Oh, but it does, at every level of the economy. If you can't afford to feed yourself, buy water for showers, and rent a quiet place to sleep at night, you simply won't be able to make money. You might try to get a job, but without food in your stomach, good hygiene, and a rested mind, you'll be fired quickly.
Granted, there are some opportunities in the world to get food, water, and shelter for free, making it possible to make money without having money yourself. But if no one is willing to spend that money on you, you can't make money.
Hopefully this media coverage doesn't cause people to move to the town in droves. Since only 1,300 people live there now, you wouldn't need too many new residents to make it only 50% or 25% wind powered!
Q: How does Glider work?
A: Glider works a lot like a regular player. It looks at your health, mana, energy, etc. It moves the mouse around and pushes keys on the keyboard. You tell it about your character, where you want to kill things, and what to kill. Then it kills for you, automatically. You can do something else, like eat dinner or go to a movie, and when you return, you'll have a lot more experience and loot.
Re:Blizzard already lost....
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
By having 'Glided' your way to 70 I am guessing that your ability to play your class will be about as good as someone who bought their account on ebay.
You nublet, this is like saying that people who use macros don't know how to play the game. It isn't a "cheat", you don't just install the program and wait for it to auto-level you to 70, it is nothing like buying a character on e-bay.
For the record, I quit that glorified hamster wheel a long time ago.
I work for a university, and it's so bureaucratic that if a professor wants to install Skype on a classroom computer (to incorporate a telecommuting student into his master's software class), he can't even get the administrator's password to do so from the manager of our department -- whoever has that password, the man is in another building. It ended up being simpler to do this really archaic "phone-bridge" thing than it was for the professor to just install Skype.
I haven't worked much in the corporate world, but my hunch is that if you go to your head of IT, in a company that uses, say, nothing but Windows XP PC's, and ask to be the only employee using a different system and operating system, they will see that as extra work at best and as a dire security hazard at worst.
If employees can successfully persuade employers to let them use Macs for productivity, does this mean that it has become easier to do the same for GNU+Linux as well?
You are basically trading apples for lemons here (not to say that you can't make lemonade). Macs have a reputation for being expensive and easy-to-use; GNU+Linux has a reputation for being free and hard-to-use. It all depends on what your employer's priorities are (and how deep the company's pocketbooks are at the time). If you work in sales, you will have an easier time convincing the team to switch to macs. If you work in high-level software architecture design, you will have an easier time convincing the team to switch to GNU+Linux.
I'm sorry, I think "news for nerds, stuff that matters" covers medicine, politics, and social sciences. Try to stop clicking your ball-point pen and snapping your suspenders in unbridled rage whenever someone suggests that something besides computers is nerdy, you're making the rest of us look like idiots.
So that means that he gets to present arguments that would support his ability to appeal on constitutionality. Pretty circuitous.
The Supreme Court isn't required to review every case that is appealed; they can look at the previous decision and decide that there is nothing to be considered differently. In order for the Supreme Court to review a case, they must first grant what's called a "Writ of Certiorari," which requires that 4 out of 9 judges deem it worthy of appeal.
It's far out, I know, but some of us actually would rather have good S&R than loads of other things that our taxes go toward.
Like multi-billion dollar wars. Why do we have to foot the bill for the war you started? I say we apply the same principle: if the country wants to go to war, then the citizens who want to should have to open up their own wallets and pay for it.
This law doesn't assist anyone in parenting well, it enables bad parenting.
Refusing to educate your kids about sex, drugs, and violence before they are exposed to such themes in life is naive and ignorant, and it will make your kids grow into naive and ignorant adults. You can not expect the world to censor itself all of the time just because you haven't educated your children. Books have gone for hundreds of years without being rated for lewdness or censored; I don't think anyone was scarred for life when Shakespeare made some comment or other about "the beast with two backs."
And even if you do go so far as to censor Shakespeare (an explicit writer, especially by some hyper-conservative modern standards), how will you keep little Johnny at school from telling your kid all about sex? After all, there a lot of kids at school, and you can't expect that all of their parents are also planning on sheltering their children from the whole world until they are 18 -- you should assume that if you aren't educating your kids about sex, drugs and violence before they go to school, that their peers are educating them (and their peers will surely have less wisdom about such matters).
Brilliant satire, but no, it doesn't assist you in parenting well, it enables your bad parenting. Refusing to educate your kids about sex, drugs, and violence before they are exposed to such themes in life is naive and ignorant, it will make your kids grow into naive and ignorant adults, and expecting the world to censor itself because you think teaching your kids how the world works is an "unreasonable large burden" just shows that you don't have what it takes to be an effective parent. Books have gone for hundreds of years without being rated for lewdness or censored; I don't think anyone was scarred for life when Shakespeare made some comment or other about "the beast with two backs."
