DVD players don't target 'casual' or 'hardcore' movie watchers. Consoles shouldn't either. I imagine Nintendo is simply trying to position their new console as one catering to everybody... not specifically the casual (like the Wii or iPhone) OR the hardcore (PS3 or 360).
Don't know if it will work, but it's purely a marketing/perception issue. The console itself is agnostic.
I honestly enjoyed Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn more than any other game on any console this gen, and it's a Wii Tactical RPG.
Of course, according to their rating system, it may be the most 'hardcore' game published on the Wii.
Re:Looks like time to find a new search engine
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 1
Duckduckgo.com? I haven't used it that much, but it looks promising, and I'm contemplating switching to it as primary. If only it had a shorter name...
Using Google or Bing will still get you only Google results, since Bing just imports what Google returns.
That is far from the truth. Read up more on the issue; not even Google claimed what you are. Microsoft's toolbar monitored the results of your google searches, and which links you clicked, and the data was incorporated in to Bing's results, as one minor factor. Try a search on both, and compare the results; obviously, neither are copies of the other.
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources,
I don't think that's it. I think they're treated different because they are very different.
Violence is unquestionably worse than sex (in most situations). I don't think many disagree. But violence also is far less of a temptation. I'm not too worried that a violent scene in a movie will cause people to run out and start slitting throats; I think it's far more likely that exposure to sexuality in media may promote sexual behavior. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be if done without preparation and understanding.
I'm pretty open to letting my (teen) kids see both, but honestly I'm more worried about them making 'sexual' mistakes than I am about them making 'violent' mistakes.
Besides being the best way to get decent pay and working conditions,
For the shrinking percentage of workers that have union jobs. Not only do unions reduce the number of overall workers a company can hire, increasing unemployment... it makes the company less competitive, greatly increasing unemployment.
Unionization of IT workers would simply accelerate the movement of jobs outside of the country, resulting in more layoffs here. At this stage, I'd FAR rather have two $40,000 jobs created than one $80,000. Unemployment is our greatest economic problem.
Also, if you were a little more aware of the international situation, you would realize that the USA is quite a bit more of a reluctant participant in the Libyan war than, say, France and the UK. We're there primarily because Europe wants us there.
And DSK seems to be a rapist. Would you prefer he be set free? All evidence and testimony about his guilt washed under the table?
The worst kind of fool is one convinced he is smarter than everyone else. Their smugness keeps them from ever learning.
Nobody is upset when Firefox improves it's adherence to web standards or improve it's performance.
It's the status bar. It's killing plugins. It's the damnable 'awesomebar'. Those aren't 'keeping up with a changing web'... that's mucking around with UI. That's what happens when a development teams decides to begin competing based on nonessentials. Changing an existing versioning scheme purely for marketing purposes is a sad demonstration of how Mozilla has taken its eye off the ball.
No rational person cares about version numbers for anything other than bug reporting. As long as version numbers are a monotonically increasing, who cares about the rate?
Not all versions of software change by the same amount. There is practically no difference between FF 4 and FF 5... (ignoring all the broken plugins). So, you say business should just treat it as a minor security update?
What happens when, going from FF6 to FF7, Mozilla does some major change to their browser... changing the memory models completely, or crippling some important functionality (you know Mozilla has crazy, debilitating features they are just waiting to implement). Should businesses treat that as a minor security update? How is a business to know what that breats? It used to be able to judge that based on minor/major version numbers. Now, there is no knowing until they do a detailed analysis of each version's changelog.
Ok, I didn't pick up on that emphasis in the original comment. I'll concede that point.
Larry Niven said that "Libertarianism is a vector". You don't ever reach a true libertarian state, you just move further away or closer to it. I think our culture and government has shifted to a point that, where once the 'liberal' parties were closer to the libertarian vector, the 'conservative' parties have taken that spot.
Probably because a hundred years ago civil liberties were in a much worse state than economic/property liberties. Now, it's the other way around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't about banning music it was about assigning movie-like ratings to music that would require the same kinds of parental supervision on purchase as an R-rated movie.
Except it was an attempt to give those ratings the weight of law. Movie ratings have no legal standing. Any attempt by congress to require ratings on movies would fail for the same reason it failed for music.
As a side-note: Remember books? Barnes & Noble has more violence and sexual content than any video rental store. Underage sex, even. Where are the ratings on books? A fifteen-year old can legally purchase "Silence of the Lambs", or even "The Bible". Where's the outrage?
