Cue the bleeding hearts that can't wait to set up an Internet connected kiosk in the village. Well, someone should let them know they're famous on the interwebs.
Beyond Super Smash, do they even sell well anymore? Yes. See: Tekken (5 is the most recent, 6 soon to be released), Virtua Fighter (5 most recent also), Soul Caliber (IV is coming out soon), and there must be others, but I am not into fighting games (since Mortal Kombat 3), so I don't keep on top of them. People are definitely still playing them, though, and lots of copies are sold.
Dean, to the computer science department: "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for software licenses and expensive hardware and stuff? Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."
How about "Funny", "Interesting", and "Insightful"? Funny, as you intended it, insightful as it is insightful satirically, and interesting because it is just so danged multifaceted?
Congratulations.
Disney was innovating in television and motion pictures when those mediums were up-and-coming. Miyamoto has been innovating in videogames while they've been up-and-coming. Both have created iconic characters which have burrowed their way into popular culture and the common consciousness of generations of children, worldwide.
That sums it up perfectly. He's the polar opposite of games like Final Fantasy, where the characters and story are the most memorable parts, and gameplay supports them. I get your point, but with your example you are ignoring the fact that Final Fantasy is an RPG. Different genres require different strengths in games, and RPGs happen to rely heavily on plot and characters, and hence the gameplay SHOULD (in general, not always) be designed around these things. It's just a different style of game.
Some games are made worse by too much plot and character development (ever been to the library in Super Mario Galaxy? yawn... or imagine if Dance Dance Revolution had a story and cut scenes), but for other games, it is legitimately their lifeblood.
Well, okay, I'm talking about things that are 20 years old, not ten, I guess the N64 isn't as easy on the user as the NES and SNES. But would you really say that games like Super Mario World are no longer playable? The games that weren't easy on the user are from SNES or earlier (mostly earlier). The games were only a few hours long (if that), if you could actually beat them. Many of them are, however, completely impossible to beat.
Starting with the N64/Playstation era, games have become much, MUCH easier, as a whole. Realistic save features, in-game tutorials, and more coherent hints at how to accomplish certain tasks make these newer games easier, to name a few reasons. Basically, a game doesn't have to be impossible anymore to give the player a decent amount of time with the game. Also, companies realized more people will be satisfied with a game when they can actually beat it.
True, some old games were not tough-as-nails difficult (especially from the SNES era, like Super Mario World, as you mentioned -- they started getting easier, already, then), but many of them were. These games have already lost their appeal, mostly. The more accessible games have not, but the younger generation of gamers are not as turned on by these games as they are newer games.
I think the original poster has a point that in 50 years people will not want to play these games. Some people will, but not the mainstream. Games will probably be similar to other media, like music and (as the OP alluded to) movies. For instance, I like music from when my parents were kids, but not much before that. There are a lot of people who are into classical music, and silent films, and old media, but these people are very niche. In 50 years, there will be people who enjoy playing Pacman, Super Mario World, and Grand Theft Auto IV, but this will not be mainstream taste among gamers.
As a side note, I will add my prediction that games like GTA IV and Guitar Hero will probably be even less recognized than Pacman or Mario games, in the distant future. The GTA series is very much a reflection of modern pop-culture, and thus, I would argue, has more of a time-stamp on it. Pong, Pacman, Space Invaders, Zelda, and Spore, for example, will age better, as the concepts behind them do not bear such a time-stamp.
This is one reason Miyamoto is reasonably heralded as such a genius. Not only is he responsible for resurrecting the industry, as well as ushering it into the mainstream, but the concepts he creates are enduring. They are not to be bogged down by ties to what is now modern and soon to be outmoded. His ideas are quite timeless, although clearly the technology that delivers them is not.
My experience with PDAs at amusement parks is that they make the amusement park more fun.
Waiting in line for rides/attractions is a pain in the ass. Yes, I suppose you get to chat with whomever you're with, but geez...It's nice to pull out a PDA with SlingPlayer on it and watch some TV, or surf the web, or whatever.
