The over-40 demographic seems rather high, since technological inclination tends to increase as date of birth decreases, but aside from that I can see it working if it's done right. Which I doubt. Old or bad games licensed to a company that does not know much about games...? It would take considerable ease of use, no cost, and/or some very good original content to make it worth the time. If nothing else, these guys must be certain that it will run quickly.
This isn't about denying anybody the right to travel. This is about enforcing existing laws. People still need to be a citizen of the US to return to the US as a citizen - it's just now, they have to prove it.
Yes, terrorism might be a part of it. But this is about enforcing existing laws. Is it so much to ask people to provide more proof of citizenship than "Yeah, I'm a citizen" or a driver's license? The law requires proof of citizenship. Using passports to prove citizenship is the best way to do so, in the absence of a national ID card (regardless of whether that's a good thing, it would certainly make the whole situation a bit simpler).
The government is not being discriminatory here. All it's doing is enforcing its own laws. That's supposed to be a good thing. Due process of law and all that.
But, this being Slashdot, people will (and, as a matter of fact, did) take this as a terrible infringement on their rights and blamed the Bush administration for taking ridiculous measures to "combat terrorism." People brought up non-arguments like "But passports can be forged." Not as easily as a driver's license or the sentence "Yes, I am a citizen."
What I want to know is, why aren't they doing this for the southern border?
There are companies that have set up shop in countries with poor economies and hire people to play MMOs all day in order to "farm" items and sell them through online retailers (E-Bay, IGN, etc.).
Point. I will grant that it's not particuarly well-done. I suspect, though, that the author simply assumed it was obvious that this was just a collection of opinions.
Certainly, there are some facets of society that are headed toward disaster (and if you want we can argue until we're blue in the face about which ones they are). My point was that it's not here now.
The author of this review attacks the book for providing contradictory answers throughout it, but fails to recognize that that was the whole point. You can argue about the quality of the execution, but the idea behind this book was that there is no one right way to go about making a game, and look at what these experienced guys have to say about it and see if you learn something.
"An enduring classic, this book offers a dramatic and prophetic look at the potential consequences of the escalating destruction of Earth. In this nightmare society, air pollution is so bad that gas masks are commonplace. Infant mortality is up, and everyone seems to suffer from some form of ailment. The water is polluted, and only the poor drink from the tap. The government is ineffectual, and corporate interests scramble to make a profit from water purifiers, gas masks, and organic foods."
Seems pretty much like now to me ?? !
Because, as we all know, everybody wears surgical masks to protect their fragile lungs from the emissions of automobiles that get cleaner every years, and there are frequent epidemics of rubella and pertussis among infants. And as we all know, organic foods are a gigantic and profitable industry.
But hey, two out of five ain't bad. Although there is some debate as to the validity of one of those remaining two.... One and a half out of five ain't bad.
If the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional, then we're stuck with it until it's repealed, for good or for ill.
If it is unconstitutional, then as soon as somebody is unlawfully detained under it they can take it to court, and the appeals process will send it straight up to the supreme court at which time it will be declared unconstitutional and be repealed.
And before anyone says "But the law itself prohibits people from taking it to court because they're detained without a trial," I can only give the following two responses:
1. A law written as hastily as the Patriot Act was is bound to have a loophole or two that can be slipped through.
2. Prove it.
It's wonderful living in a self-regulating system - even if people don't see that it is one.
It is still in development. They made these trailers to please the fans who would be impressed by graphics. The art and the gameplay will come later - they're much harder to convey in a 30-second trailer made on a deadline.
Well, there are two ways a person can take this news.
One, you could look at it as evidence that the United States is fascist or is heading there and that it is mostly corrput and devoid of legitimacy, and put on your proverbial tinfoil hat.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
Which seems better to you?
The law in the United States is a dynamic thing. Laws can be passed that are unconstitutional - but that doesn't mean that they're on the books forever. Most unconstitutional laws are eventually declared as such and become unenforceable. If one makes headlines rather than slipping quietly to its death the way it ideally works, that doesn't make it any more permanent.
The law relies on incidents like this in order to make sure that it's fair.
The Air Force has known about the tendency for video games to improve reflexes and the ability to make quick judgments for years, now.
