The "red cross" as a symbol existed long before there was an International Red Cross organization. It has been a way for battlefield medics to identify themselves for a long time. The IRC may have contributed to its current popularity, but they did not create the association between a red cross and medical help.
Absolute Bullshit! The reason why the Red Cross Committee was founded was precisely because there was no medical care for soldiers, and no protection for the wounded. The symbol is a tribute to Henry Dunant, the "father" of the Red Cross movement. It's a swiss flag in reverse. The official name of the committee was only changed to "International Committee of the Red Cross" about 13 years later, but it was essentially "The Red Cross".
The question you raise is essentially: "is it okay for an individual to identify themselves as a provider of emergency medical care without the explicit approval of the American Red Cross?"
The Geneva convention is pretty clear about this. The answer is no. (For an individual. The military can, when protected by the Geneva convention)
I actually got to talk with someone doing research on hydrogen fuel systems for BMW, and he explained that because so many companies were dependant on making the thousands of parts for the combustion engines, there was a lot of lobbying to steer the research in that direction.
Of course, it's also currently the most viable option, as fuel cell systems are about ten times as expensive, but until we find a way to make the fuel cheap enough, and without emitting even more CO2, they're both moot.
Umm, they can do whatever they see fit. And if some private drug companies seek to make money off their back, because of their efforts (which is the case exclusively), they should be able to enforce their rights and ask for licensing fees.
Not the Red Cross logo, mind you, just crosses that are red - a symbol that's pretty universally understood to mean "medical aid here", and an important help in a confusing emergency situation.
And why do you think that the red cross is universally understood as "medical aid"? It's thanks to the International Red Cross. If these people volunteered to join the red cross, there wouldn't have been anything wrong, but it undermines their reputation if any shitster can walk around that people would confuse him with the red cross. I probably wouldn't confuse them either, but there's no strict line you can draw, which is why it's best not to use it.
The BMI is a measure. It doesn't attempt to be accurate at how strong you are and how fast you climb stairs. One thing it can mean though is that people with high BMI have an increased risk of Cardiovascular disease.
Having protein shakes every day basically means you're having an unusually high protein intake. Whether that's such a good idea can be debated, but it might be a bit rash to claim there's "nothing wrong". In moderation there probably won't be any harm, but when I hear people who argue that there's no way they could have such muscles by eating a normal diet, I think to myself, you know, maybe humans aren't meant to have such muscles.
It depends what you use the measure for. If you say, for example, that a high BMI correlates with a higher risk of heart disease, that is true in any case, even if body fat remains the same. More mass basically means more strain on the heart, and also other organs. That is a valuable statistic. Body fat has different effects, and just like the BMI, a higher number correlates with higher risk.
When the water expands and vaporises, that will cause a sudden drop in temperature. And small particles have a large surface area relative to their volume, so they would give off more thermal radiation.
The correct term is deposition, but for simplicity I used "freeze" because everybody understands what that means. I don't know the specific behaviour of water in a vacuum, but water is usually solid in space, like on the tails of comets, or when the ISS dumps waste water.
First the water on the surface of your skin would vaporise, and after expanding it would freeze. Basically, the pressure means that liquid water cannot exist at that pressure and temperature, so the water has to be either ice or water vapour. Water vapour won't last very long in space, as it would radiate heat very quickly, and then freeze.
Your situation wasn't entirely comparable. Just imagine if you were condemned to keep that stress up for years on end. It was also probably easier for you to find a little more motivation with your courses and your child than when you're a standard worker on 9-5.
The "more productive work" means that a worker will be more productive per hour of work when he has fewer hours than if he had more hours. How that fits in with pay and work shifts is a different topic. The workers should earn less for the fewer hours they do, and work shifts would have to be calculated differently. That's why the 35-hour week failed in Europe.
I think most people probably mean the vote distribution when criticising the electoral college. Thing is, that's just about the only thing that makes the U.S.'s electoral college system different from a popular vote, or making the House of representatives elect a president.
Of course it is important to maintain the individual state's rights in a federal system, but the presidential election in the U.S. gives more power to parties, rather than states. And considering the importance of the presidential elections, it's something you don't want to leave to chance.
Not exactly. A Democrat voter in a state where the democrats would surely win might prefer to give his vote in a state where they could really do with their vote. A Nader voter OTOH might like to give his vote in a state where there is little chance of the Republicans winning. Theoretically, it's a win-win situation, but as you have noticed, it's based on trust, just that it might be good to know the numbers. (but considering the fact that probably only a very small proportion of the electorate actually participated, it won't matter much.)
Because it would cause the water in your body to instantly do a mix of exploding and freezing, and all the gases solved in it would also escape. When under such low pressure, water doesn't have a liquid state.
