Most RTS games (especially Blizzard ones) are hardly that simplistic. Talking specifically about StarCraft, yes the first 5 minutes with any particular race tends to be pretty much the same. From there, however, you see a rapid expansion of game play possibilities that require players to be able to think on the fly. Sure, most good players have a few standard tricks up their sleeves for after the rush but which one is implemented depends on a variety of factors and often times require small changes depending on the players current situation in game. Of course most of the custom maps used on battle.net nowadays take away from this somewhat by removing all terrain and providing player starting spots with near infinite resources but that is more to do with player's purposely removing features of gameplay that Blizzard put in.
Basically, the rush phase is there to weed out any players who haven't mastered the game's fundamentals and becomes near instinctual for skilled players. What follows after is the real meat of the game.
I did without a cell phone for a very long time and was still able to communicate effectively with friends. Unless you live in the country (which often has spotty cell coverage anyways) there is almost always some kind of phone accessible to you. Furthermore, I question the need to be constantly in touch with friends. It seems very "needy" to me. I have IM on my computer, a mail box, phones at work and at home for people to call me on and answering machines on both of these lines for when I'm not around. Really the only reason I carry a cell now is to appease the people I work for.
Furthermore, that kind of money isn't just "material wealth". It's a retirement secure from financial worries, it's a few years traveling the world, or a whole host of other possibilities. Once you start talking seven digits or more you really aren't talking about money in the same way as most people.
I don't know about any one else here but there isn't a tech gadget I own I wouldn't give up for a million British pounds (including my computer). Having an extra 2 million American dollars would open up so many opportunities for fun and leisure (not to mention the financial security it would provide) I don't think I would ever miss any single tech gadget.
Israel's latest experience in Lebanon serves to discredit your argument a bit. Israel has one of the most modern militarys in the world and took a beating on their latest foray into Lebanon. Plus, I think most people would agree that Israel has no worries about being seen using excessive force.
I don't think any country has a military large enough to contain truly wide spread revolt in their own country. There's just too much territory to cover.
I suppose the ending was unimpressive but I think the game play is so solid (and as far as the console goes, unique) that I could see myself playing it through again some day.
Why won't KOTOR2 be remembered fondly? It certainly scored well on gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/kotor2/review.ht ml) and I thought it was perfectly enjoyable.
On the other hand jRPGs could learn a thing or two about UI from American developers. I can't stand all of those menus I have to go through to do anything in a jRPG like Final Fantasy. Sure aRPGs have some menu navigation in the game play but nothing like jRPGs. A good example of aRPG UI at work is Kights of the Old Republic for the xbox.
I don't know why use of "the" here amuses me so much, but it makes the author seem very unfamiliar with the companies and products they are writing about.
I thought the author was insinuating that Mozilla was putting its money into the 1980's, Soviet, thought-controlled, mach 6 capable, stealth fighter piloted by Clint Eastwood. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/plotsummary
This end may not always be a bad thing. I'm sure allot of slashdotters (I would certainly be included in this group) got their start into learning about computer hardware by asking just such a question as a child.
I think your 'honest' opinion is either based on facts that you pulled out of your ass or you're trolling.
Or maybe he's just discussing what he's experienced. Certainly the phrase which you quote beginning with "From what I've seen..." seems to suggest this. He may be misguided (I don't know on this count) but he certainly doesn't sound like he is either trolling or pulling things out of his ass.
How is this bad? There's already an enormous amount of buried carbon and the like in our soil having little to no impact on the environment from its location. It's called oil and coal amongst other things. All this is doing is taking the carbon we're digging out of the ground to fuel our power plants and putting it right back there.
He then "protests" about a detention facility which provides halal food, Korans wrapped in plastic, delivered by glove wearing guards (so the Koran will not be "defiled" by the "infidel") are provided to the "prisoners".
Of course this same detention center is keeping these people against their will without any kind of means to challenge their incarceration. Plus water boarding and sleep deprivation don't sound all that pleasant and most would call this kind of treatment torture.
Yes the regime in Cuba does terrible things to its citizenry and is one the world could do without. This, however, does not mean that RMS is "oblivious" in protesting the plight of these inmates at the hands of a country that is suppose to be above such practices. Likewise, his not going into a "danger-zone" to observe other deplorable acts for which to create a protest song about does not discredit what he has written about the prisoners in Cuba.
britney spears was plenty famous when it was just her music fueling her popularity. furthermore, if she hadnt gained fame through her music she would never would have had anything to "trade for her celebrity".
