Not really. I'm also from a rural area, and likewise most people here don't farm, there are some farms, and plenty of family farms that scrape by, but aren't really "productive". But the big farms still need everyone else anyways. They need large enough populations to have grocery stores and fire companies, (albeit volunteer ones), schools within an hour, and enough people for a social life and not going totally insane.
10 years later he should still be feeling remorse over a fight? Besides, maybe they really deserved it. And yes, I know you can say that noone ever deserves to get punched. But in reality? Sometimes they do. Maybe he kept heckling the guy, or his friend or girlfriend, for months. Maybe the guy was just a schoolyard bully, and when he lost a fight he provoked, immediately went to the cops to continue causing trouble for the guy, and "he'd been provoking me for months" only really works when you tell them that before hitting the guy.
Was it a smart choice? Obviously not, but I wouldn't have any trouble working beside the guy. Is that what happened? No idea, and probably not, but with 300 million people, it's happened to somebody.
Maybe, but those rural areas create the food that the cities need to house and feed their populations. When you increase the costs of those areas, you greatly affect the cost of city life. Cities are also far, far more subsidized then any rural area is. The roads needed to truck in supplies, heavily subsidized food programs, and greatly disproportionate distribution of state tax income as well as federal aid.
It sounds to me that this is just an internal power struggle for control of the company. Barnes & Noble continues to profit from their stores, and have very good digital sales. It seems that the writer just wanted to do a piece about woe is me, the bookstores are failing, but it doesn't seem they are unprofitable, or planning on closing any stores.
I know that i will certainly miss the ability to wander through a bookstore and pick up authors or titles I might not have otherwise. I love brick and mortor stores and I for one am not ready to see them go.
and without being a generational genius who makes breakthroughs, despite being several years behind in your grasp of the subject (hey, while they wrote the books the field moved on!) you won't get anything but satisfaction from your new knowledge because you won't get a job interview without a diploma. i'm all for learning for learnings sake, but to imply that it could work as well as a diploma in the current system is a falsehood
That has never happened. you might be able to kill enough that the remainder are not a threat, or that they live in fear of you, but if they see a chance to fight back, for the rest of their lives, they will take it. in ways large and small.
I'd rephrase that as "Game producers need to properly recognize risk". What is more risky: A 50 million USD cinematic first person shooter launching alongside Call of Duty/Halo or a 5 million USD innovative title?
This reminds me or something I heard Kevin Smith say in a Q & A one time. A guy in the audience asked him if studios ever put pressure on him to deliver a blockbuster movie. His response was something like "No dude, they love my movies. People think that but they don't understand how the industry works. They love me because my movies cost like 17 million to make, and earn like 35 million, and then have like another 30 million in dvd sales. They'd let me release 40 a year if i wanted."
Much as i hate to say hollywood has something right....
After all, nothing can possibly be safe until it is certified as such by the government. Just ask hundreds of thousands of people who died while the drugs that could have saved them were waiting for the FDA approval. They are pretty safe now.
Yeah, it would be a lot better to not regulate drugs, and if a side effect of a drug for a non lethal condition includes kidney or renal failure, and at high rates, that's the free market? People are not nearly informed enough about the drugs they are given for it to be a free market. With the rate drugs come out now, much less if it was deregulated, they pretty much could not be.
In addition, what keeps the new generation of snake oil salesmen at bay? I could start a company, grind up some maple leaves, and market it as a cancer preventative. By the time people figure out it's not working much past the placebo effect, i have closed that company down, and started a new one. With a new drug I have no idea about the side effects of.
They generally aren't. The only money to really be made is from the sale of merchandise, which they generally retain the rights to do. The big house, fast cars, and wild parties are all owned by the record companies, and as soon as the superstars are no longer superstars, they get kicked out, and the place gets scrubbed down for the next poor sucker. Generally, even the riaa darlings make less per year than a good degree would get you.
I think you miss the point of his topic though, how is this different than the tobacco industry? I smoke, but follow the primal blueprint for my diet (marksdailyapple is a great resource and friend), and only smoke a few times a week. I would put my health, and my next 30 years of health barring injury/genetic disease against any non smoker you care to name that drinks pepsi and eats mcdonalds over the same time period. Does anyone out there honestly think i'd be a sucker for making that bet?
So tell me again how they should not be treated the same as the tobacco companies.
I might accept a rationale that tobacco companies shouldn't be treated like that either, but don't dare say second hand smoke, when HFCS is so pervasive it's listed in the top three ingrediants of damn near anything you buy, and fastfood/soda is so pervasive that there is heavy social pressure on individuals to imbibe them. Sure you could still hold out and not eat, but you can also step 3 feet farther away. So it's not like it's a major difference maker.
