That's absolutely true. I'll admit that it'll hurt the artist... but really, remember that an album really is a collection of songs. To continue with the analogy, really what you mean is a gallery of paintings. Each individual song is a complete song, just like each individual painting is a complete painting. Your analogy would only work if I was removing choice melodies from the song itself and paying the artist a fraction of the cost.
If an artist means for the album to be heard as a whole, they should release the whole thing as one song. No one will debate whether you need to hear the whole thing or just parts of it. It's one song, the smallest acceptable denomination.
If the artist leaves it for interpretation, and each individual song is acceptable on it's own from a casual listener, then it's the listener's choice. If the artist wants to force us to see the whole meaning, make it one song.
Consequentally, I'll buy one painting. Now if he had made 9 paintings that each were well done, and together they made a bigger piece... (note that we can copy these paintings so that each is practically perfect, like the original), then it should be no problem for you to take just one painting. If he combines the 9 into one canvas, then obviously you'll buy the entire thing (because that's the smallest denomination), and he'll 'force' the so-called 'bigger' picture on you.
I wasn't trollling at all. If I came off as such I apologize.
I just feel your last comment seemed to be telling you to avoid being pushed into doing Blah by some Corporation, and instead do Bleh by some Artist. Something seems inherently wrong about that statement.
I await clarification or your link with great interest.
The reverse is that the musician's message may not be the same message you recieve. That is what is so interesting about art, it's not always percieved the same.
So what if you don't get the musician's entire message? Most probably don't, because they percieve things differently. If they want to browse the musician's entire repretoire, then so be it. If they want only one song, there shouldn't be anything preventing you from just having that one song.
Though it's the musician's work, ultimately it's the listener who chooses what the work means. Not the other way around.
Also, if you're only hearing (and therefore interested) in ONE song, then it's probably due to that song being on the radio. That's pretty limited and you might want to expand your horizons past what some large corporation tells you to like.
Interesting. You seem to believe that what the musician wants you to listen to (the whole of the album) is greater than your own decision (regardless of external influences). You say you should expand your horizons past what a large corporation tells you to, shouldn't you also expand past what an individual (or music group) tells you to as well? Seems like you're telling people to bow to one form of external influence than another. Neither should be acceptable. You choose what you listen to, when you listen to, how you listen to.
The freedom to choose is a powerful ideal. It should be upheld in most situations, especially trivial ones such as choice of art.
Unfortunately I'm not too up to date with String Theory, but I'll expand on what I meant... and perhaps you can detail why my thinking would be wrong. At near light speed, the wave function of the electrons would begin to detail just probabilities with very little control over actual positioning (we know its near exact speed, so positioning is near impossible to tell). Because of this, the so-called "tunnelling effect" would allow for electron flow where there should be none. This would massively screw up the chip design if electrons start flowing where they shouldn't. Superconductivity allows for hundreds (actually, far more than that...) of the same wave function, if 'one' Cooper-pair's probability of tunneling reaches 1, then every pair will tunnel that way as well. And now you have new paths through the CPU.
Electron spin being 0 is theoretically impossible. However, superconductivity allows for this because pairs of electrons with opposite spins act as the same particle (The Cooper-Pair). This means the pair seems to have the same wave function et al, but the differing spins cancel so from the casual viewer, and in fact to anything the pair affects, it's zero spin.
With all due respect (since your actual point is correct), you're certainly wrong in regards to electron 'movement'. Unless you're talking about absolute zero (which I doubt, considering the simpleness of your statement), the stage where extreme cooling creates a problem would be when we reach the superconductive state. At this critical temperature, the electrons exhibit the Cooper-Pair phenomenon and exhibit a total spin number of zero. Since they no longer have the same spin, they are exempt from most principles (Pauli's in particular) and so can all drop down to the 1s orbital.
In short, the electrons don't stop moving. In fact, they drop to such a state where they can theoretically move with zero resistance (although drift velocity and the randomness of their wave equations would come into play here).
What you should actually be pointing at is the design of the chip, which may not simply be able to do more, regardless of how much heat is dissipated due to consumption (generating lattice fluctuations and increasing resistance). As well, quantum tunneling becomes a major issue, but this isn't as important as the sheer limit of the architecture.
He's trying to say that the comment wasn't comparing closed-source to open-source and determining which is better. Just merely that turf battles in the OSS-community is bad.
