Fine by me. If you don't want something copied, then don't release it!
No problem, once it's on the books that any work can be copied freely you can expect the market to adjust quickly and disband any companies making anything that relies on copyright to make money. Just don't do that before it's agreed upon because then most people follow the old rules and those who ignore them will continue to get punished when caught.
They're promoting the artists and the cause of the arts at their own expense! How kind of them, and how wonderfully human of people, to want to share a good thing with others. It somewhat restores my hope for humanity when people share artistic works.
You know, I'd see this as a more positive sign if this kind of sharing had any real costs but you can just slap the files on a USB stick and share. When it doesn't cost them money people will gladly share just for getting recognition in return. Now if it cost, say, $10 to make such a copy for whatever reason do you think these people would still share so freely?
Well, you can probably name a number large enough that noone could count to it since doing so would exceed the human lifespan (and you can extend that to computers and the lifespan of the universe) but then again it's math and practicality is somebody else's problem there.
It wasn't particularly hard either, so it's great for casual gamers too.
I hate it when people say that. "Casual" gamers want games that are easy to understand, not easy to win. Noone can win Tetris, it gets as hard as you can handle and then you lose yet it's not something limited to elite players.
However, as seems to happen a lot in technology, cheap crap is better at moving upmarket while staying cheap than premium gear is at moving downmarket while staying good.
Especially since it was possible to have two 3d cards in a PC in the past, I had an Ati 3d Charger and a 3DFX Voodoo in the same system and almost always got a drop down box which one to use (modern games still have it, in case you ever wondered why there's a dropdown box with "primary graphics driver: <card name>" in the setup).
The problem with claiming "macroevolution" isn't proven is that it's up to THEM to show what the hell "macroevolution" is supposed to be and why it cannot happen because the distinction does not exist per se. We know evolution can happen, unless they can show that "macroevolution" is somehow different it HAS been shown as possible. It's like asserting lightspeed differs at "macro distances" without showing that there is any difference between "micro" and "macro" distances and using that to claim that lightspeed is not absolute.
We got two (actually more but let's limit it to these two) accounts of how the world came to be. One is a written text, accessible to anyone, conveniently explains all you'd want to know and was the predominant belief for centuries if not millenia with loads of people still holding onto it. The other is fossil, requires advanced scientific techniques to even notice, never mind interpret, has long and complicated trails needed to explain itself, still isn't known completely, is hard to grasp for the human understanding without a lot of education and hasn't even been found for the longest time. Now let's assume one of the two is a fake intended to trick people into going to hell. Additionally we have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity and its antagonist (assuming the person seeking guidance is a Christian). A benevolent deity would not try to trick people into eternal torment (that is possibly the most evil act possible so an entity doing that would probably qualify more as omnimalevolent). However an antagonist would. Which is more inside the scope of the antagonist's abilities, writing a book or changing the physical structure of the entire fucking planet/universe?
Then again the fundies seem to believe that God didn't give man reason so that man may use it but to trip man up...
Depends on how you see that, you pretty much have to know the depth in any competitive game so the complexity/depth split narrows. IMO it'd help more if game tutorials went beyond explaining the controls and went into some of the depth too (e.g. "this is how you perform a standard launcher air combo" and "Roman Cancels are used like this"). It's no wonder newbies feel intimidated when all they know about a game is manualspeak (i.e. an explanation that involves more fluff and hyperbole than actually useful knowledge, something that would describe just how fierce an attack is instead of saying "does moderate damage, covers a wide area to the front and top, vulnerable to crouched attacks").
I don't think there's anything wrong with going like Smash Bros or Bleach DS and make special moves single button affairs, if the game is balanced the input isn't needed as a hurdle for a move. You can do as many special moves as you want IMO, I don't think there's a real split between special and regular attacks except where the game adds it (e.g. being able to use a gauge to make specials into EX attacks), new players often think that special attacks are better than regular ones but if that were the case why are the regulars even in the game?
Special attacks aren't necessary or different in any form, you can jut as well merge them into the simple moveset of the character.
How's that any meaningful depth in a game? If you want a medium specialized on story and meaning read a book or something, don't expect it from a game that's designed for gaming.
The court protocol is available to the public, there's tons of quotes about what he did (ran several diffamation campaigns against anyone he fought, after a judge told him to stop he started attacking the judge too, always including harrassment in the form of constant spam faxes to the victim as well as contacting their co-workers and relatives with false claims). Even his antics at the disbarrment trial were unacceptable, that protocol made me laugh several times and I don't think court documents should do that (his initial filing included several pages of gay porn). That guy is somewhere between a fucking idiot and a menace to society.
The review of Eternity's Child I saw described it as horrible. Unresponsive controls, really annoying battles and graphics that fell apart the moment they started moving. IIRC you were required to jump to platforms you couldn't see at times (i.e. guess if there's something offscreen you can land on or just bottomless pits).
Slashdot Mirror
Pfft, B mode doesn't count. Everyone plays only A mode. Do they even include B mode in newer versions?
It's a feeling of futility, they think voting anything else doesn't help, the election system crushes minorities under its heel.
You only noticed today?
Fine by me. If you don't want something copied, then don't release it!
No problem, once it's on the books that any work can be copied freely you can expect the market to adjust quickly and disband any companies making anything that relies on copyright to make money. Just don't do that before it's agreed upon because then most people follow the old rules and those who ignore them will continue to get punished when caught.
