It is not just 'the government' it is 'the power'. Power corrupts ultimately.
If you look back into history, many of the streams that went bad were started by people wanting to 'do good' (often, or at least not as bad as they turned out). But then the wrong people took control and it became radicalised. Even the bad were subverted by the really bad. While they still continued to shout the same messages, their goals they were no longer. They now had power and were able to use the goals as carrots for the masses. And people, once they have power, never want to let it go.
Mind you, power does not mean government. Governments everywhere are tightly linked to the real powers, such as banks, insurances, oil, 'defence' et al.
And like the meme from the Princess Bride: "That word [freedom], I do not think it means what you think it means."
As much as I support you, you are fighting a hopeless war. They live in a bubble and you can preach till the cows come home, they will not get it. Been there far to many times and waisted far to many hours.
After all the crap the US gov has pulled in the last 10+ years, such as the lies for invading Iraq and all the other stuff surrounding it, there are people in the US that STILL believe them?
They are sheep! They can continue to sing their songs about how great they are and how free they are for all I care. If they need that to keep the bubble alive, go ahead. But they are still sheep. And a sheep will be lead to slaughter. Happily singing their songs of freedom and glory all the way.
Still they will wonder why the Germans followed so blindly.
Not only stop growth, but also stop waste. The oil and food problems already show us that we have to trim down our waste. Energy conservation has been growing strongly. Less energy consumed is less energy we have to create.
Though who really has to start conserving are the industries. They consume a great portion and are still being protected by the governments.
I also think that just focusing on one renewable energy source is not enough. We have to take all options.
Though in the total, if we want to survive on this planet, we ALL have to start doing our share. We cannot and should not wait for every member to join in. If a society is unable to lift on it's own, those who can should help.
Because in the end, we ALL live or we ALL die. The air and water and wind do not respect borders. You might not be the first or second, but it will get to you.
If people were always rational and clear headed, there would be no problems with gun ownership. But that is not the case. And it is when the line has been crossed, you cannot tell until it is to late. Or, in your case, cannot do anything against it until it is to late. (i.e. legal guns but did nothing wrong so that they could be taken away)
The problems with guns: they are massive enablers. Yes, you could kill people with other items as well, but guns make it SO much easier.
Some other notes: Comparing to other deaths like accidents or whatnot are simply stupid straw men. Water kills more people, should we ban it? And other people wearing guns to 'protect themselves' is not only a mute case because the negative occurrences far outweigh the positive ones, but also those are the kind of people that should not wear them (a little paranoid, are we?). Not to mention if they even use it. That governor was surrounded by body guards yet was still shot.
How often have guns been used for good? Lincoln, MLK, Malcom X, Kennedy, that governor.
Finally I will say this: If you, regardless of the evidence that the solutions to your problems are visible, continue to ignore them, you get what you deserve. So if you do not want to change anything, then don't. But don't come crying when another crazy shoots up a school.
Look at all the 'traditional foods' around the world and you will notice one thing: it is all poor people's food.
I think you are correct about the overpopulation, and it could be that they are manipulating the numbers a bit. They could simply be comparing the number of lobsters to the number of other sea life and thus they seem inflated. But if you look at the number of TOTAL sea life, it would look disastrous.
Sadly like so many others, they care not for the sustainability of our ecosystem but for their pocket book. When will people realize that when we try to conserve nature we are trying to conserve OUR habitat. Planet Earth does not care for us. It has been through worse and when we are gone, it will simply move on.
A resolution for a problem they otherwise do not know how to fix. Tells me more about the people in the government. (mind you, it is not 'the government' but the people in the government, aka the people you voted in)
Though in a strange twist such a move does point out how certain ethnic and regional groups value education. Yes, asians do put a lot of emphasis on education, blacks/latinos not so much. While these are blanket statements, there are undoubtedly numbers that back them up. Though I do also see problems in the social realm. The number of people that think they do not need an education because they will be a pro sportsman/musician or self-made millionaire (without doing anything) has certainly increased thanks to the influx of such theme shows (at least for the latter 2). This does not only apply to people but for their children as well. Honey Boo Boo? Nuff said! People do not realize that becoming such is a horribly slim chance and you are actually better off playing the lottery.
