EA seems to focus its creativity into innovating new and increasingly subtle ways to nickel and dime players. You really have to hand it to them, that is one area where they shine.
It's not just in multiple levels of payment options for new content or in enhanced gameplay. They've taken it to the level of the psychological effect that branding has to mask the sensation that they're sucking money out of your pockets. Pick any game in the "Play4Free" universe, and see just how far you can actually get "playing" for "free". Then reflect on the choice of name: Play4Free. Why imply that a nonfree service is free? Maybe research showed that this kind of branding gave people less sense of how much money they were actually spending. It certainly strikes me as something straight from the late night infomercial school of salesmanship.
If you look at if from their perspective, they continue to do an impressive. It's just that their theory of game design is obviously not that they should necessarily create enjoyable, entertaining, engaging games, but rather to design games that extract as much money per player as possible. Enjoyment, entertainment, playability: these are all simply tools to be used to that end.
I mean, if I had the entire run of the series, which I don't. But if I did, could I pass along my copies of Willis's acting work without paying more money? Or will he want me to have to pay money to his estate to watch it, for "his" share, even after he's dead?
Odd that you'd get a troll downvote for this post. I don't understand why you would, aside from you perhaps having/. enemies. Is that it? If not, do you have any idea why?
Glad it helps! There's one other aspect to the miming thing that seemed to work in a cognitive behavioral sense. While smoking the invisible cigarettes, savor the "hits" just as you would the smoke. Blow air rings, do the nostril-mouth trick... but pay particular attention to the "flavor" of the air.
For me, consciously paying attention to how the air tasted --the same way I'd noted the variations between brands of cigarettes-- seemed to quickly remap my brain to very strongly prefer the taste of clean air. Cigarettes still objectively taste and smell the same to me, and I still remember what it used to feel like enjoying that taste. But now, after what I guess was conditioning my brain to savor the sweet, clean, crisp flavor of air, that familiar old cigarette taste just has always tasted awful in comparison.
I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US I believe that most traffic cameras are aimed to take a photo of the rear license plate, and only use a front camera when it's necessary to get a simultaneous picture of the driver (for red light violations, for example.)
Also btw you will find that the actual mechanics(the movement of the hand to mouth to take a draw of a cigarette), the behavioural aspect of tobacco , is one of the habits hardest to break. Such as recent ex-smokers being out, beer in one hand and thinking it's weird not having a cigarette....
I wish this were more widely known. I foolishly picked up a pack a day cigarette habit for a few years, and I finally managed to quit about ten years ago. By far, the most useful thing for me to do when I got cigarette cravings past the third day (by which time the physical withdrawal symptoms end) was to mime through the actions of lighting and smoking an invisible cigarette. The level to which this satisfied my cravings was profound, and I think it was the key to my finally being able to quit for good.
The big danger here is if they have enough info to open new lines of credit in his name. With the SS# and whatever they gleaned from his computer, they might. A security freeze will prevent anyone else from accessing his credit report without his express authorization. He'll have to contact TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax each, and directly. I think they waive any fee if he's over 65.
It means that in order to avoid these cameras, from now on you will have to do skidding 360s through every single intersection, like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcmswRwdvnA. It's really just a natural progression from the roundabout.
And before anyone freaks out and thinks that the NSA is reading their e-mail, keep in mind that they have to be very selective about how and when they use results from their quantum computer. This is similar to breaking ENIGMA--you want the enemy to think that their codes are secure, so you don't suddenly counter all of their plans perfectly. You certainly don't turn this on e.g. classical organized crime, as that could give away your capabilities on a considerably less valuable target.
That's not much comfort, because there's a subtle distinction you blur. After cracking ENIGMA, they were aware of much more than they acted upon, in order to keep the breakable communication flowing. It doesn't mean they decided not to crack as much enemy communication as possible. Similarly, it doesn't mean they won't actually monitor "classical organized crime," but rather that they might not act upon the information they glean from monitoring it.