Why should pasta even take 20 minutes? You throw some stuff in a pan for 10 minutes, and in the last 5 minutes you throw the pasta in boiling water. If it takes much longer there's something wrong, unless you're doing some home-made-fancy-shit like ravioli.
People seem to have forgotten that there already was a $500 PS3, right at launch. The 20 GB version. Basically it wasn't worth paying out the extra hundred bucks for what the 60GB version came with. That didn't seem to do any wonders to their sales numbers, so I doubt if this will.
If you want to continue insisting that SSB[M] is more hardcore than Virtua Fighter, that's your business.
That's the point where you went wrong. I never said VF was less hardcore than anything. All I done was respond to your "harcore and Smash Bros incites me to chuckle", and said that Smash has a pretty hardcore scene, and let a few words drop about Tekken.
It's not about defining hardcore, but your first comment just seemed to be too naive to believe that you know about competitive Smash Bros.
Name something in Virtua Fighter that takes control away from the player.
I don't want to go into discussing how game elements affect control, but your idea that jumping takes control away from the player is ludicrous because you control how and where you want to jump, and every other player can do the same. You have to decide which is the best way to play with it.
It seems to me that you're shunning Smash Bros. just because it isn't another Virtua Fighter or Street Fighter clone.
You know, cutting and editing my sentences doesn't exactly help you make a point.
Switching off items isn't trying to make it like Virtua Fighter. Yes it is.
No it isn't. Gotcha! (See how pointless it is discussing this) You're implying you have an insight into their intention. I'm sure the guys at HAL thought "yes this option allows people to make the game more like Virtua Fighter, lets implement it."
Says the man who repeatedly states he hasn't played much Virtua Fighter.
That was just a zinger. Man, you really don't get it with rhetorics. I really don't want to go into a pointless flamewar about two different games.
let's no go any further into discussing what game elements give more control to players I know why you feel that way: Because SSB[M] has many elements that take control away from the player, whereas hardcore games (VF, SF) have none.
Absolutely, none whatsoever. Yes sir! Your facts are undisputable!
Though I do occassionally come close to finding offence in comments which assume I'm not familiar with SSB or...
Which is a perfectly valid assumption. Because I can't understand why the mention of "hardcore" would "elicite a chuckle" to anybody who knows about the Smash Bros scene.
We have no shared definition of hardcore, so this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So we should both agree that I'm right
Wow, you don't get it with discussion tactics either. It should go something like "we should agree that we're both right" or "agree to disagree", something like that
need to learn more than one game before you can comment on fighting games in general.
Just because I didn't play much Virtua Fighter doesn't mean I haven't got a clue. Maybe you should loosen up more.
Just to avoid confusion: I noticed I didn't specifically mention "Tekken" in the first paragraph, which is the game I was referring to. So please don't come and whine "but Virtua Fighter isn't like that"
I didn't say anything about Virtua Fighter, I made it clear that I hadn't played it a lot. What I find funny though is how you state in that "as a matter of fact" way that 15 buttons don't get 100 moves. Get this: it was a hyperbole. An exaggeration to make the point clear. The fact remains that you can press a long combination of buttons and watch a sequence of how the character does some ultra-cool moves and beats the shit out of the other player.
Switching off items isn't trying to make it like Virtua Fighter. It's not a cheat or a hack of any kind, the option is specifically placed in an obvious location and is meant to be used. It's part of the game design. There isn't anything wrong with focusing on a preferred part of the game. Even with all items turned off and only one stage there is enough in Smash to entice players with the combat system. Enough to compete with Virtua Fighter.
And it doesn't take much brain to figure out that VF would be a different game were it to have jumps, but let's no go any further into discussing what game elements give more control to players. That's the ultimate question to any game designer.
I also never said that Virtua Fighter was a button masher, so I don't know why you take such offence at it. The original question was simply whether or not Smash Bros. is a hardcore game. And the answer is yes, at its core, it is a hardcore game. I don't know why people take offence at that.
Most hardcore Smash Players will refuse to play with the items switched on for that precise reason: it randomizes the gameplay. They're fun to start off with, but after a while they've lost their appeal.
The depth comes from the diversity of the characters moves, which can be combined very interestingly. There are a variety of very tricky techniques that can help in certain stages, but not others.
If you look at Virtua Fighter or Tekken, it's certainly more down-to-earth hand-to-hand combat (although calling them "realistic" is pushing it). But what I dislike on Tekken for example is the "Press a certain sequence of 15 Buttons or Combinations to perform the Ultra-special combo with 100 moves" type of combat system, which nobody uses anyway. I haven't played that much Virtua Fighter, but I'd wager to say that it's quite similar.
To me, a hardcore gamer plays a game for what it is: a game. He doesn't say super jumps, or moving platforms are ridiculous and destroy the game, but figures out how to play the game best with these. Because he knows that in essence, it is no more of a game, or no less ridiculous than mashing buttons in Tekken.