Drunk driving is not a game, and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable.
Drunk driving might not be a game, but drunk driving inside of a game is certainly a game. When someone makes a game about war, nobody starts jumping up and down, screaming "war is not a game, and it is not a joke." They also don't start demanding that the game be taken off of the market immediately in order to show respect to the victims of war. Face it, gamers "do" things in games that they would never do in real life, because they understand that the consequences of their actions in the game world are not important, or even real. MADD seems to have trouble distinguishing between real drunk driving and virtual drunk driving.
I mean, we're talking about a game where you shoot cops and traffic cocaine for money; I think people understand that GTA characters do not make healthy long-term life decisions and that they would make terrible role models. Just because it's a game about mature topics doesn't mean it's going to corrupt the very moral fabric of society (if you put stock in such quaint notions) and turn us all into raging drunk drivers.
Hell, I don't even have a car, I'm a poor college student who rides the bus.
Why, you ask? Because gamers and enthusiasts are always on the bleeding edge in terms of graphics technologies, and Microsoft, in their profane, demonic genius, have made DirectX 10 only available on Vista. In other words, for me to get the biggest bang for my buck out of a current-generation card (in my case a Direct X 10.1 compatible, Radeon 3870x2), I have to run Vista. Additionally, while this is not a Vista-specific feature, I'm running a 64-bit OS to take advantage of 4gb of system RAM (2x2GB Corsair "Dominator" 1066mhz DDR2).
Now, the earliest Vista adopters will be gamers and the like -- this is a large target market, and practically 100% of it is guaranteed to move to Vista solely due to DirectX 10. They will help float the company until the more widespread adoption of Vista begins. See, as computer hardware continues to develop, it will become cheaper and more common to have ~2GB of system RAM; current-generation DirectX 10 cards selling for $400 will fall in price to $100 or $50; in other words, the falling price of hardware will make adopting Vista in the future easier. Now, since we're in the future, Microsoft's support for Windows XP has long expired. This means that a wide array of new hacks that compromise the operating system will begin to emerge, as is the usual, except in this case Microsoft won't fix them because XP is no longer "supported." So, assuming you can even find a copy of XP to install, you're essentially installing an inferior product due to discontinued development. Now, also because we're in the future, Crysis probably costs about $20. The budget computer you just bought for $300 is capable of running it. Are you going to pass up the opportunity simply because you don't like M$, and refuse to install Vista? For most, the answer is no. Why? Well, not installing Vista would be harder than installing it (you'd have to find an XP copy, or god forbid, learn Linux), and it would also be less beneficial. Not to mention that many of the early adopters we mentioned earlier (those graphics obsessed gamers) are generally considered the "technically literate" in the social circles they travel in. In other words, people will ask them their opinion of Vista. And since they've used it, they'll tell all of their friends who are considering it that it works great!
Now, let me say that, as an enthusiast, I'm entirely satisfied with Vista SP1. A list of common applications that work in Vista so far has included Hamachi, Steam, Catalyst, Daemon Tools Lite, Azureus, Soulseek, iTunes, Firefox, Avast! Antivirus, Adobe Reader, and WinRAR. Vista was certainly cumbersome on it's initial release, but it is now quite palatable. It even came with the drivers for my Realtek onboard sound already installed, which was impressive, as I have tried to install the Realtek drivers manually on many motherboards and XP installations, usually to such complete, utter, and stunning failure that I ended up just buying a $30 Soundblaster Audigy to stick into any computer whose onboard sound refused to function.
Is this legit or is it a w0rm or tr0j4n? Anyone care enough to check? I don't, I'm running 64-bit Windows Vista. How else would I take advantage of my DirectX 10.1 compatible Radeon 3870x2 and my 2x2GB Corsair "Dominator" DDR2 System RAM?
I'm so tired of these greedy companies. News Corp was already making plenty of money.
Uh, does it hurt anything for them to continue? Is it bad for them to improve their platform? By your logic, we should never have invented the automobile, because we were already making plenty of money selling bicycles and donkey-carts. Stupid greedy companies, not keeping us in the stone age.
While there is a market for violent pornography or child pornography, criminals will supply it. In doing so I doubt they will consider the civil rights of those forced to take part.
