Racism and sexism are defined as the inherent superiority of one race or sex. I do not believe that one race or gender is inherently superior, therefore, I am correct in saying I am not a racist or a sexist. As evidence, I offer the fact that I have more female friends than male friends, and one of my best friends in my entire life is black. I work with members of the opposite sex, as well as members of just about every minority in the whole of humanity, and I've never had any complaints about how I treat anyone or anything. I have never, in my entire life, treated a black person any differently than I would treat a white person that did the same thing. Therefore, as I said in my original post, I am not a racist.
However, the fact that you make the connection between insulting an individual based on their actions and being a "racist" is quite telling. Have you ever called anyone a name? If so, would you consider yourself prejudice against that person's ethnicity / religion / gender / etc.?
Maybe I didn't make my point as clear as I could have. When a woman does something idiotic, rude, cruel, etc., I may call her a bitch. That term only means that I don't like her at that moment. It doesn't have anything at all to do with my feelings towards other women. In the same vein, if I see a black person with a needle sticking out of his arm, with a gun held sideways in his hand, telling his girlfriend that she had better "get her bitch ass back in the fuckin car before I bust a cap in yo' ass", THAT, my friend, is a nigger. And just so we're clear, my opinion of his actions do NOT carry over to other black people I may meet in my life.
Quite seriously, for a man to say "bitch" and then say that it's not anti-woman is kind of like a white person saying "nigger" and then saying that it's not anti-black.
Disclaimer: I am not a woman, nor am I black. Having said that, I will continue to call women "bitches" when they act like it, just like I will continue to call black people "niggers" when they act like it. I will also continue to call gay people (think: Gay Al on South Park) "bitches" when their actions are more bitch-like than man-like. I will also continue to call white people (think: Eminem or any other white guy who thinks he's black) "wiggers" or "niggers" when their actions are more "nigger-like" than decent. To me, the term "bitch" is no more anti-woman than "asshole" is anti-man. Also, "nigger" is no more anti-black than any other insult I could come up with.
The simple fact is that some black people act like complete, utter morons, well-deserving of most insults I could think up. The term "nigger" is just convenient because of its negative connotation. Therefore, when I see a black person driving down the road, slumped so low in the driver's seat that his forehead is below the steering wheel, and the bass turned up so high the car bounces, I will call him a "nigger". (I would, and have, do the same to a white person.)
It's not political correctness, folks, it's a matter of basic politeness.
I don't give a rat's ass about basic politeness when it comes to the previous examples I gave. Until women stop holding grudges, fighting dirty, and using sex as means to get what they want, I'll continue to call them bitches. Until the majority of black people stop writing / listening to songs that drug-use, drive-by's, gang shootings, beatings, rape, etc., I'll continue to call them niggers.
I apologize if you think I'm a sexist or a racist... but if you do, you apparently need to re-read my post.
the only option you have to actually advance the game in any way would be to do the single one thing the script wants you to do
I can't tell if you're trolling, or you really think there's some way to compare Half-Life with Dragon's Lair... especially since your only argument seems to be that they're both linear. Oh boy, hold me down, cause that's one argument that's amazingly stupid and short-sighted. Apparently your idea of a "similar concept in gameplay" applies to every game in the history of the gaming industry that has a story, with an ending. Oh, and you keep mentioning Morrowind? You can't advance in Morrowind unless you go to certain locations to do certain things, which means pressing certain buttons at certain times. In fact, to use your pre-scripted movie analogy, Morrowind would have the equivalent of one main storyline, with a lot of subplots... many of which are repetitive and boring after the first hundred times. Oh, and the acting is stiff and unemotional.
besides my comment was just a prod at the comment that said that half-life was a 'very free game', which it isn't if you've ever played any game that really gives you options on how to get from point a to point b. in linearity and choice of options it is on the same level with dragons lair.
