I absolutely agree that the fatality you described is completely in bad taste. Horrible taste. No, TASTELESS. Just fucked up beyond belief. I don't want to play that game. I don't ever want to see that. I'm not buying this new Mortal Kombat, and I will enthusiastically try to convince anyone who is buying the game that they shouldn't, mostly on the bad taste and judgement the makers of this game displayed.
And that's how I think it should be.
I think the supreme court decision is still right though. Just because selling MK to a child is not a criminal offense doesn't mean every retailer is falling over themselves to push this violent, idiotic product onto children.
I just don't want people deciding that showing violence to children is illegal. Already after we're completely saturated in it everywhere. If we made showing violent videogames to children a crime, then we HAVE to follow up with movies and books. Then we have this huge "banned for children" media list rolling around, accreting who knows what.
I just don't think it's that dangerous. I don't want people able to sell my child alcohol because it may endanger and harm him. But having him watch that fatality, while EXTREMELY unfavorable, won't kill him. Probably scare and disgust this hell out of him and give him nightmares, which is why I won't ever let him see it, but I don't view it as imminent harm.
I think as a community we can self regulate good taste. Human Centipede was a movie that totally got made, and is totally legal for our children to buy. But I haven't really heard of a rash of kids getting a hold of it and watching it, probably because a decent portion of our community wouldn't even waste their time acquiring that movie.
As for violence versus sex: We've gone overboard for what we consider sexual obscenity. full on closeup hardcore pornography is, a woman breastfeeding isn't. That doesn't matter though because there's a prevailing belief that showing ANY naughty part automatically makes something pornography. See the superbowl wardrobe malfunction. We need to ease up on our definition for sexual obscenity otherwise the arguments against regulating and child-banning media lose credibility
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and imagine you are not a U.S. citizen, so you have no idea about or past rulings by our highest court, the US Supreme Court.
A minor cannot buy pornography because most pornography is classified as "obscene." And the court has ruled that speech that is obscenity can be regulated by the government, which is oftentimes realized as preventing minors purchase. I guess that explains the legal why to why a minor can't purchase pornography, but I can tell you're more interested in ethical why.
Why is violence more acceptable than sex? Because in our culture...violence is more acceptable than sex. Maybe because we were Puritans, and maybe we were bloodthirsty, but somehow American culture evolved to accept violence more than sex.
But you cannot deny that our social values are changing. Sex is becoming more and more ubiquitous and accepted in American culture as the years roll on. It permeates our advertising and media which is continually pushing the limit. Eventually I can see a day where the two reach parity.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what is going to happen. I've heard rumors of them building huge datacenters for hosting media files and it looks like they're going to move your itunes library to the cloud. Combine that with the iphone and apple TV and you'll be watching movies on the ride home and then switch to the tv as soon as you get in the door.
I looked at the diagram and it showed that it needs to be hooked up to a charge and ground? It looks like they are just transferring the charge into capacitors while using the salt as an electrolyte?
I'm sure this works, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it seriously, but my primitive mind can't see WHERE the net energy is coming from the salt water.
As an iPhone developer I have to say THANK YOU! All these patents fall completely under what is going on with the iphone. If you check out most iphone games you can see that they have the option to listen to your iTunes while playing the game.
I've been talking to my coworkers about these rumors of an "Apple console, finally" and I have to tell you it already happened, the iPhone touch OS is it.
I know by your handle this is going to fall on deaf ears but:
Your theoretical example is perfectly logical. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time transferring it to a real world example in my company, or other companies.
Now if one person made oranges and the other made gold bars it would make perfect sense. But people don't "make" oranges. They pick them. Or they plant them. Or they tell people when to pick them or plant them. Or they supervise people who tell other people when to pick or plant or water them. A little more complicated now right?
What people produce isn't really goods, it is "work" that is added to things to make them more valuable. Turning a lump of clay into a statue. Turning libraries and code into programs. Turning ore into metal. Turning disparate data into a useful statistical analysis for the rest of the company.
Unless you're talking about yesteryear artisans and craftsmen, you're going to be hard pressed to find a person who completely produces a good with no help. In fact, some would say the whole point of modern industrialization is that we take complicated things and break them down so we can move any person around and still produce the same good.
