A PC user uses his machine to perform a task and thinks little of the machine itself. A Mac, on the other hand, is a key component of an integrated lifestyle. If you don't live the lifestyle and you care to know more about it, then check out the book. Otherwise, you might as well skip it.
Being someone who spends equal time all day on a PC and Mac (G4 and G5), I can tell you that a Mac in no way is a "key component of an integrated lifestyle". It's a computer that happens to run an alternate OS and have a good marketing department, which is nice if you don't like windows or you are a drone consumer who cares about what is 'cool'.
A prayer for co-workers to die might be taken as a real threat if people knew me as the kind of person who expected (and worked) to have my prayers answered. On the other hand, this is the 'prayer' of someone who admits to questioning the existence (much less the power) of God, and who prays for things like for Dubya to be found by the press, dead on a pile of coke with a black male prostitute.
I'll never understand why this is so hard for certain people to get. It's very simple, if you threaten the president, even in jest you are going to get a visit from the secret service. End of story. It's not 1984, it's protecting the president and the Secret Service takes that very seriously as they should.
He coded it from scratch over 2 years from assembler. What source code would he mess with anyway? It's not like you can hack the 3d engine from the orignal into the NES.
Not only that, but he wrote his own assembler "NESHLA" for the NES when he decided the other ones sucked and then made the game with that assembler! That is pretty damn impressive. The grandparent troll probably couldn't code hello world in visual basic.
I can... He carefully edited it out to remove the context of the words. She was praying for outrageous and unreasonable things... When you take that out, it seems like she's really asking someone to kill Bush.
One, he only took out the "threat" part, and two it doesn't matter if it's only satire as many people have argued. It's well known fact if you threaten the presidents life publically, you will get a visit from the secret service. Even though it was satire, what happens when some nutjob takes it upon himself after reading it to 'be' god and answer the prayer?
Bottom line is the secret service is going to visit you if you threaten a sitting president, they are obligated to do so. It does not matter which party that president is from.
On a side note, you could probably be charged if you wrote in your blog that you were praying to god for your co-worker to die. If your co-worker read the post, then went to the cops, you would likely end up being questioned at least.
"Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997; now it's about 5 percent,"
How much of this has to do with more women and old people on the internet? I doubt that the number of overall sex searches is down, but the demographics of internet users have likely changed a lot since 1997. On top of that, add in the amount of filtering software nowadays in the workplace and academia alone that discourages that sort of thing.
San Andreas introduces a host of new features that including eating food to survive...
They don't mean new to gaming right? I can think of plenty of old RPG's that made you do this (the Early ultima's come to mind). What also comes to mind, is how annoying this was. No matter with GTA, all the fun in GTA is in putting in cheatcodes and randomly playing in the virtual crime sandbox.:)
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter.
We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
This argument is illogical though. Yes, a pro-active stance is needed, but a defensive stance is important too. You don't say, well "We'll never adequately secure ourselves." so we might as well not try". You keep trying to secure yourself, and to protect the juciest targets. If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile?
Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security. How many times have you heard "Well, I just think if a hacker REALLY wants to get in he can, so I don't bother patching anything."
It's the same pattern of thinking.
A few other points:
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials?
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot. Nutjob yes, idiot no.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Huh? 3 of the hijackers were here illegally, and a few of the others were on expired student visas. Their being here was a direct failure of the INS, but you don't really hear about that. As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
Yeah, but it's getting better. I'd like to see it get onto the level of Israli plane security.
Our trains are vulnerable.
Yes, they seem that way. At least the ones I've seen. Then again, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out onto the street. Mom and pop shops aren't safe either, they should be protected. Every last grocery store,... and every vehicle, for sure. You know how many car bombs get used in, say, the middle-east? Protecting your subway won't prevent that. Oklahoma City bombing? Truck, parking lot, explosives.
Ahh, and here is the point where you take it too far, you take a statement about protecting places where large groups of people gather and apply it to where few people are.
