Don't you think there's a big difference between some of those synonyms? Create and initiate, for example. When I think "initiate", I think "start". Meaning you could do one thing - like getting a bunch of monkeys together and giving them typewriters in the hopes of getting a Shakespearean play. You initiated the action, but the creation is done by the monkeys.
Synonyms are NOT a spoken language's way to denote identical meaning. There are subtle differences.
Oh, come off it. As if Republicans don't do the same thing every chance they can fucking get. Guess what? It's called politics. It doesn't matter what side you're for, they're all liars.
I think they have a big reason to criticize. No one likes symbols in place of letters. I can live with failure to capitilize, but symbol useage is even worse than punctuation. But I believe Penny-Arcade said it best...
When you enjoy playing games other than FPS games, then an Xbox is worth it. But after trying to play Halo 2 for the last 2 months, it fucking sucks. Sure, you can get good. But nothing replaces a good mouse and keyboard. And the poor Mac community still has about zero worthwhile FPS games to play. The ones they do have are all DM oriented.
Not that the Mac users can do much about that, really. But I, personally, wish I weren't locked into one particular architecture just because I enjoy playing games. I probably would never, ever use a Mac (I would rather build a computer myself, thanks), but I really wish I could make Linux my primary operating system. Indeed, I wish I could make it my only operating system.
Shooting an animal in the brain supposedly makes the muscles strain and twitch, making the meat much less tender. That's why they're bled to death - the muscles relax as they lose blood and lose strength. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but that's what I've been told.
No, the gun was born out of necessity to stop a mounted knight in shining armor. Suddenly it became easy for mere footman to drop a knight.
After their effectiveness in battle became known, they became rather terrifying. The second part of their use came into play; the fear they generated could deter others from attacking seemingly weaker targets. Suddenly those without years of training and small fortunes in armor could stand up for themselves and survive after it was all said and done.
After that, it was pretty much common sense that you could use it to kill lunch. If it's going to drop a medieval tank, I'm sure that deer has no chance.
That may be, but I remember reading an article at one point that says the porn industry doesn't have a problem with it at all. It may have been on CNN.com or maybe on Slashdot, I can't remember where.
I would imagine you collect ones of mature, mating age. There are too many chances for them to die before they get there if they're just chillens. You'll want to get them off the boat and get them checked into a motel asap so they can get back to the job of making babies. If they're not even going to make it to the age of reproduction, why the hell even bring them on in the first place?
According to common sense, an infant that can't do more than eat and shit is not going to be guilty. If it is, then God made it that way, as it doesn't have the mental capacity to make any choices at all.
As far as creating the rules and not breaking them - I'm pretty sure a catastrophic flood that covers every inch of land on the planet is, at best, a bending of the rules. You'd think God would be a bit more pure than to find a technicality and run with it, especially if he's going to presume to judge us.
Agreed. Don't forget the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing. Are they really trying to say that every single person in both of those cities were guilty of the most heinous sins imaginable, including the infants?
I have a question about the "great flood", though. This is God, right? If he wanted to test Noah, all he had to do was say "hey, a big flood is coming". If Noah built the boat, then okay. He's been tested. Then all God has to do is say "okay" and blink and every animal but the two he chose could live. Why bother with a flood when you're Omnipotent? Just make them fall over dead, or disappear, or turn into blades of grass, or pick them all up as one and cast them into the sun. Seriously, if I were going to wipe out every person and animal on the planet but two of each species, I would do it in a fun way. I mean, hey, I'm already murdering billions of organisms. What's a little torture after that?
Actually, it mostly just opens the door for a whole host of other questions, one of the most damning being "why would God seek to mislead us, so, unless he's a fucking asshole?" Seriously, if you don't want your kids to do something wrong, do you then seek to tempt them to do it just so you can say "hahahaha, you're grounded! woo! bet you didn't see that coming!"
Agreed. The main point, however, is that the word "innovative" is essentially completely useless. What does it matter whether it's innovative or not? What matters is if it's there.
From rereading my post, I can see that I wasn't very clear on that position and, as such, it certainly didn't seem like the "main point". My bad.
