Fark. Sorry about that. Meant to hit preview. SHould look like this:
This might be a troll, but I'll bite... I have to ask, what is it about going outside, getting a tan, and bruising oneself that is so important to growing up? (Aside from a using a stereotype to bash gamers with, that is?) What is so great about taking a football up and down what amounts to a backyard marked with spraypaint in an attempt to get it into a little colored area at the end? Or putting a basketball through a round hoop? Or using a racket to smack a little bouncy ball back and forth over a net? What possible benefit to society do any of those "sports" add? Keeping the populace appeased and happy, so that they don't look too deeply at other things?
I see no reason that professional "atheletes" should be paid as much as they do to engage in something that is supposed to be a "fun" past-time. "Love of the game" my ass- they do it for money. While we're at it, why on earth are actors paid so much to make movies? What does the next Adam Sandler film contribute to society? People choose a path in life because they enjoy it (hopefully, anyway- some people don't have all the opportunities that others do). I maintain software. Others run wiring for buildings. Some people write fiction. Others work for the government (which may or may not be another form of writing fiction- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader).
If someone can make money playing video games, I'd say let them. I know I'm not a good enough gamer to run with that crowd and get anywhere- so I can respect their dedication to the game that they enjoy, just like I know that even though I cannot play basketball as well as Ben Wallace, I respect his skill in that area and enjoy watching him play. Everyone values diferent things out of life- you place more importance on athletics than you do on gaming. So be it, that's your opinion. As someone who has all the athletic grace of an obese cat (thank you, genetics, for making me tall and lanky but giving me no natural grace), I think I grew up just fine without playing sports. I have a "real" career, I have friends, and most importantly, I'm satisfied with myself and where I'm at. Does anything else really matter?
This might be a troll, but I'll bite...
I have to ask, what is it about going outside, getting a tan, and bruising oneself that is so important to growing up? (Aside from a using a stereotype to bash gamers with, that is?) What is so great about taking a football up and down what amounts to a backyard marked with spraypaint in an attempt to get it into a little colored area at the end? Or putting a basketball through a round hoop? Or using a racket to smack a little bouncy ball back and forth over a net? What possible benefit to society do any of those "sports" add? Keeping the populace appeased and happy, so that they don't look too deeply at other things?
I see no reason that professional "atheletes" should be paid as much as they do to engage in something that is supposed to be a "fun" past-time. "Love of the game" my ass- they do it for money. While we're at it, why on earth are actors paid so much to make movies? What does the next Adam Sandler film contribute to society?
People choose a path in life because they enjoy it (hopefully, anyway- some people don't have all the opportunities that others do). I maintain software. Others run wiring for buildings. Some people write fiction. Others work for the government (which may or may not be another form of writing fiction- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader). If someone can make money playing video games, I'd say let them. I know I'm not a good enough gamer to run with that crowd and get anywhere- so I can respect their dedication to the game that they enjoy, just like I know that even though I cannot play basketball as well as Ben Wallace, I respect his skill in that area and enjoy watching him play.
Everyone values diferent things out of life- you place more importance on athletics than you do on gaming. So be it, that's your opinion. As someone who has all the athletic grace of an obese cat (thank you, genetics, for making me tall and lanky but giving me no natural grace), I think I grew up just fine without playing sports. I have a "real" career, I have friends, and most importantly, I'm satisfied with myself and where I'm at. Does anything else really matter?
to saying that if you think you can do a better job as a reporter, why don't you?
The same reason that I didn't go to med school, I haven't become an auto mechanic, and that I don't run for office. It's not my cup of tea. I depend on people who are proficient at these things to do them for me, because I spend my time doing things in avenues that hold a personal interest and that I enjoy doing well. I've been to bad mechanics- and I didn't go back to them. I've been to bad family practitioners- and promptly found somewhere else to go for that service. I'm not going to start up an auto repair shop, or go to med school to start a family practice, just because I think I'm getting hosed by them.
The world of blogs is just as full of half-assed "reporting". I honestly don't care who archives that jumbled mess of half-cocked stories. As for dead-tree versions of newspapers being stored, why bother? Most newsprint is not quality paper, doesn't last as long as a digital form, and if you need a paper copy could be easily reproduced from digital storage (and full-text searching is always a bonus at that point). I'm not sure how hard-copy archives are that important in an increaingly web-aware world.
