Politically I agree with you, almost down the line... but;
Navy officer trumps god damned lawyer, in my opinion
How? I'd rather have someone who understands laws, than someone born and raised to kill people. Especially being that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, which seems something we're in dire need of, after our last president thought that "constitution" what slang for "toilet paper".
Agreed, though, I don't like either of them, but don't dislike either of them as much as I disliked Hillary. I would have voted for the pre-Iraq McCain, his conversion to neoconservative Bushism is just distasteful.
I like Richardson, though I decided to vote far left for the primary cycle, Edwards. Was going to do Kucinich, but I knew he'd never win anything.
I'd like to see a Kucinich/Paul (or visa versa) ticket though. They'd average out to be roughly my political views.
Odd... I'm going to quit my job, get one at McDonalds, and buy a Porsche AND a mansion! Or at least thats the lesson in economics I learned from the last 8 years.
You don't cut income AND increase spending, and expect everything to work.
Remember Bush wanted the cuts, congress voted for them. Remeber bush wanted to hemorrhage $2 trillion for fun, and congress said okay. It's rather hard to shirk blame from one to the other, when both (controlled by republicans) were guilty.
Are you just justifying you yakking on a cell-phone wherever you are, other people's enjoyment be damned?
I figure that as long as you post a sing saying you have a cell jammer, or that your establishment is a Faraday cage, then your golden. If said doctor comes in, reads the sign, and someone dies, its completely the doctors fault.
There is a flaw in your reasoning though. I've living in a couple buildings with either spotty, or no cell phone coverage at all. Is it the building owners fault if a doctor is visiting me, and can't get a call? Is it the cell companies, since they have inadequate coverage?
It is, in part, Hollywood's responsibility, since they have the ability to leverage theater companies, and make a large profit from theater showings. Not 100% their responsibility, but they do have a stake in it. They, also, are the ones bitching that people don't go to movies due to piracy. When people don't go to movies because it isn't enjoyable thanks to cell-phones and general idiots, and thus may or may not resort to piracy.
I'm very happy you are part of the 10% of society with cellphone etiquette, your post, though, still makes you sound like an ass. Calm down and sound more like your username.
I agree with large venues, but completely disagree when it comes to the smaller ones. I'll travel 50 miles to next big city to see a band I like in a small (2-300 or less) venue. In my town there is an awesome bar/venue that gets some of the small acts, I go there religiously. There is nothing quite like standing 5' from the stage, with a bar-priced cold beer, listening to music. And you get the privilege of buy a round for the band, and chatting with them between sets. Also it is much more energetic, a small venue is easier to control the atmosphere, than a large one.
One of the things you miss with CDs and MP3s is the improvisation too. I like it when bands take a 3.5 minute song I know, and turn it into a 10 minute jam.
I agree 100%, and it rather pisses me off. I used to love going to theaters with friends/family, but in the last 5-10 years it has become completely unbearable. The cellphone issue is, of course, a large part of it (as they seem to be the break down in most civil activities, like going out to dinner, and driving), but I think it is symptom or a larger issue, we're losing manners as a society.
The last three movies I saw were the test screening for No Country for Old Men, Transformers, and the new Indie flick. Each of them was a wretched experience, even if all three movies, in themselves, were enjoyable. In the first it was full of people expecting Big Lebowski II, and perfectly willing to voice their disapointment at ever singe scene, and ask very loud questions of bits they didn't understand to the full audience. (my favorite from this was some idiot frat-boy-type screaming "hey look, its Woody Harrison!" at the top of his lungs, when Woody Harrison stepped on scene, thanks for the public service announcement) Transformers was completely infested with cellphones, and some mid-20's wanker kicking the back of my seat, and giving me dirty looks (while continueing to do so) after I asked him to stop. The Indie movie was just hell. Two people with kids, who apparently never figured out how to change diapers, were in front, after the smell passed, the kid realized someone should change his diaper, and thus wailed the whole movie (this was a 10:30pm showing), the people next to us were giving a play-by-play to their friends. While the couple behind us were discussing their day to day lives loudly, instead of, you know, watching the movie they paid for.
These are the last three movies I will see in theaters. Obviously. Its worth giving up the big screen, and awesome sound to avoid obnoxious, unsocialized, monkeys.
I think it will take more than making our theaters (and restaurants, please?) into giant Faraday cages. People have forgotten civility, and the existence of other people, it seems. Until we find a way to make people respect anyone outside of themselves, we'll have problems.
I really don't like this type of argument. Its like saying if Abraham Lincoln never existed, the US would still have slavery, or if Edison never happened, we wouldn't have had light bulbs. Completely unprovable, and irrelevant, and they generally don't take technological/ideological/scientific trends into account.
Without Christianity the world would, indeed, be a different place, by the very nature of the proposition. Saying it would be more ignorant, and less advanced, or that the Roman Empire would never have fallen, though, is MUCH more debatable. I don't know if it would have been better, worse, or the same, but I can bet that the Roman Empire would have fallen anyways thanks to economic, territorial, and cultural problems (and those damn pagan Germanic tribes).
Looking at the state of knowledge in the pre-Christian world, though, I would argue against Christianity being as big a boon as you say. Ancient Greece was, without question, the most brilliant period of time for science/philosophy/mathematics up until fairly recently, just as the Roman's were the main engineering power-houses up until the mid-Renaissance. The Christians purged non-religious academics from society, leading (in part) to the dark ages, and only in the Enlightenment did we get them back thats to an influx of ancient ideas perserved by the Muslim Arabs (who were pretty advanced, while we were running about burning ugly women, and accusing Jew's of eating babies for Satan).
I would say the rise of Christianity as the main cultural theme of the West was BAD for progress.
This isn't a dig against your religion. Modern Christians have very little in common with early Christians outside of the basic tenets of faith. Just like modern Muslim societies have very little in common (for the most part) with their historical counterparts.
To digress into a moral (sorry); It just shows that keeping religion and academics separate is a good thing for both, but especially for progress. For some reason both the Religious right, and the Scientific left want to destroy this nice barrier, to the detriment of both.
Obviously the machine me would know it was a copy, since for its whole experience previously it hadn't been a machine, and thus is a copy. Being that in this scenario, the personality is persistent, the machine me would have to recognize me as the original, too.
What my (machine version) reaction to this is far beyond my scope of experience, so I have no clue what the reaction would be.
The fact of the matter is that one millisecond after the transfer you are no longer dealing with copies, but different (and rapidly diverging) beings. In a day, are you still a copy, or an entity unto yourself?
In a year?
You (meatspace) really didn't gain much from this copying, since in 10 years you and your machine counterpart are wholly different 'people', and you still to face your own mortality. The only solution around this is "real" immortality, or perhaps some form of constant syncing between you and the machine version of you, creating a symbiotic dual being.
