donkey kong is also a spinoff right from the mario franchise, and is right there along with the same characters that i so love/hate seeing.
I guess a lot of it comes down to memorability and history. All the franchises do have that time-tested thing going for them. They make good concepts to grab for a game that are easy to work with and instantly recognizable by the public, hence saleable; as well as being great concepts to put on bedsheets, breakfast cereal, and lunchpails for much the same reason. I still fondly remember having super mario brothers sheets and footy pajamas as a kid. Man, I loved those things.:) But even so, I think it's just that I'd like to see Nintendo maybe do some in-house work and show up some of the cut-rate third-party hacks putting out crap, and really take it and run with it. Forget making a new mascot, even, just make an original series of games.
You mean the answer is flogging dead horses by using the same franchises over and over again. Not that I don't love me some Zelda, Metroid or Mario action, as most games in the franchises are excellent; but I'd like to see something else move into Nintendo territory. Please, for the love of god. Give us some fresh meat. Hardware-wise, we're in a new realm, and it's been fantastic. The DS, the Wii, both great. Now let's try some new characters, shall we? Mario doesn't have to retire, just, let him take a short vacation, and focus some of that Mario energy into a new project, a new product, that's gonna make us scream.
I don't care about any controversy over organ function, I'm not debating that. Yes, there's a discussion about it, has been for quite some time, probably will be for a long time. I'm not talking about physiology, I'm talking about a basic point of anatomy.
From my post:
I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof
and to duplicate myself, again:
I'm saying that the article talks about the appendix as "being derived from an organ found in distant ancestors", with the implication that it no longer exists in humans, and that's simply not so. Maybe it's changed since then, but we do, in fact, have an anatomical juncture call the 'cecum'. And, the appendix hangs from it. That's all I'm saying. No more, and no less.
Clear? Habla englais? OK. Go back to arguing physiology with the other folks who also don't have a medical education. I'm just an anatomy teacher, for christ's sake. Nothing to see here.
AUGH, doesn't anybody read? I'm not saying anything is necessary or not, and I'm not saying anything is derived from anything else! I'm saying that the article talks about the appendix as "being derived from an organ found in distant ancestors", with the implication that it no longer exists in humans, and that's simply not so. It may have changed, but we do, in fact, have an anatomical juncture call the 'cecum'. And, the appendix hangs from it. That's all I'm saying. No more, and no less.
To make this absolutely clear, again, from my post:
I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof
In the article you yourself linked, Vermiform Appendix the first paragraph:
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix (or appendix, pl. appendices) is a blind ended tube connected to the cecum (or internationally, "caecum"). It develops embryologically from the cecum. The term vermiform comes from Latin and means "wormlike in appearance". The cecum is the first pouch-like structure of the colon. The appendix is near the junction of the small intestines and large intestines.
The paragraph you quoted is from further down in the wiki article -
One explanation has been that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no current purpose.[citation needed] The appendix is thought to have descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum (or caecum). The cecum is maintained in modern herbivores, where it houses the bacteria that digest cellulose, a chemically tough carbohydrate that these animals could not otherwise utilize. The human appendix contains no significant number of these bacteria, and cellulose is indigestible to us. It seems likely that the appendix lost this function before our ancestors became recognizably human.
The article is directly contradicting itself. Further, that whole paragraph is lacking citation, and should probably be removed. I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof, here; I'm stating that what Wikipedia says about the cecum is incorrect. Using it as evidence for your argument is fallacious, and you need to find another source.
To check out Wikipedia on the cecum, let's go to Cecum and take a look.
The cecum or caecum (from the Latin caecus meaning blind) is a pouch connected to the ascending colon of the large intestine and the ileum. It is separated from the ileum by the ileocecal valve (ICV) or Bauhin's valve, and is considered to be the beginning of the large intestine.
Which article is correct? Pick up an anatomy book, or try a google for "cecum" and pick anything but Wikipedia. From one of the higher links, Medterms.com:
Cecum: The cecum (also spelled caecum), the first portion of the large bowel, situated in the lower right quadrant of the abdomen. The cecum receives fecal material from the small bowel (ileum) which opens into it. The appendix is attached to the cecum. The word "cecum" comes from the Latin "caecus" meaning "blind." This refers to the fact that the bottom of the cecum is a blind pouch (a cul de sac) leading nowhere.
My final point: The appendix is not "descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum". We have a cecum in our bodies currently, and it is what the appendix happens to dangle from. This is basic, high school and first-year anatomy. Is that good enough?
Yeah, er, that article about the appendix is a bit wrong, or at least misleading; and you're quoting it out of context by ignoring the beginning paragraph about how the appendix connects.
Humans _do_ have a cecum. It's at the beginning of the large intestine; it's the juncture where the small bowel(the ileum, more precisely) and large bowel meet. It's a bit of a pouch shape. There's also the ileocecal valve, which handles flow control. The appendix is directly connected to the cecum. The thing is hardly 'vestigial'. It may have been different, once, but what in our bodies hasn't changed at least a bit since we crawled out of the Soup?
you can ignore some basic rules and run a hunter game with superpowers out the wazoo if you want, yeah. (after all, it is -your- game when you run it, that's part of the fun).
