So putting lives at risk, harming your body, and funding gangs and terrorists and etc is the American SPRIT of Freedom????
First, it is only funding gangs, terrorist, exc because of drug prohibition. In the same way alcohol prohibition CREATED crime, so does drug prohibition. If you were to ban alcohol again you would suddenly see a spike in crime and a rise in gangs. Undo the ban and that mess goes away. No one buys their booze from gansters because it is easier and safe to walk to a liquor. Treat drugs the same way you would murder (ha ha, pun) American gang life.
Second, you bet your fucking ass harming your body is the American way. Fuck the government that tells me I can go sky diving, rock climbing, mountain biking, roller blading, swear like a mother fucker, eat McDonalds, eat red meat, drink booze, and do all the other things I do to harm my body. It absolutely is the American way to let individuals take their own risks, reap their own rewards, and pay their own prices. This shit about the government saving your soul, defending you from yourself, and then paying to get your ass fixed when you break is new.
Maybe you need the government to save you for from your self, but I sure as shit don't. Hell, I think we should start a simple program. Make 'prevention of self harm' laws optional. The people that fear they can't take care of themselves sign a contract with the government that lets the government enforce laws to keep you from doing stupid shit to yourself. While you are doing that, the rest of us are going to go rock climbing, go back to our camp site, have a few beers, and if someone wants to light up before bed, fucking let them. Hell, we might even throw a little premarital sex into the mix if there are any ladies willing. YOU can stay at home and read your fucking government regulation manual that details the ways in which the government will save you from yourself.
The only time I want the law to step in and interfere with my life is when someone is trying to impose their will on me, I am having a contract dispute, or I am risking the lives of people who have not consented to that risk. Other then that, the government can merrily fuck off while I go eat some red meat and have a beer (or 12).
It is also the first music service on Mac or Linux where you can merrily listen to 500 songs of your choosing and not shell out $500. Subscription is a damn good idea if you are the type to go through music quickly and want to move on. I wish to hell my iPod Nano was supported by any of the 'all you can eat services'. $15 a month to slap a 1000 songs onto your 4 gig MP3 player is a hell of a lot better then paying $1000 dollars.
Personally, I wish I had not gotten a nano and instead had gotten something compatable with an all you can eat service. Being stuck with iTunes and its one subscription plan fits all (pay as you go) mentality sucks. I would love for iTunes to actually offer some pricing options for different styles of music listerns. Buying and hording MP3s for a dollar a pop might work for some people, but others would rather rent MP3s for a fraction of the cost.
If you are some high school kid who is going off to college and are just there for the money, I can understand not giving a shit. If you are going to work there for a while, not giving a shit is just stupid. My best friend ended up getting a job at Filenes. She had no experience in retail to begin with, but she is a very smart girl. Within three months she was the rep for two clothing lines and had a huge allowance on their clothing, plus discounts. Six months later she was at a training conference for one of her clothing lines that she sold and she was offered a job while there. She passed by dozens of other people who had been working there for years on her way up. Given another year or two and I wouldn't be surprised to find her as a higher level representative of the company.
Any well run corporations tends to be very efficient at separating out the mediocre from the exceptional. They pick out the people that are going to be swiping groceries from those who are going to be managers and corporate reps very quickly. Doing something as brain dead as selling an iPod from 5 dollars is a pretty solid way to rightfully convince the company that you are an easily replaced peon.
If you are a foreign immigrant who has a trouble with the language or are just naturally dull, you have my utmost sympathy working for a meat grinder like Target for shit pay and shit benefits for the rest of your life. If you are a reasonable smart person who is just a lazy slacker and never bothers trying to move up, I don't think you are in any position to complain about your shit pay.
From the CIA worldbook help National estimates of the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.
In other words, the numbers listed are the numbers reported by the government in question. Further, the poverty numbers are based upon the nation in question's standards. So, a poor African nation that reports its poverty level at 10% isn't even on the same scale as the US that reports its poverty level at 10%
Those poverty numbers are pretty useless for comparison. At best, they tell you a little something about how that government is meeting its own goals, but now what those goals are and how they are doing compared to other nations.
The only good 'facts' in the CIA world book for comparing economic factors is stuff like per capita GDP. Even then, while it is an absolute measurement, it is only a very small piece of the pie.
For instance, the US has a per capita GDP of $40,100 while France is at $28,700. That tells you that Americans are more productive person to person, but it says nothing about quality of life or how that productivity is spread out.
On the other hand, France has Gini index of 34 while the US is at 45. This means that France has a more equal distribution of their income then the US (0 means all incomes are the same). However, like the GDP figure it says nothing deeper. It could be that a poor guy in the US lives a better life then a guy in France whose income is more equal. Further, the number can be skewed by outliers. France might have a small minority in deep poverty and subject to systematic oppression, but the Gini index wouldn't show that.
The point? Numbers are nice, but take them with a grain of salt. Comparing nations is hard, pure and simple. Further, any comparison is going to be biased by cultural values. For one nation, it is better to have a fair number of disgustingly rich people and a large middle class, then it is to have a large middle class. Some nations will value equality in ends, while others will value equality in means. Hell, it isn't even consistent from nation to nation. Ask an American Libertarian and an American Green what they think the measures of a successful society are and you will get two very different answers.
It was a joke on how the "church" of scientology has sued people in the past who have posted their secret church doctrin. They made their names John and Jane Smith as a joke about trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit.
Anything that the greens or the libertarians do that the democrats and republicans don't like is generally crazy. That said, crazy would be a nice change of pace from stupid and/or evil. Some times crazy people have some good ideas.
I always liked: Remember, the Democrats are the stupid party. Republicans are the evil party. If they ever agree on something, it is both stupid and evil.
