Have you played Rome:TW? It's the capstone of the Total War series, and probably the best thing that's happened in strategy gaming since Civilization.
It's the first worldmap/battelfield strategy game that actually makes it fun to play the battles, rather than getting bored or frustrated with a horrible combat system stuck into an otherwise good game (Rebellion comes to mind).
The replayability factor is huge, and it looks good. Never before has running war elephants into masses of peasants been more fun, and THEN the burning pigs come out!
Anyway, the list... it's a list someone else made, whatever. They did have some good picks at the lower ends - Ultima VII, Contra, Dragon Warrior, Bionic Commando, Grim Fandango (and what was the earlier guy in the thread complaining about? I count several adventure games),C&C... I'm nodding my head often enough reading the list to trust that their opinion is at least valid for those games I haven't played.
That doesn't make him wrong or flamebait, though, does it? There is a definite legal difference (maybe not for long) between the two, despite what various PR campaigns are leading you to believe. This has been discussed to death here, and I half believe that your post was intended as a troll. In case it's not, I choose to make this polite request to all folks to leave the "piracy is theft" junk argument alone.
Worlds of Power is the series, I owned several of these myself. And the surprising thing is, these really were better than most anything else in my age-ten reading collection. I haven't dusted them off in the last decade to make sure they still seem good, but I especially liked the Metal Gear and Infiltrator ones, I recall. Heh. Metal Gear - there was another (more frustrating) innovative game.
So... who wants to write the Metal Gear HL2 mod? I bet the physics engine could handle that nicely.
A Russian gang called the HangUp Team has been pummeling e-commerce Web sites and taunting its pursuers for two years, police say. The gang plants software bugs in computers that allow it to steal passwords, and it rents out huge networks of computers to others for sending out viruses and spam. HangUp Team hides in plain sight. Its Web site -- rat.net.ru/index.php -- is decorated with a red-and-black swastika firing off lightning bolts. Its blog discusses hacker tactics and rails against Americans. Its motto: In Fraud We Trust. "We think we know what they've done, where they are, and who they are," says Nagel. But authorities haven't been able to nab them so far. The Secret Service won't say why.(Emphasis mine)
Sounds like someone dug up something pretty good on some powerful folks...
Is that so different from paying a few bucks to see a Death Star blow up?
Ah, but it is the story that makes the explosion so satisfying. Without a story, you're just seeing a small moon blasted to dust. The story fills in the all-important details: That's no moon, that's a space station; it is a symbol of power and evil; without the destruction of the Death Star untold numbers of innocents will die. That, along with the buildup, is what makes the explosion itself so satisfying.
If I am unclear, allow me to make a comparison to another popular film. In The Princess Bride, why is it so satisfying to watch Inigo Montoya's final confrontation? He is not the hero of the film, and all that happens is a swordfight. If people wanted to pay a few bucks just to see a swordfight, wouldn't Highlander IV (was that the most recent one?) have been a complete blockbuster? Ask yourself what the difference is.
I found Battle for Middle-earth to be something of a disappointment.
The main reason for this is its sheer simplicity- it probably is an excellent introduction to the world of RTS, but as an experienced player I felt that there was very little depth to it. It was very visually appealing, but around a third of the way through each campaign there hit a point where each mission plays the same (excepting those such as Shelob's cave).
I would add to your list Rome:Total War and Ground Control II. Those two are crucial steps in the evolution of RTS. After experiencing the large-unit tactical combat in R:TW, it is very difficult to find the same enjoyment in other RTS games. GCII's Victory Locations (or whatever they call them) are an equally important consideration. Resource gathering is what makes many RTS games a pain to play - abstracting that is important to put the focus back on Strategy.
Definitely try those two games if you have not yet.
You are right, I misread my source - the text is as follows:
When she was 261 votes behind Rossi after the first count, Gregoire called the race a virtual tie. At 42 votes back after the first recount, she said it was, in fact, a tie.
