I notice that they mention there is some evidence for it being a real problem because blind tests proved it- this is contrary to all scientific evidence I've read which says quite the opposite- that people claiming to suffer from the condition only get it right about 50% of the time - or in other words, the same amount as if they'd just been guessing. It says in the article the the number of correct guesses was significant enough to demonstrate it as a real problem but gives us no detail about what that value was meaning we can't judge for ourselves.
I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure with the BBC it is that innocent, especially when this is about the 3rd time they've brought the issue up, and in both previous cases have been publicly embarassed when it was exposed as bullshit. I suspect someone at the BBC has an agenda relating to this issue judging by the fact they keep pushing it over and over.
In all seriousness though how does that field compare to the radio waves they'd be getting hit with from everything from GPS to TV, or even from the sun? Is there a fundamental difference that could have an effect on their wellbeing from that that they shouldn't otherwise suffer from wave sources like those listed above?
Yes, but compare this last year or so to the last decade.
Over the last decade the people sat like good, quiet little individuals because the government told them if they moved or so much as dared talk about doing something different to how the government wanted they'd be shipped off to Guantanamo and the government would tap their families phones.
Really, the era where government saw no real resistance from the people did FAR more to harm the world's vision of the US than they've suffered since people started to hit back against the government.
So the FBI may as well label government with little public resistance to it a threat to national security too, because it's certainly much more true.
Sure these people may hurt the US, but the US government manages to hurt the US far more when they don't have to deal with these people standing against them.
Yes, this is really the key to a succesful indie game. It's about getting buzz around your release. You can absolutely guarantee that because this has been posted on Slashdot some people on Slashdot will now go and buy it who never otherwise would.
But also, because the media is so lazy and they just recycle other people's stories you can also guarantee that because at least one site has now covered it, the others will follow suit and cover it too - so the combined effect is all these extra sites covering it mean extra sales.
Follow it up in a couple of weeks with a story about how "succesful" your awesome idea was and that'll repeat the show. Maybe do another in a month or two following it up again if you fancy milking that last few.
"In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant"
That's was my fundamental point- it's a legitimate activity, but viewing recordings of it aren't.
"(which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to""
This is bollocks. It wasn't implemented through public pressure, it was implemented at the behest of Gordon Brown's unelected authoritarian wannabe regime using the mother of a murdered teacher as their puppet to justify it. I don't think anyone else except perhaps a few Daily Mail columnists actually supported it.
But fundamentally where it will be used is where it will be most problematic. It will (and from some reports, already has been) used in cases where the police haven't been able to do their job well enough to nail someone for a specific crime, and so they've lumped it on in the hope that if they throw enough shit at someone they don't like something will at least stick. In other words it's used to target people who quite likely haven't actually done anything that would otherwise be illegal but that the police have decided they want to punish anyway. What that all too often means is that they've falsely accused someone of something or raided their house, and rather than admit they were wrong, save face by charging them with something as silly and arbitrary as this so they can say "Hey look, he WAS a criminal, we were right!".
"However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM."
Rubbish. You can't possibly say that with the certainty you have. It's too arbitrarily defined to say that's the case. In fact, on the contrary, re-reading the link you provided makes it clear that the definition is arbitrary enough that this sort of thing could quite easily fall under the legislation, unless you trust that your interpretation of the dictionary definition of serious (which really just refers to terms like "substantial" and hence clarifies nothing) will without a doubt also be held by every judge and prosecutor in the country- even those with a moral agenda to do away with anything other than the missionary position because of religious conviction or whatever.
It's an inevitable side effect because as soon as you do as you propose- stop allowing them to get away with it, then you're inherently removing the principles that allow the internet to be free and open. As soon as you start allowing the police to grab details of individuals for something as arbitrarily defined as "trolling" then you're equally opening the door for oppressive regimes to similarly grab people's details for whatever arbitrary reason they come up with too. When it becomes easy to get people's details it becomes harder and harder for entities to deny requests to hand over details.
I made it quite clear I am not defending what this person did, I am simply making the point that to punish this sort of thing, you ultimately have to open the door for punishments for other arbitrary and ill defined reasons.
You're making a big assumption as to how it works, and I think you're almost certainly wrong.
