oh very much agreed, and i dont think that certain games should be played indiscriminantly by children - hence the ratings system; flawed as it might be, its there for a reason.
this group though not only does not but patently refuses to make the distinction between a game like GTA and one that isn't like it at all. To oppose ALL violent games, especially having ZERO experience with ANY of them, is just ignorant censorship. and it's wrong.
but its not like that. games tell a story, or at the very least are entertainment. if you protest a movie you havent seen, or attempt to ban a book you haven't read, that's just willful ignorance. The only thing more dangerous than an uninformed opinion is a cause based on said opinion.
Yes the games are clearly about killing -- but context is important. You cannot make a qualitative statement that they "glorify killing" without having experienced the context of the killing. Otherwise, we should opposed Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ and countless other movies or works literature where someone gets killed. It is the context of the killing that matters.
So while they might be so myopic as to not understand this, and to declare all games shooting guns bad, that does not mean "have you played the game?" is an irrelevant question -- it IS relevant to any logical person, and it just goes to show how ridiculous the group is. Just because they're myopic doesn't mean they get a free pass on the bigger issues.
Oh yeah that's a faaaantastic precedent to set. What Mr. Big Company? Want to pollute more? Well, pay more money and you can! (well, that's already possible too, but that doesn't make it right).
You should not be able to pay more in order to disregard the environment. The health of the environment should not be for sale, it should be a factor on everyone.
Did you read the article? oh wait, I'm not new here, so no, you didn't.
Since a prius will drive much further on a tank than a person in an H2, if both individuals drive 100 miles, the person in the H2 pays significantly more in taxes. They're proposing to change the system so that its based on how far you drive, not how much gas you use.
MPH? we still use that? I thought maybe in this age of newfangled units, we'd at least get like,.41 times that of the Hubble Telescope, or 34.7 times faster than a lambourghini diablo.
Clearly the aztecs were not savages. but Cortez wrote back that they were, which had Chuckie V OK the expedition to conquer it.
Velasquez sent them out to trade with a civilization, one his recon men had only heard about. He was expecting the kind of civilization you'd see in Europe. The euro idea of civilization was pretty narrow. Cortez saw what the aztecs were, and knew it wasn't "Civilization" and so conquered it.
"Cortés' gambled that his success would absolve him of his rebellion against Velásquez in the eyes of the Spanish Crown. He was correct and received riches, a title of nobility, and fame"
Why would it work? because he conquered a bunch of savages and that was better than trading with savages. That was the European worldview. If Velasquez had gone over there and seen the real Aztecs, would he have tried to trade with them? I don't know, I'm not Velasquez, but if he had, he'd have been in the minority. Trading was for equals. Conquering was what civilizations do, not accept heavily armed strangers into their midst, trusting them. Look at what was going on in India at this time, and in South Asia for more on Civilized Society vs. Savages.
Again, I fully understand that the Native Americans had their own legitimate civilization and were not savages. but that is how the Euros saw them.
" Although the voyages did not yield an immediate solution for the Governor of Cuba, there were indications of a wealthy civilisation somewhere just beyond the Spaniard's reach. Intrigued and excited about the possibility of finding the source of this wealth, Velásquez commissioned Hernán Cortés to explore, trade, and search for Christian captives in the Yucatán."
"ortés did not want to explore, trade, and search for Christian captives. Rather, his goal was nothing less than the conquest of Mexico. He wrote to King Charles V, and sought confirmation of the title of chief officer of Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz that he had conferred upon himself. He also explained to the king the "ungodly ways" of the indigenous population and stated that his would be a "just war" against their tyrannical ruler. Cortés did not hurt his own cause when he described the wealth of the Aztecs and claimed that he wanted to conquer the territory in the name of Christianity and the Spanish Crown. Convinced that his actions would ultimately justify the steps he had already taken, Cortés set off overland for the Mexican capital."
