Someone is probably going to mark the AC as a troll, but his assessment is quite similar to mine. EVE is an extremely long-term investment. You don't just jump into EVE, you have to actually *work* a long time to get anywhere. It's great for really hardcore number-crunching players that are hooked on the metagame (spying, so forth) and PVP wars than anything else. But to have to play so long to compete at all--and do anything of value, other than slowing other ships down? It's really not worth the time.
Worst of all, EVE's skill points system, while it does clearly have some really big upsides, unfortunately encourages the worst type of min-maxing imaginable. Want to specialize in a few things, maybe work a bit in production and fighting? Waste of time. You have to specialize completely to really start off on a good footing. They don't separate ship production or item production etc against fighting skills, so you can't really be a producer or inventor and a really effective fighter unless you joined a long time ago and blew points into them anyway, and even then you'd be less effective than if you'd just gone into specializing one of them from the get-go.
And, of course, the infamous fact that CCP devs have been known to buddy up to certain guilds and give them freebies, as the AC mentions as well.
And Jobs grins a greedy little smile because people in black turtlenecks bought all of them, including repair fees when at least one of the above listed broke.
You do realize that the reason why Americans simply call the president "The President" and not "Your Highness" was largely to avoid the associations with monarchy, right?
The queen is called "Queen". "Your Majesty" has an obvious, undeserved connotation.
And why does being knighted by the human equivalent of an appendix (the queen) mean anything other than fuck all? You've just begged the question on why Steve is a "lesser" person, why his "knighting" means anything less than the queen's--or is this some sort of British idea of eugenics I am unfamiliar with?
There's a difference between "being broken" and "being an unnecessary usage of time and resources." Much like how organisms lose organs or features that, over time, become more and more useless, so too I think people are best served by removing the cruft from their lives.
Also, I guess more than half of slashdot needs to shut their mouths when they hear about the police state Britain is becoming, what with all the invasions of privacy and cameras and all. But, who am I to complain over the actions of a democratically elected government...?
Well, why do you care? You seem to be getting very angry over something that apparently doesn't matter to you at all. Nobody is forcing to care.
I'm not gay, I'm not black, I don't belong to any persecuted religious groups... I guess I just don't have the moral turpitude to just shut up and keep my mouth closed when I see some sort of injustice done in the world.
To answer your other points - firstly, if you're so concerned with the monarchy 'leeching off the state', conveniently ignoring the benefits they bring to the country in terms of tourism, diplomatic relationships and the income from their holdings (which is fully taxable, you may note), please send me your address and I will send you the sixty-six pence it costs per citizen per year to keep the monarchy going. I am glad of it, even if you are not.
Since "diplomatic relationships" is rather silly as the real dealings are done by people like the prime minister (wait, I thought the queen was only a ceremonial figurehead? What gives? Can't have your cake and eat it...) and taxing their holdings is obviously you scrambling for an excuse, I guess it leaves you with only tourism. Is that what the British spirit is all about? Treating families as if they're special because they bring in tourists to snap pictures and think they're special because the specialness of this magical family somehow rubbed off on them like fairy dust?
Secondly, last time the electorate was polled, about 80% of the British said keep the monarchy, so unfortunately your views are still very much in the minority. If you want to live in a country without a monarchy, I suggest you go find one.
That's always the most pathetic excuse anyone can give, "because might makes right" or "democracy says so". I gave up on the popularity contest before high school, why are you still clinging on to it? In the USA, the recent vote against homosexual marriage in California was an injustice, despite it being a democratically-produced one. The will of the people is nothing if their will is malice, bigotry, ignorance, or even plain stupidity.
I was born into a noble family where I can hunt foxes all day and have other people shine my shoes. Because I don't need to maintain a real job, I can easily rally behind various charities all the while getting the same glory that a real philanthropist (one who worked for their money) gets.
I've had numerous discussions (ironically, most of the Brits I've talked to more personally about the royal family thinks they're a bunch of leeches) with this and I hear how the queen would be some magical spokesperson for the people when everything goes sour--she would be the person "the people" would rally behind. At the same time, they then state she doesn't have any real power. What?
I know she is mostly around for ceremony. The point is, however, is that she has a position and pulpit undeserved, and that countries and governments should not be in the business of honoring people because of what goddamn family they are born into. Even worse that they should give out "honors" and worse still people think they mean anything!
