They do represent us, which is why we're supposed to vote for people who stand for the same things that we do. But do you want to vote for someone who *claims* to be on your side of a particular issue, then 5 minutes after he's in office, he switches sides because he gets the impression that most people want him to do something else? Or even worse; do nothing at all?
Exactly. Quake (and all of it's millions of clones) faces a serious challenge to become a viable "spectator sport", and a good part of the challenge lies in the field of viewability.
Most sports have a single point of focus; a ball, or whatever the case may be, where the audience can focus the majority of it's attention and catch most of the action by doing so. With deathmatch games such as these, the action is all over the place, and there's no practical way to see it all at once. That, combined with a 3D perspective that would make a lot of people toss their cookies, puts a serious damper on this.
If you throw out one government that lies to you, it will only be replaced by... guess what? ANOTHER government that lies to you. If you throw out one government that makes some mistakes, it will be replaced by... you got it... ANOTHER goverment that makes mistakes.
What we should be asking our candidates is not so much "how many mistakes have you made in your life", but "what exactly is it that you stand for?".
On the one hand, we have Bush; a guy who (most of the time) has a clear agenda, strong beliefs, and tends to stick to them (whether we like them or not). The end result is that he may do some things that we don't like, simply because he believes in them.
On the other hand, we have Kerry, a man who has demonstrated again and again that he will say or do anything, and take nearly any side of any issue to appeal to as many people as possible in order to get elected.
While this may seem like the perfect man for the job ("Finally! A president who will do what the PEOPLE want him to!"), this is also the epidomy of wishy-washiness.
Let's say you're leading a group of 5 people, and you're lost in the woods. Each one of them wants you to go in each of the 4 cardinal directions. "Go East!" says one. "No! Go North!" says another, and so on. Would you rather be led by someone who will make a decision, accepting the risk that goes along with that, or would you rather be led by someone who is so bent on appeasing all 4 people that he'll just stand there with his thumb up his butt and go NOWHERE?
A truly brave man is not afraid to take a stand in spite of what some people might think of him.
Well, I'm sure it's possible... But I can't imagine that it would be very practical. I would wager that the requirements for the prize; just one minute, 3 meters in the air, are pushing the limits of what a human (even one who's in reasonably good shape) could pull off. At least with the glider, you have the wings utilizing all of that kinetic energy from the forward motion working for you.
Does this mean Lance Armstrong will soon become an astronaut?
I've seen machines in the past that are glider-based, and a human could actually keep them in the air for a fairly long time. But a helicopter? I wonder what they're trying to accomplish here. I mean, obviously the students are trying to win $27,000, but I have to wonder what the American Helicopter Society is thinking. Vertical flight always consumes a heck of a lot more energy than horizontal. I'd like to see more effort put in to human-powerd glider projects.
No offense and no disrespect but you really dont have a frame of reference to truly understand.
Exactly! How many of the people who are having such an issue with this today do have a frame of reference? A great many of them were never around when these things happened (including the problems you mentioned up to the 60's).
"African Americans (like me) were treated like shit".
I don't know how old you are, but were you actually born yet when all of this was taking place? Maybe you were, maybe not. But many people who weren't there to experience these things are identifying themselves with a previous generation who had, regardless of their present circumstances. This just continues to add fuel to a fire that really serves little to no purpose these days.
Perhaps I should have turned my statement around. What I meant was not that it was ok to broadcast footage of people being put in jail (before trial), but how ridiculous it is to put footage of *SUPPOSED* police abuse all over national television (also, BEFORE trial). My point really was that it often seems that the "rights" of purported criminals are better defended than that of police.
"It's not MY fault, it's society's fault!" "It's not MY fault, I have a disease!" "It's not MY fault, I have a chemical imbalance!"
And now...
"It's not MY fault, my parents gave me some bad genes!"
Unbelievable. We're so bent on finding a way to blame every character flaw that we have on a genetic problem that we never had any control over. I don't think medical science really knows a fraction of what it thinks it does. Is your crappy attitude caused by a chemical imbalance, or is your chemical imbalance caused by your crappy attitude? You can throw all the so-called "science" you want at it, but I think we have far more control over who we are than what many of us would like to admit.
Personally, I'm offended that caucasian game developers who implement villainous characters of other races are often stereotyped as racist bigots. What are they going to do about THAT, huh?? Oh, that's right; nothing. Because my great, great, great grandparants, who have been dead for 100 friggin' years weren't slaves! How many people own slaves here in America today? Isn't about time that we GET THE HELL OVER IT?
