OK, so make it 15. My point was that 17/18 was a little old and that younger kids could handle MA games and R movies, but they shouldn't be avaible to kids of *any* age. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Thanks for actually responding to my question. Everyone else seemed to take offense to the fact that I would associate a GTA game with a PS2 instead of the PC. I didn't think about the PC version, mostly because of the context of your comment (you mentioned the alternatives being Mario-clones -- another game always associated with consoles).
Insterestingly enough, I *am* aware of something called the Per-so-nal Com-pu-ter. I'm using it right now to respond to someone else's post like an adult and not the troll I was somehow made out to be.
"It's now illegal to sell an M rated game to a minor in California, thanks to the Governator.
I mean, it's not like he'd actively try to hamper the sale of video games so that youngsters disposable income would be spent on his latest action flick.
To summarize: Arnold pretending to kill terrorists on the big screen, is A-OK. Nothing more american than Arnold Shwartzenegger. But me pretending to kill terrorists on the small screen, not OK."
Well, if you're 17 or older, it's A-OK to watch one of his R-rated movies. The one year age difference in rating systems notwithstanding, it seems like the same thing to me.
I'd say 17-18 is a bit old for the cut off in either case -- 16 would probably be more reasonable, but I definitely wouldn't want my kids playing something like GTA before they were old enough to fully understand the difference between what's OK to do in a game and what's OK to do in real life.
"select nerds from slashdot_comments where takes_a_joke='way too seriously'
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00942: table or view does not exist...
I don't think this statement does what you want it to"
The fact that you went so far as to run the query and even consult slashcode is more than enough for me.
Thanks.
It probably wouldn't be too difficult for Valve to send out a final update to all of their Steam games that would allow them to function without authentication.
Who knows if they actually would, but what would they have to lose? They're already going out of business anyway (at this point in the thoretical argument) so the least they could do would be to let everyone keep playing their games.
Again, this isn't an argument for Steam being a good idea, or even a marginally acceptable one, just an observation on what would be possible if Valva were to actually go out of business and/or shut down the authentication servers.
Obviously it's not as simple as that -- what about people who want to reinstall from the cd after that? or someone who buys the retail game after the servers go down... but once the update is out I would imagine it could stay available as a downloadable file for long as its needed, whether or not its actually directly from Valve.
"Unlocking the game took between 45-60 minutes (on a fast cablemodem line)."
As far as I know, the actual "unlocking the game" process has less to do with your connection speed and more to do with your CPU speed. I'm sure some people *were* experiencing longer waits due to the server overload, but a large part of the process is your machine unpacking all the local files once the game has been verified as a legal version.
How does the price of software (mac or PC) have any relation to whether or not hardware is overpriced? Does OS X now come with Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, Fireworks, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro (just to name a few of the applications I would need on either platform... PC equivalents obviously for FCP and DVDSP)?
As far as I know most or all of those applications (and most others) are comparably priced for either platform.
And if you're just talking about the OS and bundled software, I still don't see how that has any bearing on what is considered "overpriced." I can build a PC that will perform the same or better than a top of the line G5 for a lot less than the cost of the G5. I already have all the software I need and if I didn't, I'd have to buy it either way, since none of what I need comes with either OS. iPhoto and iMovie just aren't gonna cut it for the work that I do.
Maybe a casual user who will get a lot of use out of all the included Mac software and won't need to buy anything else is getting a bit more for his money. Either way, the Mac costs more. Its up to the individual to decide what "overpriced" means. If they prefer the interface and overall experience and are willing to spend a a bit more money, than it's certainly not "over"-priced in their mind, just the price they're willing to pay to get the experience that they want.
I've always used PCs but if I could afford one I'd love to have a Mac as well. I know a lot more about Windows than OSX and I play a lot of PC games (and like to get them as soon as they are available) so I use Windows for now. I'm not sure if the games I play being available on the Mac would be enough to make a total switch, but it would be nice to have more options in the game department.
