Yeah, I played this one. I think what the article is going at though is the beginnings of the modern "base building, exploration, military conquest" RTS genre, played from a god like perspective which is what allot of people think of when they think RTS. Herzog Zwei really only had the military conquest part of this although it did do this very well for the period. Plus the interface was radically different then the target sub genre of RTS' the article is getting at where in Herzog Zwei you interacted with the world through a single unit which issued orders to everything else. Kind of a cool way to have the game play run but sadly I don't think it had any lasting influence.
The thing is, is that if your representative is in favor of a key issue you support but belongs to a party that does not support this issue and said party has a majority in either the House or Senate then your representative is helping them to maintain this majority. This grants the party all kinds of advantages in pushing forward their own agenda and marginalizes your representative's ability to push forward with your key issue. This is why in congressional elections I generally only vote one party (unless my favored party is putting up a complete incompetent) because even if the other party has a candidate that I like more I find their party on the national level, in general, so unappealing that I can't vote for the individual and risk giving their party a majority in the House or Senate. On the local level this changes dramatically as I have a descent amount of respect (as much as you can have in politicians I suppose...) for the local branches of both parties and third parties are a much more practical option.
Holy Christ! Our president to be is using "such and such" as his mp3 player!? Holy Christ! Some one please tell me what popular Hollywood celebrity is dating what Hollywood celebrity right now as well because this is all totally fucking relevant to my life!
As far as I know this mostly happens in conservative districts like those in the South. Honestly, I think it's adorable that people are so easily hoodwinked by Southern Democrats into thinking that the party will endorse "gun rights" just like "California Republicans" (AKA: fiscal conservatives but social liberals) think that their votes don't push forth the Religious Right's agenda.
I'm afraid I don't see either of the two major parties as so ideologically extreme as you seem to be implying (and I generally vote against one of them in regards to national politics). In regards to where to draw the line, it's really a matter of personal judgment. One most weigh the pros with the cons in terms of how one votes and what groups to endorse. My example of a Nazi party and the NRA was an example of an extreme case where any descent person would have to give up support for the NRA were the NRA to support a political party with an agenda like that of a Nazi party. Unfortunatly, the choice of who to endorse and support is rarely so black and white. For myself, since both parties seem set on spending boat-loads of money I choose (on the national level) to vote for the party that is generally more in favor of spending our money on programs domestically rather than abroad and doesn't have a solid support base that is anti-science. I also participate in the process with my money and donate to groups that I feel push my favored party in the right direction.
In regards to voting for a third party, history has shown that our system will not support a third party. Short of major electoral and political reform, voting for a third party in a national election really is a wasted vote (and can sometimes be a negative vote for the major party candidate you would rather see win). I would argue the same for a member of the House or Senate although that gets a bit murkier.
See, I have a bit of problem with th whole blind single issue thing. Say we had a Nazi party in the U.S. who took a stance on gun control identical to the NRA's. Would it be ethical for them to endorse such a party?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this fight then we can't be holding foreigners at mere whim and disregarding international law in regards to torture. We need to apply are social equity on a global level.
I do agree, however, that too many people associate those who fight against the limiting of our rights as being "pro-terrorist".
I reject your claims in regards to both LBJ and Nixon (and I would definitively ad Lincoln to the list). I ask you to support your statement in regards to these presidents and why they would rank above our current president in regards to limiting our freedoms.
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You are aware that every kid is America is being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, right?
Umm, no. That is clearly not the case. Your statement is ridiculous even taken as a metaphor.
I think perhaps that you are suggesting that depression in teenagers is over-diagnosed. While I might even agree with you in general, that does not change the fact that taunting a person, in such a severe way, who is diagnosed with depression is incredibly cruel and should make one liable for their death in such a situation. Depression is a very real mental disorder and to tell some one who is diagnosed with such a malady that the world would be better off without them should be akin to manslaughter.
"Megan was being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, her family has said. Meier has said Drew knew Megan was on medication."
If this is in fact true, then I would suggest that this is indeed kin to putting "rat poison in he coffee". If you know some one is clinically depressed and then proceed to lure them into a relationship designed to shatter their self worth you are quite responsible for anything that happens there after.
Why is this marked flamebait? The person being prosecuted did contribute to the death of a child. I believe the parent is more stating an opinion then flaming.
