Will the new spec be able to solve the problem of not knowing which way up to insert the USB plug?
No, it won't.
It will make it so that it doesn't matter which way around you try to ram it in - at least as long as you don't go more than maybe 1Â off-axis from the 180Â symmetry - but it will never solve the problem of people not knowing; they'll just migrate to not knowing if it goes in horizontal, or vertical.
Okay, bomb making materials, then. (various governments)
Or Nazi propaganda materials. (Germany)
Or anything that tends to tick people of a certain religion off (various governments)
Or anything that offends a certain king (various governments).
I'm sure we can find something along the scale of publicly available material (and yes, child pornography is also publicly available, even if not 'a matter of official public record') where we can both contemplate whether that material not being easily found through services is a good thing, or a bad thing.
They specifically point out that even if Site X has a legitimate reason to have that personal information online, it does not automatically mean that Service Y (in this case, Google), has a legitimate reason to process that data in the ways they do.
Site X will still be available. It might not be easy to find it, of course, but cue the "the internet routes around censorship" mantra.
I've been to a gun range in the U.S. a few times, and you're right that most of them are a friendly bunch just shooting for fun. It's not them that people are worried about, though.
It's more the people who will threaten with targeted physical violence when faced with even the potential for something they ideologically dislike; like the people who felt the need to threaten a gun store owner; that gun store owner had planned to sell a so-called smart gun, even gave good arguments as to why he wanted to sell them (give people an option), but was obviously swayed by the counter-argument of physical violence. ( That gun store owner himself wasn't shy to suggest violence against politicians who would make 'smart' guns mandatory, rather than against him. )
Those people don't shoot for fun, they don't own a gun for protection, they own a gun and shoot to 'win' arguments they can't win through discourse.
It's all about me! me!! me!! and screw the consequences, especially for the environment, our grandkids, or poor people.
Indeed - though I wonder why, if they feel that the science side is too one-sided (not sure how that works out, as long as it's science), they wouldn't simply counter with a new program in social studies / economics. Surely they can convince the kids that, yes, coal is a horrible pollutant - but considering it employs their daddy, uncle, aunt, Bob, John and Mary, and brings in $xB to the state, it really isn't all that bad.
Let kids make up their own minds about whether or not they'd rather go for cleaner but more expensive sources.
At least, that's how creationism vs evolution was handled for my generation. Evolution (science/biology class), creationism (religious/social (not as much - was more about the impact of religion than the content of those religions) studies). That still seems like a fine approach to me.
Oh I agree - though I think that at the point where you start localizing it (admittedly I don't know if that went beyond translating) and marketing it to those other markets, given the nature of the game, it can't hurt to give it a once-over for cultural differences.
I also agree that, fundamentally, what should be targeted is the cause for these artificial limitations. However, in the mean time, Nintendo was in a position to at least remedy the limitations, if not the cause.
And - broken record here - I also agree that at times, the outrage can be misplaced and does more harm than good. Judging when that is the case, though, is pretty difficult. Case in point, I'm not sure I agree with the initial complaint having been made so widely.. things going viral can have that effect, of course, but often it's that virality that gets people to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, rather than speaking their own opinion on a matter that is actually relevant and important to them. I.e. I suspect many of the people who joined in that complaint never played that game, may not have bothered to customize their Mii, or even own a Wii to begin with. That doesn't nullify their right to complain, but it does make it seem a little disingenuous. However, given Nintendo's initial response, I can certainly see why so many LGBT(...) complained at that point, as the scope appeared to move from 'some localized game' to "Nintendo's - the corporate structure's - stance on this".
I'll definitely check out your website:)... actually, having looked at the gallery (admittedly more to find out about your electronics interest briefly mentioned about on the front page than for the topic at hand), I realize that I'd actually read that Telegraaf article, and find many more interesting things to read. First you had my curiosity, then you had my attention, now you have an entry in my bookmarks list. ( Though.. where do I find more information about your electronics projects? )
Are we intersex people represented in this game or games in general? Movies? Media? No way.
Yet we're not complaining
Perhaps you should be - or at least, more people should be.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there are some practical reasons why you simply cannot cater to everybody - facebook tries, and basically lets people put whatever in there, but that's not something you can directly base consequences on; then again, wouldn't basing consequences on it be a form of discrimination?
unless it's obviously discriminatory
Isn't the very notion that code had to be written that says "if both Miis are male or both Miis are female, then do not allow marriage code to run" 'obviously discriminatory'? Sure, it's no "God hates fags", but it is a very clear and conscious choice.
Let me put it another way - assume that the game let Miis identify as Male, Female, or Intersex - and Male/Female, Male/Male, Female/Female Miis could marry - but Intersex Miis couldn't marry Male, Female, or other Intersex Miis in the game. Would you feel that as being discriminatory, or as merely an artistic choice?
