If you're self employed and 40$ is beyond the pale in terms of a cost associated with running your business, you might be one of those people who equates being self employed with having a right to be profitable.
"Cyanogenmod is in many was less customized and more like stock Android"
So not stock Android, eh? What was your point again? I'm consistently impressed by the amount of whining that happens here these days. Years ago, we used to whine about things that were actually significant to professional developers, not whiny users whining about their phones.
Obviously it's for publicity, but their claim is clearly tongue in cheek. Let me put it this way. Everyone is taking this way more seriously than Nvidia is.
Congratulations, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on/. I don't even know where to begin, except to say that it sounds like your thinking seems to be, "Let me pick a position which I know will be unpopular, which must mean it is more correct than the popular position, and then go through some inane line of reasoning to support said position."
"They are the only people who would have actually earned it."
It's like there's some strange black hole of information available on the internet that only happens around the super specific topic the Ask Slashdotter is interested in. I'm pretty sure all of these folks are the ones that were our best horses in Keener Bingo:
Ding ding. Fuck, C# is fine and dandy and pretty fucking fast, if your target platforms and related asset and tool ecosystems are cool with it, and you're not boneheaded about what you're doing. Questions like these are so silly - if you do so much homework to know what you know and what you don't know, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to find the right information, books, etc. What a passive aggressive inquiry. If you're convinced you can write an intelligently framed question with tons of context, then why on earth can you not do a little google mining for books that focus on C# game development? This discipline is hardly a secretive cabal.
Ah, your one data point throws off his entire asinine argument! (Seriously, the OP is a moron, but I can't find anywhere in his drivel that he stated only boys can have ADHD.)
Ugh. The only thing worse than lectures are questions from the audience. Well, actually, I have no problems with questions per se, but anybody who interrupts with a question that is going to be answered within the hour as part of the material, or asks a question that was already answered should be subject to some kind of punishment.
For all practical purposes, you're probably within 40 feet of a door that can never be opened. Or let's go the other way - hey, given enough time, you could probably find a crane and a wrecking ball, and destroy the building you're sitting in. Therefore, games without fully destructible environments are frustrating to you, because in real life, you can destroy everything? That's a silly line of reasoning. You're marking the line between what is reasonable and unreasonable that is clearly out of whack with the majority of players who accept that some level of suspension of disbelief is required in order to enjoy a video game. Game design conventions and art design directly addresses the concerns you're laying out in the vast majority of games with visual cues as to which objects are interactive and which are not. Anybody can be obstinate about those conventions, but to argue the point without acknowledging that they are a standard part of game and art design is being utterly disingenuous.
The vacuous thing about the slippery slope argument is we can't drag you out in public and have you admit you were wrong a couple of years down the road.
Which is not at all what the article is saying. It's saying that solitary confinement is being used on many more people than those "some folks." You're not making an argument any more than me saying, "Well, some folks should be killed, so why would we care how many folks are being killed?"
We're not talking about "quite a few". We're talking about 80,000 at levels per capita that no other country on earth does. We don't conduct science and research to make ourselves feel fuzzy. We do it to point out that a huge amount of those people are not in for life, and will be released at some point, so why would we be complicit in inflicting mental instability on them given that it would be in our self interest to ensure they're not crazy when then are released? The whole point of raising the alarm on this is that it's being used on people who do not pose imminent physical threats and dangers to others. It's right there in the summary, and the article - nobody is suggesting that solitary confinement isn't required, but it's weapons grade stupid (if a profitable business model for jails) to turn humans into worse humans. We figured out a long time ago that it's more more beneficial for US to rehabilitate those who we can, so if you're okay with using punishments and detainment that cause people do become more of a danger to society when they're let out than when they're let in, you're not even making a case for self interest.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're self employed and 40$ is beyond the pale in terms of a cost associated with running your business, you might be one of those people who equates being self employed with having a right to be profitable.
Technology has receded since the last time humans landed on the moon? That's pretty funny.
Well, sure, you can pay them to work from home in India, but if the point is to get that work back into your GDP then ...
"Cyanogenmod is in many was less customized and more like stock Android"
So not stock Android, eh? What was your point again? I'm consistently impressed by the amount of whining that happens here these days. Years ago, we used to whine about things that were actually significant to professional developers, not whiny users whining about their phones.
