Well, if you don't mind me going off script a moment with some potentially oddball ideas, I think one way people are convinced to vote against their interests is with distraction issues like gay marriage, abortion, DADT, etc. Essentially, I think people vote in candidates often on religiously-motivated opinions on social issues. I have a feeling that, as social conservatives die off faster than they are replaced (at least I hope this happens), it will be harder to distract people from their own interests. Not impossible. You can scare people with the threat of terrorism, with misleading statements about the economy, and so on, but still, harder... and maybe enough harder that other issues will be forced to the forefront and people will begin to care enough about them to vote on them.
Maybe it's too optimistic, but in terms of social progress and enlightenment, we seem to take more steps forward than backward as time marches on.
These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on.
In my experience, inability to form a cohesive argument doesn't stop people from having strong convictions. I won't politicize this with examples, but there are a lot of people out there who are very passionate about issues despite having incoherent, nonsensical rationale.
It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.
The problem is that they don't care, though. I'm not sure how you can educate the apathy out of them. I remember school, and I remember that people were apathetic then, too. If it wasn't something the directly impacted their priorities, they tuned out and couldn't give a shit. What's unfortunate is that there's not necessarily anything about this issue that *does* directly impact their priorities, so provided you can't change that thinking, there may be no way to get people to care. At least no way to get them to care enough to research and critically examine these issues themselves.
Also, I'm not even sure it's a skill you can teach everyone. I've run into some staggeringly irrational people, and I'm skeptical that it's all because their school didn't do its job.
Frankly, I think the President should be making > $10M per year. I think Senators and Congressmen should be making half that.
Can you explain to me how else we'd go about hiring competent people away from other fields -- where their dedication and hard work pay them far more than that?
I don't have to. There is no shortage of people who want to be president, most of them otherwise very successful in their respective fields, and some of them with vast personal fortunes. Do you genuinely think that the most qualified people don't want the job because it doesn't pay enough?
Seven children, with a mother and a father. That sounds like a healthy large family. Probably Catholic? It's righteous, per se, because those seven children will grow up to be seven productive human beings willing to contribute to their society.
How on earth do you know that? Maybe they'll live by his example and each one of them will have a family they can't support, making them the same drain on the taxpayers that he is. People should not have children they can't afford. Period..... but once those children exist, it isn't their fault what their parents did, and they do deserve a chance at life.
As opposed to a single mother, with seven children, each with a different father, whom they have no contact with.
So you're half-correct, IMHO; one isn't bad at all. Which "family" of seven children would you prefer to exist and receive support (any kind of support really)?
I'd rather neither existed. I'd rather people didn't have children that they can't afford. But provided that they *do* exist, I'm not going to choose between them. I don't feel I'm qualified to decide which children deserve a chance at life. But evidently you do.
Well *clearly* the market will dictate that companies minimally pollute the air, because consumers won't stand for it and will vote with their wallets.
/sarcasm
Fun fact, if we vote with our wallets, we get more votes for having bigger wallets! Not that it's not sort of that way already, but that would make it official!
It's easy to be all populist and get pissed because he makes more money than you. It's harder to be honest and get the facts.
So he deserves our sympathy? I have a friend in the D.C. area who lives very comfortably on less than half this guy's salary. If my friend started bitching, I'd play my tiniest violin for him. This guy? Please.
So, bear with me a moment. If Obama is not a liberal, and people who like Obama have been modding you down for criticizing him, what makes you think they are liberals?
Justice is supposed to be impartial or, at least, have the appearance of impartiality.
Actually, I'd rather it be impartial or, failing that, *obviously* not impartial. This isn't D&D. It's not more fun if you can immerse yourself in the fantasy. It's better to know the truth.
Well it turns out we may be stuck in Iraq for a 100 years, the erosion of privacy, indefinite detention, preemptive war(without congress approval this time,) a large healthcare bill that, while helping to cover more Americans, effectively requires you to hand over money to private corporations and if you can't afford to the government will step in and help you pay money to private corporations. And the list goes on.
Surely you don't blame Obama for the shortcomings of the healthcare bill. This is the best bill we could pass with every single Republican voting against it. Also, I hardly think that what we're doing in Libya amounts to Bush Doctrine.