Criminals are not the ones supplying the market with violent pornography, legitimate companies like kink.com based out of San Francisco are the ones supplying us, and yes, they do consider the civil rights of their paid, consenting models; all models are provided with a safeword and can end the shoot at any time. Also, this debate is about violent porn, not child porn, so please try to stay on topic -- although I do understand how hard it is for you rabble rousers to avoid saying buzzwords like "child pornography" or "violent videogames" when discussing something controversial.
Anything you can do to destroy or disrupt the market is attacking the revenue stream that makes the criminals do it in the first place.
All you will do by outlawing the lawful distribution of such violent images, is create MORE black-market demand for them (you would learn this in any introductory-level economics course). And since the law will prevent responsible companies such as kink.com from distributing their material in your country, the citizens who consume this type of pornography will turn to illicit sources of it -- sources much more likely to engage in the kidnapping, raping, and abuse you speak of in order to produce the materials they know people will pay for.
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns, and if you outlaw violent porn, then only outlaws will produce violent porn for profit.
The extreme position taken by many posters on this thread is that, in effect, sexual violence is permissible provided that you cannot find someone to testify against it, and that therefore it is permissible to sell pictures of what may be criminal acts for gain.
The extreme position taken by you on this thread is that, in effect, sexual violence is always impermissible, even if you can find someone to testify that it was consensual, and that therefore it is impermissible to sell pictures of what we know to be consensual acts for gain. I cannot see that as being a rational position.
If you cannot persuade people that they should not pay other people to abuse, rape and beat strangers for their entertainment - then more stringent sanctions are needed.
You asshole, this is exactly the sort of ignorant opinion that Mrs. Longhurst and everyone else who supports this law maintains. You jump to the assumption that violent pornography is not consensual -- have you visited kink.com? You have to stop and consider that the law doesn't outlaw nonconsensual porn, it outlaws porn depicting "injury to the genitals or breasts." As impossible as it might be for some of you to imagine, that is sometimes a consensual activity.
Wow, from the second sentence of the article summary: To me, the object isn't just deterrence -- if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police.
I'd say RTFA but amazingly this seems to be a case of needing to RTFS.
Slashdot Mirror
(Well, it doesn't really, but it sure helps out.)
Oh, but it does, at every level of the economy. If you can't afford to feed yourself, buy water for showers, and rent a quiet place to sleep at night, you simply won't be able to make money. You might try to get a job, but without food in your stomach, good hygiene, and a rested mind, you'll be fired quickly.
Granted, there are some opportunities in the world to get food, water, and shelter for free, making it possible to make money without having money yourself. But if no one is willing to spend that money on you, you can't make money.
250gb a month would be over 8gb a day, assuming a 31-day month (the worst-case scenario)
Some of us have to live with roommates.
Hopefully this media coverage doesn't cause people to move to the town in droves. Since only 1,300 people live there now, you wouldn't need too many new residents to make it only 50% or 25% wind powered!
I should RTFA more, but if you really wanted to pwn that softball, linking http://www.mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx would have done nicely.
http://www.mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx
Q: How does Glider work?
A: Glider works a lot like a regular player. It looks at your health, mana, energy, etc. It moves the mouse around and pushes keys on the keyboard. You tell it about your character, where you want to kill things, and what to kill. Then it kills for you, automatically. You can do something else, like eat dinner or go to a movie, and when you return, you'll have a lot more experience and loot.
By having 'Glided' your way to 70 I am guessing that your ability to play your class will be about as good as someone who bought their account on ebay.
You nublet, this is like saying that people who use macros don't know how to play the game. It isn't a "cheat", you don't just install the program and wait for it to auto-level you to 70, it is nothing like buying a character on e-bay.
For the record, I quit that glorified hamster wheel a long time ago.
If I had mod points, I would mod you informative, and that would be funny.
I work for a university, and it's so bureaucratic that if a professor wants to install Skype on a classroom computer (to incorporate a telecommuting student into his master's software class), he can't even get the administrator's password to do so from the manager of our department -- whoever has that password, the man is in another building. It ended up being simpler to do this really archaic "phone-bridge" thing than it was for the professor to just install Skype.
I haven't worked much in the corporate world, but my hunch is that if you go to your head of IT, in a company that uses, say, nothing but Windows XP PC's, and ask to be the only employee using a different system and operating system, they will see that as extra work at best and as a dire security hazard at worst.
If employees can successfully persuade employers to let them use Macs for productivity, does this mean that it has become easier to do the same for GNU+Linux as well?
