So what, then, is the real reason for all these people correcting everyone else's little mistakes, besides just maybe wanting to stir people up?
Perhaps he's simply trying to help fill in the gaps in American posters' language skills that the public schooling system has left. Mind you, I'm just offering a possible solution to the above question. I cannot claim to know anyone else's motives, only my own.
Have you ever tried triggers under the XBox controller? You just hate to use DualShock2 controller ever again.
No, I probably should try the new controller, but all I did was pick up the original controller, then put it right back down. I couldn't stand it.
DualShock2 (and any controller that comes with any game console) is something that allows you to play all games but it's not perferct for anything.
I didn't say it was perfect for everything....I should have phrased it like this: Barring specialty (flight sticks, steering wheels, guns, dance pads, etc) controllers, the DualShock2 is the best controller out there for most games.
And all the first person shooters... anybody that claims that console controller is more suitable for that genre of games than keyboard and mouse should go online with some game that allows plaing against PC players and get their feet wet.
Yes, that's why I said they were the worst for FPSs.
One thing I especially hate with game console controllers is that those're designed to be used with thumbs only. Hello? See, I've four other fingers in both hands, why not use those? (Yep, some games support triggers but still using all 10 buttons in the DualShock controller is real pain in the ass.)
That's why most games let you configure the buttons. I know they don't *all* let you map *every* button, but that's the fault of the game designers, who make the control schemes less than intuitive and then don't let you change them. I have found that in almost every game, changing the default controls such that the most important commands are on the shoulders, instead of the pad, helps me immensely. This lends itself especially well to fighters like tekken and virtua fighter, as i have *no* problem hitting any combo of those four buttons. I map less used commands to the pad, because then I can use my thumb to hit them easily. This control scheme has serverd me well in every game that supports button mapping. (which is most of the better ones.)
The problem with all the consoles is lowest common dominator: if something doesn't come with every console it's supported by practically no game. How many games support, for example, more than 2 players on PS2 even though the console can support 8?
Most sports games do. However the reason more games don't support more than 2 players isn't really as much about what comes with the console. If you have 4 split screens, it can be very annoying to play. Games like Gauntlet let you have 4 people on the screen at the same time, but then you had to coordinate to move around in the world. Most sports games let you have 4 or 8 players, and they're probably the ones you most want to do that with. Fighting games that support more than 2 players are pretty rare anywhere, not just on consoles...driving games becaome unplayable with a 4 player splitscreen, unless you're rich. I personally would rather wait my turn than only get to see a 6" square on the screen. Also, there are a lot of 1 player games out there. This isn't because the console only has 2 controller ports. They're just single player games. There's never going to be a 'perfect' controller that is perfect for every type of game. Having said that, compared to every controller I've personally used heavily, which include the atari joystick, the intellivision pad thing that you hadda put overlays on, colecovision, commodore64 and 128, nes, super nes, sega master system, genesis, saturn, turbographics16, Playstation, N64, PS2, Gamecube, and many many 3rd party controllers for various of the above, as well as gamepads for the pc from a variety of companies, logitech, m$, belkin, various oem stuff...I've never owned a gameboy, don't own an xbox, and I never had an amiga...but other than that, if it's a console controller, I've probably worn at least one out. Well, basically I've always loved video games of every kind, and played them whenever I could. I realize that having no life whatsoever has both pros and cons
You do know that Saddam did all of those awful things, like gasing his own people before the first war. Why wasn't that a good enough reason then?
Ask the UN. They preferred to give saddam another decade in power.
Local taxes support the infrastructure of the city that I live in. State taxes support my state. I don't believe that every cent that I give in taxes - as an American - goes to all "welfare bums". Obviously you have little respect for your fellow Americans who may be in a lower tax bracket than you. Do all of us a favor and please move to a different country. Right now. And take your friends, too.
Welfare recipients do not pay taxes. They do not pay property taxes, they do not pay state income taxes, they do not pay national taxes. Yet they receive a living from other people's taxes. I understand that sometimes people need a little help, however I fail to understand how 'a lifetime of subsistence living paid for by others' is *help*. My problem is not with *a* welfare system, it's with the *current* welfare system. I also believe that people *should* contribute to charity, but that doesn't mean I'm going to propose legislation that not only forces them to, but also specifies the amount they must give, and to whom it will be given.