The problem is that no matter what you protect, people intent on attacking will just pick another target. Terrorists don't need the targets to be big buildings or subway systems
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money. The US isn't like Isreal or Iraq. There aren't hordes of islamic fundamentalists at our borders who want us dead. They are for the most part overseas. While Al-Quadia and other groups likely have sleeper cells in the US, it would be illogical from their standpoint to blow themselves or something else up unless it was going to inflict mass harm. Sure, you might scare a few people if you launch a suicide attack on a bus, but to kill 20 people, it isn't worth it for the small amount of resources they have here. If you have, say 50 to 100 agents in the US, are you going to waste one to kill 20 people, or would you rather they take their time and find the route that will cost the most casualities? This is why the US needs to protect anywhere people gather in large numbers. They are the ideal target for an attack, not "every sidewalk" and you sarcastically brought up. Your main point, that we can not go that far is true but that does not mean we should not go to every length possible to protect innocent life.
Sure, it'll avoid attacks in the subway (maybe) -- people will feel safe while they're in the subway, then as soon as they come out, they'll panic again. And then we'll have an attack in the subway anyway, and... yeah. You see how it works?
Just like there has been another American plane hijacking post 9/11? You are drawning conclusions you can not prove. FYI, most people do feel really safe here, there isn't much panic.
Terrorists win when we're afraid. This shows that we obviously have a problem here -- we're terrified of a few dozen guys somewhere with a chip on their shoulder and some explosives in their backpacks.
No, we are concerned about a few dozen guys HERE with nuclear suitcases or such. Terrorism in the US is different than Terrorism overseas.
Is life worth living in constant terror of something that might not happen and that you really can't prevent? You're not safe. We never were safe, we just thought we were.
Nobody is living in constant terror. "The terrorist have won if you take any preventitive measures" is a rather weak arguement IMO.
Now, I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for people who do want the extra security to pool their funds and hire private guards, armored carriers, or whatever it takes to make themselves feel safe. If you want the security, you should at least be able to buy it. You can have your guards check our ID's before letting us anywhere near you.
Utter nonsense. The trains should be handled as the planes are. How would private bodyguards searching you b
Well, you've demonstrated your idiocy and low reading ability...
And you've demostrated your idiocy and poor computer skills by replying to yourself and not my original post.:) You don't work in IT do you? You would make a poor programmer with such a lack of attention to detail.;)
So, what you're hinting is.. you're a pedophile. I got your number. *beep-beep--beep-beep---beep-beep-beep---beep*(the sound my phone dialing the FBI) I reset my case.
Actually, I was joking about the fact that you SOUND like a pedophile. You know, most of us don't look to date high school girls once we are out of high school. Don't worry, I'll have a talk with my friend Mr. Ashcroft about you tonight. He is very tolerant and understanding.
The boob thing caused a problem more cause it was a high profile event with a huge audience and was in prime time (IE it was before 9 for most audiences)
Not only that, but it was over the public airwaves which our tax money pays for. Had it been on cable, there might have been less of an uproar. It was also the context, basically the whole "performance" looked like a bunch of dry humping culminating in Jackson getting her top ripped off. Children like to imitate things, so most parents don't like their kids seeing that sort of stuff. Had Janet been on national geographic hunting elephants with a spear topless, probably people would have taken it a lot lighter. You touched on this point:
(ie you can show a naked body, but there has to be a legit reason to show it, you cant show a naked bodyy to show a naked body)
You also have to remeber the US has a very vocal Religious majority that stems from the 60's and 70's wild times. In a few years that will most likely change, as the majority of students now leaving school have a very different additude toward these things.
It really stems from the Republican party adopting the religious right and the culture wars of the 90's. Many students today do view things differently, but as people get older they tend to become more conservative.
If there is one thing that holds true over time in the video game industry, it's that companies that make a living off of making crappy games with licenced material that is popular in film usually bite the big one (thank god/the free market).
Between the need to keep myself safe from injustice by documenting/recording everything, and massive invasion of privacy by documenting/recording everything...
Can someone reason me out of this conundrum? Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too?
