There's a huge difference between USA == BAD and "hey, here's some other country that is doing better at something than we are, maybe we should take a closer look at what's going on so maybe we can improve our own situation."
But it's tough to point that out to the USA #1! crowd. To them, any acknowledgment that we aren't the bestest at absolutely everything is an attack on the US itself.
You apologists are really pathetic sometimes. You'll come up with any fucking excuse you can to believe that USA #1! and every other country is just some special exception and that they aren't *really* better based on some objective metric. The logical backflips you people do, particularly gun nuts, are just mind-bogglingly stupid.
How much of that time is spent actually enjoying yourself, vs carrying out repetitive actions necessary to gain credits for use in another part of the game? For instance i played elite for many hours, but a lot of that was spent repetitively travelling back and forth trading so that i could earn enough money to buy a better ship.
It's really sad that people today have to ask this question about a game. =\
Sonny, let me tell you a story. Back in the day, when games were made by gamers for gamers, the whole thing was generally enjoyable. Not some stupid repetitive task to pad out the numbers in reviews/marketing materials. Far fetched, I know, but it's the truth. In Starcraft, the closest real-world analogy would be a game of chess. And no, you didn't have to spend 10 hours walking back and forth to unlock the queen, and another 5 hours to make your pawns able to move *two* spaces from their opening position.
When I'm out fishing, it's the act of fishing that I enjoy. If it's not catch-and-release, I also enjoy the tasty fish fry afterwards. I don't actually get any enjoyment out of the killing part, it's just an unfortunate reality.
If someone derives pleasure out of knowing that their catch is slowly dying in the ice chest, then yes, they have something wrong with them.
Yes. Bad guys will say that. And it's sometimes true. And the key word is convict. Conviction has jack shit to do with nullification.
What they DON'T say is, "any jury would nullify any law you bring against me," because it's absurd. You (and many others, including those that modded you insightful) clearly have no understanding of what jury nullification actually means.
You can get all romantic about the thought of saving some young guy from jail for drugs possession but would you find it so noble if a Klan member got away with murdering an innocent African American youth by his all white jury? How about an innocent man who clearly didn't commit murder being found guilty because he was gay and the jury thought homosexuals were sinful and he deserved to be punished anyway?
Jury nullification has nothing to do with either of the scenarios you just described. You've just described acquittal by a biased jury, and that happens *already*.
Jury nullification would be those non-impartial juries, rather than returning a not guilty verdict, instead saying "we refuse to convict because we believe murder is not a crime." That's clearly absurd. If their verdict somehow set precedent, they would have just removed "murder" from the lawbooks in ALL cases, not just ones where it's an all-white-jury judging a Klan member.
The recent Dodd-Frank rules have not been fully implemented but if the numbers are to be believed they are close two twenty two MILLION hours of time required to comply
Now there's an alarmist, meaningless, out-of-context number if ever there was one.
However, I'd argue that we in the US would be a little happier if we could at least compete on a more equal basis against the countries that don't worry about pollution and don't have to mess with the added cost of environmental issues.....those countries that pay $1/hour....and those that manipulate their currency unfairly.
I wouldn't mind a tax/tarrif on imported goods, that only brought the cost of the final product closer to what it costs to manufacture in the US based on those type of metrics. That way, all things being even for cost, quality would prevail in the US consumer's decision making.
Careful, you're sounding like a business-hating, job-killing liberal there.
Problem is, mockery simply exacerbates the problem: it makes the person being mocked dig their heels in, and gives them a "victimized minority" status to cling to in their irrationality and ignorance.
Chances are, the person being mocked was never going to change their beliefs to begin with. The purpose of mockery is to let others see just how ridiculous the ideas being mocked are, and hopefully to prevent the ideas from spreading.
Apple's core market at that time was people running the Adobe creative suite.
And their core market pretty much matched their overall market. The reason their ads came across as misinformation to many people is that, outside of those few Apple users, few people cared about the niche cases where those claims were true. We were too busy playing Quake and Starcraft.
I read at -1; moderation has no effect on what I see. And even the hell that is Slashdot unmoderated is head and shoulders above just about every other public internet discussion forum.
Your image comparison had to go all the way back to EQ1 to find something that looked bad enough to consider what is currently bleeding-edge a "must-have."
First generation 3d games pretty much all looked like ass, kind of like first-generation video games in general. Since the Gamecube/XBox and (to a lesser extent) the PS2 came out, art direction has been far more important than hardware capabilities in making a good looking game. And if you're counting the polygons or looking for aliased edges while you play, the games you're playing must not be very engaging.
That sentiment is common...HOWEVER, past generations, even though they had it a bit easier than the previous ones..didn't expect to not have to work to attain success.
If you truly believe that all the kids currently coming out of high school and college don't think they have to work for success, then you really can't see past your own bullshit. Sure, there are some; there might even be a slightly higher percentage of "gimme everything now" attitudes now than there were when you were a kid. But you have no data to support your hypothesis, so it has no merit.
