You may be right about what seeds men's behaviour. But I believe you are mistaken that these are not factors in survivability. It is in your caveat "given equal training". I mean, you just casually sneak it in there but it is actually the foundation for my entire post. What is a childhood if not training for life?
Also what do you mean by "aside from basic physical tests [of strength]"? Do you mean ignore them? Aren't they critical factors in determining if a given act is "dangerous"?
For example, if a person walks past a ladder knowing an object in view may fall, that is a generically dangerous act. But defining the problem more specifically, we see a 30 pound blunt object at a height of 7 feet. Suddenly, half the male population no longer considers the act dangerous because they can brace it or catch it as they walk by. How many women no longer consider it a dangerous situation?
What you seem to be saying is that the men are more likely wrong. That while more men will certainly attempt to get the reward for a equal task, they are not more likely to survive the act. You seem to believe that correctness will not be equal.
I am saying that more men will attempt to get the reward and that of those that attempt to get the reward, men and women, correctness will be about equal.
One trick to assessing peoples willingness to take risk is to allow each person to create a subjectively risky scenario. Then place a need/reward, again biased to the subject, and rate peoples subsequent willingness to perform the act. That type of study might also breakdown along gender lines and that would be interesting. It would also interesting to see what subjects consider to be risky and how that runs along gender lines.
Perhaps a better assessment would having a group assess a situation to be safe. You could arrange a platform and a mobile landing about 4 feet off the ground with black padding for a catch. The black would create an illusion of depth. Then for each subject move the platform to what the subject considers maximum safe distance and allow them to jump for it. Then assess correctness. The results could be evaluated a number of ways including or excluding distance jumped, height, weight and physical condition of subject. However, the botom line is that if men are "Risk Takers", as everyone seems to think, they will fail more often than women.
Actually, I disagree here. Men do more dangerous things because we are more capable of doing more dangerous things successfully. This isn't just bravado. There is a certain amount of risk assessment to every action a person takes. And depending on how active a person is dictates their self awareness as well as how capable they are of performing a given feat. A given act may be considered objectively dangerous but every act danger level is subjective to the person performing the act.
Men seem to do more dangerous things because they are more likely to survive the 'dangerous' activity. This should balance out the lifespan issue at least somewhat. Plus in modern life the average person isn't excatly the daredevil risk taker, yet the lifespan discrepency remains.
A more interesting study would be comparing the lifespans of women with certain numbers of children. Spinsters, vs. one child, vs. 2 children and so on. It is not just many vs. none since there is also an inherent risk in the act of birthing achild. I would think so anyway. Of course, it might be difficult to separate lifestyle and environment from those studies, but who knows?
The attack was ad-hominem but it also clearly set the poster opinion. ANYONE who choose to influence science based on a personal or religios belief is a fundie. It doesn't matter what you are so fundamental/orthodox about. And I think what you created is a strawman. I am no debate expert but you are making an argument of the posters opinion of the parent post. That was not his point.
His point, imho, was that people seek to influence science according to their own agenda and still walk around thinking they support science. It is like saying I support gay people but shutting down the local gay club due to arcane/outdated licensing laws.
My opinion of the matter is that science needs to run amok a bit for progress to be made before I am old and grey. Yes, I support the notion of ethics in science. We should not treat test animals inhumanely for our convenience, however. We should not endanger lives for scientific curiosity.
When I first heard the Korean embryo debacle it appeared the only scandal was in how he obtained the embryos. I could not believe that genuine scientific/medical breakthroughs were being tossed in the garbage because he dared to buy eggs from staff. Oh, the outrage!:eye-roll: Seriously, if he had 20 peasant women tied up in his basement from whom he was harvesting eggs against their will... that is an ethics violation. That is a crime. This other bullshit is hair splitting and retarded.
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with believing in pure science. It is just unrealistic.
I disagree. I think there will eventualy be a flashpoint where MMO's cease to exist. Everyone will simply disconnect (mostly voluntary, some not) and move on with their lives. Consoles will be retained in their niche because they are safe, controllable fun.
