Those same tricks, if overused, can make the game lifeless and boring. Palette swapping and combinatorial mechanics are ok, but you have to make sure that things remain fresh for the player.
I'd say that its recognition that people try to make us feel guilty about a lot of stuff we don't contribute to or have control over. You can say that everyone agrees with him, but they still often place the burden on our collective shoulders, and then scold us when we insist that we are not part of the problem. At least that's how some people feel.
I'm a male, and I don't like "juvenile male banter" either, but if I'm trying to integrate myself into another workplace culture, its my responsibility to adapt, rather than complain until they adapt to me. Yes it sucks, but can you honestly say that the entire workplace should have to tip-toe around, and adapt to you? I've tried that way, and it breeds resentment. Yes, even between male peers.
So, what can those of us who are not creepy jerks do about it? We could step in and say "Hey quit being a creepy jerk," which might make her feel less capable because we're patronizing and protecting her instead of treating her like an adult. Alternatively, we could advise her to go to HR, which isn't always an option and would probably socially alienate her.
Happily, I've never had to deal with this. I just sometimes worry because, being an introverted nerd, I'm a bit socially inept, and sometimes that comes off as being creepy.
Can I ask why it feels that way? I talk to my female coworkers, and it really doesn't have anything to do with whether they have breasts. I'm just trying to be friendly. I'd hate to think that they might feel that I'm only talking to them because they're women, and not because I value their contribution.
Anything concrete? Or is it just a feeling? If its just a feeling, I'm not sure there's much I, and other guys, can do...
My problem is that that tiny portion includes the entire game industry, and the free software arena has been utterly inept at stepping in to fill that gap.
I'll be more optimistic about a Free-software-only world when I start seeing free software groups put out games that match Call of Duty 4, World of Warcraft, Fallout 3, and other AAA games in quality. Quality means across the board: graphics, sound, and gameplay. No "it looks like crap but its fun and thats all that matters" cop-outs. Oh, and no re-using proprietary engines or mods. It has to be started and ended as free software. And we're talking not just one or two games, but a good representation of the major genres.
I brought my XBox with me when I moved, and I was able to play downloaded content just fine without a network connection. You need a network connection if you are trying to play that content on a machine that you did not buy the content on (i.e., your original XBox RRoDed and you have a new one).
Languages can make bad code harder or easier to write however. Its perfectly acceptable to blame a language if it makes it hard to do things the "right way." I'm not much of a PHP hater, but a lot of stuff that they've done with the language makes me roll my eyes.
Well there are good offshore companies, but when a company off-shores they tend to do so to save money, which means they go for the cheap and crappy companies. Unfortunately, because a lot of these places are a growing market, there tend to be an abundance of the cheap places, who subsequently stock up on poor programmers. The hatchet of the market hasn't had opportunity to trim the fat yet. You'd see a lot of the same stuff going on if you looked at what some companies in the late 90's were producing in America.
The problem is a frightening amount of training material on the web uses concatenated SQL strings to teach SQL. Pull up your average PHP/.Net/Java SQL tutorial and odds are that it will be concatenating strings. Throw that in with the fact that roughly half of the programmers reading that are going to be below average, and there you go.
Or maybe what you call "needing to be in a relationship" is what I call "wanting to be in a relationship." I'm not judgmental of people who find relationships really important, and I tried my best to be non-judgmental in my post as possible. But the fact is that there are huge swaths of people who use relationships to band-aid their own personal problems, and for these people, yes "needing" a relationship is unhealthy.
Do you have a healthy self esteem? Can you go without a relationship without being insanely depressed? Do you go on lengthy pity-parties about being single? Can you be happy and have fun without being in a relationship? If you really believe all the stuff you posted about yourself and not settling, then you probably fall into my "healthy" category.
There's quite a spectrum between thinking that being single is a fate worse than death and being rabidly pro-single. If you lean too heavily to the former, then yes that's unhealthy. I'm sorry if this offends you, but the former is usually a sign of low self esteem and depression. If that offends you, then maybe you need to re-evaluate why.
As far as projecting problems, same goes for you. I'm not pressuring you to be single, and I'm certainly not saying that people who thrive in relationships should be happy with being single. What I'm saying is that single people who want relationships shouldn't feel like their a loser, or feel like they have to jump into a relationship to have worth or being generally happy. In your zeal to paint me as a jerk you completely missed the entire point of my post, and threw your own stereotype on top of it.
And yes, I do think society pressures single people to be in a relationship, including those who really shouldn't. Some people thrive in relationships, some don't, and I'd rather society as a whole stop pressuring people into the wrong choices. Nothing good can come from trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
I'm fairly happy with the iPhone... when it works.
The problem is that I've had it replaced FOUR TIMES.
