That whooshing sound you heard was what I was saying going entirely over your head. It sounds like you think I was saying their banning of horror movies was going to be at least partially harmful to the population? I was saying that economic sanctions and/or a trade embargo against the Chinese government would have said side-effect. Furthermore, there were black slaves in the South who grew quite fond of their white masters, and things like Stockholme Syndrome are even further proof that people can have their judgment clouded. Even the generally agreed upon failure that was the USSR experienced some real improvements and stability, that's not to say that things were especially bright nor could they be improved upon if only the powers that be would actually look out for the best interests of their subjects as opposed to themselves.
I shouldn't even be responding, you ACs are never worth explaining things to anyways.
Your overwhelming ignorance regarding how things went down in America in the follow-up to the invasion of Iraq is astounding, and you make it seem like a majority of the populace was fooled by this government. I've got a clue for you -- The American people were never by and large for this war effort like we were with Afghanistan and eliminating the Taliban (Nevermind that Bush and Co are allowing them to take a greater foothold now). You might not mean for your reply to be offensive but really it just feels like I'm just running through what I've had to run through so many times with so many people already. Your obsession with selfish/selflessness as if it's something relevant to the discussion of preventing the spread of a government most of the civilized world recognizes as being a danger to itself and those around it (Just not making things so crystal clear, we have trade relations to maintain after all) amazes me. Why you are so focused on making it seem like just because some people might try to capitalize on the situation for their own self-interest means the effort isn't worth pursuing.
Furthermore, I am very well aware of the current nature of the beast when talking about the Chinese government. I consider myself a history buff as most the males in my family are and I take a deep interest in politics, especially when it comes to governments that would be especially horrible for me to live under, but in general I just happen to do a lot of reading from a lot of different sources. The current Chinese government is about as fascist and capitalist as you can get, I don't think it bears much resemblance to the older faces of itself today aside from its general coldness towards its people and willingness to crush any and all opposition with great force. And the stand-off with Taiwan doesn't make things look any better, suffice to say I've built up a lot of things about the Chinese government that I really don't like.
I can't really phrase myself any more clearly to your stated confusion over the nature of my interest in what goes on in China other than to say this: I care about what happens on Earth. My sights do not end at our borders nor do they ignore what's going on inside these borders. I have a genuine want to see this world improve for everyone in it, I want this world to be a better place for future generations. I am an idealist who tries to do as much as I can to help spread this message, and to engage people in discussions with the hope of maybe showing them a point of view they never considered or never really understood. I want to change what's going on in China because I want more people to be strongly opposed to a suppressive government that I see doing real harm to its people, and I most definitely want to prevent it from being able to put anyone else under its thumb.
P.S. - Your selective quoting of me with regards to selfishness seems strange to me, what exactly are you trying to get at? Am I not allowed to be both selfish and selfless at once? Let me make this crystal: I am not trying to disguise that I have selfish and selfless wants and desires with regards to changes made to any government in this world that I view as unsavory. And the reason I brought up Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is because of your ridiculous hinting that our government doesn't care about human and civil rights. Do you not understand that we have a Congress, and they can do things independently of the President? The Executive branch is stonewalling the Legislative branch of our government so much that every single investigation or probe launched is an utter failure because nobody in the administration will talk and whenever data or records are required, they're always conveniently missing or destroyed, and the Justice Department won't do anything because it's in the pocket of GWB. Things are really complicated over here with us trying to get things done and changed, so just because we haven't been able to reign in this President doesn't mean we don't want to, or that our government as a whole equals George W Bush and his ideology.
But perhaps I should point out that you're basically mixing two intentions as one. One is a "unselfish" intention of furthering "basic human values". I have no qualms with that as long as people are making informed and reasonable choices. The other is a "selfish" intention that the bad things in China will spread to other parts of the world. I have no qualms with that too, since as Chinese we are actually rather concerned that "bad things in the USA" will spread. (I don't mean "democratic values" or those kinds of things that the USA claims to uphold, but "imperialism" for example)
Fine, the Chinese have the same misconception every single other country seems to have lately, that the current administration is the US, period. Sure, our foreign policy is historically very self-serving, but the imperialistic nature of this administration and some before it isn't really anywhere near how bad things used to be in the colonial era, so we can at least be thankful for that. I detest this current administration in most every respect, and it's love of imperialistic behavior and a man on a mission from God mindset really do make me shamed that they are representing us and tarnishing our image abroad.
