Nah- gamers just blow up EVERYTHING- who cares if you hide a medkit in an oil tank or in a dog.
I think the OMM guys said it best with their little "Crate Expose" or erik's wry observation upon seeing a screenshot of KISS Psycho Circus: "Is that a big square room with crates? Nice. The thing I like about crates is that they're so mysterious. What's in the crate? Is it ammo? Is it health? It could be either!"
So isn't the stigma the problem? Individuals, like women who get raped by AIDS infected men, aren't able to resist, and if they talk, they'll be killed. So, under such extreme duress, how can you fault them for keeping silent? Yep- the culture is awful- but that still doesn't explain this "fuck them" attitude.
Free market is a great thing- it's the best system around for getting jsut about any efficient standard of living for everybody (though not at equal rates).
But that doesn't relieve individuals of the onus of being ethical. If murder were legal, then companies, by the logic of the free market, would be perfectly justified in murdering their competitors. Yet that would not suddenly remove the moral onus from those corporate executives who sign the death warrants. Their ethical selves are still just as much at stake.
Well, Peter Singer makes a pretty convincing case that not only is it unethical to deny treatment in such an imeediate crisis situation, but that buying a luxury car when you could send the cost of it to UNICEF and save hundreds of starving children is no different.
His point is not that we MUST give most of our wealth to (good and working) charity- but rather that we cannot fault someone for, say, crashing into and killing a child to avoid swerving and wrecking his car, when we refuse to fault him for doing the moral equivalent (not selling his car to save the lives of children just as much in jeopardy).
African nations simply can't and won't cope. That much is pretty certain. The question is: is it in our vital interests to do something about it. And the answer of most policy people is: yes. The "what" we aren't sure about yet. But for TOTALLY SELFISH reasons, there is good cause for the U.S. and other industrialized nations to do something about this. It's not like we haven't been heavily involved before, or aren't complicit in many of the things that are happening in Africa today- or can't be traced almost directly back to dictators we propped up in the interests of the Cold War, democracies we squashed, and millions and millions of weapons we pumped into the continent for our own gain. After playing so many as pawns, then suddenly saying "oop! we have nothing to do with you" when the repercussions crop up is downright goofy.
And regardless, why is the fault of a dying farmer that his nation is a fucking mess? How can you say "fuck him, his dictator isn't trying hard enough, and his culture is stupid."
Plus, in many cases, his point is simply not true. Government research originally came up with many of the drugs in question- they were sold to drug companies so that they could be marketed and mass-produced in an efficient manner. Much of the R&D was done with YOUR tax dollars, then sold away at a HUGE profit to the drug companies.
Sad, but true in many ways. Yet the problem, however, is not "who do we blame," but "how can we stop it?" And those who want to mobilize as many tools as possible to fight the crisis can't help but be a little irritated that a MAJOR tool for combatting the disease is basically closed to Africa, simply because of the dubious nature of IP.
The continent is indeed a real mess. But we, the U.S., DO have significant interests in helping to fix that problem. We want a less destabilized, more secure world. And this crisis, whoever is at fault, really threatens to destabilize the entire continent for DECADES, maybe longer. This is not something we want.
Unless you're using a different keystyle layout, how could you have possibly hit the "o" key instead of the "t" key in typing the word "style"? They're like, four keys apart!
It doesn't work like that. Insurance companies are perfectly justified in denying coverage, or charging more for coverage- for people with already established medical conditions. Same goes for smokers, people who have higher risks of illness. Why? Because taking on someone with a higher risk of illness means that they are essentially making a bet with better odds of paying out than most people.
I doubt Katz even saw Finding Forrester. This movie has been absolutely scuttled by it's own terrible marketing campaign- which makes it look like it's what Katz thinks it is (it has Connery saying something like "what's up dog" in the preview, which looks stupid and clumsy there, but in the movie is a twist of irony at the end of an intense and well written monologue). Like everyone else, Katz probably just saw the preview, not the movie, and judged it on that.
Well, let's take it to a scarier place- directly to cost benefit anaylsis. I understand how people could find this sort of discrimination evil, but I'm not sure what to do with the implications. For instance, if our genetic studies DO get good enough to detect diseases early on, doesn't that mean that these "sicker" people are getting a free ride on medical costs at the expense of healthy people? Is that really fair? For my insurance premiums to be high because other people are sicker than me, but wont admit it, and so the comapny has to crank up the price to deal with all these out-of-the-blue claims? If you're going to cost insurance companies more, why exactly SHOULDN'T you have to pay more? Companies now want to fire these "sicker" people because in the end they raise costs- they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm sure some deal can be arragend by which te "sicker" people pay much higher company premiums to cover it- until then I can totally see why companies wouldn't want some potentially very costly employee just dumping their disease on the company.
And it must be really fun posturing about all this cool magical stuff YOU know to be true (wouldn't that then make it part of reality?), and all us doubtful peons are just faithless party poopers. You're no different from lEEt hax0rs talking about how they have secret super-special codes to crash the internet.
Uh hunh- sure. Unfortunately, human jumping height is bounded by calf length, and ki lifts only work on DBZ.
Why is exactly that when people claim to have seen this stuff for themselves, it's always in a totally unverifiable way, or back in ancient legend? I'm sure there are some incredible martial artists out there, but somehow I think you're excited a little beyond reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah- gamers just blow up EVERYTHING- who cares if you hide a medkit in an oil tank or in a dog.
I think the OMM guys said it best with their little "Crate Expose"
or erik's wry observation upon seeing a screenshot of KISS Psycho Circus: "Is that a big square room with crates? Nice. The thing I like about crates is that they're so mysterious. What's in the crate? Is it ammo? Is it health? It could be either!"
