|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 10:54:40 GMT -5
I have to admit, it does look pretty cool. I just wonder who was that at the end coming out the pool. It looked kind of pale in color, so I dunno. Looking at this image, it looks like it could be Jazz, but Jazz is black. It could be one of the protoforms from an earlier part of the movie. The more I think about it, though, the more Jazz seems right. He looks like the smallest, next to Bumblebee, so it could make sense that he would fit in that pool. Edit: And here are some screen captures for analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 9:51:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 10:02:34 GMT -5
Kyoma is right about Oblivion, to a certain extent. If you have the PC for it, or expect to get a PC that can play it, get the PC version. There are mods upon mods that can fix many of the issues and add innumerable elements to the game.
The game isn't that bad, but it has some notable issues, that can only really be fixed through mods.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 1:09:15 GMT -5
Yeah, well, like I said, if they improve it, it would make a good product.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 19, 2006 23:25:55 GMT -5
As it stands on that site, I probably wouldn't. But if they decide to add more elements and features to it for the DS/Wii version, then I would be interested.
Maybe even a few challenges ala The Incredible Machine for the PC where you have to get our sled guy from point A to point B with only so many lines.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 9:42:04 GMT -5
Sonic finally expresses his true feelings for Amy!
I dunno, I think he's justified XD
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 18, 2006 23:58:50 GMT -5
I suppose... but they're not helping their case by withholding information.
Further more, unless that story is false, I can't imagine what benefit they would get from not coming forth. This could result in serious litigation, the sooner it's over the better.
But who knows. Still.. on the face of it, it seems absolutely outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 18, 2006 22:41:06 GMT -5
This is beyond words. Seriously. There is nothing constructive that can be said about this. The mere fact that he possessed the thing for all of ten minutes before handing it over to the school was enough to be considered a "serious infraction". Serious infraction??
And the best they can offer is alternative school? So the kid now has to go to school with the kinds of people who more than likely brought the god damned thing to the school in the first place?? All because he did the right thing??
There are no civilized words to express how furious this makes me. Talk all you want about video games making our youth violent, but right there in that school, that young man has been given a very potent lesson: Doing the right thing gets you in trouble.
I hope Mr. Thompson is reading that article, because right there - just that one experience more than likely did more damage to his ethical senses than any god damned video game ever could!
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 18, 2006 22:47:39 GMT -5
Ninety-five is a good age to reach. He had a successful life.
The cartoons were goofy, somewhat poorly animated, but many of them found a place in my heart. They and their works shall live on forever, immortalized in film and remembered by millions.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 17, 2006 23:11:11 GMT -5
I play primarily as Mario, Fox or Link. As secondaries, I like Marth, Kirby, Pikachu, Luigi, and Young Link.
I like any character you can get in close with and give your opponent the smack-down.
As for Brawl? More interesting play types would be nice. I also like characters that are a challenge to play. Ness, for one, with his strange jump and the PK attacks. Zelda and Captain Falcon are two others I like, as a challenge.
Also what Leo said about clones.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 23:59:30 GMT -5
Eh, whatever. I have nothing more to say that I haven't said already and I really don't feel like pursuing it any further.
Yeah, Time was annoying, I dislike government and monkeys eat bananas. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 20:24:43 GMT -5
*shrugs* They can, they won't - for now.
Like I said, while they can't do it without repercussions, they'll leave us alone. That's the only power the geeks of the internet (in so far as this, so-called information age is concerned, which is really what I was talking about in the first place, before it was dragged into the general politics realm) have right now. We have power, because those who are in power have not found a way to have power over us.
You can look on the bright side and say "hey, that means we're safe", but I will always toss in that "for now" bit. So far, the government and the various commercial organizations involved have not found a legal or even viable way to keep the internet under control, but that doesn't mean they don't want to or aren't trying to find a way. Every year, it seems, there's some new threat to the 'net. What was it this year? Net Neutrality? Who knows what it will be next year? So far, so good, but should we ignore the possibility or the attempts, just because it hasn't worked?
Does that mean we're in charge? Does that mean that we, the people here on our computers have power over the internet? I say it doesn't. It's like mother nature. If you live by a volcano, you don't have power over it just because it hasn't erupted on you yet.
The people who are really in charge are the ones who control the elements that make up the internet. The web-hosts, the computer hardware and software companies, the government who manages the FCC, and so on. We are using their services and, in some cases, skirting their rules. Hosts can, by contract, take down a site, without warning or explanation. Most of us, I think, never think about that little loophole. A cable or phone company can cut service in the same manner.
