According to Circuit City's new homepage, CC's Canadian operations "will continue" and "are not affected by the liquidation of Circuit City's U.S. operations."
Suddenly I'm glad that my wife didn't argue with me when I said "no thanks" to the $200 "extended warranty" Circuit City offered us when we bought a flat screen TV there last week.
I'm not a Steam basher, but it occurs to me that most of the games I've been enjoying lately are almost 20 years old and developed by companies that either don't exist anymore or are shadows of their former selves that don't support their old products.
I'm very glad the ability to play those games does not in any way depend on the continued success of a particular publisher.
I guess the typical gamer who doesn't play anything older than a year or two has little reason not to use Steam, though.
I hate to admit it, but you're right. 8 years ago I voted for a third party because I didn't care for Gore and really didn't like Bush. The whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing really pissed me off--"What, you think you should automatically get my vote without having to appeal to me??" was my response to that. I was in a red state where my vote had no chance of mattering either way, but I felt like an "express my disappointment with both parties" vote would make a better statement than a "lesser of two evils" vote.
Looking back on that now, I'm humbled by the realization of how wrong I was to equate the two parties. Yes, they both suck--I mean really, REALLY suck--but I now know that one of them is shamelessly happy to screw this country up far beyond what I previously imagined.
Sure, beyond a certain point there is little benefit to making the yellow lights longer, but there is a certain minimum length (depending on the speed of traffic) of time the yellow needs to last in order for cars to be able to either clear the intersection before the red, or safely stop before reaching the intersection.
Yellow lights should never be so short that a driver literally has to decide between running a red or slamming the breaks. But, according to the article, that's exactly what's going on in some places, and there is reason to believe that the shortening of the yellow lights is being done purposefully for financially predatory reasons.
Speaking of growth, will Nintendo even let a game like GTA on the wii?
I'd say the existence Scarface, The Godfather (GTA-like games, one of which goes overboard with verbal profanity), and Manhunt 2 (also by Rockstar--and far more disturbingly violent than any GTA) on the Wii make the answer to your question obvious.
The question, then, is simply whether Rockstar wants to make a GTA game for the Wii, and the answer is apparently "no".
They happily negotiated less than 3% for cost of living increase for the last contract. Unfortunately that was nearly erased by them raising the union dues 2.5%.
So your Union dues are nearly equivalent to your entire salary? Or did you mean to say that they raised the dues by 2.5% of your salary?
If you believe that your body requires a supernatural soul to animate it with intelligence and desires, than teleporation likely isn't for you. If you believe that you are essentially a matrix of interacting atoms, a materialist in other words, than it shouldn't bother you.
That's mostly true, but even if you are a materialist the idea of a teleportation that makes a copy and destroys the original can still be a bit disturbing. Even if you don't believe in a spirit, you still have a stream of consciousness that will come to an end. You are going to experience dying, however instantaneous and painless that experience may be. Your copy may feel perfectly like you, and like their stream of consciousness has continued uninterrupted, and it will certainly make no difference to others who communicate with him and find him to be identical to you. But YOU, the person at the beginning of the teleportation, are not the one experiencing what your copy is experiencing. You're dead. Just like you'd be dead if, say, a copy was made of you (without you being destroyed at the time) and you were murdered a few days later.
I think you may be missing the important distinction between a U.S. Senator--of which there are 2 from each State (100 total)--who legislates on a national level, and a State Senator who takes part in the legislature of a specific State. State Senators are usually not nationally known--hell, most Americans probably cannot even name any of the State Senators from their own State.
It is typical for top U.S. presidential candidates to have experience as either a U.S. Senator (the highest and most prestigious legislative position) or a State Governor (Governors often argue that their experience in an executive role makes them more prepared to be president than Senators). Either way, they usually have at least more than one term of experience as Governors or U.S. Senators before being taken seriously as presidential candidates.
What makes Barack Obama's current popularity/support relatively odd is that he is only half-way through his first term as a U.S. Senator, before which he was an Illinois State Senator that most of the country had never heard of (and, as stated above, most Illinois residents probably didn't know him either!).
It's interesting how much people exaggerate what's going on. Security agents can either check people at random, check people who look suspicious, or (ideally, IMO) do a combination of the two.
If they're going to check people who they think look suspicious, then they might as well at least get some formal training on what cues they should be looking for, and how to differentiate between those cues and more innocent anxiety. That stuff will never be foolproof, but I fail to see how it's worse than not having any training on the matter at all.
