The common attitude appears to be that people can't help themselves, so let the government do it...
I don't think the government should be involved at all, except where absolutely necessary. I think the only job for the government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Education can, and is, being done better by private schools. Health care can, and is, being done better by the companies people work for (75% of seniors already have health care through their former employers). Transportation is iffy, and at the moment, I tend to think that maybe the government should take care of the roads... but not the sky (airlines) or the railroads (each railroad company can build their own railroad... after the government gives up Amtrak). I don't think we should have gone to Iraq... but we have to get oil from somewhere, since the Democrats and environmentalist wackos won't let us drill in Alaska...
If I had my choice, I would much rather be debating our role in Iraq, the national economy, and patent law instead of whether the presidents cock should have been stuffed down an interns throat.
Would you rather be debating on whether the President should be held to the same legal standard as anyone else in the country? Like, for instance, if they got on a witness stand in court, and swore, under oath, and blatantly lied? If it was me, I would have been charged with perjury and put in jail...
According to the latest "State of the first Amendment" those "basic" questions would disqualify 98% of Americans from voting. Only 80% would be disqualified if they only had to know 2 of the 5 clauses in the First Amendment, and a mere 42% would be disqualified if they only had to know about the freedom of speech.
Then in my opinion, let the 98% of Americans not vote. If they can't name the freedoms granted by the very first amendment in the document that's over 200 years old that is the Supreme Law of the Land in this country, they CERTAINLY shouldn't be allowed to vote for the next leader of the country.
By the way, without looking, those freedoms are, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Assembly, and Petition. The next amendment is the one for owning guns.
I'm all for poll tests (for everyone), some basic questions, like what is the 1st amendment to the Constitution or how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights. You wouldn't let children vote on how to spend their parents money would you?
I agree, but let's take things one step at a time... First, let's make people show ID before voting. Otherwise, they could vote numerous times. It should be simple common sense, but apparently some people just don't see it that way. Second, only allow LEGAL citizens to vote. If you came to this country illegally, you can't vote. End of story. (In fact, I think the CA law that's being debated right now is pretty good... illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses? Sure, why not? As soon as they show ID, let the cops put them back on a boat to whatever hellhole they came from.) Third, some basic questions, like "Name the current President of the United States" or "How many states are there in the USA". After people show enough intelligence to answer those, wait 2 or 3 election cycles, then increase the difficulty.
Remember all the Star Trek: TNG episodes where the 8-10 year olds were studying Calculus? They didn't get there by being told that they're special the way they are.........
I know this will get modded troll, but the stupidity of the general public is the biggest problem. I mean, people in FL couldn't figure out the chad ballot system...
I really hope it doesn't get modded down, because people need to read this and understand how true (and scary) it is. The general public is so pathetically stupid, it's not even laughable anymore. We have people suing over spilled coffee, and suing over their kids getting kicked off sports teams in middle school because they vandalized the school, etc. I could go on all day describing the mindless laws that we're spending so much money enforcing, rather than educating people. On the other hand, I don't think a lot of the teachers are qualified to be educators...
How in the world do we expect them to figure out an electronic system? Security IMHO is really a close number two problem compared to this.
I'd have to say security would be #1. As far as I'm concerned, the primary duty of ANY decent government is to protect its citizens... whether the danger is from foreign enemies, or domestic ones. That includes the military, law enforcement, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, etc. Security is definitely the biggest direct threat to the country.
I also have to point out that if this electronic voting were being taken care of by a private company, these kinds of problems would have a more direct target for blame. For instance, if Larry Flynt was elected in California, and it turned out to be because he hired someone to hack into the voting machines, you can rest assured that security problem would be fixed pretty damn quick... if the company planned on being around for any amount of time.
I wasn't saying that he should run out and buy all the consoles just for the sake of playing games that he doesn't like. I tried to list several games that are some of the best examples of almost any genre available, that are also exclusive to one of the consoles. As I said in the first couple lines of my post, if he has a PC and a Dreamcast, and he's perfectly happy with it, that's fine... but for anybody that's reading this thread and is wondering what reason they might have for upgrading, I listed several games that are worth spending the money on. I was trying to encourage him to take a step back and look at the number of quality games that aren't available for either the Dreamcast and the PC to see if any of them would interest him (I'm sure at LEAST one of them would). Major consoles exist for a reason... and that reason is that right now, they offer the best entertainment for the best price around.
anyone who really wants a console (and can afford it) has one already...
You mean you have to be able to afford a new console when you buy it? Damn... I just put the XBox on my Visa...
Frankly, I see no reason to upgrade to an Xbox or PS2, because all the latest games that I've wanted (GTA3/VC) are available on the PC (which work beautifully with my Radeon 9500 Pro), and as far as the PS2 goes, the only advantage I've seen of it over my Dreamcast is that it has full scene anti-aliasing.
Normally, statements like "I see no reason to upgrade" really infuriate me, but I'll try to refrain from screaming profanities in your direction.
