And before I forget, many thanks to whoever modded me Flamebait for comparing the "safe!" Marijuana to the known lethal hydrogen cyanide. Real well thought out, considering Marijuana actually CONTAINS hydrogen cyanide. 5 times more than tobacco smoke. Bravo!
The latter two of which have a real medical purpose, and the former two of which I'd be all to glad to see banned. Phew! For a moment there, I thought I was the only one against stupid pointless addictive drugs. Welcome brother!
Of course, then we'd be left with only gambing to fulfill the economic boost gained from the Stupid Tax.
Hydrogen Cyanide is safe in extremely small doses too. Based on that, perhaps we should legalize it too?
Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?
In the same vein, reviews are generally going to be relative to other games on the same platform. So if there are 5 games on a console G1-G7, and G1 is bad but G2-G7 are REALLy bad, then G1 is going to get a pretty decent score because there's nothing better than it on the platform.
This is what gets me with some review sites where they have specific staff covering specific platforms 100% of the time - the scores are going to be relative to the other games on their designated platform.
Let me help out with this one:
The only difference is that now there can be two people playing that game instead of just one, but that certainly doesn't deprive anyone of anything; it makes the world a better place, not a worse one. I think I might print my own money and literally become a self-made millionaire. That doesn't deprive anyone of anything either. Then I'll make sure to give millions of dollars to everyone in the country except you. And according to your logic, I'd be making the world a better place while I'm at it. Win-win!
That's contradictory. First, I've not played RE4:Wii, only Gamecube. But Metroid's use of the Wii controller was of great benefit to the game. Thus, there's at least one "actual" game that uses it. And according to you, there's a second, RE4. I'm on your side, but what he said wasn't contradictory. RE4 and MP3 primarily use the pointing (ie IR camera) function of the Wii remote, not the motion-sensitive (ie accelerometer) mechanics he was referring to at that part of the paragraph (even though at the start of the paragraph he was talking about Wiimote as a whole).
You have a good point. Assuming the previous test subject died then and there, they didn't get the cake or grief counseling. So for them, they got no cake (it was still available, they just died before they got to it). So the statement still stands as true. A Portal test subject doesn't have to actually receive any cake for GLaDOS' statement to be true - it just has to be *available*.
Regardless of this little nitpick, let's pretend for a minute that this contradicts what GLaDOS said about the cake. So for them, the cake was a lie. Unless it was a metaphor for the afterlife (or it was literally available in the afterlife). Or they didn't really die, and were otherwise removed from the test, or it's some kind of VR environment (the whole game reeks of the Danger Room). After all, Chell can "die" numerous times and always gets brought back alive and well, there's no reason to believe in any different fate of the previous subject.
But then, I suppose the simpler argument would be, if they died in the next room, how did they know there was no cake if they had not yet completed the test? If they died in the next room and got no cake (and assuming they can't be resurrected like Chell), how were they able to go back and write on the wall that the cake is a lie?
Oops, forgot to mention this. Even if you disagree with all of my points, here's the catch-all: we don't know for sure if the test has concluded. For all we know, everything including the fight with GLaDOS and surviving outside is part of the test. And, given that there will most likely be a Portal 2 eventually, it's reasonable to assume the possibility that Chell is forced into further testing.
No, I said the same thing twice. The player is promised cake - as in, they also hear the message that "cake will be available". They were actually shown the cake, it was in the ending cutscene. Therefore they "got" it. They can't eat it, it's virtual, but that's not really the point. The player got the cake. But it's a moot point, because GLaDOS never says the player will actually *receive* cake, just that it will be available (but doesn't specify to whom). Which it was. Just because Chell couldn't eat it, being dead (if that plan had succeeded), and the player couldn't eat it, being real, does not automagically make the cake un-exist in the virtual point of reference.
It was still available at the end, as well Chell. Therefore she could have gone to get some, if she wanted. We don't ever see her *not* getting cake. You can't prove a negative, I know, but the screen fades to black immediately after landing outside - it's plausible that, had Chell really wanted the cake, she could have gone back and got some. Or went to a store to buy some. Or made her own. All of those would also satisfy the requirements of cake being available.
The metaphor argument still holds. We are never told that the cake in the ending cutscene was the cake being referred to by GLaDOS; if, in fact, she was talking about cake at all and not a metaphor. All we know is that there was a room, with a cake, and spare GLaDOS parts. It could have been anywhere. To say that cake was not "available" means there had to be no cake at all in the whole universe, because whether or not the cake is actually able to be obtained feasibly by Chell at that point in time, does not exclude the fact that it was available.
