Outside of expansion releases I don't think I've ever played a PC game with micro transactions (would an expansion even count?).
Clunky UI equals I won't waste my time with it which is an individual's worst grade for a game. Meanwhile, I could play something with micro transactions if they were done right.
I disagree with "often for the worst". I can't even play a lot of older games I used to love because the old UI's were so clunky and/or terrible. That alone puts modern games well ahead of older ones in my mind.
The average age of a gamer in 2016 was 35. http://essentialfacts.theesa.c... . I realize that what constitutes a gamer can differ widely based on who you ask but what this assuredly says in that adults play lots of games.
In other words getting older does not equal too old for video games. Sure, your personal tastes have changed over time, mine have too. I have no use for pro sports anymore and I used to love that stuff when I was a kid. Some one starts rattling off team and player names at me now and my eyes just glaze over. (My favorite is when some one asks me if I caught "the game" last night. What the hell are you even talking about?) Do I think pro sports are childish and for kids? Of course not, tons of adults enjoy them. Pro sports just arent to my taste.
I still enjoy video games however and am well into being a responsible adult (although I have less time for them nowadays:( ). Don't confuse your own experience with everyone's reality.
and I hope they take you away with the commies. There's always been a small part of me that has liked unnecessarily loud cars and motorcycles as it lets me spot the asshole. Your signature does much the same for me.
So many lives have been lost to communists but so many lives have been lost to anti-communists. You're either profoundly naive or a degenerate. When the heavens open it wont be communists that go to hell first, it will be those who chose to sell their fellow man to those who came for them. It's the extremes of every ideology that should be shunned.
In this political climate making an issue out of a literally non existent communist issue makes you seem like a fascists. And oh how you'll crow against that. I look forward to that ignorant self justification.
All I see here is "My ideology is pure and the best, everyone else endorses what I see as wrong with the world, especially those that disagree with me most"
Jesus, what country do you live in? That's some of the worst product packaging I've ever seen. I'm looking at a bottle of chili sauce in that link and have absolutely no interest in buying it despite the fact that I love chili sauce.
In answer to your question though, I've never seen that brand in the US.
It's funny, I really do associate the yellow box with Cheerios, it really is a distinctive feature of the brand. Furthermore, there are items on that list that I associate less with their trademarked colors then I do with Cheerios. Especially T-mobile magenta.
On the other hand, I feel like trademarking a color is bullshit.
My thirty seconds reading the article elicited a complex range of opinions that are sure to disappear 5 minutes after I've posted this
Well if someone's motivation for actively discriminating against someone is their religion it's really not any different than if they are because of some other personally held beliefs. Would our segregationist laws been any better if they were all justified religiously?
The post you were replying to originally also used my prior language of "hardcore" Christians and Muslims as a means of separating out the vast majority of normal people from the extremists who actively put their beliefs on others in an oppressive manner.
Finally, there are extremists in every ideology that would ban contrary beliefs, this is not at all a unique quality of certain SJWs.
Sadly for you things just arent irrellevant because you say they are. Also, changing your wording from prior posts from redistribution to subsidation wont fly with me.
You might as well say the president does because they veto a spending bill. The system is all intertwined and is currently working just fine. Congress does indeed control the bulk of our country's spending however
Answer me this, should we as Americas been tolerant of the South's racially based segregationist laws?
If you answer "no" then you've just made my core point, the rest is just debating details and scope. If "yes" then you are in favor of allowing people to oppress others along racial lines which certainly isnt tolerance either and you are thus a hypocrite.
There are plenty of things that aren't a crime but are undesirable and warrant keeping an eye on. Is it a crime to work on sensitive data but maintain constant contact with the Chinese government? Not at all until you transmit some of that data to them. Likewise with members of hate groups, be they white supremacist, Muslim extremist, or anything else.
Hey, it's you again. Sorry but reality means there are people that that benefit more from our military spending than others. Don't think so? Then why do we spend billions on the Middle east but spend almost nothing on the violence in Africa?
Then you suggest as a counter argument that policing isn't re-distributive to the wealthy. You are correct in some ways and I even realized that prior to hitting submit but didn't change my own text because I wanted to get your response. You're response literally stated that policing funds are sometimes re distributive to the poor thus confirming more core point. Thanks for that.
You seem very catholic in said opinion. As some one of a Catholic background I reject such things as original sin. One only has to look at the plethora of studies done on young children playing amongst themselves. They could give a rats ass about ethnicity or anything else unless they were told to believe otherwise.
So I'm scum for not liking those intolerant of others? So the abolitionist was scum for fighting for the freedom of slaves? So the civil rights advocate was scum for advocating equality?
Sorry, there is no equivalency between those who oppose forcing ones will on others in a negative fashion and those who oppose such actions.
