The paladin class has not been totally revamped - they just reorganized the paladin talent tree. The class will still be very boring to play solo and entirely 'different than advertised.'
I have a paladin that I play with my girlfriend's warlock. It's fun to keep her healed when she does all the damage, but on the rare occasions when I play him alone (like when she decides to level ahead of me) it's boring as hell. I knew that paladins were best at healing, buffing, and assisting other players going into the class, so I knew what to expect, but I can see why people who choose paladins thinking they'd get a 'holy warrior' are irritated with what they've gotten in exchange.
By what metric are FPS's the "main-stay" of PC Gaming? Do you mean those are the games that 'gamers' like to play? The best selling PC games are not FPS's.
At the risk of being blasted for going 'off topic' - if it's possible that most mainstream media computer pundits are mac users and therefore they are biased towards macs, is it, maybe just possible that since the majority of journalist consider themselves 'liberal,' there is a liberal bias in the media?
I don't mean to troll or anything, but I don't understand why the idea of a 'liberal media' is rejected flatly by plenty of people. There's no arguing agianst the fact that the vast majority of journalists consider themselves liberal; i don't have the data to back this statement up, but there have been plenty of studies. So why is it that so many people have trouble beleiving the idea that the media has a liberal bias?
"doesn't the Constitution afford us freedom of speech/ press?"
The above few is far to common and an extremely sad one. The constitution doesn't afford us any freedoms. Why? Bececause freedoms don't come from documents, and freedoms don't come from governments - goverments can only take away freedoms. The constitution is not a document designed to say what citizens are free to do - it's a document designed to specifically delineate what the citizens permit the goverment to do.
That being said,The first admendment forbids congress from passing a law abirdging the freedom of speech. Congress is not the president - so the president can't violate the first amendment of the united states.
As for the automaker's claims that they can't do it yet, you do realize that there is massive demand for hybrid vehicles, right? Consumers are willing to pay more to get them, and that the first company who gets this process right stands to making a killing.
Just like whatthe railroad industry did when they were threatened with new technology? And the harness and sattlemakers with the advent of the automobile?
Please remove your tinfoil hat. And chew on it.
It is my observation that this ruling is indicitive of the two different views on government.
One of them is a view held by (in my observation) most democrats and a number of republicans: government exists to bring about the common good.
The other is a view held by some republicans, some democrats, and ALL libertarians: The government exists to ensure the existence of private property.
These two values came into conflict with this court ruling, and the court decided that 'common good' outweights 'private property.'
Don't act surprised. All of you people who support high taxes on the rich and incomine redistribution, you can kindly shut the fuck up about this ruling because it's the logical extension of policies you support. If the government can take money from the rich in order to serve the commmon good, it's no grand leap to say that the goverment can take private property from the poor, and give it to a buisness developer, in the name of the 'common good.'
Re:Stopped reading it when it got so political...
on
The Onion in 2056
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree with you. It used to be really really funny, but now it's become extremely over politicized. Bush is a moron. I get it now. It's not funny to read stupid political crap that I can get anywhere else.
If you want a site that's funnier than the onion was in its heydey, check out www.pointlesswasteoftime.com.
I'm sick of hearing that the US has a 'ban' on stem cell research. There is no ban! The bill signed into law placed a limit on funding of stem cell research. Scientists are perfectly free to pursue research all they want, so long as they pay for it with non governmental money. Stop claming that the goverment has made it illegal to engage in stem cell research. It's just not the case.
It's not really a true non-deterministic finite automata - with an NFA you can just check to see if the machine is in an accepting state at the end of feeding it your input.
Determining whether the quantum computer is in an accepting state at the end of feeding it your input is one of the most difficult parts of developing quantum computers - you have to somehow get non-accepting states to 'cancel each other out' so that the probability of their being measured is as close to zero as possible.
An ideal quantum computer could find out how long it takes to travel every path, simultaneously in O(n) time, and then discard all of paths that weren't the best in O(1). Quantum comptuers we develop are going to take some time to get rid of all the bad solutions. For example, using the current model for a quantum computer to find a given name out of a phone book of 'n' takes takes the quantum algorithm O(sqrt(n)) time; it should take a NDFA only O(n) time. So there are some differences.
I'm not at all surprised. I don't know anyone who has an Xbox and wasn't psyched about getting this game. I was psyched as well, but now I can't stop playing World of Warcraft.
My dad is a one man coder. He sells software used for statistical analysis, at quite a pretty penny, too. As far as he's explained it to me, he's been selling more or less the same software for 15+ years now, but he keeps making new versions because changes in windows will occaionsally make his software stop working, so the people who need it just go buy a new copy.
I don't know how much he makes annually selling the software, but I assume it's probably not enough to support a family with.
Allow me to say "Thank god" - young people are idiots. I say this with certainty because I am one of them. Most of us have the attention span of gnats and would have been making votes based on stupid ideas - the draft? Give me a goddamn break, MTV. The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power. When I told people it was a democrat that introduced a draft bill into congress, it was democrats who voted for it, and that it was john kerry who called for mandatory service, they would go 'oh' and realize they'd been duped. If you want to get young people interested in the political process, telling them to 'vote or die' and filling their head with rediculous lies isn't the best way to do it.