If you want to compare Half-Life to Dragon's Lair, fine, let's go. Exactly 1/2 way through Half-Life, I have the choice of using half a dozen different weapons, going back XX number of rooms/areas/maps, continuing forward, spending 2 hours trying to get to a higher ledge to see where to go, aiming straight up and throwing a grenade, etc., etc., etc. Exactly 1/2 way through Dragon's Lair, I have the choice of.... hitting the button at the right time.
The very suggestion that a game like Half-Life is comparable to Dragon's Lair because they're both linear is absurd. I'd insult you for actually arguing the point, but I lack the motivation to come up with an insult that is adequate.
Besides... I think that we're going to see a changing of the guard with the next generation of consoles; And it will be Nintendo on top.
I see that statement as foolish optimism.
Let me preface my argument by saying that I grew up on Nintendo consoles... I was a Nintendo fanboy for most of my life. I had a Sega Genesis, with about 5 games, versus my SNES, with about 50... so don't tell me that I just don't like Nintendo.
In the last 10 years, Nintendo has made one bad decision after another: GBA with no backlight, N64 cartridges (which led to Square's departure), N64 controller, VirtualBoy, their treatment of third-party developers, their overly-protective rules on games, etc. I could really only think of 2-3 good decisions they've made. First: they revived Metroid after a 10-year absense from the home-console scene. Second: they admitted their mistake with the GBA by releasing the GBA SP (for an addition $100). Third: um... hang on, I'm thinking... nope, nothing comes to mind.
Nintendo is dying now because they've burned all the bridges they could use to revive themselves. I'm saddened by that, but it's all their fault anyway. If only 1 of the things I listed above wouldn't have happened, Nintendo could still have a shot. (For instance, if the N64 didn't use cartridges, Square would still be with them, and all the Final Fantasy games would have made the N64 mega-popular, despite what Sony or MS did. Also, if the controller didn't require moving hands back and forth all the time, maybe I would have had more patience with it. Maybe if they wouldn't have been overly-restrictive in regards to game content (remember Mortal Kombat?), people wouldn't have started buying non-exclusive titles for other systems.)
So I have about 10 out of 18 games that keep the Cube alive for me. Of course, I have over 20 games for PS2 that are RPGs alone (total of about 70 PS2 games...
That's my point. Imagine getting all those games, but not having to spend $99 on the hardware to play them. Imagine getting the 20 RPG's from your PS2 library COMBINED with the 10-18 games, all on one system... It could be wonderful.
Microsoft would ruin any Nintendo franchise. The reason? They're not Nintendo.
Funny... that kinda reminded me of something someone once said about Sega's franchises being developed for Nintendo's hardware...
Luckily, there isn't. Online Zelda? Have you ever PLAYED Zelda? Zelda sure, four swords made Zelda multiplayer seem a little less retarded than the concept would suggest, but all the same, Zelda is not the kind of franchise you can tranfers online.
Also funny... I remember lots of people saying the same thing about Final Fantasy. However, I will grant the point that an online Zelda might not be the best example of how Microsoft could improve on already-existing big-name Nintendo franchises. The fact is that with Nintendo not having to worry about developing hardware, they can spend more time developing good games... just like Sega.
On a slightly different note, I'd like to point out that making something "online" does not automatically make it better.
Nor did I say that it would. It's apparent that my analogy was lost on you, so I'll state my point without making another analogy. Nintendo, and its most famous franchises, would be better served by concentrating on what makes those games great, rather than spending millions, if not billions, of dollars on hardware development at the same time.
I've never understand the position that a platform needs to have hundreds of great games.
One platform CAN survive on 5-10 really great games, but that same platform will THRIVE on 20-50 really great games. Consumers aren't happy to spend $200+ on a game console just to see it have a handful of worthwhile games in the next 2 years, especially if all those games are first-party games anyway.
I agree with the other posts. If Nintendo was bought out by Microsoft, Microsoft would be able to make some really great games using Nintendo's copyrighted characters... not only on the XBox, but also on the PC. Imagine Microsoft developing a new Zelda that'll play on both the Xbox, and the PC... and, if there's a God, even play online...
police and intelligence action: most terrorist get caught by the police, not by the military; Afghanistan solution was an exception, it failed miserably in Iraq.