Now the infinite detention and privacy concerns.... that pisses me off
Did you have some purpose for posting? Where did *I* say that *Obama* was a liberal?
You did say that liberals would be upset about blaming Obama. He said that he is a liberal and he's not upset about it because he doesn't like Obama and doesn't consider him a liberal. That's a perfectly on topic response that does not hinge on you thinking Obama is a liberal.
However, I turn it around on you. If you did not mean to suggest that Obama is liberal, why did you think liberals would be upset about him being blamed?
Republicans are blamed if the crony judge rules according to republican political or economic interests. Both republicans and democrats seem to be on the RIAA's side. You *could* blame democrats, but there's not much point unless you think that republicans are going to stand up for the little guy against the major corporation. In this particular case, I was not aware of who appointed the judge, and I'd find it believable either way.
And you can't play multiplayer without a gold subscription either!
Seriously, it kinda sucks, but take it or leave it, right? I mean, they have no obligation to make their device support Netflix at all. You can complain that the service is crappier than Sony's as a result (and you'd be right), but eviler?
Thanks! I also like Michael Shermer's alien abduction story that he relates in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's another example of how different an experience can be if you look at it from the perspective of a skeptic vs a believer.
Since I hate to leave it at that, I decided to look around and I managed to find the story recounted here.
Indeed. One time at my old apartment, I heard this really faint sound that sounded like people talking. I tracked it to my computer speakers, which weren't even on at the time. I couldn't quite make out what was being said, but it was creepy as hell.
So being an engineer and a skeptic, rather than go roll up on my bed in a fetal position, I turned on the radio and started scanning through to see if I could find a station which seemed to match the voices. About 5 minutes later, I found one. My computer speakers were just picking up a radio station and transmitting it very faintly.
What I like about this story is that it conclusively proves that all ghost stories are fake..... no, but seriously, I do like relating this story when people give their own ghost stories. It's a great way to say "Yeah, I've experienced bizarre creepy shit, too, only I had the cleverness to track down the true source. Evidently you did not."
And what's more, if it cultivates an interest in music, there's the potential you'll buy more later when you *do* have the means.
Actually, I'm not entirely clear on what the rationale is for not letting poor people get this stuff for free. There's no scarcity argument.... fairness?
You're right, of course. It is certainly *a* priority. And to some people, it's a high enough priority that they wouldn't consider purchasing this. But Nintendo also knows that you make sales on something being new and sexy, not on it doing the basics really really well. On the other hand, you lose sales on doing the basics particularly poorly, so it's a balancing act.
It's a Kristopeit clone. I'm only surprised he didn't also call you "completely pathetic" or rant incoherently. Though, strangely, on the topic at hand, I kind of agree with him (sans calling you an idiot, of course, which is rude and unnecessary). It would be *nice* for battery life to stay the same or improve with every iteration, but it isn't going to always be the highest priority to consumers, so it's an unrealistic expectation.
And this is what's annoying. Reputable news sources will feel an obligation to use the official name, while at the same time likely realizing that no one wants to call it that. Ends up being divisive. It'd be nice if more news sources would take a stand and just use the old name. It'd be a nice way to express how futile it really is to sell naming rights to an iconic structure or location.
Sure, sex is often two-dimensional in games. Sure, women are commonly objectified. But games are not particularly guilty of this compared to other media. And games objectify men a lot too, giving them Adonis good looks and excellent physiques. And finally, I disagree with some of the examples he highlighted. Is sex a reward in Mass Effect? Maybe if you're a cynic, but that wasn't the only level on which it worked for me. I felt really attached to the characters at the time and that part at the end, with Liara in my party (after romancing her) where no one is sure if Shepard survived, and she looks down, distraught, shaking her head, was a moment made more meaningful by the relationship they had previously forged.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you don't mind me going off script a moment with some potentially oddball ideas, I think one way people are convinced to vote against their interests is with distraction issues like gay marriage, abortion, DADT, etc. Essentially, I think people vote in candidates often on religiously-motivated opinions on social issues. I have a feeling that, as social conservatives die off faster than they are replaced (at least I hope this happens), it will be harder to distract people from their own interests. Not impossible. You can scare people with the threat of terrorism, with misleading statements about the economy, and so on, but still, harder... and maybe enough harder that other issues will be forced to the forefront and people will begin to care enough about them to vote on them.