Not to mention look at all the emphasis that is being put on these 'dream jobs'. Sports and music have really become a focus in our societies. Constant bombardment with information about who done what with whom for how many $. Sports and music are things you enjoy in your free time and should not be the focus of day to day life.
Though sadly I think it is the escape vector people seek to enrich their own lives. Hence why commercials focus on certain groups during this time. Why do we only see alcohol/fast food/tech/military themed spots? And who does the coin-toss, half-time show or whatever?
Is it than any wonder that being 'educated' has gained a negative context in the US?
One thing my parents said was: you can try to reach all your dreams but we will only support you if you get an education FIRST. We should go back to focusing on what is really important and not being sidetracked by such nonsense.
Wrong! (people read up on history) The US recognised the Taliban as the ruing power of Afghanistan and actually helped them in gaining it after the Mujaheddin/Soviet war. They even had 'positive' diplomatic relations and the former First Lady inviting representatives from the Taliban to the US. When questioned about what the Taliban do in Afghanistan, she simply said 'it is their way of life'.
Oh, how hollow are your words when you now oppose that what you once supported.
@ 1) actually not. The US government did not commit itself to the revolution until it was absolutely clear Mubarek would be totally ousted. Because you cannot forget that Mubarek was a US ally and if the US had rushed supporting the revolution to early and Mubarek would have won, they relations would have soured. (remember Saddam, same thing, different dictator)
What some people outside of the US are wondering about the Presidential election is: Are you friggn serious? Looking at US television and news one must wonder if this is some elaborate joke. The crap some of these people are spitting is either soooo uber-Colbert that we are not getting or (and this is what we cannot believe) their 'official' heartfelt honest opinion. Mitt Romney? Are you voting for the biggest bunch of douchbags or your president?
And that is what scares us. Everyone has their share of crazies and we share a laugh and a head-shake when they rant off, but we mostly ignore them or move them to the side. Not so in the US.
We'd expect something like this from a banana republic or Italy, but the US?
One thing I feel people forget is the ONLY reason the beheadings do not happen in the West is because the crazies are not in power. Whereas in Afghanistan and other countries these crazy people have the power (and we helped them attain that strange hold btw).
And the only way they will stop is if WE stop supporting these people.
Remember the last time the crazies in the West were in power? We called it the 'Dark Ages'. Yeah, compared to some of the stuff our 'advanced civilizations' did back then, beheadings are quite tame.
Oh and for all that do not get the equations: [us] supporting [bad people] hurting [people] = [us] hurting [people] = [people] hate [us] for supporting [bad people]
The DEA is only a subset of 'the government', not in charge of it. Think about how much real power 'the government' has over its branches. They might manage the bosses, but what goes on inside is not monitored by 'the government'.
And how often do you hear of branches doing stuff they should not? Do you honestly think it is always 'an order from them man himself'? Don't kid yourself.
Problem is, they are all in the same boat so they will be very cautious to beat themselves for any wrong doing. If a branch gets caught doing something they should not, a few token fall-men will take the blame and get moved over.
Thing is, this also happens in the private sector.
Think about it from a different perspective: How many employees rip off their employers? Now think about a company the size of the government. Do you think every time a stapler is stolen, it is by decree? Do you think every time a bent cop plants evidence, it is done by order of the government?
People are people. And the government, just like the private sectors, are made out of people. If they think they can get away with things, they will try to do so. They are just as corruptible and as honest as other people.
Only difference between private and public is that the big heads in charge are voted in by the people. So if someone in the government is corrupt, well you put the person there.
Think about that next time you vote. Do you think the person will do a good job because he is 'likeable'? The boss of Amazon, Steve Jobs and others could be ar$3holes, but they did do good jobs.
One thing people always forget is that such systems cost money to install and operate.
Today the DEA wants to use it against drug trafficking. But let's be realistic, they won't catch many (criminals are not idiots), but the system will continue to cost money. So they extend the goal to include other crimes as well. Perhaps even mistermeaners. All just to justify the costs. And to fight crime o/c.
This is basically the chicken-egg problem that will wind up costing a lot of money but only bring little actual value. Except to the people selling and/or running such systems.