The cliche of journalism being a first draft was created by the field of journalism itself. History's first draft is when an event happens. Any documentation of the event after that is a modification of the first draft.
I do agree that journalism and the press are important parts of the government, but I put forth a different scenario than you do: just like governmental officials can lose their office in election, newspapers are going through a period of public dissatisfaction and are in danger of being removed as a source of news. There is no reason to save them if they aren't performing their job.
skilled investigative reporters with the resources to pursue stories in depth.
Errr? We actually had those at one time?
Not trying to knock your friend or anything, but if the "quality" of reporting I'm seeing in any one of the major metro papers in my area are any indication of the "skilled investigative reporters" of which you speak, I'd be better off with some tin cans, some string, and those X-Ray glasses I got in a box of Cracker Jack as a kid. That way I could investigate them myself with the same level of "thoroughness". The only way to get decent coverage of any story is to use five or six different sources and try to piece together a coherent image of what the actual story should be.
People are stupid, sensationalism sells, and the people who are looking for actual news are being disenfranchised by things such as the Jackson trial and the latest political "scandal". If the papers want money, maybe they should improve the quality of their stories, eh?
I would ask how many people didn't buy them because they games were bad compared to how many people didn't buy them because someone had released a "flashier" game. When consoles can match/rival PC games in terms of looks and sound, one of the ways PC games could "shine" would be to make good-looking games that just can't be played on a standard console controller.
He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay.
"What developers and publishers need to do is come up with distribution plans and new copy protection plans," he said. "When you see a game that requires you to be online to play, people can't steal that game."
It's also a good way to get people to not play your game. It's always the "big bad pirates" who are stealing money from the game manufacturers. The industry doesn't want to admit that they're churning out a lof of junk lately, so let's jump on the bandwagon of "It's those damn pirate kids" to save face.
I haven't bought a new PC game in about a year (I've purchased a couple "older" games now that they're in the <$20 market)- and I haven't pirated any, either. I've bought console games, though. When the PC market comes out with something that's worth playing, I'll probably be first in line. Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground? Where are the adventure games with their beautiful story arcs? Hell, Deus Ex was a phenonmenal game, and I could see a variation on that (new story, but a similar engine) selling well- something that actually draws the player in. What about stuff like Dungeon Keeper? That game was a blast, it spawned a sequel- and then dropped off the face of the earth. What about Worm- before the 3D crap that made it so much more irritating to play? What about the Baldur's Gate-style RPGs? Hell, Icewind Dale was somewhere between Diablo and BG, and that game was loads of fun. It had it's own feel to it, even though the interface was almost an exact copy of BG.
It's sad that the days of off-the-wall games that sucked a gamer in seem to be gone in the PC World. Instead we get direct sequels that don't offer much more than a smoother engine or prettier graphics. We don't get the stuff that either offers an incredible story or that brings about something "new". And as the gaming market ages, that's going to keep being a problem- to keep the "veteran" gamers around, they're going to have to draw them in with something that they haven't seen before.
It's getting better, but it still isn't back into a "pro-intellectual" period. Ignore the people around you- the ones you have to worry about in terms of being an "intellectual" state would be the people in the government- and they could be more supportive.
Some stupid State standardized test. I believe the test was for the studies of how schools were performing, and that as I couldn't go to any of their "groups" for the study, they just ignored the result. I'm not completely sure how it worked- I was about 15 at the time- but I remember distinctly not getting results back, and the subsequent talk with school staff about not causing trouble when the tests were handed out next time.
I always check "Other" and write in "American". I actually had standardized school tests in high school not give me my results because of it. They couldn't count me towards the test scores, apparently.
No Fear can also be mixed with 151 for a damn near acid-trip experience if consumed in a great enough quantity. On the plus side, it tends to taste like peach schnapps...on the downside, that means you drink a lot more of it than you probably should.
Why? It happened on a global level long before mankind even entered the picture. Species will disappear whether it is a result of us (which could be preventable or not, depending), a result of other natural species, or a catastrophe of some form. Nature doesn't hold any particular species dear.
Ahhh. Our football guys were required to be somewhere off-season, but could choose baseball or track. It was always assumed if you ran CC, you were a distance runner in track.
Considering that the place in question is in the States, and that over here soccer and wrestling are not followed as avidly as Football, Basketball, or Baseball, I don't see what your point is. I'm not even sure of the last time I saw a soccer match on a TV station that wasn't dedicated to sports- but I see football games on public channels all the time.