I can't figure out if this is an ironic post or not. The excessive use of caps and name calling point to a flaming 13 year old but the "1"s with the exclamation marks points to some one trying to make this post look, artificially, like the above description. Someone please help me here and tell me the reality of the situation so I can properly critique this.
I don't know. The first thing I thought when I read this,
"If it is retired, we would have to rely on another country to bring our astronauts into space between 2010 and 2015 as a new fleet is built."
was "or we can come to our senses and stop wasting money on sending people into space." I really don't think that in this day and age we need to be sending people into space. All they ever do anyways is press buttons to start automated processes anyways. Pull the plug on the space station and switch everything over to cheap, unmanned disposable ships. I mean honestly, I can think of a ton of things we have learned in the past 2 decades that were discovered thanks to unmanned vehicles and satellites but I can't think of anything that we have learned that required a human presence.
If we're looking to establish a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars in the near term, then yes sending people into space might become a good idea but as far as I know we currently have no time-table in place to do this.
How on earth are they going to condense down as much material as is in one of those books (let alone the whole series) into a movie without leaving out half the story? The Lord of the Rings books are half the size of Jordan's and each of those movies were over three hours long and still left some good stuff out.
Actually I know allot of people like myself who were really disappointed that they moved away from WWII with Call of Duty 4. Number 4 was fun and all but it lacked the epic framework of World War II for a backdrop. Fighting terrorists is so overblown in modern media today I just can't get very excited about it.
Pffft. I wish there was a way I could reliably bet large sums of money with you on this. How on earth can you be so certain at this point? The game has one of the best brand names in FPS's right now. It will sell in a big way as long as it is at least mediocre.
It's like the new Star Wars movies, god awful movies but ass-tons of people spent money on them anyways because of their strong brand name.
Well you're being vague with what exactly you find wrong with it but isn't a bit soon to say that you'll never buy the game when it is still in beta? Games can change allot between a public beta and a release.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I played this one. I think what the article is going at though is the beginnings of the modern "base building, exploration, military conquest" RTS genre, played from a god like perspective which is what allot of people think of when they think RTS. Herzog Zwei really only had the military conquest part of this although it did do this very well for the period. Plus the interface was radically different then the target sub genre of RTS' the article is getting at where in Herzog Zwei you interacted with the world through a single unit which issued orders to everything else. Kind of a cool way to have the game play run but sadly I don't think it had any lasting influence.
The thing is, is that if your representative is in favor of a key issue you support but belongs to a party that does not support this issue and said party has a majority in either the House or Senate then your representative is helping them to maintain this majority. This grants the party all kinds of advantages in pushing forward their own agenda and marginalizes your representative's ability to push forward with your key issue. This is why in congressional elections I generally only vote one party (unless my favored party is putting up a complete incompetent) because even if the other party has a candidate that I like more I find their party on the national level, in general, so unappealing that I can't vote for the individual and risk giving their party a majority in the House or Senate. On the local level this changes dramatically as I have a descent amount of respect (as much as you can have in politicians I suppose...) for the local branches of both parties and third parties are a much more practical option.
Actually, I didn't mean to repeat "holy Christ" twice in the same post. I'm very sorry everybody. I'm very sorry Slashdot is posting tabloid bullshit.
Holy Christ! Our president to be is using "such and such" as his mp3 player!? Holy Christ! Some one please tell me what popular Hollywood celebrity is dating what Hollywood celebrity right now as well because this is all totally fucking relevant to my life!
hahahahaha.
All I have to say to this is that the Clerks animated series is sadly under-appreciated.
As far as I know this mostly happens in conservative districts like those in the South. Honestly, I think it's adorable that people are so easily hoodwinked by Southern Democrats into thinking that the party will endorse "gun rights" just like "California Republicans" (AKA: fiscal conservatives but social liberals) think that their votes don't push forth the Religious Right's agenda.
Awesome! Not only do I get crappy, mediocre sequels to successful franchises but I also get Burger King Ads!? Fuck! America is awesome!
I'm afraid I don't see either of the two major parties as so ideologically extreme as you seem to be implying (and I generally vote against one of them in regards to national politics). In regards to where to draw the line, it's really a matter of personal judgment. One most weigh the pros with the cons in terms of how one votes and what groups to endorse. My example of a Nazi party and the NRA was an example of an extreme case where any descent person would have to give up support for the NRA were the NRA to support a political party with an agenda like that of a Nazi party. Unfortunatly, the choice of who to endorse and support is rarely so black and white. For myself, since both parties seem set on spending boat-loads of money I choose (on the national level) to vote for the party that is generally more in favor of spending our money on programs domestically rather than abroad and doesn't have a solid support base that is anti-science. I also participate in the process with my money and donate to groups that I feel push my favored party in the right direction.
