Well, vote with our wallets and complain loudly on websites nobody pays attention to:)
On the bright side - there is a lot of interesting stuff coming from the indie studios. They may not be the latest versions of the classic games of my misspent youth, but usually low cost and novel. You know what main FPS franchise I want to play next? Call of Duty: The Somme.
But you see, in those cases you're dealing with somebody actively in commission of a crime. Holding the gun or knife or whatever the case may be. The strikes we're arguing over are planned out in detail well in advance. How "imminent" is that threat if you have days or even weeks to plan out your strike? At some point it stops becoming self defense and is simply a state-sponsored assassination. I'm opposed to it enough on foreign soil, now they're debating the ability to do it here at home. If you know where they are and can launch a drone strike, why can't you send a swat team to bring them in and actually face those charges? Summary execution has no place in a civilized justice system.
Sort of off topic, but I'm curious to know the extent of these strikes. Keeping in mind a 'drone' strike is functionally no different from a cruise missile or a strike fighter dropping a bomb.
And if the aircraft needed to exceed maximum thrust on one engine to maintain altitude, you'd have a point. You're arguing semantics around a fundamentally wrong assertion: Your claim was that if one engine goes down, the other will be overwhelmed and fail as well. In reality, that spare engine will be spun up to compensate while still being within its design limits.
Sure you put an "if" in there. "If" the remaining engine had some unexpected flaw or was so poorly maintained it couldn't maintain a higher rate of thrust, why not. The glory of the "if" - regardless of how improbable your assertion is, it's still possible.
Regardless, you're still wrong, but you're aggressively defending your position. Sir, I salute you!
You're still missing the point though (or you fully get it and just like arguing;) ). In the beginning there was one game with these restrictions, easy enough to shrug and move on - after all there's always another game. Now that it's becoming the norm, we're expected to either shrug and move past many of the games we'd want to play, or suck it up and deal with arbitrary use restrictions.
Bingo. In the beginning you had one or two games with draconian use restrictions, so you pass up on one game that you'd otherwise want to play. Not terrible, Bioshock looked good but you can play something else right? Now these restrictions are becoming more and more common, which means now we're stuck searching for the vanishingly few titles we want to play.
Erk sorry - should have specified in my original post. I don't understand when people get up in arms about a story being a retelling of some other story. I certainly agree with you that if I don't like the storyteller's cause, I'd be inclined to avoid patronizing them.
There are more possibilities outside of your tinfoil hat. Most likely being an radio controlled aircraft being flown in the wrong place.
Never mind, you're right, that's ridiculous. Obviously it's the DHS failing to get their drone sucked into a commercial aircraft engine where it will break apart into nanobots and be released in the aircraft contrail where it can shoot its mind control lasers over the entire northern hemisphere!!
I dunno, I still think it comes down to choice and ultimately being OK with oneself. I think it's fully possible for somebody to choose to follow a lifestyle contrary to their base instincts (as in the case of the homosexual involved in a heterosexual relationship) and be perfectly happy with that choice. Sexual instinct is just one facet of life.
But, there's a big caveat. To be OK with a decision like that means that they must have full clarity of thought in the matter, knowing that people on the outside support them either way which simply is not the case today (but it might be tomorrow!). So yes you're absolutely right - at the moment somebody in that position is more likely to be running from their homosexuality. I absolutely cannot agree with the AC's statement that anybody should have to run away from who they are.
Look at it this way: If Card were a loathed backwards wingnut (picture one of those Westboro Baptist loudmouths) before he started writing Sci-Fi, would we even be having this discussion? Not likely, because nobody would want to touch his books to begin with.
I personally have no issue with people expressing their views, but if you're going to push a controversial agenda you're going to face fallout from people who disagree with you.
I don't understand why everybody is getting all up in arms over this. I don't think it's possible to write any sort of story without it being a derivative of somebody else's work. Hell, Battlestar Galactica itself is just a retelling of yet another Book of Mormon story. The art isn't in making up a story, the art is in how well you tell that story.
No, a good CEO would see the changes in the market and position his company to take advantage of that. Automobile going to obsolete your buggy whips? Shift some of your leather workers over to manufacturing driving goggles. Spending your companies reserves milking a doomed market up to its (and your) collapse should not earn you anything.
OK, I know you're getting a lot of comments heaped on, but you still seem to be missing the point of this legislation.
Two parties have a deal. These two parties are the executive and the board of directors. This deal is paid for by a third party, however: the shareholders.