It is however an honest mistake and not misrepresentation. I take it from your tone that you're looking to start a flamewar rather than an insightful discussion, so I'll leave this thread to you from this point. Though I think it was around 561 ballots that King County found, which is remarkably dissimilar to 10,000. I could be wrong again though- I'd recommend checking a reputable news source, and not just what some random citizen (me) has to say.
Though I do find it humorous that your argument nearly mirrors those from the Left about the 2000 presidential election. I have a feeling you weren't pulling for a "re-do" in that situation.
Are you a troll, misinformed, or just plain untruthful?
Washington law forced the first recount because it was so close. There's a summary here.
The initial count was performed by machine. The results of that count put Rossi ahead by 261. This was a small enough % of voters to force a second machine count.
The results of this count (We're on Recount #1 now) placed Gregoire ahead by 42 votes. This of course prompted a recount demand from- guess who?
Recount #2 - this one a hand recount - Gregoire defeats Rossi by 129 votes. Rossi then takes the case to the courts. Now go and draw conclusions.
Disclaimer: I'm in Oregon, couldn't care less about who ends up winning, but I hate to see people misrepresenting information in such a way as the parent.
You can't possibly be dreaming as soon as you fall asleep. Even assuming that you've managed to self-regulate your brainwaves to alphas before you go to sleep the stage with dreaming is far off (beta waves are "standard awake", alpha waves appear in the relaxed state you reach in the early stages of sleep or drowsing in a classroom/meeting, or meditating).
After the "falling asleep" period, the waves become low frequency, high amplitude delta waves. This is where you become completely motionless (body control is given up- can lead to unique condition of waking up and feeling paralyzed for a bit).
Only after all that is REM (dreaming) sleep. Now, it is possible to induce REM sleep or the deep-sleep stage prior by deliberately depriving yourself of those particular stages for a few days beforehand- that can cause you to slip into the deprived stage very fast.
I'm not a sleep scientist, there are many that have a lot better descriptions on the internet. A quick google search for 'sleep stages alpha spindle' [alpha and spindle to sift out news "studies" from actual experiments] should find some material. And if I've got something wrong, please correct me.
You seem to be a reasonable sort; if you will indulge my curiosity there are a couple things I would appreciate clarification on in your post.
note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories
I think you may have a misunderstanding of some terms. There are countless contradictory hypotheses... at the point something is declared a theory there is a degree of general acceptance. Example: Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution. An hypothesis is much more of a guess - and scientists recognize that. You make it sound as if disagreement is a bad thing - strong disagreement is the only way that science advances. If people always believed the first thing that someone told them, we'd be in a different world now. Or were you saying that everyone should be unified in one belief?
A good scientist...
A "bad" scientist is not a scientist at all, by purest definition. Sure, someone might call themselves one but then again not everyone who claims to be Christian follows the beliefs they profess. Is Clinton a Christian even though he got busy in the Oval Office? Is Bush a Christian, even though his right-to-life stance doesn't extend to Death Row? Aren't we supposed to forgive everyone?
I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
Since the media will never distort what a religious leader says...? This one was actually a point of curiosity - would you name some of these religious leader role-models? And no Mother Teresa-type things; real, outspoken people in the modern world please.
Many psychologists even doubt that addiction is the right term to describe what happens to people when they spend too much time online.
"It seems misleading to characterize behaviors as 'addictions' on the basis that people say they do too much of them," says Sara Kiesler, PhD, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University and co-author of one of the only controlled studies on Internet usage, published in the September 1998 American Psychologist. "No research has yet established that there is a disorder of Internet addiction that is separable from problems such as loneliness or problem gambling, or that a passion for using the Internet is long-lasting."
Granted, this article is a few years old, but the main point will always remain. There is no such thing as an "Internet addiction"... the people that spend obsessive amounts of time on the Internet may no doubt have deep-seated problems, but just as with all these other faux-addictions the expressed behavior is being mistaken for the actual cause of the problem.
... to tell us PRECISELY what is wrong with any major film out there. At least for a very specific subset of the population. Read it for a laugh, read it for a look into a closed mind; for whatever reason, it's an interesting place. And they count ALL of the naughty bits and tell you what they are.
