Very true. There's less incentive to discriminate against women when men are equally recognized as caregivers for their families ( and are treated as such).
I seem to recall actually that the studies that said 40 hours were the magic number were actually for manual labor, and after that point you did start get errors...and injuries. Studies on desk work were around 30 or 35 hours of productivity. You could have it all in 35 hours, or you could get 35 hours spread over 60, but it all works out the same in the end.
So this culture of putting in more and more hours to prove that you're really dedicated or have a better work ethic than everyone else is ridiculously toxic. For one, it hurts business, because fried employees are not particularly productive employees anyway. Two, it hurts employees, because the ones that do play that game are sacrificing their lives to do so. And three, it keeps qualified, talented people from moving up the ladder. Not every employee is single, and free of dependents. If someone is capable of doing the job, but isn't spending an extra twenty hours a week at the office playing solitaire to prove their "dedication", that should be more reason to give them the job, not less.
Except study after study has shown that a 60 work week produces about as much as a 40 hour work week. Productivity goes through the floor the longer the hours get. So there's nothing to gain. (With the exception of one-time, short-term periods of longer hours, but it's not sustainable after a week or two).
There are a couple of different things to do, but one of the challenges you're going to run into is that most non-profits are kind of too short handed (or short of time) to be able to go, "yes, of course, that'd be awesome!" (That's how many volunteers get turned away as well, actually). A lot of time when volunteers (or donations) turn up, the random employee being offered them is going to be searching their brain for a way to put them to good use, and if one doesn't immediately come to mind, there more likely to turn it down, because they've got more than enough on their plate with everything else. I've been in this position myself. I was working for a collaboration of 60ish non-profits, and someone wanted to donate an old copy machine to a non-profit. They didn't care which, just any one that needed a copier. And it was a pretty good copier, but still. The actually collaboration office couldn't use it, didn't have the room for it, certainly didn't have the money to get rid of it or move it if that became necessary. I sent out many, many calls to every agency I could think of, seeing if they needed a printer. And I'm sure, somewhere, one of them did. But if they had the need, they hadn't yet realized it, or weren't talking about it. And few of the newer ones, that were more desperate for resources, were willing to take the risk of it needing repair work or finding a way to move it from the donor's place to their office.
So here's what I'd suggest. If you have a few good non-profits in mind, ones that you know something about their operations, and there's something *specific* they could use those computers to address....I would offer it to them like that. "Hey, I know you were looking for a way to get the kids in the shelter a way to get on the internet for their homework, I've got some computers for you..." Especially if you can volunteer to provide support. That will actually probably be pretty welcomed.
Second, if you don't have any specific charities in mind, you could see if there's a local non-profit dedicated to fixing up old computers and giving them away. There's usually one in every county, and they'll have the relationships and connections to know who could use it and how to get it to them. I'm sure they wouldn't complain about having the work already done for them.
Third, you could try just contacting various groups and seeing if any are looking for computers. Good groups to start with would be shelters, churches that run shelters/food kitchens/that sort of thing, *domestic* shelters (especially if they have a safe house, but don't be offended if they turn down an offer to help set them up. They guard the locations fiercely, because they must). You could also try the local Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts groups (though I'd recommend avoiding the nearest council, and just seeing about getting in touch with the local volunteers in charge). After school programs might be good, as well as any programs dedicated to helping the elderly and disabled be more self-sufficient. Start by explaining that you've refurbished them (so they're not just "old" computers that need repair) and also, if you're willing to help set them up etc. And there you go.
You probably won't read this, as it'll be at the very bottom, but if you do, I hope it helps.
I agree. I had to roll my eyes at this, from the article:
"Many anthropologists took to the navel gazing of postmodernism and swore off attempts at rationality and science, which were disparaged as weapons of cultural imperialism. Economists and psychologists, for their part, did an end run around the issue with the convenient assumption that their job was to study the human mind stripped of culture. "
And if they'd bother to talk to the anthropologists (or anyone actually familiar with post-modern analysis)...and actually listened, they might have known that it's damned hard to study the human mind stripped of culture. One of the first assumptions of a post-modern analytical approach towards an experiment like the one the article talks about is that the results would be heavily influenced by the culture of the participants. And to point out that using money is a problematic way to judge fairness, because there are such different cultural responses built around it.
