Actually, Avatar was originally supposed to have FOUR seasons: the fourth "Chapter", Air, was supposed to center much more heavily on the whole "spirit world connection" thing (with the face-stealing demon making his promised reappearance). It was only after Nickelodeon treated the show like crap and started playing Futurama-ish timeslot games that they cut it to 3 seasons, and the rushed nature of the final few episodes (ESPECIALLY the rushed, cramped-feeling "finale movie" with the barely-explained Turtle Dragon Ex Machina "Aang won't have to kill him" ending) shows this quite well.
TOS - canceled by NBC, revived by fan campaign, canceled again. Was intended to be "Episodic", such that Episode X being broadcast before Episode Y really didn't mean much. There was no "ongoing story" intended.
TNG - A tad of ongoing story but not really enough intended to matter. The "ending" I thought was a pretty damn well-done episode.
DS9 - one hell of an ending, especially after the "switch" from episodic (early seasons) to arc-driven (later seasons, cardassian/dominion war stuff).
Voyager - only existed because it was Berman & Braga's toy. Also, Seven of Boobs. "Ending" was a fanwank from Berman & Braga
Enterprise - could have gone on a lot longer, ESPECIALLY after Paramount execs finally got the message and kicked Berman & Braga off the franchise to get some real writing staff in. Sadly, they were too late and most viewers couldn't be won back.
If you'd like a series that REALLY never ends, try Doctor Who.
Now as for the rest of sci-fi and the rest of writing in general, you have a few different scenarios:
#1 - "Drag it on forever" - arguably you can put shows like Cheers, Frasier, Simpsons (which has jumped the shark so many times the damn thing is just getting bored) here. Also, Dragonball/Dragonball Z/Dragonball GT, or InuYasha/Bleach/Naruto.
#2 - "Oh crap the creator just left but it's still popular" - see West Wing (which got crappy within a season of Sorkin leaving but dragged on two more seasons), or Smallville.
#3 - "Why won't they let it die?" - Lost, Heroes, etc. Caused by desperate networks that know damn well they have nothing palatable to replace it with and we're bored out of our gourds with so-called "reality TV."
#4 - Last, but definitely not least, the rushed/tacked ending, personified by a number of tropes from anime such as the Gainax Ending, Mandatory Twist Ending, and similar. Basically where you have the writers "counting on" a 2-3 season arc, doing the 3-4 episode "premise and characters" intro, 16-18 episodes of happy silly fluffy slapstick, and then needing to "turn the show serious" at the end. Great examples: just about any anime out there, including (but not limited to) Trigun, Cowboy Bebop, Evangelion (though that was also the result of Anno going off his meds)...
Now if you want to see a series that had multiple seasons all of which had a real ending, and which kicked the ass of all of these conventions, pick up Slayers sometime.
As for video games... it doesn't have to fail to get a real ending. Some games get an ending, some don't. The Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale games all had pretty encapsulated stories. Legacy of Kain has a definite cyclical storyline - sure there was "room" for a game centering on Kain afterwards, but they wrapped up Raziel in a nice neat package and there's no harm in leaving the "what happens now" question behind: the focus of contention ever since Soul Reaver (given that the original Blood Omen had a "definite ending" pair and the rest of the series is premised on assuming which ending the player chose and running with it) has been resolved. Hell, we even got to take care of the unfinished business and kill Turel.
And of course the fact that they forced it as a download with the latest version of iTunes (which ALSO, incidentally, runs like crap on a non-Mac platform) has nothing to do with this "record"...
The Japanese make a mockery of WTO "free trade" regulations on a daily basis, but they get away with because they're a relatively small market compared to the US. By contrast, when some of us in the US suggest that maybe we should switch to "fair trade" that imposes tariffs on goods imported from places that have zero environmental protection laws and pay out slave-labor wages (to even the playing field), we get shouted at about "protectionism."
The Japanese also have a major cultural complex about what is "true japanese." If you have one grandparent who wasn't born in Japan (or worse yet, isn't ethnically asian), it doesn't matter that your family may have been there for 75 years, as far as they are concerned you're still a gaijin. If you're there for tourism, grand, but trying to live there and get employment, or even someday fit into Japanese society as a gaijin? Might as well forget it unless you're going to be an Engrish teacher (and even then, the "natives" will get promoted above you every time).
American and European products? Well, that's gaijin stuff.
You've not "tried to be civil", you were anything but. Tell me how this little racist rant constitutes "civility" towards anyone.
You've done nothing but make strawman arguments, lie about what I said, and ignore any point you didn't want to address. It's a shame, if you were being honest and civil you might have learned a thing or two.
