Meaning from syllabic placement is a more advanced ability than meaning from a syllable. This is pretty critical to language development where word ordering is important to meaning. "The monkey at the banana." vs "The banana ate the monkey."
This is not really true. Word order is a critical part of some languages (Modern English, for example, although Cantonese would be an even more apt example.) But in other languages it is not. In a highly inflected language (classical Latin being the example the reader is most likely to be exposed to I suppose) word order can be disregarded entirely.
For example, "puer puellam amat" the boy loves the girl "puerum puella amat" the girl loves the boy. But all I changed was a couple of suffixes, the word order stays the same.
However in the case of the smaller stations this can be a daunting if not insurmountable price.
Consider, a station which plays primarily alternative music sources, but plays *one song* from the RIAA catalog, once, in a year. Still out $25k for that one song.
The pricing structure is clearly designed to exclude smaller and/or less mainstream stations.
I have my terminology straight, you are (intentionally?) misinterpreting it by telling yourself I meant something else. I didnt.
Taking over a game which other people are playing and intentionally, systematically shutting down play fits pretty well within the category of "griefing" in my view.
[quote]i have played eq, and cross teaming has absolutely nothing to do with this, you're not able to team up with anyone of the opposite faction in cox (only in cooperation zones, but we're talking pvp areas here), you can't heal them etc. [/quote]
But apparently you *can* leave them unmolested to farm in a pvp zone, and then ostracise members of your own team that try to fight them. Which is, as I said, not a perfect analogy but nonetheless obviously very similar behaviour, wrong for the same reason, and yes, in my book as someone who has seen more than one game I once enjoyed completely ruined by it, that counts as griefing everyone that is actually trying to play the game.
IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong) Fansy was mostly known for training mobs on people he was not even allowed to attack. This is not even vaguely comparable.
And before you get started on that bullshit "he was a hero, he had to kill the villains", that's not how the game is designed, merely the premise of the world, it's the lore as opposed to the actual game.
I am seriously rolling around laughing right now. Cant you see how absurd you are here?
It's not the game, it's merely the premise of the world.MERELY.
And, again, claiming that he was griefing or violating rules or abusing bugs simply isnt going to work. He was petitioned many times, and exonerated every time.
FFS he wasnt griefing, and he wasnt beating the programmers. He was petitioned against repeatedly and it was ruled repeatedly that he wasnt doing anything wrong.
you want to tell me that the majority of mmorpg players are not playing for rewards?
No. I do not have sufficient data to generalise about that expansive a group. I would say that in my experience most "MMORPG Players" arent actually playing an RPG, MMO or otherwise. They should discover IRC and save some money.
every mmorpg community would react the exact same way to this kind of grieving, you won't find a single one where people will like you for training npcs on them or port them into them.
Which is in no wise analogous behaviour to what he was doing, in the first place (the anti-twixt folks were the griefers, you should RTFA,) and in the second, no, not every one of these "communities" react the same way. When I played EQ (race war server) the equivelant behaviour was called "cross-teaming."
It's not a perfect parallel but it's pretty close. Like the vocal griefers this guy ran across, cross-teamers ruined the game by approaching it as a database game instead of an MMORPG, and explicitly working with the players that were supposed to be their mortal enemies. In that game, the whole world (on the proper server) was pretty much pvp, with racial teams which were pretty balanced and fair. The teams were human, short, elf, and dark IIRC, and it was supposed to be constant war against all. First the humans, shorts, and elves all basically left each other alone, so instead of 4 vs 4 it became effectively 3 vs 1. Fine, team dark rocked, we could take that. Then our enemies started creating dark characters too. So we would be running a zone and suddenly a party of mixed lighties attacks, fine, we can counter. We almost get one of them dead, and suddenly their dark-team cleric pops up and starts healing them. And we cant hit her, she's on our team.
Now for some time, in contrast to the COH story here, it was the use of OOC tactics that the majority of the players decried, and the folks actually trying to play the game didnt get ostracised. At first, at least, it worked the other way around.
So bug reports were filed and Sony promised to fix it in code. Months went by. No code fix appeared. As time went on more and more people decided 'if you cant beat em join em' and slowly, the cultural code that said we were here to play rather than exploit bugs was eroded, and the people actually playing the game properly DID become marginalised. By the time Sony finally admitted they werent going to fix the bug, the majority of the server was cross-teaming (or had already quit in disgust because of it.)