Basically, what we've got here is someone walking around in wide-eyed wonder pointing out something that's been considered foundational for several decades as if it's some wild new discovery. It's a little silly.
Those prices tend to include the assumption of subsidy for a phone, because pretty much everyone goes that route, so you're kind of paying for it anyway. Though I was reading that one of the carriers has a $40/month plan for people with their own phones (though the article specifically said iphone, I doubt it's restricted to iphones, that wouldn't make any sense) but that they were hardly getting any takers on it. (I think it may have been t-mobile?). well worth looking into, if I weren't moving abroad in two weeks.
200 generations....well, that's not a very specific amount of time, so I can't really comment on that specifically, but I wonder if it the whole "more rare genetic variations" has something to do with having bigger and more diverse populations inter-mixing. If there's a general trend in the last couple hundred to couple thousand years, it's that you've got people clumping together in bigger groups, developing complex trade and migration, all of it adding up to a much broader gene pool than the days of the hunter-gatherers going around in relatively closely related groups of 100-200 people, and that in turn leading to a much big genetic variety.
Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Dude, everyone pays taxes. They pay income taxes. They pay payroll taxes. They pay sales taxes. It's just that the poor get the income tax refunded to them, making it an interest-free loan to Uncle Sam.
I noticed you completely skipped over the part where you were in the hated 47% by your own admission of income. Where's your self-hatred? Though there's really no argument you could make that'll make me take you seriously now. I suppose that was a lost cause anyway, considering your other statements, like....Oh, noo! I joined americorps! I actually was contributing something to my community! HORRORS! And I was gaining job experience...I think I said that explicitly... so you know, I bettered myself while bettering my community. That's what I did, straight out of school. And I would have done it, recession or no, because it was the right thing to do. And you...worked at Wendy's.
Of the two, I think I know which looks better on the resume. I certainly have never complained about the boost my AmeriCorps gave me, even if the crash of the world economy meant it took a year to find a decent job. Shockingly, employers tend to look well on civic-minded folks who have shown grit and dedication. To say nothing of having held a position at a higher level than a new job seeker could usually attain.
Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't know the least little thing about economics. Utility theory isn't subjective to me. I'm not pulling it out of my ass when I say that $1k is more valuable to someone making 10k/year than $100,000 is to someone making $1m. It's one of the fundamentals of the dismal science.
As to spoiled punks...Dude, I work in the non-profit industry. If you think I'm looking for success or wealth, you're obviously smoking something. Seriously, maybe you should talk to someone. You know what non-profit work is? It's working your ass off for half the money you could be making in the for-profit sector, pulling ridiculously long hours, and giving everything you've got to a cause. Because you actually want to see the world become a better place. I don't think I'm the greedy one. I'm not the one pushing to crush the poor into the dust in order to line the pockets of the wealthy with a few more dollars that mean less than nothing to them.
Have you ever heard of the just world fallacy? You're a prime example. You're so sure of the virtue of the rich (they worked hard for that money!) and so sure of the moral depravity of the poor (nothing better than envious thieves!)
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Oh- one question. So you were making minimum wage, and if our incomes were similar, you were *certainly* not paying any federal income tax.
The reason I ask is that it's occurred to me that the fallacy that the 53%ers may be falling into is thinking that those not paying federal income tax are simply not having it deducted. That's not the case; they just get all of it back from Uncle Sam in their tax returns.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
The point about regressive is that it doesn't need to be higher the less you make; due to marginal utility, a flat tax across the board will disproportionately affect the poor.
Non-regressive taxes are not a free ride.
Also, if you'll read more carefully, you'll see that I said. I did AmeriCorps the year *prior* to the Great Recession, thus putting me in the job market right as it hit. But I don't think I was asking for sympathy; just establishing that I was broke going into the Great Recession, and was broke for most of it due to the suckiness of the job market.