You can look to the UK to see how great it works. Instead of catching the bombers, they use it to catch people littering or urinating/humping in corners.
I think we all have to come to the realization that OUR governments are puppets for corporates. Whenever politicians talk about fixing things, they only want to 'increase the economy' i.e. help the corporations, never fixing social needs.
I look at Germany's booming economy, yet we have totally slashed and gutted our social systems. We can spend trillions on banks and Greece, yet cut our funding for schools and other projects.
And when they want to 'invest in the country' they fix/build roads. Now who the fark gains anything from that, besides the road building companies and the politicians themselves, because it gives the smokescreen of them actually doing something for once?
Our politicians live on the whim of corporations. If the politicians think about doing something the corporations do not like, the corporations threaten to fire people &| close plants and move them to Cheapistan or simply start a media campaign to denounce them. Every tax cut, every 'reduction of bureaucracy' comes at the advantage of corporations.
How else do you think the banks got the trillion dollar bailout in a few days, yet our governments cannot even find 1/100 of that for teachers or meals in schools or whatever?
Don't vote established parties. They have lost their ways and are simply corporate drones.
For the record, yeah I am pissed and what pisses me off more is that we all would rather complain then actually do something about it.
Perhaps because we try to find the golden hammer that will replace all our energy problems with one decisive sweep. That won't work. Just solar or wind or whatever power cannot compare.
IMHO, we should not find one, but rather take them all (as far as possible). f.i. If you only chose solar, what do you do on a rainy day?
So I would go all out. Even personally for my own house. Solar, wind and a geo-thermal heat pump. Keep the isolation of you house up to date and conserve energy (not energy abstinence, just try not to use as much) And I think that is something we all have to do.
One other semi-pseudo argument I often hear is how we need to create this huge infrastructure for power transportation (i.e. backbones to transport large amounts). Yet at the same time we want to decentralize the power creation with a large number of small plants.
Now I might be confused, but if I really do decentralize the creation with massive amounts of small plants, why do I need a huge infrastructure? Wasn't the large infrastructure needed due to the centralized nature of the old system? And if I have multiple smaller power plans all close by, why do I need to get my energy from farther away? Also, would a distributed net (similar to the www) not also be able to transport smaller amounts, but over multiple paths from A to Z?
Probably one of the few that would be problematic are the industries that consume a lot of energy. But there I would consider creating a special grid for their massive needs. Kinda like backbones.
Reminds me of a telecom joke where two techs are talking about the new mobile antenna they installed and that people were complaining about headaces and whatnot. Upon which the other replies: Wait until we turn it on!
Back to the topic. I have read a lot about people in Germany complaining about the noise (range about 50m) and the shadow casts if the sun crosses the turbines path.
But I do find them questionable at best. Most of these turbines do not stand next to houses and the shadow is only for a short period of time.
How about other 'dramatic' problems: Solar panels: sun/light reflections Bio-Gas: smell ground pumps: the drilling
Yes, they all have their downsides, but I would ALWAYS prefer them to a coal burning plant or a nuclear facility whos waist will still be around far after all of us have fallen to dust.
Thing is, people do not care about what you do as long as it is not in their back yard.
Yeah, on Maher or The Daily Show someone said that China will do what works and call it 'Socialism'. Though kinda like we call 'Democracy';)
Re:Free to play will have to show balance to thriv
on
Can $60 Games Survive?
·
· Score: 1
I think the initial statement of '$60 to expensive' is to simple. To expensive for what? For a standalone game that offers ~40 hours of entertainment? I think not. Even a multiplayer game that sounds quite reasonable, as long as there are no monthly costs. If I have to pay monthly, then I do not want to have to buy a box in advance.
What also might be indicated is that the days of trying to leech your clients for all they have are coming to a rapid end, even more so with Free2Play titles.
While WoW was massively popular and did earn the people a lot of money, it was like earning money off of Online Poker. Get the people hooked (emotionally) and then try to bleed them for all they have. I see the same problem with Free2Play titles.
