As some others here have said, its largely not about the name. It's not like 2K didn't already own Irrational Games. They've had the option to change the name if they so wished for awhile now. The Dev team at Irrational is not physically changing in any way. All the guys are still there. So it really doesn't matter unless they fire everyone on the team from Irrational, which is quite frankly, completely irrational. Why would you rename a studio and then just dissolve it?
If there is one thing slightly upsetting about this situation, it's that Irrational Games is a much more awesome studio name than 2K Games.
You won't hear about them going extinct, but being ugly or cute and cuddly, every creature plays an important part in its ecosystem. Just like wolves keep deer populations in control, I'm sure at one point the dolphins were keeping fish populations under control.
But nonetheless, at this point in their existence, the baiji dolphin's numbers are too small to be playing a part in the ecosystem, so the damage has been done. Even should a few still be alive, their numbers are certainly too small to fulfill whatever their role might have been. It hasn't torn that ecosystem apart, clearly, but it certainly could do no better than to weaken it.
I do see your point, however. Maybe if we had acted back in the late 80s when their numbers were still significant it would have mattered. Now its been too late for years and their existence has become null and void in their ecosystem, unfortunately.
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by what good are they. In a sense, no non-domesticated animal is really any good to us. They loaf around all day and eat whatever they eat.
That said, they are the good of being part of a carefully balanced ecosystem that has evolved over millions of years to become what it is. Sure, in the latest years as their numbers became dangerously low, they weren't able to play an important part in that ecosystem by regulating any population of fish/plants they may have eaten, but at a time when we didn't interfere with their environment and their numbers were still up their, they most likely played an important part in their own ecosystem. With their disappearance, that ecosystem is that much weaker now, and that much more vulnerable to leading to multiple Yangtze river species' extinction. One extinction begins to start anothers.
Or who knows, perhaps the baiji river dolphin had truly become ungenetically fit to survive in today's world as the panda is. I don't claim to know the intricacies of that ecosystem or the species within it. My point is that no species extinction is an insignificant thing. It causes changes in a much larger context of the environment than can be immediately noticed.
I hope you are not saying that I meant that African origin would indicate any kind of inferiority. That was not at all what I meant and not at all part of my thought process, I'm more worried that others might think such a thing. And multi-origin theory is not out of the question either, but I'm still sticking to single origin and Africa seems to be the most viable origin for us right now.
I think I see what you are saying though. I don't agree that it means that at all either, but unfortunately there are most likely people that would try to use multi-origin evolution as a scapegoat or justification for racism.
While I realize that there is not yet any conclusive evidence whether single-origin or multiple-origin evolution of homo sapien sapiens is correct, I have to say that logically single-origin seems more feasible.
It just seems to me a hard to believe idea that somehow we evolved to have the exact same set of genetic make up in multiple places at once. Is there any other creature that's done this? If our genetic make up is the same that mustn't we all be from the same origin?
I also sort of feel like multiple origin evolution for our species seems to insinuate that our "race" is more significantr because we evolved in different areas, which is a slippery slope to racism.
I'm not sure whether you are saying that global warming is a liberal boogy-man (therefore not being real) or that contenders of it are using it like a liberal boogy-man as a tool of power, but if its the former there is just one thing we should all ask ourselves:
What would the "liberal" motivation be to make up such a monumental problem? There's no profit in it for them. It's much more profitable to stay on our current course, sucking up the last of our natural resources and pretending we'll have them forever. If they didn't really believe it, if there wasn't some real proof to back it up (and I've heard both sides of the argument about human causation or natural earth climate patterns), why would they bother? It's a bigger detriment than helper to our current power structures and economic structures.
But then again, this argument is only in argument if you are saying you believe its just a liberal boogy-man. Otherwise I agree with your point.
Re:Is there some lack of farmland?
