Because space junk in lower orbits is a real problem. You get too much useless debris in space flying around the earth at thousands of miles an hour without known locations, you can't launch and get off this rock because launching a shuttle is like crossing the jersey turnpike during rush hour.
People like to swear by mechanical keyboards. However, mechanical keyboards make me start swearing. I find it hard to concentrate when suffering that cacophanous sound constantly and it ruins any semblance of a tranquil work environment for me.
While true, it points to the major problem. The entire reason single player must be played "online" is because its a real money auction house. This single design decision drove all of the "features" that everyone detests. Their greed is the problem here.
Because then I'd be more familiar with the units, which might enable me to spot mistakes more easily (as in, "50g? Why is this 50g, surely they mean 5g!"), where otherwise using different units obscures them.
FTFY
People in the US can easily spot mistakes with imperial units as we're taught both systems in school. Truth is, imperial is actually simpler for household things like baking and cooking, because you're usually working in single digit numbers rather than triple digit numbers, which is great for the mathematically impaired. Fahrenheit also makes sense for temperature because of how much of a temperature difference we can feel, which is why a lot of metric thermostats go up in increments of.5 instead of whole numbers. Imperial is about sensible everyday life portions and their increments. Why should people who only use math for cooking have to re-learn everything simply for your peace of mind? This is on top of the fact that the overhaul of the US would cost trillions in signage alone.
Well, that explains it. Thanks. I wondered if I was thinking of a misnomer since it didn't seem to be for XBox when I'd originally researched it to put on there.
I see these stories all the time with no disambiguation of the acronym, and I go to their website and can't even find it there. For the longest time I thought it stood for XBox Media Center.
That's pretty rediculous, $1.1 billion advertising two new products?! I always knew Apple was a marketing company but damn.
This could simply be because I haven't seen regular ad numbers before though. Does anyone know what competing products have spent on advertising? That kind of information would help make more sense of their numbers.
In your opinion, treating people equally means only rewarding results. In my opinion, equality also includes treating people equally in regards to effort. No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage men have in sports over women, so sports are segregated along the sex line and their champions are crowned within the two subdivisions. Both champions have pushed their bodies to its physical limits and been crowned best in the world among their peers. Its that fucking simple. Your ideological ramblings would mean women can't participate in sports in your system, because as you stated, "From each according to ability," and they can never overcome the cieling their body places on them with respect to men.
Like I said earlier in different wording, you try to force the people into a black-and-white ideology, completely leaving out the human elements, as evidenced above. As a little side story, my Dad was an olympic swimmer and I was nationally ranked by the age of 12, but I hated it. My ability points to me following that path, but I hated it and quit. That doesn't work in your system because my disdain for the sport overrode my ability to perform it. Are you saying I shouldn't have a choice and have to live a miserable life doing something solely because I'm good at it? If so, fuck you and your ideology.
The funny thing is this doesn't even account for the byproducts of segregated sports. Just because one sex may be faster or stronger doesn't mean that the other isn't as competitive or enjoyable to watch. Sports are about how closely matched the competitors are, not whose the perfect specimen. This is why junior sports are enjoyable despite the amatuer play. Hey, since we're throwing out sex, why not throw out age too, another defining physiological segregator, and never reward kids who do the best among their peers because they can't keep up with olympians. Talk about killing motivation.
I'm done discussing this with you, so don't expect another reply. I think the only thing I learned from this discussion is that you've probably never competed successfully in something in your life and for some reason have a deep disdain for women's sports. Oh, and that I probably got trolled. I'm not interested in discussing ideologies, since as history shows us, they never work as you predict them to. As I stated earlier, ideologies are a cop-out to answering hard questions. All this discussion boiled down to "but my socialist definition of perfection says this." Discussing things with people of your mindset is unbearable, and I can only hope that you'll grow into a more well-rounded person in the future.
No, that's treating people differently. Justice is blind, and referees should be too.