If the Dreamcast and the PC offer every game you want to play, then good for you. For the rest of us though, there are Exclusive games (with a little label on the box, too) that are only available for one console (hence the label Exclusive). For instance, the XBox still has Halo (although it will, eventually, come out for the PC), Fable, if it ever comes out, and Knights of the Old Republic. The PS2 has quite a few, including Final Fantasy X, and soon, X-2. It's also got the Gran Turismo series, which is always good. The GameCube has Zelda, Mario Sunshine, Metroid, and F-Zero. There are plenty of games that you'll never be able to experience if you don't have a console... and many of those experiences are worth far more than the $50 price tag.
I can understand that a lot of people don't have the money to spend $150-300 on a new console, and I can appreciate that. I certainly didn't have a GameCube the day it came out either... If money is the issue, that's one thing... but saying that there's just no reason to get one is just ignorant. I'm not saying that to be rude, I mean you literally don't know what's out there for each system until you take a good, long serious look at the options.
And I'm sure that for the tuesday afternoon that they DID test compatability, they were very thorough.
You give them too much credit to say Tuesday Afternoon... I would have said between 12:15pm and 1:45pm on Tuesday afternoon... with lunch in there too. And, since pirates are taking away so much money for research and development of the anti-piracy schemes, they didn't even have a CD Player to test on... so I suspect they looked at a drawing of a CD Player on a chalkboard, and if when they closed their eyes and concentrated really hard, they heard the music playing, they declared it safe to sell.
Either way, this doesn't happen very often with games.
I'm sure that the 2 million people that bought Madden 2004 will only play 1 game of it, then toss it aside and wait for the next game. I played Metal Gear Solid through about 4 times, and MGS2 through twice. My estimation is if $7.50 == 2 hours of entertainment for movies, then $50 == 13.3 hours of entertainment for movies. Correct? In that case, spending $50 for a game, even if it's only a 25-hour long game, is much more of a bargain than going to the movies.
On the other hand, buying a DVD is a slightly different story. If you watch a movie 5 times over the time that the DVD works, then it's 10 hours for $20... which is $2 == 1 hour. In that case, it's EXACTLY equal to spending $50 == 25 hours. Hmmm... maybe it's not so different after all.....
"Within three weeks [of release, Madden NFL] grossed $100 million -- two million copies sold at $50 a pop. In roughly the same period, the summer hit movie Seabiscuit returned $78 million."
Yeah, and Spiderman grossed $114 in 3 DAYS. The Matrix Reloaded grossed $94 million or so in 3 DAYS. And since when is Seabiscuit a "summer hit movie"? No offense to horse-lovers out there (you perverts), but I don't know anybody who's even slightly interested in it. I don't know anybody who's seen it, or wants to see it. I know more people that have had root canals done in the past 3 weeks than have seen Seabiscuit, so does that mean that everybody and their brother will want to be dentists in the next few months?
Well, ok, now you and AC go and fetch figures and try to demonstrate that there is a third force that is interesting to the videogame market, expecially when we are talking about figures of sales that go from 200.000 people upwards.
I agree with you, that there are effectively 2 forces of video-game-buying people... those who know what they're getting, and those who don't. Those who don't, like you said, don't read magazines, don't look up reviews, and don't care about publishers, or developers. We are those who do. I believe what the other guy was alluding to was that he doesn't believe there are 2 forces... he believes there's only 1 massive force. You and I disagree with him, obviously.
Generally, when I see GameCube sales for a game like Soul Caliber that are much higher than the ratio for GameCube owners to PS2 owners, I tend to think those are the "know-nots" that are buying it, just because Link is on the cover. I also concede that this is a rather bad example, because the GameCube actually does have higher technical abilities than the PS2, so the "knows" actually go along with the "know-nots" and purchase the GameCube copy. In a perfect example, the GameCube owners would be in a 1:1 ratio with PS2 owners, and we could show both sets of people the same game, with a different character on the front... and knowing what those people know, they would choose one or the other. Then we would have definitive data on whether box art, or different characters, or technical abilities effect actual sales.
Well what the fuck is the matter with you? You're the one sitting there saying that you don't want developers making games that little kids MIGHT, BY CHANCE, AT SOME POINT, try to recreate in real life, spouting all kinds of bullshit about reality and fantasy. The fact is that you can't make up your own damn mind. You wanna whine and complain that someone died because a little idiotic shithead decided to pull the trigger, then blame some game he played. So sorry, but MILLIONS of people have played Grand Theft Auto, and only ONE death causes headlines. Cry me a fucking river. No shit I've been contradicting myself... because I'm fucking with your mind, dipshit. You want facts that don't contradict anything? OK, here we go:
Fact 1: You're obviously an idiot who thinks that anything that offends someone, or has the slightest hint of danger should be regulated by some all-knowing, all-powerful father-figure. You've admitted as much.