I would cut him some slack but this interview is hype. Bad hype, just like the past was bad hype. If he had said "I am trying to make a good game" I could accept that. But, no, he is just attaching his name to a phantom title that will supposedly rock your world. It's the same ego, which is amazing given the public floggings his name has received.
On the other hand this interview might not have been his idea. It might be a slow news day and the writer said "I wonder what Romero is up to? I could use a good laugh." I am not a fan of kicking someone while they are down and trying to make a comeback.
In contemplating this notion, especially trying to guess the meanings of teh bigger words, I had a little discussion in my head. It was a huddle of sorts where my brains seemed to duck under teh hood and say to itself "what we got for this?" Interestingly the answer came back inconclusive. But it claimed that if there were more than one intellignece they all generally had my best interests at heart so I shouldn't worry about it too much.
I love it. What I find most amusing about that article is that a obviously intelligent person would bork a simple answer. I mean, don't give me that crap about roots, infinite permutations and what not. We are talking common usage here. We are talking about a set of words used so frequently that they are no longer considered 'built' so much as spoken. New roots more or less. And as to her answer, either you know or you don't. She was put on the spot, so she said 150? Well, that is either accurate or not and her credibilty on the matter is tied wholly to it whether she likes it or not.
Either they have a single word for wet snow or they just say 'wet snow' like the rest of the world. It's not a difficult question and the notion that they join words together just means they don't waste time or space with 'spaces' like most folks. Any other answer is deliberately misleading. An intelligent audience will see the difference.
The fundamental question being asked is not how many words do these people use for snow. The fundamental question being asked is if my people spent generations fundamentally tied to 'snow' would we eventually become more intimately acquainted with it such that we gain a deeper understanding of it and distinguish these things using words. Apparently, the short answer is no. It's just snow. But that might cost valuable funding of the research so let's spout some crap about complex word structure which allows many words for snow. Well, imo, that research into complex language structure is valuable in of itself without needing to mislead the reader about the number of words for snow.
Between the skepticism and paranoia, it's amazing anyone discusses anything on these boards.
For the skeptics:
Yes this is new and unproven technology. You do come to slashdot to read about that right? I know I don't come to slashdot to read up on 30 year old solar tech. I want to hear about the new and in development stuff. Sure it might not come to bpass and have the articles read like their begging for funding but it's still good stuff and a glimpse into a possible future.
For the paranoid:
It's called 'keeping honest people honest'. You lock your car door right? Well, guess what? Sometimes, that just means you get a smashed window as well as a stolen radio. I like the direction this technology might go in that it has the potential to free more innocent people and capture more guilty people. On average. Across the whole spectrum of civil and criminal court. And I would expect that before it is implemented that it would be cost effective and provably consistent.
For the comedians:
iMRI?? is there anything iPod's can't do? I can't wait to get my portable brain scan.
Similar here in southern Idaho. As a kid I remember having snowball fights, snow forts, and snowmen for most of the winter months. This year we had one day where the snow lasted 8+ hours. 3 inches of snow that night, gone by sunset the next day.
You may be picking nits but really the phrase stands as a commentary of the general intellectual malaise plaguing the world.
Ha!
Either way, the monster is as much Frankenstein as his creator. It is how he is known and if that is not a name/alias then what is?
As to the grandparent post, I generally disagree with the assertion that people are dumber. I believe that people are percieved as dumber. And I blame that womanizing, self-serving, jackass Einstein.
Here you have a famous scientist given the world's ear and what does he do? Make excuses for his own bad behavior is what. Can't match your socks? Tell the world, it's immaterial. Can't remember a simple phone number? Say that if it's been written down then there is no need to memorize it.
[rant] Tell future generations that imagination is more important than knowledge?
Well, guess what Einstein? That advice cost me a shot at enrolling in a prestigious university. I have imagination falling out my backside, but it has no direction or purpose and standardized testing asks for details. Advanced degree's (Master or PhD) require retention, not learn and purge. [/rant]
It may be that Einstein simply gave lazy/dumb people an excuse to not remember anything. But by that same standard why are we so critical of people that do not have sufficient factoids on tap? Seriously, the who's who of modern science? You would have to be a physicist or a physics junkie to have enough names on tap to hit 5 let alone 10, imho.