Basically, put all the brains together and come up with something better. Don't have the brains of OSS-community battle it out individually.
The grandparent (and first reply to your original post) seems to take offense that you've turned this argument away from its intention to improve OSS-community, and viewed it as a "this is why closed-source is better" argument.
PS. I don't agree (or disagree for that matter) with this statement, but I point it out so you can understand the arguement. The obvious counterargument here is "Competetion creates a far better end product". I don't care which is correct, just that they're both good points and debating which case is probably purely opinion and can't be solidifed absolutely with facts.
"Listen, that robber only got into the passage -to- the safe! Big deal, they haven't even broken the many layers of metal protecting the safe. No one should complain about the fact that the robber got there."
The point is there's a hole. No matter how minute it is, this is directly related to FINANCES. Remember money? One of the things that makes the economy work? Yeah, that thing.
Perhaps people are making too big a deal out of this, but you are taking it far too lightly. Next time your bank gets broken into in the middle of the night by a couple of kids playing around (with no intention to steal), I'm sure people ask if they made sure something like that would never happen again. They don't say "oh they never got close to the safe, we're fine".
When people buy game consoles, they think "oh it's this and this as well", so it seems like a better deal... and although it seems like this would have a factor in decision making, I really don't think these extras matter in the long run.
Reasoning? The games make the console. Doesn't matter how great the console is, as long as the good games (read: popular) are there, then that's the console that'll sell the most. It's just the early crowd that might be swayed by an extra feature or two, a month or so into the launch and people will be thinking "do I want this system for this game, or that system for that game".
Surely this is like hosting a list of places you can buy illicit drugs. You do not actually possess said drugs, but you are party and complicit in assisting access to illegal materials.
Does this mean linking a site with links to illegal material is also a crime? Where does it stop? A link of a link of a link? Can you prove that they were purposely attempting to provide aid to gain illegal material?
Your analogy is harsh, your logic surely missing a couple key points. Assisting access to illegal materials requires proof. At least some sort of proof that they were purposely providing aid for illegal services.
To use your brutal analogy. You can't pay your tutition. An old friend lends you a couple hundred that you'll pay back. Later you tell your best friend about this great loaner. Your best friend goes to 'loaner', who ends up being a crack dealer. You are the link. Are you guilty?
This would be one hell of a brutal world if intent is no longer required to be proven.
The polls are based on.. the public! Therefore, it's non scientific and is only valid as a estimate of what the general populous (that goes to dilbert site) think.
It's the same way with the current space program. We're always putting world hunger second:P
Anyhow, the benefits are obvious. If taking stuff to space doesn't require the shuttle (an outdated extremely costly concept that is extremely error prone), not to mention cheaper, then eventually ordinary people will get into space as well.
But the same question applies. What's the current space program have to do for ordinary people? Can you answer that? Good, now imagine all those satellites were far cheaper. Yeah, global communication does kick ass doesn't it?
Cheaper space exploration will benefit us as science takes advantage. It's just a matter of time.
Let me tell you, with only two broadband companies offered in my area, I switched to Charter damn quick 'cause I get email from all over the place and several legitimate (and very much non-pr0n) business associates have been unable to send me mail. I figure it was a misconfiguration problem, but honestly, with their service and support - I already wanted to switch anyway
Understandably, there will always be blips on the radar. But hey, you left for a better service, right? So the other one loses your business, the one offering opt-out wins it. Isn't this an example that opt-out wins in the end? No one switches to no opt-out, but (some) people will switch out.
And finally, I think the fact that you found an ISP that has screwed you in email filtering, and then you found one that doesn't screw you... I think that just proves that port filtering won't destroy the internet. Not that big of a deal right? Are you mounting a campaign on Prarie Wave Internet? Probably not, right? You just switched. I'm sure port-filtering could work out to be the same idea. Bad ISP? Just leave.
I know there's a myraid of problems with what I just said ("what if I can't leave"), but the point is that port-filtering and email-filtering look the same in my eyes. And simply put, email filtering has yet to bring the internet crashing down upon us all. What's the big deal about port filtering?
Where did he say "everything" should be blocked? Even his analogy to email filtering implies that EMAIL isn't COMPLETELY blocked -- just unwanted email.
Thank you, I don't think I could have put this any better.
