So, asking me in if I even read the article or using the word voila at the end of his post wasn't meant to be sarcastic? Yeah, I'm sure about that one. He probably wasn't being sarcastic when he told mattwolfewvu to use his head.
So, how do you know if I answered my own question? Do you have confirmation that it is a Nintendo produced calendar? There was good reason that it might not be. For all I know, it could have been something made by a fanboy. As for the Square products in the calendar, it would be like having a calendar mapping Mario's history and then having a month showing Pikachu and another showing Captain Falcon. Ads or not, they didn't have much of a place in the calendar, thus making the whole thing seem fishy. I wasn't the only one who was unsure, either.
Also, I'm not a reactive person, I just defend what I have to say. Otherwise, it's not worth saying.
Next time, don't post as a fucking Anonymous Coward, especially when talking about someone else. Stand by what you say. Coward posts can also imply that the author of the post is a karma whore. Oh well, I have a good feeling who posted as a Coward anyways.
If your post did anything, it made my day. I got a good chuckle out of this, and for that, I thank you.
My panties are bunched up over it? No. I was just curious. That's all. It seemed to be a bit fishy. All I wanted was clarification. Is that too hard to grasp?
Now, do you feel better talking shit on a message board? Go tell your friends, they'll be excited to see what a tough guy you've become!
Run along, don't keep them waiting. They'll be so proud of you!
We have yet another damn oversight, I was speaking of the American release dates when I used the term upcoming.
Bah, it's Sunday, so I, unlike many Slashdot posters, watch football. Stephen Davis had such a good game today that it must be messing with my mind. He loves being on my fantasy team.
Did you even fully read my post? My "blatant advertising" statement was in reference to Sword of Mana and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles being in the calendar, not the Nintendo promotion. It wasn't making much sense to me why they would put those two games into a calendar when those games had absolutely nothing to do with the Famicom/NES.
Try to fully understand the question that I was posing before posting a sarcastic reply.
Aah, stating that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles was an oversight. It was supposed to read are upcoming GBA and GameCube titles instead of are upcoming GBA titles. I'm a bit of a retro Nintendo fan, but I don't keep up too much with the Final Fantasy series, which is probably why I didn't notice the typo.
Sword of Mana (June) and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles (December) are upcoming GBA titles. Unless this is blatant advertising, why the hell would they put these two titles in something like this?
So, is the calendar a fake Nintendo product, or can it be confirmed that it was produced by Nintendo? I'm not trying to be accusatory, I honestly want to know the answer.
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't be able to obtain some sort of power, but my solution would change how one would go about obtaining it.
I think that if a player is going to be better than another, it should be because they truly have more skill rather than have more free time to level up.
Now, I'm not against initial attribute settings. A player should be able to customize their character to their liking within reason. But, I don't like it when a player can sit around, find different ways to level up, and become virtually unbeatable by any of the players. It's only the very powerful characters who can get away with whatever they want. If a player was causing trouble but was totally uncontainable because of his experience level, the players would be sitting ducks until an admin settled it. But, if the trouble maker wasn't just able to kill me with a single touch, it would make it much harder to cause trouble. Even if he was better than me, I could rally other players to help me. There would be no need for an admin to intervene.
I have a feeling that you might be concerned with how a player would be rewarded if my solution was to be put in place. I believe that instead of granting a player more power in terms of a higher character level, perhaps they could have access to special servers only for people who are very dedicated to the game.
Skill shouldn't be a measure of who has the most time to burn, it should be a measure of who can actually play the best. If one player has too much power and starts trouble, the others become powerless. But by making characters more mortal, players are more empowered to handle their problems.
Thanks for the suggestion, eggstasy. The game looks and sounds really interesting. However, as of now I'm still using my junker computer with only worse off junkers laying around. Not to mention, I'm running Linux. I keep thinking about building a new computer, but I always end up putting it off.
Hopefully, I'll have some sort of better machine up and running soon enough, and when I do, I'll probably give Second Life a shot.
I would be interested in a method that either did away with or greatly reduced the role of experience points. Make the characters more mortal, and if the other players feel the need to handle the situation, they can. No single player could become omnipotent and little to no intervention from an outside party (game admin, etc) would be necessary.