Perhaps they should allow PDAs when in line, but not on benches...But that seems too arbitrary. I really just think that there are enough legitimate uses for PDAs to enhance the experience at an amusement park (which is meant for amusement, right? not boredom, standing in line?) to warrant a ban on such devices.
The hanging chad problem came about from the punch cards being unreadable to humans, so people wouldn't bother to check and see if the ballot had any chads hanging. With the parent's suggestion of a readable ballot, people would be encouraged to look at the holes, and would be more likely to see a renegade chad.
I think the main problem with the parent's suggestion is the possibility of losing some voter anonymity. If someone (say a ballot worker who's been looking at the ballots all day) can see the ballot in your hand, and recognize that a certain hole in a certain spot means you voted for so-and-so, the secret ballot principle has been compromised. That isn't to say there could not be some sort of work-around (an envelope to put your ballot in, for example).
I really don't understand the US need to have votes counted so quickly. You vote in November. The president gets sworn in in January. Lots of time for counting. You obviously don't come from a culture that demands instant gratification. Ever been to a WalMart at 3:30 in the morning, just 'cause you had a sudden craving for some doo-dad from China?
I think a lot of what he said is not really well thought-out, but I will play devil's advocate, and respond to your criticism.
Energy is never created or destroyed. Self-awareness (a certain formation of energy) happens at some moment in time. Once this moment occurs, it needs a consistent model in which to occur, so that makes all previous moments exist. Now, this sounds paradoxical (the past is created after it occurs), but only if you assume time works as we perceive it.
He said that energy's eyes, ears, brain organizes energy so that it can become aware of itself. This can account for the way of perceiving time differing from the way time "is" -- it is the way in which it was possible to become self-aware (or it is one way). We know there are certain imperfections in the way we perceive things (optical illusions, color-blindness, etc.), so this may be one such imperfection.
Your objection relies on our perceived view of time being absolute. He would just have to argue that the energy's reflection of itself (with regard to time) is not a perfect reflection.
He says "self-awareness is existence"; I would like to know if he thinks that this self-awareness can be imperfect: if something can be perceived, but in a way other than what it is.
"If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence."
All crimes have variability in sentencing. The opponent to hate crime legislation would argue that the hateful nature of the crime should potentially be weighed in, but that the mandatory minimum sentence and the potential maximum sentence should not be changed, as the law already accounts for the fact that there are different circumstances. I'm kind of on the fence over the issue, because I don't like the idea of "thought crimes", and it seems like something that could be applied quite arbitrarily, in the wrong hands. However, I lean more toward the pro side, because I really do feel like there is a different sort of crime being committed when bigotry is the motivation.
Either way, this case, I suppose, is about a "hate crime", but not in the normal sense of the word, because in the normal sense it is about an act which is already a crime, but is considered more heinous due to the motivation. Speech is not usually a crime. This is a free speech issue, not so much a "hate crime" issue, and because of that, I find this completely ridiculous. I really hope this kind of legislation never shows its ugly face in the states. The fragile protection against it (the 1st Amendment) is one of the few things that is better about the U.S. than most other Western governments in the modern world.
They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy? Maybe he's onto something -- we need to do something with all that empty space in our prisons, right? Let's fill the void with grandmothers and college students!
Hmm, I don't think that's exactly what they think. They think it contradicts their story of creation -- hence why creationists are the ones who dispute it, and not others with the same god. It contradicts the story from Genesis, which is what gets the creationists' panties all in a bundle.
It also contradicts the more intellectually relevant teleological argument (argument from design), which the parent referenced. Evolution proposes that more complex things come about from simpler things, which is precisely the "counterintuitive" notion which the argument from design appeals against: complexity cannot come from simplicity, so there MUST be some original, supremely complex being, to have resulted any sort of thing existing whatsoever. A classic example from the literature is: a man who has never seen a wristwatch before stumbles upon one, and notes that it must have been made by someone, what with all its complexity (about which he would be right), and so it is with us observing the universe.