And when the production isn't an assembly line anymore and becomes this complex web of people who do jobs which effects are near impossible to quantify, well I would say hugely differing salaries are not as defensible. Plus having this "artificial" limit tells the employees that if there is a rising tide, it will raise all ships. People like fairness and equality and the feeling that someone gives a damn about you and if this policy accomplishes that, good for them.
You're the only one I found making a lick of sense here. What the question should be is "Which phone to develop for FIRST?" Why in the world are you going to limit yourself to one phone?
Take this guy's advice: standardize your interface, abstract things into layers and code well. If you do this right you should be able to port your applications over to the other phone platforms and as a byproduct create reuseable code. Trust me, I work for a phone developer and we write our applications to work on our own api. Then we simply implement the libraries for each platform and with some tweaking we get all our applications working.
It's good coding, and it's good practice. If you really have a good idea and it takes off it will make all the future work easier.
Having automated buses and solving oil dependency are orthogonal to each other. I don't know what's wrong with you, or what you're thinking, but not every single technological advance has to solve the oil depletion problem.
Besides, they made no mention that the buses have to be gasoline powered in order for the automation to work. Actually in my neck of the woods we have electric and natural gas buses, and I've heard about hydrogen powered buses as well.
Also, an efficient 21st century rail system is a great idea but I doubt they're going to lay track from my block to my downtown. Buses will have their place for a long time, if not to just be the "last mile" of mass transit from a hub to your block.
I really think its wonderful what they're doing, road sensor based tracking is probably going to be the technology that wins, not optical recognition. Especially for things like buses with set routes. And as for you saying
Why would we automate the driving of vehicles when there is a serious unemployment problem? Automating the driving would greatly reduce the jobs for drivers. Isn't the Teamsters Union rather strong?
That's ridiculous. Automation is the cornerstone of our civilization. FREEING ourselves from needing bus drivers means we have more utility to do other things. Even if it does immediately put people out of a job, In the long run it will be ultimately beneficial.
I was a boyscout. I was in it since graduating Cub scouts and stayed in until venture scouts. While not getting my eagle, I was very active and did a lot.
Boy scouts to me was all about hanging out with my friends, going camping, going backpacking, shooting guns, making lashing structures, sailing, swimming, cooking, basket weaving, learning first aid and emergency prep, knot tying, metal working and a whole host of other things. Boy scouts was where I was introduced to DnD, the best thing to play when your'e out in the wilderness with absolutely no electricity and only your imagination. It was a wonderful experience, now as an adult my fellow scouts are my best friends and the scoutmasters are revered mentors. It helped me grow into a Man, and if I have a boy I will more than likely enroll him.
The point is, our troop was nothing more than boys and their dads. We don't have some clergy like the church ruling our actions. In fact the scout leaders FORCED us to do EVERYTHING. We planned the trips, the meals, the transportation, the meetings, the lessons. They merely assisted and guided. What this means is that all the talk I hear now of homophobia and anti-atheist discrimination is a kind of surprise. It NEVER came up in my troop, I'd say a good majority of them weren't associated with any religion.
The troop's views are the sum of its constituents. It's not that The Boy Scouts are passing down from on high that no gay kids are allowed. Hell I think we had at least one in our troop. Did it make a difference? No, the whole thing was about having fun, not excluding people.
I'm sure that the troops that make the news with this, and the top level administration pandering to their evangelical base are simply made up of people who think homosexuality is a sin and atheists are immoral. Don't forget a good portion of America DOES think this. It's a reflection of a portion of the population.
So know, that yes there are liberal troops out there that don't concern themselves with exclusion, only with the boys and making their lives better. I'm a testament to it, and I'm certain there's hundreds others like me. As time rolls the general views of America's population will change, and then so will the Scouts. Until then, denying them them help, when helping would teach an excellent lesson is unecessarily mean. I know that I will try to help if this project comes around. All the boys don't deserve to be punished for what wrong people say.
I think the wording here should be that poisoning the botnet would be the MORAL thing to do (Stopping the botnet is a good thing for all!) But it would not be the ETHICAL thing to do (Respecting people's privacy is the rule that we hold to).
And in all dilemmas between morals and ethics the "right" thing to do must be weighed very carefully, there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied carte-blanche.
