Mac OS X Server 10.3 Panther is one of the latest in Peachpit Press' Visual QuickPro guides (not to be confused with the beginner "QuickStart" series) and is written by one of the best IT/Mac trainers in the industry, Schoun Regan, with assistance by his devoted sidekick and co-trainer at itinstruction.com, Kevin White. Peachpit and the authors have produced a book with excellent content and delivery; the installation and setup of OS X Server and Web services is explained with clarity and precise detail."
Should this even be needed? You would think for the $500 that OS X server costs it would come with a manual describing how to do basic things such as installing OS X server and setting up web services.
And an emergeny patch today which is supposed to fix much of the lag experience when many players congregate in an area. Cool!
Thank god, now the auction houses would be bearable if they would only make the torches in the Auction house do 6000 points of damage rather than make annoying noises when someone ran into them/danced on them.
I know there will be a ton of people whining why there isn't an update for World of Warcraft but please remember they are entirely different dev teams.
There was a fairly large update to World of Warcraft last Tuesday that fixed many problems such as the Paladin Seal of the Crusader being broken.
If you read the article, you can see that the law they are trying to dispute is only applied to programmers who make $41 an hour or more. If you add that up, it means these programmers make at least $91,840 a year.
Now if you are a programmer, (I am) I'm sure you work some overtime during crunch time. Do you get overtime for it? I know I don't, it's expected that I work until the job is done. Do you make $91,840? I don't think too many programmers are making 91k nowadays.
Yeah that is why the results are 84% to 16% right now? I mean you guessed and you came within 1 percentage point of an actual CNN poll? Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Oh let me guess, because you are a coward.
David Hahn (the teenage boy referenced in parent) didn't actually make a nuclear reactor in his back yard. He was attempting to, but only got so far as to make a neutron gun that he was using to enrich his thorium, which he would have used as a substitute for plutonium in his reactor.
For the record, he never got far enough along to make a nuclear reactor, and most people say that he never would have been able to get that far, based on his financial limitations and limited access to materials.
One of the articles I linked mentions that he would have better access to the materials today than he did back then.
While building a nuclear bomb is more complex than what he did, my real question is If a teenager who couldn't spell 'caution' made it that far how far could a group of jihadists with a budget in the millions who are willing to kill and die for their cause go?
Nascar is one of the fastest growing sports in the country, its geting very popular in New Hampshire, for instance.
Their ratings do amaze me, and I do know people in my 'blue' state that watch NASCAR.
The problem is sensationalism- Yes sensational disasters in foreign countries are well covered, but little else, often without background information or context.
But this isn't a bias against 'world' stories. The US media covers every story like that. The grandparent argued that the US media 'ignored the world' and was only reporting stories that cause fear. That simply isn't true.
The criticism is the "depth" of covereage, not local vs foreign.
The original post seemed like it was more about local vs foreign news.
The major media outlets in the US should be criticized more, not defended
I agree, I usually do not defend the US media but I will if the arguements against them are not valid.
A much more practical possibility is that a current or future nuclear power would see an advantage in giving a group of terrorists a nuclear bomb, either because thay sympathized with their cause
While the rest of his post clearly went into tin-foil hat land, the first part is a valid observation. Would China in a bid to destablize the US leadership tell North Korea to sell weapons to Terrorists to be used in the US so China could finally make it's move for Taiwan? Would the US support chech rebels in their fight with Russia if Russia became 'a problem' again? While it sounds crazy, look at some of the people the US and Russia backed during the cold war against one another.
The one thing preventing this sort of thing is globalism. Anything that effects the US economically could hurt China and Russia, and vice versa.
The best defense is, in fact, to Westernize the globe so that everyone joins the Western world. For example, if Middle Easterners accept Western values, then they will value human rights, democracy, etc.
If Western Culture is the best in the world, then why is every 'western culture' type county under replacement rate when it comes to population? In most of Europe, and the US more people are dying than are being born. That is not the sign of a 'great culture'.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but Western culture is the finest in the world. A Western acquaintance who adopted a Korean orphan is proof of the compassion and goodness of Western values. That Korean orphan, shunned and left to die in Korea, eventually attended MIT.
Adoption is not unique to Western culture.
