Dodging death is a pretty un-rewarding gameplay element to my taste. A game that uses this as its main challenge would be boring in "god mode."
It isn't the only trick in the book. Ever played Myst? Or Monkey Island? No death. Fun and challenging. And no bullshit, waste of time "ha, ha, you fell down this hole for the 37th time because only a speed-freak can hit the button at the exact instant necessary, now you have to play for 45 minutes to get back to this hole from the last save point."
Death can be a legitimate element to a game, but it is often a prop to a shoddy design.
Fox reports hen-house security measures unnecessarily strict. Neville Isdell asserts that coke tastes better than pepsi. Teenage boy swears to girlfriend that, now that he's all worked up, it could cause permanent injury if he doesn't let him.
I appriciate a good Kevin Smith reference as much as the next guy.
That wasn't one.
-Peter
Re:Um...because using a computer is more complex?
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 1
Holy shit.
Here's a news flash for you: Driving a car involves more than "push a gas pedal and steer a wheel," though this does seem to be a popular school of thought. Consider adding "pay the fuck attention and use your direction signal" to your technique.
As to your main point, try driving your new car until the engine seizes up and taking it to the dealer and pleading that you are "car illiterate" when they ask you about your oil changes.
There is no excuse for an IT person to blame a non-IT person for not being an IT expert. That is not, however, an excuse to be an incompetent operator.
Jay: In this world gone mad, we won't spank the monkey -- the monkey will spank us. And after the fall of man, these monkey fucks'll start wearing our clothes and rebuilding the world in their image. OH and only those as super smart as me will be left alive to bitterly cry - Damn yous. Goddamn yous all to hell.
Quick! Someone pull this article off of./, since Frenchy here can't use WiFi.
Or just ignore the fucking article if it doesn't apply to you. There's even an option on your user page so you won't have to engage your brain too frequently.
Why do you think I ignored your statement that you are not a pothead? Why do you think that I think that you are talking about plants that can get you high? I guess that it is because I disclosed my position on decriminalization. I don't smoke pot, either, I just wanted to let you know where I am coming from. I'm sorry if that caused our discussion to go astray. Incidentally, I don't use any illicit drugs, either. I just believe that banning substances and creating governmental agencies and policing power to enforce those bans is bad policy.
Anyway, my point is that we are all inundated with persuasive speech and writing on a daily basis. We all have mechanisms for culling those arguments. My father, like so many people, will generally ignore an argument if the writer (or speaker) chooses to phrase it at variance with accepted standards of grammar and diction. I use my father as an example because I believe he represents a large portion of precisely the audience that you are, or at least should be, trying to reach.
I'm just trying to give you a little constructive criticism on your methods of advocacy. If it is unwelcome, by all means, ignore it.
Since you asked, I might have phrased it as, "Hemp pulp requires only minimal bleaching. It takes only a tiny fraction of the toxic chemicals needed to process wood-pulp to process and equivalent amount of hemp."
Pulp
does not require hardly any bleaching or even a tiny fraction of the toxic chemicals wood-pulp requires to process.[My emphasis.]
Don't get me wrong here, I'm for across the board decriminalization of the possession and consumption of substances. And I like trees as much as the next guy.
But this is precisely the kind of advocacy that doesn't help.
My dad is exactly the kind of person you are trying to reach. He's "a conservative," but he smoked pot in the '70's like everybody else. He's not an environmentalist, but he likes trees. In short, he isn't on your side, but he could be won over by a well articulated argument.
But I assure you, the moment you hit him with a phrase like "does not require hardly any" you've lost him.
[PHP users] are just happy that [they] can ship it with their commercial products
rumblin'rabbit said:
The result is that it's impossible to incorporate GPL software into a commercial product if you wish the software to remain proprietary.
Now, sure, anyone is free to distribute their own copyrighted works under any terms they choose. No argument whatsoever.