Timbaland is hot in his circle:
that's what i said when i said "...and is merely a successful insider within the hip hop scene."
t's just that those who know his name are fewer than those who know "his" sound.
my point exactly. no one knows his name outside of hip hop. "biggest name in music" implies a level of celebrity this guy doesnt have outside of his niche scene. the article would have been much more accurate going with the statement "biggest name in hip hop".
my point was (for those who dont get it) that if timbland is some one who is one of "the hottest names in american music" then he should have name recognition up their with some one like britney spears. given that he does not have this level of name recognition he is obviously not one of "the hottest names in american music" and is merely a successful insider within the hip hop scene.
it's safe to say that when environmentalists say we are going to end the planet they mean it in the context of humankind. it is well within our means to make earth uninhabitable by humans and thus non-existent to humans (if we dont exist then we cant conceive of anything and thus nothing exists to us).
granted they're not using the best language but their warning is certainly worth listening to.
are you suggesting that drivers should only be pulled over if they are exibiting dangerous driving behaviors such as swerving or they should be pulled over if they are engaging in any significantly distracting behavior (cell phone talking, makeup, drunk)? if it's the later then really what's the difference if they're pulled over under a reckless driving law or a cell phone law? if it's the prior then there's a couple of problems.
using your logic we would also be allowing people with any level of alcohol in their system on the road. we also wouldnt be adequetly protecting other drivers from people talking on their cell phones as their reduced reaction time is a menace to everyone (they're as bad as drunk drivers: http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1) and would not likely manifest itself in an observable manner until the time of an accident.
my hope is that they produce something more like lost ark and less like temple of doom. temple's not a bad movie but it just doesnt have the same feel as the first one. the difference between the two kind of reminds me of the difference between empire strikes back and return of the jedi. empire just had a better dramatic quality to it just like the lost ark did in the indiana jones series.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
while there is certainly a rational argument to be made for smoking bans (regardless of whether you agree with said argument or not) some areas take it too far. the city right next to me (Santa Rosa, California. about 50 miles north of SF) just past an outdoor smoking ban. you cant smoke in public parks, you cant smoke at outdoor restaurant seating and you cant smoke outside of bars. the new law was pushed through the city council by a pair of anti smoking advocates on the council who i think would probably see smoking outlawed if they could get away with it.
it stinks for me because while i dont smoke i have friends who do. when this law goes active soon, going to the bars in santa rosa (the biggest urban area around and the possessor of some very respectable micro brew pubs) will be a pain in my ass as my smoking friends wont want to go.
this comes to mind a bit late and should have been said in my other post. retards can have kids. stating you have kids as a means of establishing an expertise on child rearing is a poor, poor argument.
i would hope that you seek to debate me along the ration lines laid out in my previous post rather than to continue to try to rationalize your arguments along these lines without even the barest logic provided in support.
i would like to again point out that you still have yet to provide a counter point to anything i have said. all you have said so far is "i have kids so you are wrong" without addressing anything i have said or providing any real substance behind your claim that i am wrong. furthermore, i have never claimed to be an expert on children and yet you seem to imply that you are while not providing any evidence in support of this besides the point that you have kids, which as i said before, any animal can make.
now i'm always one to allow for the fact that i could be wrong but i'll be damned before i'll except "you're wrong because i say so and i dont have to provide any proof". i've laid out my opinion supported by perfectly rational arguments and all you have done is given me childish responses. how can i even take you seriously if all you say is you're wrong because i say so? i get more rational argument out of my 7 year old nephew.
provide me with rational argument supporting your claim and i might change my opinion but until then you are the one who is just plain wrong (and considering the fact that you have kids there is something wrong with that).
you should substantiate your claim that i am wrong and at least make this interesting. i point out clear instances in which the device is useless, highlighting most of the chief hazards parents seem to perceive for their kids nowadays (my 35 year old brother has two of them and this is what i gather) and how the device is not very good at stopping any of them. you respond with "no you're wrong, i know everything about parenting because i've done something even animals can do well". it's kind of insulting really.
if you're an expert on the subject, as you seem to imply, then enlighten me. if the device truely has significant use worthy of invading your child's privacy then you must be able to come up with some sort of example.
of course you could just trust them based on the same things parents have been judging kids on for hundreds of years instead of invading their privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Most RTS games (especially Blizzard ones) are hardly that simplistic. Talking specifically about StarCraft, yes the first 5 minutes with any particular race tends to be pretty much the same. From there, however, you see a rapid expansion of game play possibilities that require players to be able to think on the fly. Sure, most good players have a few standard tricks up their sleeves for after the rush but which one is implemented depends on a variety of factors and often times require small changes depending on the players current situation in game. Of course most of the custom maps used on battle.net nowadays take away from this somewhat by removing all terrain and providing player starting spots with near infinite resources but that is more to do with player's purposely removing features of gameplay that Blizzard put in.