I never said it was OK to have sex on the clock, in the parking lot or otherwise. What I did say was that I simply don't find one single incident of someone getting away with something by dint of their minority status to be the end of the world.
The one incident is but one example - we see this all the time where I work. There are people who come in for an interview who are in no way qualified for the position they are applying for, dress poorly, have incredibly poor speaking skills (not just "a thick accent", but speaking in "spanglish" or "ebonics"), and yet when they are informed that we do not feel they are suited for the position but will keep their resume on file (as the law and corporate policy demand) should something suitable open, begin shouting about how we're "really" not hiring them because of their race/gender/etc.
You completely ignore the whole line of argumentation that it takes time for things to settle down, and instead just reiterate your point that it's not OK to fuck while on the clock, even though I never said it was OK to do so.
Why does your supposed need for "time for things to settle down" excuse people who show up for job interviews in 'do rags, or dressed in oversized jeans and a basketball jersey rather than a suit and tie (or at the VERY least, a decent pair of khakis and a polo shirt)? Why does "time for things to settle down" mean that someone should be able to threaten to file a completely baseless lawsuit claiming "harassment" in order to prevent their being fired for, say, having sex in the company parking lot while on the clock?
Your whole argument is pure fertilizer-grade horse shit. You don't "equalize" anything by letting people get away with bad behavior, all you do is cause more hard feelings and prejudice down the line from the kids who grow up being told "well you have to excuse X and Y and Z behavior that you can't get away with from 'these people' because of things you weren't even involved in"... it's just fucking pathetic and wrong.
Where I work, we regularly get "complaints" that we "didn't hire" someone based on race. We get "community activists" and "community organizers" (you know, the shakedown artists like Barack Obama or Al Sharpton) coming in to complain that we "don't hire enough blacks."
You know what? We hire on the basis of qualification for the job. They come in complaining about someone who didn't get the job because of 'race', we can show them the security tape of someone making an asshat of himself and showing up for a job interview with clothing and an attitude that tell us he is simply not interested in putting in an honest day's work even if he WERE qualified, which he wasn't.
It's not like we ask for much. Some of the jobs only ask for a high school diploma and a couple of references, yet we get people who ditched HS coming in for interviews complaining about how "the man" keeps them down. Bullshit. They're keeping themselves down and con artists like you, who tell them that they aren't being hired because of "race" rather than because they're immature uneducated illiterate morons, are the problem.
unable to appreciate the absurdity of someone lamenting that a member of three of the most privileged classes in our culture would have possibly been punished for something that a member of three of the least privileged classes in our culture got away with?
I don't care if you are a trisexual pink-polka-dotted nymphomaniac futanari in your personal life. I care that you do your job and do it well.
Using "privileged status" as a cop-out makes it all the less likely that genuine problems that SHOULD be reported will be taken seriously.
You might think that social prejudices can be stopped on a dime and that just by saying "Hey, we're all equal!" people will suddenly somehow stop treating people like shit because they're different, but unlike you, apparently, I understand that it's not something that happens all at once.
And that makes having sex in full public view in the businesses's parking lot, while on the clock, okay how exactly?
Of course, I'll probably be modded a troll because I dare to acknowledge that white straight males might not, actually, be suffering under their black female lesbian overlords, and you'll probably be modded insightful despite your gratuitous insult because, hey, someone's gotta stick up for the white guys on slashdot!
Quick quiz asshat: what race am I? You obviously don't know, so fuck off.
"User experience may change..." notices always have that little ESRB tag attached to them, even on Nintendo Wii games. The reason is that there is "user-generated" content on there. If you're playing Halo 3 with someone online, you can't guarantee that they won't start spewing obscene language everywhere. You can't guarantee that they're not going to use words that would make a sailor blush. You can't guarantee that someone won't insert a crude drawing on in-game art, or do something else with a webcam... you just can't.
That little tag is the ESRB throwing up their hands and saying "screw it, we can't actually rate this", but if a game got a bad reputation for user behavior with enough substantiated reports, they COULD theoretically use that to "adjust" the game's rating retroactively.
Blout is saying that if you canablaize a high profit audio book sale with a low-profit e-book sale then you simply need to charge more for e-books to make the total for the authors come out the same as before.
The problem with this is, not everybody competes in the same market. The number of books available in tape/cd/mp3 form is a small percentage, at best, of the number of books put out each year. Many books either see audiobook release only years after their initial release, or not at all.
Kindle offers you an interesting opportunity: MORE books can be available in a digestible (even if slightly imperfect) audio form, than can be made available with the standard "pay someone to read it to me" setup. Will there still be people willing to buy the other audiobooks? I would hope so. Not everybody will have a Kindle.