An extension of your logic would mean we should just go and off all the handicapped people since they aren't as capable, or not bother teaching women math at all since they are statistically less capable at it in than men. After all, if a sex or person is inferior at something by default, they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to even try, eh? That's how sports would devolve if what you suggest were to happen, since it becomes less about effort and more about how you were born.
It's not discriminatory, it's reality. If you actually have less ability, you should actually not get a medal. Giving those with less ability an advantage is discriminatory against those with more ability. If you give a woman a gold medal for a 10s 100m, you're discriminating against the guy who got a 9.9s 100m but didn't win a gold.
The guy not winning the women's gold medal is not discriminatory. He got his butt beat by his peers. The woman who won it beat all of her peers. The difference between men and women sport split vs. the bathroom scale is that the fat person has a means to lose weight, the woman or man does not have a reasonable method to change their sex without significant ramifications, and that her sex puts her at an obvious disadvantage against those of us with a third leg.
You haven't actually made an argument here. You've just declared that treating people differently is treating people equally, which is nonsense on its face, and claimed that I'm wrong by way of ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument?
You are arguing for a black and white world ruled by natural selection and evolution and calling it equal. Sorry, but society doesn't work like that. We treat people equally inside their sensibly defined sub-groupings and then try to treat those sub-groupings as equally as possible with respect to their accomplishments in their bubbles, because while they may not be the best in the world overall, they are best among their peers of whom they have a sensibly balanced playing field, which is a very strong accomplishment. We do this because men and women are by nature unequal, but deserve the same recognition for their accomplishments within their half of the population. One result of this 20th century women's rights change is that women are much more talented in sports than they were 100 years ago, because its not looked at as "unladylike." I'd hate it if I was born and told I couldn't amount to anything in something I loved b/c I'm not a man, and told to go clean the kitchen. That's what you sound like, and quite frankly, it sounds sociopathic and disgusting.
So should we have different basketball matches for tall people and short people? Should we segregate swimming matches by lung capacity? etc, etc..
We already have this in theory. The less capable athletes play in minor leagues, and the handicapped athletes play in their own leagues. In some sports, we also have weight classes. Your progress in a sport's competition hierarchy is a product of your skills and your genetics.
I do too. That's why I advocate treating everyone equally.
Treating people equally also includes respecting their differences. If you don't factor in that people are inherently different, a one-stop-solution approach is actually more unequal since its discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't fit the norm. While it would be convenient if one-stop solutions and ideologies worked, they typically fall short and only serve as a cop-out for critical thinking on a subject.
I usually don't resort to being this blunt, but that's stupid and rediculous. We create groups of competitors based off generally level playing fields. It would simply be a cheauvanist pig method to belittle someone who has a major genetic handicap in such competition. Sports are an entertainment avenue, and are such because close competitions are fun to watch. Sex-segregated sports are just as much for the athletes as they are for the fans. As for the brain argument, we don't have a complete understanding of how the brain works and grows, so a comment like that is as much an iinsult of the parents, culture, and society as it is directly to the person. All I can say is thank goodness people are different, because I can't imagine how much this world would suck if someone with your abysmal people skills had to handle diplomacy or mental health jobs.
For the record, I'm a guy. I find not treating half the world's population as subhuman makes for a much more enjoyable life.
The physiological differences of the sexes are so extreme that that would be more detrimental to women than you can possibly imagine. For a point of comparison, the men's world records are 10% to 30% faster in almost every sport, with top speeds / hit speeds sharing the same disparity. As a point of comparison, the world record for men's 100m freestyle 46.91 to the women's 52.07, 5 seconds faster than the womens, and 5 seconds is an eternity in swimming. Its like that across every single event. Even in more precision sports like Golf, the driving distance is substantially different.
As wonderful a thing it would be if it were practical, it would only serve to remove women from top level competitions in sports.