You are basically trading apples for lemons here (not to say that you can't make lemonade). Macs have a reputation for being expensive and easy-to-use; GNU+Linux has a reputation for being free and hard-to-use. It all depends on what your employer's priorities are (and how deep the company's pocketbooks are at the time). If you work in sales, you will have an easier time convincing the team to switch to macs. If you work in high-level software architecture design, you will have an easier time convincing the team to switch to GNU+Linux.
I'm sorry, I think "news for nerds, stuff that matters" covers medicine, politics, and social sciences. Try to stop clicking your ball-point pen and snapping your suspenders in unbridled rage whenever someone suggests that something besides computers is nerdy, you're making the rest of us look like idiots.
So that means that he gets to present arguments that would support his ability to appeal on constitutionality. Pretty circuitous.
The Supreme Court isn't required to review every case that is appealed; they can look at the previous decision and decide that there is nothing to be considered differently. In order for the Supreme Court to review a case, they must first grant what's called a "Writ of Certiorari," which requires that 4 out of 9 judges deem it worthy of appeal.
They could just use a Curta.
It's far out, I know, but some of us actually would rather have good S&R than loads of other things that our taxes go toward.
Like multi-billion dollar wars. Why do we have to foot the bill for the war you started? I say we apply the same principle: if the country wants to go to war, then the citizens who want to should have to open up their own wallets and pay for it.
This law doesn't assist anyone in parenting well, it enables bad parenting.
Refusing to educate your kids about sex, drugs, and violence before they are exposed to such themes in life is naive and ignorant, and it will make your kids grow into naive and ignorant adults. You can not expect the world to censor itself all of the time just because you haven't educated your children. Books have gone for hundreds of years without being rated for lewdness or censored; I don't think anyone was scarred for life when Shakespeare made some comment or other about "the beast with two backs."
And even if you do go so far as to censor Shakespeare (an explicit writer, especially by some hyper-conservative modern standards), how will you keep little Johnny at school from telling your kid all about sex? After all, there a lot of kids at school, and you can't expect that all of their parents are also planning on sheltering their children from the whole world until they are 18 -- you should assume that if you aren't educating your kids about sex, drugs and violence before they go to school, that their peers are educating them (and their peers will surely have less wisdom about such matters).
Brilliant satire, but no, it doesn't assist you in parenting well, it enables your bad parenting. Refusing to educate your kids about sex, drugs, and violence before they are exposed to such themes in life is naive and ignorant, it will make your kids grow into naive and ignorant adults, and expecting the world to censor itself because you think teaching your kids how the world works is an "unreasonable large burden" just shows that you don't have what it takes to be an effective parent. Books have gone for hundreds of years without being rated for lewdness or censored; I don't think anyone was scarred for life when Shakespeare made some comment or other about "the beast with two backs."
Drunk driving is not a game, and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable.
Drunk driving might not be a game, but drunk driving inside of a game is certainly a game. When someone makes a game about war, nobody starts jumping up and down, screaming "war is not a game, and it is not a joke." They also don't start demanding that the game be taken off of the market immediately in order to show respect to the victims of war. Face it, gamers "do" things in games that they would never do in real life, because they understand that the consequences of their actions in the game world are not important, or even real. MADD seems to have trouble distinguishing between real drunk driving and virtual drunk driving.
I mean, we're talking about a game where you shoot cops and traffic cocaine for money; I think people understand that GTA characters do not make healthy long-term life decisions and that they would make terrible role models. Just because it's a game about mature topics doesn't mean it's going to corrupt the very moral fabric of society (if you put stock in such quaint notions) and turn us all into raging drunk drivers.
Hell, I don't even have a car, I'm a poor college student who rides the bus.
but that seems to go against Vista. I don't want a machine that's having its resources hogged up by a crappy OS
But it isn't crappy and it doesn't hog. You can't just trust reviewers to be objective without trying it yourself.
Why, you ask? Because gamers and enthusiasts are always on the bleeding edge in terms of graphics technologies, and Microsoft, in their profane, demonic genius, have made DirectX 10 only available on Vista. In other words, for me to get the biggest bang for my buck out of a current-generation card (in my case a Direct X 10.1 compatible, Radeon 3870x2), I have to run Vista. Additionally, while this is not a Vista-specific feature, I'm running a 64-bit OS to take advantage of 4gb of system RAM (2x2GB Corsair "Dominator" 1066mhz DDR2).