I'd wager that all the tool allows the likes of Warner to do is to feed it a link and to have it take down the file at that link.
What's likely been happening is Warner has been mining the internet for Hotfile links that contain certain words and automatically submitting them to the tool.
So in other words it's not that Hotfile lets the movie industry look at everyone's hotfile links, but that if you let the movie industry know your link by publicising it somewhere public on the internet, they might then take it down.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence they're given a free reign to just look through all your private files.
"The UK and the US are free and open societies, and yet there are law that prevent you to use your freedom to abuse somebody else's."
Yeah but here's the problem, about the extreme porn law in the UK? You can have BDSM or rough sex sessions, you can film them, but to share them with other fetishists is now criminal in the UK, and can get you put on the sex offenders register.
That doesn't harm anyone else, yet it's still now illegal.
This is a fine example of the slippery slope in action- first it was child porn, then it was beastiality - no one really cared at this point because the acts themselves were illegal - and then before you know it, acts that some people enjoy and are allowed to perform become illegal to film and distribute.
It was an omission on my part- sorry about that. The editors changed my title from my rather more simple "Man jailed for trolling", but for some reason didn't fix that it would seem!
I apologise for that. I made the submission just before home time as I didn't realise what time it was and had to dash off so didn't get chance to give it a thorough proof read before I submitted it. Unfortunately it would appear the editors didn't bother to proof-read it and fix it either!
"The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks."
I'm the person (or one of at least) who submitted the story and posed the question as to whether it is right or wrong. Whilst I agree it's disgusting what he did the reason I pose the question is because I think there's a fair argument that trolls are an inevitable side effect of a free and open internet. I am not convinced that if we allow a clamp down on trolling that we can really continue to have an expectation of a free and open internet- I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.
So geeks saying they should expect it are probably not being as sociopathic as you suggest, but are merely making the point that it's a side effect of how the internet always has been, and hopefully, IMO, always will be.
It starts with blatantly offensive trolls like this sure, and few people care, but what if it then jumps to people not trolling per-se but having a heated argument if one complains that insults stemming from that argument are trolling? What if it jumps to fanboys slagging off or making up false accusations about some product and companies claim they're being trolled? Can we realistically expect the police to be a competent judge of what "trolling" is acceptable, and what "trolling" isn't - and in fact, what even constitutes trolling? In the BBC article their expert uses the example of someone posting on Apple forums negative comments about Apple or it's products trolling with the hope of winding people up. But how do you tell if they did so to wind people up, or if he did so because his Apple product really has failed and he's pissed off?
I kind of wish that was true, but the BBC have been in trouble over this before. They did an episode of Panorama "investigating" the problem previously, and found it was a major issue. The problem is, after a lot of complaints from Wifi firms etc. it seemed the BBC had been less than honest- parts were factually incorrect, for example they claimed Norway recognised it as a valid illness, but Norway had also removed that recognition after it could not be proved there was any validity too it. The teacher who claimed he got headaches from Wifi also couldn't tell when Wifi was on or off in blind tests - the BBC forgot to mention that and made out he could.
The watchdog found against them and told them off for it, but they never apologised publicly or admitted publicly that yes, they were full of shit on it.
So here they are again, with the same old bollocks. They're insistent on pursuing this story, god only knows why when they must surely know now that it's false.
I looked into this and apparently it was released on the Playstation Network by EA. So it seems EA owns the rights and are at least keeping the original live even if they're doing nothing else with the IP.
It's a shame Peter Molyneux doesn't own any of the Bullfrog IP even though he was one of the main players behind it, I think he'd be a lot more conducive to resurrecting some of that IP in a reasonable form.
"Towards the end of my normal life when I still could watch television I could actually cut my pain off and on with the remote control device"
It seems they also believe that when you turn your TV off, the TV transmitter also stops sending TV signals to just your TV.
I don't know why the BBC posted this, it's obviously complete and utter bollocks, because this makes absolutely no sense. Turning the TV off doesn't stop the TV broadcast.
Not when you're Jeremy Hunt. Jeremy Hunt makes Peter Mandelson look like an independent thinker with no influence from corporate interests.
