once you get the uber-weapon, the challenge sucks right down to nothing until you get to the endgame
The converse is also true though. In GUN, you get some uber-weapons after you beat the game and all side missions. The problem is that after you beat the game and all side missions, there's nothing left to do! I'd give GUN a pass if, like some of the Resident Evil games, I get the uber-weapon after beating the game but can start a new game WITH the uber-weapon(s).
Castlevania/Metroid handles the uber-weapon problem the best. When you get good weapons, power-ups, spells and so on, the portions of the map you haven't been to usually still offer a challenge. The difference is that you're forced to back-track through some of the areas you've already been, but given your new gear, you can easily kill enemies that used to give you headaches.
Another complaint about GUN, falls under the article's "Extreme Rule Changes When Fighting Boss Characters". The final boss is a Metroid style-boss in that you have to figure out "the trick(s)" to beating him. The problem? He's the only character in the game like this! I was so used to the run-and-gun style of the rest of the game, the final boss took way too many tries before I realized he operated according to rules not found in any other part of the game. Argh!
I still have all of my copies of Next-Gen (minus one that I lent out and was never returned). All my other magazines get recycled or thrown out. Next-Gen was unique in that it really made me think about games rather than just inform me about them. It was still grounded in the games though, it never got too pretentious. Any high level concept they discussed, they would continually link back to how it would work in a game. Contrast this with The Escapist, which often seems to use video games as a jumping off point for any random intellectual curiosity.
Most articles in Next-Gen got me excited about games. They were often focused on the future, on the possibilites of gaming, not with what was wrong with the current state of gaming. I'd usually want to play some games after reading a few articles. I've read little in other magazines that elicit such feelings. At the same time, Next-Gen was a magazine you could hand off to an adult without worrying about looking juvenile. Compare this with most game magazines today that seem to be aimed squarely at the Bevis and Butthead demographic.
The Edge seems to be a decent Next-Gen replacement but its cost is prohibitive in the US, I'd rather buy games with my money.
I don't dispute this, but I think there's still a market for sports games that don't include real players, teams or stadiums. Blitz sold over 1 million units without any of those things. Now, granted 1 million units is probably nothing compared to what Madden sells in a single year. But most developers out there would be thrilled to sell 500,000 units, let alone 1 million. Although maybe 1 million units is the limit of the "fake" football market.
Visual Concepts could've done a Blitz like game. Or they could've done a realistic game where you're trying to start a new team in a new league. Visual Concepts had plenty of options they could've taken to produce an unlicensed football game, instead they simply quit, they didn't even try something different. You can say people don't want to go back to fake players, teams and stadiums, but aside from Blitz, no one even tried such a game to validate that idea.
Then again, when you have what amounts to a monopoly in sports games, there's little motivation to innovate.
There is no monopoly in sports games, just a monopoly on licensed sports games. I don't understand why EA's competitors just folded after EA grabbed exclusive rights to the NFL license.
I typically avoid the sports games genre (I haven't played a video game sports title in years), but most of my favorite sports games didn't involve real life players or teams. For example, some of my favorite sports titles are Basewars on the NES and the Mutant League games on Genesis. Blitz is still around despite not using the NFL license, which actually gave the developers more creative freedom, as the NFL no longer had a say over game content. Contrast these creative offerings with the closest EA gets, their "Street" games which really aren't that much different from the more "realistic" offerings.
I'd love to see someone update Basewars or Mutant League.
I've never understood the lack of innovation from the networks or the cable companies. If I find an advertisement amusing, I usually don't mind watching it. The problem is that 99% of ads aren't amusing. Or put product placement in the show, as long as it doesn't distract from the content I don't care if the detectives are tooling around in a pristine Ford Explorer. Why not have characters from the shows pitch products like they used to do in the 50s? Steve Carell could pitch anything as Michael Scott without going out of character, and I'd probably enjoy watching it.
Furthermore, my cable company knows all about me. It knows where I live, my gender and how old I am. So why don't I get ads targetted to my demographic? Furthermore, since they know all about me, why don't they ask to track my viewing habits and compete with Nielsen for providing ratings data? I'd be happy if companies knew what shows I was watching so those shows could stay in production.
Interesting find from the analyst according to the article:
From the onset, the Gamecube's [gamerankings.com aggregate] scores were highest, followed by Xbox, then PS2, which hovered around 70% for the entire duration.
In other words, gamers reward consoles which offer them the most choice in their game selection, not necessairly the highest overall quality. Not really surprising if you think about it, but it's interesting to see some numbers backing it up.
The quantity question is shaking up to look the same, at least initially, for the next generation. The majority of next generation previews I've seen are for 360/PS3, with an absolute dearth of high profile previews for Wii.
If the quantity of game selection were the sole criteria, I'd say the analyst is roughly right in his predictions at least for the near term. PS3 will have a huge advantage over the 360 in the number of Japanese developed games, so I expect to eventually overtake it.
The obvious wildcards are how successful the Wii will be in expanding the market and bringing back lapsed gamers. And how long will the PS3 sell for a premium. If Nintendo can translate E3 success into actually getting devlopers to release games on the Wii, their chance for success will rise dramatically.
The real question is whether that morality is accurate.
This statement about Buddhism immediately reminded me of the book Living Buddha, Living Christ which I read some time ago. In it, the author seeks out the common teachings that both Christ and Buddha taught to their disciples. It's been a while since I've read it, but it also reminds me of our discussion and the desire to seek out a better understanding of other religious beliefs.
I'm not going to say this statement is wrong, but I don't know if it's right.