You're creating an extra case. You're choosing door 1 twice as more as you choose door 2 or 3 which is skewing the results. Since the second "host reveal" is a subchoice of your original choice, the outcome of the first two events should be weighted half as much as the two successive events
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR. * 1/6
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 3. NO CAR. * 1/6
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR. * 1/3
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR. * 1/3
Now the results will match those of the parent. Imagine this as a tree structure, where only the first branch actually branches again into 2 leaves, while the other branches simply end in leaf nodes. Simply counting the leaf nodes as all having equal probabilities is an error. I hope this explains it adequately, probability was never my strong suit.:)
Hey I coded renderers for sparse voxel octrees of LIDAR data! I feel kinship! And your point completely make sense. Concentrate on where it is necessary, and let the rest be approximated. You can even write algorithms that adaptively increase/decrease quality depending on the hardware it is running on at runtime.
What news requires is synthesis, taking information from all around the world, creating context, and informing people of what it all means. User generated news will never be able to compete with someone who is paid to investigate, understand and report professionally.
Unfortunately modern American news (from what I've seen) has completely dropped true synthesis in fear of bias. The false dichotomy of that there are 2 sides to every issue, even factual ones, is what makes news into simple parroting of press releases and dry facts, pushing all synthesis to the realm of punditry, which has no credibility whatsoever.
So while user-generated news is probably rising, and traditional news outlets are probably hurting in a big way lately, I think it's all because the news lost its spine and won't concentrate on what makes news great. A new organization will probably rise over CNN, Fox, MSNBC.....but the AP won't die.
I came in here to say the exact same thing. I picked up the Orange Box a little while ago and I'm playing through Half Life 2 for the first time in my life. Never before have I played a game with such a rich linear level design, that simultaneously feels "real" but also subtly guides you along. The areas nearly never get boring, and are all memorable.
The commentary tracks, especially in Portal, are invaluable if you want to design a good game. There they tell you, step by step, how to introduce completely new game concepts, present puzzles, and pace the player to create a unified theme and experience.
Both are works of art in my opinion.
I've played nearly every Zelda game ever made, just not the gameboy ones and that horrid skeleton in our closet on the CD-I. I've saved the eponymous princess countless times. And i can tell you that I do have sympathetic feelings for the writer of this article. This latest Zelda did feel "new" but nothing really TRULY surprised me like when I found out what the blue Ring did in the original Legend of Zelda. The sameness of elements in the game are beginning to not be interesting anymore, and that's truly a shame.
But you have to consider the consequences of "updating" Zelda. Could you even call a game part of the series if it doesn't pay tribute to its predecessors? Take out the Master Sword? Get rid of boomerangs and bombs? No more temples/dungeons/labyrinths? Why even have the main protagonist a green clad boy named Link? Make it a high-powered business woman set on mars. There we go. Change for change's sake.
What I'm trying to say is that Zelda has basically completely defined a whole genre of action/adventure/puzzle game. How many times have you heard the adjective "Zelda-like?" The game itself defines other games that copy its gameplay mechanics. We can't change that core of the game, that IS the game. If you are tired of exploring dungeons and getting items that give you new abilities, well stop playing this goddamn game then. (Also take a good hard look at all the other games you have to play too) And don't take out that tired line that they don't change the specific settings and elements. Zelda 2: the adventures of Link had nearly nothing in common with the first, and now the things it's introduced have become standard. Majora's Mask changed the way you played the game. And Wind Waker completely changed the setting and introduced new characters and items.
So piss off. Leave my game alone. I like knowing that in this world, this game will always have things that are the same. We all enjoy it. And the day we stop enjoying it and get tired of it I sure hope to hell they don't create a new edgier, flashier update called Shadow the Link where Link has a gun and a emo haircut.
When we get tired of elements of Zelda, we will be tired of Zelda itself and it will end
What I have always wanted out of car is something where each wheel can be independently turned, and they're all hooked up to their own three stage induction electric motor. Can you imagine the driving you could pull off in that thing, given full complete control? You could strafe, slide, maybe even spin in place. Ah, the things dreams are made of.
I'm not worried in the slightest about our children using the whole proper internet.
"He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer."
The fact that my mind adds in Judy Garland instantly is what worries me.
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely agree that the fatality you described is completely in bad taste. Horrible taste. No, TASTELESS. Just fucked up beyond belief. I don't want to play that game. I don't ever want to see that. I'm not buying this new Mortal Kombat, and I will enthusiastically try to convince anyone who is buying the game that they shouldn't, mostly on the bad taste and judgement the makers of this game displayed.