And I would call the the type of user that goes to GameFaqs and writes FAQs, or discusses the intricate details of a particular move pretty hardcore though. And the list at GameFaqs is therefor a pretty good measure of hardcore. You'll notice that most popular "chart toppers" rarely stay there for a few weeks. If that isn't enough, you can take a look at the many sites devoted to hardcore Smash Bros. playing, or the huge collection of Videos all over the net showing off tricky moves.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolute Bullshit! The reason why the Red Cross Committee was founded was precisely because there was no medical care for soldiers, and no protection for the wounded.
The symbol is a tribute to Henry Dunant, the "father" of the Red Cross movement. It's a swiss flag in reverse.
The official name of the committee was only changed to "International Committee of the Red Cross" about 13 years later, but it was essentially "The Red Cross".
The Geneva convention is pretty clear about this. The answer is no. (For an individual. The military can, when protected by the Geneva convention)
I actually got to talk with someone doing research on hydrogen fuel systems for BMW, and he explained that because so many companies were dependant on making the thousands of parts for the combustion engines, there was a lot of lobbying to steer the research in that direction.
Of course, it's also currently the most viable option, as fuel cell systems are about ten times as expensive, but until we find a way to make the fuel cheap enough, and without emitting even more CO2, they're both moot.
Obligatory link
Umm, they can do whatever they see fit. And if some private drug companies seek to make money off their back, because of their efforts (which is the case exclusively), they should be able to enforce their rights and ask for licensing fees.
And why do you think that the red cross is universally understood as "medical aid"? It's thanks to the International Red Cross.
If these people volunteered to join the red cross, there wouldn't have been anything wrong, but it undermines their reputation if any shitster can walk around that people would confuse him with the red cross.
I probably wouldn't confuse them either, but there's no strict line you can draw, which is why it's best not to use it.
The BMI is a measure. It doesn't attempt to be accurate at how strong you are and how fast you climb stairs.
One thing it can mean though is that people with high BMI have an increased risk of Cardiovascular disease.
Having protein shakes every day basically means you're having an unusually high protein intake. Whether that's such a good idea can be debated, but it might be a bit rash to claim there's "nothing wrong". In moderation there probably won't be any harm, but when I hear people who argue that there's no way they could have such muscles by eating a normal diet, I think to myself, you know, maybe humans aren't meant to have such muscles.
Not brushing your teeth is unhealthy. Dental diseases used to be a major cause of death.
It depends what you use the measure for. If you say, for example, that a high BMI correlates with a higher risk of heart disease, that is true in any case, even if body fat remains the same.
More mass basically means more strain on the heart, and also other organs. That is a valuable statistic.
Body fat has different effects, and just like the BMI, a higher number correlates with higher risk.
When the water expands and vaporises, that will cause a sudden drop in temperature. And small particles have a large surface area relative to their volume, so they would give off more thermal radiation.
The correct term is deposition, but for simplicity I used "freeze" because everybody understands what that means.
I don't know the specific behaviour of water in a vacuum, but water is usually solid in space, like on the tails of comets, or when the ISS dumps waste water.
First the water on the surface of your skin would vaporise, and after expanding it would freeze.
Basically, the pressure means that liquid water cannot exist at that pressure and temperature, so the water has to be either ice or water vapour.
Water vapour won't last very long in space, as it would radiate heat very quickly, and then freeze.
Your situation wasn't entirely comparable. Just imagine if you were condemned to keep that stress up for years on end.
It was also probably easier for you to find a little more motivation with your courses and your child than when you're a standard worker on 9-5.
The "more productive work" means that a worker will be more productive per hour of work when he has fewer hours than if he had more hours.
How that fits in with pay and work shifts is a different topic.
The workers should earn less for the fewer hours they do, and work shifts would have to be calculated differently. That's why the 35-hour week failed in Europe.
I think most people probably mean the vote distribution when criticising the electoral college. Thing is, that's just about the only thing that makes the U.S.'s electoral college system different from a popular vote, or making the House of representatives elect a president.
Of course it is important to maintain the individual state's rights in a federal system, but the presidential election in the U.S. gives more power to parties, rather than states. And considering the importance of the presidential elections, it's something you don't want to leave to chance.
Not exactly. A Democrat voter in a state where the democrats would surely win might prefer to give his vote in a state where they could really do with their vote. A Nader voter OTOH might like to give his vote in a state where there is little chance of the Republicans winning.
Theoretically, it's a win-win situation, but as you have noticed, it's based on trust, just that it might be good to know the numbers. (but considering the fact that probably only a very small proportion of the electorate actually participated, it won't matter much.)
You mean, actually mixing up pasta dough and rolling it out? What's next, you gonna grind your own flour and grow your own tomatoes?
Is it even possible to pronounce the double "m" syllables, and make it sound slightly less homosexual?