The problem I have is that (as far as I can see, I might be misinformed) people seems to put the two intentions into a single basket. For example you first mention the "unselfish" cause of "every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry", then at the end say "you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.", which seems to me more like the "selfish" reason.
I don't see what you could possibly be driving at with this point, because I'm not going to sugar coat it for you -- My reasons are entirely both selfless and selfish. On the one hand, I don't want myself to be subjected to the same overpowered government that the Chinese citizens must bear, that's selfish and fine, how could you possibly argue otherwise? On the other hand, I genuinely want everyone on Earth to be allowed basic human and civil rights, to be treated fairly and with respect as an individual. I'm not try to disguise my selfish desire for not living under a hand of tyranny by dressing up my presentation with a care for human decency.
I understand that people do things for both selfish and unselfish reasons, but sometimes I wonder whether people who say they're concerned about human rights (etc.) in China are as selfless as they think they are. Really, I have no problem with people claiming "China is a competitor to us and we're not allowing our competitor to get out of control", that's fine. It's the hypocrisy that makes me sick. (For example) The USA govt officially claims that they invaded Iraq to rid Saddam because he was a bad guy and all that, but we all know there are darker intentions behind the invasion. And yet even today (or maybe not so long ago?) some Americans still think that they invaded Iraq to remove the "bad guy Saddam".
Some Americans are idiots, same as every other place you can go, there are fools anywhere who trust in single sources for their news and the mass media here in the USA was very kind to the war effort until the haze of 9/11 dissipated (for the most part). This administration was adamant that we were "rescuing" the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator while at the same time protecting strategic interests and assisting, as usual, our ally Israel (I'm not even going to touch that topic though, not in this post). They ignored intelligence reports of the time and used 9/11 as a vehicle of change, it isn't too hard to see through all the lies about why we invaded and realize the fact is we took a land grab by drawing faint connections between Iraq and 9/11 and Al'Qaeda, capitalizing on our fears of terrorism
Nobody in America with half a brain and true concern for the flagrant abuses of basic universal human and civil rights is advocating doing anything with China other than cutting off the (economic) lifeblood that's keeping this despicable government in power in the first place. We are entirely within our rights to advocate this sort of policy because many of us cannot stand the idea of supporting that government financially through trade. A violent overthrow in the style of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen, I can't see America attacking China unless we slip pretty far (Nevermind how far we've slipped already in the past eight years).
It's not that we're responsible for democracy and human rights in China, but rather that every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry. It doesn't matter how proud the Chinese people are or how powerful they think they could possibly be against the government that made Tienanmen Square happen. There's a point where you have to realistically view just how weak and powerless you are to prevent your government from doing whatever it damn well pleases.
Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".
No, basically, it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems if you don't because tomorrow it might be us becoming subjects." If the Chinese people won't or can't step up to the plate to prevent the spread of a very dangerous totalitarian government, well, sorry guys but someone will do something about it.
To reiterate, nobody's with good intentions and a solid head on their shoulders is advocating a violent overthrow, we want peaceful change, we want to take the steam out of this current regime so that the Chinese government would be that much more willing to sink or swim. Sadly, this will have the side-effect of being at least partially harmful to the population, but it's definitely the path of least bloodshed. Chinese citizens are proud of their history and culture, as they very well should be, but to refuse the assistance of those with genuine concern is just stupid and foolhardy. We aren't trying to dictate the future of your country so much as we're assuring the continuance of civilized society that doesn't suppress its citizens mercilessly. And you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.
The trick is to remember you're dealing with an intelligent search engine, not Ask Jeeves (Or I guess it's just Ask.com now). "How to fish", in parentheses so you're searching for the phrase, returns everything you'll need to know. Teach them how to use Google well and everything else will fall into place. People seem amazed that I can so easily find things on Google where they can spend hours finding nothing, maybe I just know too much about how it works.:)
I've been thinking about giving LFS another whirl, last time I tried to install it I ran into a roadblock somewhere around the process (Well before I had attained anything near setting up a bootable environment) and I haven't been back since. I really liked the idea of it though and it was quite informative and educational.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Slackware and used it as my primary distro until migrating to Gentoo, but your complaint being leveled at Ubuntu for being so user-friendly proves a few points. First it proves that Ubuntu is achieving, at least partially, its goal of creating a highly accessible distribution that works notably well for a wide range of users, from newcomers to experienced vets alike. The second thing it proves is that you are absolutely the wrong person to be asking for a distribution recommendation from. Most people interested in Ubuntu would rather die than go through the pain (Yes, the pain) of making Slackware work the way you want it to, up to and including keeping current with package or even distribution updates. Slapt-get and swaret come close to remedying this but until they're supported by Patrick himself I want to use them about as much as I want to use paludis instead of portage on Gentoo, which is to say I don't trust those programs to keep my system up-to-date and stable.