Fact 2: Grand Theft Auto has sold millions of copies, and to my knowledge, not even 10 people have died from people emulating it. The problem isn't the game, or the developers, or the people in the country. It's the pathetic 0.00001% of people that can't / don't / won't take responsibility for their own actions. They just want to blame someone else... just like you.
Fact 3: No amount of babbling about blame, regulations, or morality can change the fact that one person is dead, and the kids that killed that guy are seriously fucked up in the head. Kill the children (eye for an eye and all that) and get on with life.
The main difference between your views and my views is that I want people to have a choice on what they can do. They can either emulate whatever game they play and shoot someone, or they can not emulate the game... or they can not play the game at all. You want to deny people that choice, and thus, defeat the purpose of freedom. If there are never any choices, then people obviously aren't free to make their own choices. You want to deny people that freedom by denying developers the freedom to explore their creativity. If you deny the general public the freedom of choice, you are, in essence, defeating capitalism entirely. So with one statement, that "developers shouldn't be allowed to make games that children might emulate", you have defeated the purpose of capitalism. People that think like that will one day destroy the United States... not that you care, because you live in the vast wasteland of Canada where nobody ever accomplishes anything of note.
We want to fix the flaws so that the country, like our dogs, can live a long and healthy life.
I agree, for the most part. Except that all the "fixes" for the "flaws" of this counry that I've heard from certain people, including Tom Daschle, Bill & Hillary Clinton, etc., and eventually down to Michael Moore, generally include comparisons to other countries, specifically in Europe. That's one part I disagree with. With children in education, the Left (speaking generally here) thinks that each child is special, and shouldn't be held accountable to the achievements of other, more "lucky" children.
We're always hearing about children that pass a grade, even when they get straight F's and can't speak basic English. (Now we're hearing about TEACHERS who can't pass a basic English test.) My point is this: If children must be judged by their own accomplishments, with no referencing of others, why must this country be judged passed only on the failures? There are a few things in Europe that work better than in the United States, although I can't think of any right off the top of my head.
One example that springs to mind is health care. The government now wants to set up a giant medicare system to make hospital visits and doctor appointments "free"... except that it's not free. The taxpayers will have to pay for it. The problem with that is that the taxpayers are an increasingly decreasing group. Half the people pay almost all the taxes. The people that don't pay any taxes generally don't have jobs, and collect unemployment and/or welfare (which isn't counted in the unemployment rate). Since they don't have jobs, they'll go to the hospital for any reason, since it's "free". I, and you, and others like us end up paying for it. We got this wonderful idea from places like the USSR (where it didn't work, never has worked, and never will work).
When I hear a solution to a problem that makes sense, I'll consider it... no matter where the idea comes from. One idea I definitely agree with to help with the tax situation is the FairTax. It abolishes the IRS, eliminates paperwork on April 15 (for individuals and a lot of businesses), and makes all necessary items non-taxable. Food, rent, etc. wouldn't be taxable. To replace those prices, a nation-wide sales tax would be enacted at around 22%. Corporations would save more than 25% because of the lack of taxes they'd have to pay, and prices would come down because of it. In the end, a $.99 2-liter of soda would still cost $.99... after taxes (if soda were taxable, which it wouldn't be). It would also make credit card payments non-taxable... so I could pay several hundred dollars more per month towards my debt... and that makes me happy.
If any of this post is slightly unintelligable, I apologize. It's 1:15am, and I'm quite tired...
I can't help wondering if there will eventually be a "wagon train to the stars" (to crib from Gene Roddenberry) where ordinary men and women put their lives on the line in simple, inexpensive rockets in order to reap the rewards of space.
I hope that day will come, but to get to the wild west, people first had to cross the ocean. After Columbus, it still took 300+ years for the Wild West to be settled the way we know it today. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that there are more than 2 steps in colonizing a new place... it's not as simple as playing Civilization. Sometimes, accidents happen and people die. Those people knew the risks, and they accepted them. They knew the rewards for colonizing space would so far outweigh their loss, it wouldn't even be a question.
Is our fantasy really fantasy, or does it just emulate reality? And if so, how do you distinguish the difference?
Well, my reality isn't fantasy. If it were, I'd be having sex with Britney Spears right about now.
I distinguish reality and fantasy by looking at it. If there's a box around it, and that box has buttons, and knobs, and looks kinda flat when you step to one side or the other, I know it's a television, and it's not MY reality. MY reality doesn't have a box, or buttons or knobs, and when I step to the side, I see a different angle on the same thing. So, if I was holding a gun, and I was pointing it at someone, if there isn't a box cutting off my view of my arm, then I know it's reality, and I know better than to pull the trigger. Apparently, some people just aren't that intelligent.
If these kids truly understood that using guns in such a way could lead to the death of a human being, and that they understood this to be a bad thing...they wouldn't likely have done it.
