I remember the "What's New?" thing you're talking about. But I have a PSN account. PSN+, in fact (just recently upgraded) and I haven't seen it in like a year, despite constantly updating. Just fiddle around in the settings and you can get it to start anywhere, I believe.
And for the record, I do believe there is a difference between a tiny ad within an icon that links to a store built into the system and actually displaying full video ads.
I've always found the "Teach the controversy!" line to be humorous. How much controversy is necessary to require equal representation in a classroom? If I raise enough of a stink, can I get a school to teach alchemy alongside chemistry?
You may be right. I've also had the feeling that some of the "difficult" games of the past may seem much more challenging today due to some overall improvements in designs today and just being younger and less able back then.
Honestly, I know that feeling. I've been gaming for over two decades and I often miss a really good challenge, and to slowly, and methodically make my way through a game. Of course, I also have both college work and a job to take care of, so I don't have the same time to do that, and a backlog of games to play.
Actually, the game should be between 1 rock, 1 piece of paper, and 1 pair of scissors, which is a refinement we will make sure to be in the actual draft.
See, THIS is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to declare Rock, Paper, Scissors as a game between 1 man, 1 rock, and 1 pair of scissors, period. No additional rules, no changies, no shotgun.
Thank you. We can sit here and disagree all we want, I just hate it when people make these things out to be life or death. People act like the second [Insert candidate here] is elected the bombs will start dropping, the zombies will rise up, and jaywalking will run rampant.
You make a good point about other companies being bad, but let's make a few notes here:
I doubt many people will claim that Disney never made good, inspired movies. They most certainly have, but many feel they've lost any sense of originality. Secondly, I don't like giving credit to Disney for Pixar movies. Pixar is now part of Disney, yes, but as I understand it, they have a certain level of autonomy.
Have you seen the 3DS store? The selection (at least here in the states) is abysmal. Nintendo has a huge selection of old, classic games but they're just not coming to the system and it drives me crazy.
I agree, and I think, for many people, and I'm basing this on my own experiences, so feel free to call bullshit on this, religion is more about comforting people from really, really horrible truths.
People can go through a lot. History is full of people suffering horrible fates and basically having their entire lives destroyed. Now imagine going to someone whose entire family has been murdered in a senseless war or someone who is dying of some incurable, painful disease that there is no explicit reason for these things happening beyond "well, you had land and that warlord wanted it" or "you were unfortunate enough to be born with a genetic predisposition towards this particular disease and medical science has not gotten to the point where it can fix it, assuming it ever can."
It's not hard to see why many people would choose to believe the hardships they face are part of some grand plan that will, eventually, lead to everyone everywhere being happy.
Of course, personally, any plan that involves rape, torture, disease, faminine, pestilence, arson, murder, and jaywalking, is not really a plan I feel comfortable being a part of.
I'd be kind of interested to see a poll to test this idea that at least 2/3 of Americans would be for anything used on suspected terrorists.
"Do you support training Olympic athletes to hurl javelins (the spear not the missle) long range at suspected terrorists?" "Do you support training an army of suicide bombers to pre-bomb suspected terrorists?" "Do you support cutting off parts of countries that harbor suspected terrorists and floating them out to sea?" "Do you support opening a transdimensional portal to the Realm of the Dark Ones to place suspected terrorists?"
I'd like to know just how outlandish you'd need to go before support dropped.
I had a boss who became a born-again Christian (this is in the U.S., for reference) and afterwards he would always spout on and on about how every single word in the Bible was true and there were no contradictions. I suspect a lot of what he said and what he believed was sort of passed-on to him. He would always talk about Bible groups and people who showed him movies, and it was they, for instance, who taught him that the ACLU is trying to legalize child pornography.
It's also kind of funny. Before he was "saved," he once told me that as long as people let him do his own thing, it didn't matter what they believed or did. I later expressed that view to him and he told me that was Satan's viewpoint.
The "teleprompter thing" is mostly just people trying to justify their dislike for the man. When we dislike someone, we tend to latch on to any little thing to validate our dislike, regardless of how valid a complaint it is.
Please note, this is neither a defense nor an attack on Obama. This has happened with pretty much every political figure in history (that you could legally speak ill of in public).
I think you're right here, and we have to specify that when we talk about Creationism, we're talking about God--errr, some, unknown all-powerful, unspecified being that is most definitely NOT just a thinly disguised Judeo-Christian God so that the theory's followers can claim it's not a religious theory--just magically making every living thing appear on Earth as they are today and there is no long-term change to any species.
