Not a week of in game time. A week of real world time, including a difficult major. Mind you I love doing as much as I can in game too, including battlegrounds, gurubashi and even fishing/cooking and "worthless" instances like WC.
Well, WoW won because they were simple. They have some pretty interesting concepts in their game, but if it wasn't a successful game you wouldn't see anything they did in any record books after 20 or 30 years. It was an amalgam of base western fantasy with a splash of pop-culture and a clean, customizable UI that came out into the market at the perfect time, riding the back of a successful franchise. It has set no precedents in game design, but is a great example of a successful game. Much like Counter-Strike, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Starcraft, it stands only as a testament to marketing, graphical interface, intellectual property management, public relations and peer pressure/friend reviews/unintentional viral marketing.
But each of these examples did as you said: they expanded the market, not stole users. A minority of Counter-Strike players were hardcore Doom or Unreal Tournament players. Same goes for Starcraft players being ex Dune II players or Yu-Gi-Oh! players being ex-Magic players. Try logging into WoW and talking about Dungeons and Dragons in general chat. I've been outright flamed for it, despite the impact of my hobby on their own. When I try to defend myself, I get remarks like "someone would have thought of it eventually". Yeah sure, someone probably would have thought of levels, potions, oozes, dungeon crawling, playing as a single character instead of an army in a fantasy setting, roleplaying under a set of rules for combat, armor classes, seperate stats, experience points and a good number of mythological monsters that we only see in modern fantasy games because they were in the 1st edition monster manual...but they didn't. Someone else did. And we aren't using build points and fighting Quezcoatls, recovering our hit points with magic tablets as we brandish our.22s.
Anyways, while I was trying to say levelling is a bit of a cop-out (that is, its easy to do and you should use it in tabletop RPGs as calculating separate stats based on previous encounters is too much for a human in a short amount of time), I was also trying to say that people in the modern tabletop RPG design world are dropping the level concept. And what happens in tabletop games usually finds its way into video games given a few years.
Indeed; SWG was a game I was very proud to see developed. Unfortunately, most of the games I love so much due to advances in design tend to fall a little short when it comes to advertising and building hype. SWG had a ton of hype a while before its release...unfortunately its hard to for any online game not made by Blizzard or Sierra to break through the market and become enough of a success to get a big following in the US. Mind you in foreign countries little games are released every week that all players flock towards with the complete intention of leaving when the next big thing comes out. Also note that free games are rarely listed as a statistic despite their popularity...and for some reason Tabletop Games and Video Games are seen as different by the populace as Television Ratings and Agricultural Processing Yields. I had hopes for spore until the DRM...
"Builds" will always exist--however a game that rewards ingenuity in builds that exists outside of sheer power and combat-based (or even non-combat based) sustainability and roles can also come into play.
For example, lets say Joe the Warrior becomes the strongest at using his long sword upon discovering that out of the thousands of abilities out there, long swords do the most damage per second. Right away I'd be concerned with the game--why does a long sword do the same to a dragon than an ooze? Yes, armor (damage reduction, or whatever you will call it) plays a role, but adding in extraordinarily complex design points BEHIND THE CURTAIN (i.e. in a place where the average user won't see it)
Right now WoW is no more complicated than DnD--even if you remove the human element and make the DnD game all "by the core rule book". There are more complicated equations, but in the end determining how much damage your dagger does in both systems is simply a random variable set to equations based on character modifiers vs. a set of equations based on your opponent's modifiers (plus the modifiers of the knife and the action taken, such as special attacks). Why should such a simple system be in place for something as complex as a computer game? There's no GM having to plug away at the numbers to ensure everything is added correctly--spice things up. Include more variables than simply "Hit", "Armor", "Resiliance", "Damage", "Parry", "Dodge" and "Resist". And don't be afraid to hide them.
There are more ways of measuring power than single numerics. As long as we are exploiting computers to do our math and databasing for us, why not stir things up a bit and try to make things more dynamic? Pokemon, to use an often under-rated example, allowed for dynamic stat levelling. Although this isn't exactly what I mean by "level-less", it is a start to a new idea. Essentially each character in the game has their stats dependent not on their level or class/race alone, but also on who they fought and what they did.