"Cortés' management of Spanish possessions in the Americas ensured that, by 1540, Mexico City (built on the ruins of Tenochtitlán) was the metropolis of Spanish America. Cortés' gambled that his success would absolve him of his rebellion against Velásquez in the eyes of the Spanish Crown. He was correct and received riches, a title of nobility, and fame. After the defeat of the Aztecs, Spanish power spread rapidly through the Aztec Empire. Cortés' action was one of the single largest additions of land and treasure to the Spanish Empire ever secured by an individual."
Thanks for supporting my point -- it was about conquest and riches at the expense of the savages in their mind.
First paragraph: No. English came for tobacco and fur, and ended losing the fur trade (which was really the only real trade with the natives) to the French, and it was lucrative but limited to the north (Canada). The English just grew their own tobacco, and started importing slaves from Africa to work the fields -- note, they didn't enslave the natives, they wanted nothing to do with them. Colonists settled along coasts and rivers because those were the easiest places to get to, and the easiest to get products back to the Homeland. No point in risking your life trying to settle among the savage interior -- people die that way! There was no great Euro-NA connection among the people -- they were mostly at odds, feared each other, and pretty much couldn't get along.
The Spanish came for gold. They also attempted to convert to catholocism many of the natives, but mostly for purposes of control and de-savagifying them.
2nd Paragraph: Yes, those religious colonists were chased around and out of Europe -- they fled to America to get away for persecution based on their religion. They were not popular, they didn't much like the homeland, they traded little with the homeland, and the homelands were pretty happy with that -- good riddance, they figured. These religious colonies also pretty much didn't get along with the natives, feared them, and wanted little to do with them -- they saw the natives as savages.
3rd P: The notion of "savage" tribes is NOT European propoganda -- that is the way the colonists saw them. They believed it. I am not attempting to say, nor do I believe, that the NA tribes actually were savages. But what I believe is not what the colonists believe. And if by "few centuries before" you mean like, 8, yes. Assuming the first New World date is 1500, most of Europe was rapidly Xianizing by 600ad-700ad.
I didn't propogate any myths, I simply mentioned the reasons the colonists themselves held for their actions. While what they might have believed was wrong, that doesn't mean they didn't believe it.
People colonize other places because of what they need to do there, not for what they can send back here
Hmm that's not how the colonists in North America saw it -- the Colonies were pretty angry that everything they made had to be sold back to England, and that their economy was being crushed by English taxes. People didn't go to the new world for tourism, they went because of business opportunity -- and when the unfair trading practices made those opportunities poor, they revolted.
The colonization of North America was NOT about connecting with people -- once they figured out it was a continent, they gave up the quick way to India idea (some sooner than others) and settled in. They weren't overly interested with "connecting" with the Native Americans. They were savages! What's to connect with? That's the way most of them saw it. And of course don't forget many colonists were also religious refugees fleeing England -- so they had nothing to do with connecting with people, economics, or tourism -- they were true colonists.
And it would only have taken 66,000 people to switch from Bush to Kerry to have won it for Kerry, so you could say Bush only won by convincing 66,000 undecideds to vote for him instead of Kerry.
I hope you're Mike from TechDirt because you just jacked his coca-cola example. If you're not Mike, then you just jacked his IP and he'll probably sue/. now. I hope you're proud.
if you are taking down signs on public land and leaving up ones you agree with, that IS practicing free speech. You could simply achieve the same effect by placing up candidate-you-agree-with signs on top of the disagreeable candidate's. Free speech, you're just speaking louder.
but if its on someone else's property, then yeah, you're an idiot.
Of course, some states still won't put everyone on the ballot either. Lincoln won the election without a single vote from the South -- he wasn't on any of the ballots.
Slashdot Mirror
oh very much agreed, and i dont think that certain games should be played indiscriminantly by children - hence the ratings system; flawed as it might be, its there for a reason.
this group though not only does not but patently refuses to make the distinction between a game like GTA and one that isn't like it at all. To oppose ALL violent games, especially having ZERO experience with ANY of them, is just ignorant censorship. and it's wrong.
but its not like that. games tell a story, or at the very least are entertainment. if you protest a movie you havent seen, or attempt to ban a book you haven't read, that's just willful ignorance. The only thing more dangerous than an uninformed opinion is a cause based on said opinion.
