Excuse me but I, and the vast majority of everyone I associate with is a United States Native and I did not steal from anyone. Heck I've never even been out of the country for more than a weekend, so don't even try and say I'm not native. The fact that some associates of my ancestors, and maybe even my ancestors themselves, invaded a foreign country 200 years ago doesn't strip me of the right to defend my country of origin, or even my country of residence, from foreign invasion. What you are basically saying is that if your parents molested you that you would not have the right to stand up against those that molest children. Yes my ancestors, hundreds of years ago, may have been wrong in invading a foreign country, or maybe even in having slaves, but guess what, I didn't even know any of them. So now that I am growing up in the country I was born in I am going to fight to make sure that no one else makes the same mistake my ancestors did. And if you don't think a million foreign nationals crossing the borders of your country illegal is not an invasion than I think you need to read a little more and probably pick up a dictionary.
Look, I don't think you know what the term native means since you keep miss using it. There is no one that was born in the United States, and there for native, that is here illegally. You and the rest of the cowards should stop blaming everything on people who are long since dead and actually start standing up for yourself.
And in case you are curious I am of mixed descent having both Native American and European ancestors.
Would you prefer an efficient Third Reich or a slow bureaucratic one? If my choice is between efficiency and inefficiency I will always choose the former.
What this has to do with a National ID card, or even Real ID, I have no idea, but you asked the question so I felt compelled to answer.
I was thinking this was the opposite of Fascist and being more Neo-Libertarian. The Government is removing a ban, not enforcing minimum prices. What this ruling does is allow manufacturers to enter into contracts with sellers that enforce minimum pricing. Seems very Neo-Libertarian to me. I'm not saying I support the ruling, just saying it's not exactly Fascist.
I'm not Autistic and don't know anyone directly who is Autistic. I have reasons to read and study Autism and the Autistic Support movements. My argument was merely that the original commentor was being extremely close minded, and not realizing that the classifications of mental disorders changes fairly regularly, and that sometimes what we classify as a mental disorder one year will be declassified the next. Homosexuality is one of those items that was classified as a mental disorder until it's removal in 1974, and Autism (at least some areas of the spectrum) may turn out to be the same way in the future.
Now if you actually want to argue your point with people more qualified than myself then I suggest you check out the following:
These people are stupid idiots that ought to be arrested for severe child abuse. I didn't know that allowing your children to think differently than societal standards was child abuse.
Anyone who would deliberately impose a curable handicap on their children should be beaten. You mean we should go out an beat people who allow there kids to be homosexual, I mean I have heard that is a curable handicap. Or are you just waiting for gene therapy to allow people of african decent to rid themselves of the skin discoloration handicap they have.
And don't even think of telling me I'm way off base. Being close minded, like you obviously are, is a curable handicap as well and I know a number of people that would be happy to beat your parents for allowing you to continue being this way.
Really it's people like you that reinforce my belief that evolution is dead since we keep "curing" every mutation that comes along.
gender chromosome related conditions are almost exclusive to men It would be better put to say that chromosome related conditions are predominantly apparent in males. There are Fragile X females, but they tend to have symptoms to a much lesser degree unless they had both a fragile X father and mother. The interesting thing is that this process that reduces the symptoms of Fragile X syndrome will actually make Dual Fragile X females more likely as Fragile X males will receive more opportunities to reproduces, having more societally acceptable traits.
By the way, I design games. Isn't the internet fun? you can claim to be whatever you want. You would be wrong, again, but you can claim it. I'm not saying you don't design games, but I'm confident you have designed no game that has been published by a major publisher or cost millions of dollars to develop. And if I'm wrong then feel free to prove me so, I mean you've done so good at that so far.
Not to detract from you post but it is possible, and common to have sealed system steam turbines. There is no need to replace the water in a sealed system. Water can be heated, there by converted into steam, which produces pressure which forces the steam through a turbine. When the stored energy of the steam is exchanged by the turbine it cools and re-liquifies. The most efficient systems would actually keep the steam in the turbine stages until fully condensed, an there for have 0 waste water.