The only thing that will limit their reach is capacity. They will not avoid monitoring groups for the sole reason that said group is not an action priority, nor would they avoid gleaning info for the reason that they would avoid action on such info to keep secure the depths of their capacity for comms penetration. IOW, just because they will be selective about which info they act upon doesn't mean they won't gather as much info as possible.
Nope. According to 11 USC 423(a)(11), debts "provided in any final judgment... entered in any court of the United States or of any State" such as this are among the the exceptions to discharge cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
FYI, 11 USC 423(a)(8) does the same thing to student loans.
First off, I'd have already prepared for this moment long ago. So I would then immediately break open the nearby hiding place that holds my loaded escape pack. This pack holds, among other things, at least rudimentary facial masking equipment, a fully charged burn phone (never used), a compact firearm, multiple rounds of ammo, and a lot of peppered turkey jerky.
I'd then call a car service, schedule pickup for 30 minutes, and give the airport as my destination. Then I'd grab a cab (not car service), leave my "real" cell phone conspicuously on and hidden in the back seat. I'd pay the driver $100 not to stop, only to slow, as I roll out of the cab into a weed-covered ditch.
From here I would hike deep into the wilderness, and as long as I had at least a canvas sack and a blade (any type), I'd be able to make or procure anything else I would need, including prescription medication. From that point on, it would simply be an extended vacation.
The generally upmodded consensus here seems to be that any healthy human being will eventually be psychologically damaged after enough exposure to the kinds of images described. I'm puzzled by the perspective, because it seems like similar claims made about exposure to other kinds of images would be discounted or even ridiculed.
But what about long-term exposure to perfectly legal images of violence? What about legal adult porn that is, by design, intentionally degrading to one or more of the actors in it? What about very detailed, explicit, gore and violence in video games?
I don't understand how or where one draws the line, if you think that there's some sort of boundary between the kinds of images that will affect your mental health and those that are perfectly benign. The generally supported reactions here seem to be "I know it when I see it, and boy is that stuff dangerous, at least over the long term." What's the difference between that position, and that of Jack Johnson or some puritanical-antiporn crusader?
Where do you get your info? I studied US constitutional law, in law school. I'm no conlaw scholar (thank heavens), but because of my education I have studied constitutional law in greater depth than most of the public. I also studied, albeit to a lesser extent, the constitutions of other countries. The difference between the US and almost every other democracy is indeed *very* relevant here, it's what clarifies the difference between "Congress shall not..." and "People have the right to..."
This difference is also known as the difference between positive and negative rights. Please do read up on the subject. Based on what you've said here, I think you've seriously misunderstood some key notions about what the US constitution is, and what it is not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
The American constitution states what the government can do, not what it can't.
Not only does it sound like you haven't actually read the US Constitution, it sounds like you didn't even read the full quote of the 1st Amendment in my parent post. Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you believe is something states what Congress can do, rather than what Congress cannot do? Since when does "you shall not do that one thing" mean "you can do some other stuff", while explicitly not, instead, meaning "you cannot do that one thing"?
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
Unfortunately for your position, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Citizens have the right to free speech." This mistake is so incredibly common. Here's what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So enforcing it exactly as written without exception means this: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's it. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It certainly doesn't guarantee that you have a right to free speech. Compare --and contrast-- this phrasing to the constitutions of almost every other democracy. For example, Germany's Basic Law, Article 5:
Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Section 12 of the Finland Constitution:
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.
Want to interpret the US Constitution strictly by text? Great. Just please do make sure that you read it very, very carefully.
So, I'd like to go on record as saying, If I ever threaten anyone with an axe, it's a metaphor or something.
Okay, so the next obvious question of concern: severing heads, coming for generals, then more about severing heads. These things are going to be a metaphor for what, exactly? Would you read these things and think he meant his "axe" is his guitar, and he's here to sever heads the way Tenacious D will melt your face?
