Oh well I suppose that's a perfectly good rationale for keeping an entire healthy population medicated for an entire lifetime! Now if you'll excuse me I have to make sure your food is packed with supplements of vitamin B12 (which actually isn't worse an idea than that lithium thing, considered how many people could use more B12 and how it deals with depression).
Did you even stop to think or did you just flamebait?
Wow, I can't believe the abysmallity of such comments. I'm talking about "good for Microsoft". Sorry I forgot for a minute that what was good for Microsoft was by definition bad for the whole of mankind, therefore making my characterisation as "good" ambiguous.
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
Right, of course you realise that it's all infirmed by both galaxy collision simulations and actual galaxy collisions that we can look at, right? You're clearly underestimating the gravitational pull that our galaxy has. Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say? (that wasn't very clear to me)
What makes you think the black hole would have a trajectory any different from any of the stars from the captured galaxy? Because it's marginally heavier than the other stars?
I'm not sure it was necessary to defend rap, but I must object to your rejection of gangster rap. Some of the smarter and more insightful rap is found in gangster rap. See : Spice 1, the Geto Boys, Ray Luv, Mad CJ Mac, Paris, Above the Law, Ice Cube...
The problem isn't "alternative rap" (imho gay and lame) vs "gangsta rap", but mature men who speak English vs. morons who drink "dat purple drank" until it kills them and carefully avoid making coherent sentences.
I think that's all bullshit. What you're talking about is strictly a matter of opinion, taste and morals. In other words it's purely and inherently subjective and personal. I fail to see how you can legitimately project your point of view to be a general rule, even if lots of people share it.
In other words, cool if you don't want such a game, but I don't see why that should get in the way of the making and sale of that game, since obviously lots of people want it.
We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war.
Uh... games are supposed to be fun. Pretend wars where you tend to kill lots of bad guys without being killed are fun. Shooting zombies and aliens is fun.
I'm not sure I'd really have any interest in getting home from work and sitting down to relive the most horrifying nightmares of human history.
Who cares, not every one agrees, and want something different. What matters is this, and the fact that people like you want to prevent anyone from doing something that doesn't fit to what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well I suppose that's a perfectly good rationale for keeping an entire healthy population medicated for an entire lifetime! Now if you'll excuse me I have to make sure your food is packed with supplements of vitamin B12 (which actually isn't worse an idea than that lithium thing, considered how many people could use more B12 and how it deals with depression).
In other news, cyanide in the water curbs suicide by 100%. By killing anyone instantly.
Free has more than one meaning you know?
Not really.
Like I said, good for them. I don't get why anyone just feels compelled to detail precisely what I was talking about as if I had said the opposite.
Do you even know what he did? Hardly anything he did was valuable, it was silly and pointless at best. But thanks for Godwinning yourself.
Did you even stop to think or did you just flamebait?
Wow, I can't believe the abysmallity of such comments. I'm talking about "good for Microsoft". Sorry I forgot for a minute that what was good for Microsoft was by definition bad for the whole of mankind, therefore making my characterisation as "good" ambiguous.
So? Good for them, right?
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
Sounds like a good idea to me! Can't think of anything wrong with it, but I trust someone will come up with something.
Right, of course you realise that it's all infirmed by both galaxy collision simulations and actual galaxy collisions that we can look at, right? You're clearly underestimating the gravitational pull that our galaxy has. Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say? (that wasn't very clear to me)
What makes you think the black hole would have a trajectory any different from any of the stars from the captured galaxy? Because it's marginally heavier than the other stars?
Thus demonstrating the distance between Open Source and Free Software in a way RMS never could.
Very true, that's actually a very viable way to marry commercial games and open source.
Not the content, only what ioquake3 replaces. The data files for such games as Doom or Quake are still commercial.
I'm not sure it was necessary to defend rap, but I must object to your rejection of gangster rap. Some of the smarter and more insightful rap is found in gangster rap. See : Spice 1, the Geto Boys, Ray Luv, Mad CJ Mac, Paris, Above the Law, Ice Cube...
The problem isn't "alternative rap" (imho gay and lame) vs "gangsta rap", but mature men who speak English vs. morons who drink "dat purple drank" until it kills them and carefully avoid making coherent sentences.
"rap" 75% of the word "crap".
Impressive find! Semi-relatedly, I think you just proved to have 75% of the wit necessary to start writing rap.
Yeah, so basically, just more money to keep on doing the same thing.
lol wtf.... go the fuck back to arguing on YouTube.
I think that's all bullshit. What you're talking about is strictly a matter of opinion, taste and morals. In other words it's purely and inherently subjective and personal. I fail to see how you can legitimately project your point of view to be a general rule, even if lots of people share it.
In other words, cool if you don't want such a game, but I don't see why that should get in the way of the making and sale of that game, since obviously lots of people want it.
The fact that you can't see how a game could be a serious depiction of war only says something about your imagination.
It's sort of like saying "How can an action movie be a real-life depiction of violent encounters?"
No, serious, not "real-life", that's very different. Something can be very serious and be utter ballooney.
Nice straw-man argument though >_>
said Andrew S. Tanenbaum, a computer science professor at Vrije Universiteit
It sounds intentionally misleading to present them as "a computer science professor" when he's the one MINIX guy.
I thought Windows was secure. Why not use that? *cough* *cough*
I thought OpenBSD was secure. Why not use that?
Oh right, they didn't surrender, they fled and hid, that's very different. Actually, that sounds a lot like what Charles de Gaulle did.
We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war.
Uh... games are supposed to be fun. Pretend wars where you tend to kill lots of bad guys without being killed are fun. Shooting zombies and aliens is fun. I'm not sure I'd really have any interest in getting home from work and sitting down to relive the most horrifying nightmares of human history.
Who cares, not every one agrees, and want something different. What matters is this, and the fact that people like you want to prevent anyone from doing something that doesn't fit to what they want.
The fact that you can't see how a game could be a serious depiction of war only says something about your imagination.