Also something people need to realize: we only have about half the people in the country paying taxes. How low will that number get before the despised 'rich' who are now paying the vast majority of actual tax dollars decide to go somewhere where they don't have to subsidize the same ratio of people? We have an interesting phenomenon in this country: we all want to have more money, but anyone with more money than us is evil. Of course, I don't see *any* prominent politicians living in habitat for humanity housing and giving every last little bit of their money away. In fact, I was told that one of the senators from WA was 'a great man' because *once a month* he invited a homeless person to dinner. Wow man. Once a month you bring some poor homeless guy into your mansion, and let him have a taste of what you get the rest of the time, then send him back outside. That sure is a 'great man.' Think, people. Politicians don't care about you. They care about your vote, and spending your money. If wealth redistribution is such a good thing, why are the Kennedys still so freaking rich? Not that redistribution would work. If we took every bit of money and property in this country, and distributed it exactly equally to everyone, do you really think it would stay that way? Giving everyone in this country the same amount of money would not make them exactly the same. Also, I see a lot of this 'aww the rich get a bigger tax cut! that isn't fair!' Well no, not if by fair you mean exactly the same for everyone. But if by fair you mean that the people who pay the most in taxes get the biggest benefit, well...shouldn't they? Here's an example for you. Let's say I'm out to dinner with some of my friends, and when the bill comes, I can only pay 10% of it, bob can afford 30% of it, and bill gets stuck with the 60% remaining, plus tip. Now say we get a 30 dollar refund for bad service or food or something. Do we split it evenly, three ways? Of course not. Bill gets 18 bucks, bob gets 9, and I get 3. How would it be fair to split it evenly, when not everyone contributed equally? I'd also like to point out that the tax cut we're getting isn't the one Mr. Bush proposed. It's substantially smaller. If it isn't helping enough people, perhaps you should look to the libbies who killed the larger tax cut.
3) Makes absolutely no sense.
I can't believe that you've read/. more than once and haven't encountered some variation on this lame joke from south park. Sure, the episode was funny, but as a slashdot joke, it's played. seriously played. Even by slashdot standards.
Just one last question for you. How long did you actually serve in the public sector? You seem like such a giving individual that g
I actually asked a CEO friend of mine for a bit of banking advice... christ. My head started spinning very quickly and I gained a newfound respect for the "clueless luser" CEO type.
Yes, it's a normal human tendency to equate intelligence with experience/knowledge in the same areas you personally have them in. Plumbers think most people are idiots because they can't fix basic plumbing problems, mechanics think the same because people can't fix their cars, professors think most people are idiots because they aren't professors, etc. My personal feeling is that this is why so many people seem to think that 'everyone else' in the country is dumb. They forget that to 'everyone else' *they* are everyone else. I saw a survey once where 100 people were asked 'do you think most people are dumb?' and then 'do you think you are dumb?' I wish I could remember where I saw this, because it was really funny. A large portion said that 'most people' were dumb, but about the same portion also said *they* were not dumb. So I guess what it comes down to is that most people think most people are dumb, but that they are not one of them. Kinda amusing, if it didn't have such damaging consequences. It's harder to make decisions for other people if you don't think you know better than they do.
I read the original Extremetech article which details them using the beta version of 3dmark2k3 to "stop" the demo and move the camera outside of the normal rendered path which revealed that nvidia played with their drivers to take a load off the card by not fully renedering everything seen "outside" of the normal view. I would no consider this a cheat, but an optimization. who cares what is not seen by the camera? I give nvidia a pat on the back for this.
You're quite missing the point. nvidia decided to optimize the static path the camera takes through that particular demo. Now, if all games were just static movies, this would be optimization. However, the demo was supposed to simulate an *engine*, not just a pre-determined camera path. Nvidia *only* optimized the textures *on that path*, and in fact made other camera paths look distorted. ATIs cards, on the other hand, had the same quality no matter *which* camera path was taken. This is why it was cheating, not optimization. Optimization would have made *any* camera path run better, not just the default one. What good does it do to 'optimize' only one narrow camera path? I know I'd prefer to be able to look around, maybe move in a direction *I* chose, within a game. This is the equivalent of a pre-rendered cutscene using the 'in game engine' rather than a real-time rendering of the same engine. I don't give anyone a pat on the back for openly cheating.
FWIW, I've had a Radeon 9700 Pro since December '02 and I love it. Used to be an nVidia guy, but I haven't looked back since. I was a bit worried about ATI's drivers, but the Catalyst series have been great.
I switched to a Radeon AIW 9700 Pro about 2 months ago, and I am extremely happy with it. I am a *very* loyal video card buyer, and it was difficult for me to buy an ATI card. I stuck with Diamond as long as I could, but when I could no longer get a Diamond, I switched to nvidia (as my last Viper had an nvidia chipset anyhow) and stuck with them through the Riva, TNT, TNT2, Geforce, geforce2, (couldn't afford a geforce4, but I woulda bought one if I could have:) and I was going to be buying a GeforceFX, but luckily for me my geforce2 died before the FX series came out. Faced with the choice between no PC or an ATI card, (as I didn't want to mess with a temporary cheap card until the FX came out, too much trouble) I chose the ATI card, and I was just blown away. It's been rock solid, and unless nvidia really gets their act together, I won't be buying another card from them. I am no fanboy, I just prefer to work with companies I like and trust (to have a decent product). It seems nvidia is intent on knocking themselves off that list.
Console controllers are the worst game-control devices ever invented.
For first-person shooters, maybe. (and some RTS games, of which very few make it to consoles) The DualShock2 is the best controller out there for just about everything else. It's comfortable, it has intelligently placed buttons, it has enough buttons, but not *too* many, and for me, the most important part is that I forget I'm holding a controller when I'm using it. It helps me 'just play' and not be distracted. I agree that there are a few game types it won't work for, but then again it wasn't designed for those kinds of games. (for example, it's not that great for gun games.) PSjoys and other console-to-pc controller adapters would not have market share if people *only* wanted to use mice/keyboards or the sidewinder gamepad, which is inferior to the DualShock2 in every way. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I believe it to be a valid counter to your opinion. This is a bit OT, but all I could think of when I read your comment was the comic book guy from the Simpsons pointing at me and saying 'Console controller? Worst device EV-er!'