When I was a kid, I caught this bird one time... he was a little baby, and he was pretty cute. Know what I did? Being the evil little bastard that I am, I gouged his eye out, then killed him. I knew it wasn't a good thing to do. I didn't care. Would I have done it to a person? No. Why? Not because I knew it was bad... I wouldn't do it because I know it's wrong, AND I know I'll probably get caught. If I knew I wouldn't get caught, there's a good number of people I'd off.
Besides that, my view is that stupid people exist, and should be punished for whatever stupid actions they make. Your view is that people are inherently good and will make the proper choice when they have a choice. In my view, anarchy is bad because people need rules and regulations (and punishments). In your view, anarchy would, logically, be perfectly acceptable, since people automatically are good and peace-loving.
I agree. California doesn't need the other states... It's grown into its own skin. I say we cut it off into a separate nation, and see how things go. It could be the Grand Democratic Experiment! Just let the Democrats and Liberals of San Francisco have their way with the state, and see how things work out for them... As long as the federal government doesn't raise MY taxes to pay for THEIR fuck-ups when THEY need a bail-out.
a) What are people getting pissed off about?
b) Why are people getting pissed off about it?
People are getting pissed off because Michael Moore hates everything in America, and does everything he can to paint the United States in a bad light. Then, he markets a "documentary" full of anti-capitalist notions to a generation full of people that don't know any better. People are pissed because he's trying to brainwash a lot of people into believing that the United States is the source of everything evil. It doesn't matter how comfortable I am with the fact that this is incorrect. It doesn't matter how comfortable Michael Moore is with it either. Hitler said that the Jews were the source of all Germany's problems. Was he right? Was he wrong? Before he took action to exterminate them, who would have cared, right? I mean, by your logic, the Jews knew it wasn't true, so they wouldn't have cared. The Nazis didn't know it wasn't true... and there's where the problem started. Moore is creating propaganda designed to overthrow the United States government (maybe not today or tomorrow, but if he had his way.......) and you're asking why people are getting pissed off? Man, you're deluded....
The article you point to is interesting...mostly in that someone went to a LOT of work to try to discredit the entire piece of work. And why? If it was obviously total BS, nobody would care and there would be no point in discrediting it. In other words, the movie obviously hit too close to home for somebody.
You're a stupid, ignorant, idealist piece of crap that believes anything anti-American as long as it agrees with whatever inane babble you're spewing at the moment. What? You're arguing? I must be right, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing. I must have hit too close to home.
Something that the discrediters of Bowling For Columbine fail to see as well is that Moore never drew any direct conclusions for the viewer, he left that up to the viewer entirely.
So if I told you that out of 100,000 people that own guns, only 1 or 2 of them ever commit a crime with those guns, and I interview the other 90,000 or so to give evidence, what conclusion would you come up with?
Yeah, and the part where Moore says just that is conveniently ignored.
Then why are YOU bringing it up? Is there a point somewhere in the future, or are you just babbling about some stupid movie from some no-name director who is only known in the world because he HATES AMERICA and everything we stand for?
Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that the people that get the most up in arms about things like this are usually the ones it hits closest to home with.
Ah, the point. I was starting to doubt it existed...
Disclaimer: I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I will purchase a gun very shortly, while it's still legal. And, if my home is ever burglarized, I will shoot the entire clip into the mother fucker, and one in the head, just to make sure he's not coming back.
You need to unbold parents. It has been shown that the only *positive* *direct* contribution parents make to behavior is genetic--although it is possible for parents to fuck up their kids via neglect and abuse. (My parents are conservative fundamentalist Christians. Despite their efforts, I'm a moderate humanist/atheist. Go from there.)
And how many people have you murdered? Go from there...
Actually, he said that "Genius was 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration." He meant that you need just one good idea, and then the persistence to make it work.
I don't think comparing Thomas Edison to a late 80's rock band does either much good. Edison was smart, but he couldn't play the guitar. Tesla can play a good version of Signs, and Getting Better, but to my knowledge, never invented anything that'll change mankind forever.
The problem is that this attitude leads to pessimism and lack of belief in the project.
Pessism? I think the opposite. Thomas Edison said that after he found 1 way that DID work... on the light bulb. Imagine what would have happened if he would have given up after the first 1000 tries, and figured "Oh well, nobody cares anyway".
After you make such significant strides in space exploration in the late 60's and early 70's, then have your funding cut by almost every President since Nixon, you're bound to start taking short-cuts and missing things. Remember... space is still deadly. In my book, when you're dealing with something that could very easily kill you, you don't short-change yourself. The problem is that when you have no money to spend on things you need, and a time limit to do certain things, you don't have any other choice.
The problem NASA has right now is trying to convince the rest of the country that what they're trying to do is worth spending the money on. Why worry about what Saddam can do if we could all just move to Mars (for instance)? On the other hand, funding was cut because nothing significant was happening... but nothing significant was happening because funding was cut. It's a vicious cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
The common attitude appears to be that people can't help themselves, so let the government do it...
