So maybe people should stop forming their political opinions based on their gut feelings and instead start carefully considering policy and implications of it.
I will quote from this thread on Gamespot:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-39530902&pid=934403I'm sure some of you are aware Jeff Gertsmann, now the face of GameSpot is responsible for the review. It should come as no surprise he played this game on an Xbox 360 for the review and like most people with a 360 he has a GamerTag attached to his account... as I gazed upon his weak gamescore I found only two achievements had been unlocked. One for beating the first mission and one for trying the co-op.
It should be noted that the OP is dated prior to the firing, so perhaps Gertsmann wasn't sacked for a bad review, but sacked for not doing his job.
When The Matrix came out on DVD it was a big factor to getting people to finally switch formats. Lots of people who didn't previously buy DVDs picked that one up first.
A movie with the potential to do the same would probably be 300. I'll be very interested in seeing if it doesn't kick start this format war into the next level.
Frankly I just don't buy it. I don't buy a word of it.
I realize that all things influence how kids act, but I think it's marginal at best and I find it impossible to believe that video games are going to make a kid become a psychotic nutcase. That's just bull, and frankly I don't know how any reasonable person can think otherwise. I know they did some dumb studies where they had kids play games and then watched them go play fight and concluded they were being more violent (doh!) but play fighting isn't shooting someone in the face.
My son and I just finished God of War together, he ran out of the room in embarrassment when the shirtless chicks came on screen, but so far he hasn't tried to rip the arms off of any passerby.
a 5 year old being entertained by a menu for hours? Either you're full of it or that kid is a bit.. eh.. slow. My 5 year old was hitting mid air rails in Quake 3.
Believe me, I hate to admit this.. I'm a huge video game nut, I've been playing them all of my life and the video game witch hunt going on is annoying the hell out of me... but this is somewhat true. Speaking from personal experience... I'm not the kind of guy predisposed to risky driving, in fact I'm right the opposite, I never speed and if I'm not paying attention when driving I'm more likely to slow down significantly below the speed limit than otherwise. I always make proper left hand turns (god, hardly anyone can do this?) and I always use my signal... but when I play driving games I drive a little faster, and take a few more risks. It's not complete insane or anything, but it is slightly more aggressive driving than I normally would do. For example, outside of my town there are a couple of 45 degree slopping turns on a highway that I used to pass everyday on the way to and from work. They're just sharp enough that most people slow down for them, but truthfully you don't have to. When I was playing Gran Turismo A-Spec I was inspired to take those turns at higher and higher speeds. I never got completely wreckless with it and never had any problems because of it (no wrecks) but I definitely was thinking of the game when I did it and I'd say I was inspired to try it because of the game. Now it's been a few years later and I hadn't done that in a long time.. until last fall when I was playing through Need For Speed: Most Wanted. Yep... same thing. There is a very clear corelation to me between playing driving games and more aggressive driving in my own behavior.
Arcade is overpriced? Tell me something, how much less than $5 would you have to pay for something not to be overpriced? Maybe you're just a cheap bastard?
Or maybe since you think paying $5 to $20 for PS3 online is fine but $5 to $10 for Xbox is expensive... well maybe you're just a PS3 fanboy? Could be?
persistent inability for Nintendo to keep units on the shelves has made it hard for gamers to sustain their enthusiasm
How the hell does that make sense? If gamers aren't enthusiastic then why are they selling like hot cakes? Every store I know gets a periodic shipment of Wiis which then sell out immediately. How is that not enthusiastic support?
To all of you people in here saying content filtering doesn't work:
How can you say that knowing that Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail and AOL all do extremely effective content filtering? They aren't perfect but they're very very good with a low false positive rate.
We spent most of 2006 looking for the best possible solution to our spam problems and had many meetings and spoke with many 3rd parties. At the end of that discovery, despite my strong distaste for it, we outsourced. I hate taking on additional periodic expenses, but in this case it just made too much sense. The spamassassin solution we had been working on constantly was costing us too much in manpower for not very good results.