I agree that democracy might bring 'world peace' eventually, since democratic nations tend not to attack one another. I think the US would be better served if she followed the advice of the founding fathers and avoided foriegn entanglements, but that is just one citizens opinion and not a popular one in this day and age.
There's a lot of things we know terrorists can do - blowing up trains, flying planes into buildings, releasing nerve gas on the underground - because they've already done it. And look how often that happens. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about 10,000 times smaller than dying in a car accident.
Your chances of dying of AIDS are much smaller than your chances of dying of Cancer yet the news should still cover AIDS stories right?
"We in the US media wish to shield you from this world. We bring you only news stories from your own country,
The top two stories on CNN. The headline and the one on the top right.
1. Blasts rock Baghdad, kill 20
2. Putin: Iran not developing nukes
Top stories on Fox news:
1. Attacks Target Shiites in Baghdad
2. Putin: Iran Has No Nuke Plans
The US reports plenty of world news. I know while any post that says (something in the US = bad) is modded up here, this is just silly. When the Tsunami happened, it was 24/7 Tsunami coverage here. When the Russian Schoolchildren were held by terrorists it was basically 24 hour coverage. Sorry if CNN doesn't report soccer scores from around the world, but America doesn't care about trival stuff from around the world.
unless the story furthers the goal of making you even more freightened. Besides, who wants any real news about other countries?
The BBC is available in America, the fact is people are more interested in their local news than world news. Sorry if this bothers you. It isnt' a media consperacy though, it's just a free market economy reacting to what people want.
They don't even have NASCAR in those strange lands!
I guess you are trying to generalize about southerns now, since NASCAR's following is mostly in the more rural section of the country.
Do you really care about what happens in a place without NASCAR, unless they are IMMINENTLY ready to attack! Like SHARKS, and ASBESTOS, and POWER LINES!!! News at 11!!!!!!"
Please. Yes, people care more about trivial events in their own country than trivial events around the world. When something big happens, it is covered ad nausem.
Do we even know what happens when a dirty bomb goes off? Yes, I know it's a normal explosive device laced with nuclear material, but what does that mean in terms of harmfulness?
It depends on the size of the bomb. Really, you have the bomb explosion that causes the damage and the exposure to radiation likely makes the place the bomb exploded uninhabitable or at least undesirable. An explosion like the one in oklahoma city could probably carry the material a few city blocks at least.
Overall, the number of casualties might not be that large
but the psychological and economic impact could be huge.
If one if these went off in lower Manhattan, it could cost billions between lost business and people not wanting to go back to NYC.
I read the article before it was posted here on Slashdot, and the book Nuclear Terrorism. I have no doubt that terrorists could create a dirty bomb and if they had the resources and the time come up with a conventional nuclear weapon.
After all, if a teenage American boy could make a nuclear reactor in his backyard what makes you think terrorists can't make a nuclear weapon?
Insisting on fairness? Ok... maybe the US should give 0.7% of its GDP to developing nations as it has promised to do, instead of giving the 0.1% it does now. That would be fair. Or, maybe, the US should give MOST of its GDP to poorer countries, as that would be EVEN FAIRER.
No, in a fair world people would be able to keep the money that they work hard for and US foreign aid would all be VIA private donation.
What is fair about stealing money out of someones pocket to give to someone else who has not earned it?
Since when is FOX a valid source of news? And used as such by Slashdot?
Despite your political leanings, Fox news is a valid source. Slashdot has linked to worse sources before (ie new scientist). They linked to some tabloid article about how a computer could predict the future a week ago.
Fox shows only the view of this confused attorney and does not mention that linking video games to violence is highly debated and still inconclusive.
Please, don't pin it on Fox just because you think Fox is "conservative". The whole American media will spin it this way.
Is Fox not making more propaganda in the family-value-and-fear style we have come to know them for?
Get a clue and look around, the whole media will report this story as "kid kills because of video game". It doesn't have to do with "family values" it has to do with lack of personal responsibility.
When will it be "Parents irresponsible with how they raised their child leads to deaths"?
I see a lot of people blaming the parents...
I see a lot of people blaming the video game...
I see a lot of people blaming the gun...
I see some blaming America...
Why not just blame the criminal? Who by the time they are a teenager does not know that murder is wrong?
