Despite what some others are asserting, I whole-heartedly agree with you. I didn't go to school to have my head filled with a lot of process and procedure nonsense, I went there to LEARN.
If you can put a student in front of a test with only the bare minimum of "tools" needed to solve the problem, that's all you really need to grade them. If they can solve the problem in the alotted time or manner, then they have "learned" whatever it is you were trying to teach them. No amount of "homework puppet-show" nonsense will guarantee that a student has learned the key concepts.
"Give a man a fish" vs. "Teach a man to fish"...I don't see why people have trouble understanding that.
1) I think many people just really don't agree with your stance. I know I don't. It's as simple as that. 2) Best Buy has, by and large, not behaved in a manner that makes the typical Slashdotter happy. That's just subjective, so what can you do? Again, I really do think "Best Buy Bad!". Aagree to disagree. 3) Best Buy apparently had a legal responsibility to do some things that they didn't do, and they're being sued for it. Chances are, they'll settle out of court so it will never go far enough to have any impact on legal precedent anyway.
Again, I don't think it's an issue of "right vs. wrong", it seems to me more of an "agree to disagree" situation. Besides, why would you want to argue details with a bunch of people who didn't read the article anyway??;)
"In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have."
A-Men to that! I'm format neutral as well, but when I heard about the full feature set that HD-DVD had when compared with Blu-Ray 1.0's cobbled together mess...Well, I wouldn't say I jumped on the HD-DVD ship as much as their is the only boat I'd really be willing to get on.
Of course, now with the supposed death of HD-DVD, who's to say that the Blu-Ray Spec NEEDS to be updated. They'll probably just use it as an excuse to milk even more hardware upgrades out of the public.
On the one hand, I agree with you, but on the other, I'd have to say that there is certainly a reason why I don't read ANY "mainstream" gaming sites any longer. I've dropped Penny Arcade, EGM, Joystiq, Escapist, Kotaku, and all the rest because there doesn't seem to be much in the way of professional journalism or even proud, "professional" grade craftsmanship in the whole lot of them.
I've had enough of the sloppy opinion pieces written by pretentious fanboys who don't pay for any of their own games.
We'll have "Game Journalism" some day, but we sure as hell don't have it now.
I see where you're going with that argument, and I'd have to agree with you IF being a Mormon was like joining some sort of civic organization. But by virtue of the fact that it's a religion, and that most religions REQUIRE you to buy into whatever the "party line" is hook, line, and sinker, that means he has to be committed to whatever the organization says. 100%. No exceptions. That's the definition of being a "believer".
By convention, you can be a Democrat and not believe in EVERYTHING that the party "preaches". By convention, you can be a Republican and not believe in EVERYTHING that the party "preaches". By convention, you can be a Boy Scout and not believe in EVERYTHING that the group "preaches".
But you can't be an "only 99%" participant in most religions because most religions are all or nothing affairs. He volunteers to run around the country talking about how wonderful it is to be a Mormon, so he's saying that he completely believes whatever they tell him to believe. He labels himself a Mormon, and wears the label on his sleeve.
So here's a question: If I were to adopt your assumption (and I personally feel it's a big assumption since my "assumption" is a documented fact) that he's a non-racist Mormon, that means he and all his Mormon buddies were, instantly and magically, absolutely and completely, "OK" with Black people when they changed their story in 1972?
"Hi Mr. Negro. You were going to go to hell yesterday, but today, you get to go to heaven, just like me. Isn't God's grace WONDERFUL!?!?!"
That's bull, and I think you know it. So he's either a racist, or a lying POS. Pick one.
Now, racial issues aside, how can you advocate ANYONE for President when they are TELLING YOU that they will listen to and obey someone BESIDES the American people? He volunteers this information by talking about how devout he is. If he didn't put so much emphasis on it to try to win the "Christian Nutjob" vote, it wouldn't be a big issue. I've known a few Mormon people, and they never spit on me or anything, so I could probably force myself to buy his BS. But he's displaying how dishonest he is and he hopes that nobody sees what he's doing. Apparently, quite a few people don't see it.