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. A person has a right to their own kidney. They aren't entitled to anyone else's kidney. Sure, there are contrived cases where the distinction is blurred, but with consistent definitions, that doesn't occur much.
There is a lot of confusion over rights, and many lists of 'rights' contain entries that are in no way rights. Medical care, for instance, isn't a right. Calling it a right is as nonsensical as calling a book a song. It is an entitlement. Maybe it's a good entitlement, worth having in law... but to call it a right is an indication of muddled thinking.
A vampire has a right to seek blood, but no right to take blood from anyone. The first is a freedom, the second is a theft.
Kids can't buy porn.
Kids can't see R-rated movies.
Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games.
You should know this, but if you don't: There's no law that restricts children from seeing R-rated movies. Any such restriction would be found unconstitutional, just as the law about videogames was. Kids aren't generally allowed to see R-rated movies because theaters simply don't let them. No other reason.
Kids will generally not be allowed to buy 'M' rated games. Not because of a law... that would be unconstitutional... but because most reputable dealers will simply decide not to sell those to them.
Historically speaking, conservatism's libertarian wing is something of an anomaly, and exists largely in reaction to the rise of the concept of welfare states.
Nonsense. The libertarian movement is a descendent of 18th and 17th century century concepts of laissez-faire freedoms and natural rights of man. You may be correct in that the recent resurgence of libertarianism is fueled in part as a reaction to the increase of the welfare state and encroaching socialism, but its roots run far deeper, and tie closely to the principles used as a basis for our own constitutionally-limited state.
Designing for only a "once in 100 years disaster" was the real flaw.
But was it? The injuries and damage from Fukushima are vastly smaller than from the earthquake/tsunami... all but the most fanatic anti-nuclear zealots admit that. Is there really a point to spending money on the nuclear plant so that it could withstand a disaster that is an order of magnitude more damaging than anything the reactor would do?
I'm just thinking out loud, but would 100 million dollars have been better spent on better protecting Fukushima, or spent on further earthquake/tsunami research, prediction, and defenses? Which would have saved more lives?
When it comes to nuclear safety no shoddiness can be tolerated.
Shoddiness has to be tolerated in any human endeavor. If the engineers were foolish enough to assume there would be no flaws in design or construction, there would have been no reason for them to put multiple layers of safety measures in place.
But they know that effectiveness is going to be 98%, not 100%, so they put multiple layers in place to bring the chance of error lower and lower.
My hope is, here, that the plant's successful weathering of this crisis will reassure the public in regards to the engineering competency of the nuclear plants; but I doubt it. The press will do what the press does, and we'll end up burning more coal.
Sure, he was rude; but the GP was wrong. You shouldn't chide him for his discourtesy while glossing over the fact that he was correcting rcamans' error; that's intellectually dishonest. The deaths were not related to radiation. I don't believe anyone can give a cite to any radiation-caused death from Fukushima.
The Mozilla foundation needs to understand that their recent bad decisions have consequences.
I use Firefox, and have for quite a while. I've gone from a strong supporter and proselytizer to... less enthusiastic. It's still my first choice of browser, but just barely.
It was the Awesomebar debacle, and their refusal to include an option to turn it off, that first made me suspect they were headed in the wrong direction. Removing the status bar was a bad idea, and then this ridiculous botchup with versioning... sigh.
They have positives. They have the best plug-in architecture, and they aren't including patented/copyrighted codecs in the browser, which is good (although they should allow a direct interface to the underlying OS codecs, not simply forbid them from playing). Still, I was contemplating shifting over to Opera. Now, today, we learn that Opera is probably going to go to hell in the next few months.
At this point, I'm hoping that somebody will fork Firefox back at the 3.6 version, and take it from there. It needs to go in a direction the users want, and stop trying to force the users into a direction the designers want. If you stop listening to your users, they will leave. It's beginning to happen with Firefox.
Do you make the same calculation for the danger of a major flood, tornado, or earthquake, which would destroy your house and have a much more likely chance of immediately killing you and your family?
Slashdot Mirror
DVD players don't target 'casual' or 'hardcore' movie watchers. Consoles shouldn't either. I imagine Nintendo is simply trying to position their new console as one catering to everybody... not specifically the casual (like the Wii or iPhone) OR the hardcore (PS3 or 360).
Don't know if it will work, but it's purely a marketing/perception issue. The console itself is agnostic.
I honestly enjoyed Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn more than any other game on any console this gen, and it's a Wii Tactical RPG.