I think the name "Intelligent Design", as thrown around by creationists, is to align themselves with the more respected argument from design (which does not make any claims about what the nature of this designer is), yielding the pretense of wielding a more respectable theory, whilst really just playing the empty "...because the Bible says so, which is true because God says so, which is true..." card. The technique is not very clever, but what do you expect from a bunch of "Intelligent Design theorists"?
...So basically they hate us because we have more.
Seriously, do you get your information from Newsweek? Please, if living conditions were good in the Middle East, there would not be so many youths willing to sacrifice their lives for Allah. What is your brilliant explanation?
Certainly they aren't happy about certain interventions/expressions of power, such as giving away a certain piece of the Ottoman Empire, and invading Iraq, but the main struggle is about who controls more power.
Au contraire, we supply them a medium to receiving said sex. They only have to declare jihad against us first (and blow themselves up).
They hate us because we have cool TVs to watch our cool TV shows, and time to watch them, rather than worrying about where our next meal is coming from. They hate us because we have more, as well as more power. They hate us because, if they want to have as much power over themselves as we have over them, they have to adopt much of our culture, and compete on its ground, which is a losing game, no matter how you cut it (for any forseeable future) -- even with the leverage provided by oil fields.
Yes, they hate us for imposing our system upon them, but they also realize that our system still puts them in a better position to have a higher quality of life than they had prior to our involvement. So basically they hate us because we have more. Then they are promised honor and glory (and virgins) for acting upon this hatred, and there you have it.
It's all well and good to say we should remedy this situation, as my parent poster suggested. The thing is, with the way the Western economy is (and where it's going), we have to worry about our own ass first. If things were to equalize (which, who knows -- they might; especially with the help of China) on a global scale, I have a strong feeling the equalized living condition would be closer to their current life than ours. Look, we can't even seem to solve poverty in the West (which is a much more realistic goal -- if given cooperation from, or coercion to, the corporate elite).
The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever.
Right-o. We should invest in technology which will remove all those blasted virgins from heaven.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are not that far in the past
So our ongoing injustices excuse their behavior in Tibet and towards their own people?
No, and the parent did not suggest that. It is good to keep some perspective, though, and recognize the west's own shortcomings and hypocrisies. After all, this self-awareness and self-criticism is largely what gives weight to your argument. Well, that, and the fact that Chinese atrocities are on a much grander scale than western atrocities, in general.
TFA is about this lack of self-awareness and self-criticism by the Chinese, and so mentioning our own is quite relevant to the discussion. No one said it justifies anything, and you only hinder your own argument by putting such words in others' mouths. I find it quite ironic that the OP was marked flamebait, when it was expressing exactly the kind of idea the modder (most likely) wants to see come from the Chinese.
You must never have smoked pot, or had friends who did, for you would never make this argument otherwise. Alcohol is so much worse in terms of impairment of judgment, as well as motor skills, that what you said just doesn't hold any water. Really.
People on pot do not frequently get the urge to destroy property or get into fights. Go to a football game, or even a local pub, and tell me this is not the case for alcohol.
Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest that alcohol impairs driving more than weed. Obviously, this is the most talked about and consequential form of motor impairment, but it can be seen as an indicator that other motor functions are also not as impaired by pot.
Then, of course, there is the whole overdose thing. Alcohol poisoning? Yes. THC poisoning? No. Unless you're like this idiot cop who thinks he is dying from the brownies he ingested, made from pot he stole in a bust.
I am an American living in the Netherlands, so I have been following this story pretty closely. The big thing that has been suggested that might be majorly controversial and in the film is the ripping or some kind of destruction of the Koran. Certainly it would not advocate punching Muslims, I mean, the creator of the film is a freaking politician. A popular one, too. Politicians don't say things quite as stupid as "hey, go punch a muslim".