Your suggestion has several problems. First, implementing such a system would mean you no longer have to train for your starts, which is actually something you spend significant time on and study, meaning you just wasted countless hours of athlete's previously invested time. Second, this would require fairly expensive infastructure down to the junior and adolescent levels of the sport, increasing the barrier of entry, which is a bad thing for the least expensive sport in the world (which partly explains so many winners from third world countries). If you were to only introduce it to high level competition, it would remove training continuity and progression. Third, there would be a very high chance of injury during the disengage machinations of your contraption, the ankles are not designed for that kind of abrupt start/stop...it'd be like jumping out of a car and starting to run at 25mph. Lastly, it would render all previous records obsolete and essentially force them to keep a separate record book, so you lose continuity to past generations.
That's all beside the point that both are important factors in the sport, if it was just about who could go fastest, we'd speed gun their top speed and declare them the winner. In summation, not gonna happen.
Abitions continually expand. Just because you and I can't fathom having hundreds of millions sitting around doesn't mean that someone used to spending wads of money doesn't have plans for it. Some stockpile for their family heritage and want to create a perpetual income for their safety net. Others plan to satisfy past ambitions long given up on, which can be seen in examples like SpaceX and other ambitious frontier companies. Others burn it on major construction projects as their childhood dream of designing their own $5m castle from the ground up. Some are even more ambitious, having goals like the Gates foundation.
If all people were allowed to acquire through work was a basic standard of living, these ambitions wouldn't be possible without seeking political offices or through government corruption.
I disagree. You're comparing something that's a black and white binary to the economy, which is part of the reason we got into this mess: people trying to precisely quantify a macroeconomic system, then turning a blind eye to anything that disagrees with their models. You can't just "fix it" as the system is heavily analogue with hazy inputs and outputs that span decades, not easily testable to any sort of precision. Garbage in, garbage out does not make for accurate models. Also, we can't just plug test cases in to find out the bugs, can't always prove the effects were specific to the cause, and can't accurately predict what state the economy would be in had different steps been taken.
FYI, I'm not a system analyst, I'm a financial analyst with a basic but useful IT background. Knowing your limitations in this field and the boundaries of your knowledge and ability are keys to success, those who are not humble are simply disasters waiting to happen. "What can we do to fix it, and what can be done to prevent it from happening" are far more important than "he caused the problem, crucify and burn him!" that your tone and stance suggest. Its not about who broke it because no one person has enough control to micromanage the system. All it does is create a culture of concealment and fingerpointing, and shit doesn't get done. Too much CYA and not enough manning up. The black and white culture prevalent in programming and related fields were the reason I changed my career path, and I don't regret it.
The funny thing is, we're basically arguing the same point: An economic system requires sensible controls that provide accountability and keep risk within an acceptable tolerance level, without suffocating opportunity. The difference is you're focused on attacking the people who had a hand in poor decisions rather than focusing on the poor decisions and what we can learn from them. That fingerpointing only creates an argument of "he did it!" rather than an argument about the viable options to remedy such situations, and is entirely counterproductive.
The answer is absolutely nothing. People keep asking the wrong questions and expect the answers to pave a path through a cloudy future. The question that needs to be asked here isn't whose at fault for the current predicament, but what can be done to fix it. As we're coming up on elections, we look at what has been tried by the current President in the situation and how it fared, whether or not Bush was a catalyst for the situation means absolutely nothing (unless of course the current GOP nominee intends to follow those footsteps, which doesn't appear to be the case and frankly isn't possible given the circumstance).
I'm not a fan of Romney but I'm not enthralled by how poor Obama has handled his presidency. Looking at the past four years, he pushed his healthcare agenda at a time when the primary focus should have been elsewhere, while proceeding to fail miserably at getting it implemented properly even with full party control. Well, at least its sticking, so bonus points there. All the while, we ran a phantom economy trading debt for propped up economic health indicators whose rises were almost entirely superficial. I benefitted from most of the broken window fallacy programs like the housing tax credit and cash for clunkers, but I don't feel they adressed any of the issues. We can't inflate our way or borrow our way out of this problem. Address the lack of accountability and fiscal responsibility and you've got my vote.
