Messages

Well, if aliens do exist, and if their nature is anything close to ours, and if they manage to advance to the point of creating technology capable of bringing them to our planet, then I think we should be very afraid indeed. Best hope that we discover them first, if you know what I mean.

Although, the idea that aliens might exist at some other-dimensional level than us never really occurred to me (maybe they're composed of dark matter?). I suppose that would basically make us like ghosts to each other, if we'd be capable of interacting with each other at all. Hmmm ... maybe that's the explanation for "paranormal" phenomena?

But I suppose if we're going to be strictly scientific about this, it seems to me there's about as much evidence for the existence of aliens as there is for any other "postulated being(s)." So I guess that makes the idea of aliens about as silly and absurd as that of frumious bandersnatches and flying spaghetti monsters. In which case, no worries!

The analogy I usually make (when discussing this topic with friends - and yes, it happens quite often) is that if there were only two humans on the entire planet and they both spent their entire lives wandering around looking for eachother, the odds of them actually meeting are so incredibly remote it's not unreasonable to say, "it's impossible they'd ever meet".

It's funny, this reminded me of the phrase "little ship, big ocean." Basically, it refers to the fact that the ocean is so huge, you think it'd be just about impossible for two ships to randomly bump into each other, and yet it seems to happens relatively often. Certainly space is much, much, much bigger than the ocean, but you just never know!

Just last night, my wife was telling me that she was nervous about us moving to America because there are so many shootings in schools there and she didn't want our daughter anywhere near that.

I'd feel much safer with my kid in school than, say, crossing the street ... and just for comparison (open pdf link, page 44 and later for summary ... also covered in this article).

Now that we've made ourselves judge, jury, and medieval executioner of child molesters, what should the punishment be for parents who murder their own children?

There is also the method of asking a common sense/very easy question (such as "What is 1+1?" or "What color is the sky?") but there are only so many questions you could come up with.

That's the problem with non-automated questions like this: somebody has to come up with all the questions. And if the total possible number of questions is relatively small, then it won't be very difficult to make a program that just keeps a list of every possible question and responds with the correct answer. The spammer wouldn't even need to make this list; he could redirect the captcha to a phoney page and have unwitting people that browse there solve it for him and populate his program with the answers.

I've taken a quick look at reCAPTCHA before, and I'm impressed. By running a simple curvy line though words, most OCR programs can't read it at all. I might see if I can implement that.

It's even better than that: these are words that OCR programs have already been unable to identify, so that already makes them resilient against spam bots. Also, I think they have ways of preventing spammers from redirecting the recaptcha to their own page. Plus, you'll be contributing to the online digitization of books! 8) Anyway, I think all you need to do is add a few lines of code to your web page.

It's a clever idea, but I agree with Gregjazz that it'd be too easy to automate if the demand was great enough.

I'd recommend giving a listen to this podcast, which talks about various types of captcha's and why it's so difficult to come up with effective ones. I found it pretty interesting. Also, they talk about a variation called reCAPTCHA, which "utilizes CAPTCHA to improve the process of digitizing books. It takes scanned words that optical character recognition software reports as undetectable and presents them for humans to decipher as CAPTCHA words." Maybe you can save yourself a lot of work!

Wow, lots of great ideas out there.

I got it in my head to do a sort of Double Dragon clone/remake, with the premise being a schoolgirl trying to get her backpack back from a street thug, and by the end of the game she ends up bringing down the whole crime organization. I envision a look/feel of a Hong Kong kung-fu movie and heavy inspiration by the Kill Bill movies. I got a small start on it (you can even find a schoolgirl sprite that I posted in the critics lounge a while back), but didn't get very far. To be honest, I find sprite work fairly tedious - perhaps I'm just too much of a perfectionist. I started again recently working on the fight engine - I seem to be able to get my hands (and mind) around the task of programming. I've got a few basic moves coded, so who knows, maybe someday.