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
I think that's part of the problem. We're paving, planting, or developing every inch of land in our country, where there used to be miles and miles of prairies, forests, and other ecosystems. That's happening everywhere else in the world too. Aside from the moral/ethical/conservation considerations of this, it also contributes to atmosphere deterioration, considering forests are pretty much what keeps our atmosphere going. Beyond economics, if we want to have any such things as "wildlife" left we need to find a way to preserve or revive the ecosystems we can. Though I do agree that it will be hard to compete. People don't want to make change like this unless their life is in threat or worse, *gasp!* their wallet. Farmers will fight it to the death because its going to destroy their livelihood (or at least force them to move into a city and live in an apartment/condo). Eventually though, I don't think we'll have a choice. We'll run out of land, our population will be too high, and vertical will be the only way to go. If the preceding overdevelopment of the planet hasn't already dissolved our atmosphere so far that we all fry already.
Sorry I wasn't referring to the DNA argument, just to the duality or good and bad argument. I agree with you completely. I was not trying to classify our "minor evils" like lying and such with murder/rape, only pointing out that the world isn't painted into two nice camps.
And you're missing my point. There are certainly extremes out there. There are people that have chosen to throw ethics to the side and just do what they want (be it bad things). I'm simply saying that perhaps good person/bad person isn't the way to refer to people.
Everyone justifies their own actions in their own minds, even if they're ethically immoral actions. i.e. "I'm going to kill this person because they offended me, that'll show them". Those that kill for the "fun" of it, are mentally ill people, and more than anything need help and must certainly be removed from society. This is just a single action, but the mentally sound always justify what they do, even should the justification be pure nonsense.
I'm not saying there are no bad people. I'm not saying there are no good people. I'm just saying their is no pure good/pure bad. This isn't D&D where you choose your alignment. A bad person/good person wasn't born that way, they became that way.
Our lives are more than anything shaped by nurture, not nature. Does this save the bad people? Make it alright for them to do what they do? No. We can't run society by saying "that's okay, its not your fault. You didn't choose to be this way". But maybe in consideration of this we can begin to try and find a justice system that solves problems and doesn't just hide them. But that's a whole different subject, and we've long since deviated from the article.
Sorry if I offended you, good person.
Is that to say you've never lied, even a little bit? You've never once said a not so nice thing to someone? And that said, all bad people have never done a good thing? They never once held a door open for someone? They hold no compassion for anyone or anything?
Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were. It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person".
It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality.
I'll agree that including fees over time, a 360 may not really be any cheaper than a PS3, but unfortunately over time doesn't apply to my wallet. I don't own a 360 either because I can't lay down 400+ bucks on the table for just entertainment. If I were investing in a console it might matter, but there
Then again, I'm a college student. But isn't that a large portion of the game industry's audience?
Once again, my greatest wishes that PS3 will get its shit together, but until that day i'm out of the console business. My PC can play what it needs to, my PS2 is still kickin, and my room mate has a wii. That'll do for now.
I recently went from being a big sony fan to losing all faith (well maybe not so recent, when PS3's pricetag showed up I lost it). While not saying it directly, they basically said that maybe they took PS3's extra capabilities too far and lost focus. And they're saying they want to refocus on games. Well, that sounds good to me.
Hopefully its not just talk and they'll start pulling themselves out of this mess. A small part of me still wants to like them.
Well that's a way to respect his tastes, call him a snob.
I think what he was getting at is that the typically popular happy-ending/closure to modern entertainment is becoming a cliche, and once a cliche emerges it becomes more artistically viable to go against that grain and make the viewer say, "Wait, where's the closure? What happens??".
Maybe he didn't quite word it the best way, but you can be perfectly mature and like both. He doesn't say that happy endings are immature, just that it takes a taste for the harsh reality of the real world to be able to enjoy an open-ended, tragic story.
Our troops aren't 2-10 year olds. I hardly think its necessary to give them a teddy head. I'd be more consolled by a red cross sign, telling me its here to help me, not cuddle me.