Or we can acknowledge the fact that the meatspace you is the real you, since you can unplug your machine clone.
I'm keeping this very short, since its obvious that we're not going to ever agree.
I'll admit that Carter didn't lead the country to the land of milk and honey. But, no president past or previous has, nor did our founding fathers. Looking at the immediate surroundings of Carter we have Nixon and Ford, and Reagan and Bush. I'll discount Ford a bit, since he wasn't as blatantly evil, corrupt, and monomaniacal as the other three. Carter was, by all metrics, the last honest politician in the White House, and the last person I'd actually want to shake hands with.
Actually FDR had diplomatic plans for Stalin, during the war, and at its closing. I wouldn't call it trust, but he was hoping to avoid what he saw coming, and what indeed came, as much as possible. He, as you so kindly pointed out, died before any of it could come to fruition. Hence the point. As for regulation... We're at loggerheads here, and will be. I'm a fan of regulation, since I think individuals come above economic ideals. When corporations lose sight of that, and abuse people, or start working against the common good (which isn't money, btw), then someone has to step in and stop it.
I'm not an Obama cheer leader, he, as stated, isn't even close to my ideal candidate. The problem is that we have two status quo people running against him, and obviously the status quo has done nothing but harm for this country.
The fuel problem is a problem because our whole economy has been corrupted by greed, and the holy grail of short term profits, over long term sustainability or human interest. Why would a 50c raise in gas prices precipitate vastly exaggerated consequences? Obviously this is because the economy itself isn't stable. These problems would have happened anyways, either due to further abuse of our edible crops, or some other unforeseen reason.
A degree increase would be a big deal, but its going to be more than that (higher estimates are around 7-8deg Celsius, in 100 years). Whatever the amount of increase, we already see the beginning of it, and most climatologists think it will get worse. I'm guessing most of the harm will be after I'm dead, but that doesn't matter to me. I like my children, and I'm sure they'll like theirs.
Our economy is 100% unsustainable, environmentally, socially, and economically. This must change, if America is to remain a place worth living.
The metrics worth having is educational level and literacy, quality of life, mortality (infant and general), and general subjective measure like happiness. Scandinavian countries seem to kick our ass on all of these, as, increasingly, does most of continental Europe.
McCain isn't opposed to starting new wars. If you were against war, why would you talk about it constantly, and wave your sword at Iran? Most of my opinion of McCain is based on living in his state, and following him over all his years in congress. Actually, I kind of liked him too, since he was as close to a moderate as you can get these days. Now, though, he drank the far right kool-aid for votes, meaning he lost the only core value that matters to me, integrity.
We can agree that there are problems with many of our social services. But I think you put far to much emphasis on choice. About 50% of poverty is happenstance, especially since the average American is living only two paychecks from poverty. Yes, some people abuse the system, and this should be stopped, but there are a large amount of people who can't leave it. Getting a minimum wage job is generally seen as less desirable as government benefits, because you really can't live on it, especially if you have previous financial obligations.
This conversation will never work, since it seems you will constantly harbor the delusion that you are somehow smarter/more informed than me, or pretty much anyone else who shares the characteristic of not being you. How does it feel to be always right? I don't think I've ever met anyone who was such, so your reply will be insightful?
I can tell right now that I am discussing this with someone living by the cliff notes version of American history filtered by a campaign cheer leading squad.
Ad hominem always makes for valid arguments. You don't know me, do you? Do you know where I got my source for history, or went to school? Please don't presume you do.
If you think FDR was a great American president, then I don't see why you had problems with Clinton or G. W. Bush. FDR started the entire ignore the law and constitution if you think it furthers your career.
FDR was a good elitist, ignoring the ignorant masses, and the prevailing attitudes that caused the American economy to tank in the first place. I personally find this to be desirable. Clinton and Bush were/are populists representing the power elite, while talking about doing good for the common man out of the corner of their mouths. FDR made jobs, Clinton and Bush sold them to Mexico and China.
FDR didn't pick a war for no reason. Bush just decided that some think-tank must be correct, and thus war must be justified. FDR also worked damn hard to make USSR somewhat friendly (or at least not openly hostile) to us after the war, but sadly died and left Truman in control, and ignorant to the point of being dependent on morally dubious advisers.
You see, if your involvement consists of voting for the other guy, they have no incentive to get your vote because by simply getting the lazy people off the couch and to the polls would negate your non-vote by a larger factor then your voting for different candidates could do.
So by voting for character, I don't get all the awesome broken promises, and such? People running have fixed views, you being targeted with advertisements WILL not change their views, or their actions in office. We get to choose pre-existing people, and not make new ones. I'm not going to vote for someone with a weak character just because he might pander to me. I'm going to vote for someone who I trust to react at the time of need, with their convictions and not thanks to an opinion poll.
OK, so now it comes to the surface. You are wanting to punish americans in order to mold your own version of a utopia
Cite, please, where I said that. Its not about punishing ANYONE, its about learning from consequences, and acknowledging that all actions have them. Being tied to hostile nations for our arbitrary oil addiction is a bad thing. The consiquences of fossil fuels are a bad thing. Its REALLY hard to argue other wise. My idea of utopia doesn't involve Iran, the Saudis, and 14 degree (f) higher global temperatures. If yours does, perhaps some introspection is in order.
The fact Obama makes you feel at home probably means he has no chance of being elected. I think that is a good thing but I also understand the real risks of him running means there is a possibility that he could win. That seems a little scary.
You of course are correct. John McCain SHOULD be president. We need more stupid wars, because human life is worth less than... well... stupid poltical theories. People are means, not ends, of course, as well. We need MORE corporate control, and less regulation, since that always works well for the poor and middle class. We need less social programs, because the poor made a choice to be poor, and we wouldn't want to be considered less capitalistic, like those damn other countries who are beating us on every metric.
Or Hillary, because we aren't spending enough time thinking of the children. Other than that, she's just the female John McCain, as far as I can tell.
In the real world, most of us realize that there are no good choices, and that 90% of what these people are saying is just stuff to make people vote for them, the rest is ideological pap which translates to nothing.
As far as they're concerned, you might as well be pirating the movies. If you search around, you'll find the publishing houses (movies, music, and games) blame their losses on the used market just as much as piracy (example here [next-gen.biz]).
I'm okay with that. I've made a conscious decision not to support any large media conglomerates with my wallet, the only time I'll buy any media is if it is a small indie publisher, or (for music) small indie bands, from their own concerts. I don't want to support Hollywood, or the RIAA members, thus all of my money goes to local used music/video chains.
If this makes Hollywood shut down eventually, I'm also okay with that. If there was not summer blockbusters, I'm sure I wouldn't really notice, nor find much a reason to care.