Yes, you are absolutely correct (admittedly, I'm ignoring the potential counterargument that the lack of terrorist-related deaths may be _due_ to the attention given to "homeland security"). Now, try getting elected to a political office after explaining to your constituents that the number of deaths caused on 911 is relatively insignificant and that increased security at airports and borders is thus not worth funding.
A number of my friends are regretting the purchase of the Wii because of this reason, wishing they'd bought a 360 instead.
...
2) Lack of availability of the Wii. I'm not used to having to put so much work into acquiring a $250 piece of technology one year after its initial release; my mornings are usually quite busy. As a result I still don't have one.
Okay, so why not just buy a Wii from one of your friends who apparently doesn't want one anymore and would love the $250 to put toward a 360?
A few people have mentioned D&D games... Bioware is not making D&D games anymore. NWN 2 (like KOTOR 2) was designed by Obsidian, not Bioware. Bioware seems to have gotten frustrated with the limitations of using others' IP, which is why they are using their own IP for the games they are working on now, like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Dragon Age--not some future D&D game--is their spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and NWN.
You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.
What do "the Democrats" have to do with it (outside of commenting to the media)?
The last paragraph in the article mentions the judge in Libby's case:
A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the ''overwhelming'' evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the ESRB ratings.
As a simple but applicable analogy, M for Mature is generally analogous to R ratings for movies, and the AO/Adults Only rating is more analogous to X ratings for movies (i.e. generally reserved for porn).
It doesn't make sense, since Football is a SPORT and there are other sports games out there besides madden.
Admittedly I'm making an (educated) guess here, but it was a JOKE, most likely based on the fact that Madden gets a lot more hype (and profit, probably) than the other EA Sports games.
My initial reaction was "Great idea, it would get all the 5-10 year olds off of serious MMORPGs!"
But then I felt a surge of disappointment, because somewhere in the back of my mind I know the dark, horrible truth: Those 5-10 year olds are really 15-50 year olds who ACT like 5-10 year olds, except they probably wouldn't be as interested in Pokemon as real 5-10 year olds. Oh well, the thought of seeing some improvement in the maturity level present on my WoW servers was nice for the half-second that it lasted.
However, I tend to think of my self as an altruistic person and when I play WoW I find I like to help fellow guildmembers, Strangers on the Alliance side, and occasionally even a Horde player as a nice surprise. For me, giving, helping make me feel better whether it is in a game or in real life.
I was going to mention WoW, but since you already did I'll expand on what you said.
With the relative anonymity of an on-line game environment, there is generally less to lose from non-altruistic behavior, and less to gain from altruistic behavior. Hence, the predominance of assholes in on-line games. It thus occurred to me that a game like WoW could actually be better than "real life" scenarios for testing a distinction between genuine altruism and altruistic-seeming behavior that is aimed at maintaining convenient social relations.
Of course, the difference in behavior might be less due to differences in altruism, and more due to differences in how much people value positive social relations on-line. There are so many potential variables involved, it's difficult to be sure what you're actually testing.
Re:Aliens, ghosts, and gods never leave evidence .
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of the five characteristics you listed, three (the omnis) are pretty clear and simple to define. The other two--perfect and good--are not so simple to define. Now, I'm not Christian and my beliefs about divinity differ significantly from those of Christians, but in defense of those who believe in a higher power that is "good", I would like to say this:
Most people seem to think that if a "god" was "good" and in control of everything, life would be some kind of easy utopia where no one has any hardships and nothing "bad" happens. IMO, this is a severe misunderstanding of what life is about. Life is about learning, growing, and experiencing; about facing hardships and overcoming them, or at least learning from them. This necessarily requires plenty of "bad" things to happen. Different people leading different lives have different trials to face and different lessons to learn. Without challenges and difficulties, there is no drive for any kind of improvement or advancement. If our existence is somehow the result of some kind of divine entity, I believe said divine entity has generally good intentions, but does not mean for us to be coddled pets, dependent on our god for some kind of perpetual state of easy contentment.
The above is just my view, which I'm not interested in trying to impose on anyone else; the main point is that it is not illogical to believe there is a "good" god in a world full of evils.
Re:Aliens, ghosts, and gods never leave evidence .