So by that logic, if the technology were available to create perfect copies of physical materials (as opposed to more intangible things like music and software), then it wouldn't be stealing to walk into a store with a "perfect copy maker" (or whatever it ends up being called) and just making copies of everything you want.. instead of buying them.
I realize this is sort of a ridiculous argument, but it all has to do with what technology will allow you to easily do and whether or not that still constitutes "stealing," since it's technically not the same as the traditional definition of stealing - taking someone elses property.
As technology evolves, the way we define stealing (among other things) needs to evolve as well.
Well by that same logic, our "normal," sober experience of reality isn't necessarily an indication of what the absolute reality actually is... if that makes any sense. We have evolved in a certain way and we experience reality through the filter of our own bodies and minds. Just because LSD only adds to (or subtracts from) that filter, that doesn't make the experience that you have any less "real." It's just from a different perspective.
I know that sounds sort of ridiculous, but I just have a hard time with the idea that because human beings experience "reality" in a certain way, that that somehow defines what reality actually is. And that's not to say that I even disagree whit.. just adding to the discussion.
As someone who has had several "flashbacks" I would strongly disagree with that part of your statement. Just because you've never had one doesn't mean it can never happen. This is one of the dangers of prohibiting any kind of research on these drugs -- there are some many conflicting reports of what they can and can't do, it's hard to know who to believe.
Having said that, I've never had full-blown, peak-of-the-acid-experience type flashbacks, and I'll admit I'm still not sure if that's possible, but I have experienced being on acid without actually taking any. Every time it has happened it was triggered by some kind of stress or anxiety, so it may be a combination of "flashback" and anxiety attack, but this is a much different anxiety attack than one that you would have if you had never taken LSD.
Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there for what it's worth. Obviously, this doesn't *prove* that flashbacks are possible, but in my experience they are.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so make it 15. My point was that 17/18 was a little old and that younger kids could handle MA games and R movies, but they shouldn't be avaible to kids of *any* age. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Thanks for actually responding to my question. Everyone else seemed to take offense to the fact that I would associate a GTA game with a PS2 instead of the PC. I didn't think about the PC version, mostly because of the context of your comment (you mentioned the alternatives being Mario-clones -- another game always associated with consoles).
Insterestingly enough, I *am* aware of something called the Per-so-nal Com-pu-ter. I'm using it right now to respond to someone else's post like an adult and not the troll I was somehow made out to be.
"It's now illegal to sell an M rated game to a minor in California, thanks to the Governator.
I mean, it's not like he'd actively try to hamper the sale of video games so that youngsters disposable income would be spent on his latest action flick.
To summarize: Arnold pretending to kill terrorists on the big screen, is A-OK. Nothing more american than Arnold Shwartzenegger. But me pretending to kill terrorists on the small screen, not OK."
Well, if you're 17 or older, it's A-OK to watch one of his R-rated movies. The one year age difference in rating systems notwithstanding, it seems like the same thing to me.
I'd say 17-18 is a bit old for the cut off in either case -- 16 would probably be more reasonable, but I definitely wouldn't want my kids playing something like GTA before they were old enough to fully understand the difference between what's OK to do in a game and what's OK to do in real life.
"I, for example, have little to no contact with pop culture. I have no TV," ...
"But, I love the Grand Theft Auto series. They're fun games. Good relaxation after a 16 hour day of work."
Just out of curiosity, how do you play GTA without a TV?"
"select nerds from slashdot_comments where takes_a_joke='way too seriously' * ERROR at line 1: ORA-00942: table or view does not exist ...
I don't think this statement does what you want it to"
The fact that you went so far as to run the query and even consult slashcode is more than enough for me.
Thanks.