And on top of that, when you were young (I'm going to guess that it was a while ago), it was possible to enter the workforce immediately after graduation from high school and get a decent job. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE. And you can bet your ass that if someone spends an extra 4 years in school and racks up tens of thousands of dollars in student loans just so they can get their resume past HR, they're going to be a little bit disillusioned if the only jobs they manage to get are barely enough to pay rent and interest on their education related loans.
The really funny thing is that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you're one of those types that thinks everyone should just "go get a better job" to solve their financial problems. Then when these people go get training to get a better job and can't find one, you turn around and tell them they shouldn't have taken on debt to get that training and they should have just... what? Saved all the money they didn't have for 10 years so that they could then go back to school and pay for it (mostly) up-front, then be too old to be employable once they finish?
Your warm recollection of how it was in your early 20s is no longer reality. It would be nice if you could recognize that. Unfortunately, we're probably not going to see much change in this area until people with your attitude just die off.
Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.
By the time the Occupiers were finished, you had everybody from homeless advocates (and homeless) to raving Marxists, neither of which represent in any way the alleged 99%. At least the Tea Partiers had a tangible set of principles and goals.
Your bias is showing.
Being reactionary Libertarian
Ahh, well at least you're honest.
I thought the Tea Party sounded like a great idea. Then they built an 'official' website. The website showed *nothing* but a more extreme version of the Republican platform. (socially regressive to the extreme, typical small government platitudes for the proles who buy that shit, etc). I don't get how so many people like you can rag on OWS and praise the Tea Party in the same breath.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate crimes are bullshit, and trying to punish acts of bullying is just foolish.
The hate crime part I can understand, though I don't personally agree with. But to extend that to not punishing bullies? What the fuck?
--Jeremy
There's a huge difference between USA == BAD and "hey, here's some other country that is doing better at something than we are, maybe we should take a closer look at what's going on so maybe we can improve our own situation."
But it's tough to point that out to the USA #1! crowd. To them, any acknowledgment that we aren't the bestest at absolutely everything is an attack on the US itself.
--Jeremy
You apologists are really pathetic sometimes. You'll come up with any fucking excuse you can to believe that USA #1! and every other country is just some special exception and that they aren't *really* better based on some objective metric. The logical backflips you people do, particularly gun nuts, are just mind-bogglingly stupid.
--Jeremy
Financial web applications are 50% more likely than government one to be secure
50% more than not very likely is still only slightly more likely.
--Jeremy
How much of that time is spent actually enjoying yourself, vs carrying out repetitive actions necessary to gain credits for use in another part of the game? For instance i played elite for many hours, but a lot of that was spent repetitively travelling back and forth trading so that i could earn enough money to buy a better ship.
It's really sad that people today have to ask this question about a game. =\
Sonny, let me tell you a story. Back in the day, when games were made by gamers for gamers, the whole thing was generally enjoyable. Not some stupid repetitive task to pad out the numbers in reviews/marketing materials. Far fetched, I know, but it's the truth. In Starcraft, the closest real-world analogy would be a game of chess. And no, you didn't have to spend 10 hours walking back and forth to unlock the queen, and another 5 hours to make your pawns able to move *two* spaces from their opening position.
--Jeremy
When I'm out fishing, it's the act of fishing that I enjoy. If it's not catch-and-release, I also enjoy the tasty fish fry afterwards. I don't actually get any enjoyment out of the killing part, it's just an unfortunate reality.
If someone derives pleasure out of knowing that their catch is slowly dying in the ice chest, then yes, they have something wrong with them.
--Jeremy
Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja are big games? Those are nicely polished Flash games.
--Jeremy
"No jury will convict me."
Yes. Bad guys will say that. And it's sometimes true. And the key word is convict. Conviction has jack shit to do with nullification.
What they DON'T say is, "any jury would nullify any law you bring against me," because it's absurd. You (and many others, including those that modded you insightful) clearly have no understanding of what jury nullification actually means.
--Jeremy
Jury Nullification still looking noble to you?
Not from your poor understanding and ridiculous strawman presentations of it, no.
--Jeremy
You can get all romantic about the thought of saving some young guy from jail for drugs possession but would you find it so noble if a Klan member got away with murdering an innocent African American youth by his all white jury? How about an innocent man who clearly didn't commit murder being found guilty because he was gay and the jury thought homosexuals were sinful and he deserved to be punished anyway?
Jury nullification has nothing to do with either of the scenarios you just described. You've just described acquittal by a biased jury, and that happens *already*.
Jury nullification would be those non-impartial juries, rather than returning a not guilty verdict, instead saying "we refuse to convict because we believe murder is not a crime." That's clearly absurd. If their verdict somehow set precedent, they would have just removed "murder" from the lawbooks in ALL cases, not just ones where it's an all-white-jury judging a Klan member.