But why does the time cube have four corners... it wouldn't really be a cube them. Perhaps the "time square" would be more accurate. Why am I bothering critiquing this?
I do like the "defied queer bit" though, I'm going to have to tell that to all my Christian friends next time we go out drinking.
This whole webpage reminds me of a slightly less loopy version of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap, but will it clean my hair and make me reek of peppermint?
Yes, there were some issues... But we survived Carter's problems much better than everyone afterwards. Reagan brought renewed nuclear proflication, Iran Contra, the Taliban and red-threat, Bush I brought recession and war, Clinton brought NAFTA, war, and terrorism, and Bush II brought... No need to go into this since he is probably the worst president in American history.
Obama will be the lesser of however many evils we've had since Carter, which is the lesser of however many evils we've had since FDR, the last great American president.
He is the first mainstream candidate I will vote for in years. I generally vote either Green or Libertarian.
I hope the fuel problems get worse, honestly. Giving an incentive to lessen oil is good on all levels, both environmental problems AND national security will be better for it. As for the current economic troubles, I really do hope that something happens to make us realize that our current politico-economic issues are at fault, mainly deregulation and lobbyists.
I do see our modern issues as something we should learn from. Sadly this is America, and it won't happen.
So... not being a glossy magazine, or, as far as I can see, involved, what does your opinion matter? You can't seem to verify, or disprove Rolling Stone's information, you haven't posted any proof that you are actually in China, or have witnessed anything there, you provide no credentials, and so by your own criteria why should anyone listen to you?
Basically your response is to tell people to discredit a source because you don't like them. This isn't even weak proof, since your subjective opinion is worth less than even Rolling Stone's. Any moron can get a/. account, get good karma, and post. At least the RS there is an editorial board, hiring procedures, and I'm guessing some degree of journalistic standard.
Yes, I won't take the spin as fact since spin is opinion. but the actual events seem worth further examination, and are easily verifiable.
The same goes for the "spin" you yourself are projecting...
I don't think Obama is the only one with this problem. What has Hillary done? And what positive things has McCain actually got done? On a pure experience metric, I suppose McCain would win, sadly he is as generic and interchangeable as the two democrats, he's just pandering to a different group (and thus lost my vote).
My only hope is that Obama wins, and becomes the next Jimmy Carter, the last honest politician we had in office.
First off, you definitely aren't who that phrase was leveled at. I personallyu agree even, the wider range of ideological wankers we can have in office would probably be better than what we have now.
I don't know how to put this, I agree with the general spirit of libertarianism, but not the application of it, I suppose, or at least the popular conception of it. We do need some diversity in the vote though, my ideal this election cycle was somehow ending up with a Ron Paul/Nader ticket, and a Obama/McCain ticket to choose from (switch those around if you want), I would settle of the Dali Lama/Illinois Nazi ticket, though, as well.
Though some people would think that with more contention, we'd get less done. I think that this might be valid, looking at the debacles that escalated when we had pure party control on either side. Thus, getting less done might be a good thing, perhaps we've done enough for a bit.
That said, I would happily accept a lot of libertarian reforms, just not the corporate ones, I somehow doubt that a pure free market is actually a very good idea, since history doesn't back this. Yes, someone will argue, that it means it is untried, but so is pure democracy, anarchy, or socialism, much less more tyrannical forms that could someday happen. Many of the social ones can't ever happen, as long as a large percentage of voters aren't happy with their position in society, so this doesn't really scare me, barring some massive libertarian dictatorship (isn't that an interesting term?) Legally, though, I think they are brilliant, in the Lockean sense.
One issue I have, is the same issue that ruins both major parties, the one who survive the primary/general process will be the weakest, most middle of the road candidate. The general election/primary process pretty much enforces that fact that we will end up with the most bland, image based, and mercenary candidate possible. I'm guessing this too would happen for third parties, even with election/voting reforms.
My favorite insult of this primary season is Hillary Clinton telling democrats not to vote for Obama because he is too liberal (as if the term democrat, and liberal are somehow mutually exclusive). I think that anecdote pretty much sums things up.
I for example look 200% better in incandescent light than in fluourescent's uneven color composition. For this reason, and I am sure I'm not the only woman that feels this way, I don't have any fluourescents in my house. The electricity surcharge for using incandescents is well worth paying for the enhanced feeling of attractiveness. Most women are demonstrably prepared to pay far more than that in order to look good.
Eh? You do, of course, realize how that sounds, correct?
You had me on the first bit, since light color does matter (in far more than subjective attractiveness), I read a study where a museum tried two lights, one with a cool "natural" profile (sunlight like), and traditional warm incandescent bulbs, the non-natural bulbs won. This is because A) most modern art was made in warm lighting thus is more accurately viewed in it, and B) we are used to imperfect lighting, and thus consider it higher than natural lighting.
Your reasoning though, with all due respect, is wonky. Is being a little bit more attractive FEELING at home really that important? Do you only go to pubs, and only hold jobs, that use old-fashioned light bulbs? I generally don't really care what I look like at home, the people there already know that I really am an ugly cuss, as I know this. What are you going to do when incandescent lights are illegal, or phased out, which seems to be the way things are going?
Sorry to ruin your self-inquisition, but I didn't see the parent attacking religion.
Myths are stories shared by a group, and are a part of that group's cultural identity, but so are family traditions. -from about.com.
Really when it comes down to it, the stories and traditions of your religion of choice are no different that the stories and traditions of other religions from antiquity. The faith and whatnot you feel for yours is also no different that the faith that others felt for their own.
A myth is pretty much a term referring to the NARRATIVE of the religion, as opposed to the worth of the religion. As an atheist, I have read many of the worlds religious texts, not trying to find some "true faith" in them, but for the stories they tell. The Bible is mostly a narrative, and can be seen as such. As well as being the corner stone of meaning for a billion of so people, it also is a book, with all the properties of it.
I want a government that gives a shit about the lives of the men and women its' decisions may cost, a government who places the value of human lives over the value of all else
It has never happened, and it never will. A government, might, someday be FORCED into this situation, but as it stands it isn't close. The only people most of us care about is ourselves, our peers, and our immediate family. Rarely do we actually give a shit about anything outside of our immediate experience. Its just (regrettably) human nature.
Those in power ALWAYS do what they think is best for us (they know better, thus we are means towards an end), or what they think is best for themselves. Often these are the same thing, thanks to post-hoc self-validations (cognitive dissonance). Pick a popular bad guy in history, I guarantee that they thought they were doing the right thing, and had ample justifications to prove it. Every single asshole in history said something along the lines of "you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet". The sad thing is that it isn't just the politicos, we ALL follow this view.