I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back that up. However, I'd include Intelligence agents in the "military" column...
I'm confused... recently there have been several articles about IT jobs getting shipped overseas, outsourcing, and how the IT job market in the US is pathetic compared to the relatively recent past. So does this article by someone who I'd consider to be "in the know" negate all the other articles, or is there a truly dramatic and (presumably) completely unexpected shift in IT hiring?
Is it just an oversight on the part of readers, or journalists, or Slashdot editors, or some combination of the above to ignore many other things that also stifle innovation, like high taxes? Isn't it at all possible that more companies would invest in research and development if they could afford to do so, but they cannot because too much of the potential profits are seized by the government?
I have news for you, while there is colleration between skill and motivation and wealth in some instances, heredity, social standing at birth but more importantly blind luck have far more to do with it then anything else.
You just summed up your belief structure completely. If you want to believe that blind luck has more to do with being successful than hard work, motivation, intelligence, and/or innovation, be my guest. After all, THAT is the mindset that's polluting our culture. If you believe that all wealth is acculumated solely based on luck, then those who are wealthy are no more deserving of that wealth than you are. The idea that nobody that IS wealthy DESERVES to be wealthy is one of the primary motivations for socialism (if nobody DESERVES to be wealthy, then nobody SHOULD be wealthy). Congratulations on the first step towards Socialism / Communism.
Now, I can name dozens of billionaires who have made their wealth by using the free market to their advantage, or conversely, inherited their wealth, but continue to use it in the same basic manner that made their parents wealth. How many can you name that came to wealth completely by blind luck? It might be good to point out that over 90% of lottery winners waste their winnings away and within 5 years are back to the same old job.
While I can think of great evils being commited in the name of Communism and also religions of all sorts, giving Hitler's Germany as axample of non-capitalist excesses is a bit amusing.
One of the fundamental bases for capitalism is free society. Unless people are given a society which promotes personal responsibility and rewards achievement (which WWII-era Germany did not), a free market cannot survive, let alone thrive. Capitalism requires a free market. Good attempt at contrasting Germany in the light of capitalism though. Points for effort. However, you've just shown a true lack of understanding for the fundamentals of capitalism.
When you think things through, you will eventually understand that root of all sorts of evils in our societies can traced to concentration of wealth and power. Nothing is more prominent as an example of most outrageous of these excesses as a modern pan-national corporation.
Wealth and power have always, and will always concentrate around a small group of people, no matter what kind of social-economic system there is in place. Wealth will always be concentrated in a group of people because a certain number of people will always be more motivated to excel than the rest. Power will always be concentrated in a group of people because all societies require leaders to make important decisions. Wealth and Power generally are concentrated around those that are motivated and show leadership abilities (note that leadership doesn't always require intelligence).
As far as your charge that modern corporations are the cause of most evils, it's ridiculous and self-serving. It's fairly evident that your true motivation for preaching your anti-corporation sentiments is jealousy. If you were half as motivated to practicing capitalism as you are to preaching how "perverted" the modern view of capitalism is, you could do more good to society than some of the most successful people in history.
Capitalism is supposed to be this clever ploy to take whats evil and destructive (greed)...
Spoken like a true capitalist. For someone that claims not to be anti-capitalist, you surely seem to have enough negative connotations towards it.
... and turn it into something good (wealth, medical care, standard of living, progress of science etc).
Yet ironically, for every evil deed done in the name of greed that you can name, I can name one done in the name of wealth, medical care, the standard of living, or progress of science. I'll start first. How about the Holocaust? (Calm down, I'm not comparing you to Hitler.) In the 1930's, Hitler promised the German people that he could create more wealth, provide better medical care, raise the standard of living, and progress science if they'd just do things his way. Of course, in the end, his way turned out to be not such a great idea... and so far, Capitalism certainly has a better track record than Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, or any other type of political/economic system I can think of.