With freedom comes personal responsibility. If we want to be free to raise our children as we see fit, play the video games we want, and bear arms; then each individual must take responsibility for their actions.
Personal responsibility is a broken concept. It's also very primitive and obsolete; it's the perfect excuse for letting the rich blame the poor for their predicament. It's also a great tool to keep the State from meddling with the rich people's business.
Yeah freedom is really overrated. People really aren't responsible for their actions. Oh, and only rich people don't want the state meddling with their business. So how did you get a slashdot ID Comrade Stalin?
Personal responsibility is a broken concept. It's also very primitive and obsolete; it's the perfect excuse for letting the rich blame the poor for their predicament. It's also a great tool to keep the State from meddling with the rich people's business.
Personal responsibility could conceivably be extended to justify murder, with "well, he didn't have a gun and didn't defend himself when I shot him dead, so it's his fault he's dead".
Bottom line: again, Dvorak's talking out of his ass, just like when he claimed that there were almost no linux applications that could run on the PS2, he's making an uninformed guess based on something he heard somewhere.
He is comparing what Google did to Deja-News to what they could do to Wikipedia? You can say he is "talking out of his ass" but it's a good point to think about. I guess it's easier to criticize than to actually do something productive.
good point... why on earth does the game cost anything when it is subscription based?
Because the game likely took 3-4 years to develop, and the company needs to recoup the cost of development. How much do you think it costs to employ all those Programmers, designers, DBA's, network admins, etc.
if you are planning to pay the monthly subscription can you not just download the game installer for free?
The subscription cost pays for the maintainence of servers and customer support after the game is released.
The game isn't free to buy because the game was not free to make. The game isn't free to play (ala a FPS) because major work has to be put into maintaining a massive network and catering to the whiny (imho) people that play MMO's.
Now, in MKII, for a while, I totally dominated at Sunnyvale. I won 4 out of 4 tournaments at the sunnyvale golfland, and 1 out of 1 at the nearby milpitas golfland.
I won most of the MK2 tournaments. It was funny, because Mike Cheng explained to me where the break was, and he had won the tournament 6 weeks in a row and I beat him when I went to my first one. I think he regretted inviting me sometimes. hehe. The only guys who really could touch me at that game were Mike and another guy named Ryan Vella who was very good, but had stopped playing by the time the "big" tournaments (ie 50+ people) came around on the east coast.
Then I stopped playing because I regarded the game as stupid and simplistic as well as insufficiently balanced.
I liked it, it was really a good game for turtling which I enjoy. lol. It was surely unbalanced with certain character matchups resulting in huge advantages.
I was a shang tsung player and enjoyed mixing it up... although I won Sunnyvale largely on being very good at lowpunch/throw cheese;) I don't know how things were on the east coast, but the attitude in sunnyvale was very, very much "anything goes".
Anything went, including Jax's endless throwing in the corner, assorted glitches with the early versions, etc. When Killer Instinct came out, infinate combos were the norm at the tournaments. I usually played character matchups and made the other guy pick first, I did play Tsung quite a lot.
I dabbled in MKII later after a fairly long break, it was dominated by Mileena players and either I got bad or the skill level went up, because I couldn't hang.
Yeah Mileena was pretty popular on the east coast, the sai trap/spam was not a fun thing to deal with for most people on top of the insane corner combos she had.
While MK2 was unbalanced, I still think there was a good deal of skill involved as compared to the games that followed it that mostly featured 'chainable' combos, ie: MK3, Killer Instinct, Primal Rage, Alpha 1, etc.
I agree about the skill level - and I blame the games. The original SSF2 was nearly the pinnacle as far as I'm concerned. I think that SSF2T was more balanced but reflexes played a bigger role there due to the faster speed.
It's funny you say that, because I always like SSF2 better also, maybe it was the speed but I always felt like I was a little off when I played SSF2T.
Even locked on speed 0, let alone speed 1, SSFT2 was was faster than SSF2. I think the scrubs like that, but I know Jon Prentice - who finished 3rd in the big SF:CE tournament behind Tomo and Mike Watson (playing Sagat no less!) - quit specifically because Turbo was so fast he didn't enjoy the game. Not that Jon was slow - he was a Sagat player who, in CE, had such perfect timing that he could uppercut footsweeps with Sagat. That's basically a one-frame opportunity; Sagat's uppercuts got a lot meatier later on.
