I think your graphic artist is very talented and has a great carrier ahead.

I hope you can work it out--that is sooo cute

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks, I'll let my graphic artist know :

I was hoping to use it, unaltered, as my Christmas avatar... unfortunately it is too faint and too pink when used this way. I'm now considering what I need to do to it to make it suitable. I suspect using the antlers and Christmas hat on my current avatar is going to be the easiest approach, requiring only three or four layers. It's possible that some colour massaging and clever downsampling might make it "just work" but I am not holding my breath.
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Great pic!

Thanks, I'll let my graphic artist know

I was hoping to use it, unaltered, as my Christmas avatar... unfortunately it is too faint and too pink when used this way. I'm now considering what I need to do to it to make it suitable. I suspect using the antlers and Christmas hat on my current avatar is going to be the easiest approach, requiring only three or four layers. It's possible that some colour massaging and clever downsampling might make it "just work" but I am not holding my breath.
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Great pic!

Thats fine, I do not understand why you felt the need to write that entire paragraph though. Who exactly are you talking to ?

This video glorifies all aspects of the vehicle because it is used in such scenarios, and its a commercial for it, commercials tend to list attributes the focus of the video is about.

In reply to this comment by A10anis:
I'm not so naive as to think that vehicles like these are not necessary. But I cannot up-vote a video which, along with its commendable peace time abilities, glorifies its effective killing capabilities. One day we, hopefully, will no longer need killing machines, but don't hold your breath, that time is waaayyyy off in the future.

I'm not so naive as to think that vehicles like these are not necessary. But I cannot up-vote a video which, along with its commendable peace time abilities, glorifies its effective killing capabilities. One day we, hopefully, will no longer need killing machines, but don't hold your breath, that time is waaayyyy off in the future.

I'm not holding my breath...I don't give a shit about pretty much anything. Unless they tried interfering with not giving a shit...then that means war.>> ^cosmovitelli:

The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant.
Their intentions and assumption of international authority demands urgent criminal prosecution. Or would you rather wait till they start ideological interference with something you do give a shit about?

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

don't hold your breath for either.>> ^quantumushroom:

Plenty of arrogant religionists, yes, but I expect to meet Christ Himself before finding a humble atheist.

Don't get me wrong. id was once great. This fucking nerd has gotten really full of himself though. They're not really relevant anymore. id is a bunch of fucking tryhards now. They haven't put out a quality release since Quake.

It kind of makes me sad to see how they let commercialization ruin the quality of their productions.

I'll give Rage the benefit of the doubt until I see it, of course, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Sorry Johnny.

edit - and from watching this, it's obvious this thing is going to suffer from huge amounts of consolitis on the PC. He can make any apologetic excuses he wants to make, but the fact of the matter is, he's chasing the the money rather than the passion. Ignorant suckers on consoles will buy this up and he leaves PC players out to dry because it's cheaper and easier to develop for consoles, so it's going to look and play like shit on PC. Sad to see the state of gaming these days.

>> ^marbles:

I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?


My point is victimhood isn't part of what constitutes a crime. My larger point is you're constantly using "is" when what you mean to say is "should be". A crime is a violation of law. You may believe that there shouldn't be laws against activities that don't have a particularized victim, but that doesn't mean prostitution isn't a crime, it means you think it shouldn't be a crime.

It's the difference between telling someone "I am the richest man in the world," and "I should be the richest man in the world."

>> ^marbles:
We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.

So anything you feel entitled to, you're entitled to?

Moreover, primitive man had lots of impulses -- rape women that were caught their fancy, steal from people too weak to stop them, kill people they didn't like, etc. Then you get to the more grand delusional impulses, like "I speak for the Sun god, so do as I say or he'll burn you for eternity after you die".

The feeling of entitlement to enclose and deny the use of portions of nature to others likely only came about after agriculture, and even then largely in the form tribal land ownership, not individual ownership.

>> ^marbles:
Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.

It seems to me that there's a lot more than 2 options. Over here in my way of seeing the world, property is just a social convention. I am my body, I don't merely own it.

Ownership is meaningless when there's no one else around. Ownership is meaningless if there's no societal impetus to adhere to the convention of property.

So on the score of "self-ownership", I mostly think your relationship to your body is qualitatively different from the relationship to inanimate objects you might acquire through labor or other economic interactions. Taking my property is stealing, taking my body is kidnapping. Damaging property isn't the same as violent assault on a person. Trespassing is not equivalent to rape.