Even if it does cannibalize some audiobook sales or transfer some revenue or put some professional audiobook readers out of work, that's the changes that always happen with technological improvement. If you think your property is "too cheap" with Amazon as an ebook? Charge Amazon more for your property. See if people are willing to pay for it or not.
it's okay if the overall price declines. indeed this is great since it may increase sales. But in the end you can't simply lower the price by lowering the author's roylaties.
What if the royalties begin getting spread around more authors? More books available on audio = more authors needing a piece of the pie, theoretically. Ultimately, there is a limit to the discretionary spending of consumers and the number of minutes in a day, and you're competing. Video games compete with DVD movies compete with books compete with audiobooks compete with Ebooks compete with audio CD's compete with radio compete with broadcast TV compete with fast food restaurants compete with nicer restaurants compete with zoos compete with the local symphony compete with Lallappalalalala tour compete with... you get the idea.
Either you put out your product in the most digestible, most consumer-desired form, or you suffer the consequences. And if you price reasonably, you can massively increase your sales and make more money than if you're a tight-fisted asshole.
The "game" is being deliberately offensive/unprofessional, and then using one's "protected status" as an excuse or dodge. For example, a local TV studio had a black lesbian employee who was seen (by quite a few individuals) having sex with her girlfriend in a car in the parking lot. When this was reported to the managers and the police called, it was discovered that she (a) was in fact employed there (nobody had been risky enough to try to identify who it was, just that it was going on) and (b) that she hadn't clocked out - she was doing this on company time instead of doing her job.
The most she got was a formal reprimand in her file. You can damn well bet if it had been a white, straight male, there would have been an immediate no-questions-needed firing.
In either case, Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The hard place being the users (who want "self-expression", whatever that means) and the rock being the ridiculous ESRB ratings system. Games can be "re-rated" based on user-created mods these days, and any game with an online component has to have the whole "user experience may change" nonsense (which is why the Wii still lacks voice chat; Big N doesn't want to take any risks at all).
So MS has a choice. They either leave the system completely open - and take the risk of being hounded and hounded and having their console have to be kept out of sight behind store counters and sent home wrapped in giant paper bags as if it were a $300 dirty magazine - or they have to be immensely censorious and deal with the aftermath of stuff like this in order to appease the ESRB's ratings crew and keep games available to be purchased.
Yeah, there will be boneheaded decisions. There will be decisions you personally feel are wrong. The reality is, they don't really have a choice. It's either little blowups like this, or painting a giant target on themselves for the witch hunt.
Non-infringing use #1 I can think of: setting this thing to play in the car like a normal audiobook. I have a few other "audiobooks" loaded to my ipod that are the result of running scanned or otherwise digital copies through text-to-speech software and it works well enough when there is no alternative (e.g. no professional audiobook) available. I'd love to be able to get some more favorites/classics for times when I can't sit to "read" but can listen perfectly well.
It almost sounds like this asshole thinks he's the next Jack Valenti or something. I keep expecting to see a quote about the Boston Strangler.
Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat.
I won't deny it's a useful revenue stream but seriously, how about if you sell more copies of the books anyways? Of my collection of books, less than 2% have an audiobook version available. If I can buy the digital version for a fair price and then run it with text-to-speech, I'm happy. If you do not provide such an option, plenty of people will resort to less-than-legal means.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more consumers will slip through your fingers...
Merely raising the accusation colors perceptions of the defendants. That's why (whenever possible) the defense tries to get their client dressed up in a nice suit and tie, rather than his dailywear, and tries to get him in with a shave/trim to the beard and hair rather than having it look wild and crazy.
All it takes is one lawyer standing up in front of the jury and saying "and we believe Mr. X's co-conspirators are responsible for attacking our business website..." and it doesn't matter what comes after. People tend to remember the first thing they are told and assign it higher value than any counterargument, as shown by many, many psychological studies. That biases the jury and judge and makes the case harder to win.
The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).
Remember: all it takes is one trumped-up charge to slip past the court/jury to make things go down the shitter.
But the basic interpretation hasn't been compromised because it affects only a small part of the data.
Wrong.
#1 - If a part of your data is questionable, your entire sample is questionable. #2 - The methodology by which your data is collected should always be questioned. #3 - When you make a "conclusion" based on a "trend", the motion of which does not exceed the accuracy window of the original reading equipment, AND you are basing data on a continually changing set of equipment, you really should be rethinking your conclusion. This also applies when you are deliberately selecting the beginning and end points of your data to claim a "trend" in one direction or another, when the graph has many cyclical up and down points.
