A buddy of mine is a regular there (dating one of the ST:E performers)--it has been in the works for about two years because the place just isn't making money. I gather that its marketing has hugely sucked.
It's too bad. I wanted to see it someday, and was going to go to Vegas next summer. Ah well.
Not quite. It sounds more to me like patenting automatic jumping between columns on a page, for example. (Which would be really useful, though completely idiotic if patented.)
We have the right of life, we have the right of choice and we have the right of respect.
Why? because it's fair
"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to a group that self-interest has to an individual.... But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.'"
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of "right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's 'right' is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human fights' that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
"The third 'right'?--the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives--but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Rights do not exist because you say they do. Rights exist because you, and I, and everyone else, practice your duty to your society. They are an invented fiction which exist only because we agree they do. And while moral relativism is generally poorly argued, it is correct in that it is defined only by your society, environment, and circumstances.
But "rights" do not exist outside of that framework, and attempting to push yours on the next guy are foolish.
So make it an industrial zone. Move the city itself upriver a few miles. Better to spend the money on relocating it once than rebuilding every time it floods.
FO2 is both better and worse. Better in that they fixed a few bugs and the story's more developed and different...worse in that it's a little more unfinished.
(And while it's not terribly germane to your point, keep in mind that Interplay didn't develop Fallout in-house; they were armlocking Black Isle to get it out the door for something like four months before they finally released it. This is one of those cases where I personally can't fault the developer a bit and very much do wish a pox upon the house of the publisher.)
(Tongue only slightly in cheek, but drawing parallels between the United States and Germany under Wilhelm or Hitler is hilarious. If you want to spew that kind of bullshit, go look at their closer, nastier neighbor in Russia.)
True. There's another side to that coin, though--that kind of completeness introduces way more bugs and problems like the ones you decry. ("Ask About..." has a surprising amount of stuff, though.)
Both Fallout games were absolutely rushed out the door. Doing what you suggest would make it even more unfinished. Which sucks, but there you go.
I was referring to working in the state government on the Oil and Gas Commission from 2003-2004 (and for the mouthbreathing fucktards who say she's in the pocket of Big Oil, keep in mind that she resigned in public protest from the commission over the ethics of other Republicans who ignored her attempts to blow the whistle on conflicts of interest and legal violations).
She's already done more good--and been far more effective a public servant--than Black Senator Jesus has been throughout his political career.
Ergh. Everyone always says "but Wasteland!" I've played Wasteland. Wasteland is a favorite of mine. And Fallout, sir, is not Wasteland. (Okay, I completely butchered that quote.) Seriously, though--Fallout is a spiritual successor to Wasteland (though far superior in most respects, including the most important one--usability); the developers have said as much. Complaining that they co-opt the background (not the story, the setting) is kind of silly.
I played Wasteland for the first time in 1993 or so. I think Fallout beats it all hollow. And I stand by my previous statement--there was nothing like Fallout before. Nothing with the same sense of panache, humor, and style in a playable package. Not even Wasteland, fun though that was.
Some of it's probably nostalgia, sure. Keep in mind that there was nothing like Fallout before, nothing with the same level of panache and style in everything it did. The neo-50's art theme, the very stylized over-the-top violence, all of that created a game that remains indelible upon those who played it when they were young.
Fallout and Fallout 2 are fairly buggy games. You may have heard of something via a trigger that didn't actually show the dialogue; I know that happens in FO1.
Dollars to donuts more money has been made with the sale of GPL licensed software than with any other Freely licensed code.
Bullshit. Windows included a BSD-licensed stack.
No surprise you replied with a trite response. Don't blame the inadequacies of your small mind on others. The "more free" and "more open" that apply to gnu means that every single copy of compiled code comes with a corresponding guarantee of FREE and OPEN source code to the end user. You can not say that about BSD, MIT or public domain.
Developer freedom matters, too. That's what BSD/MIT are for.
