Nah... there is one and only one situation in which I'd contemplate suicide, and that would be if I were ever injured in such a way that I couldn't be a pilot... because, damn it's fun, and I've wanted to be one since I was 10, and, having started doing it, I couldn't have it taken away.
Some of that is true, some of it isn't. Firstly, gentoo, for me, isn't about speed or cutting-edge releases: it's about customizability and software management. Portage has never given me any hassles, other than taking up time (which I'm willing to put up with), and I know that, for each program, I get a build with my favorite features. I like debian for this same reason (ease of software managements). I also like the customizability, which comes not only in the form of USE flags, but the fact that most things must be configured to taste. Was doing the first kernel compile easy? Was setting up my soundsystem foolproof? No to both questions, but in the end I think I have a better system. But, yeah, it's a niche market. Why others can't accept that is beyond me...
Flightgear is not good enough. You don't understand flightsimmers: we need realism. I tried flightgear, with a supported joystick, and it was hard to use (I didn't figure out how to take off) and unrealistic, in terms of aircraft panels. Add to that the fact that addons pretty much define how good a flightsim game is, and it is clear that flightgear isn't even close yet. Also, I have a large console (yoke, switching, throttle, prop control, mixture) that only works with MS FS2004. Now, X-plane, which has a linux version, is a good flightsim (except for not supporting my console). Sadly, it is payware, but it is a much better flightsim example to use in situations such as this.
Look, there's one camp of stupid fuckers who says "violence in video games should be banned, it's evil, etc..." and another equally stupid group saying "raise your children yourselves, and teach them right and wrong... take these games out of their hands". To both groups, let me say this: you are stupid.
Some background, first. I am a 15-year-old male video gamer. I started playing M-rated games approximately the same time my family got internet access, around the time I was 8. I've had parental permission to buy most M-rated games since I was about 13, although I had to convince them on a case-by-case basis. I've been able to play GTA3, as well as the sequels, since I was 14. I first watched Pulp Fiction when I was... 11, I think, and I own both volumes of Kill Bill, which I watch regularly. Here's the secret: I'm seriously one of the least violent people I know.
I have one friend who's almost completely sheltered by his parents. As a result, he's obsessed with guns and violence, and completely resents his parents. And he has (and knows how to use, which scares me) a butterfly knife. He's the one that's going to kill someone someday. I have another friend who was brought up Christian, and he's far more violent than I am. It's not video games and movies that cause violence.
Here's my appraisal of the situation. Violent people, being violent people, would naturally be attracted toward violent video games. Therefore, all studies would show that people who have committed violent acts have, almost uniformly, played violent video games. The stupid media would misinterpret that as "videogames cause violence" because they have brains that aspire to be the size of a pill. Then, a whole bunch of assholes on the other side would feel self-righteous and say, "I don't allow my child to play violent videogames", and, "You have to raise your child and be involved with what they're doing". Bullshit, you're both wrong. I play as much or as little of any violent video game I want, behind a closed door, in my room. And I'm pretty much the least violent guy that I know.
So I've come to the conclusion that, if you kill someone, chances are you're fucked whether you had violent video games or not. I knew, from the time I started playing violent video games, when I was 8 (and I'm talking about Marathon and Pathways into Darkness), that killing people is wrong. This whole idea that young children don't understand this is a crock of shit. The reason we don't hold children to the same standards as adults criminally is not because they don't know their actions were wrong, but they couldn't see the consequences. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong in the first place. Stop making excuses for crazy, fucked up people, who just happened to play video games. I think you'll also find they drank milk at some point: could that be the problem?
I would say that you should just stay away from that altogether. He won't care, and if he does, he will no doubt ask you. Get on with showing him distros and programs and all that, and if he asks questions, answer them.
I also hate flash because it allows stupid junior-high students to recreate the same stupid fucking scribbled-blood useless cartoons far too easily. Thank god I'm in high school now, because those grade 7s were pissing me off... I hate how, if you can program a full GUI application (even if it's simple, which mine are) in C, and do a whole bunch of other stuff, and get no respect, yet a tool that most people use as a glorified MS Paint with animation is the hot new thing to do.
