The system, which requires crutches to help with balance, consists of motorized leg supports, body sensors and a back pack containing a computerized control box and rechargeable batteries
Imagine how crappy your day would be if your legs ran out of batteries and you didn't have a fully-charged replacement handy.
Not that I can think of a better solution or anything. It's just fucking hilarious.
How articulate. You must be a very intelligent individual, with many important things to spend his time on.
A quick note on style: "said the faggot who is a loser who spends his time..." is an awkward sentence. Next time, try "said the faggot loser who spends his time..." -- your writing will flow much better from the reader's perspective when you don't unnecessarily repeat your verbs.
Pac-Man, however, never changed his acceleration, so the speed at which he entered and exited any portal was never in issue, it was constant. Additionally, the teleportation happened off-screen -- in Portal, you can actually look THROUGH the portal out to the other side. In summary, Portal is more complicated than Pac-Man by many degrees of magnitude because the portals themselves entail more variables.
I don't know what universe you're from, but from the universe that I hail from, "MMORPG" means Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, not Non-Persistent Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. The issue of persistence is not covered in the definition, and just because persistence would be new to the genre does not mean that a persistent MMO would be an entirely different genre unto itself. An MMO is simply any game where a very large number of users inhabit the same instance of the gameworld.
You're looking at the problem and declaring that there can never be a solution, instead of trying to look at the solution.
How is a persistent-world MMO not an MMO? You're being terribly shortsighted here; like mainframe programmers from the 1950's or 1960's who believed artificial intelligence was impossible.
Hmm, that's funny, we're still only about half through Black Temple 18 months after it was released. Number of folks that have really finished WoW is low. I don't have figures, but I'm not exactly seeing too many full T6 sets out there, you? Right, starting to get the impression you haven't actually played Warcraft much.
That is a weak argument when you consider that WoW's approach to the problem of content generation is to take a couple of dungeons that should take about 2 hours to complete, and then bait players into playing them over and over for 2000 hours in order to farm this epic armor or that quest drop.
A shitty game that never ends is still a shitty game, no matter how you try to dress it up.
People make fun of us southerners and good old boys, but we know the difference between a pork chop, some fried chicken, some bass and then that "sushi" which is dollars a bite stuff we would call *bait* stuck in a ball with some cheap white rice and seaweed washed up on the beach.
Yeah, maybe the piss-poor shrinkwrapped sushi that you trailer park boys buy from Safeway is crap, but if you go fishing using real sushi made out of salmon, eel and avocado as bait, you need a serious lesson in economics.
Are you saying that you're giving the third world a substandard education with textbooks that aren't current?
The future is not "subscriptions." That's just a big pie in the sky that'll never happen. Why?
Many of the fields that students study (History, Philosophy, Psychology, Basic Math) have decades if not centuries of history, and the curriculum isn't updated nearly as frequently as the books are.
You sell fluff that is already common knowledge, which you hack together into a textbook with a "works cited" page. The only subscription any real academic would consider is a subscription to a peer-reviewed science journal, or maybe the Financial Times.
Something about wanting a proper return for their natural resources.
The "problem" is that western business interests buy up land and infrastructure in other countries. Then the people of those other countries decide to overthrow the capitalist system entirely because they aren't on top of it, and the country's resources get nationalized. Western investors lose millions or possibly billions in assets.
Suddenly, those people are motivated to change the power structure to regain their lost resources. And if they believe that they can regain those resources by spending less than their total value, it becomes a good business decision to do so.
In short, if you are going to socialize your country, don't nationalize foreign business interests or you are in for a whole hell of a lot of trouble.
That's a terrible idea. Homeless adults need jobs more than teenagers. Some teenagers might be troublemakers but they at least have a place to stay, and that makes them less of a threat (they have less incentive to commit serious crimes because it isn't a life-or-death scenario for them).
You're right that it could be a "possible side effect," but it would be more effective to give jobs to people who don't already have a safety net.