P.S. -- All your complaints about the "GUIish" nature of a distribution that goes the distance in providing a usable and appealing environment to get your work done in are the definition of petty. Someone could very easily make Ubuntu behave like your beloved no-hand-holding Slackware, and the reverse cannot be said. The auto-mounting is, AFAIK, default HAL behavior, and most users find it very helpful, unlike how it works in Windows-land where autorun can quickly cause software to not work correctly or annoy users to death. I just wish that less people would moan and groan about GUI tools making their way into distributions, with cries of "LAMENESSWIND0ZEIZATIONKILLITWITHTIRE!". If you don't like a system working with you instead of working against you, that's fine, but don't go and make it out to be like you couldn't make it work the way you want it to. Come on, someone who uses Slackware as their primary distro should be well aware that the sky is the limit with how customizable the whole system (Linux) is.
That depends on what's available to me, but yes, I'd say it's worth playing because it's a compelling game, even if my rig can't make it look as good as a more high or even medium-end system. Besides, it gives me something to look forward to in the future, playing through the game again, only this time with a machine that can run it flawlessly on high settings. Might just be me but I really do enjoy revisiting games from my past to see how well the computer can handle them this time around (Quake 3 was one, Zelda 64 was another for sure).
Crysis might not be very pretty on Lowest settings here on my Radeon X800GTO, but it's definitely nice to be able to have a steady and very playable framerate at my native 1440x900 resolution. Have you even tried Medium? Not so pretty game I can actually play is much more entertaining than slideshow of amazing renders I can't really do a whole lot with comfortably. Really my main complaint with Lowest settings is that the grass gets in the way more than anything, especially since there's no FSAA/AF that I'm doing in the game. Blocky ugly bushes sprouting up all over the place and making it hard for me to see the enemy.
This is what it looks like in Firefox 2.0.0.8 on my XP SP2 system. Just in case you haven't been able to duplicate it yet and are trying to figure out what some people are seeing. Hope you get down to the problem soon and fix it if that is indeed your responsibility!
If it forced you to install adware, yes, there would be a problem. However, it does not. This is simply a deal the developers made in an effort to get a small bit of expenses rocouped. Nothing is going on behind anyone's back and to get indignant over this with a free game is really as petty as you can get. There is plenty of quality software out there that comes bundled with toolbars and other utilities most of us wouldn't seriously consider placing on our systems, but that often doesn't keep us from simply telling it "No, do not install this additional software" and using the program we wanted in the first place.
You are about as naive as they come then, if you seriously think that a significant number of companies would willingly go out of their way to accommodate such a fraction of the market if they weren't legally obligated to. Have you never heard of anything like a Social contract/compact?
But I don't feel obligated to run around like some moral fucking nanny.
That's really good to hear, because it sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do before anyone in their right mind would think you had any morals, judging from the ranting and raving you're doing about enforcing laws that are simply there to force companies to not ignore citizens with disabilities. These laws are in the same boat as the ones that force companies to not ignore citizens who happen to be of a certain race or ethnicity.
Because we change things not because we care. Not because it impacts us. But simply because we believe that we should. We are good because we have to be, or we feel we should be. But we should want to be and you'll never get that if you allow a society to sleep-walk nearly catatonic and high on their own sense of self-righteousness.
I really hope you don't end up getting disabled in some manner of accident and being at the mercy of some jerk like you who thinks things like the Americans With Disabilities Act is pointless because they don't directly affect you.
Yeah, it's not like popular softwaredoes this (bundles toolbars) already. Give the guys a break, they're trying to make a little bit of money and you're not going to get much sympathy from anyone for blazing through an install process with "NEXT NEXT NEXT damn the text!" as the only thing running through your mind. They're providing you with a full free game, who are you to get pissy when they ask if you'd like to install this program alongside? Be thankful it's not the forced bundling that was all the craze not too long ago.
The quote should've been "which includes several graphic images of sodomy between adult males".
Technically, given definitions in modern dictionaries, two males cannot have sex. I know billy boy clinton would back me up on that, but it is true and he was right. He didn't have sex with an intern in the Oval Office given their statements. He sodomized an intern in the Oval Office.
I must have missed the memo being sent out that clearly defines sexual relations as only being acts that involve vaginal intercourse.