The end result may be similar but the path to get there was very different.
Yeah, others have pointed out the factual errors, but think about this for a minute man.
This is THE PVP area in a HEROS VS VILLAINS game. He's playing a hero. He goes in to kill villains. And HE is in the wrong?
A better analogy would be that he was doing 55 on a 55 road and really irritated the mob that was trying to use the asphault as a spread for their picnic. Solution - DONT PLAN PICNICS ON THE HIGHWAY SURFACE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS FOR!
How is teleporting people in front of NPC bots designed to enforce a safe zone instead of beating someone up yourself "playing correctly?"
How else would a character whose major power focus was teleportation fight? Huh? The hero is supposed to go fight the villains but refrain from using his only significant power because it's unfair? That's ridiculous. If the teleport power is overbalanced, the game designers need to rework it or remove it, but dont blame the player for using what he has in an intelligent way to achieve his goals.
so he did something in a game that didn't reward him in any way, the only thing it did was annoy other players. yes it's possible to do, but it makes no sense from his point of view other than to piss everyone off
Umm no. It's a game of heros vs villains. He was playing heros vs villains. It makes total sense, and the OOC factors you keep bringing up like they mean something are just that - OOC. Utterly meaningless here.
And I get the feeling trying to explain this to you will be something like trying to explain the colour blue to someone who was blind from birth.:(
You are playing a database. Hence your fixation on points, and repeatedly raising the fact that the game 'didnt reward' what he was doing. In an RPG you dont take actions to curry rewards, at least not primarily. You take actions because of IC motivations. Your character knows nothing about points or score!
And bottom line, if you are playing the game you should be playing it because you enjoy it.
If you dont like the game, ffs find another game instead of ruining it for the people that are actually playing it and enjoying it. Which is clearly what the majority of COH players have done - taken over a game they didnt like and ruined it for anyone that actually want to play.
Oh well, after reading TFA I am greatful to the author for the warning - it's a game I might have otherwise wasted time on.
Your other post here was incorrect when it said he could do that from anywhere in the game. He could only do that if they had already voluntarily entered the area, which is very clearly marked, and even has a 30 second cool down when you enter it to give you time to leave if you did so accidentally.
Furthermore, his range was quite limited as well. He had to catch them, not just in the zone, but on the right side of it - near where heros come into the zone. Villains enter from the opposite side. So his foes were folks that wandered around the PVP zone without a care in the world, relying on this idiotic custom to protect them, and then whined when he took advantage of their lack of caution to whack em.
I dont play COH, I just got off the phone with a friend that did who explained it a little better than the article. Any errors in comprehension are my own.
yes he used abilities to damage his enemies in the most devastating manner, but he did so with no reason, he did not get any points for it, as he did not actually kill them (the npcs did)
Huh? Because the game mechanics didnt give him XP that delegitimises his acts? Hardly. He played a hero, removing villains was his goal, not racking up points in a database somewhere!
chatting is not ruining cox pvp since there are fights all the time
According to TFA, there are arenas for duels, and a full pvp area as well. Despite this, the custom has evolved that both sides use the full PVP area for farming and duelling, and no true pvp takes place (set duels are not the same thing.) No? Because if that's not accurate then one must wonder why Twixt became so hated, if everyone else was doing the same thing he was...
He used the abilities his character had to inflict maximum damage on his characters enemies. Good play, nothing else.
The other freaking morons that would sit around in a full on pkill zone chatting up buddies on the other side and letting them farm in peace were the ones exploiting flaws in game mechanics to ruin the game.
I havent played this particular game, but I have certainly seen that type ruin more than one game before.
This is a clearly marked PVP zone, in a game where everyone is on one side or the other and they are supposed to be constantly at war. If you want a farm a zone like that you do it at your own risk, and getting butthurt because someone on the other team was actually playing their character is just absurd and pathetic.
The same kind of idiocy this researcher found in this game definitely goes back a long ways though. I remember encountering it in MUDs way back in the 80s, and the cross-teaming that killed Everquest race-war pvp comes from the same source conceptually as well. These are players with no interest or appreciation for the game at all, who enjoy destroying it for others while chatting with their "friends" on the other side (who should be their mortal enemies) instead of actually playing.