Then why doesn't the F500 use their lobying power to get it done? It's easy, they are large and can afford to hire people to understand the regs for them (hell, the write a large portion of them). Smaller companies can't afford to do this, so it gives the F500 an advantage.
Because if they did, people that don't understand the tax code would complain, and you'd be seeing the CEO's of the F500 companies on CNN and Fox trying to explain why their company shouldn't pay any taxes. There would be an unbelievable backlash about it, and in the end, the F500 companies would have protests, lost employees, lower profits, etc. It would be such a bad idea that if you suggested it to the board of directors, they'd laugh you out of the room, despite the fact that if the government would do it, the company would make more money, expand business, hire new employees, and be more capable of giving raises.
Sony loves to play these numbers games. 66 million polygons/second! (with no game simulation running)... (or any lighting)... (or textures)... (and they must be rendered as a single triangle strip). What amazes me is that anyone still listens to them.
I think you're placing a bit too much importance on the screen. Several of the competition's portables have had better screens, like the Game Gear and the Nomad.
In both of those cases, it didn't matter how wonderful the screen was, because there weren't enough good games to play on them. The sheer number of games available for the GB killed both of those systems. However, Nintendo now has a bad history of dealing with third-party developers... something that Sony has been extremely good at.
I'm afraid that by the end of 2005, Nintendo will face the same decision that Sega faced back in 2000 or whenever it was.
Ignore old Trek on the assumption that only the geekiest fans would remember that episode and the rest wouldn't care.
It seems that's the MO for Enterprise. Except they forgot that their core audience IS the geekiest fans. So if the rest don't care, they don't watch, and the geekiest fans are put off by inconsistencies... sounds like a perfect recipe for Enterprise.
Basically, the ratings are fairly close except when it comes to nudity/sex, most likely because of the ESRB's horribly-proven-as-wrong preconception that gamers are all kids. I guess there's still the fear that kids might stumble across the game while playing on their parent's computer or something, but the parent should be responsible enough to either hide the CD or put a password on a user. I mean, seriously - parents could just as easily leave the gun cabinet unlocked or pornography out on the coffee table for their kids to view.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Humans are the only species on the planet that go to extreme lengths to protect its weakest members. For instance, why do school buses have to completely stop traffic, both lanes, when kids board? If they didn't, a few kids could get hit and die... thereby weeding out the weaker (in this case, dumber) members of the species. Thanks to these lengths, the intellectual rating, as an average, of the human race, is much, much lower than it should be... or would be, if we would just let evolution do what it does best.
According to CNN, sales dropped about 7.5% from 2002 levels of 32.2 billion to 2003 sales of 32.0 billion. RIAA blames "rampant piracy" for this.
I'd love to see a comparison of all the years between 1999 and 2003 for sales decreases, number of releases, average age of the buyer, and the cost of a CD. Then, I'd like to see that cross-referenced with the recession in the economy, including such factors as unemployment rates, average income per household, etc. After you have all that, cross-reference all that with what the RIAA claims it's lost from file sharing. I can almost guarantee you it's nothing even near what they're claiming, and any decrease in sales has been just as drastic as any other major industry in the country.
Have you played any of the jedi knight multiplayer? Its just all jedi's running round with light sabers pushing and pulling you off ledges. That was the bulk of my experience with it. Very boring.
Then obviously YOU haven't gotten pushed off the right ledge!
unless they prove to me otherwise that the engine has been made a whole lot better, they should be selling this game as an "expansion pack" and at an appropriately discounted rate.
I love it when I hear people say things like that. "Oh, it's just the same old game from 10 years ago, with new spells, characters, plot, backstory, graphics, sounds, and gameplay. I've seen it all before."
Slashdot Mirror
But you aren't a racist.
Racism and sexism are defined as the inherent superiority of one race or sex. I do not believe that one race or gender is inherently superior, therefore, I am correct in saying I am not a racist or a sexist. As evidence, I offer the fact that I have more female friends than male friends, and one of my best friends in my entire life is black. I work with members of the opposite sex, as well as members of just about every minority in the whole of humanity, and I've never had any complaints about how I treat anyone or anything. I have never, in my entire life, treated a black person any differently than I would treat a white person that did the same thing. Therefore, as I said in my original post, I am not a racist.