Yeah, Debian is really rock-solid and I love it if I don't need to do anything extensive outside of the official repositories. Then again, I would never profess to be very smart with Debian these days, the last time I gave it a whirl was with Woody, ever since then the Debian-based and actually user-friendly distros are the ones I've tested and recommended to newcomers. Meh, let's all just start using Linux From Scratch.
Things are quite different with Linux now, but if you liked Slack back in the day then you most likely would want to check out the latest offering. I myself use Gentoo for a multitude of reasons, but the biggest one has to be the ability to determine what goes on my system and what support that software has enabled or disabled. This coupled with how easy portage is for me to manage (Paludis is nice and fast but until it's an official alternative to portage I do not care to use it on my main install) makes Gentoo ideal for keeping all my software up to date with a very efficient package manager. Slackware has great package tools and Slack packages off places like Linuxpackages tend to work well, but unless you are really interested in maintaining within your Slackware installation multiple pieces of software that you yourself have added over time, well, I'd recommend looking elsewhere. I tried slapt-get, prefered swaret, but haven't messed around with Slackware since GNOME was removed from the distro. That and a lack of dependency handling native to the package management tools eventually turned me off to Slackware for anything but a server, and even then...
Speaking of dependecy handling I'm amazed that it's apparently still not a feature Patrick considers worth implementing. Slack packages are the only ones I know of that don't handle what most people would consider a basic feature. Expect headaches when trying to get software installed manually when you don't have prior experience.
Anti-virus software helps secure a system, it doesn't make it secure. This is an important distinction to make. Do I feel safer using NOD32 on my computer? Yes. Do I feel immune? Only an idiot would, regardless of what precautions you take.
Snuff simulator? It's a game. I suppose Doom 2 was a combat simulator that helped train Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold and that music drives kids to shoot up their school? This isn't something like Microsoft Flight Simulator for killing people. Rating this AO has everything to do with Bibles (and every other religious prude who thinks everyone should think the same way they do) and the busy-bodies in this country and others who love to play moral police whenever given a chance like this. The distinction between an M and an AO rating, given the relevant context, seems to be decided arbitrarily (seems to be how they're all decided though).
M: Contains content that may be suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
AO: Contains content that is suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
Anyone who says there's a real, easily distinguishable line between "intense violence" and "prolonged scenes of intense violence" is fooling themselves into thinking there's something inherently worse in prolonging the scene and that it's worth defining a prolonged scene of violence. Seeing a bunch of pixels comprising a fictional character brutally murdered in the blink of an eye is no different to any reasonable adult than seeing those same pixels brutally murdered in a "prolonged scene". They're also fooling themselves into thinking that there was some great leap in maturity between the age of 17 and 18 that will suddenly help shield you from the bogeyman of violent video games.
Does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have the right to restrict sale of AO titles on their systems? I'd say yes, it's their loss if they want to be hardasses about that and it's perfectly fine. The problem I see isn't that, the problem I see is that the ESRB killed this game in its current form before it even arrived, unless the developer decides to move it to the PC platform, appeal the rating (Good luck on that in the USA at least, maybe the UK will be more cooperative) or water down the content to appease the raters. The ESRB had no good reason to do this, Manhunt is rated M and unless Manhunt 2 was loaded up with a few free pornos on disc, I really don't think that there could have been much of a change to the dynamics of the game to qualify the sequel getting an AO. This is bad politics, bad for the economy (Stifling something that need not be stifled) and ultimately bad for gaming in general if a precedent is set. I can easily see the USA adopting the strict attitude Germany has towards this kind of stuff, and that won't bode well at all for creative and innovative game concepts seeing the light of day.
Anyway, if you are not a minor then nothing is 'on' your game anyway.
The important thing to remember about this particular situation is that it's not about preventing minors from getting ahold of the game, an M rating is sufficient for that. This is about preventing the game from seeing wide distribution in the first place whether you're a minor or an adult, and that's just plain wrong.
Translation: Everything that's actually important is pushed aside and made more difficult to acknowledge once I find this person isn't what/who I thought he/she was.
You're always going to find something to nit-pick about anybody, it's very rare to find someone who never gets on your nerves for anything. It's pretty ridiculous that even in this day and age teens and younger kids (and women who don't make the cut) have to go above and beyond for most "adults" to take them seriously.
In the context of this article, at least, it's just a game, keep your eyes focused on being an effective party and completing your objectives, don't be the one person in the party complaining about something so superficial, or find a party where you've got a leader that doesn't throw up all these mental blocks you've got setup. In the context of work, it's your job and personal feelings like that should be checked at the door, it does no good for you, the company or the person you're silently beefing with (whether they're a customer of some sort, a visitor, or a co-worker).