Slashdot Mirror
As some others here have said, its largely not about the name. It's not like 2K didn't already own Irrational Games. They've had the option to change the name if they so wished for awhile now. The Dev team at Irrational is not physically changing in any way. All the guys are still there. So it really doesn't matter unless they fire everyone on the team from Irrational, which is quite frankly, completely irrational. Why would you rename a studio and then just dissolve it?
If there is one thing slightly upsetting about this situation, it's that Irrational Games is a much more awesome studio name than 2K Games.
You won't hear about them going extinct, but being ugly or cute and cuddly, every creature plays an important part in its ecosystem. Just like wolves keep deer populations in control, I'm sure at one point the dolphins were keeping fish populations under control.
But nonetheless, at this point in their existence, the baiji dolphin's numbers are too small to be playing a part in the ecosystem, so the damage has been done. Even should a few still be alive, their numbers are certainly too small to fulfill whatever their role might have been. It hasn't torn that ecosystem apart, clearly, but it certainly could do no better than to weaken it.
I do see your point, however. Maybe if we had acted back in the late 80s when their numbers were still significant it would have mattered. Now its been too late for years and their existence has become null and void in their ecosystem, unfortunately.
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by what good are they. In a sense, no non-domesticated animal is really any good to us. They loaf around all day and eat whatever they eat.
That said, they are the good of being part of a carefully balanced ecosystem that has evolved over millions of years to become what it is. Sure, in the latest years as their numbers became dangerously low, they weren't able to play an important part in that ecosystem by regulating any population of fish/plants they may have eaten, but at a time when we didn't interfere with their environment and their numbers were still up their, they most likely played an important part in their own ecosystem. With their disappearance, that ecosystem is that much weaker now, and that much more vulnerable to leading to multiple Yangtze river species' extinction. One extinction begins to start anothers.
Or who knows, perhaps the baiji river dolphin had truly become ungenetically fit to survive in today's world as the panda is. I don't claim to know the intricacies of that ecosystem or the species within it. My point is that no species extinction is an insignificant thing. It causes changes in a much larger context of the environment than can be immediately noticed.
Most definitely on all points.
I hope you are not saying that I meant that African origin would indicate any kind of inferiority. That was not at all what I meant and not at all part of my thought process, I'm more worried that others might think such a thing. And multi-origin theory is not out of the question either, but I'm still sticking to single origin and Africa seems to be the most viable origin for us right now.
This may be a silly question, but what is OoA?
I think I see what you are saying though. I don't agree that it means that at all either, but unfortunately there are most likely people that would try to use multi-origin evolution as a scapegoat or justification for racism.
While I realize that there is not yet any conclusive evidence whether single-origin or multiple-origin evolution of homo sapien sapiens is correct, I have to say that logically single-origin seems more feasible.
It just seems to me a hard to believe idea that somehow we evolved to have the exact same set of genetic make up in multiple places at once. Is there any other creature that's done this? If our genetic make up is the same that mustn't we all be from the same origin?
I also sort of feel like multiple origin evolution for our species seems to insinuate that our "race" is more significantr because we evolved in different areas, which is a slippery slope to racism.
Suddenly the Adam's Family doesn't seem all the unrealistic.
I'm not sure whether you are saying that global warming is a liberal boogy-man (therefore not being real) or that contenders of it are using it like a liberal boogy-man as a tool of power, but if its the former there is just one thing we should all ask ourselves: What would the "liberal" motivation be to make up such a monumental problem? There's no profit in it for them. It's much more profitable to stay on our current course, sucking up the last of our natural resources and pretending we'll have them forever. If they didn't really believe it, if there wasn't some real proof to back it up (and I've heard both sides of the argument about human causation or natural earth climate patterns), why would they bother? It's a bigger detriment than helper to our current power structures and economic structures. But then again, this argument is only in argument if you are saying you believe its just a liberal boogy-man. Otherwise I agree with your point.