Work out a real time recording/encryption system so only you or the people with your key can watch the recording. Let me know when you are done with it, I want to buy one.:)
Nintendo was the one game company that was above all of this. Sure, they have a special bond with a niche of gamers (kids). Nintendo is known for Mario, Quality games, and being a kid friendly company. There is a generation of 20 something women who are having children or will have them soon that grew up playing super mario brothers. Why not market to your niche and aim for the kid/family friendly audience? Why turn off these people with quotes like "Touching is good" and "How To Score."? Is this the handheld that mothers will want to buy for their children? Sure the kids might like it, but I think nintendo will be turning off more people than they attract with this sort of thing.
Plenty of adults will still buy your platform just for various Mario games, Metroid and Zelda. Plenty of kids will buy it for that reason too. There is no need for the raunch, they should focus on putting out quality games. If they want the adult crowd then they should focus on making a damn good rated 'M' game. But just saying things like "Touching is good" is likely counterproductive to their reputation.
E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.
Ok, thanks! I have to tell you though, I'm not opposed to it and I plan to write. From the article summary:
McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
I ride 2 trains from New Jersey and 3 subways in NYC everyday both to and from work. I can tell you the security is piss poor, and some type of screening system would be nice. While I'm sure this makes many of you think of 1984, I think it would be nice if the trains were at least screened at least as well as the planes are. While I'm sure many of you will gripe about your rights, or that bush is hitler....no where in the constitution does it say you can get on public transportation without some type of security check. While I'm sure many of you think that falls under a "unreasonable search" I don't think it's unreasonable to require a background check/screening to get on a plane or train.
I'd really like to see Carmack and the doom team move on to a totally different project. Carmack always wanted to do a "metaverse" type game. I think a MMO from those guys would be interesting at this point.
I wouldn't try to read some social theory or explanation into why there aren't many female gamers and why they're attracted to certain areas.
I would, and it's a simple one. Women who are about 21 and over now (maybe 25) have always attached a social stigma to those that play with video games/use computers. They lived in a time where there wasn't a computer/video game console in almost every home, and a computer on every workdesk in addition to the internet everywhere. The geek stigma to games and computers that existed in the 70's and 80's is dying. On the rare occasions that I go to the arcade nowadys I see many more girls there than before.
The person who doubts that it's a female and makes a point of doubting it.
Do you think they are wrong to doubt this? The demographics surely state in most online games that it is more likely a male than a female, and if you've been on the net for any amout of time, I'm sure you have run into the "I'm not a teenage girl but I play one on the internet" routine.
The person who goes out of their way to be a jerk to the female just to be a jerk.
I know you mention this earlier, but in every online game there are always griefers. They will tease you for being black, white, hispanic, American, not American, sounding young, sounding old, not having any "skills" at said game, having too much skills at said game, etc, etc. Why should their be a vagina exception where people are not made fun of for their gender too? This isn't sexism, this is just the nature of people when they don't feel human empathy for someone else.
The person who can't stop talking about the girl and sucks up to her and flirts with her and can't shut up about how hot he thinks it is that a person with breasts is playing his favorite game.
I have to agree, I find this annoying also. The person just usually looks desprate. I've seen a lot of girls that like the attention though. It's really not to different to the guy who comes in from some top ranked CPL clan and some wanna be just hangs from his dick all round kissing up to him while he eats it all up. There are attention whores and suck ups everywhere in online gaming, and they aren't all based around a female.
It would be nice if a female could join a server and we could all continue to play as normal without regressing into a pack of slobbering penises.
Sure, take a gender neutral name and you would probably better off, or just ignore griefers like everyone else ignores them instead of turning a FPS into "deathmatches of our lives" with the drama of sexism accusations.
She claims to kick every boy's ass at almost every game she plays. Especially Pokemon. She has a level 99 something or other that she named Bubbles. Specifically named because, as she put it "Once you get your ass kicked by someone named 'Bubbles', you don't get your dignity back".
This is sexism as much as when a man says "No women can ever beat me at a video game". There is little difference.
Well, now they will try to add the "Stars" to the non-existant wars in Star Wars Galaxies. This will have little effect on the overall way the game is played.