Reward today and tomorrow, not yesterday. Just because something exists because of unions in the past doesn't mean that those same unions are as beneficial today. Given my dealings with them, they reduce safety, add corruption, are existences of gluttony and sloth, and can legally function as a racketeering unit, preventing progress with threats. Unions have served a great purpose in the past, but they've long overstepped their bounds and now function as an impediment.
The difference is that we don't have a xenophobic culture. France is notorious for this (well Paris mostly) and its blatently obvious to any foreign visitor. Yes, there are subcultures in the US living in distinct areas. Unlike France, there isn't rampant racism resulting from the holier than thou attitude taken by the locals. Aside from the alarmist news story, people tend to get along pretty well across cultural divides.
He actually argues that this saves newspapers money and therefore allows them report on the important stuff while outsourcing the inane stuff to Filipino freelancers who get absolutely no credit (and ridiculously low wages) for their (often correspondingly subpar) work.
You'd be surprised, behind a lot of what appear to be scummy businesses are people who really believe they're doing the world a great service. From seminar leaders to pyramid schemes to cubicle monkeys, a significant percentage of people really believe in what they do for a living.
There's plenty of solid stories available, and your selective memory is showing. While games like the FF series did take around 50 hours to complete, these still exist in forms such as Skyrim, Mass Effect, Mount and Blade, and of course the other. The 40-50 hour games were never considered short and were always considered epic, its just their also-rans have been forgotten. What you're forgetting about is that parallel to the releases of FFVII-X were the 5-10 hour capcom shorts like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and the Resident Evil series. The difference is that these games now have competitive modes tacked on and can become an online fad rather than play and throw away. Add to the fact that FPSes have gained a heavy showing on consoles and they never traditionally had any sort of long single player mode, and you get a bit of confirmation bias.
Umm, I'm a bit confused. It takes almost 40 million frames per second and has a one in a million error rate? Is this a good thing or a bad thing being spun as good? Anyone care to elaborate?
Slashdot Mirror
lol, mod parent up. Good laugh to start the morning.
Because space junk in lower orbits is a real problem. You get too much useless debris in space flying around the earth at thousands of miles an hour without known locations, you can't launch and get off this rock because launching a shuttle is like crossing the jersey turnpike during rush hour.
People like to swear by mechanical keyboards. However, mechanical keyboards make me start swearing. I find it hard to concentrate when suffering that cacophanous sound constantly and it ruins any semblance of a tranquil work environment for me.
To each their own, I guess
While true, it points to the major problem. The entire reason single player must be played "online" is because its a real money auction house. This single design decision drove all of the "features" that everyone detests. Their greed is the problem here.
Because then I'd be more familiar with the units, which might enable me to spot mistakes more easily (as in, "50g? Why is this 50g, surely they mean 5g!"), where otherwise using different units obscures them.
FTFY
People in the US can easily spot mistakes with imperial units as we're taught both systems in school. Truth is, imperial is actually simpler for household things like baking and cooking, because you're usually working in single digit numbers rather than triple digit numbers, which is great for the mathematically impaired. Fahrenheit also makes sense for temperature because of how much of a temperature difference we can feel, which is why a lot of metric thermostats go up in increments of .5 instead of whole numbers. Imperial is about sensible everyday life portions and their increments. Why should people who only use math for cooking have to re-learn everything simply for your peace of mind? This is on top of the fact that the overhaul of the US would cost trillions in signage alone.
Well, that explains it. Thanks. I wondered if I was thinking of a misnomer since it didn't seem to be for XBox when I'd originally researched it to put on there.
What in god's name does XBMC stand for?!
I see these stories all the time with no disambiguation of the acronym, and I go to their website and can't even find it there. For the longest time I thought it stood for XBox Media Center.
Save me from this nagging question please!
That's pretty rediculous, $1.1 billion advertising two new products?! I always knew Apple was a marketing company but damn.
This could simply be because I haven't seen regular ad numbers before though. Does anyone know what competing products have spent on advertising? That kind of information would help make more sense of their numbers.
