In a world... where Mecha Saddam and his Robo-Muslims threaten your mom... and apple pie... and FREEDOM...
Only two men have the magic dancing armor that can save the day.
and this was just about 12 years ago, one of my friends told me about this awesome cheat code for Duke Nukem 3D where if you entered the code and then pressed space bar in front of a lady they would sing (or some other stupid thing). Of course, when I entered the code and hit space, the lady (stripper) took off her top and showed me her boobs (vague lumps with pink squares in the middle). Of COURSE, at this juncture, my mother entered the room. I don't remember the exact look on her face, as such, but attempting to recall it now, I envision Munch's "the Scream (:O )"
She told me to turn off the game, or I would be grounded, and would have no more access to the computer. That's it. No magic button was required. Her finger did not even have to touch some mundane "on/off switch". I took one last glance at the cardboard-pixel boobs dancing haltingly across my screen and decided that, whatever this was exactly, it wasn't worth the infinite punishments my mother seemed prepared to apply.
Considering that day now, I don't see much need for some sort of "red button". Setting aside the fact that various consoles and televisions already have remotes with buttons serving the mandated purpose, I lay before you this objection: parents already have (very nearly) absolute power over their children. Button or no button, you can stop them from participating in any leisure activity that you feel is inappropriate with little more than a threat and a stern tone of voice. You certainly have the power to take away any consoles or computers which might allow them to defy your violence/profanity/digital-titty embargo.
A button makes it easier, less personal, more secret. It also puts an additional burden on the video game industry, to the glee of family values groups everywhere. It is not a necessarily solution. It is at best a crutch used to control your offspring, and at worst a lie used to manipulate them.
Should you ever see your children looking at something that you don't think they should see, then tell them that they can either stop, or lose some privileges.
the article is actually pretty careful about not asserting this as fact. The article only asserts that hairs were found with "wavy bands of scales" which suggest modern primates. Human hairs closest resemble these hairs, so it's possible that they come from an early human species.
If you flip a coin 22 times, it's hardly inconceivable that it'll come up heads 16 times. If even one or two subjects surmised the purpose of the study and decided based on that hunch, or if one of the logos was somebody's favorite color or shape, or if one of the chairs was closer (or if the majority of the participants had, say, a dominant right eye, making the right chair perhaps seem nearer)... These are things that could sway a few people. They would theoretically be null for a larger sample size but aren't here. I don't see a statistically significant correlation. Even if I did, I think the study itself is flawed in that it only tests if an individual can be physically conditioned to subconsciously dislike an image. I'm pretty sure this has been proven before. The involvement of video games isn't even relevant.
you're a moron. The two situations are not related. If violent games gave you tasty juice in real life for performing in-game violence, you might have something there. What you (and about 90% of this thread's participants) seem to miss is that these scientists used proven psychological conditioning methods to elicit a response, and then pointed their fingers at the video game they'd put in the room as a scapegoat. If they'd replaced the game with two still images of the jerseys, shown one after the other, the effect would have been the same; that's basic Pavlovian conditioning (or skinner, I always get those two mixed up.)
maybe you were making too much? I know you probably won't take that well (downward price rigidity is basic economics) but your wild-eyed, frothing madness does nothing to bring about a compromise amenable to all parties.
If it was really good, then maybe? It's possible for good art to focus on truly despicable characters. I remember thoroughly enjoying Lermontov's "A Hero of our Time" despite a persistent sense of revulsion towards the protagonist.
the MPAA is really not a model I want to see emulated. There's a documentary, "This film is not yet rated", which exposes the hypocritical, irrational agenda they follow. Specifically, there are a lot of examples of how violence is cool with them but sex isn't; if there is sex, it has to be from the male perspective. Also, bad words are ok... but they can only be repeated a certain number of times. One "Shitfuck" too many and the film ends up with an NC17, decimating potential revenues. If the word is okay once, why not twice or even (gasp!) three times? The worst part of course is the total lack of transparency.