I didn't want to believe that it was true either, but I'm afraid that quite a few Mormons have hopped onto the boat without realizing what the trip was all about. Once they're kinda stuck there, I'm sure they like to pretend that they don't believe in that nonsense. I'm sure they actually don't really believe that nonsense about Black people, but they can't complain about being stereotyped whenever what their being accused of is an actual fact.
It must be nice, not caring that he's Mormon. I, unfortunately HAVE to care, because he doesn't believe that my children and I are as HUMAN as him. They (Mormons, at least until sometime in the 70's) apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)
"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."
"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Screw the Mormon Church." Screw Mitt Romney", and "Screw anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."
Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.
I don't care if he IS some sort of genius. As far as I can tell, him and all his wacko cult members don't believe I'm as "human" as they are, so they can all go to hell. I'd vote for just about anybody besides a mormon. They, apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)
"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."
"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Fuck the Mormon Church." Fuck Mitt Romney", and "Fuck anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."
Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.
And for the record, before you even ask, I'll just say upfront that we don't have a single candidate running who I think should even be a contender for President. Not one. But I wouldn't even THINK of voting for Romney.
That was very informative. Thank you. I have really no intention of switching my primary desktop BACK to Windows, but I was curious about the new "gamer oriented" aspects of Vista which tend to get glossed over often times.
"What exactly was your point about MS being better?"
Ways in which Microsoft is "better":
-A key point for me, is that Microsoft wasn't trying to push a NEW and UNNECESSARY "standard" on me when I purchased my GAME CONSOLE. That's an abstract thing, but I still appreciate not being someone's media format guinea pig. 2 points MS!
-DVD is CHEAP! It's more than capable of holding enough data for 9 out of 10 games. If it doesn't, then slap another DVD in the box and call it a day. Let's say you actually NEEDED 50GB of storage for a game. A regular DVD holds 9GB (Dual Layer), so you'd need (50 / 9 = 5.555) 6 DVD's. OK fine. How much are the actual discs though?
(6 x $1.98 = $11.88) So even if you needed 6 DVDs to hold your game, you'd still be paying ALMOST half the price for just the physical media! Granted, I'm sure the prices are much different in bulk, but the principle is the same. Nine times out of 10, cheaper without any real drawbacks is better "Just Because". Score two more points for Microsoft.
-Screw the movie companies! I didn't want to get caught up in their format pissing contest anyway. By buying a DVD based console, I basically told BOTH sides in the HDDVD v BD pissing match to go screw themselves and sat down to a nice game of Rainbow Six. That's always fun! Score!
-This is more of a subjective thing, but quite honestly, alot of the PS3 library is CRAP! Outside of a handful of shining examples, they've been releasing noting but garbage. And even some of the better titles (Half-Life 2, UT3) are suffering from poor performance problems that, quite frankly shouldn't be there. I personally think they dropped the ball in giving their developers assistance with the hardware early on BECAUSE they were so focused on this Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD pissing contest. Microsoft! Swish!
-You could title this one "Hardware Bullshit", "Bait and Switch", or even "Playing Catchup". I really don't like Kotaku AT ALL, but I have to give them credit for their PS3 coverage. I'll let former Sony Big-Wig "Ken Kutaragi" and Kotaku do the talking:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/2007-b'c'/scee-explains-ps3-bc-backpedalling-307768.php "So why, exactly, was backwards compatibility dropped from the PS3? What was once a "core value" and "necessary" according to Sony Computer Entertainment's Phil Harrison--not to mention a boastful talking point when asked about the Xbox 360's BC-- is now clearly not at all necessary, with the company's priorities on "developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility."
iD software has announced that their next game "Rage" will be available for OSX. I'm waiting to see how that runs before I'm willing to buy the Transgaming story/excuse. If it really just can't be done, then Carmack and Co will be in the same boat.