I was actually better positioned than you were- I had a master's degree and a year of job experience at a fairly high level, but yeah, the best jobs I were able to get were part time secretarial work at an IT firm and a job making sandwiches at a ski resort. But that's neither here nor there; my point was that I have looked poverty in the face, though only lightly. It's not like I had a family to support.
Um....I don't think I said anything about theft. Just argued that flat taxes are inherently regressive, and that the poor DO pay their fair share via payroll and sales taxes...more than, in some ways, considering marginal utility. From my perspective, what *you're* advocating is theft. It's not that strange to argue that those making 80% of the money should be providing 80% of the taxes. What's the point of robbing the poor to pay the rich? Why should those making the smallest portion of the income pay the majority of the taxes?
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
If you're paying payroll and sales taxes, it's hardly a free ride. Those are all very regressive taxes. Are you familiar with marginal utility? I don't know how you fared in the Great Recession, but that first year was a PITA for me. I had just finished a year in AmeriCorps, and I was broke. AmeriCorps ended in september, right as the crisis hit. So looking for work was fun, I can tell you that. I took every job I could get my hands on, but my total income that year was less than 10,000 dollars.
And i can tell you, ten percent of my income that year was a big deal to me. $1000 bucks would make me or break me- be the difference between sleeping in my car or making the rent on my 1 room share of a really shitty four bedroom apartment.
Eventually, I was able to find "real" work, and now, while 10% is nothing I'd throw away, it's not as desperately important to me.
Hopefully you can draw your own conclusions from here.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
I've read that arguing with people just makes them cling even more strongly to their beliefs, so instead of arguing, I will simply quote the Economist, and let you draw your own conclusions:
"the lower 40% of households in America pay no net federal income tax. They do pay social-insurance taxes, ie Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a share of corporate taxes and federal excise taxes" (http://www.economist.com/node/21534799)
Someone suggested connecting facebook to a yahoo account. Yahoo pulls all the contacts. You can then connect google+ to that yahoo account, and it'll pull in all of those contacts.
Does it really cost more money? It seems to bring in a hell of a lot more money at the universities I'm familiar with. Take my alma mater for example- they've steeply cut funding to the language, history, (etc) programs, but the Engineering department is rolling in dough. Not only is the school lavishing it with new buildings, it brings in a TON of grants and other funding...which is why the school IS lavishing it with better facilities.
I don't really think we should look at immigration as a problem, but a possible solution. So yes, let the visas stay with demand. But the best thing to do would be to create a way to fast track the people with the skills we need into citizenship. The country has always prospered from brain drain, but now we seem to be trying to reverse the trend. We educate people here, and they gain valuable experience here, but we make it very hard for them to stay- and many of them do want to stay.
I think there's nothing wrong with the format of looking at competing explanations, necessarily. PBS has done some very good documentaries in this style. It can be far more accurate than an authoritative-style one, because they can really educate people on what we know (or think we know) and what is still up for debate... and how these things are "decided". I also think it can do a great job of illustrating exactly why it's fun to be a historian or a scientist or whatever and what those fields are actually like- not coming out and stating the obvious, but trying to find a new way to look at what we know to create a better picture, or discovering new things, and best of all taking everything- our new info, our new theories- and then arguing about them.
But you're right, the format can be abused and used very badly. Quality matters. But I'd point out that the other format can be equally misused- I've seen terrible ones that oversimplified complex material to the point of falsehood, focused on a sensational or politically-motivated set of "facts", made it appear that highly disputed data and theories were accepted, and gave credence to the biggest whackjobs in the field.
If our documentaries have gotten worse, it's not the format change. It's that there's more money in making really crappy and sensationalistic documentaries.
In fact, that's the one thing I know about this game: John Noble's got a role in it. Everything about it could suck, and that alone would make it awesome.
Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. There's less incentive to discriminate against women when men are equally recognized as caregivers for their families ( and are treated as such).
Sometimes it helps to actually click on the articles on google, and see what they cited. A two minute search turned up:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Munster/Industrial/chap17.htm
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/chapman.htm
http://www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5190.html
http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE97/Belenky97/Belenky97.htm
I'm sure a more thorough search would turn up that much more. There's certainly something on JSTOR, for example.
