"
Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.
Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on. ...
The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.
"
Misconceptions? WTF? I disagree, however I can only speak for what I have seen in the Midwest US.
I don't know where you live, but in our area the lumber companies do not own the land they are deforesting. They talk land owners into allowing their trees to be harvested, they strip the land down to a point that it doesn't recover for 30-50 years, and they move on. If they replant, it will be whatever tree saplings they have on hand, and surely will be a single species.
The land is hilly here, so even after 50 years, the bluffs and hills are still scarred and will never recover their beauty. Erosion is nearly uncontrollable for at least a decade after the deforestation. Sure, they only take the "big trees", but the remaining trees die from injury, or loss of topsoil. Those that do live are sickly and unhealthy, usually falling down during storms. The forest undergrowth doesn't even come back because of the topsoil washing down into the valleys and streams.
In our area of the Midwest US, lumber companies are NOT farmers. It is the farmers that they screw over.
This is another reason to weed ourselves away from fossil fuels, since most everyone on here seems to be barely able to afford the commute to the office. I suppose in space you just need to get up to light speed, you don't need fuel to sustain that speed, though I am not sure how many gallons of regular unleaded that would take.
I don't think anyone here believes humans are ALREADY on this planet. The discussion is about whether humans could live there. Remember, we are destroying this planet, and instead of trying to save it, we are looking for another one to live on.
You are correct, it is simply impractical to test everything. Any IT department that has the time / manpower to test every single application with every single patch would require more IT staff than any company I have ever worked for or with. The reality is, we run system backups, and try to screen patches as best as possible. Yup, sometimes something slips through, and hoses something up, but it is easier to repair than it is to test everything. 99% of patches from MS work fine, so fixing the other 1% is the far easier solution. Most small-medium sized businesses anyway simply do not have the staff for testing.
Some people would argue with this, but then they must work in a fairly uniform environment. In our department, we have a few hundred machines/systems to manage, each one being unique in 1 way or another, so how could you possibly test every software combination?
Okay, the cat part is a good example....and grouping an entire order together probably does then group some exceptions. I guess this totally debunks my point, and humans are not the natural prey of any creatures.
To prove your point entirely, please go near an alligator and see if he considers you prey. Actually, just go close enough for him to see your movement, then wait near the water. Since you are surely correct, go ahead and use yourself first, and the other primates next. You will be fine, especially if you stand there and explain your mastery of the KPCOFGS scheme to the nearest ear.
Solitaire and mindsweeper. Maybe some surfing the internet, and checking your email. Oh, and spreadsheets!
Okay, seriously now, how well does the Mac video editing software take advantage of the potential of this system? I was considering building a dual-quad core pc in about a year...for video editing...but I fear that the software packages just won't take advantage of the hardware. I this changing? I don't see the average consumer being smart enough to lobby for multi-threaded software....?
I disagree. Cows evolved to live, it just so happens that they don't often succeed in this when pitted against certain predators. There is no fine line between predators and prey, and even humans are considered prey in some comparisons.
However, another side to this coin (surprise, it isn't 2-sided), in the hybridization process the humans have "evolved" the cows into something more suitable for the human goals. So, yes, in a way they were evolved with a particular use in mind, however that does not mean we have the right to torture them. Essentially , the humans created these creatures, wouldn't it seem somewhat cruel to create these creatures and then torture them?
I agree, it isn't always possible or practical...............I was in college once too. I do commend you for considering your options however. It sounds like you have went through the math. It seems that most people on slashdot defend their lifestyle, before ever considering the alternatives. I guess I am not surprised.
By the way, if you learn anything from college, learn to live on less. Keep that efficient car for a few months or years....until it refuses to give you anymore faithful service. Or, do what I did, and hand it down to another struggling college student. It is obvious from the posters on slashdot that most of them have forgotten their poverty stricken college days...and now believe that the world owes them something. I suppose many were those same students whose parents paid for everything. Congrats on having the enlightenment to consider other options, take that with you into the job market and you will succeed. Oh, and good luck.