No sympathy for them at all. IMOP they are deserving of the "griefer" epithet, not him.
Because, as a user I might not know which of the 47 different domains that CNN pulls scripts from are *supposed* to be serving scripts and which are some guy trying to get my facebook account details (not that I have one or read the CNN site regularly; largely because of the number of bloody domains they pull scripts from), whereas the owners of the CNN site *will* know which domains they're supposed to be pulling scripts from and can state so to the browser.
Sounds like a bug rather than a feature to me. This would just enable CNN and others to continue the practice, removing any pressure on them to fix their broken website.
I really hope the default policy is "only allow scripts from the current domain" and "do not allow the site to override my choice".
Noscript does this.
Which brings me to the observation that, at least as far as I can tell from the blurb, this entire thing sounds a bit redundant in light of the ready availability of Noscript. Why not just make it part of the default firefox install instead?
The lawyers, no matter how good, were up against one major obstacle during both trials. And that obstacle is that the evidence overwhelmingly said she was guilty of what they were accusing her of.
I disagree. I havent gone over the transcripts, but I am unaware that any attempt was even made to prove that she was guilty of the charge - which, after all, was distribution. There wasnt even any instruction to the jury as to what would constitute proof of distribution, as I understand. So it seems absurd for you to claim that there was clear evidence of her culpability.
When I was learning CS Assembly was the definitional example of a high level language. Obviously Pascal/C/Lisp etc. are higher level, but all of them are easily distinguishable from true low-level code.
LISP, the world's second oldest high-level programming language.
That threw me right off, plankalkül is a rather obscure claimant, but assembly is the oldest surviving-and-useful high-level language. Now there are third-generation super-high level languages so perhaps it makes sense to call assembly "mid-level" but it sure as heck isnt low level. Low level programming means direct machine code.
connect two mice, keyboards, and monitors to the computer, which Windows is not capable, and Linux will only be in 6 months with xinput2.
Umm what?
Linux could handle this just fine in 1994, so I think you are confused. Either that or basic functionality has been torn out between now and then, which doesnt seem very likely.
Nice.
I had a Toshiba for some years that was definitely NOT a netbook, this was back before most had heard of the net, and it was definitely bigger and heavier than an EeePC, plus no SSD. But it did have DOS burnt on ROM, 2mb ram part of which was configured for ramdisk by default, and a floppy drive. Lighter and longer battery life than models with a hard drive, so I do think of it as a sort of remote ancestor to the netbooks.
And yes, the newer "netbooks" do seem to be more accurately called mini-notebooks, what with those hard drives ruining the design.
I dont think the price should disqualify it (everything is more expensive at first and price drops over time and volume) but a real netbook uses flash ram for storage, not a hard drive, so I do agree with you in the end - not a netbook.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not really true. Word order is a critical part of some languages (Modern English, for example, although Cantonese would be an even more apt example.) But in other languages it is not. In a highly inflected language (classical Latin being the example the reader is most likely to be exposed to I suppose) word order can be disregarded entirely.
For example, "puer puellam amat" the boy loves the girl "puerum puella amat" the girl loves the boy. But all I changed was a couple of suffixes, the word order stays the same.
For some cases you are obviously correct.
However in the case of the smaller stations this can be a daunting if not insurmountable price.
Consider, a station which plays primarily alternative music sources, but plays *one song* from the RIAA catalog, once, in a year. Still out $25k for that one song.
The pricing structure is clearly designed to exclude smaller and/or less mainstream stations.
I have my terminology straight, you are (intentionally?) misinterpreting it by telling yourself I meant something else. I didnt.
Taking over a game which other people are playing and intentionally, systematically shutting down play fits pretty well within the category of "griefing" in my view.
[quote]i have played eq, and cross teaming has absolutely nothing to do with this, you're not able to team up with anyone of the opposite faction in cox (only in cooperation zones, but we're talking pvp areas here), you can't heal them etc. [/quote]
But apparently you *can* leave them unmolested to farm in a pvp zone, and then ostracise members of your own team that try to fight them. Which is, as I said, not a perfect analogy but nonetheless obviously very similar behaviour, wrong for the same reason, and yes, in my book as someone who has seen more than one game I once enjoyed completely ruined by it, that counts as griefing everyone that is actually trying to play the game.
IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong) Fansy was mostly known for training mobs on people he was not even allowed to attack. This is not even vaguely comparable.
Sure. Now explain why his own teammates were helping their enemies.
I am seriously rolling around laughing right now. Cant you see how absurd you are here?
It's not the game, it's merely the premise of the world. MERELY.
And, again, claiming that he was griefing or violating rules or abusing bugs simply isnt going to work. He was petitioned many times, and exonerated every time.
FFS he wasnt griefing, and he wasnt beating the programmers. He was petitioned against repeatedly and it was ruled repeatedly that he wasnt doing anything wrong.
No. I do not have sufficient data to generalise about that expansive a group. I would say that in my experience most "MMORPG Players" arent actually playing an RPG, MMO or otherwise. They should discover IRC and save some money.
Which is in no wise analogous behaviour to what he was doing, in the first place (the anti-twixt folks were the griefers, you should RTFA,) and in the second, no, not every one of these "communities" react the same way. When I played EQ (race war server) the equivelant behaviour was called "cross-teaming."
It's not a perfect parallel but it's pretty close. Like the vocal griefers this guy ran across, cross-teamers ruined the game by approaching it as a database game instead of an MMORPG, and explicitly working with the players that were supposed to be their mortal enemies. In that game, the whole world (on the proper server) was pretty much pvp, with racial teams which were pretty balanced and fair. The teams were human, short, elf, and dark IIRC, and it was supposed to be constant war against all. First the humans, shorts, and elves all basically left each other alone, so instead of 4 vs 4 it became effectively 3 vs 1. Fine, team dark rocked, we could take that. Then our enemies started creating dark characters too. So we would be running a zone and suddenly a party of mixed lighties attacks, fine, we can counter. We almost get one of them dead, and suddenly their dark-team cleric pops up and starts healing them. And we cant hit her, she's on our team.
Now for some time, in contrast to the COH story here, it was the use of OOC tactics that the majority of the players decried, and the folks actually trying to play the game didnt get ostracised. At first, at least, it worked the other way around.
So bug reports were filed and Sony promised to fix it in code. Months went by. No code fix appeared. As time went on more and more people decided 'if you cant beat em join em' and slowly, the cultural code that said we were here to play rather than exploit bugs was eroded, and the people actually playing the game properly DID become marginalised. By the time Sony finally admitted they werent going to fix the bug, the majority of the server was cross-teaming (or had already quit in disgust because of it.)
The end result may be similar but the path to get there was very different.
Yeah, others have pointed out the factual errors, but think about this for a minute man.
This is THE PVP area in a HEROS VS VILLAINS game. He's playing a hero. He goes in to kill villains. And HE is in the wrong?
A better analogy would be that he was doing 55 on a 55 road and really irritated the mob that was trying to use the asphault as a spread for their picnic. Solution - DONT PLAN PICNICS ON THE HIGHWAY SURFACE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS FOR!
How else would a character whose major power focus was teleportation fight? Huh? The hero is supposed to go fight the villains but refrain from using his only significant power because it's unfair? That's ridiculous. If the teleport power is overbalanced, the game designers need to rework it or remove it, but dont blame the player for using what he has in an intelligent way to achieve his goals.
Umm no. It's a game of heros vs villains. He was playing heros vs villains. It makes total sense, and the OOC factors you keep bringing up like they mean something are just that - OOC. Utterly meaningless here.
And I get the feeling trying to explain this to you will be something like trying to explain the colour blue to someone who was blind from birth. :(
You are playing a database. Hence your fixation on points, and repeatedly raising the fact that the game 'didnt reward' what he was doing. In an RPG you dont take actions to curry rewards, at least not primarily. You take actions because of IC motivations. Your character knows nothing about points or score!
And bottom line, if you are playing the game you should be playing it because you enjoy it.
If you dont like the game, ffs find another game instead of ruining it for the people that are actually playing it and enjoying it. Which is clearly what the majority of COH players have done - taken over a game they didnt like and ruined it for anyone that actually want to play.
Oh well, after reading TFA I am greatful to the author for the warning - it's a game I might have otherwise wasted time on.