It's soft censorship, carried out by a group of shadowy figures, enforcing a moral agenda that is questionable at best. I don't want to see that emulated in the video game industry anymore than it already is.
at least that one has some kind of logical thread to it. I'm honestly mystified by most of the subject lines in my spam folder. Just recently I received the cryptically titled "Is Your Boner A Loner When You Are With Her?"
What is that even supposed to mean? Is it for guys with anti-social dongs? Is there an epidemic of this sweeping the nation that I was previously unaware of?
Until the civilized world becomes energy-independent, leaving the loonies to their own devices is not feasible. Until the civilized world is confident it would face no threat from Israeli or Pakistani nukes pilfered in the ensuing chaos, it is not desirable. We either turn the entire region (and probably close to a billion innocent people) into glass, as you say, or we try to interpose ourselves there in some less-lethal way. They're both unpalatable options, but I for one don't need the largest genocide in history on my conscience.
Not only would they no longer deserve handouts, but you're saying they should start being taxed heavily to pay handouts to other people?
Of course they would still deserve whatever they deserved before. They sill exist exactly as they did before the corporation formed. They do not merge, voltron style, to form the new corporate entity; the entity is distinct from them, and is taxed differently as a result of the various liability considerations that a corporation affords. They may receive profits from the corporation, and if they reach a certain level of wealth then we can perhaps say that they don't deserve handouts anymore. But we never tax them in a different way because they formed a corporation.
Take your straw man elsewhere. Good day.
Commodity prices go up because you're making too much shit using those commodities, driving up demand for them to the point where it cannot be met. Maybe you're under-producing plastics and steel and what-have-you, but your current production of those things might be enough if you weren't over-producing shitty cars and subdivisions.
The way I see it, citing the 1979 Chrysler "tide-me-over" (can we PLEASE start using that instead of bailout because it is awesome) as a successful example of government intervention is shallow analysis because that was a fairly specific type of government intervention, much more supervised than anything proposed in the current situation. I'm not against government intervention at all, so long as we have reason to believe that it will be used well. That is to say, I also don't believe that all government intervention is good. It depends on the situation. In the specific situation of the current discussions about an auto-industry "tide-me-over", - The jackholes we might give money to have NO plan this time and they make no guarantees. - There will be very little oversight - We'll have to bail 'em out again in another 30 years, and we KNOW this, because they were in the exact same situation 30 years ago (or at least Chrysler was).
I'd gotten the same impression, but it seems that the term has been in use for a while. Here's one example
from 1979
I hardly expect anyone to read that, so I'll summarize. In 1979, according to this article, the Carter administration offered 1.5 billion dollars to Chrysler in what was referred to as a bailout (also called, somewhat quaintly, a "tide-me-over"). Amazingly, the company was proposing a shift to fuel-efficient cars that would get them back to profitability "by 1981". This is all before my time, but I do know that if they ever followed that business model it can't have lasted very long. And so we find them today, stuck in the same ditch they'd driven into back in 1979.
We've all heard that history repeats itself, but this is one of the most startlingly clear examples that I've seen. The difference today, as far as I can tell, is that in 1979 the bailout package called for Chrysler to have a clear plan going forward, and laid out strict conditions (I won't cite them here, but feel free to click on that big ol' link up there). By contrast, I've seen snippets of the recent hearings on a present-day auto-industry bailout. Irrelevant grandstanding about jets aside, these execs manifestly do not have any plan, and have admitted that they really don't know if the bailout will be enough to save the industry.
We should not stand for this. The whole tired show has been seen before. The only difference, again, between the bailouts of today and those of yesteryear is that we no longer ask for any sort of accountability. That, and a couple orders of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
From a writers perspective, this is man from heaven.
I don't know whether to make a gay joke or a jesus joke, so I'll settle for a meta-joke.
think president on inauguration day or pope
In a world... where Mecha Saddam and his Robo-Muslims threaten your mom... and apple pie... and FREEDOM...
Only two men have the magic dancing armor that can save the day.