An excerpt from their analysis of Daredevil (The guy thought it sucked too), specifically the "I" from the WISDOM scale:
Impudence/Hate: * six uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary
* a single use of the most foul of the foul words in song
* reckless regard for personal safety by a child
* a single use of the three/four letter word vocabulary by a child
* lies
* facial piercing
* adult tantrum
I don't get the dreamy types who view the government as some huge outside force that is imposed on them.
We are the government. We hold the power (responsibility?) to change things. If the government was considering building a municipal network in your area, as a technologically adept citizen, what would stop you from getting ahold of the people responsible, and having a sit-down talk with them about the proper way to do it? What would stop you from volunteering to administer or advise this project? What's stopping YOU from being the contractor that runs it?
Instead all I can see in this post is three paragraphs of complaints modded insightful, with not one solution proposed. That makes the parent only half a post.
Everything breaks down when everyone expects everyone else to deal with problems. So, now that the paranoid flag-waving is out of the way, I look forward to reading the solutions you propose to the problems you outlined above.
Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.
In order to make it easier for a close-minded elitist to discriminate against the person or make ad hominem attacks rather than have a reasoned debate concerning ideas?
Seriously. All that would do is make it easier to seek out people that are more likely to agree with you. It would have the benefit of you not having to read things that you might not agree with. Which is really what it looks like you're asking for. And that does not belong on any intelligent forum.
World of warcraft had 500k in the public beta, and I would expect a whole lot more people to play the full game.
I would probably expect half of that to play the full game, and that's a liberal estimate. A public beta is going to attract a few different varieties of customer:
*People who've already decided they're going to buy it and wants to get in as early as possible to enjoy the game- close to 100% of these will probably end up subscribing
*People who play some MMO's already and want to see what the 'new kid' has in store. Maybe they're bored with their current one(s), or looking to add another. Maybe a quarter of these people would choose to pay for the game.
*People who are fans of Warcraft/Starcraft that have heard the buzz, but not played MMO's, but join to see what the fuss is. Who knows how many of these stick.
*Freeloaders - Public Beta means a free game! this population will dry up instantly on the game's release and seek out newer greener freer pastures.
Public beta numbers are a shaky foundation to build estimates of subscription on.
Well, I've just read my post and can't find the part where I say that a poker bot would be doing straight statistical odds. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Those numbers I've presented are metadata- a computer program WILL have a heuristic telling it what starting cards to play - this WILL result in a set % of hands being played. Really tight = maybe 5%, loose = 30% or so. And in my experience, a good starting hand properly played takes down about 1/3 of the pots it's involved in. Consistent play does not mean not adjusting your play style to the other players - I assumed that was to be taken as a given, as any decent player DOES adjust and a bot that doesn't is doomed to failure faster than most.
Altough actually writing a comprehensive program for that would be quite an undertaking, it probably is possible. But even simulating human strategy for good play... how is that bot going to clean out a table? That's the chunk you've quoted in your response, but I will maintain that even the best play does not empty a table in the length of time an online table stays static. Anyone that thinks so has been watching too much "movie" poker and not enough of the real thing.
Your quote is slightly out of context. I said that I fear them (while "am wary of" may be more correct), and it hurts when they hit - these are true and I stand by them.
However, I absolutely love to have them at my table because it is those players that make the game profitable. The points that you may have missed, or I have may not have made clear are twofold.
A table full of these players (especially in Limit Hold'em) can be difficult to maintain a profitable edge against - even AA doesn't have good chances to win when 6 people stay in all the way down. This necessitates a change in play style to only playing much stronger hands, and even then they can be beat. More preferable is to play against "sort of bad" players who are willing to fold now and then.
That's the little picture- the big picture is more of a poker philosophy and people may not share it. I would rather be at a table where I consistently pull $15-20 an hour instead of one where I have swings of +/- $40 per hour. It's easier to play consistently and risk having to leave while on a downswing or waiting for "just that one more big hand". With too many of the "bad players" that I mention, you get the second kind of table. To each his or her own I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you played Rome:TW? It's the capstone of the Total War series, and probably the best thing that's happened in strategy gaming since Civilization.
