Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

A few winged devils swooping out the clouds and snatching people up would make this considerably more interesting.

Oooh, cool. Let me just read through and answer what I can.

1) We had a cataclysmic overload on our server when the game launched, so it went down over the weekend of launch. If you still have issues, try closing the app completely and restarting. The daily challenge is like in bubble bobble - you gather the letters in the game, and when you have the full word you win a mystery box.

2) Yes, if the daily challenge is bugging out, you're gonna have a bad time with that mission. The easy fix is that you can pay for a mission skip in the shop, or wait for an update. -_- It should reset and work again after a full restart though.

3) The mystery box is bugged in that you can make it confused if you click with more than one finger. This makes it lose its reference to the labels etc. Essentially, yes, it's a bug and what's far worse, it's MY bug. *cry* It will be fixed in an upcoming patch. I've already done it, it's just waiting for some other features. A hard restart will absolutely fix this.

4) Headstarts: When a game starts, an icon should swoop in from the left with the headstart icons. Clicking them will trigger a big jetpack boost that sends you quite a bit forward in the level. It's great for getting big scores. If that button doesn't show up, it seems something is amiss. Again, do the full restart and try again.

5) Skip missions: There are some missions which can take a lot of time, so we made these so people have a chance to skip the ones they didn't like (or couldn't do for some reason). When you have completed a mission, the skip is removed from the store - if the mission is still completable, it remains in the store. When you complete 3 missions, you get 3 new ones and the skips come back. The plural thing annoys the fuck out of me too, but this time it isn't my mistake. That is fixed in the upcoming patch.

6) Super sneakers are hard to use. The trick is to realize that you can swipe downward while flying/jumping, which gives you quite a lot of control. The really good players in the office love them, I'm like meh. I also avoid them when I can, because I suck at controlling them, heh.

7) 2x multi: There should be a timer in the bottom on all the powerups you pick up, if there's not, then something is bugging out hard. Same advice as before. Hard restart.

You get the tokens in the mystery boxes. When you pass the thresholds, 3, 50 200 and 500, you unlock the characters. You can change characters is Shop -> Characters (switch them on the arrows, and click select). I think the bigger thresholds are very high too, but that's what the other game designers felt was right. When you get more than the threshold, they are redundant at this point. I honestly can't say if they will be used for something, but it's something we have discussed earlier.


Phew, that was a big bit. I hope you're enjoying the game, we'll have some more stuff coming out for it soon enough - if nothing else, it will fix a bunch of bugs.


>> ^Sagemind:

I have a few issues with the game.
first of all - no instructions on how to play.
- how do you get/switch characters
Daily Challenges (JIVE) (no idea what JIVE means)
says "next challenge in 0:00:00" and NEVER Changes - so no new challenges - ever.

Missions
Of the three missions, the first mission is "complete 1 Daily Challenge" (which is not checked).
The other two challenges ("Dodge 20 barriers" & "6000 points in one run") are both completed and checked. This screen never updates or changes - no new missions ever (BUG)
Shopping
Hoverboard - works fine (double tap - got it)
Mystery Box - when I find a mystery box burring game play and tap to see what it is there is text there that never goes away (it reads:"1x Yutani's UFO - tap to open") - left over from a previous reveal) The new text for every reveal since layers over top of that original text making all text unreadable. I have no idea why that old text never goes away. (BUG)
Headstart (250/1000)
Not sure how these work, there is no explanation for them. I've won several through mystery boxes but they never show that I have any and I don't know how to engage them if I had them.
Skip Missions - OK fine, but I'd rather play through, it's like paying to cheat
I only have one skip mission left (Skip mission 1) which will let me skip my daily challenge #1. The challenge is to "Complete 1 daily Challenges" other than being pluraly incorrect, I've already completed the other two challenges and this has not gone away and never will since there is nothing left to trigger this challenge.
Upgrades
Jetpack - works great (fun challenge)
Super Sneakers - haven't mastered these yet. Are they there just to kill me? my guy is so unwieldy, I can't control. I can't stay on the coins because he jumps over them instead of on them and I usually die everytime I get the shoes. I avoid the shoes every chance I get.
Coin Magnet - works great (I only wish it worked this easy in real life )
2x Multiplier
When playing the game, I can't tell if this is working, I may be missing it, but I don't see anything that tells me when this is engaged or has run out.
Characters
How do you switch the characters?
Do you first need to complete/find the items? (for the girl I have 2/3) do I gain access to her once I get 3/3? I've played quite a bt. 3/3 seems doable but the kid with the radio (3/50) the rocker guy (3/200) and alien costumed girl (1/500) would seem IMPOSSIBLE to attain. If it has taken me 5-6 hours to get 1/500, I know I will never get 500/500 before I loose interest in this game.
Also, in the mystery boxes I've had about 4-5 guitars (and likewise for items from different characters - eg. hats). Are these supposed to be counting or are they redundant and I'm supposed to be getting different items for these characters?

