14) Remember outsourcing and offshoring? That tide turns for a bunch of reasons but mainly because a new class of CEOs will say the old class of CEOs was filled with idiots.
it only takes a fifteen year old to realize that if there aren't any worthwhile jobs in a country, the population won't be able to buy any of the shiny goods produced, cheaply made in countries with poor labor standards or not. One can only hope that this new class of CEOs will kill their masters and usurp the throne quickly. Again, I can only hope this prediction comes true, but then again, if i can buy my DVD player for $.65 at wal-mart, it doesn't matter if i have a real job, or any hope of having a real job. Oh well, i guess we can let "the invisible hand" decide. Kudos to domestic employment--it's more expensive, but it's worth it.
good point. it is difficult enough to engage complex social issues in reality in the current climate of needless polarity, much less in a less-than-discursive format as a FPS, however, the discussion outght not to be predicated on whether or not the game deals with social issues. The issue at hand is whether or not an "indie-type" competition should back down from its corporate sponsors based on projected complaints from angry suburban housewives with so little to occupy themselves that they protest anything that offends their self-manufactured sense of self-righteousness. It's not about whether a game is offensive, it's about whether or not the contest organizers ought to have said "so we decided to make a game about "something people latch onto about to satisfy their sense of self worth because they are unable to find a real cause to get all angsty about and then our sponsors backed out because we picked something too hot for us to touch" this makes the organizers villians in some degree because they either should have A--not picked the game because they knew it would ruffle too many feathers or B--publicized the fact that people can't deal with a little mockery thrown towards their favorite sacred cow. I may just program a flight simulator that offers downtown new york as the only available scenario, just so i too can generate this much moronic publicity over what ought to have been a non-competitor, and a non-issue. having not played the game, i cannot say that it doesn't examine the dynamics of school bullying and the sheer torment that can be poured upon the less popular, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't reproduce the effects of maladjustment at the hands of ones peers.
exactly how much money do you think the enviromentalists have? Exxon Mobil has at its disposal a budget that dwarfs most NATION STATES. What do you think they're going to do? I'll give you a hint--it's called protect shareholder interests. This is sort of why there's a problem with unchecked captialism, because capital has neither conscience, memory, or human interests. The aim of capital is to, that's right, aquire more capital. I like market competition, it produces better ideas because those ideas are forced to compete, HOWEVER, if we let the competition of the market dicatate what happens all the time, all we'll have is bigger piles of money that no one is alive to use. If human interest is not considered, companies will pursue ruthlessly efficient methods to achieve that goal, because they have no obligation to the public, no obligation to the truth, and no reason to tell us anything but what is in their own short-term interests. I AM A HUMAN BEING AND HAVE LONG-TERM INTERESTS, LIKE SUSTAINABLE LIFE. I know, it's really really hard to trust anyone in this world right now, but seriously, groups that have sincere vested interests in the continued production and burning of petroleum are not the people we are supposed to trust to tell us what that process does to the world we all have to live in. I'm not saying that environmentalism is the ultimate in thinking, i'm just saying it's better than trusting companies with no reason or ability to see past their own profits.
Slashdot Mirror
14) Remember outsourcing and offshoring? That tide turns for a bunch of reasons but mainly because a new class of CEOs will say the old class of CEOs was filled with idiots. it only takes a fifteen year old to realize that if there aren't any worthwhile jobs in a country, the population won't be able to buy any of the shiny goods produced, cheaply made in countries with poor labor standards or not. One can only hope that this new class of CEOs will kill their masters and usurp the throne quickly. Again, I can only hope this prediction comes true, but then again, if i can buy my DVD player for $.65 at wal-mart, it doesn't matter if i have a real job, or any hope of having a real job. Oh well, i guess we can let "the invisible hand" decide. Kudos to domestic employment--it's more expensive, but it's worth it.
good point. it is difficult enough to engage complex social issues in reality in the current climate of needless polarity, much less in a less-than-discursive format as a FPS, however, the discussion outght not to be predicated on whether or not the game deals with social issues. The issue at hand is whether or not an "indie-type" competition should back down from its corporate sponsors based on projected complaints from angry suburban housewives with so little to occupy themselves that they protest anything that offends their self-manufactured sense of self-righteousness. It's not about whether a game is offensive, it's about whether or not the contest organizers ought to have said "so we decided to make a game about "something people latch onto about to satisfy their sense of self worth because they are unable to find a real cause to get all angsty about and then our sponsors backed out because we picked something too hot for us to touch" this makes the organizers villians in some degree because they either should have A--not picked the game because they knew it would ruffle too many feathers or B--publicized the fact that people can't deal with a little mockery thrown towards their favorite sacred cow. I may just program a flight simulator that offers downtown new york as the only available scenario, just so i too can generate this much moronic publicity over what ought to have been a non-competitor, and a non-issue. having not played the game, i cannot say that it doesn't examine the dynamics of school bullying and the sheer torment that can be poured upon the less popular, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't reproduce the effects of maladjustment at the hands of ones peers.
exactly how much money do you think the enviromentalists have? Exxon Mobil has at its disposal a budget that dwarfs most NATION STATES. What do you think they're going to do? I'll give you a hint--it's called protect shareholder interests. This is sort of why there's a problem with unchecked captialism, because capital has neither conscience, memory, or human interests. The aim of capital is to, that's right, aquire more capital. I like market competition, it produces better ideas because those ideas are forced to compete, HOWEVER, if we let the competition of the market dicatate what happens all the time, all we'll have is bigger piles of money that no one is alive to use. If human interest is not considered, companies will pursue ruthlessly efficient methods to achieve that goal, because they have no obligation to the public, no obligation to the truth, and no reason to tell us anything but what is in their own short-term interests. I AM A HUMAN BEING AND HAVE LONG-TERM INTERESTS, LIKE SUSTAINABLE LIFE. I know, it's really really hard to trust anyone in this world right now, but seriously, groups that have sincere vested interests in the continued production and burning of petroleum are not the people we are supposed to trust to tell us what that process does to the world we all have to live in. I'm not saying that environmentalism is the ultimate in thinking, i'm just saying it's better than trusting companies with no reason or ability to see past their own profits.