Remember, when starving, an old couch cushion can be a good source of fiber and filler...and you might just find enough change to buy some Ramen noodles.
I agree, not everyone. However, I know of nobody at my office with an excuse quite as good as yours. Sending your kids to a good school is an honorable thing, but I think there is equal honor in making sacrifices to conserve (not at the expense of your kids safety though). It sounds like this might not be possible for you, but in such a scenario I would surely try to find a different job. If the area is that bad, are you doing your family any favors by sending yourself into that area? Maybe your employer isn't near the school....just wondering. Good luck.
I do feel your pain, or at least a close family member has. A cousin of mine just moved away from that area. He is financially better off living elsewhere making less $. He makes half what he made in DC, and is much better off. They didn't' have kids yet though, so that makes it easier. Though I will admit, the idea of housecleaning and lawnkeepers seems a bit obsurd....but I am a cheapskate.
If an apartment would save enough $, I would do that while saving up enough to buy a house (outright, not the American tradition of buying what you can barely afford, even at the expense of other life luxuries).
A long time ago, I decided that living in suburbs is a recipe for barely squeaking by. The entire economy of a suburb is designed around barely getting by. I left the suburb climate and never looked back. Actually, everyone in our IT dept at my employer are former city-slickers that decided to run from the city. One coworker went from renting for big $, to a $400 house payment. Yup, she makes 40% less, but now she is on track to retire at 60 instead of never (maybe 55)....and will have her house paid off after 2 more years (3 years out of the city). Never again will I sit in a traffic jam on my way to work.
I agree with your point, but the average commute for Americans is measured by dozens of studies every year. They always pick a narrow sample size, so the results vary a lot, however it is almost always around 30 minutes. Also, go talk to a local realtor. People (at least in the midwest) are not interested in house shopping near their employer. I think maybe some people like that feeling of separation? I don't know why. Any ideas? Also, realize, more Americans live in rural areas than urban.
WHEW!!! Good thing I didn't' say that, or I would be an idiot. That was a close one!
You are right though, the odds of you finding a job that is near a decent place to live are almost nil....especially when you are so busy posting such insightful comments on slashdot.
I did point out that some people/professions do not have much option.
Yes, I do have a vehicle. If you check with your insurance company, you can get your insurance reduced if you drive less than X miles per year. Currently my insurance is at between $10 and $11 per month....hopefully it drops a few bucks this summer.
I know that it is much easier to make excuses than to actually try to live a more responsible lifestyle. Give it a try, you will find it isn't so bad. Do some research into the cost savings of driving less, then try posting again later.
Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.
on
X Prize For a 100-MPG Car
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't blame those who have little other option, but I feel that most people would incorrectly claim to have little other option (just like my coworkers). For the cost of the commute (in $), most of them could rent a place in town here. Remember, driving your car isn't just the gas, it is the insurance, and upkeep, and repairs, and your time. Is your time valuable? I figure at least $2-$3 per mile for myself. You are spending 2 hours of your day, 200 days per year. That is 400 hours per year! That is 10 extra weeks of work (40 hour work week). You could live closer, and get a part time job on top of it, and still be financially ahead with more free time. Win Win. This wouldn't work for everyone, and maybe not you, but for many it would. Though I don't know anyone who would admit it, because nobody wants to own up to their own waste.....including myself.
I am hoping to start biking to work once the weather warms up (our snow is just melting).....though I live only 1 mile from work. I just wish this employer had a place for me to put my trike.......I haven't found one yet that looks safe or secure.
By the way, a suburb by definition, is set away from the city. It is designed to force you to commute for the crowds that desire such a thing. For some reason, Americans like living 20-40 minutes from their employer, and actually house shop in that range when moving. They do not house shop within 1-2 miles of their employer, even when the home price is the same. This I don't understand.
Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.
on
X Prize For a 100-MPG Car
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Which is precisely the problem.....idiots. We will pay for this idiocy in time....we are only now starting to realize the true cost of our stupidity.
Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.
on
X Prize For a 100-MPG Car
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A very honest and insightful post. Thanks.