Look at the libertarians here, they are mostly upper middle, to upper class, youngish folk, looking to protect their own well-being, at the cost of everyone else's, they don't tell themselves this, obviously, since they are 100% correct. As are all the lower middle, to lower people, in demanded basic services to themselves at the expense of the upper middle-to upper class kids. Damnit, both of them are right, in their own heads.
Who ever claimed that there was such a thing as "enlightened self interest" was a buffoon, they are mutually exclusive. (Mrs Rand, I'm looking at you)
Looking at the last eight years, I can't see much scientific emphasis outside of neo-star-wars (missile defense), and the new Mars mission ideal (which was a justification to cut climate research, IMO), perhaps a bit of new fossil fuel finding, and efficiency research. Can you cite much beyond this?
Not a troll, just curious. Prove my worst expectations wrong, please.
Odd, I have been thinking something like this, but MUCH more conspiritorial (or at least more Foucaultian ). And educated population is not in the interests of the powers-that-be, since they are more capable of making informed, rational, decisions. The main theme of our culture (in the US at least, but other places increasingly so) is advertisement, not just about products, but about our very culture, and the politics that run our country. Advertisements depend on the passions, and the lack of critical thinking, the ability to be easily swayed with the minimum of evidence. Thus critical thinking benefits NO ONE, except us little people.
This isn't really a tin-foil-hat flavored conspiracy though, since no one actually sat down and though about this, or implemented this. Its more like a form of social evolution, accidental, and based on survival values. Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit? Its just like how it isn't in the criminal justice systems interests to eliminate crime (loss of profit, employees), or the lawyer based legal system to make sensible laws (loss of profit, employees), or the pharma industry to cure ANYTHING (loss of profit, employees). Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.
For everything below high school, though, is a master's degree really necessary?
I'd argue yes.
Early education is much more important that high school education. This is not only because it serves to instill the fundamentals needed to build higher levels of education on, or the fact that high school serves mainly to socialize. Primary education is where the LOVE of learning is instilled, which leads children to the desire to learn more.
Children (the smart ones) are inquisitive beasts, as anyone who has ever dealt with them can agree. They ask questions, and try to probe adults understanding. Thus they ask questions based on the fundamentals of knowledge which are instilled in us adults sometimes AFTER out lowly B.S.s (the modern equivalent of a high school diploma). I, for example, pestered my 8th grade teacher until he handed me a book on chaos theory, and one on chromodynamics. I didn't understand them, but they put me on a journey (which lead no where close to physics, or math). Same with one of my english teachers, who decided that I should be reading Orwell, P.K.D., and T.S. Eliot to answer my questions.
Also have you every looked at the curriculum of an education bachelors? You, as an aspiring teacher, are basically only learned what your supposed to be teaching your students, no more, no less. This is bad, you should know far more than your students, so you can continue to teach them even when they're on to your games.
Education is the most serious profession in the world, since it really does shape the full generation to come after it. It should be a matter of budgets and minimums, since, indeed, our full future rests upon the kids in grade school right now. Education should NEVER be a business.
In the same story, I got mocked for being a fan-boy and not being a big enough one... I'm the "just right" porridge.:)
To be honest, I didn't know that the 360 down scaled, I was going under the assumption that there was a separate path to render the hi-def content, and the low-def stuff. It makes sense to just down scale one path, though.
As for not knowing many people with hi-def people, there are three factors, a lot of my friends are like me, and don't care enough to fork over a couple grand for a small improvement (subjective opinion, don't argue), don't have a couple grand to fork over for something non-essential like a hi-def over food and rent, or haven't gotten around to it yet. It doesn't matter much to me (or most, I suppose) what type of television your playing the game on, as long as the game is fun. If the game loses that much because it doesn't have hi-def involved, then the game can't be that fun.
I also wasn't aware that Nintendo licensing required motion controls. I don't think this is the case though, since Super Smash Bro's Brawl got through, with a complete lack of motion controls. It might be true for 3rd party devs though.
I think your sarcasm detector is a bit off base when it comes to my remark about the visuals vs fun.
This is slashdot, I generally take everything at face value here, seems safer. "Visual > fun" is a rather common meme, and some people still take it VERY seriously, this is the crowd that thinks a $800 video card makes WoW more fun. Sorry for missing your sarcasm.
I think/. failed the internet IQ thing because of statistics, and flawed methodology, personally.
I'm the only person I know who owns a Wii. Most have 360s, and don't have a Wii because of money, or lack of finding them, or pure apathy. I'd play it more without people about, if there were more games that catered to that.
I doubt anyone hates Nintendo, but I can be annoyed at the lack of games, nontheless.
They've already done that, and the damage it's done to the Wii has been enormous.
How, empirically? I haven't seen sales dip, and so far this is the best 2-3 month period for quality games. The wasteland of 3rd party games is mostly due to crappy movie spin-offs, terrible attempts at making "kids" games, and clones of successful games.
Your lack of skill doesn't mean it's a gimmick. Take the plunge. Assuming you've actually played Okami, which I seriously doubt. You would not be saying this if you had given it a serious try.
My lack of skill has nothing to do with a badly implemented control scheme, for the sake of a badly implemented control scheme. My lack of skill has nothing to do with the huge "waggle dead zones" surrounding objects and mobs. I can see my lack of skill having something to do with my sucky ability to brush things as well as on the PS2 though, but that isn't really a game-breaker, while the dead-zones, and inaccuracy/sensitivity issues (switching hands is a waggle now, really?)
Your ad hominens make me wonder about how blinded by pure fan-boi-ism you really are, though. I like the motion control idea, I think the wiimote is innovative, but that doesn't mean that everything that uses it is good. Even good things can be implemented poorly. Insulting people does nothing to present a cogent argument, it just makes you look like an immature wanker with nothing substantive to say.
For which Sakurai should be fired and sued for malfeasance. How can Nintendo expect third-party developers to take motion seriously when firwt-party developers don't?
Sued? Really? Yes, he made a fun, and good selling game, that received some degree of acclaim, surely he must be sued! Why, because he realized that waggling your remote wouldn't ADD a damn thing to the game, especially when SSBB becomes tournament standard. My only complaint with that whole game is that it is much slower than the GC and N64 version, the lack of waggling has nothing to do with it. The game is damn fun, I really don't care about anything else, much less waggling.
I'm a fan of well implemented motion controls, where said controls actually have something to do with the game, and the gameplay. Throwing them in just to have them is rather idiotic, since it DETRACTS from the game.
But then again I bought my Wii to have fun, not to exclusively "waggle". (I really like that word, if you can't tell). I'm having fun, with or without waggling, if that makes me lose my fan boi card, then so be it. I really don't give a rats ass if a game has motion controls or not, as long as I get my $50 of fun from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Politically I agree with you, almost down the line... but;
Navy officer trumps god damned lawyer, in my opinion
How? I'd rather have someone who understands laws, than someone born and raised to kill people. Especially being that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, which seems something we're in dire need of, after our last president thought that "constitution" what slang for "toilet paper".