I think that's part of the problem. We're paving, planting, or developing every inch of land in our country, where there used to be miles and miles of prairies, forests, and other ecosystems. That's happening everywhere else in the world too. Aside from the moral/ethical/conservation considerations of this, it also contributes to atmosphere deterioration, considering forests are pretty much what keeps our atmosphere going. Beyond economics, if we want to have any such things as "wildlife" left we need to find a way to preserve or revive the ecosystems we can. Though I do agree that it will be hard to compete. People don't want to make change like this unless their life is in threat or worse, *gasp!* their wallet. Farmers will fight it to the death because its going to destroy their livelihood (or at least force them to move into a city and live in an apartment/condo). Eventually though, I don't think we'll have a choice. We'll run out of land, our population will be too high, and vertical will be the only way to go. If the preceding overdevelopment of the planet hasn't already dissolved our atmosphere so far that we all fry already.
Sorry I wasn't referring to the DNA argument, just to the duality or good and bad argument. I agree with you completely. I was not trying to classify our "minor evils" like lying and such with murder/rape, only pointing out that the world isn't painted into two nice camps.
And you're missing my point. There are certainly extremes out there. There are people that have chosen to throw ethics to the side and just do what they want (be it bad things). I'm simply saying that perhaps good person/bad person isn't the way to refer to people. Everyone justifies their own actions in their own minds, even if they're ethically immoral actions. i.e. "I'm going to kill this person because they offended me, that'll show them". Those that kill for the "fun" of it, are mentally ill people, and more than anything need help and must certainly be removed from society. This is just a single action, but the mentally sound always justify what they do, even should the justification be pure nonsense. I'm not saying there are no bad people. I'm not saying there are no good people. I'm just saying their is no pure good/pure bad. This isn't D&D where you choose your alignment. A bad person/good person wasn't born that way, they became that way. Our lives are more than anything shaped by nurture, not nature. Does this save the bad people? Make it alright for them to do what they do? No. We can't run society by saying "that's okay, its not your fault. You didn't choose to be this way". But maybe in consideration of this we can begin to try and find a justice system that solves problems and doesn't just hide them. But that's a whole different subject, and we've long since deviated from the article. Sorry if I offended you, good person.
Is that to say you've never lied, even a little bit? You've never once said a not so nice thing to someone? And that said, all bad people have never done a good thing? They never once held a door open for someone? They hold no compassion for anyone or anything? Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were. It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person". It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality.
I'll agree that including fees over time, a 360 may not really be any cheaper than a PS3, but unfortunately over time doesn't apply to my wallet. I don't own a 360 either because I can't lay down 400+ bucks on the table for just entertainment. If I were investing in a console it might matter, but there Then again, I'm a college student. But isn't that a large portion of the game industry's audience? Once again, my greatest wishes that PS3 will get its shit together, but until that day i'm out of the console business. My PC can play what it needs to, my PS2 is still kickin, and my room mate has a wii. That'll do for now.
I recently went from being a big sony fan to losing all faith (well maybe not so recent, when PS3's pricetag showed up I lost it). While not saying it directly, they basically said that maybe they took PS3's extra capabilities too far and lost focus. And they're saying they want to refocus on games. Well, that sounds good to me. Hopefully its not just talk and they'll start pulling themselves out of this mess. A small part of me still wants to like them.
Well that's a way to respect his tastes, call him a snob. I think what he was getting at is that the typically popular happy-ending/closure to modern entertainment is becoming a cliche, and once a cliche emerges it becomes more artistically viable to go against that grain and make the viewer say, "Wait, where's the closure? What happens??". Maybe he didn't quite word it the best way, but you can be perfectly mature and like both. He doesn't say that happy endings are immature, just that it takes a taste for the harsh reality of the real world to be able to enjoy an open-ended, tragic story.
Who wrote this article? Space.com needs some new journalists. Whoever it is kind of writes like a 6th grader.
Our troops aren't 2-10 year olds. I hardly think its necessary to give them a teddy head. I'd be more consolled by a red cross sign, telling me its here to help me, not cuddle me.