I looked at a few screenshots of the game in question, and I can't think of a single, high-crime neighborhood that I've been in that didn't look EXACTLY like that. Please excuse Rockstar Games for making their game realistic.
When it came to the old consoles, games were relatively easy to produce; not because they were easy to code (it was basically all assembly language back then), but because they were so small.
Eventually, games were almost *too* easy to produce, as the market was flooded with such garbage that it nearly destroyed the videogame industry.
Now with the advent of these fairly simplistic (in terms of capability) mobile gaming devices, once again we have the danger of history repeating itself. Not that I think the whole industry will collapse; certainly not. But with all this venture capital flying around, it's beginning to look like the.com thing in 2000 all over again; too many people investing in too many products with little or no real value.
So let's see here. It's ok for national television to display home video footage of police beating the snot out of these people on the street, but as soon as the perp is dragged in to prison, now we must spare them the "humiliation" of broadcasting their incarceration on the Internet?
Innovation? Has Mr. Allchin been living in a cave? Linux/Unix systems have had this capability for years. "shutdown", anyone?
True innovation is something that's becoming exponentially more and more difficult to come by every year. Unfortunately today, innovation seems to be defined by whatever the USPTO will grant you a patent for.
The "battle" between Microsoft and Linux really has little to do with functionality/capability. It even has little to do with security. Yes, Linux is arguably better in terms of security, but what if the roles were reversed, and 99% of the world's computers ran Linux? Put up a bigger target, and it's going to get hit more.
The fact of the matter is, both OS'es have distinct advantages which makes them both very popular amongst the groups that they are targetted at. Windows has mass-market appeal, because it's easy to use. And please, I love Linux, but don't tell me Linux is just as easy. I've never blown an entire day hunting for drivers, fixing dependancies, and compiling millions of lines of code when setting up a Windows machine.
Linux, on the other hand, is FREE. I mean, gee whiz, even the full XP HOME edition is bending people over for $200. It'll soon be more economical to buy a Windows-preloaded PC than to buy the OS by itself, for crying out loud! Linux, however, does *not* have mass-market appeal, because it has yet to fully, and consistently support the things that the mass market wants; ease of use, and entertainment. What it *does* offer is an incredible amount of freedom and customization that Windows never will, which makes it attractive to the group that it is aimed at; professionals, whether they be IT, research, or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
They do represent us, which is why we're supposed to vote for people who stand for the same things that we do. But do you want to vote for someone who *claims* to be on your side of a particular issue, then 5 minutes after he's in office, he switches sides because he gets the impression that most people want him to do something else? Or even worse; do nothing at all?
Exactly. Quake (and all of it's millions of clones) faces a serious challenge to become a viable "spectator sport", and a good part of the challenge lies in the field of viewability.
Most sports have a single point of focus; a ball, or whatever the case may be, where the audience can focus the majority of it's attention and catch most of the action by doing so. With deathmatch games such as these, the action is all over the place, and there's no practical way to see it all at once. That, combined with a 3D perspective that would make a lot of people toss their cookies, puts a serious damper on this.
If you throw out one government that lies to you, it will only be replaced by... guess what? ANOTHER government that lies to you. If you throw out one government that makes some mistakes, it will be replaced by... you got it... ANOTHER goverment that makes mistakes.
What we should be asking our candidates is not so much "how many mistakes have you made in your life", but "what exactly is it that you stand for?".
On the one hand, we have Bush; a guy who (most of the time) has a clear agenda, strong beliefs, and tends to stick to them (whether we like them or not). The end result is that he may do some things that we don't like, simply because he believes in them.
On the other hand, we have Kerry, a man who has demonstrated again and again that he will say or do anything, and take nearly any side of any issue to appeal to as many people as possible in order to get elected.
While this may seem like the perfect man for the job ("Finally! A president who will do what the PEOPLE want him to!"), this is also the epidomy of wishy-washiness.
Let's say you're leading a group of 5 people, and you're lost in the woods. Each one of them wants you to go in each of the 4 cardinal directions. "Go East!" says one. "No! Go North!" says another, and so on. Would you rather be led by someone who will make a decision, accepting the risk that goes along with that, or would you rather be led by someone who is so bent on appeasing all 4 people that he'll just stand there with his thumb up his butt and go NOWHERE?
A truly brave man is not afraid to take a stand in spite of what some people might think of him.
You know, pretty soon there are going to be more versions of the GeForce than Street Fighter.
Well, I'm sure it's possible... But I can't imagine that it would be very practical. I would wager that the requirements for the prize; just one minute, 3 meters in the air, are pushing the limits of what a human (even one who's in reasonably good shape) could pull off. At least with the glider, you have the wings utilizing all of that kinetic energy from the forward motion working for you.