I don't think the government should be involved at all, except where absolutely necessary. I think the only job for the government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Education can, and is, being done better by private schools. Health care can, and is, being done better by the companies people work for (75% of seniors already have health care through their former employers). Transportation is iffy, and at the moment, I tend to think that maybe the government should take care of the roads... but not the sky (airlines) or the railroads (each railroad company can build their own railroad... after the government gives up Amtrak). I don't think we should have gone to Iraq... but we have to get oil from somewhere, since the Democrats and environmentalist wackos won't let us drill in Alaska...
If I had my choice, I would much rather be debating our role in Iraq, the national economy, and patent law instead of whether the presidents cock should have been stuffed down an interns throat.
Would you rather be debating on whether the President should be held to the same legal standard as anyone else in the country? Like, for instance, if they got on a witness stand in court, and swore, under oath, and blatantly lied? If it was me, I would have been charged with perjury and put in jail...
According to the latest "State of the first Amendment" those "basic" questions would disqualify 98% of Americans from voting. Only 80% would be disqualified if they only had to know 2 of the 5 clauses in the First Amendment, and a mere 42% would be disqualified if they only had to know about the freedom of speech.
Then in my opinion, let the 98% of Americans not vote. If they can't name the freedoms granted by the very first amendment in the document that's over 200 years old that is the Supreme Law of the Land in this country, they CERTAINLY shouldn't be allowed to vote for the next leader of the country.
By the way, without looking, those freedoms are, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Assembly, and Petition. The next amendment is the one for owning guns.
I'm all for poll tests (for everyone), some basic questions, like what is the 1st amendment to the Constitution or how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights. You wouldn't let children vote on how to spend their parents money would you?
I agree, but let's take things one step at a time... First, let's make people show ID before voting. Otherwise, they could vote numerous times. It should be simple common sense, but apparently some people just don't see it that way. Second, only allow LEGAL citizens to vote. If you came to this country illegally, you can't vote. End of story. (In fact, I think the CA law that's being debated right now is pretty good... illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses? Sure, why not? As soon as they show ID, let the cops put them back on a boat to whatever hellhole they came from.) Third, some basic questions, like "Name the current President of the United States" or "How many states are there in the USA". After people show enough intelligence to answer those, wait 2 or 3 election cycles, then increase the difficulty.
Remember all the Star Trek: TNG episodes where the 8-10 year olds were studying Calculus? They didn't get there by being told that they're special the way they are.........
I know this will get modded troll, but the stupidity of the general public is the biggest problem. I mean, people in FL couldn't figure out the chad ballot system...
I really hope it doesn't get modded down, because people need to read this and understand how true (and scary) it is. The general public is so pathetically stupid, it's not even laughable anymore. We have people suing over spilled coffee, and suing over their kids getting kicked off sports teams in middle school because they vandalized the school, etc. I could go on all day describing the mindless laws that we're spending so much money enforcing, rather than educating people. On the other hand, I don't think a lot of the teachers are qualified to be educators...
How in the world do we expect them to figure out an electronic system? Security IMHO is really a close number two problem compared to this.
I'd have to say security would be #1. As far as I'm concerned, the primary duty of ANY decent government is to protect its citizens... whether the danger is from foreign enemies, or domestic ones. That includes the military, law enforcement, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, etc. Security is definitely the biggest direct threat to the country.
I also have to point out that if this electronic voting were being taken care of by a private company, these kinds of problems would have a more direct target for blame. For instance, if Larry Flynt was elected in California, and it turned out to be because he hired someone to hack into the voting machines, you can rest assured that security problem would be fixed pretty damn quick... if the company planned on being around for any amount of time.
I wasn't saying that he should run out and buy all the consoles just for the sake of playing games that he doesn't like. I tried to list several games that are some of the best examples of almost any genre available, that are also exclusive to one of the consoles. As I said in the first couple lines of my post, if he has a PC and a Dreamcast, and he's perfectly happy with it, that's fine... but for anybody that's reading this thread and is wondering what reason they might have for upgrading, I listed several games that are worth spending the money on. I was trying to encourage him to take a step back and look at the number of quality games that aren't available for either the Dreamcast and the PC to see if any of them would interest him (I'm sure at LEAST one of them would). Major consoles exist for a reason... and that reason is that right now, they offer the best entertainment for the best price around.
anyone who really wants a console (and can afford it) has one already...
You mean you have to be able to afford a new console when you buy it? Damn... I just put the XBox on my Visa...
Frankly, I see no reason to upgrade to an Xbox or PS2, because all the latest games that I've wanted (GTA3/VC) are available on the PC (which work beautifully with my Radeon 9500 Pro), and as far as the PS2 goes, the only advantage I've seen of it over my Dreamcast is that it has full scene anti-aliasing.
Normally, statements like "I see no reason to upgrade" really infuriate me, but I'll try to refrain from screaming profanities in your direction.
