No, unless they stole the screener, they commited copyright infringment. I am sure that many people here have downloaded something that that later bought because they enjoyed the illegal copy. To assume that copyright infringment directly translates to a loss of profit is totally rediculous.
I think most people don't have a problem with realism. It's more of an issue of things not feeling correctly. Even Flashpoint had to over simplify the game controls.
I mean, honestly, how many people here have ever fired an Abrams tank, or an M249? All I know is that if I fire a tank shell at a car, it should explode immediately killing everyone inside.
People complain about realism in games like Battlefield 2 simply because of how unintuitive the gameplay is. 3 tank shells to down a helicopter? An M249 that fires rubber bbs. The pros and cons of some weapons make no intuitive sense.
A good arcade game developer should strive to make the weapons intuitive while still maintaining balance. For instance, in BF2, tanks should be able to kill just about everything with a single shell, but it should take a while to turn the turret around. Planes should be deadly to all armor targets, but only placed on maps with lots of cover. Helicopters should be extremely effective versus troops and tanks, but weak versus air and AA. An MP5 should be dead accurate up close, and it shouldn't take 50 rounds to the head up close to kill. M249 should have to be deployed to be useful and should be an efficient killer of anything infront of it.
IMHO, if Battlefield 2 were to stay closer to real life weapon physics, there would be a lot more intense action.
I am more concerned of...
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
the effects of not watching porn, or engaging in sexually stimulating activities regularly (masturbation or sex). From my personal experience, all those that suppressed their sexual desires in accordance with their religious beliefs were, to put it slightly, extremely hostile.
I think society as a whole makes a big mistake in classifying people that are capable of processing or retaining large amounts of information as "geniuses." Those traits might make one more efficient at problem solving, but even then, how does it separate a human from a computer?
In my personal opinion, a genius is one that is able to extract the semantics from seemingly meaningless data. A person that is able to see beyond the apparent in the world around them.
In any case, what I've come to understand is quite simple. Nobody knows what intelligence really is, so how can someone accurately measure it? There may be a correlation between success and IQ, but then again, since when does success mean intelligence?
Anyways, I'll leave it at that. Take it all with a grain of salt.
It really is the taboo-ification of sex that is the problem. How can one enjoy an act that's normally done to provide pleasure if that individual is constantly being told that it is an ungodly sinful act. Ever think that perhaps the perversion in American society is due to the suppression of our animalistic nature that should be embraced.
In any case, I really wouldn't trust the moral system of a nation that's so prone to war and violence.
If they want to go see porn they will just go to the house of the friend with the most lax parents. That's what we used to do before I got my own PC. I clearly remember my friend looking for beastiality pics at the tender age of 15. And before we had PCs we would either steal porno from bookstores or purchase them from the crooked asian shopkeep down the street. Before we discovered theft and crooked asian shopkeeps we used to buy comic books with scantily clad heroines and beat off to them(Image's Gen 13 used to be my fav).
The point I am trying to make is that as soon as a man discovers how to use his penis, he uses it. In my case, it was an interesting and unexpected encounter with a back massager (might want to throw away any vibrating objects in your house). The sooner you introduce him to female porn the better. Who knows, without it he might develop a furry complex, or get addicted to womens feet or something.
Trying to censor your child from porn is a pointless waste of effort. If you don't want your sons to look at porn there is one simple solution, castrate them.
Well I would consider this to be something altogether. An irresponsible parent is bad in any situation, whether being excessively strict or lax (I would say that lax is preferred).
The point I am trying to make is that parents need to help place their children in a real world environment. I realize that it is not 100% possible since the law does not give citizens under the age of 18 the same rights as a citizen over the age of 18, so some degree of roleplaying is necessary.
I like to think of a good parent as a "special friend;" one that guides their children rather than dictating, and invests financially in their future. If a parent can achieve the status of a "special friend" within their childrens lives then there is a very good chance that child will adopt many of the values that parent finds to be important in life. Friends are where most people adopt many of their values from, so it only makes sense.
This isn't some elaborate theory. It's just a very simple observation that I've come to aknowledge; children simply don't tend to listen to authoritative parents. They might pretend to be following your rules when they are around, but as years and years of experience have taught me, its usually just an act. Once they leave the nest every single value you thought they believed flies right out the window. I've seen it all before and it really never works.
On a side note, I find American Beauty to be quite accurate.
Nothing breeds strong responsible children like no responsibilities.
Seriously, poorly raised kids will do wrong no matter what. Laptop or not. The worst thing you can do to your kids is to not offer them trust. What's the worst that can happen? He goes online and looks at porn? Big deal. I'd be more concerned about what he does with his friends on weekends.
