Adam007

By lazy, I don't mean in terms of time. I mean in terms of mental effort. People don't take the time to use real words. On a lot of message boards people use more and more leetspeak, and less real words, so their vocabulary's pretty much nonexistant except for one word replies like "LOL!" or "OWN'T PLX" or "ROFLMAO" type things. Instead of saying why they loved it or thought it was funny, or expressing their self in any type of words, they just use three letter replies that aren't even worth reading.

Dialects of English usually don't encourage idiocy. Most dialects of English are based around being in a specific culture, so that specific culture can express ideas more efficiently and clearly. 'Chatspeak,' as I know it, administers no structural changes. The people who omit proper punctuation [and related] would likely do this regardless of using cheatspeak or not. Destroying vocabulary? I'm pretty sure it increases your vocabulary. Lazy? I thought of it to be pretty efficient. It saves time, when you say 'lol,' you are effectively using an acronym that is representative of chatspeak. See how efficient it is in comparison to typing "That one made me laugh," or "Laugh out loud," or related expressions. This is especially good for cell-phones, or small devices that are hard to type on. Yes, it is easy to get used to. You learn it, and you do it -- monkey see, monkey do. Well, when I read chatspeak my brain pretty much converts it to the acronym, or elongated word that it is representing. Just my 2c. I'm not going to address each point one by one, but there's a difference between chatspeak and leetspeak. Chat speak like 'lol' is used for efficiency, to abbreviate. Leetspeak most of the time takes even longer to type than the real words. Using words like pl0x and own't instead of real sentences to describe what you want to say is laziness or a lack of anything worth saying. Not efficiency. When I say destroying vocabulary, I mean instead of having an arsenal of words, people often use the same words just because it's the internet - like my previous example. If I didn't cover any of your points, let me know.

I think that was a dinosaur. Who knows - maybe he'll go back in time to the dinosaurs or something. Hiro's definitely my favorite character besides Peter. He's just got a pure spirit about him, and his enthusiasm about things is so funny. WOOT! go Hiro! lol, i thought this topic died a while ago, but now it's bak on the front page! i don't get how Peter could see the future in that episode... was Isacc ( spelling... ) around...? :-s Maybe there's more to his power? Maybe he's a purer form of Saylar and can slowly copy other powers but in a weaker form without killing people or something. k...thats a good theory, how do u explain the bomb inside of him blowing up the whole world?! that would take like 10 nuclaer bombs to do that ( i think... ) those bombs would be huge! how do u fit that much into 1 person?! :ohnoes: I'm pretty sure it's just New York. But who knows. Maybe he collapses after absorbing too many powers and just explodes from it all? Maybe he absorbs Silar or something and when that happens it's just too much for him to hold? Who knows. That's why it's called a cliffhanger. :P

http://digg.com/view/technology/popular/today

I think it just encourages idiocy. It encourages a lack of any structure to language, destroys vocabulary, and just sounds stupid. People who use it are lazy, and even jokingly, it's still annoying. It's probably easy to get used to, in that way can be pretty dangerous. People who write that way just sound stupid, and because the way it reads sounds so stupid, they write stupid things out of it. It's just not a good thing, plain and simple.

I think that was a dinosaur. Who knows - maybe he'll go back in time to the dinosaurs or something. Hiro's definitely my favorite character besides Peter. He's just got a pure spirit about him, and his enthusiasm about things is so funny. WOOT! go Hiro! lol, i thought this topic died a while ago, but now it's bak on the front page! i don't get how Peter could see the future in that episode... was Isacc ( spelling... ) around...? :-s Maybe there's more to his power? Maybe he's a purer form of Saylar and can slowly copy other powers but in a weaker form without killing people or something.

If one item goes up and another goes down, I don't see how the economy's crashing. A section or item of the economy might be, but don't generalize like that.

Anything raised to an extreme extent is bad in any situation. The same obviously applies to technology. It's extremely powerful, and if used wrongly or carelessly can be extremely dangerous. Technology itself can't be bad for a society - only improper use of it. In general though, I don't think there should be any restrictions on technology like the government tries to impose. I put more trust in a scientist than any other type of person out there.

I'm not positive, but if you've been to Kakariko village already, try the shop. I know the guy sells shields there, but I don't know if it's open yet for you.

Is Peter still injured? I thought being next to the Claire that long talking with her would have healed him. I think that was a dinosaur. Who knows - maybe he'll go back in time to the dinosaurs or something. Hiro's definitely my favorite character besides Peter. He's just got a pure spirit about him, and his enthusiasm about things is so funny.

I guess I'm in the minority of thinking that everything seems alright. :-s

Then spend more for the 360 and miss out. You shouldn't need to be convinced one way or the other to buy a system. Decide for yourself. Try both out. That's the only way you'll really know.