I am pretty sure he is being a culturalist (is that even a word?). Racist implies, well, race. I doubt he has any problems with people of French descent. I am pretty sure he just hates French culture.
The capacity for interesting and dynamic content DOES exist. Some MUDs have already done this. It is just going to take an MMORPG maker some guts to break the mold. They are going to have to build an MMORPG that likely will hold little appeal to their traditional target market (spread sheet addicts). Sure, such a move would be risky, but as more then one MMORPG is learning right now, the market for addicts is limited.
If you want to see what I am talking about done in practice, try www.armageddon.org It is a MUD that is exactly what I am describing. Granted a scale up from 50 players to 1000 players is a tall order, but I don't think it is an impossibility try and incorporate some of what has been proven on a small scale and try and apply it to an large scale.
I am more then a little confused about how got "make a MUD where everyone dies" from stating that killing NPCs for l00t is boring. I think your problem is that MMORPGs have rotted your mind to the point where you are convinced that there exists only three types of online games; games where you do nothing put PK, and games where you do nothing but kill NPCs, and games where you get to do some of both.
I don't want any of the above. I just want a game with meaning. Yes, MMORPGs have proven that they pwn3 at making games where you play whack the mole for exp and skills. Now I want to see an MMORPG with a living, breathing, dynamic, and interesting world. I don't want a fairy land where everyone is an "adventurer" (that would be code for kills NPC all waking hours of the day) or a PKer.
I want a game where I can be a frigging mercenary or a soldier. Instead of killing shit for f4t l00t, I want to kill raiders who are attacking the town or a wagon train I am guarding. I want to be sent in to battle with other players in formation to fight the armies of whatever. I want a game where I can go raid the enemy's towns. I want a game a game where I do something for a frigging reason. I just want a game where whenever I go off and kill something, I can justify it. No, murdering your way through Castle Black for the 1000th time to loot Lord 3vils sword of +2 is not justification. That is idiotic.
Basically, I want a game with a fucking story, even if the story is the mundane life of Joe the mercenary. The thought of one more mindless fucking game where I play generic fantasy adventurer number 3409583 makes me want to vomit.
Seeing as how I assume the mods have all gone to bed (and even if they don't my karma is untouchable), let me put it in real simple and blunt terms. MMORPGs are the most worthless pieces of shit games in existence. They rely purely on addiction and nothing else. If one day everyone woke up and realize that "hey, killing shit for exp and l00t is fucking boring" or "hey, mindless PK kinda gets old, I should go play Counter Strike where at least it is done right", MMORPGs would be left with exactly zero subscribers.
MMORPGs are the most unoriginal, unimaginative, least daring, formulaic pieces of shit video games in existence.
Someone wake me up when someone builds a MMO(ha ha)RPG that doesn't involve camping, hunting, dungeons or anything of that matter. Would I jump at the chance to join a game where I can play a member of a mercenary company, train up by sparring within the company, then go out on missions that have meaning? Hell yes. Would I love to play a game where you can join the kingdom's army and go on military campaigns? You betcha. Can I even begin to stomach the thought of another game where I play generic fantasy 'adventure' number 13245803 who, like everyone else spends his every single waking second wandering around looking for shit to kill? God damn mother fucking NO.
Good job MMO(ha ha)RPGs, you have perfect the 'go out and kill NPCs from now until the end of time' gameplay. Now grow a pair and make a game with meaning.
This entire instancing Vs static camps just exemplifies what is wrong with MMORPGs. No one is talking about making interesting and dynamic worlds with interesting events happening all of the time. They are just rehashing the best ways to line up NPCs to be killed for f4t l00t and 3xp. Bah. What a waste.
I'll just stick to Armageddon.org. Text it might be, but at least those game designers realize that 'adventuring' by slaughtering thousands of NPCs is stupid and boring. Someone point me to another multiplayer game other then Armageddon where a band of mercenaries can be hired out to protect a wagon train and I'll be impressed. Until then, fuck these massive multiplayer online NPC whacking games.
Hey, I saw you fuck your mother last night then kill her.
Now, you can either A) deal with my troll, or B) sue Slashdot and try and force Slashdot to be liable for anything I say. The problem is that in a place like Slashdot, too many people are posting for any moderator to possibly keep up. Suggesting that people be able to bring suit over Internet postings (and a Wiki is just a glorified internet posting) would simply break the Internet as a means of communication. If Slashdot could be subpoenaed for my contact information so that you can so me, I imagine Slashdot would simply cut their liabilities by removing the message boards.
Simply put, ought not be held to the same standards that printed media are held to. Internet postings (and Wiki's) by their very nature are more like face to face discussions then a book or newspaper. I can assure you that, at least in the US, there is nothing you libelous to a friend or group of friends that could ever result in a lawsuit if someone overheard. Hell, I doubt even Europe with their much stronger libel laws could possibly nail anyone for something said in conversation.
For better or for worse, the Internet has imposed new challenges and opportunities in speech. Sure, any idiot can post into the Wiki their crazy ass conspiracy theory in someone biography. On the other hand, any Phd can also post their research into a Wiki in complete detail. Any archeologist can post his work on the Polynesian people of the island of whatever. Any mathematician can post a nice tutorial on how to do some mathematical operation.
The Internet will give and it will take. Personally, I think it gives a hell of a lot more then it takes. The best solution is to simply accept the Internet for what it is, recognize that it has limitations, but also recognizes the massive power it gives us well beyond those limitations.
Let me guess - when you fall down a cliff and break your legs, you go back up and try again to see if it works better the second time?