Or maybe they are in better physical shape because they have sex with all of their many wives (sex is a good cardiovascular workout that improves heart health as well as mood), and trying to feed that many wives means that a man has to live off of cheap, healthy foods, like cabbage, beans and rice!
Fox doesn't want to shut down the movie. Hiring lawyers to pursue this in court is, from the perspective of an executive, a business decision. It wouldn't be done unless there was a profit to be made.
So, where's the profit? There are two possibilities.
1) Fox is planning on releasing their own "Watchmen" film, and they want theirs to debut first.
This is an unlikely scenario. The Watchmen is not a well-known mainstream franchise and if they had already started production, we'd probably have heard of it. If they haven't started production yet, then the businessmen are probably more interested in scenario 2, since it has a guaranteed return (guaranteeing a return on investment is important in business. Yes, this includes lawyer fees, and everything else).
2) Fox sees that they can get a portion of royalties or a settlement from WB for the licensing rights they're entitled to.
This is the most likely scenario. Fox will show that they own the copyright, WB will be up shit creek without a paddle because they've produced a movie they aren't legally entitled to release, and then WB will settle out-of-court with Fox for 10% of the royalties, or $20 million, or something similar. My prediction is that we'll see the movie eventually, but there is a possibility that it will be delayed due to proceedings (however, WB will have a great incentive to settle before the theatrical release date, Fox probably realizes this). There is also a distinct possibility that the producer will not enjoy as much of the profits as they would have.
But we will still get our movie. Of course, depending on the nature of the settlement, you may want to boycott the box office in order to minimize Fox's profit (they are, after all, peddlers of pedantic mind-rotting boob-tube junk).
Only segments of the younger generation. It isn't like, a systemic flaw in those born after 1985. It's what they've been indoctrinated with by their crackpot parents, some of whom are law enforcement and legislators, amongst other influential positions. In short we're not the cancer, old people are.
Why are we so hell-bent on breaking down society that we can't have people just use and pay for a transit system?
Some people are too poor to pay for public transportation, like graduate students, and the homeless. They are the ones more likely to turn to this solution. For others, it is easier and less risky just to pay.
Nobody is "hell-bent" on breaking down society. They just behave in the ways that reward them.
Idiot. Students are buying the international editions from amazon.com, buying used editions from their local bookstores, and pirating textbooks on bittorrent. You and your exorbitant prices are fucked.
My Dad, who retired from working as a Police Officer after being disabled with PTSD following a shooting, has to deal with that same stupid question all of the time.
Sell it for ostensibly legitimate purposes on the cheap. Those sort of "hint hint, wink wink" areas of industry that indirectly support the seedier bits make bank.
Stalin is more or less your golden case-in-point, but he really just reinforces my case -- only a weakling would give a dictator total dominion over him, proletariat, Stalin, or otherwise. What could one expect other than exploitation at worst and mismanagement at best?
Limited socialism is a different story -- after the 1930's, complete laissez-faire seems dangerous. It's important to strike a balance between national prosperity and individual freedom of enterprise. Sacrificing either would be a terrible tragedy -- after all, the macro-economy affects everyone.
If part of the "proletariat" decides that taking property rights away from the people is what they're going to do, I won't hesitate to join a local militia and kill as many revolutionaries as possible.
Of course people are the products of their circumstances. The blunt point of your argument reeks of humanitarianism and takes for granted a few philosophical points... go preach at someone who isn't a nihilist and actually cares about this great and terrible injustice. Truly, someone must right it, and who better than you!
Slashdot Mirror
The system, which requires crutches to help with balance, consists of motorized leg supports, body sensors and a back pack containing a computerized control box and rechargeable batteries
Imagine how crappy your day would be if your legs ran out of batteries and you didn't have a fully-charged replacement handy.
Not that I can think of a better solution or anything. It's just fucking hilarious.
How articulate. You must be a very intelligent individual, with many important things to spend his time on.