Alternatives to levels include build points, reward points, skill based, item based and even some games that abandoned levels to allow for manipulation of your experience points into stats and abilities. Some games abandon all of that and just have you run around using your wits and diplomatic abilities to solve problems, while still allowing you to have a sword just in case. I realise, however, that these aren't for everyone.
But the point still stands that I never said that MOST RPG players hate levels. I just said that more and more are becoming tired of them. The ever increasing number of systems being released that don't rely on levels agrees with me. DnD is the only tabletop RPG that still uses a level and class based system (which makes sense, as it was also the first to use this system). Most use either alternatives or have features that make levels anything but the final word in determining your power.
When I first started playing WoW, I took everything in. I read every quest and even (although I'm a bit embarrassed to say it) pretended I was making a difference as I hunted down that mountain lion blood or helped fend off the town from random marauders. However I, like everyone I know who plays the game, joined to play with a friend. He even stopped playing his max-level character to play a low level character like me. Unfortunately, the experience was lost on him as he already did that himself ages before. So he went ahead and leveled without me--a problem I experience (from both sides) in almost every level based multiplayer videogame I play. I found myself losing every friend who joined my party in WoW as they were either alts and just trying to get to the end-game, or didn't take everything in as I did. Mind you I was a slow player (I literally spent an average of a week on every level after 30; if not longer if that level had a particular mini-game like fishing or gurubashi arena). Towards the end though, my friends all pressured me into getting to end game. Whenever we played together I would be ignored as the rest of them would raid together in their guild. Everyone would look at the moniter of the higher level character, and as a result leave me without anyone to talk to.
By the time I got to max level, he changed servers due to a mixture of guild drama, having grown tired of his class and wanting to try a new faction.
But I tried to experience the "world of warcraft", as well as several other MMORPGs. The problem is I play games to play with people. I'd rather play a game I hate with friends I love than a game I love alone. My friends aren't horrible people--I can't expect them to share the same schedule as me or play at the same pace as me. Its just the set up and major flaw behind leveling to gamers such as myself. It may work fine for some people, but it doesn't work for me.
When you combine that with the fact your limited to a single class (amoung 8-16 options), its even worse for me. I like to stand out in a game and be more than a grunt (although I'll admit that is kinda the point of warcraft given the setting; your a soldier after all). And I don't mean "I want to be a hero and kill great evils." I mean "I want to be a character, not a role." Build points encourage characters. Levels encourage roles.
The moment I saw there were kill quests, levels and caps I decided this wasn't the game for me. People continually say "levels are the only way". You know what, the reason Gygax and Arneson are seen as development genius' isn't because they gave up and went "but this is how it always is". They developed levels. It was a unique and innovative system for creating characters that can advance beyond their initial stats (or beyond a single enormous transformation, like a pawn into a queen).
But the days of the level are coming to an end (or so I pray). More and more RPG players grow tired of levels--most now see them as other gamers see installation time. "We can't start playing the REAL game until max level." But there are alternatives!
Games like Tri-Stat use character points instead of levels. Upon completing portions of a story, and as bonus points based on how well you played a character or any other number of things, you receive Character Points with which to buy customizable skills and gear. Some say they are like "levels", but the fact you start with 350 of them and they go into your stats, gear and skill acquisition make them a clearly different beast.
A lot of games have abandoned even that and just started pooling experience points directly into stats. Games like Pokemon (yes, its a child's game, but innovative never the less) used levels, but behind the scenes gave each stat a different experience bar that rose depending on your race and the opponent's you beat.
Some games have abandoned levels and abilities altogether, instead focusing on gaming skill. A lot of people just call these "fighters" or "FPS" + MMORPG mixes, but really they can become quite fun.
But the big problem I have with Star Wars having levels based on quests is simply that too many quests just don't make sense given the setting. Jedi weren't supposed to go forth and kill. They were supposed to negotiate first and try to avoid battle. Unfortunately, there's no good way of mass-diplomacy aside from needlessly complicated (and frankly lame) sets of dialogue choices that lead to a predictable (and, if you have something like Thottbot) reliable outcome.
Now if they could make a living and breathing game with characters to interact with that are controlled by GMs and other players who can actually make a difference in the world...