OK, that's all I have at the moment. I'll let you know If I see anything else.
So the two bugs I see right away:
-The issue with the challenges never advancing
-The Text issue with the writing when revealing the Mystery Box
If you know of any fixes for my issues, let me know - Thanks

Cocaine is a hell of a drug!

>> ^bareboards2:

This is an absolute true story --
My friend was driving me back from the airport about 10 pm. Dark country road in rural Washington State. Olympic Peninsula.
And we both saw a kangaroo jump in front of the car. A kangaroo. In rural Washington State.
Blew our minds.
Granted, it turned out to be an owl who was swooping down in front of the car and changed its mind as we barreled down the road, but we both saw a kangaroo. (I was sitting in the front seat, feeling a proper idiot for thinking a KANGAROO jumped in front of the car. But it was too funny to pass on exposing my own absurdity. So I said to her -- you will NEVER BELIEVE what I thought that was at first. She didn't miss a beat, she answered matter of factly and with great assurance. "A kangaroo." Dang, the human mind.)
You know I am sharing this video with her.

This is an absolute true story --

My friend was driving me back from the airport about 10 pm. Dark country road in rural Washington State. Olympic Peninsula.

And we both saw a kangaroo jump in front of the car. A kangaroo. In rural Washington State.

Blew our minds.

Granted, it turned out to be an owl who was swooping down in front of the car and changed its mind as we barreled down the road, but we both saw a kangaroo. (I was sitting in the front seat, feeling a proper idiot for thinking a KANGAROO jumped in front of the car. But it was too funny to pass on exposing my own absurdity. So I said to her -- you will NEVER BELIEVE what I thought that was at first. She didn't miss a beat, she answered matter of factly and with great assurance. "A kangaroo." Dang, the human mind.)

You know I am sharing this video with her.

>> ^legacy0100:

The publishers tried that with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, but they F ed it up realllllly bad and killed the franchise in one fell swoop. So I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.
Besides, there is no need for an overhaul of old Enemy Territory because other games have already surpassed its legacy. Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, Far Cry and Team Fortress 2 have taken Enemy Territory's concept and have surpassed it far and beyond.


Yeah, I didn't like ET:QW.

The publishers tried that with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, but they F***ed it up realllllly bad and killed the franchise in one fell swoop. So I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.

Besides, there is no need for an overhaul of old Enemy Territory because other games have already surpassed its legacy. Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, Far Cry and Team Fortress 2 have taken Enemy Territory's concept and have surpassed it far and beyond.

>> ^gwiz665:

.. you motherfucker.
>> ^dag:
Definitely my favourite coffee video of all time. But I think she's showing a bit too much cleavage to be allowable on the Sift.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Watch me render this conversation moot with a coffee related video that all rational people will recognize to be the best video; best not only in this contest, but in every contest from now to eternity and whatever may lie beyond. Lucky already has my address, so, nice work everyone, sorry to swoop in and win at the last minute. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to post the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0




I know... wtf I cant see the cleavage for that damned striped polo.

.. you motherfucker.
>> ^dag:

Definitely my favourite coffee video of all time. But I think she's showing a bit too much cleavage to be allowable on the Sift.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Watch me render this conversation moot with a coffee related video that all rational people will recognize to be the best video; best not only in this contest, but in every contest from now to eternity and whatever may lie beyond. Lucky already has my address, so, nice work everyone, sorry to swoop in and win at the last minute. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to post the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

I disagree. It's more about the socio-political implications of pre-emptive military intervention than it is about coffeee. That, and tits.>> ^dag:

Definitely my favourite coffee video of all time. But I think she's showing a bit too much cleavage to be allowable on the Sift.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Watch me render this conversation moot with a coffee related video that all rational people will recognize to be the best video; best not only in this contest, but in every contest from now to eternity and whatever may lie beyond. Lucky already has my address, so, nice work everyone, sorry to swoop in and win at the last minute. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to post the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Definitely my favourite coffee video of all time. But I think she's showing a bit too much cleavage to be allowable on the Sift.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Watch me render this conversation moot with a coffee related video that all rational people will recognize to be the best video; best not only in this contest, but in every contest from now to eternity and whatever may lie beyond. Lucky already has my address, so, nice work everyone, sorry to swoop in and win at the last minute. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to post the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Watch me render this conversation moot with a coffee related video that all rational people will recognize to be the best video; best not only in this contest, but in every contest from now to eternity and whatever may lie beyond. Lucky already has my address, so, nice work everyone, sorry to swoop in and win at the last minute. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to post the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

I see what you're saying, and that seems plausible on the surface. I could easily see Universities and Colleges just taking "profits" and folding them into projects around the university that don't directly impact their productivity (hey, let's build a new art museum, hey let's build a supercollider, hey, let's pave the walkways in gold...). That way the increased revenues don't show up as profits or even budget surpluses.