Nevermind these people seemingly find nothing of redeeming value in the Fallout universe itself, instead acting like it was purely the game mechanics that made the game what it was. Why they would care about a continuation of said universe in a true-to-it's-roots (So far so good on that) manner?
True fans will judge the game on the proper merits after having a chance to give it a twirl and see how Bethesda did. The rest will simply bitch that it's not simply a rehash of the game system they enjoyed back when it was judged the best way to experience the game world.
P.S. -- Am I the only one who played Fallout Tactics without the classic obvious turn-based system and actually found it more enjoyable to have more of a sense of urgency? Continuous Turn-Based for the freakin' win.
Slashdot Mirror
That whooshing sound you heard was what I was saying going entirely over your head. It sounds like you think I was saying their banning of horror movies was going to be at least partially harmful to the population? I was saying that economic sanctions and/or a trade embargo against the Chinese government would have said side-effect. Furthermore, there were black slaves in the South who grew quite fond of their white masters, and things like Stockholme Syndrome are even further proof that people can have their judgment clouded. Even the generally agreed upon failure that was the USSR experienced some real improvements and stability, that's not to say that things were especially bright nor could they be improved upon if only the powers that be would actually look out for the best interests of their subjects as opposed to themselves.
I shouldn't even be responding, you ACs are never worth explaining things to anyways.
Your overwhelming ignorance regarding how things went down in America in the follow-up to the invasion of Iraq is astounding, and you make it seem like a majority of the populace was fooled by this government. I've got a clue for you -- The American people were never by and large for this war effort like we were with Afghanistan and eliminating the Taliban (Nevermind that Bush and Co are allowing them to take a greater foothold now). You might not mean for your reply to be offensive but really it just feels like I'm just running through what I've had to run through so many times with so many people already. Your obsession with selfish/selflessness as if it's something relevant to the discussion of preventing the spread of a government most of the civilized world recognizes as being a danger to itself and those around it (Just not making things so crystal clear, we have trade relations to maintain after all) amazes me. Why you are so focused on making it seem like just because some people might try to capitalize on the situation for their own self-interest means the effort isn't worth pursuing.
Furthermore, I am very well aware of the current nature of the beast when talking about the Chinese government. I consider myself a history buff as most the males in my family are and I take a deep interest in politics, especially when it comes to governments that would be especially horrible for me to live under, but in general I just happen to do a lot of reading from a lot of different sources. The current Chinese government is about as fascist and capitalist as you can get, I don't think it bears much resemblance to the older faces of itself today aside from its general coldness towards its people and willingness to crush any and all opposition with great force. And the stand-off with Taiwan doesn't make things look any better, suffice to say I've built up a lot of things about the Chinese government that I really don't like.
I can't really phrase myself any more clearly to your stated confusion over the nature of my interest in what goes on in China other than to say this: I care about what happens on Earth. My sights do not end at our borders nor do they ignore what's going on inside these borders. I have a genuine want to see this world improve for everyone in it, I want this world to be a better place for future generations. I am an idealist who tries to do as much as I can to help spread this message, and to engage people in discussions with the hope of maybe showing them a point of view they never considered or never really understood. I want to change what's going on in China because I want more people to be strongly opposed to a suppressive government that I see doing real harm to its people, and I most definitely want to prevent it from being able to put anyone else under its thumb.
P.S. - Your selective quoting of me with regards to selfishness seems strange to me, what exactly are you trying to get at? Am I not allowed to be both selfish and selfless at once? Let me make this crystal: I am not trying to disguise that I have selfish and selfless wants and desires with regards to changes made to any government in this world that I view as unsavory. And the reason I brought up Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is because of your ridiculous hinting that our government doesn't care about human and civil rights. Do you not understand that we have a Congress, and they can do things independently of the President? The Executive branch is stonewalling the Legislative branch of our government so much that every single investigation or probe launched is an utter failure because nobody in the administration will talk and whenever data or records are required, they're always conveniently missing or destroyed, and the Justice Department won't do anything because it's in the pocket of GWB. Things are really complicated over here with us trying to get things done and changed, so just because we haven't been able to reign in this President doesn't mean we don't want to, or that our government as a whole equals George W Bush and his ideology.