This isn't about class warfare or socialism or communism. This doesn't allow the government to place salary limits on anybody. This simply allows the third party (the one that *pays* for these salaries) to have some control over those salaries. How often in the last recession have you heard of an executive of a failing company bailing out with their golden parachute to land a job at another company and repeat the process? Why on God's green earth would that next company allow them to come on and repeat the cycle? Because the company rules state that these salaries are determined by the board of directors - and that board is made up of executives from other companies who may in fact be be in the very same position next week. The only businessmen this will hurt are those who are in the business of collecting other peoples money without providing any value of their own.
See, your attempts at debate are noble but poorly guided. Need to convince your cat not to piss on the wall? Use a squirt gun on it whenever it attempts to! (caveat - I haven't had cats that ever pissed on walls, but it did work to keep them off the table...)
Now, I consider myself a libertarian - primarily on civil grounds - but I also feel that given the same opportunities, people who put more work into improving their situation should get more reward out of it. I don't know when the libertarians became cheerleaders for highly paid executives (how did the Republicans pass that one on?), but I honestly don't know of anybody outside of members of the board who would disagree with you. We have whole classes of top paid executives right now who aren't worth the overpriced socks they walk around in, playing with other peoples money and raking in fortunes regardless of how well they perform. That's no Libertarian ideal - it's a leech club skimming off whatever they can. None of them try to stop it because, after all, it's mostly other people's money and they don't want to lose their own access to it by angering the wrong leech. At risk of making this a "no true Libertarian" debate, somebody who claims you're jealous of buddy-club wealth isn't a libertarian, they're just a wanna be leech.
As much as we love to heap the hatred on them, people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at least built and sold *something* and that's the path to wealth we need to encourage, not the marketplace gambling and executive back scratching.
Except the law isn't about keeping people from succeeding where others can not. The law is to allow shareholders in a company to establish limits on executive salaries. You build a private company from the ground up - by all means reap your profits. You take charge of an public company built by other people - those other people deserve to have a say in how much you get paid. Honestly it baffles me that bonuses for executives can go through without shareholder approval.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, vote with our wallets and complain loudly on websites nobody pays attention to :)
On the bright side - there is a lot of interesting stuff coming from the indie studios. They may not be the latest versions of the classic games of my misspent youth, but usually low cost and novel. You know what main FPS franchise I want to play next? Call of Duty: The Somme.
Why won't anybody think of the poor horses!?
But you see, in those cases you're dealing with somebody actively in commission of a crime. Holding the gun or knife or whatever the case may be. The strikes we're arguing over are planned out in detail well in advance. How "imminent" is that threat if you have days or even weeks to plan out your strike? At some point it stops becoming self defense and is simply a state-sponsored assassination. I'm opposed to it enough on foreign soil, now they're debating the ability to do it here at home. If you know where they are and can launch a drone strike, why can't you send a swat team to bring them in and actually face those charges? Summary execution has no place in a civilized justice system.
Sort of off topic, but I'm curious to know the extent of these strikes. Keeping in mind a 'drone' strike is functionally no different from a cruise missile or a strike fighter dropping a bomb.
And if the aircraft needed to exceed maximum thrust on one engine to maintain altitude, you'd have a point. You're arguing semantics around a fundamentally wrong assertion: Your claim was that if one engine goes down, the other will be overwhelmed and fail as well. In reality, that spare engine will be spun up to compensate while still being within its design limits.
Sure you put an "if" in there. "If" the remaining engine had some unexpected flaw or was so poorly maintained it couldn't maintain a higher rate of thrust, why not. The glory of the "if" - regardless of how improbable your assertion is, it's still possible.
Regardless, you're still wrong, but you're aggressively defending your position. Sir, I salute you!
Makes you long for the days when the biggest uproar was about a one-time online activation...
You're still missing the point though (or you fully get it and just like arguing ;) ). In the beginning there was one game with these restrictions, easy enough to shrug and move on - after all there's always another game. Now that it's becoming the norm, we're expected to either shrug and move past many of the games we'd want to play, or suck it up and deal with arbitrary use restrictions.
Bingo. In the beginning you had one or two games with draconian use restrictions, so you pass up on one game that you'd otherwise want to play. Not terrible, Bioshock looked good but you can play something else right? Now these restrictions are becoming more and more common, which means now we're stuck searching for the vanishingly few titles we want to play.
Erk sorry - should have specified in my original post. I don't understand when people get up in arms about a story being a retelling of some other story. I certainly agree with you that if I don't like the storyteller's cause, I'd be inclined to avoid patronizing them.
Sir I must applaud your undying efforts to support your disproved opinion. Good show!
There are more possibilities outside of your tinfoil hat. Most likely being an radio controlled aircraft being flown in the wrong place.
