ut the real issue is going to be nausea. The problem occurs both in VR situations and in more prosaic settings like motion sickness. If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies.
I suffer from this very badly. I couldn't play the early Doom or Quake games. I tried out a VR game at Great Adventure around 1995/1996 and it made me horribly sick and dizzy.
The strange part is, I couldn't play FPS games without getting tired/dizzy up until around 1999. I was stuck at home after sugery and doped up on painkillers I played FPS games all weekend. For some reason I have no problems with certain games after that(unreal tournament) while others still give me the dizzy sickness. (almost any console FPS). Bracelets and Nausea pills don't do anything for it.:/
Is there a way to train your inner ear/eyes to not get sick if you play enough? Or is it that higher frame rates help? Ugg
He would have to be pretty bright to pull off what you suggest. You make him out to be Cobra commander or something.
The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.
They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.
The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence),
Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.
Religion is just an excuse.
I seriously doubt that, do you believe if those that are truely devout radical islamists bent on Jihad on America were given a million dollars each they would stop attacking the US?
We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor)
Their governments are rich, and many of these countries are dealing with reform (see Iran). Iraq would have NEVER reformed because Saddam would just kill the reformers.
and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land).
This is the real problem, and it's focused on religion. The palestinians don't just want any land, they want ALL of the holy land. Osama's main beef with the US (and he has stated this before) is that they support Isreal. Osama's goal is to destablize the US and force them to not aid Isreal and get out of the middle east. He has stated this before(pre 9/11...might have been on 60 minutes?), he doesn't think he can destroy the US but he does think he can cause a civil war, or divide the citizens so much that action in the middle east is impossible.
This man doesn't care about economics like you said, he cares about his religion and driving people who have a different religion from his holy land.
They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will.
Evil Aggressor? No that is what europe thinks because they have been poisoned by their leftist media. Most jihadists believe the US is an Isreali puppet.
The economy was in bad shape, after Nixon (Reagan's predecessor California Republican) screwed both the economy and the American spirit (at home and abroad) with Vietnam ($billions for what?)
JFK started Vietnam, not Nixon. The economic downturn was caused by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program which expanded government and made it so bloated that US tax dollars couldn't pay for everything. Nixon came into office, and the country was heading into the liberal shitter, just like it was when Reagan got into office.
Watergate
Graned, this did much to destroy patriotic feelings in our country and the US has never been the same.
assassinations of RFK, MLK, anyone else.
Do you believe in crop circles too? Why do liberals have such a passion for consperacy theories that make no sense?
. When Carter took over, the SEC was run by William Casey, next to head Reagan/Bush's campaign against him, and the CIA was run by Bush. The biggest obstacle to Carter's presidency was Iran, created by the CIA.
Really? So the CIA caused the popular revolution in Iran, and then how did they get Carter to allow the Shah political asylum in the US after he was overthrown? Alien Space bats? Mind control rays? The hostages in Iran were taken in response to the US giving asylum to a dictator. Oh and you do realize that it was Carter that started a $40 billion program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Something that is routinely blamed on Reagan. Carter made his own problems.
As an example of Carter's opposition, their recue attempt that was mysteriously scuttled in the desert by exploding helicopters just before the election, was staffed by none other than Oliver North. He was promoted to Reagan's National Security Council under CIA director William Casey (familiar name...) to run the illegal Iran Contra operation, funded under cover of Bush's S&L heist (like the $40M from Indian Springs S&L for Iranian TOW missiles).
Oh wow, dude you have it all figured out. Call Sculley and Moulder and let them know. What is in Area 51 by the way?
I think it's just a military base for testing experemental aircraft, but I bet you know the truth!
I suggest you read some history,
I suggest you read some history from an unbiased source. Try picking up an encyclopedia instead of crusing alt.conspiracy.theory
instead of skimming the NY Post's "Emperor Reagan's Funeral" retrospective. And that you engage your brain first, before putting your mouth in gear.
Nice partisan smear, too bad I wasn't using my mouth since I typed out this message. Simple reasoning is even beyond you.
The only ones saving the economy are the American entrepreneurs and other workers.
Really? So central management of the economy is unnecessary? Da?
Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.
So Cheney is a super smart evil mastermind who isn't charismatic enough to win over the electorate? Really, you are reaching here.
Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.
Are you really worried about this? That is a bit silly. Somehow I doubt this is keeping you up at nights.
I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.
Which ones are you missing exactly? Last I checked Howard Stern is still on the air. Bush has bigger fish to fry than worrying about shock radio and parents who can't curb their children. Radio stations are free to air whoever they want. If someone is a problem for the reputation of their company they are free to drop them. It's a free country.
If standards were implemented to protect children from public radio broadcasts that detail sexual encounters would that really be that much of a damper on your freedoms? Wow, you have to buy XM radio just like you need cable TV to get sexual content (although less so recently). Oh, they are oppressing you! The Nazis!
Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".
The goal is simply to reform the middle east so we can work twards a true world peace.
The key to stopping radical islam is... killing as many of them as possible.
Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.
Thanks for taking my quote out of context. No, Bloodshed doesn't cause more hatred or terrorism. Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?
"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks.
Killing terrorists and bringing down leaders who support terrorism is fighting it.
Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire.
Then what exactly do you propose should be done? Do you really think everyone that hates us is willing to kill themselves to kill us, or even go to war with us?
Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it?
What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.
Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG.
So, you think that Putin lied about Iraq planning to attack the US? How about them trying to assassinate George HW Bush? Aren't those acts of war? We aren't invading every country that might attack us, but we are going to go after governments that sponsor terrorism (like Iraq did, and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea DONT). I'm not willing to let innocent people in the US die before we have to take action. Maybe you are.
The civillians in those countries (that are still alive)
What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out. Where do you come up with these ideas?
now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.
Bullshit, they have no reason to. You act like everyone who doesn't like America is willing to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent people. That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.
No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.
So, you think Bush just does what Cheney says? Cheney is the king of the evil empire! If Cheney is so smart and bush is so dumb, why didn't Cheney run for president? Have you been watching too much x-files?
Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom,
What freedoms of yours have been curtailed?
more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?),
Iraq was planning Terrorists attacks against the US. That is reason enough to go to war. Unless you would rather wait for 3000 people to die before we go to war again. Maybe you need Americans to die first? As long as it's not your family or friends right?
more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism).
Yeah, those suicide bombers from france are really taking a toll on the US. So, do you think if the US didn't go to war the terrorists would just go away? I mean, in 1993 we treated the attack on the WTC as a "Criminal" matter. The terrorists didn't go away then, and they wont now. The key to stopping radical islam is exposing them as a fringe hate group and a fraud, and killing as many of them as possible.
We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building"
Empire building? Oh, yeah I forgot they renamed Iraq New Texas and we are going to start settling there. You are moronic if you actually believe the US is into empire building.
through "direct intervention". The idea scares me,
Only because you have blinders on.
and should scare the entire world.
What scares me more is Americans like you who don't realize we are at war. Americans who want to just pretend the terrorists don't exist and want to allow them to regroup and strike again.
There IS a better way.
What is that? Send Osama a dove and a roll of toilet paper and he will love us?
Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah.
Jesus never flip flopped
Give the guy a chance.
He is the worst democrat of them all, at least Edwards and Dean both stood for something. Kerry is a poll whore.
t doesn't really matter - they're both unacceptably bad. Although Reagan's deficit was larger as percentage of GDP (GNP, then), eg. 6% in 1983, vs. Bush's 5% of 2004 GDP, -$500B in 2004 brings us to something like $8.5T of debt
Holy christ, I can't believe the shit they gets modded up around here. Ok, Reagan ran up a huge amount of deficit because he engaged in deficit spending. However, do you realize how BAD America's economy was before Reagan? You might remember that is the last time we had a TRUE liberal in office (Clinton was a centerist). If you think Reagan commited some crime by deficit spending and saving our economy, I suggest you read up a bit on Keynesian Economics
The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.
It really wouldn't be nowadays. Sure, it would have been back in 1776 but is it that hard to get to your local school and vote, say 4 times a year on major issues? It also wouldn't be that hard if the government wasn't involved in EVERYTHING as it is now.
If enough people got together and voted for good candidates in the primaries, you wouldn't need third parties. You'd have Earl Environmentalist running against Sally Solar-Power.
It's more likely that you would end up with Neil Nazi vs Communist Clyde.
one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.