However, the fact that you make the connection between insulting an individual based on their actions and being a "racist" is quite telling. Have you ever called anyone a name? If so, would you consider yourself prejudice against that person's ethnicity / religion / gender / etc.?
Maybe I didn't make my point as clear as I could have. When a woman does something idiotic, rude, cruel, etc., I may call her a bitch. That term only means that I don't like her at that moment. It doesn't have anything at all to do with my feelings towards other women. In the same vein, if I see a black person with a needle sticking out of his arm, with a gun held sideways in his hand, telling his girlfriend that she had better "get her bitch ass back in the fuckin car before I bust a cap in yo' ass", THAT, my friend, is a nigger. And just so we're clear, my opinion of his actions do NOT carry over to other black people I may meet in my life.
Quite seriously, for a man to say "bitch" and then say that it's not anti-woman is kind of like a white person saying "nigger" and then saying that it's not anti-black.
Disclaimer: I am not a woman, nor am I black. Having said that, I will continue to call women "bitches" when they act like it, just like I will continue to call black people "niggers" when they act like it. I will also continue to call gay people (think: Gay Al on South Park) "bitches" when their actions are more bitch-like than man-like. I will also continue to call white people (think: Eminem or any other white guy who thinks he's black) "wiggers" or "niggers" when their actions are more "nigger-like" than decent. To me, the term "bitch" is no more anti-woman than "asshole" is anti-man. Also, "nigger" is no more anti-black than any other insult I could come up with.
The simple fact is that some black people act like complete, utter morons, well-deserving of most insults I could think up. The term "nigger" is just convenient because of its negative connotation. Therefore, when I see a black person driving down the road, slumped so low in the driver's seat that his forehead is below the steering wheel, and the bass turned up so high the car bounces, I will call him a "nigger". (I would, and have, do the same to a white person.)
It's not political correctness, folks, it's a matter of basic politeness.
I don't give a rat's ass about basic politeness when it comes to the previous examples I gave. Until women stop holding grudges, fighting dirty, and using sex as means to get what they want, I'll continue to call them bitches. Until the majority of black people stop writing / listening to songs that drug-use, drive-by's, gang shootings, beatings, rape, etc., I'll continue to call them niggers.
I apologize if you think I'm a sexist or a racist... but if you do, you apparently need to re-read my post.
the only option you have to actually advance the game in any way would be to do the single one thing the script wants you to do
I can't tell if you're trolling, or you really think there's some way to compare Half-Life with Dragon's Lair... especially since your only argument seems to be that they're both linear. Oh boy, hold me down, cause that's one argument that's amazingly stupid and short-sighted. Apparently your idea of a "similar concept in gameplay" applies to every game in the history of the gaming industry that has a story, with an ending. Oh, and you keep mentioning Morrowind? You can't advance in Morrowind unless you go to certain locations to do certain things, which means pressing certain buttons at certain times. In fact, to use your pre-scripted movie analogy, Morrowind would have the equivalent of one main storyline, with a lot of subplots... many of which are repetitive and boring after the first hundred times. Oh, and the acting is stiff and unemotional.
besides my comment was just a prod at the comment that said that half-life was a 'very free game', which it isn't if you've ever played any game that really gives you options on how to get from point a to point b. in linearity and choice of options it is on the same level with dragons lair.
.... hitting the button at the right time.
If you want to compare Half-Life to Dragon's Lair, fine, let's go. Exactly 1/2 way through Half-Life, I have the choice of using half a dozen different weapons, going back XX number of rooms/areas/maps, continuing forward, spending 2 hours trying to get to a higher ledge to see where to go, aiming straight up and throwing a grenade, etc., etc., etc. Exactly 1/2 way through Dragon's Lair, I have the choice of
The very suggestion that a game like Half-Life is comparable to Dragon's Lair because they're both linear is absurd. I'd insult you for actually arguing the point, but I lack the motivation to come up with an insult that is adequate.