If the Dreamcast and the PC offer every game you want to play, then good for you. For the rest of us though, there are Exclusive games (with a little label on the box, too) that are only available for one console (hence the label Exclusive). For instance, the XBox still has Halo (although it will, eventually, come out for the PC), Fable, if it ever comes out, and Knights of the Old Republic. The PS2 has quite a few, including Final Fantasy X, and soon, X-2. It's also got the Gran Turismo series, which is always good. The GameCube has Zelda, Mario Sunshine, Metroid, and F-Zero. There are plenty of games that you'll never be able to experience if you don't have a console... and many of those experiences are worth far more than the $50 price tag.
I can understand that a lot of people don't have the money to spend $150-300 on a new console, and I can appreciate that. I certainly didn't have a GameCube the day it came out either... If money is the issue, that's one thing... but saying that there's just no reason to get one is just ignorant. I'm not saying that to be rude, I mean you literally don't know what's out there for each system until you take a good, long serious look at the options.
The fact is, pirates and mp3 traders are keeping the industry alive.
Exactly! My point exactly! They should be paying us, not suing us! Those filthy, greedy, dirty bastards...
And I'm sure that for the tuesday afternoon that they DID test compatability, they were very thorough.
You give them too much credit to say Tuesday Afternoon... I would have said between 12:15pm and 1:45pm on Tuesday afternoon... with lunch in there too. And, since pirates are taking away so much money for research and development of the anti-piracy schemes, they didn't even have a CD Player to test on... so I suspect they looked at a drawing of a CD Player on a chalkboard, and if when they closed their eyes and concentrated really hard, they heard the music playing, they declared it safe to sell.
Either way, this doesn't happen very often with games.
I'm sure that the 2 million people that bought Madden 2004 will only play 1 game of it, then toss it aside and wait for the next game. I played Metal Gear Solid through about 4 times, and MGS2 through twice. My estimation is if $7.50 == 2 hours of entertainment for movies, then $50 == 13.3 hours of entertainment for movies. Correct? In that case, spending $50 for a game, even if it's only a 25-hour long game, is much more of a bargain than going to the movies.
On the other hand, buying a DVD is a slightly different story. If you watch a movie 5 times over the time that the DVD works, then it's 10 hours for $20... which is $2 == 1 hour. In that case, it's EXACTLY equal to spending $50 == 25 hours. Hmmm... maybe it's not so different after all.....
"Within three weeks [of release, Madden NFL] grossed $100 million -- two million copies sold at $50 a pop. In roughly the same period, the summer hit movie Seabiscuit returned $78 million."
Yeah, and Spiderman grossed $114 in 3 DAYS. The Matrix Reloaded grossed $94 million or so in 3 DAYS. And since when is Seabiscuit a "summer hit movie"? No offense to horse-lovers out there (you perverts), but I don't know anybody who's even slightly interested in it. I don't know anybody who's seen it, or wants to see it. I know more people that have had root canals done in the past 3 weeks than have seen Seabiscuit, so does that mean that everybody and their brother will want to be dentists in the next few months?
Well, ok, now you and AC go and fetch figures and try to demonstrate that there is a third force that is interesting to the videogame market, expecially when we are talking about figures of sales that go from 200.000 people upwards.
I agree with you, that there are effectively 2 forces of video-game-buying people... those who know what they're getting, and those who don't. Those who don't, like you said, don't read magazines, don't look up reviews, and don't care about publishers, or developers. We are those who do. I believe what the other guy was alluding to was that he doesn't believe there are 2 forces... he believes there's only 1 massive force. You and I disagree with him, obviously.
Generally, when I see GameCube sales for a game like Soul Caliber that are much higher than the ratio for GameCube owners to PS2 owners, I tend to think those are the "know-nots" that are buying it, just because Link is on the cover. I also concede that this is a rather bad example, because the GameCube actually does have higher technical abilities than the PS2, so the "knows" actually go along with the "know-nots" and purchase the GameCube copy. In a perfect example, the GameCube owners would be in a 1:1 ratio with PS2 owners, and we could show both sets of people the same game, with a different character on the front... and knowing what those people know, they would choose one or the other. Then we would have definitive data on whether box art, or different characters, or technical abilities effect actual sales.
Well what the fuck is the matter with you? You're the one sitting there saying that you don't want developers making games that little kids MIGHT, BY CHANCE, AT SOME POINT, try to recreate in real life, spouting all kinds of bullshit about reality and fantasy. The fact is that you can't make up your own damn mind. You wanna whine and complain that someone died because a little idiotic shithead decided to pull the trigger, then blame some game he played. So sorry, but MILLIONS of people have played Grand Theft Auto, and only ONE death causes headlines. Cry me a fucking river. No shit I've been contradicting myself... because I'm fucking with your mind, dipshit. You want facts that don't contradict anything? OK, here we go:
Fact 1: You're obviously an idiot who thinks that anything that offends someone, or has the slightest hint of danger should be regulated by some all-knowing, all-powerful father-figure. You've admitted as much.