A quick note on style: "said the faggot who is a loser who spends his time ..." is an awkward sentence. Next time, try "said the faggot loser who spends his time ..." -- your writing will flow much better from the reader's perspective when you don't unnecessarily repeat your verbs.
Pac-Man, however, never changed his acceleration, so the speed at which he entered and exited any portal was never in issue, it was constant. Additionally, the teleportation happened off-screen -- in Portal, you can actually look THROUGH the portal out to the other side. In summary, Portal is more complicated than Pac-Man by many degrees of magnitude because the portals themselves entail more variables.
Said the slashdot troll, ironically.
It's not an MMO because MMOs aren't persistent
I don't know what universe you're from, but from the universe that I hail from, "MMORPG" means Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, not Non-Persistent Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. The issue of persistence is not covered in the definition, and just because persistence would be new to the genre does not mean that a persistent MMO would be an entirely different genre unto itself. An MMO is simply any game where a very large number of users inhabit the same instance of the gameworld.
You're looking at the problem and declaring that there can never be a solution, instead of trying to look at the solution.
Look at i this way ... would you trust the word of a homeless tramp, a drug dealer, a hippie, Jay OR Silent Bob ?
I would trust the word of any of those people more than I'd trust the word of someone who fails to spellcheck their slashdot posts.
How is a persistent-world MMO not an MMO? You're being terribly shortsighted here; like mainframe programmers from the 1950's or 1960's who believed artificial intelligence was impossible.
Hmm, that's funny, we're still only about half through Black Temple 18 months after it was released. Number of folks that have really finished WoW is low. I don't have figures, but I'm not exactly seeing too many full T6 sets out there, you? Right, starting to get the impression you haven't actually played Warcraft much.
That is a weak argument when you consider that WoW's approach to the problem of content generation is to take a couple of dungeons that should take about 2 hours to complete, and then bait players into playing them over and over for 2000 hours in order to farm this epic armor or that quest drop.
A shitty game that never ends is still a shitty game, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If it bothers you that the Demon King of Evil is going to pop right up again after you defeat him, then you're thinking about the game the wrong way
What if we want a different kind of game? Is that wrong? Or really as impossible as you say?
I don't think there are "right" and "wrong" ways to game.
You're pretty ironic there buddy.
People make fun of us southerners and good old boys, but we know the difference between a pork chop, some fried chicken, some bass and then that "sushi" which is dollars a bite stuff we would call *bait* stuck in a ball with some cheap white rice and seaweed washed up on the beach.
Yeah, maybe the piss-poor shrinkwrapped sushi that you trailer park boys buy from Safeway is crap, but if you go fishing using real sushi made out of salmon, eel and avocado as bait, you need a serious lesson in economics.
Trust me, you want to keep current
Are you saying that you're giving the third world a substandard education with textbooks that aren't current?
The future is not "subscriptions." That's just a big pie in the sky that'll never happen. Why?
Many of the fields that students study (History, Philosophy, Psychology, Basic Math) have decades if not centuries of history, and the curriculum isn't updated nearly as frequently as the books are.
You sell fluff that is already common knowledge, which you hack together into a textbook with a "works cited" page. The only subscription any real academic would consider is a subscription to a peer-reviewed science journal, or maybe the Financial Times.
Something about wanting a proper return for their natural resources.
The "problem" is that western business interests buy up land and infrastructure in other countries. Then the people of those other countries decide to overthrow the capitalist system entirely because they aren't on top of it, and the country's resources get nationalized. Western investors lose millions or possibly billions in assets.
Suddenly, those people are motivated to change the power structure to regain their lost resources. And if they believe that they can regain those resources by spending less than their total value, it becomes a good business decision to do so.
In short, if you are going to socialize your country, don't nationalize foreign business interests or you are in for a whole hell of a lot of trouble.
We need to insist on telecommuting
As if telecommuting and driving a gas guzzler are the only two options. Move closer to work and ride a bicycle, asshole.
You'd marry them based on the timing of their period, so that they'd go on the rag in shifts and you'd always have 3-4 non-menstruating wives.