But the story outlines provided with the game have everyone starting out as mortals, plain and simple, who have a 'psychotic break' into the world of the supernatural and can *occasionally* demonstrate some supernatural powers that they can neither predict or control for a good long while, if ever at all (a major feat is trying to survive to that point.) Even then, most of the powers aren't of the "laser beams out the eyes" type; though yes, there is a class that can (temporarily, again, and without conscious control) summon a flaming sword or other object.
The game very much encourages you to not fall into that "a vampire! i shoot a beam of Holy Wrath(tm) from my crucifix and fry the sucker!" mentality, instead focusing on survival, coping with realizing the horror around you, and picking your battles to figure out exactly _what it all means_. Though of course you can go all gung-ho even in that scenario, typically the characters know that any weird powers or "divine intervention" they've encountered or found themselves manifesting are unreliable at best; so they equip themselves and rely on mundane equipment (shotguns and holy water, wooden stakes and flame guns, etc). Any "divine intervention" is just a bonus.
As for running afoul of the law, that's another big part of Hunter. The characters often DO end up going outside of "societal norms", so end up as drifters and/or recluses, and relying increasingly on networks of other hunters to survive. The law, in fact, is often on the side of the "monsters" in Hunter, whether indirectly or via "zombie cops" and the like. Also, in some scenarios, they don't realize that not everybody actually sees that Bob was, in fact, a zombie - so when the hunter beats Bob to death with a flaming shoe in a panic of self-preservation against the undead, everybody just sees and thinks "crazed killer assaults man with footwear", and that's what the papers report, too.
Actually, White Wolf put out a (tabletop RPG) game like that. It was called "Hunter", and it was pretty fun. Everyone is a basic human, and you can then play it like 'night of the living dead', or 'resident evil', on up to some (pretty mildly) super-powered 'ghostbusters'.
That's a load of absolute bollocks. In the world I live in, people do things to help each other out because they can, not because they get some material gain from it.
It's about doing the right thing for people and expecting that they do the right thing for me in return. That's how a nominally functioning civil society works. When that trust in others breaks down, society begins to break down as a whole. It's a slow, awkward decline, and you may witness it happening today, precisely because of the attitude of entitlement that you cop.
"I agree that people ought to be considerate and provide access and assistance in situations where it makes sense, but what mandantory ADA compliance represents is worse"
You know, in theory, I agree with that, actually. I don't -like- regulating things, particularly ethical or moral choices. In an ideal world, people would do what they could for other people to get by, even those without regular physical ability. But as I said in my post, the reason it's law is that [cut]"without the law, nobody would do it, because so many people are amoral cheapasses, particularly business owners. That's why we developed employee, child labor, and consumer protection laws - business owners weren't exactly chomping at the goddamn bit to be nice to people, not when it might cost a few dollars off the top."[/cut]
Would that I could trust other folks to do the right thing more often.:( If what's needed is more cost-sharing with small business owners by government grants, then so be it, that's cool. How about regional NPO's that small business owners can approach to get help and grants for compliance? But you know, the smallest businesses aren't required to comply with ADA law -anyways-.
Big business owners, well, tough shit - you're on your own. If you've got the money to finance a multi-story shopping mall you've got the money to put in handrails, accessible bathrooms, and an elevator. But you know and I know both that if it's not legally required, big business just won't do it!
yeah, yeah I have. I helped run and manage a family antique shop for several years, then got out of the business to do more interesting things.
It's not about being 100% independent, it's about being as independent as possible. It's about all the small shit that YOU take for granted. It's being able to take a hot bath without worrying if you're going to boil your nerveless legs off, get an infection, and die. it's being able to cook your own meals, at least once in a while; or get your own groceries, or buy the things that other people are buying. Why does a disabled person have to do without, or beg for help from someone? And what if there -isn't- anyone to help, an all too common situation? Shit, my buddy can't even leave the house without someone to help him right now. He's got a visiting nurse who is nice and brings him some fast food once in a while so he can have a bit of variety.
If you're running a small enough shop, being ADA compliant isn't hard anyways, and can amount to a ramp and a handrail. Get some lumber, nails and a hammer and do it yourself! Shit, grants and tax incentives are even available for that shit! And offer assistance to the blind guy or girl, don't tell him/her to fuck off and learn to read. If you don't have regular blind customers, wait until someone asks before you spend the money on braille if you're gonna be cheap.
Goddamn, it's not asking you to suck a dick and buy a ferrari for every cripple who walks or wheels into your storefront! Just let people do their thing, regardless of their physical abilities! It's not about making a ton of money, it's about DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR PEOPLE. And yeah, yeah I DO have a right to be your customer. You cannot deny me custom in your public shop because of my race, gender, religion, or physical ability. That's the law. You have the right not to sell and expose yourself to a lawsuit, but I do have the right to enter your shop until you tell me to leave.