Because here's the thing. Evolution doesn't prohibit the existence or influence of any given deity. Evolution is completely indifferent. Maybe some God created the system of Evolution. Maybe some deity created the universe and set in motion the events that would create evolution. Evolution is about how one species becomes another, how small changes in genetics add up over time and how that reflects on the world. Why life started in the first place, if there is some intrinsic meaning to life, or other questions of a similar nature are, to my understanding, irrelevant to the point of figuring out how life changes.
So, what happens when you get your politics in the sciences? Should we ignore that because, you know, it'll cause arguing which will cause some people to act immaturely?
Of course not. Politics affect science. And politics is frequently wrong. Just look at all the "vaccines cause autism!" scares that happened.
I'm also sure/. is pretty tame compared to most places. Which is sad, but true.
I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that a woman just hops down to Planned Parenthood, has an abortion, and they're back to normal. I think a huge part of what people are saying here is rape leaves scars. Deep, horrible mental scars. Abortion or no, it stays with you.
And if I may say, part of this abortion debate is about whether a fetus *IS* in fact human to begin with. Many would contend that it is not. Does it contain human DNA? Most certainly. Will it develop into a human being? Barring unforeseen acts, such as the death of the mother or a miscarriage, yes. Does that make it a full human being with all the intrinsic rights? Some would argue no, it does not, until it reaches a period wherein it is self-aware and reasonably developed or some other benchmark.
It'd be nice if we could get people to only have sex in committed, monogamous relationships, where both partners were sure they were safe, mentally prepared, and willing and able to face the repercussions that can come from even safe-sex.
Though, as you point out, that's a dream. Teens are horny. They have sex. Telling them not to have sex has worked exactly never in history. So the age-limits and teaching teens about safe-sex is about the best we can do.
The problem is that other members are NOT responsible for what he said. Only he is. If tomorrow someone in a group I belong to says that he thinks all children everywhere should be beaten non-stop to build character, I don't need to publicly disagree with him. In fact, the only way you should hold his opinion against me is if I publicly pledge support for it. This is especially true when you consider that so many stupid things are said every day by all sides that if you had to apologize for every one said on your side, you'd never get to do anything else.
The real issue here is that, first of all, besides political parties not meaning much, "groups" like liberals, progressives, conservatives, radical religious nutjobs have very vague and subjective definitions, at least as far as our common usage of it. Many people hold views that could be regarded as a part of all of those. So who gets to decide what groups I belong to? I'm an atheist, but I'm sure some would define me as a religious nut because of that, or assume that means I agree with other atheists who say religion should be banned.
I think Chick-Fil-A's president is an ignorant blowhard. However, he is entitled to the right to be an ignorant blowhard. The mayor can call him an ignorant blowhard and could even attend a "Chick-Fil-A's President Is An Ignorant Blowhard Parade" if he so chose.
But the second he threatens to use government resources to reprimand him? That's over the line.
However, I'd also like to point out that he is one man. I do not appreciate a lot of the comments I've noticed that imply everyone who disagrees with this man somehow must also endorse the mayor's intended sanctions. This ignorant display of identity politics needs to stop. It pops up in nearly every debate. Usually in the form of "A random idiot who belongs in Group X believes Something Stupid Y. Therefore, everyone who is a member of Group X believes Something Stupid Y."
I think you're hitting it here, too. Gabe Newell of Valve was told, so the story goes, that releasing their digital game distribution system Steam in Russia was a waste of time and money because Russians pirate so much.
They launched it anyway and made a lot of money. Why? Well, my guess is because Steam is easy to use, comes with built-in neat features (achievements, in-game chats, auto-updates, etc.) and constantly has sales that make games pretty damn cheap. (As in, 60%+ off)
Basically, if you can't make up for a price-point (and it's hard to beat free), give people a better service. Make buying a good faster and easier. Going to the store to buy a physical copy takes time and money. Pirating is free, but runs the risk of waiting a long time (especially if what you're looking for is obscure) on top of the risks associated with malware.
For music, iTunes is a great step. But honestly, I usually don't bother with it because I've lost songs with no backup and I couldn't restore them, which soured me on the system, and I still feel that the stuff is overpriced. (This, of course, still doesn't CONDONE piracy, but let's face it. For many people, convenience and price will trump morality. It's just a fact.)
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the "What's New?" thing you're talking about. But I have a PSN account. PSN+, in fact (just recently upgraded) and I haven't seen it in like a year, despite constantly updating. Just fiddle around in the settings and you can get it to start anywhere, I believe.