The IC engine was developed as a replacement for steam powered piston locomotion and paddle wheel boating (think river boats on the Mississippi)...But if you think running a steam turbine in an automobile is far more efficient than an IC, you're mistaken That's a much better comment that the previous one I was responding too. The car under discussion is powered by a two stage turbine engine, not a steam piston and there for pointing out the history or efficiency of the steam piston engine is moot. Regardless to any of that, my original statement still stands, that stating IC is more efficient that steam is a gross generalization, since you even back that up by stating you were comparing a subset of steam power converters to general Internal Combustion.
Maybe because steam engines arent turbines? That's interesting since what we are discussing here is a specific entry in the British Steam Car Challenge who's "Motive power is from a two-stage steam turbine [which] drives a gear train with a 5:1 ratio for a wheel speed of 3000 RPM at 200 MPH". Now since you were responding another post which was a comment on the output of the aforementioned turbine powered car, and there was no reference to "steam engine" made until you last post, would you like to go an RFTA and then get back to us?
This whole thread is getting completely out of hand an off topic. The discussion was wether the character in Manhunt is committing murder when killing people in the game. And so far no one has been able to say otherwise. Instead you stated that who cares if it's murder since it's just a game. Fine, I'm not even going to argue that since you've already refused to accept that there are people that don't have the same dissociative abilities as you.
Personally I think you are wrong about game designers, and that those who design story driven games are putting effort into create characters that the players can associate with rather than not. Manhunt in particular was an obvious experiment in game driven fear, why else would the manual suggest you turn your lights down and reduce the possibilities of outside sounds interfering with your experience, even going as far as to suggesting you wear a mic and ear piece just like the character (mind you it's been a while since I have seen the manual an my memory maybe a bit off about all that).
The IC engine is far more efficient in comparison. If Internal Combustion is so much more efficient why is the vast majority of energy produced on earth is converted to electricity through turbines rather than internal combustion driven generators? Gas turbine engines have been produced with a energy conversion efficiency of 46%, as compared to ICs which have reached 42% (both maximums taken from working models not theoretical). It is also easier to addapt heat recovery systems to turbine engines than it is to internal combustion. Now multi stage steam turbines actually surpass Both the IC and the Gass turbine and are capable of reaching 95% isentropic efficiency. I just think you are missing some factors in your efficiency equation.
If a game is rated T, could a trailer by rated M? Yes, if the trailer contained content which is not in the actual game. This happens in game trailers. For instance it could be possible to make a Wii sports game trailer which showed people playing the game, while naked. This would change the rating of the trailer. Game trailers need not be made up of just snippets from the game itself. Many game trailers have had content only available in pre production demos (as happens in movies as well).
People aren't going to invest in a company that they don't have faith in. I know I wouldn't invest in a company that was ranked 164th in last years fortune 2000 and happened to drop out of the top 10 market value in japan for mere moments. I would much rather invest in a company that was ranked 695th (down 75 from the previous year) in fortune and broke the top 10 market value in japan but couldn't maintain the rank through market closing.
Seriously I'm not knocking Nintendo, but to imply that investors are going to lose faith in Sony is foolish.
I'm not going to debate the validity of different mental disorders, since it has little to do with my previous asked question, but I will back up my statement about the rising diagnosis of mental disorders. According to the National Institutes of Mental Health the diagnosed cases of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (classified as a mental disorder) has gone from 1 in 1000 to 2-6 in 1000 in the past 2 years. This is only one example but there are plenty of others (such as my personal favorite of Narcissistic Personality Disorder which is extremely difficult to diagnose yet still rising at an alarming rate). You could also do a google search for something like "Mental illness epidemic." I'm not going to debate the possible reasons for the increase, only supporting my statement that there is an increase.
I know it may be hard to believe but not everyone's experiences are the same as yours. There are many people in the world who, when playing games, watching movies or reading books, relate to the characters on a personal level. I have no proof but I would bet you are in the rare minority that internally converts all games to a matter of abstract concepts and ignores the role of the character. I'm not against hearing other points of view, which is why I have to ask, why is it that GTA sells millions of copies yet there does not seem to be any interest in a game with the exact same underlying goals (grab items, destroy objects, etc.) that has no back story and uses abstract shapes and colors? Or, and I'm sure the video game publisher would love the answer to this one, do game designers and developers spend millions of dollars incorporation imagery, and certainly more than negligible amounts of character back story?