Unfortunately for Raub, there's a fair amount of material from violent criminals who discuss their past --and sometimes telegraph future-- violent crimes in a similar, barely metaphorical sense.
...that's the only thing I want, now. Not more legroom, not a selection of entertainment, not boarding priority. I want to be able to wear a goddamn parachute. Just in case. Or, alternately, have a parachute attached to my seat. Or hell, a whole airplane parachute system that would allow a broken fuselage to gently drop from the sky; they already have these for small planes. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/How-Things-Work-Whole-Airplane-Parachute.html
I am still wowed by flying, I spend most of my time in flight glued to the window. And most of the rest of the time I spend imagining how many thousands of variables need to operate properly for our flying vehicle not to plummet down 30,000 feet and crash.
We have seatbelts, oxygen masks, floatation devices, but no backup safety device for the obvious risk of traveling at 30k+ feet: plummeting from the sky.
If I want to start an app, I go "t..e..r.." ooh, a terminal in 5 key presses!
I might be missing your sarcasm. A terminal window should be, at most, a one press, two-key chord, like copy or paste.
Go to a Windows 2000 or any Windows install since, and hit Win+C; that will bring up a control panel. *That's* how far away your terminal should be. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "t..e..r", nor what the other two key presses are, but it sounds ridiculously archaic and cumbersome. A series of 5 key presses in a row to get to a terminal is four steps backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard this explained well through a joke.
A neurologist went into the emergency room, saying he was in great pain. "Where does it hurt?" he was asked.
"In my head."
Whoops, looks like I some words.
All you have to answer is does it work (better than placebos in a double-blind trial)?
This seems terribly unfair, given the increasing effectiveness of placebos over time.
Seriously. http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all Given that particular standard, current drugs be more effective than they would have in the past in order to successfully pass clinical trials.
EA seems to focus its creativity into innovating new and increasingly subtle ways to nickel and dime players. You really have to hand it to them, that is one area where they shine.
It's not just in multiple levels of payment options for new content or in enhanced gameplay. They've taken it to the level of the psychological effect that branding has to mask the sensation that they're sucking money out of your pockets. Pick any game in the "Play4Free" universe, and see just how far you can actually get "playing" for "free". Then reflect on the choice of name: Play4Free. Why imply that a nonfree service is free? Maybe research showed that this kind of branding gave people less sense of how much money they were actually spending. It certainly strikes me as something straight from the late night infomercial school of salesmanship.
If you look at if from their perspective, they continue to do an impressive. It's just that their theory of game design is obviously not that they should necessarily create enjoyable, entertaining, engaging games, but rather to design games that extract as much money per player as possible. Enjoyment, entertainment, playability: these are all simply tools to be used to that end.
I mean, if I had the entire run of the series, which I don't. But if I did, could I pass along my copies of Willis's acting work without paying more money? Or will he want me to have to pay money to his estate to watch it, for "his" share, even after he's dead?
Armstrong's humility is part of what makes him so great.
Similarly, my own humbleness is what makes me so great. In fact, I'm almost certainly one of, if not the, most humble people you'll ever encounter.
"virii" is not a word. The correct plural of "virus" is simply "viruses".
Using virii is like holding your handgun sideways: it might not be correct, but it just feels *so* cool.
Odd that you'd get a troll downvote for this post. I don't understand why you would, aside from you perhaps having /. enemies. Is that it? If not, do you have any idea why?
Glad it helps! There's one other aspect to the miming thing that seemed to work in a cognitive behavioral sense. While smoking the invisible cigarettes, savor the "hits" just as you would the smoke. Blow air rings, do the nostril-mouth trick... but pay particular attention to the "flavor" of the air.
For me, consciously paying attention to how the air tasted --the same way I'd noted the variations between brands of cigarettes-- seemed to quickly remap my brain to very strongly prefer the taste of clean air. Cigarettes still objectively taste and smell the same to me, and I still remember what it used to feel like enjoying that taste. But now, after what I guess was conditioning my brain to savor the sweet, clean, crisp flavor of air, that familiar old cigarette taste just has always tasted awful in comparison.