It is quite an interesting issue, though, in terms of free speech rights in the Netherlands. Such rights are not as strong here as they are in the states (for instance, I believe denying the holocaust is illegal in the Netherlands). Lots of members of parliament would like to see the film banned. A lot of Muslims argue that the film should be banned, pointing to the holocaust issue for an argument for the legitimacy of such a ban, and the illegitimacy of the free speech argument.
Many people on here seem to not realize that 1) European countries do not have the same speech protections as the States, and 2) a private internet company can, indeed, suppress peoples rights to free speech. Perhaps this highlights a flaw in the privately owned nature of web hosting.
It does seem like the Dutch government does not intend to stop the release of the film, either, by the way. I did not mean to give the impression otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, people. Click on the link to the article. Now click on the pics on the article's page. Big enough for you?
Dean, to the computer science department: "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for software licenses and expensive hardware and stuff? Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."
How about "Funny", "Interesting", and "Insightful"? Funny, as you intended it, insightful as it is insightful satirically, and interesting because it is just so danged multifaceted? Congratulations.
Disney was innovating in television and motion pictures when those mediums were up-and-coming. Miyamoto has been innovating in videogames while they've been up-and-coming. Both have created iconic characters which have burrowed their way into popular culture and the common consciousness of generations of children, worldwide.
Some games are made worse by too much plot and character development (ever been to the library in Super Mario Galaxy? yawn... or imagine if Dance Dance Revolution had a story and cut scenes), but for other games, it is legitimately their lifeblood.
Starting with the N64/Playstation era, games have become much, MUCH easier, as a whole. Realistic save features, in-game tutorials, and more coherent hints at how to accomplish certain tasks make these newer games easier, to name a few reasons. Basically, a game doesn't have to be impossible anymore to give the player a decent amount of time with the game. Also, companies realized more people will be satisfied with a game when they can actually beat it.
True, some old games were not tough-as-nails difficult (especially from the SNES era, like Super Mario World, as you mentioned -- they started getting easier, already, then), but many of them were. These games have already lost their appeal, mostly. The more accessible games have not, but the younger generation of gamers are not as turned on by these games as they are newer games.
I think the original poster has a point that in 50 years people will not want to play these games. Some people will, but not the mainstream. Games will probably be similar to other media, like music and (as the OP alluded to) movies. For instance, I like music from when my parents were kids, but not much before that. There are a lot of people who are into classical music, and silent films, and old media, but these people are very niche. In 50 years, there will be people who enjoy playing Pacman, Super Mario World, and Grand Theft Auto IV, but this will not be mainstream taste among gamers.
As a side note, I will add my prediction that games like GTA IV and Guitar Hero will probably be even less recognized than Pacman or Mario games, in the distant future. The GTA series is very much a reflection of modern pop-culture, and thus, I would argue, has more of a time-stamp on it. Pong, Pacman, Space Invaders, Zelda, and Spore, for example, will age better, as the concepts behind them do not bear such a time-stamp.
This is one reason Miyamoto is reasonably heralded as such a genius. Not only is he responsible for resurrecting the industry, as well as ushering it into the mainstream, but the concepts he creates are enduring. They are not to be bogged down by ties to what is now modern and soon to be outmoded. His ideas are quite timeless, although clearly the technology that delivers them is not.
My experience with PDAs at amusement parks is that they make the amusement park more fun.
Waiting in line for rides/attractions is a pain in the ass. Yes, I suppose you get to chat with whomever you're with, but geez...It's nice to pull out a PDA with SlingPlayer on it and watch some TV, or surf the web, or whatever.
Perhaps they should allow PDAs when in line, but not on benches...But that seems too arbitrary. I really just think that there are enough legitimate uses for PDAs to enhance the experience at an amusement park (which is meant for amusement, right? not boredom, standing in line?) to warrant a ban on such devices.
I, for one, welcome our ungrammatical VoteNet overlords.