You know why it's law? because without the law, nobody would do it, because so many people are amoral cheapasses, particularly business owners. That's why we developed employee, child labor, and consumer protection laws - business owners weren't exactly chomping at the goddamn bit to be nice to people, not when it might cost a few dollars off the top.
aw, fuck you man. you've never been crippled, and you've never lived with a cripple. goddamn, i hope you lose your legs and see what it's like. particularly if you don't have a lot of money and live on a fixed income. no, that's not me - but my best friend, and former roommate. Why the fuck do disabled have to rely on other people for everything? Put a goddamn graded ramp at the door, make the aisles wide enough for a wheelchair, and make the bathroom bigger than a goddamn coat closet with a handrail. If you have literature, braille material isn't that hard to come by. Another good friend of mine is blind, and he -does- have to rely on caregivers, more than he even wants. You want to make more people do shit for him? He sure doesn't.
I keep seeing these comments (particularly by Canadians?) about the lawsuit-happy Americans.
We live under the rule of law for a reason, both in the states and abroad. Laws are there (ostensibly) for the protection of the people; by enforcing them, even the minor ones, a message is sent that it's not OK to break the law - thus strengthening the rule of law and providing justification for itself, an extremely important step. Words on paper are ultimately just that - words on paper. When the law stops justifying itself, people start ignoring it, and open warfare(figuratively speaking, at least at first) begins. Consumer protection, workplace safeties and protection, and even criminal law start to go out the door. We place our moral and ethical faith in the laws written for us by other people; when it breaks down, we are left with nothing to hold on to.
I wonder if this is why theologically-based societies get a good head start - when your rules are (claimed to be and taken as) dictated by a "higher authority", they may be viewed as more infallible than laws made by, say, Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, or George Douchebag Bush. Of course, a government builds up around it, which involves the mind of man fiddling with the hand of god, and people eventually lose faith... First in the rule of god, then later in the rule of law. Lather, rinse and repeat for a quick summary of human history.
As an aside, debating whether or not we have too many laws is another discussion entirely, but completely worth thinking about. Not to mention the question of how the rulemakers, in a quest for greater control, eventually (and inevitably) cross the line of "lawmaking in good faith" and the corruption that causes loss of faith in the rule of law and the eventual decline of society.
I think you missed the whole point of my post. The Enterprise doesn't need bathrooms, because there aren't a whole lot of scenes that you can film in a bathroom and still be eligible for prime-time TV, versus direct-to-video release in that funny room in the back of the movie shop. The Enterprise is a TV (and occasionally movie) set. It's designed to look cool, not to poop in. The actors go off-set for that.
Comparatively, nobody is designing and building houses to look like the Enterprise on a day-to-day basis, complete with "no bathrooms"; and then publishing it as the next greatest thing in architectural design. If they did, the first thing a real designer would say is "where the hell are the bathrooms?" I bet the Las Vegas Hilton "Star Trek Experience" remembered the bathrooms.
My point is simple. Any time someone tries to bring something from the Star Trek screens into the real world, there is often a much, much better way of doing it that has already been done. It may not look as cool, but that's life. The hall of the Enterprise (pick a model) look like a cubicle farm anyways, and I'm not really too keen on living in that environment any more than I already do.
It's fun to pretend that Star Trek is real, it really is. It's something I've been watching almost since -birth-, and it's always been there, shiny and glamorous and full of the mystery of space. But - it's not real. More importantly, it's not intended to be entirely real. Extrapolation from the source material by fans is cute, but you shouldn't confuse "cute" with "real" or "workable".
LCARS is one of the most obnoxious, unusable interfaces I've ever seen. The colors are eyebleeding and the contrast is retina-melting. the amount of real estate taken up by useless widget space is tremendous, and actual data displayed is minimal.
Sure, it looks cool - from a distance, glanced over by a TV camera. Where it was created, and meant to stay.
I like star trek and all, fun shows - but christ. Let LCARS die, or at least continue its life where it belongs - in fiction. It's a terrible idea to find a design that "looks awesome" then try to work usability into it, all while adhering some canonical dictates that are arbitrary and unhelpful.
Ah, I think the reference was to "Why Johnny Can't Code", from Salon. Link.
He's a bit, er, condescending at times towards his audience, but all in all, I like David Brin. Kiln People and Earth are two of my favorite books.
Yeah, and that's, uh, extremely discouraging to any would-be patriots of our age, I do believe. Nobody wants to die these days, because we're often so very far from the spectre of death. Shit, I know I don't want to die, and i don't even want to kill anybody - i just want them to stop being douchebags and give us back our government. So often it seems that those in power box themselves in so tightly, though, that they leave no option for change other than blood. I think our original system allowed for a bloodless coup, indeed even expected it. After 200 years of trying to install a permanent government, all that's been managed is to put their necks closer to the chopping block while locking all the doors behind them.
yes, I do expect the government to "save me" from itself, heh. I'd expect, of course, a full line of inquiry and investigation, probable detainment, and dismissal from my position, yes, but I do not expect jailtime or execution if the information I have revealed shows abuse, neglect, or wrong-doing on the part of a person or peoples involved in a public trust position.