It's far easier to predict average temperatures will decline through summer, fall, and winter (in the northern hemisphere) than it would be to predict whether the temperature will go up or down on a given day or week.
For five years straight, the weathermen have been predicting an amazingly heavy hurricane season. For five years straight, they have gotten it dead wrong. Predicting "we'll have winter" is easy. Predicting whether it'll be a mild or severe winter? Forget it.
"Climate change scientists" take a computer model, input data that might as well be garbage or sampling error in far too many cases, and then "massage" the model to try to make it read right for their previous data before claiming the model can "predict" future events. Think about how many different "models" there are for hurricane paths alone (and most of them got it dead wrong for Katrina/Rita/Ike anyways).
Again, let me posit you this: But the basic interpretation hasn't been compromised because it affects only a small part of the data. Ok, we'll "only affect a small part of the data" in relation to a medical test - we'll throw out all the data from the one clinic that reported certain side effects. Or we could "only affect a small part of the data" for certain Presidential elections in years past... or hell, do like the Democrats are doing now in Minnesota.
"A small part of the data" being compromised DOES call into question the whole project.
The existence of moderators who modded this "troll" is a disturbing fact about the world's social realities: people on slashdot who do not have critical reading skills or who choose not to use them are affecting the quality of discourse.
Fixed that for ya.
Will someone please mod parent post into oblivion? A couple more "trolls" would do nicely. "Overrated" would not have the same long term affect on karma, so I think "troll" would do a better job of helping to keep future slashdot discussions on track.
You need to learn the difference between "trolling" and "disagreeing with your biased, uninformed opinion" or "stating an uncomfortable truth."
Think about what makes you so angry about climate science; chances are good that it's all about politics. You believe what's politically convenient and then try to justify it.
I didn't believe James Hansen in the 1970s when he was predicting the next ice age, and I don't believe him any more today now that he's completely changed his mind. I have laughed at the various terms thrown about by sensationalist news anchors for decades (in the late '70s-early '80s it was "thermal inversion", in the mid-90s they came up with "ozone action day", etc). Every time this stuff comes around, it's the same old crap: bad science, sensationalism, and hysteria rather than a reasoned, thoughtful "this is what we know and this is what we need to improve based on X checked and re-checked data."
If you calm down and think about it rationally, I think you'll conclude that the science is actually pretty solid.
I've seen the "science." See also: Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias. The so-called "scientists" aren't objectively checking the data, or even checking up on each other, and that's a major problem. No, the "science" is not "solid."
Present me with some solid science, and I'll be happy. On the other hand, don't expect me to believe in something backed up by less reliable "science" than Xenu, E-Meters and L. Ron Hubbard.
Oh, and of course, consider the following question: why, for the past 10 years, have the news reporters been comparing temperatures and atmospheric levels to 1979? It's because 1979 was an unusually harsh cold snap. If you compare to the 1970s average, you get a different answer. Hell, if you compare to 1978 or 1980, you get a different answer - but those don't fit the "OMG the sky is falling global warming will kill us all" mass hysteria bullcrap they're pushing.
The reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who follow Limbaugh et al can only be explained as propaganda-induced hysteria, to which only the profoundly ignorant and/or fearful are vulnerable.
No, the reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who ignore letters signed on to by 9,000 PH.D's and 31,000 respected people total DISPUTING the Al Gore/IPCC data fraud, and who sign on to the various "world nightly news: the world will end, film at 11" hysteria broadcasts rather than doing at least a minimal bit of research and understanding the world around them, are the problem.
You may not agree with the scope and severity of the climate change. Fine. But to deny that it is happening shows a complete inability to observe the world around you over the course of decades.
"To deny that it is happening" - I didn't see that. I did see an argument over whether it is man-made, and the entire ARTICLE is about the supposed "scientists" who are engaging in poor science because they are engaging in Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias quite deliberately, invalidating all of their supposed "research."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Avatar was originally supposed to have FOUR seasons: the fourth "Chapter", Air, was supposed to center much more heavily on the whole "spirit world connection" thing (with the face-stealing demon making his promised reappearance). It was only after Nickelodeon treated the show like crap and started playing Futurama-ish timeslot games that they cut it to 3 seasons, and the rushed nature of the final few episodes (ESPECIALLY the rushed, cramped-feeling "finale movie" with the barely-explained Turtle Dragon Ex Machina "Aang won't have to kill him" ending) shows this quite well.
TOS - canceled by NBC, revived by fan campaign, canceled again. Was intended to be "Episodic", such that Episode X being broadcast before Episode Y really didn't mean much. There was no "ongoing story" intended.