Additionally, there have been rumors that UT3 and Gears of War are going Mac native as well.
Maybe John Carmack and "Icculus" know something that the Transgaming people don't??? I dunno.
You can't seriously think those examples are exactly the same, can you?
The problem is that we didn't "INVENT" biology, it invented us. Because of that, it is very likely that there might be some things going on in there that we have no clue about.
But, by all means, please, don't let a little concern stop you. After all, your little example of the atom bomb turned out completely benign, so no worries.
I wouldn't say "scary feminist" as much as "extremist asshole", but I guess we just disagree about the validity of this so called specter.
Yes, I am all for anyone speaking up about whatever they please, as long as they're not an asshole about it. It just so happens that many of the self described "feminists" that _I_ have had to deal with were general assholes, but also assholes about topics with a feminist slant to them. Again, I guess we just see things differently.
I actually don't feel I'm a right wing tool because: -I'm 30 and I haven't felt compelled to vote yet -I'm not Caucasian -I don't make more than $100K a year -I'm not Christian -I think Ronald Reagan was a tool himself -I actually believe women should have the right to choose to have an abortion -I think there is no valid excuse for women making noticeably less than men in a given field.
I might be a tool (I'll have to think about it), but I'm pretty sure I'm not a right wing tool.
Yes, the more extreme feminists (that I most certainly have met, that you say don't exist are very similar to the Black Panthers. And they are similar in the fact that they don't want "equality". They want "equality++" which we all know is not the same thing.
I don't understand the logic in your argument. (I believe) You agree with the guy you quoted and commended, so for the sake of my argument, I'm going to include it below as one of your assertions:
"Even if the whole business isn't "respectable" by your standards, you obviously respect their work enough to watch it. To never pay is to vote for a world where that work is never produced."
Under many circumstances, there is no way for the media companies to know whether or not I have seen a given movie, so how can my watching it, JUST the act of watching it have an impact by itself?
Having said that, I can completely agree with the second sentence. Everyday, I make a statement by deciding to not purchase things that I deem unworthy of my money. When I don't go to see a chick flick in the theaters, don't rent them, and don't buy them on DVD, I am indeed saying "Please, don't make anymore of these types of things!"
"It's about time a few people around here realised the hypocrisy of advocating piracy as a counter-strategy to DRM. If you don't like the way the material is offered, fine, vote with your wallet and tell people why. That's your right"
Again, I don't see how piracy is any different from "not buying stuff" _in a strictly financial way_.
After all, I'm assuming that's what we're talking about because the subject of posting was "Morals aside". Whether the media is "pirated" or "not-purchased", the end result is that the content producers have not gotten any of my money. They have not gotten my "vote" for their media. Shouldn't that tell them that it either a) isn't good enough to warrant my money or b) isn't worth the money they're asking??
"But watching the films and listening to the music anyway just says you want the stuff but aren't willing to pay for it like everyone else."
Again, I don't think that has anything to do with the financial aspect of this whole thing. That seems like more of a moral issue.
Also, please understand that I absolutely believe what I'm saying and live by it. I'm not trying to just be difficult. I believe I have a very interesting DVD collection because I, for the most part, only own my favorite movies on DVD. I pick up the missing ones whenever I get a chance, but all the "other" DVDs I've purchased have been in the category of "why rent it for $4 when I can buy it for $5" and gifts, etc.
I firmly believe in the "positive reinforcement" model for the content providers by only buying the things I like. They really don't lose any money when I see a movie I didn't pay for because, if it was worth the money they charge, I would have picked it up.
If there was really such a hard and fast rule about paying and watching being directly related, then I wouldn't have been allowed to watch the first half-season of "Life" on nbc.com yesterday. I didn't pay a dime. I also don't think we'd be able to get music CDs from the library for free if that were true.