...Do you mean to say that you lack the information required to evaluate its truth?
I didn't investigate your statement "All beliefs are choices" enough to state if it was correct, if I didn't respond before I made a decision, you may not get a response at all! I simply wanted to express my initial doubt in that statement's validity.
I cannot see how the example you give of Newton's laws relates.
I'm really starting to dig analogies more. I'm starting to think they're a wonderful tool for showing exactly where one's thought process is incomplete or lacking. Your refutation of this analogy has lead me to now accept your statement that "All beliefs are choices". My point with Newton, regardless if you agree, was that sometimes we're simply not given the correct evidence, tools or expertise to make the right choice about what to believe. This didn't disprove your assertion that beliefs are choices, and in fact you showed the two ideas are unrelated.
Science is another matter. Studies are not infallible and require expert judgement to assess. Expert judgement in a field can only come with many years of study, and our knowledge is so vast that one person cannot possibly hope to gain expert judgement in any thing more than a select few (mostly very specific) fields.
It's interesting we've sidetracked into science, because I'd like to connect this vastness idea about science back to religion and the burden of choice. Just as there are many different branches, fields and sub-fields of science, there are many different branches, sects and sub-sects in religion. Just as one cannot master all of modern science, I argue one cannot become an expert in all religions. For you, Christianity has brought you measured improvement in your life, so there is no compelling reason to leave it and some excellent reasons not to. For someone without religion, how can they devote enough time to objectively measure each in their ability to improve lives and disseminate truth? One possibility, like the book I mentioned, is to seek the common threads between the religions and use those for light. A thinking person may not just find Christianity to be comfortable, but other religions as well.
Sorry for being so dense, but I think I finally understand the importance of belief.
If you don't mind sharing, what do you believe that would be?
Again, I left off some words. I now understand the importance of belief over action, that is what our discussion was about. To reiterate, I came to realize that while people require evidence (actions) to illuminate one's beliefs, God is not as limited and can see what one truly accepts and what they merely project, actions are just a result of belief. I still cannot reconcile myself with the faith requirements that Christianity claims God has made.
I have been struggling to write a document describing "Why I Am A Christian"
Hopefully you have enough for a book by now. Don't worry, I won't demand a cut!
So, you're in favor of tax loopholes then? My justification is that inheritance is a form of wealth transfer and thus should be subject to taxes on *drumroll* transfers of wealth. Doing otherwise would be unfair to anyone who pays taxes on the wealth they don't receive from inheritance
Here's a simplification: Me: X is part of group A, so X should be treated as a member of group A. (Where X represents people who receive wealth from inheritance and A represents all people who receive wealth.) You: So, you're saying because there are many items in the group encomposing all of group A... X should be in group A? I'm blinded by the power of rational logic, please teach me wise and powerful ArmyOfFun. Me: X should be treated as a member of group A because it has all the characteristics of a member of group A. Doing otherwise would be unfair to the other members of group A.
If you want to get rid of the estate tax or reduce it, the most equitable solution is stop treating it as a special case (this would mean eliminating the $2 million exemption), and treat it like any other transfer of wealth. Then, in order to reduce or eliminate the estate tax, you'd have to reduce or eliminate taxes on all transfers of wealth.
I see similar devices in the US as well (I see them in school zones a lot). The ones I've seen are on top of a small trailer so they can be moved around town. Although, they have the opposite of the intended effect on me. In areas where I normally travel the speed limit, I go much faster trying to get the sign to register as high as possible before I pass it.
My intention was to keep the discussion more focused on the ability of a relatively small and lightly armed force to achieve their goals against the US.
Do you think that the government we have now would be even remotely acceptable to any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence?
Honestly, I don't know what they'd think. I hope things like universal suffrage and largely equal civil rights would make many of the delcaration signatories proud (despite some who may have owned slaves).
it's nearly impossible to get good perspective of 230 years of government based on the experiences of less than a single lifetime.
I disagree, I think a general understanding of US history can give one some perspective. It's true that the current use of torture, incarcerations without judicial oversight and an erosion of our right to privacy are cause for alarm. They're signs we're currently headed in the wrong direction. Yet, I have hope that we'll reverse course soon enough, and a tiny amount of hope that those that instituted such policies will actually be held accountable. So, while some aspects of our government are at a low point, other aspects of our society have improved since its founding. I don't have to buy all my groceries at a "company store". I can strike without worrying about my company roughing me up or killing me. I don't have to worry about going to debtor's prison and so on...
it's a bit disingenuous to compare the possibility of resistance there with the same in the US
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying the same thing would or could happen in the near term. My main argument was that a sustained resistance can be achieved against the might of the US military if you have local support and a small amount of military gear. I cannot argue that "local support" in the US would be easy to achieve, I hesitate to think of what the government would have to do to cause that.
However, if 70-80% of the populace was willing to support a resistance (simlar to the numbers in Iraq), those opposing it would have a tough fight (unless maybe they got really brutal). I bet military structure would break down too, there might not be a coup, but there would probably be quite a few defections. Also, the US military is not usually in a defensive posture. A lot of combat ready troops are usually based overseas (even when we're not at war), so the resistance would have some time to gear up.
do you honestly think the "right to bear arms" could have any effect on fighting the tyranny of the US government?
Look at the Iraq war. It's an even better example than the Vietnam war that a determined yet totally unorganized resistance armed with nothing more than explosives and light to medium firearms, can mount an effective counter-resistance to the US government. Despite all the labeling and prosecution of those in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, there is still an effective resistance. Now, Iraq is not the US, but it does show it's possible if enough of the populace supports your cause.
