Why should the community pay for all kids, when half will become auto mechanics or learn a trade?
Because the community as a whole benefits when its members are educated. If you seriously think no worthwhile skills are picked up during K-6th grade, I have no way of changing your mind on this. Don't you think you're better off with smarter neighbors than dumb ones? Don't you think local businesses are better off not having to teach basic math skills to all new hires?
Also, maybe my high school was different, but if you wanted, you could take 4 years of auto-repair classes, you could take electrician classes, you could take CAD classes and so on. Or if you wanted, you could take a bunch of college prep classes as well as AP (advanced placement) classes and earn college credit. Here is a.pdf for my alma mater's current course offerings.
Finally, 20-30k in debt is still worth going to college. I had about 25k to pay back in low interest loans on graduating college. I paid that back in full less than a year of graduating because I landed a very good job that required a college degree (and I had no qualms about living at home for a very low rent until I paid my loans off). My investment in my college education has already paid for itself 4x, and I'm only 23. I don't know what would've happened to me if public education wasn't available to me. My parents were always on the lower end of middle class. I probably would've ended up painting houses and contributing far less tax money to the coffers than I am now.
The problem with the IMDB list is that it's weighted too much to recent movies. The majority of the films on there were released in the 90s or later. At least Time's list has a bunch of titles I've never heard of, so in that sense, it's worth more to me since I might see a film I may have never known about otherwise.
I agree about the overlapping modules things. Another one a co-worker pointed out to me a couple weeks ago is os.name and sys.platform (both of which return different strings).
Yeah, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, those are all shitty series. I don't understand why anyone enjoys anything fun. They should be overly cynical and shit on things other people like because it's cool to be a dick or whatever. Oh wait, no, that's just you.
Actually, InstallShield has had a MultiPlatform version that is compatible with Linux, AIX, HP, Windows, etc. MultiPlatform was up to version 5.something when it got rolled into the new X version.
The reason it hasn't seen much use on Linux is because it's *too* expensive. However, as you see more commercial software being released on Linux, you'll see more InstallShield packages. Especially from companies that have to support other *nix flavors. Still, InstallShield is far more of a PITA to work with than handing people tar files.
For a normal Joe user to pay over tripple what his computer cost for a peice of software that he may not be able to use is insane, and yes, it does make "stealing" okay.
Lets say I offer a landscaping service where I can modify a yard into a creative and aesthetically pleasing landscape (anything I need is already at your house or you pay for it). You wanted something nice, but nothing that would belong next to some mansion. Now, my services are typically tailored towards rich estates, country clubs, corporate parks, etc... I charge $500/hr. Deciding you're not a rich person, you employ my services with no intention of paying. After all, how does one "steal" a service, you're not taking any physical object from me, are you?
So, in your backwards world, not paying me would be "okay". My service is geared towards a different use than what you needed, therefore you're entitled to a lower price, whether I agree to it or not.
Anyone can charge anything they want that they're selling. The only right you have if you're not going to settle on a price both parties can agree on is to NOT BUY what they're selling. You are not entitled to get what you want for less than asking price. The fact that you DO think you're entitled to get what you want for less than asking price exhibits some moral shortcoming on your part.
Should there be a version of Flash that lets high school kids create simple cartoons? Probably. However, the lack of such an option doesn't justify taking the next best thing against the wishes of the producer.
Ok, lets look at the point that Moore was trying to make with the clip of Reagan promising to bring economic prosperity to Flint and GM closing a plant.
His point: Reagan was full of shit.
Your point: Moore's presentation made it look like one event was followed by the other.
Your argument, while valid, doesn't really detract much from Moore's point. All of Roger & Me serves as evidence that Reagan was full of shit (in this instance).
OT: Anyone could make the same claim about just about any other politician that claims they'll bring jobs, prosperity, gold, unicorns and/or virgins to their potential constituents.
Small technicality, HL2 was only at its second E3 this year. If I remember correctly, the first official information about HL2 was released about a month before last year's E3.
I agree. I used to be a die hard Simpsons fan. I was so die hard that when I slowly stopped watching new episodes, I actually felt guilty. Like I was giving up on an old friend. But now, I just don't care, the show has lost almost all of the subtle humor that made it great (in my eyes).