Availability also does not affect the validity of a metaphor. If I say "this computer is a piece of shit" as a metaphor for "this computer isn't very good", then the existence of a computer, somewhere in the universe, that's literally made out of shit doesn't alter the meaning of my statement. In the same way, the existence of *A* cake being available *somewhere* doesn't exclude the possibility of GLaDOS using "cake" as a metaphor.
Technically, the *player* is promised cake and grief counselling at the conclusion of the test, not necessarily the character (Chell). It is not specified that they will actually be given the cake, only that it will be available (which it was, the character presumably being dead was just an unfortunate circumstance preventing the character from eating said cake). Nor does it specify that "cake" isn't a metaphor for something else, such as "dumped into an incinerator" or that it may be available in the afterlife. We were shown the cake, we know it exists. If Chell didn't want to go back and get some, it's her own fault.
Perhaps this user has only used cheats to get to the last level, instead of playing through the whole game.
Because as we know, zany peripherals like plastic light guns, fake guitars, quiz show buzzers, karaoke microphones and a glorified webcam would NEVER sell on such a "hardcore" system as the PlayStation.
Well, it seems you'd rather make up points to nitpick, than actually follow an analogy the way it's intended. Obviously, with ridiculous notions such as "None of which are levied on vehicles, and none of which can be remotely described as a road tax", which has nothing to do with the fact that the tax is used for road maintenance anyway. Hey, that's cool, I can totally dig the whole strawman thing. Here's a bunch of other analogies that you may want to nitpick at and ignore the forrest for the trees with:
-Want a Big Mac with extra pickles? That'll be 50c extra. Want a Big Mac without any pickles? Sorry, no refund.
-Go to a car dealer. Ask to buy a new car. Say that you have your own, perfectly good tyres at home, and demand a refund on the new car's tyres. Do it without getting laughed out of the store.
-Try buying an NVIDIA graphics card without the firmware. Let alone getting a refund on the cost of the firmware.
-Do the above for routers/switches, sound cards, network cards, portable media players, mobile phones, gaming console, microwave/washing machine/dryer, TV/STB/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Stereo, digital camera/camcorder...
-Ever hear the conundrum about hot dogs coming in packs of 10, but buns in packs of 8? Clearly, you should be able to take those 2 extra dogs back to the supermarket for a refund.
-Want a DVD/CD/Game/ANY DAMN CONSUMER PRODUCT without the packaging? Good luck getting this unbundled.
-I like Adobe Photoshop. But I really only use it for drawing basic shapes. I should get a refund because I don't want to use the other functionality, yes?
-My light bulbs are rated at 40W. But in my house they're attached to dimmers, and I keep them running at half strength. How/where do I apply for my 50% discount?
-In my country, our internet is charged primarily based on usage, in 99% of cases. So let's say I download a 4.7GB Knoppix ISO. But, I don't intend on using at least 80% of the apps/functionality it comes with. Where's my 'internet usage refund'?
-I pay Premiums for my insurance, even when I haven't made any claims. Surely I should get my Premium refunded? Don't even get me started on the concept of Excess! They're making me pay my insurance twice!
-I'm not sick, injured, pregnant or elderly; don't have children; don't drive/ride or own a vehicle; don't own property; am no longer being educated; don't use public transport; have never been the victim of a crime or suffered a fire; have never needed military defence; and have never even heard of half the countries my government sends aid to. Surely it is my right to claim refunds on at least 95% of the tax I pay, based on these conditions?
I will go further, and tell you that it's impossible to buy a laptop with the features that an arbitrary customer may want _anywhere_ that doesn't come with Windows unless they're a corporate volume buyer (NB: not being made by Apple could well be a feature that's important to some customers). The customer in the story bought a desktop, not a laptop.
It's absolutely nothing like it, because you can buy the car _from that dealer_ with or without the bundled insurance if you wish. So it's actually like going to a store that sells computers, and being able to buy (for example) a Sony Viaio with or without Windows. So you have to go to another store. Or, god forbid, you should turn to an online store and save time and money in the process. Has somebody told the UN about these poor oppressed French?
Most sellers of small vehicles such as cars and motorcycles will deliver them without charging anything if the buyer's within a reasonable distance of the seller, so you're not back to square 1 at all. Great, so now not only are you discriminated against for not wanting to personally drive the vehicle, but now you're discriminated against for living in a different suburb.