I'm not talking "took home one too many pens from the office", I'm talking "started putting people on no-fly lists just to meet quotas", or "took a tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyists" or "started a pseudo-war without congressional or public approval" or "started secret prisons to hold people outside of national law jurisdiction".
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson.
Historically true. But I question that "must" with a "why?" Is it not possible to break free from that cycle? Aren't we at a point where we can at least -consider- the possibility?
Is it really just an option, past a certain point? Wouldn't you consider it more of a duty to report something grossly wrong with the way the government is being operated, even if the government tells you not to?
Do you really want people *without* consciences or good moral character working in your government? Of course there will always be bad apples, but shouldn't a requirement of public service (that's what a government is, after all; they don't exist purely for their own right - do they?) be to actually serve the public and report gross abuse and negligence of the public trust? There's a key word there - "trust". If the public trust is being abused, we have a right to know, and immediately.
Of course he runs the risk of being punished. If he were just spouting off troop movements or weapon designs, he deserves to be punished. Somebody wants that stuff secret, and it's not hurting anybody (well, uh, any of the "good" guys anyways, if it's a military secret) to keep it that way - in fact it works better. That's acceptable. That's a legitimate state secret. But, of course, the government will try to punish him no matter what it is if it's classified. There is very little (read: none at all) "whistleblower protection" for a government employee. Asking questions inside about incompetence and negligence can cost them a job, and a career altogether; sometimes, taking things outside is the only way to get them clear. It stills costs a job, but at least they've got their conscience intact.
Must a government rely on a system of martyrs to be accountable? Must a person go to the gallows (or jail) because they revealed to the public, say (hypothetically), an unapproved special forces action where chemical weapons were used illegally? Or that indigent people domestically were being used as part of an experimental eugenics program (not so hypothetically)? These things are called "corruption", and anyone who participates or knowingly keeps them a secret are called "corrupt", regardless of any pieces of paper they've signed. Not exactly the kind of government that I'm happy paying for or having in control of my life.
I say it again - the government should not exist for its own right. It exists for the people. Me, and you, and everyone else. Public trust. The public has placed trust in this institution to take care of certain things so that we can get on with our lives. If we cannot trust them, what good are they?
If you were asked to keep a secret by the government that resulted in the fleecing of millions of taxpayers, would you? how about if it was something that had resulted in one or more deaths? would you keep it secret, then? what about gross abuse of government, and thereby taxpayer, resources? would you keep it a secret then? so you signed a piece of paper. are you going to let that stop you from releasing information you feel needs to be available? What if your commanding officer or fellows were, say, abusing prisoners of a false war in extremely demeaning and inhuman ways? would you report, then?
where do you draw the line between what the state has a right to hide and what it must not?
yeah, i agree about the new clients being much faster. I also run in a 800x600 windowed mode. I just upgraded today to 1.25gb ram, and I have to say that while it's still not perfect, it's still made a HUGE difference. (not just with SL, either, of course. -everything- is significantly better.)
I play around on SL a few hours a month, maybe. Let me tell you - the hardware requirements are -obscene-, and to get it to run without lag is impossible, even on a fat pipe. If you tweak the settings, you can make things a bit more tolerable - unless you're in a "Welcome area", which is where I bet you landed. Those places are the default starting point once you get off the 'newbie island'. They're festering lag pits full of AOL-style chatter (OMG NO RLY? ME 2!!!)
If you want to see more of SL, I recommend getting out of there ASAP and going wandering. I find the thing that keeps me going back is in cruising around solo. I check out the free-build sandbox areas to see what people are working on, or just fly around until i bump into someone or a group and say hey. I visit the lands that they've custom-made, I find the shops that people have built. I try to stay away from the perverts, of which there are TONS - sex SELLS on SL, and it sells well. I stumbled into a virtual whorehouse the other day.
I can get away with playing SL on an athlon 64 3200+, with a 64mb radeon 9200 mobile video(this machine is a laptop, no kidding) and 512 mb RAM. Just barely.
Anyways, just saying. I really don't think second life is for everyone in its current state, good hardware or no. I get a kick out of it for a few hours a month.
Yeah, I didn't mention band brothers in the parent cause it's not released in the US; importing games is both expensive and a PITA. Some of the concepts I talked about -did- come out in Japan, like the Workboy for the GB classic, and the sonar (yes, you read that right) bobber/game combo. Well, OK, workboy did come out in the US in a VERY limited production run, AFAIK. But the Japanese market tends to get the cool shit, while we're left with yet another fking spongebob game.
Slashdot Mirror
donkey kong is also a spinoff right from the mario franchise, and is right there along with the same characters that i so love/hate seeing.