The funny part is this theory of a "wasted" vote now ensures that a third party candidate will never even make it into the debates for the presidential election. After Ross Perot Made it in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats were scared shitless. They both conspired to keep third parties out of presidential elections Now you must poll at 15% in the polls to be included in the presidential debates. These polls aren't controlled by the government, they are run by private news organizations! Which really means they are controlled by money.
So, by simply enforcing the idea that "third party is throwing your vote away" people don't even get to hear from third party candidates since they don't even mention them in the polls. On top of that, by not voting for third party candidates you are ensuring that they never get federal funding. (I think you need 3 - 5% to get federal funding).
If you think the 15% mark is ok, consider that Jessie Ventura polled at 10% before the gubernatorial debates in Minnesota and won the election after the debates with 37% of the vote.
It's obvious that Kerry and Bush are very alike on key issues, they are both for bigger government (despite what bush may say), they are both pro illegal immigration, pro outsourcing, pro interventionism/war, pro globalization. America is often said to be the land of choices, but what exactly is the contrast here? Gay rights? Or some other domestic issue where the two parties can fracture our population and pit them against one another so they ignore the bigger picture that our government keeps growing and spending, and selling us out to globaliziation?
Our country is being taken away from us, and no one seems to care enough to see it.
Computer Science isn't about programming, or how to get computers to network,
Yet most Comp Sci graduates go on to become programmers or network admins.
it is about learning how they work, and how to make them work better,
I agree, but a big part of that is learning about programming and networking. You can't discount that. Yes, you will have to learn how to make a full adder, logic gates, the dining philosophers, etc but you also better be able to program worth a damn or you wont make it through.
the theories, and philosophies of controlling those bits.
It's not all just theory, at least I know my school wasn't/isn't.
Getting into CS because you want to learn how to program or network isn't a bad thing. People just need to understand that isn't all there is to it. I think if anyone really wants to program they will be interested in pretty much any CS course anyway.
I help out with some of the college recruiting things and you wouldn't believe the number of people who want to come to a CS degree for game programming.
Really, they aren't wrong to pursue a BS degree for game programming they would need one to get into the industry (along with a kickass demo). The problem is they have no idea what they are getting into, and they have never written a piece of code in their lives. So many people preach the "Comp sci isn't programming" line, but going into comp sci without any programming experence has to be pretty tough.
Back to the main point, CS isn't a bandwagon degree anymore the tech sector is a lot shittier than it used to be. I'm sure the people who take comp sci now (I'm finishing up my degree) take it because they love it, not just because it's a well paying job. I'm willing to get a CS degree and roll the dice that it will help me in my career. (I already work as a programmer). I could pursue something else, but not with as much passion.
Quite frequently, publications and/or shows get entirely the wrong person to review the game: Someone who is a button-mashing fighting game player is probably not going to appriciate the slower pace of a tactics-RPG. Similarly, the heavy-duty RTS fan probably won't find much to like in rhythm-based dance games.
That totally misses out on the crossover audience though. For example, I play fighting games (No, I don't mash either and plenty of tournament matchs are pretty slow paced and involve more strategy than a "KEEP BUILDING QUICK!" RTS) Anyway, I mostly play FPS and Fighting games, but I liked Command and Conquer Generals while disliking Starcraft, warcraft, etc. Most RTS fans seem to think C+C Generals was shit, but I enjoy military themed games with real units so it appealled to me. To a Starcraft fan, CC Generals is shit, to the casual gamer it might be fun.
In the end, it's just an opinion. Any game review is better served to describe the game along with its faults and let the reader decide if they would like it. Saying "The pathfinding AI is poorly done, enemy units always attack the same choke points" is better than "OMG This game sucks harder than a hooker"
We live in an era where an opinion is taken as fact by most people (Hello TV).
While TV is bad, (Especially the news channels) the internet is far worse. The amount of group think that goes on is insane. If you disagree with the group you are often branded as an "idiot", "N00b", "moron" etc. It's funny how politcal correctness has enveloped our culture yet no one has any respect for an opinion that isn't their own or doesn't mesh with their own ideas.
Considering how many gamers are also online freaks, I think this is why you get people bitching about video game reviews.
