So when Halo 2/3 is no longer the Hot New Thing and MS can decide to "discontinue support" for multiplayer hosting, therefore forcing you to buy the next Halo on the next system...?
Bad enough that there is no true peer-to-peer connectivity for current game consoles, Xbox/360 included, so that the manufacturers can just pull the multiplayer plug whenever they want you to upgrade. Don't give them any ideas for excuses to do it early.
That's sort of a stupid question, isn't it? Of course it has to be "black." Because none of the other minorities have ever mattered since 1960, right?
Let's think about this: Her name is Jade. She picks the pen name "Shauni." She has almond shaped eyes and black spiky hair. Jade is Asian, you idiots.
News Flash: Scientists believe that the cause of warming on our planet may, possibly, sort of potentially have something to do with the bloody SUN. Film at eleven...
Pokemon was a copy of Magic: The Gathering in the same sense that Missile Command is a simulation of global thermonuclear war. The difference is that one of the above actually involved actual strategy beyond rock-paper-scissors. I'm not going to name names.
And don't even get me started on the Pokemon card game. That was a retarded Bizarro world rip-off of Magic and I never saw its appeal.
They don't have to. All they have to hear is "polar ice caps melting" and it'll send them scrambling.
Let's think about which is easier to garner public support for: In scenario A, the Experts (rarely actually hippies, but you're right - hippies are good stand-ins) claim that the world's supply on fossil fuels is running out, the places that do have fuels left are horribly unstable Middle Eastern and Russian regions filled with violent desponds and radical fundamentalists that hate our (american's) guts, and we need to work up a new plan lest we find ourselves in Big Trouble in a couple of decades. The people ask, "Well, what's the plan?" And the Experts are forced to answer, "Well, we're not quite sure on that yet." Or in scenario B, the Experts say "Oh noes! Fossil fuel emmisions are causing global warming, killing millions of fish and melting the ice caps!" And the people again ask what to do about it, and the reply is "More laws restricting what consumers (rarely big businesses) can do with their hydrocarbons!" Of course! What's the one thing that both lefist hippies and money grubbing right wing politicans can always agree on? MORE LAWS!
Thus, we wind up with meaningless feel-good legislation and a simmering level of ill-informed public hystera that can be capitalized upon. This is the same mechanism that brought us the CARB gas can laws (I am now not allowed to sell a normal, non-compliated gas can under my state laws), VOC laws (I am now not allowed to sell oil based paint to any NON GOVERNMENT customers), and vehicle emissions laws (unarguably a good thing, but pushed as the factory down the street continues to belch greenhouse gasses, carcinogens, and other pollutants and pays its way into the local government's pockets because it's cheaper than new equipment).
Just keep it simple and remember this rule of thumb? Where is the money, and where are the re-elections? These two things always go hand-in-hand, and that's where the answer is.
Global warming shouldn't even enter into it. The whole "global warming debate" is a smokescreen blown from both sides to avoid asking the really tricky, really pertinent questions, namely:
"Global warming aside, is spewing fossil fuel byproducts into the atmosphere bad for the environment in general?"
(Yes.)
"Is a complete and total reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels and pigheadedly refusing to look into alternative energy sources because they aren't where the money is a bad plan?"
(Yes.)
"What are our next steps?"
(We don't know.)
So people bitch and moan about global warming because it's a nice, round cornered, warm and fuzzy topic that any idiot can get his head around, as opposed to the intricate economic and political machinations behind the energy (read: fossil fuel) trade as a whole. It's just like hippies whining about recycling saving trees when the real issue is so much more complex than that. They just ignore the rest of it because it doesn't make a good tagline and it's harder for the average public-school-educated-Joe to understand.
And things that the average public-school-educated-Joe has a hard time understanding make him change the channel, which is bad for support and bad for business.
Slashdot Mirror
So when Halo 2/3 is no longer the Hot New Thing and MS can decide to "discontinue support" for multiplayer hosting, therefore forcing you to buy the next Halo on the next system...?
Bad enough that there is no true peer-to-peer connectivity for current game consoles, Xbox/360 included, so that the manufacturers can just pull the multiplayer plug whenever they want you to upgrade. Don't give them any ideas for excuses to do it early.
That's sort of a stupid question, isn't it? Of course it has to be "black." Because none of the other minorities have ever mattered since 1960, right? Let's think about this: Her name is Jade. She picks the pen name "Shauni." She has almond shaped eyes and black spiky hair. Jade is Asian, you idiots.
News Flash: Scientists believe that the cause of warming on our planet may, possibly, sort of potentially have something to do with the bloody SUN. Film at eleven...
Pokemon was a copy of Magic: The Gathering in the same sense that Missile Command is a simulation of global thermonuclear war. The difference is that one of the above actually involved actual strategy beyond rock-paper-scissors. I'm not going to name names. And don't even get me started on the Pokemon card game. That was a retarded Bizarro world rip-off of Magic and I never saw its appeal.
They don't have to. All they have to hear is "polar ice caps melting" and it'll send them scrambling.
Let's think about which is easier to garner public support for: In scenario A, the Experts (rarely actually hippies, but you're right - hippies are good stand-ins) claim that the world's supply on fossil fuels is running out, the places that do have fuels left are horribly unstable Middle Eastern and Russian regions filled with violent desponds and radical fundamentalists that hate our (american's) guts, and we need to work up a new plan lest we find ourselves in Big Trouble in a couple of decades. The people ask, "Well, what's the plan?" And the Experts are forced to answer, "Well, we're not quite sure on that yet." Or in scenario B, the Experts say "Oh noes! Fossil fuel emmisions are causing global warming, killing millions of fish and melting the ice caps!" And the people again ask what to do about it, and the reply is "More laws restricting what consumers (rarely big businesses) can do with their hydrocarbons!" Of course! What's the one thing that both lefist hippies and money grubbing right wing politicans can always agree on? MORE LAWS!
Thus, we wind up with meaningless feel-good legislation and a simmering level of ill-informed public hystera that can be capitalized upon. This is the same mechanism that brought us the CARB gas can laws (I am now not allowed to sell a normal, non-compliated gas can under my state laws), VOC laws (I am now not allowed to sell oil based paint to any NON GOVERNMENT customers), and vehicle emissions laws (unarguably a good thing, but pushed as the factory down the street continues to belch greenhouse gasses, carcinogens, and other pollutants and pays its way into the local government's pockets because it's cheaper than new equipment).
Just keep it simple and remember this rule of thumb? Where is the money, and where are the re-elections? These two things always go hand-in-hand, and that's where the answer is.
Global warming shouldn't even enter into it. The whole "global warming debate" is a smokescreen blown from both sides to avoid asking the really tricky, really pertinent questions, namely: "Global warming aside, is spewing fossil fuel byproducts into the atmosphere bad for the environment in general?" (Yes.) "Is a complete and total reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels and pigheadedly refusing to look into alternative energy sources because they aren't where the money is a bad plan?" (Yes.) "What are our next steps?" (We don't know.) So people bitch and moan about global warming because it's a nice, round cornered, warm and fuzzy topic that any idiot can get his head around, as opposed to the intricate economic and political machinations behind the energy (read: fossil fuel) trade as a whole. It's just like hippies whining about recycling saving trees when the real issue is so much more complex than that. They just ignore the rest of it because it doesn't make a good tagline and it's harder for the average public-school-educated-Joe to understand. And things that the average public-school-educated-Joe has a hard time understanding make him change the channel, which is bad for support and bad for business.