Another great cheap game you can pick up for less than $20 for Gamecube (and PS2) is TimeSplitters 2. Decent single player, but an awesome multiplayer game (better than Goldeneye IMO).
I completely agree. Face it people, public online gaming sucks! When there isn't someone on your team killing you and your teammates or making it hard for your side to win, cooperation is still a rare thing. People make comments just to offend and get a rise out of people. Griefing ruins it for everyone but the assholes griefing. People cheat not just to get an edge but to ruin the experience for other people.
The last thing I want to come in contact with when I'm trying to blow off a little steam after work are people ruining a GAME just because they like pissing people off.
I applaud Blizzard, they are one of the few game studios that (despite all the personnel turn-over) seem to consistently deliver quality games. In addition to their quality games though, they are TRYING to improve the online experience which is currently the wasteland I described. They are actually improving their communities by getting rid of some jerks, or at least making it a tiny bit tougher to be a prick.
Currently the only other way around the common online problems is to join a clan or guild, so it's nice to see a game company be a lot more active in their community than simply encouraging clans.
So he [Ray Kassar] called me up from Monterey and said, "Howard, we need E.T." This was like July 23, and he said "We need E.T. by September 1. Can you do it?" - Howard Scott Warshaw. Excerpt taken from The Ultimate History of Video Games
Great book btw. Anyway, given the time constraints, I think Warshaw gets a pass.
Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games.
I disagree, video games teach you nearly zero about how to actually handle a firearm. I am pretty skilled when it comes to FPS type games, but I am a horrible shot with real guns. The two are totally different experiences. Even realistic games where there is "recoil" do not match real life firing. The weight of the gun, the effect gravity has on your shot, the way recoil totally throws off your aim, as well as the noise and smoke that is produce. No video game I have ever seen accurately reproduces a single one of those feelings.
If it didn't work so well to desensitize kids to violence, the military wouldn't be using the same type of simulations to train troops.
I don't think the goal of military training is to desensitize troops to violence, if it was, why hasn't animal slaughter been a part of military training in the past? The military wants soldiers that can think/act/fight under pressure and make wise tactical decisions quickly. It is the training of tactics (as well as how to operate machinery) that the military uses simulators for. While you could argue video games made the Columbine kids better tacticians, playing elaborate games of capture the flag could've produced the same results.
I've actually found the Metroid stories to be lacking in the past. Prime was a departure in that respect I think, it had a very detailed storyline. The story was also told really well in Prime, not through cut scenes, but through exploration.
The one thing I was very happy the Retro studios kept in tact was that you couldn't get hurt by falling. I always hated that one aspect of games where you have this awesome armor, but you fall two stories and lose some health (what the hell?).
Hmm, have to go back and try again to beat that last Pirate boss on hard...
No amount of money can get you into office if nobody will vote for you.
The flip side of course, is that zero amount of money won't get you into office either. People need to know who you are and what your platform is for them to vote for you. This is more important on the federal level where a candidate's image is partially bought. And an unfortunate number of Americans vote based on image alone, though at least they vote. I guess it is their vote too, they can vote on who's prettier if they like.
The way I see it, is you need to let everyone lobby. You can't really restrict it just because you don't like some groups (ie, you and I probably would want to ban pretty nearly the exact opposite groups).
I agree on both counts. Lobbyists have a right to exist, but I don't think they have a right to give money directly to any elected officials, whether it comes from grandma or Ken Lay or Chinese nationals. As for your second point, after briefly looking at your web page I'd say we're polar opposites as far as both social and fiscal politics go. But hey, its not often political opposites discuss politics on the internet without calling each other liberal pinko commies and fascist neo-con nazis. So, huzah to us or something...
while corporations are made up of people who pay dues (buying stock) to join in order to persue some cause as a group.
Technically, I think your definition is correct. I was speaking of business entities (which may or may not be publicly held) and IF they are publicly held their stockholders are mainly interested in the financial well being of that company, not necessarily in the "advancement" of society.
Effectively, they're identical. Only their cause differs.
I would say that's a pretty significant difference, wouldn't you?
Really, what your saying is there are some people that you don't believe should have a collective voice.
I don't think that's what I was saying. The original point of my post was that there isn't anything inherently wrong with lobby groups. I blame my inability to articulate well if that point didn't come across. I tend to run on as well...
