I use a self-checkout lane at my local albertson's and (sometimes sadly) walmart. My preferred stop (the local co-op) does not have these, but then I like talking to the cashiers there. This all in Billings, MT a bastion of old-timey, small-town, luddite nonsense.
Yes, it is a wedge issue because "nanny state" is not a real thing. Just like many other wedge issues, it's a term that refers to bad governance without ever defining what that bad governance is. Rather than using a well defined term with real political meaning, it is a pejorative that allows people with disparate political beliefs to group together without cause. We both hate the nanny state, but my nanny state is not your nanny state. Please refer to real terminology with real definitions so there is a real debate.
Sometimes I wish Slash-comments could be more like Yahoo Answers. Let's all vote for the parent and move on to other discussions. Too much nonsense comes out of bad articles like this one.
I know how my computer works, but I have better things to do with my time than configure it/server settings. I did that in college and don't feel the need or desire to do so again. Your changes would not help the majority of internet users, including many who share your skills. We do not share your values.
This is really bothering me. The creative team thinks these units are "fun". This does not mean that players would find the units to be fun. Real fun. Not weird, or off-the-wall, or neater versions of what is already there. These "fun" units splash around game systems, captivating some players with their history and neat features even though in game they are useless. Eventually these players become frustrated that their units do not work so well and they greatly detract from the meta-game. Visit http://www.belloflostsouls.com/ for a list of blog posts where you'll find what we in the Warhammer 40K community have dubbed fluff-bunnies. Fluff-bunnies are players that use "fun" units exclusively. These people then come online to complain that they are not working as expected and that we need to mod the rules to make the game work for these units. These are the worst of the worst and few players enjoy them.
The problem is that there is a spectrum of players between those that have figured out the best strategies and those that want to use a strategy that sounds like it should work. These people in the middle are a large swath of players that want their cool units to be as useful as they are cool. They insist on using them no matter how often they lose.
"Fun" units encourage a style of play that detracts from the competitive nature of the game. If you don't think an RTS or specifically Starcraft 2 should be competitive, then I don't know what you get out of an RTS.
Apparently no one who plays video games competitively is on slashdot today. The vast majority of Starcraft players play competitively. It's what has kept the game going all this time. Trying playing 4th edition Warhamerr 40K and tell me what you think of the "fun" units. Thank god they finally have gotten around to balancing some of the game.
"Fun" units stop being fun when they are losing you the game. "Fun" units ruin the game for people that want to use them but don't understand it's almost never sound strategy. "Fun" units are not fun.
You understand that "My time playing around with stuff is why I actually know what I'm doing" is part of education, right? If your degree didn't involve that kind of learning, then you had bad instruction and the school should have accreditations removed. Don't be the douche that pretends college degrees are just a piece of paper.
For every one of those, there's the same family only decades earlier in life with plenty of children who would benefit greatly from having the interent. Your aunt and uncle are unfamiliar with lifestyles that include the internet, which is fine because their generation does not require it socially. As 26 yro who occasionally facebooks in Montana, I can tell you I am much less connect to my generation. Current farmers may not need the internet now, but they will in the future, especially if they want jobs and the like. I'll be a happy man when I can finally take and offer grain bids online. So much wasted effort having agents traveling all over the country-side, often wasting everyone's time.
No, we have no dues to pay. We are not entitled to anything, but neither are you. Business owners are not entitled to cheap, ineffective, underdeveloped, and socially destructive labor. If you don't want your society educating it's youth, please move to China. I am assuming you are an American, and if so, we do not want your business. Thank you have a good day.
That $100K might not be a big deal to small companies here in New York. But back home in Montana where the license is not adjusted for cost of living (how awesome that would be), $100K is enough to buy a starter home. Let me think...buy my startup an H.264 license or deal with Theora and finally own my house. What a choice...
Simple fix. Skip them! Times 1 scientific achievement has resulted in instant market application? 0. Get over it and leave it those of us that it does "impact tremendously" alone.
Sorry, but you've missed the point of Chinese censorship, just like most people on Slashdot. Yes, the Chinese themselves are generally A-OK with such censorship. They have a very different culture than ours. Sure, if someone was bypassing the firewall to organize a rally, then absolutely that would be used against them. But the vast majority of people bypassing aren't doing anything of interest to their government and so will be happily ignored. The CCP is very intelligent and knows that letting some Chinese break the rules is the best policy both for China and for the Party.