I dunno... I can't remember how old I was when my friend (much older than me) got FF7. I think I was about 8 or 9, and it was so awesome to watch! It is still, to this day, the best game IMO.
With the current system, there is some degree of reasonable doubt. When parents are confronted with an actual number, it's pretty hard to make excuses. I'm guessing that, if M were replaced by 17, for example, fewer parents would buy it, despite the fact that it means the exact same thing. Being a teenager who enjoys violent video games, I am glad they have the current system;)
I used to be one of those people who said, "maybe the parents should watch their children!!!" and then I came to the following realization: it's the children's fault if they kill someone! I downloaded M-rated games from the 'net since I was about 8 years old, and I've been playing GTA (3,VC,SA) since I was 14. I got Halo on the release day with my XBOX, when I was either 12 or 13. My favorite director is Tarantino, and I watch all of his movies regularly. Guess what? I have managed to not kill anyone! Astounding, isn't it? On the other hand, I know a guy at school who's parents shelter the living fuck out of him, and he's completely fucking insane. If he killed someone, you would seriously think, "it was just a matter of time". Manhunt is the only game I'm not allowed to play, and, to be honest, I don't really want to play it. Perhaps we should stop making excuses for kids that are really just insane. Why must there be a reason?
Well, having never used it, I cannot say. I will say, though, that habits are hard to break. If you started from the beginning using the OS X bindings, you would find them easy, but if you have been programming for 20 years and using Home and End constantly, I imagine it would take, at the very least, some mental retraining to fix.
An example: recently, I got a new lamp. Since it's on a table by the sofa, in the middle of the room, it got plugged into one of the floor outlets. Sadly, the closest one was right in the middle of a shortcut I used to reach the sofa. I must have stubbed my toe 100 times that first week. I've gotten used to it now, but the transition was painful and frustrating. And I had only been using that precise shortcut since I had got some small tables to put near the couch about a month earlier. Now, if it had always been like that, I doubt I would have stubbed my toe on the plug once. But that's not the question we're asking here.
I suppose so. I don't see what is wrong with a text config file, any more than anything else. I find them to be rather powerful, and, for very configurable things like Apache, I would say it's the only option. I think the problem is that, with Linux, and Free Software in general (which is the user experience most people receive from linux), text config files are seen as, and are often used as, the easy way out. They are easy for a program to parse, all the configurability is there, and the onus shifts to the user. Although text config files are usable, and I do use them, and don't complain, I think that in some situations it is overdone. How much extra effort would it have been to create a simple GUI to edit that config file intuitively?
I imagine almost any set of morals or values can be seen as having a religious component. My values may be shared with any number of religions. I think it is the fact that societal norms and religious values are somewhat intertwined, because almost all societies were religious until a relatively recent time. My morals and values, though, are based on general kindness and respect, not any book. If any particular religion shares these with me, I fail to see how it is my fault.
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
Ah yes... simple enough. But, I keep hearing from OS X/Windows people that Linux's downfall is having to edit text config files. OMG, you have to do that with OS X you say??? I don't mind, but at least don't preach a double standard.
to anyone except the game buyer, and possibly their bosses. If you have the brain of a fruitfly, it is hardly their business to guide you in the right direction. The role of games isn't to be good role models. Games generally sell well because they allow you to do something you can't do in real life, and more often than not it's because they let you do something bad (by society's standards). It is the job of the parents to, basically, shape a kid's sense of morality. Not even the church's, I find it despicable that religion is forced upon children. My mom let me buy GTA3 + VC when I could prove that I was mature enough to handle it. Was I 18? No. Am I more mature than someone who is 18? In many ways, yes. I've seen some drunk adults, and lemme tell you, I'm not sure that all of them can tell the difference between a video game and reality.