To see this on the same day i read of ubisofts incredibly draconian drm is beautiful to me. stopping cheaters is what a company should be doing, instead of spending all their profits to make sure i don't buy the game on pc.
society hasn't done much in the way of helping itself, read something from the transendalists, society is something that helps the whole by killing individuals. no one has a responsibility to it. and why are teenagers considered so unresponsible anyways? Last tiem i checked the number of murders, rapes, hijackings, and most other violent crimes where commited mostly by adults, when someone hits 18 do they magically become responsible do you think? i know some 14 year olds who could take the most violent videogame, controversial title, or whatever else you want to throw at them, see it, and get on with no diference in their lives, i also know a few people in there 40's who still have trouble with knowing reality from fiction, and right from wrong. Teenagers should be allowed to see whatever they want on the net, and what they get from it depends entirely on their own intelligence. The ESRB Ratings system we have is more than enough, as any parent who even looks at the cases would easily tell if it's appropriate for their individual child. Someone who has never even met me should not be allowed to decide what I'm fit to view. the net is a new level of free speech we hadn't known before, video games are entertainment, and we could survive without them, government is fine when it pays attention to it's duties of protecting american interests, not being a ploy to the latest social outrage caused by people who have never sat down and played the games, checked the servers to see if they are appropriate(they are, anything short of porn is apporpriate for children) if kids see something that is incredibly disturbing, guess what? theirs an x in the corner of the browser, and a back button. they will hit it. no one forces them to play the games or view teh pages, and it's nto brainwashing, it's soemthing to divert themselves, and a source of information.
exscuse me, but sentienceis the reason to think, and you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that no animals can think, or reason. mice can navigate mazes, solve puzzles ot get to food, and that is definitly a sign of intelligence. as a matter of fact, any pack or family animal displays sentience by being able to distinguish alpha males, hunt, hide, or jsut communicate. and protecting the young is a trait in animals who have low numbers of offspring, and we definitly fall into tha catagory. as a matter of fact, we are th least ethical of all races for making war on our own kind, hunting for sport, and a variety of other reasons. so anything that we can learn about a fellow animal and use to help us is jsut continuing the species.
so, in conclusion "you and me baby ain't nothin but mammals..."
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I'm also from a rural area, and likewise most people here don't farm, there are some farms, and plenty of family farms that scrape by, but aren't really "productive". But the big farms still need everyone else anyways. They need large enough populations to have grocery stores and fire companies, (albeit volunteer ones), schools within an hour, and enough people for a social life and not going totally insane.
10 years later he should still be feeling remorse over a fight? Besides, maybe they really deserved it. And yes, I know you can say that noone ever deserves to get punched. But in reality? Sometimes they do. Maybe he kept heckling the guy, or his friend or girlfriend, for months. Maybe the guy was just a schoolyard bully, and when he lost a fight he provoked, immediately went to the cops to continue causing trouble for the guy, and "he'd been provoking me for months" only really works when you tell them that before hitting the guy.
Was it a smart choice? Obviously not, but I wouldn't have any trouble working beside the guy. Is that what happened? No idea, and probably not, but with 300 million people, it's happened to somebody.
I have to agree with both of you. i'd rather be robbed then raped, and would prefer raped to dead.
Maybe, but those rural areas create the food that the cities need to house and feed their populations. When you increase the costs of those areas, you greatly affect the cost of city life. Cities are also far, far more subsidized then any rural area is. The roads needed to truck in supplies, heavily subsidized food programs, and greatly disproportionate distribution of state tax income as well as federal aid.
on the playground is where they spend most of their days...
I hope they find some.
Frankly, if nothing else it will help America have some idea as to what is happening, and that there is a war going on.
It sounds to me that this is just an internal power struggle for control of the company. Barnes & Noble continues to profit from their stores, and have very good digital sales. It seems that the writer just wanted to do a piece about woe is me, the bookstores are failing, but it doesn't seem they are unprofitable, or planning on closing any stores.
I know that i will certainly miss the ability to wander through a bookstore and pick up authors or titles I might not have otherwise. I love brick and mortor stores and I for one am not ready to see them go.
and without being a generational genius who makes breakthroughs, despite being several years behind in your grasp of the subject (hey, while they wrote the books the field moved on!) you won't get anything but satisfaction from your new knowledge because you won't get a job interview without a diploma. i'm all for learning for learnings sake, but to imply that it could work as well as a diploma in the current system is a falsehood
deceptive how?
That has never happened. you might be able to kill enough that the remainder are not a threat, or that they live in fear of you, but if they see a chance to fight back, for the rest of their lives, they will take it. in ways large and small.
Game producers need to learn to take risks again.
I'd rephrase that as "Game producers need to properly recognize risk". What is more risky: A 50 million USD cinematic first person shooter launching alongside Call of Duty/Halo or a 5 million USD innovative title?