I'm not sure track should be there, but from the standpoint of teens and school sports, wrestling and soccer (if you even have a HS soccer team), Football is pretty farking big.
No, you can. And until people quit playing the game or go elsewhere, you can continue to do so.
I play WoW, I love the game, and I don't let queues or downtimes get to me. I have other things I can be doing instead. They'll keep my business, and the business of a lot of casual gamers.
Saying they have to offer refunds/free play time/whatever because the service does not meet your standards is about as useful as saying that if it rains tomorrow, God better give you another day to live that's sunny.
Rogelberg has delivered this insight in a talk called "Meetings and More Meetings," which he presented to a meeting at the University of Sheffield. He also does a talk called "Not Another Meeting!", which has been well received at two meetings in North Carolina.
Am I the only one that found this whole statement funny? I would think that they would release the paper to trade magazines and such to get their findings out, rather than waste time with meetings about how meetings are bad. That sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me.
If someone enjoys them, does it matter? Since when does entertainment have to be deep and intelligent?
I play a variety of games, some of which would be described as "unintelligent", but there are times that mindless diversions are much more enjoyable. I play maybe, maybe, 10 or 15 hours a week- an hour a night during the week to unwind after work, more on the weekends (part of that is WoW), and I know that what I'm doing is just for entertainment. I would consider myself a "moderate" gamer, and I don't play just artistic, intelligent games.
Thanks. I've had better luck with the dark room, and using a small light to read notes if need be. The biggest problem is at work, where lighting is not in my control, nor is monitor type...
People have been saying this for decades. I'm not so sure. There are people (myself included) who have problems reading text on a computer screen. If I do so for too long, I get prodigious headaches- which I don't get from dead-tree products.
If nothing else, news sources are having to compete to keep readers, but just like audio books haven't destroyed the book market, I don't see people clamoring for the newest Robert Jordan novel in electronic form.
I wouldn't blame schools- schools don't teach children to use the computer to read things, they teach them to use them for word processing, etc.- and print copies. Libraries, with limited computers in most schools, encourage students to print material for later reference (and to open up workstations). Computers are excellent for interactive things, but if I'm reading a 200 page treatise on something, I'd rather have a paper copy I can mark up, take with me on the bus, or read in bed without needing a notebook.
Slashdot Mirror
Fark. Sorry about that. Meant to hit preview. SHould look like this:
This might be a troll, but I'll bite... I have to ask, what is it about going outside, getting a tan, and bruising oneself that is so important to growing up? (Aside from a using a stereotype to bash gamers with, that is?) What is so great about taking a football up and down what amounts to a backyard marked with spraypaint in an attempt to get it into a little colored area at the end? Or putting a basketball through a round hoop? Or using a racket to smack a little bouncy ball back and forth over a net? What possible benefit to society do any of those "sports" add? Keeping the populace appeased and happy, so that they don't look too deeply at other things?
I see no reason that professional "atheletes" should be paid as much as they do to engage in something that is supposed to be a "fun" past-time. "Love of the game" my ass- they do it for money. While we're at it, why on earth are actors paid so much to make movies? What does the next Adam Sandler film contribute to society? People choose a path in life because they enjoy it (hopefully, anyway- some people don't have all the opportunities that others do). I maintain software. Others run wiring for buildings. Some people write fiction. Others work for the government (which may or may not be another form of writing fiction- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader).
If someone can make money playing video games, I'd say let them. I know I'm not a good enough gamer to run with that crowd and get anywhere- so I can respect their dedication to the game that they enjoy, just like I know that even though I cannot play basketball as well as Ben Wallace, I respect his skill in that area and enjoy watching him play. Everyone values diferent things out of life- you place more importance on athletics than you do on gaming. So be it, that's your opinion. As someone who has all the athletic grace of an obese cat (thank you, genetics, for making me tall and lanky but giving me no natural grace), I think I grew up just fine without playing sports. I have a "real" career, I have friends, and most importantly, I'm satisfied with myself and where I'm at. Does anything else really matter?