Guess what? Parents should be the censor here... I'm sick of hearing everyone say that, but apparently some people still don't get it. They moan and bitch that, "well, both parents have to work" and whatever other dumb excuses their tiny brains can come up with. If neither of you have a decent job, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! If you're not sure you want to spend the rest of your life with this person, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! Society shouldn't have to pay because of your poor planning. Also, these whiny asshole parents should look into the idea of daycare if they absolutely must both work, and, for some reason, they figured out how to pollute the gene pool further. Are these people stupid?
Ummm... they got converted to Christianity somehow... probably by reading a 2000 year old book... obviously they are pretty weak-minded when it comes to things that influence their behaviour.
Re:Somewhere A Nerd Cries into his Beer.
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 1
Well, admittedly, since I've never listened to it, I wouldn't know how much it sucks/is great.
It was moderately okay before people tried doing complex things with it, which brought in schemas and namespaces and other things of that nature. Writing a pure xml file to be paired with CSS for browser display, free of any namespaces or other elements that may have a point but decrease readability, is relatively easy to do, and is later much easier to read that HTML.
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
I could probably do such a thing, minus the namespaces, because those confuse me (although, I'm sure if I found out, I could do it). Given that XML is so standardized, it would be a relatively easy task to create a struct that holds all the information for a given tag. Writing a validator would be the difficult part. It is easier to offload that responsibility and blame people for writing bad XML.
I seriously don't see why this is confusing everybody. If record companies make unfair profits (and note that, yes, sadly I do know that the artists get screwed. I'd pay them direct if I could), then why shouldn't I be able to get an appropriate "value" out of the money I pay them? Secondly, theft assumes that the original party has been deprived of use of their property. This is not the case. Nor is it the case that I would have paid full price for the songs I buy, so it's not a lost sale. Also, if I have the vinyl album and I want to listen to digital music, wouldn't you agree that it is fair to use a service such as allofmp3.com?
Ummm... no, they ripped me off by charging more than they should have for a product that I bought. Furthermore, they are ripping off artists, who, in all fairness, should get at least half of the royalties from a CD sale. Given that CDs are so cheap to produce, I think is it fair to say that the average CD-buyer *does* get ripped off, mainly because most of the money goes straight to the pockets of people who don't deserve it.
If I get charged twice as much as I should, all things being equal, shouldn't I get a second "item" for free? I mean, if the money were going to the artists, I wouldn't mind so much. So little of it goes there, though, that it makes people resort to music downloads where no money goes to the artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah... there is one and only one situation in which I'd contemplate suicide, and that would be if I were ever injured in such a way that I couldn't be a pilot... because, damn it's fun, and I've wanted to be one since I was 10, and, having started doing it, I couldn't have it taken away.
Some of that is true, some of it isn't. Firstly, gentoo, for me, isn't about speed or cutting-edge releases: it's about customizability and software management. Portage has never given me any hassles, other than taking up time (which I'm willing to put up with), and I know that, for each program, I get a build with my favorite features. I like debian for this same reason (ease of software managements). I also like the customizability, which comes not only in the form of USE flags, but the fact that most things must be configured to taste. Was doing the first kernel compile easy? Was setting up my soundsystem foolproof? No to both questions, but in the end I think I have a better system. But, yeah, it's a niche market. Why others can't accept that is beyond me...
Flightgear is not good enough. You don't understand flightsimmers: we need realism. I tried flightgear, with a supported joystick, and it was hard to use (I didn't figure out how to take off) and unrealistic, in terms of aircraft panels. Add to that the fact that addons pretty much define how good a flightsim game is, and it is clear that flightgear isn't even close yet. Also, I have a large console (yoke, switching, throttle, prop control, mixture) that only works with MS FS2004. Now, X-plane, which has a linux version, is a good flightsim (except for not supporting my console). Sadly, it is payware, but it is a much better flightsim example to use in situations such as this.