This game isn't at all about wars and it really won't be about stars either. It's the sims online in a "star wars" like theme. I would expect the emotes and new player races to have a bigger impact on the game than space combat.
I think what will happen is that there will be heavier moderation and more stringent entrance requirements for various online forums. The Internet will still function, it just won't be as open as it once was.
See, but that is the problem. With heavy moderation comes groupthink and censor of ideas that the group might not like. This is what was great about newsgroups 10 years ago when I first discovered them. There was no censorship, but the level of rubbish was fairly low. Today, like you mentioned it's mostly trash.
Maybe some people decided they were tired of buying the same game over and over again every year. I mean seriously. NHL and Madden are great sports games. Probably the best sports games ever
Overall, maybe. For their time they are average. They don't break new ground with graphics or content like some old NES games did when they had to make up for not having a licence.
(discounting 10 yard fight and Ice Hockey for the NES).
I'd take Blades of Steel and Tecmo bowl but ok.:)
But NHL '99 is every bit just as good as NHL 2k4 or 2k5. If you don't have it yet, buy the newest one. But if you've already got an NHL game or a madden game, there is no reason to buy a newer one.
I don't play the NHL games anymore, as my interest in hockey has went down the tubes as my team has. I buy Madden every year. Madden usually adds a new feature every year (like it or not). This year they added the hit stick, and a "storyline" type mode where you can read about your team in the local and national papers everyday and listen to sports radio based on the simulated season. It's not super in depth but it's a pretty cool feature I've always thought the football games should have.
Why not? Without him, Woz would probably STILL be tinkering in his garage today.
And without Woz, where do you suppose Jobs would be? Playing a Buddist monk in India perhaps? I think both were critical to the success of the Apple II, neither of them would have done what they did without one another. It is possible to have a working relationship where neither party is a leech.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Please do, that would be like winning twice today.
More like 48%. Lets count the numbers correctly.
If you consider non-voters as not caring either way, then it's probably a sad day for 28% of the country.
Imagine how many terrorist cells would be brought down if we just turned the world into a complete police state.
Imagine the intellegent, reasoned exchange of ideas we could have if jumping to unfounded conculsions wasn't modded up and thought of as insightful.
A PC user uses his machine to perform a task and thinks little of the machine itself. A Mac, on the other hand, is a key component of an integrated lifestyle. If you don't live the lifestyle and you care to know more about it, then check out the book. Otherwise, you might as well skip it.
Being someone who spends equal time all day on a PC and Mac (G4 and G5), I can tell you that a Mac in no way is a "key component of an integrated lifestyle". It's a computer that happens to run an alternate OS and have a good marketing department, which is nice if you don't like windows or you are a drone consumer who cares about what is 'cool'.
A prayer for co-workers to die might be taken as a real threat if people knew me as the kind of person who expected (and worked) to have my prayers answered. On the other hand, this is the 'prayer' of someone who admits to questioning the existence (much less the power) of God, and who prays for things like for Dubya to be found by the press, dead on a pile of coke with a black male prostitute.
I'll never understand why this is so hard for certain people to get. It's very simple, if you threaten the president, even in jest you are going to get a visit from the secret service. End of story. It's not 1984, it's protecting the president and the Secret Service takes that very seriously as they should.
He coded it from scratch over 2 years from assembler. What source code would he mess with anyway? It's not like you can hack the 3d engine from the orignal into the NES.
Not only that, but he wrote his own assembler "NESHLA" for the NES when he decided the other ones sucked and then made the game with that assembler! That is pretty damn impressive. The grandparent troll probably couldn't code hello world in visual basic.
I can... He carefully edited it out to remove the context of the words. She was praying for outrageous and unreasonable things... When you take that out, it seems like she's really asking someone to kill Bush.
One, he only took out the "threat" part, and two it doesn't matter if it's only satire as many people have argued. It's well known fact if you threaten the presidents life publically, you will get a visit from the secret service. Even though it was satire, what happens when some nutjob takes it upon himself after reading it to 'be' god and answer the prayer?