Disclaimer: I do not support the Iraqi resistance/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever nor do I support a violent or armed overthrow of the US government. Every 2-4 years we get our chance for a peaceful revolution, and this system has worked more or less ok for roughly 230 years.
Is there any other that you'd place above Christianity?
Nope. Like I said my "ranking" system doesn't award a winner.
As you are arguing from an agnostic perspective, I would have to assume that you perceive your viewpoint to be superior, and I do not fault you for this.
I truly don't think any of my views are superior to any "good" alternatives, they probably work best for me at this time, but that's their limit. While I may be "arguing" my viewpoint, I'm not advocating what I believe (or don't believe). I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm merely trying to explain my views. One of the perks of not having faith is that there is no requirement (express or implied) to proselytize.
Perhaps I am misperceiving, but there is a bit of an incongruity between these two statements... Mind clarifying?
That original line should've read "There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many (if any) better ones." For clarity sake, I was missing the "if any" qualifier. I didn't mean that I thought there are better moral compasses than the Christian bible, including my own. I will say it's a possibility something better is out there, but I haven't given it enough thought or investigation to actually state what a better viewpoint is (if any). Heh.
We acknowledge the validity of the Ten Commandments almost without question.
If you're including me in that we, I have to disagree. Three of the commandments deal with the relationship between a person and God, for someone who doesn't believe in God there isn't a good reason to not break those. If I state that I don't believe in God, that could count as blasphemy, and I'm pretty sure that breaks the command to not take the Lord's name in vain. I also have a reasoned dispute with the command to honor your mother and father. Imagine if a child has a parent they've never known then, objectively, the absent parent is not worthy of honor. Yet God commands honor regardless. Maybe I misunderstand that commandment and the titles "mother" and "father" have to be earned or they're not as literal as I think.
I've always considered the proselytizing agnostic/atheist to be ignorant of this perspective, though perhaps it is my perception that is distorted.
I think their argument is that it's possible to be moral without faith, I agree with that viewpoint. As an example many Chinese have a strong sense of morality without religion. That said, I can't argue against your position that some (many?) people need religion to be moral (in both the terrestial and divine senses), I simply don't know. Even in the case of the Chinese, there is a strong state role in guiding ones morality, which one could reasonably argue is a form of (forced) religion.
All beliefs are choices.
I'm not going to say this statement is wrong, but I don't know if it's right. For example (bad analogy alert), people once thought Newton's theories of motion were so valid and precise that they declared them laws. What they didn't know, and couldn't see was that Newton's "laws" broke down on very small and very large scales. In other words, sometimes people don't have enough evidence or the correct tools (like my stupid brain) to "believe" correctly.
Those whose hearts (and beliefs) do not match their actions are called "hypocrites". He placed belief above action in all his teaching.
Sorry for being so dense, but I think I finally understand the importance of belief. It seems rare to believe something without others being able to witness the actions that provide evidence of the belief, but I agree it's possible. While it'd be easy for Jesus or God to determine the beliefs of someone, all we have to determine someone's beliefs are their word and their action, and even then the determination may be wrong.
They should be in favor of being able to choose who that huge pile of capital goes to (that is, not necessarily their children).
Anyone, including billionaires and millionaires are allowed to do whatever they feel like with their capital, including giving it to their kids. All the estate tax does, is say after a certain amount (currently $2 million), the people who receive that capital are taxed at a fairly normal tax rate (currently 45%). There is no ban on wealth transfer. Every other instance I can think of where capital changes hands in this country, it's taxable. I cannot fathom a good reason why estate transfers should be the one exemption.
it's only the working stiffs and upper middle class who die earlier than anticipated or planned the most effectively for retirement that are afflicted by this tax.
Currently the first $2 MILLION is exempt from the estate tax. I can think of very few people who die with more than $2 MILLION dollars in net worth who could also be considered a "working stiff and upper middle class" person. Even if that were the case, the remedy isn't to abolish the tax, it's to raise the exemption to a level where all those MILLIONAIRE "working stiff and upper middle class" people are unaffected.
The person obtained the money and it should be theirs to do as they choose, no matter to what socialistic utopian ideal you subscribe.
No one is being banned from giving away their wealth or doing "as they choose". The estate tax simply states that after a certain limit ($2 MILLION) anyone who recieves income from your wealth will be taxed on it at a rate (45%) comprable to what working stiffs pay for their income. If I pay a guy $20 a week to mow my lawn, that money gets taxed at his income rate. If I pay a guy 3 million dollars because he's my son, he gets $2 million tax free and $1 million at a 45% tax rate, making the effective tax rate a paltry 15%. That 15% is probably a lower tax rate than what the lawn mower has to pay AND my kid didn't even have to mow my lawn to get it. I have a really hard time seeing how this system is more unfair to me and my son than to the lawn mower.
You can currently find interest bearing money market/savings accounts that earn 5%+ a year at the moment. But assume that's all they invested their money in and assume even a lower interest rate and they'd earn: $10,000,000 *.03 (3% interest) = $300,000/year.
Historically, they'd be better off investing in a broad index of stocks (bump the earning up to 8-10%) but my points is, by investing their money in the easiest options available to them, they could easily do nothing the rest of their lives and be quite comfortable. And because of the current capital gains tax, that person would pay less (as a percentage) in taxes than someone earning $40k/year.
Personally, if I was given $10 million, I'd find it extremely difficult to work another day for the rest of my life.
Wasn't it in the eighties during Reagan's time that a bill was passed that removed the requirment for NEWS programs to offer balanced reports and present opposing views.