And for the record, I do believe there is a difference between a tiny ad within an icon that links to a store built into the system and actually displaying full video ads.
Very well put. I often have this problem when talking to people about space exploration.
"Why should we go to space? Why do we need to do research out there? What will I get out of it?"
That's the thing. We don't know what we'll get out of it until we get it.
I've always found the "Teach the controversy!" line to be humorous. How much controversy is necessary to require equal representation in a classroom? If I raise enough of a stink, can I get a school to teach alchemy alongside chemistry?
You may be right. I've also had the feeling that some of the "difficult" games of the past may seem much more challenging today due to some overall improvements in designs today and just being younger and less able back then.
Honestly, I know that feeling. I've been gaming for over two decades and I often miss a really good challenge, and to slowly, and methodically make my way through a game. Of course, I also have both college work and a job to take care of, so I don't have the same time to do that, and a backlog of games to play.
Studies have shown that violent video games do, in fact, increase violent behavior in people.
[citation needed]
If you make anthrax illegal, only criminals will have anthrax!
Wonderella is pretty damn wonderful. Definitely on my list.
Actually, the game should be between 1 rock, 1 piece of paper, and 1 pair of scissors, which is a refinement we will make sure to be in the actual draft.
See, THIS is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to declare Rock, Paper, Scissors as a game between 1 man, 1 rock, and 1 pair of scissors, period. No additional rules, no changies, no shotgun.
Thank you.
We can sit here and disagree all we want, I just hate it when people make these things out to be life or death. People act like the second [Insert candidate here] is elected the bombs will start dropping, the zombies will rise up, and jaywalking will run rampant.
You make a good point about other companies being bad, but let's make a few notes here:
I doubt many people will claim that Disney never made good, inspired movies. They most certainly have, but many feel they've lost any sense of originality. Secondly, I don't like giving credit to Disney for Pixar movies. Pixar is now part of Disney, yes, but as I understand it, they have a certain level of autonomy.
Have you seen the 3DS store? The selection (at least here in the states) is abysmal. Nintendo has a huge selection of old, classic games but they're just not coming to the system and it drives me crazy.
I agree, and I think, for many people, and I'm basing this on my own experiences, so feel free to call bullshit on this, religion is more about comforting people from really, really horrible truths.
People can go through a lot. History is full of people suffering horrible fates and basically having their entire lives destroyed. Now imagine going to someone whose entire family has been murdered in a senseless war or someone who is dying of some incurable, painful disease that there is no explicit reason for these things happening beyond "well, you had land and that warlord wanted it" or "you were unfortunate enough to be born with a genetic predisposition towards this particular disease and medical science has not gotten to the point where it can fix it, assuming it ever can."
It's not hard to see why many people would choose to believe the hardships they face are part of some grand plan that will, eventually, lead to everyone everywhere being happy.
Of course, personally, any plan that involves rape, torture, disease, faminine, pestilence, arson, murder, and jaywalking, is not really a plan I feel comfortable being a part of.
I'd be kind of interested to see a poll to test this idea that at least 2/3 of Americans would be for anything used on suspected terrorists.
"Do you support training Olympic athletes to hurl javelins (the spear not the missle) long range at suspected terrorists?"
"Do you support training an army of suicide bombers to pre-bomb suspected terrorists?"
"Do you support cutting off parts of countries that harbor suspected terrorists and floating them out to sea?"
"Do you support opening a transdimensional portal to the Realm of the Dark Ones to place suspected terrorists?"
I'd like to know just how outlandish you'd need to go before support dropped.
I had a boss who became a born-again Christian (this is in the U.S., for reference) and afterwards he would always spout on and on about how every single word in the Bible was true and there were no contradictions. I suspect a lot of what he said and what he believed was sort of passed-on to him. He would always talk about Bible groups and people who showed him movies, and it was they, for instance, who taught him that the ACLU is trying to legalize child pornography.
It's also kind of funny. Before he was "saved," he once told me that as long as people let him do his own thing, it didn't matter what they believed or did. I later expressed that view to him and he told me that was Satan's viewpoint.
The "teleprompter thing" is mostly just people trying to justify their dislike for the man. When we dislike someone, we tend to latch on to any little thing to validate our dislike, regardless of how valid a complaint it is.
Please note, this is neither a defense nor an attack on Obama. This has happened with pretty much every political figure in history (that you could legally speak ill of in public).
I think you're right here, and we have to specify that when we talk about Creationism, we're talking about God--errr, some, unknown all-powerful, unspecified being that is most definitely NOT just a thinly disguised Judeo-Christian God so that the theory's followers can claim it's not a religious theory--just magically making every living thing appear on Earth as they are today and there is no long-term change to any species.