That is interesting. Once upon a time brain freezes were a rarity for me. But I burned my mouth pretty regularly. Heck one year I scalded the roof of my mouth so badly that half the surface area was a blister. *pop*
Anyway time passed and nothing interesting. I don't eat ice cream, snow cones or slurpees very often. And I smartened up about drinking too hot coffee, or potatoes in stew. Well, last week I bought a slurpee and took 2 swigs and nearly collapsed from the worst brain freeze in my life! It must have lasted 2 whole minutes. Brutal, I swear! I paused to reflect and then took another swig.. another wave of pain! I nearly fell down!
What I got from it: We are going to do it. Some will be good and tactful but attractive and make money (for everyone). Others will be poorly done and be hated and not make money (for anyone).
That was the gist of it, yes? The natural extension of the 'wait and see' aspect seemed to say that if going forward it becomes clear that game developers are incapable of successfully placing an ad without angering consumers then they shall taper off trying to do so. But modest success will engender further controlled efforts.
I also like that they seem to see obvious failures for what they are. It means that we do not have to live in Fear of playing a Captain Amazing (from Mystery Men) game where every five mins is an ad/product placement. All we have to worry about is seeing the tired thirsty hero knock back a refreshing soda on occasion. God forbid:)
so that the player is conditioned to pull a trigger when seeing someone go after his girlfriend?
Yeah, cuz in the good old days people didn't react to guys making plays at each other girlfriends. It was all good. Wife swapping, free love all that jazz. Wait? Wasn't that only for hippies? An odd statement from a "marine".
I think California might still have a law... something about "Crime of Passion"? Wherein if you catch your wife sleeping with another man and you kill them both you recieve a lesser penalty because well, damn, they were kinda asking for it.
[sarcasm] What get's me is how clearly this article demonstrates the rise of violence in our society in the last decade or so. I mean look at all the new words that had to be invented since this generation of video gamers has come into existence. 'Homicide', 'Oedipus Complex', 'Necrophilia' to name a few. These are scary stuff and surely did not exist before the advent of these terrible games.
It's really those 3rd world low tech countries that have it good. Those lucky bastards barely get TV, let alone a chance to play PDZ on my XBox360 on my new 60" HP HDTV MDP with surround sound. Lucky bastards indeed... [/sarcasm]
Crazy!
These guys would rather give 1 million to bad movies and put 9 mil in their pocket than give their government 2 mil and put 8 mil in their pocket.
You might say "Duh" but it's just stupid. That 2 mill should be for schools, public services and the benefit of every damn body. Well, movies aren't the devil but, damnit, won't someone think of the children!
LOL:P
I'm no expert but I think you completely missed the point.
Uwe Boll is not "mediocre" and his films are neither "mediocre" nor "profitable". Your cynical assessment of the studios desire to profit irregardless of our enjoyment is technically correct. However, it deliberately ignores the clearly stated facts.
Uwe Boll is a horrible director. His films are both horrible and NOT profitable. So given your assessment of it being all about the money, how is Uwe able to continue making movies? Unless you agree that it must be a scam?
17 to 18 is a huge gap in time at that age. It is just one year in life and in general not a big deal but kids change so rapidly from 13 to 18 that you have to wait for everyone to reach the same page of maturity when writing stuff in the big book of rules. I have met 15 year olds that were indistinguishable from 18 year olds and I don't even get out that much. But that doesn't preclude late bloomers and impressionable kids who are just getting ready to step out on their own at 18.
Do you really want a psyche profile for presidential selection? Should we give em a physical and genetic screening? Use the Probulator 6000 to check for cancers and test limits?
Here's a plan:
Let's just let the brave souls with the financial and popular backing make a go of it in contest of ideas and ideologies to lead our country with constraint that true change shall be governed by a diverse representation of the people.
Or something like that. Bottom line is that the mindset of a president does not dictate the greatness of the president or the outcome of his terms. It is mostly luck, perception and historians sifting through the garbage.
My brother once asked me if I thought he was arrogant. I was put on the spot because he had been hurt by an ex-girlfriend recently but really needed honest feedback. So I said "No, your not arrogant... your just self-aware to a high degree." We laughed and moved on.