This reminds me or something I heard Kevin Smith say in a Q & A one time. A guy in the audience asked him if studios ever put pressure on him to deliver a blockbuster movie. His response was something like "No dude, they love my movies. People think that but they don't understand how the industry works. They love me because my movies cost like 17 million to make, and earn like 35 million, and then have like another 30 million in dvd sales. They'd let me release 40 a year if i wanted."
Much as i hate to say hollywood has something right....
if i could mod you higher, i would.
After all, nothing can possibly be safe until it is certified as such by the government. Just ask hundreds of thousands of people who died while the drugs that could have saved them were waiting for the FDA approval. They are pretty safe now.
Yeah, it would be a lot better to not regulate drugs, and if a side effect of a drug for a non lethal condition includes kidney or renal failure, and at high rates, that's the free market? People are not nearly informed enough about the drugs they are given for it to be a free market. With the rate drugs come out now, much less if it was deregulated, they pretty much could not be.
In addition, what keeps the new generation of snake oil salesmen at bay? I could start a company, grind up some maple leaves, and market it as a cancer preventative. By the time people figure out it's not working much past the placebo effect, i have closed that company down, and started a new one. With a new drug I have no idea about the side effects of.
It's the chewbacca defense! look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey
They generally aren't. The only money to really be made is from the sale of merchandise, which they generally retain the rights to do. The big house, fast cars, and wild parties are all owned by the record companies, and as soon as the superstars are no longer superstars, they get kicked out, and the place gets scrubbed down for the next poor sucker. Generally, even the riaa darlings make less per year than a good degree would get you.
I think you miss the point of his topic though, how is this different than the tobacco industry? I smoke, but follow the primal blueprint for my diet (marksdailyapple is a great resource and friend), and only smoke a few times a week. I would put my health, and my next 30 years of health barring injury/genetic disease against any non smoker you care to name that drinks pepsi and eats mcdonalds over the same time period. Does anyone out there honestly think i'd be a sucker for making that bet?
So tell me again how they should not be treated the same as the tobacco companies.
I might accept a rationale that tobacco companies shouldn't be treated like that either, but don't dare say second hand smoke, when HFCS is so pervasive it's listed in the top three ingrediants of damn near anything you buy, and fastfood/soda is so pervasive that there is heavy social pressure on individuals to imbibe them. Sure you could still hold out and not eat, but you can also step 3 feet farther away. So it's not like it's a major difference maker.
quite a few people buy books. libraries have been available for quite some time.
To see this on the same day i read of ubisofts incredibly draconian drm is beautiful to me. stopping cheaters is what a company should be doing, instead of spending all their profits to make sure i don't buy the game on pc.
society hasn't done much in the way of helping itself, read something from the transendalists, society is something that helps the whole by killing individuals. no one has a responsibility to it. and why are teenagers considered so unresponsible anyways? Last tiem i checked the number of murders, rapes, hijackings, and most other violent crimes where commited mostly by adults, when someone hits 18 do they magically become responsible do you think? i know some 14 year olds who could take the most violent videogame, controversial title, or whatever else you want to throw at them, see it, and get on with no diference in their lives, i also know a few people in there 40's who still have trouble with knowing reality from fiction, and right from wrong. Teenagers should be allowed to see whatever they want on the net, and what they get from it depends entirely on their own intelligence. The ESRB Ratings system we have is more than enough, as any parent who even looks at the cases would easily tell if it's appropriate for their individual child. Someone who has never even met me should not be allowed to decide what I'm fit to view. the net is a new level of free speech we hadn't known before, video games are entertainment, and we could survive without them, government is fine when it pays attention to it's duties of protecting american interests, not being a ploy to the latest social outrage caused by people who have never sat down and played the games, checked the servers to see if they are appropriate(they are, anything short of porn is apporpriate for children) if kids see something that is incredibly disturbing, guess what? theirs an x in the corner of the browser, and a back button. they will hit it. no one forces them to play the games or view teh pages, and it's nto brainwashing, it's soemthing to divert themselves, and a source of information.
exscuse me, but sentienceis the reason to think, and you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that no animals can think, or reason. mice can navigate mazes, solve puzzles ot get to food, and that is definitly a sign of intelligence. as a matter of fact, any pack or family animal displays sentience by being able to distinguish alpha males, hunt, hide, or jsut communicate. and protecting the young is a trait in animals who have low numbers of offspring, and we definitly fall into tha catagory. as a matter of fact, we are th least ethical of all races for making war on our own kind, hunting for sport, and a variety of other reasons. so anything that we can learn about a fellow animal and use to help us is jsut continuing the species. so, in conclusion "you and me baby ain't nothin but mammals..."