Vehicles that don't go on public roads do not require any form of registration in France (i.e. no number plate is needed); vehicles that don't go on public roads can be driven without a license in France; it's not illegal to drive vehicles that aren't on public roads while drunk in France; and the mandatory French periodic road worthiness inspections aren't required for vehicles that don't use public roads. Yes, but you need licence and registration if
a) You are a driving instructor of any kind
b) You are a sporting driver of any kind
c) You intend to drive on ANY public carriage way (not just "public highways" - believe it or not, France != USA)
Balderdash. If you actually knew anything about French law instead of blathering, you would also know that (a) there's no road tax at all for the majority of domestic vehicles; and (b) vehicles that don't use roads are not required to pay for maintaining them. You're perhaps talking about Vignette, which is commonly referred to as "road tax". For 50 years it required ALL car owners (not just drivers) to pay. Now it just applies to businesses. Otherwise there is no such "road tax", only personal income tax (IRPP) which is used, among other things, for road maintenance. As are the council rates, taxe fonciere.
I didn't say they got refunds from using alternative fuels, but that they don't have to pay the taxes that are levied on fuels for vehicles that use public roads, which cannot legally run on anything that hasn't had those taxes paid on it. And it has everything to do with the topic at hand, i.e. vehicle taxes in France (of which the fuel tax is one), and your utter misunderstanding of what they are and how they're applied. Yes, if it weren't for those darned income taxes and council rates, you might have a point. I also find it amusing that you consider having to go to another computer store to be a violation of one's rights, but being forced to use alternative fuels in order to avoid fuel tax is ok?
This is an option in some countries, but not all of them. So you're telling me, there are no computer stores in France that sell PCs or PC components that don't come bundled with Windows?
They are in many parts of the world, because nobody apart from Apple (and Macs aren't always easy to find) sells computers without Windows on them in stores where customers can try before buying. But not in France. Maybe there's only one computer store in Elbonia, and maybe they only sell PCs bundled with Windows. What's that got to do with France? Customers are free to try the computer with Windows, then build their own PC without Windows. They are also free to not buy a PC at all. But then you'll probably complain that they don't sell graphics cards without the firmware bundled, or DVDs without the bundled packaging. What if I want to store the disc in a CD wallet? You mean I'm forced to pay for the packaging too? The horror!
The cases where they're bundled with (for example) insurance offer the option of not having it for those who prefer to make their own arrangements. Which is kind of like how they have the option not to buy a Windows-bundled PC?
Most countries allow you to unregister by stating that the vehicle will no longer be driven or parked on public highways, and insurance companies refund the unused portion of a premium (at least where I live) if you change companies or otherwise tell them that you don't want their cover anymore. And this is possible in France? (source, please)
The same way people have always transported vehicles that aren't licensed for (or are profoundly unsuitable for) public roads, i.e. by towing them on a wheeled platform. Which requires some form of payment unless you own the tow truck (which needs to be registered) and fuel is free. And you're back to square one.
For teaching advanced driving on skid pans and simulated streets on private land; or racing on specialist circuits; or in the case of cars with an off-road capability, driving around what may be extensive areas of non-road or roads that don't count as public highways (depending of course on where one lives) All of which require registration in France.
There's nothing to get back if the vehicle doesn't use public roads, because that particular tax wasn't paid in the first place. Note also that one can legally use subsidised agricultural and heating fuels in countries where such subsidies exist, thus avoiding the need to pay yet another tax. Uhh, what? If you pay taxes, you pay for road maintenance, end of story. Regardless of whether you use the roads at all. Irrespective of what refunds you may or may not get from using alternative fuels, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But you have to pay for Windows even if you won't be using it. No, you don't. You just have to shop at a different store for a PC without a bundled OS. No one's forcing you to that specific product from that specific store. That's the whole point of the PC being open architecture.
This isn't the case with motor vehicles because driving licenses, insurance, road use taxes etc. are sold by third parties separately from the vehicles themselves, so you don't pay for them if you aren't intending to drive on public roads. Except for the times when they're bundled with the product for a cheaper price, which is generally considered a positive selling point, and is fairly common here (except for the licence of course). There's also no way to "unregister" your vehicle should you choose not to want to use it on public roads. If you don't want the bundle, you ask, if they don't provide, you shop elsewhere. I'm also wondering how you plan to get the car home without a licence, insurance, registration...and even if you do, why you would be buying a car in the first place. Expensive paperweight?
And, part of your tax goes to road maintenance. You don't get that back either even if you don't own a car.
In order to use that car you bought, you have to agree to a separate legal agreement (road rules) with a third party (the government) who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the car. Furthermore, that legal agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the car.
