Every one goes on and on and on and on about how teachers need to do this or teachers need to do that or that the school system is failing our children but at the end of day MANY of these issues can be resolved with a very simple solution: PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. Maybe it's too easy, maybe it fails to take in to account real world hardships but parents should be the ones helping fill these gaps. It's tough to make a buck in this day and age but I remember my parents sacrificing a great deal in order to provide (not just money, but in the human sense) for my sister and I. They were the ones who assisted us in finding activities that pushed us; they were the ones making sure that we could meet our potential. Teachers helped out along the way but it started with mom and dad.
Life isn't black and white, not every family is a traditional family unit, not every child is as fortunate as I was to grow up with two loving supportive parents but the truth is we need to stop relying on others to do things for us. Nothing is free and public education will never be an end-all-be-all.
Although, I would agree that the GP's post was more than a bit myopic, I fail to see the purpose of your comment other than it being along the same lines as the GP.
Now, that being said, the United States isn't particularly different than China with respect to our media outlets being propaganda machines; we simply have a few more of them so there's just more bullshit to sift through.
Propaganda has always made the world go round, people in power have no reason to let it be otherwise.
Obviously you failed Economics 101; these blowhards that you hate so much have built a brand that is worth an extraordinary amount of money to Producers and studios. Their Brand is what they are being paid for, and that is just an aspect of the world we live in today.
That being said, if you want to mount an attack against a cog in this wheel it's to be mounted against our societies obsession with the "Cult of Personality". Moreover, the "Hollywood airheads" that you refer to are few and far between. Go take a peak at some numbers and you'll see what I'm talking about (These are old, and the only thing that has changed is they're making less money).
But again, this all goes back to Econ 101, our society has a huge demand thus prices for premium/branded individuals is very high. 99.9% of actors will never reach an aggregate of over a million dollars earned from acting during their career.
Yeah well, there are a lot more individuals who are capable of being a programmer for this game than who are capable of being a voice actor for this game. If you or I, or 99% of the people on this board were to attempt to do the voice overs we'd sound very inorganic. Michael Hollick does a pretty fair job of maintaining a level of realism that is difficult to achieve for the untrained.
Contrary to popular belief, he is not just "Reading words off paper" though to the layman that is how it may appear.
Uh, I don't care if the suit has the ability to not be destroyed by the impact of the rocket, the kinetic energy from the explosion is still going to be transferred. My understanding of how highly explosive things work is that the explosion is part of it but it's the shock wave that really screws things up, and does any sort of technology exist to mitigate shock wave damage?
In other words, when he gets hit by those missiles, he's done:)
Throughout your post, you merely posit view points with no evidence.
There are many examples of animals which could not have developed gradually through evolution without dying off because without all their current physical properties the animals would not survive for evolution to try again. Please list the animals in question, along with evidence supporting your view point.
Can your view point explain why human beings hiccup? I'd really, really like to see your answer on that one... In case you were wondering, the reason why we hiccup is because we descend from creatures of the sea! In case you're skeptical, I went and found a write up from "New Scientist" (A fairly credible layman's scientific source). Why We Hiccup!
I would also like to see more evidence with regard to "Rapid Erosion" because I have never heard anything about this; this is not to say you are wrong merely that my standard of skepticism is far higher than yours.
And finally, with regard to "The Great Flood", I have a suggestion. Do a little research on where these 'creation stories' originate and you might notice an eery pattern. Namely, that the cultures producing flood stories are all centered in a central region in one part of the globe. Based on direct evidence (cultural location of these stories, time period from whence the story's came) and on circumstantial evidence (some scientists think they've found a massive impact crater off the coast of Madagascar but this claim has not be independently verified) and given the knowledge we have of deep ocean asteriod impacts, your great flood could be my great asteroid impact. I'm not saying that it is, but there is evidence to support this event occuring in this way.
Based off my life experience, which is limited I concede, I have not witnessed events caused by the divine. There is merely causality, and until I see evidence to the contrary that will be my view of the world.