Anyways, this is one of the problems of the American parent. They simply refuse to treat their kids as equals and accept the fact that they will make mistakes. How else are they going learn the importance of responsibility if you don't allow them to take the fall?
Well the citizens of California are paying to defend these students from litigation, regardless. The reason the UC system is considering these measures is to try to cut down on the cost of defending these students.
"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die"
Yes, most of the women and children that were nuked had much to do with those atrocities.
I usually find out that users are not as dumb as they seem when it comes to computers. Most of these people can easily well adapt a new somewhat-different desktop environment, but are easily intimidated at the very thought of using something that is not mainstream.
My 16-year old sister was especially intimidated when I told her I was going to switch her from Windows to Kubuntu. For the first day or so she wouldn't use it one bit because she said she didn't know how to use it. I asked her if she had tried and she said no. So a gave her a little tutorial of KDE and showed her how the desktop and applications are more or less the same. After about 2 or 3 days, its about all she uses. She especially likes Amarok.
I mean, honestly, the majority of Windows and Mac users do very limited tasks. Linux and KDE/Gnome are more or less ideal in fulfilling them with plenty of diversity to go around.
E-mail: Evolution or KMail
Web: Firefox
IM: Gaim or Kopete (to argue that any of these programs are more complex that Trillian is a stretch)
Music: Amarok
The largest problem is of course administration, but ask yourselves: Is Windows XP worth 150$ when you can get something that performs 95% of the tasks you would need performed for free? What about Mac OS X? I'd say no it isn't.
So you want to know why Linux has such a small piece of the market? It's all about advertising! If Ubuntu was advertised half as much as XP or OS X, I sincerely doubt that it would be where it is at today regardless of any of the relatively small Linux shortcomings (namely drivers and difficult system administration). Plenty of things sell that are functionally useless, and its because of advertising. So to argue that Linux isn't gaining ground because its not as intuitive to use as Windows is ridiculous. Most people don't even know what Linux is, let alone, how user friendly.
The simple fact is that until Linux gets the word out or does something so incredibly useful that Windows can't copy it before it gains momentum, Windows will continue to dominate no matter how user-friendly Unix becomes.
Slashdot Mirror
"These bozos committed theft, pure and simple."
No, unless they stole the screener, they commited copyright infringment. I am sure that many people here have downloaded something that that later bought because they enjoyed the illegal copy. To assume that copyright infringment directly translates to a loss of profit is totally rediculous.
It is an insane amount of money. It's also exactly how much it costs per day in Iraq.
I think most people don't have a problem with realism. It's more of an issue of things not feeling correctly. Even Flashpoint had to over simplify the game controls.
I mean, honestly, how many people here have ever fired an Abrams tank, or an M249? All I know is that if I fire a tank shell at a car, it should explode immediately killing everyone inside.
People complain about realism in games like Battlefield 2 simply because of how unintuitive the gameplay is. 3 tank shells to down a helicopter? An M249 that fires rubber bbs. The pros and cons of some weapons make no intuitive sense.
A good arcade game developer should strive to make the weapons intuitive while still maintaining balance. For instance, in BF2, tanks should be able to kill just about everything with a single shell, but it should take a while to turn the turret around. Planes should be deadly to all armor targets, but only placed on maps with lots of cover. Helicopters should be extremely effective versus troops and tanks, but weak versus air and AA. An MP5 should be dead accurate up close, and it shouldn't take 50 rounds to the head up close to kill. M249 should have to be deployed to be useful and should be an efficient killer of anything infront of it.
IMHO, if Battlefield 2 were to stay closer to real life weapon physics, there would be a lot more intense action.
the effects of not watching porn, or engaging in sexually stimulating activities regularly (masturbation or sex). From my personal experience, all those that suppressed their sexual desires in accordance with their religious beliefs were, to put it slightly, extremely hostile.
I think society as a whole makes a big mistake in classifying people that are capable of processing or retaining large amounts of information as "geniuses." Those traits might make one more efficient at problem solving, but even then, how does it separate a human from a computer?
In my personal opinion, a genius is one that is able to extract the semantics from seemingly meaningless data. A person that is able to see beyond the apparent in the world around them.
In any case, what I've come to understand is quite simple. Nobody knows what intelligence really is, so how can someone accurately measure it? There may be a correlation between success and IQ, but then again, since when does success mean intelligence?
Anyways, I'll leave it at that. Take it all with a grain of salt.
It really is the taboo-ification of sex that is the problem. How can one enjoy an act that's normally done to provide pleasure if that individual is constantly being told that it is an ungodly sinful act. Ever think that perhaps the perversion in American society is due to the suppression of our animalistic nature that should be embraced.