Contrary to that I go back to games like GuildWars (made by old Blizzard people) who did not try to leech their customers. You had to pay the full price for the boxed game (a nice box btw!) and then could play for free with ALL benefits. You did not even need the box because you only needed a small start-client you could download from the GW-page. i.e. no scratched DVDs. While the addons and some other additions (more char slots) did cost extra, you were not missing out on the game just because you did not shell out money.
The devs (remember they were from Blizzard and created Diablo) knew that you did not need the subscription model to finance the game. So they did that and were quite profitable in a market dominated by WoW.
So I'd happily shell out $60 bucks for GuildWars2 because I know that that will be the last purchase I need to make to enjoy the game (at least from the game's point of view, HW purchases not included).
Good point. Could it be that the government is trying to raise the lower level of 'acceptable harm'? Basically that would be the level at which the government can induce harm to get it's way without it becoming a civil rights issue.
I mean if you look at how your government already operates with pepper spray and tazers, they have already become the 'normal procedure' and not an exception. Hence being sprayed and tazed is no longer considered 'to much'.
The excuses were quickly found why the police, you know the ones with the guns and the nightsticks and cuffs and whatnot had to use it against pacifist demonstrators doing a sit-in to 'protect themselves and the populace' and the people accept it. Hey it is the police and what they do must be right. Heck they even threw those people in jail so the protesters must be criminals and deserve whatever they get.
So the powers will try to 1up the current level. 'How much more can we get away with?' If you look at what our governments can already get away with, I think we can all scratch the 'democratics' and 'republics' from our nations.
Now since all that has become the norm, what do you think the threshold is to torture someone? Not to mention a 'non-american dark skinned non-christian'?
It is not a lack of training or whatever when this happens. It is either sanctioned or the proverbial tip of an iceberg from a sick culture.
We claim to hold ourselves to the highest standards, yet drop them at the first chance we get. Kinda shows we never had those high standards in the first place, or at least only expected them from others.
I used to work in the mobile gaming industry for about 5y during the J2ME period and I can only say 'you aint see nothing!'
We had to build ~ 45+ 'unique' builds to support most of the phones back then. Unique being that we could often group certain features together and thus increase the amount of devices we could support with one version. It was also because back then we were limited to 64k, later 200k. Also it allowed us to map the quality to the phones, so that we could provided the needed quality on each phone set. It made no sense to provide a high res gfx set to a nokia brick that had like 120x64 pixels.
One of my pet peeves back then was when someone asked me how they could write an app for the mobiles and sell millions, yet were clueless of the market. I explained countless times that they could either focus on a hand-full of devices with limited effort or build up a team for the whole she-bang, but that would not be something you did on the side. You would need latter for the profits. Lets just say that they were often not very enthusiastic after this.
Then again, there were (game) comps that were highly profitable in doing exactly that because they had the knowledge and the team to hit all devices.
This also meant we had to build our games so that they could run under different platforms with little to no changes. Hence and specialities you created your app on had to be 100% covered on all devices or you had a backup for when that did not work.
Now while with android a lot of problems were solved, you still have the fragmentation of devices and like. So like it or not, you will have to do this if you want to support a large device base.
In summary: know your market, know you platform and accept that you cannot have everything your way if you want to support a large device base.
Side note: all this kinda reminds me of a programming-generation-conflict I often see, especially (usually) between people who programmed in 'old' languages such as ASM, C/C++ or like, and 'newer' languages such as Java, C#, et al. People who learned the ropes on the 'old' languages had to deal with all kinds of rudimentary stuff that 'modern' languages simply 'automagically manage' today. So many 'modern' programmers expect stuff to automatically work because the language is supposed to handle it for them.
i.e. Write once, run everywhere, even with hardware hacks.
Kinda also reminds me of discussions today concerning people using 'modern' languages complaining about having to write 'to much code'.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not just 'the government' it is 'the power'. Power corrupts ultimately.
If you look back into history, many of the streams that went bad were started by people wanting to 'do good' (often, or at least not as bad as they turned out). But then the wrong people took control and it became radicalised. Even the bad were subverted by the really bad.
While they still continued to shout the same messages, their goals they were no longer. They now had power and were able to use the goals as carrots for the masses.
And people, once they have power, never want to let it go.