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
But doesn't God say that he cannot and would not prove that he exists because proof denies Faith and what is God without Faith? So, theoretically, if God were to prove he exists, he would be proving he does not exist.
That's only true if you assume that whoever claimed that about God wasn't just making it up. It is logically possible for God to exist in some way, but for religions to still make up plenty of bullcrap about He/It/Whatever. Considering that's exactly the kind of manipulative statement one would use if one wanted to prod the sheep into following one's own religion (while absolving oneself of any responsibility to validate it), I'd certainly vote for it not being divinely inspired.
I suspect that if a divine entity (or multiple divine entities) exists, it/they will go on existing just fine even if someone manages to prove it.
Ethically speaking, I personally don't believe there's much wrong with downloading music one has already purchased. I certainly would have done the same thing in his situation, without feeling at all guilty about it. But it's worth pointing out that legally, the profane Anonymous Coward is correct--you do not buy any kind of license or any metaphysical "rights" to the music when you buy CDs. You are really just buying the physical CD itself; that's it. That was clarified right here on Slashdot in an interview with attorneys who defend against RIAA lawsuits.
Here is a quote:
Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle. This has been the year of banning activities in the name of public health. Talk about violating civil liberties!
The trans-fat ban only applies to restaurants, so restaurant customers in NYC will hopefully be able to go out to eat without having to stress over whether their food is loaded up with one of the greatest (and most unnecessary!) evils the food industry has assaulted us with. Meanwhile, idiots who don't care about their health are still free to go to the local grocery store and purchase their artery-clogging, heart-destroying margarine and Crisco, so I fail to see how this is a violation of civil liberties.
Also, I don't know the details of Seattle's smoking ban, but at least in New York the smoking ban only applies to enclosed public places like restaurants and bars. While I agree that one should have the right to harm themselves for pleasure (e.g. smoking) if they really desire, an individual's right to harm himself should stop when it harms others, just as an individual's right to extend his fist stops at someone else's face. Banning smoking from places where innocent people can be harmed by the second-hand smoke is a decision in favor of, not against, civil liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
That's "biracial overlords", you insensitive clod!
(Though I also would have accepted "secret Muslim overlords.")
According to Circuit City's new homepage, CC's Canadian operations "will continue" and "are not affected by the liquidation of Circuit City's U.S. operations."
Suddenly I'm glad that my wife didn't argue with me when I said "no thanks" to the $200 "extended warranty" Circuit City offered us when we bought a flat screen TV there last week.
I'm not a Steam basher, but it occurs to me that most of the games I've been enjoying lately are almost 20 years old and developed by companies that either don't exist anymore or are shadows of their former selves that don't support their old products.
I'm very glad the ability to play those games does not in any way depend on the continued success of a particular publisher.
I guess the typical gamer who doesn't play anything older than a year or two has little reason not to use Steam, though.
I hate to admit it, but you're right. 8 years ago I voted for a third party because I didn't care for Gore and really didn't like Bush. The whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing really pissed me off--"What, you think you should automatically get my vote without having to appeal to me??" was my response to that. I was in a red state where my vote had no chance of mattering either way, but I felt like an "express my disappointment with both parties" vote would make a better statement than a "lesser of two evils" vote.
Looking back on that now, I'm humbled by the realization of how wrong I was to equate the two parties. Yes, they both suck--I mean really, REALLY suck--but I now know that one of them is shamelessly happy to screw this country up far beyond what I previously imagined.
Sure, beyond a certain point there is little benefit to making the yellow lights longer, but there is a certain minimum length (depending on the speed of traffic) of time the yellow needs to last in order for cars to be able to either clear the intersection before the red, or safely stop before reaching the intersection.
Yellow lights should never be so short that a driver literally has to decide between running a red or slamming the breaks. But, according to the article, that's exactly what's going on in some places, and there is reason to believe that the shortening of the yellow lights is being done purposefully for financially predatory reasons.
Speaking of growth, will Nintendo even let a game like GTA on the wii?
I'd say the existence Scarface, The Godfather (GTA-like games, one of which goes overboard with verbal profanity), and Manhunt 2 (also by Rockstar--and far more disturbingly violent than any GTA) on the Wii make the answer to your question obvious.
The question, then, is simply whether Rockstar wants to make a GTA game for the Wii, and the answer is apparently "no".
They happily negotiated less than 3% for cost of living increase for the last contract. Unfortunately that was nearly erased by them raising the union dues 2.5%.