"Everyone was saying, 'Phew, there's some value, they're not just a mindless, ridiculous waste of time,' "
These people, who had to *discover* that there was "some value" to games, are the same ones who park their kids in front of inane videos, just to get some peace. They obviously saw some value in non-interactive images on tv...why is it that people seem to think static watching of the regular crap on tv is somehow better than actually PLAYING a video game. I mean, sure, there are games you don't want little kids to be playing, but if you are so unaware of what your kids are doing that they can play a video game you don't approve of in your own house, I think you're going to have bigger problems. I know I always got into the most trouble when I was left completely alone. That's why it was a rare occurance. I believe that people who are looking for the 'solution' to the 'problem' of having to be involved with their kids should have put a bit more thought into whether they were ready for kids. Kids don't just disappear when you want a little peace and quiet, and raising them is a difficult thing. It actually takes dedication and requires you to sacrifice what you want for what is best for them. If you aren't willing to do that, don't be surprised when your kids don't turn out how you wanted, and don't blame it on anyone (or anything) but yourself.
Friendly fire maybe, civilans no... I doubt that "Enemy combatants" are going to willingly do ANYTHING which would make the easily noticeable to a compter, infact this sort of thing is more likely to make them fight in civilian clothes...
Well, all I can say is that it won't *make* anyone fight in civilian clothes. That's a very effective tactic, but it doesn't show too much respect for the real civilians. I don't know about you, but if 20 'civilians' opened fire when they got close to me, I'd damn sure shoot the 21st to come near, and ask questions later. The fact that any 'army' is willing to use tactics like that (which are prohibited by the Geneva Convention) is a testament to their true regard for their people. Of course, having dedicated torture and rape buildings and having prisons with large child populations doesn't exactly show that you have your citizens' best interests at heart anyhow.
But if we agree that computer games affect reflexes and alter response times, why does everyone say that playing hitman will not affect the kids and their outlook on world at all?
Because video game supporters aren't generally saying that video games won't affect a kid's outlook *at all*, we're saying that they won't (by themselves) turn little Johnny into psycho-killer Johnny. That's a wee bit different from saying it won't affect their outlook *at all*. Basically, the people who generally denounce video games as 'too violent' would encourage their kids to read The Red Badge of Courage or other excellent stories that happen to include violence, or even those which focus on it. (I say this having read accounts of famous battles, often recounted in gruesome detail, for numerous classes.) However, these same people don't see games as being speech in the same way that books are. Instead of realizing that video games could be a powerful tool for educating children and sharpening their minds, they just react instinctively and go for the ol' ban. To me, it can be summed up as follows: Anyone would be laughed out of court for alleging that books turn kids into killers, saying that video games do is equally ridiculous.
It's about as accurate as claiming that every car can kill someone in an accident, so we are all using illegal murder weapons.
In fact, we should all pay an extra 10% when we buy a car as 'possible killer charge', just like the bogus charges we have to pay for VHS tapes and recordable CD's and DVD's...
Let's hope no liberal legislators read this. After they start the new 'car control' campaign, it'll be time to move on to those dangerous bathtubs that send over 42,000 (42.000 for non-U.S.) Americans to the emergency room each year. The liberals won't be happy until we are all hooked into life support from birth, like the matrix, but instead of a cool VR world, you'll just get a (sub)standard hospital bed, with a TV if you're lucky. They want to make life perfectly safe for everyone, and guess what? Never happen. Perfectly safe = perfectly boring, and not all people like that. Americans didn't need XtReEm sports back in frontier days. Their lives were dangerous enough. However, now that people are less likely to *have* to fight their environment, they're making sports out of it. We're not made to have a government bureau keeping us safe as babes 24/7. It's just not natural. Wait 'til the government starts telling people they can't use toothbrushes because some people have accidents and choke on them. I call it natural selection, and I don't think any amount of legislation will stop it.
1/(the number of prime numbers) is close enough to zero for any practical purposes. It's just like when you say your water glass is empty. It's not empty, there's probably a molecule or two of water clinging to the glass, but that doesn't change the fact that you need to get up and go to the water cooler if you get thirsty.
Your glass is full of fluid even if there's *no* water in there. The glass is always full, not half-full, not half-empty. Of course, if you've managed to construct a perfect vacuum, this no longer applies, but on Earth, where you're most likely to have a glass, if it has an opening on top that isn't sealed, it's full. Why is it that so many people ignore the existence of atmosphere? We wouldn't get very far without it.
Moving the cache around, or setting a time limit on it (it will be there on these days) would help alleviate the wear and tear factor.
well, except then the owner would then be visiting that site a whole lot, to remove and re-add the cache. If he's getting 1 or 2 fewer visitors because of this, it's offset by the additional times the owner must go there. If a site gets 40 or 50 visitors a year, it's doubtful they'll cause any noticable damage, but if it's getting a whole lot more than that, it probably isn't hidden too well. Of course, I have no idea what the average number of visitors per site is, it's all conjecture. I really would like to know though, because that would really affect how much damage would be likely.