Bottom line is the secret service is going to visit you if you threaten a sitting president, they are obligated to do so. It does not matter which party that president is from.
On a side note, you could probably be charged if you wrote in your blog that you were praying to god for your co-worker to die. If your co-worker read the post, then went to the cops, you would likely end up being questioned at least.
"Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997; now it's about 5 percent,"
How much of this has to do with more women and old people on the internet? I doubt that the number of overall sex searches is down, but the demographics of internet users have likely changed a lot since 1997. On top of that, add in the amount of filtering software nowadays in the workplace and academia alone that discourages that sort of thing.
San Andreas introduces a host of new features that including eating food to survive...
:)
They don't mean new to gaming right? I can think of plenty of old RPG's that made you do this (the Early ultima's come to mind). What also comes to mind, is how annoying this was. No matter with GTA, all the fun in GTA is in putting in cheatcodes and randomly playing in the virtual crime sandbox.
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter. We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
This argument is illogical though. Yes, a pro-active stance is needed, but a defensive stance is important too. You don't say, well "We'll never adequately secure ourselves." so we might as well not try". You keep trying to secure yourself, and to protect the juciest targets. If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile?
Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security. How many times have you heard "Well, I just think if a hacker REALLY wants to get in he can, so I don't bother patching anything." It's the same pattern of thinking.
A few other points:
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials?
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot. Nutjob yes, idiot no.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Huh? 3 of the hijackers were here illegally, and a few of the others were on expired student visas. Their being here was a direct failure of the INS, but you don't really hear about that. As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
Yup. Our planes are vulnerable.
... and every vehicle, for sure. You know how many car bombs get used in, say, the middle-east? Protecting your subway won't prevent that. Oklahoma City bombing? Truck, parking lot, explosives.
Ahh, and here is the point where you take it too far, you take a statement about protecting places where large groups of people gather and apply it to where few people are.
... yeah. You see how it works?
Yeah, but it's getting better. I'd like to see it get onto the level of Israli plane security.
Our trains are vulnerable.
Yes, they seem that way. At least the ones I've seen. Then again, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out onto the street. Mom and pop shops aren't safe either, they should be protected. Every last grocery store,
The problem is that no matter what you protect, people intent on attacking will just pick another target. Terrorists don't need the targets to be big buildings or subway systems
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money. The US isn't like Isreal or Iraq. There aren't hordes of islamic fundamentalists at our borders who want us dead. They are for the most part overseas. While Al-Quadia and other groups likely have sleeper cells in the US, it would be illogical from their standpoint to blow themselves or something else up unless it was going to inflict mass harm. Sure, you might scare a few people if you launch a suicide attack on a bus, but to kill 20 people, it isn't worth it for the small amount of resources they have here. If you have, say 50 to 100 agents in the US, are you going to waste one to kill 20 people, or would you rather they take their time and find the route that will cost the most casualities? This is why the US needs to protect anywhere people gather in large numbers. They are the ideal target for an attack, not "every sidewalk" and you sarcastically brought up. Your main point, that we can not go that far is true but that does not mean we should not go to every length possible to protect innocent life.
Sure, it'll avoid attacks in the subway (maybe) -- people will feel safe while they're in the subway, then as soon as they come out, they'll panic again. And then we'll have an attack in the subway anyway, and
Just like there has been another American plane hijacking post 9/11? You are drawning conclusions you can not prove. FYI, most people do feel really safe here, there isn't much panic.
Terrorists win when we're afraid. This shows that we obviously have a problem here -- we're terrified of a few dozen guys somewhere with a chip on their shoulder and some explosives in their backpacks.
No, we are concerned about a few dozen guys HERE with nuclear suitcases or such. Terrorism in the US is different than Terrorism overseas.
Is life worth living in constant terror of something that might not happen and that you really can't prevent? You're not safe. We never were safe, we just thought we were.
Nobody is living in constant terror. "The terrorist have won if you take any preventitive measures" is a rather weak arguement IMO.
Now, I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for people who do want the extra security to pool their funds and hire private guards, armored carriers, or whatever it takes to make themselves feel safe. If you want the security, you should at least be able to buy it. You can have your guards check our ID's before letting us anywhere near you.