This might be a troll, but I'll bite... I have to ask, what is it about going outside, getting a tan, and bruising oneself that is so important to growing up? (Aside from a using a stereotype to bash gamers with, that is?) What is so great about taking a football up and down what amounts to a backyard marked with spraypaint in an attempt to get it into a little colored area at the end? Or putting a basketball through a round hoop? Or using a racket to smack a little bouncy ball back and forth over a net? What possible benefit to society do any of those "sports" add? Keeping the populace appeased and happy, so that they don't look too deeply at other things? I see no reason that professional "atheletes" should be paid as much as they do to engage in something that is supposed to be a "fun" past-time. "Love of the game" my ass- they do it for money. While we're at it, why on earth are actors paid so much to make movies? What does the next Adam Sandler film contribute to society? People choose a path in life because they enjoy it (hopefully, anyway- some people don't have all the opportunities that others do). I maintain software. Others run wiring for buildings. Some people write fiction. Others work for the government (which may or may not be another form of writing fiction- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader). If someone can make money playing video games, I'd say let them. I know I'm not a good enough gamer to run with that crowd and get anywhere- so I can respect their dedication to the game that they enjoy, just like I know that even though I cannot play basketball as well as Ben Wallace, I respect his skill in that area and enjoy watching him play. Everyone values diferent things out of life- you place more importance on athletics than you do on gaming. So be it, that's your opinion. As someone who has all the athletic grace of an obese cat (thank you, genetics, for making me tall and lanky but giving me no natural grace), I think I grew up just fine without playing sports. I have a "real" career, I have friends, and most importantly, I'm satisfied with myself and where I'm at. Does anything else really matter?
The same reason that I didn't go to med school, I haven't become an auto mechanic, and that I don't run for office. It's not my cup of tea. I depend on people who are proficient at these things to do them for me, because I spend my time doing things in avenues that hold a personal interest and that I enjoy doing well. I've been to bad mechanics- and I didn't go back to them. I've been to bad family practitioners- and promptly found somewhere else to go for that service. I'm not going to start up an auto repair shop, or go to med school to start a family practice, just because I think I'm getting hosed by them.
The world of blogs is just as full of half-assed "reporting". I honestly don't care who archives that jumbled mess of half-cocked stories. As for dead-tree versions of newspapers being stored, why bother? Most newsprint is not quality paper, doesn't last as long as a digital form, and if you need a paper copy could be easily reproduced from digital storage (and full-text searching is always a bonus at that point). I'm not sure how hard-copy archives are that important in an increaingly web-aware world.
The cliche of journalism being a first draft was created by the field of journalism itself. History's first draft is when an event happens. Any documentation of the event after that is a modification of the first draft.
I do agree that journalism and the press are important parts of the government, but I put forth a different scenario than you do: just like governmental officials can lose their office in election, newspapers are going through a period of public dissatisfaction and are in danger of being removed as a source of news. There is no reason to save them if they aren't performing their job.
Errr? We actually had those at one time?
Not trying to knock your friend or anything, but if the "quality" of reporting I'm seeing in any one of the major metro papers in my area are any indication of the "skilled investigative reporters" of which you speak, I'd be better off with some tin cans, some string, and those X-Ray glasses I got in a box of Cracker Jack as a kid. That way I could investigate them myself with the same level of "thoroughness". The only way to get decent coverage of any story is to use five or six different sources and try to piece together a coherent image of what the actual story should be.
People are stupid, sensationalism sells, and the people who are looking for actual news are being disenfranchised by things such as the Jackson trial and the latest political "scandal". If the papers want money, maybe they should improve the quality of their stories, eh?
I would ask how many people didn't buy them because they games were bad compared to how many people didn't buy them because someone had released a "flashier" game. When consoles can match/rival PC games in terms of looks and sound, one of the ways PC games could "shine" would be to make good-looking games that just can't be played on a standard console controller.
It's also a good way to get people to not play your game. It's always the "big bad pirates" who are stealing money from the game manufacturers. The industry doesn't want to admit that they're churning out a lof of junk lately, so let's jump on the bandwagon of "It's those damn pirate kids" to save face.
I haven't bought a new PC game in about a year (I've purchased a couple "older" games now that they're in the <$20 market)- and I haven't pirated any, either. I've bought console games, though. When the PC market comes out with something that's worth playing, I'll probably be first in line. Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground? Where are the adventure games with their beautiful story arcs? Hell, Deus Ex was a phenonmenal game, and I could see a variation on that (new story, but a similar engine) selling well- something that actually draws the player in. What about stuff like Dungeon Keeper? That game was a blast, it spawned a sequel- and then dropped off the face of the earth. What about Worm- before the 3D crap that made it so much more irritating to play? What about the Baldur's Gate-style RPGs? Hell, Icewind Dale was somewhere between Diablo and BG, and that game was loads of fun. It had it's own feel to it, even though the interface was almost an exact copy of BG.