I've seen this done, but I wasn't that fast for sure. I was happy if I could uppercut dhalsim's limbs.:)
Anyhow, take the speed and throw in excessive "super moves" and take out the more skilled timed combos and replace them with wonky intterupt chain combos...well, it gets lame. When I played the Alpha beta in Sunnyvale (sunnyvale was betaland for Capcom, since their US HQ was there), I liked it, but by the time they released the production version, I felt they'd mangled it, and stopped playing.
I liked Alpha 2 a bit more than Alpha, so it gave me some false hope for Alpha 3.
And yeah, I feel in love with Q3.... And that really gets to matter 1v1 when the game is all about how fast you can move around to outpace your opponent to control the resources.
Hah, I was the same way around the same time with Unreal Tournament (probably the scrubbier of the two games). 1v1 DM in Unreal tournament came down to the same things, controlling the map an
Cool. Were you around when SSF2 and SSF2:T were big? I played all the SF2 games, but I got hooked up with the sunnyvale golfland crowd in 94/95 and played fairly competitively there against Thomas Osaki, John Choi, Graham Wolfe, Jason Nelson, etc.
Oh yeah, I used to play at 8 on the break back then, I started at the weekly tournaments when MK2 was out, I finished up around when Marvel vs Capcom came out. I played mostly with the Local guys from the break, the only two you might know from the ECC's are Todd Dwyer and Mike Cheng. The rest of the 'local' crew had quit by the time ECC1 came along.
I'm pretty sure John Choi came out for ECC a few times. I know some of the other names from the excellent SFA2 guide that came out that was written by the west coast guys. I wasn't too happy about the east coast bashing in the credits/shout out section of the guide though.:)
Never finished higher than 2nd. On good days, I had a chance to crack anyone but Thomas. Thomas was absolutely inhuman with his reactions. I watched him hammer Mike Watson when Watson came up for a tourney from LA. I know some of those guys made pilgrimages to the east coast to play from time to time, including after the alphas were out. I quit after ssf2t, so I was never paying much attention to that.
I'm pretty sure Mike managed to beat John Choi in the Finals for ECC1 (which was SF3). I think John came back out and won one, or a few of the ECC's after that. I could be wrong, I stopped following it right around then. I quit playing right around ECC1. It seemed after MK2 and SSF2:T the skill needed to play the games fell off. To give you an idea of when I was playing there regularly: I won several tournaments there against the regulars for MK2, MK3, Marvel Super Heros, Tekken 2, Tekken 3, Samuri Showdown 2, etc when they would have their weekly tournaments.
By the time "Three" had come out I had discovered FPS games on my computer and the arcade was doomed in my mind.:)
It's that it has both that pissed me off. If there going to charge me a monthly fee to play the game should have been free or more (in real world logic) $25 - $35. If there going to charge me $55 then I dont want to pay a monthly fee to play. The games a hit though so my opinion is deffinitly in the minority.
So which do you think should be free, the development of the software, or the updates and maintainence of the servers/game? I agree that it would be nice if there was a digital distribution system ala steam and the software price got knocked down a bit, but the fact remains you must pay for the software development (this game probably was in development for like 3 years) and for the server mantainence and patches. So you pay $15 a month. If you play just 15 hours a month, you are paying a dollar an hour. That is cheaper than a movie, a trip to the arcade, going out to eat in a decent resturant, etc. I don't think the fee is unreasonable.
Plus, how many players play a lot more than 15 hours a month? I'd bet most people are paying as little as 50 cents an hour to play. Compare that to any arcade you've ever been to.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Server 10.3 Panther is one of the latest in Peachpit Press' Visual QuickPro guides (not to be confused with the beginner "QuickStart" series) and is written by one of the best IT/Mac trainers in the industry, Schoun Regan, with assistance by his devoted sidekick and co-trainer at itinstruction.com, Kevin White. Peachpit and the authors have produced a book with excellent content and delivery; the installation and setup of OS X Server and Web services is explained with clarity and precise detail."