This is the same guy who was going to go ahead and just let Murdoch take full control of BSkyB (the UK's largest broadcast) without question even though OFCOM, responsible for oversight of media in the UK recommended it be further looked into before any go ahead was considered.
Jeremy Hunt is the most corrupt politician in UK politics since Mandelson left the stage. It's not much of a suprise to see him getting involved in this sort of thing. He's one of those types who might as well just come out and admit that he'll do whatever the highest bidder pays him too, because everyone else already knows it to be true anyway.
I'm not sure, I actually played C&C3 on the PC when it came out and then again on the 360 about a year or two later. I found it just as enjoyable on the console, which somewhat suprised me.
Dealing with CFCs only required that corporations change their ways and substitute CFCs in their products with an alternative.
Global warming requires the average joe to change his ways, and there's the problem. Corporations as a whole must accept change, it's fundamental to staying in business- a business that cannot change is a business that will die quickly. Individuals though struggle to accept change, they just do not like change, and they especially do not like it when it potentially means a decrease in comfort or a reduced ability to boost their ego by showing off how big their car is or whatever.
Climate science has found itself in the unfortunate position where rather than create some fancy shiny new innovation as many other sciences do, it's discovered something that people just don't want to hear.
You can be rest assured, if instead of discovering global warming, climate scientists had found a way to let you control what type of weather you get in your own back garden they'd be treated as heroes, not the villains they're treated as now. The worst part is, that'd remain true even if it was EXACTLY the same individual people working in the climate science field- even if it was those whose names are spat on and labelled as part of a massive conspiracy. Those same people would be heroes if they found something the people would love to have, but are villains for finding out an a truth people find inconveniencing.
The problem isn't the people doing the science, their ethics, their morals, their competence or anything like that, and the problem isn't the science itself. The problem is what the scientists have found, and the people just don't like it- so attack the scientists instead.
But you can replace the old 2D isometric engines with a nice 3D engine and get some fantastic effects- that is after all basically how the RTS genre has evolved, but the genre hasn't died off. I see little reason you couldn't redo a game like Syndicate or Desert Strike with a modern RTS type 3D engine.
When you say full 3D helicopter games, do you mean full blown flight sims? To me that's a separate genre and not really the arcadish top down blastfest type of feel I'm looking for - effectively it's a different genre, although I do like them too.
Not sure what tablet you have but ScummVM works on Android. I'll admit I'm amazed we've not seen a resurgence of those type of games quite yet on tablets, they're absolutely ripe for that type of adventure game. Still at least I can replay DOTT on ScummVM on my phone;)
I'm complaining about the fact that there was a fuck load of good ideas in the past which seem to have been completely and utterly forgotten, and yes, this means both in terms of gameplay genres, and setting genres.
My point is that a lot of gameplay genres have outright vanished altogether, and that of the remaining gameplay genres that are still covered, the setting genres now are much more limited than they used to be.
My complaint is that choice for gamers has become severely limited, that much of what was extremely succesful both in terms of gameplay and setting has dissapeared unnecessarily. I am complaining that we do not need another Cyberpunk FPS, especially when we're seeing it built off the back of the most succesful ever point and click Cyberpunk shooter.
Agreed. The fact is there's a lot of games out there that DO allow civilian deaths - Splinter Cell, Hitman, and all the way back to the original Syndicate.
These games haven't been somehow worse for it, and arguably much better.
I find it amazing that such games are often happy to allow you to kill animals though but not civilians. Killing animals already has the implication that the game is about killing things other than that which we apply some arbitrary justification for deserving to be killed (Nazis, Terrorists), so if you're going to let people start playing a fantasy role there and blow apart some chickens in their coups in a market, or shoot some dog in someone's house, then why draw the line and say "Oh, but you can't shoot civilians"? You're already crossing the boundary from keeping your game limited to killing "bad guys" and killing of living things that are not bad, making innocent humans a special case strikes me as a little odd and inconsistent - developers need to make their minds up, either your game influences people or it doesn't. If it does then you're influencing them to mindlessly kill people's animals and pets, if it doesn't influence people then what's the problem with throwing civilians into the mix when the benefit is a more believable game world with a much richer set of events - such as giving the player the task of actually avoiding civilian casualties?