Unfortunately MMORPGs are scared of idiots willing to run around blowing up random planets just for fun. Leading me to another point. Actions should have consequences, the final knife in the corpse of this game (for me, of course). This is another WoW/EQ/MUD style game where nothing you do accounts for anything other than leveling and gear mongering. They claim you can change companion's, but lets face it. In the end your not changing the world around you. Your not really talking with other characters. Your a hamster in a wheel clicking away to get to the "next stage of power" to access more content that millions of others have or will access themselves.
Some people enjoy that. I personally don't. I wish I could diplomatically barter with another player for control over a star system's spice flow that we've worked hard to get control of. And I don't want that player to just be able to kill me (or have some other random player run up and kill one or both of us) without consequence. In some zones in WoW you can kill someone who attacked you without the local guards attacking you due to high reputation with that faction. But lets face it, if you just ran around killing people, eventually even a faction your considered a hero in would start viewing you differently.
But I'm a spoiled Tabletop nerd who has been given the ultimate game system--a living breathing human being who can flesh out a world custom tailored to the needs of me and my friends. That's a real GM. Current GMs in MMORPGs are no more than tech support and referees.
Here in California it takes me (minimum) 8 hours to get to a school 20 minutes away from house if I attempt to use public transportation (and there are no bike or pedestrian routes due to the small bit of fenced off farmland and/or park between).
Every train/bus goes into or out of LA.
Even getting to a place less than a mile away takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour (as buses are unreliable here; they always arrive upwards of 20 minutes later; usually skipping 5-8 posted times at a time.
This is in a large way because the empirical method is flawed for humans. It requires complete rationality and unaffected views, two things you just aren't going to find in human beings. Even our currently taught scientific method promotes going into an experiment with expectations. The fact these experiments cost money, time, etc... (many times in the forms of grants that will be pulled if you don't show significant progress), results are often overblown or outright false. Its not that the lofty ideals of the scientific and empirical methods aren't impressive--simply that they are as currently impossible to reach as the idea of being a perfect Christian.
Because NFL players attract audiences and advertisers willing to pay those paying the athletes?
Also, there are 1696 NFL players and 95,762 public schools (not including colleges and private schools) that all must hire at least 1 (if not 3) math teachers.
I would have preferred him crashing one of those really ritzy restaurants that serve burgers (there's plenty of them in metropolitan areas; at least in Los Angeles; I forget where that particular scene took place) and quickly grabbing someone else's dinner and throwing them money to shut up, yes. I would have preferred that over a restaurant that I myself (as a person who, while not wealthy, loves to shop smart and eat well prepared meals) get sick to my stomach thinking about devouring that much grease.
Actually, the primary purpose of a community or country is to secure the safety of citizens and their possessions. Everything else evolved from whiners.
Anyone who thinks that we live in the highest form of universe that, when destroyed, will end all life in our dimension is themselves as self-centered and close minded as those who believed we were the center of the universe.
1.) This man didn't put religious belief higher than science. He just said it should be taught in school rather than ignored, but still taught in a way that promotes the theory of evolution as a science, and creationism as a religious belief not founded on logic and empirical evidence. He didn't want to waste hours on end talking about creationism--he just wanted to explain WHY its not science. Nor did he want to profess it was right.
2.) Religious persons are fully capable of using the empirical method to logically deduce (and/or prove/discover) and record evidence (i.e. "science"). They shouldn't let their convictions stand in the way of their findings and remain a large part of an empirical system such as the royal society--but they shouldn't be completely disregarded by the society for a misguided attempt at teaching a social science alongside a theory of science. And in the end that's all he wanted to do. Teach a historically valid world view that is being phased out due to vast scientific evidence. Believing and learning about old beliefs and pseudo-sciences are two different things entirely. And refusing to listen to your opponent's argument isn't science: its ignorance.
3.) From another article about him, I already read he also wanted to try to help kids who get picked on in science classes for their religious belief. Science should take precedent in a place of logic and learning over religion (especially in a state that holds a firm belief in religious tolerance). But the school should not be a place that allows religious intolerance to spread, even if it spreads as a result of empiricists ragging on dualists (I'm assuming dualism here as its "god created everything", making a clear separation from reality and the spiritual world).
Hey, I've done years of serious research/dissecting regarding the presence of the tooth fairy and would appreciate it if you wouldn't clump my serious research with nonsense like creationism, you inconsiderate oath!