TNG - A tad of ongoing story but not really enough intended to matter. The "ending" I thought was a pretty damn well-done episode.
DS9 - one hell of an ending, especially after the "switch" from episodic (early seasons) to arc-driven (later seasons, cardassian/dominion war stuff).
Voyager - only existed because it was Berman & Braga's toy. Also, Seven of Boobs. "Ending" was a fanwank from Berman & Braga
Enterprise - could have gone on a lot longer, ESPECIALLY after Paramount execs finally got the message and kicked Berman & Braga off the franchise to get some real writing staff in. Sadly, they were too late and most viewers couldn't be won back.
If you'd like a series that REALLY never ends, try Doctor Who.
Now as for the rest of sci-fi and the rest of writing in general, you have a few different scenarios:
#1 - "Drag it on forever" - arguably you can put shows like Cheers, Frasier, Simpsons (which has jumped the shark so many times the damn thing is just getting bored) here. Also, Dragonball/Dragonball Z/Dragonball GT, or InuYasha/Bleach/Naruto.
#2 - "Oh crap the creator just left but it's still popular" - see West Wing (which got crappy within a season of Sorkin leaving but dragged on two more seasons), or Smallville.
#3 - "Why won't they let it die?" - Lost, Heroes, etc. Caused by desperate networks that know damn well they have nothing palatable to replace it with and we're bored out of our gourds with so-called "reality TV."
#4 - Last, but definitely not least, the rushed/tacked ending, personified by a number of tropes from anime such as the Gainax Ending, Mandatory Twist Ending, and similar. Basically where you have the writers "counting on" a 2-3 season arc, doing the 3-4 episode "premise and characters" intro, 16-18 episodes of happy silly fluffy slapstick, and then needing to "turn the show serious" at the end. Great examples: just about any anime out there, including (but not limited to) Trigun, Cowboy Bebop, Evangelion (though that was also the result of Anno going off his meds)...
Now if you want to see a series that had multiple seasons all of which had a real ending, and which kicked the ass of all of these conventions, pick up Slayers sometime.
As for video games... it doesn't have to fail to get a real ending. Some games get an ending, some don't. The Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale games all had pretty encapsulated stories. Legacy of Kain has a definite cyclical storyline - sure there was "room" for a game centering on Kain afterwards, but they wrapped up Raziel in a nice neat package and there's no harm in leaving the "what happens now" question behind: the focus of contention ever since Soul Reaver (given that the original Blood Omen had a "definite ending" pair and the rest of the series is premised on assuming which ending the player chose and running with it) has been resolved. Hell, we even got to take care of the unfinished business and kill Turel.
Key questions I have:
#1 - Will it work on my old NES/SNES and my HP Laserjet 4 printer?
#2 - Do I really need a UV lamp or can I just do it and stick them in the sun on a nice bright day?
And of course the fact that they forced it as a download with the latest version of iTunes (which ALSO, incidentally, runs like crap on a non-Mac platform) has nothing to do with this "record"...
Moron.
DS > PSP in japan
Nintendo and Sony are both Japanese companies.
PS3 >>> xbox in japan
Sony is Japanese, Xbox is American.
And you're a clueless idiot.
Obligatory:
What about my electronic lavvy? It comes when you call, takes your trousers down, does everything - it's just so stylish.
Due to hit the Japanese market in... what, three years?
Indeed.
The Japanese make a mockery of WTO "free trade" regulations on a daily basis, but they get away with because they're a relatively small market compared to the US. By contrast, when some of us in the US suggest that maybe we should switch to "fair trade" that imposes tariffs on goods imported from places that have zero environmental protection laws and pay out slave-labor wages (to even the playing field), we get shouted at about "protectionism."
The Japanese also have a major cultural complex about what is "true japanese." If you have one grandparent who wasn't born in Japan (or worse yet, isn't ethnically asian), it doesn't matter that your family may have been there for 75 years, as far as they are concerned you're still a gaijin. If you're there for tourism, grand, but trying to live there and get employment, or even someday fit into Japanese society as a gaijin? Might as well forget it unless you're going to be an Engrish teacher (and even then, the "natives" will get promoted above you every time).
American and European products? Well, that's gaijin stuff.
Someone call the waaambulance.
You've not "tried to be civil", you were anything but. Tell me how this little racist rant constitutes "civility" towards anyone.
You've done nothing but make strawman arguments, lie about what I said, and ignore any point you didn't want to address. It's a shame, if you were being honest and civil you might have learned a thing or two.
I never said it was OK to have sex on the clock, in the parking lot or otherwise. What I did say was that I simply don't find one single incident of someone getting away with something by dint of their minority status to be the end of the world.