Until they force people to enter into some sort of formal contract, they really can't control what is done with their media in any ways other than propaganda, bullying, lawsuits against "poor" people, and technological trickery. The social holes in their business model are just being exploited more now than they were before. They've always been there though.
"So a 5 second reaction from a girl who might have emotional problems proves that these women exist. Well, ok then."
Yes, I believe it does prove that she was a "Feminist Ball Buster". She was hostile and showed aggression towards a man for no real reason so to speak, and then insulted him BECAUSE he was a man. That seems rather feminist to me, and I think it was pretty obvious that she was, indeed "busting his balls". I'm glad we agree on that:)
"Furthermore, a conversation where you presented yourself as a victim, didn't go over so well:"
Same thing here. She was taking a "feminist" position here. Maybe she wasn't "busting his balls" per se, but that was feminist jibba-jabba if I've ever heard it.
The problem with many (not all, many) feminists is that they really don't give a damn about empowering women (which I'm all for BTW). They've got their own agenda that has to do with taking power away from the "rich white man" and then using it to "get even" with him for all the bad things that he's done. On the one hand, that might not be such a bad idea, but on the other hand swapping one abusive "master" for an abusive "mastress" isn't really what I'd call progress, and it certainly isn't in the spirit of equality. At least what I would call equality.
Granted, the aforementioned professor wasn't THAT extreme in her beliefs, but she was on the other side of the same page because what she was basically saying is that the "book girl" deserved some special type of consideration because her genitals are on the inside. Special treatment and equality are usually mutually exclusive.
If any man said that men should bet treated differently just because his genitals are on the outside of his body, most people would say that he was a chauvinistic jerk. Why should it be any different for women?
Amen to that! It's mind boggling to me how many of these "Professional" game "Journalists" are spending so much time on this non-issue. Granted, I'm not saying that things are all roses for women in the game industry, but some of these "journalists" can't muster up enough of a vocabulary to intelligently describe a video game about shooting aliens. But I'm supposed to take these people seriously when they want to talk about "real" issues???
I'm well aware that not all stereotypes are true. That was mostly a joke. Mostly.
I just find the comments that were being placed here interesting. Everybody wants to get on this guys case when all he asked was a simple question. For all we know, the kid could be autistic, or a crack baby, or god knows what. Hopefully that's not the case, but people shouldn't automatically assume that this guy is some sort of deadbeat just because the kid wasn't reading Faust at three years old.
I find it strangely interesting (and entertaining) that the sex-starved, pale, anti-social geeks that supposedly frequent this place have so many strong opinions about how someone else should raise their child. The mind boggles...
Slashdot Mirror
Despite what some others are asserting, I whole-heartedly agree with you. I didn't go to school to have my head filled with a lot of process and procedure nonsense, I went there to LEARN.
If you can put a student in front of a test with only the bare minimum of "tools" needed to solve the problem, that's all you really need to grade them. If they can solve the problem in the alotted time or manner, then they have "learned" whatever it is you were trying to teach them. No amount of "homework puppet-show" nonsense will guarantee that a student has learned the key concepts.
"Give a man a fish" vs. "Teach a man to fish"...I don't see why people have trouble understanding that.
I see a few things here:
;)
1) I think many people just really don't agree with your stance. I know I don't. It's as simple as that.
2) Best Buy has, by and large, not behaved in a manner that makes the typical Slashdotter happy. That's just subjective, so what can you do? Again, I really do think "Best Buy Bad!". Aagree to disagree.
3) Best Buy apparently had a legal responsibility to do some things that they didn't do, and they're being sued for it. Chances are, they'll settle out of court so it will never go far enough to have any impact on legal precedent anyway.
Again, I don't think it's an issue of "right vs. wrong", it seems to me more of an "agree to disagree" situation. Besides, why would you want to argue details with a bunch of people who didn't read the article anyway??
"weights-and-measures fraud"
Bravo! That's exactly what this nonsense is. Well said.