We used an outfit called Red Condor. They offered external filtering by setting the MX to systems on their network, plus in-house filtering by way of an appliance that you can purchase and deploy. They allowed us a 60 day trial, which went extremely well. The bottom line is this, we now pay about ~$11k a year for ~10k mailboxes and get filtering every bit as good as what you get from the major email players like Gmail or Hotmail. The only downside is there are occasionally delays of up to 15 minutes. Hence it is almost, but not quite a Silver Bullet. These are issues that I expect can be somewhat resolved by purchase of additional appliances and load balancing.
This sounds like an ad, but I have no affiliation with Red Condor beyond being a customer. Spam and it's associated problems made 2006 the worst year of my 10+ year career and probably had contributed to more sleep deprived nights than any other thing for me. If you're like me and looking for a solution to what has become an epidemic, this is could be it.
Wikipedias problem is that they want to be more
on
Is Wikipedia Failing?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wikipedia needs to realize that it's not going to be a reputable source, ever. There is just no way you can be a good source of research and maintain public user submisssions. Not gonna happen.
There is nothing wrong with that though.
Wikipedia right now is a great resource that you have to take with a grain of salt, that is fine. It's great the way it is. If I want to know some bit of trivia then Wikipedia is the place, if someone makes a reference to something I'm ignorant about in a conversation for instance, or if I'm just mildly curious about something I read in a news article, I can at least find out what's going on with a quick check to Wikipedia. These are things that in the past I might have to search Google for and then possibly wade through a few pages of the things before I get to the bottom of it, now with Wikipedia my questions are usually answered much faster, easier, and more in depth than if I had just used Google.
Now I realize that what I'm reading might be biased, someones opinion, and in a lot of cases just flat wrong, but that's okay because that would have been even more true with Google searches. I realize that if I really need hard information about a subject then Wikipedia is little more than a lead to actual references at best, but it still serves a purpose.
If you ask me, the thing Wikipedia can do to improve would be to stop deleting articles because they aren't "notable enough". Seriously. Why the hell should there not be an entry for my local highschool in there? I know few people would want to read it, but so what? If Joe Johnson down at Johnsons gas station wants to write about the history of his family gas station, let him! Who is it hurting? Besides, I might know Joe and be interested in reading it.
At the ISP I work at we do not backup customer email (we do daily incremental back ups of accounts and settings, but due to sheer volume not email) and we do not guarantee that we will not delete mail from inactive accounts. Usually we don't delete stuff that often, but if we need disk space we might run a script that wipes out email on accounts that haven't been accessed in a set amount of time (90 days typically). Once it's deleted, it's gone.
It's a free service, we make no money on it whatsoever, and we tell people not to rely on it to back up their email. I hope everyone doesn't think that's terribly mean of us.
Right. Now go around to the people you know and ask them how many agree with those lawsuits. I'd wager you get more that think it's stupid than otherwise. A quick check in the immediate area around my office found 5 against votes and not one for vote.
While what you are referring to is constantly in the news, the average persons views are often not reflected by what's happening on television.
Ah. Blaming the victim. Blaming the victim is trait that has become more common in the average American. Most educated people would agree that this common sentiment is not a good trait to have, and many say it's a sign of our increasing callous attitudes and selfishness, but what is the cause?
It has been proposed that one cause of victim-blaming is the "Just World Hypothesis". People who believe that the world has to be fair, may find it hard or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is unfairly and badly hurt for no cause or reason. This leads to a sense that, somehow, the victim must have surely done 'something' to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that bad things to those who deserve or provoke it (Schneider et. al., 1994). This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviours of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.
Supporters of this view (once referred to as "Job's comforters") must perforce accept that to do otherwise would require them to give up their belief in a just world, and require them to believe in a world where bad things -- such as poverty, rape, starvation, and murder -- can happen to good people for no good reason. The cognitive dissonance in doing this becomes too great, and results in victim-blaming.
So BVis, what do you think is wrong with you that makes you think this way?
hahahahaah. Look at this, nerdcore folks complaining other nerds are posers, just like every other sub genre of music. I guess that's a sign it's breaking out.
yeah exactly! Which is why I've been downloading this same Pantera album over and over for 12 years. I figure if I can get all the copies downloaded before the pirates do then people wont be able to steal it anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
So maybe people should stop forming their political opinions based on their gut feelings and instead start carefully considering policy and implications of it.