Then again I'm responding to a comment containing contradictory or otherwise nonsensical statements like:
Who said imagery doesn't matter? I hope nobody did, because if they did, we'd have to ban paintings, and we'd have to ban all sorts of movies, and we'd have to definitely ban music. We'd certainly have to ban your post, with all the references to mass murderers. I mean you just said "if [imagery doesn't matter] we'd have to ban all [imagery]." Banning something that doesn't matter seems like a pretty significant waste of effort, kind of like adding well developed story lines (including back story) to video games when in the end no one even cares since they are just "leveling against mobs."
This only applies to people who are already unstable, assuming that video games actually have that kind of an effect on people. I'm looking for a serious answer here. With the rising occurrences of Diagnosed Mental Disorders in western civilizations, how to you propose we keep games like Manhunt out of the hands of those who are "already unstable" and potentially susceptible to the negative imagery and psychological effects of simulation? Now how do you propose we do this without calling into question the last 100 years of anti-discrimination challenges?
That doesn't change anything about your right to distribute discs to stores that happen to play a video game when inserted into a WII or PS3 As I stated elsewhere, this is only true if the developer has not entered into a contract with the console maker, as all developers do when before receiving their licensed development kits. Yes it is possible to independently develop games for the current consoles, and assuming you can get around the DRM/DMCA/Anti-circumvention laws mentioned above, you would be able to distribute any game you wanted as long as you have not entered into a contract with the console manufacturer. You wouldn't find any major seller to cary it for you but that is an entirely different issue.
According to a lawsuit brought against Nintendo years ago by Tengen they can in fact release games for whatever playform they damn well please. This is only true if the company did not license development kits from the console maker and in doing so signed an agreement with them. If Take Two had reverse engineered the PS3 or the Wii, or otherwise gained access to the necessary machine code (since there are no freely available C compiler or Assemblers for the PS3) and memory maps (Sony doesn't release the hardware architecture to just anyone) then they would have been able to release to game without legal consequence. When Tengen did independantly develop games for the NES (as the independent atari developers before them) the cost of developing games was far less than it is today and independent sales could keep a manufacturer afloat. Currently none of the major resale shops would be willing to sell unlicensed games, and therefor you couldn't possible count on recouping 10 million in costs since you would have to sell it independently.
The tactics that would keep the retailers from putting this on the shelves is anti-competitive at the very least but because it deal with games noone will see it that way or even give a damn which is unfortunate. There is nothing anti-competative about a console manufactures licensing agreement for development kits. If the console manufacturers were in some way forcing resellers to not sell non-approved software that did not violate any other contracts, then you could make claims about anti-competative actions.
Again, the story is not the game. I disagree and I assume there is no way you would change your mind. Had this been a game were a ball went around and blew up blocks it would not have the same effect as a person walking around and strangling other people. If it was just a matter of texture maps then no game company would spend the amount of money they do on those textures. The people playing games like Manuhunt, still mostly minors, are doing it for the trill of the kill. The fact that there are multiple levels to the brutality of the kills only clarifies this more. If the game is a matter of survival and not one of murder then there would be no reason to spend more then the minimum amount of time on each kill, and incapacitation would be an option, but it's not. I would bet that the vast majority of the players of Manuhunt spent the extra time, when they could, to achieve a more brutal kill.
What if there was a story to Tetris? Let's say you're working for the KGB and you've got to fill mass graves as efficiently as possible so they're not discovered. That's a pretty morbid story, isn't it? But if you're playing tetris, that's not really what you're doing. It is what you are doing if the graphics looked like dead human bodies and not blocks. Or are you trying to tell me that there is no psychological effect from visual stimuli? I would be willing to bet that had the cover shown bodies thrown into mass graves, even if the graphics didn't, that there would have been numerous moral objections to the game, and sorry to say there still are some people in the world with moral values, and well we just have to put up with them some times.
They can tell you you're a monster, but in the end, you're just killing the in-game objects who want to kill you, just like in every other game since pac-man. But this is where you are completely wrong. For one there are plenty of games that do not involve destroying in game objects, including most racing games, and collecting games, like the highly acclaimed and fair selling Katamari Damacy. And of the games that do amount to item destruction games, many of them were of a non-violent nature. Even in your example of Pac-man there is no permanent destruction of enemies (though it is true that the pellets are permanently used). Or look at Sega's best selling Sonic the Hedge Hog, which contains no killing or permanent destruction (the rings can be re captured if lost and the enemies are animals that are freed from enslavement, not killed).