The problem with being tolerant of discrimination is that you are then in favor of limiting the opportunities of said class being discriminated against. Being tolerant of discrimination would have meant letting segregation and all of its negative effects on black people stay in place in America. After all, these policies were all properly voted in at the state level.
I would certainly agree that tribalism is inherent to humanity and something we all engage in even if it is sometimes unconscious. On the other hand I regard it as the primitive "devil" in all of us and is the cause of most of our world's woes.
By hardcore I mean those who seek to impose their beliefs on others. A belief that people should not impose their beliefs on others is not the same as one that does any more than some one who believes freedom of speech is not trying to subvert the speech of those who don't.
I understand there's plenty of room for ambiguity for things like this but anyone who describes someone as the lesser because of race/religion/sexuality/etc pretty easily falls into a category of undesirables by any part of society I have any respect for.
Maybe you're a Nazi, maybe a hardcore Christian, maybe a hardcore Muslim, maybe some sort of other extremist. I don't care. They're all scum to me.
On the other hand if you're for a free and open society where everyone lives their lives according to their own beliefs that don't impede others then you're on my team and I refuse to stereotype people based on their backgrounds.
Trolling? What the hell are you talking about? I'm all for freedom of speech but as a society committed to freedom and openness we do need to keep an eye on our least desirable elements.
Yes, there was regrettable violence on both sides. The big difference between the sides though is that one was heavily influence by racist supporters while the other by counter protesters to them. These are not equivalent factions and that is the problem with how Trump handled this.
Sure, if you are only shopping top tier phones. I think the poster is referring to the fact that there are a ton of phones out there for very reasonable prices that do everything the average consumer would want reasonably well and for far less.
Personally, as a long time Samsung loyalist, I'm done with Samsung unless they come out with something really different from their competitors. As it stands now, I look at their new phones and see minor feature advantages, system speed upgrades I don't need, features I'll never use, and a price tag twice as much as a non name brand phone that would fit my needs just fine. I really think that most people buying the last couple of Samsung's have been dropping a couple extra hundred for a brand name.
Slashdot Mirror
Outside of expansion releases I don't think I've ever played a PC game with micro transactions (would an expansion even count?).
Clunky UI equals I won't waste my time with it which is an individual's worst grade for a game. Meanwhile, I could play something with micro transactions if they were done right.
I disagree with "often for the worst". I can't even play a lot of older games I used to love because the old UI's were so clunky and/or terrible. That alone puts modern games well ahead of older ones in my mind.
The average age of a gamer in 2016 was 35. http://essentialfacts.theesa.c... . I realize that what constitutes a gamer can differ widely based on who you ask but what this assuredly says in that adults play lots of games.
In other words getting older does not equal too old for video games. Sure, your personal tastes have changed over time, mine have too. I have no use for pro sports anymore and I used to love that stuff when I was a kid. Some one starts rattling off team and player names at me now and my eyes just glaze over. (My favorite is when some one asks me if I caught "the game" last night. What the hell are you even talking about?) Do I think pro sports are childish and for kids? Of course not, tons of adults enjoy them. Pro sports just arent to my taste.
I still enjoy video games however and am well into being a responsible adult (although I have less time for them nowadays :( ). Don't confuse your own experience with everyone's reality.
and I hope they take you away with the commies. There's always been a small part of me that has liked unnecessarily loud cars and motorcycles as it lets me spot the asshole. Your signature does much the same for me.
So many lives have been lost to communists but so many lives have been lost to anti-communists. You're either profoundly naive or a degenerate. When the heavens open it wont be communists that go to hell first, it will be those who chose to sell their fellow man to those who came for them. It's the extremes of every ideology that should be shunned.
In this political climate making an issue out of a literally non existent communist issue makes you seem like a fascists. And oh how you'll crow against that. I look forward to that ignorant self justification.
All I see here is "My ideology is pure and the best, everyone else endorses what I see as wrong with the world, especially those that disagree with me most"
Give me a break you hack
Jesus, what country do you live in? That's some of the worst product packaging I've ever seen. I'm looking at a bottle of chili sauce in that link and have absolutely no interest in buying it despite the fact that I love chili sauce.
In answer to your question though, I've never seen that brand in the US.
It's funny, I really do associate the yellow box with Cheerios, it really is a distinctive feature of the brand. Furthermore, there are items on that list that I associate less with their trademarked colors then I do with Cheerios. Especially T-mobile magenta.
On the other hand, I feel like trademarking a color is bullshit.
My thirty seconds reading the article elicited a complex range of opinions that are sure to disappear 5 minutes after I've posted this
Why can't the meat be grown in a sterile environment?
