I don't see the parallel at all. Nobody calls it Mt McKinley. Only someone raised on doublespeak still calls it Mt McKinley. All the locals in Alaska, whether white, black, or native, call it Denali.
At least Washington had been a president and a well respected figure long before the state was named Washington. At the time Denali was renamed to McKinley it wasn't even a part of the US and McKinley was just a candidate.
Compared to the southern propaganda, and outright lies. Everyone in the South at the time knew the war was about slavery, pure and simple. Not a war of Northern aggression. The splitting away from the union was done for one and only one purpose - to maintain the peculiar institution of slavery. The issue had come to a head, and the final spark igniting the war was the treasonous capture of federal forts. There was no honor about this worth celebrating as heritage.
The fight to preserve the Union was a northern concept. Because the North was actually willing for the most part to tolerate slavery as long as it didn't expand and didn't affect them much (yes, both sides can be accounted guilty on the issue). Had the South not rebelled I believe that slavery would have lasted another couple of decades during which the North continually wrung its hands and worried about what to do. Although the anti-slavery movements would have grown enough to eventually force a conflict.
During the Civil War centennial, the war was presented as something in the past with no modern resonance, and war veterans from both sides were honored. The issues of slavery were whitewashed, both sides treated as being equal. We still have re-enactments today that don't attempt any distinction about who was right and who was wrong. There was an article from the Negro Digest at the time of the centennial entitled "Did The South Win The Civil War?", because so little had actually changed in the South and so little mention of the causes of the war were discussed.
In that sense "heritage" meant "my grandfather fought for our country" even though that country meant the losing side of a treasonous split. Do people today in Germany honor their father's Nazi heritage? No. And neither should we celebrate Confederate heritage.
Even after the war, the federal government gave up on trying to make the south grant political rights to freed slaves. For a few years during construction the freed slaves got the right to vote but then they were systematically denied it for nearly a hundred years. Official slavery was replaced by official segregation.
At one point I would have thought the "war of northern aggression" myth would die out over time. But it seems they are still preaching this to the confederate offspring.
Renaming it back to the original name though. Not like it's political correctness gone amuck or it'd be named after someone liberal who never visited Alaska.
Besides, no one has called it Mount McKinley in decades. Even the big ass truck driven by white cowboy wannabes is called a Denali. I was honestly surprised that it was still officially called McKinley when everyone in Alaska says Denali.
Did it act in a way that said "no we will keep the name", or did they act in a way where they kept putting it off for decades? Oh, but because it's Obama it must be some sort of nefarious plan on his part!
I don't think you missed much. I was a big fan of Half-Life 1 and it's addons. The only FPS I played. Half-Life 2 though was a disappointment. Only half a game, the whole thing ends abruptly requring you to get chapter two or some oddly named thing to see what happens. At which point I didn't care what happened. I had also forgotten how totally linear the half life series was. Luckily I wanted give years for the price to drop to $10.
I found it amazing that you could get the legendary edition of Skyrim that includes all DLCs for less than the cost of one of the DLCs by itself. Digital-only downloads has done nothing to lower prices of games and has actually done a lot to keep the prices higher for longer periods of time. No inventory pressure to reduce costs to clear out the shelves or the clogged warehouses.
That said, GOG keeps the prices lower than Steam although it doesn't have new AAA games.
Not really cheaper. There's a price point that companies hit and it stays the same for many years regardless of inflation. Ie, $60 is a common point for games. If you buy the box with a DVD and no DRM you pay $60. If you get a digital download thus eliminating the cost of printing and distribution, you pay $60 also. At one time people predicted that digital downloads would reduce costs, but in practice it has not dropped the price of new game at all. Steam has not reduced prices of new games at all, and for their sales GOG.com is just as cheap and sometimes cheaper.
Steam is not a permanent license. I have played games that are 15 years old. Do you think Steam is going to be around that long and supporting all those games? Maybe, maybe not.
DRM has killed the used game market. And the Gamestop killed them too. I used to get used games for $5-10 easily, Gamestop only gave you a $5-10 discount off of original overpriced cost. People fawn over Steam because they hate Gamestop, everytime I say I hate DRM someone pops in to say that Gamestop is evil so we should worship at Valve's feet without realizing there are more than two choices here. It used to be if you were done with a game, you could give it away to anyone you like legally, or you could resell it. You could also legally loan the game away to someone else for awhile, which you can no longer do (the Steam feature allowing this is highly restricted). The only way to do that with DRM games is to violate the DMCA laws (ie, you can do it morally but not legally).
They have fooled the consumers by making them believe that DRM for games is about preventing piracy. The true purpose of DRM had only one intent, and that was to destroy the used game market. The pirates have not been stopped, but legal sharing has been stopped cold. This maintains the high cost of games because the used market brough down prices over time.