Utter nonsense. The trains should be handled as the planes are. How would private bodyguards searching you b
Well, you've demonstrated your idiocy and low reading ability...
:) You don't work in IT do you? You would make a poor programmer with such a lack of attention to detail. ;)
And you've demostrated your idiocy and poor computer skills by replying to yourself and not my original post.
So, what you're hinting is.. you're a pedophile. I got your number. *beep-beep--beep-beep---beep-beep-beep---beep*(the sound my phone dialing the FBI) I reset my case.
Actually, I was joking about the fact that you SOUND like a pedophile. You know, most of us don't look to date high school girls once we are out of high school. Don't worry, I'll have a talk with my friend Mr. Ashcroft about you tonight. He is very tolerant and understanding.
The boob thing caused a problem more cause it was a high profile event with a huge audience and was in prime time (IE it was before 9 for most audiences)
Not only that, but it was over the public airwaves which our tax money pays for. Had it been on cable, there might have been less of an uproar. It was also the context, basically the whole "performance" looked like a bunch of dry humping culminating in Jackson getting her top ripped off. Children like to imitate things, so most parents don't like their kids seeing that sort of stuff. Had Janet been on national geographic hunting elephants with a spear topless, probably people would have taken it a lot lighter. You touched on this point:
(ie you can show a naked body, but there has to be a legit reason to show it, you cant show a naked bodyy to show a naked body)
You also have to remeber the US has a very vocal Religious majority that stems from the 60's and 70's wild times. In a few years that will most likely change, as the majority of students now leaving school have a very different additude toward these things.
It really stems from the Republican party adopting the religious right and the culture wars of the 90's. Many students today do view things differently, but as people get older they tend to become more conservative.
If there is one thing that holds true over time in the video game industry, it's that companies that make a living off of making crappy games with licenced material that is popular in film usually bite the big one (thank god/the free market).
The girls locker-room...*drool*
Don't you mean grade school?
Between the need to keep myself safe from injustice by documenting/recording everything, and massive invasion of privacy by documenting/recording everything... Can someone reason me out of this conundrum? Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too?
:)
Work out a real time recording/encryption system so only you or the people with your key can watch the recording. Let me know when you are done with it, I want to buy one.
Nintendo was the one game company that was above all of this. Sure, they have a special bond with a niche of gamers (kids). Nintendo is known for Mario, Quality games, and being a kid friendly company. There is a generation of 20 something women who are having children or will have them soon that grew up playing super mario brothers. Why not market to your niche and aim for the kid/family friendly audience? Why turn off these people with quotes like "Touching is good" and "How To Score."? Is this the handheld that mothers will want to buy for their children? Sure the kids might like it, but I think nintendo will be turning off more people than they attract with this sort of thing.
Plenty of adults will still buy your platform just for various Mario games, Metroid and Zelda. Plenty of kids will buy it for that reason too. There is no need for the raunch, they should focus on putting out quality games. If they want the adult crowd then they should focus on making a damn good rated 'M' game. But just saying things like "Touching is good" is likely counterproductive to their reputation.
E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.
Ok, thanks! I have to tell you though, I'm not opposed to it and I plan to write. From the article summary:
McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
I ride 2 trains from New Jersey and 3 subways in NYC everyday both to and from work. I can tell you the security is piss poor, and some type of screening system would be nice. While I'm sure this makes many of you think of 1984, I think it would be nice if the trains were at least screened at least as well as the planes are. While I'm sure many of you will gripe about your rights, or that bush is hitler....no where in the constitution does it say you can get on public transportation without some type of security check. While I'm sure many of you think that falls under a "unreasonable search" I don't think it's unreasonable to require a background check/screening to get on a plane or train.
I'd really like to see Carmack and the doom team move on to a totally different project. Carmack always wanted to do a "metaverse" type game. I think a MMO from those guys would be interesting at this point.
I wouldn't try to read some social theory or explanation into why there aren't many female gamers and why they're attracted to certain areas.