"In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have."
A-Men to that! I'm format neutral as well, but when I heard about the full feature set that HD-DVD had when compared with Blu-Ray 1.0's cobbled together mess...Well, I wouldn't say I jumped on the HD-DVD ship as much as their is the only boat I'd really be willing to get on.
Of course, now with the supposed death of HD-DVD, who's to say that the Blu-Ray Spec NEEDS to be updated. They'll probably just use it as an excuse to milk even more hardware upgrades out of the public.
Great post!
"You know where you can stick your sympathy train."
;)
*Applause*
Good One! That's pretty much what I wanted to say. Choo! Choo!
On the one hand, I agree with you, but on the other, I'd have to say that there is certainly a reason why I don't read ANY "mainstream" gaming sites any longer. I've dropped Penny Arcade, EGM, Joystiq, Escapist, Kotaku, and all the rest because there doesn't seem to be much in the way of professional journalism or even proud, "professional" grade craftsmanship in the whole lot of them.
;)
I've had enough of the sloppy opinion pieces written by pretentious fanboys who don't pay for any of their own games.
We'll have "Game Journalism" some day, but we sure as hell don't have it now.
Of course, I'm just a "blog commenter"
I see where you're going with that argument, and I'd have to agree with you IF being a Mormon was like joining some sort of civic organization. But by virtue of the fact that it's a religion, and that most religions REQUIRE you to buy into whatever the "party line" is hook, line, and sinker, that means he has to be committed to whatever the organization says. 100%. No exceptions. That's the definition of being a "believer".
By convention, you can be a Democrat and not believe in EVERYTHING that the party "preaches".
By convention, you can be a Republican and not believe in EVERYTHING that the party "preaches".
By convention, you can be a Boy Scout and not believe in EVERYTHING that the group "preaches".
But you can't be an "only 99%" participant in most religions because most religions are all or nothing affairs. He volunteers to run around the country talking about how wonderful it is to be a Mormon, so he's saying that he completely believes whatever they tell him to believe. He labels himself a Mormon, and wears the label on his sleeve.
So here's a question: If I were to adopt your assumption (and I personally feel it's a big assumption since my "assumption" is a documented fact) that he's a non-racist Mormon, that means he and all his Mormon buddies were, instantly and magically, absolutely and completely, "OK" with Black people when they changed their story in 1972?
"Hi Mr. Negro. You were going to go to hell yesterday, but today, you get to go to heaven, just like me. Isn't God's grace WONDERFUL!?!?!"
That's bull, and I think you know it. So he's either a racist, or a lying POS. Pick one.
Now, racial issues aside, how can you advocate ANYONE for President when they are TELLING YOU that they will listen to and obey someone BESIDES the American people? He volunteers this information by talking about how devout he is. If he didn't put so much emphasis on it to try to win the "Christian Nutjob" vote, it wouldn't be a big issue. I've known a few Mormon people, and they never spit on me or anything, so I could probably force myself to buy his BS. But he's displaying how dishonest he is and he hopes that nobody sees what he's doing. Apparently, quite a few people don't see it.
I didn't want to believe that it was true either, but I'm afraid that quite a few Mormons have hopped onto the boat without realizing what the trip was all about. Once they're kinda stuck there, I'm sure they like to pretend that they don't believe in that nonsense. I'm sure they actually don't really believe that nonsense about Black people, but they can't complain about being stereotyped whenever what their being accused of is an actual fact.
It must be nice, not caring that he's Mormon. I, unfortunately HAVE to care, because he doesn't believe that my children and I are as HUMAN as him. They (Mormons, at least until sometime in the 70's) apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml [lds-mormon.com]
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)
"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."
"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Screw the Mormon Church." Screw Mitt Romney", and "Screw anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."
Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.
I don't care if he IS some sort of genius. As far as I can tell, him and all his wacko cult members don't believe I'm as "human" as they are, so they can all go to hell. I'd vote for just about anybody besides a mormon. They, apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)
"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."