Of course, it only works when the video games are hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this person regularly play a Virtual Boy?
Perhaps the headaches he gets from it are what caused him to think that common sense is newsworthy.
Recounts: not just for Democrats anymore!
The over-40 demographic seems rather high, since technological inclination tends to increase as date of birth decreases, but aside from that I can see it working if it's done right. Which I doubt. Old or bad games licensed to a company that does not know much about games...? It would take considerable ease of use, no cost, and/or some very good original content to make it worth the time. If nothing else, these guys must be certain that it will run quickly.
Thanks! I'll remember that next time I'm on the moon.
So in other words it's disappointing?
This one just connects to the optic nerve, it seems, rather than the brain itself.
Where's it all going? It's going to the "Oh yeah, Nature? Well I bet you can't do this!" fund.
Yes, terrorism might be a part of it. But this is about enforcing existing laws. Is it so much to ask people to provide more proof of citizenship than "Yeah, I'm a citizen" or a driver's license? The law requires proof of citizenship. Using passports to prove citizenship is the best way to do so, in the absence of a national ID card (regardless of whether that's a good thing, it would certainly make the whole situation a bit simpler).
The government is not being discriminatory here. All it's doing is enforcing its own laws. That's supposed to be a good thing. Due process of law and all that.
But, this being Slashdot, people will (and, as a matter of fact, did) take this as a terrible infringement on their rights and blamed the Bush administration for taking ridiculous measures to "combat terrorism." People brought up non-arguments like "But passports can be forged." Not as easily as a driver's license or the sentence "Yes, I am a citizen."
What I want to know is, why aren't they doing this for the southern border?
I'd take that job.
Point. I will grant that it's not particuarly well-done. I suspect, though, that the author simply assumed it was obvious that this was just a collection of opinions.
Certainly, there are some facets of society that are headed toward disaster (and if you want we can argue until we're blue in the face about which ones they are). My point was that it's not here now.
The author of this review attacks the book for providing contradictory answers throughout it, but fails to recognize that that was the whole point. You can argue about the quality of the execution, but the idea behind this book was that there is no one right way to go about making a game, and look at what these experienced guys have to say about it and see if you learn something.
Seems pretty much like now to me ?? !
Because, as we all know, everybody wears surgical masks to protect their fragile lungs from the emissions of automobiles that get cleaner every years, and there are frequent epidemics of rubella and pertussis among infants. And as we all know, organic foods are a gigantic and profitable industry.
But hey, two out of five ain't bad. Although there is some debate as to the validity of one of those remaining two.... One and a half out of five ain't bad.
How about "Games don't kill people, people kill people?" A bullet is a tool. Tools don't do anything.
If it is unconstitutional, then as soon as somebody is unlawfully detained under it they can take it to court, and the appeals process will send it straight up to the supreme court at which time it will be declared unconstitutional and be repealed.
And before anyone says "But the law itself prohibits people from taking it to court because they're detained without a trial," I can only give the following two responses:
1. A law written as hastily as the Patriot Act was is bound to have a loophole or two that can be slipped through.
2. Prove it.
It's wonderful living in a self-regulating system - even if people don't see that it is one.
It is still in development. They made these trailers to please the fans who would be impressed by graphics. The art and the gameplay will come later - they're much harder to convey in a 30-second trailer made on a deadline.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Allegations such as Mr. Gilmore's are the mechanism through which the mistakes are discovered and corrected. This is the "ample opportunity."
Killing the allies? Do you know what you're talking about? 'Cause I don't.
One, you could look at it as evidence that the United States is fascist or is heading there and that it is mostly corrput and devoid of legitimacy, and put on your proverbial tinfoil hat.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
Which seems better to you?
The law in the United States is a dynamic thing. Laws can be passed that are unconstitutional - but that doesn't mean that they're on the books forever. Most unconstitutional laws are eventually declared as such and become unenforceable. If one makes headlines rather than slipping quietly to its death the way it ideally works, that doesn't make it any more permanent.
The law relies on incidents like this in order to make sure that it's fair.
That's where strategy games come in.
The Air Force has known about the tendency for video games to improve reflexes and the ability to make quick judgments for years, now. Of course, it only works when the video games are hard.