I seem to recall actually that the studies that said 40 hours were the magic number were actually for manual labor, and after that point you did start get errors...and injuries. Studies on desk work were around 30 or 35 hours of productivity. You could have it all in 35 hours, or you could get 35 hours spread over 60, but it all works out the same in the end.
So this culture of putting in more and more hours to prove that you're really dedicated or have a better work ethic than everyone else is ridiculously toxic. For one, it hurts business, because fried employees are not particularly productive employees anyway. Two, it hurts employees, because the ones that do play that game are sacrificing their lives to do so. And three, it keeps qualified, talented people from moving up the ladder. Not every employee is single, and free of dependents. If someone is capable of doing the job, but isn't spending an extra twenty hours a week at the office playing solitaire to prove their "dedication", that should be more reason to give them the job, not less.
Except study after study has shown that a 60 work week produces about as much as a 40 hour work week. Productivity goes through the floor the longer the hours get. So there's nothing to gain. (With the exception of one-time, short-term periods of longer hours, but it's not sustainable after a week or two).
There are a couple of different things to do, but one of the challenges you're going to run into is that most non-profits are kind of too short handed (or short of time) to be able to go, "yes, of course, that'd be awesome!" (That's how many volunteers get turned away as well, actually). A lot of time when volunteers (or donations) turn up, the random employee being offered them is going to be searching their brain for a way to put them to good use, and if one doesn't immediately come to mind, there more likely to turn it down, because they've got more than enough on their plate with everything else. I've been in this position myself. I was working for a collaboration of 60ish non-profits, and someone wanted to donate an old copy machine to a non-profit. They didn't care which, just any one that needed a copier. And it was a pretty good copier, but still. The actually collaboration office couldn't use it, didn't have the room for it, certainly didn't have the money to get rid of it or move it if that became necessary. I sent out many, many calls to every agency I could think of, seeing if they needed a printer. And I'm sure, somewhere, one of them did. But if they had the need, they hadn't yet realized it, or weren't talking about it. And few of the newer ones, that were more desperate for resources, were willing to take the risk of it needing repair work or finding a way to move it from the donor's place to their office.
So here's what I'd suggest. If you have a few good non-profits in mind, ones that you know something about their operations, and there's something *specific* they could use those computers to address....I would offer it to them like that. "Hey, I know you were looking for a way to get the kids in the shelter a way to get on the internet for their homework, I've got some computers for you..." Especially if you can volunteer to provide support. That will actually probably be pretty welcomed.
Second, if you don't have any specific charities in mind, you could see if there's a local non-profit dedicated to fixing up old computers and giving them away. There's usually one in every county, and they'll have the relationships and connections to know who could use it and how to get it to them. I'm sure they wouldn't complain about having the work already done for them.
Third, you could try just contacting various groups and seeing if any are looking for computers. Good groups to start with would be shelters, churches that run shelters/food kitchens/that sort of thing, *domestic* shelters (especially if they have a safe house, but don't be offended if they turn down an offer to help set them up. They guard the locations fiercely, because they must). You could also try the local Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts groups (though I'd recommend avoiding the nearest council, and just seeing about getting in touch with the local volunteers in charge). After school programs might be good, as well as any programs dedicated to helping the elderly and disabled be more self-sufficient. Start by explaining that you've refurbished them (so they're not just "old" computers that need repair) and also, if you're willing to help set them up etc. And there you go.
You probably won't read this, as it'll be at the very bottom, but if you do, I hope it helps.
I agree. I had to roll my eyes at this, from the article:
"Many anthropologists took to the navel gazing of postmodernism and swore off attempts at rationality and science, which were disparaged as weapons of cultural imperialism. Economists and psychologists, for their part, did an end run around the issue with the convenient assumption that their job was to study the human mind stripped of culture. "
And if they'd bother to talk to the anthropologists (or anyone actually familiar with post-modern analysis)...and actually listened, they might have known that it's damned hard to study the human mind stripped of culture. One of the first assumptions of a post-modern analytical approach towards an experiment like the one the article talks about is that the results would be heavily influenced by the culture of the participants. And to point out that using money is a problematic way to judge fairness, because there are such different cultural responses built around it.