Yes, but why are other people treating "Her Majesty"'s (why are you addressing her as if SHE'S so special?!) awards as if they mean anything more than your own?
I'm not opposing people being told they did a good job--you made that up because you don't have an argument. No, what I said is that the queen isn't (or shouldn't be) any more special as you or I, and her awards SHOULDN'T be treated as though they are.
When you view the queen's honors as being worth more than your own, when the queen has her position due to birth and not due to personal ability or bravery or somesuch, then you devalue yourself and inflate the worth of someone who hasn't earned it.
Yeah, but she's damn wealthy to boot. Where'd she get that money? Through hard work or her family's toil and labor? HAH! I wish I were royalty for the sole purpose of being the one person who could abolish it.
Then by all means, honor him! You don't need a decrepit old coot to tell you if he's great or not--and what if I don't agree with the decrepit old coot? If I was British, I'd be embarrassed that the person that is supposed to represent me (in the eyes of many around the world, at least) makes it look like I think Bill Gates deserves a particular honor of the sort he got! My point is that governments or bodies affiliated with the government should not be in the business of handing out awards because governments should strive to be neutral towards these subjective things.
Tradition is something that holds us back from progress. Mindless repetition of things done for the sake of doing what was done before. Instead of wasting time and energy avoiding stepping on cracks so we don't break our mother's backs, let's just get on with the show and not waste time, eh?
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the unnecessary "pomp", as you put it, over our president and military. And especially our president-to-be, I'm particularly frightened of his cult status, although he's obviously better than Bush.
"Britain" is not a monolithic entity. Many people there also think the royalty should be abolished, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone who doesn't agree with the presence of the royal family is being leeched upon. I don't care about your shallow excuses of democracy, democracy can justify anything so long as the mob agrees to it.
You might as well state that because Bush won the election, that Europeans shouldn't criticize our elections! Sorry, but that's not how it works, I'll criticize my government, I'll criticize your government, and I'll let other people do the same. Governments are not the people, and your flag does not represent you or who you are.
Why should any governing body, or something affiliated with a governing body, decide for people what moral causes are worth awarding shiny medals and titles for, instead of simply popular consensus? Why is that not good enough? Perhaps we should have President Bush award medals to anti-abortion groups, for "fighting for the sanctity of life", or anti-gay groups, "fighting for the sanctity of marriage?" Or for culture, how about giving Mel Gibson a medal for Passion of the Christ? Or, is it only OK when you agree with the cause or media?
And why does ANYONE need to hand out trinkets for these accomplishments? The honor, the REASON behind these awards are given almost always after such reasoning is evident to most people. Trophies and titles do not make peoples actions more or less great.
You know what? You want someone handing out blue ribbons so badly, why not you do it? What? You mean nobody cares about what you think? Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
Yes, keeping around government-supported, government-entwined birthright positions and riches is what equality is all about. And not only that, but there's something inherently magical about the queen that she, or the people she delegates these matters to, get the power to suddenly make someone "special" enough that they deserve a special title. Is it just me, or does the left sometimes slobber over authority as much as the right tends to do?
I know I'll be modded down as troll or flamebait, but so what? Why is the QUEEN so special that she can give people special titles? She's nothing, she's a rich dinosaur that gets to live an easy life do to peoples' propensity for keeping around pointless traditions. Yeah, people talk about how great the royal family is with charity, but it's easy to be charitable when life is handed to you on silver platters.
Odometer can break or be manipulated with--right now, mine is stuck on my car.
This is just flat-out scary, though. For one, the government is trying more and more technological means to tax us--a lot of the more left democrats here are probably quite comfortable with that, though--and two, the privacy concerns are pretty obvious (although, again, make take a back seat for us to "progress" as a society so wonderful social programs can be implemented).
I'm no expert in this field, so my apologies if I'm talking out of my ass, but wouldn't these results still be unsurprising if you consider attentional factors? Valuable objects (i.e., more salient things) would more "grab" a subject's attention and thus it would not be unsurprising to figure that the brain would engage in more sensory processing of the object, low-level or not? I'm thinking along the lines of how we filter out background noise when it's unimportant to us, like ignoring conversation around as at a party or such.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone is probably going to mark the AC as a troll, but his assessment is quite similar to mine. EVE is an extremely long-term investment. You don't just jump into EVE, you have to actually *work* a long time to get anywhere. It's great for really hardcore number-crunching players that are hooked on the metagame (spying, so forth) and PVP wars than anything else. But to have to play so long to compete at all--and do anything of value, other than slowing other ships down? It's really not worth the time.