You are wrong on this one; you actually have to be under about 6'5''. How do I know this? A close friend of mine flies F-15's for the US Air Force and he's about 6'5''. He also has dreams of being an astronaut, and he is not one to miss little details like "You're too tall".
Hence he actually became a fighter pilot after watching Top Gun as opposed to the rest of us who sat on our asses:)
Uh, he was attempting to tell you that your problem exists between the keyboard and chair, not with the operating system.
XP has been an excellent gaming platform for me; all of your issues have to do with your system set up and not with the OS itself. Vista is a different matter all together.
All they have to do is rigorously enforce the regulations as they are; actually here's a really really simple way to do it. Use x-ray machines at the security check points so that bags over the specified dimensions of carry on luggage will not go through the machine. You try to bring it through, it doesn't fit and you have to go check your luggage.
Shush you! This is slashdot! We make absurdly large claims that can never be proved and in most instances are designed to hide our own insecurities and put us on a higher pedestal. Get with the program buddy! FOR WE ARE ROOT!
The difference is the societal value placed on the "art of programming". Sculptures have long been accepted as high art, murals are often considered high art, paintings are considered high art, and in the past couple hundred years acting has been come to be considered a form of high art though my understanding is they were all once looked down upon; that being said society does not consider code to be "beautiful" and only those who have been initiated can be moved (which is the purpose of good art) by the code.
Mathematicians have been at this far longer and their proofs still are only considered elegant and artful within their own community; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for your code to be recognized as high art.
Art changed my mind, the intrinsic beauty of it's creation and the dedicated craftsmanship required to create it. Twenty years of hard work for true mastery, but it's something beautiful, honest and real to work towards. In the craft I study, it's something only created through other people and with other people.
The world will always be a terrible place; many people will always live lives of quiet desperation but we all share in the human condition. Good, Bad, Ugly, we all started the same way and we all end the same way. So in a profound sense, we are all one in this experience...
Maybe I should just go back to hippie art bullshit; also I'm about your age sorry if I in some way misrepresented myself. And to the point of work, I guess I'm just not that talented, but it hasn't stopped me so far.
I've spent the past fifteen minutes attempting to come up with a reasonable response because I find your tone and attitude to be both disheartening and unsettling...things I could hear myself saying only five years past.
My question for you is, what makes you intrinsically better than these people? Is it that you work harder than them? Is it because you've earned what you have and they merely were given it? Is it because they lack hermeneutic thought? Is it because they would rather go get drunk and high than to apply themselves to their academic crafts? Is it because they don't value the opportunities that you've had to work so hard for?
To me, from the outside with very very very modest information, you sound bitter and alone. I know what it's like to be bitter and alone, and to be more comfortable directing my anger outside as opposed to dealing with the hooks that made me think and feel the way I did. I don't know you, so I don't want to assume, but ask yourself that question honestly.
I am a firm believer that a human being by herself is nothing; we are community organisms that thrive through interaction. Without the other, we're left to nothing but our own delusional half truths.
Oh and you forgot the most important piece to the puzzle of success, and that's good old fashion hard work. If you're in the right place at the right time, generally it's because you've been in a lot of wrong places at the right time or right places at the wrong time and finally got the right mixture for ignition.
Again, I don't mean to offend...I'm just applying your words to what was once my point of view.
I think it's time to get off the soapbox my friend; the only thing your superior attitude does it create a divide between you and your peers. It doesn't do you any good even if you're spot on in your analysis of the state of the world because at the end of the day when you leave the hallowed walls of academia you will have to work with these people, day-in and day-out.
And I would also suggest not judging an individual's aptitude by his/her performance in high school and college. Twenty years from now, when you look at your graduating high school class there will be some big big surprises with respect to how people turn out. Some who you thought had it together will do nothing with their lives, others who appeared to be lost and headed down the wrong path will end up being CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.
Don't know how old you are so sorry if I undershot the grade though I'm guessing no older than university age. Give it some time...