Yes the games are clearly about killing -- but context is important. You cannot make a qualitative statement that they "glorify killing" without having experienced the context of the killing. Otherwise, we should opposed Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ and countless other movies or works literature where someone gets killed. It is the context of the killing that matters.
So while they might be so myopic as to not understand this, and to declare all games shooting guns bad, that does not mean "have you played the game?" is an irrelevant question -- it IS relevant to any logical person, and it just goes to show how ridiculous the group is. Just because they're myopic doesn't mean they get a free pass on the bigger issues.
unless of course, he buys an electric car.
It's a screensaver for them. It prevents burn-in between sessions of starcraft.
Uh oh, watch out, next thing you know, marvel comics will sue this guy and his kid for impersonating copyrighted superheroes.
Aw crap...I was going to install it and check it out finally this weekend. Doh.
Oh yeah that's a faaaantastic precedent to set. What Mr. Big Company? Want to pollute more? Well, pay more money and you can! (well, that's already possible too, but that doesn't make it right).
You should not be able to pay more in order to disregard the environment. The health of the environment should not be for sale, it should be a factor on everyone.
well thats an extreme example to make a point, but what about a corrolla vs. prius? a civic vs. a civic hybrid? same wear and tear, one pays more.
Did you read the article? oh wait, I'm not new here, so no, you didn't.
Since a prius will drive much further on a tank than a person in an H2, if both individuals drive 100 miles, the person in the H2 pays significantly more in taxes. They're proposing to change the system so that its based on how far you drive, not how much gas you use.
MPH? we still use that? I thought maybe in this age of newfangled units, we'd at least get like, .41 times that of the Hubble Telescope, or 34.7 times faster than a lambourghini diablo.
Clearly the aztecs were not savages. but Cortez wrote back that they were, which had Chuckie V OK the expedition to conquer it.
Velasquez sent them out to trade with a civilization, one his recon men had only heard about. He was expecting the kind of civilization you'd see in Europe. The euro idea of civilization was pretty narrow. Cortez saw what the aztecs were, and knew it wasn't "Civilization" and so conquered it.
"Cortés' gambled that his success would absolve him of his rebellion against Velásquez in the eyes of the Spanish Crown. He was correct and received riches, a title of nobility, and fame"
Why would it work? because he conquered a bunch of savages and that was better than trading with savages. That was the European worldview. If Velasquez had gone over there and seen the real Aztecs, would he have tried to trade with them? I don't know, I'm not Velasquez, but if he had, he'd have been in the minority. Trading was for equals. Conquering was what civilizations do, not accept heavily armed strangers into their midst, trusting them. Look at what was going on in India at this time, and in South Asia for more on Civilized Society vs. Savages.
Again, I fully understand that the Native Americans had their own legitimate civilization and were not savages. but that is how the Euros saw them.
Did you even read what you sent me?
" Although the voyages did not yield an immediate solution for the Governor of Cuba, there were indications of a wealthy civilisation somewhere just beyond the Spaniard's reach. Intrigued and excited about the possibility of finding the source of this wealth, Velásquez commissioned Hernán Cortés to explore, trade, and search for Christian captives in the Yucatán."
"ortés did not want to explore, trade, and search for Christian captives. Rather, his goal was nothing less than the conquest of Mexico. He wrote to King Charles V, and sought confirmation of the title of chief officer of Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz that he had conferred upon himself. He also explained to the king the "ungodly ways" of the indigenous population and stated that his would be a "just war" against their tyrannical ruler. Cortés did not hurt his own cause when he described the wealth of the Aztecs and claimed that he wanted to conquer the territory in the name of Christianity and the Spanish Crown. Convinced that his actions would ultimately justify the steps he had already taken, Cortés set off overland for the Mexican capital."
"Cortés' management of Spanish possessions in the Americas ensured that, by 1540, Mexico City (built on the ruins of Tenochtitlán) was the metropolis of Spanish America. Cortés' gambled that his success would absolve him of his rebellion against Velásquez in the eyes of the Spanish Crown. He was correct and received riches, a title of nobility, and fame. After the defeat of the Aztecs, Spanish power spread rapidly through the Aztec Empire. Cortés' action was one of the single largest additions of land and treasure to the Spanish Empire ever secured by an individual."