Basically, what we've got here is someone walking around in wide-eyed wonder pointing out something that's been considered foundational for several decades as if it's some wild new discovery. It's a little silly.
Didn't this get posted last fall? (Maybe last summer)?
Those prices tend to include the assumption of subsidy for a phone, because pretty much everyone goes that route, so you're kind of paying for it anyway. Though I was reading that one of the carriers has a $40/month plan for people with their own phones (though the article specifically said iphone, I doubt it's restricted to iphones, that wouldn't make any sense) but that they were hardly getting any takers on it. (I think it may have been t-mobile?). well worth looking into, if I weren't moving abroad in two weeks.
You forgot Reno and prostitution.
200 generations....well, that's not a very specific amount of time, so I can't really comment on that specifically, but I wonder if it the whole "more rare genetic variations" has something to do with having bigger and more diverse populations inter-mixing. If there's a general trend in the last couple hundred to couple thousand years, it's that you've got people clumping together in bigger groups, developing complex trade and migration, all of it adding up to a much broader gene pool than the days of the hunter-gatherers going around in relatively closely related groups of 100-200 people, and that in turn leading to a much big genetic variety.
Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.
Dude, everyone pays taxes. They pay income taxes. They pay payroll taxes. They pay sales taxes. It's just that the poor get the income tax refunded to them, making it an interest-free loan to Uncle Sam.
I noticed you completely skipped over the part where you were in the hated 47% by your own admission of income. Where's your self-hatred? Though there's really no argument you could make that'll make me take you seriously now. I suppose that was a lost cause anyway, considering your other statements, like....Oh, noo! I joined americorps! I actually was contributing something to my community! HORRORS! And I was gaining job experience...I think I said that explicitly... so you know, I bettered myself while bettering my community. That's what I did, straight out of school. And I would have done it, recession or no, because it was the right thing to do. And you...worked at Wendy's.
Of the two, I think I know which looks better on the resume. I certainly have never complained about the boost my AmeriCorps gave me, even if the crash of the world economy meant it took a year to find a decent job. Shockingly, employers tend to look well on civic-minded folks who have shown grit and dedication. To say nothing of having held a position at a higher level than a new job seeker could usually attain.
Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't know the least little thing about economics. Utility theory isn't subjective to me. I'm not pulling it out of my ass when I say that $1k is more valuable to someone making 10k/year than $100,000 is to someone making $1m. It's one of the fundamentals of the dismal science.
As to spoiled punks...Dude, I work in the non-profit industry. If you think I'm looking for success or wealth, you're obviously smoking something. Seriously, maybe you should talk to someone. You know what non-profit work is? It's working your ass off for half the money you could be making in the for-profit sector, pulling ridiculously long hours, and giving everything you've got to a cause. Because you actually want to see the world become a better place.
I don't think I'm the greedy one. I'm not the one pushing to crush the poor into the dust in order to line the pockets of the wealthy with a few more dollars that mean less than nothing to them.
Have you ever heard of the just world fallacy? You're a prime example. You're so sure of the virtue of the rich (they worked hard for that money!) and so sure of the moral depravity of the poor (nothing better than envious thieves!)
Oh- one question. So you were making minimum wage, and if our incomes were similar, you were *certainly* not paying any federal income tax.
The reason I ask is that it's occurred to me that the fallacy that the 53%ers may be falling into is thinking that those not paying federal income tax are simply not having it deducted. That's not the case; they just get all of it back from Uncle Sam in their tax returns.
The point about regressive is that it doesn't need to be higher the less you make; due to marginal utility, a flat tax across the board will disproportionately affect the poor.
Non-regressive taxes are not a free ride.
Also, if you'll read more carefully, you'll see that I said. I did AmeriCorps the year *prior* to the Great Recession, thus putting me in the job market right as it hit. But I don't think I was asking for sympathy; just establishing that I was broke going into the Great Recession, and was broke for most of it due to the suckiness of the job market.