The one incident is but one example - we see this all the time where I work. There are people who come in for an interview who are in no way qualified for the position they are applying for, dress poorly, have incredibly poor speaking skills (not just "a thick accent", but speaking in "spanglish" or "ebonics"), and yet when they are informed that we do not feel they are suited for the position but will keep their resume on file (as the law and corporate policy demand) should something suitable open, begin shouting about how we're "really" not hiring them because of their race/gender/etc.
You completely ignore the whole line of argumentation that it takes time for things to settle down, and instead just reiterate your point that it's not OK to fuck while on the clock, even though I never said it was OK to do so.
Why does your supposed need for "time for things to settle down" excuse people who show up for job interviews in 'do rags, or dressed in oversized jeans and a basketball jersey rather than a suit and tie (or at the VERY least, a decent pair of khakis and a polo shirt)? Why does "time for things to settle down" mean that someone should be able to threaten to file a completely baseless lawsuit claiming "harassment" in order to prevent their being fired for, say, having sex in the company parking lot while on the clock?
Your whole argument is pure fertilizer-grade horse shit. You don't "equalize" anything by letting people get away with bad behavior, all you do is cause more hard feelings and prejudice down the line from the kids who grow up being told "well you have to excuse X and Y and Z behavior that you can't get away with from 'these people' because of things you weren't even involved in"... it's just fucking pathetic and wrong.
Where I work, we regularly get "complaints" that we "didn't hire" someone based on race. We get "community activists" and "community organizers" (you know, the shakedown artists like Barack Obama or Al Sharpton) coming in to complain that we "don't hire enough blacks."
You know what? We hire on the basis of qualification for the job. They come in complaining about someone who didn't get the job because of 'race', we can show them the security tape of someone making an asshat of himself and showing up for a job interview with clothing and an attitude that tell us he is simply not interested in putting in an honest day's work even if he WERE qualified, which he wasn't.
It's not like we ask for much. Some of the jobs only ask for a high school diploma and a couple of references, yet we get people who ditched HS coming in for interviews complaining about how "the man" keeps them down. Bullshit. They're keeping themselves down and con artists like you, who tell them that they aren't being hired because of "race" rather than because they're immature uneducated illiterate morons, are the problem.
unable to appreciate the absurdity of someone lamenting that a member of three of the most privileged classes in our culture would have possibly been punished for something that a member of three of the least privileged classes in our culture got away with?
I don't care if you are a trisexual pink-polka-dotted nymphomaniac futanari in your personal life. I care that you do your job and do it well.
Using "privileged status" as a cop-out makes it all the less likely that genuine problems that SHOULD be reported will be taken seriously.
You might think that social prejudices can be stopped on a dime and that just by saying "Hey, we're all equal!" people will suddenly somehow stop treating people like shit because they're different, but unlike you, apparently, I understand that it's not something that happens all at once.
And that makes having sex in full public view in the businesses's parking lot, while on the clock, okay how exactly?
Of course, I'll probably be modded a troll because I dare to acknowledge that white straight males might not, actually, be suffering under their black female lesbian overlords, and you'll probably be modded insightful despite your gratuitous insult because, hey, someone's gotta stick up for the white guys on slashdot!
Quick quiz asshat: what race am I? You obviously don't know, so fuck off.
Equal rights means EQUAL rights, not "we just changed who can get away with what", dumbass.
Nope.
"User experience may change..." notices always have that little ESRB tag attached to them, even on Nintendo Wii games. The reason is that there is "user-generated" content on there. If you're playing Halo 3 with someone online, you can't guarantee that they won't start spewing obscene language everywhere. You can't guarantee that they're not going to use words that would make a sailor blush. You can't guarantee that someone won't insert a crude drawing on in-game art, or do something else with a webcam... you just can't.
That little tag is the ESRB throwing up their hands and saying "screw it, we can't actually rate this", but if a game got a bad reputation for user behavior with enough substantiated reports, they COULD theoretically use that to "adjust" the game's rating retroactively.
Blout is saying that if you canablaize a high profit audio book sale with a low-profit e-book sale then you simply need to charge more for e-books to make the total for the authors come out the same as before.
The problem with this is, not everybody competes in the same market. The number of books available in tape/cd/mp3 form is a small percentage, at best, of the number of books put out each year. Many books either see audiobook release only years after their initial release, or not at all.
Kindle offers you an interesting opportunity: MORE books can be available in a digestible (even if slightly imperfect) audio form, than can be made available with the standard "pay someone to read it to me" setup. Will there still be people willing to buy the other audiobooks? I would hope so. Not everybody will have a Kindle.