Well if someone's motivation for actively discriminating against someone is their religion it's really not any different than if they are because of some other personally held beliefs. Would our segregationist laws been any better if they were all justified religiously?
The post you were replying to originally also used my prior language of "hardcore" Christians and Muslims as a means of separating out the vast majority of normal people from the extremists who actively put their beliefs on others in an oppressive manner.
Finally, there are extremists in every ideology that would ban contrary beliefs, this is not at all a unique quality of certain SJWs.
Sadly for you things just arent irrellevant because you say they are. Also, changing your wording from prior posts from redistribution to subsidation wont fly with me.
You might as well say the president does because they veto a spending bill. The system is all intertwined and is currently working just fine. Congress does indeed control the bulk of our country's spending however
You're arguing a slipperly slope. Nice.
Answer me this, should we as Americas been tolerant of the South's racially based segregationist laws?
If you answer "no" then you've just made my core point, the rest is just debating details and scope. If "yes" then you are in favor of allowing people to oppress others along racial lines which certainly isnt tolerance either and you are thus a hypocrite.
There are plenty of things that aren't a crime but are undesirable and warrant keeping an eye on. Is it a crime to work on sensitive data but maintain constant contact with the Chinese government? Not at all until you transmit some of that data to them. Likewise with members of hate groups, be they white supremacist, Muslim extremist, or anything else.
So the courts are holding those who control the purse strings accountable for their actions. Sounds like the system is working fine to me.
Hey, it's you again. Sorry but reality means there are people that that benefit more from our military spending than others. Don't think so? Then why do we spend billions on the Middle east but spend almost nothing on the violence in Africa?
Or how about military spending out of line with what voters want or even what the military wants?
http://time.com/4253842/defens...
http://www.military.com/daily-...
Then you suggest as a counter argument that policing isn't re-distributive to the wealthy. You are correct in some ways and I even realized that prior to hitting submit but didn't change my own text because I wanted to get your response. You're response literally stated that policing funds are sometimes re distributive to the poor thus confirming more core point. Thanks for that.
You seem very catholic in said opinion. As some one of a Catholic background I reject such things as original sin. One only has to look at the plethora of studies done on young children playing amongst themselves. They could give a rats ass about ethnicity or anything else unless they were told to believe otherwise.
So I'm scum for not liking those intolerant of others? So the abolitionist was scum for fighting for the freedom of slaves? So the civil rights advocate was scum for advocating equality?
Sorry, there is no equivalency between those who oppose forcing ones will on others in a negative fashion and those who oppose such actions.
The problem with being tolerant of discrimination is that you are then in favor of limiting the opportunities of said class being discriminated against. Being tolerant of discrimination would have meant letting segregation and all of its negative effects on black people stay in place in America. After all, these policies were all properly voted in at the state level.
I would certainly agree that tribalism is inherent to humanity and something we all engage in even if it is sometimes unconscious. On the other hand I regard it as the primitive "devil" in all of us and is the cause of most of our world's woes.
By hardcore I mean those who seek to impose their beliefs on others. A belief that people should not impose their beliefs on others is not the same as one that does any more than some one who believes freedom of speech is not trying to subvert the speech of those who don't.
I understand there's plenty of room for ambiguity for things like this but anyone who describes someone as the lesser because of race/religion/sexuality/etc pretty easily falls into a category of undesirables by any part of society I have any respect for.
Maybe you're a Nazi, maybe a hardcore Christian, maybe a hardcore Muslim, maybe some sort of other extremist. I don't care. They're all scum to me.
On the other hand if you're for a free and open society where everyone lives their lives according to their own beliefs that don't impede others then you're on my team and I refuse to stereotype people based on their backgrounds.
Yeah, describing some one else as the lesser because they are of another race/religion/sexuality/etc is hard to pick out.
Maybe not?
Trolling? What the hell are you talking about? I'm all for freedom of speech but as a society committed to freedom and openness we do need to keep an eye on our least desirable elements.
Yes, there was regrettable violence on both sides. The big difference between the sides though is that one was heavily influence by racist supporters while the other by counter protesters to them. These are not equivalent factions and that is the problem with how Trump handled this.
Sure, if you are only shopping top tier phones. I think the poster is referring to the fact that there are a ton of phones out there for very reasonable prices that do everything the average consumer would want reasonably well and for far less.
Personally, as a long time Samsung loyalist, I'm done with Samsung unless they come out with something really different from their competitors. As it stands now, I look at their new phones and see minor feature advantages, system speed upgrades I don't need, features I'll never use, and a price tag twice as much as a non name brand phone that would fit my needs just fine. I really think that most people buying the last couple of Samsung's have been dropping a couple extra hundred for a brand name.
I get it, you don't like the modern scope of government. That still doesnt mean that congress doesnt control the purse strings.