It's the first worldmap/battelfield strategy game that actually makes it fun to play the battles, rather than getting bored or frustrated with a horrible combat system stuck into an otherwise good game (Rebellion comes to mind).
The replayability factor is huge, and it looks good. Never before has running war elephants into masses of peasants been more fun, and THEN the burning pigs come out!
Anyway, the list... it's a list someone else made, whatever. They did have some good picks at the lower ends - Ultima VII, Contra, Dragon Warrior, Bionic Commando, Grim Fandango (and what was the earlier guy in the thread complaining about? I count several adventure games),C&C... I'm nodding my head often enough reading the list to trust that their opinion is at least valid for those games I haven't played.
That doesn't make him wrong or flamebait, though, does it? There is a definite legal difference (maybe not for long) between the two, despite what various PR campaigns are leading you to believe. This has been discussed to death here, and I half believe that your post was intended as a troll. In case it's not, I choose to make this polite request to all folks to leave the "piracy is theft" junk argument alone.
Apples & Oranges [False Analogy]
Ok, ok, I spent the thirty seconds with google...
Bionic Commando
Worlds of Power is the series, I owned several of these myself. And the surprising thing is, these really were better than most anything else in my age-ten reading collection. I haven't dusted them off in the last decade to make sure they still seem good, but I especially liked the Metal Gear and Infiltrator ones, I recall. Heh. Metal Gear - there was another (more frustrating) innovative game.
So... who wants to write the Metal Gear HL2 mod? I bet the physics engine could handle that nicely.
I could go on.
And that continuation would be just as reliable as any other statistical reporting without citation.
The end of free web content... ... or the end of (non-commerce) web content for profit?
And I have no idea what single or double orange diamonds mean on top of a limit sign.
It means "***NEW***".
A Russian gang called the HangUp Team has been pummeling e-commerce Web sites and taunting its pursuers for two years, police say. The gang plants software bugs in computers that allow it to steal passwords, and it rents out huge networks of computers to others for sending out viruses and spam. HangUp Team hides in plain sight. Its Web site -- rat.net.ru/index.php -- is decorated with a red-and-black swastika firing off lightning bolts. Its blog discusses hacker tactics and rails against Americans. Its motto: In Fraud We Trust. "We think we know what they've done, where they are, and who they are," says Nagel. But authorities haven't been able to nab them so far. The Secret Service won't say why. (Emphasis mine)
...
Sounds like someone dug up something pretty good on some powerful folks
My, aren't we a collection of razor wits...
Is that so different from paying a few bucks to see a Death Star blow up?
Ah, but it is the story that makes the explosion so satisfying. Without a story, you're just seeing a small moon blasted to dust. The story fills in the all-important details: That's no moon, that's a space station; it is a symbol of power and evil; without the destruction of the Death Star untold numbers of innocents will die. That, along with the buildup, is what makes the explosion itself so satisfying.
If I am unclear, allow me to make a comparison to another popular film. In The Princess Bride, why is it so satisfying to watch Inigo Montoya's final confrontation? He is not the hero of the film, and all that happens is a swordfight. If people wanted to pay a few bucks just to see a swordfight, wouldn't Highlander IV (was that the most recent one?) have been a complete blockbuster? Ask yourself what the difference is.
Nope, but it might be a little silly to wait by a stoplight and proceed to tell every motorist with their window down about your decision.
I found Battle for Middle-earth to be something of a disappointment.
The main reason for this is its sheer simplicity- it probably is an excellent introduction to the world of RTS, but as an experienced player I felt that there was very little depth to it. It was very visually appealing, but around a third of the way through each campaign there hit a point where each mission plays the same (excepting those such as Shelob's cave).
