Atheism can be as simple as saying: No one has ever produced proof of a god, therefore, it's logical to believe there isn't one and go on about my life as if that were true.
I think the game semi-models moving past religion in that in that at some point it usually makes sense to adopt free religion.
Beyond that, what civilization in the real world has ever succeeded in stamping religion out of their populace completely? I'm not sure it's happened yet.
Or so Richard Dawkins would have you believe. Atheism (the assertion that God does not exist) is as much a religion as any other, since it's predicated on the unknowable at its foundation, and draws conclusions and a course of action from there.
Not this argument again.
By that logic, your lack of belief in faeries, Zeus, ghosts, alien abductions, homeopathy, astrology, pyrokinesis, sparkle vampires, and reincarnation are each religions too. Be sure to specify all of them when someone asks what your religion is.
I highly doubt it. This is a core piece of the game decidedly left out. Expansions can do a lot, but change the actual mechanics of the game? No.
You're probably right. I was thinking about how espionage felt like a pretty big piece left out of Civ IV and added back in in BTS, but Civ IV's take on religion is a bigger and more pervasive system than that.
Sure, liberals should be exposed to conservative views. (And vice versa, for that matter.) I read commentators every day whose views I disagree with but who are nonetheless able to coherently put forth an argument for their position.
FNC is a lot less about that and a lot more about fearmongering.
Not that it matters if you convert, as it has zero impact on anything other than perhaps cities with the same religion in them as you, get a microscopic happiness boost... and a culture boost.... and all of the religious civics only applied to cities with your state religion.... and then we have the effects of temples, monestaries, cathedrals, the Apostolic Palace, holy buildings and religious sight...
The objection of atheists puzzle me -- even if you hate religion, it's hard to deny the immense influence it's had on the development of civilization to this point, which is exactly the point.
In the specific case of Civ IV's implementation of it, yeah, I think it was desirable. It added another dimension of interesting choices to the game.
Do I adopt the religion of my aggressive neighbor to try to placate them, or do I pick the religion that's spread more in my empire for its mechanical benefits, hoping I can placate or survive that aggressive neighbor another way?
Do I prioritize researching a tech that will found a religion for its benefits, or do I want to prioritize making axes and taking my neighbor's religious city violently, or do I want to prioritize economic growth now and hope to grab another religion later?
Should I spread the religion I founded to my larger neighbor for the gold it will feed me and in hopes they'll be Hindu buddies with me, or do I limit its spread to keep my upper hand in Apostlic Palace votes?
etc. Basically, it feels like an interesting piece fell out of the game for no good reason. Maybe Civ V expansions will add it back in.
stallman just has balls. he has the balls to do this
I don't agree -- for doing something to require balls, you have to be risking something to do it. Oh, no! Now that Stallman's taking this gutsy stance, someone might think he's some kind of crazed free software loving hippie! Well, most people probably would think that, if they knew who he was.
That's not to say that I disagree with his viewpoint, but the man risks nothing in doing this.
Sure it's a job but I don't hear MS speaking-out for the rights of janitors. Often they do just the opposite.... citation?
I just can't imagine a press release wherein any corporation comes out and says: "We think janitors have too many rights. Less rights would be good." That's a stretch even for Walmart to admit. Essentially, I think you've said something fairly ridiculous as though it were obviously true.
People want to own a copy of their favorite shows. They don't want to "rent" them from iTunes or Amazon, or to depend on NetFlix or Hulu to always keep them available.
Definitely some people do, but I'm not all that convinced they're in the majority anymore for a few reasons:
1) Media upgrade treadmill: in 20 years we've gone through VHS, DVD, and now Blu-ray. I won't count Laserdisc or HD-DVD. Maybe I loved movie/show X enough to buy it on VHS and then again on DVD, but do I want to do that again? Just the experience of having done it once is enough for me to think, maybe I'll just grab it from Netflix whenever I do want to see it again, in whatever the current format of the time is.