"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Fuck the Mormon Church." Fuck Mitt Romney", and "Fuck anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."
Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.
And for the record, before you even ask, I'll just say upfront that we don't have a single candidate running who I think should even be a contender for President. Not one. But I wouldn't even THINK of voting for Romney.
That was very informative. Thank you. I have really no intention of switching my primary desktop BACK to Windows, but I was curious about the new "gamer oriented" aspects of Vista which tend to get glossed over often times.
"What exactly was your point about MS being better?"
Ways in which Microsoft is "better":
-A key point for me, is that Microsoft wasn't trying to push a NEW and UNNECESSARY "standard" on me when I purchased my GAME CONSOLE. That's an abstract thing, but I still appreciate not being someone's media format guinea pig. 2 points MS!
-DVD is CHEAP! It's more than capable of holding enough data for 9 out of 10 games. If it doesn't, then slap another DVD in the box and call it a day. Let's say you actually NEEDED 50GB of storage for a game. A regular DVD holds 9GB (Dual Layer), so you'd need (50 / 9 = 5.555) 6 DVD's. OK fine. How much are the actual discs though?
According to:
http://www.mediasupply.com/bluray.html
TDK DVD 25GB BD-R (Recordable) Single-Layer Blu-ray Disc
$19.90
That's $19.90 PER DISK!
http://www.mediasupply.com/mama.html
MAM-A/Mitsui 4.7GB Gold Archive DVD-R - 50 Ct.
$99.00
(99 \ 50 = 1.98)
That's $1.98 PER DISK!
(6 x $1.98 = $11.88)
So even if you needed 6 DVDs to hold your game, you'd still be paying ALMOST half the price for just the physical media! Granted, I'm sure the prices are much different in bulk, but the principle is the same. Nine times out of 10, cheaper without any real drawbacks is better "Just Because".
Score two more points for Microsoft.
-Screw the movie companies! I didn't want to get caught up in their format pissing contest anyway. By buying a DVD based console, I basically told BOTH sides in the HDDVD v BD pissing match to go screw themselves and sat down to a nice game of Rainbow Six. That's always fun! Score!
-This is more of a subjective thing, but quite honestly, alot of the PS3 library is CRAP! Outside of a handful of shining examples, they've been releasing noting but garbage. And even some of the better titles (Half-Life 2, UT3) are suffering from poor performance problems that, quite frankly shouldn't be there. I personally think they dropped the ball in giving their developers assistance with the hardware early on BECAUSE they were so focused on this Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD pissing contest. Microsoft! Swish!
-You could title this one "Hardware Bullshit", "Bait and Switch", or even "Playing Catchup". I really don't like Kotaku AT ALL, but I have to give them credit for their PS3 coverage. I'll let former Sony Big-Wig "Ken Kutaragi" and Kotaku do the talking:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/2007-b'c'/scee-explains-ps3-bc-backpedalling-307768.php
"So why, exactly, was backwards compatibility dropped from the PS3? What was once a "core value" and "necessary" according to Sony Computer Entertainment's Phil Harrison--not to mention a boastful talking point when asked about the Xbox 360's BC-- is now clearly not at all necessary, with the company's priorities on "developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility."
http://kotaku.com/gaming/business/dumb-exec-quote-round+up-rodeo-327776.php
(PlayStation Father Ken Kutaragi on the PS3's intial price tag:
"It's probably too cheap... We want consumers to think to themselves, 'I will work more hours to buy one.'")
http://kotaku.com/gaming/tgs06/tgs06-kutaragis-keynote-a-rerun-202907.php
He's even upfront about Sony's media agenda on occasion: "Sony has Sony's agenda. But (I) want a very open platform, equal for every person."
http://kotaku.com/gaming/tgs06/tgs06-liveblogging-kutaragis-keynote-202427.php
Even Ken knows that using a cheap media format is a good idea. That was one of the key factors in their vi
iD software has announced that their next game "Rage" will be available for OSX. I'm waiting to see how that runs before I'm willing to buy the Transgaming story/excuse. If it really just can't be done, then Carmack and Co will be in the same boat.