In regards to voting for a third party, history has shown that our system will not support a third party. Short of major electoral and political reform, voting for a third party in a national election really is a wasted vote (and can sometimes be a negative vote for the major party candidate you would rather see win). I would argue the same for a member of the House or Senate although that gets a bit murkier.
The freedom to encourage a mentally unstable child to commit suicide?
See, I have a bit of problem with th whole blind single issue thing. Say we had a Nazi party in the U.S. who took a stance on gun control identical to the NRA's. Would it be ethical for them to endorse such a party?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this fight then we can't be holding foreigners at mere whim and disregarding international law in regards to torture. We need to apply are social equity on a global level.
I do agree, however, that too many people associate those who fight against the limiting of our rights as being "pro-terrorist".
I reject your claims in regards to both LBJ and Nixon (and I would definitively ad Lincoln to the list). I ask you to support your statement in regards to these presidents and why they would rank above our current president in regards to limiting our freedoms.
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You are aware that every kid is America is being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, right?
Umm, no. That is clearly not the case. Your statement is ridiculous even taken as a metaphor.
I think perhaps that you are suggesting that depression in teenagers is over-diagnosed. While I might even agree with you in general, that does not change the fact that taunting a person, in such a severe way, who is diagnosed with depression is incredibly cruel and should make one liable for their death in such a situation. Depression is a very real mental disorder and to tell some one who is diagnosed with such a malady that the world would be better off without them should be akin to manslaughter.
I'm pretty sure future societies will at long last recognize our vast numbers of 16 year old shamans.
And by "blond part" I assume you mean Bill S. Preston Esquire. Jesus... uncultured swine around here.
From the following article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/15/internet.suicide.ap/index.html
"Megan was being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, her family has said. Meier has said Drew knew Megan was on medication."
If this is in fact true, then I would suggest that this is indeed kin to putting "rat poison in he coffee". If you know some one is clinically depressed and then proceed to lure them into a relationship designed to shatter their self worth you are quite responsible for anything that happens there after.
Why is this marked flamebait? The person being prosecuted did contribute to the death of a child. I believe the parent is more stating an opinion then flaming.
I can't figure out if this is an ironic post or not. The excessive use of caps and name calling point to a flaming 13 year old but the "1"s with the exclamation marks points to some one trying to make this post look, artificially, like the above description. Someone please help me here and tell me the reality of the situation so I can properly critique this.
Two words. BetmeashittonofmoneyinareliablecontextthatthenextCODwontmakeashittonof money.
I honestly don't see how one could not think the next COD will make money.
I don't know. The first thing I thought when I read this,
"If it is retired, we would have to rely on another country to bring our astronauts into space between 2010 and 2015 as a new fleet is built."
was "or we can come to our senses and stop wasting money on sending people into space." I really don't think that in this day and age we need to be sending people into space. All they ever do anyways is press buttons to start automated processes anyways. Pull the plug on the space station and switch everything over to cheap, unmanned disposable ships. I mean honestly, I can think of a ton of things we have learned in the past 2 decades that were discovered thanks to unmanned vehicles and satellites but I can't think of anything that we have learned that required a human presence.
If we're looking to establish a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars in the near term, then yes sending people into space might become a good idea but as far as I know we currently have no time-table in place to do this.
How on earth are they going to condense down as much material as is in one of those books (let alone the whole series) into a movie without leaving out half the story? The Lord of the Rings books are half the size of Jordan's and each of those movies were over three hours long and still left some good stuff out.
Actually I know allot of people like myself who were really disappointed that they moved away from WWII with Call of Duty 4. Number 4 was fun and all but it lacked the epic framework of World War II for a backdrop. Fighting terrorists is so overblown in modern media today I just can't get very excited about it.
Pffft. I wish there was a way I could reliably bet large sums of money with you on this. How on earth can you be so certain at this point? The game has one of the best brand names in FPS's right now. It will sell in a big way as long as it is at least mediocre.
It's like the new Star Wars movies, god awful movies but ass-tons of people spent money on them anyways because of their strong brand name.
Well you're being vague with what exactly you find wrong with it but isn't a bit soon to say that you'll never buy the game when it is still in beta? Games can change allot between a public beta and a release.