With this solution, players would feel more in control of their destiny. They wouldn't have to cry to an admin to settle problems for them, as they would be able to handle things themselves. The focus of the game would then be the use of ingenuity and problem solving skills, rather than the usual contest to see who can play the longest and level up the most. Focus on the players and the adventures that they have created themselves, not their stats and predetermined storylines.
A player shouldn't be limited to what a game developer intended. I've played many games where I've had more fun inventing my own sub-game or objective than the one that a developer made for me.
Nice dissection. But, there's two points I would like to make.
1. I took about 30 seconds to write what I had to say (half asleep mind you, I live in the Eastern time zone). You on the other hand appear to have taken quite awhile to come up with your statements.
2. It was a joke.
So, I hope it was well worth it to pick apart my relatively thrown together post on hippies. If your post was a joke as well, good. In that case, I find it funny. If not, I'll weep for you. Also, my last sentence in the original post should have a question mark. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that after all the work you put in.
What exactly would a hippie do in a situation like this? On one hand, they would want to protest the fact that Stots isn't letting them share. Not to mention, a true hippie absolutely loves a good protest.
On the other hand, these tools are used to promote the murdering and desecration of helpless, beautiful trees.
I understand that you're torn, flower children. But I must ask, what would you do in this situation.
Sure, trying to end spam sounds nice and all, but the people in Congress almost never think of the repercussions that a new law could make, just to make it look like they're being effective in the public eye.
Rather than fucking around with new laws that have the high potential to create new problems, how about getting some useless and laws off of the books instead?
I've heard of some freaky shit happen to people who eat Spam, but never have I read a report of people responding to it!
What exactly is Spam commanding these people to do? Hopefully it's not commanding people to kill. Hawaii would be a scary place to live, a lot of those people eat Spam.
Crazy Hawaiian motherfuckers eating spam and killing people. Shit, just when you thought you've heard it all...
The Dutch just think that they've won. They started blabbering about how their car was really a rocket ship that they used to travel to outer space so that they could eat pizza with Jesus and play cards with the Moon as well.
They never intended to win the race, they just wanted to outrun the bad vibes and demons that were chasing them. In all reality, they didn't move an inch.
Al Michaels: Wow, did you see how he clicked on that thingamabob, John? Such grace and finesse!
John Madden: It's amazing what accuracy he has, Al. But, you know what? I have a pretty good idea of how he refined his wrist motion.
Al Michaels: Ha ha ha. John, this is only network television, so we're treading on thin ice. But with 28 years of practice, it's no wonder why he is just so good. Now, let's join Lisa Guerrero with the Nerd Alert.
It's why you come back? Shit, if you wanted dopey commentary, just read the comments from other users. If you think that most of their comments are insightful, I'd hate to have your insight. It would be nice if they would just stick to the stories rather than write pissy remarks (often times leftist) and let people judge for themselves. They have a service most others cannot offer, but they fuck it up with posts like Michael's. I know that they like to comment, but it should stop.
Now it's your turn to fuck off. By the way, quit being a pussy and posting as a coward. Are you too afraid of having a bad karma rating?
Whether or not everybody can use or distribute OSS is one thing, whether or not it's the best for the job is another. Open source can be a perk, but if the software isn't the best tool, it shouldn't be used, regardless of whether or not it's open source. They shouldn't show favoritism either way because of how the source is handled.
I also wouldn't want the government creating a market for open source software. Is it really their place to do so? I say let the consumers choose whether or not a particular market is created based on their needs, not based on what somebody thinks they could use. People might consider open source software more if they felt that they had a compelling reason to use it. As of now, your average person doesn't see why they should switch. It shouldn't be up to the government to say who uses what, but instead, advocates of open source software should think of creative ways to make them want to switch.
Please note that I shouldn't be considered an open source advocate, moreso of a person who accepts it, but also accepts proprietary software and doesn't mind when somebody wants to sell their product.
I don't think it's a matter of whether or not the markets can fix the problem, but they've chosen not to, and until they do, I doubt that the government can fix the problems without creating a slew of new ones.
Slashdot Mirror
So, asking me in if I even read the article or using the word voila at the end of his post wasn't meant to be sarcastic? Yeah, I'm sure about that one. He probably wasn't being sarcastic when he told mattwolfewvu to use his head.