Even if it does cannibalize some audiobook sales or transfer some revenue or put some professional audiobook readers out of work, that's the changes that always happen with technological improvement. If you think your property is "too cheap" with Amazon as an ebook? Charge Amazon more for your property. See if people are willing to pay for it or not.
it's okay if the overall price declines. indeed this is great since it may increase sales. But in the end you can't simply lower the price by lowering the author's roylaties.
What if the royalties begin getting spread around more authors? More books available on audio = more authors needing a piece of the pie, theoretically. Ultimately, there is a limit to the discretionary spending of consumers and the number of minutes in a day, and you're competing. Video games compete with DVD movies compete with books compete with audiobooks compete with Ebooks compete with audio CD's compete with radio compete with broadcast TV compete with fast food restaurants compete with nicer restaurants compete with zoos compete with the local symphony compete with Lallappalalalala tour compete with... you get the idea.
Either you put out your product in the most digestible, most consumer-desired form, or you suffer the consequences. And if you price reasonably, you can massively increase your sales and make more money than if you're a tight-fisted asshole.
The "game" is being deliberately offensive/unprofessional, and then using one's "protected status" as an excuse or dodge. For example, a local TV studio had a black lesbian employee who was seen (by quite a few individuals) having sex with her girlfriend in a car in the parking lot. When this was reported to the managers and the police called, it was discovered that she (a) was in fact employed there (nobody had been risky enough to try to identify who it was, just that it was going on) and (b) that she hadn't clocked out - she was doing this on company time instead of doing her job.
The most she got was a formal reprimand in her file. You can damn well bet if it had been a white, straight male, there would have been an immediate no-questions-needed firing.
In either case, Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The hard place being the users (who want "self-expression", whatever that means) and the rock being the ridiculous ESRB ratings system. Games can be "re-rated" based on user-created mods these days, and any game with an online component has to have the whole "user experience may change" nonsense (which is why the Wii still lacks voice chat; Big N doesn't want to take any risks at all).
So MS has a choice. They either leave the system completely open - and take the risk of being hounded and hounded and having their console have to be kept out of sight behind store counters and sent home wrapped in giant paper bags as if it were a $300 dirty magazine - or they have to be immensely censorious and deal with the aftermath of stuff like this in order to appease the ESRB's ratings crew and keep games available to be purchased.
Yeah, there will be boneheaded decisions. There will be decisions you personally feel are wrong. The reality is, they don't really have a choice. It's either little blowups like this, or painting a giant target on themselves for the witch hunt.
No kidding.
Non-infringing use #1 I can think of: setting this thing to play in the car like a normal audiobook. I have a few other "audiobooks" loaded to my ipod that are the result of running scanned or otherwise digital copies through text-to-speech software and it works well enough when there is no alternative (e.g. no professional audiobook) available. I'd love to be able to get some more favorites/classics for times when I can't sit to "read" but can listen perfectly well.
It almost sounds like this asshole thinks he's the next Jack Valenti or something. I keep expecting to see a quote about the Boston Strangler.
Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat.
I won't deny it's a useful revenue stream but seriously, how about if you sell more copies of the books anyways? Of my collection of books, less than 2% have an audiobook version available. If I can buy the digital version for a fair price and then run it with text-to-speech, I'm happy. If you do not provide such an option, plenty of people will resort to less-than-legal means.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more consumers will slip through your fingers...
These people deserve some bad press for naming themselves after Valenti. Please.
And this is why you are not a lawyer.
Merely raising the accusation colors perceptions of the defendants. That's why (whenever possible) the defense tries to get their client dressed up in a nice suit and tie, rather than his dailywear, and tries to get him in with a shave/trim to the beard and hair rather than having it look wild and crazy.
All it takes is one lawyer standing up in front of the jury and saying "and we believe Mr. X's co-conspirators are responsible for attacking our business website..." and it doesn't matter what comes after. People tend to remember the first thing they are told and assign it higher value than any counterargument, as shown by many, many psychological studies. That biases the jury and judge and makes the case harder to win.
The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).
Remember: all it takes is one trumped-up charge to slip past the court/jury to make things go down the shitter.
But the basic interpretation hasn't been compromised because it affects only a small part of the data.
Wrong.
#1 - If a part of your data is questionable, your entire sample is questionable.
#2 - The methodology by which your data is collected should always be questioned.
#3 - When you make a "conclusion" based on a "trend", the motion of which does not exceed the accuracy window of the original reading equipment, AND you are basing data on a continually changing set of equipment, you really should be rethinking your conclusion. This also applies when you are deliberately selecting the beginning and end points of your data to claim a "trend" in one direction or another, when the graph has many cyclical up and down points.