Should this even be needed? You would think for the $500 that OS X server costs it would come with a manual describing how to do basic things such as installing OS X server and setting up web services.
And an emergeny patch today which is supposed to fix much of the lag experience when many players congregate in an area. Cool!
Thank god, now the auction houses would be bearable if they would only make the torches in the Auction house do 6000 points of damage rather than make annoying noises when someone ran into them/danced on them.
I know there will be a ton of people whining why there isn't an update for World of Warcraft but please remember they are entirely different dev teams.
There was a fairly large update to World of Warcraft last Tuesday that fixed many problems such as the Paladin Seal of the Crusader being broken.
If you read the article, you can see that the law they are trying to dispute is only applied to programmers who make $41 an hour or more. If you add that up, it means these programmers make at least $91,840 a year.
Now if you are a programmer, (I am) I'm sure you work some overtime during crunch time. Do you get overtime for it? I know I don't, it's expected that I work until the job is done. Do you make $91,840? I don't think too many programmers are making 91k nowadays.
Yeah that is why the results are 84% to 16% right now? I mean you guessed and you came within 1 percentage point of an actual CNN poll? Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Oh let me guess, because you are a coward.
The Poll at CNN which you didn't link doesn't say ANYTHING about if the changes are 'man-made'. The Poll says:
Do you agree with climate experts that global warming is well under way?
So I guess the CNN website can be read by people in countries that CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE POLL QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ASKING.
Now, I believe that 'global warming' is going on, since we are coming out of an Ice Age but I don't believe it is man-made.
CNN words the questions in this way on purpose, they lead you to a conclusion by asking a question that will have the result they want.
David Hahn (the teenage boy referenced in parent) didn't actually make a nuclear reactor in his back yard. He was attempting to, but only got so far as to make a neutron gun that he was using to enrich his thorium, which he would have used as a substitute for plutonium in his reactor.
For the record, he never got far enough along to make a nuclear reactor, and most people say that he never would have been able to get that far, based on his financial limitations and limited access to materials.
One of the articles I linked mentions that he would have better access to the materials today than he did back then.
While building a nuclear bomb is more complex than what he did, my real question is If a teenager who couldn't spell 'caution' made it that far how far could a group of jihadists with a budget in the millions who are willing to kill and die for their cause go?
Nascar is one of the fastest growing sports in the country, its geting very popular in New Hampshire, for instance.
Their ratings do amaze me, and I do know people in my 'blue' state that watch NASCAR.
The problem is sensationalism- Yes sensational disasters in foreign countries are well covered, but little else, often without background information or context.
But this isn't a bias against 'world' stories. The US media covers every story like that. The grandparent argued that the US media 'ignored the world' and was only reporting stories that cause fear. That simply isn't true.
The criticism is the "depth" of covereage, not local vs foreign.
The original post seemed like it was more about local vs foreign news.
The major media outlets in the US should be criticized more, not defended
I agree, I usually do not defend the US media but I will if the arguements against them are not valid.
A much more practical possibility is that a current or future nuclear power would see an advantage in giving a group of terrorists a nuclear bomb, either because thay sympathized with their cause
While the rest of his post clearly went into tin-foil hat land, the first part is a valid observation. Would China in a bid to destablize the US leadership tell North Korea to sell weapons to Terrorists to be used in the US so China could finally make it's move for Taiwan? Would the US support chech rebels in their fight with Russia if Russia became 'a problem' again? While it sounds crazy, look at some of the people the US and Russia backed during the cold war against one another.
The one thing preventing this sort of thing is globalism. Anything that effects the US economically could hurt China and Russia, and vice versa.
The best defense is, in fact, to Westernize the globe so that everyone joins the Western world. For example, if Middle Easterners accept Western values, then they will value human rights, democracy, etc.
If Western Culture is the best in the world, then why is every 'western culture' type county under replacement rate when it comes to population? In most of Europe, and the US more people are dying than are being born. That is not the sign of a 'great culture'.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but Western culture is the finest in the world. A Western acquaintance who adopted a Korean orphan is proof of the compassion and goodness of Western values. That Korean orphan, shunned and left to die in Korea, eventually attended MIT.
Adoption is not unique to Western culture.