I would add to your list Rome:Total War and Ground Control II. Those two are crucial steps in the evolution of RTS. After experiencing the large-unit tactical combat in R:TW, it is very difficult to find the same enjoyment in other RTS games. GCII's Victory Locations (or whatever they call them) are an equally important consideration. Resource gathering is what makes many RTS games a pain to play - abstracting that is important to put the focus back on Strategy.
Definitely try those two games if you have not yet.
And how frequently do each have to be replaced?
It is however an honest mistake and not misrepresentation. I take it from your tone that you're looking to start a flamewar rather than an insightful discussion, so I'll leave this thread to you from this point. Though I think it was around 561 ballots that King County found, which is remarkably dissimilar to 10,000. I could be wrong again though- I'd recommend checking a reputable news source, and not just what some random citizen (me) has to say.
Though I do find it humorous that your argument nearly mirrors those from the Left about the 2000 presidential election. I have a feeling you weren't pulling for a "re-do" in that situation.
Are you a troll, misinformed, or just plain untruthful?
Washington law forced the first recount because it was so close. There's a summary here.
The initial count was performed by machine. The results of that count put Rossi ahead by 261. This was a small enough % of voters to force a second machine count.
The results of this count (We're on Recount #1 now) placed Gregoire ahead by 42 votes. This of course prompted a recount demand from- guess who?
Recount #2 - this one a hand recount - Gregoire defeats Rossi by 129 votes. Rossi then takes the case to the courts. Now go and draw conclusions.
Disclaimer: I'm in Oregon, couldn't care less about who ends up winning, but I hate to see people misrepresenting information in such a way as the parent.
Further:
i.e. = id est [that is] - clarification
e.g. = exempli grati [free example (literal) -- for example] - a list
You can't possibly be dreaming as soon as you fall asleep. Even assuming that you've managed to self-regulate your brainwaves to alphas before you go to sleep the stage with dreaming is far off (beta waves are "standard awake", alpha waves appear in the relaxed state you reach in the early stages of sleep or drowsing in a classroom/meeting, or meditating).
After the "falling asleep" period, the waves become low frequency, high amplitude delta waves. This is where you become completely motionless (body control is given up- can lead to unique condition of waking up and feeling paralyzed for a bit).
Only after all that is REM (dreaming) sleep. Now, it is possible to induce REM sleep or the deep-sleep stage prior by deliberately depriving yourself of those particular stages for a few days beforehand- that can cause you to slip into the deprived stage very fast.
I'm not a sleep scientist, there are many that have a lot better descriptions on the internet. A quick google search for 'sleep stages alpha spindle' [alpha and spindle to sift out news "studies" from actual experiments] should find some material. And if I've got something wrong, please correct me.
You seem to be a reasonable sort; if you will indulge my curiosity there are a couple things I would appreciate clarification on in your post.
note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories
I think you may have a misunderstanding of some terms. There are countless contradictory hypotheses... at the point something is declared a theory there is a degree of general acceptance. Example: Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution. An hypothesis is much more of a guess - and scientists recognize that.
You make it sound as if disagreement is a bad thing - strong disagreement is the only way that science advances. If people always believed the first thing that someone told them, we'd be in a different world now. Or were you saying that everyone should be unified in one belief?
A good scientist...
A "bad" scientist is not a scientist at all, by purest definition. Sure, someone might call themselves one but then again not everyone who claims to be Christian follows the beliefs they profess. Is Clinton a Christian even though he got busy in the Oval Office? Is Bush a Christian, even though his right-to-life stance doesn't extend to Death Row? Aren't we supposed to forgive everyone?
I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
Since the media will never distort what a religious leader says...? This one was actually a point of curiosity - would you name some of these religious leader role-models? And no Mother Teresa-type things; real, outspoken people in the modern world please.
Granted, this article is a few years old, but the main point will always remain. There is no such thing as an "Internet addiction"
... to tell us PRECISELY what is wrong with any major film out there. At least for a very specific subset of the population.
Read it for a laugh, read it for a look into a closed mind; for whatever reason, it's an interesting place. And they count ALL of the naughty bits and tell you what they are.