So, how do you know if I answered my own question? Do you have confirmation that it is a Nintendo produced calendar? There was good reason that it might not be. For all I know, it could have been something made by a fanboy. As for the Square products in the calendar, it would be like having a calendar mapping Mario's history and then having a month showing Pikachu and another showing Captain Falcon. Ads or not, they didn't have much of a place in the calendar, thus making the whole thing seem fishy. I wasn't the only one who was unsure, either.
Also, I'm not a reactive person, I just defend what I have to say. Otherwise, it's not worth saying.
Next time, don't post as a fucking Anonymous Coward, especially when talking about someone else. Stand by what you say. Coward posts can also imply that the author of the post is a karma whore. Oh well, I have a good feeling who posted as a Coward anyways.
If your post did anything, it made my day. I got a good chuckle out of this, and for that, I thank you.
My panties are bunched up over it? No. I was just curious. That's all. It seemed to be a bit fishy. All I wanted was clarification. Is that too hard to grasp?
Now, do you feel better talking shit on a message board? Go tell your friends, they'll be excited to see what a tough guy you've become!
Run along, don't keep them waiting. They'll be so proud of you!
We have yet another damn oversight, I was speaking of the American release dates when I used the term upcoming.
Bah, it's Sunday, so I, unlike many Slashdot posters, watch football. Stephen Davis had such a good game today that it must be messing with my mind. He loves being on my fantasy team.
Did you even fully read my post? My "blatant advertising" statement was in reference to Sword of Mana and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles being in the calendar, not the Nintendo promotion. It wasn't making much sense to me why they would put those two games into a calendar when those games had absolutely nothing to do with the Famicom/NES.
Try to fully understand the question that I was posing before posting a sarcastic reply.
Aah, stating that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles was an oversight. It was supposed to read are upcoming GBA and GameCube titles instead of are upcoming GBA titles. I'm a bit of a retro Nintendo fan, but I don't keep up too much with the Final Fantasy series, which is probably why I didn't notice the typo.
Sword of Mana (June) and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles (December) are upcoming GBA titles. Unless this is blatant advertising, why the hell would they put these two titles in something like this?
So, is the calendar a fake Nintendo product, or can it be confirmed that it was produced by Nintendo? I'm not trying to be accusatory, I honestly want to know the answer.
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't be able to obtain some sort of power, but my solution would change how one would go about obtaining it.
I think that if a player is going to be better than another, it should be because they truly have more skill rather than have more free time to level up.
Now, I'm not against initial attribute settings. A player should be able to customize their character to their liking within reason. But, I don't like it when a player can sit around, find different ways to level up, and become virtually unbeatable by any of the players. It's only the very powerful characters who can get away with whatever they want. If a player was causing trouble but was totally uncontainable because of his experience level, the players would be sitting ducks until an admin settled it. But, if the trouble maker wasn't just able to kill me with a single touch, it would make it much harder to cause trouble. Even if he was better than me, I could rally other players to help me. There would be no need for an admin to intervene.
I have a feeling that you might be concerned with how a player would be rewarded if my solution was to be put in place. I believe that instead of granting a player more power in terms of a higher character level, perhaps they could have access to special servers only for people who are very dedicated to the game.
Skill shouldn't be a measure of who has the most time to burn, it should be a measure of who can actually play the best. If one player has too much power and starts trouble, the others become powerless. But by making characters more mortal, players are more empowered to handle their problems.
Thanks for the suggestion, eggstasy. The game looks and sounds really interesting. However, as of now I'm still using my junker computer with only worse off junkers laying around. Not to mention, I'm running Linux. I keep thinking about building a new computer, but I always end up putting it off.
Hopefully, I'll have some sort of better machine up and running soon enough, and when I do, I'll probably give Second Life a shot.
I would be interested in a method that either did away with or greatly reduced the role of experience points. Make the characters more mortal, and if the other players feel the need to handle the situation, they can. No single player could become omnipotent and little to no intervention from an outside party (game admin, etc) would be necessary.
With this solution, players would feel more in control of their destiny. They wouldn't have to cry to an admin to settle problems for them, as they would be able to handle things themselves. The focus of the game would then be the use of ingenuity and problem solving skills, rather than the usual contest to see who can play the longest and level up the most. Focus on the players and the adventures that they have created themselves, not their stats and predetermined storylines.
A player shouldn't be limited to what a game developer intended. I've played many games where I've had more fun inventing my own sub-game or objective than the one that a developer made for me.
Nice dissection. But, there's two points I would like to make.