"Kind of sad commentary on the fucktards who think killing innocent people is fun. Even if it is in a video game, it reflects your values. "
Kind of sad commentary on the fucktards who are so mentally inept they can't separate reality from fantasy.
If think actions in a video game have any relation to real life values then it's really going to hurt your brain to know that whilst I think killing civilians in the original Syndicate was part of what made it quite funny sometimes, I've been staunchly for avoiding civilian deaths in real life, and in fact you're free to look at my comment history from yesterday if you wish to see evidence of this.
Honestly, if you can't see that computer games are a way to explore a world that is not real and that whatever you do in a game has absolutely no relation to what you would do or think should be done in reality, then you need help.
Your argument is equivalent to saying storywriters and actors for films or TV have bad values for writing in the deaths of civilians or the actors playing a part responsible for the death of civilians.
Oh it's ironic that Google let's me search the web anonymously without using my real name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me have a GMail account with a fake name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me use Google docs without my real name!
No, it's not. To be ironic it has to go against Google's general intentions, and in the general case they clearly are supportive of anonymity. Google have been pretty clear G+ is a special case, and that real name isn't a global company policy, so there's no irony in their honesty. You only think it is because you've jumped to conclusions which is why you've had to use words with a get out clause like "probably" and, terms that are arbitrary and impossible to place a measure to like "care".
It's going to be a really really shit version of Deus Ex.
Seriously what the fuck is the aversion to the classic genres nowadays? Where are modern day games like Cannon Fodder, Syndicate, Desert Strike, Magic Carpet. Hell it's hard to even find RTS games like the original Command and Conquer now, they're all just a bit too futuristic. The original C&C was at least set reasonably in near future but the latest in the series are all about fucking UFOs and aliens and mega-robots.
There's so many genres out there that have basically just died off and are begging for modern day remakes done properly. By done properly I mean not turned into some shitty FPS that'll probably flop.
"Ok, so now you're changing your argument because originally, you said "
No I'm not, you're just applying your own arbitrary and incorrect interpretation to what I said.
"That doesn't suggest anything about casualties of war from our operations, which is what you're suggesting in your last response."
I'm not really sure what you're on about, the fact is, Bush ordered the war, civilians died. Civilians that wouldn't have died in anywhere near such great numbers if Bush didn't order the war. Bush's actions and orders hence led to far more deaths than were otherwise going to happen.
"which is what Osama has done."
No he hasn't. It's not Osama's modus operandi for the most part- he doesn't concern himself so much with petty level sectarian violence, he's more interested in attacks on Western interests which are relatively fewer and further between. Those suicide bomb attacks on civilians are a direct effect of Bush destabilising the country with his poor military strategy of going in guns blazing with no clue what to do after you've stopped shooting.
"Actually, he was interested and they never offered"
"As for Pakistan, Al-Qaeda are only heavily relying on them now because of our invasion of Afghanistan."
This is silly, al Qaeda has depended on Pakistan since it's inception. Even it's mujahudeen forerunners depended on Pakistan because Pakistan is the place the US equipped them from in the 80s. North and Western Pakistan have been al Qaeda strongholds for decades.
"having Pakistan sever ties with Afghanistan wouldn't have done a damn thing."
It would because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan depended on support and arms from Pakistan to hold out against the Northern Alliance, without that strong support from Pakistan the Taliban regime would've been defeated by other Afghans, and it'd have nowhere to hide like it does now in Pakistan.
"And your last paragraph just tells me why Pakistan relies on Al-Qaeda, not the other way around."
I told you, funding.
"So tell me again, how would your plan have worked to ask Osama to stop and have Pakistan sever ties with the Taliban?"
I said nothing about asking Osama to stop, that would be a no go, he's an extremist. What I said was to force Pakistan to sever ties so that the Taliban became too short on funds and arms to realistically pursue anything much of an agenda. Without the backing of Pakistan the Taliban would've found themselves short on funds and isolated, with a resurgent Northern Alliance then able to fight back against them which would in itself apply pressure against the Taliban there too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the problem is with this subject the BBC has a history of talking bollocks on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7122230.stm
I notice that they mention there is some evidence for it being a real problem because blind tests proved it- this is contrary to all scientific evidence I've read which says quite the opposite- that people claiming to suffer from the condition only get it right about 50% of the time - or in other words, the same amount as if they'd just been guessing. It says in the article the the number of correct guesses was significant enough to demonstrate it as a real problem but gives us no detail about what that value was meaning we can't judge for ourselves.