Not that I don't agree with you in principle...but show please point me to 1 building that houses the leader of 1 billion people that isn't extravagant? 1 million?
I'm fairly certain that the GP was stating that the ability to write code with a simple text editor is pure novelty, much like writing machine code without a compiler.
I disagree for 2 reasons. This axis you're talking about is only concentrated in politics. The American public has a similar political spread as every other country, our liberals just don't tend to vote. We have this problem of hippies being lazy and thinking it's cool to not participate in the system. Because our politics are right of center, American liberals take what little they can get rather than fighting for what they believe in. Which is why the Democratic party is completely at odds with itself. However, this also means left-of-center people in America are very pragmatic. Note that I only said left-of-center. Our leftists are just as idealistic as anywhere else. Which comes back to the point about journalists. They identify as liberals because journalists have greater exposure to political thought than most people. However, many liberals in America identify as moderates because they are so pragmatic and see no need to attach a label that means others can trample on their opinion. Journalists just happen to be in a profession where substance behind a stance is given much more credence than labels.
As a liberal and a sometimes reader of the NYT, I have to disagree with your statement. I've read plenty of libertarian-slanted news in the NYT. Yes you're not going to find much in the way of socially conservative opinions there, but that's because people at the NYT are intelligent. However, I can guarantee that the NYT does hit all of the economic spectrum.
Also, the Daily Show is not really a liberal show. Just anti-stupid, which thanks to the number of socially conservative and libertarian fanatics, means they pick on conservatives/republicans more often than not. Don't get me wrong, liberals can do stupid things. But there just are the shear numbers of fanatics on the left.
Would you have preferred the students at Columbia to not boo Ahmadinejad? I will give you that they let him speak, but I'm sure he did not feel any sort of welcome. And that he should have expected such a reaction. Should this lecturer have expected to be shouted down?
Slashdot Mirror
I use a self-checkout lane at my local albertson's and (sometimes sadly) walmart. My preferred stop (the local co-op) does not have these, but then I like talking to the cashiers there. This all in Billings, MT a bastion of old-timey, small-town, luddite nonsense.
I do think this is why we have the _same_ two political parties.
We don't need a secondary economy inflating online prices. Screw that.
Or justice was served. The ACLU understands that better than anyone on this site.
We are legion
Yes, it is a wedge issue because "nanny state" is not a real thing. Just like many other wedge issues, it's a term that refers to bad governance without ever defining what that bad governance is. Rather than using a well defined term with real political meaning, it is a pejorative that allows people with disparate political beliefs to group together without cause. We both hate the nanny state, but my nanny state is not your nanny state. Please refer to real terminology with real definitions so there is a real debate.
Sometimes I wish Slash-comments could be more like Yahoo Answers. Let's all vote for the parent and move on to other discussions. Too much nonsense comes out of bad articles like this one.
I know how my computer works, but I have better things to do with my time than configure it/server settings. I did that in college and don't feel the need or desire to do so again. Your changes would not help the majority of internet users, including many who share your skills. We do not share your values.
This is really bothering me. The creative team thinks these units are "fun". This does not mean that players would find the units to be fun. Real fun. Not weird, or off-the-wall, or neater versions of what is already there. These "fun" units splash around game systems, captivating some players with their history and neat features even though in game they are useless. Eventually these players become frustrated that their units do not work so well and they greatly detract from the meta-game. Visit http://www.belloflostsouls.com/ for a list of blog posts where you'll find what we in the Warhammer 40K community have dubbed fluff-bunnies. Fluff-bunnies are players that use "fun" units exclusively. These people then come online to complain that they are not working as expected and that we need to mod the rules to make the game work for these units. These are the worst of the worst and few players enjoy them.
The problem is that there is a spectrum of players between those that have figured out the best strategies and those that want to use a strategy that sounds like it should work. These people in the middle are a large swath of players that want their cool units to be as useful as they are cool. They insist on using them no matter how often they lose.
"Fun" units encourage a style of play that detracts from the competitive nature of the game. If you don't think an RTS or specifically Starcraft 2 should be competitive, then I don't know what you get out of an RTS.