Nicknames happen in a variety of ways I think. In the past it was a form of branding that took place involuntarily from some incident or other. And depending on one's associations these names would stick and perhaps become a part of the person.
In the internet and gaming communities, something relatively new happened. Suddenly a stranger asked us, what do you wish to be called here? I suppose it is not that new. Any time you meet a stranger you can lie about your name. I have seen it done. Alias is the word.
But I do think that nicks or handles are more persistent than that. In fact the thing that Taco seems to be touching on for me is that many of us are consistent with our choice of a handle. We are given a palette of past experience and asked to choose something unique to identify ourselves with. Some take it seriously and other's do not.
I have been Drakai for ~15 years and found it to be somewhat unique. I was shocked to find it already used in WoW and regret waiting so long to pick up the game for play. Oh well, I have other alias's, I suppose.
Ironically, when I first read the concept I thought 'this will never work'. But as I read more I found myself warming to the idea. And now it's gone:P
And the idea of a game maker declining to produce a game because it failed to meet a arbitrary standard? Interesting but frankly it sounds like a smokescreen. I think a more honest appraisal would be 'Not good enough to take customers from other MMO's which is a must to cover the operational cost of maintaining a MMO.'
I think that is the unfortunate effect of these online games is that only a Game of the Year game can be banked on. Where as single player games can be sold one shot style with a slightly lowered price for reduced (intentional or otherwise) quality games.
Some people may not want to see it but the bottom line is that this was bad for business.
Personally, I would like the chance to buy a AO game. And, again personally, I'd rather get it from my local video game store. But I do not think it likely that EB Games carries AO games or ever will for that matter.
But that doesn't mean I am going to be happy about Take Two 'sneaking one in'. Nor do I advocate lowering the standards of content ratings.
So all said and done, there really needs to be a better way for me to get access to AO games;P
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right about what seeds men's behaviour. But I believe you are mistaken that these are not factors in survivability. It is in your caveat "given equal training". I mean, you just casually sneak it in there but it is actually the foundation for my entire post. What is a childhood if not training for life?
Also what do you mean by "aside from basic physical tests [of strength]"? Do you mean ignore them? Aren't they critical factors in determining if a given act is "dangerous"?
For example, if a person walks past a ladder knowing an object in view may fall, that is a generically dangerous act. But defining the problem more specifically, we see a 30 pound blunt object at a height of 7 feet. Suddenly, half the male population no longer considers the act dangerous because they can brace it or catch it as they walk by. How many women no longer consider it a dangerous situation?
What you seem to be saying is that the men are more likely wrong. That while more men will certainly attempt to get the reward for a equal task, they are not more likely to survive the act. You seem to believe that correctness will not be equal.
I am saying that more men will attempt to get the reward and that of those that attempt to get the reward, men and women, correctness will be about equal.
One trick to assessing peoples willingness to take risk is to allow each person to create a subjectively risky scenario. Then place a need/reward, again biased to the subject, and rate peoples subsequent willingness to perform the act. That type of study might also breakdown along gender lines and that would be interesting. It would also interesting to see what subjects consider to be risky and how that runs along gender lines.
Perhaps a better assessment would having a group assess a situation to be safe. You could arrange a platform and a mobile landing about 4 feet off the ground with black padding for a catch. The black would create an illusion of depth. Then for each subject move the platform to what the subject considers maximum safe distance and allow them to jump for it. Then assess correctness. The results could be evaluated a number of ways including or excluding distance jumped, height, weight and physical condition of subject. However, the botom line is that if men are "Risk Takers", as everyone seems to think, they will fail more often than women.
This is why it's so important to have more than one pub in a town!
Actually, I disagree here. Men do more dangerous things because we are more capable of doing more dangerous things successfully. This isn't just bravado. There is a certain amount of risk assessment to every action a person takes. And depending on how active a person is dictates their self awareness as well as how capable they are of performing a given feat. A given act may be considered objectively dangerous but every act danger level is subjective to the person performing the act.