And now this is a clarification, perhaps directed at the original reponse (not yours, Jhon): Just like how email filters work now, I'm sure port blocking will smooth out in the long run. This isn't "we'll block everything and keep it that way", it's "let's slowly block more and more until everything works nicely". My analogy to email filtering should be simple to understand. It works in the background, keeping most spam out without screwing around with the important stuff. Granted some things will screw up (both in user accessibility, and letting certain exploits through; this occurs in spam filtering as well), but you don't see people screaming about the how the world will change because spam filters are in place, do you?
It's not that big of a deal. Seriously. As long as there's opt-out, the computer-savvy shouldn't worry. Do you use a pop3 server with absolutely no spam filters? Yes? Well you'll still be able to use an ISP that gives you full port access. No? Then you didn't pick the opt-out option. Big deal *yawn*
You're absolutely correct. Just look at the way email filtering works. Spam filters are (by default) turned on, so this could follow suit. You can always opt-out of this service, and get the full email-experience. But you don't see mass complaints about how our email rights are being restricted by the ISP.
And of course, you can opt-out of email filtering. So is port blocking really such a big deal? Just opt-out and make sure it doesn't cost any extra. Hell, filtering from my previous ISP actually costs more. Make port blocking a "feature" of the ISP, charge a buck or more, and save the commoner from having to learn about updating computer systems. Win-win.
The real question is, who was dumb enough to give these kids a gun.
Probably the parents were pathetic and irresponsible people as well. All this blame on games is pretty stupid, why don't you blame on the people that couldn't teach the kids that a game is a game, and shouldn't be tried in the real world?
You'd think these kids had some sort of teachings that taught them "shooting a truck with a gun is bad". It seems glaringly obvious the parents are at fault here, and people are once again looking for the scapegoat to blame.
Get some responsible parents, stop blaming games/tv/(insert someone else here).
The reason why macs are overlooked so often is simple. It's called money. You make more money programming for windows than anything else. Bigger user base = bigger end profit.
Companies look out for their bottom lines, not their customers. Everything else done is just another way to increase the profit number.
I don't understand why people even make this comment or calls this news... hurray, mac aren't hit by blaster because blaster kills windows machines. Well duh.
In other news, trees cheer because they don't get infected by AIDS. Obviously trees are amazing, more secure, and the obvious choice for supreme beings of the universe (sarcasm/joke).
Well, if that's not the most elitist thing I've read on the internet in a while, I don't know what is. I bet you argue with people over how your imaginary depictions are the correct ones and their's are wrong, don't you.
I see that you've ignored the bulk of my statements and went straight to just insulting me. Very well done. Let me rephrase for you.
I'd like to see people read first, then go see the movie. When someone watches the movie first, you get a sense that -this- is the way things should be (it is the first impression after all). This is true in most cases, the first time you see something has the longest lasting impact. I'd like to see people give me a new twist on how they saw the Fellowship, not regurgitate what they saw the Fellowship do in the movie. Get my drift?
I guess if you believe this is an 'elistist' view, then you're entitled to your opinion. I just want to see less people repeating one person's view of Tolkien's books. Perhaps you can stop looking for ways to insult me and understand that.
"know" what Nazgul steeds look like... a sad state of affairs, as a big LotR fan I really don't like the direction I see this going. The movies, while impressive, still rob people the ability to imagine the leader of the Nine reach out for Frodo as he huddles, alone, frightened...
I just see this as an opportunity for LotR to reach the masses and become just some big fad, where everyone raves over how great the visuals are and how great the movie's story is (of course.. you're taking a revised script from one of the best six-book series of all time, it better be damn good!).
Sadly, I rather the movies never existed, and this online middle-earth scrapped. Let middle-earth exist in the imaginations of those willing to read, not those who were enchanted by someone else's thoughts (a movie director's) and firmly believe that Legloas can use an arrow like a dagger.
His "main beef" is that it's missing the "crushbone factor". This isn't "I want Crushbone in space with Jedi", this is "I want a story, a big dungeon, and interesting items with side quests to back it up".
He spent quite a while explaining the Crushbone Factor. Perhaps if he named it "The Content Factor" you would have less to complain about. Perhaps you would have spared us your mini-rant about how much you hate Everquest, and your insults to mmorpg players.
Everquest was designed as a game, SWG was designed as a world.
I'm sorry, this is definitely news to me. SWG was made as a world, not a game. Of course, it all makes sense now! It's not a game in anyway! That's why it's not marketed a replacement for this world, Eart- oh, whoops.
