Can we not have yet another round of everybody agreeing with each other that nuclear power is awesome and popular opinion is woefully ignorant? It's been beaten into the ground around here and I doubt anybody has anything new to add.
I agree absolutely about Oblivion. You felt like you were achieving nothing by leveling up. I want to eventually get so powerful that the world around me whimpers when I walk past, or so that I can kill things I was never able to before. That's the whole damn point of leveling.
Oblivion is tons of fun, though, when you use mods that create a static game population (that is, mods that disable the world leveling up along with you). I recommend Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul or, better yet, FCOM: Convergence.
I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far.
What changed?
He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect
Beyond words, what has he done differently? Have we stopped trying to force Iran to give up it's sovereignty to our ridiculously hypocritical demands, for instance?
(even if the opposing country does not deserve it).
The entire world deserves us quitting trying to tell them what to do, despite how good we are at coming up with excuses. So far, zero change. An empire is an empire, and I for one oppose empire.
No such goddamn thing as "no bias", and how much "less" bias you can have is very limited. Reporting all the facts, real, honest journalism is what a quality news source can do. But just as there's no such thing as cultural objectivity, there's no such thing as journalistic objectivity. It's a myth, and an unfortunate one.
But you're quite right that the UK has a mainstream news service, the BBC, whose quality is a thousand times better than any mainstream news service in the US.
But if building a bridge to the Muslim community across the world-- which numbers one in four inhabitants on this earth-- counts, then the combination of the two is somewhat extraordinary, given the prior administration's complete polarization of most of the world
"Building a bridge"? He gave some very pretty speeches, sure, but hasn't wavered from Bush's actual policies and actions towards the "Muslim Wold" (for lack of a better term). In this country, we're so accustomed to our supposedly rival ideologies, whose elected representatives differ only cosmetically in reality, that it feels natural to us to see change in nothing but words. What we've learned from this episode is that the rest of the world is accustomed to US politics in the same way.
You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way.
I suppose you're basically right, but I want to point out a hole in that reason that I think is important. First, to hate Bush is pretty much just to be sane, almost no matter what your political orientation if you're outside the US (or in it, for that matter). Second, there's nothing left-wing about supporting Obama, who's backtracked on every even vaguely liberal promise he made and, for that matter, campaigned on a promise for ramped-up war (saying "we should be focusing our military on this country, not this other one" is NOT anti-war).
Mmm, I beg to differ. It's an excuse to have a party, which is, by definition, great.
Re:Extra! Extra! Read here for the scoop!
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 1
Nobody said things are created for free, just that the logic of supply and demand doesn't work. If a brand new game was developed for every person who bought one, then it would work.
Re:Extra! Extra! Read here for the scoop!
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 1
Damn me for not proof-reading. That should be "freely-replicable".
Re:Extra! Extra! Read here for the scoop!
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 1
Do we not understand the very simple concept of supply and demand?
I already made this point above, so I'll cut it short. Freely- or practically freely-explicable commodities break supply and demand because, once initial development is paid for, supply becomes unlimited. If "because that is what the market will pay" is the entire story then it, in fact, has nothing to do with supply and demand.
Exactly. (Nearly) freely-replicable commodities, where the cost is in the initial development but not reproduction, break supply and demand. Supply becomes unlimited. Value becomes fictitious. Development still costs money, but the logic of capitalism starts to become outmoded once universal replicators enter the picture.
You not only stole someone's joke without credit, but you even changed it to make it seem more like you thought of it yourself. ("As a kid, I was always taught..."):-P
So let me get this straight. You're pissed off that people won't share their code for free with you so you can use it to make software to charge other people for?
If you argue that consumers should be dictated to by the government, aren't you really arguing in favor of a sort of totalitarianism.
I think you may want to consider why the word total is in totalitarianism, but anyway.. What's being argued for is forcing (yes, force!) society at large to stop fucking up the planet. The only argument against that that I can find is vague notions of liberty and throwing around words like "totalitarian". Even conservatives agree that individual rights stop when they infringe on the rights of others, no? I think killing-the-planet falls under that category.
Just so you know, your signature is a ripoff of a slightly cooler quote by German communist Rosa Luxemberg: "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
Slashdot Mirror
Can we not have yet another round of everybody agreeing with each other that nuclear power is awesome and popular opinion is woefully ignorant? It's been beaten into the ground around here and I doubt anybody has anything new to add.
Why do so many people think windmills are ugly? I think they're quite charming.
