kangarootoo Comments

Page 1 of 337

  • Teenager behind Microsoft and Sony hacks jailed for two years

  • kangarootoo 26/04/2017

    @Naetharu

    "Rights are won when a society recognises that despite the inclination to punish and be cruel to others we are better served by acting in a civil and compassionate way."

    This. The basis of my objection to the death penalty. Not so much an issue with killing (which almost goes without saying), but an issue with living in a society where people want to kill and call it "right". Put simply, I don't trust those people.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 26/04/2017

    @Foxtrot-Oscar

    On the subject of the death penalty, and to create a separate discussion from my previous lengthy comment at your expense, I approach the subject by asking a question -

    What is the intended purpose of punishing criminals for their crimes?

    I am going to suggest there are four reasons.

    The first is to deter others from committing crime.

    The second (in the case of prison and other kinds of internment) is to rehabilitate.

    The third is to protect the public from the perpetrator.

    The fourth is good old fashioned "justice", also sometimes known as revenge. The idea that a person should be made to suffer as penance.

    In the case of prison, all four can be applied. In the case of the death penalty, rehabilitation drops off the menu as a reason.


    So my problem with the death penalty, is that I believe the justice system should be primarily about the first three.

    1. The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent, this is well proven.

    We skip 2 as noted.

    3. On protecting the public from a perpetrator, well no argument there, a dead person is definitely no longer a threat to anyone. Can't argue with that.


    However, arguments in favour of the death penalty always seem to end up on point 4. Revenge. It isn't like a dead person gets to learn a lesson, so the justice we talk about is essentially the blood lust of those living. And this is where I have a fundamental issue, as I believe that the desire to kill another person is not a good trait for anyone to have. Whether you are a victim of crime or not, to want another person to be murdered (whether legally or otherwise) out of a sense of revenge, well when that happens, a little bit of the sanity of the proponent has clearly been lost. And you see no end of examples of victims of crime who would never wish death on their antagonists, so it isn't like blood lust is the default.


    The other argument of course, is cases of incorrect court findings. An innocent person who is convicted of an executable offence. Nobody can deny it happens. And it is folly to say "yeah but only in clear cases", as the law doesn't work that way. From the legal perspective, every convicted criminal is a clear case, as otherwise they would be found innocent, and yet miscarriages of justice still happen.

    Now if the death penalty was effective as a deterrent, as a way to reduce crime across a society, there could perhaps be an argument for having it even if sometimes mistakes were made. But as I said earlier, that is provably not the case.

    So the facts of the matter are, the death penalty does not reduce crime within a society, and sometimes innocent people are executed, but still some people want it reinstated, because they like the idea of killing people who have wronged them out of revenge. That doesn't sit well with me, or with many others.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 26/04/2017

    @Foxtrot-Oscar

    "There is no barbaric behaviour in the punishment of criminals; barbaric behaviour can only be used to describe what happens to the innocent."

    This is an incredibly unsafe viewpoint. I'll expand on why.

    It relies on a somewhat empirical definition of "innocent", which is flawed in the first instance as morals and laws are highly subjective, changing as they do between societies and throughout history.

    Example - there was a time when the owning of enslaved people was legal, and to free a slave belonging to someone else was a crime akin to theft. Equally, to kill an enslaved person was not a crime, as they were considered property. Now it could be argued that as the law stood at the time, these things would be permissable (I wouldn't make that argument, I'm sure you wouldn't either, but bear with the example), but could it reasonably be argued that owning or killing enslaved humans was nor barbaric, simply because it was legal?

    My point is that your standpoint relies on laws never being wrong, disproportionate, or subject to change as societal values change. History shows us that this is not remotely the case.

    Furthermore, your view seems to imply that anyone committing is a crime is to be viewed as one type of human being, and anyone not committing a crime is another type of human being. Again, this almost biblical, binary definition of good and bad. I'm afraid that view is unrealistic, and provably so by human history.

    What about bad people who enforce justice? What about people who take pleasure in harming others, but have found a way to do so within the confines of the legal system? Would we not call the medieval torturer barbaric, just because they are in the employ of the King? What if someone enforcing the law commits a crime in the course of their duty, what does your world view say about that?

    What about laws that different across the world right now, or across recent history? Is stoning a woman to death for adultery not barbaric, because the local law says it is allowable?