It's obvious that you like the SWG. Please, write up a rebuttal designed take apart Warthog's main argument, the lack of content. Don't segway off and bitch about Everquest. When your rebuttal is written, post it... I'd like to read another article that shows SWG in a more positive light.
Sometimes that wind carries the death head just far enough out of your way... and into the 5 tank cluster of your friends who just finished napalming each other
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill... either you don't read much online, or you felt extraordinarily picky over this article. With all due respect, most articles online aren't Grade-A English essays. Most articles may not even pass the Word 97 grammar checker. There's no need to complain for such a long time.
So cognitive recognition and memory aren't part of being smarter? She's confusing me by making assumptions about the correct theory of intelligence. She doesn't even bother to state them explicitly.
She said "I am in no way saying that by playing video games will make you smarter". She's trying to avoid people going up to her and saying "You said playing Halo would raise my IQ" or "I played Counterstrike all night and didn't pass my exam, you said-" etc. Rather she clarifies her position and says the studies would help people remember certain things (whether they are remembering gaming tips or integration techniques).
It is a well-known fact that working in an office is still sometimes a hard task for a woman to conquer.
With all due respect, I think video games have rotted her brain a little. Why not "Working in an office may still be difficult for women."?
Forgive my poor html, it is the best I can do. Anyhow... I don't even see why you had to pull this sentence out of the article to complain about. Many sentences can be reworded different to carry the same message. She wanted to write like that. Perhaps she wished to use the "conquer" word and make it more game related. Simply put: she wanted it worded like that to convey a certain message.
I'm not flaming you. I just think you're picking at such minute details that reading your post is more annoying then reading the errors in her work. Perhaps you should apply for an editor position at that web page instead and spare us her grammatical inaccuracies beforehand.
I don't see why that is true in anyway. Most schools try to make their students to become bilingual, simply because having another language at your disposal is quite an advantage. Why would anyone not want to be able to speak with another race in their own tounge?
One of the things that impresses me is when a businessman can speak to me in my own (non-english) language. It's like they're one of us, not just a businessman, but a friend.
In this world where globalization has changed the way economy used to function, not knowing another language is like cutting off an arm in the business.
Simply put, your ignorance is costing you money. And if not that, then the chance at getting 'down' with foreign women. Is that something you're proud of?
More languages, more choices of women. I rest my case, if the money argument didn't reach you yet.
Slashdot Mirror
That's absolutely true. I'll admit that it'll hurt the artist... but really, remember that an album really is a collection of songs. To continue with the analogy, really what you mean is a gallery of paintings. Each individual song is a complete song, just like each individual painting is a complete painting. Your analogy would only work if I was removing choice melodies from the song itself and paying the artist a fraction of the cost.
If an artist means for the album to be heard as a whole, they should release the whole thing as one song. No one will debate whether you need to hear the whole thing or just parts of it. It's one song, the smallest acceptable denomination.
If the artist leaves it for interpretation, and each individual song is acceptable on it's own from a casual listener, then it's the listener's choice. If the artist wants to force us to see the whole meaning, make it one song.
Consequentally, I'll buy one painting. Now if he had made 9 paintings that each were well done, and together they made a bigger piece... (note that we can copy these paintings so that each is practically perfect, like the original), then it should be no problem for you to take just one painting. If he combines the 9 into one canvas, then obviously you'll buy the entire thing (because that's the smallest denomination), and he'll 'force' the so-called 'bigger' picture on you.
I wasn't trollling at all. If I came off as such I apologize.
I just feel your last comment seemed to be telling you to avoid being pushed into doing Blah by some Corporation, and instead do Bleh by some Artist. Something seems inherently wrong about that statement.
I await clarification or your link with great interest.
The reverse is that the musician's message may not be the same message you recieve. That is what is so interesting about art, it's not always percieved the same.
So what if you don't get the musician's entire message? Most probably don't, because they percieve things differently. If they want to browse the musician's entire repretoire, then so be it. If they want only one song, there shouldn't be anything preventing you from just having that one song.
Though it's the musician's work, ultimately it's the listener who chooses what the work means. Not the other way around.
Also, if you're only hearing (and therefore interested) in ONE song, then it's probably due to that song being on the radio. That's pretty limited and you might want to expand your horizons past what some large corporation tells you to like.