"I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly [sic] not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world."
Keep fooling yourself out there like this guy, you democrats out there - it'll do the republicans a lot of good.
Let's keep in mind that through the entire election season, Bush was being attacked nonstop by the press, hollywood, academia, and liberal bloggers. He was accused of stupidity, tyranny, oafishness, dishonesty, war crimes, corporate cronyism, derilection of duty, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and of being a nazi. The candidate you guys chose to run against him wasn't even the one you really wanted, it was the one you thought could win. you picked him in spite of your disagreement with him because you figured the guy you really wanted couldn't win. Yet Bush won with more votes than any other president in history; he's the first president since reagan to be elected with a majority of the popular vote, and the first since FDR to be reelected while his party increased its control of the senate.
Your side lost. Big time. Even though you chose a candidate whom you didn't really want because you thought he would win, and even though you had constant attacks on bush from all sides, you still lost.
Our government is a democractic one, and the people make decisions about who they want to lead. It would be logical to conclude that, if your side loses an election running a compromise of a candidate against a man who is continually attacked, and loses big, it's because the american peole reject your message. After all, if you have a minority opinion and you live in a democracy, you're never going to get what you want. The logical result would either be to give up any hope of ever getting what you want, or perhaps recrafting your message so that it's more in tune with what the american people want. If you knew what was good for you, you'd stop and think in a serious, introspective manner about what it is the american people want and how you can craft a new message that the american people will accept and will accomplish what you want.
You won't do that, however. You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. The thing is, your side is utterly incapable of understanding that the american people don't like your line of thinking.You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. You'll conclude that you didn't do a good enough job of getting your message out and explaining it to people; that your mistake was not attacking bush fiercely enough. You'll say they just don't get how bad the bush administration is for them; if only they knew better you guys would be in power. You'll spend the next four years fiercely attacking the president for anything you can concoct that'll make him look bad, and you'll constantly decry the state of the nation and the way things are going. And you'll shake your heads in digust and confusion when you lose the senate and house races in 2006.
Slashdot Mirror
The paladin class has not been totally revamped - they just reorganized the paladin talent tree. The class will still be very boring to play solo and entirely 'different than advertised.' I have a paladin that I play with my girlfriend's warlock. It's fun to keep her healed when she does all the damage, but on the rare occasions when I play him alone (like when she decides to level ahead of me) it's boring as hell. I knew that paladins were best at healing, buffing, and assisting other players going into the class, so I knew what to expect, but I can see why people who choose paladins thinking they'd get a 'holy warrior' are irritated with what they've gotten in exchange.
By what metric are FPS's the "main-stay" of PC Gaming? Do you mean those are the games that 'gamers' like to play? The best selling PC games are not FPS's.
My girlfriend plays wow with me.
All I can say is "woot."
At the risk of being blasted for going 'off topic' - if it's possible that most mainstream media computer pundits are mac users and therefore they are biased towards macs, is it, maybe just possible that since the majority of journalist consider themselves 'liberal,' there is a liberal bias in the media? I don't mean to troll or anything, but I don't understand why the idea of a 'liberal media' is rejected flatly by plenty of people. There's no arguing agianst the fact that the vast majority of journalists consider themselves liberal; i don't have the data to back this statement up, but there have been plenty of studies. So why is it that so many people have trouble beleiving the idea that the media has a liberal bias?
I thought science was all but infallible. Now i'm so terribly confused.
how is this statement remotely flaimbatish?
"doesn't the Constitution afford us freedom of speech/ press?"
The above few is far to common and an extremely sad one. The constitution doesn't afford us any freedoms. Why? Bececause freedoms don't come from documents, and freedoms don't come from governments - goverments can only take away freedoms. The constitution is not a document designed to say what citizens are free to do - it's a document designed to specifically delineate what the citizens permit the goverment to do.
That being said,The first admendment forbids congress from passing a law abirdging the freedom of speech. Congress is not the president - so the president can't violate the first amendment of the united states.
Would you buy a car built by a politician?
As for the automaker's claims that they can't do it yet, you do realize that there is massive demand for hybrid vehicles, right? Consumers are willing to pay more to get them, and that the first company who gets this process right stands to making a killing.
Just like whatthe railroad industry did when they were threatened with new technology? And the harness and sattlemakers with the advent of the automobile? Please remove your tinfoil hat. And chew on it.
If you're having buttsex in the closet, you needn't worry about having abortions. See, it all works out in the end!
If by 'pro-buisness' you 'supportive of buisnesses taking whatever land they wish' there are already plenty of those guys on the supreme court.
Everyone's going to scan that post over and over until they can find some small bug and then laugh at you.
Why is this modded down?