It's not free if somebody can't use it non-freely. The LGPL and the MPL are great, because they require changes to the upstream code to be returned but do not try to assert control over other code to which they have no right. The GPL is unethical and less free; the LGPL, MPL, and BSD/X11/MIT are free in the ways that matter.
Ehh...Palin has experience working in the executive branch before becoming governor. She's not very experienced, but I'd consider it more valuable than Obama's legislative experience.
And I strongly doubt there will be any backlash. A disturbingly large amount of Hillary supporters just wanted a woman on the ticket; they didn't care if it was some freakish bitch like Hillary.
Palin is pro-life, yes. A stance I don't agree with, but I can respect those who adhere to it.
Palin is not anti-evolution. She says "teach about both," and that's respectable--teaching our children about proper public discourse is fine.
She turned around the "bridge to nowhere" pork that Stevens brought in, and has been pretty steadily anti-corruption through her administration.
As for the vendetta--honestly, I don't think I know anyone who'd act any different, and if you say that you will, you're a liar.
Depending on whether you believe Gallup or the other pollsters, twenty to thirty percent of Hillary supporters have said they're voting for McCain. That percentage is very unlikely to go down now that McCain has a woman on his ticket, and only likely to rise--because a lot of Hillary supporters wanted a woman in power, and didn't really worry if it was Clinton or not.
She didn't say that, so you're arguing something irrelevant. I realize that's time-honored on Slashdot, but you seemed oblivious and I felt somebody should point this out to you.
Slashdot Mirror
To borrow a car analogy, GNU is the steering wheel, speedometer, and cupholders. All of those are entirely useless without the engine block.
But unlike a car, without the engine block--the kernel--it's not an "unfinished" operating system--it's not an operating system at all.
A buddy of mine is a regular there (dating one of the ST:E performers)--it has been in the works for about two years because the place just isn't making money. I gather that its marketing has hugely sucked.
It's too bad. I wanted to see it someday, and was going to go to Vegas next summer. Ah well.
My keyboards will have the words "Pig Up" and "Pig Down." You lose, sir!
Not quite. It sounds more to me like patenting automatic jumping between columns on a page, for example. (Which would be really useful, though completely idiotic if patented.)
We have the right of life, we have the right of choice and we have the right of respect.
Why? because it's fair
"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to a group that self-interest has to an individual. ... But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.'"
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of "right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's 'right' is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human fights' that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
"The third 'right'?--the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives--but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Rights do not exist because you say they do. Rights exist because you, and I, and everyone else, practice your duty to your society. They are an invented fiction which exist only because we agree they do. And while moral relativism is generally poorly argued, it is correct in that it is defined only by your society, environment, and circumstances.
But "rights" do not exist outside of that framework, and attempting to push yours on the next guy are foolish.
NASA wanted a small-scale crew vehicle and a massive cargo hauler. They were overruled because of budget constraints. Wikipedia has a decent rundown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program
So you're saying what they knew twenty years ago. ;)
I think this might be the most insightful post I've ever read on Slashdot.
Bravo, sir.
So make it an industrial zone. Move the city itself upriver a few miles. Better to spend the money on relocating it once than rebuilding every time it floods.
FO2 is both better and worse. Better in that they fixed a few bugs and the story's more developed and different...worse in that it's a little more unfinished.
(And while it's not terribly germane to your point, keep in mind that Interplay didn't develop Fallout in-house; they were armlocking Black Isle to get it out the door for something like four months before they finally released it. This is one of those cases where I personally can't fault the developer a bit and very much do wish a pox upon the house of the publisher.)
...they come in and save Europe from the Germans?
(Tongue only slightly in cheek, but drawing parallels between the United States and Germany under Wilhelm or Hitler is hilarious. If you want to spew that kind of bullshit, go look at their closer, nastier neighbor in Russia.)
True. There's another side to that coin, though--that kind of completeness introduces way more bugs and problems like the ones you decry. ("Ask About..." has a surprising amount of stuff, though.)
Both Fallout games were absolutely rushed out the door. Doing what you suggest would make it even more unfinished. Which sucks, but there you go.