Besides... I think that we're going to see a changing of the guard with the next generation of consoles; And it will be Nintendo on top.
I see that statement as foolish optimism.
Let me preface my argument by saying that I grew up on Nintendo consoles... I was a Nintendo fanboy for most of my life. I had a Sega Genesis, with about 5 games, versus my SNES, with about 50... so don't tell me that I just don't like Nintendo.
In the last 10 years, Nintendo has made one bad decision after another: GBA with no backlight, N64 cartridges (which led to Square's departure), N64 controller, VirtualBoy, their treatment of third-party developers, their overly-protective rules on games, etc. I could really only think of 2-3 good decisions they've made. First: they revived Metroid after a 10-year absense from the home-console scene. Second: they admitted their mistake with the GBA by releasing the GBA SP (for an addition $100). Third: um... hang on, I'm thinking... nope, nothing comes to mind.
Nintendo is dying now because they've burned all the bridges they could use to revive themselves. I'm saddened by that, but it's all their fault anyway. If only 1 of the things I listed above wouldn't have happened, Nintendo could still have a shot. (For instance, if the N64 didn't use cartridges, Square would still be with them, and all the Final Fantasy games would have made the N64 mega-popular, despite what Sony or MS did. Also, if the controller didn't require moving hands back and forth all the time, maybe I would have had more patience with it. Maybe if they wouldn't have been overly-restrictive in regards to game content (remember Mortal Kombat?), people wouldn't have started buying non-exclusive titles for other systems.)
So I have about 10 out of 18 games that keep the Cube alive for me. Of course, I have over 20 games for PS2 that are RPGs alone (total of about 70 PS2 games...
That's my point. Imagine getting all those games, but not having to spend $99 on the hardware to play them. Imagine getting the 20 RPG's from your PS2 library COMBINED with the 10-18 games, all on one system... It could be wonderful.
Microsoft would ruin any Nintendo franchise. The reason? They're not Nintendo.
Funny... that kinda reminded me of something someone once said about Sega's franchises being developed for Nintendo's hardware...
Luckily, there isn't. Online Zelda? Have you ever PLAYED Zelda? Zelda sure, four swords made Zelda multiplayer seem a little less retarded than the concept would suggest, but all the same, Zelda is not the kind of franchise you can tranfers online.
Also funny... I remember lots of people saying the same thing about Final Fantasy. However, I will grant the point that an online Zelda might not be the best example of how Microsoft could improve on already-existing big-name Nintendo franchises. The fact is that with Nintendo not having to worry about developing hardware, they can spend more time developing good games... just like Sega.
On a slightly different note, I'd like to point out that making something "online" does not automatically make it better.
Nor did I say that it would. It's apparent that my analogy was lost on you, so I'll state my point without making another analogy. Nintendo, and its most famous franchises, would be better served by concentrating on what makes those games great, rather than spending millions, if not billions, of dollars on hardware development at the same time.
I've never understand the position that a platform needs to have hundreds of great games.
One platform CAN survive on 5-10 really great games, but that same platform will THRIVE on 20-50 really great games. Consumers aren't happy to spend $200+ on a game console just to see it have a handful of worthwhile games in the next 2 years, especially if all those games are first-party games anyway.
I agree with the other posts. If Nintendo was bought out by Microsoft, Microsoft would be able to make some really great games using Nintendo's copyrighted characters... not only on the XBox, but also on the PC. Imagine Microsoft developing a new Zelda that'll play on both the Xbox, and the PC... and, if there's a God, even play online...
police and intelligence action: most terrorist get caught by the police, not by the military; Afghanistan solution was an exception, it failed miserably in Iraq.
I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back that up. However, I'd include Intelligence agents in the "military" column...
I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet. Hold the button.
Oh, man, that game rocks! I wonder if/when they'll make an Xbox version, with a green button...