Never mind, you're right, that's ridiculous. Obviously it's the DHS failing to get their drone sucked into a commercial aircraft engine where it will break apart into nanobots and be released in the aircraft contrail where it can shoot its mind control lasers over the entire northern hemisphere!!
I dunno, I still think it comes down to choice and ultimately being OK with oneself. I think it's fully possible for somebody to choose to follow a lifestyle contrary to their base instincts (as in the case of the homosexual involved in a heterosexual relationship) and be perfectly happy with that choice. Sexual instinct is just one facet of life.
But, there's a big caveat. To be OK with a decision like that means that they must have full clarity of thought in the matter, knowing that people on the outside support them either way which simply is not the case today (but it might be tomorrow!). So yes you're absolutely right - at the moment somebody in that position is more likely to be running from their homosexuality. I absolutely cannot agree with the AC's statement that anybody should have to run away from who they are.
Excellent point -
Look at it this way: If Card were a loathed backwards wingnut (picture one of those Westboro Baptist loudmouths) before he started writing Sci-Fi, would we even be having this discussion? Not likely, because nobody would want to touch his books to begin with.
I personally have no issue with people expressing their views, but if you're going to push a controversial agenda you're going to face fallout from people who disagree with you.
Meant to add "as you said" - don't want to give the impression I'm disagreeing with you!
I don't understand why everybody is getting all up in arms over this. I don't think it's possible to write any sort of story without it being a derivative of somebody else's work. Hell, Battlestar Galactica itself is just a retelling of yet another Book of Mormon story. The art isn't in making up a story, the art is in how well you tell that story.
Somebody call a waaaambulance!
I barely skimmed TFS, surely you can't expect me to read your entire post before ranting at you!
I don't think you're reading TFS right... The law is to make executive bonuses subject to *shareholder* approval.
No, a good CEO would see the changes in the market and position his company to take advantage of that. Automobile going to obsolete your buggy whips? Shift some of your leather workers over to manufacturing driving goggles. Spending your companies reserves milking a doomed market up to its (and your) collapse should not earn you anything.
OK, I know you're getting a lot of comments heaped on, but you still seem to be missing the point of this legislation.
Two parties have a deal. These two parties are the executive and the board of directors. This deal is paid for by a third party, however: the shareholders.
This isn't about class warfare or socialism or communism. This doesn't allow the government to place salary limits on anybody. This simply allows the third party (the one that *pays* for these salaries) to have some control over those salaries. How often in the last recession have you heard of an executive of a failing company bailing out with their golden parachute to land a job at another company and repeat the process? Why on God's green earth would that next company allow them to come on and repeat the cycle? Because the company rules state that these salaries are determined by the board of directors - and that board is made up of executives from other companies who may in fact be be in the very same position next week. The only businessmen this will hurt are those who are in the business of collecting other peoples money without providing any value of their own.
See, your attempts at debate are noble but poorly guided. Need to convince your cat not to piss on the wall? Use a squirt gun on it whenever it attempts to! (caveat - I haven't had cats that ever pissed on walls, but it did work to keep them off the table...)
Now, I consider myself a libertarian - primarily on civil grounds - but I also feel that given the same opportunities, people who put more work into improving their situation should get more reward out of it. I don't know when the libertarians became cheerleaders for highly paid executives (how did the Republicans pass that one on?), but I honestly don't know of anybody outside of members of the board who would disagree with you. We have whole classes of top paid executives right now who aren't worth the overpriced socks they walk around in, playing with other peoples money and raking in fortunes regardless of how well they perform. That's no Libertarian ideal - it's a leech club skimming off whatever they can. None of them try to stop it because, after all, it's mostly other people's money and they don't want to lose their own access to it by angering the wrong leech. At risk of making this a "no true Libertarian" debate, somebody who claims you're jealous of buddy-club wealth isn't a libertarian, they're just a wanna be leech.
As much as we love to heap the hatred on them, people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at least built and sold *something* and that's the path to wealth we need to encourage, not the marketplace gambling and executive back scratching.
Except the law isn't about keeping people from succeeding where others can not. The law is to allow shareholders in a company to establish limits on executive salaries. You build a private company from the ground up - by all means reap your profits. You take charge of an public company built by other people - those other people deserve to have a say in how much you get paid. Honestly it baffles me that bonuses for executives can go through without shareholder approval.
I'm pretty sure you would have gotten +5 Insightful if you didn't post your correction.
This is why I only get my news from infallible, unbiased Slashdot commentators!
Well... were they Nazis at conception, Nazis at birth, or did they go Nazi sometime in the 2nd trimester?
Yeah, but Thompson was in Florida... Texas can't be any more than 75% as retarded as Florida, so figure 15 years to disbarment?