Your other post here was incorrect when it said he could do that from anywhere in the game. He could only do that if they had already voluntarily entered the area, which is very clearly marked, and even has a 30 second cool down when you enter it to give you time to leave if you did so accidentally.
Furthermore, his range was quite limited as well. He had to catch them, not just in the zone, but on the right side of it - near where heros come into the zone. Villains enter from the opposite side. So his foes were folks that wandered around the PVP zone without a care in the world, relying on this idiotic custom to protect them, and then whined when he took advantage of their lack of caution to whack em.
I dont play COH, I just got off the phone with a friend that did who explained it a little better than the article. Any errors in comprehension are my own.
Huh? Because the game mechanics didnt give him XP that delegitimises his acts? Hardly. He played a hero, removing villains was his goal, not racking up points in a database somewhere!
According to TFA, there are arenas for duels, and a full pvp area as well. Despite this, the custom has evolved that both sides use the full PVP area for farming and duelling, and no true pvp takes place (set duels are not the same thing.) No? Because if that's not accurate then one must wonder why Twixt became so hated, if everyone else was doing the same thing he was...
If you RTFA it tells which servers he was on. There were several.
No, you're wrong.
He used the abilities his character had to inflict maximum damage on his characters enemies. Good play, nothing else.
The other freaking morons that would sit around in a full on pkill zone chatting up buddies on the other side and letting them farm in peace were the ones exploiting flaws in game mechanics to ruin the game.
I havent played this particular game, but I have certainly seen that type ruin more than one game before.
This is a clearly marked PVP zone, in a game where everyone is on one side or the other and they are supposed to be constantly at war. If you want a farm a zone like that you do it at your own risk, and getting butthurt because someone on the other team was actually playing their character is just absurd and pathetic.
The same kind of idiocy this researcher found in this game definitely goes back a long ways though. I remember encountering it in MUDs way back in the 80s, and the cross-teaming that killed Everquest race-war pvp comes from the same source conceptually as well. These are players with no interest or appreciation for the game at all, who enjoy destroying it for others while chatting with their "friends" on the other side (who should be their mortal enemies) instead of actually playing.
No sympathy for them at all. IMOP they are deserving of the "griefer" epithet, not him.
Sounds like a bug rather than a feature to me. This would just enable CNN and others to continue the practice, removing any pressure on them to fix their broken website.
Noscript does this.
Which brings me to the observation that, at least as far as I can tell from the blurb, this entire thing sounds a bit redundant in light of the ready availability of Noscript. Why not just make it part of the default firefox install instead?
I disagree. I havent gone over the transcripts, but I am unaware that any attempt was even made to prove that she was guilty of the charge - which, after all, was distribution. There wasnt even any instruction to the jury as to what would constitute proof of distribution, as I understand. So it seems absurd for you to claim that there was clear evidence of her culpability.
A revisionist definition.
When I was learning CS Assembly was the definitional example of a high level language. Obviously Pascal/C/Lisp etc. are higher level, but all of them are easily distinguishable from true low-level code.
That threw me right off, plankalkül is a rather obscure claimant, but assembly is the oldest surviving-and-useful high-level language. Now there are third-generation super-high level languages so perhaps it makes sense to call assembly "mid-level" but it sure as heck isnt low level. Low level programming means direct machine code.
Umm what?
Linux could handle this just fine in 1994, so I think you are confused. Either that or basic functionality has been torn out between now and then, which doesnt seem very likely.
Nice. I had a Toshiba for some years that was definitely NOT a netbook, this was back before most had heard of the net, and it was definitely bigger and heavier than an EeePC, plus no SSD. But it did have DOS burnt on ROM, 2mb ram part of which was configured for ramdisk by default, and a floppy drive. Lighter and longer battery life than models with a hard drive, so I do think of it as a sort of remote ancestor to the netbooks. And yes, the newer "netbooks" do seem to be more accurately called mini-notebooks, what with those hard drives ruining the design.
It's my understanding that anyone who shoots at you is a legitimate target.
Not if you are someplace where you have no right to be in the first place.
I dont think the price should disqualify it (everything is more expensive at first and price drops over time and volume) but a real netbook uses flash ram for storage, not a hard drive, so I do agree with you in the end - not a netbook.
Ahhh you're sane?
OO is horrible. Every time I use it I find myself pining for Xerox Publisher ha!