1) Negative black problem. Firefly and Battlestar Galactica were unwatchable. 2) Dead zone developed on top of touch screen, meaning I can't use half the menu. 3) Same dead zone 4) Random lock-ups. Hard reset produced lock-ups during boots. I'd have 4-5 hour time-spans where I simply couldn't use my phone.
And this is adding to the fact that every patch makes the damn browser more and more flakey. I'd say theres a 1/4 chance of a Slashdot article crashing the browser.
I love the phone, love the UI, but its unreliable and one of the main features (the browser) is way too flakey. I'll probably look into an Android based phone next time I'm phone shopping. Sorry Apple.
Its important to note (and this is as an Obama supporter) that doing "everything we can to help Obama succeed" also includes being critical of his plans and holding him accountable when he steps out of line. No government office is above criticism. Debate and accountability is healthy.
I sincerely hope that republicans will continue to offer an opposing voice to the policies of our democrat administration. If the administration's ideas are good, they will overcome the opposition, and if they are bad then they will die properly. Its a natural selection of ideas.
Hopefully in the coming years the republicans will get their shit together and start offering us some candidates with policies based on economic conservatism (because the previous administration sure as hell wasn't). Sometimes its important for the government to open up the public wallet, but I damn sure want there to be people who go "Wait a minute, do we really need this?" instead of spending like drunken sailors.
I don't think that its unhealthy at all to want a relationship. Its perfectly healthy. I think its unhealthy to need a relationship. Relationships tend to be healthier if both parties feel like they want to be in the relationship instead of feeling like they need the relationship. I do think people should be happy with themselves, even if they are single and want a relationship.
Its the difference between thinking "Yeah I'm single," and "OMG, I'm a single loser."
A lot of guys, myself included, feel that today's society strongly portrays the latter view: if you're not in a relationship or having lots of sex, you're a loser. Having love and a partner is important, but there's a lot of other important things in life too. Focusing so intently on the relationship aspect, while evolutionarily desirable, is not the key to a happy life.
Maybe you should read that again buddy. I said that I'm suspicious of atheists that espouse a with-us-or-against us, we're-better-than-those-other-guys view. In other words, I dislike people that espouse an uninformed and hypocritical world view.
Given that I am an atheist myself, it would be rather odd if I were suspicious of myself.
That implication is yours. They explicitly stated why they refused, and that it had nothing to do with the game. You're the one extrapolating their "true" motives, and coincidentally this matches your pre-confirmed bias. Funny that.
Or do you have any evidence whatsoever that they wouldn't apply the same standards against similar non-sponsored fundraisers? By all means, supply your evidence, I would like to know as well.
By all means, have fun stewing in your righteous indignation.
The way I read it is that they don't accept donations at all if:
1) it appears to be an endorsement of the organization giving
and
2) if they had no original involvement with the organization or event from which the funds are raised
The issue is that this money was raised at a fundraiser at a certain event which the charity was not involved in. Other donations wouldn't have the same baggage, and thus they'd have no reason to deny them. Unfortunately, charities have to protect their image in order to keep donations coming in.
I'm not saying that they absolutely didn't refuse the funds because of the D&D connection. But they've made a plausible claim that they didn't, and it seems to be sincere. No-one has put forth any other evidence that they'd accept a donation from a similar fund-raising event that wasn't D&D motivated. So, given the lack of information, my view is that the reasonable course of action is to take their word for it and just donate the money elsewhere. Whats the alternative? Attribute ulterior motives without evidence so we can have a good ol' religious bash-fest? Pass.
The money doesn't just *poof* disappear because one charity said "No thanks." Last time I checked there is a huge variety of charities that they can donate that money to.
People aren't really known for their rationality. I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality. Everyone is rational and irrational at various points in their life. I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.
I mean look at this story. A charity denies a donation because they felt it would imply an endorsement and its against their policy to endorse something that they have no participation in. Ok, I think thats a bad decision, but whatever. People get mad, so they clarify that it has nothing to do with the actual game. Whats the response? Call them a liar so that we have an excuse to break out the torches and pitchforks. Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word and simply donation the money elsewhere.
No, this particular donation appeared to imply an endorsement. They're in no way saying that every donation received implies an endorsement. Why they feel that way is probably related to the detail of how the funds were raised and donated (as in, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know).
Well, the difference here is that they feel that the donation implies their endorsement, while other donations might carry no such implication. Its perfectly valid for a charity to be careful about what they appear to endorse. They've explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with D&D, so why not take their words at face value? Whats the harm? That we can't get worked up into an "OMG Christians!" fervor?
Slashdot Mirror
I need to bookmark your post because you summed up exactly how I feel whenever I talk to a libertarian.
Those same tricks, if overused, can make the game lifeless and boring. Palette swapping and combinatorial mechanics are ok, but you have to make sure that things remain fresh for the player.