Agreed, though, I don't like either of them, but don't dislike either of them as much as I disliked Hillary. I would have voted for the pre-Iraq McCain, his conversion to neoconservative Bushism is just distasteful.
I like Richardson, though I decided to vote far left for the primary cycle, Edwards. Was going to do Kucinich, but I knew he'd never win anything.
I'd like to see a Kucinich/Paul (or visa versa) ticket though. They'd average out to be roughly my political views.
Odd... I'm going to quit my job, get one at McDonalds, and buy a Porsche AND a mansion! Or at least thats the lesson in economics I learned from the last 8 years.
You don't cut income AND increase spending, and expect everything to work.
Remember Bush wanted the cuts, congress voted for them. Remeber bush wanted to hemorrhage $2 trillion for fun, and congress said okay. It's rather hard to shirk blame from one to the other, when both (controlled by republicans) were guilty.
Are you just justifying you yakking on a cell-phone wherever you are, other people's enjoyment be damned?
I figure that as long as you post a sing saying you have a cell jammer, or that your establishment is a Faraday cage, then your golden. If said doctor comes in, reads the sign, and someone dies, its completely the doctors fault.
There is a flaw in your reasoning though. I've living in a couple buildings with either spotty, or no cell phone coverage at all. Is it the building owners fault if a doctor is visiting me, and can't get a call? Is it the cell companies, since they have inadequate coverage?
It is, in part, Hollywood's responsibility, since they have the ability to leverage theater companies, and make a large profit from theater showings. Not 100% their responsibility, but they do have a stake in it. They, also, are the ones bitching that people don't go to movies due to piracy. When people don't go to movies because it isn't enjoyable thanks to cell-phones and general idiots, and thus may or may not resort to piracy.
I'm very happy you are part of the 10% of society with cellphone etiquette, your post, though, still makes you sound like an ass. Calm down and sound more like your username.
I agree with large venues, but completely disagree when it comes to the smaller ones. I'll travel 50 miles to next big city to see a band I like in a small (2-300 or less) venue. In my town there is an awesome bar/venue that gets some of the small acts, I go there religiously. There is nothing quite like standing 5' from the stage, with a bar-priced cold beer, listening to music. And you get the privilege of buy a round for the band, and chatting with them between sets. Also it is much more energetic, a small venue is easier to control the atmosphere, than a large one.
One of the things you miss with CDs and MP3s is the improvisation too. I like it when bands take a 3.5 minute song I know, and turn it into a 10 minute jam.
I agree 100%, and it rather pisses me off. I used to love going to theaters with friends/family, but in the last 5-10 years it has become completely unbearable. The cellphone issue is, of course, a large part of it (as they seem to be the break down in most civil activities, like going out to dinner, and driving), but I think it is symptom or a larger issue, we're losing manners as a society.
The last three movies I saw were the test screening for No Country for Old Men, Transformers, and the new Indie flick. Each of them was a wretched experience, even if all three movies, in themselves, were enjoyable. In the first it was full of people expecting Big Lebowski II, and perfectly willing to voice their disapointment at ever singe scene, and ask very loud questions of bits they didn't understand to the full audience. (my favorite from this was some idiot frat-boy-type screaming "hey look, its Woody Harrison!" at the top of his lungs, when Woody Harrison stepped on scene, thanks for the public service announcement) Transformers was completely infested with cellphones, and some mid-20's wanker kicking the back of my seat, and giving me dirty looks (while continueing to do so) after I asked him to stop. The Indie movie was just hell. Two people with kids, who apparently never figured out how to change diapers, were in front, after the smell passed, the kid realized someone should change his diaper, and thus wailed the whole movie (this was a 10:30pm showing), the people next to us were giving a play-by-play to their friends. While the couple behind us were discussing their day to day lives loudly, instead of, you know, watching the movie they paid for.
These are the last three movies I will see in theaters. Obviously. Its worth giving up the big screen, and awesome sound to avoid obnoxious, unsocialized, monkeys.
I think it will take more than making our theaters (and restaurants, please?) into giant Faraday cages. People have forgotten civility, and the existence of other people, it seems. Until we find a way to make people respect anyone outside of themselves, we'll have problems.
I really don't like this type of argument. Its like saying if Abraham Lincoln never existed, the US would still have slavery, or if Edison never happened, we wouldn't have had light bulbs. Completely unprovable, and irrelevant, and they generally don't take technological/ideological/scientific trends into account.
Without Christianity the world would, indeed, be a different place, by the very nature of the proposition. Saying it would be more ignorant, and less advanced, or that the Roman Empire would never have fallen, though, is MUCH more debatable. I don't know if it would have been better, worse, or the same, but I can bet that the Roman Empire would have fallen anyways thanks to economic, territorial, and cultural problems (and those damn pagan Germanic tribes).
Looking at the state of knowledge in the pre-Christian world, though, I would argue against Christianity being as big a boon as you say. Ancient Greece was, without question, the most brilliant period of time for science/philosophy/mathematics up until fairly recently, just as the Roman's were the main engineering power-houses up until the mid-Renaissance. The Christians purged non-religious academics from society, leading (in part) to the dark ages, and only in the Enlightenment did we get them back thats to an influx of ancient ideas perserved by the Muslim Arabs (who were pretty advanced, while we were running about burning ugly women, and accusing Jew's of eating babies for Satan).
I would say the rise of Christianity as the main cultural theme of the West was BAD for progress.
This isn't a dig against your religion. Modern Christians have very little in common with early Christians outside of the basic tenets of faith. Just like modern Muslim societies have very little in common (for the most part) with their historical counterparts.
To digress into a moral (sorry); It just shows that keeping religion and academics separate is a good thing for both, but especially for progress. For some reason both the Religious right, and the Scientific left want to destroy this nice barrier, to the detriment of both.
That is debatable too.
Obviously the machine me would know it was a copy, since for its whole experience previously it hadn't been a machine, and thus is a copy. Being that in this scenario, the personality is persistent, the machine me would have to recognize me as the original, too.
What my (machine version) reaction to this is far beyond my scope of experience, so I have no clue what the reaction would be.
The fact of the matter is that one millisecond after the transfer you are no longer dealing with copies, but different (and rapidly diverging) beings. In a day, are you still a copy, or an entity unto yourself?
In a year?
You (meatspace) really didn't gain much from this copying, since in 10 years you and your machine counterpart are wholly different 'people', and you still to face your own mortality. The only solution around this is "real" immortality, or perhaps some form of constant syncing between you and the machine version of you, creating a symbiotic dual being.