Of course, according to their rating system, it may be the most 'hardcore' game published on the Wii.
Duckduckgo.com? I haven't used it that much, but it looks promising, and I'm contemplating switching to it as primary. If only it had a shorter name...
Using Google or Bing will still get you only Google results, since Bing just imports what Google returns.
That is far from the truth. Read up more on the issue; not even Google claimed what you are. Microsoft's toolbar monitored the results of your google searches, and which links you clicked, and the data was incorporated in to Bing's results, as one minor factor. Try a search on both, and compare the results; obviously, neither are copies of the other.
None of the examples you mentioned have anything to do with racism. False accusations of racism are as disgusting as racism itself.
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources,
I don't think that's it. I think they're treated different because they are very different.
Violence is unquestionably worse than sex (in most situations). I don't think many disagree. But violence also is far less of a temptation. I'm not too worried that a violent scene in a movie will cause people to run out and start slitting throats; I think it's far more likely that exposure to sexuality in media may promote sexual behavior. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be if done without preparation and understanding.
I'm pretty open to letting my (teen) kids see both, but honestly I'm more worried about them making 'sexual' mistakes than I am about them making 'violent' mistakes.
Besides being the best way to get decent pay and working conditions,
For the shrinking percentage of workers that have union jobs. Not only do unions reduce the number of overall workers a company can hire, increasing unemployment... it makes the company less competitive, greatly increasing unemployment.
Unionization of IT workers would simply accelerate the movement of jobs outside of the country, resulting in more layoffs here. At this stage, I'd FAR rather have two $40,000 jobs created than one $80,000. Unemployment is our greatest economic problem.
I think your first point is quite true and significant, and your second point is completely wrong.
:)
Score: 50%
Are you claiming Gadhafi hasn't raped anybody?
Also, if you were a little more aware of the international situation, you would realize that the USA is quite a bit more of a reluctant participant in the Libyan war than, say, France and the UK. We're there primarily because Europe wants us there.
And DSK seems to be a rapist. Would you prefer he be set free? All evidence and testimony about his guilt washed under the table?
The worst kind of fool is one convinced he is smarter than everyone else. Their smugness keeps them from ever learning.
Nobody is upset when Firefox improves it's adherence to web standards or improve it's performance.
It's the status bar. It's killing plugins. It's the damnable 'awesomebar'. Those aren't 'keeping up with a changing web'... that's mucking around with UI. That's what happens when a development teams decides to begin competing based on nonessentials. Changing an existing versioning scheme purely for marketing purposes is a sad demonstration of how Mozilla has taken its eye off the ball.
No rational person cares about version numbers for anything other than bug reporting. As long as version numbers are a monotonically increasing, who cares about the rate?
Not all versions of software change by the same amount. There is practically no difference between FF 4 and FF 5... (ignoring all the broken plugins). So, you say business should just treat it as a minor security update?
What happens when, going from FF6 to FF7, Mozilla does some major change to their browser... changing the memory models completely, or crippling some important functionality (you know Mozilla has crazy, debilitating features they are just waiting to implement). Should businesses treat that as a minor security update? How is a business to know what that breats? It used to be able to judge that based on minor/major version numbers. Now, there is no knowing until they do a detailed analysis of each version's changelog.
Ok, I didn't pick up on that emphasis in the original comment. I'll concede that point.
Larry Niven said that "Libertarianism is a vector". You don't ever reach a true libertarian state, you just move further away or closer to it. I think our culture and government has shifted to a point that, where once the 'liberal' parties were closer to the libertarian vector, the 'conservative' parties have taken that spot.
Probably because a hundred years ago civil liberties were in a much worse state than economic/property liberties. Now, it's the other way around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't about banning music it was about assigning movie-like ratings to music that would require the same kinds of parental supervision on purchase as an R-rated movie.
Except it was an attempt to give those ratings the weight of law. Movie ratings have no legal standing. Any attempt by congress to require ratings on movies would fail for the same reason it failed for music.
As a side-note: Remember books? Barnes & Noble has more violence and sexual content than any video rental store. Underage sex, even. Where are the ratings on books? A fifteen-year old can legally purchase "Silence of the Lambs", or even "The Bible". Where's the outrage?
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. A person has a right to their own kidney. They aren't entitled to anyone else's kidney. Sure, there are contrived cases where the distinction is blurred, but with consistent definitions, that doesn't occur much.