I think ESPN is missing a critical market. Dorks and dork sports. ESPN 3's line-up could be: Geocashing, RC Car Racing, Chess, D&D, Simpsons The Quiz Show, etc...
Now, now. We can't have an ESPN3 with better programming than ESPN2! That's just not right!
Drug dealers expect to get paid. If they tried this approach, it would have to be on the "honor system". And honor is something that drug dealers AND drug users probably know very little about.
hate to burst your bubble, but things like this go on every day. The dealers don't have to worry about an honor system at all. As usual, the user takes the biggest risk. There was a drop like this outside an apartment complex I used to live in. You'd see people saunter up, and drop off their cash. Then a few minutes later, the guy would come take the cash and leave whatever, and the original people would come back, get their stuff. If someone takes the money, it isn't the dealer who loses out. Ditto with the drugs. No honor to that system, just pragmatic capitalism.
i have the urge to start planting high risk caches, like hidden in the park ranger's car or inside a police station bathroom maybe. how about daredevil caches, atop suspension bridges or skyrises, inside the house of a really pissed off rottweiler, or at the far end of a shooting range?
remember mook?
then people would start dying trying to do geocaches, that'll have some serious effect on geocachers. imagine the community it would create though, imagine elite geocachers who have planted and tackled the most insane caches. geocaching bragging rights baby!
time to go buy some tupperware and a gps unit!
Yeah. let's call it Xtremecaching, or Ge0XtrEeM or something. We could even eliminate the need to buy GPSs for the XtReEm types, by just plainly giving the locations of the dangerous ones, and encouraging people to sign a book there or something. "I was in the LAPD evidence locker!" etc. I'll put one in the white house, if someone else will sign it. Can anyone say...under the president's bed?
Perhaps if you post the two bowl of condoms idea a few more times, in slightly different ways, it will eventually be funny. The last 2 or 3 I've seen though, weren't. Keep trying, maybe someday you'll get it right.
Unless you are severely mentally challenged, and incapable of stuffing your face while carrying out some other task, that would rule out nearly every sport in existence. Of course some sports might make it a bit messy.
I hope you're trolling, because otherwise you are dumb. Just in case you're not trolling: Most people would prefer to do *well* in their chosen sport. What the parent to your post was saying is that if you can eat a banana while doing *well* at your activity, it is not a sport. You will win no races, swim meets, soccer (football, for you aliens) games, and the like if you and/or your team is filling up on bananas during play, but you could quite easily eat a banana while kicking someone's butt at lawn darts.
I am in 100% agreement with you. Wow, you have expressed exactly the things I have noticed and felt about the media.
Since we both live in the same state, I wonder if this is a local thing or if it is more wide-spread. My guess is it is everywhere.
I get local channels from chicago and new york, but i live in TX. It's the same everywhere. It's pretty sad that news outlets can't be public services anymore, but that's to be expected in today's America. It doesn't usually pay to be different anymore, at least in terms of your business model. If channel 6 has a dress-wearing monkey doing the weather, you can bet channel 8 will get a hat-wearing gorilla. If channel 12 has the 'radar-tron 60945q super-accurate-weathermaster', some other station will get some other equally fancifully named piece of equipment to compete, and both will still be wrong most of the time. I love how 'accurate weather forcast' means being right every now and then. Of course, weather forcasts are good for a rant by themselves, but I'll spare you all:)
Just because you want to be responsible and not destructive doesn't mean you have some special right to go do anything you wish. Read your post and you might realize how many times you say I or ME.
Just because some people don't want to be responsible is no reason to punish the ones who *are*. I don't think the grandparent was advocating 'doing anything you wish.' It sounded more to me like he was talking about taking walks in the woods, and looking at stuff. Oh my! What a horrid request that is! He should be strung up.
semi-related: Why do we say that 'a few bad apples spoil the bunch?' Perhaps in fruit that's true, but we're people. Why is it that we're taking away the rights, priveleges, and freedoms of people who follow the rules, in the name of punishing people who don't follow the rules anyway, no matter what they are? No, we don't have a right to go around tearing up parkland and chopping down trees in public parks and shit. However, most of us aren't going to do that. Most people who want to go to a public park (especially the ones you have to pay to get into) are not the people who are going to muck it up. For the few who do mess the park up, well what the hell are we paying the rangers for? They're supposed to find problems in the park and fix them. Are you telling me the rangers wouldn't notice large scale harm to the park in time to prevent it? They're public parks. Let the public play in them. I think that even if the public does some amount of damage to public parks, at least they've been exposed to real nature. It seems that enough wild land disappears every year that if some of it at least served to educate, it would be worth it. There's a difference between preserving unspoiled land somewhere and public park. If you want some wild land to be completely untouched by humans, buy it. Then put big fences around it, and don't let anyone in. I'm going to go climb a tree, like humans have done for thousands of years. I guess you would say I don't have that 'right.'
Slashdot Mirror
So what, then, is the real reason for all these people correcting everyone else's little mistakes, besides just maybe wanting to stir people up?
Perhaps he's simply trying to help fill in the gaps in American posters' language skills that the public schooling system has left.
Mind you, I'm just offering a possible solution to the above question. I cannot claim to know anyone else's motives, only my own.