Fine, the Chinese have the same misconception every single other country seems to have lately, that the current administration is the US, period. Sure, our foreign policy is historically very self-serving, but the imperialistic nature of this administration and some before it isn't really anywhere near how bad things used to be in the colonial era, so we can at least be thankful for that. I detest this current administration in most every respect, and it's love of imperialistic behavior and a man on a mission from God mindset really do make me shamed that they are representing us and tarnishing our image abroad.
I don't see what you could possibly be driving at with this point, because I'm not going to sugar coat it for you -- My reasons are entirely both selfless and selfish. On the one hand, I don't want myself to be subjected to the same overpowered government that the Chinese citizens must bear, that's selfish and fine, how could you possibly argue otherwise? On the other hand, I genuinely want everyone on Earth to be allowed basic human and civil rights, to be treated fairly and with respect as an individual. I'm not try to disguise my selfish desire for not living under a hand of tyranny by dressing up my presentation with a care for human decency.
Some Americans are idiots, same as every other place you can go, there are fools anywhere who trust in single sources for their news and the mass media here in the USA was very kind to the war effort until the haze of 9/11 dissipated (for the most part). This administration was adamant that we were "rescuing" the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator while at the same time protecting strategic interests and assisting, as usual, our ally Israel (I'm not even going to touch that topic though, not in this post). They ignored intelligence reports of the time and used 9/11 as a vehicle of change, it isn't too hard to see through all the lies about why we invaded and realize the fact is we took a land grab by drawing faint connections between Iraq and 9/11 and Al'Qaeda, capitalizing on our fears of terrorism
Nobody in America with half a brain and true concern for the flagrant abuses of basic universal human and civil rights is advocating doing anything with China other than cutting off the (economic) lifeblood that's keeping this despicable government in power in the first place. We are entirely within our rights to advocate this sort of policy because many of us cannot stand the idea of supporting that government financially through trade. A violent overthrow in the style of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen, I can't see America attacking China unless we slip pretty far (Nevermind how far we've slipped already in the past eight years).
It's not that we're responsible for democracy and human rights in China, but rather that every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry. It doesn't matter how proud the Chinese people are or how powerful they think they could possibly be against the government that made Tienanmen Square happen. There's a point where you have to realistically view just how weak and powerless you are to prevent your government from doing whatever it damn well pleases.
No, basically, it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems if you don't because tomorrow it might be us becoming subjects." If the Chinese people won't or can't step up to the plate to prevent the spread of a very dangerous totalitarian government, well, sorry guys but someone will do something about it.
To reiterate, nobody's with good intentions and a solid head on their shoulders is advocating a violent overthrow, we want peaceful change, we want to take the steam out of this current regime so that the Chinese government would be that much more willing to sink or swim. Sadly, this will have the side-effect of being at least partially harmful to the population, but it's definitely the path of least bloodshed. Chinese citizens are proud of their history and culture, as they very well should be, but to refuse the assistance of those with genuine concern is just stupid and foolhardy. We aren't trying to dictate the future of your country so much as we're assuring the continuance of civilized society that doesn't suppress its citizens mercilessly. And you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.
The trick is to remember you're dealing with an intelligent search engine, not Ask Jeeves (Or I guess it's just Ask.com now). "How to fish", in parentheses so you're searching for the phrase, returns everything you'll need to know. Teach them how to use Google well and everything else will fall into place. People seem amazed that I can so easily find things on Google where they can spend hours finding nothing, maybe I just know too much about how it works. :)
The guy was right actually, inspite isn't a word.
I've been thinking about giving LFS another whirl, last time I tried to install it I ran into a roadblock somewhere around the process (Well before I had attained anything near setting up a bootable environment) and I haven't been back since. I really liked the idea of it though and it was quite informative and educational.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Slackware and used it as my primary distro until migrating to Gentoo, but your complaint being leveled at Ubuntu for being so user-friendly proves a few points. First it proves that Ubuntu is achieving, at least partially, its goal of creating a highly accessible distribution that works notably well for a wide range of users, from newcomers to experienced vets alike. The second thing it proves is that you are absolutely the wrong person to be asking for a distribution recommendation from. Most people interested in Ubuntu would rather die than go through the pain (Yes, the pain) of making Slackware work the way you want it to, up to and including keeping current with package or even distribution updates. Slapt-get and swaret come close to remedying this but until they're supported by Patrick himself I want to use them about as much as I want to use paludis instead of portage on Gentoo, which is to say I don't trust those programs to keep my system up-to-date and stable.