I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure with the BBC it is that innocent, especially when this is about the 3rd time they've brought the issue up, and in both previous cases have been publicly embarassed when it was exposed as bullshit. I suspect someone at the BBC has an agenda relating to this issue judging by the fact they keep pushing it over and over.
In all seriousness though how does that field compare to the radio waves they'd be getting hit with from everything from GPS to TV, or even from the sun? Is there a fundamental difference that could have an effect on their wellbeing from that that they shouldn't otherwise suffer from wave sources like those listed above?
Yes, but compare this last year or so to the last decade.
Over the last decade the people sat like good, quiet little individuals because the government told them if they moved or so much as dared talk about doing something different to how the government wanted they'd be shipped off to Guantanamo and the government would tap their families phones.
Really, the era where government saw no real resistance from the people did FAR more to harm the world's vision of the US than they've suffered since people started to hit back against the government.
So the FBI may as well label government with little public resistance to it a threat to national security too, because it's certainly much more true.
Sure these people may hurt the US, but the US government manages to hurt the US far more when they don't have to deal with these people standing against them.
Yes, this is really the key to a succesful indie game. It's about getting buzz around your release. You can absolutely guarantee that because this has been posted on Slashdot some people on Slashdot will now go and buy it who never otherwise would.
But also, because the media is so lazy and they just recycle other people's stories you can also guarantee that because at least one site has now covered it, the others will follow suit and cover it too - so the combined effect is all these extra sites covering it mean extra sales.
Follow it up in a couple of weeks with a story about how "succesful" your awesome idea was and that'll repeat the show. Maybe do another in a month or two following it up again if you fancy milking that last few.
That if something is up with your TV, then buy a nice new flatscreen.
And look, it works!
"In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant"
That's was my fundamental point- it's a legitimate activity, but viewing recordings of it aren't.
"(which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to""
This is bollocks. It wasn't implemented through public pressure, it was implemented at the behest of Gordon Brown's unelected authoritarian wannabe regime using the mother of a murdered teacher as their puppet to justify it. I don't think anyone else except perhaps a few Daily Mail columnists actually supported it.
But fundamentally where it will be used is where it will be most problematic. It will (and from some reports, already has been) used in cases where the police haven't been able to do their job well enough to nail someone for a specific crime, and so they've lumped it on in the hope that if they throw enough shit at someone they don't like something will at least stick. In other words it's used to target people who quite likely haven't actually done anything that would otherwise be illegal but that the police have decided they want to punish anyway. What that all too often means is that they've falsely accused someone of something or raided their house, and rather than admit they were wrong, save face by charging them with something as silly and arbitrary as this so they can say "Hey look, he WAS a criminal, we were right!".
"However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM."
Rubbish. You can't possibly say that with the certainty you have. It's too arbitrarily defined to say that's the case. In fact, on the contrary, re-reading the link you provided makes it clear that the definition is arbitrary enough that this sort of thing could quite easily fall under the legislation, unless you trust that your interpretation of the dictionary definition of serious (which really just refers to terms like "substantial" and hence clarifies nothing) will without a doubt also be held by every judge and prosecutor in the country- even those with a moral agenda to do away with anything other than the missionary position because of religious conviction or whatever.
You're missing the point, completely.
It's an inevitable side effect because as soon as you do as you propose- stop allowing them to get away with it, then you're inherently removing the principles that allow the internet to be free and open. As soon as you start allowing the police to grab details of individuals for something as arbitrarily defined as "trolling" then you're equally opening the door for oppressive regimes to similarly grab people's details for whatever arbitrary reason they come up with too. When it becomes easy to get people's details it becomes harder and harder for entities to deny requests to hand over details.
I made it quite clear I am not defending what this person did, I am simply making the point that to punish this sort of thing, you ultimately have to open the door for punishments for other arbitrary and ill defined reasons.