Mind you, power does not mean government. Governments everywhere are tightly linked to the real powers, such as banks, insurances, oil, 'defence' et al.
And like the meme from the Princess Bride: "That word [freedom], I do not think it means what you think it means."
As much as I support you, you are fighting a hopeless war. They live in a bubble and you can preach till the cows come home, they will not get it.
Been there far to many times and waisted far to many hours.
After all the crap the US gov has pulled in the last 10+ years, such as the lies for invading Iraq and all the other stuff surrounding it, there are people in the US that STILL believe them?
They are sheep!
They can continue to sing their songs about how great they are and how free they are for all I care. If they need that to keep the bubble alive, go ahead.
But they are still sheep.
And a sheep will be lead to slaughter. Happily singing their songs of freedom and glory all the way.
Still they will wonder why the Germans followed so blindly.
Not only stop growth, but also stop waste. The oil and food problems already show us that we have to trim down our waste. Energy conservation has been growing strongly. Less energy consumed is less energy we have to create.
Though who really has to start conserving are the industries. They consume a great portion and are still being protected by the governments.
I also think that just focusing on one renewable energy source is not enough. We have to take all options.
Though in the total, if we want to survive on this planet, we ALL have to start doing our share. We cannot and should not wait for every member to join in. If a society is unable to lift on it's own, those who can should help.
Because in the end, we ALL live or we ALL die. The air and water and wind do not respect borders. You might not be the first or second, but it will get to you.
If people were always rational and clear headed, there would be no problems with gun ownership. But that is not the case.
And it is when the line has been crossed, you cannot tell until it is to late.
Or, in your case, cannot do anything against it until it is to late. (i.e. legal guns but did nothing wrong so that they could be taken away)
The problems with guns: they are massive enablers.
Yes, you could kill people with other items as well, but guns make it SO much easier.
Some other notes:
Comparing to other deaths like accidents or whatnot are simply stupid straw men. Water kills more people, should we ban it?
And other people wearing guns to 'protect themselves' is not only a mute case because the negative occurrences far outweigh the positive ones, but also those are the kind of people that should not wear them (a little paranoid, are we?). Not to mention if they even use it. That governor was surrounded by body guards yet was still shot.
How often have guns been used for good?
Lincoln, MLK, Malcom X, Kennedy, that governor.
Finally I will say this:
If you, regardless of the evidence that the solutions to your problems are visible, continue to ignore them, you get what you deserve.
So if you do not want to change anything, then don't. But don't come crying when another crazy shoots up a school.
Look at all the 'traditional foods' around the world and you will notice one thing: it is all poor people's food.
I think you are correct about the overpopulation, and it could be that they are manipulating the numbers a bit.
They could simply be comparing the number of lobsters to the number of other sea life and thus they seem inflated.
But if you look at the number of TOTAL sea life, it would look disastrous.
Sadly like so many others, they care not for the sustainability of our ecosystem but for their pocket book. When will people realize that when we try to conserve nature we are trying to conserve OUR habitat. Planet Earth does not care for us. It has been through worse and when we are gone, it will simply move on.
A resolution for a problem they otherwise do not know how to fix. Tells me more about the people in the government.
(mind you, it is not 'the government' but the people in the government, aka the people you voted in)
Though in a strange twist such a move does point out how certain ethnic and regional groups value education.
Yes, asians do put a lot of emphasis on education, blacks/latinos not so much. While these are blanket statements, there are undoubtedly numbers that back them up.
Though I do also see problems in the social realm. The number of people that think they do not need an education because they will be a pro sportsman/musician or self-made millionaire (without doing anything) has certainly increased thanks to the influx of such theme shows (at least for the latter 2).
This does not only apply to people but for their children as well. Honey Boo Boo? Nuff said!
People do not realize that becoming such is a horribly slim chance and you are actually better off playing the lottery.
Not to mention look at all the emphasis that is being put on these 'dream jobs'. Sports and music have really become a focus in our societies. Constant bombardment with information about who done what with whom for how many $. Sports and music are things you enjoy in your free time and should not be the focus of day to day life.