Worst of all, EVE's skill points system, while it does clearly have some really big upsides, unfortunately encourages the worst type of min-maxing imaginable. Want to specialize in a few things, maybe work a bit in production and fighting? Waste of time. You have to specialize completely to really start off on a good footing. They don't separate ship production or item production etc against fighting skills, so you can't really be a producer or inventor and a really effective fighter unless you joined a long time ago and blew points into them anyway, and even then you'd be less effective than if you'd just gone into specializing one of them from the get-go.
And, of course, the infamous fact that CCP devs have been known to buddy up to certain guilds and give them freebies, as the AC mentions as well.
And Jobs grins a greedy little smile because people in black turtlenecks bought all of them, including repair fees when at least one of the above listed broke.
Buy one Ipod Touch XL get a free starbucks frappachino
You do realize that the reason why Americans simply call the president "The President" and not "Your Highness" was largely to avoid the associations with monarchy, right?
The queen is called "Queen". "Your Majesty" has an obvious, undeserved connotation.
And why does being knighted by the human equivalent of an appendix (the queen) mean anything other than fuck all? You've just begged the question on why Steve is a "lesser" person, why his "knighting" means anything less than the queen's--or is this some sort of British idea of eugenics I am unfamiliar with?
Excuse me, I meant Sir Bill Gates.
Bill Gates.
There's a difference between "being broken" and "being an unnecessary usage of time and resources." Much like how organisms lose organs or features that, over time, become more and more useless, so too I think people are best served by removing the cruft from their lives.
Also, I guess more than half of slashdot needs to shut their mouths when they hear about the police state Britain is becoming, what with all the invasions of privacy and cameras and all. But, who am I to complain over the actions of a democratically elected government...?
Well, why do you care? You seem to be getting very angry over something that apparently doesn't matter to you at all. Nobody is forcing to care.
I'm not gay, I'm not black, I don't belong to any persecuted religious groups... I guess I just don't have the moral turpitude to just shut up and keep my mouth closed when I see some sort of injustice done in the world.
To answer your other points - firstly, if you're so concerned with the monarchy 'leeching off the state', conveniently ignoring the benefits they bring to the country in terms of tourism, diplomatic relationships and the income from their holdings (which is fully taxable, you may note), please send me your address and I will send you the sixty-six pence it costs per citizen per year to keep the monarchy going. I am glad of it, even if you are not.
Since "diplomatic relationships" is rather silly as the real dealings are done by people like the prime minister (wait, I thought the queen was only a ceremonial figurehead? What gives? Can't have your cake and eat it...) and taxing their holdings is obviously you scrambling for an excuse, I guess it leaves you with only tourism. Is that what the British spirit is all about? Treating families as if they're special because they bring in tourists to snap pictures and think they're special because the specialness of this magical family somehow rubbed off on them like fairy dust?
Secondly, last time the electorate was polled, about 80% of the British said keep the monarchy, so unfortunately your views are still very much in the minority. If you want to live in a country without a monarchy, I suggest you go find one.
That's always the most pathetic excuse anyone can give, "because might makes right" or "democracy says so". I gave up on the popularity contest before high school, why are you still clinging on to it? In the USA, the recent vote against homosexual marriage in California was an injustice, despite it being a democratically-produced one. The will of the people is nothing if their will is malice, bigotry, ignorance, or even plain stupidity.
I was born into a noble family where I can hunt foxes all day and have other people shine my shoes. Because I don't need to maintain a real job, I can easily rally behind various charities all the while getting the same glory that a real philanthropist (one who worked for their money) gets.
That's my grand contribution to humankind.
Oh, wait.
I've had numerous discussions (ironically, most of the Brits I've talked to more personally about the royal family thinks they're a bunch of leeches) with this and I hear how the queen would be some magical spokesperson for the people when everything goes sour--she would be the person "the people" would rally behind. At the same time, they then state she doesn't have any real power. What?
I know she is mostly around for ceremony. The point is, however, is that she has a position and pulpit undeserved, and that countries and governments should not be in the business of honoring people because of what goddamn family they are born into. Even worse that they should give out "honors" and worse still people think they mean anything!
