Scalia's view is highly dogmatic and very naive. I adhere to methbumulism. I ask the meth-addicted bum down the street what the constitution should mean. It's one view over many--no view is right or wrong. It's all ideological.
The monied elite have so thoroughly confounded people to the point that they reflexively recoil from anything that promotes their own best interests with the delusion that by supporting only the wealthy and powerful (which is what you do when you remove government altogether)
Yes, tell me again how the wealthy and powerful are fighting against government instead of creating more of it.
He's likely misremembering what happened. Car crash witnesses do it all the time. He's just (unconsciously) assembling the information he has into something that meshes with his expectations and with what he knows happened after the event happened. He was likely blown back by the force of the meteorite's impact with the Earth, not it hitting him, and as you very correctly mention it was too fast for him to perceive of pain then the sound.
I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today
The problem isn't that the politicians forgot this. It's that the American population did.
Children sitting still in classrooms, however, is never intrinsically pleasurable, no matter who the student is.
Additionally, while you are correct that ceasing rewards can stop the behavior, it's also true that associating a stimulus with a reward can cause the stimulus to become an intrinsic motivator.
I think they mean that children should be intrinsically motivated to do hard work and learn. Which is bullshit, because just sitting there expecting people to do the "right thing" never works, even though for some strange reason people think that because they discovered what the "right thing" is that means it's what people do by default or should be expected for them to do.
Most children, teenagers, AND adults have no intrinsic motivation for education. They're stuck in stuffy, boring classrooms all day in the same environment expending little energy when the drive is to go play. Why do you think children say their favorite "subject" is recess?
If you associate a stimulus with a reward often times that stimulus will itself become an intrinsic motivator, so yes, money-for-grades can be a good idea.
More left-wing nonsense. Consumerism, greed and status seeking are intrinsic parts to human nature or at least flow from them. I'll bet you think if we manage to just create the right society mankind will be perfected, right? Then we can all dance in fields of flowers.
Not going to happen. Consumerism, greed, and status seeking are always going to be around.
Oh, cut the left-wing political bullshit fantasy land nonsense where money doesn't exist and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. Almost everything requires money some form down the line. Money is a reward because then the kids can go buy whatever they want with it (video game, candy, etc...) of their choice instead of one specific thing.
What do you expect? "Here son, you got good grades, let's sit and stare at this beautiful sunset together!"
The problem is is that while the Wii has broken out of the traditional gamer demographic, it has largely forgotten them. Wii bowling is fun but I'd prefer something a little more. Yes, that's an exaggeration, the Wii does has some phenomenal games but I find it mostly collecting dust while I play on my PC. Where's Star Fox? Another Zelda? Why so few new franchises, something more original?
As for Mario versus Star Fox, very cute. You reveal the Nintendo Internet Warrior inside of you. A quality Star Fox hasn't been seen since the 64 version which was OVER A DECADE AGO. I don't mind Mario but when all they have is Mario and Metroid as their big things at E3 it doesn't look good.
I don't care about sequels if the games are good. I always expect there to be Mario games. But I want something other than a the goddamn plumber. Maybe that excites you nintendo fanboys, but not me...
So do I. The guy you are responding too either skimmed my post or has poor reading ability; if you want to know what I meant by Wii's shovelware go check most of what's on store shelves. I know all systems suffer from "most games are garbage" games, but Wii is the worst offender with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio.
You let the fanboy in you shown there. One of the points of GP is that nowadays more than half of games in the Wii are Mario or the like. There are now real new and interesting game using the new and interesting capabilities of the Wii mote... just yesterday I was playing NBA JAM for the SNES and I also Blackthorne. Just because there are very few interesting games available... The fact that Nintendo has been milking the Mario franchise for so long makes the next great Mario game a gimmick.
OK, but I never said Mario was a gimmick and I still don't agree. I think he's been hashed out so much that it's getting tiresome, but the Mario games that come out are generally quality games. Wii Fit might fit the bill, though I haven't used it myself and I wonder how fun or useful it is... Nintendo has a reputation for using gimmicks, how games use them can be hit-or-miss like the motion controls on the wiimote or the touch screen on the nintendo DS (and the dual screen feature as well). By "gimmick" I am referring to games which rely on motion control but aren't actually fun.
Also, Nintendo keeps doing remake after remake after remake. It's getting old. I don't mind quality remakes of old games but a lot of them are just small tweaks rereleased on a new console to milk more money out of an old favorite.
A 2D game on the wii with Kirby would be nice. That game you are talking about was fantastic, I believe it was Kirby's Paintbrush.
You say they will bring back Star Fox because of the money, but I don't think that matters. It seems like Nintendo has a fundamental disconnect with its fans. They should have brought back REAL Star Fox a long time ago.
You are very right in regards Donkey Kong. The 3 Donkey Kong Country games, particularly 2 and 3, were some of the best platformers ever, though 64 was an abomination and marked Rareware's descent and decline. I think only old Rare could make DK games as clever as the SNES trilogy. We'll never see them again. Only more silly gimmick/puzzle games.
