a relatively small group with the power to introduce new tech, either. If you think the rate of change is high *now*, imagine what it would be if people could freely innovate without regard to cost. I don't think the problem a few posts back about a 'monocar' culture would be the problem. Rather, the problem would be in determining what's *worth* copying and what isn't. Perhaps you could receive social status by introducing copy-worthy designs and innovations, rather than by possessing the most colored squares of clothy paper. Of course, the question would be: if there was no need to have a job to feed your family, who would maintain the roads? Who would pick up trash? Who would make sure the sanitation plants were still functioning? Would doctors and nurses still do their jobs? What would we do with the dictators that wouldn't allow access to replicators for their citizens, while copying massive amounts of weapons? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd want some budding world-ruler-wannabe copying cruise missles or bombers....also, if you could copy *anything*...what happens to the first guy that accidentally clones himself? Which one is the 'real' one?
I guess there are just a lot of things that we couldn't possibly predict; the law of unintended consequences will probably kill us all, sooner or later. That's why I smoke and eat food that tastes good and flirt with women and try to stress less. Worry will kill you before most of the things you're worrying about will.
True, but on the other hand I'm afraid it would be a bad thing for innovation. Who will be motivated enough to put lots of time, effort and money in developing new stuff, if they know they won't ever sell more than a few items?
This is the same argument the RI** uses: if no one thought they could get rich, they wouldn't bother making music/movies. That's demonstrably crap. There have been musicians and entertainers as long as there have been humans. Why would that change, just because we got rid of the outdated, bloated overlords of entertainment? It's not the artists these guys are afraid of losing. It's the executives.