But let's only hold the GPL accountable for faults that it actually has. Andi is flatly wrong when he implies that vendors of commercial products could not include PHP if it were GPLed. This is called "mere aggregation" in the license. The GPL explicitly states that aggregation does not affect the software the GPLed software is aggregated with.
Now, whether you can "incorporate" GPLed software with proprietary software depends on what we mean by incorporate. In this context it seems to mean "distribute a GPLed interpreter along with the code that constitutes a proprietary program that depends on that interpreter." If so, then one clearly can incorporate GPLed software with proprietary software.
OTOH, if incorporate means lift code from the GPLed software and stick it into a proprietary program, then no, one can not incorporate it.
I don't presume to tell the holders of the copyrights to PHP how to license their software, but I'd appreciate it if they wouldn't spread FUD about the GPL.
(This, of course, all assumes that the journalist got the quote correct and in context.)
What does "Bush Greenwatch" have to do with personal freedom?
I'm not a fan of either party, so I feel pretty objective here. These guys can't seem to get enough of Al Gore. They can't seem see any good in anything Bush does.
If they are such advocates of personal freedom, do they oppose gun registration?
I, like everyone, have an agenda. Moveon also has an agenda, and it is perfectly clear that it isn't "love of personal and social freedom."
At the risk of being this guy I actually don't own a TV.
Based on what I found via google, this refers to some guy on a "reality" show about singing (!) who always reminds the audience that he is openly gay at the end of the show.
No wonder Canadians think we are weird, they must watch our television programs!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but how many asses does it have?
(Image is fairly safe for work.)
-Peter
That's the beauty of libertarianism. I don't want the Union government doing a fucking thing that isn't enumerated in the Constitution.
If I could get you a refund for the projects I like I would. You and me both.
Imagine, no one's pet projects getting through!
-Peter
Dodging death is a pretty un-rewarding gameplay element to my taste. A game that uses this as its main challenge would be boring in "god mode."
It isn't the only trick in the book. Ever played Myst? Or Monkey Island? No death. Fun and challenging. And no bullshit, waste of time "ha, ha, you fell down this hole for the 37th time because only a speed-freak can hit the button at the exact instant necessary, now you have to play for 45 minutes to get back to this hole from the last save point."
Death can be a legitimate element to a game, but it is often a prop to a shoddy design.
-Peter
And if you build up a tolerance to work, you can always get married.
-Peter
Fox reports hen-house security measures unnecessarily strict. Neville Isdell asserts that coke tastes better than pepsi. Teenage boy swears to girlfriend that, now that he's all worked up, it could cause permanent injury if he doesn't let him.
-Peter
I appriciate a good Kevin Smith reference as much as the next guy.
That wasn't one.
-Peter
Holy shit.
Here's a news flash for you: Driving a car involves more than "push a gas pedal and steer a wheel," though this does seem to be a popular school of thought. Consider adding "pay the fuck attention and use your direction signal" to your technique.
As to your main point, try driving your new car until the engine seizes up and taking it to the dealer and pleading that you are "car illiterate" when they ask you about your oil changes.
There is no excuse for an IT person to blame a non-IT person for not being an IT expert. That is not, however, an excuse to be an incompetent operator.
-Peter
Brilliant!
What is a language if it isn't a set of rules?
-Peter
Good answer ;-)
The grandparent might also interested in the following:
XHTML is implemented in XML. So XHTML is to XML as OpenOffice.org's writer format is to XML. (Or as HTML is to SGML, or as this post is to English.)
People often say somthing is XML when it is really implemented in XML. Using that (misleading) terminology XHTML is XML.
-Peter
No, that's the point of Copyleft.
Software under the (contemporary) BSD license, for example, is both Open Source and Free Software. But it is not copyleft.
-Peter
-Peter
You never heard of the French Foreign Leigon? An elite, feared fighting force.
Oh, and none of them are French.
-Peter
Quick! Someone pull this article off of ./, since Frenchy here can't use WiFi.
Or just ignore the fucking article if it doesn't apply to you. There's even an option on your user page so you won't have to engage your brain too frequently.