Maybe it's too optimistic, but in terms of social progress and enlightenment, we seem to take more steps forward than backward as time marches on.
These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on.
In my experience, inability to form a cohesive argument doesn't stop people from having strong convictions. I won't politicize this with examples, but there are a lot of people out there who are very passionate about issues despite having incoherent, nonsensical rationale.
It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.
The problem is that they don't care, though. I'm not sure how you can educate the apathy out of them. I remember school, and I remember that people were apathetic then, too. If it wasn't something the directly impacted their priorities, they tuned out and couldn't give a shit. What's unfortunate is that there's not necessarily anything about this issue that *does* directly impact their priorities, so provided you can't change that thinking, there may be no way to get people to care. At least no way to get them to care enough to research and critically examine these issues themselves.
Also, I'm not even sure it's a skill you can teach everyone. I've run into some staggeringly irrational people, and I'm skeptical that it's all because their school didn't do its job.
Frankly, I think the President should be making > $10M per year. I think Senators and Congressmen should be making half that.
Can you explain to me how else we'd go about hiring competent people away from other fields -- where their dedication and hard work pay them far more than that?
I don't have to. There is no shortage of people who want to be president, most of them otherwise very successful in their respective fields, and some of them with vast personal fortunes. Do you genuinely think that the most qualified people don't want the job because it doesn't pay enough?
Seven children, with a mother and a father. That sounds like a healthy large family. Probably Catholic? It's righteous, per se, because those seven children will grow up to be seven productive human beings willing to contribute to their society.
How on earth do you know that? Maybe they'll live by his example and each one of them will have a family they can't support, making them the same drain on the taxpayers that he is. People should not have children they can't afford. Period..... but once those children exist, it isn't their fault what their parents did, and they do deserve a chance at life.
As opposed to a single mother, with seven children, each with a different father, whom they have no contact with.
So you're half-correct, IMHO; one isn't bad at all. Which "family" of seven children would you prefer to exist and receive support (any kind of support really)?
I'd rather neither existed. I'd rather people didn't have children that they can't afford. But provided that they *do* exist, I'm not going to choose between them. I don't feel I'm qualified to decide which children deserve a chance at life. But evidently you do.
Well *clearly* the market will dictate that companies minimally pollute the air, because consumers won't stand for it and will vote with their wallets.
/sarcasm
Fun fact, if we vote with our wallets, we get more votes for having bigger wallets! Not that it's not sort of that way already, but that would make it official!
It's easy to be all populist and get pissed because he makes more money than you. It's harder to be honest and get the facts.
So he deserves our sympathy? I have a friend in the D.C. area who lives very comfortably on less than half this guy's salary. If my friend started bitching, I'd play my tiniest violin for him. This guy? Please.
So then, presumably, you were not otherwise going to purchase insurance?
Suit yourself.
Well that was colorful.
So, bear with me a moment. If Obama is not a liberal, and people who like Obama have been modding you down for criticizing him, what makes you think they are liberals?
Justice is supposed to be impartial or, at least, have the appearance of impartiality.
Actually, I'd rather it be impartial or, failing that, *obviously* not impartial. This isn't D&D. It's not more fun if you can immerse yourself in the fantasy. It's better to know the truth.
Well it turns out we may be stuck in Iraq for a 100 years, the erosion of privacy, indefinite detention, preemptive war(without congress approval this time,) a large healthcare bill that, while helping to cover more Americans, effectively requires you to hand over money to private corporations and if you can't afford to the government will step in and help you pay money to private corporations. And the list goes on.
Surely you don't blame Obama for the shortcomings of the healthcare bill. This is the best bill we could pass with every single Republican voting against it. Also, I hardly think that what we're doing in Libya amounts to Bush Doctrine.
Now the infinite detention and privacy concerns.... that pisses me off
Did you have some purpose for posting? Where did *I* say that *Obama* was a liberal?