As for recording my work--the police records, widespread word on the forensics of the dentist blood on my trusty axe, wanted posters and signs at the ADA are more than enough credible sources, despite what those elitist tooth fairy wiki editors say.
Alteil ( http://www.alteil.com/ ) is a free online CCG that started up recently and is truly a fascinating and fun tactical card game. Great art too. Its all browser based, so no downloads/no DRM.
I would love an MMORPG with the ability to be a "merchant". The only merchant class I've seen has been in ragnorok and was really more of a "bank character" (if not just "item user" much like the Alchemist from d20 or Rikku from FFX).
Allowing for multiple coins at rates that are increased and decreased based on the prospects of the players, use of the coins and even GM side interference (i.e. "House Lancaster is putting 10% more gold in their coins, causing a 20% rise in price due to its now high use by NPCs.").
But that's the primary problem with MMOs today--very little change, especially based on player input. And I don't mean whining about class balance. I mean GMs aren't real GMs--they are customer support and referees. A "game master", in my tabletop experience at least, is supposed to actually help make and develop the game to fit the needs of the players. If GMs were actually given the powers of a development team (as well as the work-hours, payscale and benefits), it would do a lot of good for an MMORPG. Also, the patch system is outdated. Client side map data is outdated. Quests are outdated. Kill quests as a whole are outdated. The experience, level and class based system is outdated.
Finally, for the love of Zeus, drop the idea that all servers have to be the same (or drop servers all together). My #1 Gripe with WoW is I have 20 friends who all play; on 15 different servers. On top of that on each server one side or the other continuously dominates in PvP. Why? Because whenever a patch comes out to help one side of the game in PvP, half the servers in which one side was dominating gets more and more screwed, while the other half gets only slightly repaired from the negative consequences of the patch that tried to fix the first half.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a week of in game time. A week of real world time, including a difficult major. Mind you I love doing as much as I can in game too, including battlegrounds, gurubashi and even fishing/cooking and "worthless" instances like WC.
Well, WoW won because they were simple. They have some pretty interesting concepts in their game, but if it wasn't a successful game you wouldn't see anything they did in any record books after 20 or 30 years. It was an amalgam of base western fantasy with a splash of pop-culture and a clean, customizable UI that came out into the market at the perfect time, riding the back of a successful franchise. It has set no precedents in game design, but is a great example of a successful game. Much like Counter-Strike, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Starcraft, it stands only as a testament to marketing, graphical interface, intellectual property management, public relations and peer pressure/friend reviews/unintentional viral marketing.
.22s.
But each of these examples did as you said: they expanded the market, not stole users. A minority of Counter-Strike players were hardcore Doom or Unreal Tournament players. Same goes for Starcraft players being ex Dune II players or Yu-Gi-Oh! players being ex-Magic players. Try logging into WoW and talking about Dungeons and Dragons in general chat. I've been outright flamed for it, despite the impact of my hobby on their own. When I try to defend myself, I get remarks like "someone would have thought of it eventually". Yeah sure, someone probably would have thought of levels, potions, oozes, dungeon crawling, playing as a single character instead of an army in a fantasy setting, roleplaying under a set of rules for combat, armor classes, seperate stats, experience points and a good number of mythological monsters that we only see in modern fantasy games because they were in the 1st edition monster manual...but they didn't. Someone else did. And we aren't using build points and fighting Quezcoatls, recovering our hit points with magic tablets as we brandish our
Anyways, while I was trying to say levelling is a bit of a cop-out (that is, its easy to do and you should use it in tabletop RPGs as calculating separate stats based on previous encounters is too much for a human in a short amount of time), I was also trying to say that people in the modern tabletop RPG design world are dropping the level concept. And what happens in tabletop games usually finds its way into video games given a few years.
Indeed; SWG was a game I was very proud to see developed. Unfortunately, most of the games I love so much due to advances in design tend to fall a little short when it comes to advertising and building hype. SWG had a ton of hype a while before its release...unfortunately its hard to for any online game not made by Blizzard or Sierra to break through the market and become enough of a success to get a big following in the US. Mind you in foreign countries little games are released every week that all players flock towards with the complete intention of leaving when the next big thing comes out. Also note that free games are rarely listed as a statistic despite their popularity...and for some reason Tabletop Games and Video Games are seen as different by the populace as Television Ratings and Agricultural Processing Yields. I had hopes for spore until the DRM...