"There's something fundamentally interesting about that, about the world in a box," he says. "If somebody can be an emperor in a virtual world, with only a cheap computer, is that really a fundamentally bad thing?"
In esscence, its not so much a bad thing, but it can be a harmful thing. Just when people return to the real world, as they have to, your virtual empire counts for nought.
What if they day comes that they never have to return?
Now honestly, what diffrence does it make for a game on who publishes it? If it's good people will buy it
To me it's Brand recognition. Midway, Atari, etc are all names people recognize and might have certain stigma's attached to them
I find that the only perspective that works well in a true 3D world is first person. Anything else and controlling your character is quirky. Semi 3D games like tekken are ok, since no one side steps that much. I have a harder time in 3D games trying to control the character and camera than actually playing the games.
his is why twitch based game mechanics are superior IMHO and they should start using them for MMO's. FFXI and all current MMO's leave the person not doing much other them moving their character and turning on auto attack, compare this with fun games like Soul calibur 2, Mario Kart, Quake or Unreal tournament. There is just no fun in playing a videogame that is essentially passive and non-interactive.
Neocron tried this, but it didn't catch on much, IMO, Star Wars Galaxies should have played like a FPS they would have been much better off.
With the large scale environments and vehicles that are possible in today's FPS games, I don't see why there can't be a good FPS MMO. The idea of a FPS with MMO's character building would be very addicting. Counter Strike has a "warcraft3" mod where you can gain experence/levels which give you special powers. It's addicting because, the more you play the more power you will gain but even someone with no experence and no special powers can kill you with a good awp shot to the head. This is the kind of balance MMO's can never seem to find. It's always the Uberdorks who play 50 hours who always win in combat rather than it being a test of skill.
the long awaited patch rebalancing combat within the game has been pushed off until after the Jump to Lightspeed expansion [which just announced 13 of its 15 spaceships] launches.
The combat rebalance is probably the most important patch they could do. Even more important than the Jedi revamp they did a month or two ago because combat effects everyone Sure the old Jedi system led to crappy hologrinding, but there were plenty of people who weren't caught up in the hologrind who just wanted to play. What good is it for the Jedi now anyway when a good fencer template can still beat most of them? Combat has been borked from day one, and kostner never cared because he is so anti-PvP. Now they are going to rush out a FPS add on before fixing the game for their playerbase? They are going to tank the jump to lightspeed too. They might have attracted FPS players, if they didn't make space combat only optional. That is right folks, it's going to be like playing quake with spaceships, but you have to ASK people first if you can shoot them. DOESN'T that sounds like FUN!!!!
I really wanted SWG to be fun, I played the first few months and quit, I started playing again last april, and quit again because the Jedi Revamp looked like a clusterfuck. I was right. It just keeps getting worse. How could an idea that seemed so good (a SWG MMORPG) turn out so wrong? They've turned Star Wars into the Sims in space. Bleh.
No. Life did or did not exist on Mars, but either way, its chances are over.
Really captain sciencemaster? Can you prove to me that it doesn't exist today? The ammonia that was discovered recently means either life or volcano activity, and even if it's just volcanic activity that is a nice step twards warming the place up for life.
the 21 that will be included in "Madden NFL 2005," which. features such artists as Hoobastank, Green Day, Alter Bridge, the Hives, and New Found Glory.
I like Greenday, and plenty of other bands that were included in Madden 2K4, but I don't want to hear them in my football game. All I really want is the theme music that the networks play, so the game feels more like a 'real' game. I don't need to hear DMX, Bon Jovi, Green day, lil' kim, or yanni in my Football simulator. I'd like to see them use these resources to enhance the distinctions between the teams and improve the commentary.
Analyst Edward Williams adds: "When the technology allows it, gamers will be able to play, say, a Madden game and, when they hear a song they like, they'll be able to press a button, download that song, and their account will be charged
I don't need Madden to turn into some half assed version of I tunes, thanks but no thanks EA.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to take java as part of my degree and from what I saw, making any halfway decent GUI involved giving your soul to satan.
Uhh, making a GUI is always a pain in the ass. Ever use C++ to make a windows GUI? It's still a pain in the ass.
Of all the great programmers I can think of, I know of only one who would voluntarily program in Java.