They must know how to pick a better president than the American people.
The hanging chad problem came about from the punch cards being unreadable to humans, so people wouldn't bother to check and see if the ballot had any chads hanging. With the parent's suggestion of a readable ballot, people would be encouraged to look at the holes, and would be more likely to see a renegade chad.
I think the main problem with the parent's suggestion is the possibility of losing some voter anonymity. If someone (say a ballot worker who's been looking at the ballots all day) can see the ballot in your hand, and recognize that a certain hole in a certain spot means you voted for so-and-so, the secret ballot principle has been compromised. That isn't to say there could not be some sort of work-around (an envelope to put your ballot in, for example).
I think a lot of what he said is not really well thought-out, but I will play devil's advocate, and respond to your criticism.
Energy is never created or destroyed. Self-awareness (a certain formation of energy) happens at some moment in time. Once this moment occurs, it needs a consistent model in which to occur, so that makes all previous moments exist. Now, this sounds paradoxical (the past is created after it occurs), but only if you assume time works as we perceive it.
He said that energy's eyes, ears, brain organizes energy so that it can become aware of itself. This can account for the way of perceiving time differing from the way time "is" -- it is the way in which it was possible to become self-aware (or it is one way). We know there are certain imperfections in the way we perceive things (optical illusions, color-blindness, etc.), so this may be one such imperfection.
Your objection relies on our perceived view of time being absolute. He would just have to argue that the energy's reflection of itself (with regard to time) is not a perfect reflection.
He says "self-awareness is existence"; I would like to know if he thinks that this self-awareness can be imperfect: if something can be perceived, but in a way other than what it is.
It's still in the United Earth of America, so it must follow American law.
Vive la Resistance!
"If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence."
All crimes have variability in sentencing. The opponent to hate crime legislation would argue that the hateful nature of the crime should potentially be weighed in, but that the mandatory minimum sentence and the potential maximum sentence should not be changed, as the law already accounts for the fact that there are different circumstances. I'm kind of on the fence over the issue, because I don't like the idea of "thought crimes", and it seems like something that could be applied quite arbitrarily, in the wrong hands. However, I lean more toward the pro side, because I really do feel like there is a different sort of crime being committed when bigotry is the motivation.
Either way, this case, I suppose, is about a "hate crime", but not in the normal sense of the word, because in the normal sense it is about an act which is already a crime, but is considered more heinous due to the motivation. Speech is not usually a crime. This is a free speech issue, not so much a "hate crime" issue, and because of that, I find this completely ridiculous. I really hope this kind of legislation never shows its ugly face in the states. The fragile protection against it (the 1st Amendment) is one of the few things that is better about the U.S. than most other Western governments in the modern world.
"Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State."
You had me until there. I didn't think we were done with expansion via the War on Terror, which appears to be much more rapid and far-reaching, no?
Hmm, I don't think that's exactly what they think. They think it contradicts their story of creation -- hence why creationists are the ones who dispute it, and not others with the same god. It contradicts the story from Genesis, which is what gets the creationists' panties all in a bundle.
It also contradicts the more intellectually relevant teleological argument (argument from design), which the parent referenced. Evolution proposes that more complex things come about from simpler things, which is precisely the "counterintuitive" notion which the argument from design appeals against: complexity cannot come from simplicity, so there MUST be some original, supremely complex being, to have resulted any sort of thing existing whatsoever. A classic example from the literature is: a man who has never seen a wristwatch before stumbles upon one, and notes that it must have been made by someone, what with all its complexity (about which he would be right), and so it is with us observing the universe.
I think the name "Intelligent Design", as thrown around by creationists, is to align themselves with the more respected argument from design (which does not make any claims about what the nature of this designer is), yielding the pretense of wielding a more respectable theory, whilst really just playing the empty "...because the Bible says so, which is true because God says so, which is true..." card. The technique is not very clever, but what do you expect from a bunch of "Intelligent Design theorists"?