There is a lot of confusion over rights, and many lists of 'rights' contain entries that are in no way rights. Medical care, for instance, isn't a right. Calling it a right is as nonsensical as calling a book a song. It is an entitlement. Maybe it's a good entitlement, worth having in law... but to call it a right is an indication of muddled thinking.
A vampire has a right to seek blood, but no right to take blood from anyone. The first is a freedom, the second is a theft.
Kids can't buy porn.
Kids can't see R-rated movies.
Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games.
You should know this, but if you don't: There's no law that restricts children from seeing R-rated movies. Any such restriction would be found unconstitutional, just as the law about videogames was. Kids aren't generally allowed to see R-rated movies because theaters simply don't let them. No other reason.
Kids will generally not be allowed to buy 'M' rated games. Not because of a law... that would be unconstitutional... but because most reputable dealers will simply decide not to sell those to them.
(I'll call them the Glenn Beck inspired conservative)
You'll call them that because you are ignorant of Beck's positions. Have you listened to any of his defenses of atheism?
Historically speaking, conservatism's libertarian wing is something of an anomaly, and exists largely in reaction to the rise of the concept of welfare states.
Nonsense. The libertarian movement is a descendent of 18th and 17th century century concepts of laissez-faire freedoms and natural rights of man. You may be correct in that the recent resurgence of libertarianism is fueled in part as a reaction to the increase of the welfare state and encroaching socialism, but its roots run far deeper, and tie closely to the principles used as a basis for our own constitutionally-limited state.
1/4 of the planet has not become unlivable. when a nuclear installation gets stricken with a 9 quake, it will.
That's embarrassingly exaggerated. Keep on talking; you are helping the pro-nuclear side more than your own.
1/4 the planet. Christ.
Does mdsolar have a financial stake in pushing solar tech and knocking nuclear? I just assumed he was 'ideological'.
Designing for only a "once in 100 years disaster" was the real flaw.
But was it? The injuries and damage from Fukushima are vastly smaller than from the earthquake/tsunami... all but the most fanatic anti-nuclear zealots admit that. Is there really a point to spending money on the nuclear plant so that it could withstand a disaster that is an order of magnitude more damaging than anything the reactor would do?
I'm just thinking out loud, but would 100 million dollars have been better spent on better protecting Fukushima, or spent on further earthquake/tsunami research, prediction, and defenses? Which would have saved more lives?
When it comes to nuclear safety no shoddiness can be tolerated.
Shoddiness has to be tolerated in any human endeavor. If the engineers were foolish enough to assume there would be no flaws in design or construction, there would have been no reason for them to put multiple layers of safety measures in place.
But they know that effectiveness is going to be 98%, not 100%, so they put multiple layers in place to bring the chance of error lower and lower.
My hope is, here, that the plant's successful weathering of this crisis will reassure the public in regards to the engineering competency of the nuclear plants; but I doubt it. The press will do what the press does, and we'll end up burning more coal.
If those lose cooling for a few days, it's Chernobyl on steroids.
No it's not. Not even close. Don't be so dramatic.
Sure, he was rude; but the GP was wrong. You shouldn't chide him for his discourtesy while glossing over the fact that he was correcting rcamans' error; that's intellectually dishonest. The deaths were not related to radiation. I don't believe anyone can give a cite to any radiation-caused death from Fukushima.
The Mozilla foundation needs to understand that their recent bad decisions have consequences.
I use Firefox, and have for quite a while. I've gone from a strong supporter and proselytizer to... less enthusiastic. It's still my first choice of browser, but just barely.
It was the Awesomebar debacle, and their refusal to include an option to turn it off, that first made me suspect they were headed in the wrong direction. Removing the status bar was a bad idea, and then this ridiculous botchup with versioning... sigh.
They have positives. They have the best plug-in architecture, and they aren't including patented/copyrighted codecs in the browser, which is good (although they should allow a direct interface to the underlying OS codecs, not simply forbid them from playing). Still, I was contemplating shifting over to Opera. Now, today, we learn that Opera is probably going to go to hell in the next few months.
At this point, I'm hoping that somebody will fork Firefox back at the 3.6 version, and take it from there. It needs to go in a direction the users want, and stop trying to force the users into a direction the designers want. If you stop listening to your users, they will leave. It's beginning to happen with Firefox.
Do you make the same calculation for the danger of a major flood, tornado, or earthquake, which would destroy your house and have a much more likely chance of immediately killing you and your family?