I think you miss his point. If you fall off a cliff and break your legs, you got to the hospital, get your legs fixed, then throw up a fence so other people don't fall off. While you are at it, maybe you should make a nice walkway so people can enjoy the bottom of the cliff without repelling gear.
Technology is rapidly progressing. Our computing powers are growing at exponential rates. I see absolutely nothing wrong with developing better climate models, then figuring out ways to tinker with it. Personally, I would rather live in the best of both worlds. It would be nice if no one had to worry about CO2 output because we find a less painful way to combat warming rather then reducing output.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are over two billion people in southern Asia that right now live in thatch roof huts. They are very rapidly clawing their way towards Western standards and Western levels of pollution. We have two choices. We can either have a technological solution waiting for them when their industries really start to kick into high gear, or we can pull a blanket over our heads and cry "less consumption!" and pretend someone is going to listen. We can't get the Americans, with some of the highest standards of living in the world to reduce green house gas output and you are telling me that there is a way to get 2 billion dirt poor Asians to consume less? That is just naïve.
The developed world has a responsibility. We might very well have mucked up the planet to get to where we are. The rest of the world wants to get to that same place too. We can either help them along in their industrial revolutions and provide the technology to make it cleaner then ours was, or we can let them bumble along with the technology they have and do whatever damage a few billion people suddenly emerging into the industrial world is going to do.
NOW is the time to take our technology and start finding technological solutions. Political solution might never come. Hell, we might already be past an equilibrium point such that political solution CAN'T work because the earth is already swinging to a new equilibrium regardless of green house gas output. We can either do what makes us feel morally righteous and preach environmentalism to deaf ears, or use our technology, expertise, and money to find real solutions. I know which one I prefer.
I am curious if there is a technological solution to the problem. Granted, mucking around in big natural system is always more then a little risky, but if there is a serious problem, I couldn't think of a better place for it then the North Atlantic. Surrounding the North Atlantic are the richest and most technologically advanced nations in the world. If anyone can scrape up some money for some grand technological solution, I imagine the US and EU are the two entities to do it.
Certainly it would be nice to simply halt climate change by altering the amount of green house gases being released, but there is no guarantee that we can change fast enough to have any noticeable effect. There also isn't any guarantee that we haven't already slipped over some equilibrium point and are accelerating to a new one regardless of green house gas levels.
Personally, I am curious why we don't look for more grand scale technological solutions to environmental problems. We have certainly proven that we can very effectively destroy the ozone with just a little CFCs. We know how to increase global warming. Why in the hell hasn't anyone found a chemical that promotes ozone expansion or reduces global warming?
It doesn't need to work for 10,000 years, nor does their have to be just one. Hell, you might have to build a new air machine or what not every 50 years. Considering the slow speed at which the atmosphere degardes, it isn't like one (or all) of these machines breaking down would be the end of the world. You would have hundreds of years to build new ones and find a solution. The only way it could possibly go wrong is if the planet was terriformed, then civilization collapsed and technology was lost... hell, even then, if it takes a few hundred years for the atmosphere to get the point where it can't sustain life, that is plenty of time to reindustrialize.
I know a lot of people are going to immediately hate this idea, but I personally like it. I imagine the net result is that dealerships will be able to offer better deals to people with damaged credit. As it stands, giving a loan to a guy with poor credit to buy a car is a big risk. If the money never comes through, then they need to send out an expensive repo man to get back a car that now isn't considered new and might even be damaged. With this system, the risk is substantially reduced to the dealership. There isn't much incentive to fight to keep your car back if your car won't start. It makes everyone's life much easier. Further, I imagine that for people with good credit they won't even have this system in place.
This is nothing but good contract enforcement. Fail to pay for the property you took, and it becomes unusable until you do make the payment. Pay on time and there is no problem. Have good credit and I imagine they won't even bother with the extra cost to install this gadget. This isn't locking someone out of their computer because they are put in your shitty music CD. This is enforcing a contract in which you promised to delay full payment and make installment payments. Fail to keep up your end, and you loose the property that you took until you make good on your promise to pay.
Some plans believe that they could make a marginal atmosphere (cold, low oxygen, but breathable) within a hundred years or so. Sure, the atmosphere might float off, but that takes hundreds and thousands of years. I would say it is a pretty safe bet that barring the collapse of civilization, we can probably replace whatever is lost. Sure, it might mean that there is always equipment running on mars to keep the atmosphere from floating off, but that seems like I small price to play to gain control over an entire planet.
I think you point out an important distinction. Thinking more isn't necessarily a good thing. The ability to come to a conclusion on a thought and then shove it out of sight and out of mind is not a bad thing. In your example, you worried on some small slight or perceived insult. Others might have simply discarded that insult and thought nothing more of it other then making a mental note that the other guy is a jerk.
I see this every single day. My girlfriend and I are roughly equal intelligence on most things. That said, I am pretty sure she spends more time firing neurons then I do. I can easily close my eyes and turn my head off and not worry. She on the other hand lives in a constant state of obsessing over past events, worrying about small slights she might have made to someone or that someone made to her, and all manner of things that I wouldn't even think to concern myself with.
The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.
It is actually even harder then that. Not only must the statement have been shown to be false, but it also must be shown that the statement was made in malice. In the US it is almost impossible nail someone for slander/libel unless it is a mind numbingly blatent case, and even then it is hard. Personally, I like it. Joe Blogger vs Corporation of 3v1L really is not a fun battle to watch. It is nice when the law is on Joe Bloggers side. Further, I don't think the extra leeway is abused all that much, but I can't say the same about the libel laws in other nations, like the recent tift in Canada.