I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US I believe that most traffic cameras are aimed to take a photo of the rear license plate, and only use a front camera when it's necessary to get a simultaneous picture of the driver (for red light violations, for example.)
Also btw you will find that the actual mechanics(the movement of the hand to mouth to take a draw of a cigarette), the behavioural aspect of tobacco , is one of the habits hardest to break. Such as recent ex-smokers being out, beer in one hand and thinking it's weird not having a cigarette....
I wish this were more widely known. I foolishly picked up a pack a day cigarette habit for a few years, and I finally managed to quit about ten years ago. By far, the most useful thing for me to do when I got cigarette cravings past the third day (by which time the physical withdrawal symptoms end) was to mime through the actions of lighting and smoking an invisible cigarette. The level to which this satisfied my cravings was profound, and I think it was the key to my finally being able to quit for good.
The big danger here is if they have enough info to open new lines of credit in his name. With the SS# and whatever they gleaned from his computer, they might. A security freeze will prevent anyone else from accessing his credit report without his express authorization. He'll have to contact TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax each, and directly. I think they waive any fee if he's over 65.
Unless I'm counting incorrectly, rather than G-7, I believe the Helmholtz notation here would actually be G,,,,,,,
To indicate these lower notes, Helmholz notation uses subscript markings, not negative numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_pitch_notation
It means that in order to avoid these cameras, from now on you will have to do skidding 360s through every single intersection, like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcmswRwdvnA. It's really just a natural progression from the roundabout.
And before anyone freaks out and thinks that the NSA is reading their e-mail, keep in mind that they have to be very selective about how and when they use results from their quantum computer. This is similar to breaking ENIGMA--you want the enemy to think that their codes are secure, so you don't suddenly counter all of their plans perfectly. You certainly don't turn this on e.g. classical organized crime, as that could give away your capabilities on a considerably less valuable target.
That's not much comfort, because there's a subtle distinction you blur. After cracking ENIGMA, they were aware of much more than they acted upon, in order to keep the breakable communication flowing. It doesn't mean they decided not to crack as much enemy communication as possible. Similarly, it doesn't mean they won't actually monitor "classical organized crime," but rather that they might not act upon the information they glean from monitoring it.
The only thing that will limit their reach is capacity. They will not avoid monitoring groups for the sole reason that said group is not an action priority, nor would they avoid gleaning info for the reason that they would avoid action on such info to keep secure the depths of their capacity for comms penetration. IOW, just because they will be selective about which info they act upon doesn't mean they won't gather as much info as possible.
Nope. According to 11 USC 423(a)(11), debts "provided in any final judgment... entered in any court of the United States or of any State" such as this are among the the exceptions to discharge cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
FYI, 11 USC 423(a)(8) does the same thing to student loans.
First off, I'd have already prepared for this moment long ago. So I would then immediately break open the nearby hiding place that holds my loaded escape pack. This pack holds, among other things, at least rudimentary facial masking equipment, a fully charged burn phone (never used), a compact firearm, multiple rounds of ammo, and a lot of peppered turkey jerky.
I'd then call a car service, schedule pickup for 30 minutes, and give the airport as my destination. Then I'd grab a cab (not car service), leave my "real" cell phone conspicuously on and hidden in the back seat. I'd pay the driver $100 not to stop, only to slow, as I roll out of the cab into a weed-covered ditch.
From here I would hike deep into the wilderness, and as long as I had at least a canvas sack and a blade (any type), I'd be able to make or procure anything else I would need, including prescription medication. From that point on, it would simply be an extended vacation.
The generally upmodded consensus here seems to be that any healthy human being will eventually be psychologically damaged after enough exposure to the kinds of images described. I'm puzzled by the perspective, because it seems like similar claims made about exposure to other kinds of images would be discounted or even ridiculed.