I will quote from this thread on Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-39530902&pid=934403 I'm sure some of you are aware Jeff Gertsmann, now the face of GameSpot is responsible for the review. It should come as no surprise he played this game on an Xbox 360 for the review and like most people with a 360 he has a GamerTag attached to his account... as I gazed upon his weak gamescore I found only two achievements had been unlocked. One for beating the first mission and one for trying the co-op. It should be noted that the OP is dated prior to the firing, so perhaps Gertsmann wasn't sacked for a bad review, but sacked for not doing his job.
Someone had to say it...
And lets be honest, as a Mac gamer it's not like you've got a lot of choices.
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Assertion failed: ("no regulation" isn't a viable option), from slashdot.org/comment.c
When The Matrix came out on DVD it was a big factor to getting people to finally switch formats. Lots of people who didn't previously buy DVDs picked that one up first.
A movie with the potential to do the same would probably be 300. I'll be very interested in seeing if it doesn't kick start this format war into the next level.
Simple answer: They can.
Frankly I just don't buy it. I don't buy a word of it.
I realize that all things influence how kids act, but I think it's marginal at best and I find it impossible to believe that video games are going to make a kid become a psychotic nutcase. That's just bull, and frankly I don't know how any reasonable person can think otherwise. I know they did some dumb studies where they had kids play games and then watched them go play fight and concluded they were being more violent (doh!) but play fighting isn't shooting someone in the face.
My son and I just finished God of War together, he ran out of the room in embarrassment when the shirtless chicks came on screen, but so far he hasn't tried to rip the arms off of any passerby.
It's a good thing everyone doesn't think like you or we wouldn't have open source.
a 5 year old being entertained by a menu for hours? Either you're full of it or that kid is a bit.. eh.. slow.
My 5 year old was hitting mid air rails in Quake 3.
Believe me, I hate to admit this.. I'm a huge video game nut, I've been playing them all of my life and the video game witch hunt going on is annoying the hell out of me... but this is somewhat true. Speaking from personal experience...
I'm not the kind of guy predisposed to risky driving, in fact I'm right the opposite, I never speed and if I'm not paying attention when driving I'm more likely to slow down significantly below the speed limit than otherwise. I always make proper left hand turns (god, hardly anyone can do this?) and I always use my signal... but when I play driving games I drive a little faster, and take a few more risks. It's not complete insane or anything, but it is slightly more aggressive driving than I normally would do.
For example, outside of my town there are a couple of 45 degree slopping turns on a highway that I used to pass everyday on the way to and from work. They're just sharp enough that most people slow down for them, but truthfully you don't have to. When I was playing Gran Turismo A-Spec I was inspired to take those turns at higher and higher speeds. I never got completely wreckless with it and never had any problems because of it (no wrecks) but I definitely was thinking of the game when I did it and I'd say I was inspired to try it because of the game.
Now it's been a few years later and I hadn't done that in a long time.. until last fall when I was playing through Need For Speed: Most Wanted. Yep... same thing.
There is a very clear corelation to me between playing driving games and more aggressive driving in my own behavior.
Arcade is overpriced?
Tell me something, how much less than $5 would you have to pay for something not to be overpriced?
Maybe you're just a cheap bastard?
Or maybe since you think paying $5 to $20 for PS3 online is fine but $5 to $10 for Xbox is expensive... well maybe you're just a PS3 fanboy?
Could be?
How the hell does that make sense? If gamers aren't enthusiastic then why are they selling like hot cakes? Every store I know gets a periodic shipment of Wiis which then sell out immediately. How is that not enthusiastic support?
To all of you people in here saying content filtering doesn't work:
How can you say that knowing that Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail and AOL all do extremely effective content filtering? They aren't perfect but they're very very good with a low false positive rate.
We spent most of 2006 looking for the best possible solution to our spam problems and had many meetings and spoke with many 3rd parties. At the end of that discovery, despite my strong distaste for it, we outsourced. I hate taking on additional periodic expenses, but in this case it just made too much sense. The spamassassin solution we had been working on constantly was costing us too much in manpower for not very good results.