--Jeremy
Government is terrorism against its citizens.
Good job keeping things in perspective and not resorting to hysterical hyperbole there, Mike.
--Jeremy
So how many innocent people jailed is it worth to ensure that cowards like you live in a "safe" world?
--Jeremy
The recent Dodd-Frank rules have not been fully implemented but if the numbers are to be believed they are close two twenty two MILLION hours of time required to comply
Now there's an alarmist, meaningless, out-of-context number if ever there was one.
--Jeremy
However, I'd argue that we in the US would be a little happier if we could at least compete on a more equal basis against the countries that don't worry about pollution and don't have to mess with the added cost of environmental issues.....those countries that pay $1/hour....and those that manipulate their currency unfairly.
I wouldn't mind a tax/tarrif on imported goods, that only brought the cost of the final product closer to what it costs to manufacture in the US based on those type of metrics. That way, all things being even for cost, quality would prevail in the US consumer's decision making.
Careful, you're sounding like a business-hating, job-killing liberal there.
--Jeremy
Can't tell if devil's advocate, or really that ignorant...
--Jeremy
Problem is, mockery simply exacerbates the problem: it makes the person being mocked dig their heels in, and gives them a "victimized minority" status to cling to in their irrationality and ignorance.
Chances are, the person being mocked was never going to change their beliefs to begin with. The purpose of mockery is to let others see just how ridiculous the ideas being mocked are, and hopefully to prevent the ideas from spreading.
--Jeremy
Apple's core market at that time was people running the Adobe creative suite.
And their core market pretty much matched their overall market. The reason their ads came across as misinformation to many people is that, outside of those few Apple users, few people cared about the niche cases where those claims were true. We were too busy playing Quake and Starcraft.
--Jeremy
I'll vouch for that. Pretty sure jo_ham is just an Apple fanboi. bonch sockpuppet posts tend to follow a more specific, subtle formula.
--Jeremy
I read at -1; moderation has no effect on what I see. And even the hell that is Slashdot unmoderated is head and shoulders above just about every other public internet discussion forum.
--Jeremy
We're strong enough to take them. Turn the other cheek and all that.
Bring it.
--Jeremy
Your image comparison had to go all the way back to EQ1 to find something that looked bad enough to consider what is currently bleeding-edge a "must-have."
First generation 3d games pretty much all looked like ass, kind of like first-generation video games in general. Since the Gamecube/XBox and (to a lesser extent) the PS2 came out, art direction has been far more important than hardware capabilities in making a good looking game. And if you're counting the polygons or looking for aliased edges while you play, the games you're playing must not be very engaging.
--Jeremy
That sentiment is common...HOWEVER, past generations, even though they had it a bit easier than the previous ones..didn't expect to not have to work to attain success.
If you truly believe that all the kids currently coming out of high school and college don't think they have to work for success, then you really can't see past your own bullshit. Sure, there are some; there might even be a slightly higher percentage of "gimme everything now" attitudes now than there were when you were a kid. But you have no data to support your hypothesis, so it has no merit.
And on top of that, when you were young (I'm going to guess that it was a while ago), it was possible to enter the workforce immediately after graduation from high school and get a decent job. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE. And you can bet your ass that if someone spends an extra 4 years in school and racks up tens of thousands of dollars in student loans just so they can get their resume past HR, they're going to be a little bit disillusioned if the only jobs they manage to get are barely enough to pay rent and interest on their education related loans.
The really funny thing is that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you're one of those types that thinks everyone should just "go get a better job" to solve their financial problems. Then when these people go get training to get a better job and can't find one, you turn around and tell them they shouldn't have taken on debt to get that training and they should have just ... what? Saved all the money they didn't have for 10 years so that they could then go back to school and pay for it (mostly) up-front, then be too old to be employable once they finish?
Your warm recollection of how it was in your early 20s is no longer reality. It would be nice if you could recognize that. Unfortunately, we're probably not going to see much change in this area until people with your attitude just die off.
--Jeremy
Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.
Umm, hooray?
--Jeremy
In effect they yell "Nothing is working, give us more of the same!"
Yeah, and on the other side we have morons saying "Nothing is working, don't change anything!"
--Jeremy
By the time the Occupiers were finished, you had everybody from homeless advocates (and homeless) to raving Marxists, neither of which represent in any way the alleged 99%. At least the Tea Partiers had a tangible set of principles and goals.
Your bias is showing.
Being reactionary Libertarian
Ahh, well at least you're honest.
I thought the Tea Party sounded like a great idea. Then they built an 'official' website. The website showed *nothing* but a more extreme version of the Republican platform. (socially regressive to the extreme, typical small government platitudes for the proles who buy that shit, etc). I don't get how so many people like you can rag on OWS and praise the Tea Party in the same breath.
--Jeremy