If no one in a particular segment of society has seen it, it's innovative to them. Imagine that, somewhere in space, there has been a society who has done every single thing we have about 1000 years before we have. Are we still being innovative? Well...yes, because we don't know about this other civilization. To us, it is innovative.
The same thing goes for Microsoft's useage of innovative. To Microsoft's customers, it is innovative.
However, by all this logic, the word innovative is a useless catchphrase. However, since it's used in advertising, to the intelligent, rational consumer, it is, by definition "useless" already.
Everytime Apple, or Microsoft says "it's new and innovative" I say "you're fucking stupid". Who cares if its innovative? I care if it's useful. Whoever created it first doesn't fucking matter to me. And if it does matter to you, you have some seriously fucked up priorities*.
* It should be known that my computer useage hinges solely around playing video games, so I'm definitely casting stones from glass houses here. But at least I'm okay with admitting it:]
"But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?"
Engaging gameplay?
Over the last few years, as games get more and more graphic intensive, the actual gameplay has suffered drastically. One of the reasons WoW has been so popular is that they didn't kill themselves making the greatest MMO game engine known to mankind, but instead worried about the look and feel and quality of gameplay. I had more fun playing Super Mario Brothers 3 than I have almost any recent game. The recent games have had wonderful graphics, and they've been fun for a bit, but they don't sink their claws into you and never let go. Counter-Strike, one of the most popular games to date, was built on an engine that came out in 1997 or 1998 or something. They didn't worry about graphics so much. They worried about addictive, engaging gameplay. As much as I hate all the 12 year old kiddies running around spamming "OMFG FAGGET AWP WHORE!!1111", I have to admit that the game, itself, is compelling.
With the possible exception of Battlefield 1942, I haven't seen a FPS game since that has held my attention for more than 2 weeks (and I tend to spend upwards of 100$ a month on video games). Everything has been a disappointment to me, and most other people I've spoken to, lately.
There's going to come a point where photorealism is going to be common place, and eventually easy to develop. After that, the developers will be able to get back to the old Arcade style roots - good, solid games with good, solid ideas. They'll worry about story, look and feel, and some new, compelling quirks that grab the players attention. The video game industry isn't going to die. It isn't going to be crippled. Once photorealism is common place, the developers will come back from the jackass side of the game development force and focus on gameplay. Then everyone will be happy, and I'll stop feeling bad about shelling out mass quantities of money for new games.
First, you don't want to believe everything you read on Slashdot. Take things with a grain of salt.
With that said, however, Western Governments have been working for corporations instead of people for a long, long time. It's just that before you didn't know about it. They had the common sense to do it behind closed doors and not be too obvious about it.
Now they don't even bother to hide it. It's like they're daring us to hop into our cars, roll into D.C. and start electrocuting everyone. And of course we won't do it. Why? Because we're fucking pussies. We aren't willing to fight for our rights anymore. We'll just complain about it, agree that it's fucked up, and continue about our business. And since our only other options from our current asshole lawmakers are other assholes, we don't really have a choice. We be screwed. Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm both. I fervently hope that there will one day be a reckoning for those who lead us, where we get to hang them with their own entrails for fucking us up the ass.
P.S. Just because I said this on Slashdot doesn't mean you should accept my viewpoint. Make sure you get input from an extremely wide variety of sources and make up your own mind. And remember; take everything with a grain of salt. Or maybe even the whole salt shaker.
The funny thing was, he didn't even lower himself to your level. He just mentioned that getting your panties twisted in a knot over a swear is completely ridiculous. I could understand you getting upset over poor grammar and the inability to understand what the moron posting it is trying to say, but it's not as if the expletive hinders your ability to understand their point. In some ways, it clarifies it.
I imagine if you got to use the word "fuck" a lot more often, you wouldn't feel so compelled to tell a stranger "fuck you" all the time. But I guess that's what happens when you can't express yourself properly - you start running into anger issues.