It wasn't a bill, it was a FCC regulation, the fairness doctrine, which the Supreme Court upheld when it was still in force. Anyway, it only affected programs on public airwaves, so cable news channels were unaffected. Regardless, it wasn't the abolition of the fairness doctrine that gave rise to infotainment, as things were already moving in that direction.
Still, there are some good news programs you can get in the US. About the furthest you can get from infotainment is the The NewsHour, a very balanced and in-depth nightly news program. BBC News is also broadcast on many PBS stations. And if you live close enough to the Canadian border, you can pick up the CBC feeds without an issue (I do). While CBC news is better than the American networks, it's too Canadian centric for me to watch.
Convincing one to deny Christ's divinity while obeying His commands would be a severe blow by the Deceiver, but it is possible.
Aren't there commandments which require acceptance of Christ's divinity? If so, one who follows Jesus's teachings but doen't accept His divinity, isn't really following his commandments. One can't just pick and choose. Even though it seems the moral teachings are the ones that require action, acceptance of Christ for salvation is more important. You made a good case that not everyone is capable of the same effort to practice the moral lessons but I'd counter that with not everyone is equally mentally equipped to accept the idea that Christ was God's mortal form. So, that requirement still seems unjust to me.
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to rid yourself of sins of the heart without His intervention, at least in my personal experience. Perhaps you disagree.
I kind of disagree. It's certainly true that it's nearly impossible to rid oneself of sins. I agree that sins of the heart are something one should work on ridding oneself of, but again, my objection is more fundamental. I don't agree that we should need forgiveness for them. It feels like a set-up. These sins are innate, so, while we initially have no control over them, we still need to ask for their forgiveness? I really hate being blammed for something I didn't do nor even will, which is also why I really dislike the concept of original sin.
The kingdom of God is promised to believers, but it is not crystal clear what happens to non-believers.
One priest said that as long as an individual's heart was in the right place, that they were seeking out truth but were unable to find it in their lifetime, there was hope for them. The one thing that would truly condemn a person was the sin of pride, which is what keeps Lucifer condemed because he thought himself above God (blasphemy). It's not clear to me if disbelief is a sin of the same caliber as thinking one is above God. This same priest has said that atheists will be condemned but on a different occasion has also said there is hope for them if they continue to seek out truth.
It would be much less taxing to accept Christ's doctrine wholesale
You yourself said that this requires obedience in spirit. I don't think one can just will themself into believing in Christ, they have to accept it with their whole being, so it's not as easy as you make it out to be. I think a lot of Christ's teachings are valid simply because they make logical sense, someone could follow them and measure improvement in their life. There are other biblical teachings which require faith, not logic, to accept. Why are these more important than the logical ones? Or rather, why can't it all operate on logic? If God requires recognition, why doesn't He show Himself to me in a form/act I'd recognize as God?
I have looked deeply into this, and Christ's metric is, as far as I can ascertain, the best. Could you suggest a superior measurement?
Well, obviously, if Christ is really God's one true son, then my metric doesn't stand a chance! My metric would boil down to a different teaching of Christ: doing that which will minimize suffering. Mistakes are allowed. If you swerve a car left to avoid hurting a woman but end up hurting a kid, that's ok because your action was guided by a desire to minimize suffering, the suffering of the child that resulted was more due to circumstance.
What would you regard as superior?
I wasn't suggesting there is a better alternative to Christianity. I don't rank religions or moral views on a scale, instead they get a rating of good, bad and I don't know.
you can earn a reward for hard work or smart ideas, but it is not that simple
I love that/. user id "Bad Analogy Guy", it would fit me as w
I see no reason a developer couldn't create a PC-like configuration the user could select. In the PC configuration, you control the wiimote exactly like a mouse. Left-right-up-down movements moves your aiming reticle according to your sensitivity settings (you don't actually have to aim at the screen). In addition to that, you get a "lock" button (probably the A button) which would be the rough equivalent of lifting up your mouse, it would temporarily disable or lock your reticle. So, to quickly turn, instead of flick mouse right-lift mouse-reposition mouse-flick mouse right again, you flick wiimote right-push and hold lock button-reposition wiimote-release lock button-flick wiimote right again.
if it has a need to give the player a button to lock on to enemies
I thought the article said the lock-on was to keep a consistent feel with previous Prime games, not that it was needed.
I don't think the wii will revolutionize the fps
Does anyone? I thought the excitement was over the fact that a console might finally get a FPS control-scheme on par with the PC FPS control-schemes. I suppose people were also excited that you could use FPS sword play would be a lot more fun.
I'm a little worried your post got modded informative because as far as I can tell it's almost completely wrong. About all you got right was that Nintendo and Sony worked on a CD add-on to the SNES which led to Sony releasing the Playstation. The reason that project got canned was because of various contract disputes between Nintendo and Sony. AFAIK, the project was nearly dead by the time Sega CD was released, let alone before it proved to be a disaster.
I also don't know of a single game that spent any time in development for the SNES CD add-on, and certainly not Final Fantasy 7 which was released a full 2 years after the release of the original Playstation. Nintendo's loss of Square wasn't due to canceling the SNES CD add-on, it was because N64/SNES used cartridges which were totally insufficient for the amount of data Square needed. FF7 released on 3 CDs which would've translated to something like twenty some (expensive) 64MB N64 cartridges, assuming no fancy compression techniques.
I don't necessarily disagree with that statement but I don't think I've really contradicted anything you've said. You said accepting Christ is the only possible way to be rewarded in Christianity, that's fine, I accept that as Christian dogma. The bible has many other lessons in it other than accepting Christ, such as following in his mortal-era footsteps. My problem, again, is that I personally fail to see the justice how one can fail if they emulate Christ's life to best of their abilites, but don't accept he was God's son anymore than anyone else nor that his death was for one's salvation.