The US has a lot of shitty laws that Europe either doesn't have, or have in much weaker versions. Drug laws come to the top of my mind, but there are others. That said, the US has my favorite free speech and search and seizure laws. US laws really give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Personally, I would rather have a court system where guilty men go free, then have a system where innocent men are imprisoned. All judicial systems have error rates. It is best to error on the side of not punishing the innocent in my opinion.
Um... yeah... that is a great idea and all, but I can think of a better one. Earth is not hard up for space to put stuff. Last time I checked, a solid 80% of the earth is completely untouched in the form of the poles and the oceans. I imagine a floating hydroponics farm is much much much much much cheaper then one in space in every single way.
The real issue arable land. The earth has more space then we know what to do with. The issue is that a lot of that space is worthless for farming. Hydroponics can take care of that, but hydroponics is surprisingly hard. Replicating the work nature has done in terms of producing a fertile place to grow something proven to be extremely challenging. We are certainly getting better at it, but we still have a long way to grow before we can get to the point where we can grow things anywhere, regardless it is in space, floating in a greenhouse on the ocean, or in Canada.
Go look up the statistics, and see if there's a correlation between candidates outspending opponents and candidates winning elections.
Wowa there. Before you go looking up statistics, you should go grab an intro to stats book. I think rule number one is CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSTATION.
With your kind of logic at work you would take a look at gambling bets on boxers and see that the guy who gets the most money bet on him wins. Clearly, betting on boxers is what makes them win!... or maybe people recognize winners and bet on them.
Finally, lets go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that the guy with the most money wins. If that is the case, fuck it. I say all campaign laws should be eliminated and we should just live in a system where bribery is legal. Why? If people are such dumb sheep that if they see one ad from candidate A and two candidate B they will vote for candidate B because he advertised more, we don't deserve to have a democracy. We might as well simply concede that are too stupid to have any say in government, and let the politicians fight it out for control.
I would rather politicians prove their intelligence with wit playing a political game then have dumb cow voters elect them based who has the most money for marketing. If people really are that worthless, they don't deserve a democracy. If the democracy has degraded that far, no rule manipulations that alter who gets what money is going to save us.
The US is never in any danger of becoming anything that it can't undo. The entire US system is jam packed full of checks and balances within the government. Even outside of those balances within the government, it is piled high with civil institutions that also regularly 'patrol' government activities.
Finally, if all else fails it has a military that is bat shit fanatical about defending the constitution. Case in point? When Hurricane Katrina hit the mayor of New Orleans pleaded with the US military enter the city and to help bring law and order. The US military flatly refused even though people were clearly dying and they could have easily helped. Why did the US military refuse to enter a US city and provide law and order? They refused because they follow the constitution very strictly, and it is absolutely prohibited in the constitution for the US military to occupy a US city in a time of a peace and exert any force on the populace.
People vastly underestimate the importance of the military to democracy. Failed democracies 9 times out of 10 fail when their military fails and seizes power. The US military is built from the ground up to refuse any such order to dismantle US democracy. Further, the US military is not made up of a political elite, a privileged warrior class, or anything of that nature. The US military is a volunteer army made up of people like you and me. Hell, my sister is in the military. If all military indoctrination fails, and the people within the military go insane and turn against their friends and family, let me assure it is already way the fuck too late. For that kind of degradation to happen means that Armageddon has come, the commits have hit, and society has collapsed. I expect the US military to collapse the day that American society completely collapses.
I hate to burst your bubble but this is NOT a democracy and constitution is almost exclusively about minority rights.
This is a Republic. The majority rule is NOT enough to do most things. Many things require a super majority. It isn't enough to have Republicans in the senate to pass a law. You need them in the house, the senate, and the presidency... and even then, democrats can still cause trouble and their laws can be struck down by judges. The inverse is of course also true.
As far as the constitution, a major function of the constitution is to protect the minority. The first amendment is the most obvious example of this. The first amendment is there to protect speech. The type of speech that needs protecting is NOT what the majority as to say, but what the minority as to say. One 'majority' party could not pass a law outlawing the minority party from speaking because the constitution protects the rights of the minority. Any Republic worth its salt protects the rights of its minority with separation of powers and a powerful constitution like document. The US is no exception. The US has some of the strongest separations of powers and an extremely powerful constitution is almost without rival.
People might laugh at this comment, but I think this would be a real cultural loss for Germany. People complain about America dominating cultures, but it is shit like this that feeds it.
Imagine this, you are a German game designer. You design video games, sell them in Germany in German, and then sell them everywhere else in their respective languages. Some person in America or Japan gets to play your German made games. Through these games they get perhaps a small glimpse into German perspectives and culture. In essence, exporting a German video game is spreading a little German culture to the rest of the world.
Now, shit like this passes. Suddenly being a game designer in Germany is not so appealing. Not only is your art limited in what it can show, you also need to go through the pain of getting it past a censor. Do you stand a shot in hell at competing with an American or Japanese company? Hell no. So what do you do? You find another country to work in, probably in an American or Japanese design team, or simply find a new way to make a living.
Now, as video games quickly rise in popularity, they have more influence in terms of art and culture. If all of Germany's video game designers flee Germany, Germany has basically axed itself out of having any sort of influence and say with this emerging art/entertainment form. They might as well just bow to the American and Japanese duopoly in video games and accept that if video games ever become as big as TV did, they are going to be stuck completely dominated by another culture in this field.
Personally, I hope that German people smack some sense into their politicians. This is a blatant violation of freedom of speech, government interference in art, and a loss for German culture. The only thing this will accomplish will be a complete lack of German video games and more pirated games from outside of Germany. It is good that most Germans learn English, because when no one is producing games in German, they are going to need it.