Though sadly I think it is the escape vector people seek to enrich their own lives. Hence why commercials focus on certain groups during this time. Why do we only see alcohol/fast food/tech/military themed spots? And who does the coin-toss, half-time show or whatever?
Is it than any wonder that being 'educated' has gained a negative context in the US?
One thing my parents said was: you can try to reach all your dreams but we will only support you if you get an education FIRST.
We should go back to focusing on what is really important and not being sidetracked by such nonsense.
Wrong! (people read up on history)
The US recognised the Taliban as the ruing power of Afghanistan and actually helped them in gaining it after the Mujaheddin/Soviet war.
They even had 'positive' diplomatic relations and the former First Lady inviting representatives from the Taliban to the US.
When questioned about what the Taliban do in Afghanistan, she simply said 'it is their way of life'.
Oh, how hollow are your words when you now oppose that what you once supported.
1. Learn what jihad means -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
2. try to understand what he actually said
Yep, was recoreded. But the tapes were 'lost' somehow. Well 'lost' until they would be useful to the Government and then they are 'found' again.
@ 1) actually not. The US government did not commit itself to the revolution until it was absolutely clear Mubarek would be totally ousted.
Because you cannot forget that Mubarek was a US ally and if the US had rushed supporting the revolution to early and Mubarek would have won, they relations would have soured.
(remember Saddam, same thing, different dictator)
What some people outside of the US are wondering about the Presidential election is: Are you friggn serious?
Looking at US television and news one must wonder if this is some elaborate joke.
The crap some of these people are spitting is either soooo uber-Colbert that we are not getting or (and this is what we cannot believe) their 'official' heartfelt honest opinion.
Mitt Romney? Are you voting for the biggest bunch of douchbags or your president?
And that is what scares us. Everyone has their share of crazies and we share a laugh and a head-shake when they rant off, but we mostly ignore them or move them to the side.
Not so in the US.
We'd expect something like this from a banana republic or Italy, but the US?
One thing I feel people forget is the ONLY reason the beheadings do not happen in the West is because the crazies are not in power.
Whereas in Afghanistan and other countries these crazy people have the power (and we helped them attain that strange hold btw).
And the only way they will stop is if WE stop supporting these people.
Remember the last time the crazies in the West were in power? We called it the 'Dark Ages'. Yeah, compared to some of the stuff our 'advanced civilizations' did back then, beheadings are quite tame.
Oh and for all that do not get the equations: [us] supporting [bad people] hurting [people] = [us] hurting [people] = [people] hate [us] for supporting [bad people]
Please do not forget the abortion clinic bombers! Would this not also equate to Taliban-esque tactics?
The DEA is only a subset of 'the government', not in charge of it.
Think about how much real power 'the government' has over its branches. They might manage the bosses, but what goes on inside is not monitored by 'the government'.
And how often do you hear of branches doing stuff they should not? Do you honestly think it is always 'an order from them man himself'? Don't kid yourself.
Problem is, they are all in the same boat so they will be very cautious to beat themselves for any wrong doing.
If a branch gets caught doing something they should not, a few token fall-men will take the blame and get moved over.
Thing is, this also happens in the private sector.
Think about it from a different perspective: How many employees rip off their employers? Now think about a company the size of the government.
Do you think every time a stapler is stolen, it is by decree? Do you think every time a bent cop plants evidence, it is done by order of the government?
People are people. And the government, just like the private sectors, are made out of people. If they think they can get away with things, they will try to do so. They are just as corruptible and as honest as other people.
Only difference between private and public is that the big heads in charge are voted in by the people. So if someone in the government is corrupt, well you put the person there.
Think about that next time you vote. Do you think the person will do a good job because he is 'likeable'? The boss of Amazon, Steve Jobs and others could be ar$3holes, but they did do good jobs.
One thing people always forget is that such systems cost money to install and operate.
Today the DEA wants to use it against drug trafficking. But let's be realistic, they won't catch many (criminals are not idiots), but the system will continue to cost money. So they extend the goal to include other crimes as well. Perhaps even mistermeaners. All just to justify the costs. And to fight crime o/c.
This is basically the chicken-egg problem that will wind up costing a lot of money but only bring little actual value.
Except to the people selling and/or running such systems.