"Builds" will always exist--however a game that rewards ingenuity in builds that exists outside of sheer power and combat-based (or even non-combat based) sustainability and roles can also come into play.
For example, lets say Joe the Warrior becomes the strongest at using his long sword upon discovering that out of the thousands of abilities out there, long swords do the most damage per second. Right away I'd be concerned with the game--why does a long sword do the same to a dragon than an ooze? Yes, armor (damage reduction, or whatever you will call it) plays a role, but adding in extraordinarily complex design points BEHIND THE CURTAIN (i.e. in a place where the average user won't see it)
Right now WoW is no more complicated than DnD--even if you remove the human element and make the DnD game all "by the core rule book". There are more complicated equations, but in the end determining how much damage your dagger does in both systems is simply a random variable set to equations based on character modifiers vs. a set of equations based on your opponent's modifiers (plus the modifiers of the knife and the action taken, such as special attacks). Why should such a simple system be in place for something as complex as a computer game? There's no GM having to plug away at the numbers to ensure everything is added correctly--spice things up. Include more variables than simply "Hit", "Armor", "Resiliance", "Damage", "Parry", "Dodge" and "Resist". And don't be afraid to hide them.
There are more ways of measuring power than single numerics. As long as we are exploiting computers to do our math and databasing for us, why not stir things up a bit and try to make things more dynamic? Pokemon, to use an often under-rated example, allowed for dynamic stat levelling. Although this isn't exactly what I mean by "level-less", it is a start to a new idea. Essentially each character in the game has their stats dependent not on their level or class/race alone, but also on who they fought and what they did.
Alternatives to levels include build points, reward points, skill based, item based and even some games that abandoned levels to allow for manipulation of your experience points into stats and abilities. Some games abandon all of that and just have you run around using your wits and diplomatic abilities to solve problems, while still allowing you to have a sword just in case. I realise, however, that these aren't for everyone.
But the point still stands that I never said that MOST RPG players hate levels. I just said that more and more are becoming tired of them. The ever increasing number of systems being released that don't rely on levels agrees with me. DnD is the only tabletop RPG that still uses a level and class based system (which makes sense, as it was also the first to use this system). Most use either alternatives or have features that make levels anything but the final word in determining your power.
When I first started playing WoW, I took everything in. I read every quest and even (although I'm a bit embarrassed to say it) pretended I was making a difference as I hunted down that mountain lion blood or helped fend off the town from random marauders. However I, like everyone I know who plays the game, joined to play with a friend. He even stopped playing his max-level character to play a low level character like me. Unfortunately, the experience was lost on him as he already did that himself ages before. So he went ahead and leveled without me--a problem I experience (from both sides) in almost every level based multiplayer videogame I play. I found myself losing every friend who joined my party in WoW as they were either alts and just trying to get to the end-game, or didn't take everything in as I did. Mind you I was a slow player (I literally spent an average of a week on every level after 30; if not longer if that level had a particular mini-game like fishing or gurubashi arena). Towards the end though, my friends all pressured me into getting to end game. Whenever we played together I would be ignored as the rest of them would raid together in their guild. Everyone would look at the moniter of the higher level character, and as a result leave me without anyone to talk to.
By the time I got to max level, he changed servers due to a mixture of guild drama, having grown tired of his class and wanting to try a new faction.
But I tried to experience the "world of warcraft", as well as several other MMORPGs. The problem is I play games to play with people. I'd rather play a game I hate with friends I love than a game I love alone. My friends aren't horrible people--I can't expect them to share the same schedule as me or play at the same pace as me. Its just the set up and major flaw behind leveling to gamers such as myself. It may work fine for some people, but it doesn't work for me.
When you combine that with the fact your limited to a single class (amoung 8-16 options), its even worse for me. I like to stand out in a game and be more than a grunt (although I'll admit that is kinda the point of warcraft given the setting; your a soldier after all). And I don't mean "I want to be a hero and kill great evils." I mean "I want to be a character, not a role." Build points encourage characters. Levels encourage roles.