It is my observation that this ruling is indicitive of the two different views on government. One of them is a view held by (in my observation) most democrats and a number of republicans: government exists to bring about the common good. The other is a view held by some republicans, some democrats, and ALL libertarians: The government exists to ensure the existence of private property. These two values came into conflict with this court ruling, and the court decided that 'common good' outweights 'private property.' Don't act surprised. All of you people who support high taxes on the rich and incomine redistribution, you can kindly shut the fuck up about this ruling because it's the logical extension of policies you support. If the government can take money from the rich in order to serve the commmon good, it's no grand leap to say that the goverment can take private property from the poor, and give it to a buisness developer, in the name of the 'common good.'
I totally agree with you. It used to be really really funny, but now it's become extremely over politicized. Bush is a moron. I get it now. It's not funny to read stupid political crap that I can get anywhere else. If you want a site that's funnier than the onion was in its heydey, check out www.pointlesswasteoftime.com.
Don't you hate pants?
I thougt it was supposed to be the conservatives who opposed new technologies for stupid reasons? /boggle
"Of course, as was predicted, the places that do allow that sort of research will move in leaps and bounds ahead of the US in these fields."
I'm sure you realize that stem cell research is fully legal in the united states. It may not be federally subsidized, but it's still perfectly legal.
I'm sick of hearing that the US has a 'ban' on stem cell research. There is no ban! The bill signed into law placed a limit on funding of stem cell research. Scientists are perfectly free to pursue research all they want, so long as they pay for it with non governmental money. Stop claming that the goverment has made it illegal to engage in stem cell research. It's just not the case.
It's not really a true non-deterministic finite automata - with an NFA you can just check to see if the machine is in an accepting state at the end of feeding it your input. Determining whether the quantum computer is in an accepting state at the end of feeding it your input is one of the most difficult parts of developing quantum computers - you have to somehow get non-accepting states to 'cancel each other out' so that the probability of their being measured is as close to zero as possible. An ideal quantum computer could find out how long it takes to travel every path, simultaneously in O(n) time, and then discard all of paths that weren't the best in O(1). Quantum comptuers we develop are going to take some time to get rid of all the bad solutions. For example, using the current model for a quantum computer to find a given name out of a phone book of 'n' takes takes the quantum algorithm O(sqrt(n)) time; it should take a NDFA only O(n) time. So there are some differences.
I'm not at all surprised. I don't know anyone who has an Xbox and wasn't psyched about getting this game. I was psyched as well, but now I can't stop playing World of Warcraft.
He has a full time job that he works - the software jig is something that he does on the side.
My dad is a one man coder. He sells software used for statistical analysis, at quite a pretty penny, too. As far as he's explained it to me, he's been selling more or less the same software for 15+ years now, but he keeps making new versions because changes in windows will occaionsally make his software stop working, so the people who need it just go buy a new copy.
I don't know how much he makes annually selling the software, but I assume it's probably not enough to support a family with.
Allow me to say "Thank god" - young people are idiots. I say this with certainty because I am one of them. Most of us have the attention span of gnats and would have been making votes based on stupid ideas - the draft? Give me a goddamn break, MTV. The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power. When I told people it was a democrat that introduced a draft bill into congress, it was democrats who voted for it, and that it was john kerry who called for mandatory service, they would go 'oh' and realize they'd been duped. If you want to get young people interested in the political process, telling them to 'vote or die' and filling their head with rediculous lies isn't the best way to do it.
"I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly [sic] not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world."
Keep fooling yourself out there like this guy, you democrats out there - it'll do the republicans a lot of good.
Let's keep in mind that through the entire election season, Bush was being attacked nonstop by the press, hollywood, academia, and liberal bloggers. He was accused of stupidity, tyranny, oafishness, dishonesty, war crimes, corporate cronyism, derilection of duty, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and of being a nazi. The candidate you guys chose to run against him wasn't even the one you really wanted, it was the one you thought could win. you picked him in spite of your disagreement with him because you figured the guy you really wanted couldn't win. Yet Bush won with more votes than any other president in history; he's the first president since reagan to be elected with a majority of the popular vote, and the first since FDR to be reelected while his party increased its control of the senate.
Your side lost. Big time. Even though you chose a candidate whom you didn't really want because you thought he would win, and even though you had constant attacks on bush from all sides, you still lost.
Our government is a democractic one, and the people make decisions about who they want to lead. It would be logical to conclude that, if your side loses an election running a compromise of a candidate against a man who is continually attacked, and loses big, it's because the american peole reject your message. After all, if you have a minority opinion and you live in a democracy, you're never going to get what you want. The logical result would either be to give up any hope of ever getting what you want, or perhaps recrafting your message so that it's more in tune with what the american people want. If you knew what was good for you, you'd stop and think in a serious, introspective manner about what it is the american people want and how you can craft a new message that the american people will accept and will accomplish what you want.
You won't do that, however. You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. The thing is, your side is utterly incapable of understanding that the american people don't like your line of thinking.You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. You'll conclude that you didn't do a good enough job of getting your message out and explaining it to people; that your mistake was not attacking bush fiercely enough. You'll say they just don't get how bad the bush administration is for them; if only they knew better you guys would be in power. You'll spend the next four years fiercely attacking the president for anything you can concoct that'll make him look bad, and you'll constantly decry the state of the nation and the way things are going. And you'll shake your heads in digust and confusion when you lose the senate and house races in 2006.