Basically, the rush phase is there to weed out any players who haven't mastered the game's fundamentals and becomes near instinctual for skilled players. What follows after is the real meat of the game.
I could really care less about the quantity of games being released. what I want to know is, are any of them any good? Anybody out there have a list?
I did without a cell phone for a very long time and was still able to communicate effectively with friends. Unless you live in the country (which often has spotty cell coverage anyways) there is almost always some kind of phone accessible to you. Furthermore, I question the need to be constantly in touch with friends. It seems very "needy" to me. I have IM on my computer, a mail box, phones at work and at home for people to call me on and answering machines on both of these lines for when I'm not around. Really the only reason I carry a cell now is to appease the people I work for.
Furthermore, that kind of money isn't just "material wealth". It's a retirement secure from financial worries, it's a few years traveling the world, or a whole host of other possibilities. Once you start talking seven digits or more you really aren't talking about money in the same way as most people.
I don't know about any one else here but there isn't a tech gadget I own I wouldn't give up for a million British pounds (including my computer). Having an extra 2 million American dollars would open up so many opportunities for fun and leisure (not to mention the financial security it would provide) I don't think I would ever miss any single tech gadget.
Israel's latest experience in Lebanon serves to discredit your argument a bit. Israel has one of the most modern militarys in the world and took a beating on their latest foray into Lebanon. Plus, I think most people would agree that Israel has no worries about being seen using excessive force.
I don't think any country has a military large enough to contain truly wide spread revolt in their own country. There's just too much territory to cover.
I suppose the ending was unimpressive but I think the game play is so solid (and as far as the console goes, unique) that I could see myself playing it through again some day.
Why won't KOTOR2 be remembered fondly? It certainly scored well on gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/kotor2/review.ht ml) and I thought it was perfectly enjoyable.
On the other hand jRPGs could learn a thing or two about UI from American developers. I can't stand all of those menus I have to go through to do anything in a jRPG like Final Fantasy. Sure aRPGs have some menu navigation in the game play but nothing like jRPGs. A good example of aRPG UI at work is Kights of the Old Republic for the xbox.
I don't know why use of "the" here amuses me so much, but it makes the author seem very unfamiliar with the companies and products they are writing about.
I thought the author was insinuating that Mozilla was putting its money into the 1980's, Soviet, thought-controlled, mach 6 capable, stealth fighter piloted by Clint Eastwood. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/plotsummary
3. how does it look on the inside?
This end may not always be a bad thing. I'm sure allot of slashdotters (I would certainly be included in this group) got their start into learning about computer hardware by asking just such a question as a child.
I think your 'honest' opinion is either based on facts that you pulled out of your ass or you're trolling.
Or maybe he's just discussing what he's experienced. Certainly the phrase which you quote beginning with "From what I've seen..." seems to suggest this. He may be misguided (I don't know on this count) but he certainly doesn't sound like he is either trolling or pulling things out of his ass.
How is this bad? There's already an enormous amount of buried carbon and the like in our soil having little to no impact on the environment from its location. It's called oil and coal amongst other things. All this is doing is taking the carbon we're digging out of the ground to fuel our power plants and putting it right back there.
He then "protests" about a detention facility which provides halal food, Korans wrapped in plastic, delivered by glove wearing guards (so the Koran will not be "defiled" by the "infidel") are provided to the "prisoners".
Of course this same detention center is keeping these people against their will without any kind of means to challenge their incarceration. Plus water boarding and sleep deprivation don't sound all that pleasant and most would call this kind of treatment torture.
Yes the regime in Cuba does terrible things to its citizenry and is one the world could do without. This, however, does not mean that RMS is "oblivious" in protesting the plight of these inmates at the hands of a country that is suppose to be above such practices. Likewise, his not going into a "danger-zone" to observe other deplorable acts for which to create a protest song about does not discredit what he has written about the prisoners in Cuba.
britney spears was plenty famous when it was just her music fueling her popularity. furthermore, if she hadnt gained fame through her music she would never would have had anything to "trade for her celebrity".