I'd say that its recognition that people try to make us feel guilty about a lot of stuff we don't contribute to or have control over. You can say that everyone agrees with him, but they still often place the burden on our collective shoulders, and then scold us when we insist that we are not part of the problem. At least that's how some people feel.
I'm a male, and I don't like "juvenile male banter" either, but if I'm trying to integrate myself into another workplace culture, its my responsibility to adapt, rather than complain until they adapt to me. Yes it sucks, but can you honestly say that the entire workplace should have to tip-toe around, and adapt to you? I've tried that way, and it breeds resentment. Yes, even between male peers.
So, what can those of us who are not creepy jerks do about it? We could step in and say "Hey quit being a creepy jerk," which might make her feel less capable because we're patronizing and protecting her instead of treating her like an adult. Alternatively, we could advise her to go to HR, which isn't always an option and would probably socially alienate her.
Happily, I've never had to deal with this. I just sometimes worry because, being an introverted nerd, I'm a bit socially inept, and sometimes that comes off as being creepy.
Can I ask why it feels that way? I talk to my female coworkers, and it really doesn't have anything to do with whether they have breasts. I'm just trying to be friendly. I'd hate to think that they might feel that I'm only talking to them because they're women, and not because I value their contribution.
Anything concrete? Or is it just a feeling? If its just a feeling, I'm not sure there's much I, and other guys, can do...
My problem is that that tiny portion includes the entire game industry, and the free software arena has been utterly inept at stepping in to fill that gap.
I'll be more optimistic about a Free-software-only world when I start seeing free software groups put out games that match Call of Duty 4, World of Warcraft, Fallout 3, and other AAA games in quality. Quality means across the board: graphics, sound, and gameplay. No "it looks like crap but its fun and thats all that matters" cop-outs. Oh, and no re-using proprietary engines or mods. It has to be started and ended as free software. And we're talking not just one or two games, but a good representation of the major genres.
Last time I looked, the offerings were laughable.
I brought my XBox with me when I moved, and I was able to play downloaded content just fine without a network connection. You need a network connection if you are trying to play that content on a machine that you did not buy the content on (i.e., your original XBox RRoDed and you have a new one).
Languages can make bad code harder or easier to write however. Its perfectly acceptable to blame a language if it makes it hard to do things the "right way." I'm not much of a PHP hater, but a lot of stuff that they've done with the language makes me roll my eyes.
Well there are good offshore companies, but when a company off-shores they tend to do so to save money, which means they go for the cheap and crappy companies. Unfortunately, because a lot of these places are a growing market, there tend to be an abundance of the cheap places, who subsequently stock up on poor programmers. The hatchet of the market hasn't had opportunity to trim the fat yet. You'd see a lot of the same stuff going on if you looked at what some companies in the late 90's were producing in America.
The problem is a frightening amount of training material on the web uses concatenated SQL strings to teach SQL. Pull up your average PHP/.Net/Java SQL tutorial and odds are that it will be concatenating strings. Throw that in with the fact that roughly half of the programmers reading that are going to be below average, and there you go.
Wait, so the underpants gnomes are Nazis? I guess we figured out what the missing part of:
1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit!
was.
Or maybe what you call "needing to be in a relationship" is what I call "wanting to be in a relationship." I'm not judgmental of people who find relationships really important, and I tried my best to be non-judgmental in my post as possible. But the fact is that there are huge swaths of people who use relationships to band-aid their own personal problems, and for these people, yes "needing" a relationship is unhealthy.
Do you have a healthy self esteem? Can you go without a relationship without being insanely depressed? Do you go on lengthy pity-parties about being single? Can you be happy and have fun without being in a relationship? If you really believe all the stuff you posted about yourself and not settling, then you probably fall into my "healthy" category.
There's quite a spectrum between thinking that being single is a fate worse than death and being rabidly pro-single. If you lean too heavily to the former, then yes that's unhealthy. I'm sorry if this offends you, but the former is usually a sign of low self esteem and depression. If that offends you, then maybe you need to re-evaluate why.
As far as projecting problems, same goes for you. I'm not pressuring you to be single, and I'm certainly not saying that people who thrive in relationships should be happy with being single. What I'm saying is that single people who want relationships shouldn't feel like their a loser, or feel like they have to jump into a relationship to have worth or being generally happy. In your zeal to paint me as a jerk you completely missed the entire point of my post, and threw your own stereotype on top of it.
And yes, I do think society pressures single people to be in a relationship, including those who really shouldn't. Some people thrive in relationships, some don't, and I'd rather society as a whole stop pressuring people into the wrong choices. Nothing good can come from trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
I'm fairly happy with the iPhone... when it works.
The problem is that I've had it replaced FOUR TIMES.
1) Negative black problem. Firefly and Battlestar Galactica were unwatchable.