Interesting. You seem to believe that what the musician wants you to listen to (the whole of the album) is greater than your own decision (regardless of external influences). You say you should expand your horizons past what a large corporation tells you to, shouldn't you also expand past what an individual (or music group) tells you to as well? Seems like you're telling people to bow to one form of external influence than another. Neither should be acceptable. You choose what you listen to, when you listen to, how you listen to.
The freedom to choose is a powerful ideal. It should be upheld in most situations, especially trivial ones such as choice of art.
Unfortunately I'm not too up to date with String Theory, but I'll expand on what I meant... and perhaps you can detail why my thinking would be wrong. At near light speed, the wave function of the electrons would begin to detail just probabilities with very little control over actual positioning (we know its near exact speed, so positioning is near impossible to tell). Because of this, the so-called "tunnelling effect" would allow for electron flow where there should be none. This would massively screw up the chip design if electrons start flowing where they shouldn't. Superconductivity allows for hundreds (actually, far more than that...) of the same wave function, if 'one' Cooper-pair's probability of tunneling reaches 1, then every pair will tunnel that way as well. And now you have new paths through the CPU.
Electron spin being 0 is theoretically impossible. However, superconductivity allows for this because pairs of electrons with opposite spins act as the same particle (The Cooper-Pair). This means the pair seems to have the same wave function et al, but the differing spins cancel so from the casual viewer, and in fact to anything the pair affects, it's zero spin.
The electrons won't move anymore?
With all due respect (since your actual point is correct), you're certainly wrong in regards to electron 'movement'. Unless you're talking about absolute zero (which I doubt, considering the simpleness of your statement), the stage where extreme cooling creates a problem would be when we reach the superconductive state. At this critical temperature, the electrons exhibit the Cooper-Pair phenomenon and exhibit a total spin number of zero. Since they no longer have the same spin, they are exempt from most principles (Pauli's in particular) and so can all drop down to the 1s orbital.
In short, the electrons don't stop moving. In fact, they drop to such a state where they can theoretically move with zero resistance (although drift velocity and the randomness of their wave equations would come into play here).
What you should actually be pointing at is the design of the chip, which may not simply be able to do more, regardless of how much heat is dissipated due to consumption (generating lattice fluctuations and increasing resistance). As well, quantum tunneling becomes a major issue, but this isn't as important as the sheer limit of the architecture.
He's trying to say that the comment wasn't comparing closed-source to open-source and determining which is better. Just merely that turf battles in the OSS-community is bad.
Basically, put all the brains together and come up with something better. Don't have the brains of OSS-community battle it out individually.
The grandparent (and first reply to your original post) seems to take offense that you've turned this argument away from its intention to improve OSS-community, and viewed it as a "this is why closed-source is better" argument.
PS. I don't agree (or disagree for that matter) with this statement, but I point it out so you can understand the arguement. The obvious counterargument here is "Competetion creates a far better end product". I don't care which is correct, just that they're both good points and debating which case is probably purely opinion and can't be solidifed absolutely with facts.
"Listen, that robber only got into the passage -to- the safe! Big deal, they haven't even broken the many layers of metal protecting the safe. No one should complain about the fact that the robber got there."
The point is there's a hole. No matter how minute it is, this is directly related to FINANCES. Remember money? One of the things that makes the economy work? Yeah, that thing.
Perhaps people are making too big a deal out of this, but you are taking it far too lightly. Next time your bank gets broken into in the middle of the night by a couple of kids playing around (with no intention to steal), I'm sure people ask if they made sure something like that would never happen again. They don't say "oh they never got close to the safe, we're fine".
Well put.
When people buy game consoles, they think "oh it's this and this as well", so it seems like a better deal... and although it seems like this would have a factor in decision making, I really don't think these extras matter in the long run.
Reasoning? The games make the console. Doesn't matter how great the console is, as long as the good games (read: popular) are there, then that's the console that'll sell the most. It's just the early crowd that might be swayed by an extra feature or two, a month or so into the launch and people will be thinking "do I want this system for this game, or that system for that game".
Does this mean linking a site with links to illegal material is also a crime? Where does it stop? A link of a link of a link? Can you prove that they were purposely attempting to provide aid to gain illegal material?
Your analogy is harsh, your logic surely missing a couple key points. Assisting access to illegal materials requires proof. At least some sort of proof that they were purposely providing aid for illegal services.