But that isn't an appropriate argument for the question at hand. The question is "why switch", which implies that you already HAVE MS Office. In which case "it is adequate" is about as useful a reason as "hobbits have hairy feet".
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you think there's a big difference between some of those synonyms? Create and initiate, for example. When I think "initiate", I think "start". Meaning you could do one thing - like getting a bunch of monkeys together and giving them typewriters in the hopes of getting a Shakespearean play. You initiated the action, but the creation is done by the monkeys.
Synonyms are NOT a spoken language's way to denote identical meaning. There are subtle differences.
Oh, come off it. As if Republicans don't do the same thing every chance they can fucking get. Guess what? It's called politics. It doesn't matter what side you're for, they're all liars.
She should've thought of that BEFORE she made instant mashed potatoes! ;]
I think they have a big reason to criticize. No one likes symbols in place of letters. I can live with failure to capitilize, but symbol useage is even worse than punctuation. But I believe Penny-Arcade said it best...
Mr. Period Returns...
OR you're the luckiest sonuvabitch ever.
Relative to the plethora of games out for the PC, yes, yes it is.
When you enjoy playing games other than FPS games, then an Xbox is worth it. But after trying to play Halo 2 for the last 2 months, it fucking sucks. Sure, you can get good. But nothing replaces a good mouse and keyboard. And the poor Mac community still has about zero worthwhile FPS games to play. The ones they do have are all DM oriented.
Not that the Mac users can do much about that, really. But I, personally, wish I weren't locked into one particular architecture just because I enjoy playing games. I probably would never, ever use a Mac (I would rather build a computer myself, thanks), but I really wish I could make Linux my primary operating system. Indeed, I wish I could make it my only operating system.
Err, my computer doesn't have any problems with it at all. I had to leave my antialiasing at 4x, but for the most part, it runs nice and smooth.
Shooting an animal in the brain supposedly makes the muscles strain and twitch, making the meat much less tender. That's why they're bled to death - the muscles relax as they lose blood and lose strength. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but that's what I've been told.
No, the gun was born out of necessity to stop a mounted knight in shining armor. Suddenly it became easy for mere footman to drop a knight.
After their effectiveness in battle became known, they became rather terrifying. The second part of their use came into play; the fear they generated could deter others from attacking seemingly weaker targets. Suddenly those without years of training and small fortunes in armor could stand up for themselves and survive after it was all said and done.
After that, it was pretty much common sense that you could use it to kill lunch. If it's going to drop a medieval tank, I'm sure that deer has no chance.
That may be, but I remember reading an article at one point that says the porn industry doesn't have a problem with it at all. It may have been on CNN.com or maybe on Slashdot, I can't remember where.
Of course I have, I grew up in an extremely strict Roman Catholic family. Why do you think I believe the Christian God to be such a fucking douchebag?
I would imagine you collect ones of mature, mating age. There are too many chances for them to die before they get there if they're just chillens. You'll want to get them off the boat and get them checked into a motel asap so they can get back to the job of making babies. If they're not even going to make it to the age of reproduction, why the hell even bring them on in the first place?
According to common sense, an infant that can't do more than eat and shit is not going to be guilty. If it is, then God made it that way, as it doesn't have the mental capacity to make any choices at all.
As far as creating the rules and not breaking them - I'm pretty sure a catastrophic flood that covers every inch of land on the planet is, at best, a bending of the rules. You'd think God would be a bit more pure than to find a technicality and run with it, especially if he's going to presume to judge us.
Agreed. Don't forget the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing. Are they really trying to say that every single person in both of those cities were guilty of the most heinous sins imaginable, including the infants?
I have a question about the "great flood", though. This is God, right? If he wanted to test Noah, all he had to do was say "hey, a big flood is coming". If Noah built the boat, then okay. He's been tested. Then all God has to do is say "okay" and blink and every animal but the two he chose could live. Why bother with a flood when you're Omnipotent? Just make them fall over dead, or disappear, or turn into blades of grass, or pick them all up as one and cast them into the sun. Seriously, if I were going to wipe out every person and animal on the planet but two of each species, I would do it in a fun way. I mean, hey, I'm already murdering billions of organisms. What's a little torture after that?