1. I took about 30 seconds to write what I had to say (half asleep mind you, I live in the Eastern time zone). You on the other hand appear to have taken quite awhile to come up with your statements.
2. It was a joke.
So, I hope it was well worth it to pick apart my relatively thrown together post on hippies. If your post was a joke as well, good. In that case, I find it funny. If not, I'll weep for you. Also, my last sentence in the original post should have a question mark. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that after all the work you put in.
What exactly would a hippie do in a situation like this? On one hand, they would want to protest the fact that Stots isn't letting them share. Not to mention, a true hippie absolutely loves a good protest.
On the other hand, these tools are used to promote the murdering and desecration of helpless, beautiful trees.
I understand that you're torn, flower children. But I must ask, what would you do in this situation.
Sounds like fun. I'd make politicians illegal as well. Then we'll see what laws are worthy of making it...
It should read useless and bad laws, not useless and laws.
Words have been coming up missing in posts lately, scary. I wonder where they're going.
Sure, trying to end spam sounds nice and all, but the people in Congress almost never think of the repercussions that a new law could make, just to make it look like they're being effective in the public eye.
Rather than fucking around with new laws that have the high potential to create new problems, how about getting some useless and laws off of the books instead?
They couldn't help it. Was there a new rule that illuminata must be moderated -1 no matter what?
...And to think that somebody can't make better use of their mod points.
I've heard of some freaky shit happen to people who eat Spam, but never have I read a report of people responding to it!
What exactly is Spam commanding these people to do? Hopefully it's not commanding people to kill. Hawaii would be a scary place to live, a lot of those people eat Spam.
Crazy Hawaiian motherfuckers eating spam and killing people. Shit, just when you thought you've heard it all...
Offtopic? It's a joke relating to the story.
The Dutch just think that they've won. They started blabbering about how their car was really a rocket ship that they used to travel to outer space so that they could eat pizza with Jesus and play cards with the Moon as well.
They never intended to win the race, they just wanted to outrun the bad vibes and demons that were chasing them. In all reality, they didn't move an inch.
Al Michaels: Wow, did you see how he clicked on that thingamabob, John? Such grace and finesse!
John Madden: It's amazing what accuracy he has, Al. But, you know what? I have a pretty good idea of how he refined his wrist motion.
Al Michaels: Ha ha ha. John, this is only network television, so we're treading on thin ice. But with 28 years of practice, it's no wonder why he is just so good. Now, let's join Lisa Guerrero with the Nerd Alert.
It's why you come back? Shit, if you wanted dopey commentary, just read the comments from other users. If you think that most of their comments are insightful, I'd hate to have your insight. It would be nice if they would just stick to the stories rather than write pissy remarks (often times leftist) and let people judge for themselves. They have a service most others cannot offer, but they fuck it up with posts like Michael's. I know that they like to comment, but it should stop.
Now it's your turn to fuck off. By the way, quit being a pussy and posting as a coward. Are you too afraid of having a bad karma rating?
Don't you think that people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions without needing your smart ass comments?
They haven't given you an editorial yet, so why not just keep your mouth shut until then, and try to give Slashdot an ounce of integrity, alright?
Flamebait my ass, the word joke was bolded for a reason.
Between the Chinese sending a person into orbit and Linux, does anybody else smell another Cold War against the commies?
Who knows, it might just be a joke on my part.
Whether or not everybody can use or distribute OSS is one thing, whether or not it's the best for the job is another. Open source can be a perk, but if the software isn't the best tool, it shouldn't be used, regardless of whether or not it's open source. They shouldn't show favoritism either way because of how the source is handled.
I also wouldn't want the government creating a market for open source software. Is it really their place to do so? I say let the consumers choose whether or not a particular market is created based on their needs, not based on what somebody thinks they could use. People might consider open source software more if they felt that they had a compelling reason to use it. As of now, your average person doesn't see why they should switch. It shouldn't be up to the government to say who uses what, but instead, advocates of open source software should think of creative ways to make them want to switch.
Please note that I shouldn't be considered an open source advocate, moreso of a person who accepts it, but also accepts proprietary software and doesn't mind when somebody wants to sell their product.
I don't think it's a matter of whether or not the markets can fix the problem, but they've chosen not to, and until they do, I doubt that the government can fix the problems without creating a slew of new ones.