To use your brutal analogy. You can't pay your tutition. An old friend lends you a couple hundred that you'll pay back. Later you tell your best friend about this great loaner. Your best friend goes to 'loaner', who ends up being a crack dealer. You are the link. Are you guilty?
This would be one hell of a brutal world if intent is no longer required to be proven.
This just in:
The polls are based on.. the public! Therefore, it's non scientific and is only valid as a estimate of what the general populous (that goes to dilbert site) think.
So calm down, boy. It's just opinions.
It's the same way with the current space program. We're always putting world hunger second :P
Anyhow, the benefits are obvious. If taking stuff to space doesn't require the shuttle (an outdated extremely costly concept that is extremely error prone), not to mention cheaper, then eventually ordinary people will get into space as well.
But the same question applies. What's the current space program have to do for ordinary people? Can you answer that? Good, now imagine all those satellites were far cheaper. Yeah, global communication does kick ass doesn't it?
Cheaper space exploration will benefit us as science takes advantage. It's just a matter of time.
Understandably, there will always be blips on the radar. But hey, you left for a better service, right? So the other one loses your business, the one offering opt-out wins it. Isn't this an example that opt-out wins in the end? No one switches to no opt-out, but (some) people will switch out.
And finally, I think the fact that you found an ISP that has screwed you in email filtering, and then you found one that doesn't screw you... I think that just proves that port filtering won't destroy the internet. Not that big of a deal right? Are you mounting a campaign on Prarie Wave Internet? Probably not, right? You just switched. I'm sure port-filtering could work out to be the same idea. Bad ISP? Just leave.
I know there's a myraid of problems with what I just said ("what if I can't leave"), but the point is that port-filtering and email-filtering look the same in my eyes. And simply put, email filtering has yet to bring the internet crashing down upon us all. What's the big deal about port filtering?
/end rhetorhical question ;)
Thank you, I don't think I could have put this any better.
And now this is a clarification, perhaps directed at the original reponse (not yours, Jhon): Just like how email filters work now, I'm sure port blocking will smooth out in the long run. This isn't "we'll block everything and keep it that way", it's "let's slowly block more and more until everything works nicely". My analogy to email filtering should be simple to understand. It works in the background, keeping most spam out without screwing around with the important stuff. Granted some things will screw up (both in user accessibility, and letting certain exploits through; this occurs in spam filtering as well), but you don't see people screaming about the how the world will change because spam filters are in place, do you?
It's not that big of a deal. Seriously. As long as there's opt-out, the computer-savvy shouldn't worry. Do you use a pop3 server with absolutely no spam filters? Yes? Well you'll still be able to use an ISP that gives you full port access. No? Then you didn't pick the opt-out option. Big deal *yawn*
You're absolutely correct. Just look at the way email filtering works. Spam filters are (by default) turned on, so this could follow suit. You can always opt-out of this service, and get the full email-experience. But you don't see mass complaints about how our email rights are being restricted by the ISP.
And of course, you can opt-out of email filtering. So is port blocking really such a big deal? Just opt-out and make sure it doesn't cost any extra. Hell, filtering from my previous ISP actually costs more. Make port blocking a "feature" of the ISP, charge a buck or more, and save the commoner from having to learn about updating computer systems. Win-win.
Probably the parents were pathetic and irresponsible people as well. All this blame on games is pretty stupid, why don't you blame on the people that couldn't teach the kids that a game is a game, and shouldn't be tried in the real world?
You'd think these kids had some sort of teachings that taught them "shooting a truck with a gun is bad". It seems glaringly obvious the parents are at fault here, and people are once again looking for the scapegoat to blame.
Get some responsible parents, stop blaming games/tv/(insert someone else here).
The reason why macs are overlooked so often is simple. It's called money. You make more money programming for windows than anything else. Bigger user base = bigger end profit.
Companies look out for their bottom lines, not their customers. Everything else done is just another way to increase the profit number.
I don't understand why people even make this comment or calls this news... hurray, mac aren't hit by blaster because blaster kills windows machines. Well duh.
In other news, trees cheer because they don't get infected by AIDS. Obviously trees are amazing, more secure, and the obvious choice for supreme beings of the universe (sarcasm/joke).
This is just common sense.I see that you've ignored the bulk of my statements and went straight to just insulting me. Very well done. Let me rephrase for you.