The way I read it, this wouldn't actually have affected you if you were already a user of FireFox; i.e. it would be for new users only. You would still have had the existing things with your most frequently visited sites in them. (depending on your version of firefox, that in itself might be new, I suppose).
Well, I agree that whatever relationship people have with their right/left hand is none of our business either, I'm not sure that's quite as apt an analogy.
Maybe if a Mii can be specified to be left-/right-handed, and then only right-handed Miis can marry, I can see some points being raised by interdextrous marriage proponents and angry internet letters being written about homodextrophobia.
Wouldn't a 'pure' Firefox also do away with the default search provider - which is effectively whoever bids highest for the position anyway?
I do think the 'new tab promotion' bit would have been bad, but mostly from a "what's next?" perspective. Otherwise, it would still be a page you can customize - including just deleting the promotional bits - that essentially has the promoted bits replaced as you browse, and if you really wanted to, never have to see more than once after installation as it is; and if you do, at least there will be some content there instead of vast emptiness. If it means Mozilla gets a bit more money, or at least money from a more diverse pool, I would have been fine with it.
What about adoption? Children without marriage? Poly-amorous relationships? Common enough in my area that no one blinks an eye, and yet they're not in the game.
Yes, but then you're actually arguing my point for me. Marriage is in the game. It's just that there's a check in the code that says "if (MiiA.gender == m && MiiB.gender == f) { okiedoke; }" which quite actively blocks two male or two female Miis from marrying each other.
Unless, of course, you view 'gay marriage' as distinctly different from 'straight marriage', because then your argument makes sense.
Just to address this bit - I meant specifically as a defense strategy, as Nintendo had been painted negatively in the news, especially after their first response's gaffe; http://abcnews.go.com/Entertai...
( As opposed to saying "you're right, that is a bit odd isn't it? we'll make a patch available in the coming weeks." or sticking to the "the game is what it is and the code and content simply doesn't allow for gay marriages - don't like it? don't play it." (paraphrased) )
Yes, and that's the 'slippery slope' argument one could make.
However, "reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization". What society are you living in where you can legally marry animals and/or power tools, and are either of those characters that you [i]can[/i] play as in the first place?
Not that I completely disagree, but if you're going to make a 'life simulation' game localized to a given market, then it's not all that far-fetched to make it reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization, or accept that you'll get complaints if you don't.
Ultimately Nintendo's solution is to say "we'll look at it IF we make a sequel" - it's not much of a commitment, more of a PR strategy.
The thing is, not a single one of the above is about price.
And yet, that is eventually what it comes down to, is it not? Everybody is apparently willing to pay if only A, B, C... X, Y, Z. But rarely is there an amount attached.
Netflix launched in The Netherlands to much furore. We're a bit on now, and guess what? Most of the subscribers are still downloading, some even started downloading more; they found a series they liked, then realized that Netflix only has seasons 1 through 3, even though season 4 is currently airing in the U.S., so off to TPB / sickbeard it is.
Season 4 is also, however, available on HBO GO. But people are not willing to pay for the HBO GO subscription in addition to Netflix. You might say your 'a la carte' deals with that, but then it still comes back to 'how much'? After all, if they pay â8,99 (prices were increased recently) per month for Netflix which gives them 'watch any show you like (as long as it's black)', do you think they would be keen on paying â0.99 per episode of that series? Let's say there's 12 episodes per season - that's then 132% of the price of Netflix (which is still cheaper than getting the HBO package at â15,50/month - though that does of course get you all the other movies/series/etc. on the HBO channels available).
So, what are some of your suggestions as to price points for various features?
It's amusing how this went from "they can't demand" in terms of a legal viewpoint to 'sure they can, they just rough you up a little if you decline and that's if you're lucky'.
You're right, then. They can demand it in that sense.
I, a common citizen, can also demand that you give me the keys to your car, as long as I have leverage over you. I never said that it would be legal for me to do so, but hey.. what's a little rampant abuse between friends?:)
You can be "stopped by" all the time. ( Not that I agree that they should be allowed to do that, but such is the law - get the law changed. ) Being stopped by doesn't mean being searched. And searched doesn't necessarily mean searched without consent. etc.
That's one heck of a crappy insurance for electronics items (unless you're counting it as part of the home contents insurance (or similar constructs) and thinking "if people be thievin', they likely be thievin' the lot")
Except that the phone is not broken, it's redistributed.
Yes, I know, there's still whatever productivity that the original owner of the phone would have had that is lost, or maybe sales of $1.99 games, etc.
I'm not saying I agree with the stance - but that is how many people view it. Same way I'm not a fan of throw-away electronics, but I can hardly blame people for throwing them out when it's cheaper to do so and get a new gadget than it is to (try to) repair the old one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it won't.