Fact 2: Grand Theft Auto has sold millions of copies, and to my knowledge, not even 10 people have died from people emulating it. The problem isn't the game, or the developers, or the people in the country. It's the pathetic 0.00001% of people that can't / don't / won't take responsibility for their own actions. They just want to blame someone else... just like you.
Fact 3: No amount of babbling about blame, regulations, or morality can change the fact that one person is dead, and the kids that killed that guy are seriously fucked up in the head. Kill the children (eye for an eye and all that) and get on with life.
Dipshit.
The main difference between your views and my views is that I want people to have a choice on what they can do. They can either emulate whatever game they play and shoot someone, or they can not emulate the game... or they can not play the game at all. You want to deny people that choice, and thus, defeat the purpose of freedom. If there are never any choices, then people obviously aren't free to make their own choices. You want to deny people that freedom by denying developers the freedom to explore their creativity. If you deny the general public the freedom of choice, you are, in essence, defeating capitalism entirely. So with one statement, that "developers shouldn't be allowed to make games that children might emulate", you have defeated the purpose of capitalism. People that think like that will one day destroy the United States... not that you care, because you live in the vast wasteland of Canada where nobody ever accomplishes anything of note.
We want to fix the flaws so that the country, like our dogs, can live a long and healthy life.
I agree, for the most part. Except that all the "fixes" for the "flaws" of this counry that I've heard from certain people, including Tom Daschle, Bill & Hillary Clinton, etc., and eventually down to Michael Moore, generally include comparisons to other countries, specifically in Europe. That's one part I disagree with. With children in education, the Left (speaking generally here) thinks that each child is special, and shouldn't be held accountable to the achievements of other, more "lucky" children.
We're always hearing about children that pass a grade, even when they get straight F's and can't speak basic English. (Now we're hearing about TEACHERS who can't pass a basic English test.) My point is this: If children must be judged by their own accomplishments, with no referencing of others, why must this country be judged passed only on the failures? There are a few things in Europe that work better than in the United States, although I can't think of any right off the top of my head.
One example that springs to mind is health care. The government now wants to set up a giant medicare system to make hospital visits and doctor appointments "free"... except that it's not free. The taxpayers will have to pay for it. The problem with that is that the taxpayers are an increasingly decreasing group. Half the people pay almost all the taxes. The people that don't pay any taxes generally don't have jobs, and collect unemployment and/or welfare (which isn't counted in the unemployment rate). Since they don't have jobs, they'll go to the hospital for any reason, since it's "free". I, and you, and others like us end up paying for it. We got this wonderful idea from places like the USSR (where it didn't work, never has worked, and never will work).
When I hear a solution to a problem that makes sense, I'll consider it... no matter where the idea comes from. One idea I definitely agree with to help with the tax situation is the FairTax. It abolishes the IRS, eliminates paperwork on April 15 (for individuals and a lot of businesses), and makes all necessary items non-taxable. Food, rent, etc. wouldn't be taxable. To replace those prices, a nation-wide sales tax would be enacted at around 22%. Corporations would save more than 25% because of the lack of taxes they'd have to pay, and prices would come down because of it. In the end, a $.99 2-liter of soda would still cost $.99... after taxes (if soda were taxable, which it wouldn't be). It would also make credit card payments non-taxable... so I could pay several hundred dollars more per month towards my debt... and that makes me happy.
If any of this post is slightly unintelligable, I apologize. It's 1:15am, and I'm quite tired...
I can't help wondering if there will eventually be a "wagon train to the stars" (to crib from Gene Roddenberry) where ordinary men and women put their lives on the line in simple, inexpensive rockets in order to reap the rewards of space.
I hope that day will come, but to get to the wild west, people first had to cross the ocean. After Columbus, it still took 300+ years for the Wild West to be settled the way we know it today. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that there are more than 2 steps in colonizing a new place... it's not as simple as playing Civilization. Sometimes, accidents happen and people die. Those people knew the risks, and they accepted them. They knew the rewards for colonizing space would so far outweigh their loss, it wouldn't even be a question.
Is our fantasy really fantasy, or does it just emulate reality? And if so, how do you distinguish the difference?
Well, my reality isn't fantasy. If it were, I'd be having sex with Britney Spears right about now.
I distinguish reality and fantasy by looking at it. If there's a box around it, and that box has buttons, and knobs, and looks kinda flat when you step to one side or the other, I know it's a television, and it's not MY reality. MY reality doesn't have a box, or buttons or knobs, and when I step to the side, I see a different angle on the same thing. So, if I was holding a gun, and I was pointing it at someone, if there isn't a box cutting off my view of my arm, then I know it's reality, and I know better than to pull the trigger. Apparently, some people just aren't that intelligent.
If these kids truly understood that using guns in such a way could lead to the death of a human being, and that they understood this to be a bad thing...they wouldn't likely have done it.