P.S. -- All your complaints about the "GUIish" nature of a distribution that goes the distance in providing a usable and appealing environment to get your work done in are the definition of petty. Someone could very easily make Ubuntu behave like your beloved no-hand-holding Slackware, and the reverse cannot be said. The auto-mounting is, AFAIK, default HAL behavior, and most users find it very helpful, unlike how it works in Windows-land where autorun can quickly cause software to not work correctly or annoy users to death. I just wish that less people would moan and groan about GUI tools making their way into distributions, with cries of "LAMENESSWIND0ZEIZATIONKILLITWITHTIRE!". If you don't like a system working with you instead of working against you, that's fine, but don't go and make it out to be like you couldn't make it work the way you want it to. Come on, someone who uses Slackware as their primary distro should be well aware that the sky is the limit with how customizable the whole system (Linux) is.
That depends on what's available to me, but yes, I'd say it's worth playing because it's a compelling game, even if my rig can't make it look as good as a more high or even medium-end system. Besides, it gives me something to look forward to in the future, playing through the game again, only this time with a machine that can run it flawlessly on high settings. Might just be me but I really do enjoy revisiting games from my past to see how well the computer can handle them this time around (Quake 3 was one, Zelda 64 was another for sure).
Crysis might not be very pretty on Lowest settings here on my Radeon X800GTO, but it's definitely nice to be able to have a steady and very playable framerate at my native 1440x900 resolution. Have you even tried Medium? Not so pretty game I can actually play is much more entertaining than slideshow of amazing renders I can't really do a whole lot with comfortably. Really my main complaint with Lowest settings is that the grass gets in the way more than anything, especially since there's no FSAA/AF that I'm doing in the game. Blocky ugly bushes sprouting up all over the place and making it hard for me to see the enemy.
This is what it looks like in Firefox 2.0.0.8 on my XP SP2 system. Just in case you haven't been able to duplicate it yet and are trying to figure out what some people are seeing. Hope you get down to the problem soon and fix it if that is indeed your responsibility!
If it forced you to install adware, yes, there would be a problem. However, it does not. This is simply a deal the developers made in an effort to get a small bit of expenses rocouped. Nothing is going on behind anyone's back and to get indignant over this with a free game is really as petty as you can get. There is plenty of quality software out there that comes bundled with toolbars and other utilities most of us wouldn't seriously consider placing on our systems, but that often doesn't keep us from simply telling it "No, do not install this additional software" and using the program we wanted in the first place.
You are about as naive as they come then, if you seriously think that a significant number of companies would willingly go out of their way to accommodate such a fraction of the market if they weren't legally obligated to. Have you never heard of anything like a Social contract/compact?
What a very well thought-out post, kudos and thanks for the read!
That's really good to hear, because it sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do before anyone in their right mind would think you had any morals, judging from the ranting and raving you're doing about enforcing laws that are simply there to force companies to not ignore citizens with disabilities. These laws are in the same boat as the ones that force companies to not ignore citizens who happen to be of a certain race or ethnicity.
I really hope you don't end up getting disabled in some manner of accident and being at the mercy of some jerk like you who thinks things like the Americans With Disabilities Act is pointless because they don't directly affect you.
Yeah, it's not like popular software does this (bundles toolbars) already. Give the guys a break, they're trying to make a little bit of money and you're not going to get much sympathy from anyone for blazing through an install process with "NEXT NEXT NEXT damn the text!" as the only thing running through your mind. They're providing you with a full free game, who are you to get pissy when they ask if you'd like to install this program alongside? Be thankful it's not the forced bundling that was all the craze not too long ago.
I must have missed the memo being sent out that clearly defines sexual relations as only being acts that involve vaginal intercourse.
So you acknowledge you're speaking bullshit because it's nigh on impossible for anyone to finish it in that amount of time without the use of tools?
I'm shocked!
Yeah, Debian is really rock-solid and I love it if I don't need to do anything extensive outside of the official repositories. Then again, I would never profess to be very smart with Debian these days, the last time I gave it a whirl was with Woody, ever since then the Debian-based and actually user-friendly distros are the ones I've tested and recommended to newcomers. Meh, let's all just start using Linux From Scratch.