Hey, I shoot better when I've (*hic*) had a few!
I agree absolutely about Oblivion. You felt like you were achieving nothing by leveling up. I want to eventually get so powerful that the world around me whimpers when I walk past, or so that I can kill things I was never able to before. That's the whole damn point of leveling.
Oblivion is tons of fun, though, when you use mods that create a static game population (that is, mods that disable the world leveling up along with you). I recommend Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul or, better yet, FCOM: Convergence.
Well? Share it with us, brother.
I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far.
What changed?
He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect
Beyond words, what has he done differently? Have we stopped trying to force Iran to give up it's sovereignty to our ridiculously hypocritical demands, for instance?
(even if the opposing country does not deserve it).
The entire world deserves us quitting trying to tell them what to do, despite how good we are at coming up with excuses. So far, zero change. An empire is an empire, and I for one oppose empire.
No such goddamn thing as "no bias", and how much "less" bias you can have is very limited. Reporting all the facts, real, honest journalism is what a quality news source can do. But just as there's no such thing as cultural objectivity, there's no such thing as journalistic objectivity. It's a myth, and an unfortunate one.
But you're quite right that the UK has a mainstream news service, the BBC, whose quality is a thousand times better than any mainstream news service in the US.
I don't think trying to make change in their culture is "building a bridge". That's a confrontational attitude, no matter what tone of voice you use.
But if building a bridge to the Muslim community across the world-- which numbers one in four inhabitants on this earth-- counts, then the combination of the two is somewhat extraordinary, given the prior administration's complete polarization of most of the world
"Building a bridge"? He gave some very pretty speeches, sure, but hasn't wavered from Bush's actual policies and actions towards the "Muslim Wold" (for lack of a better term). In this country, we're so accustomed to our supposedly rival ideologies, whose elected representatives differ only cosmetically in reality, that it feels natural to us to see change in nothing but words. What we've learned from this episode is that the rest of the world is accustomed to US politics in the same way.
You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way.
I suppose you're basically right, but I want to point out a hole in that reason that I think is important. First, to hate Bush is pretty much just to be sane, almost no matter what your political orientation if you're outside the US (or in it, for that matter). Second, there's nothing left-wing about supporting Obama, who's backtracked on every even vaguely liberal promise he made and, for that matter, campaigned on a promise for ramped-up war (saying "we should be focusing our military on this country, not this other one" is NOT anti-war).
It is a great excuse to have a party
No, it really isn't.
Mmm, I beg to differ. It's an excuse to have a party, which is, by definition, great.
Nobody said things are created for free, just that the logic of supply and demand doesn't work. If a brand new game was developed for every person who bought one, then it would work.
Damn me for not proof-reading. That should be "freely-replicable".
Do we not understand the very simple concept of supply and demand?
I already made this point above, so I'll cut it short. Freely- or practically freely-explicable commodities break supply and demand because, once initial development is paid for, supply becomes unlimited. If "because that is what the market will pay" is the entire story then it, in fact, has nothing to do with supply and demand.
Exactly. (Nearly) freely-replicable commodities, where the cost is in the initial development but not reproduction, break supply and demand. Supply becomes unlimited. Value becomes fictitious. Development still costs money, but the logic of capitalism starts to become outmoded once universal replicators enter the picture.
You know what this means!!
?
You not only stole someone's joke without credit, but you even changed it to make it seem more like you thought of it yourself. ("As a kid, I was always taught...") :-P
I wonder if this is the case in France?
I don't know. Do you or don't you wonder that?
So let me get this straight. You're pissed off that people won't share their code for free with you so you can use it to make software to charge other people for?
Games.
Aha. Well, Emma Goldman is a fine person to spread awareness of as well. So it's good no matter what. :)
Yeah, I know. I just like to spread awareness of Rosa Luxemberg to anyone who might be interested. :)
If you argue that consumers should be dictated to by the government, aren't you really arguing in favor of a sort of totalitarianism.
I think you may want to consider why the word total is in totalitarianism, but anyway.. What's being argued for is forcing (yes, force!) society at large to stop fucking up the planet. The only argument against that that I can find is vague notions of liberty and throwing around words like "totalitarian". Even conservatives agree that individual rights stop when they infringe on the rights of others, no? I think killing-the-planet falls under that category.
Just so you know, your signature is a ripoff of a slightly cooler quote by German communist Rosa Luxemberg: "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
Jesus, mods. Can't take a joke? :-P