Slashdot Mirror
So putting lives at risk, harming your body, and funding gangs and terrorists and etc is the American SPRIT of Freedom????
First, it is only funding gangs, terrorist, exc because of drug prohibition. In the same way alcohol prohibition CREATED crime, so does drug prohibition. If you were to ban alcohol again you would suddenly see a spike in crime and a rise in gangs. Undo the ban and that mess goes away. No one buys their booze from gansters because it is easier and safe to walk to a liquor. Treat drugs the same way you would murder (ha ha, pun) American gang life.
Second, you bet your fucking ass harming your body is the American way. Fuck the government that tells me I can go sky diving, rock climbing, mountain biking, roller blading, swear like a mother fucker, eat McDonalds, eat red meat, drink booze, and do all the other things I do to harm my body. It absolutely is the American way to let individuals take their own risks, reap their own rewards, and pay their own prices. This shit about the government saving your soul, defending you from yourself, and then paying to get your ass fixed when you break is new.
Maybe you need the government to save you for from your self, but I sure as shit don't. Hell, I think we should start a simple program. Make 'prevention of self harm' laws optional. The people that fear they can't take care of themselves sign a contract with the government that lets the government enforce laws to keep you from doing stupid shit to yourself. While you are doing that, the rest of us are going to go rock climbing, go back to our camp site, have a few beers, and if someone wants to light up before bed, fucking let them. Hell, we might even throw a little premarital sex into the mix if there are any ladies willing. YOU can stay at home and read your fucking government regulation manual that details the ways in which the government will save you from yourself.
The only time I want the law to step in and interfere with my life is when someone is trying to impose their will on me, I am having a contract dispute, or I am risking the lives of people who have not consented to that risk. Other then that, the government can merrily fuck off while I go eat some red meat and have a beer (or 12).
It is also the first music service on Mac or Linux where you can merrily listen to 500 songs of your choosing and not shell out $500. Subscription is a damn good idea if you are the type to go through music quickly and want to move on. I wish to hell my iPod Nano was supported by any of the 'all you can eat services'. $15 a month to slap a 1000 songs onto your 4 gig MP3 player is a hell of a lot better then paying $1000 dollars.
Personally, I wish I had not gotten a nano and instead had gotten something compatable with an all you can eat service. Being stuck with iTunes and its one subscription plan fits all (pay as you go) mentality sucks. I would love for iTunes to actually offer some pricing options for different styles of music listerns. Buying and hording MP3s for a dollar a pop might work for some people, but others would rather rent MP3s for a fraction of the cost.
If you are some high school kid who is going off to college and are just there for the money, I can understand not giving a shit. If you are going to work there for a while, not giving a shit is just stupid. My best friend ended up getting a job at Filenes. She had no experience in retail to begin with, but she is a very smart girl. Within three months she was the rep for two clothing lines and had a huge allowance on their clothing, plus discounts. Six months later she was at a training conference for one of her clothing lines that she sold and she was offered a job while there. She passed by dozens of other people who had been working there for years on her way up. Given another year or two and I wouldn't be surprised to find her as a higher level representative of the company.
Any well run corporations tends to be very efficient at separating out the mediocre from the exceptional. They pick out the people that are going to be swiping groceries from those who are going to be managers and corporate reps very quickly. Doing something as brain dead as selling an iPod from 5 dollars is a pretty solid way to rightfully convince the company that you are an easily replaced peon.
If you are a foreign immigrant who has a trouble with the language or are just naturally dull, you have my utmost sympathy working for a meat grinder like Target for shit pay and shit benefits for the rest of your life. If you are a reasonable smart person who is just a lazy slacker and never bothers trying to move up, I don't think you are in any position to complain about your shit pay.
No.
From the CIA worldbook help
National estimates of the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.
In other words, the numbers listed are the numbers reported by the government in question. Further, the poverty numbers are based upon the nation in question's standards. So, a poor African nation that reports its poverty level at 10% isn't even on the same scale as the US that reports its poverty level at 10%
Those poverty numbers are pretty useless for comparison. At best, they tell you a little something about how that government is meeting its own goals, but now what those goals are and how they are doing compared to other nations.
The only good 'facts' in the CIA world book for comparing economic factors is stuff like per capita GDP. Even then, while it is an absolute measurement, it is only a very small piece of the pie.
For instance, the US has a per capita GDP of $40,100 while France is at $28,700. That tells you that Americans are more productive person to person, but it says nothing about quality of life or how that productivity is spread out.
On the other hand, France has Gini index of 34 while the US is at 45. This means that France has a more equal distribution of their income then the US (0 means all incomes are the same). However, like the GDP figure it says nothing deeper. It could be that a poor guy in the US lives a better life then a guy in France whose income is more equal. Further, the number can be skewed by outliers. France might have a small minority in deep poverty and subject to systematic oppression, but the Gini index wouldn't show that.
The point? Numbers are nice, but take them with a grain of salt. Comparing nations is hard, pure and simple. Further, any comparison is going to be biased by cultural values. For one nation, it is better to have a fair number of disgustingly rich people and a large middle class, then it is to have a large middle class. Some nations will value equality in ends, while others will value equality in means. Hell, it isn't even consistent from nation to nation. Ask an American Libertarian and an American Green what they think the measures of a successful society are and you will get two very different answers.
It was a joke on how the "church" of scientology has sued people in the past who have posted their secret church doctrin. They made their names John and Jane Smith as a joke about trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit.
Anything that the greens or the libertarians do that the democrats and republicans don't like is generally crazy. That said, crazy would be a nice change of pace from stupid and/or evil. Some times crazy people have some good ideas.
I always liked:
Remember, the Democrats are the stupid party.
Republicans are the evil party.