Seriously it 's quotes like the one above, that make me realize that video games might actually be able to have a demoralizing effect on impressionable minds. We may never know for sure, but I could certainly picture Klebod, Harris or Cho saying the same thing, "I'm just killing objects that want to kill me" as they gunned downed numerous innocent human being. After all what is the difference between a block of color and a human being.
So until I start seeing a rise in popularity of mods for Manhunt that turn the enemies into blocks that are destroyed with colorful rainbows and ponies, I'm not going to put to much stock in the "Imagery doesn't matter" argument.
For that matter, why should I care; I'm not acting in official capacity in the US or any other legal system, and am therefore free to not consider killing in self-defense someone who is trying to kill you - even an official of the state acting in official capacity - to not be murder. Why don't you just keep on adjusting the meaning of murder to suit your needs. You could just change murder to mean "The purposeful killing of another human being that [insert name here] doesn't deem worthy of living." I think this is the definition used between 1480 and 1530 with [insert name here] being "the Roman Catholic Church."
Looking at dictionary definitions of murder, excluding slang use and reference to flocks of birds, you are left with the following 2:
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
I would say the killing in Manhunt (which I believe takes place in a fictionalized version of the United States) qualify as the both the first and second definition.
Well I guess it all depends on what you are using as your basis for the definition of murder. In the USA killing your would be legal executioner would be classified as first or second degree murder, depending on premeditation. This would not be Manslaughter and would not be viable for self defense plea. It's the same situation that would arise if you were to shoot at an officer of the law rather than surrendering even if failure to surrender would inevitably lead to your ultimate demise.
Just because you disagree with the laws of a nation does not free your from being held to those laws.
It is murder because you are voluntarily choosing to kill people. You are playing a dead man walking. There is no reason for killing these people other than the sadistic pleasure of the director and his customers, and you own hope of getting away with your own capital crimes. Killing to avoid capital punishment is murder. In the game of Manhunt you are killing to avoid punishment for previously committed crimes. It's comparable to a mafia leader having informants killed so they don't send them up the river. Sure the mafia boss is doing it out of self defense, but it doesn't absolve them of the criminal act of murder.
Personally I'm not worried about the effect games like Manhunt have on people since there sales are miniscule in the long run and the sequel will sell even less, but being some one that grew up playing games like "Killer".that were fair murder simulations, I can say that having accurate labels, such as Adults Only, is a damn good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me but I, and the vast majority of everyone I associate with is a United States Native and I did not steal from anyone. Heck I've never even been out of the country for more than a weekend, so don't even try and say I'm not native. The fact that some associates of my ancestors, and maybe even my ancestors themselves, invaded a foreign country 200 years ago doesn't strip me of the right to defend my country of origin, or even my country of residence, from foreign invasion. What you are basically saying is that if your parents molested you that you would not have the right to stand up against those that molest children. Yes my ancestors, hundreds of years ago, may have been wrong in invading a foreign country, or maybe even in having slaves, but guess what, I didn't even know any of them. So now that I am growing up in the country I was born in I am going to fight to make sure that no one else makes the same mistake my ancestors did. And if you don't think a million foreign nationals crossing the borders of your country illegal is not an invasion than I think you need to read a little more and probably pick up a dictionary.
Look, I don't think you know what the term native means since you keep miss using it. There is no one that was born in the United States, and there for native, that is here illegally. You and the rest of the cowards should stop blaming everything on people who are long since dead and actually start standing up for yourself.
And in case you are curious I am of mixed descent having both Native American and European ancestors.
What this has to do with a National ID card, or even Real ID, I have no idea, but you asked the question so I felt compelled to answer.
I was thinking this was the opposite of Fascist and being more Neo-Libertarian. The Government is removing a ban, not enforcing minimum prices. What this ruling does is allow manufacturers to enter into contracts with sellers that enforce minimum pricing. Seems very Neo-Libertarian to me. I'm not saying I support the ruling, just saying it's not exactly Fascist.