Because here's the thing. Evolution doesn't prohibit the existence or influence of any given deity. Evolution is completely indifferent. Maybe some God created the system of Evolution. Maybe some deity created the universe and set in motion the events that would create evolution. Evolution is about how one species becomes another, how small changes in genetics add up over time and how that reflects on the world. Why life started in the first place, if there is some intrinsic meaning to life, or other questions of a similar nature are, to my understanding, irrelevant to the point of figuring out how life changes.
So, what happens when you get your politics in the sciences? Should we ignore that because, you know, it'll cause arguing which will cause some people to act immaturely?
Of course not. Politics affect science. And politics is frequently wrong. Just look at all the "vaccines cause autism!" scares that happened.
I'm also sure /. is pretty tame compared to most places. Which is sad, but true.
I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that a woman just hops down to Planned Parenthood, has an abortion, and they're back to normal. I think a huge part of what people are saying here is rape leaves scars. Deep, horrible mental scars. Abortion or no, it stays with you.
And if I may say, part of this abortion debate is about whether a fetus *IS* in fact human to begin with. Many would contend that it is not. Does it contain human DNA? Most certainly. Will it develop into a human being? Barring unforeseen acts, such as the death of the mother or a miscarriage, yes. Does that make it a full human being with all the intrinsic rights? Some would argue no, it does not, until it reaches a period wherein it is self-aware and reasonably developed or some other benchmark.
It'd be nice if we could get people to only have sex in committed, monogamous relationships, where both partners were sure they were safe, mentally prepared, and willing and able to face the repercussions that can come from even safe-sex.
Though, as you point out, that's a dream. Teens are horny. They have sex. Telling them not to have sex has worked exactly never in history. So the age-limits and teaching teens about safe-sex is about the best we can do.
I'm pretty certain most of Ugg's claims were countered by Og's On The Denial of Privilege. It was on the cave wall next door.
The problem is that other members are NOT responsible for what he said. Only he is. If tomorrow someone in a group I belong to says that he thinks all children everywhere should be beaten non-stop to build character, I don't need to publicly disagree with him. In fact, the only way you should hold his opinion against me is if I publicly pledge support for it. This is especially true when you consider that so many stupid things are said every day by all sides that if you had to apologize for every one said on your side, you'd never get to do anything else.
The real issue here is that, first of all, besides political parties not meaning much, "groups" like liberals, progressives, conservatives, radical religious nutjobs have very vague and subjective definitions, at least as far as our common usage of it. Many people hold views that could be regarded as a part of all of those. So who gets to decide what groups I belong to? I'm an atheist, but I'm sure some would define me as a religious nut because of that, or assume that means I agree with other atheists who say religion should be banned.
I'm in agreement here.
I think Chick-Fil-A's president is an ignorant blowhard. However, he is entitled to the right to be an ignorant blowhard. The mayor can call him an ignorant blowhard and could even attend a "Chick-Fil-A's President Is An Ignorant Blowhard Parade" if he so chose.
But the second he threatens to use government resources to reprimand him? That's over the line.
However, I'd also like to point out that he is one man. I do not appreciate a lot of the comments I've noticed that imply everyone who disagrees with this man somehow must also endorse the mayor's intended sanctions. This ignorant display of identity politics needs to stop. It pops up in nearly every debate. Usually in the form of "A random idiot who belongs in Group X believes Something Stupid Y. Therefore, everyone who is a member of Group X believes Something Stupid Y."
I think you're hitting it here, too. Gabe Newell of Valve was told, so the story goes, that releasing their digital game distribution system Steam in Russia was a waste of time and money because Russians pirate so much.
They launched it anyway and made a lot of money. Why? Well, my guess is because Steam is easy to use, comes with built-in neat features (achievements, in-game chats, auto-updates, etc.) and constantly has sales that make games pretty damn cheap. (As in, 60%+ off)
Basically, if you can't make up for a price-point (and it's hard to beat free), give people a better service. Make buying a good faster and easier. Going to the store to buy a physical copy takes time and money. Pirating is free, but runs the risk of waiting a long time (especially if what you're looking for is obscure) on top of the risks associated with malware.
For music, iTunes is a great step. But honestly, I usually don't bother with it because I've lost songs with no backup and I couldn't restore them, which soured me on the system, and I still feel that the stuff is overpriced. (This, of course, still doesn't CONDONE piracy, but let's face it. For many people, convenience and price will trump morality. It's just a fact.)