My concept for an adventure game could probably be best described as a modern, weatherman version of Indiana Jones. The character gets swept away while reporting some sort of big "weather disaster" story (hurricane, blizzard, etc.) and finds himself lost in some strange place. As he tries to get home, he ends up having some amazing adventures and doing incredible things. I really like the concept, but I can't really seem to get excited about a specific plot or story. I also can't really decide whether to have it address real-world events (e.g. he brings peace to the Middle East), or keep it largely fantastical (he finds the Seven Cities of Gold), or do something Indiana Jones-esque where fantasy is set in the context of real-world events. Who knows, maybe someday I'll actually get past the brainstorming stage.

the thing with RPGs is: a) I don't like numbers told to players, as you don't deal with numbers in the real life (at least, not numbers which represent your life (i.e. strenght, dexterity)

Check out the FUDGE RPG. You can download the rules for free. The system is very customizable to be as detailed or free-form as you like, but at its core it describes skills, attributes, etc. in common words ("Poor," "Good," "Excellent," etc.), as well as the character's health ("Just a scratch," "Wounded," etc.). I always thought it'd be neat to implement a game using a "free-form"/"rules-lite" version, where you can learn and improve skills but you don't really "level up."

I find it kind of amazing that my rusty German that I haven't touched since college appears to be about equal to the level of Babelfish.

One additional improvement:

The mineral business deploys itself quickly. 
Look at it on the 7th of June.

Stock listings?

Don't lose any chance.
Buy before it's too late.

More numbers and dates.

I happened to see a saint there,  but you didn't answer him.

If he can wait, when he can fasten.  But you can not plf the stars.
He was the smallest of all.  I will give a secret to him.
Why are your lovely dresses so funny?  But not too modest....

Ahhh, spam poetry. By any other language, is still as ... gibberishy ... or something.

I tried to use more contrast and shading just I like your edits, but actually white highlights on a sprite puts me off I would like help with the impression of metal. Most of my stuff looks like it was made of plastic.

Rix, I think the reason your robot looks like plastic is exactly because it doesn't have those high-contrast white highlights which you dislike. KhrisMUC's sprite is a good reference to work off of. I also found some good pictures of metal that might help:

#1 #2 #3

Ouch, Maniac, that just looks painful ....  *shudders at keyboard*

I didn't know of such, in Finland when two people are married or living together, they're considered individuals, which means the main principles in the law are that both still have separate loans, taxes, wages, etc. Then of course you too have the marriage settlement, but I suppose that goes only when/if breaking up.

It sounds like what Ivy is talking about is something along the lines of what is known here in the US as the "marriage penalty" when in comes to paying our federal income taxes. Basically, married couples generally file their taxes together as a single family. In some cases - specifically, I think it's when one person in the family generates most of the income - the family will pay more taxes than if they filed separately as individuals.

But she raises a good point that many of the benefits of our society - retirement benefits, health care, estate inheritance, others that she mentioned, and I'm sure more that we haven't thought of - are based on the notion of a "traditional family" and as a result are intrinsically discriminatory. As just one example, health care in the US is usually provided by one's employer, and covers not only the employee but his/her entire family. As a result, it becomes quite important (and very politically charged) in how we legally define a "family." Similarly, a married person with a working spouse might be able to obtain a larger loan than a gay person living with a working partner since the recognized "family" will include a larger pool of assets.

Of course, a common tape-and-bubblegum solution is this idea of "civil unions," which seem to provide all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage.

Tuomas, I also thought this National Geographic article discussing homosexual behavior in animals and its implications for human sexuality might be an interesting and informative resource for your speech (and this discussion in general). I think it's a very powerful argument against the "homosexuality isn't natural/right" defense.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Because in a male dominant game scene where you mostly have to be good, these games are a delightful raritie that I enjoy specially and...

Of course, that also leaves games where you're a bad boy and a good girl.

Bad boy: Cirque de Zale

Bad girl (or just mischievous?): Jessica Plunkenstein

The media is all "FEAR THIS FEAR THAT" and I can say that with a straight face. The American media is amazingly dishonest and there's a real problem with how the news is brought and what the news is.

No disagreements here. However, I'd also say that:

- I don't think the state of our media is appreciably worse than the rest of the world. At the very least, we generally don't make each other's news unless it's bad news, thus skewing outsiders' perceptions. “No news is good is good news,” as they say. The idea that Americans are fearful, easily-manipulated sheep is just not true â€" or at least, it's no more true than it is anywhere else.

- American's ideas about guns have existed long before the ratings-based, entertainment-driven, sensationalist, prime-time news we have today.

guns invite violence more often than they deter it.