Because it would cause the water in your body to instantly do a mix of exploding and freezing, and all the gases solved in it would also escape.
When under such low pressure, water doesn't have a liquid state.
Why should pasta even take 20 minutes? You throw some stuff in a pan for 10 minutes, and in the last 5 minutes you throw the pasta in boiling water.
If it takes much longer there's something wrong, unless you're doing some home-made-fancy-shit like ravioli.
Maybe if they tried, they might be able to sell "Soukenbicha" tea in the US, purely because of its name.
People seem to have forgotten that there already was a $500 PS3, right at launch. The 20 GB version. Basically it wasn't worth paying out the extra hundred bucks for what the 60GB version came with.
That didn't seem to do any wonders to their sales numbers, so I doubt if this will.
That's the point where you went wrong. I never said VF was less hardcore than anything.
All I done was respond to your "harcore and Smash Bros incites me to chuckle", and said that Smash has a pretty hardcore scene, and let a few words drop about Tekken.
It's not about defining hardcore, but your first comment just seemed to be too naive to believe that you know about competitive Smash Bros.
I don't want to go into discussing how game elements affect control, but your idea that jumping takes control away from the player is ludicrous because you control how and where you want to jump, and every other player can do the same. You have to decide which is the best way to play with it.
It seems to me that you're shunning Smash Bros. just because it isn't another Virtua Fighter or Street Fighter clone.
You're implying you have an insight into their intention. I'm sure the guys at HAL thought "yes this option allows people to make the game more like Virtua Fighter, lets implement it."That was just a zinger. Man, you really don't get it with rhetorics. I really don't want to go into a pointless flamewar about two different games.Absolutely, none whatsoever. Yes sir! Your facts are undisputable!Which is a perfectly valid assumption. Because I can't understand why the mention of "hardcore" would "elicite a chuckle" to anybody who knows about the Smash Bros scene.Wow, you don't get it with discussion tactics either. It should go something like "we should agree that we're both right" or "agree to disagree", something like thatJust because I didn't play much Virtua Fighter doesn't mean I haven't got a clue. Maybe you should loosen up more.
Feel my Psychic powers. MOVE Controller, MOVE.
Just to avoid confusion: I noticed I didn't specifically mention "Tekken" in the first paragraph, which is the game I was referring to. So please don't come and whine "but Virtua Fighter isn't like that"
I didn't say anything about Virtua Fighter, I made it clear that I hadn't played it a lot.
What I find funny though is how you state in that "as a matter of fact" way that 15 buttons don't get 100 moves. Get this: it was a hyperbole. An exaggeration to make the point clear.
The fact remains that you can press a long combination of buttons and watch a sequence of how the character does some ultra-cool moves and beats the shit out of the other player.
Switching off items isn't trying to make it like Virtua Fighter. It's not a cheat or a hack of any kind, the option is specifically placed in an obvious location and is meant to be used. It's part of the game design.
There isn't anything wrong with focusing on a preferred part of the game. Even with all items turned off and only one stage there is enough in Smash to entice players with the combat system. Enough to compete with Virtua Fighter.
And it doesn't take much brain to figure out that VF would be a different game were it to have jumps, but let's no go any further into discussing what game elements give more control to players. That's the ultimate question to any game designer.
I also never said that Virtua Fighter was a button masher, so I don't know why you take such offence at it. The original question was simply whether or not Smash Bros. is a hardcore game. And the answer is yes, at its core, it is a hardcore game.
I don't know why people take offence at that.
Most hardcore Smash Players will refuse to play with the items switched on for that precise reason: it randomizes the gameplay. They're fun to start off with, but after a while they've lost their appeal.
The depth comes from the diversity of the characters moves, which can be combined very interestingly. There are a variety of very tricky techniques that can help in certain stages, but not others.
If you look at Virtua Fighter or Tekken, it's certainly more down-to-earth hand-to-hand combat (although calling them "realistic" is pushing it).
But what I dislike on Tekken for example is the "Press a certain sequence of 15 Buttons or Combinations to perform the Ultra-special combo with 100 moves" type of combat system, which nobody uses anyway.
I haven't played that much Virtua Fighter, but I'd wager to say that it's quite similar.
To me, a hardcore gamer plays a game for what it is: a game. He doesn't say super jumps, or moving platforms are ridiculous and destroy the game, but figures out how to play the game best with these. Because he knows that in essence, it is no more of a game, or no less ridiculous than mashing buttons in Tekken.
And I would call the the type of user that goes to GameFaqs and writes FAQs, or discusses the intricate details of a particular move pretty hardcore though. And the list at GameFaqs is therefor a pretty good measure of hardcore.
You'll notice that most popular "chart toppers" rarely stay there for a few weeks. If that isn't enough, you can take a look at the many sites devoted to hardcore Smash Bros. playing, or the huge collection of Videos all over the net showing off tricky moves.