Or we can acknowledge the fact that the meatspace you is the real you, since you can unplug your machine clone.
I'm keeping this very short, since its obvious that we're not going to ever agree.
I'll admit that Carter didn't lead the country to the land of milk and honey. But, no president past or previous has, nor did our founding fathers. Looking at the immediate surroundings of Carter we have Nixon and Ford, and Reagan and Bush. I'll discount Ford a bit, since he wasn't as blatantly evil, corrupt, and monomaniacal as the other three. Carter was, by all metrics, the last honest politician in the White House, and the last person I'd actually want to shake hands with.
Actually FDR had diplomatic plans for Stalin, during the war, and at its closing. I wouldn't call it trust, but he was hoping to avoid what he saw coming, and what indeed came, as much as possible. He, as you so kindly pointed out, died before any of it could come to fruition. Hence the point. As for regulation... We're at loggerheads here, and will be. I'm a fan of regulation, since I think individuals come above economic ideals. When corporations lose sight of that, and abuse people, or start working against the common good (which isn't money, btw), then someone has to step in and stop it.
I'm not an Obama cheer leader, he, as stated, isn't even close to my ideal candidate. The problem is that we have two status quo people running against him, and obviously the status quo has done nothing but harm for this country.
The fuel problem is a problem because our whole economy has been corrupted by greed, and the holy grail of short term profits, over long term sustainability or human interest. Why would a 50c raise in gas prices precipitate vastly exaggerated consequences? Obviously this is because the economy itself isn't stable. These problems would have happened anyways, either due to further abuse of our edible crops, or some other unforeseen reason.
A degree increase would be a big deal, but its going to be more than that (higher estimates are around 7-8deg Celsius, in 100 years). Whatever the amount of increase, we already see the beginning of it, and most climatologists think it will get worse. I'm guessing most of the harm will be after I'm dead, but that doesn't matter to me. I like my children, and I'm sure they'll like theirs.
Our economy is 100% unsustainable, environmentally, socially, and economically. This must change, if America is to remain a place worth living.
The metrics worth having is educational level and literacy, quality of life, mortality (infant and general), and general subjective measure like happiness. Scandinavian countries seem to kick our ass on all of these, as, increasingly, does most of continental Europe.
McCain isn't opposed to starting new wars. If you were against war, why would you talk about it constantly, and wave your sword at Iran? Most of my opinion of McCain is based on living in his state, and following him over all his years in congress. Actually, I kind of liked him too, since he was as close to a moderate as you can get these days. Now, though, he drank the far right kool-aid for votes, meaning he lost the only core value that matters to me, integrity.
We can agree that there are problems with many of our social services. But I think you put far to much emphasis on choice. About 50% of poverty is happenstance, especially since the average American is living only two paychecks from poverty. Yes, some people abuse the system, and this should be stopped, but there are a large amount of people who can't leave it. Getting a minimum wage job is generally seen as less desirable as government benefits, because you really can't live on it, especially if you have previous financial obligations.
This conversation will never work, since it seems you will constantly harbor the delusion that you are somehow smarter/more informed than me, or pretty much anyone else who shares the characteristic of not being you. How does it feel to be always right? I don't think I've ever met anyone who was such, so your reply will be insightful?
I can tell right now that I am discussing this with someone living by the cliff notes version of American history filtered by a campaign cheer leading squad.
Ad hominem always makes for valid arguments. You don't know me, do you? Do you know where I got my source for history, or went to school? Please don't presume you do.
If you think FDR was a great American president, then I don't see why you had problems with Clinton or G. W. Bush. FDR started the entire ignore the law and constitution if you think it furthers your career.
FDR was a good elitist, ignoring the ignorant masses, and the prevailing attitudes that caused the American economy to tank in the first place. I personally find this to be desirable. Clinton and Bush were/are populists representing the power elite, while talking about doing good for the common man out of the corner of their mouths. FDR made jobs, Clinton and Bush sold them to Mexico and China.
FDR didn't pick a war for no reason. Bush just decided that some think-tank must be correct, and thus war must be justified. FDR also worked damn hard to make USSR somewhat friendly (or at least not openly hostile) to us after the war, but sadly died and left Truman in control, and ignorant to the point of being dependent on morally dubious advisers.
You see, if your involvement consists of voting for the other guy, they have no incentive to get your vote because by simply getting the lazy people off the couch and to the polls would negate your non-vote by a larger factor then your voting for different candidates could do.
So by voting for character, I don't get all the awesome broken promises, and such? People running have fixed views, you being targeted with advertisements WILL not change their views, or their actions in office. We get to choose pre-existing people, and not make new ones. I'm not going to vote for someone with a weak character just because he might pander to me. I'm going to vote for someone who I trust to react at the time of need, with their convictions and not thanks to an opinion poll.
OK, so now it comes to the surface. You are wanting to punish americans in order to mold your own version of a utopia
Cite, please, where I said that. Its not about punishing ANYONE, its about learning from consequences, and acknowledging that all actions have them. Being tied to hostile nations for our arbitrary oil addiction is a bad thing. The consiquences of fossil fuels are a bad thing. Its REALLY hard to argue other wise. My idea of utopia doesn't involve Iran, the Saudis, and 14 degree (f) higher global temperatures. If yours does, perhaps some introspection is in order.
The fact Obama makes you feel at home probably means he has no chance of being elected. I think that is a good thing but I also understand the real risks of him running means there is a possibility that he could win. That seems a little scary.
You of course are correct. John McCain SHOULD be president. We need more stupid wars, because human life is worth less than... well... stupid poltical theories. People are means, not ends, of course, as well. We need MORE corporate control, and less regulation, since that always works well for the poor and middle class. We need less social programs, because the poor made a choice to be poor, and we wouldn't want to be considered less capitalistic, like those damn other countries who are beating us on every metric.
Or Hillary, because we aren't spending enough time thinking of the children. Other than that, she's just the female John McCain, as far as I can tell.
In the real world, most of us realize that there are no good choices, and that 90% of what these people are saying is just stuff to make people vote for them, the rest is ideological pap which translates to nothing.
As far as they're concerned, you might as well be pirating the movies. If you search around, you'll find the publishing houses (movies, music, and games) blame their losses on the used market just as much as piracy (example here [next-gen.biz]).
I'm okay with that. I've made a conscious decision not to support any large media conglomerates with my wallet, the only time I'll buy any media is if it is a small indie publisher, or (for music) small indie bands, from their own concerts. I don't want to support Hollywood, or the RIAA members, thus all of my money goes to local used music/video chains.
If this makes Hollywood shut down eventually, I'm also okay with that. If there was not summer blockbusters, I'm sure I wouldn't really notice, nor find much a reason to care.