Now, the earliest Vista adopters will be gamers and the like -- this is a large target market, and practically 100% of it is guaranteed to move to Vista solely due to DirectX 10. They will help float the company until the more widespread adoption of Vista begins. See, as computer hardware continues to develop, it will become cheaper and more common to have ~2GB of system RAM; current-generation DirectX 10 cards selling for $400 will fall in price to $100 or $50; in other words, the falling price of hardware will make adopting Vista in the future easier. Now, since we're in the future, Microsoft's support for Windows XP has long expired. This means that a wide array of new hacks that compromise the operating system will begin to emerge, as is the usual, except in this case Microsoft won't fix them because XP is no longer "supported." So, assuming you can even find a copy of XP to install, you're essentially installing an inferior product due to discontinued development. Now, also because we're in the future, Crysis probably costs about $20. The budget computer you just bought for $300 is capable of running it. Are you going to pass up the opportunity simply because you don't like M$, and refuse to install Vista? For most, the answer is no. Why? Well, not installing Vista would be harder than installing it (you'd have to find an XP copy, or god forbid, learn Linux), and it would also be less beneficial. Not to mention that many of the early adopters we mentioned earlier (those graphics obsessed gamers) are generally considered the "technically literate" in the social circles they travel in. In other words, people will ask them their opinion of Vista. And since they've used it, they'll tell all of their friends who are considering it that it works great!
Now, let me say that, as an enthusiast, I'm entirely satisfied with Vista SP1. A list of common applications that work in Vista so far has included Hamachi, Steam, Catalyst, Daemon Tools Lite, Azureus, Soulseek, iTunes, Firefox, Avast! Antivirus, Adobe Reader, and WinRAR. Vista was certainly cumbersome on it's initial release, but it is now quite palatable. It even came with the drivers for my Realtek onboard sound already installed, which was impressive, as I have tried to install the Realtek drivers manually on many motherboards and XP installations, usually to such complete, utter, and stunning failure that I ended up just buying a $30 Soundblaster Audigy to stick into any computer whose onboard sound refused to function.
Is this legit or is it a w0rm or tr0j4n? Anyone care enough to check? I don't, I'm running 64-bit Windows Vista. How else would I take advantage of my DirectX 10.1 compatible Radeon 3870x2 and my 2x2GB Corsair "Dominator" DDR2 System RAM?
I'm so tired of these greedy companies. News Corp was already making plenty of money.
Uh, does it hurt anything for them to continue? Is it bad for them to improve their platform? By your logic, we should never have invented the automobile, because we were already making plenty of money selling bicycles and donkey-carts. Stupid greedy companies, not keeping us in the stone age.
You're the fucking idiot.
While there is a market for violent pornography or child pornography, criminals will supply it. In doing so I doubt they will consider the civil rights of those forced to take part.
Criminals are not the ones supplying the market with violent pornography, legitimate companies like kink.com based out of San Francisco are the ones supplying us, and yes, they do consider the civil rights of their paid, consenting models; all models are provided with a safeword and can end the shoot at any time. Also, this debate is about violent porn, not child porn, so please try to stay on topic -- although I do understand how hard it is for you rabble rousers to avoid saying buzzwords like "child pornography" or "violent videogames" when discussing something controversial.
Anything you can do to destroy or disrupt the market is attacking the revenue stream that makes the criminals do it in the first place.
All you will do by outlawing the lawful distribution of such violent images, is create MORE black-market demand for them (you would learn this in any introductory-level economics course). And since the law will prevent responsible companies such as kink.com from distributing their material in your country, the citizens who consume this type of pornography will turn to illicit sources of it -- sources much more likely to engage in the kidnapping, raping, and abuse you speak of in order to produce the materials they know people will pay for.
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns, and if you outlaw violent porn, then only outlaws will produce violent porn for profit.
The extreme position taken by many posters on this thread is that, in effect, sexual violence is permissible provided that you cannot find someone to testify against it, and that therefore it is permissible to sell pictures of what may be criminal acts for gain.
The extreme position taken by you on this thread is that, in effect, sexual violence is always impermissible, even if you can find someone to testify that it was consensual, and that therefore it is impermissible to sell pictures of what we know to be consensual acts for gain. I cannot see that as being a rational position.
If you cannot persuade people that they should not pay other people to abuse, rape and beat strangers for their entertainment - then more stringent sanctions are needed.
You asshole, this is exactly the sort of ignorant opinion that Mrs. Longhurst and everyone else who supports this law maintains. You jump to the assumption that violent pornography is not consensual -- have you visited kink.com? You have to stop and consider that the law doesn't outlaw nonconsensual porn, it outlaws porn depicting "injury to the genitals or breasts." As impossible as it might be for some of you to imagine, that is sometimes a consensual activity.
Any high school kid who has done competitive mock trial could tell you all of this, so shut the fuck up, troll.
I'd say RTFA but amazingly this seems to be a case of needing to RTFS.