We used an outfit called Red Condor. They offered external filtering by setting the MX to systems on their network, plus in-house filtering by way of an appliance that you can purchase and deploy. They allowed us a 60 day trial, which went extremely well. The bottom line is this, we now pay about ~$11k a year for ~10k mailboxes and get filtering every bit as good as what you get from the major email players like Gmail or Hotmail. The only downside is there are occasionally delays of up to 15 minutes. Hence it is almost, but not quite a Silver Bullet. These are issues that I expect can be somewhat resolved by purchase of additional appliances and load balancing.
This sounds like an ad, but I have no affiliation with Red Condor beyond being a customer. Spam and it's associated problems made 2006 the worst year of my 10+ year career and probably had contributed to more sleep deprived nights than any other thing for me. If you're like me and looking for a solution to what has become an epidemic, this is could be it.
Wikipedia needs to realize that it's not going to be a reputable source, ever. There is just no way you can be a good source of research and maintain public user submisssions. Not gonna happen.
There is nothing wrong with that though.
Wikipedia right now is a great resource that you have to take with a grain of salt, that is fine. It's great the way it is. If I want to know some bit of trivia then Wikipedia is the place, if someone makes a reference to something I'm ignorant about in a conversation for instance, or if I'm just mildly curious about something I read in a news article, I can at least find out what's going on with a quick check to Wikipedia. These are things that in the past I might have to search Google for and then possibly wade through a few pages of the things before I get to the bottom of it, now with Wikipedia my questions are usually answered much faster, easier, and more in depth than if I had just used Google.
Now I realize that what I'm reading might be biased, someones opinion, and in a lot of cases just flat wrong, but that's okay because that would have been even more true with Google searches. I realize that if I really need hard information about a subject then Wikipedia is little more than a lead to actual references at best, but it still serves a purpose.
If you ask me, the thing Wikipedia can do to improve would be to stop deleting articles because they aren't "notable enough". Seriously. Why the hell should there not be an entry for my local highschool in there? I know few people would want to read it, but so what? If Joe Johnson down at Johnsons gas station wants to write about the history of his family gas station, let him! Who is it hurting? Besides, I might know Joe and be interested in reading it.
Looks like we've got a Kool-aid drinker here.
At the ISP I work at we do not backup customer email (we do daily incremental back ups of accounts and settings, but due to sheer volume not email) and we do not guarantee that we will not delete mail from inactive accounts.
Usually we don't delete stuff that often, but if we need disk space we might run a script that wipes out email on accounts that haven't been accessed in a set amount of time (90 days typically).
Once it's deleted, it's gone.
It's a free service, we make no money on it whatsoever, and we tell people not to rely on it to back up their email. I hope everyone doesn't think that's terribly mean of us.
Yeah... but the same argument was made about spam when it was getting started.
I bet it's a lot harder to stop than that.
Right. Now go around to the people you know and ask them how many agree with those lawsuits.
I'd wager you get more that think it's stupid than otherwise. A quick check in the immediate area around my office found 5 against
votes and not one for vote.
While what you are referring to is constantly in the news, the average persons views are often not reflected by what's happening on television.
Ah. Blaming the victim.
Blaming the victim is trait that has become more common in the average American. Most educated people would agree that this common sentiment is not a good trait to have, and many say it's a sign of our increasing callous attitudes and selfishness, but what is the cause?
It has been proposed that one cause of victim-blaming is the "Just World Hypothesis". People who believe that the world has to be fair, may find it hard or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is unfairly and badly hurt for no cause or reason. This leads to a sense that, somehow, the victim must have surely done 'something' to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that bad things to those who deserve or provoke it (Schneider et. al., 1994). This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviours of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.
Supporters of this view (once referred to as "Job's comforters") must perforce accept that to do otherwise would require them to give up their belief in a just world, and require them to believe in a world where bad things -- such as poverty, rape, starvation, and murder -- can happen to good people for no good reason. The cognitive dissonance in doing this becomes too great, and results in victim-blaming.
So BVis, what do you think is wrong with you that makes you think this way?
hhahhaha. Brilliant response.
hooray for shooting down the elitists.
hahahahaah. Look at this, nerdcore folks complaining other nerds are posers, just like every other sub genre of music.
I guess that's a sign it's breaking out.
yeah exactly! Which is why I've been downloading this same Pantera album over and over for 12 years. I figure if I can get all the copies downloaded before the pirates do then people wont be able to steal it anymore.
So you got lucky.
What's your point?