Bionic Barack
and
Powerpope
in:
"Church and State 2: Best Friends Forevarrr!"
and this was just about 12 years ago, one of my friends told me about this awesome cheat code for Duke Nukem 3D where if you entered the code and then pressed space bar in front of a lady they would sing (or some other stupid thing). Of course, when I entered the code and hit space, the lady (stripper) took off her top and showed me her boobs (vague lumps with pink squares in the middle). :O )"
Of COURSE, at this juncture, my mother entered the room. I don't remember the exact look on her face, as such, but attempting to recall it now, I envision Munch's "the Scream (
She told me to turn off the game, or I would be grounded, and would have no more access to the computer. That's it. No magic button was required. Her finger did not even have to touch some mundane "on/off switch". I took one last glance at the cardboard-pixel boobs dancing haltingly across my screen and decided that, whatever this was exactly, it wasn't worth the infinite punishments my mother seemed prepared to apply.
Considering that day now, I don't see much need for some sort of "red button". Setting aside the fact that various consoles and televisions already have remotes with buttons serving the mandated purpose, I lay before you this objection: parents already have (very nearly) absolute power over their children. Button or no button, you can stop them from participating in any leisure activity that you feel is inappropriate with little more than a threat and a stern tone of voice. You certainly have the power to take away any consoles or computers which might allow them to defy your violence/profanity/digital-titty embargo.
A button makes it easier, less personal, more secret. It also puts an additional burden on the video game industry, to the glee of family values groups everywhere. It is not a necessarily solution. It is at best a crutch used to control your offspring, and at worst a lie used to manipulate them.
Should you ever see your children looking at something that you don't think they should see, then tell them that they can either stop, or lose some privileges.
the article is actually pretty careful about not asserting this as fact. The article only asserts that hairs were found with "wavy bands of scales" which suggest modern primates. Human hairs closest resemble these hairs, so it's possible that they come from an early human species.
very, very well said.
true say. This video I saw in business class today says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ
If I had any faith whatsoever in other people, I'd follow your lead and we'd all be better off. But I don't. And neither do they.
If you flip a coin 22 times, it's hardly inconceivable that it'll come up heads 16 times. If even one or two subjects surmised the purpose of the study and decided based on that hunch, or if one of the logos was somebody's favorite color or shape, or if one of the chairs was closer (or if the majority of the participants had, say, a dominant right eye, making the right chair perhaps seem nearer)... These are things that could sway a few people. They would theoretically be null for a larger sample size but aren't here. I don't see a statistically significant correlation. Even if I did, I think the study itself is flawed in that it only tests if an individual can be physically conditioned to subconsciously dislike an image. I'm pretty sure this has been proven before. The involvement of video games isn't even relevant.
you're a moron. The two situations are not related. If violent games gave you tasty juice in real life for performing in-game violence, you might have something there. What you (and about 90% of this thread's participants) seem to miss is that these scientists used proven psychological conditioning methods to elicit a response, and then pointed their fingers at the video game they'd put in the room as a scapegoat. If they'd replaced the game with two still images of the jerseys, shown one after the other, the effect would have been the same; that's basic Pavlovian conditioning (or skinner, I always get those two mixed up.)
maybe you were making too much? I know you probably won't take that well (downward price rigidity is basic economics) but your wild-eyed, frothing madness does nothing to bring about a compromise amenable to all parties.
Non-interference would have been to say nothing at all.
If it was really good, then maybe? It's possible for good art to focus on truly despicable characters. I remember thoroughly enjoying Lermontov's "A Hero of our Time" despite a persistent sense of revulsion towards the protagonist.
the MPAA is really not a model I want to see emulated. There's a documentary, "This film is not yet rated", which exposes the hypocritical, irrational agenda they follow. Specifically, there are a lot of examples of how violence is cool with them but sex isn't; if there is sex, it has to be from the male perspective. Also, bad words are ok... but they can only be repeated a certain number of times. One "Shitfuck" too many and the film ends up with an NC17, decimating potential revenues. If the word is okay once, why not twice or even (gasp!) three times? The worst part of course is the total lack of transparency.