That would be me!
hoping to kick-start the campaign software revolution in time for November 2nd."
Hah, we in NJ already have a place our politicians can meet, it's called alt.com
ut the real issue is going to be nausea. The problem occurs both in VR situations and in more prosaic settings like motion sickness. If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies.
:/
I suffer from this very badly. I couldn't play the early Doom or Quake games. I tried out a VR game at Great Adventure around 1995/1996 and it made me horribly sick and dizzy.
The strange part is, I couldn't play FPS games without getting tired/dizzy up until around 1999. I was stuck at home after sugery and doped up on painkillers I played FPS games all weekend. For some reason I have no problems with certain games after that(unreal tournament) while others still give me the dizzy sickness. (almost any console FPS). Bracelets and Nausea pills don't do anything for it.
Is there a way to train your inner ear/eyes to not get sick if you play enough? Or is it that higher frame rates help? Ugg
I never used the word "smart", or "mastermind".
He would have to be pretty bright to pull off what you suggest. You make him out to be Cobra commander or something.
The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.
They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.
The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence),
Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.
Religion is just an excuse.
I seriously doubt that, do you believe if those that are truely devout radical islamists bent on Jihad on America were given a million dollars each they would stop attacking the US?
We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor)
Their governments are rich, and many of these countries are dealing with reform (see Iran). Iraq would have NEVER reformed because Saddam would just kill the reformers.
and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land).
This is the real problem, and it's focused on religion. The palestinians don't just want any land, they want ALL of the holy land. Osama's main beef with the US (and he has stated this before) is that they support Isreal. Osama's goal is to destablize the US and force them to not aid Isreal and get out of the middle east. He has stated this before(pre 9/11...might have been on 60 minutes?), he doesn't think he can destroy the US but he does think he can cause a civil war, or divide the citizens so much that action in the middle east is impossible.
This man doesn't care about economics like you said, he cares about his religion and driving people who have a different religion from his holy land.
They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will.
Evil Aggressor? No that is what europe thinks because they have been poisoned by their leftist media. Most jihadists believe the US is an Isreali puppet.
The economy was in bad shape, after Nixon (Reagan's predecessor California Republican) screwed both the economy and the American spirit (at home and abroad) with Vietnam ($billions for what?)
JFK started Vietnam, not Nixon. The economic downturn was caused by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program which expanded government and made it so bloated that US tax dollars couldn't pay for everything. Nixon came into office, and the country was heading into the liberal shitter, just like it was when Reagan got into office.
Watergate
Graned, this did much to destroy patriotic feelings in our country and the US has never been the same.
assassinations of RFK, MLK, anyone else.
Do you believe in crop circles too? Why do liberals have such a passion for consperacy theories that make no sense?
. When Carter took over, the SEC was run by William Casey, next to head Reagan/Bush's campaign against him, and the CIA was run by Bush. The biggest obstacle to Carter's presidency was Iran, created by the CIA.
Really? So the CIA caused the popular revolution in Iran, and then how did they get Carter to allow the Shah political asylum in the US after he was overthrown? Alien Space bats? Mind control rays? The hostages in Iran were taken in response to the US giving asylum to a dictator. Oh and you do realize that it was Carter that started a $40 billion program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Something that is routinely blamed on Reagan. Carter made his own problems.
As an example of Carter's opposition, their recue attempt that was mysteriously scuttled in the desert by exploding helicopters just before the election, was staffed by none other than Oliver North. He was promoted to Reagan's National Security Council under CIA director William Casey (familiar name...) to run the illegal Iran Contra operation, funded under cover of Bush's S&L heist (like the $40M from Indian Springs S&L for Iranian TOW missiles).
Oh wow, dude you have it all figured out. Call Sculley and Moulder and let them know. What is in Area 51 by the way? I think it's just a military base for testing experemental aircraft, but I bet you know the truth!
I suggest you read some history,
I suggest you read some history from an unbiased source. Try picking up an encyclopedia instead of crusing alt.conspiracy.theory
instead of skimming the NY Post's "Emperor Reagan's Funeral" retrospective. And that you engage your brain first, before putting your mouth in gear.
Nice partisan smear, too bad I wasn't using my mouth since I typed out this message. Simple reasoning is even beyond you.