I would like to add, instead of getting 100MPG, the same effect can be achieved if people would just live closer to work. In the USA, the average commute is something like 30 minutes. If we cut that down to 5 minutes, that is similar to going from 20MPG to 100MPG. It drives me nuts how many people commute 30-60 minutes to work! At least 1/2 of my office here drives 45 minutes or more to work. The other half drives less than 5. For some reason, they don't mind spending another 1.5 hours of their day stuck in a car, burning fossil fuels......and they are the ones complaining about gas prices. Then, they have the gall to tell the people who live only 2 miles away, that they should walk or bike to work, and try to lower their gas usage. Arghhh.
I travel quite a bit, and must drive 20 miles+ to the nearest stores......yet in 4 months I have only put $75 in my gastank (and that is with my pathetic 18MPG). I just don't see how people can justify putting 20K miles on a car every year......that is the real problem. Because of this, I support a $7 / gallon gas tax. That money should be put towards research, and subsidizing fossil fuel replacements. Heck, maybe a tax penalty for those who commute more than 15 minutes to work.
Well, I will do a slashdot first and I concede 1 point, I realize my math was backwards. The 1 hour change means our staff change is 1 hour less severe (I am really surprised nobody noticed that). To that mistake, I bow my head in shame.
Sorry, but out of 4 people here at work who were so happy for DST, at least 1 thought it gave us more daylight. 1 is on the fence. They are claiming now that they knew it didn't, but they sure sounded different earlier. Time and timezones and DST are simply too abstract of a thought for most people to really understand. I would like to say we should dump the idea of timezones all together, and all go by GMT.........but the date change causes an issue.
I am not a grammar nazi, but I have not heard pendantic before......errr???
I still don't see how it gives us more daylight. So I am locked in at 9-5, I have 1 more hour of daylight in the evening, but 1 less in the morning. Whats the point? Maybe I feel different because I am a morning person, and would like to ride my trike to work. Oh well.
I see your point, and I like it when you are a happy camper, but daylight savings does NOT change how many hours of daylight we have at our disposal.
I repeat DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME DOES NOT GIVE US MORE DAYLIGHT. It does not change the planets tilt, rotation speed, or smell.
Sorry, but it just bugs me when everyone claims it gives us more daylight. DST should be abolished altogether. Any companies that want to change their business hours for the seasons should do so on their own. Factories in the Midwest, like mine, start their employees 2-3 hours earlier in the summer so they can avoid the heat of the day. DST just means now we have to start our employees 3-4 hours earlier to avoid the heat.
I had to come back to this...........it has been -10F all week here. The damn weathermen are pointing out that it is the coldest snap we have had in X years (3 to 10 years depending on the network). Everyone in this office is frickin' babbling on about how "We are supposed to believe in global warming, yet it is our coldest year in a long time."
I tried to point out to one of them.... this year is the coldest because the last 10 have averaged to be way above what our winters should be like. It didn't work, I just got an eye roll. Damn primates, always ruining my day. When I control the weather, they will be so very sorry.
Oh, then we have the religous crowd here, who claim that the world might be getting warmer. If it is however, that is gods plan. How the am I supposed to argue with that?
This and my Battletoads post earlier, really making for an unhappy day. Arghhhhhhhhhh.
Exactly! My little brother (20 year age difference, adoption) is a game junkie. He loves his Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon games, and thinks they are "hard". One day I got sick of him complaining how hard they are, and I drug out Battletoads. He hit that level and was just inspired at how difficult it was. Funny thing, I don't even remember passing that level as a kid, but I did when he was watching. Now he asks me to help him with every game, even though I have never seen most of them.
Then came the snakes...........ahhhhhhhhhhh! I couldn't believe it got harder! WTF, I wanted more levels like the first few! I can feel myself getting angry just thinking about it!
Later on, I had him try some of my other old favorites. Now he agrees with me, that games are much easier now. Spyhunter almost killed the poor little bastard.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Is this the same website? WTF?
"
...
Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.
Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on.
The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.
"
Misconceptions? WTF? I disagree, however I can only speak for what I have seen in the Midwest US.