Neither does tax evasion.
They're promoting the artists and the cause of the arts at their own expense! How kind of them, and how wonderfully human of people, to want to share a good thing with others. It somewhat restores my hope for humanity when people share artistic works.
You know, I'd see this as a more positive sign if this kind of sharing had any real costs but you can just slap the files on a USB stick and share. When it doesn't cost them money people will gladly share just for getting recognition in return. Now if it cost, say, $10 to make such a copy for whatever reason do you think these people would still share so freely?
Well, you can probably name a number large enough that noone could count to it since doing so would exceed the human lifespan (and you can extend that to computers and the lifespan of the universe) but then again it's math and practicality is somebody else's problem there.
It wasn't particularly hard either, so it's great for casual gamers too.
I hate it when people say that. "Casual" gamers want games that are easy to understand, not easy to win. Noone can win Tetris, it gets as hard as you can handle and then you lose yet it's not something limited to elite players.
Odds are they'll charge more than that anyway.
However, as seems to happen a lot in technology, cheap crap is better at moving upmarket while staying cheap than premium gear is at moving downmarket while staying good.
There's a term for that.
Especially since it was possible to have two 3d cards in a PC in the past, I had an Ati 3d Charger and a 3DFX Voodoo in the same system and almost always got a drop down box which one to use (modern games still have it, in case you ever wondered why there's a dropdown box with "primary graphics driver: <card name>" in the setup).
I prefer to think of it as a manic evil laugh.
In its place they added the "rapture" to their doctrine. No idea why.
The problem with claiming "macroevolution" isn't proven is that it's up to THEM to show what the hell "macroevolution" is supposed to be and why it cannot happen because the distinction does not exist per se. We know evolution can happen, unless they can show that "macroevolution" is somehow different it HAS been shown as possible. It's like asserting lightspeed differs at "macro distances" without showing that there is any difference between "micro" and "macro" distances and using that to claim that lightspeed is not absolute.
We got two (actually more but let's limit it to these two) accounts of how the world came to be. One is a written text, accessible to anyone, conveniently explains all you'd want to know and was the predominant belief for centuries if not millenia with loads of people still holding onto it. The other is fossil, requires advanced scientific techniques to even notice, never mind interpret, has long and complicated trails needed to explain itself, still isn't known completely, is hard to grasp for the human understanding without a lot of education and hasn't even been found for the longest time. Now let's assume one of the two is a fake intended to trick people into going to hell. Additionally we have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity and its antagonist (assuming the person seeking guidance is a Christian). A benevolent deity would not try to trick people into eternal torment (that is possibly the most evil act possible so an entity doing that would probably qualify more as omnimalevolent). However an antagonist would. Which is more inside the scope of the antagonist's abilities, writing a book or changing the physical structure of the entire fucking planet/universe?
Then again the fundies seem to believe that God didn't give man reason so that man may use it but to trip man up...
Fish fossils on top of mountains, [..] really does kinda fit with the whole water theory.
Or, you know, tectonic plate movement.
So Last Thursdayism it is, then?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment affects all levels of the government, not just Congress. Otherwise a state could ban free speech.
Depends on how you see that, you pretty much have to know the depth in any competitive game so the complexity/depth split narrows. IMO it'd help more if game tutorials went beyond explaining the controls and went into some of the depth too (e.g. "this is how you perform a standard launcher air combo" and "Roman Cancels are used like this"). It's no wonder newbies feel intimidated when all they know about a game is manualspeak (i.e. an explanation that involves more fluff and hyperbole than actually useful knowledge, something that would describe just how fierce an attack is instead of saying "does moderate damage, covers a wide area to the front and top, vulnerable to crouched attacks").
I don't think there's anything wrong with going like Smash Bros or Bleach DS and make special moves single button affairs, if the game is balanced the input isn't needed as a hurdle for a move. You can do as many special moves as you want IMO, I don't think there's a real split between special and regular attacks except where the game adds it (e.g. being able to use a gauge to make specials into EX attacks), new players often think that special attacks are better than regular ones but if that were the case why are the regulars even in the game?
Special attacks aren't necessary or different in any form, you can jut as well merge them into the simple moveset of the character.
How's that any meaningful depth in a game? If you want a medium specialized on story and meaning read a book or something, don't expect it from a game that's designed for gaming.
Reminds me more of why that election system sucks: In a nation of 300 million or thereabouts 269 votes are enough to change the outcome 100%?
And having bought, played, and watched games for over 25 years, I do have a lot of insight as to what's going to fail in today's market.
Did you predict the Wii (along with Wii Sports and Fit) correctly? The analysts failed at that.
The court protocol is available to the public, there's tons of quotes about what he did (ran several diffamation campaigns against anyone he fought, after a judge told him to stop he started attacking the judge too, always including harrassment in the form of constant spam faxes to the victim as well as contacting their co-workers and relatives with false claims). Even his antics at the disbarrment trial were unacceptable, that protocol made me laugh several times and I don't think court documents should do that (his initial filing included several pages of gay porn). That guy is somewhere between a fucking idiot and a menace to society.
Is turning Darwinia into a multiplayer war really a good idea?
The review of Eternity's Child I saw described it as horrible. Unresponsive controls, really annoying battles and graphics that fell apart the moment they started moving. IIRC you were required to jump to platforms you couldn't see at times (i.e. guess if there's something offscreen you can land on or just bottomless pits).