If your car was a Honda civic, and it was advertised as coming with AC, but when you got it, it had a sticker over the AC button that said "By pressing this button you agree to be bound into the following legal agreement with Acme AC conditioners Ltd, France. You agree that any and all disputes will be governed by the laws of France. If you do not agree with this agreement, return this AC unit for a refund." etc etc. What would your response be? I would be pretty frustrated. But not as frustated as I'd be if they didn't explicity state what the terms and conditions were, and I only find them out after I've been pulled over and fined by the cops for not following those conditions that I wasn't informed about.
Look at the footage and tell me where the difficulty was. The guy was emotional and confused, not able to speak English. Three cops, count 'em, three cops went after him for no reason whatsoever. I think you hit the nail on the head here. The guy was emotional and confused, and in a confronting situation. What happens when you put a gun in the hands of an "emotional and confused" person in a strange environment? Combine that with a country where any idiot can get a gun as long as they haven't been in jail in the past 2 weeks (and that's only if they want to do it the legit way). Now try telling us again about how you should be exempt from the law because you pay part of the enforcers' wages?
That would probably work great for incoming mail. Perhaps not so great though, when an outsider asks a question, and gets answers back from each member, who have no knowledge of what other members have sent - without some kind of extra collaboration, which kind of defeats the purpose of using email.
Between what he can do with his personal fortune and rerouting company resources (IIRC Stark Enterprises is a Sole Proprietorship not answerable to any investors) into his new "secret project", who's going to stop him? The FAA.
Slashdot Mirror
And before I forget, many thanks to whoever modded me Flamebait for comparing the "safe!" Marijuana to the known lethal hydrogen cyanide. Real well thought out, considering Marijuana actually CONTAINS hydrogen cyanide. 5 times more than tobacco smoke. Bravo!
The latter two of which have a real medical purpose, and the former two of which I'd be all to glad to see banned. Phew! For a moment there, I thought I was the only one against stupid pointless addictive drugs. Welcome brother!
Of course, then we'd be left with only gambing to fulfill the economic boost gained from the Stupid Tax.
Hydrogen Cyanide is safe in extremely small doses too. Based on that, perhaps we should legalize it too? Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?
In the same vein, reviews are generally going to be relative to other games on the same platform. So if there are 5 games on a console G1-G7, and G1 is bad but G2-G7 are REALLy bad, then G1 is going to get a pretty decent score because there's nothing better than it on the platform.
This is what gets me with some review sites where they have specific staff covering specific platforms 100% of the time - the scores are going to be relative to the other games on their designated platform.
With Google and Apple being so trendy and all, one would think they would prefer 'The Gap(ple)'
You have a good point. Assuming the previous test subject died then and there, they didn't get the cake or grief counseling. So for them, they got no cake (it was still available, they just died before they got to it). So the statement still stands as true. A Portal test subject doesn't have to actually receive any cake for GLaDOS' statement to be true - it just has to be *available*.
Regardless of this little nitpick, let's pretend for a minute that this contradicts what GLaDOS said about the cake. So for them, the cake was a lie. Unless it was a metaphor for the afterlife (or it was literally available in the afterlife). Or they didn't really die, and were otherwise removed from the test, or it's some kind of VR environment (the whole game reeks of the Danger Room). After all, Chell can "die" numerous times and always gets brought back alive and well, there's no reason to believe in any different fate of the previous subject.
But then, I suppose the simpler argument would be, if they died in the next room, how did they know there was no cake if they had not yet completed the test? If they died in the next room and got no cake (and assuming they can't be resurrected like Chell), how were they able to go back and write on the wall that the cake is a lie?
Oh the mystery!
Oops, forgot to mention this. Even if you disagree with all of my points, here's the catch-all: we don't know for sure if the test has concluded. For all we know, everything including the fight with GLaDOS and surviving outside is part of the test. And, given that there will most likely be a Portal 2 eventually, it's reasonable to assume the possibility that Chell is forced into further testing.
No, I said the same thing twice. The player is promised cake - as in, they also hear the message that "cake will be available". They were actually shown the cake, it was in the ending cutscene. Therefore they "got" it. They can't eat it, it's virtual, but that's not really the point. The player got the cake. But it's a moot point, because GLaDOS never says the player will actually *receive* cake, just that it will be available (but doesn't specify to whom). Which it was. Just because Chell couldn't eat it, being dead (if that plan had succeeded), and the player couldn't eat it, being real, does not automagically make the cake un-exist in the virtual point of reference.
It was still available at the end, as well Chell. Therefore she could have gone to get some, if she wanted. We don't ever see her *not* getting cake. You can't prove a negative, I know, but the screen fades to black immediately after landing outside - it's plausible that, had Chell really wanted the cake, she could have gone back and got some. Or went to a store to buy some. Or made her own. All of those would also satisfy the requirements of cake being available.