I don't know where you live, but in our area the lumber companies do not own the land they are deforesting. They talk land owners into allowing their trees to be harvested, they strip the land down to a point that it doesn't recover for 30-50 years, and they move on. If they replant, it will be whatever tree saplings they have on hand, and surely will be a single species.
The land is hilly here, so even after 50 years, the bluffs and hills are still scarred and will never recover their beauty. Erosion is nearly uncontrollable for at least a decade after the deforestation. Sure, they only take the "big trees", but the remaining trees die from injury, or loss of topsoil. Those that do live are sickly and unhealthy, usually falling down during storms. The forest undergrowth doesn't even come back because of the topsoil washing down into the valleys and streams.
In our area of the Midwest US, lumber companies are NOT farmers. It is the farmers that they screw over.
Good point, I didn't think of that!
This is another reason to weed ourselves away from fossil fuels, since most everyone on here seems to be barely able to afford the commute to the office. I suppose in space you just need to get up to light speed, you don't need fuel to sustain that speed, though I am not sure how many gallons of regular unleaded that would take.
I don't think anyone here believes humans are ALREADY on this planet. The discussion is about whether humans could live there. Remember, we are destroying this planet, and instead of trying to save it, we are looking for another one to live on.
You are correct, it is simply impractical to test everything. Any IT department that has the time / manpower to test every single application with every single patch would require more IT staff than any company I have ever worked for or with. The reality is, we run system backups, and try to screen patches as best as possible. Yup, sometimes something slips through, and hoses something up, but it is easier to repair than it is to test everything. 99% of patches from MS work fine, so fixing the other 1% is the far easier solution. Most small-medium sized businesses anyway simply do not have the staff for testing.
Some people would argue with this, but then they must work in a fairly uniform environment. In our department, we have a few hundred machines/systems to manage, each one being unique in 1 way or another, so how could you possibly test every software combination?
Okay, the cat part is a good example....and grouping an entire order together probably does then group some exceptions. I guess this totally debunks my point, and humans are not the natural prey of any creatures.
To prove your point entirely, please go near an alligator and see if he considers you prey. Actually, just go close enough for him to see your movement, then wait near the water. Since you are surely correct, go ahead and use yourself first, and the other primates next. You will be fine, especially if you stand there and explain your mastery of the KPCOFGS scheme to the nearest ear.
"It simply means that no animal has humans as their natural prey."
I think the American Alligator would disagree. Also, the Lion has no tiffs about not eating human meat.
We are primates, and there are plenty of creatures that pray on primates.
Solitaire and mindsweeper. Maybe some surfing the internet, and checking your email. Oh, and spreadsheets!
Okay, seriously now, how well does the Mac video editing software take advantage of the potential of this system? I was considering building a dual-quad core pc in about a year...for video editing...but I fear that the software packages just won't take advantage of the hardware. I this changing? I don't see the average consumer being smart enough to lobby for multi-threaded software....?
"Cows evolved to die. They're prey..."
I disagree. Cows evolved to live, it just so happens that they don't often succeed in this when pitted against certain predators. There is no fine line between predators and prey, and even humans are considered prey in some comparisons.
However, another side to this coin (surprise, it isn't 2-sided), in the hybridization process the humans have "evolved" the cows into something more suitable for the human goals. So, yes, in a way they were evolved with a particular use in mind, however that does not mean we have the right to torture them. Essentially , the humans created these creatures, wouldn't it seem somewhat cruel to create these creatures and then torture them?
I am hoping this was sarcasm...if not, it brings shame to the human race.
I agree, it isn't always possible or practical...............I was in college once too. I do commend you for considering your options however. It sounds like you have went through the math. It seems that most people on slashdot defend their lifestyle, before ever considering the alternatives. I guess I am not surprised.
By the way, if you learn anything from college, learn to live on less. Keep that efficient car for a few months or years....until it refuses to give you anymore faithful service. Or, do what I did, and hand it down to another struggling college student. It is obvious from the posters on slashdot that most of them have forgotten their poverty stricken college days...and now believe that the world owes them something. I suppose many were those same students whose parents paid for everything. Congrats on having the enlightenment to consider other options, take that with you into the job market and you will succeed. Oh, and good luck.