I'm confused... recently there have been several articles about IT jobs getting shipped overseas, outsourcing, and how the IT job market in the US is pathetic compared to the relatively recent past. So does this article by someone who I'd consider to be "in the know" negate all the other articles, or is there a truly dramatic and (presumably) completely unexpected shift in IT hiring?
Is it just an oversight on the part of readers, or journalists, or Slashdot editors, or some combination of the above to ignore many other things that also stifle innovation, like high taxes? Isn't it at all possible that more companies would invest in research and development if they could afford to do so, but they cannot because too much of the potential profits are seized by the government?
I have news for you, while there is colleration between skill and motivation and wealth in some instances, heredity, social standing at birth but more importantly blind luck have far more to do with it then anything else.
You just summed up your belief structure completely. If you want to believe that blind luck has more to do with being successful than hard work, motivation, intelligence, and/or innovation, be my guest. After all, THAT is the mindset that's polluting our culture. If you believe that all wealth is acculumated solely based on luck, then those who are wealthy are no more deserving of that wealth than you are. The idea that nobody that IS wealthy DESERVES to be wealthy is one of the primary motivations for socialism (if nobody DESERVES to be wealthy, then nobody SHOULD be wealthy). Congratulations on the first step towards Socialism / Communism.
Now, I can name dozens of billionaires who have made their wealth by using the free market to their advantage, or conversely, inherited their wealth, but continue to use it in the same basic manner that made their parents wealth. How many can you name that came to wealth completely by blind luck? It might be good to point out that over 90% of lottery winners waste their winnings away and within 5 years are back to the same old job.
While I can think of great evils being commited in the name of Communism and also religions of all sorts, giving Hitler's Germany as axample of non-capitalist excesses is a bit amusing.
One of the fundamental bases for capitalism is free society. Unless people are given a society which promotes personal responsibility and rewards achievement (which WWII-era Germany did not), a free market cannot survive, let alone thrive. Capitalism requires a free market. Good attempt at contrasting Germany in the light of capitalism though. Points for effort. However, you've just shown a true lack of understanding for the fundamentals of capitalism.
When you think things through, you will eventually understand that root of all sorts of evils in our societies can traced to concentration of wealth and power. Nothing is more prominent as an example of most outrageous of these excesses as a modern pan-national corporation.
Wealth and power have always, and will always concentrate around a small group of people, no matter what kind of social-economic system there is in place. Wealth will always be concentrated in a group of people because a certain number of people will always be more motivated to excel than the rest. Power will always be concentrated in a group of people because all societies require leaders to make important decisions. Wealth and Power generally are concentrated around those that are motivated and show leadership abilities (note that leadership doesn't always require intelligence).
As far as your charge that modern corporations are the cause of most evils, it's ridiculous and self-serving. It's fairly evident that your true motivation for preaching your anti-corporation sentiments is jealousy. If you were half as motivated to practicing capitalism as you are to preaching how "perverted" the modern view of capitalism is, you could do more good to society than some of the most successful people in history.
Capitalism is supposed to be this clever ploy to take whats evil and destructive (greed)...
... and turn it into something good (wealth, medical care, standard of living, progress of science etc).
Spoken like a true capitalist. For someone that claims not to be anti-capitalist, you surely seem to have enough negative connotations towards it.
Yet ironically, for every evil deed done in the name of greed that you can name, I can name one done in the name of wealth, medical care, the standard of living, or progress of science. I'll start first. How about the Holocaust? (Calm down, I'm not comparing you to Hitler.) In the 1930's, Hitler promised the German people that he could create more wealth, provide better medical care, raise the standard of living, and progress science if they'd just do things his way. Of course, in the end, his way turned out to be not such a great idea... and so far, Capitalism certainly has a better track record than Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, or any other type of political/economic system I can think of.
Then why doesn't the F500 use their lobying power to get it done? It's easy, they are large and can afford to hire people to understand the regs for them (hell, the write a large portion of them). Smaller companies can't afford to do this, so it gives the F500 an advantage.