Men seem to do more dangerous things because they are more likely to survive the 'dangerous' activity. This should balance out the lifespan issue at least somewhat. Plus in modern life the average person isn't excatly the daredevil risk taker, yet the lifespan discrepency remains.
A more interesting study would be comparing the lifespans of women with certain numbers of children. Spinsters, vs. one child, vs. 2 children and so on. It is not just many vs. none since there is also an inherent risk in the act of birthing achild. I would think so anyway. Of course, it might be difficult to separate lifestyle and environment from those studies, but who knows?
The attack was ad-hominem but it also clearly set the poster opinion. ANYONE who choose to influence science based on a personal or religios belief is a fundie. It doesn't matter what you are so fundamental/orthodox about. And I think what you created is a strawman. I am no debate expert but you are making an argument of the posters opinion of the parent post. That was not his point.
:eye-roll: Seriously, if he had 20 peasant women tied up in his basement from whom he was harvesting eggs against their will... that is an ethics violation. That is a crime. This other bullshit is hair splitting and retarded.
His point, imho, was that people seek to influence science according to their own agenda and still walk around thinking they support science. It is like saying I support gay people but shutting down the local gay club due to arcane/outdated licensing laws.
My opinion of the matter is that science needs to run amok a bit for progress to be made before I am old and grey. Yes, I support the notion of ethics in science. We should not treat test animals inhumanely for our convenience, however. We should not endanger lives for scientific curiosity.
When I first heard the Korean embryo debacle it appeared the only scandal was in how he obtained the embryos. I could not believe that genuine scientific/medical breakthroughs were being tossed in the garbage because he dared to buy eggs from staff. Oh, the outrage!
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with believing in pure science. It is just unrealistic.
I disagree. I think there will eventualy be a flashpoint where MMO's cease to exist. Everyone will simply disconnect (mostly voluntary, some not) and move on with their lives. Consoles will be retained in their niche because they are safe, controllable fun.
I would cut him some slack but this interview is hype. Bad hype, just like the past was bad hype. If he had said "I am trying to make a good game" I could accept that. But, no, he is just attaching his name to a phantom title that will supposedly rock your world. It's the same ego, which is amazing given the public floggings his name has received. On the other hand this interview might not have been his idea. It might be a slow news day and the writer said "I wonder what Romero is up to? I could use a good laugh." I am not a fan of kicking someone while they are down and trying to make a comeback.
I thought the conclusion was that the left half of your brain would duck under the desk and the right half would be wondering what the big deal was?
In contemplating this notion, especially trying to guess the meanings of teh bigger words, I had a little discussion in my head. It was a huddle of sorts where my brains seemed to duck under teh hood and say to itself "what we got for this?" Interestingly the answer came back inconclusive. But it claimed that if there were more than one intellignece they all generally had my best interests at heart so I shouldn't worry about it too much.
Word Lust!! Hah!
I love it. What I find most amusing about that article is that a obviously intelligent person would bork a simple answer. I mean, don't give me that crap about roots, infinite permutations and what not. We are talking common usage here. We are talking about a set of words used so frequently that they are no longer considered 'built' so much as spoken. New roots more or less. And as to her answer, either you know or you don't. She was put on the spot, so she said 150? Well, that is either accurate or not and her credibilty on the matter is tied wholly to it whether she likes it or not.
Either they have a single word for wet snow or they just say 'wet snow' like the rest of the world. It's not a difficult question and the notion that they join words together just means they don't waste time or space with 'spaces' like most folks. Any other answer is deliberately misleading. An intelligent audience will see the difference.
The fundamental question being asked is not how many words do these people use for snow. The fundamental question being asked is if my people spent generations fundamentally tied to 'snow' would we eventually become more intimately acquainted with it such that we gain a deeper understanding of it and distinguish these things using words. Apparently, the short answer is no. It's just snow. But that might cost valuable funding of the research so let's spout some crap about complex word structure which allows many words for snow. Well, imo, that research into complex language structure is valuable in of itself without needing to mislead the reader about the number of words for snow.
I doubt that made sense...
Between the skepticism and paranoia, it's amazing anyone discusses anything on these boards.