In any case, I really wouldn't trust the moral system of a nation that's so prone to war and violence.
Here's something insightful.
If they want to go see porn they will just go to the house of the friend with the most lax parents. That's what we used to do before I got my own PC. I clearly remember my friend looking for beastiality pics at the tender age of 15. And before we had PCs we would either steal porno from bookstores or purchase them from the crooked asian shopkeep down the street. Before we discovered theft and crooked asian shopkeeps we used to buy comic books with scantily clad heroines and beat off to them(Image's Gen 13 used to be my fav).
The point I am trying to make is that as soon as a man discovers how to use his penis, he uses it. In my case, it was an interesting and unexpected encounter with a back massager (might want to throw away any vibrating objects in your house).
The sooner you introduce him to female porn the better. Who knows, without it he might develop a furry complex, or get addicted to womens feet or something.
Trying to censor your child from porn is a pointless waste of effort. If you don't want your sons to look at porn there is one simple solution, castrate them.
Well I would consider this to be something altogether. An irresponsible parent is bad in any situation, whether being excessively strict or lax (I would say that lax is preferred).
The point I am trying to make is that parents need to help place their children in a real world environment. I realize that it is not 100% possible since the law does not give citizens under the age of 18 the same rights as a citizen over the age of 18, so some degree of roleplaying is necessary.
I like to think of a good parent as a "special friend;" one that guides their children rather than dictating, and invests financially in their future. If a parent can achieve the status of a "special friend" within their childrens lives then there is a very good chance that child will adopt many of the values that parent finds to be important in life. Friends are where most people adopt many of their values from, so it only makes sense.
This isn't some elaborate theory. It's just a very simple observation that I've come to aknowledge; children simply don't tend to listen to authoritative parents. They might pretend to be following your rules when they are around, but as years and years of experience have taught me, its usually just an act. Once they leave the nest every single value you thought they believed flies right out the window. I've seen it all before and it really never works.
On a side note, I find American Beauty to be quite accurate.
Nothing breeds strong responsible children like no responsibilities.
Seriously, poorly raised kids will do wrong no matter what. Laptop or not. The worst thing you can do to your kids is to not offer them trust.
What's the worst that can happen? He goes online and looks at porn? Big deal. I'd be more concerned about what he does with his friends on weekends.
Anyways, this is one of the problems of the American parent. They simply refuse to treat their kids as equals and accept the fact that they will make mistakes. How else are they going learn the importance of responsibility if you don't allow them to take the fall?
Well the citizens of California are paying to defend these students from litigation, regardless. The reason the UC system is considering these measures is to try to cut down on the cost of defending these students.
"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die" Yes, most of the women and children that were nuked had much to do with those atrocities.
Yea, I spent about 5 minutes trying to find the connection between the British Pornographic Agency and free downloadable music.
I usually find out that users are not as dumb as they seem when it comes to computers. Most of these people can easily well adapt a new somewhat-different desktop environment, but are easily intimidated at the very thought of using something that is not mainstream. My 16-year old sister was especially intimidated when I told her I was going to switch her from Windows to Kubuntu. For the first day or so she wouldn't use it one bit because she said she didn't know how to use it. I asked her if she had tried and she said no. So a gave her a little tutorial of KDE and showed her how the desktop and applications are more or less the same. After about 2 or 3 days, its about all she uses. She especially likes Amarok. I mean, honestly, the majority of Windows and Mac users do very limited tasks. Linux and KDE/Gnome are more or less ideal in fulfilling them with plenty of diversity to go around. E-mail: Evolution or KMail Web: Firefox IM: Gaim or Kopete (to argue that any of these programs are more complex that Trillian is a stretch) Music: Amarok The largest problem is of course administration, but ask yourselves: Is Windows XP worth 150$ when you can get something that performs 95% of the tasks you would need performed for free? What about Mac OS X? I'd say no it isn't. So you want to know why Linux has such a small piece of the market? It's all about advertising! If Ubuntu was advertised half as much as XP or OS X, I sincerely doubt that it would be where it is at today regardless of any of the relatively small Linux shortcomings (namely drivers and difficult system administration). Plenty of things sell that are functionally useless, and its because of advertising. So to argue that Linux isn't gaining ground because its not as intuitive to use as Windows is ridiculous. Most people don't even know what Linux is, let alone, how user friendly. The simple fact is that until Linux gets the word out or does something so incredibly useful that Windows can't copy it before it gains momentum, Windows will continue to dominate no matter how user-friendly Unix becomes.