I'd probably agree with you along the lines of “guns make crime more violent” rather than “guns make more crime,” especially with evidence presented in this thread suggesting that guns may actually reduce crime.

That they're necessary in the US means there's something wrong ... The constitution is generally fine, other than the fact that the right to bear arms

It's not a matter of “need,” but a matter of “want.” I've never needed a gun, and I can't imagine any normal circumstances where I would, and I'm not especially unique in this regard. But for historical and cultural reasons which I've already explained, Americans want their guns. Or more accurately, many Americans want their gun rights. As long as this is so, our constitution, which represents the will of the people, will continue to have this right protected in law. Instead of calling for the government to unilaterally outlaw guns through antidemocratic means, proponents of gun control in this country should be trying to reeducate people and change their opinions, so that the population will want to make guns illegal. Of course, this method is much harder, longer, and may never result in success, but at least it doesn't mean usurping the will of the people.

Go write a love letter to your strawman.

It's not my straw man. You've expressed it quite clearly and succinctly here:

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

And here:

Otherwise I'm being taught a method of precise and clean murder, oh, if the need ever arises or something. That's a culture of violence.

And in many other places. Quite simply, no.

A strawman is when you make of someone else's opinion, a weaker but similar one so you may dismiss it easily.

Like when the idea of owning a gun is dismissed because it presupposes a culture of violence?

Assertion: “I think people should be allowed to have guns in order to protect themselves.”
Response: “I think your culture has a problem with violence.”

That's about as clear an example of a straw man as I could ever come up with. If this isn't what you're saying, then please, by all means, do clarify your position.

In both of the scenarios you present there's supposedly less violence because potential evildoers fear reprisal. In the first scenario, by the officials in the case one has an illegal weapon. In the second, against civilians because they might shoot you. Obviously, the first scenario is quite a bit more civilized.

I don't see it. The first society requires more government interference in the lives of its people to impose a certain way of life, while the second is more permissive of letting people live their lives as they wish within the confines of law and order. The first society punishes behavior that might signify intent to commit violence, while the second punishes only violent behavior itself. It's common for people to make trade-offs like this, and I don't see what makes one scenario necessarily more or less civilized.

I'll tell you what happens. When the US-backed military extremists made a coup in greece, people fled to the mountains, supplied themselves, set up infrastructure and entered a guerilla war of atrittion. Any other questions?

I appreciate your answer. If this is what the drafters of your constitution had in mind, and your people are aware of this and agree with it, then good. Our founding fathers probably had a different idea in mind when they drafted our constitution.

Your attempt to usurp a methodological high-ground here is upsetted by your inability to supply me with zillions of links to irrefutable data.

You've made it clear that you're not interested in looking at such data, why should I waste my time? And I'm not really trying to make a case one way or another for gun control â€" we haven't even reached that point yet, as far as I'm concerned â€" but rather to dispel (in my opinion) widely-held misconceptions of American society. I don't know if growing up and living in America makes me an expert on American society, but hopefully my insight into the issue might be of interest to people who don't understand it or disagree with it.

I wish people were more interested in understanding what I'm saying, asking for clarifications if they need them,

As do I, instead of stereotyping my culture, calling me ignorant, or telling me I'm not worth having a discussion with. But I guess that's what one can expect from mild-tempered tolerance.

If you have an opinion, let's hear it.

I thought this was obvious from my previous posts. If not, hopefully this will be clear enough: People who favor gun rights and people who favor gun control both have the same goal of trying to preserve human life and maintain law and order, and they disagree on how to best accomplish this. One's opinion on the matter is a largely a result of one's unique cultural perspective in combination with one's observations on and experiences with violence. While this makes it a notoriously difficult issue to come to any sort of agreement on in terms of public policy, I hold out hope that common ground can be reached. While I think that stricter gun regulations may be called for, I think it's unrealistic at this point to expect that guns be banned outright (and I'm not necessarily convinced that this should be the case). Unfortunately, such discussions are usually compromised by being carried out as a knee-jerk response to tragic events like this or by being hijacked by pointless arguments like the ones I outlined in my previous post. Consequently, for better or worse, we continue to live with the status quo.

By the way, for those who are interested, this news excerpt is from last Friday's Democracy Now:

The Associated Press is reporting the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, should not have been able to purchase the guns he used in the massacre. Federal regulations bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective." In 2005, a judge ruled Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." The ruling came after two female students accused Cho of stalking them. But it appears the judge's ruling was never conveyed to federal authorities. This allowed Cho to pass the instant background check needed to buy the weapons.

criticism != bashing.