For the skeptics:
Yes this is new and unproven technology. You do come to slashdot to read about that right? I know I don't come to slashdot to read up on 30 year old solar tech. I want to hear about the new and in development stuff. Sure it might not come to bpass and have the articles read like their begging for funding but it's still good stuff and a glimpse into a possible future.
For the paranoid:
It's called 'keeping honest people honest'. You lock your car door right? Well, guess what? Sometimes, that just means you get a smashed window as well as a stolen radio. I like the direction this technology might go in that it has the potential to free more innocent people and capture more guilty people. On average. Across the whole spectrum of civil and criminal court. And I would expect that before it is implemented that it would be cost effective and provably consistent.
For the comedians:
iMRI?? is there anything iPod's can't do? I can't wait to get my portable brain scan.
Similar here in southern Idaho. As a kid I remember having snowball fights, snow forts, and snowmen for most of the winter months. This year we had one day where the snow lasted 8+ hours. 3 inches of snow that night, gone by sunset the next day.
"...or that dude who created Frankenstein..."
You may be picking nits but really the phrase stands as a commentary of the general intellectual malaise plaguing the world.
Ha!
Either way, the monster is as much Frankenstein as his creator. It is how he is known and if that is not a name/alias then what is?
As to the grandparent post, I generally disagree with the assertion that people are dumber. I believe that people are percieved as dumber. And I blame that womanizing, self-serving, jackass Einstein.
Here you have a famous scientist given the world's ear and what does he do? Make excuses for his own bad behavior is what. Can't match your socks? Tell the world, it's immaterial. Can't remember a simple phone number? Say that if it's been written down then there is no need to memorize it.
[rant]
Tell future generations that imagination is more important than knowledge?
Well, guess what Einstein? That advice cost me a shot at enrolling in a prestigious university. I have imagination falling out my backside, but it has no direction or purpose and standardized testing asks for details. Advanced degree's (Master or PhD) require retention, not learn and purge.
[/rant]
It may be that Einstein simply gave lazy/dumb people an excuse to not remember anything. But by that same standard why are we so critical of people that do not have sufficient factoids on tap? Seriously, the who's who of modern science? You would have to be a physicist or a physics junkie to have enough names on tap to hit 5 let alone 10, imho.
That is interesting. Once upon a time brain freezes were a rarity for me. But I burned my mouth pretty regularly. Heck one year I scalded the roof of my mouth so badly that half the surface area was a blister. *pop*
Anyway time passed and nothing interesting. I don't eat ice cream, snow cones or slurpees very often. And I smartened up about drinking too hot coffee, or potatoes in stew. Well, last week I bought a slurpee and took 2 swigs and nearly collapsed from the worst brain freeze in my life! It must have lasted 2 whole minutes. Brutal, I swear! I paused to reflect and then took another swig.. another wave of pain! I nearly fell down!
I took small sips for the rest of the day.
It certainly seemed pretty honest to me.
:)
What I got from it:
We are going to do it. Some will be good and tactful but attractive and make money (for everyone). Others will be poorly done and be hated and not make money (for anyone).
That was the gist of it, yes? The natural extension of the 'wait and see' aspect seemed to say that if going forward it becomes clear that game developers are incapable of successfully placing an ad without angering consumers then they shall taper off trying to do so. But modest success will engender further controlled efforts.
I also like that they seem to see obvious failures for what they are. It means that we do not have to live in Fear of playing a Captain Amazing (from Mystery Men) game where every five mins is an ad/product placement. All we have to worry about is seeing the tired thirsty hero knock back a refreshing soda on occasion. God forbid
I think California might still have a law... something about "Crime of Passion"? Wherein if you catch your wife sleeping with another man and you kill them both you recieve a lesser penalty because well, damn, they were kinda asking for it.
[sarcasm]
What get's me is how clearly this article demonstrates the rise of violence in our society in the last decade or so. I mean look at all the new words that had to be invented since this generation of video gamers has come into existence. 'Homicide', 'Oedipus Complex', 'Necrophilia' to name a few. These are scary stuff and surely did not exist before the advent of these terrible games.