It will make it so that it doesn't matter which way around you try to ram it in - at least as long as you don't go more than maybe 1Â off-axis from the 180Â symmetry - but it will never solve the problem of people not knowing; they'll just migrate to not knowing if it goes in horizontal, or vertical.
Of course I see that - the debate would be about whether that is always undesirable.
To which I would suggest that yes, you always find it undesirable.
Unfortunately, that's not the reality we live in. Though there's always darknets.
Okay, bomb making materials, then. (various governments)
Or Nazi propaganda materials. (Germany)
Or anything that tends to tick people of a certain religion off (various governments)
Or anything that offends a certain king (various governments).
I'm sure we can find something along the scale of publicly available material (and yes, child pornography is also publicly available, even if not 'a matter of official public record') where we can both contemplate whether that material not being easily found through services is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Yes - and while it's terribly cliché, I need only point to child pornography materials to show that this is already happening, and generally opted into (by both the general populace, and by businesses themselves, voluntarily).
You could try reading TFS, if not TFA.
They specifically point out that even if Site X has a legitimate reason to have that personal information online, it does not automatically mean that Service Y (in this case, Google), has a legitimate reason to process that data in the ways they do.
Site X will still be available. It might not be easy to find it, of course, but cue the "the internet routes around censorship" mantra.
I've been to a gun range in the U.S. a few times, and you're right that most of them are a friendly bunch just shooting for fun.
It's not them that people are worried about, though.
It's more the people who will threaten with targeted physical violence when faced with even the potential for something they ideologically dislike; like the people who felt the need to threaten a gun store owner; that gun store owner had planned to sell a so-called smart gun, even gave good arguments as to why he wanted to sell them (give people an option), but was obviously swayed by the counter-argument of physical violence.
( That gun store owner himself wasn't shy to suggest violence against politicians who would make 'smart' guns mandatory, rather than against him. )
Those people don't shoot for fun, they don't own a gun for protection, they own a gun and shoot to 'win' arguments they can't win through discourse.
Indeed - though I wonder why, if they feel that the science side is too one-sided (not sure how that works out, as long as it's science), they wouldn't simply counter with a new program in social studies / economics. Surely they can convince the kids that, yes, coal is a horrible pollutant - but considering it employs their daddy, uncle, aunt, Bob, John and Mary, and brings in $xB to the state, it really isn't all that bad.
Let kids make up their own minds about whether or not they'd rather go for cleaner but more expensive sources.
At least, that's how creationism vs evolution was handled for my generation. Evolution (science/biology class), creationism (religious/social (not as much - was more about the impact of religion than the content of those religions) studies). That still seems like a fine approach to me.
Oh I agree - though I think that at the point where you start localizing it (admittedly I don't know if that went beyond translating) and marketing it to those other markets, given the nature of the game, it can't hurt to give it a once-over for cultural differences.
I also agree that, fundamentally, what should be targeted is the cause for these artificial limitations. However, in the mean time, Nintendo was in a position to at least remedy the limitations, if not the cause.
And - broken record here - I also agree that at times, the outrage can be misplaced and does more harm than good. Judging when that is the case, though, is pretty difficult. Case in point, I'm not sure I agree with the initial complaint having been made so widely.. things going viral can have that effect, of course, but often it's that virality that gets people to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, rather than speaking their own opinion on a matter that is actually relevant and important to them. I.e. I suspect many of the people who joined in that complaint never played that game, may not have bothered to customize their Mii, or even own a Wii to begin with. That doesn't nullify their right to complain, but it does make it seem a little disingenuous. However, given Nintendo's initial response, I can certainly see why so many LGBT(...) complained at that point, as the scope appeared to move from 'some localized game' to "Nintendo's - the corporate structure's - stance on this".
I'll definitely check out your website :) ... actually, having looked at the gallery (admittedly more to find out about your electronics interest briefly mentioned about on the front page than for the topic at hand), I realize that I'd actually read that Telegraaf article, and find many more interesting things to read. First you had my curiosity, then you had my attention, now you have an entry in my bookmarks list.
( Though.. where do I find more information about your electronics projects? )
Perhaps you should be - or at least, more people should be.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there are some practical reasons why you simply cannot cater to everybody - facebook tries, and basically lets people put whatever in there, but that's not something you can directly base consequences on; then again, wouldn't basing consequences on it be a form of discrimination?
Isn't the very notion that code had to be written that says "if both Miis are male or both Miis are female, then do not allow marriage code to run" 'obviously discriminatory'? Sure, it's no "God hates fags", but it is a very clear and conscious choice.
Let me put it another way - assume that the game let Miis identify as Male, Female, or Intersex - and Male/Female, Male/Male, Female/Female Miis could marry - but Intersex Miis couldn't marry Male, Female, or other Intersex Miis in the game. Would you feel that as being discriminatory, or as merely an artistic choice?