If you don't mind me making a slight tweak: constructive criticism != bashing.

The way I see it, there are two key issues to this event:

1. Student committed a massacre -> why did he do it?
2. Student committed a massacre -> what made this worse than it could/should have been?

Answers to 1 might include (among others) "America has a problem with violence," and to #2 might be "he had access to a gun." I wouldn't have any problems with discussions like this, especially if backed by evidence and solutions.

I do find it a little irritating - not just in this thread, but also in our domestic media - that it's only #2 that's ever addressed, and even then, it's confined to the issue of him having a gun. This implies to me that a) the sole goal here is to get rid of guns (i.e. political hijacking), b) if we can keep the body count down when these things happen, then we're doing ok, and c) we're not really interested in addressing why he did it.

In this thread specifically, the following assertions have also been made, which really don't have anything to do with addressing the issue of gun control in the US in any realistic sense, and if not insulting, are generally at least baseless and/or stereotypical:

3. Americans are pathologically violent -> they need guns
4. Americans hold human life in low regard -> they need guns
5. Americans live in a state of perpetual fear -> they need guns
6. Americans are brainwashed and ignorant -> they needs guns
7. Americans have guns -> they deserve/should expect massacres to happen
8. Americans have guns -> they're uncivilized
9. Americans have guns -> their constitution is broken
10. Americans are crazy and f*ed up (actually, I'll submit to this, but I don't think we're at all unique in this aspect)

With the vast majority of comments being about #3-10, hopefully you can understand why it gets frustrating. You may not be intending to insult or culture-bash, which I certainly appreciate, but I don't think Darth and I (and others) are seeing phantoms either.

Anyway, I've typed and spent way too much time on this topic. I've said my peace. I'm definitely having a drink ....

In the language you use there are the signifiers of a whole mentality that is mostly ecountered en-masse in the US in my opinion. You live in a huge country, and you've been led to fear people you don't know constantly (by whom and for what reason is a different discussion). I don't think if boom! tomorrow all guns are outlawed in the US, the citizens won't find ways to kill each other (though probably in less numbers and possibility of success). I think it takes a long period of hard work on many levels to undo the damage in the US that an intentionally cultivated culture of ignorance, fear and violence has created.

So Americans who are gun activists (or I guess you're saying all Americans) are ignorant pawns brainwashed into an acquiescent state of fear and violence by some unnamed group. I'm having a hard time trying to determine whether or not I'm supposed to take this seriously.

Countries maintain standing armies (ostensibly) to protect themselves in the unlikely event that they're attacked. Similarly, people spend quite a bit of money insuring their property and valuables in the unlikely event of loss, theft, or destruction. However, as soon as someone expresses the opinion that owning a gun is good insurance against the unlikely event that a criminal might break in or attack them, they (actually, their entire culture, given the statement above) are suddenly accused of being pathologically ignorant, brainwashed, fearful, and violent. I really don't understand this reasoning.

In greece, where there's quite strong gun control - in cities at least - the constitution says that in the case that a goverment seizes power from the people and therefore becomes a dictatorship, the citizents have an obligation to take arms and overthrow this dictatorship.

It seems a little disingenuous to codify in law what you're allowed to do should the rule of law fail. I'm curious, how do you exercise this clause of your constitution? Does the government issue weapons to the population with instructions that they may only be used if dictatorship takes over? Are there weapons depots available for civilians to access if the government is overthrown? As expressed â€" “you're not allowed to have weapons, but feel free to resist us should we decide to oppress you” â€" I suspect that this may not really mean anything at all.

Gun control isn't an issue when you're fighting for democracy. I don't know if it's your misinterpreting the second amendment or if the founding fathers of your nation had a strange idea about causality, but the two things don't necessarily interfere.

Gun control certainly can be an issue if the people trying to fight for democracy don't have access to the weapons they need to oppose dictatorship. Perhaps this is what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the amendment. Outmoded thinking? I don't know, haven't really thought about it. But volumes have been written on the subject, and constitutional experts disagree to this day about what their “true” intentions were.