:) But even so, I think it's just that I'd like to see Nintendo maybe do some in-house work and show up some of the cut-rate third-party hacks putting out crap, and really take it and run with it. Forget making a new mascot, even, just make an original series of games.
I guess a lot of it comes down to memorability and history. All the franchises do have that time-tested thing going for them. They make good concepts to grab for a game that are easy to work with and instantly recognizable by the public, hence saleable; as well as being great concepts to put on bedsheets, breakfast cereal, and lunchpails for much the same reason. I still fondly remember having super mario brothers sheets and footy pajamas as a kid. Man, I loved those things.
The answer is Zelda, Metroid and Mario.
You mean the answer is flogging dead horses by using the same franchises over and over again. Not that I don't love me some Zelda, Metroid or Mario action, as most games in the franchises are excellent; but I'd like to see something else move into Nintendo territory. Please, for the love of god. Give us some fresh meat. Hardware-wise, we're in a new realm, and it's been fantastic. The DS, the Wii, both great. Now let's try some new characters, shall we? Mario doesn't have to retire, just, let him take a short vacation, and focus some of that Mario energy into a new project, a new product, that's gonna make us scream.
From my post:
I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof
and to duplicate myself, again:
I'm saying that the article talks about the appendix as "being derived from an organ found in distant ancestors", with the implication that it no longer exists in humans, and that's simply not so. Maybe it's changed since then, but we do, in fact, have an anatomical juncture call the 'cecum'. And, the appendix hangs from it. That's all I'm saying. No more, and no less.
Clear? Habla englais? OK. Go back to arguing physiology with the other folks who also don't have a medical education. I'm just an anatomy teacher, for christ's sake. Nothing to see here.
AUGH, doesn't anybody read? I'm not saying anything is necessary or not, and I'm not saying anything is derived from anything else! I'm saying that the article talks about the appendix as "being derived from an organ found in distant ancestors", with the implication that it no longer exists in humans, and that's simply not so. It may have changed, but we do, in fact, have an anatomical juncture call the 'cecum'. And, the appendix hangs from it. That's all I'm saying. No more, and no less.
To make this absolutely clear, again, from my post:
I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof
jesus, you folks are giving me twitches.
In the article you yourself linked, Vermiform Appendix the first paragraph:
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix (or appendix, pl. appendices) is a blind ended tube connected to the cecum (or internationally, "caecum"). It develops embryologically from the cecum. The term vermiform comes from Latin and means "wormlike in appearance". The cecum is the first pouch-like structure of the colon. The appendix is near the junction of the small intestines and large intestines.
The paragraph you quoted is from further down in the wiki article -
One explanation has been that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no current purpose.[citation needed] The appendix is thought to have descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum (or caecum). The cecum is maintained in modern herbivores, where it houses the bacteria that digest cellulose, a chemically tough carbohydrate that these animals could not otherwise utilize. The human appendix contains no significant number of these bacteria, and cellulose is indigestible to us. It seems likely that the appendix lost this function before our ancestors became recognizably human.
The article is directly contradicting itself. Further, that whole paragraph is lacking citation, and should probably be removed. I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof, here; I'm stating that what Wikipedia says about the cecum is incorrect. Using it as evidence for your argument is fallacious, and you need to find another source.
To check out Wikipedia on the cecum, let's go to Cecum and take a look.
The cecum or caecum (from the Latin caecus meaning blind) is a pouch connected to the ascending colon of the large intestine and the ileum. It is separated from the ileum by the ileocecal valve (ICV) or Bauhin's valve, and is considered to be the beginning of the large intestine.
Which article is correct? Pick up an anatomy book, or try a google for "cecum" and pick anything but Wikipedia. From one of the higher links, Medterms.com:
Cecum: The cecum (also spelled caecum), the first portion of the large bowel, situated in the lower right quadrant of the abdomen. The cecum receives fecal material from the small bowel (ileum) which opens into it. The appendix is attached to the cecum. The word "cecum" comes from the Latin "caecus" meaning "blind." This refers to the fact that the bottom of the cecum is a blind pouch (a cul de sac) leading nowhere.
My final point: The appendix is not "descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum". We have a cecum in our bodies currently, and it is what the appendix happens to dangle from. This is basic, high school and first-year anatomy. Is that good enough?
Yeah, er, that article about the appendix is a bit wrong, or at least misleading; and you're quoting it out of context by ignoring the beginning paragraph about how the appendix connects.
Humans _do_ have a cecum. It's at the beginning of the large intestine; it's the juncture where the small bowel(the ileum, more precisely) and large bowel meet. It's a bit of a pouch shape. There's also the ileocecal valve, which handles flow control. The appendix is directly connected to the cecum. The thing is hardly 'vestigial'. It may have been different, once, but what in our bodies hasn't changed at least a bit since we crawled out of the Soup?
you can ignore some basic rules and run a hunter game with superpowers out the wazoo if you want, yeah. (after all, it is -your- game when you run it, that's part of the fun).