What sense does works-based salvation have, then?
It's like the term, "A for effort". Rewarding one because they did the best they could with what they were given. That is far more just to me. In a capitalist society people are rewarded for hard work and/or smart ideas. They are not rewarded simply because they accept capitalism. This, to me, is a just structure for the material realm, and I view the spiritual realm in a similar way.
All that said, Christianity works for you, great. If you're doing your best to follow in Jesus' footsteps, I have no quarrel with you. There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many better ones.
What you describe does not work the way you seem to think it does. God does not acknowledge acts of human morality.
God acknowledges everything doesn't he? Perhaps you meant He doesn't reward acts of human morality? Regardless, say someone followed in the footsteps of Jesus, helped the poor, shed material desire, accepted the rejected and so on, but rejected His claims of deity. I think a just God wouldn't damn such a person for their disbelief because in the context of the rest of their life, they did much good according to Christian guidelines. You claim you aren't perfect in following your religion (and that it's impossible to do so), yet you have faith you'll be forgiven for your imperfections. Isn't a lack of belief another imperfection? Or is it an imperfection that cannot be forgiven? I have trouble failing to see the justice in the decreed ranking of imperfections and which ones are inacceptable.
His request is that you obey his commands, all of which improve the quality of your existence.
I would gladly do so if it was clear cut. Unfortunately, I'm cursed with a limited intellect that cannot decypher which set of claimed commands truely came from God, if any, and which came from man. Abrahamic religions contain at least 3 major different branches, all with separate texts (all claimed to be infallible), not to mention all of the additional sects and texts that have come since. And that's just one branch of religion, I didn't even mention polytheists and Eastern religions. How am I to choose which is correct? Will I be punished for choosing incorrectly? If so, why does God not help me choose correctly? Am I to be cursed because of my limited intellect? Where is the justice and love for those who aren't wise enough to choose correctly?
Which is the life more lived? One filled with a belief in a God of love, or one filled with so many (mostly negative) reasons to deny God that he could "easily fill a book"?
If the reasons I have are valid, then it isn't just me that lives with them, it's everyone. Faith means you believe any valid reasons are insufficient or there are more valid reasons for the counter-argument. I need to step outside of your two choices to share how I actually view your question - what is a life worth living, and why I don't worry myself with religious doctrine. It's an extension (and reversal) of Pascal's wager. There are two possibilites, God(s) exist and no God(s) exist. If there is a God(s), and one has lived a life according to most principles a religon advocates, which to the best of one's intellect determined were the correct way to live, and the deciding God(s) are loving and just being(s), then the just and loving outcome is to receive any reward that comes from living a "good life" (as that God(s) define it). If one is rejected because of failure on some technicality or because of an inability to discern what came from a divine mouth and what from fellow man, then God is neither just nor loving and not worthy of one's servitude. On the flipside, if there is no God(s), then this life is all you have. You can spend it either worrying about fulfilling religious requirements, or you can live it in a way that brings the greatest amount of happiness to everyone (including yourself) while minimizing any suffering. If this life is all we've got then any suffering, no matter how minor, incurred by followers and non-followers of religion (caused by following a religion) is needless, and a waste of what little time time we have.
Reuters reported awhile ago that LG plans on relasing a hybrid player in the fall. I imagine it'll be quite expensive. Google cache of retuers article - couldn't find it anymore on Retuers' site.
Personally, I will only buy a hybrid player. Too many content and hardware companies are behind both format's camps, so I think you'll see a lot of content exclusive to BluRay and HD-DVD for the next few years. And even ignoring the cost of buying two players, I don't have room for two players, a hybrid will be a must if you want HD content before the format war is over (if ever).
Slashdot Mirror
YOUR TEXT HERE
Castlevania/Metroid handles the uber-weapon problem the best. When you get good weapons, power-ups, spells and so on, the portions of the map you haven't been to usually still offer a challenge. The difference is that you're forced to back-track through some of the areas you've already been, but given your new gear, you can easily kill enemies that used to give you headaches.
Another complaint about GUN, falls under the article's "Extreme Rule Changes When Fighting Boss Characters". The final boss is a Metroid style-boss in that you have to figure out "the trick(s)" to beating him. The problem? He's the only character in the game like this! I was so used to the run-and-gun style of the rest of the game, the final boss took way too many tries before I realized he operated according to rules not found in any other part of the game. Argh!
I still have all of my copies of Next-Gen (minus one that I lent out and was never returned). All my other magazines get recycled or thrown out. Next-Gen was unique in that it really made me think about games rather than just inform me about them. It was still grounded in the games though, it never got too pretentious. Any high level concept they discussed, they would continually link back to how it would work in a game. Contrast this with The Escapist, which often seems to use video games as a jumping off point for any random intellectual curiosity.
Most articles in Next-Gen got me excited about games. They were often focused on the future, on the possibilites of gaming, not with what was wrong with the current state of gaming. I'd usually want to play some games after reading a few articles. I've read little in other magazines that elicit such feelings. At the same time, Next-Gen was a magazine you could hand off to an adult without worrying about looking juvenile. Compare this with most game magazines today that seem to be aimed squarely at the Bevis and Butthead demographic.
The Edge seems to be a decent Next-Gen replacement but its cost is prohibitive in the US, I'd rather buy games with my money.