In your opinion, treating people equally means only rewarding results. In my opinion, equality also includes treating people equally in regards to effort. No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage men have in sports over women, so sports are segregated along the sex line and their champions are crowned within the two subdivisions. Both champions have pushed their bodies to its physical limits and been crowned best in the world among their peers. Its that fucking simple. Your ideological ramblings would mean women can't participate in sports in your system, because as you stated, "From each according to ability," and they can never overcome the cieling their body places on them with respect to men.
Like I said earlier in different wording, you try to force the people into a black-and-white ideology, completely leaving out the human elements, as evidenced above. As a little side story, my Dad was an olympic swimmer and I was nationally ranked by the age of 12, but I hated it. My ability points to me following that path, but I hated it and quit. That doesn't work in your system because my disdain for the sport overrode my ability to perform it. Are you saying I shouldn't have a choice and have to live a miserable life doing something solely because I'm good at it? If so, fuck you and your ideology.
The funny thing is this doesn't even account for the byproducts of segregated sports. Just because one sex may be faster or stronger doesn't mean that the other isn't as competitive or enjoyable to watch. Sports are about how closely matched the competitors are, not whose the perfect specimen. This is why junior sports are enjoyable despite the amatuer play. Hey, since we're throwing out sex, why not throw out age too, another defining physiological segregator, and never reward kids who do the best among their peers because they can't keep up with olympians. Talk about killing motivation.
I'm done discussing this with you, so don't expect another reply. I think the only thing I learned from this discussion is that you've probably never competed successfully in something in your life and for some reason have a deep disdain for women's sports. Oh, and that I probably got trolled. I'm not interested in discussing ideologies, since as history shows us, they never work as you predict them to. As I stated earlier, ideologies are a cop-out to answering hard questions. All this discussion boiled down to "but my socialist definition of perfection says this." Discussing things with people of your mindset is unbearable, and I can only hope that you'll grow into a more well-rounded person in the future.
Until then.
No, that's treating people differently. Justice is blind, and referees should be too.
An extension of your logic would mean we should just go and off all the handicapped people since they aren't as capable, or not bother teaching women math at all since they are statistically less capable at it in than men. After all, if a sex or person is inferior at something by default, they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to even try, eh? That's how sports would devolve if what you suggest were to happen, since it becomes less about effort and more about how you were born.
It's not discriminatory, it's reality. If you actually have less ability, you should actually not get a medal. Giving those with less ability an advantage is discriminatory against those with more ability. If you give a woman a gold medal for a 10s 100m, you're discriminating against the guy who got a 9.9s 100m but didn't win a gold.
The guy not winning the women's gold medal is not discriminatory. He got his butt beat by his peers. The woman who won it beat all of her peers. The difference between men and women sport split vs. the bathroom scale is that the fat person has a means to lose weight, the woman or man does not have a reasonable method to change their sex without significant ramifications, and that her sex puts her at an obvious disadvantage against those of us with a third leg.
You haven't actually made an argument here. You've just declared that treating people differently is treating people equally, which is nonsense on its face, and claimed that I'm wrong by way of ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument?
You are arguing for a black and white world ruled by natural selection and evolution and calling it equal. Sorry, but society doesn't work like that. We treat people equally inside their sensibly defined sub-groupings and then try to treat those sub-groupings as equally as possible with respect to their accomplishments in their bubbles, because while they may not be the best in the world overall, they are best among their peers of whom they have a sensibly balanced playing field, which is a very strong accomplishment. We do this because men and women are by nature unequal, but deserve the same recognition for their accomplishments within their half of the population. One result of this 20th century women's rights change is that women are much more talented in sports than they were 100 years ago, because its not looked at as "unladylike." I'd hate it if I was born and told I couldn't amount to anything in something I loved b/c I'm not a man, and told to go clean the kitchen. That's what you sound like, and quite frankly, it sounds sociopathic and disgusting.
So should we have different basketball matches for tall people and short people? Should we segregate swimming matches by lung capacity? etc, etc..
We already have this in theory. The less capable athletes play in minor leagues, and the handicapped athletes play in their own leagues. In some sports, we also have weight classes. Your progress in a sport's competition hierarchy is a product of your skills and your genetics.