But regardless, I don't see what's so baffling and morally reprehensible when a society where gun rights are codified in laws founded upon resistance to oppressive government, and culturally enshrined by the fact that a large part of the country was settled by individual families making a home on the frontier, has different opinions on gun ownership than other societies. It seems to me that if you grew up in an environment where guns were readily available, handled responsibly, and your parents taught you how to use them out in your backyard, you might have a more permissive view of guns without the requirement of being ignorant, morally misaligned, or pathologically violent.

... is this civilization, democracy and mild tempered tolerance?

Sure, why not? I have to wonder which society is more civilized: society 1, where violent crime doesn't exist because weapons are outlawed so potential criminals can't get weapons, or society 2, where violent crime doesn't exist because everyone has weapons so potential criminals fear reprisal. Regardless, it seems a bit overkill to dismiss a society as uncivilized simply because you disagree with one aspect of its culture.

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

So you (and many others) are indirectly attributing the idea of gun ownership to a culture of violence and general disregard for human life. That sounds like a straw man to me. Actually, you've made this argument explicitly in your opening statement, along with claims of societal manipulation and programming, based on nothing other than your opinion, and have subsequently been unwilling to present or consider evidence supporting or refuting your opinion. The implications of this are somewhat unsettling.

If someone wants to talk numbers, go right ahead. I know numbers can be read any way people want too, it's not going to magically make people agree on this thread.

Isn't that the whole point of going to the facts â€" to formulate one's own opinions by combining fact with one's own system of beliefs and morals? I don't understand where this requirement for everyone to be in agreement with “The One Correct Opinion” comes from. Dealing with facts certainly can be inconvenient when they don't support your opinion, or when different people reach different conclusions from the same facts, or when the evidence provides no clear right or wrong answer, but they're all we have to work with. Consequently, disagreement is probably the one sure thing you can count on entering any argument. So it seems to me we can either resign ourselves to repeatedly pounding on the table and yelling “No, you're wrong!” at each other â€" which I find is the normal course of events â€" or prepare ourselves to try and understand the other side's viewpoint, possibly bringing our own into question, and come to some constructive compromise or common ground. Might the latter method lead us to that goal of civilized, democratic, mild-tempered tolerance regardless of one's opinions?

That is so incredibly stupid I have to assume you're joking?

Yes. I was taking issue with some of the responses to what you (and others) have said. I had hoped this was clear.

This debate has gone in the toilet.

My point exactly.

Well Eager-Mind, this is a debate about gun-control which was generated by the initial event. With all due respect to the departed, there is always room to discuss why it happened.

Agree with you completely. Don't even have problems with a debate about gun control.

But I get agitated when I see something like: "I think guns are morally wrong because they kill people. But I also think that when people who live in societies that allow guns (whether or not they had a choice in the matter) are killed because of them, they simply had it coming." I get especially agitated when people using an argument like this are trying to take some sort of superior moral high ground against gun activists.

This in addition to a "debate" that is mostly just culture-bashing and moral self-righteousness.

Person 1: "Guns are bad because they kill people."
Person 2:"No, they're good because they allow me to protect myself and others from attackers."
Person 1:"No, that's bad, because the attackers can just get their own guns and you have escalation."
Person 2:"No, that's good, because then no one will ever attack anybody else for fear of reprisal. In fact, everyone should have guns."
Person 1: "No, that's bad, because guns kill people ...." etc., etc., ad nauseum

So tell me, who wins the moral argument here? Person 1 because he doesn't want people to die, or person 2 because he doesn't want people to die? How about someone making a compelling argument with facts, numbers, and references, without disparaging someone's cultural background, and realizing that perfectly reasonable people can disagree on this (even after all the facts have been presented)?

If I had been killed, I'd rather have people discussing the reasons behind it and the steps to prevent it from happening again, instead of crying some fake tears and moving on without changing a thing.

Again, agree with you completely, as long as it's constructive discussion. So assuming (quite reasonably, I think) that America will continue to allow gun ownership, let's quit beating our heads against that wall and look at this constructively:

1. At least several teachers were concerned with this guy's mental health and recommended to the university that he receive medical attention. What steps were taken to ensure he actually received it, and what was the extent of that medical attention? If he had been admitted to a psychiatric care facility, might this whole incident have been avoided?