Visual Concepts could've done a Blitz like game. Or they could've done a realistic game where you're trying to start a new team in a new league. Visual Concepts had plenty of options they could've taken to produce an unlicensed football game, instead they simply quit, they didn't even try something different. You can say people don't want to go back to fake players, teams and stadiums, but aside from Blitz, no one even tried such a game to validate that idea.
I typically avoid the sports games genre (I haven't played a video game sports title in years), but most of my favorite sports games didn't involve real life players or teams. For example, some of my favorite sports titles are Basewars on the NES and the Mutant League games on Genesis. Blitz is still around despite not using the NFL license, which actually gave the developers more creative freedom, as the NFL no longer had a say over game content. Contrast these creative offerings with the closest EA gets, their "Street" games which really aren't that much different from the more "realistic" offerings.
I'd love to see someone update Basewars or Mutant League.
I've never understood the lack of innovation from the networks or the cable companies. If I find an advertisement amusing, I usually don't mind watching it. The problem is that 99% of ads aren't amusing. Or put product placement in the show, as long as it doesn't distract from the content I don't care if the detectives are tooling around in a pristine Ford Explorer. Why not have characters from the shows pitch products like they used to do in the 50s? Steve Carell could pitch anything as Michael Scott without going out of character, and I'd probably enjoy watching it.
Furthermore, my cable company knows all about me. It knows where I live, my gender and how old I am. So why don't I get ads targetted to my demographic? Furthermore, since they know all about me, why don't they ask to track my viewing habits and compete with Nielsen for providing ratings data? I'd be happy if companies knew what shows I was watching so those shows could stay in production.
That's not being racist, that's being nationalist or supranationalist in the case of Europe.
Not nearly often enough.
The quantity question is shaking up to look the same, at least initially, for the next generation. The majority of next generation previews I've seen are for 360/PS3, with an absolute dearth of high profile previews for Wii.
If the quantity of game selection were the sole criteria, I'd say the analyst is roughly right in his predictions at least for the near term. PS3 will have a huge advantage over the 360 in the number of Japanese developed games, so I expect to eventually overtake it.
The obvious wildcards are how successful the Wii will be in expanding the market and bringing back lapsed gamers. And how long will the PS3 sell for a premium. If Nintendo can translate E3 success into actually getting devlopers to release games on the Wii, their chance for success will rise dramatically.
I didn't investigate your statement "All beliefs are choices" enough to state if it was correct, if I didn't respond before I made a decision, you may not get a response at all! I simply wanted to express my initial doubt in that statement's validity.
I'm really starting to dig analogies more. I'm starting to think they're a wonderful tool for showing exactly where one's thought process is incomplete or lacking. Your refutation of this analogy has lead me to now accept your statement that "All beliefs are choices". My point with Newton, regardless if you agree, was that sometimes we're simply not given the correct evidence, tools or expertise to make the right choice about what to believe. This didn't disprove your assertion that beliefs are choices, and in fact you showed the two ideas are unrelated.
It's interesting we've sidetracked into science, because I'd like to connect this vastness idea about science back to religion and the burden of choice. Just as there are many different branches, fields and sub-fields of science, there are many different branches, sects and sub-sects in religion. Just as one cannot master all of modern science, I argue one cannot become an expert in all religions. For you, Christianity has brought you measured improvement in your life, so there is no compelling reason to leave it and some excellent reasons not to. For someone without religion, how can they devote enough time to objectively measure each in their ability to improve lives and disseminate truth? One possibility, like the book I mentioned, is to seek the common threads between the religions and use those for light. A thinking person may not just find Christianity to be comfortable, but other religions as well.
Again, I left off some words. I now understand the importance of belief over action, that is what our discussion was about. To reiterate, I came to realize that while people require evidence (actions) to illuminate one's beliefs, God is not as limited and can see what one truly accepts and what they merely project, actions are just a result of belief. I still cannot reconcile myself with the faith requirements that Christianity claims God has made.
Hopefully you have enough for a book by now. Don't worry, I won't demand a cut!
So, you're in favor of tax loopholes then? My justification is that inheritance is a form of wealth transfer and thus should be subject to taxes on *drumroll* transfers of wealth. Doing otherwise would be unfair to anyone who pays taxes on the wealth they don't receive from inheritance
... X should be in group A? I'm blinded by the power of rational logic, please teach me wise and powerful ArmyOfFun.
Here's a simplification:
Me: X is part of group A, so X should be treated as a member of group A. (Where X represents people who receive wealth from inheritance and A represents all people who receive wealth.)
You: So, you're saying because there are many items in the group encomposing all of group A
Me: X should be treated as a member of group A because it has all the characteristics of a member of group A. Doing otherwise would be unfair to the other members of group A.
If you want to get rid of the estate tax or reduce it, the most equitable solution is stop treating it as a special case (this would mean eliminating the $2 million exemption), and treat it like any other transfer of wealth. Then, in order to reduce or eliminate the estate tax, you'd have to reduce or eliminate taxes on all transfers of wealth.
I see similar devices in the US as well (I see them in school zones a lot). The ones I've seen are on top of a small trailer so they can be moved around town. Although, they have the opposite of the intended effect on me. In areas where I normally travel the speed limit, I go much faster trying to get the sign to register as high as possible before I pass it.
Honestly, I don't know what they'd think. I hope things like universal suffrage and largely equal civil rights would make many of the delcaration signatories proud (despite some who may have owned slaves).