But the story outlines provided with the game have everyone starting out as mortals, plain and simple, who have a 'psychotic break' into the world of the supernatural and can *occasionally* demonstrate some supernatural powers that they can neither predict or control for a good long while, if ever at all (a major feat is trying to survive to that point.) Even then, most of the powers aren't of the "laser beams out the eyes" type; though yes, there is a class that can (temporarily, again, and without conscious control) summon a flaming sword or other object.
The game very much encourages you to not fall into that "a vampire! i shoot a beam of Holy Wrath(tm) from my crucifix and fry the sucker!" mentality, instead focusing on survival, coping with realizing the horror around you, and picking your battles to figure out exactly _what it all means_. Though of course you can go all gung-ho even in that scenario, typically the characters know that any weird powers or "divine intervention" they've encountered or found themselves manifesting are unreliable at best; so they equip themselves and rely on mundane equipment (shotguns and holy water, wooden stakes and flame guns, etc). Any "divine intervention" is just a bonus.
As for running afoul of the law, that's another big part of Hunter. The characters often DO end up going outside of "societal norms", so end up as drifters and/or recluses, and relying increasingly on networks of other hunters to survive. The law, in fact, is often on the side of the "monsters" in Hunter, whether indirectly or via "zombie cops" and the like. Also, in some scenarios, they don't realize that not everybody actually sees that Bob was, in fact, a zombie - so when the hunter beats Bob to death with a flaming shoe in a panic of self-preservation against the undead, everybody just sees and thinks "crazed killer assaults man with footwear", and that's what the papers report, too.
Actually, White Wolf put out a (tabletop RPG) game like that. It was called "Hunter", and it was pretty fun. Everyone is a basic human, and you can then play it like 'night of the living dead', or 'resident evil', on up to some (pretty mildly) super-powered 'ghostbusters'.
That's a load of absolute bollocks. In the world I live in, people do things to help each other out because they can, not because they get some material gain from it. It's about doing the right thing for people and expecting that they do the right thing for me in return. That's how a nominally functioning civil society works. When that trust in others breaks down, society begins to break down as a whole. It's a slow, awkward decline, and you may witness it happening today, precisely because of the attitude of entitlement that you cop.
"I agree that people ought to be considerate and provide access and assistance in situations where it makes sense, but what mandantory ADA compliance represents is worse"
:( If what's needed is more cost-sharing with small business owners by government grants, then so be it, that's cool. How about regional NPO's that small business owners can approach to get help and grants for compliance? But you know, the smallest businesses aren't required to comply with ADA law -anyways-.
You know, in theory, I agree with that, actually. I don't -like- regulating things, particularly ethical or moral choices. In an ideal world, people would do what they could for other people to get by, even those without regular physical ability. But as I said in my post, the reason it's law is that [cut]"without the law, nobody would do it, because so many people are amoral cheapasses, particularly business owners. That's why we developed employee, child labor, and consumer protection laws - business owners weren't exactly chomping at the goddamn bit to be nice to people, not when it might cost a few dollars off the top."[/cut]
Would that I could trust other folks to do the right thing more often.
Big business owners, well, tough shit - you're on your own. If you've got the money to finance a multi-story shopping mall you've got the money to put in handrails, accessible bathrooms, and an elevator. But you know and I know both that if it's not legally required, big business just won't do it!
yeah, yeah I have. I helped run and manage a family antique shop for several years, then got out of the business to do more interesting things.
It's not about being 100% independent, it's about being as independent as possible. It's about all the small shit that YOU take for granted. It's being able to take a hot bath without worrying if you're going to boil your nerveless legs off, get an infection, and die. it's being able to cook your own meals, at least once in a while; or get your own groceries, or buy the things that other people are buying. Why does a disabled person have to do without, or beg for help from someone? And what if there -isn't- anyone to help, an all too common situation? Shit, my buddy can't even leave the house without someone to help him right now. He's got a visiting nurse who is nice and brings him some fast food once in a while so he can have a bit of variety.
If you're running a small enough shop, being ADA compliant isn't hard anyways, and can amount to a ramp and a handrail. Get some lumber, nails and a hammer and do it yourself! Shit, grants and tax incentives are even available for that shit! And offer assistance to the blind guy or girl, don't tell him/her to fuck off and learn to read. If you don't have regular blind customers, wait until someone asks before you spend the money on braille if you're gonna be cheap.
Goddamn, it's not asking you to suck a dick and buy a ferrari for every cripple who walks or wheels into your storefront! Just let people do their thing, regardless of their physical abilities! It's not about making a ton of money, it's about DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR PEOPLE. And yeah, yeah I DO have a right to be your customer. You cannot deny me custom in your public shop because of my race, gender, religion, or physical ability. That's the law. You have the right not to sell and expose yourself to a lawsuit, but I do have the right to enter your shop until you tell me to leave.