If they ever agree on something,
it is both stupid and evil.
I am pretty sure he is being a culturalist (is that even a word?). Racist implies, well, race. I doubt he has any problems with people of French descent. I am pretty sure he just hates French culture.
Wow. You are a man who knows his porn. I salute you.
The capacity for interesting and dynamic content DOES exist. Some MUDs have already done this. It is just going to take an MMORPG maker some guts to break the mold. They are going to have to build an MMORPG that likely will hold little appeal to their traditional target market (spread sheet addicts). Sure, such a move would be risky, but as more then one MMORPG is learning right now, the market for addicts is limited.
If you want to see what I am talking about done in practice, try www.armageddon.org It is a MUD that is exactly what I am describing. Granted a scale up from 50 players to 1000 players is a tall order, but I don't think it is an impossibility try and incorporate some of what has been proven on a small scale and try and apply it to an large scale.
I am more then a little confused about how got "make a MUD where everyone dies" from stating that killing NPCs for l00t is boring. I think your problem is that MMORPGs have rotted your mind to the point where you are convinced that there exists only three types of online games; games where you do nothing put PK, and games where you do nothing but kill NPCs, and games where you get to do some of both.
I don't want any of the above. I just want a game with meaning. Yes, MMORPGs have proven that they pwn3 at making games where you play whack the mole for exp and skills. Now I want to see an MMORPG with a living, breathing, dynamic, and interesting world. I don't want a fairy land where everyone is an "adventurer" (that would be code for kills NPC all waking hours of the day) or a PKer.
I want a game where I can be a frigging mercenary or a soldier. Instead of killing shit for f4t l00t, I want to kill raiders who are attacking the town or a wagon train I am guarding. I want to be sent in to battle with other players in formation to fight the armies of whatever. I want a game where I can go raid the enemy's towns. I want a game a game where I do something for a frigging reason. I just want a game where whenever I go off and kill something, I can justify it. No, murdering your way through Castle Black for the 1000th time to loot Lord 3vils sword of +2 is not justification. That is idiotic.
Basically, I want a game with a fucking story, even if the story is the mundane life of Joe the mercenary. The thought of one more mindless fucking game where I play generic fantasy adventurer number 3409583 makes me want to vomit.
Seeing as how I assume the mods have all gone to bed (and even if they don't my karma is untouchable), let me put it in real simple and blunt terms. MMORPGs are the most worthless pieces of shit games in existence. They rely purely on addiction and nothing else. If one day everyone woke up and realize that "hey, killing shit for exp and l00t is fucking boring" or "hey, mindless PK kinda gets old, I should go play Counter Strike where at least it is done right", MMORPGs would be left with exactly zero subscribers.
MMORPGs are the most unoriginal, unimaginative, least daring, formulaic pieces of shit video games in existence.
Someone wake me up when someone builds a MMO(ha ha)RPG that doesn't involve camping, hunting, dungeons or anything of that matter. Would I jump at the chance to join a game where I can play a member of a mercenary company, train up by sparring within the company, then go out on missions that have meaning? Hell yes. Would I love to play a game where you can join the kingdom's army and go on military campaigns? You betcha. Can I even begin to stomach the thought of another game where I play generic fantasy 'adventure' number 13245803 who, like everyone else spends his every single waking second wandering around looking for shit to kill? God damn mother fucking NO.
Good job MMO(ha ha)RPGs, you have perfect the 'go out and kill NPCs from now until the end of time' gameplay. Now grow a pair and make a game with meaning.
This entire instancing Vs static camps just exemplifies what is wrong with MMORPGs. No one is talking about making interesting and dynamic worlds with interesting events happening all of the time. They are just rehashing the best ways to line up NPCs to be killed for f4t l00t and 3xp. Bah. What a waste.
I'll just stick to Armageddon.org. Text it might be, but at least those game designers realize that 'adventuring' by slaughtering thousands of NPCs is stupid and boring. Someone point me to another multiplayer game other then Armageddon where a band of mercenaries can be hired out to protect a wagon train and I'll be impressed. Until then, fuck these massive multiplayer online NPC whacking games.
Hey, I saw you fuck your mother last night then kill her.
Now, you can either A) deal with my troll, or B) sue Slashdot and try and force Slashdot to be liable for anything I say. The problem is that in a place like Slashdot, too many people are posting for any moderator to possibly keep up. Suggesting that people be able to bring suit over Internet postings (and a Wiki is just a glorified internet posting) would simply break the Internet as a means of communication. If Slashdot could be subpoenaed for my contact information so that you can so me, I imagine Slashdot would simply cut their liabilities by removing the message boards.
Simply put, ought not be held to the same standards that printed media are held to. Internet postings (and Wiki's) by their very nature are more like face to face discussions then a book or newspaper. I can assure you that, at least in the US, there is nothing you libelous to a friend or group of friends that could ever result in a lawsuit if someone overheard. Hell, I doubt even Europe with their much stronger libel laws could possibly nail anyone for something said in conversation.
For better or for worse, the Internet has imposed new challenges and opportunities in speech. Sure, any idiot can post into the Wiki their crazy ass conspiracy theory in someone biography. On the other hand, any Phd can also post their research into a Wiki in complete detail. Any archeologist can post his work on the Polynesian people of the island of whatever. Any mathematician can post a nice tutorial on how to do some mathematical operation.
The Internet will give and it will take. Personally, I think it gives a hell of a lot more then it takes. The best solution is to simply accept the Internet for what it is, recognize that it has limitations, but also recognizes the massive power it gives us well beyond those limitations.
Let me guess - when you fall down a cliff and break your legs, you go back up and try again to see if it works better the second time?