Kirby has only gotten real quality love on 2d platforms such as the SNES and DS and Super Smash Bros. Brawl (hee hee hee, perhaps you get the humor here). I do agree with you but the chance of a 3D Kirby game of quality is looking even less likely than a new Star Fox at this point. Nintendo just isn't coming out with anything new that isn't a gimmick. They're taking no risks and it's not exactly keeping my interest.
Sure, everyone loves Mario but at this point it's obvious Nintendo is very stagnant. Most of the stuff on the Wii is pure shovelware garbage, and I've yet to be truly impressed with the uses of the Wiimote (although the device itself is fantastic and I even use it with my computer via bluetooth). The Wii is a stagnant system all-around for the more active gamer, and its "environment" is so sterile (less mature games, using the friend code system, etc) and the system is far enough behind the others in terms of graphical and processing ability to not allow for faithful ports of games on the XBox 360 or PS3.
You'd think Nintendo would at least ramp up 1st party games but nope. Most of what is coming out is unremarkable shovelware. The DS is definitely starting to lose some of its luster as only a few good games on it seem over the horizon--though I do think the DS was overall a success with many quality games.
Mario, Mario, and Metriod. And another gimmick, Wii fit. How depressing for us Wii owners.
As an aside, when is Nintendo going to come out with a faithful quality sequel to Star Fox 64?
What? No, things are true, yadda yadda, it's just that questions of personal meaning have no true objective answer. The questions of "theology" are of no more substance or no more answerable than "What should I eat for lunch?" yet theologians treat them like they're deep, profound, answerable questions--and they say that since science cannot answer them, then they are equipped to do so. But they are not, and certainly not by invoking silly metaphysical concepts like "God".
No, that's not why we use empirical criteria. We use empirical criteria because reason is incomplete, not because it can't be trusted. Making anything of empirical observations still requires reason, so if reason can't be trusted then adding empirical criteria doesn't help.
I don't disagree. ("Pure") Reason just cannot be fully trusted because it is incomplete. That's essentially what I meant. I was thinking a bit in line with all those silly a priori proofs of, say, God's existence or whatnot.
It's perhaps a strength of physicalism that it poses the problem. Yes, it leads to the conclusion that "all beliefs must be tentative and that our understandings of things may be inherently flawed", which is all I wanted to claim. Other metaphysical assumptions (for example "God told me so!") may not lead to the same conclusion, but that's because they're weaker, not stronger than physicalism. They don't have the substance to allow such clear (if undesirable) conclusions.
Good, but I don't find it to be a problem really. At least not one that is inescapable.
Slashdot Mirror
You graduated from state-sponsored teenage daycare.
Scalia's view is highly dogmatic and very naive. I adhere to methbumulism. I ask the meth-addicted bum down the street what the constitution should mean. It's one view over many--no view is right or wrong. It's all ideological.
Yes, tell me again how the wealthy and powerful are fighting against government instead of creating more of it.
They can only succeed if YOU give it to them. Do not apply to these jobs, show them they cannot make money doing this.
Pokemon snap is the most British game of all.
He's likely misremembering what happened. Car crash witnesses do it all the time. He's just (unconsciously) assembling the information he has into something that meshes with his expectations and with what he knows happened after the event happened. He was likely blown back by the force of the meteorite's impact with the Earth, not it hitting him, and as you very correctly mention it was too fast for him to perceive of pain then the sound.
I just assumed he meant the founding of the colonies at Plymouth Rock.
Guilty until proven innocent?
And why the fuck should they have to any more than they should pay money to Tony Soprano?
The problem isn't that the politicians forgot this. It's that the American population did.
Ah, what justice that the average person should be subject to this!
Children sitting still in classrooms, however, is never intrinsically pleasurable, no matter who the student is.
Additionally, while you are correct that ceasing rewards can stop the behavior, it's also true that associating a stimulus with a reward can cause the stimulus to become an intrinsic motivator.
I think they mean that children should be intrinsically motivated to do hard work and learn. Which is bullshit, because just sitting there expecting people to do the "right thing" never works, even though for some strange reason people think that because they discovered what the "right thing" is that means it's what people do by default or should be expected for them to do.
Most children, teenagers, AND adults have no intrinsic motivation for education. They're stuck in stuffy, boring classrooms all day in the same environment expending little energy when the drive is to go play. Why do you think children say their favorite "subject" is recess?
If you associate a stimulus with a reward often times that stimulus will itself become an intrinsic motivator, so yes, money-for-grades can be a good idea.
More left-wing nonsense. Consumerism, greed and status seeking are intrinsic parts to human nature or at least flow from them. I'll bet you think if we manage to just create the right society mankind will be perfected, right? Then we can all dance in fields of flowers.
Not going to happen. Consumerism, greed, and status seeking are always going to be around.