2) Dead zone developed on top of touch screen, meaning I can't use half the menu.
3) Same dead zone
4) Random lock-ups. Hard reset produced lock-ups during boots. I'd have 4-5 hour time-spans where I simply couldn't use my phone.
And this is adding to the fact that every patch makes the damn browser more and more flakey. I'd say theres a 1/4 chance of a Slashdot article crashing the browser.
I love the phone, love the UI, but its unreliable and one of the main features (the browser) is way too flakey. I'll probably look into an Android based phone next time I'm phone shopping. Sorry Apple.
Its important to note (and this is as an Obama supporter) that doing "everything we can to help Obama succeed" also includes being critical of his plans and holding him accountable when he steps out of line. No government office is above criticism. Debate and accountability is healthy.
I sincerely hope that republicans will continue to offer an opposing voice to the policies of our democrat administration. If the administration's ideas are good, they will overcome the opposition, and if they are bad then they will die properly. Its a natural selection of ideas.
Hopefully in the coming years the republicans will get their shit together and start offering us some candidates with policies based on economic conservatism (because the previous administration sure as hell wasn't). Sometimes its important for the government to open up the public wallet, but I damn sure want there to be people who go "Wait a minute, do we really need this?" instead of spending like drunken sailors.
Couldn't it be because he's currently a Senator? I have no idea what is involved with getting a .gov domain, so your guess is as good as mine.
I don't think that its unhealthy at all to want a relationship. Its perfectly healthy. I think its unhealthy to need a relationship. Relationships tend to be healthier if both parties feel like they want to be in the relationship instead of feeling like they need the relationship. I do think people should be happy with themselves, even if they are single and want a relationship.
Its the difference between thinking "Yeah I'm single," and "OMG, I'm a single loser."
A lot of guys, myself included, feel that today's society strongly portrays the latter view: if you're not in a relationship or having lots of sex, you're a loser. Having love and a partner is important, but there's a lot of other important things in life too. Focusing so intently on the relationship aspect, while evolutionarily desirable, is not the key to a happy life.
At least in my opinion.
I wish I had mod points, but you summed up my thoughts exactly.
Maybe you should read that again buddy. I said that I'm suspicious of atheists that espouse a with-us-or-against us, we're-better-than-those-other-guys view. In other words, I dislike people that espouse an uninformed and hypocritical world view.
Given that I am an atheist myself, it would be rather odd if I were suspicious of myself.
Any other flagrant bias *you'd* like to display?
That implication is yours. They explicitly stated why they refused, and that it had nothing to do with the game. You're the one extrapolating their "true" motives, and coincidentally this matches your pre-confirmed bias. Funny that.
Or do you have any evidence whatsoever that they wouldn't apply the same standards against similar non-sponsored fundraisers? By all means, supply your evidence, I would like to know as well.
By all means, have fun stewing in your righteous indignation.
The way I read it is that they don't accept donations at all if:
1) it appears to be an endorsement of the organization giving
and
2) if they had no original involvement with the organization or event from which the funds are raised
The issue is that this money was raised at a fundraiser at a certain event which the charity was not involved in. Other donations wouldn't have the same baggage, and thus they'd have no reason to deny them. Unfortunately, charities have to protect their image in order to keep donations coming in.
I'm not saying that they absolutely didn't refuse the funds because of the D&D connection. But they've made a plausible claim that they didn't, and it seems to be sincere. No-one has put forth any other evidence that they'd accept a donation from a similar fund-raising event that wasn't D&D motivated. So, given the lack of information, my view is that the reasonable course of action is to take their word for it and just donate the money elsewhere. Whats the alternative? Attribute ulterior motives without evidence so we can have a good ol' religious bash-fest? Pass.
The money doesn't just *poof* disappear because one charity said "No thanks." Last time I checked there is a huge variety of charities that they can donate that money to.
People aren't really known for their rationality. I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality. Everyone is rational and irrational at various points in their life. I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.
I mean look at this story. A charity denies a donation because they felt it would imply an endorsement and its against their policy to endorse something that they have no participation in. Ok, I think thats a bad decision, but whatever. People get mad, so they clarify that it has nothing to do with the actual game. Whats the response? Call them a liar so that we have an excuse to break out the torches and pitchforks. Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word and simply donation the money elsewhere.
No, this particular donation appeared to imply an endorsement. They're in no way saying that every donation received implies an endorsement. Why they feel that way is probably related to the detail of how the funds were raised and donated (as in, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know).
Well, the difference here is that they feel that the donation implies their endorsement, while other donations might carry no such implication. Its perfectly valid for a charity to be careful about what they appear to endorse. They've explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with D&D, so why not take their words at face value? Whats the harm? That we can't get worked up into an "OMG Christians!" fervor?