Epson uses pigment-based inks for their Durabrite line, which can be vulnerable to scratching and other mechanical damage relative to dye based prints. A good process, but not perfect. A dye-based ink that isn't as fugitive strikes me as an improvement.
Republican In Name Only. He's just another goofball demagogue who got elected on a flood of voter rage. He seems to be in a race with Feinstein to see who can pass the most unwarranted gun control legislation, as well.
Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.
You're blurring symptoms and causes. You're also coming dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law.:) Getting back to what I originally was replying to: Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions... I meant that both the scope and the certainty of a human being's self awareness is imperfect and limited, and that both psychology and society make for a limited number of options. The examples you cite are more an example of this than a counterexample. Your use of advertising dollars as a metric of human malleability is more complex, but perhaps beyond the scope of what we're talking about. People will buy a widget, and if there are several brands of an essentially identical widget, is that a matter of malleability, and does that involce any real act of will or choice?
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion
I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.
I don't know you, and you don't know me. We only know each others words. You've made a lot of pronouncements in a rather judgemental tone, almost as if you were searching either agreement or an argument, rather than discourse. Telling people that they're bad tends to make the one saying it feel good, feel powerful. My original statement was an elaboration upon talk being cheap, and I'll stand by that. As far as your assumption I was talking about anything more, you're mistaken.
As far as Ghandi goes, perhaps you should read more about a person other than what they have to say about themselves. He strikes me not as a saint, but rather as a nationalist that found an effective hook to manipulate world opinion and take advantage of the collapse of British colonialism.
truncated
I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.
That was the point I was trying to make with you. Just because someone disagrees with you, it's not always because some crackpot on the radio told them too. You're making assumptions about motives that are not well-reasoned or supported by fact.
Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind?
A malformed request. A free market has never existed without being modified by additional political criteria. Secondly, I don't really see that as being the point. This is more about generalized human behavior than the house of mirrors that a particular group of humans inhabits at particular point in history.
Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good?
Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but r
It's the bucks that have caused a lot of the problems. I make under the industry average, but I live somewhere with a low cost of living, so it evens out. Getting out of California was the best this I ever did.
Seriously, they're out there, but you have to look, and it never hurts to make friends.
That's a pretty good troll, but you might want to make the 'LOL FAT VIRGIN' angle a little more subtle. To really piss people off you should find some way of dragging politics, sex, or religion into it. Gently, mind you.
You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.
Bullshit. I read it, and with game art experience. The situation described sounds like the way things have been in the majority of the industry for at least the last two years. He worked for a small publisher that got screwed over and then in desperation went to the sweatshop that is EA, and they fucked him over. Tough, but nothing new.
Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong.
What a fascinating proof.
Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species.
Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.
Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion.
The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio.
It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.
Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.
Short of posting about it on Slashdot.
BTW, Unicorns don't exist.
Neither does the world or race you speak of. That was the point.
I don't doubt that EA deserves to be sued into the stone age. I couldn't see working someplace like that without being constantly on my guard and looking for something better.
I don't dispute what you say, or the gist of the article. I did take issue with how TempusMagus saw fit to reply, however.
No, it's not. Not the whole industry, at least. Definitely the majority, though. Not here, however. If you love games but want some job stability, take a look at some of the smaller companies. That's where I found my niche. I don't mean a team working in their spare time on a title hoping to find a publisher, nut rather a company that's trying to fill a niche themselves and already has a stable income.
So, these people got into the game industry with no idea what it was like?
EA has a terrible reputation within the industry for treating it's people like shit. I find it hand to believe that actions like this come as much of a surprise to the employees.
Insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong, nor is it a meaningful attack on it. I assert that human beings ARE animals, sometimes better, but oftentimes far worse because of their innate ability to reason.
Look, the game industry is a shitty business at times, and EA is looked upon as being extra shitty within that pit of shittiness. Unicorns and rainbows will not change this.
A country will follow a treaty when it's in their best interest, break it when they feel they can get away with it. Pursue their own perceived best interest.
Remember that idea of a nation is fundamentally based on coercion and force, and will do what it can to assert and maintain dominance. It's like an organism at times. The current administration has no monopoly on realpolitik.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have stairs in your house?
100MB+ Photoshop files and uncompressed animation renders from 3DS Max are what fill up most of my C: drive. There are uses for these things.
Friends of Crazy Christians.
Thanks for ruining the movie with spoilers, dude. ;^P
I haven't decided whether to call them 3Jane or Wilbur Whately yet, though.
...and they want their paper of record back.
Density waves are physical phenomenon, music is a value judgement.
Consciousness is as slippery a concept as 'life'.
I think, therefore I am. I think.
I thought that was just a witty english way of calling someone a cocksucker, but I probably need to get my mind out of the gutter.
