Good thing it mentioned the anecdote about the eldery woman twice, otherwise I might have forgotten it. Clearly no one is proof reading these...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Surely "Graphics Card", an important system component for many gamers (a fair few of whom browse this fine site) would be an upgrade worthy of consideration...?
Its posts like this that are why we need a "-1 Timecube" moderation option.
Had I not spent my mod points earlier this very day, it would be insightful for you.
Given 12 parsecs is almost 10^10 trips around the full circumference of the earth, I would be more amazed that someone had done a grocery run exceeding this distance...
Based on actually reading the article it appears in (heresy around these parts I know, but it was linked earlier) I believe that picture specifically refers to case of a corporate election, where one's voting power is determined by how many shares in the company they own.
I just went to task manager and read it off its process count.
It is posts like this that make me wish I had mod points. +insightful to you sir!
Also, reading the sales brief for a previous game (also named Bodycount, funnily enough) one notices a few.. marked similarities:
"OBC also features a near fully destructible environment; the Flame Thrower can set bad guys, scenery and the level itself on fire, which could make movement extremely hazardous for the player, especially as the fire randomly spreads. The Grenade launcher meanwhile can destroy any wall (with some hard coded exceptions)."
Which sounds just like what we have here. Except this game was released in 1994...
"Next Gen" huh?
I think its "bailout" at the business management screen, all lower case.
So the obvious way to maintain such secrecy is have it posted to slashdot.
So by that logic all people who play violent video games must automatically think that its ok to kill people in real life because we do in the game?
99.9% of people who play these games know they shouldn't kill other people and etc, but do so in the game because there are no consequences. Should we take away all violent video games just because of a 0.1% that might go on a school shooting spree?
It does in the short term, but printing money in this manner is a very slipperly slope to deep government debt and inflation.