2) Ever-increasing availability/variety of things to watch. Sure, you're still going to have your Star Trek original series or whatever die-hards that will watch that show over and over and over again, but there are so many more choices out there that I think the number of those people (and the number of shows each die-hard is a die-hard about) is always decreasing as a percentage of the population. There are shows I've seen and liked and would like to see again, but they just never seem to make it to the front of my list of things to watch -- there is always something else out there that I am interested in that I haven't gotten to for the first time.
3) Ten years ago, if you liked a movie enough that you'd want to see it let's say 5 times in your lifetime, possibly spread out over years, the economically wise choice was to just go ahead and buy a copy rather than renting it from Blockbuster 5 times. That was also more convienient. Now, I'm not convinced that's the case anymore, if you already want to watch enough different stuff that something like a Netflix subscription makes sense.
4) While some people are collectors and do want that big shelf full of all their favorite movies in their home, I think at least as many people are of the mindset of preferring less non-essential crap littering the house when possible. That being said, I think there are stages of a person's life in which they're likely to be more collector-y, all things being equal, and equally stages of a person's life in which they're more likely to be of the minimialist mindset.
Add to that, if you're watching, say, generic romantic comedy #2898876, do you really care if it's in hi-def? I'm sure HD purists do but I'm equally sure that most people don't.
The number of things where I care about the HD isn't enough, to me, to justify switching formats.
1) Steam only requires activation to their servers, this is one time deal. YES they could go away, but as long as you have that computer you have you can still play the game.
FYI, offline mode doesn't work for everyone. Specifically, it's never worked for me across a half dozen different Steam games on two different machines. In the most benign cases the game just won't start.
I spent a few hours on unsuccessfully trying to figure out why at one point and going back and forth with Steam customer service, but ultimately decided I was just going to never buy a game on Steam again if I had a choice rather than waste more time.
Basically I'm calling bullshit. Name the game that is ten years old, and what computer you use to play it.
I'm not the poster you were responding to, but for the sake of discussion: Starcraft, Diablo 2. Both run fine on modern machines (although you pretty much have to run both as administrator on Vista/7).
Granted, my computer is about 3 years old at this point, but it really does not like alt-tabbing out of SC2. Or SC2 doesn't like it on my machine, take your pick.
When my last child was still an infant, sometimes I would sit with her in my arms... while I played Civ IV. Beat that.
My wife's home right now holding our baby and playing Civ V, although it's too soon to say if that's a topper because I don't know if I'll like Civ V yet.
Hey, I love AC as much as anyone, but let's be honest: these games keep getting more and more complicated, and there is a lot more going on turn by turn in, say, Civ 4 than in AC.
For example:
Where can various trade goods get at this turn and what are the effects of that? How about when corporations are in play? What resources do I need and what actions will I take (as the AI) to get them?
What's going on with religions? Which ones spread to where this turn? When do I, as the AI, change religions?
What's going on with culture and changing borders? When does the AI need to take an action to shore up its culture or garrison a city against revolt?
Which civics / social engineering choices should I make? In AC, *mostly* you know what the right choices are for your faction, and you'll make them as soon as you can. In Civ 4 this is a lot less clear cut -- what makes sense changes as the game progresses and with game conditions, as well as with technology.
What's going on with espionage? (Here I much prefer AC's system, but Civ 4's is clearly more computationally intensive.)
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
Atheism can be as simple as saying: No one has ever produced proof of a god, therefore, it's logical to believe there isn't one and go on about my life as if that were true.
I think the game semi-models moving past religion in that in that at some point it usually makes sense to adopt free religion.
Beyond that, what civilization in the real world has ever succeeded in stamping religion out of their populace completely? I'm not sure it's happened yet.
Or so Richard Dawkins would have you believe. Atheism (the assertion that God does not exist) is as much a religion as any other, since it's predicated on the unknowable at its foundation, and draws conclusions and a course of action from there.
Not this argument again.
By that logic, your lack of belief in faeries, Zeus, ghosts, alien abductions, homeopathy, astrology, pyrokinesis, sparkle vampires, and reincarnation are each religions too. Be sure to specify all of them when someone asks what your religion is.
I highly doubt it. This is a core piece of the game decidedly left out. Expansions can do a lot, but change the actual mechanics of the game? No.