I agree that democracy might bring 'world peace' eventually, since democratic nations tend not to attack one another. I think the US would be better served if she followed the advice of the founding fathers and avoided foriegn entanglements, but that is just one citizens opinion and not a popular one in this day and age.
There's a lot of things we know terrorists can do - blowing up trains, flying planes into buildings, releasing nerve gas on the underground - because they've already done it. And look how often that happens. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about 10,000 times smaller than dying in a car accident.
Your chances of dying of AIDS are much smaller than your chances of dying of Cancer yet the news should still cover AIDS stories right?
US Media to citizens:
"We in the US media wish to shield you from this world. We bring you only news stories from your own country,
The top two stories on CNN. The headline and the one on the top right.
1. Blasts rock Baghdad, kill 20
2. Putin: Iran not developing nukes
Top stories on Fox news:
1. Attacks Target Shiites in Baghdad
2. Putin: Iran Has No Nuke Plans
The US reports plenty of world news. I know while any post that says (something in the US = bad) is modded up here, this is just silly. When the Tsunami happened, it was 24/7 Tsunami coverage here. When the Russian Schoolchildren were held by terrorists it was basically 24 hour coverage. Sorry if CNN doesn't report soccer scores from around the world, but America doesn't care about trival stuff from around the world.
unless the story furthers the goal of making you even more freightened. Besides, who wants any real news about other countries?
The BBC is available in America, the fact is people are more interested in their local news than world news. Sorry if this bothers you. It isnt' a media consperacy though, it's just a free market economy reacting to what people want.
They don't even have NASCAR in those strange lands!
I guess you are trying to generalize about southerns now, since NASCAR's following is mostly in the more rural section of the country.
Do you really care about what happens in a place without NASCAR, unless they are IMMINENTLY ready to attack! Like SHARKS, and ASBESTOS, and POWER LINES!!! News at 11!!!!!!"
Please. Yes, people care more about trivial events in their own country than trivial events around the world. When something big happens, it is covered ad nausem.
Do we even know what happens when a dirty bomb goes off? Yes, I know it's a normal explosive device laced with nuclear material, but what does that mean in terms of harmfulness?
It depends on the size of the bomb. Really, you have the bomb explosion that causes the damage and the exposure to radiation likely makes the place the bomb exploded uninhabitable or at least undesirable. An explosion like the one in oklahoma city could probably carry the material a few city blocks at least.
Some links:
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76873,00.html
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2037769.stm
Overall, the number of casualties might not be that large but the psychological and economic impact could be huge.
If one if these went off in lower Manhattan, it could cost billions between lost business and people not wanting to go back to NYC.
I read the article before it was posted here on Slashdot, and the book Nuclear Terrorism. I have no doubt that terrorists could create a dirty bomb and if they had the resources and the time come up with a conventional nuclear weapon.
After all, if a teenage American boy could make a nuclear reactor in his backyard what makes you think terrorists can't make a nuclear weapon?
Insisting on fairness? Ok... maybe the US should give 0.7% of its GDP to developing nations as it has promised to do, instead of giving the 0.1% it does now. That would be fair. Or, maybe, the US should give MOST of its GDP to poorer countries, as that would be EVEN FAIRER.
No, in a fair world people would be able to keep the money that they work hard for and US foreign aid would all be VIA private donation.
What is fair about stealing money out of someones pocket to give to someone else who has not earned it?
First off, it's a $49.99 game.
It's actually 35.99 when you factor in that you get the first month free.
Since when is FOX a valid source of news? And used as such by Slashdot?
Despite your political leanings, Fox news is a valid source. Slashdot has linked to worse sources before (ie new scientist). They linked to some tabloid article about how a computer could predict the future a week ago.
Fox shows only the view of this confused attorney and does not mention that linking video games to violence is highly debated and still inconclusive.
Please, don't pin it on Fox just because you think Fox is "conservative". The whole American media will spin it this way.
Is Fox not making more propaganda in the family-value-and-fear style we have come to know them for?
Get a clue and look around, the whole media will report this story as "kid kills because of video game". It doesn't have to do with "family values" it has to do with lack of personal responsibility.
When will it be "Parents irresponsible with how they raised their child leads to deaths"?
I see a lot of people blaming the parents...