When I was a kid, I caught this bird one time... he was a little baby, and he was pretty cute. Know what I did? Being the evil little bastard that I am, I gouged his eye out, then killed him. I knew it wasn't a good thing to do. I didn't care. Would I have done it to a person? No. Why? Not because I knew it was bad... I wouldn't do it because I know it's wrong, AND I know I'll probably get caught. If I knew I wouldn't get caught, there's a good number of people I'd off.
Besides that, my view is that stupid people exist, and should be punished for whatever stupid actions they make. Your view is that people are inherently good and will make the proper choice when they have a choice. In my view, anarchy is bad because people need rules and regulations (and punishments). In your view, anarchy would, logically, be perfectly acceptable, since people automatically are good and peace-loving.
I agree. California doesn't need the other states... It's grown into its own skin. I say we cut it off into a separate nation, and see how things go. It could be the Grand Democratic Experiment! Just let the Democrats and Liberals of San Francisco have their way with the state, and see how things work out for them... As long as the federal government doesn't raise MY taxes to pay for THEIR fuck-ups when THEY need a bail-out.
a) What are people getting pissed off about?
.......) and you're asking why people are getting pissed off? Man, you're deluded....
b) Why are people getting pissed off about it?
People are getting pissed off because Michael Moore hates everything in America, and does everything he can to paint the United States in a bad light. Then, he markets a "documentary" full of anti-capitalist notions to a generation full of people that don't know any better. People are pissed because he's trying to brainwash a lot of people into believing that the United States is the source of everything evil. It doesn't matter how comfortable I am with the fact that this is incorrect. It doesn't matter how comfortable Michael Moore is with it either. Hitler said that the Jews were the source of all Germany's problems. Was he right? Was he wrong? Before he took action to exterminate them, who would have cared, right? I mean, by your logic, the Jews knew it wasn't true, so they wouldn't have cared. The Nazis didn't know it wasn't true... and there's where the problem started. Moore is creating propaganda designed to overthrow the United States government (maybe not today or tomorrow, but if he had his way
The article you point to is interesting...mostly in that someone went to a LOT of work to try to discredit the entire piece of work. And why? If it was obviously total BS, nobody would care and there would be no point in discrediting it. In other words, the movie obviously hit too close to home for somebody.
You're a stupid, ignorant, idealist piece of crap that believes anything anti-American as long as it agrees with whatever inane babble you're spewing at the moment. What? You're arguing? I must be right, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing. I must have hit too close to home.
Something that the discrediters of Bowling For Columbine fail to see as well is that Moore never drew any direct conclusions for the viewer, he left that up to the viewer entirely.
So if I told you that out of 100,000 people that own guns, only 1 or 2 of them ever commit a crime with those guns, and I interview the other 90,000 or so to give evidence, what conclusion would you come up with?
Yeah, and the part where Moore says just that is conveniently ignored.
Then why are YOU bringing it up? Is there a point somewhere in the future, or are you just babbling about some stupid movie from some no-name director who is only known in the world because he HATES AMERICA and everything we stand for?
Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that the people that get the most up in arms about things like this are usually the ones it hits closest to home with.
Ah, the point. I was starting to doubt it existed...
Disclaimer: I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I will purchase a gun very shortly, while it's still legal. And, if my home is ever burglarized, I will shoot the entire clip into the mother fucker, and one in the head, just to make sure he's not coming back.
You need to unbold parents. It has been shown that the only *positive* *direct* contribution parents make to behavior is genetic--although it is possible for parents to fuck up their kids via neglect and abuse. (My parents are conservative fundamentalist Christians. Despite their efforts, I'm a moderate humanist/atheist. Go from there.)
And how many people have you murdered? Go from there...
Actually, he said that "Genius was 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration." He meant that you need just one good idea, and then the persistence to make it work.
I don't think comparing Thomas Edison to a late 80's rock band does either much good. Edison was smart, but he couldn't play the guitar. Tesla can play a good version of Signs, and Getting Better, but to my knowledge, never invented anything that'll change mankind forever.
The problem is that this attitude leads to pessimism and lack of belief in the project.
Pessism? I think the opposite. Thomas Edison said that after he found 1 way that DID work... on the light bulb. Imagine what would have happened if he would have given up after the first 1000 tries, and figured "Oh well, nobody cares anyway".
After you make such significant strides in space exploration in the late 60's and early 70's, then have your funding cut by almost every President since Nixon, you're bound to start taking short-cuts and missing things. Remember... space is still deadly. In my book, when you're dealing with something that could very easily kill you, you don't short-change yourself. The problem is that when you have no money to spend on things you need, and a time limit to do certain things, you don't have any other choice.
The problem NASA has right now is trying to convince the rest of the country that what they're trying to do is worth spending the money on. Why worry about what Saddam can do if we could all just move to Mars (for instance)? On the other hand, funding was cut because nothing significant was happening... but nothing significant was happening because funding was cut. It's a vicious cycle.
Was it Thomas Edison that said, "I haven't failed. I just found 10,000 ways that didn't work."?