And no one complains, because everyone is an in-home shutin these days. No one ever shops in person, it's online only. People are gushing about how they get their diapers and groceries delivered to their doorstep. So of course, these people are ecstatic that they can download a game instead of stopping at a local business and supporting their economy. They don't want a real game anyway because most of them play the game once ever and then have to throw it away, since only losers will play a game that's not new and cool. I see people bitch and moan about DRM on audio CDs, but then turn around and praise DRM in video games.
My unique challenges would be just to retire and keep roughly the same standard of living. I'm a bad investor and all that stuff bores me to tears. So it would be a lot like what I do now, except with not going to work, with someone who cleans up my place, someone to do the taxes for me, a nicer neighborhood, etc. I'm sure my friends will still stick around if I was wealthy. Maybe I'll go stir crazy with nothing to do, but that would happen whether or not I was wealthy.
I make a lot more than 100K a year, but in Silicon Valley that doesn't mean you're at the sweet spot. I've got a dumpy townhouse in a marginal neighborhood. If I ever retire I will have to move away.
Then you don't know enough about what he's done. The Carter Foundations has raised lots of money for very useful goals - reducing river blindness disease which may end up being eradicated, the Guinea worm disease is down to less than one hundred cases, and so forth. They spend money to train health workers in Ethiopia. On the diplomatic front, Carter has probably done far more mediation for conflicts than any other single person.
I think you're just disgruntled because he's from a different political party than you prefer. Perhaps you have another example of a past president or even vice president that's actually spending most of the time making the world a better place?
The Shah was an evil bastard. The US really should have had no business making allies with evil dictatorships just because we were scared of socialist takeovers.
If they're computer science graduates and have not heard of Ada, then they're merely 9 to 5 programmers with no interest in their chosen profession. If they're on Slashdot and have never heard of Ada then they need to turn in their ID number so that someone else can use it.
The Internet of Things has also been in existence for a decade. What's happening now is that people are coming up with silly ideas, like putting your thermostat on the internet so that you can show fancy charts to your friends. The Smart City approach is a good idea, much more useful than more gadgets for the technophiles to put in their homes. But since everyone is jumping in on the Smart Cities thing it is generating too many "me too!" solutions which ends up giving a bad reputation to the good solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the parallel at all. Nobody calls it Mt McKinley. Only someone raised on doublespeak still calls it Mt McKinley. All the locals in Alaska, whether white, black, or native, call it Denali.
Majority rules is generally the rule, unless Obama is involved in which case the rule is that he has to be called a tyrant.
At least Washington had been a president and a well respected figure long before the state was named Washington. At the time Denali was renamed to McKinley it wasn't even a part of the US and McKinley was just a candidate.
And if President Reagan had renamed it, it would have been hailed as yet another conservative triumph in solidarity with Alaska.
Compared to the southern propaganda, and outright lies. Everyone in the South at the time knew the war was about slavery, pure and simple. Not a war of Northern aggression. The splitting away from the union was done for one and only one purpose - to maintain the peculiar institution of slavery. The issue had come to a head, and the final spark igniting the war was the treasonous capture of federal forts. There was no honor about this worth celebrating as heritage.
The fight to preserve the Union was a northern concept. Because the North was actually willing for the most part to tolerate slavery as long as it didn't expand and didn't affect them much (yes, both sides can be accounted guilty on the issue). Had the South not rebelled I believe that slavery would have lasted another couple of decades during which the North continually wrung its hands and worried about what to do. Although the anti-slavery movements would have grown enough to eventually force a conflict.
During the Civil War centennial, the war was presented as something in the past with no modern resonance, and war veterans from both sides were honored. The issues of slavery were whitewashed, both sides treated as being equal. We still have re-enactments today that don't attempt any distinction about who was right and who was wrong. There was an article from the Negro Digest at the time of the centennial entitled "Did The South Win The Civil War?", because so little had actually changed in the South and so little mention of the causes of the war were discussed.
In that sense "heritage" meant "my grandfather fought for our country" even though that country meant the losing side of a treasonous split. Do people today in Germany honor their father's Nazi heritage? No. And neither should we celebrate Confederate heritage.
Even after the war, the federal government gave up on trying to make the south grant political rights to freed slaves. For a few years during construction the freed slaves got the right to vote but then they were systematically denied it for nearly a hundred years. Official slavery was replaced by official segregation.
At one point I would have thought the "war of northern aggression" myth would die out over time. But it seems they are still preaching this to the confederate offspring.
Because no one has called it Mt McKinley in decades. Everyone in Alaska calls it Denali.
But that was before Republicans turned into a hard right conservative. Although McKinley was known for being pro-business and pro-interventionism.
Wait, they had a statue of Jefferson Davis in Texas? That state that rebelled twice? Can't we give them back to Mexico if we apologize?
Renaming it back to the original name though. Not like it's political correctness gone amuck or it'd be named after someone liberal who never visited Alaska.
Besides, no one has called it Mount McKinley in decades. Even the big ass truck driven by white cowboy wannabes is called a Denali. I was honestly surprised that it was still officially called McKinley when everyone in Alaska says Denali.