I was thinking 'Dipshits' personally. I thought that would explain a lot, but once again fate rules against me.
Epson uses pigment-based inks for their Durabrite line, which can be vulnerable to scratching and other mechanical damage relative to dye based prints. A good process, but not perfect. A dye-based ink that isn't as fugitive strikes me as an improvement.
Okay, when you said Karl I thought you meant Malden and was upset that 'The Streets of San Francisco' still hadn't been released on DVD. I know I am.
Congratulations. That post succeeding in obliterating the line between the merely inarticulate and completely incoherent.
Republican In Name Only. He's just another goofball demagogue who got elected on a flood of voter rage. He seems to be in a race with Feinstein to see who can pass the most unwarranted gun control legislation, as well.
truncated
:) Getting back to what I originally was replying to: Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions... I meant that both the scope and the certainty of a human being's self awareness is imperfect and limited, and that both psychology and society make for a limited number of options. The examples you cite are more an example of this than a counterexample. Your use of advertising dollars as a metric of human malleability is more complex, but perhaps beyond the scope of what we're talking about. People will buy a widget, and if there are several brands of an essentially identical widget, is that a matter of malleability, and does that involce any real act of will or choice?
Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.
You're blurring symptoms and causes. You're also coming dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law.
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion
I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.
I don't know you, and you don't know me. We only know each others words. You've made a lot of pronouncements in a rather judgemental tone, almost as if you were searching either agreement or an argument, rather than discourse. Telling people that they're bad tends to make the one saying it feel good, feel powerful. My original statement was an elaboration upon talk being cheap, and I'll stand by that. As far as your assumption I was talking about anything more, you're mistaken.
As far as Ghandi goes, perhaps you should read more about a person other than what they have to say about themselves. He strikes me not as a saint, but rather as a nationalist that found an effective hook to manipulate world opinion and take advantage of the collapse of British colonialism.
truncated
I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.
That was the point I was trying to make with you. Just because someone disagrees with you, it's not always because some crackpot on the radio told them too. You're making assumptions about motives that are not well-reasoned or supported by fact.
Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind?
A malformed request. A free market has never existed without being modified by additional political criteria. Secondly, I don't really see that as being the point. This is more about generalized human behavior than the house of mirrors that a particular group of humans inhabits at particular point in history.
Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good?
Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but r
gg bitter moderators. Hey, how's that lack of direction in your party working out for you?
I wouldn't really call Maxis a small publisher, at least in relation to my employer. :)
It's the bucks that have caused a lot of the problems. I make under the industry average, but I live somewhere with a low cost of living, so it evens out. Getting out of California was the best this I ever did.
Seriously, they're out there, but you have to look, and it never hurts to make friends.
That's a pretty good troll, but you might want to make the 'LOL FAT VIRGIN' angle a little more subtle. To really piss people off you should find some way of dragging politics, sex, or religion into it. Gently, mind you.
You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.
Bullshit. I read it, and with game art experience. The situation described sounds like the way things have been in the majority of the industry for at least the last two years. He worked for a small publisher that got screwed over and then in desperation went to the sweatshop that is EA, and they fucked him over. Tough, but nothing new.
Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong.
What a fascinating proof.
Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species.
Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.
Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion.
The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio.
It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.
Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.
Short of posting about it on Slashdot.
BTW, Unicorns don't exist.
Neither does the world or race you speak of. That was the point.
I don't doubt that EA deserves to be sued into the stone age. I couldn't see working someplace like that without being constantly on my guard and looking for something better.
I don't dispute what you say, or the gist of the article. I did take issue with how TempusMagus saw fit to reply, however.
No, it's not. Not the whole industry, at least. Definitely the majority, though. Not here, however. If you love games but want some job stability, take a look at some of the smaller companies. That's where I found my niche. I don't mean a team working in their spare time on a title hoping to find a publisher, nut rather a company that's trying to fill a niche themselves and already has a stable income.
So, these people got into the game industry with no idea what it was like?
EA has a terrible reputation within the industry for treating it's people like shit. I find it hand to believe that actions like this come as much of a surprise to the employees.
Insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong, nor is it a meaningful attack on it. I assert that human beings ARE animals, sometimes better, but oftentimes far worse because of their innate ability to reason.
Look, the game industry is a shitty business at times, and EA is looked upon as being extra shitty within that pit of shittiness. Unicorns and rainbows will not change this.
A: Lower caloric requirements and the ability to go into torpor.
A country will follow a treaty when it's in their best interest, break it when they feel they can get away with it. Pursue their own perceived best interest.
Remember that idea of a nation is fundamentally based on coercion and force, and will do what it can to assert and maintain dominance. It's like an organism at times. The current administration has no monopoly on realpolitik.
I mean, he's responsible for everything *else* going wrong, isn't he? 9_9