I do too. That's why I advocate treating everyone equally.
Treating people equally also includes respecting their differences. If you don't factor in that people are inherently different, a one-stop-solution approach is actually more unequal since its discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't fit the norm. While it would be convenient if one-stop solutions and ideologies worked, they typically fall short and only serve as a cop-out for critical thinking on a subject.
I usually don't resort to being this blunt, but that's stupid and rediculous. We create groups of competitors based off generally level playing fields. It would simply be a cheauvanist pig method to belittle someone who has a major genetic handicap in such competition. Sports are an entertainment avenue, and are such because close competitions are fun to watch. Sex-segregated sports are just as much for the athletes as they are for the fans. As for the brain argument, we don't have a complete understanding of how the brain works and grows, so a comment like that is as much an iinsult of the parents, culture, and society as it is directly to the person. All I can say is thank goodness people are different, because I can't imagine how much this world would suck if someone with your abysmal people skills had to handle diplomacy or mental health jobs.
For the record, I'm a guy. I find not treating half the world's population as subhuman makes for a much more enjoyable life.
The physiological differences of the sexes are so extreme that that would be more detrimental to women than you can possibly imagine. For a point of comparison, the men's world records are 10% to 30% faster in almost every sport, with top speeds / hit speeds sharing the same disparity. As a point of comparison, the world record for men's 100m freestyle 46.91 to the women's 52.07, 5 seconds faster than the womens, and 5 seconds is an eternity in swimming. Its like that across every single event. Even in more precision sports like Golf, the driving distance is substantially different.
As wonderful a thing it would be if it were practical, it would only serve to remove women from top level competitions in sports.
Your suggestion has several problems. First, implementing such a system would mean you no longer have to train for your starts, which is actually something you spend significant time on and study, meaning you just wasted countless hours of athlete's previously invested time. Second, this would require fairly expensive infastructure down to the junior and adolescent levels of the sport, increasing the barrier of entry, which is a bad thing for the least expensive sport in the world (which partly explains so many winners from third world countries). If you were to only introduce it to high level competition, it would remove training continuity and progression. Third, there would be a very high chance of injury during the disengage machinations of your contraption, the ankles are not designed for that kind of abrupt start/stop...it'd be like jumping out of a car and starting to run at 25mph. Lastly, it would render all previous records obsolete and essentially force them to keep a separate record book, so you lose continuity to past generations.
That's all beside the point that both are important factors in the sport, if it was just about who could go fastest, we'd speed gun their top speed and declare them the winner. In summation, not gonna happen.
Abitions continually expand. Just because you and I can't fathom having hundreds of millions sitting around doesn't mean that someone used to spending wads of money doesn't have plans for it. Some stockpile for their family heritage and want to create a perpetual income for their safety net. Others plan to satisfy past ambitions long given up on, which can be seen in examples like SpaceX and other ambitious frontier companies. Others burn it on major construction projects as their childhood dream of designing their own $5m castle from the ground up. Some are even more ambitious, having goals like the Gates foundation.
If all people were allowed to acquire through work was a basic standard of living, these ambitions wouldn't be possible without seeking political offices or through government corruption.
I disagree. You're comparing something that's a black and white binary to the economy, which is part of the reason we got into this mess: people trying to precisely quantify a macroeconomic system, then turning a blind eye to anything that disagrees with their models. You can't just "fix it" as the system is heavily analogue with hazy inputs and outputs that span decades, not easily testable to any sort of precision. Garbage in, garbage out does not make for accurate models. Also, we can't just plug test cases in to find out the bugs, can't always prove the effects were specific to the cause, and can't accurately predict what state the economy would be in had different steps been taken.
FYI, I'm not a system analyst, I'm a financial analyst with a basic but useful IT background. Knowing your limitations in this field and the boundaries of your knowledge and ability are keys to success, those who are not humble are simply disasters waiting to happen. "What can we do to fix it, and what can be done to prevent it from happening" are far more important than "he caused the problem, crucify and burn him!" that your tone and stance suggest. Its not about who broke it because no one person has enough control to micromanage the system. All it does is create a culture of concealment and fingerpointing, and shit doesn't get done. Too much CYA and not enough manning up. The black and white culture prevalent in programming and related fields were the reason I changed my career path, and I don't regret it.