You can look to the UK to see how great it works. Instead of catching the bombers, they use it to catch people littering or urinating/humping in corners.
I think we all have to come to the realization that OUR governments are puppets for corporates. Whenever politicians talk about fixing things, they only want to 'increase the economy' i.e. help the corporations, never fixing social needs.
I look at Germany's booming economy, yet we have totally slashed and gutted our social systems. We can spend trillions on banks and Greece, yet cut our funding for schools and other projects.
And when they want to 'invest in the country' they fix/build roads. Now who the fark gains anything from that, besides the road building companies and the politicians themselves, because it gives the smokescreen of them actually doing something for once?
Our politicians live on the whim of corporations. If the politicians think about doing something the corporations do not like, the corporations threaten to fire people &| close plants and move them to Cheapistan or simply start a media campaign to denounce them. Every tax cut, every 'reduction of bureaucracy' comes at the advantage of corporations.
How else do you think the banks got the trillion dollar bailout in a few days, yet our governments cannot even find 1/100 of that for teachers or meals in schools or whatever?
Don't vote established parties. They have lost their ways and are simply corporate drones.
For the record, yeah I am pissed and what pisses me off more is that we all would rather complain then actually do something about it.
Perhaps because we try to find the golden hammer that will replace all our energy problems with one decisive sweep.
That won't work. Just solar or wind or whatever power cannot compare.
IMHO, we should not find one, but rather take them all (as far as possible). f.i. If you only chose solar, what do you do on a rainy day?
So I would go all out. Even personally for my own house.
Solar, wind and a geo-thermal heat pump.
Keep the isolation of you house up to date and conserve energy (not energy abstinence, just try not to use as much)
And I think that is something we all have to do.
One other semi-pseudo argument I often hear is how we need to create this huge infrastructure for power transportation (i.e. backbones to transport large amounts).
Yet at the same time we want to decentralize the power creation with a large number of small plants.
Now I might be confused, but if I really do decentralize the creation with massive amounts of small plants, why do I need a huge infrastructure? Wasn't the large infrastructure needed due to the centralized nature of the old system? And if I have multiple smaller power plans all close by, why do I need to get my energy from farther away?
Also, would a distributed net (similar to the www) not also be able to transport smaller amounts, but over multiple paths from A to Z?
Probably one of the few that would be problematic are the industries that consume a lot of energy. But there I would consider creating a special grid for their massive needs.
Kinda like backbones.
Reminds me of a telecom joke where two techs are talking about the new mobile antenna they installed and that people were complaining about headaces and whatnot.
Upon which the other replies: Wait until we turn it on!
Back to the topic. I have read a lot about people in Germany complaining about the noise (range about 50m) and the shadow casts if the sun crosses the turbines path.
But I do find them questionable at best. Most of these turbines do not stand next to houses and the shadow is only for a short period of time.
How about other 'dramatic' problems:
Solar panels: sun/light reflections
Bio-Gas: smell
ground pumps: the drilling
Yes, they all have their downsides, but I would ALWAYS prefer them to a coal burning plant or a nuclear facility whos waist will still be around far after all of us have fallen to dust.
Thing is, people do not care about what you do as long as it is not in their back yard.
The lizard chick with the katana!
It would be quite interesting because it adds the extra problem of non-humans milling about in human history/future.
+1
@Sub-Topic:
If we do consider ourselves democracies or republics then WE are the ones responsible for the governments we elect.
Not like other totalitarian states where we love to punish the populace for actions committed by government they had no part in creating.
Strange that we elect them, yet when they pull some dumb shit, we quickly claim innocence and that we have no involvement!
Sorry, in a democracy they represent US (as in the people) and what they do in our name reflects upon us.
Yeah, on Maher or The Daily Show someone said that China will do what works and call it 'Socialism'. ;)
Though kinda like we call 'Democracy'
I think the initial statement of '$60 to expensive' is to simple.
To expensive for what?
For a standalone game that offers ~40 hours of entertainment? I think not.
Even a multiplayer game that sounds quite reasonable, as long as there are no monthly costs.
If I have to pay monthly, then I do not want to have to buy a box in advance.