Apparently no one who plays video games competitively is on slashdot today. The vast majority of Starcraft players play competitively. It's what has kept the game going all this time. Trying playing 4th edition Warhamerr 40K and tell me what you think of the "fun" units. Thank god they finally have gotten around to balancing some of the game.
"Fun" units stop being fun when they are losing you the game. "Fun" units ruin the game for people that want to use them but don't understand it's almost never sound strategy. "Fun" units are not fun.
You understand that "My time playing around with stuff is why I actually know what I'm doing" is part of education, right? If your degree didn't involve that kind of learning, then you had bad instruction and the school should have accreditations removed. Don't be the douche that pretends college degrees are just a piece of paper.
Your cynicism is sad.
My sister was 9 when my father died. She needed a SSN so that she could collect her share.
For every one of those, there's the same family only decades earlier in life with plenty of children who would benefit greatly from having the interent. Your aunt and uncle are unfamiliar with lifestyles that include the internet, which is fine because their generation does not require it socially. As 26 yro who occasionally facebooks in Montana, I can tell you I am much less connect to my generation. Current farmers may not need the internet now, but they will in the future, especially if they want jobs and the like. I'll be a happy man when I can finally take and offer grain bids online. So much wasted effort having agents traveling all over the country-side, often wasting everyone's time.
No, we have no dues to pay. We are not entitled to anything, but neither are you. Business owners are not entitled to cheap, ineffective, underdeveloped, and socially destructive labor. If you don't want your society educating it's youth, please move to China. I am assuming you are an American, and if so, we do not want your business. Thank you have a good day.
Use of the royal we in those statements creeps me way out.
That $100K might not be a big deal to small companies here in New York. But back home in Montana where the license is not adjusted for cost of living (how awesome that would be), $100K is enough to buy a starter home. Let me think...buy my startup an H.264 license or deal with Theora and finally own my house. What a choice...
When I own an iphone dev kit, then it is exactly my business. Libertarian Fail.
Simple fix. Skip them! Times 1 scientific achievement has resulted in instant market application? 0. Get over it and leave it those of us that it does "impact tremendously" alone.
Sorry, but you've missed the point of Chinese censorship, just like most people on Slashdot. Yes, the Chinese themselves are generally A-OK with such censorship. They have a very different culture than ours. Sure, if someone was bypassing the firewall to organize a rally, then absolutely that would be used against them. But the vast majority of people bypassing aren't doing anything of interest to their government and so will be happily ignored. The CCP is very intelligent and knows that letting some Chinese break the rules is the best policy both for China and for the Party.
Not that I don't agree with you in principle...but show please point me to 1 building that houses the leader of 1 billion people that isn't extravagant? 1 million?
I'm fairly certain that the GP was stating that the ability to write code with a simple text editor is pure novelty, much like writing machine code without a compiler.
I disagree for 2 reasons. This axis you're talking about is only concentrated in politics. The American public has a similar political spread as every other country, our liberals just don't tend to vote. We have this problem of hippies being lazy and thinking it's cool to not participate in the system. Because our politics are right of center, American liberals take what little they can get rather than fighting for what they believe in. Which is why the Democratic party is completely at odds with itself. However, this also means left-of-center people in America are very pragmatic. Note that I only said left-of-center. Our leftists are just as idealistic as anywhere else. Which comes back to the point about journalists. They identify as liberals because journalists have greater exposure to political thought than most people. However, many liberals in America identify as moderates because they are so pragmatic and see no need to attach a label that means others can trample on their opinion. Journalists just happen to be in a profession where substance behind a stance is given much more credence than labels.
As a liberal and a sometimes reader of the NYT, I have to disagree with your statement. I've read plenty of libertarian-slanted news in the NYT. Yes you're not going to find much in the way of socially conservative opinions there, but that's because people at the NYT are intelligent. However, I can guarantee that the NYT does hit all of the economic spectrum.
Also, the Daily Show is not really a liberal show. Just anti-stupid, which thanks to the number of socially conservative and libertarian fanatics, means they pick on conservatives/republicans more often than not. Don't get me wrong, liberals can do stupid things. But there just are the shear numbers of fanatics on the left.
Would you have preferred the students at Columbia to not boo Ahmadinejad? I will give you that they let him speak, but I'm sure he did not feel any sort of welcome. And that he should have expected such a reaction. Should this lecturer have expected to be shouted down?