    What about war crimes? I'm pretty sure those involved in some of the atrocities committed during WW1 and 2 felt they were doing good, and by the law of their land they were right, and therefore by your definition they were NOT capable of barbarism whilst conducting the acts we now roundly condemn.

    Speeding is illegal. So is watching TV in the UK without a license. I'm pretty sure that burning a five pound note is also a crime. Can a person punishing those acts not be capable of barbarism, of "cruel or unusual punishment" (8th amendment of the US constitution)?

    I know I am coming down hard on you, and I'm not trying to single you out. Perhaps the lesson here is that if you make a sweeping statement without really thinking it through, it shouldn't come as a surprise when it is torn to pieces by the application of considered thought. I know that sounds dickish and patronising (and slightly, it is), but I hope you take it in the spirit it is intended, because I bet when you start digging through all manner of anecdotal examples, you will find you don't really agree with the statement you made at all.
    Reply +6
  • kangarootoo 26/04/2017

    @man.the.king

    There is a difference between an excuse, and a reason or explanation.


    "the majority of us come out of it with our psyche mostly intact."

    Through personal effort, support, sheer chance, something else? This sounds dangerously like some kind of "get over your bullying like I did" competition.


    I'm not defending his actions at all, but without really knowing anything about his personal life, people seem very quick to assume that he deserves no sympathy. I am going to suggest that it is possible to condemn his actions, agree with the sentence, AND have sympathy for his personal experiences (or at least leave the door open, until we have some idea of what actually happened), all at once. I know that kind of nuance struggles on these pages, but it might be worth exploring as an idea.
    Reply +4
  • Sniper Elite 4 announces next DLC on Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 release date

  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    @greg_wha

    Oh God yes. That is a steal.

    SE3 has tons of hours of excellent gameplay in it. If the GOTY edition is also in a sale, I'd recommend that. The DLC content was very good (a few weapons that don't matter too much, but some great extra campaign levels).
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    As an extra comment, I've been playing SE4 exclusively coop, and it is one of the best coop experiences I've had in years. Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    @kinky_mong

    Believe me, if you played both of them, you'd definitely be able to tell them apart.

    SE4 is sublime, one of my top games of 2017 (and I know it is too early to call, but I'm confident). No great surprise, as SE3 was also fantastic.

    GW3 may turn out to be amazing, but I've played some of the previous two, and they are nothing of the sort.
    Reply +4
  • There's another ZX Spectrum crowdfunder - but this one looks promising

  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    @Jose_Snake

    "This is clearly for collectors and/or fanboys of the platform."

    And I think that is just fine. This coming from an old school Speccy owner (I say owner, I didn't own anything back then, my parents owned it), who won't be buying one of these 'cos I'm not really a retro gamer person.

    There is clearly a market for this, as demonstrated by the Kickstarter success, so I think everyone should just let everyone else have their fun. You can't take any of with you.
    Reply 0
  • Elite Dangerous patch notes accidentally references horrific United Airlines incident

  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    And who the f*ck introduced GG into the discussion? Seriously. Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 25/04/2017

    @cyber_nicco

    Perhaps if you'd paid for a meal, but were being told to leave before you'd eaten it and come back to eat it another day, the case would be different. Perhaps even more so if the reason you were being told to leave, is so one of the restaurant staff could sit down to eat.

    Besides, my issue here is not just that this chap was selected for removal. It was also the fact that nobody had the ability to resolve the situation non-violently. If an airline has a policy of occasionally booting out paying customers, they should also have a policy of not just calling security to physically drag someone from the plane, if a customer refuses. I'm pretty sure the shouting and screaming didn't start happening until people laid hands on him.

    This isn't a black of white issue. We don't have to either blame the airline fully, or the customer, but the lion's share of the responsibility here clearly lies with the airline, not least because when you board a commercial flight, that flight crew is responsible by law for your safety. That other commenters (not you I realise) see it as "He was told to leave, and so he deserved everything he got", well I'm afraid I find that purile and a little vindictive.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 15/04/2017

    @NullDev

    You seem confused. Let me clarify as best as I can. I completely understand your point, and I disagree with it. Any suggestion that assault is a consequence of using a cheap airline, is unbridled nonsense. I understand you don't condone UA's actions, I'm not suggesting you are. You are however implying that cheap fares lead inevitably to incidents like this, and that implication is untrue. You are wrong to connect the cost of a flight, and this sort of outcome, as if one leads to another. Association, not causation. This is basic stuff, for someone who apparently holds their own intellect in such high regard.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 15/04/2017