The only ones saving the economy are the American entrepreneurs and other workers.
Really? So central management of the economy is unnecessary? Da?
Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.
... killing as many of them as possible.
Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.
So Cheney is a super smart evil mastermind who isn't charismatic enough to win over the electorate? Really, you are reaching here.
Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.
Are you really worried about this? That is a bit silly. Somehow I doubt this is keeping you up at nights.
I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.
Which ones are you missing exactly? Last I checked Howard Stern is still on the air. Bush has bigger fish to fry than worrying about shock radio and parents who can't curb their children. Radio stations are free to air whoever they want. If someone is a problem for the reputation of their company they are free to drop them. It's a free country.
If standards were implemented to protect children from public radio broadcasts that detail sexual encounters would that really be that much of a damper on your freedoms? Wow, you have to buy XM radio just like you need cable TV to get sexual content (although less so recently). Oh, they are oppressing you! The Nazis!
Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".
The goal is simply to reform the middle east so we can work twards a true world peace.
The key to stopping radical islam is
Thanks for taking my quote out of context. No, Bloodshed doesn't cause more hatred or terrorism. Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?
"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks.
Killing terrorists and bringing down leaders who support terrorism is fighting it.
Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire.
Then what exactly do you propose should be done? Do you really think everyone that hates us is willing to kill themselves to kill us, or even go to war with us?
Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it?
What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.
Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG.
So, you think that Putin lied about Iraq planning to attack the US? How about them trying to assassinate George HW Bush? Aren't those acts of war? We aren't invading every country that might attack us, but we are going to go after governments that sponsor terrorism (like Iraq did, and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea DONT). I'm not willing to let innocent people in the US die before we have to take action. Maybe you are.
The civillians in those countries (that are still alive)
What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out. Where do you come up with these ideas?
now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.
Bullshit, they have no reason to. You act like everyone who doesn't like America is willing to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent people. That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.
No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.
So, you think Bush just does what Cheney says? Cheney is the king of the evil empire! If Cheney is so smart and bush is so dumb, why didn't Cheney run for president? Have you been watching too much x-files?
Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom,
What freedoms of yours have been curtailed?
more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?),
Iraq was planning Terrorists attacks against the US. That is reason enough to go to war. Unless you would rather wait for 3000 people to die before we go to war again. Maybe you need Americans to die first? As long as it's not your family or friends right?
more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism).
Yeah, those suicide bombers from france are really taking a toll on the US. So, do you think if the US didn't go to war the terrorists would just go away? I mean, in 1993 we treated the attack on the WTC as a "Criminal" matter. The terrorists didn't go away then, and they wont now. The key to stopping radical islam is exposing them as a fringe hate group and a fraud, and killing as many of them as possible.
We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building"
Empire building? Oh, yeah I forgot they renamed Iraq New Texas and we are going to start settling there. You are moronic if you actually believe the US is into empire building. through "direct intervention". The idea scares me,
Only because you have blinders on.
and should scare the entire world.
What scares me more is Americans like you who don't realize we are at war. Americans who want to just pretend the terrorists don't exist and want to allow them to regroup and strike again.
There IS a better way.
What is that? Send Osama a dove and a roll of toilet paper and he will love us?
Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah.
Jesus never flip flopped
Give the guy a chance.
He is the worst democrat of them all, at least Edwards and Dean both stood for something. Kerry is a poll whore.
t doesn't really matter - they're both unacceptably bad. Although Reagan's deficit was larger as percentage of GDP (GNP, then), eg. 6% in 1983, vs. Bush's 5% of 2004 GDP, -$500B in 2004 brings us to something like $8.5T of debt
Holy christ, I can't believe the shit they gets modded up around here. Ok, Reagan ran up a huge amount of deficit because he engaged in deficit spending. However, do you realize how BAD America's economy was before Reagan? You might remember that is the last time we had a TRUE liberal in office (Clinton was a centerist). If you think Reagan commited some crime by deficit spending and saving our economy, I suggest you read up a bit on Keynesian Economics
The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.
It really wouldn't be nowadays. Sure, it would have been back in 1776 but is it that hard to get to your local school and vote, say 4 times a year on major issues? It also wouldn't be that hard if the government wasn't involved in EVERYTHING as it is now.