What also might be indicated is that the days of trying to leech your clients for all they have are coming to a rapid end, even more so with Free2Play titles.
While WoW was massively popular and did earn the people a lot of money, it was like earning money off of Online Poker. Get the people hooked (emotionally) and then try to bleed them for all they have.
I see the same problem with Free2Play titles.
Contrary to that I go back to games like GuildWars (made by old Blizzard people) who did not try to leech their customers. You had to pay the full price for the boxed game (a nice box btw!) and then could play for free with ALL benefits. You did not even need the box because you only needed a small start-client you could download from the GW-page. i.e. no scratched DVDs.
While the addons and some other additions (more char slots) did cost extra, you were not missing out on the game just because you did not shell out money.
The devs (remember they were from Blizzard and created Diablo) knew that you did not need the subscription model to finance the game. So they did that and were quite profitable in a market dominated by WoW.
So I'd happily shell out $60 bucks for GuildWars2 because I know that that will be the last purchase I need to make to enjoy the game (at least from the game's point of view, HW purchases not included).
Good point. Could it be that the government is trying to raise the lower level of 'acceptable harm'?
Basically that would be the level at which the government can induce harm to get it's way without it becoming a civil rights issue.
I mean if you look at how your government already operates with pepper spray and tazers, they have already become the 'normal procedure' and not an exception.
Hence being sprayed and tazed is no longer considered 'to much'.
The excuses were quickly found why the police, you know the ones with the guns and the nightsticks and cuffs and whatnot had to use it against pacifist demonstrators doing a sit-in to 'protect themselves and the populace' and the people accept it.
Hey it is the police and what they do must be right. Heck they even threw those people in jail so the protesters must be criminals and deserve whatever they get.
So the powers will try to 1up the current level. 'How much more can we get away with?' If you look at what our governments can already get away with, I think we can all scratch the 'democratics' and 'republics' from our nations.
Now since all that has become the norm, what do you think the threshold is to torture someone? Not to mention a 'non-american dark skinned non-christian'?
It is not a lack of training or whatever when this happens. It is either sanctioned or the proverbial tip of an iceberg from a sick culture.
We claim to hold ourselves to the highest standards, yet drop them at the first chance we get. Kinda shows we never had those high standards in the first place, or at least only expected them from others.
I used to work in the mobile gaming industry for about 5y during the J2ME period and I can only say 'you aint see nothing!'
We had to build ~ 45+ 'unique' builds to support most of the phones back then. Unique being that we could often group certain features together and thus increase the amount of devices we could support with one version. It was also because back then we were limited to 64k, later 200k.
Also it allowed us to map the quality to the phones, so that we could provided the needed quality on each phone set. It made no sense to provide a high res gfx set to a nokia brick that had like 120x64 pixels.
One of my pet peeves back then was when someone asked me how they could write an app for the mobiles and sell millions, yet were clueless of the market. I explained countless times that they could either focus on a hand-full of devices with limited effort or build up a team for the whole she-bang, but that would not be something you did on the side. You would need latter for the profits.
Lets just say that they were often not very enthusiastic after this.
Then again, there were (game) comps that were highly profitable in doing exactly that because they had the knowledge and the team to hit all devices.
This also meant we had to build our games so that they could run under different platforms with little to no changes.
Hence and specialities you created your app on had to be 100% covered on all devices or you had a backup for when that did not work.
Now while with android a lot of problems were solved, you still have the fragmentation of devices and like. So like it or not, you will have to do this if you want to support a large device base.
In summary: know your market, know you platform and accept that you cannot have everything your way if you want to support a large device base.
Side note: all this kinda reminds me of a programming-generation-conflict I often see, especially (usually) between people who programmed in 'old' languages such as ASM, C/C++ or like, and 'newer' languages such as Java, C#, et al.
People who learned the ropes on the 'old' languages had to deal with all kinds of rudimentary stuff that 'modern' languages simply 'automagically manage' today. So many 'modern' programmers expect stuff to automatically work because the language is supposed to handle it for them.
i.e. Write once, run everywhere, even with hardware hacks.
Kinda also reminds me of discussions today concerning people using 'modern' languages complaining about having to write 'to much code'.