    @NullDev

    Of course I've heard the expression. So again we return to this idea that if you pay for cheap seats, your subsequent assault is acceptable. And again in response, I question your sanity.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 14/04/2017

    @NullDev

    Thanks for the info, but I don't see the relevance.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 14/04/2017

    @NullDev

    No, it is like buying food in poundland, and expecting it not to poison you. If you think that being assaulted is acceptable because someone didn't travel business class, you are insane.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 14/04/2017

    @cyber_nicco

    We've fallen low if a customer who has paid for a seat, expecting to be able to fly rather than be ejected so the airline's own staff can fly in his place for their convenience, is now considered a self important idiot.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 13/04/2017

    @NullDev

    "...because that was the only option left to them."

    I'm sorry but I disagree, strongly.

    Anyone with an ounce of skill in high stress customer service could have got this man to leave the aircraft without this being the result.

    For you to state that there was no other option, is to assume that the limit of the skill of those involved is not to be criticised, but worse still it shows the priority you give over the well being of an innocent person compared to flight schedules and profit.

    The United Airlines staff had insufficient training, and so were "left with no option" but to call security. Security were not trained to talk people down, so they were "left with no option" but to injure a person in their care (he was in their care, they had a responsibility for his safety, because a human life is more important than a flight schedule).

    When you say they had no option, you are fundamentally assuming that their intent is not to be questioned. You assume that taking a paying passenger and ejecting them is fine, and that if that paying passenger resists, calling security is fine, and that if the paying passenger resists again, injuring him is fine, and that he brought it all on himself because he didn't submit to their perfectly reasonable request to abandon a seat he had paid for, abandon plans he thought he could rely on, all because the airline hadn't planned properly.

    I realise I am going off on a rant here, but the more I think about your statement, the more it riles me. One party was the service supplier, the other was the paying customer, and because the service supplier put their own needs above those of their paying customer, he ended up in hospital. The flight staff really needed to be where they were going? More than a Dr with patients to see at the end of his journey? Of course the airline didn't even engage with this question, they simply assumed that moving their staff around was more important than moving paying customers around, and by that definition, he became the problem rather than the victim. And you seem to support them in their view, and I don't think that is OK, and I wonder if perhaps you haven't actually fully thought your view through, which is me giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 13/04/2017

    @Machiavellian

    "and in this case with the Dr being a professional gambler"

    Nope. The Daily Mail, being the bigoted rag it is, confused this guy with another Asian guy with the same last name. The chap involved in this case is not a professional gambler, or any of the other things the Daily Mail said he was. You couldn't make it up (unless of course, you're the Daily Mail).

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/debunkers-debunked-mail-online-stands-by-investigation-into-past-of-united-airlines-passenger-david-dao/

    That said, the private life of a person is not relevant to their treatment in a case like this. Any references, incorrect or otherwise, of this sort of just victim blaming.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 13/04/2017

    @NullDev

    I think the downvotes are because you don't seem to have identified the difference between overbooking a flight, and physically manhandling a customer such that they need hospital treatment as a result.

    The practice of overbooking may be an expected or reasonable consequence of customers wanting cheaper flights. Hospitalising human beings is not.
    Reply +2
  • Watch: Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 takes 5 minutes to load. Here's what you can do in that time.

  • kangarootoo 24/04/2017

    @ExtremeMetal

    I think you're missing the joke.
    Reply +3
  • Snooker star says he's a recovering video game addict

  • kangarootoo 21/04/2017

    @fyckfaco

    What point are you making, that only addictions to external drugs count? So video gaming isn't addictive, and neither is gambling etc.... but people are still affected by those, so what is your point?

    You wouldn't be doing that "leave video games alone" dogmatic thing I mentuoned earlier, would you?
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 21/04/2017

    @Icikle

    The definition of an addiction is when something becomes a compulsion rather than a preference. Whether the consequences are potentially harmful has nothing to do with it. Besides, it isn't a competition, we can consider addictions of all kinds to be unhealthy, not just harmful drugs - you are literally doing the "yeah but whatabout" I mentioned in my previous comment. Come on! :)
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 21/04/2017

    @Brave27heart

    Can we ban use of the word "addicting"? ;)
    Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 21/04/2017

    Good grief, anything negative said about video games, and half the commenters get all up in arms and will discard all evidence or nuanced discussion without a second thought.