Things are quite different with Linux now, but if you liked Slack back in the day then you most likely would want to check out the latest offering. I myself use Gentoo for a multitude of reasons, but the biggest one has to be the ability to determine what goes on my system and what support that software has enabled or disabled. This coupled with how easy portage is for me to manage (Paludis is nice and fast but until it's an official alternative to portage I do not care to use it on my main install) makes Gentoo ideal for keeping all my software up to date with a very efficient package manager. Slackware has great package tools and Slack packages off places like Linuxpackages tend to work well, but unless you are really interested in maintaining within your Slackware installation multiple pieces of software that you yourself have added over time, well, I'd recommend looking elsewhere. I tried slapt-get, prefered swaret, but haven't messed around with Slackware since GNOME was removed from the distro. That and a lack of dependency handling native to the package management tools eventually turned me off to Slackware for anything but a server, and even then...
Speaking of dependecy handling I'm amazed that it's apparently still not a feature Patrick considers worth implementing. Slack packages are the only ones I know of that don't handle what most people would consider a basic feature. Expect headaches when trying to get software installed manually when you don't have prior experience.
Anti-virus software helps secure a system, it doesn't make it secure. This is an important distinction to make. Do I feel safer using NOD32 on my computer? Yes. Do I feel immune? Only an idiot would, regardless of what precautions you take.
Snuff simulator? It's a game. I suppose Doom 2 was a combat simulator that helped train Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold and that music drives kids to shoot up their school? This isn't something like Microsoft Flight Simulator for killing people. Rating this AO has everything to do with Bibles (and every other religious prude who thinks everyone should think the same way they do) and the busy-bodies in this country and others who love to play moral police whenever given a chance like this. The distinction between an M and an AO rating, given the relevant context, seems to be decided arbitrarily (seems to be how they're all decided though).
M: Contains content that may be suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
AO: Contains content that is suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
Anyone who says there's a real, easily distinguishable line between "intense violence" and "prolonged scenes of intense violence" is fooling themselves into thinking there's something inherently worse in prolonging the scene and that it's worth defining a prolonged scene of violence. Seeing a bunch of pixels comprising a fictional character brutally murdered in the blink of an eye is no different to any reasonable adult than seeing those same pixels brutally murdered in a "prolonged scene". They're also fooling themselves into thinking that there was some great leap in maturity between the age of 17 and 18 that will suddenly help shield you from the bogeyman of violent video games.
Does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have the right to restrict sale of AO titles on their systems? I'd say yes, it's their loss if they want to be hardasses about that and it's perfectly fine. The problem I see isn't that, the problem I see is that the ESRB killed this game in its current form before it even arrived, unless the developer decides to move it to the PC platform, appeal the rating (Good luck on that in the USA at least, maybe the UK will be more cooperative) or water down the content to appease the raters. The ESRB had no good reason to do this, Manhunt is rated M and unless Manhunt 2 was loaded up with a few free pornos on disc, I really don't think that there could have been much of a change to the dynamics of the game to qualify the sequel getting an AO. This is bad politics, bad for the economy (Stifling something that need not be stifled) and ultimately bad for gaming in general if a precedent is set. I can easily see the USA adopting the strict attitude Germany has towards this kind of stuff, and that won't bode well at all for creative and innovative game concepts seeing the light of day.
The important thing to remember about this particular situation is that it's not about preventing minors from getting ahold of the game, an M rating is sufficient for that. This is about preventing the game from seeing wide distribution in the first place whether you're a minor or an adult, and that's just plain wrong.
I lol'd.
Translation: Everything that's actually important is pushed aside and made more difficult to acknowledge once I find this person isn't what/who I thought he/she was.
You're always going to find something to nit-pick about anybody, it's very rare to find someone who never gets on your nerves for anything. It's pretty ridiculous that even in this day and age teens and younger kids (and women who don't make the cut) have to go above and beyond for most "adults" to take them seriously.
In the context of this article, at least, it's just a game, keep your eyes focused on being an effective party and completing your objectives, don't be the one person in the party complaining about something so superficial, or find a party where you've got a leader that doesn't throw up all these mental blocks you've got setup. In the context of work, it's your job and personal feelings like that should be checked at the door, it does no good for you, the company or the person you're silently beefing with (whether they're a customer of some sort, a visitor, or a co-worker).
Nevermind these people seemingly find nothing of redeeming value in the Fallout universe itself, instead acting like it was purely the game mechanics that made the game what it was. Why they would care about a continuation of said universe in a true-to-it's-roots (So far so good on that) manner?
True fans will judge the game on the proper merits after having a chance to give it a twirl and see how Bethesda did. The rest will simply bitch that it's not simply a rehash of the game system they enjoyed back when it was judged the best way to experience the game world.
P.S. -- Am I the only one who played Fallout Tactics without the classic obvious turn-based system and actually found it more enjoyable to have more of a sense of urgency? Continuous Turn-Based for the freakin' win.