I was actually better positioned than you were- I had a master's degree and a year of job experience at a fairly high level, but yeah, the best jobs I were able to get were part time secretarial work at an IT firm and a job making sandwiches at a ski resort. But that's neither here nor there; my point was that I have looked poverty in the face, though only lightly. It's not like I had a family to support.
Um....I don't think I said anything about theft. Just argued that flat taxes are inherently regressive, and that the poor DO pay their fair share via payroll and sales taxes...more than, in some ways, considering marginal utility. From my perspective, what *you're* advocating is theft. It's not that strange to argue that those making 80% of the money should be providing 80% of the taxes. What's the point of robbing the poor to pay the rich? Why should those making the smallest portion of the income pay the majority of the taxes?
If you're paying payroll and sales taxes, it's hardly a free ride. Those are all very regressive taxes. Are you familiar with marginal utility? I don't know how you fared in the Great Recession, but that first year was a PITA for me. I had just finished a year in AmeriCorps, and I was broke. AmeriCorps ended in september, right as the crisis hit. So looking for work was fun, I can tell you that. I took every job I could get my hands on, but my total income that year was less than 10,000 dollars.
And i can tell you, ten percent of my income that year was a big deal to me. $1000 bucks would make me or break me- be the difference between sleeping in my car or making the rent on my 1 room share of a really shitty four bedroom apartment.
Eventually, I was able to find "real" work, and now, while 10% is nothing I'd throw away, it's not as desperately important to me.
Hopefully you can draw your own conclusions from here.
I've read that arguing with people just makes them cling even more strongly to their beliefs, so instead of arguing, I will simply quote the Economist, and let you draw your own conclusions:
"the lower 40% of households in America pay no net federal income tax. They do pay social-insurance taxes, ie Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a share of corporate taxes and federal excise taxes" (http://www.economist.com/node/21534799)
It says 2006-2010. I think it's a bit of both.
Someone suggested connecting facebook to a yahoo account. Yahoo pulls all the contacts. You can then connect google+ to that yahoo account, and it'll pull in all of those contacts.
Does it really cost more money? It seems to bring in a hell of a lot more money at the universities I'm familiar with. Take my alma mater for example- they've steeply cut funding to the language, history, (etc) programs, but the Engineering department is rolling in dough. Not only is the school lavishing it with new buildings, it brings in a TON of grants and other funding...which is why the school IS lavishing it with better facilities.
I don't really think we should look at immigration as a problem, but a possible solution. So yes, let the visas stay with demand. But the best thing to do would be to create a way to fast track the people with the skills we need into citizenship. The country has always prospered from brain drain, but now we seem to be trying to reverse the trend. We educate people here, and they gain valuable experience here, but we make it very hard for them to stay- and many of them do want to stay.
I think there's nothing wrong with the format of looking at competing explanations, necessarily. PBS has done some very good documentaries in this style. It can be far more accurate than an authoritative-style one, because they can really educate people on what we know (or think we know) and what is still up for debate... and how these things are "decided". I also think it can do a great job of illustrating exactly why it's fun to be a historian or a scientist or whatever and what those fields are actually like- not coming out and stating the obvious, but trying to find a new way to look at what we know to create a better picture, or discovering new things, and best of all taking everything- our new info, our new theories- and then arguing about them.
But you're right, the format can be abused and used very badly. Quality matters. But I'd point out that the other format can be equally misused- I've seen terrible ones that oversimplified complex material to the point of falsehood, focused on a sensational or politically-motivated set of "facts", made it appear that highly disputed data and theories were accepted, and gave credence to the biggest whackjobs in the field.
If our documentaries have gotten worse, it's not the format change. It's that there's more money in making really crappy and sensationalistic documentaries.
My question exactly. What the hell were the designers thinking? Creeper thoughts, apparently.
John fuckin' Noble.
In fact, that's the one thing I know about this game: John Noble's got a role in it. Everything about it could suck, and that alone would make it awesome.
Too far fetched...compared to SG:U? They're all set in the same universe- the same far-fetchedness applies. That's kind of the point.
Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."