    People get addicted to all sorts of things, including video games. It doesn't mean everyone thinks they are evil, and even if some people do, you reason with them. Pretending that addiction cannot apply to games, or coming at the discussion with the dreaded "Yeah but whatabout" response, is much worse in the end, as it is so easy to prove that video games can be addictive, and so any dissenting voice just seems stubborn and wilfully ignorant.

    Has anyone conducted a study about how video games can make some people dogmatic defenders of video games, in the face any of negative data? I'd bet money on the outcome of that report.
    Reply +3
  • Watch Dogs 2's new paintball rifle is just the kind of non-lethal weapon the game needs

  • kangarootoo 14/04/2017

    I agree. I know some will say "it's just a game", but a happy hacker crew shooting security employees to death and with no mention was the major narrative flaw for me. It literally made them look like insane serial killers. Great game overall, better than expected, but the guns aspect did stand out. Reply +1
  • There was a weird thing in last night's Japanese Nintendo Direct

  • kangarootoo 13/04/2017

    @Nemesis

    Good reference. I was about to post a clip before I saw your comment :)
    Reply +1
  • 10 games that defined the ZX Spectrum

  • kangarootoo 09/04/2017

    @Bruvas

    Harrier Attack! I'd for gotten all about that. Amazing game. I have memories of it being impossibly fast and smooth to play.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 09/04/2017

    Brilliant list, which definitely resonated. It could have done with The Hobbit on there for my money, but I don't know what you would swap for it. Reply +2
  • Jumanji sequel features a magical video game, not a board game

  • kangarootoo 28/03/2017

    @funkstar

    At least two previous commenters realised, and everyone who read the comments.
    Reply 0
  • Mass Effect Andromeda players want a mute button for its chatty AI

  • kangarootoo 28/03/2017

    @LightlySalted

    "Ironic that players want to shut the AI up in this, yet there were those who complained about Dragon Age Inquisition's companions not saying enough out on the field."

    Yes, how very ironic that two barely comparable things are different.
    Reply +1
  • Playtonic to ditch JonTron from Yooka-Laylee following anti-immigrant comments

  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    @draxcog1

    "JonTron did nothing wrong."

    A powerful and compelling argument, no doubt.
    Reply +6
  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    @faolanhart

    "Everyone must know that this man is the new Hitler for he holds opinions we don't like"

    To be fair, if he is being known as the new Hitler, it is for expressing Hitler like opinions. It is no good talking about "opinions we don't like" as if everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over nothing, when the opinions expressed are fundamentally objectionable.

    Unless you'd care to quote him directly, defend the things he said, and make your position clear, you are just adding smoke and hyperbole to the discussion.

    Bottom line, it is valid to call a Nazi a Nazi. Second point, I have no problem with the idea that some morals are superior to others. So rather than spit generalisms and exclamation marks, how about you explain specifically the parts of his quoted commentary that you think are fine, and any that you think aren't?
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    @DrStrangelove

    Quite right. As soon as someone wheels out a variant of "my comments were taken out context..." or "I'm sorry that you..." you know the odds are they are simply a bigot.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    @redcrayon

    It isn't so much that I think organised religion is good or bad, more that if organised religion is the product of human behaviour, that human behaviour would exist without religion. If religion didn't exist, people would find an alternative way to justify horrible stuff, to abandon personal responsibility, to hide behind numbers, and to claim the moral high ground. It is exactly that motivation, coupled with the need to ascribe purpose and understanding, that created religion in the first place.

    Removing or banning religion, as was sort of suggested earlier, would do nothing to remove these desires, and so we would simply see religion replaced with a new flag.

    I guess it could be argued that tradition and dogma are part of the deal, and if religion was gone people may think anew about old problems, but I'm not entirely convinced as there are many examples of tradition and dogma preventing free thinking that have nothing to do with spiritual faith.