Did it act in a way that said "no we will keep the name", or did they act in a way where they kept putting it off for decades? Oh, but because it's Obama it must be some sort of nefarious plan on his part!
I don't think you missed much. I was a big fan of Half-Life 1 and it's addons. The only FPS I played. Half-Life 2 though was a disappointment. Only half a game, the whole thing ends abruptly requring you to get chapter two or some oddly named thing to see what happens. At which point I didn't care what happened. I had also forgotten how totally linear the half life series was. Luckily I wanted give years for the price to drop to $10.
The DVD is a faster install if all you have is DSL internet speeds. A full day download for some games.
I would pay extra for no-DRM. I can back up myself to USB thumb drive.
I found it amazing that you could get the legendary edition of Skyrim that includes all DLCs for less than the cost of one of the DLCs by itself. Digital-only downloads has done nothing to lower prices of games and has actually done a lot to keep the prices higher for longer periods of time. No inventory pressure to reduce costs to clear out the shelves or the clogged warehouses.
That said, GOG keeps the prices lower than Steam although it doesn't have new AAA games.
Not really cheaper. There's a price point that companies hit and it stays the same for many years regardless of inflation. Ie, $60 is a common point for games. If you buy the box with a DVD and no DRM you pay $60. If you get a digital download thus eliminating the cost of printing and distribution, you pay $60 also. At one time people predicted that digital downloads would reduce costs, but in practice it has not dropped the price of new game at all. Steam has not reduced prices of new games at all, and for their sales GOG.com is just as cheap and sometimes cheaper.
Steam is not a permanent license. I have played games that are 15 years old. Do you think Steam is going to be around that long and supporting all those games? Maybe, maybe not.
DRM has killed the used game market. And the Gamestop killed them too. I used to get used games for $5-10 easily, Gamestop only gave you a $5-10 discount off of original overpriced cost. People fawn over Steam because they hate Gamestop, everytime I say I hate DRM someone pops in to say that Gamestop is evil so we should worship at Valve's feet without realizing there are more than two choices here. It used to be if you were done with a game, you could give it away to anyone you like legally, or you could resell it. You could also legally loan the game away to someone else for awhile, which you can no longer do (the Steam feature allowing this is highly restricted). The only way to do that with DRM games is to violate the DMCA laws (ie, you can do it morally but not legally).
They have fooled the consumers by making them believe that DRM for games is about preventing piracy. The true purpose of DRM had only one intent, and that was to destroy the used game market. The pirates have not been stopped, but legal sharing has been stopped cold. This maintains the high cost of games because the used market brough down prices over time.
It probably is the best game on the Microsoft Store.
It may be free, but you have to sell your soul to get a Microsoft Account. Or at least get a fake email account.
Mine was full install but required using Steam anyway. The DVD just sped up the installation (even counting the drive to the store and back).
And no one complains, because everyone is an in-home shutin these days. No one ever shops in person, it's online only. People are gushing about how they get their diapers and groceries delivered to their doorstep. So of course, these people are ecstatic that they can download a game instead of stopping at a local business and supporting their economy. They don't want a real game anyway because most of them play the game once ever and then have to throw it away, since only losers will play a game that's not new and cool. I see people bitch and moan about DRM on audio CDs, but then turn around and praise DRM in video games.
My unique challenges would be just to retire and keep roughly the same standard of living. I'm a bad investor and all that stuff bores me to tears.
So it would be a lot like what I do now, except with not going to work, with someone who cleans up my place, someone to do the taxes for me, a nicer neighborhood, etc. I'm sure my friends will still stick around if I was wealthy. Maybe I'll go stir crazy with nothing to do, but that would happen whether or not I was wealthy.
I make a lot more than 100K a year, but in Silicon Valley that doesn't mean you're at the sweet spot. I've got a dumpy townhouse in a marginal neighborhood. If I ever retire I will have to move away.
Then you don't know enough about what he's done. The Carter Foundations has raised lots of money for very useful goals - reducing river blindness disease which may end up being eradicated, the Guinea worm disease is down to less than one hundred cases, and so forth. They spend money to train health workers in Ethiopia. On the diplomatic front, Carter has probably done far more mediation for conflicts than any other single person.
I think you're just disgruntled because he's from a different political party than you prefer. Perhaps you have another example of a past president or even vice president that's actually spending most of the time making the world a better place?
The Shah was an evil bastard. The US really should have had no business making allies with evil dictatorships just because we were scared of socialist takeovers.
If they're computer science graduates and have not heard of Ada, then they're merely 9 to 5 programmers with no interest in their chosen profession. If they're on Slashdot and have never heard of Ada then they need to turn in their ID number so that someone else can use it.
The Internet of Things has also been in existence for a decade. What's happening now is that people are coming up with silly ideas, like putting your thermostat on the internet so that you can show fancy charts to your friends. The Smart City approach is a good idea, much more useful than more gadgets for the technophiles to put in their homes. But since everyone is jumping in on the Smart Cities thing it is generating too many "me too!" solutions which ends up giving a bad reputation to the good solutions.