You're probably right. I was thinking about how espionage felt like a pretty big piece left out of Civ IV and added back in in BTS, but Civ IV's take on religion is a bigger and more pervasive system than that.
Sure, liberals should be exposed to conservative views. (And vice versa, for that matter.) I read commentators every day whose views I disagree with but who are nonetheless able to coherently put forth an argument for their position.
FNC is a lot less about that and a lot more about fearmongering.
Could you elaborate? I'll admit I don't really 'get' the strategy of social policies that well yet.
Granted, I'm still working my way through my first game. Newborns and Civ are not a good combination.
Not playing a game because it models religion is ridiculous. How about Chess or Risk, they bad because they model warfare?
Chess also has bishops!
(From it, impressionable children could also learn the dangerous lesson that clergy only move diagonally.)
Not that it matters if you convert, as it has zero impact on anything other than perhaps cities with the same religion in them as you, get a microscopic happiness boost ... and a culture boost. ... and all of the religious civics only applied to cities with your state religion. ... and then we have the effects of temples, monestaries, cathedrals, the Apostolic Palace, holy buildings and religious sight...
Did we play the same game?
The objection of atheists puzzle me -- even if you hate religion, it's hard to deny the immense influence it's had on the development of civilization to this point, which is exactly the point.
In the specific case of Civ IV's implementation of it, yeah, I think it was desirable. It added another dimension of interesting choices to the game.
Do I adopt the religion of my aggressive neighbor to try to placate them, or do I pick the religion that's spread more in my empire for its mechanical benefits, hoping I can placate or survive that aggressive neighbor another way?
Do I prioritize researching a tech that will found a religion for its benefits, or do I want to prioritize making axes and taking my neighbor's religious city violently, or do I want to prioritize economic growth now and hope to grab another religion later?
Should I spread the religion I founded to my larger neighbor for the gold it will feed me and in hopes they'll be Hindu buddies with me, or do I limit its spread to keep my upper hand in Apostlic Palace votes?
etc. Basically, it feels like an interesting piece fell out of the game for no good reason. Maybe Civ V expansions will add it back in.
Not really a replacement.
The value offered by Pandora or a service like it is that you discover music that you've never heard but probably will like.
Ripping my own is only useful for music I already know I like.
Volunteers can build (some of) a house; volunteers are probably not going to construct the Burj Dubai.
A resilient, scalable, etc. etc. etc. social network is probably closer to the latter than the former.
stallman just has balls. he has the balls to do this
I don't agree -- for doing something to require balls, you have to be risking something to do it. Oh, no! Now that Stallman's taking this gutsy stance, someone might think he's some kind of crazed free software loving hippie! Well, most people probably would think that, if they knew who he was.
That's not to say that I disagree with his viewpoint, but the man risks nothing in doing this.
Sure it's a job but I don't hear MS speaking-out for the rights of janitors. Often they do just the opposite. ... citation?
I just can't imagine a press release wherein any corporation comes out and says: "We think janitors have too many rights. Less rights would be good." That's a stretch even for Walmart to admit. Essentially, I think you've said something fairly ridiculous as though it were obviously true.
People want to own a copy of their favorite shows. They don't want to "rent" them from iTunes or Amazon, or to depend on NetFlix or Hulu to always keep them available.
Definitely some people do, but I'm not all that convinced they're in the majority anymore for a few reasons:
1) Media upgrade treadmill: in 20 years we've gone through VHS, DVD, and now Blu-ray. I won't count Laserdisc or HD-DVD. Maybe I loved movie/show X enough to buy it on VHS and then again on DVD, but do I want to do that again? Just the experience of having done it once is enough for me to think, maybe I'll just grab it from Netflix whenever I do want to see it again, in whatever the current format of the time is.
2) Ever-increasing availability/variety of things to watch. Sure, you're still going to have your Star Trek original series or whatever die-hards that will watch that show over and over and over again, but there are so many more choices out there that I think the number of those people (and the number of shows each die-hard is a die-hard about) is always decreasing as a percentage of the population. There are shows I've seen and liked and would like to see again, but they just never seem to make it to the front of my list of things to watch -- there is always something else out there that I am interested in that I haven't gotten to for the first time.