So far, they are benevolent, because it behooves them to be so. As you said, Tenniru, it would be worse for them if they did start overtly messing with us. But the government can make new laws and companies can keep open those little loopholes. None of these things, I might add, we get any say on.
I'm not saying it's like those idiotic conspiracy people who believe the government is watching them, I just see that the position that we who surf the web have isn't as stable as Time was implying. They're making us out to be some sort of super men, when we're really just a loose and often chaotic conglomerate of individuals who share only a marginal connection of common interests. It stinks of pandering and commercial salesmanship, and though I appreciate the compliment, I find it distasteful.
Sz: Yes, but the government is the one who would enforce said restrictions. The companies campaign to the government to enact laws and bring in offenders. And I think they speak more with money than with words or wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 19, 2006 20:03:53 GMT -5
What you say holds true to an extent-- and only to an extent. Wondering why the Congress was taken over by Democrats? Because the people-- the voters-- got tired of the people they were voting for and instead wanted something different. That's how it works; they have to appeal both to lobbyists, campaign donors, and voters all at the same time, with the latter truly holding the final judgment. And you foolishly believe that this 'something different' will be any better? I vote for improvement, not just a different kind of pain and suffering. Yes, please, I want thumb screws now. The rack was getting kind of uncomfortable. Go ahead, vote for whichever evil you want. I'll wait till I can vote for something that's actually good.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 19, 2006 19:51:42 GMT -5
Hey, guess what, you just voted for someone who is going to go to office and do whatever the people who paid for his election campaign tells him to. You just voted for a paid official. Now, let me see.. did you donate millions of dollars to his campaign? No? You aren't worth a rats patoo to him, then.
Your vote just went to someone who doesn't care about you or anything you want.
Remember, truth and politics are an oxymoron.
Edit: Further more, what do you think one man will do in congress? It takes a majority vote. Even if you claim that your man is honest, he will still be overwhelmed by the less-than-honest majority. Your vote is still wasted.
And, until I see some evidence to the otherwise, I still firmly believe that the special interest rules America. I have yet to see anything done for the average person. Maybe that's just here in Indiana (where we spend billions we don't have on a stadium that will benefit only businesses and the government, that no one wants, while our education system rots and our police departments have to merge to stay out of dept), but looking at the big picture, I don't see it being much better on the federal level either.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 19, 2006 19:45:10 GMT -5
Pessimistic, maybe, but I think of it as realism.
We don't have power. Do you have power? Show me your power. I didn't think so.
I have, in both posts, referred not only to the government, but to business and the wealthy. Something that seems to be overlooked both times. What I am saying here is that our power over this information is virtually nothing. We (in the US) have escaped, so far, only because noone has succeeded in finding a way to regulate the internet without blatantly breaching the First Amendment. But it will come. Give those groups a nice little multi-million dollar pledge and they would violate the whole damn constitution. Bush has gotten away with declaring war against the wishes of the UN. He's gotten away with illegally tapping into phone lines, so what's the shutting down of a website? That's all Wiki is, after all, a website. sure it's a complex one, but it's still just digital data. Digital data that can, by force, be removed.
All it would take would be a lawsuit from someone.. say, oh, Encyclopedia Brittanica, claiming that they're being plagiarized or that Wiki is damaging profits, or, and this could actually work, that their business is being complicated (and therefore suffering) due to the prevalence of misinformation on the site, and, if Brittanica wanted to put the money into it, Wiki would be gone, or so heavily buried in legal red tape that it would take itself down. These things aren't commercial, after all, there's no profits for Wiki to feed on. Just donations from those who support it. And, like I said, who's going to defend Wiki, when the latest Final Fantasy has just come out?
We, the average geek, at our little PCs, typing our thoughts on our LiveJournals and editing Wiki-entries don't actually have any power. We think we do, because we haven't been swatted yet. We live among sleeping giants who would step on us without the blink of an eye.