While I wouldn't shed a tear if corporations were banned from lobbying, this is certainly, as you pointed out, unfair.
I suppose it's the buying power of corporate lobbies that I hold against them. No one/group should be able to buy government officials IMO. I suppose that's the real problem with finance reform, how do you keep money from crossing the boundary of supporting a lobby group that shares ideals certain candidates also hold to be true vs flat out paying money for a certain candidate's campaign? If I want to put an ad on TV that's anti-Bush, does that mean my money is going to the Dem candidate? Seems fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, maybe my high school was different, but if you wanted, you could take 4 years of auto-repair classes, you could take electrician classes, you could take CAD classes and so on. Or if you wanted, you could take a bunch of college prep classes as well as AP (advanced placement) classes and earn college credit. Here is a .pdf for my alma mater's current course offerings.
Finally, 20-30k in debt is still worth going to college. I had about 25k to pay back in low interest loans on graduating college. I paid that back in full less than a year of graduating because I landed a very good job that required a college degree (and I had no qualms about living at home for a very low rent until I paid my loans off). My investment in my college education has already paid for itself 4x, and I'm only 23. I don't know what would've happened to me if public education wasn't available to me. My parents were always on the lower end of middle class. I probably would've ended up painting houses and contributing far less tax money to the coffers than I am now.
The problem with the IMDB list is that it's weighted too much to recent movies. The majority of the films on there were released in the 90s or later. At least Time's list has a bunch of titles I've never heard of, so in that sense, it's worth more to me since I might see a film I may have never known about otherwise.
Speaking of which, you can buy almost the entire Criterion Collection here.
They also have this good collection
I agree about the overlapping modules things. Another one a co-worker pointed out to me a couple weeks ago is os.name and sys.platform (both of which return different strings).
Yeah, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, those are all shitty series. I don't understand why anyone enjoys anything fun. They should be overly cynical and shit on things other people like because it's cool to be a dick or whatever. Oh wait, no, that's just you.
Actually, InstallShield has had a MultiPlatform version that is compatible with Linux, AIX, HP, Windows, etc. MultiPlatform was up to version 5.something when it got rolled into the new X version.
The reason it hasn't seen much use on Linux is because it's *too* expensive. However, as you see more commercial software being released on Linux, you'll see more InstallShield packages. Especially from companies that have to support other *nix flavors. Still, InstallShield is far more of a PITA to work with than handing people tar files.
For a normal Joe user to pay over tripple what his computer cost for a peice of software that he may not be able to use is insane, and yes, it does make "stealing" okay.
Lets say I offer a landscaping service where I can modify a yard into a creative and aesthetically pleasing landscape (anything I need is already at your house or you pay for it). You wanted something nice, but nothing that would belong next to some mansion. Now, my services are typically tailored towards rich estates, country clubs, corporate parks, etc... I charge $500/hr. Deciding you're not a rich person, you employ my services with no intention of paying. After all, how does one "steal" a service, you're not taking any physical object from me, are you?
So, in your backwards world, not paying me would be "okay". My service is geared towards a different use than what you needed, therefore you're entitled to a lower price, whether I agree to it or not.
Anyone can charge anything they want that they're selling. The only right you have if you're not going to settle on a price both parties can agree on is to NOT BUY what they're selling. You are not entitled to get what you want for less than asking price. The fact that you DO think you're entitled to get what you want for less than asking price exhibits some moral shortcoming on your part.
Should there be a version of Flash that lets high school kids create simple cartoons? Probably. However, the lack of such an option doesn't justify taking the next best thing against the wishes of the producer.
Ok, lets look at the point that Moore was trying to make with the clip of Reagan promising to bring economic prosperity to Flint and GM closing a plant.
His point: Reagan was full of shit.
Your point: Moore's presentation made it look like one event was followed by the other.
Your argument, while valid, doesn't really detract much from Moore's point. All of Roger & Me serves as evidence that Reagan was full of shit (in this instance).
OT: Anyone could make the same claim about just about any other politician that claims they'll bring jobs, prosperity, gold, unicorns and/or virgins to their potential constituents.
Small technicality, HL2 was only at its second E3 this year. If I remember correctly, the first official information about HL2 was released about a month before last year's E3.