SELECT nerds FROM slashdot_comments WHERE takes_a_joke='way too seriously'
It probably wouldn't be too difficult for Valve to send out a final update to all of their Steam games that would allow them to function without authentication. Who knows if they actually would, but what would they have to lose? They're already going out of business anyway (at this point in the thoretical argument) so the least they could do would be to let everyone keep playing their games. Again, this isn't an argument for Steam being a good idea, or even a marginally acceptable one, just an observation on what would be possible if Valva were to actually go out of business and/or shut down the authentication servers. Obviously it's not as simple as that -- what about people who want to reinstall from the cd after that? or someone who buys the retail game after the servers go down... but once the update is out I would imagine it could stay available as a downloadable file for long as its needed, whether or not its actually directly from Valve.
"Unlocking the game took between 45-60 minutes (on a fast cablemodem line)."
As far as I know, the actual "unlocking the game" process has less to do with your connection speed and more to do with your CPU speed. I'm sure some people *were* experiencing longer waits due to the server overload, but a large part of the process is your machine unpacking all the local files once the game has been verified as a legal version.
How does the price of software (mac or PC) have any relation to whether or not hardware is overpriced? Does OS X now come with Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, Fireworks, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro (just to name a few of the applications I would need on either platform... PC equivalents obviously for FCP and DVDSP)?
As far as I know most or all of those applications (and most others) are comparably priced for either platform.
And if you're just talking about the OS and bundled software, I still don't see how that has any bearing on what is considered "overpriced." I can build a PC that will perform the same or better than a top of the line G5 for a lot less than the cost of the G5. I already have all the software I need and if I didn't, I'd have to buy it either way, since none of what I need comes with either OS. iPhoto and iMovie just aren't gonna cut it for the work that I do.
Maybe a casual user who will get a lot of use out of all the included Mac software and won't need to buy anything else is getting a bit more for his money. Either way, the Mac costs more. Its up to the individual to decide what "overpriced" means. If they prefer the interface and overall experience and are willing to spend a a bit more money, than it's certainly not "over"-priced in their mind, just the price they're willing to pay to get the experience that they want.
I've always used PCs but if I could afford one I'd love to have a Mac as well. I know a lot more about Windows than OSX and I play a lot of PC games (and like to get them as soon as they are available) so I use Windows for now. I'm not sure if the games I play being available on the Mac would be enough to make a total switch, but it would be nice to have more options in the game department.
So by that logic, if the technology were available to create perfect copies of physical materials (as opposed to more intangible things like music and software), then it wouldn't be stealing to walk into a store with a "perfect copy maker" (or whatever it ends up being called) and just making copies of everything you want.. instead of buying them. I realize this is sort of a ridiculous argument, but it all has to do with what technology will allow you to easily do and whether or not that still constitutes "stealing," since it's technically not the same as the traditional definition of stealing - taking someone elses property. As technology evolves, the way we define stealing (among other things) needs to evolve as well.
Well by that same logic, our "normal," sober experience of reality isn't necessarily an indication of what the absolute reality actually is... if that makes any sense. We have evolved in a certain way and we experience reality through the filter of our own bodies and minds. Just because LSD only adds to (or subtracts from) that filter, that doesn't make the experience that you have any less "real." It's just from a different perspective. I know that sounds sort of ridiculous, but I just have a hard time with the idea that because human beings experience "reality" in a certain way, that that somehow defines what reality actually is. And that's not to say that I even disagree whit.. just adding to the discussion.
As someone who has had several "flashbacks" I would strongly disagree with that part of your statement. Just because you've never had one doesn't mean it can never happen. This is one of the dangers of prohibiting any kind of research on these drugs -- there are some many conflicting reports of what they can and can't do, it's hard to know who to believe. Having said that, I've never had full-blown, peak-of-the-acid-experience type flashbacks, and I'll admit I'm still not sure if that's possible, but I have experienced being on acid without actually taking any. Every time it has happened it was triggered by some kind of stress or anxiety, so it may be a combination of "flashback" and anxiety attack, but this is a much different anxiety attack than one that you would have if you had never taken LSD. Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there for what it's worth. Obviously, this doesn't *prove* that flashbacks are possible, but in my experience they are.