Actually, it mostly just opens the door for a whole host of other questions, one of the most damning being "why would God seek to mislead us, so, unless he's a fucking asshole?" Seriously, if you don't want your kids to do something wrong, do you then seek to tempt them to do it just so you can say "hahahaha, you're grounded! woo! bet you didn't see that coming!"
Agreed. The main point, however, is that the word "innovative" is essentially completely useless. What does it matter whether it's innovative or not? What matters is if it's there.
From rereading my post, I can see that I wasn't very clear on that position and, as such, it certainly didn't seem like the "main point". My bad.
The word innovative is relative.
:]
If no one in a particular segment of society has seen it, it's innovative to them. Imagine that, somewhere in space, there has been a society who has done every single thing we have about 1000 years before we have. Are we still being innovative? Well...yes, because we don't know about this other civilization. To us, it is innovative.
The same thing goes for Microsoft's useage of innovative. To Microsoft's customers, it is innovative.
However, by all this logic, the word innovative is a useless catchphrase. However, since it's used in advertising, to the intelligent, rational consumer, it is, by definition "useless" already.
Everytime Apple, or Microsoft says "it's new and innovative" I say "you're fucking stupid". Who cares if its innovative? I care if it's useful. Whoever created it first doesn't fucking matter to me. And if it does matter to you, you have some seriously fucked up priorities*.
* It should be known that my computer useage hinges solely around playing video games, so I'm definitely casting stones from glass houses here. But at least I'm okay with admitting it
With the possible exception of Battlefield 1942, I haven't seen a FPS game since that has held my attention for more than 2 weeks (and I tend to spend upwards of 100$ a month on video games). Everything has been a disappointment to me, and most other people I've spoken to, lately.
There's going to come a point where photorealism is going to be common place, and eventually easy to develop. After that, the developers will be able to get back to the old Arcade style roots - good, solid games with good, solid ideas. They'll worry about story, look and feel, and some new, compelling quirks that grab the players attention. The video game industry isn't going to die. It isn't going to be crippled. Once photorealism is common place, the developers will come back from the jackass side of the game development force and focus on gameplay. Then everyone will be happy, and I'll stop feeling bad about shelling out mass quantities of money for new games.
First, you don't want to believe everything you read on Slashdot. Take things with a grain of salt.
With that said, however, Western Governments have been working for corporations instead of people for a long, long time. It's just that before you didn't know about it. They had the common sense to do it behind closed doors and not be too obvious about it.
Now they don't even bother to hide it. It's like they're daring us to hop into our cars, roll into D.C. and start electrocuting everyone. And of course we won't do it. Why? Because we're fucking pussies. We aren't willing to fight for our rights anymore. We'll just complain about it, agree that it's fucked up, and continue about our business. And since our only other options from our current asshole lawmakers are other assholes, we don't really have a choice. We be screwed. Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm both. I fervently hope that there will one day be a reckoning for those who lead us, where we get to hang them with their own entrails for fucking us up the ass.
P.S. Just because I said this on Slashdot doesn't mean you should accept my viewpoint. Make sure you get input from an extremely wide variety of sources and make up your own mind. And remember; take everything with a grain of salt. Or maybe even the whole salt shaker.
We have a way of making the things we say twice as difficult as they have to be.
The funny thing was, he didn't even lower himself to your level. He just mentioned that getting your panties twisted in a knot over a swear is completely ridiculous. I could understand you getting upset over poor grammar and the inability to understand what the moron posting it is trying to say, but it's not as if the expletive hinders your ability to understand their point. In some ways, it clarifies it.
I imagine if you got to use the word "fuck" a lot more often, you wouldn't feel so compelled to tell a stranger "fuck you" all the time. But I guess that's what happens when you can't express yourself properly - you start running into anger issues.
But that isn't an appropriate argument for the question at hand. The question is "why switch", which implies that you already HAVE MS Office. In which case "it is adequate" is about as useful a reason as "hobbits have hairy feet".
Well, it's a step up from Phantom Menace...