I agree. I used to be a die hard Simpsons fan. I was so die hard that when I slowly stopped watching new episodes, I actually felt guilty. Like I was giving up on an old friend. But now, I just don't care, the show has lost almost all of the subtle humor that made it great (in my eyes).
Another great cheap game you can pick up for less than $20 for Gamecube (and PS2) is TimeSplitters 2. Decent single player, but an awesome multiplayer game (better than Goldeneye IMO).
I completely agree. Face it people, public online gaming sucks! When there isn't someone on your team killing you and your teammates or making it hard for your side to win, cooperation is still a rare thing. People make comments just to offend and get a rise out of people. Griefing ruins it for everyone but the assholes griefing. People cheat not just to get an edge but to ruin the experience for other people.
The last thing I want to come in contact with when I'm trying to blow off a little steam after work are people ruining a GAME just because they like pissing people off.
I applaud Blizzard, they are one of the few game studios that (despite all the personnel turn-over) seem to consistently deliver quality games. In addition to their quality games though, they are TRYING to improve the online experience which is currently the wasteland I described. They are actually improving their communities by getting rid of some jerks, or at least making it a tiny bit tougher to be a prick.
Currently the only other way around the common online problems is to join a clan or guild, so it's nice to see a game company be a lot more active in their community than simply encouraging clans.
So he [Ray Kassar] called me up from Monterey and said, "Howard, we need E.T." This was like July 23, and he said "We need E.T. by September 1. Can you do it?" - Howard Scott Warshaw.
Excerpt taken from The Ultimate History of Video Games
Great book btw. Anyway, given the time constraints, I think Warshaw gets a pass.
THIS looks exactly what you're looking for. Hope it helps.
I don't think the goal of military training is to desensitize troops to violence, if it was, why hasn't animal slaughter been a part of military training in the past? The military wants soldiers that can think/act/fight under pressure and make wise tactical decisions quickly. It is the training of tactics (as well as how to operate machinery) that the military uses simulators for. While you could argue video games made the Columbine kids better tacticians, playing elaborate games of capture the flag could've produced the same results.
I'm curious, who do you work for and/or what are some games you've worked on?
HERE is an article describing exactly what you are trying to say (I think). It was either posted here or on Fark a few weeks ago.
I've actually found the Metroid stories to be lacking in the past. Prime was a departure in that respect I think, it had a very detailed storyline. The story was also told really well in Prime, not through cut scenes, but through exploration.
The one thing I was very happy the Retro studios kept in tact was that you couldn't get hurt by falling. I always hated that one aspect of games where you have this awesome armor, but you fall two stories and lose some health (what the hell?).
Hmm, have to go back and try again to beat that last Pirate boss on hard...
I should clarify...ONLINE multiplayer.
See, this is why GC needs multiplayer.
I am also AWESOME at MK64, and would like to challenge you to a duel!
Pretty much anything blizzard puts out works on macs and pcs. Diablo II, Warcraft, etc...
I agree on both counts. Lobbyists have a right to exist, but I don't think they have a right to give money directly to any elected officials, whether it comes from grandma or Ken Lay or Chinese nationals. As for your second point, after briefly looking at your web page I'd say we're polar opposites as far as both social and fiscal politics go. But hey, its not often political opposites discuss politics on the internet without calling each other liberal pinko commies and fascist neo-con nazis. So, huzah to us or something...
Technically, I think your definition is correct. I was speaking of business entities (which may or may not be publicly held) and IF they are publicly held their stockholders are mainly interested in the financial well being of that company, not necessarily in the "advancement" of society.
I would say that's a pretty significant difference, wouldn't you?
I don't think that's what I was saying. The original point of my post was that there isn't anything inherently wrong with lobby groups. I blame my inability to articulate well if that point didn't come across. I tend to run on as well...
While I wouldn't shed a tear if corporations were banned from lobbying, this is certainly, as you pointed out, unfair.
I suppose it's the buying power of corporate lobbies that I hold against them. No one/group should be able to buy government officials IMO. I suppose that's the real problem with finance reform, how do you keep money from crossing the boundary of supporting a lobby group that shares ideals certain candidates also hold to be true vs flat out paying money for a certain candidate's campaign? If I want to put an ad on TV that's anti-Bush, does that mean my money is going to the Dem candidate? Seems fuzzy.
Your post reminded me of this onion article.