But why does the time cube have four corners... it wouldn't really be a cube them. Perhaps the "time square" would be more accurate. Why am I bothering critiquing this?
I do like the "defied queer bit" though, I'm going to have to tell that to all my Christian friends next time we go out drinking.
This whole webpage reminds me of a slightly less loopy version of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap, but will it clean my hair and make me reek of peppermint?
Yes, there were some issues... But we survived Carter's problems much better than everyone afterwards. Reagan brought renewed nuclear proflication, Iran Contra, the Taliban and red-threat, Bush I brought recession and war, Clinton brought NAFTA, war, and terrorism, and Bush II brought... No need to go into this since he is probably the worst president in American history.
Obama will be the lesser of however many evils we've had since Carter, which is the lesser of however many evils we've had since FDR, the last great American president.
He is the first mainstream candidate I will vote for in years. I generally vote either Green or Libertarian.
I hope the fuel problems get worse, honestly. Giving an incentive to lessen oil is good on all levels, both environmental problems AND national security will be better for it. As for the current economic troubles, I really do hope that something happens to make us realize that our current politico-economic issues are at fault, mainly deregulation and lobbyists.
I do see our modern issues as something we should learn from. Sadly this is America, and it won't happen.
So... not being a glossy magazine, or, as far as I can see, involved, what does your opinion matter? You can't seem to verify, or disprove Rolling Stone's information, you haven't posted any proof that you are actually in China, or have witnessed anything there, you provide no credentials, and so by your own criteria why should anyone listen to you?
/. account, get good karma, and post. At least the RS there is an editorial board, hiring procedures, and I'm guessing some degree of journalistic standard.
Basically your response is to tell people to discredit a source because you don't like them. This isn't even weak proof, since your subjective opinion is worth less than even Rolling Stone's. Any moron can get a
Yes, I won't take the spin as fact since spin is opinion. but the actual events seem worth further examination, and are easily verifiable.
The same goes for the "spin" you yourself are projecting...
I don't think Obama is the only one with this problem. What has Hillary done? And what positive things has McCain actually got done? On a pure experience metric, I suppose McCain would win, sadly he is as generic and interchangeable as the two democrats, he's just pandering to a different group (and thus lost my vote).
My only hope is that Obama wins, and becomes the next Jimmy Carter, the last honest politician we had in office.
Out of curiosity then, by what metric should we pick politicians by, going under your assumptions?
First off, you definitely aren't who that phrase was leveled at. I personallyu agree even, the wider range of ideological wankers we can have in office would probably be better than what we have now.
I don't know how to put this, I agree with the general spirit of libertarianism, but not the application of it, I suppose, or at least the popular conception of it. We do need some diversity in the vote though, my ideal this election cycle was somehow ending up with a Ron Paul/Nader ticket, and a Obama/McCain ticket to choose from (switch those around if you want), I would settle of the Dali Lama/Illinois Nazi ticket, though, as well.
Though some people would think that with more contention, we'd get less done. I think that this might be valid, looking at the debacles that escalated when we had pure party control on either side. Thus, getting less done might be a good thing, perhaps we've done enough for a bit.
That said, I would happily accept a lot of libertarian reforms, just not the corporate ones, I somehow doubt that a pure free market is actually a very good idea, since history doesn't back this. Yes, someone will argue, that it means it is untried, but so is pure democracy, anarchy, or socialism, much less more tyrannical forms that could someday happen. Many of the social ones can't ever happen, as long as a large percentage of voters aren't happy with their position in society, so this doesn't really scare me, barring some massive libertarian dictatorship (isn't that an interesting term?) Legally, though, I think they are brilliant, in the Lockean sense.
One issue I have, is the same issue that ruins both major parties, the one who survive the primary/general process will be the weakest, most middle of the road candidate. The general election/primary process pretty much enforces that fact that we will end up with the most bland, image based, and mercenary candidate possible. I'm guessing this too would happen for third parties, even with election/voting reforms.
My favorite insult of this primary season is Hillary Clinton telling democrats not to vote for Obama because he is too liberal (as if the term democrat, and liberal are somehow mutually exclusive). I think that anecdote pretty much sums things up.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, by the way.
I for example look 200% better in incandescent light than in fluourescent's uneven color composition. For this reason, and I am sure I'm not the only woman that feels this way, I don't have any fluourescents in my house. The electricity surcharge for using incandescents is well worth paying for the enhanced feeling of attractiveness. Most women are demonstrably prepared to pay far more than that in order to look good.
Eh? You do, of course, realize how that sounds, correct?
You had me on the first bit, since light color does matter (in far more than subjective attractiveness), I read a study where a museum tried two lights, one with a cool "natural" profile (sunlight like), and traditional warm incandescent bulbs, the non-natural bulbs won. This is because A) most modern art was made in warm lighting thus is more accurately viewed in it, and B) we are used to imperfect lighting, and thus consider it higher than natural lighting.
Your reasoning though, with all due respect, is wonky. Is being a little bit more attractive FEELING at home really that important? Do you only go to pubs, and only hold jobs, that use old-fashioned light bulbs? I generally don't really care what I look like at home, the people there already know that I really am an ugly cuss, as I know this. What are you going to do when incandescent lights are illegal, or phased out, which seems to be the way things are going?
Really when it comes down to it, the stories and traditions of your religion of choice are no different that the stories and traditions of other religions from antiquity. The faith and whatnot you feel for yours is also no different that the faith that others felt for their own.
A myth is pretty much a term referring to the NARRATIVE of the religion, as opposed to the worth of the religion. As an atheist, I have read many of the worlds religious texts, not trying to find some "true faith" in them, but for the stories they tell. The Bible is mostly a narrative, and can be seen as such. As well as being the corner stone of meaning for a billion of so people, it also is a book, with all the properties of it.
Is that offensive? How?
I want a government that gives a shit about the lives of the men and women its' decisions may cost, a government who places the value of human lives over the value of all else
It has never happened, and it never will. A government, might, someday be FORCED into this situation, but as it stands it isn't close. The only people most of us care about is ourselves, our peers, and our immediate family. Rarely do we actually give a shit about anything outside of our immediate experience. Its just (regrettably) human nature.
Those in power ALWAYS do what they think is best for us (they know better, thus we are means towards an end), or what they think is best for themselves. Often these are the same thing, thanks to post-hoc self-validations (cognitive dissonance). Pick a popular bad guy in history, I guarantee that they thought they were doing the right thing, and had ample justifications to prove it. Every single asshole in history said something along the lines of "you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet". The sad thing is that it isn't just the politicos, we ALL follow this view.
Look at the libertarians here, they are mostly upper middle, to upper class, youngish folk, looking to protect their own well-being, at the cost of everyone else's, they don't tell themselves this, obviously, since they are 100% correct. As are all the lower middle, to lower people, in demanded basic services to themselves at the expense of the upper middle-to upper class kids. Damnit, both of them are right, in their own heads.