I disagree, I think a general understanding of US history can give one some perspective. It's true that the current use of torture, incarcerations without judicial oversight and an erosion of our right to privacy are cause for alarm. They're signs we're currently headed in the wrong direction. Yet, I have hope that we'll reverse course soon enough, and a tiny amount of hope that those that instituted such policies will actually be held accountable. So, while some aspects of our government are at a low point, other aspects of our society have improved since its founding. I don't have to buy all my groceries at a "company store". I can strike without worrying about my company roughing me up or killing me. I don't have to worry about going to debtor's prison and so on...
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying the same thing would or could happen in the near term. My main argument was that a sustained resistance can be achieved against the might of the US military if you have local support and a small amount of military gear. I cannot argue that "local support" in the US would be easy to achieve, I hesitate to think of what the government would have to do to cause that.
However, if 70-80% of the populace was willing to support a resistance (simlar to the numbers in Iraq), those opposing it would have a tough fight (unless maybe they got really brutal). I bet military structure would break down too, there might not be a coup, but there would probably be quite a few defections. Also, the US military is not usually in a defensive posture. A lot of combat ready troops are usually based overseas (even when we're not at war), so the resistance would have some time to gear up.
Disclaimer: I do not support the Iraqi resistance/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever nor do I support a violent or armed overthrow of the US government. Every 2-4 years we get our chance for a peaceful revolution, and this system has worked more or less ok for roughly 230 years.
I truly don't think any of my views are superior to any "good" alternatives, they probably work best for me at this time, but that's their limit. While I may be "arguing" my viewpoint, I'm not advocating what I believe (or don't believe). I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm merely trying to explain my views. One of the perks of not having faith is that there is no requirement (express or implied) to proselytize.
That original line should've read "There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many (if any) better ones." For clarity sake, I was missing the "if any" qualifier. I didn't mean that I thought there are better moral compasses than the Christian bible, including my own. I will say it's a possibility something better is out there, but I haven't given it enough thought or investigation to actually state what a better viewpoint is (if any). Heh.
If you're including me in that we, I have to disagree. Three of the commandments deal with the relationship between a person and God, for someone who doesn't believe in God there isn't a good reason to not break those. If I state that I don't believe in God, that could count as blasphemy, and I'm pretty sure that breaks the command to not take the Lord's name in vain. I also have a reasoned dispute with the command to honor your mother and father. Imagine if a child has a parent they've never known then, objectively, the absent parent is not worthy of honor. Yet God commands honor regardless. Maybe I misunderstand that commandment and the titles "mother" and "father" have to be earned or they're not as literal as I think.
I think their argument is that it's possible to be moral without faith, I agree with that viewpoint. As an example many Chinese have a strong sense of morality without religion. That said, I can't argue against your position that some (many?) people need religion to be moral (in both the terrestial and divine senses), I simply don't know. Even in the case of the Chinese, there is a strong state role in guiding ones morality, which one could reasonably argue is a form of (forced) religion.
I'm not going to say this statement is wrong, but I don't know if it's right. For example (bad analogy alert), people once thought Newton's theories of motion were so valid and precise that they declared them laws. What they didn't know, and couldn't see was that Newton's "laws" broke down on very small and very large scales. In other words, sometimes people don't have enough evidence or the correct tools (like my stupid brain) to "believe" correctly.
Sorry for being so dense, but I think I finally understand the importance of belief. It seems rare to believe something without others being able to witness the actions that provide evidence of the belief, but I agree it's possible. While it'd be easy for Jesus or God to determine the beliefs of someone, all we have to determine someone's beliefs are their word and their action, and even then the determination may be wrong.
No one is being banned from giving away their wealth or doing "as they choose". The estate tax simply states that after a certain limit ($2 MILLION) anyone who recieves income from your wealth will be taxed on it at a rate (45%) comprable to what working stiffs pay for their income. If I pay a guy $20 a week to mow my lawn, that money gets taxed at his income rate. If I pay a guy 3 million dollars because he's my son, he gets $2 million tax free and $1 million at a 45% tax rate, making the effective tax rate a paltry 15%. That 15% is probably a lower tax rate than what the lawn mower has to pay AND my kid didn't even have to mow my lawn to get it. I have a really hard time seeing how this system is more unfair to me and my son than to the lawn mower.
You can currently find interest bearing money market/savings accounts that earn 5%+ a year at the moment. But assume that's all they invested their money in and assume even a lower interest rate and they'd earn: .03 (3% interest) = $300,000/year.
$10,000,000 *
Historically, they'd be better off investing in a broad index of stocks (bump the earning up to 8-10%) but my points is, by investing their money in the easiest options available to them, they could easily do nothing the rest of their lives and be quite comfortable. And because of the current capital gains tax, that person would pay less (as a percentage) in taxes than someone earning $40k/year.
Personally, if I was given $10 million, I'd find it extremely difficult to work another day for the rest of my life.
Still, there are some good news programs you can get in the US. About the furthest you can get from infotainment is the The NewsHour, a very balanced and in-depth nightly news program. BBC News is also broadcast on many PBS stations. And if you live close enough to the Canadian border, you can pick up the CBC feeds without an issue (I do). While CBC news is better than the American networks, it's too Canadian centric for me to watch.
Aren't there commandments which require acceptance of Christ's divinity? If so, one who follows Jesus's teachings but doen't accept His divinity, isn't really following his commandments. One can't just pick and choose. Even though it seems the moral teachings are the ones that require action, acceptance of Christ for salvation is more important. You made a good case that not everyone is capable of the same effort to practice the moral lessons but I'd counter that with not everyone is equally mentally equipped to accept the idea that Christ was God's mortal form. So, that requirement still seems unjust to me.