Have you ever tried triggers under the XBox controller? You just hate to use DualShock2 controller ever again.
No, I probably should try the new controller, but all I did was pick up the original controller, then put it right back down. I couldn't stand it.
DualShock2 (and any controller that comes with any game console) is something that allows you to play all games but it's not perferct for anything.
I didn't say it was perfect for everything....I should have phrased it like this: Barring specialty (flight sticks, steering wheels, guns, dance pads, etc) controllers, the DualShock2 is the best controller out there for most games.
And all the first person shooters... anybody that claims that console controller is more suitable for that genre of games than keyboard and mouse should go online with some game that allows plaing against PC players and get their feet wet.
Yes, that's why I said they were the worst for FPSs.
One thing I especially hate with game console controllers is that those're designed to be used with thumbs only. Hello? See, I've four other fingers in both hands, why not use those? (Yep, some games support triggers but still using all 10 buttons in the DualShock controller is real pain in the ass.)
That's why most games let you configure the buttons. I know they don't *all* let you map *every* button, but that's the fault of the game designers, who make the control schemes less than intuitive and then don't let you change them. I have found that in almost every game, changing the default controls such that the most important commands are on the shoulders, instead of the pad, helps me immensely. This lends itself especially well to fighters like tekken and virtua fighter, as i have *no* problem hitting any combo of those four buttons. I map less used commands to the pad, because then I can use my thumb to hit them easily. This control scheme has serverd me well in every game that supports button mapping. (which is most of the better ones.)
The problem with all the consoles is lowest common dominator: if something doesn't come with every console it's supported by practically no game. How many games support, for example, more than 2 players on PS2 even though the console can support 8?
Most sports games do. However the reason more games don't support more than 2 players isn't really as much about what comes with the console. If you have 4 split screens, it can be very annoying to play. Games like Gauntlet let you have 4 people on the screen at the same time, but then you had to coordinate to move around in the world. Most sports games let you have 4 or 8 players, and they're probably the ones you most want to do that with. Fighting games that support more than 2 players are pretty rare anywhere, not just on consoles...driving games becaome unplayable with a 4 player splitscreen, unless you're rich. I personally would rather wait my turn than only get to see a 6" square on the screen. Also, there are a lot of 1 player games out there. This isn't because the console only has 2 controller ports. They're just single player games. There's never going to be a 'perfect' controller that is perfect for every type of game. Having said that, compared to every controller I've personally used heavily, which include the atari joystick, the intellivision pad thing that you hadda put overlays on, colecovision, commodore64 and 128, nes, super nes, sega master system, genesis, saturn, turbographics16, Playstation, N64, PS2, Gamecube, and many many 3rd party controllers for various of the above, as well as gamepads for the pc from a variety of companies, logitech, m$, belkin, various oem stuff...I've never owned a gameboy, don't own an xbox, and I never had an amiga...but other than that, if it's a console controller, I've probably worn at least one out.
Well, basically I've always loved video games of every kind, and played them whenever I could. I realize that having no life whatsoever has both pros and cons
You do know that Saddam did all of those awful things, like gasing his own people before the first war. Why wasn't that a good enough reason then?
/. more than once and haven't encountered some variation on this lame joke from south park. Sure, the episode was funny, but as a slashdot joke, it's played. seriously played. Even by slashdot standards.
Ask the UN. They preferred to give saddam another decade in power.
Local taxes support the infrastructure of the city that I live in. State taxes support my state. I don't believe that every cent that I give in taxes - as an American - goes to all "welfare bums". Obviously you have little respect for your fellow Americans who may be in a lower tax bracket than you. Do all of us a favor and please move to a different country. Right now. And take your friends, too.
Welfare recipients do not pay taxes. They do not pay property taxes, they do not pay state income taxes, they do not pay national taxes. Yet they receive a living from other people's taxes. I understand that sometimes people need a little help, however I fail to understand how 'a lifetime of subsistence living paid for by others' is *help*. My problem is not with *a* welfare system, it's with the *current* welfare system. I also believe that people *should* contribute to charity, but that doesn't mean I'm going to propose legislation that not only forces them to, but also specifies the amount they must give, and to whom it will be given.
Also something people need to realize: we only have about half the people in the country paying taxes. How low will that number get before the despised 'rich' who are now paying the vast majority of actual tax dollars decide to go somewhere where they don't have to subsidize the same ratio of people? We have an interesting phenomenon in this country: we all want to have more money, but anyone with more money than us is evil. Of course, I don't see *any* prominent politicians living in habitat for humanity housing and giving every last little bit of their money away. In fact, I was told that one of the senators from WA was 'a great man' because *once a month* he invited a homeless person to dinner. Wow man. Once a month you bring some poor homeless guy into your mansion, and let him have a taste of what you get the rest of the time, then send him back outside. That sure is a 'great man.' Think, people. Politicians don't care about you. They care about your vote, and spending your money. If wealth redistribution is such a good thing, why are the Kennedys still so freaking rich? Not that redistribution would work. If we took every bit of money and property in this country, and distributed it exactly equally to everyone, do you really think it would stay that way? Giving everyone in this country the same amount of money would not make them exactly the same.