Oh, cut the left-wing political bullshit fantasy land nonsense where money doesn't exist and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. Almost everything requires money some form down the line. Money is a reward because then the kids can go buy whatever they want with it (video game, candy, etc...) of their choice instead of one specific thing.
What do you expect? "Here son, you got good grades, let's sit and stare at this beautiful sunset together!"
The problem is is that while the Wii has broken out of the traditional gamer demographic, it has largely forgotten them. Wii bowling is fun but I'd prefer something a little more. Yes, that's an exaggeration, the Wii does has some phenomenal games but I find it mostly collecting dust while I play on my PC. Where's Star Fox? Another Zelda? Why so few new franchises, something more original?
As for Mario versus Star Fox, very cute. You reveal the Nintendo Internet Warrior inside of you. A quality Star Fox hasn't been seen since the 64 version which was OVER A DECADE AGO. I don't mind Mario but when all they have is Mario and Metroid as their big things at E3 it doesn't look good.
I don't care about sequels if the games are good. I always expect there to be Mario games. But I want something other than a the goddamn plumber. Maybe that excites you nintendo fanboys, but not me...
So do I. The guy you are responding too either skimmed my post or has poor reading ability; if you want to know what I meant by Wii's shovelware go check most of what's on store shelves. I know all systems suffer from "most games are garbage" games, but Wii is the worst offender with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio.
OK, but I never said Mario was a gimmick and I still don't agree. I think he's been hashed out so much that it's getting tiresome, but the Mario games that come out are generally quality games. Wii Fit might fit the bill, though I haven't used it myself and I wonder how fun or useful it is... Nintendo has a reputation for using gimmicks, how games use them can be hit-or-miss like the motion controls on the wiimote or the touch screen on the nintendo DS (and the dual screen feature as well). By "gimmick" I am referring to games which rely on motion control but aren't actually fun.
Also, Nintendo keeps doing remake after remake after remake. It's getting old. I don't mind quality remakes of old games but a lot of them are just small tweaks rereleased on a new console to milk more money out of an old favorite.
I never said wii fit was shovelware or Mario was a gimmick. Please read closely, it will help you a lot in the future.
I am talking about those gimmick games which rely on the wiimote very poorly and don't focus on actual good game.
A 2D game on the wii with Kirby would be nice. That game you are talking about was fantastic, I believe it was Kirby's Paintbrush.
You say they will bring back Star Fox because of the money, but I don't think that matters. It seems like Nintendo has a fundamental disconnect with its fans. They should have brought back REAL Star Fox a long time ago.
You are very right in regards Donkey Kong. The 3 Donkey Kong Country games, particularly 2 and 3, were some of the best platformers ever, though 64 was an abomination and marked Rareware's descent and decline. I think only old Rare could make DK games as clever as the SNES trilogy. We'll never see them again. Only more silly gimmick/puzzle games.
Kirby has only gotten real quality love on 2d platforms such as the SNES and DS and Super Smash Bros. Brawl (hee hee hee, perhaps you get the humor here). I do agree with you but the chance of a 3D Kirby game of quality is looking even less likely than a new Star Fox at this point. Nintendo just isn't coming out with anything new that isn't a gimmick. They're taking no risks and it's not exactly keeping my interest.
Earlier I specified "the more active gamer."
Is it just me, or did the submitter forget to close an italics tag somewhere? Everything is coming up italicized for me.
Sure, everyone loves Mario but at this point it's obvious Nintendo is very stagnant. Most of the stuff on the Wii is pure shovelware garbage, and I've yet to be truly impressed with the uses of the Wiimote (although the device itself is fantastic and I even use it with my computer via bluetooth). The Wii is a stagnant system all-around for the more active gamer, and its "environment" is so sterile (less mature games, using the friend code system, etc) and the system is far enough behind the others in terms of graphical and processing ability to not allow for faithful ports of games on the XBox 360 or PS3.
You'd think Nintendo would at least ramp up 1st party games but nope. Most of what is coming out is unremarkable shovelware. The DS is definitely starting to lose some of its luster as only a few good games on it seem over the horizon--though I do think the DS was overall a success with many quality games.
Mario, Mario, and Metriod. And another gimmick, Wii fit. How depressing for us Wii owners.
As an aside, when is Nintendo going to come out with a faithful quality sequel to Star Fox 64?
What? No, things are true, yadda yadda, it's just that questions of personal meaning have no true objective answer. The questions of "theology" are of no more substance or no more answerable than "What should I eat for lunch?" yet theologians treat them like they're deep, profound, answerable questions--and they say that since science cannot answer them, then they are equipped to do so. But they are not, and certainly not by invoking silly metaphysical concepts like "God".
I don't disagree. ("Pure") Reason just cannot be fully trusted because it is incomplete. That's essentially what I meant. I was thinking a bit in line with all those silly a priori proofs of, say, God's existence or whatnot.
Good, but I don't find it to be a problem really. At least not one that is inescapable.
What? No. Merely that people blame the corporations for doing what they do but it's the consumers that let it all happen.