I think you miss his point. If you fall off a cliff and break your legs, you got to the hospital, get your legs fixed, then throw up a fence so other people don't fall off. While you are at it, maybe you should make a nice walkway so people can enjoy the bottom of the cliff without repelling gear.
Technology is rapidly progressing. Our computing powers are growing at exponential rates. I see absolutely nothing wrong with developing better climate models, then figuring out ways to tinker with it. Personally, I would rather live in the best of both worlds. It would be nice if no one had to worry about CO2 output because we find a less painful way to combat warming rather then reducing output.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are over two billion people in southern Asia that right now live in thatch roof huts. They are very rapidly clawing their way towards Western standards and Western levels of pollution. We have two choices. We can either have a technological solution waiting for them when their industries really start to kick into high gear, or we can pull a blanket over our heads and cry "less consumption!" and pretend someone is going to listen. We can't get the Americans, with some of the highest standards of living in the world to reduce green house gas output and you are telling me that there is a way to get 2 billion dirt poor Asians to consume less? That is just naïve.
The developed world has a responsibility. We might very well have mucked up the planet to get to where we are. The rest of the world wants to get to that same place too. We can either help them along in their industrial revolutions and provide the technology to make it cleaner then ours was, or we can let them bumble along with the technology they have and do whatever damage a few billion people suddenly emerging into the industrial world is going to do.
NOW is the time to take our technology and start finding technological solutions. Political solution might never come. Hell, we might already be past an equilibrium point such that political solution CAN'T work because the earth is already swinging to a new equilibrium regardless of green house gas output. We can either do what makes us feel morally righteous and preach environmentalism to deaf ears, or use our technology, expertise, and money to find real solutions. I know which one I prefer.
I am curious if there is a technological solution to the problem. Granted, mucking around in big natural system is always more then a little risky, but if there is a serious problem, I couldn't think of a better place for it then the North Atlantic. Surrounding the North Atlantic are the richest and most technologically advanced nations in the world. If anyone can scrape up some money for some grand technological solution, I imagine the US and EU are the two entities to do it.
Certainly it would be nice to simply halt climate change by altering the amount of green house gases being released, but there is no guarantee that we can change fast enough to have any noticeable effect. There also isn't any guarantee that we haven't already slipped over some equilibrium point and are accelerating to a new one regardless of green house gas levels.
Personally, I am curious why we don't look for more grand scale technological solutions to environmental problems. We have certainly proven that we can very effectively destroy the ozone with just a little CFCs. We know how to increase global warming. Why in the hell hasn't anyone found a chemical that promotes ozone expansion or reduces global warming?
It doesn't need to work for 10,000 years, nor does their have to be just one. Hell, you might have to build a new air machine or what not every 50 years. Considering the slow speed at which the atmosphere degardes, it isn't like one (or all) of these machines breaking down would be the end of the world. You would have hundreds of years to build new ones and find a solution. The only way it could possibly go wrong is if the planet was terriformed, then civilization collapsed and technology was lost... hell, even then, if it takes a few hundred years for the atmosphere to get the point where it can't sustain life, that is plenty of time to reindustrialize.
I know a lot of people are going to immediately hate this idea, but I personally like it. I imagine the net result is that dealerships will be able to offer better deals to people with damaged credit. As it stands, giving a loan to a guy with poor credit to buy a car is a big risk. If the money never comes through, then they need to send out an expensive repo man to get back a car that now isn't considered new and might even be damaged. With this system, the risk is substantially reduced to the dealership. There isn't much incentive to fight to keep your car back if your car won't start. It makes everyone's life much easier. Further, I imagine that for people with good credit they won't even have this system in place.
This is nothing but good contract enforcement. Fail to pay for the property you took, and it becomes unusable until you do make the payment. Pay on time and there is no problem. Have good credit and I imagine they won't even bother with the extra cost to install this gadget. This isn't locking someone out of their computer because they are put in your shitty music CD. This is enforcing a contract in which you promised to delay full payment and make installment payments. Fail to keep up your end, and you loose the property that you took until you make good on your promise to pay.
Some plans believe that they could make a marginal atmosphere (cold, low oxygen, but breathable) within a hundred years or so. Sure, the atmosphere might float off, but that takes hundreds and thousands of years. I would say it is a pretty safe bet that barring the collapse of civilization, we can probably replace whatever is lost. Sure, it might mean that there is always equipment running on mars to keep the atmosphere from floating off, but that seems like I small price to play to gain control over an entire planet.
I think you point out an important distinction. Thinking more isn't necessarily a good thing. The ability to come to a conclusion on a thought and then shove it out of sight and out of mind is not a bad thing. In your example, you worried on some small slight or perceived insult. Others might have simply discarded that insult and thought nothing more of it other then making a mental note that the other guy is a jerk.
I see this every single day. My girlfriend and I are roughly equal intelligence on most things. That said, I am pretty sure she spends more time firing neurons then I do. I can easily close my eyes and turn my head off and not worry. She on the other hand lives in a constant state of obsessing over past events, worrying about small slights she might have made to someone or that someone made to her, and all manner of things that I wouldn't even think to concern myself with.
The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.
It is actually even harder then that. Not only must the statement have been shown to be false, but it also must be shown that the statement was made in malice. In the US it is almost impossible nail someone for slander/libel unless it is a mind numbingly blatent case, and even then it is hard. Personally, I like it. Joe Blogger vs Corporation of 3v1L really is not a fun battle to watch. It is nice when the law is on Joe Bloggers side. Further, I don't think the extra leeway is abused all that much, but I can't say the same about the libel laws in other nations, like the recent tift in Canada.