You know why it's law? because without the law, nobody would do it, because so many people are amoral cheapasses, particularly business owners. That's why we developed employee, child labor, and consumer protection laws - business owners weren't exactly chomping at the goddamn bit to be nice to people, not when it might cost a few dollars off the top.
aw, fuck you man. you've never been crippled, and you've never lived with a cripple. goddamn, i hope you lose your legs and see what it's like. particularly if you don't have a lot of money and live on a fixed income. no, that's not me - but my best friend, and former roommate. Why the fuck do disabled have to rely on other people for everything? Put a goddamn graded ramp at the door, make the aisles wide enough for a wheelchair, and make the bathroom bigger than a goddamn coat closet with a handrail. If you have literature, braille material isn't that hard to come by. Another good friend of mine is blind, and he -does- have to rely on caregivers, more than he even wants. You want to make more people do shit for him? He sure doesn't.
"you have the right to leave the US, but not by the means of transportation of your choice".
how the fuck does -that- work, exactly? if i want to leave by an "unapproved" method, are they gonna pay for the alternative?
this is a load of bollocks all round.
I keep seeing these comments (particularly by Canadians?) about the lawsuit-happy Americans.
We live under the rule of law for a reason, both in the states and abroad. Laws are there (ostensibly) for the protection of the people; by enforcing them, even the minor ones, a message is sent that it's not OK to break the law - thus strengthening the rule of law and providing justification for itself, an extremely important step. Words on paper are ultimately just that - words on paper. When the law stops justifying itself, people start ignoring it, and open warfare(figuratively speaking, at least at first) begins. Consumer protection, workplace safeties and protection, and even criminal law start to go out the door. We place our moral and ethical faith in the laws written for us by other people; when it breaks down, we are left with nothing to hold on to.
I wonder if this is why theologically-based societies get a good head start - when your rules are (claimed to be and taken as) dictated by a "higher authority", they may be viewed as more infallible than laws made by, say, Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, or George Douchebag Bush. Of course, a government builds up around it, which involves the mind of man fiddling with the hand of god, and people eventually lose faith... First in the rule of god, then later in the rule of law. Lather, rinse and repeat for a quick summary of human history.
As an aside, debating whether or not we have too many laws is another discussion entirely, but completely worth thinking about. Not to mention the question of how the rulemakers, in a quest for greater control, eventually (and inevitably) cross the line of "lawmaking in good faith" and the corruption that causes loss of faith in the rule of law and the eventual decline of society.
I think you missed the whole point of my post. The Enterprise doesn't need bathrooms, because there aren't a whole lot of scenes that you can film in a bathroom and still be eligible for prime-time TV, versus direct-to-video release in that funny room in the back of the movie shop. The Enterprise is a TV (and occasionally movie) set. It's designed to look cool, not to poop in. The actors go off-set for that.
Comparatively, nobody is designing and building houses to look like the Enterprise on a day-to-day basis, complete with "no bathrooms"; and then publishing it as the next greatest thing in architectural design. If they did, the first thing a real designer would say is "where the hell are the bathrooms?" I bet the Las Vegas Hilton "Star Trek Experience" remembered the bathrooms.
My point is simple. Any time someone tries to bring something from the Star Trek screens into the real world, there is often a much, much better way of doing it that has already been done. It may not look as cool, but that's life. The hall of the Enterprise (pick a model) look like a cubicle farm anyways, and I'm not really too keen on living in that environment any more than I already do.
It's fun to pretend that Star Trek is real, it really is. It's something I've been watching almost since -birth-, and it's always been there, shiny and glamorous and full of the mystery of space. But - it's not real. More importantly, it's not intended to be entirely real. Extrapolation from the source material by fans is cute, but you shouldn't confuse "cute" with "real" or "workable".
LCARS is one of the most obnoxious, unusable interfaces I've ever seen. The colors are eyebleeding and the contrast is retina-melting. the amount of real estate taken up by useless widget space is tremendous, and actual data displayed is
minimal.
Sure, it looks cool - from a distance, glanced over by a TV camera. Where it was created, and meant to stay.
I like star trek and all, fun shows - but christ. Let LCARS die, or at least continue its life where it belongs - in fiction. It's a terrible idea to find a design that "looks awesome" then try to work usability into it, all while adhering some canonical dictates that are arbitrary and unhelpful.
Ah, I think the reference was to "Why Johnny Can't Code", from Salon. Link. He's a bit, er, condescending at times towards his audience, but all in all, I like David Brin. Kiln People and Earth are two of my favorite books.
the link to the david brin article be BROKEN. I can't find the link that was intended.
Yeah, and that's, uh, extremely discouraging to any would-be patriots of our age, I do believe. Nobody wants to die these days, because we're often so very far from the spectre of death. Shit, I know I don't want to die, and i don't even want to kill anybody - i just want them to stop being douchebags and give us back our government. So often it seems that those in power box themselves in so tightly, though, that they leave no option for change other than blood. I think our original system allowed for a bloodless coup, indeed even expected it. After 200 years of trying to install a permanent government, all that's been managed is to put their necks closer to the chopping block while locking all the doors behind them.
yes, I do expect the government to "save me" from itself, heh. I'd expect, of course, a full line of inquiry and investigation, probable detainment, and dismissal from my position, yes, but I do not expect jailtime or execution if the information I have revealed shows abuse, neglect, or wrong-doing on the part of a person or peoples involved in a public trust position.