It wasn't on par with Madden in some respects but there were a handful of areas where it was a superior game. For instance, the game captures intangibles far better than the Madden series ever did; it has proper collision detection and a robust AI to go along with it to ensure that players actually make sideline catches as opposed to walking out of bounds like peewee football. Moreover, you don't get any situations where you get stuck on your offensive line with a running back; the back comes up and often will place his hand on the back of his lineman until the last second where he will jettison himself from the lineman and streak to an open hole...which is what actually happens in the NFL not a giant clusterfrick of guys continually running in to each other (wait a minute, isn't that what pro football is?):)
I've been waiting for EA to implement proper collision detection along sidelines for about a decade now...maybe next year in Madden 2009 for next gen systems they'll continue to add one lame feature per year!
The top 1% of culture today is no different than the top 1% of 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is the market has been saturated so we are now exposed to a lot more garbage than we ever would have been before, it's not that the garbage wasn't produced in the 50's it's that today we have the internet so anyone could produce content.
Also, I would argue that video games develop a different skill set; for instance the average kid growing up today has the same hand eye coordination that was only found in fighter pilots and astronauts of the 50's. Why? Because of the video games. Different skills for a different world, sorry if you don't like it.
Big corporations undoubtedly affect the mass-produced culture and since so much money is invested in to it they tend to like to follow formulas and guarantee a profit which is absurd and impossible with art. Your examples are not films, but brands intended to generate money for large corporations. I can name three films off the top of my head that were released in 2007 and that are high quality from start to finish in all aspects of production: Eastern Promises, No Country for Old Men and 3:10 to Yuma.
Look at the top 1%, because that's most of what we were exposed to prior to the internet but the internet changed how the game was played.
People are not a bit stupider, a bit more evil or a bit less creative than they were in the past, we're simply exposed to more things now.
I missed the part where I talked about Iraq but hey you know...
Regarding my 'snide' comment on fusion, you misunderstood me. I want fusion to work, I'm really glad to hear that it's almost at break even though I'm not up on the subject matter. I mentioned multiple sources because, I like you, believe that the more energy sources explored the better. Now, I think it would be impossible to reduce our dependence on imported oil to nil in the next four years. If we didn't have this war expenditure we could make huge strides in R&D and I would agree that in 20 years we could be completely off foreign oil but four is in no way reasonable.
In other words, the snideness was in regard to the cult of life and the cult of death nonsense and not with the science.
First, what you're asking is a redress of 10 million years of evolution; not going to happen in a single generation. Second, we have yet to shift out of the scarcity model; this will not begin in any form until we have incredibly abundant renewable energy sources. Solar energy isn't efficient enough yet, geothermal is only applicable in certain regions of the world, harnessing energy from the oceans is a possibility but the technology and infrastructure do not yet exist, fusion power is still just a pipe dream at this point.
Despite all the advancements in recycling, reuse and improved manufacturing we still are not keeping up with the exponential increase in population size; until we make major strides in manufacturing and energy production we simply will be unable to do so. You want evidence? The price of copper has quadrupled over the past decade and mostly because of the modernization in China and India. There simply are too many people currently on this planet for our level of technology to support your claim that we have shifted paradigms.
Now, what is the single most important resource in the world today (though it might be different in two decades but that's a different discussion altogether)? In my opinion, the answer is currently oil (and might be water soon). Why is oil the most important resource? Because our economies require oil to function at the most basic level (transportation).
Have we eliminated scarcity at some levels of life in some regions of the world? You bet your ass we have. Is scarcity gone and will it be going anywhere any time soon? Not unless we make some major major technological advancements.
If we're able to create sustainable fusion reactions and if we're able to harness nanotechnology to the extent that everyday goods can be broken down and constructed at the most basic levels, I believe we can see a shift to this paradigm of abundance that you speak of, but as I understand things neither of these technologies are going to appear on doorstep in the next decade or so.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like the grandfather from Little Miss Sunshine :)
Every one goes on and on and on and on about how teachers need to do this or teachers need to do that or that the school system is failing our children but at the end of day MANY of these issues can be resolved with a very simple solution: PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. Maybe it's too easy, maybe it fails to take in to account real world hardships but parents should be the ones helping fill these gaps. It's tough to make a buck in this day and age but I remember my parents sacrificing a great deal in order to provide (not just money, but in the human sense) for my sister and I. They were the ones who assisted us in finding activities that pushed us; they were the ones making sure that we could meet our potential. Teachers helped out along the way but it started with mom and dad.