Isn't it the big two? Android or iPhone? So why not just get a Nexus 4 or 5, unlocked, nice and cheap? Root it, and you're done.
The definition of gaming as a hobby is not, "Gaming where ever, whenever you like, however you like."
Or Greeks, I guess? Or the tons of other countries in which octopus is not an exotic food?
Where does it end is not an argument.
"We won't let 3 year olds drive cars? Where does it end?"
I'm sure your neighbors appreciate the fact that you're a self absorbed twat.
Obviously it's for publicity, but their claim is clearly tongue in cheek. Let me put it this way. Everyone is taking this way more seriously than Nvidia is.
Anybody that would consider her being a hate-monger is out of touch with reality.
And your credentials are what, exactly?
Congratulations, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on /. I don't even know where to begin, except to say that it sounds like your thinking seems to be, "Let me pick a position which I know will be unpopular, which must mean it is more correct than the popular position, and then go through some inane line of reasoning to support said position."
"They are the only people who would have actually earned it."
Everyone here is dumber for having read that.
It's like there's some strange black hole of information available on the internet that only happens around the super specific topic the Ask Slashdotter is interested in. I'm pretty sure all of these folks are the ones that were our best horses in Keener Bingo:
http://www.mathnews.uwaterloo....
Ding ding. Fuck, C# is fine and dandy and pretty fucking fast, if your target platforms and related asset and tool ecosystems are cool with it, and you're not boneheaded about what you're doing. Questions like these are so silly - if you do so much homework to know what you know and what you don't know, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to find the right information, books, etc. What a passive aggressive inquiry. If you're convinced you can write an intelligently framed question with tons of context, then why on earth can you not do a little google mining for books that focus on C# game development? This discipline is hardly a secretive cabal.
Yikes. And you think *he's* dumb?
Ah, your one data point throws off his entire asinine argument! (Seriously, the OP is a moron, but I can't find anywhere in his drivel that he stated only boys can have ADHD.)
Ugh. The only thing worse than lectures are questions from the audience. Well, actually, I have no problems with questions per se, but anybody who interrupts with a question that is going to be answered within the hour as part of the material, or asks a question that was already answered should be subject to some kind of punishment.
Fortunately, those who did use him as an inspiration to get a life/career were also well adjusted enough to have a good laugh.
For all practical purposes, you're probably within 40 feet of a door that can never be opened. Or let's go the other way - hey, given enough time, you could probably find a crane and a wrecking ball, and destroy the building you're sitting in. Therefore, games without fully destructible environments are frustrating to you, because in real life, you can destroy everything? That's a silly line of reasoning. You're marking the line between what is reasonable and unreasonable that is clearly out of whack with the majority of players who accept that some level of suspension of disbelief is required in order to enjoy a video game. Game design conventions and art design directly addresses the concerns you're laying out in the vast majority of games with visual cues as to which objects are interactive and which are not. Anybody can be obstinate about those conventions, but to argue the point without acknowledging that they are a standard part of game and art design is being utterly disingenuous.
The vacuous thing about the slippery slope argument is we can't drag you out in public and have you admit you were wrong a couple of years down the road.
We knew you'd say that.
Which is not at all what the article is saying. It's saying that solitary confinement is being used on many more people than those "some folks." You're not making an argument any more than me saying, "Well, some folks should be killed, so why would we care how many folks are being killed?"
We're not talking about "quite a few". We're talking about 80,000 at levels per capita that no other country on earth does. We don't conduct science and research to make ourselves feel fuzzy. We do it to point out that a huge amount of those people are not in for life, and will be released at some point, so why would we be complicit in inflicting mental instability on them given that it would be in our self interest to ensure they're not crazy when then are released? The whole point of raising the alarm on this is that it's being used on people who do not pose imminent physical threats and dangers to others. It's right there in the summary, and the article - nobody is suggesting that solitary confinement isn't required, but it's weapons grade stupid (if a profitable business model for jails) to turn humans into worse humans. We figured out a long time ago that it's more more beneficial for US to rehabilitate those who we can, so if you're okay with using punishments and detainment that cause people do become more of a danger to society when they're let out than when they're let in, you're not even making a case for self interest.
I think you just tried to write a scene for an episode of CSI.