And that's how I think it should be.
I think the supreme court decision is still right though. Just because selling MK to a child is not a criminal offense doesn't mean every retailer is falling over themselves to push this violent, idiotic product onto children.
I just don't want people deciding that showing violence to children is illegal. Already after we're completely saturated in it everywhere. If we made showing violent videogames to children a crime, then we HAVE to follow up with movies and books. Then we have this huge "banned for children" media list rolling around, accreting who knows what.
I just don't think it's that dangerous. I don't want people able to sell my child alcohol because it may endanger and harm him. But having him watch that fatality, while EXTREMELY unfavorable, won't kill him. Probably scare and disgust this hell out of him and give him nightmares, which is why I won't ever let him see it, but I don't view it as imminent harm.
I think as a community we can self regulate good taste. Human Centipede was a movie that totally got made, and is totally legal for our children to buy. But I haven't really heard of a rash of kids getting a hold of it and watching it, probably because a decent portion of our community wouldn't even waste their time acquiring that movie.
As for violence versus sex: We've gone overboard for what we consider sexual obscenity. full on closeup hardcore pornography is, a woman breastfeeding isn't. That doesn't matter though because there's a prevailing belief that showing ANY naughty part automatically makes something pornography. See the superbowl wardrobe malfunction. We need to ease up on our definition for sexual obscenity otherwise the arguments against regulating and child-banning media lose credibility
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and imagine you are not a U.S. citizen, so you have no idea about or past rulings by our highest court, the US Supreme Court.
A minor cannot buy pornography because most pornography is classified as "obscene." And the court has ruled that speech that is obscenity can be regulated by the government, which is oftentimes realized as preventing minors purchase. I guess that explains the legal why to why a minor can't purchase pornography, but I can tell you're more interested in ethical why.
Why is violence more acceptable than sex? Because in our culture...violence is more acceptable than sex. Maybe because we were Puritans, and maybe we were bloodthirsty, but somehow American culture evolved to accept violence more than sex.
But you cannot deny that our social values are changing. Sex is becoming more and more ubiquitous and accepted in American culture as the years roll on. It permeates our advertising and media which is continually pushing the limit. Eventually I can see a day where the two reach parity.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what is going to happen. I've heard rumors of them building huge datacenters for hosting media files and it looks like they're going to move your itunes library to the cloud. Combine that with the iphone and apple TV and you'll be watching movies on the ride home and then switch to the tv as soon as you get in the door.
That is too real to be funny to me :(
I looked at the diagram and it showed that it needs to be hooked up to a charge and ground? It looks like they are just transferring the charge into capacitors while using the salt as an electrolyte?
I'm sure this works, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it seriously, but my primitive mind can't see WHERE the net energy is coming from the salt water.
Could someone help me out and explain?
Thanks!
From my experience I can already tell you:
"Good enough product in November (early November!)"
And how do you celebrate something that is sad, tragic and unlucky?
With humor!
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=197
As an iPhone developer I have to say THANK YOU! All these patents fall completely under what is going on with the iphone. If you check out most iphone games you can see that they have the option to listen to your iTunes while playing the game. I've been talking to my coworkers about these rumors of an "Apple console, finally" and I have to tell you it already happened, the iPhone touch OS is it.
I know by your handle this is going to fall on deaf ears but:
Your theoretical example is perfectly logical. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time transferring it to a real world example in my company, or other companies.
Now if one person made oranges and the other made gold bars it would make perfect sense. But people don't "make" oranges. They pick them. Or they plant them. Or they tell people when to pick them or plant them. Or they supervise people who tell other people when to pick or plant or water them. A little more complicated now right?
What people produce isn't really goods, it is "work" that is added to things to make them more valuable. Turning a lump of clay into a statue. Turning libraries and code into programs. Turning ore into metal. Turning disparate data into a useful statistical analysis for the rest of the company.
Unless you're talking about yesteryear artisans and craftsmen, you're going to be hard pressed to find a person who completely produces a good with no help. In fact, some would say the whole point of modern industrialization is that we take complicated things and break them down so we can move any person around and still produce the same good.
And when the production isn't an assembly line anymore and becomes this complex web of people who do jobs which effects are near impossible to quantify, well I would say hugely differing salaries are not as defensible. Plus having this "artificial" limit tells the employees that if there is a rising tide, it will raise all ships. People like fairness and equality and the feeling that someone gives a damn about you and if this policy accomplishes that, good for them.