I'd like to see people read first, then go see the movie. When someone watches the movie first, you get a sense that -this- is the way things should be (it is the first impression after all). This is true in most cases, the first time you see something has the longest lasting impact. I'd like to see people give me a new twist on how they saw the Fellowship, not regurgitate what they saw the Fellowship do in the movie. Get my drift?
I guess if you believe this is an 'elistist' view, then you're entitled to your opinion. I just want to see less people repeating one person's view of Tolkien's books. Perhaps you can stop looking for ways to insult me and understand that.
EBay is a good place. Resell large amounts of online cash into US dollars because people are willing to pay for large amounts of cash....
I sold buckets of gold in UO for a good amount of US dollars, those were good days.
"know" what Nazgul steeds look like... a sad state of affairs, as a big LotR fan I really don't like the direction I see this going. The movies, while impressive, still rob people the ability to imagine the leader of the Nine reach out for Frodo as he huddles, alone, frightened...
I just see this as an opportunity for LotR to reach the masses and become just some big fad, where everyone raves over how great the visuals are and how great the movie's story is (of course.. you're taking a revised script from one of the best six-book series of all time, it better be damn good!).
Sadly, I rather the movies never existed, and this online middle-earth scrapped. Let middle-earth exist in the imaginations of those willing to read, not those who were enchanted by someone else's thoughts (a movie director's) and firmly believe that Legloas can use an arrow like a dagger.
His "main beef" is that it's missing the "crushbone factor". This isn't "I want Crushbone in space with Jedi", this is "I want a story, a big dungeon, and interesting items with side quests to back it up".
He spent quite a while explaining the Crushbone Factor. Perhaps if he named it "The Content Factor" you would have less to complain about. Perhaps you would have spared us your mini-rant about how much you hate Everquest, and your insults to mmorpg players.
I'm sorry, this is definitely news to me. SWG was made as a world, not a game. Of course, it all makes sense now! It's not a game in anyway! That's why it's not marketed a replacement for this world, Eart- oh, whoops.
It's obvious that you like the SWG. Please, write up a rebuttal designed take apart Warthog's main argument, the lack of content. Don't segway off and bitch about Everquest. When your rebuttal is written, post it... I'd like to read another article that shows SWG in a more positive light.
With or without rebounding walls? ^_^
Sometimes that wind carries the death head just far enough out of your way... and into the 5 tank cluster of your friends who just finished napalming each other
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill... either you don't read much online, or you felt extraordinarily picky over this article. With all due respect, most articles online aren't Grade-A English essays. Most articles may not even pass the Word 97 grammar checker. There's no need to complain for such a long time.
So cognitive recognition and memory aren't part of being smarter? She's confusing me by making assumptions about the correct theory of intelligence. She doesn't even bother to state them explicitly.She said "I am in no way saying that by playing video games will make you smarter". She's trying to avoid people going up to her and saying "You said playing Halo would raise my IQ" or "I played Counterstrike all night and didn't pass my exam, you said-" etc. Rather she clarifies her position and says the studies would help people remember certain things (whether they are remembering gaming tips or integration techniques).
With all due respect, I think video games have rotted her brain a little. Why not "Working in an office may still be difficult for women."?Forgive my poor html, it is the best I can do. Anyhow... I don't even see why you had to pull this sentence out of the article to complain about. Many sentences can be reworded different to carry the same message. She wanted to write like that. Perhaps she wished to use the "conquer" word and make it more game related. Simply put: she wanted it worded like that to convey a certain message.
I'm not flaming you. I just think you're picking at such minute details that reading your post is more annoying then reading the errors in her work. Perhaps you should apply for an editor position at that web page instead and spare us her grammatical inaccuracies beforehand.
I don't see why that is true in anyway. Most schools try to make their students to become bilingual, simply because having another language at your disposal is quite an advantage. Why would anyone not want to be able to speak with another race in their own tounge?
One of the things that impresses me is when a businessman can speak to me in my own (non-english) language. It's like they're one of us, not just a businessman, but a friend.
In this world where globalization has changed the way economy used to function, not knowing another language is like cutting off an arm in the business.
Simply put, your ignorance is costing you money. And if not that, then the chance at getting 'down' with foreign women. Is that something you're proud of?
More languages, more choices of women. I rest my case, if the money argument didn't reach you yet.