It's really those 3rd world low tech countries that have it good. Those lucky bastards barely get TV, let alone a chance to play PDZ on my XBox360 on my new 60" HP HDTV MDP with surround sound. Lucky bastards indeed...
[/sarcasm]
Crazy! These guys would rather give 1 million to bad movies and put 9 mil in their pocket than give their government 2 mil and put 8 mil in their pocket. You might say "Duh" but it's just stupid. That 2 mill should be for schools, public services and the benefit of every damn body. Well, movies aren't the devil but, damnit, won't someone think of the children! LOL :P
I'm no expert but I think you completely missed the point.
Uwe Boll is not "mediocre" and his films are neither "mediocre" nor "profitable". Your cynical assessment of the studios desire to profit irregardless of our enjoyment is technically correct. However, it deliberately ignores the clearly stated facts.
Uwe Boll is a horrible director. His films are both horrible and NOT profitable. So given your assessment of it being all about the money, how is Uwe able to continue making movies? Unless you agree that it must be a scam?
17 to 18 is a huge gap in time at that age. It is just one year in life and in general not a big deal but kids change so rapidly from 13 to 18 that you have to wait for everyone to reach the same page of maturity when writing stuff in the big book of rules. I have met 15 year olds that were indistinguishable from 18 year olds and I don't even get out that much. But that doesn't preclude late bloomers and impressionable kids who are just getting ready to step out on their own at 18.
Do you really want a psyche profile for presidential selection? Should we give em a physical and genetic screening? Use the Probulator 6000 to check for cancers and test limits?
Here's a plan:
Let's just let the brave souls with the financial and popular backing make a go of it in contest of ideas and ideologies to lead our country with constraint that true change shall be governed by a diverse representation of the people.
Or something like that. Bottom line is that the mindset of a president does not dictate the greatness of the president or the outcome of his terms. It is mostly luck, perception and historians sifting through the garbage.
My brother once asked me if I thought he was arrogant. I was put on the spot because he had been hurt by an ex-girlfriend recently but really needed honest feedback. So I said "No, your not arrogant... your just self-aware to a high degree." We laughed and moved on.
Nicknames?
Nicknames happen in a variety of ways I think. In the past it was a form of branding that took place involuntarily from some incident or other. And depending on one's associations these names would stick and perhaps become a part of the person.
In the internet and gaming communities, something relatively new happened. Suddenly a stranger asked us, what do you wish to be called here? I suppose it is not that new. Any time you meet a stranger you can lie about your name. I have seen it done. Alias is the word.
But I do think that nicks or handles are more persistent than that. In fact the thing that Taco seems to be touching on for me is that many of us are consistent with our choice of a handle. We are given a palette of past experience and asked to choose something unique to identify ourselves with. Some take it seriously and other's do not.
I have been Drakai for ~15 years and found it to be somewhat unique. I was shocked to find it already used in WoW and regret waiting so long to pick up the game for play. Oh well, I have other alias's, I suppose.
True enough. And the first thing I thought was 'Well, it's time I designed my own method of transportation to work, oil-independant' ...
:)
and the first theing that came to my mind was:
A giant slingshot...
wheeeeeee!!!!
Ouch!
:P
Ironically, when I first read the concept I thought 'this will never work'. But as I read more I found myself warming to the idea. And now it's gone
And the idea of a game maker declining to produce a game because it failed to meet a arbitrary standard? Interesting but frankly it sounds like a smokescreen. I think a more honest appraisal would be 'Not good enough to take customers from other MMO's which is a must to cover the operational cost of maintaining a MMO.'
I think that is the unfortunate effect of these online games is that only a Game of the Year game can be banked on. Where as single player games can be sold one shot style with a slightly lowered price for reduced (intentional or otherwise) quality games.
You hit the nail on the head with this post.
;P
Some people may not want to see it but the bottom line is that this was bad for business.
Personally, I would like the chance to buy a AO game. And, again personally, I'd rather get it from my local video game store. But I do not think it likely that EB Games carries AO games or ever will for that matter.
But that doesn't mean I am going to be happy about Take Two 'sneaking one in'. Nor do I advocate lowering the standards of content ratings.
So all said and done, there really needs to be a better way for me to get access to AO games