It's far easier to predict average temperatures will decline through summer, fall, and winter (in the northern hemisphere) than it would be to predict whether the temperature will go up or down on a given day or week.
For five years straight, the weathermen have been predicting an amazingly heavy hurricane season. For five years straight, they have gotten it dead wrong. Predicting "we'll have winter" is easy. Predicting whether it'll be a mild or severe winter? Forget it.
"Climate change scientists" take a computer model, input data that might as well be garbage or sampling error in far too many cases, and then "massage" the model to try to make it read right for their previous data before claiming the model can "predict" future events. Think about how many different "models" there are for hurricane paths alone (and most of them got it dead wrong for Katrina/Rita/Ike anyways).
Again, let me posit you this:
But the basic interpretation hasn't been compromised because it affects only a small part of the data.
Ok, we'll "only affect a small part of the data" in relation to a medical test - we'll throw out all the data from the one clinic that reported certain side effects.
Or we could "only affect a small part of the data" for certain Presidential elections in years past... or hell, do like the Democrats are doing now in Minnesota.
"A small part of the data" being compromised DOES call into question the whole project.
The existence of moderators who modded this "troll" is a disturbing fact about the world's social realities: people on slashdot who do not have critical reading skills or who choose not to use them are affecting the quality of discourse.
Fixed that for ya.
Will someone please mod parent post into oblivion? A couple more "trolls" would do nicely. "Overrated" would not have the same long term affect on karma, so I think "troll" would do a better job of helping to keep future slashdot discussions on track.
You need to learn the difference between "trolling" and "disagreeing with your biased, uninformed opinion" or "stating an uncomfortable truth."
You're nothing but a liar.
here's one listing.
an interesting look at the IPCC's fraud "scientists"
More...
Another one... this one a former IPCC member.
Now, you owe me an apology. A-hole.
Think about what makes you so angry about climate science; chances are good that it's all about politics. You believe what's politically convenient and then try to justify it.
I didn't believe James Hansen in the 1970s when he was predicting the next ice age, and I don't believe him any more today now that he's completely changed his mind. I have laughed at the various terms thrown about by sensationalist news anchors for decades (in the late '70s-early '80s it was "thermal inversion", in the mid-90s they came up with "ozone action day", etc). Every time this stuff comes around, it's the same old crap: bad science, sensationalism, and hysteria rather than a reasoned, thoughtful "this is what we know and this is what we need to improve based on X checked and re-checked data."
If you calm down and think about it rationally, I think you'll conclude that the science is actually pretty solid.
I've seen the "science." See also: Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias. The so-called "scientists" aren't objectively checking the data, or even checking up on each other, and that's a major problem. No, the "science" is not "solid."
Present me with some solid science, and I'll be happy. On the other hand, don't expect me to believe in something backed up by less reliable "science" than Xenu, E-Meters and L. Ron Hubbard.
Oh, and of course, consider the following question: why, for the past 10 years, have the news reporters been comparing temperatures and atmospheric levels to 1979? It's because 1979 was an unusually harsh cold snap. If you compare to the 1970s average, you get a different answer. Hell, if you compare to 1978 or 1980, you get a different answer - but those don't fit the "OMG the sky is falling global warming will kill us all" mass hysteria bullcrap they're pushing.
The reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who follow Limbaugh et al can only be explained as propaganda-induced hysteria, to which only the profoundly ignorant and/or fearful are vulnerable.
No, the reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who ignore letters signed on to by 9,000 PH.D's and 31,000 respected people total DISPUTING the Al Gore/IPCC data fraud, and who sign on to the various "world nightly news: the world will end, film at 11" hysteria broadcasts rather than doing at least a minimal bit of research and understanding the world around them, are the problem.
YOU are profoundly ignorant.
It scares me when nitwits like you post garbage like the following:
Without measurements, I can say with certainty that our climate is changing.
Because as we all well know, human memory is fallible.. Not just that, extremely fallible. Not to mention extremely vulnerable to self-delusion, unconsciously-induced Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias, and to false memory planting.
You may not agree with the scope and severity of the climate change. Fine. But to deny that it is happening shows a complete inability to observe the world around you over the course of decades.
"To deny that it is happening" - I didn't see that. I did see an argument over whether it is man-made, and the entire ARTICLE is about the supposed "scientists" who are engaging in poor science because they are engaging in Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias quite deliberately, invalidating all of their supposed "research."
Someone got mod points and began modding down "troll" to scientific truth.
Scary....