Remember, when starving, an old couch cushion can be a good source of fiber and filler...and you might just find enough change to buy some Ramen noodles.
I agree, not everyone. However, I know of nobody at my office with an excuse quite as good as yours. Sending your kids to a good school is an honorable thing, but I think there is equal honor in making sacrifices to conserve (not at the expense of your kids safety though). It sounds like this might not be possible for you, but in such a scenario I would surely try to find a different job. If the area is that bad, are you doing your family any favors by sending yourself into that area? Maybe your employer isn't near the school....just wondering. Good luck.
I do feel your pain, or at least a close family member has. A cousin of mine just moved away from that area. He is financially better off living elsewhere making less $. He makes half what he made in DC, and is much better off. They didn't' have kids yet though, so that makes it easier. Though I will admit, the idea of housecleaning and lawnkeepers seems a bit obsurd....but I am a cheapskate.
If an apartment would save enough $, I would do that while saving up enough to buy a house (outright, not the American tradition of buying what you can barely afford, even at the expense of other life luxuries).
A long time ago, I decided that living in suburbs is a recipe for barely squeaking by. The entire economy of a suburb is designed around barely getting by. I left the suburb climate and never looked back. Actually, everyone in our IT dept at my employer are former city-slickers that decided to run from the city. One coworker went from renting for big $, to a $400 house payment. Yup, she makes 40% less, but now she is on track to retire at 60 instead of never (maybe 55)....and will have her house paid off after 2 more years (3 years out of the city). Never again will I sit in a traffic jam on my way to work.
I agree with your point, but the average commute for Americans is measured by dozens of studies every year. They always pick a narrow sample size, so the results vary a lot, however it is almost always around 30 minutes. Also, go talk to a local realtor. People (at least in the midwest) are not interested in house shopping near their employer. I think maybe some people like that feeling of separation? I don't know why. Any ideas? Also, realize, more Americans live in rural areas than urban.
WHEW!!! Good thing I didn't' say that, or I would be an idiot. That was a close one!
You are right though, the odds of you finding a job that is near a decent place to live are almost nil....especially when you are so busy posting such insightful comments on slashdot.
I did point out that some people/professions do not have much option.
Yes, I do have a vehicle. If you check with your insurance company, you can get your insurance reduced if you drive less than X miles per year. Currently my insurance is at between $10 and $11 per month....hopefully it drops a few bucks this summer.
I know that it is much easier to make excuses than to actually try to live a more responsible lifestyle. Give it a try, you will find it isn't so bad. Do some research into the cost savings of driving less, then try posting again later.
I don't blame those who have little other option, but I feel that most people would incorrectly claim to have little other option (just like my coworkers). For the cost of the commute (in $), most of them could rent a place in town here. Remember, driving your car isn't just the gas, it is the insurance, and upkeep, and repairs, and your time. Is your time valuable? I figure at least $2-$3 per mile for myself. You are spending 2 hours of your day, 200 days per year. That is 400 hours per year! That is 10 extra weeks of work (40 hour work week). You could live closer, and get a part time job on top of it, and still be financially ahead with more free time. Win Win. This wouldn't work for everyone, and maybe not you, but for many it would. Though I don't know anyone who would admit it, because nobody wants to own up to their own waste.....including myself.
I am hoping to start biking to work once the weather warms up (our snow is just melting).....though I live only 1 mile from work. I just wish this employer had a place for me to put my trike.......I haven't found one yet that looks safe or secure.
By the way, a suburb by definition, is set away from the city. It is designed to force you to commute for the crowds that desire such a thing. For some reason, Americans like living 20-40 minutes from their employer, and actually house shop in that range when moving. They do not house shop within 1-2 miles of their employer, even when the home price is the same. This I don't understand.
Which is precisely the problem.....idiots. We will pay for this idiocy in time....we are only now starting to realize the true cost of our stupidity.
A very honest and insightful post. Thanks.