I kind of disagree. It's certainly true that it's nearly impossible to rid oneself of sins. I agree that sins of the heart are something one should work on ridding oneself of, but again, my objection is more fundamental. I don't agree that we should need forgiveness for them. It feels like a set-up. These sins are innate, so, while we initially have no control over them, we still need to ask for their forgiveness? I really hate being blammed for something I didn't do nor even will, which is also why I really dislike the concept of original sin.
One priest said that as long as an individual's heart was in the right place, that they were seeking out truth but were unable to find it in their lifetime, there was hope for them. The one thing that would truly condemn a person was the sin of pride, which is what keeps Lucifer condemed because he thought himself above God (blasphemy). It's not clear to me if disbelief is a sin of the same caliber as thinking one is above God. This same priest has said that atheists will be condemned but on a different occasion has also said there is hope for them if they continue to seek out truth.
You yourself said that this requires obedience in spirit. I don't think one can just will themself into believing in Christ, they have to accept it with their whole being, so it's not as easy as you make it out to be. I think a lot of Christ's teachings are valid simply because they make logical sense, someone could follow them and measure improvement in their life. There are other biblical teachings which require faith, not logic, to accept. Why are these more important than the logical ones? Or rather, why can't it all operate on logic? If God requires recognition, why doesn't He show Himself to me in a form/act I'd recognize as God?
Well, obviously, if Christ is really God's one true son, then my metric doesn't stand a chance! My metric would boil down to a different teaching of Christ: doing that which will minimize suffering. Mistakes are allowed. If you swerve a car left to avoid hurting a woman but end up hurting a kid, that's ok because your action was guided by a desire to minimize suffering, the suffering of the child that resulted was more due to circumstance.
I wasn't suggesting there is a better alternative to Christianity. I don't rank religions or moral views on a scale, instead they get a rating of good, bad and I don't know.
I love that /. user id "Bad Analogy Guy", it would fit me as w
I thought the article said the lock-on was to keep a consistent feel with previous Prime games, not that it was needed.
Does anyone? I thought the excitement was over the fact that a console might finally get a FPS control-scheme on par with the PC FPS control-schemes. I suppose people were also excited that you could use FPS sword play would be a lot more fun.
I'm a little worried your post got modded informative because as far as I can tell it's almost completely wrong. About all you got right was that Nintendo and Sony worked on a CD add-on to the SNES which led to Sony releasing the Playstation. The reason that project got canned was because of various contract disputes between Nintendo and Sony. AFAIK, the project was nearly dead by the time Sega CD was released, let alone before it proved to be a disaster.
I also don't know of a single game that spent any time in development for the SNES CD add-on, and certainly not Final Fantasy 7 which was released a full 2 years after the release of the original Playstation. Nintendo's loss of Square wasn't due to canceling the SNES CD add-on, it was because N64/SNES used cartridges which were totally insufficient for the amount of data Square needed. FF7 released on 3 CDs which would've translated to something like twenty some (expensive) 64MB N64 cartridges, assuming no fancy compression techniques.
It's like the term, "A for effort". Rewarding one because they did the best they could with what they were given. That is far more just to me. In a capitalist society people are rewarded for hard work and/or smart ideas. They are not rewarded simply because they accept capitalism. This, to me, is a just structure for the material realm, and I view the spiritual realm in a similar way.
All that said, Christianity works for you, great. If you're doing your best to follow in Jesus' footsteps, I have no quarrel with you. There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many better ones.
I would gladly do so if it was clear cut. Unfortunately, I'm cursed with a limited intellect that cannot decypher which set of claimed commands truely came from God, if any, and which came from man. Abrahamic religions contain at least 3 major different branches, all with separate texts (all claimed to be infallible), not to mention all of the additional sects and texts that have come since. And that's just one branch of religion, I didn't even mention polytheists and Eastern religions. How am I to choose which is correct? Will I be punished for choosing incorrectly? If so, why does God not help me choose correctly? Am I to be cursed because of my limited intellect? Where is the justice and love for those who aren't wise enough to choose correctly?
If the reasons I have are valid, then it isn't just me that lives with them, it's everyone. Faith means you believe any valid reasons are insufficient or there are more valid reasons for the counter-argument. I need to step outside of your two choices to share how I actually view your question - what is a life worth living, and why I don't worry myself with religious doctrine. It's an extension (and reversal) of Pascal's wager. There are two possibilites, God(s) exist and no God(s) exist. If there is a God(s), and one has lived a life according to most principles a religon advocates, which to the best of one's intellect determined were the correct way to live, and the deciding God(s) are loving and just being(s), then the just and loving outcome is to receive any reward that comes from living a "good life" (as that God(s) define it). If one is rejected because of failure on some technicality or because of an inability to discern what came from a divine mouth and what from fellow man, then God is neither just nor loving and not worthy of one's servitude. On the flipside, if there is no God(s), then this life is all you have. You can spend it either worrying about fulfilling religious requirements, or you can live it in a way that brings the greatest amount of happiness to everyone (including yourself) while minimizing any suffering. If this life is all we've got then any suffering, no matter how minor, incurred by followers and non-followers of religion (caused by following a religion) is needless, and a waste of what little time time we have.
Reuters reported awhile ago that LG plans on relasing a hybrid player in the fall. I imagine it'll be quite expensive. Google cache of retuers article - couldn't find it anymore on Retuers' site.
Personally, I will only buy a hybrid player. Too many content and hardware companies are behind both format's camps, so I think you'll see a lot of content exclusive to BluRay and HD-DVD for the next few years. And even ignoring the cost of buying two players, I don't have room for two players, a hybrid will be a must if you want HD content before the format war is over (if ever).