But again that speaks to a more general market failure. In a situation like that, competitors should be able to recognize that there's inefficiency, and take it as an opportunity make a profit by opening a competing firm that's more efficient.

This is supposedly the mechanism that punishes firms that grow fat and inefficient -- a more efficient competitor can swoop in, sell an equivalent product at a lower price and make what used to be your profits into their profits.

All this is making me want to go googling for an economic analysis of the drivers in tuition cost increases. Unlike with health care, I can't really think of much that's special about the higher education market that would make traditional market mechanisms break down.

>> ^direpickle:

Universities are like businesses: they like money. Even if they're not stockpiling cash or being 'for profit', they like money. They like to tear down their old buildings and build new expensive ones so that they can get on the covers of magazines. They like to hire prestigious faculty. They like to get money, and they like to spend money.
Even if their fixed maintenance/faculty/staff/utility/etc costs are "low" (which I'd dispute, but even putting that aside), they will always find ways to spend money, and since they continue to have record enrollment rates even with tuition hikes, they'll just continue to raise tuition (and, yes, perhaps hire more professors) until demand stabilizes.

>> ^NetRunner:

But again you're acting as though the existence of that implication injects some sort of falsehood into the mix.

Yes and no. It doesn't make any element of it false, but it makes part of it less than fully true. I'd propose this hypothetical assertion:
9/11 happened before the TSA was formed. There have been no successful terrorist attacks on the USA since the TSA was created.

Two statements. Both true. Yet I'd have a problem with anyone fluffing their resume with those two statements. Further explanation is needed to note that just because A and B are true, A doesn't imply B or vice-versa. Reading the fulltext of the Politifact page provides that explanation for their assessment, which I think is fair.

>> ^NetRunner:
Obama recounted the facts only. The fact that the facts themselves imply that Obama's policies might be partially behind the recovery doesn't make what he said "half true" or "mostly true", it was still just "true"

Shades of gray. I think that the evidence is in Obama's favor -- much moreso than in my hypothetical statement that implies that the TSA is 100% responsible for having prevented terrorism on US soil since 9/11. But in either case, I think that to know the truth as fully as possible, you need more information than any single assertion that the statements are "true" "mostly true" or "half true".

I'd even concede to Politifact altering their rating to "true" IF they were to maintain fulltext below that explains that such a rating excludes the implication that Obama's policies were largely or fully responsible for the recovery. If they did that, would it be an acceptable response from your point of view?

>> ^NetRunner:
As for the "fair and balanced" thing, I think that's really what's behind Politifact's follies. They're worried that if they don't ding Democrats roughly as often as Republicans, they'll be accused of being "biased" which would chip away at their credibility.

This is just my take on it, but I don't think that Politifact is keeping score and trying to get their digs in on both sides to avoid accusations of bias. I think there is a distinction to be made between them saying that a statement is "mostly true" or "half true" and accusing someone of lying. When they say that Obama's statements (or those of anyone else) were "mostly true", they don't mean to suggest that some part of it was false, just that they need to be supplemented with some additional information to fully appreciate. ie., Take this with a grain of salt.

>> ^NetRunner:
Instead what they've done is ruin their reputation in one fell swoop by letting concerns about their reputation bring them to the point where they're calling the truth "half true" in order to try to appear "fair and balanced".

I think that is just a bit overly dramatic -- no offense. Perhaps this ruined their reputation for you, but I don't think they deserve that reaction in general. I'm sure that they could make the same sort of assessments on statements from somebody of the Republican side -- say, taking credit for prosperity during the Reagan administration -- and it would elicit similar reactions from conservative readers ("Politifact has lost all credibility!", etc.).


By the way, just wanted to note here that I appreciate your point of view and have enjoyed considering this further. So while I'm basically sticking to my story and I think Maddow overreacted, I'm going to upvote the video (I didn't originally) on the basis of the strong and healthy discussion. Good sift and good support of your take on it in comments here.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

Arguments can be made for any of those ratings, and you're making a good one for "True" since the statements referenced in their own heading are limited to the 2 that are fully true. However, since they include Obama's previous 2 statments (implying that his policies were responsible) in their full explanation, I think that the revised rating of "Mostly True" is fine, and probably the best assessment. Much more "fair and balanced" than some other sources would tout themselves as being.


But again you're acting as though the existence of that implication injects some sort of falsehood into the mix.

Obama recounted the facts only. The fact that the facts themselves imply that Obama's policies might be partially behind the recovery doesn't make what he said "half true" or "mostly true", it was still just "true"

As for the "fair and balanced" thing, I think that's really what's behind Politifact's follies. They're worried that if they don't ding Democrats roughly as often as Republicans, they'll be accused of being "biased" which would chip away at their credibility.

Instead what they've done is ruin their reputation in one fell swoop by letting concerns about their reputation bring them to the point where they're calling the truth "half true" in order to try to appear "fair and balanced".