The way I read it, this wouldn't actually have affected you if you were already a user of FireFox; i.e. it would be for new users only. You would still have had the existing things with your most frequently visited sites in them. (depending on your version of firefox, that in itself might be new, I suppose).
Well, I agree that whatever relationship people have with their right/left hand is none of our business either, I'm not sure that's quite as apt an analogy.
Maybe if a Mii can be specified to be left-/right-handed, and then only right-handed Miis can marry, I can see some points being raised by interdextrous marriage proponents and angry internet letters being written about homodextrophobia.
Wouldn't a 'pure' Firefox also do away with the default search provider - which is effectively whoever bids highest for the position anyway?
I do think the 'new tab promotion' bit would have been bad, but mostly from a "what's next?" perspective. Otherwise, it would still be a page you can customize - including just deleting the promotional bits - that essentially has the promoted bits replaced as you browse, and if you really wanted to, never have to see more than once after installation as it is; and if you do, at least there will be some content there instead of vast emptiness. If it means Mozilla gets a bit more money, or at least money from a more diverse pool, I would have been fine with it.
By all means, offer up a better parallel. Not that these issues should need parallels, but some people apparently do.
QS
Yes, but then you're actually arguing my point for me. Marriage is in the game. It's just that there's a check in the code that says "if (MiiA.gender == m && MiiB.gender == f) { okiedoke; }" which quite actively blocks two male or two female Miis from marrying each other.
Unless, of course, you view 'gay marriage' as distinctly different from 'straight marriage', because then your argument makes sense.
Just to address this bit - I meant specifically as a defense strategy, as Nintendo had been painted negatively in the news, especially after their first response's gaffe;
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertai...
( As opposed to saying "you're right, that is a bit odd isn't it? we'll make a patch available in the coming weeks." or sticking to the "the game is what it is and the code and content simply doesn't allow for gay marriages - don't like it? don't play it." (paraphrased) )
Yes, and that's the 'slippery slope' argument one could make.
However, "reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization". What society are you living in where you can legally marry animals and/or power tools, and are either of those characters that you [i]can[/i] play as in the first place?
Now read that with s/LGBT/Black/
Not that I completely disagree, but if you're going to make a 'life simulation' game localized to a given market, then it's not all that far-fetched to make it reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization, or accept that you'll get complaints if you don't.
Ultimately Nintendo's solution is to say "we'll look at it IF we make a sequel" - it's not much of a commitment, more of a PR strategy.
And yet, that is eventually what it comes down to, is it not? Everybody is apparently willing to pay if only A, B, C ... X, Y, Z. But rarely is there an amount attached.
Netflix launched in The Netherlands to much furore. We're a bit on now, and guess what? Most of the subscribers are still downloading, some even started downloading more; they found a series they liked, then realized that Netflix only has seasons 1 through 3, even though season 4 is currently airing in the U.S., so off to TPB / sickbeard it is.
Season 4 is also, however, available on HBO GO. But people are not willing to pay for the HBO GO subscription in addition to Netflix. You might say your 'a la carte' deals with that, but then it still comes back to 'how much'? After all, if they pay â8,99 (prices were increased recently) per month for Netflix which gives them 'watch any show you like (as long as it's black)', do you think they would be keen on paying â0.99 per episode of that series? Let's say there's 12 episodes per season - that's then 132% of the price of Netflix (which is still cheaper than getting the HBO package at â15,50/month - though that does of course get you all the other movies/series/etc. on the HBO channels available).
So, what are some of your suggestions as to price points for various features?
It's amusing how this went from "they can't demand" in terms of a legal viewpoint to 'sure they can, they just rough you up a little if you decline and that's if you're lucky'.
You're right, then. They can demand it in that sense.
I, a common citizen, can also demand that you give me the keys to your car, as long as I have leverage over you. I never said that it would be legal for me to do so, but hey.. what's a little rampant abuse between friends? :)
You can be "stopped by" all the time. ( Not that I agree that they should be allowed to do that, but such is the law - get the law changed. ) Being stopped by doesn't mean being searched. And searched doesn't necessarily mean searched without consent. etc.
That's one heck of a crappy insurance for electronics items (unless you're counting it as part of the home contents insurance (or similar constructs) and thinking "if people be thievin', they likely be thievin' the lot")
You mean exactly like it says in the quote?
As I quoted:
Which is where the "they can't just demand" bit comes in.
Except that the phone is not broken, it's redistributed.
Yes, I know, there's still whatever productivity that the original owner of the phone would have had that is lost, or maybe sales of $1.99 games, etc.
I'm not saying I agree with the stance - but that is how many people view it. Same way I'm not a fan of throw-away electronics, but I can hardly blame people for throwing them out when it's cheaper to do so and get a new gadget than it is to (try to) repair the old one.
Did you... did you just summarize the summary?