The moment I saw there were kill quests, levels and caps I decided this wasn't the game for me. People continually say "levels are the only way". You know what, the reason Gygax and Arneson are seen as development genius' isn't because they gave up and went "but this is how it always is". They developed levels. It was a unique and innovative system for creating characters that can advance beyond their initial stats (or beyond a single enormous transformation, like a pawn into a queen).
But the days of the level are coming to an end (or so I pray). More and more RPG players grow tired of levels--most now see them as other gamers see installation time. "We can't start playing the REAL game until max level." But there are alternatives!
Games like Tri-Stat use character points instead of levels. Upon completing portions of a story, and as bonus points based on how well you played a character or any other number of things, you receive Character Points with which to buy customizable skills and gear. Some say they are like "levels", but the fact you start with 350 of them and they go into your stats, gear and skill acquisition make them a clearly different beast.
A lot of games have abandoned even that and just started pooling experience points directly into stats. Games like Pokemon (yes, its a child's game, but innovative never the less) used levels, but behind the scenes gave each stat a different experience bar that rose depending on your race and the opponent's you beat.
Some games have abandoned levels and abilities altogether, instead focusing on gaming skill. A lot of people just call these "fighters" or "FPS" + MMORPG mixes, but really they can become quite fun.
But the big problem I have with Star Wars having levels based on quests is simply that too many quests just don't make sense given the setting. Jedi weren't supposed to go forth and kill. They were supposed to negotiate first and try to avoid battle. Unfortunately, there's no good way of mass-diplomacy aside from needlessly complicated (and frankly lame) sets of dialogue choices that lead to a predictable (and, if you have something like Thottbot) reliable outcome.
Now if they could make a living and breathing game with characters to interact with that are controlled by GMs and other players who can actually make a difference in the world...
Unfortunately MMORPGs are scared of idiots willing to run around blowing up random planets just for fun. Leading me to another point. Actions should have consequences, the final knife in the corpse of this game (for me, of course). This is another WoW/EQ/MUD style game where nothing you do accounts for anything other than leveling and gear mongering. They claim you can change companion's, but lets face it. In the end your not changing the world around you. Your not really talking with other characters. Your a hamster in a wheel clicking away to get to the "next stage of power" to access more content that millions of others have or will access themselves.
Some people enjoy that. I personally don't. I wish I could diplomatically barter with another player for control over a star system's spice flow that we've worked hard to get control of. And I don't want that player to just be able to kill me (or have some other random player run up and kill one or both of us) without consequence. In some zones in WoW you can kill someone who attacked you without the local guards attacking you due to high reputation with that faction. But lets face it, if you just ran around killing people, eventually even a faction your considered a hero in would start viewing you differently.
But I'm a spoiled Tabletop nerd who has been given the ultimate game system--a living breathing human being who can flesh out a world custom tailored to the needs of me and my friends. That's a real GM. Current GMs in MMORPGs are no more than tech support and referees.
Here in California it takes me (minimum) 8 hours to get to a school 20 minutes away from house if I attempt to use public transportation (and there are no bike or pedestrian routes due to the small bit of fenced off farmland and/or park between).
Every train/bus goes into or out of LA.
Even getting to a place less than a mile away takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour (as buses are unreliable here; they always arrive upwards of 20 minutes later; usually skipping 5-8 posted times at a time.
This is so awesome! Mobile houses!? What's next: houses on wheels? Water? In trees!?!?
This is in a large way because the empirical method is flawed for humans. It requires complete rationality and unaffected views, two things you just aren't going to find in human beings. Even our currently taught scientific method promotes going into an experiment with expectations. The fact these experiments cost money, time, etc... (many times in the forms of grants that will be pulled if you don't show significant progress), results are often overblown or outright false. Its not that the lofty ideals of the scientific and empirical methods aren't impressive--simply that they are as currently impossible to reach as the idea of being a perfect Christian.
Because NFL players attract audiences and advertisers willing to pay those paying the athletes?
Also, there are 1696 NFL players and 95,762 public schools (not including colleges and private schools) that all must hire at least 1 (if not 3) math teachers.
I would have preferred him crashing one of those really ritzy restaurants that serve burgers (there's plenty of them in metropolitan areas; at least in Los Angeles; I forget where that particular scene took place) and quickly grabbing someone else's dinner and throwing them money to shut up, yes. I would have preferred that over a restaurant that I myself (as a person who, while not wealthy, loves to shop smart and eat well prepared meals) get sick to my stomach thinking about devouring that much grease.