The funny thing is, we're basically arguing the same point: An economic system requires sensible controls that provide accountability and keep risk within an acceptable tolerance level, without suffocating opportunity. The difference is you're focused on attacking the people who had a hand in poor decisions rather than focusing on the poor decisions and what we can learn from them. That fingerpointing only creates an argument of "he did it!" rather than an argument about the viable options to remedy such situations, and is entirely counterproductive.
The answer is absolutely nothing. People keep asking the wrong questions and expect the answers to pave a path through a cloudy future. The question that needs to be asked here isn't whose at fault for the current predicament, but what can be done to fix it. As we're coming up on elections, we look at what has been tried by the current President in the situation and how it fared, whether or not Bush was a catalyst for the situation means absolutely nothing (unless of course the current GOP nominee intends to follow those footsteps, which doesn't appear to be the case and frankly isn't possible given the circumstance).
I'm not a fan of Romney but I'm not enthralled by how poor Obama has handled his presidency. Looking at the past four years, he pushed his healthcare agenda at a time when the primary focus should have been elsewhere, while proceeding to fail miserably at getting it implemented properly even with full party control. Well, at least its sticking, so bonus points there. All the while, we ran a phantom economy trading debt for propped up economic health indicators whose rises were almost entirely superficial. I benefitted from most of the broken window fallacy programs like the housing tax credit and cash for clunkers, but I don't feel they adressed any of the issues. We can't inflate our way or borrow our way out of this problem. Address the lack of accountability and fiscal responsibility and you've got my vote.
Reward today and tomorrow, not yesterday. Just because something exists because of unions in the past doesn't mean that those same unions are as beneficial today. Given my dealings with them, they reduce safety, add corruption, are existences of gluttony and sloth, and can legally function as a racketeering unit, preventing progress with threats. Unions have served a great purpose in the past, but they've long overstepped their bounds and now function as an impediment.
The difference is that we don't have a xenophobic culture. France is notorious for this (well Paris mostly) and its blatently obvious to any foreign visitor. Yes, there are subcultures in the US living in distinct areas. Unlike France, there isn't rampant racism resulting from the holier than thou attitude taken by the locals. Aside from the alarmist news story, people tend to get along pretty well across cultural divides.
That's an excellent quote, I'll have to save and remember it.
He actually argues that this saves newspapers money and therefore allows them report on the important stuff while outsourcing the inane stuff to Filipino freelancers who get absolutely no credit (and ridiculously low wages) for their (often correspondingly subpar) work.
You'd be surprised, behind a lot of what appear to be scummy businesses are people who really believe they're doing the world a great service. From seminar leaders to pyramid schemes to cubicle monkeys, a significant percentage of people really believe in what they do for a living.
That brings up an interesting question, I wonder the effects on sensitive equipment such as in a server room from such high energy harmonic devices?
There's plenty of solid stories available, and your selective memory is showing. While games like the FF series did take around 50 hours to complete, these still exist in forms such as Skyrim, Mass Effect, Mount and Blade, and of course the other. The 40-50 hour games were never considered short and were always considered epic, its just their also-rans have been forgotten. What you're forgetting about is that parallel to the releases of FFVII-X were the 5-10 hour capcom shorts like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and the Resident Evil series. The difference is that these games now have competitive modes tacked on and can become an online fad rather than play and throw away. Add to the fact that FPSes have gained a heavy showing on consoles and they never traditionally had any sort of long single player mode, and you get a bit of confirmation bias.
Umm, I'm a bit confused. It takes almost 40 million frames per second and has a one in a million error rate? Is this a good thing or a bad thing being spun as good? Anyone care to elaborate?
Ugh, that was me posting from my phone, which didn't want to log me in for some reason.