Some background, first. I am a 15-year-old male video gamer. I started playing M-rated games approximately the same time my family got internet access, around the time I was 8. I've had parental permission to buy most M-rated games since I was about 13, although I had to convince them on a case-by-case basis. I've been able to play GTA3, as well as the sequels, since I was 14. I first watched Pulp Fiction when I was... 11, I think, and I own both volumes of Kill Bill, which I watch regularly. Here's the secret: I'm seriously one of the least violent people I know.
I have one friend who's almost completely sheltered by his parents. As a result, he's obsessed with guns and violence, and completely resents his parents. And he has (and knows how to use, which scares me) a butterfly knife. He's the one that's going to kill someone someday. I have another friend who was brought up Christian, and he's far more violent than I am. It's not video games and movies that cause violence.
Here's my appraisal of the situation. Violent people, being violent people, would naturally be attracted toward violent video games. Therefore, all studies would show that people who have committed violent acts have, almost uniformly, played violent video games. The stupid media would misinterpret that as "videogames cause violence" because they have brains that aspire to be the size of a pill. Then, a whole bunch of assholes on the other side would feel self-righteous and say, "I don't allow my child to play violent videogames", and, "You have to raise your child and be involved with what they're doing". Bullshit, you're both wrong. I play as much or as little of any violent video game I want, behind a closed door, in my room. And I'm pretty much the least violent guy that I know.
So I've come to the conclusion that, if you kill someone, chances are you're fucked whether you had violent video games or not. I knew, from the time I started playing violent video games, when I was 8 (and I'm talking about Marathon and Pathways into Darkness), that killing people is wrong. This whole idea that young children don't understand this is a crock of shit. The reason we don't hold children to the same standards as adults criminally is not because they don't know their actions were wrong, but they couldn't see the consequences. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong in the first place. Stop making excuses for crazy, fucked up people, who just happened to play video games. I think you'll also find they drank milk at some point: could that be the problem?
I would say that you should just stay away from that altogether. He won't care, and if he does, he will no doubt ask you. Get on with showing him distros and programs and all that, and if he asks questions, answer them.
Thus, flash sucks.
I dunno... I can't remember how old I was when my friend (much older than me) got FF7. I think I was about 8 or 9, and it was so awesome to watch! It is still, to this day, the best game IMO.
With the current system, there is some degree of reasonable doubt. When parents are confronted with an actual number, it's pretty hard to make excuses. I'm guessing that, if M were replaced by 17, for example, fewer parents would buy it, despite the fact that it means the exact same thing. Being a teenager who enjoys violent video games, I am glad they have the current system ;)
What about the fluffy white kittens I've heard rumours about? This smells like a cover-up...
I used to be one of those people who said, "maybe the parents should watch their children!!!" and then I came to the following realization: it's the children's fault if they kill someone! I downloaded M-rated games from the 'net since I was about 8 years old, and I've been playing GTA (3,VC,SA) since I was 14. I got Halo on the release day with my XBOX, when I was either 12 or 13. My favorite director is Tarantino, and I watch all of his movies regularly. Guess what? I have managed to not kill anyone! Astounding, isn't it? On the other hand, I know a guy at school who's parents shelter the living fuck out of him, and he's completely fucking insane. If he killed someone, you would seriously think, "it was just a matter of time". Manhunt is the only game I'm not allowed to play, and, to be honest, I don't really want to play it. Perhaps we should stop making excuses for kids that are really just insane. Why must there be a reason?
An example: recently, I got a new lamp. Since it's on a table by the sofa, in the middle of the room, it got plugged into one of the floor outlets. Sadly, the closest one was right in the middle of a shortcut I used to reach the sofa. I must have stubbed my toe 100 times that first week. I've gotten used to it now, but the transition was painful and frustrating. And I had only been using that precise shortcut since I had got some small tables to put near the couch about a month earlier. Now, if it had always been like that, I doubt I would have stubbed my toe on the plug once. But that's not the question we're asking here.