Does this mean Lance Armstrong will soon become an astronaut?
I've seen machines in the past that are glider-based, and a human could actually keep them in the air for a fairly long time. But a helicopter? I wonder what they're trying to accomplish here. I mean, obviously the students are trying to win $27,000, but I have to wonder what the American Helicopter Society is thinking. Vertical flight always consumes a heck of a lot more energy than horizontal. I'd like to see more effort put in to human-powerd glider projects.
No offense and no disrespect but you really dont have a frame of reference to truly understand.
Exactly! How many of the people who are having such an issue with this today do have a frame of reference? A great many of them were never around when these things happened (including the problems you mentioned up to the 60's).
"African Americans (like me) were treated like shit".
I don't know how old you are, but were you actually born yet when all of this was taking place? Maybe you were, maybe not. But many people who weren't there to experience these things are identifying themselves with a previous generation who had, regardless of their present circumstances. This just continues to add fuel to a fire that really serves little to no purpose these days.
Perhaps I should have turned my statement around. What I meant was not that it was ok to broadcast footage of people being put in jail (before trial), but how ridiculous it is to put footage of *SUPPOSED* police abuse all over national television (also, BEFORE trial). My point really was that it often seems that the "rights" of purported criminals are better defended than that of police.
.... To eliminate personal accountability.
"It's not MY fault, it's society's fault!"
"It's not MY fault, I have a disease!"
"It's not MY fault, I have a chemical imbalance!"
And now...
"It's not MY fault, my parents gave me some bad genes!"
Unbelievable. We're so bent on finding a way to blame every character flaw that we have on a genetic problem that we never had any control over. I don't think medical science really knows a fraction of what it thinks it does. Is your crappy attitude caused by a chemical imbalance, or is your chemical imbalance caused by your crappy attitude? You can throw all the so-called "science" you want at it, but I think we have far more control over who we are than what many of us would like to admit.
Personally, I'm offended that caucasian game developers who implement villainous characters of other races are often stereotyped as racist bigots. What are they going to do about THAT, huh?? Oh, that's right; nothing. Because my great, great, great grandparants, who have been dead for 100 friggin' years weren't slaves! How many people own slaves here in America today? Isn't about time that we GET THE HELL OVER IT?
I looked at a few screenshots of the game in question, and I can't think of a single, high-crime neighborhood that I've been in that didn't look EXACTLY like that. Please excuse Rockstar Games for making their game realistic.
When it came to the old consoles, games were relatively easy to produce; not because they were easy to code (it was basically all assembly language back then), but because they were so small.
.com thing in 2000 all over again; too many people investing in too many products with little or no real value.
Eventually, games were almost *too* easy to produce, as the market was flooded with such garbage that it nearly destroyed the videogame industry.
Now with the advent of these fairly simplistic (in terms of capability) mobile gaming devices, once again we have the danger of history repeating itself. Not that I think the whole industry will collapse; certainly not. But with all this venture capital flying around, it's beginning to look like the
So let's see here. It's ok for national television to display home video footage of police beating the snot out of these people on the street, but as soon as the perp is dragged in to prison, now we must spare them the "humiliation" of broadcasting their incarceration on the Internet?
Innovation? Has Mr. Allchin been living in a cave? Linux/Unix systems have had this capability for years. "shutdown", anyone?
True innovation is something that's becoming exponentially more and more difficult to come by every year. Unfortunately today, innovation seems to be defined by whatever the USPTO will grant you a patent for.
The "battle" between Microsoft and Linux really has little to do with functionality/capability. It even has little to do with security. Yes, Linux is arguably better in terms of security, but what if the roles were reversed, and 99% of the world's computers ran Linux? Put up a bigger target, and it's going to get hit more.
The fact of the matter is, both OS'es have distinct advantages which makes them both very popular amongst the groups that they are targetted at. Windows has mass-market appeal, because it's easy to use. And please, I love Linux, but don't tell me Linux is just as easy. I've never blown an entire day hunting for drivers, fixing dependancies, and compiling millions of lines of code when setting up a Windows machine.
Linux, on the other hand, is FREE. I mean, gee whiz, even the full XP HOME edition is bending people over for $200. It'll soon be more economical to buy a Windows-preloaded PC than to buy the OS by itself, for crying out loud! Linux, however, does *not* have mass-market appeal, because it has yet to fully, and consistently support the things that the mass market wants; ease of use, and entertainment. What it *does* offer is an incredible amount of freedom and customization that Windows never will, which makes it attractive to the group that it is aimed at; professionals, whether they be IT, research, or otherwise.