Thanks for supporting my point -- it was about conquest and riches at the expense of the savages in their mind.
First paragraph: No. English came for tobacco and fur, and ended losing the fur trade (which was really the only real trade with the natives) to the French, and it was lucrative but limited to the north (Canada). The English just grew their own tobacco, and started importing slaves from Africa to work the fields -- note, they didn't enslave the natives, they wanted nothing to do with them. Colonists settled along coasts and rivers because those were the easiest places to get to, and the easiest to get products back to the Homeland. No point in risking your life trying to settle among the savage interior -- people die that way! There was no great Euro-NA connection among the people -- they were mostly at odds, feared each other, and pretty much couldn't get along.
The Spanish came for gold. They also attempted to convert to catholocism many of the natives, but mostly for purposes of control and de-savagifying them.
2nd Paragraph: Yes, those religious colonists were chased around and out of Europe -- they fled to America to get away for persecution based on their religion. They were not popular, they didn't much like the homeland, they traded little with the homeland, and the homelands were pretty happy with that -- good riddance, they figured. These religious colonies also pretty much didn't get along with the natives, feared them, and wanted little to do with them -- they saw the natives as savages.
3rd P: The notion of "savage" tribes is NOT European propoganda -- that is the way the colonists saw them. They believed it. I am not attempting to say, nor do I believe, that the NA tribes actually were savages. But what I believe is not what the colonists believe. And if by "few centuries before" you mean like, 8, yes. Assuming the first New World date is 1500, most of Europe was rapidly Xianizing by 600ad-700ad.
I didn't propogate any myths, I simply mentioned the reasons the colonists themselves held for their actions. While what they might have believed was wrong, that doesn't mean they didn't believe it.
People colonize other places because of what they need to do there, not for what they can send back here
Hmm that's not how the colonists in North America saw it -- the Colonies were pretty angry that everything they made had to be sold back to England, and that their economy was being crushed by English taxes. People didn't go to the new world for tourism, they went because of business opportunity -- and when the unfair trading practices made those opportunities poor, they revolted.
The colonization of North America was NOT about connecting with people -- once they figured out it was a continent, they gave up the quick way to India idea (some sooner than others) and settled in. They weren't overly interested with "connecting" with the Native Americans. They were savages! What's to connect with? That's the way most of them saw it. And of course don't forget many colonists were also religious refugees fleeing England -- so they had nothing to do with connecting with people, economics, or tourism -- they were true colonists.
As long as its extreme...screw that mundane wasp fighting show!
And it would only have taken 66,000 people to switch from Bush to Kerry to have won it for Kerry, so you could say Bush only won by convincing 66,000 undecideds to vote for him instead of Kerry.
But was she expecting your call?
People from [your party] have a brain, and those of [other party] don't!
Or perhaps Stephen Baxter.
I hope you're Mike from TechDirt because you just jacked his coca-cola example. If you're not Mike, then you just jacked his IP and he'll probably sue /. now. I hope you're proud.
Simple way around it -- countersue nintendo for legal expenses on the grounds that Big N filed a frivolous lawsuit against you.
Someone from Australia should do this. Come on, it doesn't get that cloudy that often in many places there right?
And can you imagine how cool it would be to have an analemma with Uluru in the foreground?
if you are taking down signs on public land and leaving up ones you agree with, that IS practicing free speech. You could simply achieve the same effect by placing up candidate-you-agree-with signs on top of the disagreeable candidate's. Free speech, you're just speaking louder.
but if its on someone else's property, then yeah, you're an idiot.
Of course, some states still won't put everyone on the ballot either. Lincoln won the election without a single vote from the South -- he wasn't on any of the ballots.
What line did ReplayTV cross? How did that put them out of business -- aren't they still IN business?
I totally don't follow DVR stuff, so I have no idea what he's talking about. Little help?