Also, I see a lot of this 'aww the rich get a bigger tax cut! that isn't fair!' Well no, not if by fair you mean exactly the same for everyone. But if by fair you mean that the people who pay the most in taxes get the biggest benefit, well...shouldn't they? Here's an example for you.
Let's say I'm out to dinner with some of my friends, and when the bill comes, I can only pay 10% of it, bob can afford 30% of it, and bill gets stuck with the 60% remaining, plus tip. Now say we get a 30 dollar refund for bad service or food or something. Do we split it evenly, three ways? Of course not. Bill gets 18 bucks, bob gets 9, and I get 3. How would it be fair to split it evenly, when not everyone contributed equally?
I'd also like to point out that the tax cut we're getting isn't the one Mr. Bush proposed. It's substantially smaller. If it isn't helping enough people, perhaps you should look to the libbies who killed the larger tax cut.
3) Makes absolutely no sense.
I can't believe that you've read
Just one last question for you. How long did you actually serve in the public sector? You seem like such a giving individual that g
I actually asked a CEO friend of mine for a bit of banking advice... christ. My head started spinning very quickly and I gained a newfound respect for the "clueless luser" CEO type.
Yes, it's a normal human tendency to equate intelligence with experience/knowledge in the same areas you personally have them in. Plumbers think most people are idiots because they can't fix basic plumbing problems, mechanics think the same because people can't fix their cars, professors think most people are idiots because they aren't professors, etc. My personal feeling is that this is why so many people seem to think that 'everyone else' in the country is dumb. They forget that to 'everyone else' *they* are everyone else. I saw a survey once where 100 people were asked 'do you think most people are dumb?' and then 'do you think you are dumb?'
I wish I could remember where I saw this, because it was really funny. A large portion said that 'most people' were dumb, but about the same portion also said *they* were not dumb. So I guess what it comes down to is that most people think most people are dumb, but that they are not one of them. Kinda amusing, if it didn't have such damaging consequences. It's harder to make decisions for other people if you don't think you know better than they do.
I read the original Extremetech article which details them using the beta version of 3dmark2k3 to "stop" the demo and move the camera outside of the normal rendered path which revealed that nvidia played with their drivers to take a load off the card by not fully renedering everything seen "outside" of the normal view. I would no consider this a cheat, but an optimization. who cares what is not seen by the camera? I give nvidia a pat on the back for this.
You're quite missing the point. nvidia decided to optimize the static path the camera takes through that particular demo. Now, if all games were just static movies, this would be optimization. However, the demo was supposed to simulate an *engine*, not just a pre-determined camera path. Nvidia *only* optimized the textures *on that path*, and in fact made other camera paths look distorted. ATIs cards, on the other hand, had the same quality no matter *which* camera path was taken. This is why it was cheating, not optimization. Optimization would have made *any* camera path run better, not just the default one. What good does it do to 'optimize' only one narrow camera path? I know I'd prefer to be able to look around, maybe move in a direction *I* chose, within a game. This is the equivalent of a pre-rendered cutscene using the 'in game engine' rather than a real-time rendering of the same engine. I don't give anyone a pat on the back for openly cheating.
FWIW, I've had a Radeon 9700 Pro since December '02 and I love it. Used to be an nVidia guy, but I haven't looked back since. I was a bit worried about ATI's drivers, but the Catalyst series have been great.
:) and I was going to be buying a GeforceFX, but luckily for me my geforce2 died before the FX series came out. Faced with the choice between no PC or an ATI card, (as I didn't want to mess with a temporary cheap card until the FX came out, too much trouble) I chose the ATI card, and I was just blown away. It's been rock solid, and unless nvidia really gets their act together, I won't be buying another card from them. I am no fanboy, I just prefer to work with companies I like and trust (to have a decent product). It seems nvidia is intent on knocking themselves off that list.
I switched to a Radeon AIW 9700 Pro about 2 months ago, and I am extremely happy with it. I am a *very* loyal video card buyer, and it was difficult for me to buy an ATI card. I stuck with Diamond as long as I could, but when I could no longer get a Diamond, I switched to nvidia (as my last Viper had an nvidia chipset anyhow) and stuck with them through the Riva, TNT, TNT2, Geforce, geforce2, (couldn't afford a geforce4, but I woulda bought one if I could have
Console controllers are the worst game-control devices ever invented.
For first-person shooters, maybe. (and some RTS games, of which very few make it to consoles)
The DualShock2 is the best controller out there for just about everything else. It's comfortable, it has intelligently placed buttons, it has enough buttons, but not *too* many, and for me, the most important part is that I forget I'm holding a controller when I'm using it. It helps me 'just play' and not be distracted. I agree that there are a few game types it won't work for, but then again it wasn't designed for those kinds of games. (for example, it's not that great for gun games.) PSjoys and other console-to-pc controller adapters would not have market share if people *only* wanted to use mice/keyboards or the sidewinder gamepad, which is inferior to the DualShock2 in every way.
Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I believe it to be a valid counter to your opinion.
This is a bit OT, but all I could think of when I read your comment was the comic book guy from the Simpsons pointing at me and saying 'Console controller? Worst device EV-er!'