-Peter
And as a bonus you can help defend London next time the Germans decide to bomb it out of existence!
-Peter
Red Foreman?
-Peter
Why do you think I ignored your statement that you are not a pothead? Why do you think that I think that you are talking about plants that can get you high? I guess that it is because I disclosed my position on decriminalization. I don't smoke pot, either, I just wanted to let you know where I am coming from. I'm sorry if that caused our discussion to go astray. Incidentally, I don't use any illicit drugs, either. I just believe that banning substances and creating governmental agencies and policing power to enforce those bans is bad policy.
Anyway, my point is that we are all inundated with persuasive speech and writing on a daily basis. We all have mechanisms for culling those arguments. My father, like so many people, will generally ignore an argument if the writer (or speaker) chooses to phrase it at variance with accepted standards of grammar and diction. I use my father as an example because I believe he represents a large portion of precisely the audience that you are, or at least should be, trying to reach.
I'm just trying to give you a little constructive criticism on your methods of advocacy. If it is unwelcome, by all means, ignore it.
Since you asked, I might have phrased it as, "Hemp pulp requires only minimal bleaching. It takes only a tiny fraction of the toxic chemicals needed to process wood-pulp to process and equivalent amount of hemp."
-Peter
And Michael Bolton* who listen to hard-core hip-hop.
-Peter
*Let's be very clear here that Michael Bolton, the no-talent ass clown, has nothing to do with this post.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm for across the board decriminalization of the possession and consumption of substances. And I like trees as much as the next guy.
But this is precisely the kind of advocacy that doesn't help.
My dad is exactly the kind of person you are trying to reach. He's "a conservative," but he smoked pot in the '70's like everybody else. He's not an environmentalist, but he likes trees. In short, he isn't on your side, but he could be won over by a well articulated argument.
But I assure you, the moment you hit him with a phrase like "does not require hardly any" you've lost him.
-Peter
rumblin'rabbit said:
Now, sure, anyone is free to distribute their own copyrighted works under any terms they choose. No argument whatsoever.
But let's only hold the GPL accountable for faults that it actually has. Andi is flatly wrong when he implies that vendors of commercial products could not include PHP if it were GPLed. This is called "mere aggregation" in the license. The GPL explicitly states that aggregation does not affect the software the GPLed software is aggregated with.
Now, whether you can "incorporate" GPLed software with proprietary software depends on what we mean by incorporate. In this context it seems to mean "distribute a GPLed interpreter along with the code that constitutes a proprietary program that depends on that interpreter." If so, then one clearly can incorporate GPLed software with proprietary software.
OTOH, if incorporate means lift code from the GPLed software and stick it into a proprietary program, then no, one can not incorporate it.
I don't presume to tell the holders of the copyrights to PHP how to license their software, but I'd appreciate it if they wouldn't spread FUD about the GPL.
(This, of course, all assumes that the journalist got the quote correct and in context.)
-Peter
Such unbridled hyperbole. I've never killed more than a dozen people in a single spree. Really, who wants to hump thousands of rounds of ammo, anyway?
-Peter
Yes, yesss, precious. Yellow face is gone. White face all dark tonight! A good night to play, preciousss.
-Trahald
What does "Bush Greenwatch" have to do with personal freedom?
I'm not a fan of either party, so I feel pretty objective here. These guys can't seem to get enough of Al Gore. They can't seem see any good in anything Bush does.
If they are such advocates of personal freedom, do they oppose gun registration?
I, like everyone, have an agenda. Moveon also has an agenda, and it is perfectly clear that it isn't "love of personal and social freedom."
-Peter
Two words: Ellen Feiss
-Peter
At the risk of being this guy I actually don't own a TV.
Based on what I found via google, this refers to some guy on a "reality" show about singing (!) who always reminds the audience that he is openly gay at the end of the show.
No wonder Canadians think we are weird, they must watch our television programs!
-Peter