So your Union dues are nearly equivalent to your entire salary? Or did you mean to say that they raised the dues by 2.5% of your salary?
If you believe that your body requires a supernatural soul to animate it with intelligence and desires, than teleporation likely isn't for you. If you believe that you are essentially a matrix of interacting atoms, a materialist in other words, than it shouldn't bother you.
That's mostly true, but even if you are a materialist the idea of a teleportation that makes a copy and destroys the original can still be a bit disturbing. Even if you don't believe in a spirit, you still have a stream of consciousness that will come to an end. You are going to experience dying, however instantaneous and painless that experience may be. Your copy may feel perfectly like you, and like their stream of consciousness has continued uninterrupted, and it will certainly make no difference to others who communicate with him and find him to be identical to you. But YOU, the person at the beginning of the teleportation, are not the one experiencing what your copy is experiencing. You're dead. Just like you'd be dead if, say, a copy was made of you (without you being destroyed at the time) and you were murdered a few days later.
I think you may be missing the important distinction between a U.S. Senator--of which there are 2 from each State (100 total)--who legislates on a national level, and a State Senator who takes part in the legislature of a specific State. State Senators are usually not nationally known--hell, most Americans probably cannot even name any of the State Senators from their own State.
It is typical for top U.S. presidential candidates to have experience as either a U.S. Senator (the highest and most prestigious legislative position) or a State Governor (Governors often argue that their experience in an executive role makes them more prepared to be president than Senators). Either way, they usually have at least more than one term of experience as Governors or U.S. Senators before being taken seriously as presidential candidates.
What makes Barack Obama's current popularity/support relatively odd is that he is only half-way through his first term as a U.S. Senator, before which he was an Illinois State Senator that most of the country had never heard of (and, as stated above, most Illinois residents probably didn't know him either!).
It's interesting how much people exaggerate what's going on. Security agents can either check people at random, check people who look suspicious, or (ideally, IMO) do a combination of the two.
If they're going to check people who they think look suspicious, then they might as well at least get some formal training on what cues they should be looking for, and how to differentiate between those cues and more innocent anxiety. That stuff will never be foolproof, but I fail to see how it's worse than not having any training on the matter at all.
Yes, you are absolutely correct (admittedly, I'm ignoring the potential counterargument that the lack of terrorist-related deaths may be _due_ to the attention given to "homeland security"). Now, try getting elected to a political office after explaining to your constituents that the number of deaths caused on 911 is relatively insignificant and that increased security at airports and borders is thus not worth funding.
A number of my friends are regretting the purchase of the Wii because of this reason, wishing they'd bought a 360 instead.
...
2) Lack of availability of the Wii. I'm not used to having to put so much work into acquiring a $250 piece of technology one year after its initial release; my mornings are usually quite busy. As a result I still don't have one.
Okay, so why not just buy a Wii from one of your friends who apparently doesn't want one anymore and would love the $250 to put toward a 360?
A few people have mentioned D&D games... Bioware is not making D&D games anymore. NWN 2 (like KOTOR 2) was designed by Obsidian, not Bioware. Bioware seems to have gotten frustrated with the limitations of using others' IP, which is why they are using their own IP for the games they are working on now, like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Dragon Age--not some future D&D game--is their spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and NWN.
Today's Headline: $60 Games Are Here To Stay
Tomorrow's Headline: Game publishers blame internet piracy for decrease in video game sales
Remember when Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative"?
I hope you have enough pity to cover the millions of people who voted for that fictional character.
You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.
What do "the Democrats" have to do with it (outside of commenting to the media)?
The last paragraph in the article mentions the judge in Libby's case:
A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the ''overwhelming'' evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the ESRB ratings.
As a simple but applicable analogy, M for Mature is generally analogous to R ratings for movies, and the AO/Adults Only rating is more analogous to X ratings for movies (i.e. generally reserved for porn).
Rockstar knew it would get an AO rating.
No, Rockstar expected it would be rated M for Mature (17+), just like all of their other violent video games.
It doesn't make sense, since Football is a SPORT and there are other sports games out there besides madden.
Admittedly I'm making an (educated) guess here, but it was a JOKE, most likely based on the fact that Madden gets a lot more hype (and profit, probably) than the other EA Sports games.
My initial reaction was "Great idea, it would get all the 5-10 year olds off of serious MMORPGs!"