Maybe, in other countries, it's different. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I feel no power and have no power, myself. And from what I know of the communities I've been a part of, I doubt any of the geek world would ever come together to fight back. We're always too busy complaining about Sony, SEGA, Nintendo or Microsoft to notice.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 19, 2006 19:04:08 GMT -5
HA! Fat congressmen in office control the information age. Those fat congressmen sure did a great job controlling the information age when they lost horribly in November. Yep, that sure was a great coverup on the "Macaca" thing, dissent blogs, and the like. They kept all that information about corrupt Republicans nice and under wraps. Yep. Oh, and the internet is so incredibly expensive and you can't make it anywhere unless you bribe everyone. How much did S. R. Sidarth pay to upload the George Allen "Macaca" video to YouTube? Now, how much did it hurt the Republicans? How, exactly, is Congress in control of the information age? Even in closed-press countries (even China), the governments can't keep a grasp on the information age. Even North Korea has numerous cell phone cameramen and people who just need to sneak back into South Korea and upload it. Knowledge and news will always get out as long as there's an internet. Bring down the internet and you'll see an extreme lack of productivity... not to mention a big enough outrage to bring the country to it's knees. "The government controls everything" philosophies make me bitter. I do think the person of the year is just a copout (TIME hasn't had a good one since '00), and maybe TIME was too afraid to do a bad guy (Ahneminajad, Al-Sadr, Kim Jong Il) or even something like Nancy Pelosi. I can see the amazing effect that Joe Personwithcomputerandcameraphone has had, though. It's something no previous generation has witnessed. Well we sure as hell don't have any power. People can talk about YouTube and Wikipedia all they want, but those only give the illusion of power. Without even the slightest second thought, both organizations would, more than likely, remove anything that they were told to by the government, especially if there was money and or litigation to back up such a demand. And if they refused? Both would be shut down faster than you could whine about it on LiveJournal. First amendment be damned. And all our pitiful whining wouldn't make the slightest difference, unless we could get some money on our side and it would take a lot of money. More than any of us combined could muster. And I seriously doubt people would be willing to put off their PS3 purchases for Wikipedia. We don't have power over the information age. No more than ants in an ant farm have power. Just because the people who are really in charge (Businesses, Rich People and the Government) haven't flushed us down the toilet yet doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't. As I said, the power we supposedly have is only power we are allowed through the negligence of the powers that be. When they stir, we become ants and get stepped on.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 18, 2006 0:21:10 GMT -5
Perhaps, but it strikes a very sour chord in my mind.
*shrugs* I would expect, though, that Time magazine would write with better skill than that, but maybe they were trying to sound like an average Joe or something equally stupid. They even name-drop Wikipedia. Very clever. Not at all transparent. Nope. I hope whoever wrote that didn't actually get paid for it, 'cause they certainly don't deserve whatever they got.
I also like how they claim we "control the Information Age".. HA! Fat congressmen in office control the information age. What we get to do is in their vastly incompetent hands. "Our World" is really the world we're allowed to have. The power we have is directly proportional to the money we pay. Just like the off-line world, the rich have the power and the poor have to deal with the consequences of the actions of the rich.
Thank you, Time, I've just learned a new word: Pandering. You're not good at it. Go back to sucking up to mega-corporation icons and stop trying to pretend you have any grasp on the life of the average geek.
Meh, I never liked the whole "Person of the year" thing anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 17, 2006 23:00:14 GMT -5
I really like how the only alternative to having no life on-line is to have no life off-line.
Seriously? Television? Is that all you could come up with as what we are not doing on-line? How about going to sporting events, or attending church? What about nature trails, swimming, or even just going for rum-and-coke with the guys? What about the fact that a lot of what's done on-line can be done off-line too, though to a smaller extent, I'll grant.
Pfft, this is a joke. All they want is to get us cyber-geeks to buy Time magazine. I wonder how many people will fall for it.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 17, 2006 21:07:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 15, 2006 13:49:44 GMT -5
I say you report him to the school and claim psychological and emotional suffering from him calling you a weirdo in front of the class..
Then laugh in his face.
Sure SEGA might be falling behind, but that doesn't mean that their fans are somehow strange for still being interested in them.
I mean, even while Star Trek was collapsing in on itself during the Enterprise catastrophe, I was still proud to be a Star Trek fan... although, I suppose a better comparison would be if I claimed to be a Paramount fan... eh, I suppose it still works. It doesn't make me weird to be a fan of something that isn't popular.
I think your teacher needs to be smacked upside the head.
And I want to know what he thinks the internet is like, since, as far as I have experienced, the single most easily archived activity on the 'net is finding people just like you. We make forums and websites and form groups in MMORPGs for people just like us and make ourselves findable on search engines like Yahoo and Google. If he doesn't know how that works, he's more behind than you could possibly be.
|
|