Additionally, there have been rumors that UT3 and Gears of War are going Mac native as well.
Maybe John Carmack and "Icculus" know something that the Transgaming people don't??? I dunno.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/17/gears-of-war-ut3-coming-to-macs/
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=15468
"you're going to go home with a bloody nose"
Wow! That was uncalled for.
It saddens me that you're so angry, and I hope you can get over whatever it is that troubles you.
Have a safe and pleasant evening.
You can't seriously think those examples are exactly the same, can you?
The problem is that we didn't "INVENT" biology, it invented us. Because of that, it is very likely that there might be some things going on in there that we have no clue about.
But, by all means, please, don't let a little concern stop you. After all, your little example of the atom bomb turned out completely benign, so no worries.
Full speed ahead!
*Pulls train whistle
Choo! Choo!
Isn't it crazy? I hadn't thought of it that way until some British Slashdotter said basically the same thing the other day.
:)
Sometimes I think Douglas Adams died and got the job of writing the storyline for reality
Eventually the digital signal will be sent into my analog TV via the tuner-box that the government is giving me a $40 coupon for.
:)
Government Subsidized Media Time-shifting FTW
I wouldn't say "scary feminist" as much as "extremist asshole", but I guess we just disagree about the validity of this so called specter.
Yes, I am all for anyone speaking up about whatever they please, as long as they're not an asshole about it. It just so happens that many of the self described "feminists" that _I_ have had to deal with were general assholes, but also assholes about topics with a feminist slant to them. Again, I guess we just see things differently.
I actually don't feel I'm a right wing tool because:
-I'm 30 and I haven't felt compelled to vote yet
-I'm not Caucasian
-I don't make more than $100K a year
-I'm not Christian
-I think Ronald Reagan was a tool himself
-I actually believe women should have the right to choose to have an abortion
-I think there is no valid excuse for women making noticeably less than men in a given field.
I might be a tool (I'll have to think about it), but I'm pretty sure I'm not a right wing tool.
Yes, the more extreme feminists (that I most certainly have met, that you say don't exist are very similar to the Black Panthers. And they are similar in the fact that they don't want "equality". They want "equality++" which we all know is not the same thing.
I don't understand the logic in your argument. (I believe) You agree with the guy you quoted and commended, so for the sake of my argument, I'm going to include it below as one of your assertions:
"Even if the whole business isn't "respectable" by your standards, you obviously respect their work enough to watch it. To never pay is to vote for a world where that work is never produced."
Under many circumstances, there is no way for the media companies to know whether or not I have seen a given movie, so how can my watching it, JUST the act of watching it have an impact by itself?
Having said that, I can completely agree with the second sentence. Everyday, I make a statement by deciding to not purchase things that I deem unworthy of my money. When I don't go to see a chick flick in the theaters, don't rent them, and don't buy them on DVD, I am indeed saying "Please, don't make anymore of these types of things!"
"It's about time a few people around here realised the hypocrisy of advocating piracy as a counter-strategy to DRM. If you don't like the way the material is offered, fine, vote with your wallet and tell people why. That's your right"
Again, I don't see how piracy is any different from "not buying stuff" _in a strictly financial way_.
After all, I'm assuming that's what we're talking about because the subject of posting was "Morals aside". Whether the media is "pirated" or "not-purchased", the end result is that the content producers have not gotten any of my money. They have not gotten my "vote" for their media. Shouldn't that tell them that it either a) isn't good enough to warrant my money or b) isn't worth the money they're asking??
"But watching the films and listening to the music anyway just says you want the stuff but aren't willing to pay for it like everyone else."