If enough people got together and voted for good candidates in the primaries, you wouldn't need third parties. You'd have Earl Environmentalist running against Sally Solar-Power.
It's more likely that you would end up with Neil Nazi vs Communist Clyde.
one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.
The funny part is this theory of a "wasted" vote now ensures that a third party candidate will never even make it into the debates for the presidential election. After Ross Perot Made it in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats were scared shitless. They both conspired to keep third parties out of presidential elections Now you must poll at 15% in the polls to be included in the presidential debates. These polls aren't controlled by the government, they are run by private news organizations! Which really means they are controlled by money.
So, by simply enforcing the idea that "third party is throwing your vote away" people don't even get to hear from third party candidates since they don't even mention them in the polls. On top of that, by not voting for third party candidates you are ensuring that they never get federal funding. (I think you need 3 - 5% to get federal funding).
If you think the 15% mark is ok, consider that Jessie Ventura polled at 10% before the gubernatorial debates in Minnesota and won the election after the debates with 37% of the vote.
It's obvious that Kerry and Bush are very alike on key issues, they are both for bigger government (despite what bush may say), they are both pro illegal immigration, pro outsourcing, pro interventionism/war, pro globalization. America is often said to be the land of choices, but what exactly is the contrast here? Gay rights? Or some other domestic issue where the two parties can fracture our population and pit them against one another so they ignore the bigger picture that our government keeps growing and spending, and selling us out to globaliziation?
Our country is being taken away from us, and no one seems to care enough to see it.
Computer Science isn't about programming, or how to get computers to network,
Yet most Comp Sci graduates go on to become programmers or network admins.
it is about learning how they work, and how to make them work better,
I agree, but a big part of that is learning about programming and networking. You can't discount that. Yes, you will have to learn how to make a full adder, logic gates, the dining philosophers, etc but you also better be able to program worth a damn or you wont make it through.
the theories, and philosophies of controlling those bits.
It's not all just theory, at least I know my school wasn't/isn't.
Getting into CS because you want to learn how to program or network isn't a bad thing. People just need to understand that isn't all there is to it. I think if anyone really wants to program they will be interested in pretty much any CS course anyway.
I help out with some of the college recruiting things and you wouldn't believe the number of people who want to come to a CS degree for game programming.
Really, they aren't wrong to pursue a BS degree for game programming they would need one to get into the industry (along with a kickass demo). The problem is they have no idea what they are getting into, and they have never written a piece of code in their lives. So many people preach the "Comp sci isn't programming" line, but going into comp sci without any programming experence has to be pretty tough.
Back to the main point, CS isn't a bandwagon degree anymore the tech sector is a lot shittier than it used to be. I'm sure the people who take comp sci now (I'm finishing up my degree) take it because they love it, not just because it's a well paying job. I'm willing to get a CS degree and roll the dice that it will help me in my career. (I already work as a programmer). I could pursue something else, but not with as much passion.
Quite frequently, publications and/or shows get entirely the wrong person to review the game: Someone who is a button-mashing fighting game player is probably not going to appriciate the slower pace of a tactics-RPG. Similarly, the heavy-duty RTS fan probably won't find much to like in rhythm-based dance games.
That totally misses out on the crossover audience though. For example, I play fighting games (No, I don't mash either and plenty of tournament matchs are pretty slow paced and involve more strategy than a "KEEP BUILDING QUICK!" RTS) Anyway, I mostly play FPS and Fighting games, but I liked Command and Conquer Generals while disliking Starcraft, warcraft, etc. Most RTS fans seem to think C+C Generals was shit, but I enjoy military themed games with real units so it appealled to me. To a Starcraft fan, CC Generals is shit, to the casual gamer it might be fun.
In the end, it's just an opinion. Any game review is better served to describe the game along with its faults and let the reader decide if they would like it. Saying "The pathfinding AI is poorly done, enemy units always attack the same choke points" is better than "OMG This game sucks harder than a hooker"
We live in an era where an opinion is taken as fact by most people (Hello TV).
While TV is bad, (Especially the news channels) the internet is far worse. The amount of group think that goes on is insane. If you disagree with the group you are often branded as an "idiot", "N00b", "moron" etc. It's funny how politcal correctness has enveloped our culture yet no one has any respect for an opinion that isn't their own or doesn't mesh with their own ideas. Considering how many gamers are also online freaks, I think this is why you get people bitching about video game reviews.