3) Ten years ago, if you liked a movie enough that you'd want to see it let's say 5 times in your lifetime, possibly spread out over years, the economically wise choice was to just go ahead and buy a copy rather than renting it from Blockbuster 5 times. That was also more convienient. Now, I'm not convinced that's the case anymore, if you already want to watch enough different stuff that something like a Netflix subscription makes sense.
4) While some people are collectors and do want that big shelf full of all their favorite movies in their home, I think at least as many people are of the mindset of preferring less non-essential crap littering the house when possible. That being said, I think there are stages of a person's life in which they're likely to be more collector-y, all things being equal, and equally stages of a person's life in which they're more likely to be of the minimialist mindset.
Add to that, if you're watching, say, generic romantic comedy #2898876, do you really care if it's in hi-def? I'm sure HD purists do but I'm equally sure that most people don't.
The number of things where I care about the HD isn't enough, to me, to justify switching formats.
Isn't that what cracks are for?
I'd prefer if the publisher didn't encourage us to consider them a necessary and important part of the game ecosystem, but, here we are.
... okay, somebody needs to stay out of the ragehol.
I don't have an ethical objection to Steam. I just think it sucks.
If YOU have some kind of crazy-ass ethical objection to it, then YOU can not buy shit on Steam.
1) Steam only requires activation to their servers, this is one time deal. YES they could go away, but as long as you have that computer you have you can still play the game.
FYI, offline mode doesn't work for everyone. Specifically, it's never worked for me across a half dozen different Steam games on two different machines. In the most benign cases the game just won't start.
I spent a few hours on unsuccessfully trying to figure out why at one point and going back and forth with Steam customer service, but ultimately decided I was just going to never buy a game on Steam again if I had a choice rather than waste more time.
Basically I'm calling bullshit. Name the game that is ten years old, and what computer you use to play it.
I'm not the poster you were responding to, but for the sake of discussion: Starcraft, Diablo 2. Both run fine on modern machines (although you pretty much have to run both as administrator on Vista/7).
Granted, my computer is about 3 years old at this point, but it really does not like alt-tabbing out of SC2. Or SC2 doesn't like it on my machine, take your pick.
When my last child was still an infant, sometimes I would sit with her in my arms... while I played Civ IV. Beat that.
My wife's home right now holding our baby and playing Civ V, although it's too soon to say if that's a topper because I don't know if I'll like Civ V yet.
In all seriousness, I'm very happy with FreeCiv. The graphics aren't terribly awesome, but graphics aren't what I play Civilization for, anyway.
FWIW, the games have been getting more mechanically complex over time, too. At least, I remember FreeCiv as being very Civ2-like.
I much prefer Civ 4, although I did love Civ 2 for what it was in its day.
Hey, I love AC as much as anyone, but let's be honest: these games keep getting more and more complicated, and there is a lot more going on turn by turn in, say, Civ 4 than in AC.
For example:
Where can various trade goods get at this turn and what are the effects of that? How about when corporations are in play? What resources do I need and what actions will I take (as the AI) to get them?
What's going on with religions? Which ones spread to where this turn? When do I, as the AI, change religions?
What's going on with culture and changing borders? When does the AI need to take an action to shore up its culture or garrison a city against revolt?
Which civics / social engineering choices should I make? In AC, *mostly* you know what the right choices are for your faction, and you'll make them as soon as you can. In Civ 4 this is a lot less clear cut -- what makes sense changes as the game progresses and with game conditions, as well as with technology.
What's going on with espionage? (Here I much prefer AC's system, but Civ 4's is clearly more computationally intensive.)
etc.
I'm sorry, you've mistakenly posted this in reply to my post, which it isn't a relevant answer to. Where was it supposed to go?
And no I'm not rich. I just know that what isn't yours isn't yours.
When you (or anyone) can make money without depending on anything society provides, then it owes nothing to society.
That hasn't yet occured in human history.