Again, I don't think that has anything to do with the financial aspect of this whole thing. That seems like more of a moral issue.
Also, please understand that I absolutely believe what I'm saying and live by it. I'm not trying to just be difficult. I believe I have a very interesting DVD collection because I, for the most part, only own my favorite movies on DVD. I pick up the missing ones whenever I get a chance, but all the "other" DVDs I've purchased have been in the category of "why rent it for $4 when I can buy it for $5" and gifts, etc.
I firmly believe in the "positive reinforcement" model for the content providers by only buying the things I like. They really don't lose any money when I see a movie I didn't pay for because, if it was worth the money they charge, I would have picked it up.
If there was really such a hard and fast rule about paying and watching being directly related, then I wouldn't have been allowed to watch the first half-season of "Life" on nbc.com yesterday. I didn't pay a dime. I also don't think we'd be able to get music CDs from the library for free if that were true.
Until they force people to enter into some sort of formal contract, they really can't control what is done with their media in any ways other than propaganda, bullying, lawsuits against "poor" people, and technological trickery. The social holes in their business model are just being exploited more now than they were before. They've always been there though.
"So a 5 second reaction from a girl who might have emotional problems proves that these women exist. Well, ok then."
:)
Yes, I believe it does prove that she was a "Feminist Ball Buster". She was hostile and showed aggression towards a man for no real reason so to speak, and then insulted him BECAUSE he was a man. That seems rather feminist to me, and I think it was pretty obvious that she was, indeed "busting his balls". I'm glad we agree on that
"Furthermore, a conversation where you presented yourself as a victim, didn't go over so well:"
Same thing here. She was taking a "feminist" position here. Maybe she wasn't "busting his balls" per se, but that was feminist jibba-jabba if I've ever heard it.
The problem with many (not all, many) feminists is that they really don't give a damn about empowering women (which I'm all for BTW). They've got their own agenda that has to do with taking power away from the "rich white man" and then using it to "get even" with him for all the bad things that he's done. On the one hand, that might not be such a bad idea, but on the other hand swapping one abusive "master" for an abusive "mastress" isn't really what I'd call progress, and it certainly isn't in the spirit of equality. At least what I would call equality.
Granted, the aforementioned professor wasn't THAT extreme in her beliefs, but she was on the other side of the same page because what she was basically saying is that the "book girl" deserved some special type of consideration because her genitals are on the inside. Special treatment and equality are usually mutually exclusive.
If any man said that men should bet treated differently just because his genitals are on the outside of his body, most people would say that he was a chauvinistic jerk. Why should it be any different for women?
"I believe we all know who the *real* criminals are."
Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooooooh! is it the 59,945 people Rudy Giuliani put in jail for smoking pot?!?!?
"BTW, using opaque, pseudo-philosophical language to argue your points is a common tactic of postmodernists."
*And the crowd cheers!!*
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!!
Bravo!
Amen to that! It's mind boggling to me how many of these "Professional" game "Journalists" are spending so much time on this non-issue. Granted, I'm not saying that things are all roses for women in the game industry, but some of these "journalists" can't muster up enough of a vocabulary to intelligently describe a video game about shooting aliens. But I'm supposed to take these people seriously when they want to talk about "real" issues???
Bah!
I'm well aware that not all stereotypes are true. That was mostly a joke. Mostly.
I just find the comments that were being placed here interesting. Everybody wants to get on this guys case when all he asked was a simple question. For all we know, the kid could be autistic, or a crack baby, or god knows what. Hopefully that's not the case, but people shouldn't automatically assume that this guy is some sort of deadbeat just because the kid wasn't reading Faust at three years old.
That's all I'm saying.
I find it strangely interesting (and entertaining) that the sex-starved, pale, anti-social geeks that supposedly frequent this place have so many strong opinions about how someone else should raise their child. The mind boggles...
Starting at about the second paragraph, I started "hearing" your post as if it were being spoken by the G-man. Funny but creepy!