Ah crap I modded you redundant instead of insightful too!
Wow, yeah I think this is a new low for slashdot, not only did he not RTFA he didn't RTFS and apparently only RTFH.
You're the only one I found making a lick of sense here. What the question should be is "Which phone to develop for FIRST?" Why in the world are you going to limit yourself to one phone?
Take this guy's advice: standardize your interface, abstract things into layers and code well. If you do this right you should be able to port your applications over to the other phone platforms and as a byproduct create reuseable code. Trust me, I work for a phone developer and we write our applications to work on our own api. Then we simply implement the libraries for each platform and with some tweaking we get all our applications working.
It's good coding, and it's good practice. If you really have a good idea and it takes off it will make all the future work easier.
Having automated buses and solving oil dependency are orthogonal to each other. I don't know what's wrong with you, or what you're thinking, but not every single technological advance has to solve the oil depletion problem.
Besides, they made no mention that the buses have to be gasoline powered in order for the automation to work. Actually in my neck of the woods we have electric and natural gas buses, and I've heard about hydrogen powered buses as well.
Also, an efficient 21st century rail system is a great idea but I doubt they're going to lay track from my block to my downtown. Buses will have their place for a long time, if not to just be the "last mile" of mass transit from a hub to your block.
I really think its wonderful what they're doing, road sensor based tracking is probably going to be the technology that wins, not optical recognition. Especially for things like buses with set routes. And as for you saying
Why would we automate the driving of vehicles when there is a serious unemployment problem? Automating the driving would greatly reduce the jobs for drivers. Isn't the Teamsters Union rather strong?
That's ridiculous. Automation is the cornerstone of our civilization. FREEING ourselves from needing bus drivers means we have more utility to do other things. Even if it does immediately put people out of a job, In the long run it will be ultimately beneficial.
I was a boyscout. I was in it since graduating Cub scouts and stayed in until venture scouts. While not getting my eagle, I was very active and did a lot.
Boy scouts to me was all about hanging out with my friends, going camping, going backpacking, shooting guns, making lashing structures, sailing, swimming, cooking, basket weaving, learning first aid and emergency prep, knot tying, metal working and a whole host of other things. Boy scouts was where I was introduced to DnD, the best thing to play when your'e out in the wilderness with absolutely no electricity and only your imagination. It was a wonderful experience, now as an adult my fellow scouts are my best friends and the scoutmasters are revered mentors. It helped me grow into a Man, and if I have a boy I will more than likely enroll him.
The point is, our troop was nothing more than boys and their dads. We don't have some clergy like the church ruling our actions. In fact the scout leaders FORCED us to do EVERYTHING. We planned the trips, the meals, the transportation, the meetings, the lessons. They merely assisted and guided. What this means is that all the talk I hear now of homophobia and anti-atheist discrimination is a kind of surprise. It NEVER came up in my troop, I'd say a good majority of them weren't associated with any religion.
The troop's views are the sum of its constituents. It's not that The Boy Scouts are passing down from on high that no gay kids are allowed. Hell I think we had at least one in our troop. Did it make a difference? No, the whole thing was about having fun, not excluding people.
I'm sure that the troops that make the news with this, and the top level administration pandering to their evangelical base are simply made up of people who think homosexuality is a sin and atheists are immoral. Don't forget a good portion of America DOES think this. It's a reflection of a portion of the population.
So know, that yes there are liberal troops out there that don't concern themselves with exclusion, only with the boys and making their lives better. I'm a testament to it, and I'm certain there's hundreds others like me. As time rolls the general views of America's population will change, and then so will the Scouts. Until then, denying them them help, when helping would teach an excellent lesson is unecessarily mean. I know that I will try to help if this project comes around. All the boys don't deserve to be punished for what wrong people say.
BE PREPARED.
I think the wording here should be that poisoning the botnet would be the MORAL thing to do (Stopping the botnet is a good thing for all!) But it would not be the ETHICAL thing to do (Respecting people's privacy is the rule that we hold to).
And in all dilemmas between morals and ethics the "right" thing to do must be weighed very carefully, there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied carte-blanche.