The metaphor argument still holds. We are never told that the cake in the ending cutscene was the cake being referred to by GLaDOS; if, in fact, she was talking about cake at all and not a metaphor. All we know is that there was a room, with a cake, and spare GLaDOS parts. It could have been anywhere. To say that cake was not "available" means there had to be no cake at all in the whole universe, because whether or not the cake is actually able to be obtained feasibly by Chell at that point in time, does not exclude the fact that it was available.
Availability also does not affect the validity of a metaphor. If I say "this computer is a piece of shit" as a metaphor for "this computer isn't very good", then the existence of a computer, somewhere in the universe, that's literally made out of shit doesn't alter the meaning of my statement. In the same way, the existence of *A* cake being available *somewhere* doesn't exclude the possibility of GLaDOS using "cake" as a metaphor.
Technically, the *player* is promised cake and grief counselling at the conclusion of the test, not necessarily the character (Chell). It is not specified that they will actually be given the cake, only that it will be available (which it was, the character presumably being dead was just an unfortunate circumstance preventing the character from eating said cake). Nor does it specify that "cake" isn't a metaphor for something else, such as "dumped into an incinerator" or that it may be available in the afterlife. We were shown the cake, we know it exists. If Chell didn't want to go back and get some, it's her own fault. Perhaps this user has only used cheats to get to the last level, instead of playing through the whole game.
Because as we know, zany peripherals like plastic light guns, fake guitars, quiz show buzzers, karaoke microphones and a glorified webcam would NEVER sell on such a "hardcore" system as the PlayStation.
Well, it seems you'd rather make up points to nitpick, than actually follow an analogy the way it's intended. Obviously, with ridiculous notions such as "None of which are levied on vehicles, and none of which can be remotely described as a road tax", which has nothing to do with the fact that the tax is used for road maintenance anyway. Hey, that's cool, I can totally dig the whole strawman thing. Here's a bunch of other analogies that you may want to nitpick at and ignore the forrest for the trees with:
...aaaand Go!
-Want a Big Mac with extra pickles? That'll be 50c extra. Want a Big Mac without any pickles? Sorry, no refund.
-Go to a car dealer. Ask to buy a new car. Say that you have your own, perfectly good tyres at home, and demand a refund on the new car's tyres. Do it without getting laughed out of the store.
-Try buying an NVIDIA graphics card without the firmware. Let alone getting a refund on the cost of the firmware.
-Do the above for routers/switches, sound cards, network cards, portable media players, mobile phones, gaming console, microwave/washing machine/dryer, TV/STB/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Stereo, digital camera/camcorder...
-Ever hear the conundrum about hot dogs coming in packs of 10, but buns in packs of 8? Clearly, you should be able to take those 2 extra dogs back to the supermarket for a refund.
-Want a DVD/CD/Game/ANY DAMN CONSUMER PRODUCT without the packaging? Good luck getting this unbundled.
-I like Adobe Photoshop. But I really only use it for drawing basic shapes. I should get a refund because I don't want to use the other functionality, yes?
-My light bulbs are rated at 40W. But in my house they're attached to dimmers, and I keep them running at half strength. How/where do I apply for my 50% discount?
-In my country, our internet is charged primarily based on usage, in 99% of cases. So let's say I download a 4.7GB Knoppix ISO. But, I don't intend on using at least 80% of the apps/functionality it comes with. Where's my 'internet usage refund'?
-I pay Premiums for my insurance, even when I haven't made any claims. Surely I should get my Premium refunded? Don't even get me started on the concept of Excess! They're making me pay my insurance twice!
-I'm not sick, injured, pregnant or elderly; don't have children; don't drive/ride or own a vehicle; don't own property; am no longer being educated; don't use public transport; have never been the victim of a crime or suffered a fire; have never needed military defence; and have never even heard of half the countries my government sends aid to. Surely it is my right to claim refunds on at least 95% of the tax I pay, based on these conditions?
And, part of your tax goes to road maintenance. You don't get that back either even if you don't own a car.
Please see reply here
Much like you only have to agree to the Windows EULA if you choose to turn the PC on, and even then, only if you choose to continue using Windows.
Observation: A Microsoft fanboy wouldn't be spelling Microsoft with a '$'. An MS basher playing devil's advocate, however...
If the US was serious about helping Burma, they'd send in Rambo...
We told you it was real. Now we just have to decode the Bunyip genome.
That would probably work great for incoming mail. Perhaps not so great though, when an outsider asks a question, and gets answers back from each member, who have no knowledge of what other members have sent - without some kind of extra collaboration, which kind of defeats the purpose of using email.