I would like to add, instead of getting 100MPG, the same effect can be achieved if people would just live closer to work. In the USA, the average commute is something like 30 minutes. If we cut that down to 5 minutes, that is similar to going from 20MPG to 100MPG. It drives me nuts how many people commute 30-60 minutes to work! At least 1/2 of my office here drives 45 minutes or more to work. The other half drives less than 5. For some reason, they don't mind spending another 1.5 hours of their day stuck in a car, burning fossil fuels......and they are the ones complaining about gas prices. Then, they have the gall to tell the people who live only 2 miles away, that they should walk or bike to work, and try to lower their gas usage. Arghhh.
I travel quite a bit, and must drive 20 miles+ to the nearest stores......yet in 4 months I have only put $75 in my gastank (and that is with my pathetic 18MPG). I just don't see how people can justify putting 20K miles on a car every year......that is the real problem. Because of this, I support a $7 / gallon gas tax. That money should be put towards research, and subsidizing fossil fuel replacements. Heck, maybe a tax penalty for those who commute more than 15 minutes to work.
Well, I will do a slashdot first and I concede 1 point, I realize my math was backwards. The 1 hour change means our staff change is 1 hour less severe (I am really surprised nobody noticed that). To that mistake, I bow my head in shame.
Sorry, but out of 4 people here at work who were so happy for DST, at least 1 thought it gave us more daylight. 1 is on the fence. They are claiming now that they knew it didn't, but they sure sounded different earlier. Time and timezones and DST are simply too abstract of a thought for most people to really understand. I would like to say we should dump the idea of timezones all together, and all go by GMT.........but the date change causes an issue.
I am not a grammar nazi, but I have not heard pendantic before......errr???
I still don't see how it gives us more daylight. So I am locked in at 9-5, I have 1 more hour of daylight in the evening, but 1 less in the morning. Whats the point? Maybe I feel different because I am a morning person, and would like to ride my trike to work. Oh well.
Sweet idea! Since we are stuck with global warming, hopefully this is an unforeseen side effect!
Okay, I concede that point, I guess it could change the smell.
I see your point, and I like it when you are a happy camper, but daylight savings does NOT change how many hours of daylight we have at our disposal.
I repeat DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME DOES NOT GIVE US MORE DAYLIGHT. It does not change the planets tilt, rotation speed, or smell.
Sorry, but it just bugs me when everyone claims it gives us more daylight. DST should be abolished altogether. Any companies that want to change their business hours for the seasons should do so on their own. Factories in the Midwest, like mine, start their employees 2-3 hours earlier in the summer so they can avoid the heat of the day. DST just means now we have to start our employees 3-4 hours earlier to avoid the heat.
DST is my new mortal enemy.
I had to come back to this...........it has been -10F all week here. The damn weathermen are pointing out that it is the coldest snap we have had in X years (3 to 10 years depending on the network). Everyone in this office is frickin' babbling on about how "We are supposed to believe in global warming, yet it is our coldest year in a long time."
I tried to point out to one of them.... this year is the coldest because the last 10 have averaged to be way above what our winters should be like. It didn't work, I just got an eye roll. Damn primates, always ruining my day. When I control the weather, they will be so very sorry.
Oh, then we have the religous crowd here, who claim that the world might be getting warmer. If it is however, that is gods plan. How the am I supposed to argue with that?
This and my Battletoads post earlier, really making for an unhappy day. Arghhhhhhhhhh.
Exactly! My little brother (20 year age difference, adoption) is a game junkie. He loves his Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon games, and thinks they are "hard". One day I got sick of him complaining how hard they are, and I drug out Battletoads. He hit that level and was just inspired at how difficult it was. Funny thing, I don't even remember passing that level as a kid, but I did when he was watching. Now he asks me to help him with every game, even though I have never seen most of them.
Then came the snakes...........ahhhhhhhhhhh! I couldn't believe it got harder! WTF, I wanted more levels like the first few! I can feel myself getting angry just thinking about it!
Later on, I had him try some of my other old favorites. Now he agrees with me, that games are much easier now. Spyhunter almost killed the poor little bastard.