    In the end, it comes down to people. There are plenty of good people there out with faith and without it, and plenty of nobheads on all sides too. Blaming any religion (or the lack of it, which includes talk such as "typical atheist response") for anything at all is imo a big mistake, as it redirects blame from the people whose actions we are actually judging, and it bundles good people in with the bad, regardless of what they believe and how they act.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    @Goldrake

    As an atheist, I don't subscribe to the idea that religion is the problem, because as an atheist I believe that all religions are created by people. Therefore people are the problem. You can't really blame a god you don't believe in for anything.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    So as someone who doesn't follow Youtube celebs of any kind, and so has a narrow view of this sort of thing, I have a question. Is there anyone running a Youtube channel aimed at young gamers who isn't a prick? Reply +3
  • Meeting Andrzej Sapkowski, the writer who created The Witcher

  • kangarootoo 24/03/2017

    Nice article. I like this guy. Clearly a bit belligerent, and a straight talker, but also reflective about his own choices. I hope he gets the wider recognition he deserves for being the creator of the whole thing, especially if there is a movie in the offing. Reply +20
  • Left Joy-Con issues resolved for future units, Nintendo claims

  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    @Diji1

    "It is not very clever to add a piece of foam to act as an antennae."

    You have literally no idea what is going on here.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    @Masaroth

    I guess the proof of the pudding (so to speak), will be whether the new models have shielding foam in them, or a change of design. If it is the latter, I would still claim this to be a design flaw, for which the foam is a workaround but not a solution.
    Reply -1
  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    So "manufacturing variation" is the new name for design flaw... except it isn't a design flaw... and when the new models come out and someone does a break down, they won't find a design change related to the bluetooth aerial. No siree. Reply 0
  • Frontier to sell Elite Dangerous spaceship nameplates

  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    @wobbly_Bob

    You have some anger issues.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    "Of course, Elite Dangerous players will be most interested in the name plates..."

    Speak for yourself. I for one don't give a tinker's fart about visible name plates :)
    Reply +2
  • How to actually enjoy Mass Effect: Andromeda

  • kangarootoo 23/03/2017

    Good grief. With all the games out there to enjoy, I don't really need a guide on how to enjoy a game that is apparently not as enjoyable as many hoped it would be. I was looking forward to ME:A, as I'd enjoyed all the previous ones. Now I'll just stick with one of the other games on a long list of things I want to play.

    I haven't got time to "find the fun". It is the developers' job to give the fun to me. That is what I pay for when I buy a game.
    Reply +34
  • PlayStation Now to stream PS4 games later this year

  • kangarootoo 14/03/2017

    @helbertpina

    "It's absolutely unacceptable that the PS4 (even the base model) can't run PS1 and PS2 games natively"

    Really? Unacceptable that a console can't natively run games 20 years old?

    Surely you can see how incredibly niche the scenario you're describing is. In terms of priorities for the PS4 development teams, I can't imagine anything that most owners would consider to be lower priority, than PS1/PS2 support.
    Reply +2
  • Nintendo investigating Switch Joy-Con issues

  • kangarootoo 13/03/2017

    @penhalion

    That is a good video link :)
    Reply -1
  • kangarootoo 13/03/2017

    @bonito

    Add it to the list :)
    Reply -1
  • kangarootoo 13/03/2017

    Dead pixels.
    Scratched screens.
    Controller connection problems.
    Joy-Con wrist strap cover issues.

    When it comes to product design and qa, where is the Nintendo I remember?
    Reply +7
  • The Persistence looks like Dead Space in VR

  • kangarootoo 13/03/2017

    Looks more like System Shock than DS to my eyes, irrelevant as that is.

    Looks nice, but I'm not sure about the weapons. Interested to see more.
    Reply 0
  • Mass Effect Andromeda has a trophy/achievement for romancing three people

  • kangarootoo 10/03/2017

    "There is one multiplayer-only award, but this is simply for playing the multiplayer tutorial."

    Hurrah. MP only awards bug me. The excellent Sniper Elite 4 has tons and ribbons and medals that I will never see :(
    Reply -1
  • This is the new PS VR Aim controller, out in May

  • kangarootoo 09/03/2017

    @Eaton_Corvinus

    Also, do you have the camera high or low? You might find that raising it up a bit helps if it is a bit low down, so that it looks down onto you rather than straight forward?
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 09/03/2017

    @Eaton_Corvinus

    That is probably why the light on this is pink, rather than blue. Obscuring line of sight to the camera will always be an issue with this sort of system, but a change in colour will help a lot (as the visual tracking is there is assist the gyros).
    Reply +1