As a bonus, give the jobs to teenagers only
That's a terrible idea. Homeless adults need jobs more than teenagers. Some teenagers might be troublemakers but they at least have a place to stay, and that makes them less of a threat (they have less incentive to commit serious crimes because it isn't a life-or-death scenario for them).
You're right that it could be a "possible side effect," but it would be more effective to give jobs to people who don't already have a safety net.
Or maybe they are in better physical shape because they have sex with all of their many wives (sex is a good cardiovascular workout that improves heart health as well as mood), and trying to feed that many wives means that a man has to live off of cheap, healthy foods, like cabbage, beans and rice!
Fox doesn't want to shut down the movie. Hiring lawyers to pursue this in court is, from the perspective of an executive, a business decision. It wouldn't be done unless there was a profit to be made.
So, where's the profit? There are two possibilities.
1) Fox is planning on releasing their own "Watchmen" film, and they want theirs to debut first.
This is an unlikely scenario. The Watchmen is not a well-known mainstream franchise and if they had already started production, we'd probably have heard of it. If they haven't started production yet, then the businessmen are probably more interested in scenario 2, since it has a guaranteed return (guaranteeing a return on investment is important in business. Yes, this includes lawyer fees, and everything else).
2) Fox sees that they can get a portion of royalties or a settlement from WB for the licensing rights they're entitled to.
This is the most likely scenario. Fox will show that they own the copyright, WB will be up shit creek without a paddle because they've produced a movie they aren't legally entitled to release, and then WB will settle out-of-court with Fox for 10% of the royalties, or $20 million, or something similar. My prediction is that we'll see the movie eventually, but there is a possibility that it will be delayed due to proceedings (however, WB will have a great incentive to settle before the theatrical release date, Fox probably realizes this). There is also a distinct possibility that the producer will not enjoy as much of the profits as they would have.
But we will still get our movie. Of course, depending on the nature of the settlement, you may want to boycott the box office in order to minimize Fox's profit (they are, after all, peddlers of pedantic mind-rotting boob-tube junk).
Only segments of the younger generation. It isn't like, a systemic flaw in those born after 1985. It's what they've been indoctrinated with by their crackpot parents, some of whom are law enforcement and legislators, amongst other influential positions. In short we're not the cancer, old people are.
Why are we so hell-bent on breaking down society that we can't have people just use and pay for a transit system?
Some people are too poor to pay for public transportation, like graduate students, and the homeless. They are the ones more likely to turn to this solution. For others, it is easier and less risky just to pay.
Nobody is "hell-bent" on breaking down society. They just behave in the ways that reward them.
You obviously don't think like an economist.
Idiot. Students are buying the international editions from amazon.com, buying used editions from their local bookstores, and pirating textbooks on bittorrent. You and your exorbitant prices are fucked.
My Dad, who retired from working as a Police Officer after being disabled with PTSD following a shooting, has to deal with that same stupid question all of the time.
Sell it for ostensibly legitimate purposes on the cheap. Those sort of "hint hint, wink wink" areas of industry that indirectly support the seedier bits make bank.
Stalin is more or less your golden case-in-point, but he really just reinforces my case -- only a weakling would give a dictator total dominion over him, proletariat, Stalin, or otherwise. What could one expect other than exploitation at worst and mismanagement at best?
Limited socialism is a different story -- after the 1930's, complete laissez-faire seems dangerous. It's important to strike a balance between national prosperity and individual freedom of enterprise. Sacrificing either would be a terrible tragedy -- after all, the macro-economy affects everyone.
If part of the "proletariat" decides that taking property rights away from the people is what they're going to do, I won't hesitate to join a local militia and kill as many revolutionaries as possible.
Of course people are the products of their circumstances. The blunt point of your argument reeks of humanitarianism and takes for granted a few philosophical points ... go preach at someone who isn't a nihilist and actually cares about this great and terrible injustice. Truly, someone must right it, and who better than you!