Who ever claimed that there was such a thing as "enlightened self interest" was a buffoon, they are mutually exclusive. (Mrs Rand, I'm looking at you)
Citation?
Looking at the last eight years, I can't see much scientific emphasis outside of neo-star-wars (missile defense), and the new Mars mission ideal (which was a justification to cut climate research, IMO), perhaps a bit of new fossil fuel finding, and efficiency research. Can you cite much beyond this?
Not a troll, just curious. Prove my worst expectations wrong, please.
So you're saying that the rest of us are inferior and therefore need to live in representative republics rather than direct democracies?
You are correct... OR he's saying that you have no sense of humor. I can't quite decide which.
Odd, I have been thinking something like this, but MUCH more conspiritorial (or at least more Foucaultian ). And educated population is not in the interests of the powers-that-be, since they are more capable of making informed, rational, decisions. The main theme of our culture (in the US at least, but other places increasingly so) is advertisement, not just about products, but about our very culture, and the politics that run our country. Advertisements depend on the passions, and the lack of critical thinking, the ability to be easily swayed with the minimum of evidence. Thus critical thinking benefits NO ONE, except us little people.
This isn't really a tin-foil-hat flavored conspiracy though, since no one actually sat down and though about this, or implemented this. Its more like a form of social evolution, accidental, and based on survival values. Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit? Its just like how it isn't in the criminal justice systems interests to eliminate crime (loss of profit, employees), or the lawyer based legal system to make sensible laws (loss of profit, employees), or the pharma industry to cure ANYTHING (loss of profit, employees). Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.
For everything below high school, though, is a master's degree really necessary?
I'd argue yes.
Early education is much more important that high school education. This is not only because it serves to instill the fundamentals needed to build higher levels of education on, or the fact that high school serves mainly to socialize. Primary education is where the LOVE of learning is instilled, which leads children to the desire to learn more.
Children (the smart ones) are inquisitive beasts, as anyone who has ever dealt with them can agree. They ask questions, and try to probe adults understanding. Thus they ask questions based on the fundamentals of knowledge which are instilled in us adults sometimes AFTER out lowly B.S.s (the modern equivalent of a high school diploma). I, for example, pestered my 8th grade teacher until he handed me a book on chaos theory, and one on chromodynamics. I didn't understand them, but they put me on a journey (which lead no where close to physics, or math). Same with one of my english teachers, who decided that I should be reading Orwell, P.K.D., and T.S. Eliot to answer my questions.
Also have you every looked at the curriculum of an education bachelors? You, as an aspiring teacher, are basically only learned what your supposed to be teaching your students, no more, no less. This is bad, you should know far more than your students, so you can continue to teach them even when they're on to your games.
Education is the most serious profession in the world, since it really does shape the full generation to come after it. It should be a matter of budgets and minimums, since, indeed, our full future rests upon the kids in grade school right now. Education should NEVER be a business.
In the same story, I got mocked for being a fan-boy and not being a big enough one... I'm the "just right" porridge. :)
/. failed the internet IQ thing because of statistics, and flawed methodology, personally.
To be honest, I didn't know that the 360 down scaled, I was going under the assumption that there was a separate path to render the hi-def content, and the low-def stuff. It makes sense to just down scale one path, though.
As for not knowing many people with hi-def people, there are three factors, a lot of my friends are like me, and don't care enough to fork over a couple grand for a small improvement (subjective opinion, don't argue), don't have a couple grand to fork over for something non-essential like a hi-def over food and rent, or haven't gotten around to it yet. It doesn't matter much to me (or most, I suppose) what type of television your playing the game on, as long as the game is fun. If the game loses that much because it doesn't have hi-def involved, then the game can't be that fun.
I also wasn't aware that Nintendo licensing required motion controls. I don't think this is the case though, since Super Smash Bro's Brawl got through, with a complete lack of motion controls. It might be true for 3rd party devs though.
I think your sarcasm detector is a bit off base when it comes to my remark about the visuals vs fun.
This is slashdot, I generally take everything at face value here, seems safer. "Visual > fun" is a rather common meme, and some people still take it VERY seriously, this is the crowd that thinks a $800 video card makes WoW more fun. Sorry for missing your sarcasm.
I think
I'm the only person I know who owns a Wii. Most have 360s, and don't have a Wii because of money, or lack of finding them, or pure apathy. I'd play it more without people about, if there were more games that catered to that.
I doubt anyone hates Nintendo, but I can be annoyed at the lack of games, nontheless.
They've already done that, and the damage it's done to the Wii has been enormous.
How, empirically? I haven't seen sales dip, and so far this is the best 2-3 month period for quality games. The wasteland of 3rd party games is mostly due to crappy movie spin-offs, terrible attempts at making "kids" games, and clones of successful games.
Your lack of skill doesn't mean it's a gimmick. Take the plunge. Assuming you've actually played Okami, which I seriously doubt. You would not be saying this if you had given it a serious try.
My lack of skill has nothing to do with a badly implemented control scheme, for the sake of a badly implemented control scheme. My lack of skill has nothing to do with the huge "waggle dead zones" surrounding objects and mobs. I can see my lack of skill having something to do with my sucky ability to brush things as well as on the PS2 though, but that isn't really a game-breaker, while the dead-zones, and inaccuracy/sensitivity issues (switching hands is a waggle now, really?)
Your ad hominens make me wonder about how blinded by pure fan-boi-ism you really are, though. I like the motion control idea, I think the wiimote is innovative, but that doesn't mean that everything that uses it is good. Even good things can be implemented poorly. Insulting people does nothing to present a cogent argument, it just makes you look like an immature wanker with nothing substantive to say.
For which Sakurai should be fired and sued for malfeasance. How can Nintendo expect third-party developers to take motion seriously when firwt-party developers don't?
Sued? Really? Yes, he made a fun, and good selling game, that received some degree of acclaim, surely he must be sued! Why, because he realized that waggling your remote wouldn't ADD a damn thing to the game, especially when SSBB becomes tournament standard. My only complaint with that whole game is that it is much slower than the GC and N64 version, the lack of waggling has nothing to do with it. The game is damn fun, I really don't care about anything else, much less waggling.
I'm a fan of well implemented motion controls, where said controls actually have something to do with the game, and the gameplay. Throwing them in just to have them is rather idiotic, since it DETRACTS from the game.
But then again I bought my Wii to have fun, not to exclusively "waggle". (I really like that word, if you can't tell). I'm having fun, with or without waggling, if that makes me lose my fan boi card, then so be it. I really don't give a rats ass if a game has motion controls or not, as long as I get my $50 of fun from it.