Timbaland is hot in his circle:
that's what i said when i said "...and is merely a successful insider within the hip hop scene."
t's just that those who know his name are fewer than those who know "his" sound.
my point exactly. no one knows his name outside of hip hop. "biggest name in music" implies a level of celebrity this guy doesnt have outside of his niche scene. the article would have been much more accurate going with the statement "biggest name in hip hop".
my point was (for those who dont get it) that if timbland is some one who is one of "the hottest names in american music" then he should have name recognition up their with some one like britney spears. given that he does not have this level of name recognition he is obviously not one of "the hottest names in american music" and is merely a successful insider within the hip hop scene.
it's safe to say that when environmentalists say we are going to end the planet they mean it in the context of humankind. it is well within our means to make earth uninhabitable by humans and thus non-existent to humans (if we dont exist then we cant conceive of anything and thus nothing exists to us).
granted they're not using the best language but their warning is certainly worth listening to.
The producer's name is Timbaland and he is one of the hottest names in American music these days.
timbaland? who the hell is that?
Because there's ALWAYS some slimy, shitbag lawyer that would do whatever you'd like, just so long as you had the money.
yes, but that's true of the general public as well. one could find a slimy shitbag in any profession to do almost anything one would want.
are you suggesting that drivers should only be pulled over if they are exibiting dangerous driving behaviors such as swerving or they should be pulled over if they are engaging in any significantly distracting behavior (cell phone talking, makeup, drunk)? if it's the later then really what's the difference if they're pulled over under a reckless driving law or a cell phone law? if it's the prior then there's a couple of problems.
using your logic we would also be allowing people with any level of alcohol in their system on the road. we also wouldnt be adequetly protecting other drivers from people talking on their cell phones as their reduced reaction time is a menace to everyone (they're as bad as drunk drivers: http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1) and would not likely manifest itself in an observable manner until the time of an accident.
my hope is that they produce something more like lost ark and less like temple of doom. temple's not a bad movie but it just doesnt have the same feel as the first one. the difference between the two kind of reminds me of the difference between empire strikes back and return of the jedi. empire just had a better dramatic quality to it just like the lost ark did in the indiana jones series.
while there is certainly a rational argument to be made for smoking bans (regardless of whether you agree with said argument or not) some areas take it too far. the city right next to me (Santa Rosa, California. about 50 miles north of SF) just past an outdoor smoking ban. you cant smoke in public parks, you cant smoke at outdoor restaurant seating and you cant smoke outside of bars. the new law was pushed through the city council by a pair of anti smoking advocates on the council who i think would probably see smoking outlawed if they could get away with it.
it stinks for me because while i dont smoke i have friends who do. when this law goes active soon, going to the bars in santa rosa (the biggest urban area around and the possessor of some very respectable micro brew pubs) will be a pain in my ass as my smoking friends wont want to go.
this comes to mind a bit late and should have been said in my other post. retards can have kids. stating you have kids as a means of establishing an expertise on child rearing is a poor, poor argument.
i would hope that you seek to debate me along the ration lines laid out in my previous post rather than to continue to try to rationalize your arguments along these lines without even the barest logic provided in support.
i would like to again point out that you still have yet to provide a counter point to anything i have said. all you have said so far is "i have kids so you are wrong" without addressing anything i have said or providing any real substance behind your claim that i am wrong. furthermore, i have never claimed to be an expert on children and yet you seem to imply that you are while not providing any evidence in support of this besides the point that you have kids, which as i said before, any animal can make.
now i'm always one to allow for the fact that i could be wrong but i'll be damned before i'll except "you're wrong because i say so and i dont have to provide any proof". i've laid out my opinion supported by perfectly rational arguments and all you have done is given me childish responses. how can i even take you seriously if all you say is you're wrong because i say so? i get more rational argument out of my 7 year old nephew.
provide me with rational argument supporting your claim and i might change my opinion but until then you are the one who is just plain wrong (and considering the fact that you have kids there is something wrong with that).
you should substantiate your claim that i am wrong and at least make this interesting. i point out clear instances in which the device is useless, highlighting most of the chief hazards parents seem to perceive for their kids nowadays (my 35 year old brother has two of them and this is what i gather) and how the device is not very good at stopping any of them. you respond with "no you're wrong, i know everything about parenting because i've done something even animals can do well". it's kind of insulting really.
if you're an expert on the subject, as you seem to imply, then enlighten me. if the device truely has significant use worthy of invading your child's privacy then you must be able to come up with some sort of example.
of course you could just trust them based on the same things parents have been judging kids on for hundreds of years instead of invading their privacy.