"Everyone was saying, 'Phew, there's some value, they're not just a mindless, ridiculous waste of time,' "
These people, who had to *discover* that there was "some value" to games, are the same ones who park their kids in front of inane videos, just to get some peace. They obviously saw some value in non-interactive images on tv...why is it that people seem to think static watching of the regular crap on tv is somehow better than actually PLAYING a video game. I mean, sure, there are games you don't want little kids to be playing, but if you are so unaware of what your kids are doing that they can play a video game you don't approve of in your own house, I think you're going to have bigger problems. I know I always got into the most trouble when I was left completely alone. That's why it was a rare occurance. I believe that people who are looking for the 'solution' to the 'problem' of having to be involved with their kids should have put a bit more thought into whether they were ready for kids. Kids don't just disappear when you want a little peace and quiet, and raising them is a difficult thing. It actually takes dedication and requires you to sacrifice what you want for what is best for them. If you aren't willing to do that, don't be surprised when your kids don't turn out how you wanted, and don't blame it on anyone (or anything) but yourself.
For me, I'm happy being alone at times...not only alone but unreachable.
Yeah, me too. I wish they'd make a way to turn these things off, so you could have the best of both worlds.
I am boycotting these so-called "PDAs" until they provide the following features.
:)
Yes, I have also decided to never purchase a PDA
Friendly fire maybe, civilans no... I doubt that "Enemy combatants" are going to willingly do ANYTHING which would make the easily noticeable to a compter, infact this sort of thing is more likely to make them fight in civilian clothes...
Well, all I can say is that it won't *make* anyone fight in civilian clothes. That's a very effective tactic, but it doesn't show too much respect for the real civilians. I don't know about you, but if 20 'civilians' opened fire when they got close to me, I'd damn sure shoot the 21st to come near, and ask questions later. The fact that any 'army' is willing to use tactics like that (which are prohibited by the Geneva Convention) is a testament to their true regard for their people. Of course, having dedicated torture and rape buildings and having prisons with large child populations doesn't exactly show that you have your citizens' best interests at heart anyhow.
That's OK. You still be firing at the Canadians and the British.
Only if they won't give up their WMD.
But if we agree that computer games affect reflexes and alter response times, why does everyone say that playing hitman will not affect the kids and their outlook on world at all?
Because video game supporters aren't generally saying that video games won't affect a kid's outlook *at all*, we're saying that they won't (by themselves) turn little Johnny into psycho-killer Johnny.
That's a wee bit different from saying it won't affect their outlook *at all*.
Basically, the people who generally denounce video games as 'too violent' would encourage their kids to read The Red Badge of Courage or other excellent stories that happen to include violence, or even those which focus on it. (I say this having read accounts of famous battles, often recounted in gruesome detail, for numerous classes.) However, these same people don't see games as being speech in the same way that books are. Instead of realizing that video games could be a powerful tool for educating children and sharpening their minds, they just react instinctively and go for the ol' ban.
To me, it can be summed up as follows:
Anyone would be laughed out of court for alleging that books turn kids into killers, saying that video games do is equally ridiculous.
It's about as accurate as claiming that every car can kill someone in an accident, so we are all using illegal murder weapons.
In fact, we should all pay an extra 10% when we buy a car as 'possible killer charge', just like the bogus charges we have to pay for VHS tapes and recordable CD's and DVD's...
Let's hope no liberal legislators read this. After they start the new 'car control' campaign, it'll be time to move on to those dangerous bathtubs that send over 42,000 (42.000 for non-U.S.) Americans to the emergency room each year. The liberals won't be happy until we are all hooked into life support from birth, like the matrix, but instead of a cool VR world, you'll just get a (sub)standard hospital bed, with a TV if you're lucky. They want to make life perfectly safe for everyone, and guess what? Never happen. Perfectly safe = perfectly boring, and not all people like that. Americans didn't need XtReEm sports back in frontier days. Their lives were dangerous enough. However, now that people are less likely to *have* to fight their environment, they're making sports out of it. We're not made to have a government bureau keeping us safe as babes 24/7. It's just not natural. Wait 'til the government starts telling people they can't use toothbrushes because some people have accidents and choke on them. I call it natural selection, and I don't think any amount of legislation will stop it.
1/(the number of prime numbers) is close enough to zero for any practical purposes. It's just like when you say your water glass is empty. It's not empty, there's probably a molecule or two of water clinging to the glass, but that doesn't change the fact that you need to get up and go to the water cooler if you get thirsty.
Your glass is full of fluid even if there's *no* water in there. The glass is always full, not half-full, not half-empty. Of course, if you've managed to construct a perfect vacuum, this no longer applies, but on Earth, where you're most likely to have a glass, if it has an opening on top that isn't sealed, it's full. Why is it that so many people ignore the existence of atmosphere?
We wouldn't get very far without it.
Moving the cache around, or setting a time limit on it (it will be there on these days) would help alleviate the wear and tear factor.
well, except then the owner would then be visiting that site a whole lot, to remove and re-add the cache. If he's getting 1 or 2 fewer visitors because of this, it's offset by the additional times the owner must go there. If a site gets 40 or 50 visitors a year, it's doubtful they'll cause any noticable damage, but if it's getting a whole lot more than that, it probably isn't hidden too well. Of course, I have no idea what the average number of visitors per site is, it's all conjecture. I really would like to know though, because that would really affect how much damage would be likely.