The US has a lot of shitty laws that Europe either doesn't have, or have in much weaker versions. Drug laws come to the top of my mind, but there are others. That said, the US has my favorite free speech and search and seizure laws. US laws really give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Personally, I would rather have a court system where guilty men go free, then have a system where innocent men are imprisoned. All judicial systems have error rates. It is best to error on the side of not punishing the innocent in my opinion.
Um... yeah... that is a great idea and all, but I can think of a better one. Earth is not hard up for space to put stuff. Last time I checked, a solid 80% of the earth is completely untouched in the form of the poles and the oceans. I imagine a floating hydroponics farm is much much much much much cheaper then one in space in every single way.
The real issue arable land. The earth has more space then we know what to do with. The issue is that a lot of that space is worthless for farming. Hydroponics can take care of that, but hydroponics is surprisingly hard. Replicating the work nature has done in terms of producing a fertile place to grow something proven to be extremely challenging. We are certainly getting better at it, but we still have a long way to grow before we can get to the point where we can grow things anywhere, regardless it is in space, floating in a greenhouse on the ocean, or in Canada.
Go look up the statistics, and see if there's a correlation between candidates outspending opponents and candidates winning elections.
... or maybe people recognize winners and bet on them.
Wowa there. Before you go looking up statistics, you should go grab an intro to stats book. I think rule number one is CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSTATION.
With your kind of logic at work you would take a look at gambling bets on boxers and see that the guy who gets the most money bet on him wins. Clearly, betting on boxers is what makes them win!
Finally, lets go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that the guy with the most money wins. If that is the case, fuck it. I say all campaign laws should be eliminated and we should just live in a system where bribery is legal. Why? If people are such dumb sheep that if they see one ad from candidate A and two candidate B they will vote for candidate B because he advertised more, we don't deserve to have a democracy. We might as well simply concede that are too stupid to have any say in government, and let the politicians fight it out for control.
I would rather politicians prove their intelligence with wit playing a political game then have dumb cow voters elect them based who has the most money for marketing. If people really are that worthless, they don't deserve a democracy. If the democracy has degraded that far, no rule manipulations that alter who gets what money is going to save us.
The US is never in any danger of becoming anything that it can't undo. The entire US system is jam packed full of checks and balances within the government. Even outside of those balances within the government, it is piled high with civil institutions that also regularly 'patrol' government activities.
Finally, if all else fails it has a military that is bat shit fanatical about defending the constitution. Case in point? When Hurricane Katrina hit the mayor of New Orleans pleaded with the US military enter the city and to help bring law and order. The US military flatly refused even though people were clearly dying and they could have easily helped. Why did the US military refuse to enter a US city and provide law and order? They refused because they follow the constitution very strictly, and it is absolutely prohibited in the constitution for the US military to occupy a US city in a time of a peace and exert any force on the populace.
People vastly underestimate the importance of the military to democracy. Failed democracies 9 times out of 10 fail when their military fails and seizes power. The US military is built from the ground up to refuse any such order to dismantle US democracy. Further, the US military is not made up of a political elite, a privileged warrior class, or anything of that nature. The US military is a volunteer army made up of people like you and me. Hell, my sister is in the military. If all military indoctrination fails, and the people within the military go insane and turn against their friends and family, let me assure it is already way the fuck too late. For that kind of degradation to happen means that Armageddon has come, the commits have hit, and society has collapsed. I expect the US military to collapse the day that American society completely collapses.
I hate to burst your bubble but this is NOT a democracy and constitution is almost exclusively about minority rights.
This is a Republic. The majority rule is NOT enough to do most things. Many things require a super majority. It isn't enough to have Republicans in the senate to pass a law. You need them in the house, the senate, and the presidency... and even then, democrats can still cause trouble and their laws can be struck down by judges. The inverse is of course also true.
As far as the constitution, a major function of the constitution is to protect the minority. The first amendment is the most obvious example of this. The first amendment is there to protect speech. The type of speech that needs protecting is NOT what the majority as to say, but what the minority as to say. One 'majority' party could not pass a law outlawing the minority party from speaking because the constitution protects the rights of the minority. Any Republic worth its salt protects the rights of its minority with separation of powers and a powerful constitution like document. The US is no exception. The US has some of the strongest separations of powers and an extremely powerful constitution is almost without rival.
People might laugh at this comment, but I think this would be a real cultural loss for Germany. People complain about America dominating cultures, but it is shit like this that feeds it.
Imagine this, you are a German game designer. You design video games, sell them in Germany in German, and then sell them everywhere else in their respective languages. Some person in America or Japan gets to play your German made games. Through these games they get perhaps a small glimpse into German perspectives and culture. In essence, exporting a German video game is spreading a little German culture to the rest of the world.
Now, shit like this passes. Suddenly being a game designer in Germany is not so appealing. Not only is your art limited in what it can show, you also need to go through the pain of getting it past a censor. Do you stand a shot in hell at competing with an American or Japanese company? Hell no. So what do you do? You find another country to work in, probably in an American or Japanese design team, or simply find a new way to make a living.
Now, as video games quickly rise in popularity, they have more influence in terms of art and culture. If all of Germany's video game designers flee Germany, Germany has basically axed itself out of having any sort of influence and say with this emerging art/entertainment form. They might as well just bow to the American and Japanese duopoly in video games and accept that if video games ever become as big as TV did, they are going to be stuck completely dominated by another culture in this field.
Personally, I hope that German people smack some sense into their politicians. This is a blatant violation of freedom of speech, government interference in art, and a loss for German culture. The only thing this will accomplish will be a complete lack of German video games and more pirated games from outside of Germany. It is good that most Germans learn English, because when no one is producing games in German, they are going to need it.