The sand color for this topic sucks. My eyes are burning.
"There's something fundamentally interesting about that, about the world in a box," he says. "If somebody can be an emperor in a virtual world, with only a cheap computer, is that really a fundamentally bad thing?"
In esscence, its not so much a bad thing, but it can be a harmful thing. Just when people return to the real world, as they have to, your virtual empire counts for nought.
What if they day comes that they never have to return?
Now honestly, what diffrence does it make for a game on who publishes it? If it's good people will buy it To me it's Brand recognition. Midway, Atari, etc are all names people recognize and might have certain stigma's attached to them
How can the U.S. and other countries learn from it?
They must learn the technique of Zerg rush, and then everything else will fall in line.
I find that the only perspective that works well in a true 3D world is first person. Anything else and controlling your character is quirky. Semi 3D games like tekken are ok, since no one side steps that much. I have a harder time in 3D games trying to control the character and camera than actually playing the games.
his is why twitch based game mechanics are superior IMHO and they should start using them for MMO's. FFXI and all current MMO's leave the person not doing much other them moving their character and turning on auto attack, compare this with fun games like Soul calibur 2, Mario Kart, Quake or Unreal tournament. There is just no fun in playing a videogame that is essentially passive and non-interactive.
Neocron tried this, but it didn't catch on much, IMO, Star Wars Galaxies should have played like a FPS they would have been much better off.
With the large scale environments and vehicles that are possible in today's FPS games, I don't see why there can't be a good FPS MMO. The idea of a FPS with MMO's character building would be very addicting. Counter Strike has a "warcraft3" mod where you can gain experence/levels which give you special powers. It's addicting because, the more you play the more power you will gain but even someone with no experence and no special powers can kill you with a good awp shot to the head. This is the kind of balance MMO's can never seem to find. It's always the Uberdorks who play 50 hours who always win in combat rather than it being a test of skill.
the long awaited patch rebalancing combat within the game has been pushed off until after the Jump to Lightspeed expansion [which just announced 13 of its 15 spaceships] launches.
The combat rebalance is probably the most important patch they could do. Even more important than the Jedi revamp they did a month or two ago because combat effects everyone Sure the old Jedi system led to crappy hologrinding, but there were plenty of people who weren't caught up in the hologrind who just wanted to play. What good is it for the Jedi now anyway when a good fencer template can still beat most of them? Combat has been borked from day one, and kostner never cared because he is so anti-PvP. Now they are going to rush out a FPS add on before fixing the game for their playerbase? They are going to tank the jump to lightspeed too. They might have attracted FPS players, if they didn't make space combat only optional. That is right folks, it's going to be like playing quake with spaceships, but you have to ASK people first if you can shoot them. DOESN'T that sounds like FUN!!!!
I really wanted SWG to be fun, I played the first few months and quit, I started playing again last april, and quit again because the Jedi Revamp looked like a clusterfuck. I was right. It just keeps getting worse. How could an idea that seemed so good (a SWG MMORPG) turn out so wrong? They've turned Star Wars into the Sims in space. Bleh.
No. Life did or did not exist on Mars, but either way, its chances are over.
Really captain sciencemaster? Can you prove to me that it doesn't exist today? The ammonia that was discovered recently means either life or volcano activity, and even if it's just volcanic activity that is a nice step twards warming the place up for life.
the 21 that will be included in "Madden NFL 2005," which. features such artists as Hoobastank, Green Day, Alter Bridge, the Hives, and New Found Glory.
I like Greenday, and plenty of other bands that were included in Madden 2K4, but I don't want to hear them in my football game. All I really want is the theme music that the networks play, so the game feels more like a 'real' game. I don't need to hear DMX, Bon Jovi, Green day, lil' kim, or yanni in my Football simulator. I'd like to see them use these resources to enhance the distinctions between the teams and improve the commentary.
Analyst Edward Williams adds: "When the technology allows it, gamers will be able to play, say, a Madden game and, when they hear a song they like, they'll be able to press a button, download that song, and their account will be charged
I don't need Madden to turn into some half assed version of I tunes, thanks but no thanks EA.