But what about long-term exposure to perfectly legal images of violence? What about legal adult porn that is, by design, intentionally degrading to one or more of the actors in it? What about very detailed, explicit, gore and violence in video games?
I don't understand how or where one draws the line, if you think that there's some sort of boundary between the kinds of images that will affect your mental health and those that are perfectly benign. The generally supported reactions here seem to be "I know it when I see it, and boy is that stuff dangerous, at least over the long term." What's the difference between that position, and that of Jack Johnson or some puritanical-antiporn crusader?
Where do you get your info? I studied US constitutional law, in law school. I'm no conlaw scholar (thank heavens), but because of my education I have studied constitutional law in greater depth than most of the public. I also studied, albeit to a lesser extent, the constitutions of other countries. The difference between the US and almost every other democracy is indeed *very* relevant here, it's what clarifies the difference between "Congress shall not..." and "People have the right to..."
This difference is also known as the difference between positive and negative rights. Please do read up on the subject. Based on what you've said here, I think you've seriously misunderstood some key notions about what the US constitution is, and what it is not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
The American constitution states what the government can do, not what it can't.
Not only does it sound like you haven't actually read the US Constitution, it sounds like you didn't even read the full quote of the 1st Amendment in my parent post. Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you believe is something states what Congress can do, rather than what Congress cannot do? Since when does "you shall not do that one thing" mean "you can do some other stuff", while explicitly not, instead, meaning "you cannot do that one thing"?
Don't be this guy: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
Unfortunately for your position, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Citizens have the right to free speech." This mistake is so incredibly common. Here's what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So enforcing it exactly as written without exception means this: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's it. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It certainly doesn't guarantee that you have a right to free speech. Compare --and contrast-- this phrasing to the constitutions of almost every other democracy. For example, Germany's Basic Law, Article 5:
Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Section 12 of the Finland Constitution:
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.
Want to interpret the US Constitution strictly by text? Great. Just please do make sure that you read it very, very carefully.
So, I'd like to go on record as saying, If I ever threaten anyone with an axe, it's a metaphor or something.
Okay, so the next obvious question of concern: severing heads, coming for generals, then more about severing heads. These things are going to be a metaphor for what, exactly? Would you read these things and think he meant his "axe" is his guitar, and he's here to sever heads the way Tenacious D will melt your face?
Unfortunately for Raub, there's a fair amount of material from violent criminals who discuss their past --and sometimes telegraph future-- violent crimes in a similar, barely metaphorical sense.
...that's the only thing I want, now. Not more legroom, not a selection of entertainment, not boarding priority. I want to be able to wear a goddamn parachute. Just in case. Or, alternately, have a parachute attached to my seat. Or hell, a whole airplane parachute system that would allow a broken fuselage to gently drop from the sky; they already have these for small planes. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/How-Things-Work-Whole-Airplane-Parachute.html
I am still wowed by flying, I spend most of my time in flight glued to the window. And most of the rest of the time I spend imagining how many thousands of variables need to operate properly for our flying vehicle not to plummet down 30,000 feet and crash.
We have seatbelts, oxygen masks, floatation devices, but no backup safety device for the obvious risk of traveling at 30k+ feet: plummeting from the sky.
Go to a Windows 2000 or any Windows install since, and hit Win+C; that will bring up a control panel.
Whoops, well that's wrong. Should be like that, but I'm just drunk and wishfully thinking. That chord brings up a control panel, not a command window.
If I want to start an app, I go "t..e..r.." ooh, a terminal in 5 key presses!
I might be missing your sarcasm. A terminal window should be, at most, a one press, two-key chord, like copy or paste.
Go to a Windows 2000 or any Windows install since, and hit Win+C; that will bring up a control panel. *That's* how far away your terminal should be. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "t..e..r", nor what the other two key presses are, but it sounds ridiculously archaic and cumbersome. A series of 5 key presses in a row to get to a terminal is four steps backwards.