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/
An excerpt from their analysis of Daredevil (The guy thought it sucked too), specifically the "I" from the WISDOM scale:
Impudence/Hate:
* six uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary
* a single use of the most foul of the foul words in song
* reckless regard for personal safety by a child
* a single use of the three/four letter word vocabulary by a child
* lies
* facial piercing
* adult tantrum
I don't get the dreamy types who view the government as some huge outside force that is imposed on them.
We are the government. We hold the power (responsibility?) to change things. If the government was considering building a municipal network in your area, as a technologically adept citizen, what would stop you from getting ahold of the people responsible, and having a sit-down talk with them about the proper way to do it? What would stop you from volunteering to administer or advise this project? What's stopping YOU from being the contractor that runs it?
Instead all I can see in this post is three paragraphs of complaints modded insightful, with not one solution proposed. That makes the parent only half a post.
Everything breaks down when everyone expects everyone else to deal with problems. So, now that the paranoid flag-waving is out of the way, I look forward to reading the solutions you propose to the problems you outlined above.
Or maybe someone else will do it for you.
Can anyone think of a better way to disarm someone? :)
Seriously. All that would do is make it easier to seek out people that are more likely to agree with you. It would have the benefit of you not having to read things that you might not agree with. Which is really what it looks like you're asking for. And that does not belong on any intelligent forum.
World of warcraft had 500k in the public beta, and I would expect a whole lot more people to play the full game.
I would probably expect half of that to play the full game, and that's a liberal estimate. A public beta is going to attract a few different varieties of customer:
*People who've already decided they're going to buy it and wants to get in as early as possible to enjoy the game- close to 100% of these will probably end up subscribing
*People who play some MMO's already and want to see what the 'new kid' has in store. Maybe they're bored with their current one(s), or looking to add another. Maybe a quarter of these people would choose to pay for the game.
*People who are fans of Warcraft/Starcraft that have heard the buzz, but not played MMO's, but join to see what the fuss is. Who knows how many of these stick.
*Freeloaders - Public Beta means a free game! this population will dry up instantly on the game's release and seek out newer greener freer pastures.
Public beta numbers are a shaky foundation to build estimates of subscription on.
Well, I've just read my post and can't find the part where I say that a poker bot would be doing straight statistical odds. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Those numbers I've presented are metadata- a computer program WILL have a heuristic telling it what starting cards to play - this WILL result in a set % of hands being played. Really tight = maybe 5%, loose = 30% or so. And in my experience, a good starting hand properly played takes down about 1/3 of the pots it's involved in. Consistent play does not mean not adjusting your play style to the other players - I assumed that was to be taken as a given, as any decent player DOES adjust and a bot that doesn't is doomed to failure faster than most.
Altough actually writing a comprehensive program for that would be quite an undertaking, it probably is possible. But even simulating human strategy for good play... how is that bot going to clean out a table? That's the chunk you've quoted in your response, but I will maintain that even the best play does not empty a table in the length of time an online table stays static. Anyone that thinks so has been watching too much "movie" poker and not enough of the real thing.
Your quote is slightly out of context. I said that I fear them (while "am wary of" may be more correct), and it hurts when they hit - these are true and I stand by them.
However, I absolutely love to have them at my table because it is those players that make the game profitable. The points that you may have missed, or I have may not have made clear are twofold.
A table full of these players (especially in Limit Hold'em) can be difficult to maintain a profitable edge against - even AA doesn't have good chances to win when 6 people stay in all the way down. This necessitates a change in play style to only playing much stronger hands, and even then they can be beat. More preferable is to play against "sort of bad" players who are willing to fold now and then.
That's the little picture- the big picture is more of a poker philosophy and people may not share it. I would rather be at a table where I consistently pull $15-20 an hour instead of one where I have swings of +/- $40 per hour. It's easier to play consistently and risk having to leave while on a downswing or waiting for "just that one more big hand". With too many of the "bad players" that I mention, you get the second kind of table. To each his or her own I suppose.