Indeed. I think any billionaire thinking "good food" thinks "Burger king". You can tell by how ritzy the restaurant is.
Or just send up McGuyver with a straw, a paperclip and a rubber band.
Everyone knows Duct Tape is just McGuyvers way of saying "Jesus people, I can only be in 5 places at once."
Lead 'em up to a cliff side and they'll back up on ya.
I wish I had mod points to mod this up.
Well, what about Tesla? :P
Actually, the primary purpose of a community or country is to secure the safety of citizens and their possessions. Everything else evolved from whiners.
Anyone who thinks that we live in the highest form of universe that, when destroyed, will end all life in our dimension is themselves as self-centered and close minded as those who believed we were the center of the universe.
There's air outside there still?
1.) This man didn't put religious belief higher than science. He just said it should be taught in school rather than ignored, but still taught in a way that promotes the theory of evolution as a science, and creationism as a religious belief not founded on logic and empirical evidence. He didn't want to waste hours on end talking about creationism--he just wanted to explain WHY its not science. Nor did he want to profess it was right.
2.) Religious persons are fully capable of using the empirical method to logically deduce (and/or prove/discover) and record evidence (i.e. "science"). They shouldn't let their convictions stand in the way of their findings and remain a large part of an empirical system such as the royal society--but they shouldn't be completely disregarded by the society for a misguided attempt at teaching a social science alongside a theory of science. And in the end that's all he wanted to do. Teach a historically valid world view that is being phased out due to vast scientific evidence. Believing and learning about old beliefs and pseudo-sciences are two different things entirely. And refusing to listen to your opponent's argument isn't science: its ignorance.
3.) From another article about him, I already read he also wanted to try to help kids who get picked on in science classes for their religious belief. Science should take precedent in a place of logic and learning over religion (especially in a state that holds a firm belief in religious tolerance). But the school should not be a place that allows religious intolerance to spread, even if it spreads as a result of empiricists ragging on dualists (I'm assuming dualism here as its "god created everything", making a clear separation from reality and the spiritual world).
Hey, I've done years of serious research/dissecting regarding the presence of the tooth fairy and would appreciate it if you wouldn't clump my serious research with nonsense like creationism, you inconsiderate oath!
As for recording my work--the police records, widespread word on the forensics of the dentist blood on my trusty axe, wanted posters and signs at the ADA are more than enough credible sources, despite what those elitist tooth fairy wiki editors say.
Alteil ( http://www.alteil.com/ ) is a free online CCG that started up recently and is truly a fascinating and fun tactical card game. Great art too. Its all browser based, so no downloads/no DRM.
Imagine using an iPhone for phone sex? I see it now:
iPhone: it watches you masturbate.
I would love an MMORPG with the ability to be a "merchant". The only merchant class I've seen has been in ragnorok and was really more of a "bank character" (if not just "item user" much like the Alchemist from d20 or Rikku from FFX).
Allowing for multiple coins at rates that are increased and decreased based on the prospects of the players, use of the coins and even GM side interference (i.e. "House Lancaster is putting 10% more gold in their coins, causing a 20% rise in price due to its now high use by NPCs.").
But that's the primary problem with MMOs today--very little change, especially based on player input. And I don't mean whining about class balance. I mean GMs aren't real GMs--they are customer support and referees. A "game master", in my tabletop experience at least, is supposed to actually help make and develop the game to fit the needs of the players. If GMs were actually given the powers of a development team (as well as the work-hours, payscale and benefits), it would do a lot of good for an MMORPG. Also, the patch system is outdated. Client side map data is outdated. Quests are outdated. Kill quests as a whole are outdated. The experience, level and class based system is outdated.
Finally, for the love of Zeus, drop the idea that all servers have to be the same (or drop servers all together). My #1 Gripe with WoW is I have 20 friends who all play; on 15 different servers. On top of that on each server one side or the other continuously dominates in PvP. Why? Because whenever a patch comes out to help one side of the game in PvP, half the servers in which one side was dominating gets more and more screwed, while the other half gets only slightly repaired from the negative consequences of the patch that tried to fix the first half.