You're making a big assumption as to how it works, and I think you're almost certainly wrong.
I'd wager that all the tool allows the likes of Warner to do is to feed it a link and to have it take down the file at that link.
What's likely been happening is Warner has been mining the internet for Hotfile links that contain certain words and automatically submitting them to the tool.
So in other words it's not that Hotfile lets the movie industry look at everyone's hotfile links, but that if you let the movie industry know your link by publicising it somewhere public on the internet, they might then take it down.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence they're given a free reign to just look through all your private files.
"The UK and the US are free and open societies, and yet there are law that prevent you to use your freedom to abuse somebody else's."
Yeah but here's the problem, about the extreme porn law in the UK? You can have BDSM or rough sex sessions, you can film them, but to share them with other fetishists is now criminal in the UK, and can get you put on the sex offenders register.
That doesn't harm anyone else, yet it's still now illegal.
This is a fine example of the slippery slope in action- first it was child porn, then it was beastiality - no one really cared at this point because the acts themselves were illegal - and then before you know it, acts that some people enjoy and are allowed to perform become illegal to film and distribute.
It was an omission on my part- sorry about that. The editors changed my title from my rather more simple "Man jailed for trolling", but for some reason didn't fix that it would seem!
I apologise for that. I made the submission just before home time as I didn't realise what time it was and had to dash off so didn't get chance to give it a thorough proof read before I submitted it. Unfortunately it would appear the editors didn't bother to proof-read it and fix it either!
"The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks."
I'm the person (or one of at least) who submitted the story and posed the question as to whether it is right or wrong. Whilst I agree it's disgusting what he did the reason I pose the question is because I think there's a fair argument that trolls are an inevitable side effect of a free and open internet. I am not convinced that if we allow a clamp down on trolling that we can really continue to have an expectation of a free and open internet- I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.
So geeks saying they should expect it are probably not being as sociopathic as you suggest, but are merely making the point that it's a side effect of how the internet always has been, and hopefully, IMO, always will be.
It starts with blatantly offensive trolls like this sure, and few people care, but what if it then jumps to people not trolling per-se but having a heated argument if one complains that insults stemming from that argument are trolling? What if it jumps to fanboys slagging off or making up false accusations about some product and companies claim they're being trolled? Can we realistically expect the police to be a competent judge of what "trolling" is acceptable, and what "trolling" isn't - and in fact, what even constitutes trolling? In the BBC article their expert uses the example of someone posting on Apple forums negative comments about Apple or it's products trolling with the hope of winding people up. But how do you tell if they did so to wind people up, or if he did so because his Apple product really has failed and he's pissed off?
I kind of wish that was true, but the BBC have been in trouble over this before. They did an episode of Panorama "investigating" the problem previously, and found it was a major issue. The problem is, after a lot of complaints from Wifi firms etc. it seemed the BBC had been less than honest- parts were factually incorrect, for example they claimed Norway recognised it as a valid illness, but Norway had also removed that recognition after it could not be proved there was any validity too it. The teacher who claimed he got headaches from Wifi also couldn't tell when Wifi was on or off in blind tests - the BBC forgot to mention that and made out he could.
The watchdog found against them and told them off for it, but they never apologised publicly or admitted publicly that yes, they were full of shit on it.
So here they are again, with the same old bollocks. They're insistent on pursuing this story, god only knows why when they must surely know now that it's false.
I looked into this and apparently it was released on the Playstation Network by EA. So it seems EA owns the rights and are at least keeping the original live even if they're doing nothing else with the IP.
It's a shame Peter Molyneux doesn't own any of the Bullfrog IP even though he was one of the main players behind it, I think he'd be a lot more conducive to resurrecting some of that IP in a reasonable form.
FTA:
"Towards the end of my normal life when I still could watch television I could actually cut my pain off and on with the remote control device"
It seems they also believe that when you turn your TV off, the TV transmitter also stops sending TV signals to just your TV.
I don't know why the BBC posted this, it's obviously complete and utter bollocks, because this makes absolutely no sense. Turning the TV off doesn't stop the TV broadcast.
Not when you're Jeremy Hunt. Jeremy Hunt makes Peter Mandelson look like an independent thinker with no influence from corporate interests.