>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...>> ^marbles:
LOL@“We're being polite”
Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.


I used the pronoun "we" because I think that paragraph was descriptive of several of the people who engaged with you here, not just me.

I think you misunderstand my meaning when I labeled it as being "the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty", I'm mostly just pointing out that the definition you're presenting is just one view of the concept, and not the defining conception of liberty. I'm not pigeonholing it and dismissing it, I'm just saying that the proper phrasing here is "This is what liberty is to me", not "This is what liberty is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".

My view of liberty is no less valid than yours, and if you assert that it is invalid without demonstrating even a rough working knowledge of what I (or even liberals generally) actually believe, then it's you who's pigeonholing and dismissing things, not me.

As far as "the guy warning about black and white thinking", I'm mostly just in favor of thinking. It seems to me that if you go around believing that there are some simple, arbitrary rules that govern all of human morality, and refuse to entertain any skeptical critique of the nature or validity of those rules, then that's not thinking.

>> ^NetRunner:
Violating the speed limit is a crime. There's no victim.I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm a human, and I have a mind. I have no earthly idea what you think natural rights are, or why I should care about them.

I have my own reasons for what I believe, and how I approach the concept of rights, and it's clearly different from yours. How can that be possible, if "natural rights" are wired into us?We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.
>> ^NetRunner:

This is really the crux of the dispute in all your myriad conversations on this video. You seem to think anyone who asks you to think about what you're saying is just trying to trick you somehow.Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.
>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...LOL@“We're being polite”

Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.

Better control and lower impurities than ever before, means smaller, faster devices and higher yields. Moores Law continues.



This is an investor-seeking video. It's not even in a proof-of-concept stage from the looks of it. They have nothing to exhibit because they're seeking investors to help them figure out if their idea is even viable. They're nowhere near a solution, and I'll bet they run into plenty of roadblocks before they're close to one. They try to make it sound simple, like they've got it all figured out, but they're no Intel, or even AMD/ATI.

Good luck, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you're missing the point, that's partially what it's trying to be, a really refined, arcade shooter with over the top enemies and by the looks of it some driving sequences thrown in for good measure (see other videos).

Everything about it looks polished, the design is consistent and detailed, and the animations are incredibly fluid. Hopefully they'll tack on a decent story to go along with it, but I'm neither holding my breath nor going to be particularly disappointed if they don't.

Not quite understanding how you can call it dull and tedious. If anything it's being held back by the fact it's obviously being played with a gamepad. Neither do I think this will require a particularly powerful PC to play. For one, this is the company that made the Quake 3 engine which was widely used by other developers in its prime, for another, check out the engine adaptation of this to the iPhone, if anything it looks highly optimised. >> ^netean:

This game feels like it's been in development nearly as long as Duke Nukem Forever - I remember seeing early footage just after Quake 4 launched.
Tragic to think that after all this time, all this development and money, they've made a very visually stunning game that looks quite dull and tedious. To my eye looks exactly the same as Quake 4/3/2/1 Doom etc just with better graphics.
So essentially this is Quake 1 but you'll still need to invest an a top of the line new gaming rig just to get more than 15fps.
ID Games: a 1 trick pony that seem to think if they up the graphics enough time no one will notice the total lack of originality!

This is an interesting 'crossroads' period of time right now. The military achieved a 'moon landing' objective, and now everyone looks around and notices the billions it took and the things we didn't spend that money on (not to mention the domestic spying).

If nothing happens on U.S. soil to roil things up before the next election I can easily imagine 2nd-term Obama stumbling across his Constitution Law Prof. notes and going '... ooh yeah, thats right... I should probably work on quietly cleaning up this domestic spying thing.'

If something does happen,... we'll probably have predator drones patrolling the school yards of America.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)


Don't forget about repealing the Patriot Act. Maybe also get out of Iraq? Maybe we close our over 700 military bases in more than 135 countries?

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)

>> ^ghark:

MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.


And you seem to be falling for the "if it's not perfect let's stomp our feet and hold our breath until it is" mentality. You're not going to get your way overnight, and there are real people who are really suffering who will really be helped by this legislation.

If you want to campaign for a single-payer universal health plan, I will support it. But if I have the choice between 'marginal improvement' and 'continue the downward spiral', you're damn right I will take the lesser of two evils.

Like I said before, Obama (like any other human being) simply isn't capable of providing real reform while there are so many morons with their heads up their asses in the general public, not to mention congress.