Software Developer "This would be a great job if it wasn't for the user"
Park Ranger "This would be a great job if it wasn't for the visitors"
Software Developer "Look at all those bugs"
Park Ranger "Look at all those bugs"
obligatory Clerks quote:
Randall: This job would be great, if it weren't for the fuckin' customers.
I think ESPN is missing a critical market. Dorks and dork sports. ESPN 3's line-up could be: Geocashing, RC Car Racing, Chess, D&D, Simpsons The Quiz Show, etc...
Now, now. We can't have an ESPN3 with better programming than ESPN2! That's just not right!
Drug dealers expect to get paid. If they tried this approach, it would have to be on the "honor system". And honor is something that drug dealers AND drug users probably know very little about.
hate to burst your bubble, but things like this go on every day. The dealers don't have to worry about an honor system at all. As usual, the user takes the biggest risk. There was a drop like this outside an apartment complex I used to live in. You'd see people saunter up, and drop off their cash. Then a few minutes later, the guy would come take the cash and leave whatever, and the original people would come back, get their stuff. If someone takes the money, it isn't the dealer who loses out. Ditto with the drugs. No honor to that system, just pragmatic capitalism.
i have the urge to start planting high risk caches, like hidden in the park ranger's car or inside a police station bathroom maybe. how about daredevil caches, atop suspension bridges or skyrises, inside the house of a really pissed off rottweiler, or at the far end of a shooting range?
remember mook?
then people would start dying trying to do geocaches, that'll have some serious effect on geocachers. imagine the community it would create though, imagine elite geocachers who have planted and tackled the most insane caches. geocaching bragging rights baby!
time to go buy some tupperware and a gps unit!
Yeah. let's call it Xtremecaching, or Ge0XtrEeM or something. We could even eliminate the need to buy GPSs for the XtReEm types, by just plainly giving the locations of the dangerous ones, and encouraging people to sign a book there or something. "I was in the LAPD evidence locker!"
etc.
I'll put one in the white house, if someone else will sign it. Can anyone say...under the president's bed?
Perhaps if you post the two bowl of condoms idea a few more times, in slightly different ways, it will eventually be funny. The last 2 or 3 I've seen though, weren't.
Keep trying, maybe someday you'll get it right.
Unless you are severely mentally challenged, and incapable of stuffing your face while carrying out some other task, that would rule out nearly every sport in existence. Of course some sports might make it a bit messy.
I hope you're trolling, because otherwise you are dumb. Just in case you're not trolling: Most people would prefer to do *well* in their chosen sport. What the parent to your post was saying is that if you can eat a banana while doing *well* at your activity, it is not a sport. You will win no races, swim meets, soccer (football, for you aliens) games, and the like if you and/or your team is filling up on bananas during play, but you could quite easily eat a banana while kicking someone's butt at lawn darts.
I am in 100% agreement with you. Wow, you have expressed exactly the things I have noticed and felt about the media.
:)
Since we both live in the same state, I wonder if this is a local thing or if it is more wide-spread. My guess is it is everywhere.
I get local channels from chicago and new york, but i live in TX. It's the same everywhere. It's pretty sad that news outlets can't be public services anymore, but that's to be expected in today's America. It doesn't usually pay to be different anymore, at least in terms of your business model. If channel 6 has a dress-wearing monkey doing the weather, you can bet channel 8 will get a hat-wearing gorilla. If channel 12 has the 'radar-tron 60945q super-accurate-weathermaster', some other station will get some other equally fancifully named piece of equipment to compete, and both will still be wrong most of the time. I love how 'accurate weather forcast' means being right every now and then. Of course, weather forcasts are good for a rant by themselves, but I'll spare you all
Just because you want to be responsible and not destructive doesn't mean you have some special right to go do anything you wish. Read your post and you might realize how many times you say I or ME.
Just because some people don't want to be responsible is no reason to punish the ones who *are*. I don't think the grandparent was advocating 'doing anything you wish.' It sounded more to me like he was talking about taking walks in the woods, and looking at stuff. Oh my! What a horrid request that is! He should be strung up.
semi-related:
Why do we say that 'a few bad apples spoil the bunch?' Perhaps in fruit that's true, but we're people. Why is it that we're taking away the rights, priveleges, and freedoms of people who follow the rules, in the name of punishing people who don't follow the rules anyway, no matter what they are? No, we don't have a right to go around tearing up parkland and chopping down trees in public parks and shit. However, most of us aren't going to do that. Most people who want to go to a public park (especially the ones you have to pay to get into) are not the people who are going to muck it up. For the few who do mess the park up, well what the hell are we paying the rangers for? They're supposed to find problems in the park and fix them. Are you telling me the rangers wouldn't notice large scale harm to the park in time to prevent it? They're public parks. Let the public play in them. I think that even if the public does some amount of damage to public parks, at least they've been exposed to real nature. It seems that enough wild land disappears every year that if some of it at least served to educate, it would be worth it. There's a difference between preserving unspoiled land somewhere and public park. If you want some wild land to be completely untouched by humans, buy it. Then put big fences around it, and don't let anyone in. I'm going to go climb a tree, like humans have done for thousands of years. I guess you would say I don't have that 'right.'
Right on, man.