I see a lot of people blaming the video game...
I see a lot of people blaming the gun...
I see some blaming America...
Why not just blame the criminal? Who by the time they are a teenager does not know that murder is wrong?
With freedom comes personal responsibility. If we want to be free to raise our children as we see fit, play the video games we want, and bear arms; then each individual must take responsibility for their actions.
. And fully indicative of the litigous behaviour that has infected Americans. It makes no sense. But this foolishness has been going on for years
I'll take a overly litigous society over one where citizens have no recourse against the weathy anyday.
I don't enjoy BS lawsuits wasting taxpayer dollars, but there are tradeoffs with everything in life.
Personal responsibility is a broken concept. It's also very primitive and obsolete; it's the perfect excuse for letting the rich blame the poor for their predicament. It's also a great tool to keep the State from meddling with the rich people's business.
Yeah freedom is really overrated. People really aren't responsible for their actions. Oh, and only rich people don't want the state meddling with their business. So how did you get a slashdot ID Comrade Stalin?
Personal responsibility is a broken concept. It's also very primitive and obsolete; it's the perfect excuse for letting the rich blame the poor for their predicament. It's also a great tool to keep the State from meddling with the rich people's business.
Personal responsibility could conceivably be extended to justify murder, with "well, he didn't have a gun and didn't defend himself when I shot him dead, so it's his fault he's dead".
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
Bottom line: again, Dvorak's talking out of his ass, just like when he claimed that there were almost no linux applications that could run on the PS2, he's making an uninformed guess based on something he heard somewhere.
He is comparing what Google did to Deja-News to what they could do to Wikipedia? You can say he is "talking out of his ass" but it's a good point to think about. I guess it's easier to criticize than to actually do something productive.
good point ... why on earth does the game cost anything when it is subscription based?
Because the game likely took 3-4 years to develop, and the company needs to recoup the cost of development. How much do you think it costs to employ all those Programmers, designers, DBA's, network admins, etc.
if you are planning to pay the monthly subscription can you not just download the game installer for free?
The subscription cost pays for the maintainence of servers and customer support after the game is released.
The game isn't free to buy because the game was not free to make. The game isn't free to play (ala a FPS) because major work has to be put into maintaining a massive network and catering to the whiny (imho) people that play MMO's.
Now, in MKII, for a while, I totally dominated at Sunnyvale. I won 4 out of 4 tournaments at the sunnyvale golfland, and 1 out of 1 at the nearby milpitas golfland.
;) I don't know how things were on the east coast, but the attitude in sunnyvale was very, very much "anything goes".
:)
I won most of the MK2 tournaments. It was funny, because Mike Cheng explained to me where the break was, and he had won the tournament 6 weeks in a row and I beat him when I went to my first one. I think he regretted inviting me sometimes. hehe. The only guys who really could touch me at that game were Mike and another guy named Ryan Vella who was very good, but had stopped playing by the time the "big" tournaments (ie 50+ people) came around on the east coast.
Then I stopped playing because I regarded the game as stupid and simplistic as well as insufficiently balanced.
I liked it, it was really a good game for turtling which I enjoy. lol. It was surely unbalanced with certain character matchups resulting in huge advantages.
I was a shang tsung player and enjoyed mixing it up... although I won Sunnyvale largely on being very good at lowpunch/throw cheese
Anything went, including Jax's endless throwing in the corner, assorted glitches with the early versions, etc. When Killer Instinct came out, infinate combos were the norm at the tournaments. I usually played character matchups and made the other guy pick first, I did play Tsung quite a lot.
I dabbled in MKII later after a fairly long break, it was dominated by Mileena players and either I got bad or the skill level went up, because I couldn't hang.
Yeah Mileena was pretty popular on the east coast, the sai trap/spam was not a fun thing to deal with for most people on top of the insane corner combos she had.
While MK2 was unbalanced, I still think there was a good deal of skill involved as compared to the games that followed it that mostly featured 'chainable' combos, ie: MK3, Killer Instinct, Primal Rage, Alpha 1, etc.
I agree about the skill level - and I blame the games. The original SSF2 was nearly the pinnacle as far as I'm concerned. I think that SSF2T was more balanced but reflexes played a bigger role there due to the faster speed.