I suppose so. I don't see what is wrong with a text config file, any more than anything else. I find them to be rather powerful, and, for very configurable things like Apache, I would say it's the only option. I think the problem is that, with Linux, and Free Software in general (which is the user experience most people receive from linux), text config files are seen as, and are often used as, the easy way out. They are easy for a program to parse, all the configurability is there, and the onus shifts to the user. Although text config files are usable, and I do use them, and don't complain, I think that in some situations it is overdone. How much extra effort would it have been to create a simple GUI to edit that config file intuitively?
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
Ah yes... simple enough. But, I keep hearing from OS X/Windows people that Linux's downfall is having to edit text config files. OMG, you have to do that with OS X you say??? I don't mind, but at least don't preach a double standard.
to anyone except the game buyer, and possibly their bosses. If you have the brain of a fruitfly, it is hardly their business to guide you in the right direction. The role of games isn't to be good role models. Games generally sell well because they allow you to do something you can't do in real life, and more often than not it's because they let you do something bad (by society's standards). It is the job of the parents to, basically, shape a kid's sense of morality. Not even the church's, I find it despicable that religion is forced upon children. My mom let me buy GTA3 + VC when I could prove that I was mature enough to handle it. Was I 18? No. Am I more mature than someone who is 18? In many ways, yes. I've seen some drunk adults, and lemme tell you, I'm not sure that all of them can tell the difference between a video game and reality.
Guess what? Parents should be the censor here... I'm sick of hearing everyone say that, but apparently some people still don't get it. They moan and bitch that, "well, both parents have to work" and whatever other dumb excuses their tiny brains can come up with. If neither of you have a decent job, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! If you're not sure you want to spend the rest of your life with this person, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! Society shouldn't have to pay because of your poor planning. Also, these whiny asshole parents should look into the idea of daycare if they absolutely must both work, and, for some reason, they figured out how to pollute the gene pool further. Are these people stupid?
Ummm... they got converted to Christianity somehow... probably by reading a 2000 year old book... obviously they are pretty weak-minded when it comes to things that influence their behaviour.
Well, admittedly, since I've never listened to it, I wouldn't know how much it sucks/is great.
I believe Conrad Black, a Canadian media mogul, gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord, so it isn't out of the question.
Uhhh... not really, I'm 15 and I haven't heard of this guy. Perhaps it's because not everyone listens to the same music as you?
It was moderately okay before people tried doing complex things with it, which brought in schemas and namespaces and other things of that nature. Writing a pure xml file to be paired with CSS for browser display, free of any namespaces or other elements that may have a point but decrease readability, is relatively easy to do, and is later much easier to read that HTML.
I could probably do such a thing, minus the namespaces, because those confuse me (although, I'm sure if I found out, I could do it). Given that XML is so standardized, it would be a relatively easy task to create a struct that holds all the information for a given tag. Writing a validator would be the difficult part. It is easier to offload that responsibility and blame people for writing bad XML.
I seriously don't see why this is confusing everybody. If record companies make unfair profits (and note that, yes, sadly I do know that the artists get screwed. I'd pay them direct if I could), then why shouldn't I be able to get an appropriate "value" out of the money I pay them? Secondly, theft assumes that the original party has been deprived of use of their property. This is not the case. Nor is it the case that I would have paid full price for the songs I buy, so it's not a lost sale. Also, if I have the vinyl album and I want to listen to digital music, wouldn't you agree that it is fair to use a service such as allofmp3.com?
Ummm... no, they ripped me off by charging more than they should have for a product that I bought. Furthermore, they are ripping off artists, who, in all fairness, should get at least half of the royalties from a CD sale. Given that CDs are so cheap to produce, I think is it fair to say that the average CD-buyer *does* get ripped off, mainly because most of the money goes straight to the pockets of people who don't deserve it.
If I get charged twice as much as I should, all things being equal, shouldn't I get a second "item" for free? I mean, if the money were going to the artists, I wouldn't mind so much. So little of it goes there, though, that it makes people resort to music downloads where no money goes to the artist.