Now if you actually want to argue your point with people more qualified than myself then I suggest you check out the following:
- Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical
- Blogging Autism
- Dr. Temple Grandin
And that's just the few I know off the top of my head.You have your whole life ahead of you, stop wasting it by hiding your bigotry behind medical classifications.
And don't even think of telling me I'm way off base. Being close minded, like you obviously are, is a curable handicap as well and I know a number of people that would be happy to beat your parents for allowing you to continue being this way.
Really it's people like you that reinforce my belief that evolution is dead since we keep "curing" every mutation that comes along.
Not to detract from you post but it is possible, and common to have sealed system steam turbines. There is no need to replace the water in a sealed system. Water can be heated, there by converted into steam, which produces pressure which forces the steam through a turbine. When the stored energy of the steam is exchanged by the turbine it cools and re-liquifies. The most efficient systems would actually keep the steam in the turbine stages until fully condensed, an there for have 0 waste water.
This whole thread is getting completely out of hand an off topic. The discussion was wether the character in Manhunt is committing murder when killing people in the game. And so far no one has been able to say otherwise. Instead you stated that who cares if it's murder since it's just a game. Fine, I'm not even going to argue that since you've already refused to accept that there are people that don't have the same dissociative abilities as you.
Personally I think you are wrong about game designers, and that those who design story driven games are putting effort into create characters that the players can associate with rather than not. Manhunt in particular was an obvious experiment in game driven fear, why else would the manual suggest you turn your lights down and reduce the possibilities of outside sounds interfering with your experience, even going as far as to suggesting you wear a mic and ear piece just like the character (mind you it's been a while since I have seen the manual an my memory maybe a bit off about all that).
Seriously I'm not knocking Nintendo, but to imply that investors are going to lose faith in Sony is foolish.
Being one of the few to get the reference, I have to give you props for pulling that at.
I'm not going to debate the validity of different mental disorders, since it has little to do with my previous asked question, but I will back up my statement about the rising diagnosis of mental disorders. According to the National Institutes of Mental Health the diagnosed cases of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (classified as a mental disorder) has gone from 1 in 1000 to 2-6 in 1000 in the past 2 years. This is only one example but there are plenty of others (such as my personal favorite of Narcissistic Personality Disorder which is extremely difficult to diagnose yet still rising at an alarming rate). You could also do a google search for something like "Mental illness epidemic." I'm not going to debate the possible reasons for the increase, only supporting my statement that there is an increase.
Seriously it 's quotes like the one above, that make me realize that video games might actually be able to have a demoralizing effect on impressionable minds. We may never know for sure, but I could certainly picture Klebod, Harris or Cho saying the same thing, "I'm just killing objects that want to kill me" as they gunned downed numerous innocent human being. After all what is the difference between a block of color and a human being.
So until I start seeing a rise in popularity of mods for Manhunt that turn the enemies into blocks that are destroyed with colorful rainbows and ponies, I'm not going to put to much stock in the "Imagery doesn't matter" argument.
Looking at dictionary definitions of murder, excluding slang use and reference to flocks of birds, you are left with the following 2:
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
I would say the killing in Manhunt (which I believe takes place in a fictionalized version of the United States) qualify as the both the first and second definition.
Well I guess it all depends on what you are using as your basis for the definition of murder. In the USA killing your would be legal executioner would be classified as first or second degree murder, depending on premeditation. This would not be Manslaughter and would not be viable for self defense plea. It's the same situation that would arise if you were to shoot at an officer of the law rather than surrendering even if failure to surrender would inevitably lead to your ultimate demise.
Just because you disagree with the laws of a nation does not free your from being held to those laws.
It is murder because you are voluntarily choosing to kill people. You are playing a dead man walking. There is no reason for killing these people other than the sadistic pleasure of the director and his customers, and you own hope of getting away with your own capital crimes. Killing to avoid capital punishment is murder. In the game of Manhunt you are killing to avoid punishment for previously committed crimes. It's comparable to a mafia leader having informants killed so they don't send them up the river. Sure the mafia boss is doing it out of self defense, but it doesn't absolve them of the criminal act of murder.
.that were fair murder simulations, I can say that having accurate labels, such as Adults Only, is a damn good thing.
Personally I'm not worried about the effect games like Manhunt have on people since there sales are miniscule in the long run and the sequel will sell even less, but being some one that grew up playing games like "Killer"