I'm not talking "took home one too many pens from the office", I'm talking "started putting people on no-fly lists just to meet quotas", or "took a tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyists" or "started a pseudo-war without congressional or public approval" or "started secret prisons to hold people outside of national law jurisdiction".
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson.
Historically true. But I question that "must" with a "why?" Is it not possible to break free from that cycle? Aren't we at a point where we can at least -consider- the possibility?
Is it really just an option, past a certain point? Wouldn't you consider it more of a duty to report something grossly wrong with the way the government is being operated, even if the government tells you not to?
Do you really want people *without* consciences or good moral character working in your government? Of course there will always be bad apples, but shouldn't a requirement of public service (that's what a government is, after all; they don't exist purely for their own right - do they?) be to actually serve the public and report gross abuse and negligence of the public trust? There's a key word there - "trust". If the public trust is being abused, we have a right to know, and immediately.
Of course he runs the risk of being punished. If he were just spouting off troop movements or weapon designs, he deserves to be punished. Somebody wants that stuff secret, and it's not hurting anybody (well, uh, any of the "good" guys anyways, if it's a military secret) to keep it that way - in fact it works better. That's acceptable. That's a legitimate state secret. But, of course, the government will try to punish him no matter what it is if it's classified. There is very little (read: none at all) "whistleblower protection" for a government employee. Asking questions inside about incompetence and negligence can cost them a job, and a career altogether; sometimes, taking things outside is the only way to get them clear. It stills costs a job, but at least they've got their conscience intact.
Must a government rely on a system of martyrs to be accountable? Must a person go to the gallows (or jail) because they revealed to the public, say (hypothetically), an unapproved special forces action where chemical weapons were used illegally? Or that indigent people domestically were being used as part of an experimental eugenics program (not so hypothetically)? These things are called "corruption", and anyone who participates or knowingly keeps them a secret are called "corrupt", regardless of any pieces of paper they've signed. Not exactly the kind of government that I'm happy paying for or having in control of my life.
I say it again - the government should not exist for its own right. It exists for the people. Me, and you, and everyone else. Public trust. The public has placed trust in this institution to take care of certain things so that we can get on with our lives. If we cannot trust them, what good are they?
If you were asked to keep a secret by the government that resulted in the fleecing of millions of taxpayers, would you? how about if it was something that had resulted in one or more deaths? would you keep it secret, then? what about gross abuse of government, and thereby taxpayer, resources? would you keep it a secret then? so you signed a piece of paper. are you going to let that stop you from releasing information you feel needs to be available? What if your commanding officer or fellows were, say, abusing prisoners of a false war in extremely demeaning and inhuman ways? would you report, then?
where do you draw the line between what the state has a right to hide and what it must not?
in short: who's watching the watchers?
yeah, i agree about the new clients being much faster. I also run in a 800x600 windowed mode. I just upgraded today to 1.25gb ram, and I have to say that while it's still not perfect, it's still made a HUGE difference. (not just with SL, either, of course. -everything- is significantly better.)
I play around on SL a few hours a month, maybe. Let me tell you - the hardware requirements are -obscene-, and to get it to run without lag is impossible, even on a fat pipe. If you tweak the settings, you can make things a bit more tolerable - unless you're in a "Welcome area", which is where I bet you landed. Those places are the default starting point once you get off the 'newbie island'. They're festering lag pits full of AOL-style chatter (OMG NO RLY? ME 2!!!)
If you want to see more of SL, I recommend getting out of there ASAP and going wandering. I find the thing that keeps me going back is in cruising around solo. I check out the free-build sandbox areas to see what people are working on, or just fly around until i bump into someone or a group and say hey. I visit the lands that they've custom-made, I find the shops that people have built. I try to stay away from the perverts, of which there are TONS - sex SELLS on SL, and it sells well. I stumbled into a virtual whorehouse the other day.
I can get away with playing SL on an athlon 64 3200+, with a 64mb radeon 9200 mobile video(this machine is a laptop, no kidding) and 512 mb RAM. Just barely.
Anyways, just saying. I really don't think second life is for everyone in its current state, good hardware or no. I get a kick out of it for a few hours a month.
Yeah, I didn't mention band brothers in the parent cause it's not released in the US; importing games is both expensive and a PITA. Some of the concepts I talked about -did- come out in Japan, like the Workboy for the GB classic, and the sonar (yes, you read that right) bobber/game combo. Well, OK, workboy did come out in the US in a VERY limited production run, AFAIK. But the Japanese market tends to get the cool shit, while we're left with yet another fking spongebob game.