It's soft censorship, carried out by a group of shadowy figures, enforcing a moral agenda that is questionable at best. I don't want to see that emulated in the video game industry anymore than it already is.
at least that one has some kind of logical thread to it. I'm honestly mystified by most of the subject lines in my spam folder. Just recently I received the cryptically titled "Is Your Boner A Loner When You Are With Her?"
What is that even supposed to mean? Is it for guys with anti-social dongs? Is there an epidemic of this sweeping the nation that I was previously unaware of?
I stand corrected. well done sir!
there are no words that everyone can agree are bad.
Until the civilized world becomes energy-independent, leaving the loonies to their own devices is not feasible. Until the civilized world is confident it would face no threat from Israeli or Pakistani nukes pilfered in the ensuing chaos, it is not desirable. We either turn the entire region (and probably close to a billion innocent people) into glass, as you say, or we try to interpose ourselves there in some less-lethal way. They're both unpalatable options, but I for one don't need the largest genocide in history on my conscience.
What exactly is "it" that you get when you elect niggers?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with modding that troll.
What are you basing that on? I hadn't noticed the democrats being (comparatively) pro-"big content", but I'm not disagreeing. Just wondering.
good cars?
Not only would they no longer deserve handouts, but you're saying they should start being taxed heavily to pay handouts to other people?
Of course they would still deserve whatever they deserved before. They sill exist exactly as they did before the corporation formed. They do not merge, voltron style, to form the new corporate entity; the entity is distinct from them, and is taxed differently as a result of the various liability considerations that a corporation affords. They may receive profits from the corporation, and if they reach a certain level of wealth then we can perhaps say that they don't deserve handouts anymore. But we never tax them in a different way because they formed a corporation.
Take your straw man elsewhere. Good day.
Commodity prices go up because you're making too much shit using those commodities, driving up demand for them to the point where it cannot be met. Maybe you're under-producing plastics and steel and what-have-you, but your current production of those things might be enough if you weren't over-producing shitty cars and subdivisions.
which generation would that be?
The way I see it, citing the 1979 Chrysler "tide-me-over" (can we PLEASE start using that instead of bailout because it is awesome) as a successful example of government intervention is shallow analysis because that was a fairly specific type of government intervention, much more supervised than anything proposed in the current situation. I'm not against government intervention at all, so long as we have reason to believe that it will be used well. That is to say, I also don't believe that all government intervention is good. It depends on the situation. In the specific situation of the current discussions about an auto-industry "tide-me-over",
- The jackholes we might give money to have NO plan this time and they make no guarantees.
- There will be very little oversight
- We'll have to bail 'em out again in another 30 years, and we KNOW this, because they were in the exact same situation 30 years ago (or at least Chrysler was).
I'd gotten the same impression, but it seems that the term has been in use for a while. Here's one example from 1979
I hardly expect anyone to read that, so I'll summarize. In 1979, according to this article, the Carter administration offered 1.5 billion dollars to Chrysler in what was referred to as a bailout (also called, somewhat quaintly, a "tide-me-over"). Amazingly, the company was proposing a shift to fuel-efficient cars that would get them back to profitability "by 1981". This is all before my time, but I do know that if they ever followed that business model it can't have lasted very long. And so we find them today, stuck in the same ditch they'd driven into back in 1979.
We've all heard that history repeats itself, but this is one of the most startlingly clear examples that I've seen. The difference today, as far as I can tell, is that in 1979 the bailout package called for Chrysler to have a clear plan going forward, and laid out strict conditions (I won't cite them here, but feel free to click on that big ol' link up there). By contrast, I've seen snippets of the recent hearings on a present-day auto-industry bailout. Irrelevant grandstanding about jets aside, these execs manifestly do not have any plan, and have admitted that they really don't know if the bailout will be enough to save the industry.
We should not stand for this. The whole tired show has been seen before. The only difference, again, between the bailouts of today and those of yesteryear is that we no longer ask for any sort of accountability. That, and a couple orders of magnitude.