It's funny you say that, because I always like SSF2 better also, maybe it was the speed but I always felt like I was a little off when I played SSF2T.
Even locked on speed 0, let alone speed 1, SSFT2 was was faster than SSF2. I think the scrubs like that, but I know Jon Prentice - who finished 3rd in the big SF:CE tournament behind Tomo and Mike Watson (playing Sagat no less!) - quit specifically because Turbo was so fast he didn't enjoy the game. Not that Jon was slow - he was a Sagat player who, in CE, had such perfect timing that he could uppercut footsweeps with Sagat. That's basically a one-frame opportunity; Sagat's uppercuts got a lot meatier later on.
I've seen this done, but I wasn't that fast for sure. I was happy if I could uppercut dhalsim's limbs.
Anyhow, take the speed and throw in excessive "super moves" and take out the more skilled timed combos and replace them with wonky intterupt chain combos...well, it gets lame. When I played the Alpha beta in Sunnyvale (sunnyvale was betaland for Capcom, since their US HQ was there), I liked it, but by the time they released the production version, I felt they'd mangled it, and stopped playing.
I liked Alpha 2 a bit more than Alpha, so it gave me some false hope for Alpha 3.
And yeah, I feel in love with Q3.... And that really gets to matter 1v1 when the game is all about how fast you can move around to outpace your opponent to control the resources.
Hah, I was the same way around the same time with Unreal Tournament (probably the scrubbier of the two games). 1v1 DM in Unreal tournament came down to the same things, controlling the map an
Cool. Were you around when SSF2 and SSF2:T were big? I played all the SF2 games, but I got hooked up with the sunnyvale golfland crowd in 94/95 and played fairly competitively there against Thomas Osaki, John Choi, Graham Wolfe, Jason Nelson, etc.
:)
:)
Oh yeah, I used to play at 8 on the break back then, I started at the weekly tournaments when MK2 was out, I finished up around when Marvel vs Capcom came out. I played mostly with the Local guys from the break, the only two you might know from the ECC's are Todd Dwyer and Mike Cheng. The rest of the 'local' crew had quit by the time ECC1 came along.
I'm pretty sure John Choi came out for ECC a few times. I know some of the other names from the excellent SFA2 guide that came out that was written by the west coast guys. I wasn't too happy about the east coast bashing in the credits/shout out section of the guide though.
Never finished higher than 2nd. On good days, I had a chance to crack anyone but Thomas. Thomas was absolutely inhuman with his reactions. I watched him hammer Mike Watson when Watson came up for a tourney from LA. I know some of those guys made pilgrimages to the east coast to play from time to time, including after the alphas were out. I quit after ssf2t, so I was never paying much attention to that.
I'm pretty sure Mike managed to beat John Choi in the Finals for ECC1 (which was SF3). I think John came back out and won one, or a few of the ECC's after that. I could be wrong, I stopped following it right around then. I quit playing right around ECC1. It seemed after MK2 and SSF2:T the skill needed to play the games fell off. To give you an idea of when I was playing there regularly: I won several tournaments there against the regulars for MK2, MK3, Marvel Super Heros, Tekken 2, Tekken 3, Samuri Showdown 2, etc when they would have their weekly tournaments.
By the time "Three" had come out I had discovered FPS games on my computer and the arcade was doomed in my mind.
It's that it has both that pissed me off. If there going to charge me a monthly fee to play the game should have been free or more (in real world logic) $25 - $35. If there going to charge me $55 then I dont want to pay a monthly fee to play. The games a hit though so my opinion is deffinitly in the minority.
So which do you think should be free, the development of the software, or the updates and maintainence of the servers/game? I agree that it would be nice if there was a digital distribution system ala steam and the software price got knocked down a bit, but the fact remains you must pay for the software development (this game probably was in development for like 3 years) and for the server mantainence and patches. So you pay $15 a month. If you play just 15 hours a month, you are paying a dollar an hour. That is cheaper than a movie, a trip to the arcade, going out to eat in a decent resturant, etc. I don't think the fee is unreasonable.
Plus, how many players play a lot more than 15 hours a month? I'd bet most people are paying as little as 50 cents an hour to play. Compare that to any arcade you've ever been to.