This is the same guy who was going to go ahead and just let Murdoch take full control of BSkyB (the UK's largest broadcast) without question even though OFCOM, responsible for oversight of media in the UK recommended it be further looked into before any go ahead was considered.
Jeremy Hunt is the most corrupt politician in UK politics since Mandelson left the stage. It's not much of a suprise to see him getting involved in this sort of thing. He's one of those types who might as well just come out and admit that he'll do whatever the highest bidder pays him too, because everyone else already knows it to be true anyway.
I'm not sure, I actually played C&C3 on the PC when it came out and then again on the 360 about a year or two later. I found it just as enjoyable on the console, which somewhat suprised me.
Dealing with CFCs only required that corporations change their ways and substitute CFCs in their products with an alternative.
Global warming requires the average joe to change his ways, and there's the problem. Corporations as a whole must accept change, it's fundamental to staying in business- a business that cannot change is a business that will die quickly. Individuals though struggle to accept change, they just do not like change, and they especially do not like it when it potentially means a decrease in comfort or a reduced ability to boost their ego by showing off how big their car is or whatever.
Climate science has found itself in the unfortunate position where rather than create some fancy shiny new innovation as many other sciences do, it's discovered something that people just don't want to hear.
You can be rest assured, if instead of discovering global warming, climate scientists had found a way to let you control what type of weather you get in your own back garden they'd be treated as heroes, not the villains they're treated as now. The worst part is, that'd remain true even if it was EXACTLY the same individual people working in the climate science field- even if it was those whose names are spat on and labelled as part of a massive conspiracy. Those same people would be heroes if they found something the people would love to have, but are villains for finding out an a truth people find inconveniencing.
The problem isn't the people doing the science, their ethics, their morals, their competence or anything like that, and the problem isn't the science itself. The problem is what the scientists have found, and the people just don't like it- so attack the scientists instead.
But you can replace the old 2D isometric engines with a nice 3D engine and get some fantastic effects- that is after all basically how the RTS genre has evolved, but the genre hasn't died off. I see little reason you couldn't redo a game like Syndicate or Desert Strike with a modern RTS type 3D engine.
When you say full 3D helicopter games, do you mean full blown flight sims? To me that's a separate genre and not really the arcadish top down blastfest type of feel I'm looking for - effectively it's a different genre, although I do like them too.
Not sure what tablet you have but ScummVM works on Android. I'll admit I'm amazed we've not seen a resurgence of those type of games quite yet on tablets, they're absolutely ripe for that type of adventure game. Still at least I can replay DOTT on ScummVM on my phone ;)
I'm complaining about the fact that there was a fuck load of good ideas in the past which seem to have been completely and utterly forgotten, and yes, this means both in terms of gameplay genres, and setting genres.
My point is that a lot of gameplay genres have outright vanished altogether, and that of the remaining gameplay genres that are still covered, the setting genres now are much more limited than they used to be.
My complaint is that choice for gamers has become severely limited, that much of what was extremely succesful both in terms of gameplay and setting has dissapeared unnecessarily. I am complaining that we do not need another Cyberpunk FPS, especially when we're seeing it built off the back of the most succesful ever point and click Cyberpunk shooter.
Agreed. The fact is there's a lot of games out there that DO allow civilian deaths - Splinter Cell, Hitman, and all the way back to the original Syndicate.
These games haven't been somehow worse for it, and arguably much better.
I find it amazing that such games are often happy to allow you to kill animals though but not civilians. Killing animals already has the implication that the game is about killing things other than that which we apply some arbitrary justification for deserving to be killed (Nazis, Terrorists), so if you're going to let people start playing a fantasy role there and blow apart some chickens in their coups in a market, or shoot some dog in someone's house, then why draw the line and say "Oh, but you can't shoot civilians"? You're already crossing the boundary from keeping your game limited to killing "bad guys" and killing of living things that are not bad, making innocent humans a special case strikes me as a little odd and inconsistent - developers need to make their minds up, either your game influences people or it doesn't. If it does then you're influencing them to mindlessly kill people's animals and pets, if it doesn't influence people then what's the problem with throwing civilians into the mix when the benefit is a more believable game world with a much richer set of events - such as giving the player the task of actually avoiding civilian casualties?