I would, and it's a simple one. Women who are about 21 and over now (maybe 25) have always attached a social stigma to those that play with video games/use computers. They lived in a time where there wasn't a computer/video game console in almost every home, and a computer on every workdesk in addition to the internet everywhere. The geek stigma to games and computers that existed in the 70's and 80's is dying. On the rare occasions that I go to the arcade nowadys I see many more girls there than before.
The person who doubts that it's a female and makes a point of doubting it.
Do you think they are wrong to doubt this? The demographics surely state in most online games that it is more likely a male than a female, and if you've been on the net for any amout of time, I'm sure you have run into the "I'm not a teenage girl but I play one on the internet" routine.
The person who goes out of their way to be a jerk to the female just to be a jerk.
I know you mention this earlier, but in every online game there are always griefers. They will tease you for being black, white, hispanic, American, not American, sounding young, sounding old, not having any "skills" at said game, having too much skills at said game, etc, etc. Why should their be a vagina exception where people are not made fun of for their gender too? This isn't sexism, this is just the nature of people when they don't feel human empathy for someone else.
The person who can't stop talking about the girl and sucks up to her and flirts with her and can't shut up about how hot he thinks it is that a person with breasts is playing his favorite game.
I have to agree, I find this annoying also. The person just usually looks desprate. I've seen a lot of girls that like the attention though. It's really not to different to the guy who comes in from some top ranked CPL clan and some wanna be just hangs from his dick all round kissing up to him while he eats it all up. There are attention whores and suck ups everywhere in online gaming, and they aren't all based around a female.
It would be nice if a female could join a server and we could all continue to play as normal without regressing into a pack of slobbering penises.
Sure, take a gender neutral name and you would probably better off, or just ignore griefers like everyone else ignores them instead of turning a FPS into "deathmatches of our lives" with the drama of sexism accusations.
She claims to kick every boy's ass at almost every game she plays. Especially Pokemon. She has a level 99 something or other that she named Bubbles. Specifically named because, as she put it "Once you get your ass kicked by someone named 'Bubbles', you don't get your dignity back".
This is sexism as much as when a man says "No women can ever beat me at a video game". There is little difference.
Well, now they will try to add the "Stars" to the non-existant wars in Star Wars Galaxies. This will have little effect on the overall way the game is played.
This game isn't at all about wars and it really won't be about stars either. It's the sims online in a "star wars" like theme. I would expect the emotes and new player races to have a bigger impact on the game than space combat.
I think what will happen is that there will be heavier moderation and more stringent entrance requirements for various online forums. The Internet will still function, it just won't be as open as it once was.
See, but that is the problem. With heavy moderation comes groupthink and censor of ideas that the group might not like. This is what was great about newsgroups 10 years ago when I first discovered them. There was no censorship, but the level of rubbish was fairly low. Today, like you mentioned it's mostly trash.
Maybe some people decided they were tired of buying the same game over and over again every year. I mean seriously. NHL and Madden are great sports games. Probably the best sports games ever
:)
Overall, maybe. For their time they are average. They don't break new ground with graphics or content like some old NES games did when they had to make up for not having a licence.
(discounting 10 yard fight and Ice Hockey for the NES).
I'd take Blades of Steel and Tecmo bowl but ok.
But NHL '99 is every bit just as good as NHL 2k4 or 2k5. If you don't have it yet, buy the newest one. But if you've already got an NHL game or a madden game, there is no reason to buy a newer one.
I don't play the NHL games anymore, as my interest in hockey has went down the tubes as my team has. I buy Madden every year. Madden usually adds a new feature every year (like it or not). This year they added the hit stick, and a "storyline" type mode where you can read about your team in the local and national papers everyday and listen to sports radio based on the simulated season. It's not super in depth but it's a pretty cool feature I've always thought the football games should have.
Why not? Without him, Woz would probably STILL be tinkering in his garage today.
:)
And without Woz, where do you suppose Jobs would be? Playing a Buddist monk in India perhaps? I think both were critical to the success of the Apple II, neither of them would have done what they did without one another. It is possible to have a working relationship where neither party is a leech.