2. Prior to the massacre, he was involved with several stalking incidents in which women made complaints to the police. No arrests were made or charges filed, but shouldn't this have warranted at least an entry into his police record, and possibly other disciplinary action within the university environment?

3. Despite #1 and #2, he was still able to purchase a weapon. Shouldn't this warrant a change to the gun-acquisition process to prevent someone with a questionable background from obtaining a gun? If procedures like this already exist, then why didn't they come into play in this instance? Was this guy's problems properly documented so that they would show up in a background investigation?

4. Doesn't the media, and perhaps we as a society, share in the blame for empowering this kind of behavior? By choosing to commit mass-murder, this person has received basically 24-hour coverage on the news-dedicated channels for the past three days (and counting) and has had his views and opinions splashed on the front page of the major news publications. I'd wager this is more fame than a scientist finding a cure to AIDS, cancer, and world hunger would ever get. How about a news summary covering the incident, taking a moment to mourn the dead, and then letting officals and policy makers review the facts and make recommendations without the crushing pressure of the media and public eye?

These are some questions I'd like to see asked and action taken on. Instead, I fear that people will just pound their fists on the table in indignation until the coverage finally dies down and everyone forgets about it and continues with their normal routine. Or maybe we'll strip away more individual freedoms in some fear-driven goal for "better safety." The worst part is, while I think my 3rd question is reasonable and may call for some stricter gun regulations, because events like this get passions high and generate finger-pointing discussions like this one, gun activists won't concede a single inch because the only alternative being presented to them is "no guns at all" while they're basically being called murderers.

We discuss this because we're concerned and want to change things.

Me too.

There's an implication behind this whole thread which I find quite maddening, and someone was kind enough to finally voice it explicitly:

While I feel for the victims of the university, I can't help but feel America's created this problem all by itself.

Yes, let's completely nullify this tragedy and ignore the fact that it was the perpetrator of this act, clearly mentally unstable and in need of help, who in the end chose to act out in violence. Rather, it's because of people like you Darth, Geoffkan, RickJ, etc., that this happened. You're the ones with blood on your hands. As for those dead students, what did they think was going to happen to them? It's this poor Seung-hui fellow that's the real victim in all of this. Ah well, those crazy Americans, in the end they're just getting what they deserve, what?

Whatever one's opinions are on gun control, I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit, and sublimely hypocritical if you deem yourself a pacifist.

I can't believe we're debating guns again

Debate is hardly what I'd call it. Unless you consider statements like this to be debate:

If you find it insulting that the rest of the world is criticising your gun culture after a massacre of this proportion, quite frankly you deserve to been insulted.

"I disagree with your opinion, so you're an idiot." Gotta love it ....

I think just auto-locking the thread would save everyone hassle.  It's trivial for the thread starter to pm darth and get it unlocked, really.

Knowing how people are at reading instructions and following rules, my guess is you'd start getting duplicate threads by people coming back and finding their original threads locked (not to mention additional threads asking why their old thread was locked). I don't know, in practice this might be a very low number - it might be worth someone looking at how many threads that haven't been touched over a certain period of time are ever resurrected by the developer.

After 90 days of inactivity, the only person that can post to the thread would be the author of it.

Seems ideal, if possible.

Just quickly browsing through the page source, it looks like from the .js extensions that you might be using JScript (not to be confused with Javascript), which is actually a superset of EMCAScript (i.e. Javascript). I'm no expert, but it looks like JScript might tie into Microsoft's ActiveX scripting technology, which could be what's giving you your browser warnings.

I just remembered that in various places throughout the game (at least at the beginning) you can find some vending machines which will give you a point or two of life when you use them (well, until they're out). Now the military, which always has to come up with their own name for everything, call these "gee-dunk machines," or just simply "gee-dunk" - presumably because of the sound they make when the item you've purchased falls to the bottom of the machine. What with all the marines you end up bumping into, they should've called the game "Gee-Dunk".

You're joking right?

What makes you think that? Plus, how many games can you think of where you run around with pediculicide shampoo as one of your weapons? Now that would just be wicked cool.

It's like calling a racing game "Handbrake!".

Hey, I like it! I picture some sort of weird combination drag-racing/demolition-derby type game where your vehicle is a high-speed, out-of-control deathtrap that you've assembled out of discarded junkyard parts. Sounds like fun to me!

OK, sorry. I'll stop now.