You're creating an extra case. You're choosing door 1 twice as more as you choose door 2 or 3 which is skewing the results. Since the second "host reveal" is a subchoice of your original choice, the outcome of the first two events should be weighted half as much as the two successive events
:)
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR. * 1/6
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 3. NO CAR. * 1/6
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR. * 1/3
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR. * 1/3
Now the results will match those of the parent. Imagine this as a tree structure, where only the first branch actually branches again into 2 leaves, while the other branches simply end in leaf nodes. Simply counting the leaf nodes as all having equal probabilities is an error. I hope this explains it adequately, probability was never my strong suit.
Hey I coded renderers for sparse voxel octrees of LIDAR data! I feel kinship! And your point completely make sense. Concentrate on where it is necessary, and let the rest be approximated. You can even write algorithms that adaptively increase/decrease quality depending on the hardware it is running on at runtime.
Hear hear!
What news requires is synthesis, taking information from all around the world, creating context, and informing people of what it all means. User generated news will never be able to compete with someone who is paid to investigate, understand and report professionally.
Unfortunately modern American news (from what I've seen) has completely dropped true synthesis in fear of bias. The false dichotomy of that there are 2 sides to every issue, even factual ones, is what makes news into simple parroting of press releases and dry facts, pushing all synthesis to the realm of punditry, which has no credibility whatsoever.
So while user-generated news is probably rising, and traditional news outlets are probably hurting in a big way lately, I think it's all because the news lost its spine and won't concentrate on what makes news great. A new organization will probably rise over CNN, Fox, MSNBC.....but the AP won't die.
So basically large data transfers aren't ok anymore? Even if you pay for the damn bandwidth? Can we get a class action already?
You pay for bandwidth, you get bandwidth. Lord knows we went long enough without broadband, now they want to destroy and hamstring it? What a waste.
I came in here to say the exact same thing. I picked up the Orange Box a little while ago and I'm playing through Half Life 2 for the first time in my life. Never before have I played a game with such a rich linear level design, that simultaneously feels "real" but also subtly guides you along. The areas nearly never get boring, and are all memorable. The commentary tracks, especially in Portal, are invaluable if you want to design a good game. There they tell you, step by step, how to introduce completely new game concepts, present puzzles, and pace the player to create a unified theme and experience. Both are works of art in my opinion.
I know what they are doing!
Someone doesn't have cable!
I've played nearly every Zelda game ever made, just not the gameboy ones and that horrid skeleton in our closet on the CD-I. I've saved the eponymous princess countless times. And i can tell you that I do have sympathetic feelings for the writer of this article. This latest Zelda did feel "new" but nothing really TRULY surprised me like when I found out what the blue Ring did in the original Legend of Zelda. The sameness of elements in the game are beginning to not be interesting anymore, and that's truly a shame. But you have to consider the consequences of "updating" Zelda. Could you even call a game part of the series if it doesn't pay tribute to its predecessors? Take out the Master Sword? Get rid of boomerangs and bombs? No more temples/dungeons/labyrinths? Why even have the main protagonist a green clad boy named Link? Make it a high-powered business woman set on mars. There we go. Change for change's sake. What I'm trying to say is that Zelda has basically completely defined a whole genre of action/adventure/puzzle game. How many times have you heard the adjective "Zelda-like?" The game itself defines other games that copy its gameplay mechanics. We can't change that core of the game, that IS the game. If you are tired of exploring dungeons and getting items that give you new abilities, well stop playing this goddamn game then. (Also take a good hard look at all the other games you have to play too) And don't take out that tired line that they don't change the specific settings and elements. Zelda 2: the adventures of Link had nearly nothing in common with the first, and now the things it's introduced have become standard. Majora's Mask changed the way you played the game. And Wind Waker completely changed the setting and introduced new characters and items. So piss off. Leave my game alone. I like knowing that in this world, this game will always have things that are the same. We all enjoy it. And the day we stop enjoying it and get tired of it I sure hope to hell they don't create a new edgier, flashier update called Shadow the Link where Link has a gun and a emo haircut. When we get tired of elements of Zelda, we will be tired of Zelda itself and it will end
What I have always wanted out of car is something where each wheel can be independently turned, and they're all hooked up to their own three stage induction electric motor. Can you imagine the driving you could pull off in that thing, given full complete control? You could strafe, slide, maybe even spin in place. Ah, the things dreams are made of.
I'm not worried in the slightest about our children using the whole proper internet. "He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer." The fact that my mind adds in Judy Garland instantly is what worries me.