"Kind of sad commentary on the fucktards who think killing innocent people is fun. Even if it is in a video game, it reflects your values. "
Kind of sad commentary on the fucktards who are so mentally inept they can't separate reality from fantasy.
If think actions in a video game have any relation to real life values then it's really going to hurt your brain to know that whilst I think killing civilians in the original Syndicate was part of what made it quite funny sometimes, I've been staunchly for avoiding civilian deaths in real life, and in fact you're free to look at my comment history from yesterday if you wish to see evidence of this.
Honestly, if you can't see that computer games are a way to explore a world that is not real and that whatever you do in a game has absolutely no relation to what you would do or think should be done in reality, then you need help.
Your argument is equivalent to saying storywriters and actors for films or TV have bad values for writing in the deaths of civilians or the actors playing a part responsible for the death of civilians.
Sorry but that's fucking stupid.
Oh it's ironic that Google let's me search the web anonymously without using my real name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me have a GMail account with a fake name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me use Google docs without my real name!
No, it's not. To be ironic it has to go against Google's general intentions, and in the general case they clearly are supportive of anonymity. Google have been pretty clear G+ is a special case, and that real name isn't a global company policy, so there's no irony in their honesty. You only think it is because you've jumped to conclusions which is why you've had to use words with a get out clause like "probably" and, terms that are arbitrary and impossible to place a measure to like "care".
It's going to be a really really shit version of Deus Ex.
Seriously what the fuck is the aversion to the classic genres nowadays? Where are modern day games like Cannon Fodder, Syndicate, Desert Strike, Magic Carpet. Hell it's hard to even find RTS games like the original Command and Conquer now, they're all just a bit too futuristic. The original C&C was at least set reasonably in near future but the latest in the series are all about fucking UFOs and aliens and mega-robots.
There's so many genres out there that have basically just died off and are begging for modern day remakes done properly. By done properly I mean not turned into some shitty FPS that'll probably flop.
"Ok, so now you're changing your argument because originally, you said "
No I'm not, you're just applying your own arbitrary and incorrect interpretation to what I said.
"That doesn't suggest anything about casualties of war from our operations, which is what you're suggesting in your last response."
I'm not really sure what you're on about, the fact is, Bush ordered the war, civilians died. Civilians that wouldn't have died in anywhere near such great numbers if Bush didn't order the war. Bush's actions and orders hence led to far more deaths than were otherwise going to happen.
"which is what Osama has done."
No he hasn't. It's not Osama's modus operandi for the most part- he doesn't concern himself so much with petty level sectarian violence, he's more interested in attacks on Western interests which are relatively fewer and further between. Those suicide bomb attacks on civilians are a direct effect of Bush destabilising the country with his poor military strategy of going in guns blazing with no clue what to do after you've stopped shooting.
"Actually, he was interested and they never offered"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3
"As for Pakistan, Al-Qaeda are only heavily relying on them now because of our invasion of Afghanistan."
This is silly, al Qaeda has depended on Pakistan since it's inception. Even it's mujahudeen forerunners depended on Pakistan because Pakistan is the place the US equipped them from in the 80s. North and Western Pakistan have been al Qaeda strongholds for decades.
"having Pakistan sever ties with Afghanistan wouldn't have done a damn thing."
It would because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan depended on support and arms from Pakistan to hold out against the Northern Alliance, without that strong support from Pakistan the Taliban regime would've been defeated by other Afghans, and it'd have nowhere to hide like it does now in Pakistan.
"And your last paragraph just tells me why Pakistan relies on Al-Qaeda, not the other way around."
I told you, funding.
"So tell me again, how would your plan have worked to ask Osama to stop and have Pakistan sever ties with the Taliban?"
I said nothing about asking Osama to stop, that would be a no go, he's an extremist. What I said was to force Pakistan to sever ties so that the Taliban became too short on funds and arms to realistically pursue anything much of an agenda. Without the backing of Pakistan the Taliban would've found themselves short on funds and isolated, with a resurgent Northern Alliance then able to fight back against them which would in itself apply pressure against the Taliban there too.