Certainly they aren't happy about certain interventions/expressions of power, such as giving away a certain piece of the Ottoman Empire, and invading Iraq, but the main struggle is about who controls more power.
Au contraire, we supply them a medium to receiving said sex. They only have to declare jihad against us first (and blow themselves up).
They hate us because we have cool TVs to watch our cool TV shows, and time to watch them, rather than worrying about where our next meal is coming from. They hate us because we have more, as well as more power. They hate us because, if they want to have as much power over themselves as we have over them, they have to adopt much of our culture, and compete on its ground, which is a losing game, no matter how you cut it (for any forseeable future) -- even with the leverage provided by oil fields.
Yes, they hate us for imposing our system upon them, but they also realize that our system still puts them in a better position to have a higher quality of life than they had prior to our involvement. So basically they hate us because we have more. Then they are promised honor and glory (and virgins) for acting upon this hatred, and there you have it.
It's all well and good to say we should remedy this situation, as my parent poster suggested. The thing is, with the way the Western economy is (and where it's going), we have to worry about our own ass first. If things were to equalize (which, who knows -- they might; especially with the help of China) on a global scale, I have a strong feeling the equalized living condition would be closer to their current life than ours. Look, we can't even seem to solve poverty in the West (which is a much more realistic goal -- if given cooperation from, or coercion to, the corporate elite).
The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever.
Right-o. We should invest in technology which will remove all those blasted virgins from heaven.So our ongoing injustices excuse their behavior in Tibet and towards their own people?
No, and the parent did not suggest that. It is good to keep some perspective, though, and recognize the west's own shortcomings and hypocrisies. After all, this self-awareness and self-criticism is largely what gives weight to your argument. Well, that, and the fact that Chinese atrocities are on a much grander scale than western atrocities, in general.TFA is about this lack of self-awareness and self-criticism by the Chinese, and so mentioning our own is quite relevant to the discussion. No one said it justifies anything, and you only hinder your own argument by putting such words in others' mouths. I find it quite ironic that the OP was marked flamebait, when it was expressing exactly the kind of idea the modder (most likely) wants to see come from the Chinese.
You must never have smoked pot, or had friends who did, for you would never make this argument otherwise. Alcohol is so much worse in terms of impairment of judgment, as well as motor skills, that what you said just doesn't hold any water. Really.
People on pot do not frequently get the urge to destroy property or get into fights. Go to a football game, or even a local pub, and tell me this is not the case for alcohol.
Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest that alcohol impairs driving more than weed. Obviously, this is the most talked about and consequential form of motor impairment, but it can be seen as an indicator that other motor functions are also not as impaired by pot.
Then, of course, there is the whole overdose thing. Alcohol poisoning? Yes. THC poisoning? No. Unless you're like this idiot cop who thinks he is dying from the brownies he ingested, made from pot he stole in a bust.
I am an American living in the Netherlands, so I have been following this story pretty closely. The big thing that has been suggested that might be majorly controversial and in the film is the ripping or some kind of destruction of the Koran. Certainly it would not advocate punching Muslims, I mean, the creator of the film is a freaking politician. A popular one, too. Politicians don't say things quite as stupid as "hey, go punch a muslim".
It is quite an interesting issue, though, in terms of free speech rights in the Netherlands. Such rights are not as strong here as they are in the states (for instance, I believe denying the holocaust is illegal in the Netherlands). Lots of members of parliament would like to see the film banned. A lot of Muslims argue that the film should be banned, pointing to the holocaust issue for an argument for the legitimacy of such a ban, and the illegitimacy of the free speech argument.
Many people on here seem to not realize that 1) European countries do not have the same speech protections as the States, and 2) a private internet company can, indeed, suppress peoples rights to free speech. Perhaps this highlights a flaw in the privately owned nature of web hosting.
It does seem like the Dutch government does not intend to stop the release of the film, either, by the way. I did not mean to give the impression otherwise.