Life isn't black and white, not every family is a traditional family unit, not every child is as fortunate as I was to grow up with two loving supportive parents but the truth is we need to stop relying on others to do things for us. Nothing is free and public education will never be an end-all-be-all.
Although, I would agree that the GP's post was more than a bit myopic, I fail to see the purpose of your comment other than it being along the same lines as the GP.
Now, that being said, the United States isn't particularly different than China with respect to our media outlets being propaganda machines; we simply have a few more of them so there's just more bullshit to sift through.
Propaganda has always made the world go round, people in power have no reason to let it be otherwise.
Obviously you failed Economics 101; these blowhards that you hate so much have built a brand that is worth an extraordinary amount of money to Producers and studios. Their Brand is what they are being paid for, and that is just an aspect of the world we live in today.
That being said, if you want to mount an attack against a cog in this wheel it's to be mounted against our societies obsession with the "Cult of Personality". Moreover, the "Hollywood airheads" that you refer to are few and far between. Go take a peak at some numbers and you'll see what I'm talking about (These are old, and the only thing that has changed is they're making less money).
But again, this all goes back to Econ 101, our society has a huge demand thus prices for premium/branded individuals is very high. 99.9% of actors will never reach an aggregate of over a million dollars earned from acting during their career.
Yeah well, there are a lot more individuals who are capable of being a programmer for this game than who are capable of being a voice actor for this game. If you or I, or 99% of the people on this board were to attempt to do the voice overs we'd sound very inorganic. Michael Hollick does a pretty fair job of maintaining a level of realism that is difficult to achieve for the untrained.
Contrary to popular belief, he is not just "Reading words off paper" though to the layman that is how it may appear.
That still can be attained; bring you lunch...eat at your desk and start taking walks during lunch.
Accomplishes the exact same thing, but you get a bit of exercise and double the stress relief.
It's not a snerkleopter, it's a jagon dammit!
:)
I love South Park
Uh, I don't care if the suit has the ability to not be destroyed by the impact of the rocket, the kinetic energy from the explosion is still going to be transferred. My understanding of how highly explosive things work is that the explosion is part of it but it's the shock wave that really screws things up, and does any sort of technology exist to mitigate shock wave damage?
:)
In other words, when he gets hit by those missiles, he's done
Maybe I'm wrong, I ain't no weapons engineer.
And one must not forget the exploding sheep or the angry female elf when you "click" her too many times!
Diablo II certainly disagreed with you on this one!
Can your view point explain why human beings hiccup? I'd really, really like to see your answer on that one...
In case you were wondering, the reason why we hiccup is because we descend from creatures of the sea! In case you're skeptical, I went and found a write up from "New Scientist" (A fairly credible layman's scientific source).
Why We Hiccup!
I would also like to see more evidence with regard to "Rapid Erosion" because I have never heard anything about this; this is not to say you are wrong merely that my standard of skepticism is far higher than yours.
And finally, with regard to "The Great Flood", I have a suggestion. Do a little research on where these 'creation stories' originate and you might notice an eery pattern. Namely, that the cultures producing flood stories are all centered in a central region in one part of the globe. Based on direct evidence (cultural location of these stories, time period from whence the story's came) and on circumstantial evidence (some scientists think they've found a massive impact crater off the coast of Madagascar but this claim has not be independently verified) and given the knowledge we have of deep ocean asteriod impacts, your great flood could be my great asteroid impact. I'm not saying that it is, but there is evidence to support this event occuring in this way.
Based off my life experience, which is limited I concede, I have not witnessed events caused by the divine. There is merely causality, and until I see evidence to the contrary that will be my view of the world.