Because if they did, people that don't understand the tax code would complain, and you'd be seeing the CEO's of the F500 companies on CNN and Fox trying to explain why their company shouldn't pay any taxes. There would be an unbelievable backlash about it, and in the end, the F500 companies would have protests, lost employees, lower profits, etc. It would be such a bad idea that if you suggested it to the board of directors, they'd laugh you out of the room, despite the fact that if the government would do it, the company would make more money, expand business, hire new employees, and be more capable of giving raises.
Sony loves to play these numbers games. 66 million polygons/second! (with no game simulation running) ... (or any lighting) ... (or textures) ... (and they must be rendered as a single triangle strip). What amazes me is that anyone still listens to them.
I don't believe every word anyone says, but when I see actual pictures and people testifying that, yes indeed, it was fully playable, I tend to side with the evidence rather. Here is an article that cites 4 reasons why the PSP is fun. Or, if you'd prefer to see pictures and/or movies, check here.
If it comes to Nintendo vs. Sony, I side with Sony this time. I chose the wrong side in 1995.
I think you're placing a bit too much importance on the screen. Several of the competition's portables have had better screens, like the Game Gear and the Nomad.
In both of those cases, it didn't matter how wonderful the screen was, because there weren't enough good games to play on them. The sheer number of games available for the GB killed both of those systems. However, Nintendo now has a bad history of dealing with third-party developers... something that Sony has been extremely good at.
I'm afraid that by the end of 2005, Nintendo will face the same decision that Sega faced back in 2000 or whenever it was.
Ignore old Trek on the assumption that only the geekiest fans would remember that episode and the rest wouldn't care.
It seems that's the MO for Enterprise. Except they forgot that their core audience IS the geekiest fans. So if the rest don't care, they don't watch, and the geekiest fans are put off by inconsistencies... sounds like a perfect recipe for Enterprise.
Basically, the ratings are fairly close except when it comes to nudity/sex, most likely because of the ESRB's horribly-proven-as-wrong preconception that gamers are all kids. I guess there's still the fear that kids might stumble across the game while playing on their parent's computer or something, but the parent should be responsible enough to either hide the CD or put a password on a user. I mean, seriously - parents could just as easily leave the gun cabinet unlocked or pornography out on the coffee table for their kids to view.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Humans are the only species on the planet that go to extreme lengths to protect its weakest members. For instance, why do school buses have to completely stop traffic, both lanes, when kids board? If they didn't, a few kids could get hit and die... thereby weeding out the weaker (in this case, dumber) members of the species. Thanks to these lengths, the intellectual rating, as an average, of the human race, is much, much lower than it should be... or would be, if we would just let evolution do what it does best.
Well, I for one welcome our Soviet, Beowulf-cluster DVD burning overlords.
According to CNN, sales dropped about 7.5% from 2002 levels of 32.2 billion to 2003 sales of 32.0 billion. RIAA blames "rampant piracy" for this.
I'd love to see a comparison of all the years between 1999 and 2003 for sales decreases, number of releases, average age of the buyer, and the cost of a CD. Then, I'd like to see that cross-referenced with the recession in the economy, including such factors as unemployment rates, average income per household, etc. After you have all that, cross-reference all that with what the RIAA claims it's lost from file sharing. I can almost guarantee you it's nothing even near what they're claiming, and any decrease in sales has been just as drastic as any other major industry in the country.
How original.
Just like your post.
Have you played any of the jedi knight multiplayer? Its just all jedi's running round with light sabers pushing and pulling you off ledges. That was the bulk of my experience with it. Very boring.
Then obviously YOU haven't gotten pushed off the right ledge!
unless they prove to me otherwise that the engine has been made a whole lot better, they should be selling this game as an "expansion pack" and at an appropriately discounted rate.
I love it when I hear people say things like that. "Oh, it's just the same old game from 10 years ago, with new spells, characters, plot, backstory, graphics, sounds, and gameplay. I've seen it all before."