But then I felt a surge of disappointment, because somewhere in the back of my mind I know the dark, horrible truth: Those 5-10 year olds are really 15-50 year olds who ACT like 5-10 year olds, except they probably wouldn't be as interested in Pokemon as real 5-10 year olds. Oh well, the thought of seeing some improvement in the maturity level present on my WoW servers was nice for the half-second that it lasted.
However, I tend to think of my self as an altruistic person and when I play WoW I find I like to help fellow guildmembers, Strangers on the Alliance side, and occasionally even a Horde player as a nice surprise. For me, giving, helping make me feel better whether it is in a game or in real life.
I was going to mention WoW, but since you already did I'll expand on what you said.
With the relative anonymity of an on-line game environment, there is generally less to lose from non-altruistic behavior, and less to gain from altruistic behavior. Hence, the predominance of assholes in on-line games. It thus occurred to me that a game like WoW could actually be better than "real life" scenarios for testing a distinction between genuine altruism and altruistic-seeming behavior that is aimed at maintaining convenient social relations.
Of course, the difference in behavior might be less due to differences in altruism, and more due to differences in how much people value positive social relations on-line. There are so many potential variables involved, it's difficult to be sure what you're actually testing.
Of the five characteristics you listed, three (the omnis) are pretty clear and simple to define. The other two--perfect and good--are not so simple to define. Now, I'm not Christian and my beliefs about divinity differ significantly from those of Christians, but in defense of those who believe in a higher power that is "good", I would like to say this:
Most people seem to think that if a "god" was "good" and in control of everything, life would be some kind of easy utopia where no one has any hardships and nothing "bad" happens. IMO, this is a severe misunderstanding of what life is about. Life is about learning, growing, and experiencing; about facing hardships and overcoming them, or at least learning from them. This necessarily requires plenty of "bad" things to happen. Different people leading different lives have different trials to face and different lessons to learn. Without challenges and difficulties, there is no drive for any kind of improvement or advancement. If our existence is somehow the result of some kind of divine entity, I believe said divine entity has generally good intentions, but does not mean for us to be coddled pets, dependent on our god for some kind of perpetual state of easy contentment.
The above is just my view, which I'm not interested in trying to impose on anyone else; the main point is that it is not illogical to believe there is a "good" god in a world full of evils.
But doesn't God say that he cannot and would not prove that he exists because proof denies Faith and what is God without Faith? So, theoretically, if God were to prove he exists, he would be proving he does not exist.
That's only true if you assume that whoever claimed that about God wasn't just making it up. It is logically possible for God to exist in some way, but for religions to still make up plenty of bullcrap about He/It/Whatever. Considering that's exactly the kind of manipulative statement one would use if one wanted to prod the sheep into following one's own religion (while absolving oneself of any responsibility to validate it), I'd certainly vote for it not being divinely inspired.
I suspect that if a divine entity (or multiple divine entities) exists, it/they will go on existing just fine even if someone manages to prove it.
Ethically speaking, I personally don't believe there's much wrong with downloading music one has already purchased. I certainly would have done the same thing in his situation, without feeling at all guilty about it. But it's worth pointing out that legally, the profane Anonymous Coward is correct--you do not buy any kind of license or any metaphysical "rights" to the music when you buy CDs. You are really just buying the physical CD itself; that's it. That was clarified right here on Slashdot in an interview with attorneys who defend against RIAA lawsuits.
Here is a quote:
Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle. This has been the year of banning activities in the name of public health. Talk about violating civil liberties!
The trans-fat ban only applies to restaurants, so restaurant customers in NYC will hopefully be able to go out to eat without having to stress over whether their food is loaded up with one of the greatest (and most unnecessary!) evils the food industry has assaulted us with. Meanwhile, idiots who don't care about their health are still free to go to the local grocery store and purchase their artery-clogging, heart-destroying margarine and Crisco, so I fail to see how this is a violation of civil liberties.
Also, I don't know the details of Seattle's smoking ban, but at least in New York the smoking ban only applies to enclosed public places like restaurants and bars. While I agree that one should have the right to harm themselves for pleasure (e.g. smoking) if they really desire, an individual's right to harm himself should stop when it harms others, just as an individual's right to extend his fist stops at someone else's face. Banning smoking from places where innocent people can be harmed by the second-hand smoke is a decision in favor of, not against, civil liberties.