Isn't anyone going to comment on this, the ethical case for extreme obligation to help all those that need help, no matter who far away they are?
So isn't the stigma the problem? Individuals, like women who get raped by AIDS infected men, aren't able to resist, and if they talk, they'll be killed. So, under such extreme duress, how can you fault them for keeping silent? Yep- the culture is awful- but that still doesn't explain this "fuck them" attitude.
Associating entire nations with single organisms is just wrong. Not to mention rather sickening.
And that's exactly my point here- blaming the leaders so that you feel less obligated to help the people... what a lame excuse.
How do you know who has what beliefs, or what behavior they practiced? How can you make such a wide and wacky generalization?
Free market is a great thing- it's the best system around for getting jsut about any efficient standard of living for everybody (though not at equal rates).
But that doesn't relieve individuals of the onus of being ethical. If murder were legal, then companies, by the logic of the free market, would be perfectly justified in murdering their competitors. Yet that would not suddenly remove the moral onus from those corporate executives who sign the death warrants. Their ethical selves are still just as much at stake.
Well, Peter Singer makes a pretty convincing case that not only is it unethical to deny treatment in such an imeediate crisis situation, but that buying a luxury car when you could send the cost of it to UNICEF and save hundreds of starving children is no different.
His point is not that we MUST give most of our wealth to (good and working) charity- but rather that we cannot fault someone for, say, crashing into and killing a child to avoid swerving and wrecking his car, when we refuse to fault him for doing the moral equivalent (not selling his car to save the lives of children just as much in jeopardy).
they need to change their ways,
Who is this "they" here? Africans? All Africans? "They" are all equally at fault, so fuck them? That seems a little hamfisted.
African nations simply can't and won't cope. That much is pretty certain. The question is: is it in our vital interests to do something about it. And the answer of most policy people is: yes. The "what" we aren't sure about yet. But for TOTALLY SELFISH reasons, there is good cause for the U.S. and other industrialized nations to do something about this. It's not like we haven't been heavily involved before, or aren't complicit in many of the things that are happening in Africa today- or can't be traced almost directly back to dictators we propped up in the interests of the Cold War, democracies we squashed, and millions and millions of weapons we pumped into the continent for our own gain. After playing so many as pawns, then suddenly saying "oop! we have nothing to do with you" when the repercussions crop up is downright goofy. And regardless, why is the fault of a dying farmer that his nation is a fucking mess? How can you say "fuck him, his dictator isn't trying hard enough, and his culture is stupid."
Plus, in many cases, his point is simply not true. Government research originally came up with many of the drugs in question- they were sold to drug companies so that they could be marketed and mass-produced in an efficient manner. Much of the R&D was done with YOUR tax dollars, then sold away at a HUGE profit to the drug companies.
Sad, but true in many ways. Yet the problem, however, is not "who do we blame," but "how can we stop it?" And those who want to mobilize as many tools as possible to fight the crisis can't help but be a little irritated that a MAJOR tool for combatting the disease is basically closed to Africa, simply because of the dubious nature of IP. The continent is indeed a real mess. But we, the U.S., DO have significant interests in helping to fix that problem. We want a less destabilized, more secure world. And this crisis, whoever is at fault, really threatens to destabilize the entire continent for DECADES, maybe longer. This is not something we want.
Unless you're using a different keystyle layout, how could you have possibly hit the "o" key instead of the "t" key in typing the word "style"? They're like, four keys apart!
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/opinion/10KRUG.h tml
Paul Krugman always knows what's what...
It doesn't work like that. Insurance companies are perfectly justified in denying coverage, or charging more for coverage- for people with already established medical conditions. Same goes for smokers, people who have higher risks of illness. Why? Because taking on someone with a higher risk of illness means that they are essentially making a bet with better odds of paying out than most people.
I doubt Katz even saw Finding Forrester. This movie has been absolutely scuttled by it's own terrible marketing campaign- which makes it look like it's what Katz thinks it is (it has Connery saying something like "what's up dog" in the preview, which looks stupid and clumsy there, but in the movie is a twist of irony at the end of an intense and well written monologue). Like everyone else, Katz probably just saw the preview, not the movie, and judged it on that.
Well, let's take it to a scarier place- directly to cost benefit anaylsis. I understand how people could find this sort of discrimination evil, but I'm not sure what to do with the implications. For instance, if our genetic studies DO get good enough to detect diseases early on, doesn't that mean that these "sicker" people are getting a free ride on medical costs at the expense of healthy people? Is that really fair? For my insurance premiums to be high because other people are sicker than me, but wont admit it, and so the comapny has to crank up the price to deal with all these out-of-the-blue claims? If you're going to cost insurance companies more, why exactly SHOULDN'T you have to pay more? Companies now want to fire these "sicker" people because in the end they raise costs- they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm sure some deal can be arragend by which te "sicker" people pay much higher company premiums to cover it- until then I can totally see why companies wouldn't want some potentially very costly employee just dumping their disease on the company.
And it must be really fun posturing about all this cool magical stuff YOU know to be true (wouldn't that then make it part of reality?), and all us doubtful peons are just faithless party poopers. You're no different from lEEt hax0rs talking about how they have secret super-special codes to crash the internet.
Just think- at a minimum, four moderators wasted points moderating this post up. Think about that.
They sure can talk! That was always half the great fun of Scorched Earth.
Um... do you have any idea what "wushu" means in chinese? It's basically a catch-all term for martial arts.
Uh hunh- sure. Unfortunately, human jumping height is bounded by calf length, and ki lifts only work on DBZ.
Why is exactly that when people claim to have seen this stuff for themselves, it's always in a totally unverifiable way, or back in ancient legend? I'm sure there are some incredible martial artists out there, but somehow I think you're excited a little beyond reality.