It's sad that the days of off-the-wall games that sucked a gamer in seem to be gone in the PC World. Instead we get direct sequels that don't offer much more than a smoother engine or prettier graphics. We don't get the stuff that either offers an incredible story or that brings about something "new". And as the gaming market ages, that's going to keep being a problem- to keep the "veteran" gamers around, they're going to have to draw them in with something that they haven't seen before.
It's getting better, but it still isn't back into a "pro-intellectual" period. Ignore the people around you- the ones you have to worry about in terms of being an "intellectual" state would be the people in the government- and they could be more supportive.
Some stupid State standardized test. I believe the test was for the studies of how schools were performing, and that as I couldn't go to any of their "groups" for the study, they just ignored the result. I'm not completely sure how it worked- I was about 15 at the time- but I remember distinctly not getting results back, and the subsequent talk with school staff about not causing trouble when the tests were handed out next time.
I always check "Other" and write in "American". I actually had standardized school tests in high school not give me my results because of it. They couldn't count me towards the test scores, apparently.
Stupid standarized testing.
No Fear can also be mixed with 151 for a damn near acid-trip experience if consumed in a great enough quantity. On the plus side, it tends to taste like peach schnapps...on the downside, that means you drink a lot more of it than you probably should.
Who do I make the ritual sacrifice out to in honor of that link?
Why? It happened on a global level long before mankind even entered the picture. Species will disappear whether it is a result of us (which could be preventable or not, depending), a result of other natural species, or a catastrophe of some form. Nature doesn't hold any particular species dear.
Ahhh. Our football guys were required to be somewhere off-season, but could choose baseball or track. It was always assumed if you ran CC, you were a distance runner in track.
I'm not sure track should be there, but from the standpoint of teens and school sports, wrestling and soccer (if you even have a HS soccer team), Football is pretty farking big.
Gnomeregan can also be shortened to "gnomer", and I've seen Uldaman shortened to "ulda" and Maraudon to "mara" occasion.
I play WoW, I love the game, and I don't let queues or downtimes get to me. I have other things I can be doing instead. They'll keep my business, and the business of a lot of casual gamers.
Saying they have to offer refunds/free play time/whatever because the service does not meet your standards is about as useful as saying that if it rains tomorrow, God better give you another day to live that's sunny.
And there was a story about the MMORPG awards (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/17 /2222204).
I wasn't even aware that existed. I may have to track some of that down now.
Am I the only one that found this whole statement funny? I would think that they would release the paper to trade magazines and such to get their findings out, rather than waste time with meetings about how meetings are bad. That sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me.
Dammit. For a minute there, I thought you were referring to an old board game called Hero Quest, and I was going to be all nostalgic.
If someone enjoys them, does it matter? Since when does entertainment have to be deep and intelligent?
I play a variety of games, some of which would be described as "unintelligent", but there are times that mindless diversions are much more enjoyable. I play maybe, maybe, 10 or 15 hours a week- an hour a night during the week to unwind after work, more on the weekends (part of that is WoW), and I know that what I'm doing is just for entertainment. I would consider myself a "moderate" gamer, and I don't play just artistic, intelligent games.
Thanks. I've had better luck with the dark room, and using a small light to read notes if need be. The biggest problem is at work, where lighting is not in my control, nor is monitor type...
If nothing else, news sources are having to compete to keep readers, but just like audio books haven't destroyed the book market, I don't see people clamoring for the newest Robert Jordan novel in electronic form.
I wouldn't blame schools- schools don't teach children to use the computer to read things, they teach them to use them for word processing, etc.- and print copies. Libraries, with limited computers in most schools, encourage students to print material for later reference (and to open up workstations). Computers are excellent for interactive things, but if I'm reading a 200 page treatise on something, I'd rather have a paper copy I can mark up, take with me on the bus, or read in bed without needing a notebook.
Isn't that fairly accurate? It seems that way from behind this keyboard...
Ahhh...the modern-day BoFH. I've seen a few places that need one of them in their IT department.