You did say that liberals would be upset about blaming Obama. He said that he is a liberal and he's not upset about it because he doesn't like Obama and doesn't consider him a liberal. That's a perfectly on topic response that does not hinge on you thinking Obama is a liberal.
However, I turn it around on you. If you did not mean to suggest that Obama is liberal, why did you think liberals would be upset about him being blamed?
Republicans are blamed if the crony judge rules according to republican political or economic interests. Both republicans and democrats seem to be on the RIAA's side. You *could* blame democrats, but there's not much point unless you think that republicans are going to stand up for the little guy against the major corporation. In this particular case, I was not aware of who appointed the judge, and I'd find it believable either way.
And you can't play multiplayer without a gold subscription either!
Seriously, it kinda sucks, but take it or leave it, right? I mean, they have no obligation to make their device support Netflix at all. You can complain that the service is crappier than Sony's as a result (and you'd be right), but eviler?
Or recreate, if it is thought to create this effect.
Thanks! I also like Michael Shermer's alien abduction story that he relates in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's another example of how different an experience can be if you look at it from the perspective of a skeptic vs a believer.
Since I hate to leave it at that, I decided to look around and I managed to find the story recounted here.
Indeed. One time at my old apartment, I heard this really faint sound that sounded like people talking. I tracked it to my computer speakers, which weren't even on at the time. I couldn't quite make out what was being said, but it was creepy as hell.
So being an engineer and a skeptic, rather than go roll up on my bed in a fetal position, I turned on the radio and started scanning through to see if I could find a station which seemed to match the voices. About 5 minutes later, I found one. My computer speakers were just picking up a radio station and transmitting it very faintly.
What I like about this story is that it conclusively proves that all ghost stories are fake..... no, but seriously, I do like relating this story when people give their own ghost stories. It's a great way to say "Yeah, I've experienced bizarre creepy shit, too, only I had the cleverness to track down the true source. Evidently you did not."
And what's more, if it cultivates an interest in music, there's the potential you'll buy more later when you *do* have the means.
Actually, I'm not entirely clear on what the rationale is for not letting poor people get this stuff for free. There's no scarcity argument.... fairness?
You're right, of course. It is certainly *a* priority. And to some people, it's a high enough priority that they wouldn't consider purchasing this. But Nintendo also knows that you make sales on something being new and sexy, not on it doing the basics really really well. On the other hand, you lose sales on doing the basics particularly poorly, so it's a balancing act.
And you're calling me an idiot?
It's a Kristopeit clone. I'm only surprised he didn't also call you "completely pathetic" or rant incoherently. Though, strangely, on the topic at hand, I kind of agree with him (sans calling you an idiot, of course, which is rude and unnecessary). It would be *nice* for battery life to stay the same or improve with every iteration, but it isn't going to always be the highest priority to consumers, so it's an unrealistic expectation.
long lasting, powerful, large.
But I regularly receive emails suggesting I can have all three of these things!
And this is what's annoying. Reputable news sources will feel an obligation to use the official name, while at the same time likely realizing that no one wants to call it that. Ends up being divisive. It'd be nice if more news sources would take a stand and just use the old name. It'd be a nice way to express how futile it really is to sell naming rights to an iconic structure or location.
Not just rich, it would be allowed to everyone..
Which would be a good point if the *amount* of a bribe wasn't an important factor in its success.
"Nachiketa Kapur denied the report, saying: "I vehemently deny these malicious allegations. There was no cash to point out to."
"Satish Sharma told a news channel that he did not even have an aide called Nachiketa Kapur."
Wait, so who did they interview?
Sure, sex is often two-dimensional in games. Sure, women are commonly objectified. But games are not particularly guilty of this compared to other media. And games objectify men a lot too, giving them Adonis good looks and excellent physiques. And finally, I disagree with some of the examples he highlighted. Is sex a reward in Mass Effect? Maybe if you're a cynic, but that wasn't the only level on which it worked for me. I felt really attached to the characters at the time and that part at the end, with Liara in my party (after romancing her) where no one is sure if Shepard survived, and she looks down, distraught, shaking her head, was a moment made more meaningful by the relationship they had previously forged.