You don't need to keep changing your initial topic thread. It just makes the replies look confusing. It is multiplayer - you can have up to four players, and there will be online play like I said in 07. When I say there's an initial learning curve, I mean you're not going to be sure how to maneuver everything for a few moments. In my case it took about 10 seconds to get the hang of it. For some people it takes a few minutes to figure out that when you're pointing at least, movement is more important in the wrist than your arm, and the remote has to be aimed somewhat near the sensor bar. But when you're playing the sports game themselves, those don't apply. Only for pointing and selecting.

1. Here are past and present games for the Wii: http://wii.ign.com/index/games.html 2. Explaining how the wii works will take too much time for me. The graphics are alright. They're better than anything you'll see on xbox or ps2 or gamecube, but not as good as the xbox360's or ps3's, obviously. The motion sensor works great. There's an initial learning curve, but 95% of people who try it get over it. It is online, and over 2007 there will be plenty of online games that are going to be coming out. I really suggest you just do some research, as most of your questions are easily answerable.

The classic controller is used for virtual console titles that you can download. You can also use the gamecube controller for gamecube games or VC games. Most wii games use some type of motion control.

1. If you're unwilling to try out games, why do you even play them? I know that sounds stupid, but if all you want is a shoot em up filled with 90% movies, just watch a war movie. If you were just willing to try out a mario game or zelda game, you'd realize that 'kiddiness' is synonymous with fun. It's male teenage society that's been telling you that a game has to have violence or be sports to be worth playing. 2. If you don't want to get into the game, you don't have to. Either playing style works. I find it more fun to play the sports games like you do in real life, but if you prefer to sit back and be lazy about it, you can just use your wrist. As for other games - there are already a ton out. I'm not going to do your research. Just go to a ign or gamefaqs or somewhere and look them up. I'm not going to start listing them because I have no idea what game genre you like. I'd assume that you like shooting games, in which case I'd recommend Red Steel or CoD3 like you mentioned. There are plenty of great games outside of that area you can try out, but you probably won't. Either way, I'd recommend the Wii for you. It has something for everyone.

Precisely. If you prefer one race then you automatically discriminate against the other. But our physical preference is unconscious, right? It's not racist to prefer someone over someone else because they aren't your type, even if their race is different. Humans tend to empathize with people who look like them. Technically doesn't that make everyone racist? Than that would make racism obsolete in that aspect. Which brings us both back to the point we always make: Race doesn't exist. :P

Precisely. If you prefer one race then you automatically discriminate against the other. But our physical preference is unconscious, right? It's not racist to prefer someone over someone else because they aren't your type, even if their race is different. Humans tend to empathize with people who look like them. Technically doesn't that make everyone racist?

100% Agree, IMO they are really weird, against my religeon, and it would be there forever. So, while I have read the parts of Bible that prohibit tattoos (I'm not a member of any religion myself), do you believe other christians who do have tattoos (and all other people for that matter) 'go to hell'? I don't know which of us you're addressing, but it's against Judaism. I'm not sure about Christianity. Besides the fact that jews don't believe hell exists, I still go against a lot of things my religion says, like most modern day people. My main reason for not getting one isn't religious, that's just a reinforcer.

That was the original topic afterall I know that, but it just seemed like a weird segway from the original article. Isn't it obvious the shark in no way deserves to die from acting on instinct? While there are other questions that you can come up with from this, I just think the answer's obvious to that one.

No. Why would I kill an innocent creature who has done me no deliberate harm? Where do you draw the line? You seem to want to protect any living organism out there. What about an amoeba? Would you feel bad if you accidentally stepped in a puddle with some green lichen living in it? How about kicking a mushroom? Or eating vegetables? They're innocent living organisms too. How about we stop eating/killing anything that has cells to peace in its highest form? Back to the topic. There's no reason to kill the shark. It's a waste of time. If it really would make the family feel better, go ahead. I just don't even see why the topic of this thread even became "should the shark live or die?"

That whole condition is under the premise that the person can't get outside the house though. What about someone whose parents are willing to take him to friends, but because the kid's so sucked into the computer, he doesn't go out of his way to make plans, and instead his addiction gets worse? I don't think the issue is internet vs. tv. It's about internet vs. anything productive.

I think that really depends on the person. It's kind of like Conservatives vs. Liberals. You can't really say that either side is "correct", it comes down to how you feel about it and how it will effect you. By the way, Adam, I meant relationships in general, not just romantic relationships. ;) But to your point, is a romance devalued because it does not last or because it is "fake"? If so, why? I would say that every interaction with another person shapes you, and that it's possible for a failed romance to be almost as shaping as a successful one. I wouldn't say an unsuccessful relationship is a failure in shaping someone. But an unsuccessful relationship isn't as beneficial as a successful one obviously in terms of what you can learn from it. It's much better to learn what to do - not what not to do.

I just made one. It's pretty awesome, except the illusion's only effective if you only have one eye open, so you can't really trick random passersby.

Do you know about digg? If not, you'd absolutely love it. http://www.digg.com