You are wrong on this one; you actually have to be under about 6'5''. How do I know this? A close friend of mine flies F-15's for the US Air Force and he's about 6'5''. He also has dreams of being an astronaut, and he is not one to miss little details like "You're too tall".
:)
Hence he actually became a fighter pilot after watching Top Gun as opposed to the rest of us who sat on our asses
Uh, he was attempting to tell you that your problem exists between the keyboard and chair, not with the operating system.
XP has been an excellent gaming platform for me; all of your issues have to do with your system set up and not with the OS itself. Vista is a different matter all together.
All they have to do is rigorously enforce the regulations as they are; actually here's a really really simple way to do it. Use x-ray machines at the security check points so that bags over the specified dimensions of carry on luggage will not go through the machine. You try to bring it through, it doesn't fit and you have to go check your luggage.
Problem solved.
And this brings me back to a wonderful episode of South Park...
Shush you! This is slashdot! We make absurdly large claims that can never be proved and in most instances are designed to hide our own insecurities and put us on a higher pedestal. Get with the program buddy! FOR WE ARE ROOT!
The difference is the societal value placed on the "art of programming". Sculptures have long been accepted as high art, murals are often considered high art, paintings are considered high art, and in the past couple hundred years acting has been come to be considered a form of high art though my understanding is they were all once looked down upon; that being said society does not consider code to be "beautiful" and only those who have been initiated can be moved (which is the purpose of good art) by the code.
Mathematicians have been at this far longer and their proofs still are only considered elegant and artful within their own community; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for your code to be recognized as high art.
Art changed my mind, the intrinsic beauty of it's creation and the dedicated craftsmanship required to create it. Twenty years of hard work for true mastery, but it's something beautiful, honest and real to work towards. In the craft I study, it's something only created through other people and with other people.
The world will always be a terrible place; many people will always live lives of quiet desperation but we all share in the human condition. Good, Bad, Ugly, we all started the same way and we all end the same way. So in a profound sense, we are all one in this experience...
Maybe I should just go back to hippie art bullshit; also I'm about your age sorry if I in some way misrepresented myself. And to the point of work, I guess I'm just not that talented, but it hasn't stopped me so far.
I've spent the past fifteen minutes attempting to come up with a reasonable response because I find your tone and attitude to be both disheartening and unsettling...things I could hear myself saying only five years past.
My question for you is, what makes you intrinsically better than these people? Is it that you work harder than them? Is it because you've earned what you have and they merely were given it? Is it because they lack hermeneutic thought? Is it because they would rather go get drunk and high than to apply themselves to their academic crafts? Is it because they don't value the opportunities that you've had to work so hard for?
To me, from the outside with very very very modest information, you sound bitter and alone. I know what it's like to be bitter and alone, and to be more comfortable directing my anger outside as opposed to dealing with the hooks that made me think and feel the way I did. I don't know you, so I don't want to assume, but ask yourself that question honestly.
I am a firm believer that a human being by herself is nothing; we are community organisms that thrive through interaction. Without the other, we're left to nothing but our own delusional half truths.
Oh and you forgot the most important piece to the puzzle of success, and that's good old fashion hard work. If you're in the right place at the right time, generally it's because you've been in a lot of wrong places at the right time or right places at the wrong time and finally got the right mixture for ignition.
Again, I don't mean to offend...I'm just applying your words to what was once my point of view.
I think it's time to get off the soapbox my friend; the only thing your superior attitude does it create a divide between you and your peers. It doesn't do you any good even if you're spot on in your analysis of the state of the world because at the end of the day when you leave the hallowed walls of academia you will have to work with these people, day-in and day-out.
And I would also suggest not judging an individual's aptitude by his/her performance in high school and college. Twenty years from now, when you look at your graduating high school class there will be some big big surprises with respect to how people turn out. Some who you thought had it together will do nothing with their lives, others who appeared to be lost and headed down the wrong path will end up being CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.
Don't know how old you are so sorry if I undershot the grade though I'm guessing no older than university age. Give it some time...