I was blocked at work. Mea culpa. :)
The story's not particularly similar at all...Fallout's a MacGuffin story (as is FO2), Wasteland really isn't.
I was referring to working in the state government on the Oil and Gas Commission from 2003-2004 (and for the mouthbreathing fucktards who say she's in the pocket of Big Oil, keep in mind that she resigned in public protest from the commission over the ethics of other Republicans who ignored her attempts to blow the whistle on conflicts of interest and legal violations).
She's already done more good--and been far more effective a public servant--than Black Senator Jesus has been throughout his political career.
Ergh. Everyone always says "but Wasteland!" I've played Wasteland. Wasteland is a favorite of mine. And Fallout, sir, is not Wasteland. (Okay, I completely butchered that quote.) Seriously, though--Fallout is a spiritual successor to Wasteland (though far superior in most respects, including the most important one--usability); the developers have said as much. Complaining that they co-opt the background (not the story, the setting) is kind of silly.
I played Wasteland for the first time in 1993 or so. I think Fallout beats it all hollow. And I stand by my previous statement--there was nothing like Fallout before. Nothing with the same sense of panache, humor, and style in a playable package. Not even Wasteland, fun though that was.
i r smrt, rly.
15-to-life isn't exactly all that much different than 25-to-life. He'll be eligible for parole fifteen years earlier.
And he's not likely to get it.
Some of it's probably nostalgia, sure. Keep in mind that there was nothing like Fallout before, nothing with the same level of panache and style in everything it did. The neo-50's art theme, the very stylized over-the-top violence, all of that created a game that remains indelible upon those who played it when they were young.
Fallout and Fallout 2 are fairly buggy games. You may have heard of something via a trigger that didn't actually show the dialogue; I know that happens in FO1.
Dollars to donuts more money has been made with the sale of GPL licensed software than with any other Freely licensed code.
Bullshit. Windows included a BSD-licensed stack.
No surprise you replied with a trite response. Don't blame the inadequacies of your small mind on others. The "more free" and "more open" that apply to gnu means that every single copy of compiled code comes with a corresponding guarantee of FREE and OPEN source code to the end user. You can not say that about BSD, MIT or public domain.
Developer freedom matters, too. That's what BSD/MIT are for.
It's not free if somebody can't use it non-freely. The LGPL and the MPL are great, because they require changes to the upstream code to be returned but do not try to assert control over other code to which they have no right. The GPL is unethical and less free; the LGPL, MPL, and BSD/X11/MIT are free in the ways that matter.
Are these computer generated, or does somebody seriously write these?
Ehh...Palin has experience working in the executive branch before becoming governor. She's not very experienced, but I'd consider it more valuable than Obama's legislative experience.
And I strongly doubt there will be any backlash. A disturbingly large amount of Hillary supporters just wanted a woman on the ticket; they didn't care if it was some freakish bitch like Hillary.
Palin is pro-life, yes. A stance I don't agree with, but I can respect those who adhere to it.
Palin is not anti-evolution. She says "teach about both," and that's respectable--teaching our children about proper public discourse is fine.
She turned around the "bridge to nowhere" pork that Stevens brought in, and has been pretty steadily anti-corruption through her administration.
As for the vendetta--honestly, I don't think I know anyone who'd act any different, and if you say that you will, you're a liar.
Depending on whether you believe Gallup or the other pollsters, twenty to thirty percent of Hillary supporters have said they're voting for McCain. That percentage is very unlikely to go down now that McCain has a woman on his ticket, and only likely to rise--because a lot of Hillary supporters wanted a woman in power, and didn't really worry if it was Clinton or not.
People were thinking of Hillary Clinton. Maybe that was it? (No, please don't kill me, IT WAS A JOKE--!)
More seriously, Palin's name has been around for a while. Maybe someone just took a flyer on it.
She didn't say that, so you're arguing something irrelevant. I realize that's time-honored on Slashdot, but you seemed oblivious and I felt somebody should point this out to you.