You do realize that it was a rhetorical question, right? They're (the royal family) rich by undeserved money.
If you're not British, then don't talk when we persecute gays, blacks, or otherwise do something anathema to the rights of our fellow man!
Yes, but why are other people treating "Her Majesty"'s (why are you addressing her as if SHE'S so special?!) awards as if they mean anything more than your own?
I'm not opposing people being told they did a good job--you made that up because you don't have an argument. No, what I said is that the queen isn't (or shouldn't be) any more special as you or I, and her awards SHOULDN'T be treated as though they are.
When you view the queen's honors as being worth more than your own, when the queen has her position due to birth and not due to personal ability or bravery or somesuch, then you devalue yourself and inflate the worth of someone who hasn't earned it.
Yeah, but she's damn wealthy to boot. Where'd she get that money? Through hard work or her family's toil and labor? HAH! I wish I were royalty for the sole purpose of being the one person who could abolish it.
Then by all means, honor him! You don't need a decrepit old coot to tell you if he's great or not--and what if I don't agree with the decrepit old coot? If I was British, I'd be embarrassed that the person that is supposed to represent me (in the eyes of many around the world, at least) makes it look like I think Bill Gates deserves a particular honor of the sort he got! My point is that governments or bodies affiliated with the government should not be in the business of handing out awards because governments should strive to be neutral towards these subjective things.
Tradition is something that holds us back from progress. Mindless repetition of things done for the sake of doing what was done before. Instead of wasting time and energy avoiding stepping on cracks so we don't break our mother's backs, let's just get on with the show and not waste time, eh?
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the unnecessary "pomp", as you put it, over our president and military. And especially our president-to-be, I'm particularly frightened of his cult status, although he's obviously better than Bush.
"Britain" is not a monolithic entity. Many people there also think the royalty should be abolished, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone who doesn't agree with the presence of the royal family is being leeched upon. I don't care about your shallow excuses of democracy, democracy can justify anything so long as the mob agrees to it.
You might as well state that because Bush won the election, that Europeans shouldn't criticize our elections! Sorry, but that's not how it works, I'll criticize my government, I'll criticize your government, and I'll let other people do the same. Governments are not the people, and your flag does not represent you or who you are.
Why should any governing body, or something affiliated with a governing body, decide for people what moral causes are worth awarding shiny medals and titles for, instead of simply popular consensus? Why is that not good enough? Perhaps we should have President Bush award medals to anti-abortion groups, for "fighting for the sanctity of life", or anti-gay groups, "fighting for the sanctity of marriage?" Or for culture, how about giving Mel Gibson a medal for Passion of the Christ? Or, is it only OK when you agree with the cause or media?
And why does ANYONE need to hand out trinkets for these accomplishments? The honor, the REASON behind these awards are given almost always after such reasoning is evident to most people. Trophies and titles do not make peoples actions more or less great.
You know what? You want someone handing out blue ribbons so badly, why not you do it? What? You mean nobody cares about what you think? Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
Yes, keeping around government-supported, government-entwined birthright positions and riches is what equality is all about. And not only that, but there's something inherently magical about the queen that she, or the people she delegates these matters to, get the power to suddenly make someone "special" enough that they deserve a special title. Is it just me, or does the left sometimes slobber over authority as much as the right tends to do?
I know I'll be modded down as troll or flamebait, but so what? Why is the QUEEN so special that she can give people special titles? She's nothing, she's a rich dinosaur that gets to live an easy life do to peoples' propensity for keeping around pointless traditions. Yeah, people talk about how great the royal family is with charity, but it's easy to be charitable when life is handed to you on silver platters.
Odometer can break or be manipulated with--right now, mine is stuck on my car.
This is just flat-out scary, though. For one, the government is trying more and more technological means to tax us--a lot of the more left democrats here are probably quite comfortable with that, though--and two, the privacy concerns are pretty obvious (although, again, make take a back seat for us to "progress" as a society so wonderful social programs can be implemented).
I'm no expert in this field, so my apologies if I'm talking out of my ass, but wouldn't these results still be unsurprising if you consider attentional factors? Valuable objects (i.e., more salient things) would more "grab" a subject's attention and thus it would not be unsurprising to figure that the brain would engage in more sensory processing of the object, low-level or not? I'm thinking along the lines of how we filter out background noise when it's unimportant to us, like ignoring conversation around as at a party or such.