It wasn't on par with Madden in some respects but there were a handful of areas where it was a superior game. For instance, the game captures intangibles far better than the Madden series ever did; it has proper collision detection and a robust AI to go along with it to ensure that players actually make sideline catches as opposed to walking out of bounds like peewee football. Moreover, you don't get any situations where you get stuck on your offensive line with a running back; the back comes up and often will place his hand on the back of his lineman until the last second where he will jettison himself from the lineman and streak to an open hole...which is what actually happens in the NFL not a giant clusterfrick of guys continually running in to each other (wait a minute, isn't that what pro football is?) :)
I've been waiting for EA to implement proper collision detection along sidelines for about a decade now...maybe next year in Madden 2009 for next gen systems they'll continue to add one lame feature per year!
Why duck and run? This seems like a perfectly legitimate scientific observation to me. After all, I too read Playboy for the articles!
The top 1% of culture today is no different than the top 1% of 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is the market has been saturated so we are now exposed to a lot more garbage than we ever would have been before, it's not that the garbage wasn't produced in the 50's it's that today we have the internet so anyone could produce content.
Also, I would argue that video games develop a different skill set; for instance the average kid growing up today has the same hand eye coordination that was only found in fighter pilots and astronauts of the 50's. Why? Because of the video games. Different skills for a different world, sorry if you don't like it.
Big corporations undoubtedly affect the mass-produced culture and since so much money is invested in to it they tend to like to follow formulas and guarantee a profit which is absurd and impossible with art. Your examples are not films, but brands intended to generate money for large corporations. I can name three films off the top of my head that were released in 2007 and that are high quality from start to finish in all aspects of production: Eastern Promises, No Country for Old Men and 3:10 to Yuma.
Look at the top 1%, because that's most of what we were exposed to prior to the internet but the internet changed how the game was played.
People are not a bit stupider, a bit more evil or a bit less creative than they were in the past, we're simply exposed to more things now.
I missed the part where I talked about Iraq but hey you know...
Regarding my 'snide' comment on fusion, you misunderstood me. I want fusion to work, I'm really glad to hear that it's almost at break even though I'm not up on the subject matter. I mentioned multiple sources because, I like you, believe that the more energy sources explored the better. Now, I think it would be impossible to reduce our dependence on imported oil to nil in the next four years. If we didn't have this war expenditure we could make huge strides in R&D and I would agree that in 20 years we could be completely off foreign oil but four is in no way reasonable.
In other words, the snideness was in regard to the cult of life and the cult of death nonsense and not with the science.
First, what you're asking is a redress of 10 million years of evolution; not going to happen in a single generation. Second, we have yet to shift out of the scarcity model; this will not begin in any form until we have incredibly abundant renewable energy sources. Solar energy isn't efficient enough yet, geothermal is only applicable in certain regions of the world, harnessing energy from the oceans is a possibility but the technology and infrastructure do not yet exist, fusion power is still just a pipe dream at this point.
Despite all the advancements in recycling, reuse and improved manufacturing we still are not keeping up with the exponential increase in population size; until we make major strides in manufacturing and energy production we simply will be unable to do so. You want evidence? The price of copper has quadrupled over the past decade and mostly because of the modernization in China and India. There simply are too many people currently on this planet for our level of technology to support your claim that we have shifted paradigms.
Now, what is the single most important resource in the world today (though it might be different in two decades but that's a different discussion altogether)? In my opinion, the answer is currently oil (and might be water soon). Why is oil the most important resource? Because our economies require oil to function at the most basic level (transportation).
Have we eliminated scarcity at some levels of life in some regions of the world? You bet your ass we have. Is scarcity gone and will it be going anywhere any time soon? Not unless we make some major major technological advancements.
If we're able to create sustainable fusion reactions and if we're able to harness nanotechnology to the extent that everyday goods can be broken down and constructed at the most basic levels, I believe we can see a shift to this paradigm of abundance that you speak of, but as I understand things neither of these technologies are going to appear on doorstep in the next decade or so.