I am saying that the idiocy of our reactions IS a simple monotonic function, not a boolean one with the possible results of idiotic (jump out of the window) and not idiotic ("Indonesia? Never knew anyone from Indonesia?" Half kidding).
The emotional reaction to the news is normal. You are shown professionally made footage of a serious disaster, it's normal too think "poor people", "I am so happy to be alive with my family here", "I once met a guy from China, I wonder how's he" (many people don't know geography well), etc. The images are supposed to evoke an emotional reaction. But, as you correctly point out, the real question is what do you do after that.
And my view is that if you choose to a) watch more news about essentially the same story, which is totally irrelevant to you b) talk to people about how horrible it is c) act as if you care (even if you really believe it) d) act as if this is important then you are being more and more idiotic. Of course, it's still not idiotic enough to meet the clinical definition of idiocy, but more than enough to be called an idiot in the common sense by me.
Let's be realistic, shall we? All other things equal, a life of a less educated person is worth less than of a more educated one. I am aware that many people were programmed to think otherwise, and there is not much I can do about it (to explain why they are wrong requires personal contact and a few hours of my time), but I hope you are not one of them.
Now if we agree on that one, let's consider who died in this disaster. I must admit that I didn't follow the news very closely, but from what I know about the countries hit most, there are a lot of poor people who live in poor houses, and many of those live near the coasts. Now, my house may be shitty by modern west european standards (all our west european friends were probably too polite to say that), but at least it was built moderately well and won't fall down and bury its inhabitants under the rubble.
I am not saying that those people were somehow less worthy for living in a shitty house, I am just saying that statistically those living there were likely to have shitty education as well. And while I am certainly not saying that there can be no decent people without a quality modern education, I believe that had this disaster occured near Japan or New Zealand, the quality of "human resources" lost would be much higher.
It's hard to quantify, especially when people imply that compassion means "everybody is as valuable as everybody else". But when people with arrow range of interest, with little knowledge of the world behind their village, with oiir understanding of history, humanity place in the universe and stuff like that die, I feel the loss is smaller than it would be if a similar number people in Holland died because their dams didn't stop a tsunami.
I knew perfectly well that that paragraph was provocative, but I see no reason to deny my feelings about that (or lack thereof), even though it wasn't vital to my main arguments (too few people died to care).
Exactly. Consider the other story about the earthquake. 10000 people died, but anyone who dares to point out that 300000 died routinely every day from other causes is modded flaimbait. This particular asteroid is actually a rather minor threat, simply because it's small and slow, but you are completely right about the general problem.
Do you cry every time 10000 people die? Do you at least make a sad face and observe a minute of silence each time 10000 people die? May you you should start now? After all, you would need to sob only for half an hour each day, because, no matter how big of a surprise it is for you, 300000 people die each day.
May be you would explain how you react to all those deaths, or the "live inside" one? Please take a moment of your busy schedule mourning the untold deaths and explain us how you care about an even greater tragedy happening each day? And if (as I suspect) you don't give a crap about those other deaths, then please explain the reason for such a difference in attitudes.
Well, do I have any reason to expect otherwise? There are more than 6 billion people living on Earth. With that many people, most of whom are not immortal yet, death is to be expected. Several hundreds of thousands of people die every day. Now there are 10000 more. Could you explain, why exactly this is a big deal? Why exactly should we care?
P.S. Of course, it's a big deal to those who losed their loved ones, but let me tell you, I didn't and I bet you didn't too. In fact, assuming about 100 close friends per victim (I am being extremely generous), only about 0.015% of all people on Earth have such personal reason to care.
You are talking to me? The loss of life wasn't terrible, because the number of people killed was quite small, frankly. Just as many people died each hour from a variety of other causes. I don't see breaking news reports about those deaths. But every once in a while (once per 40 years, to be exact) there is a large earthquake and suddenly everyone cares. Bullshit, I say. I can see a reason to be curious about the earthquake, because the earthquake IS news. But there is no reason to care about 10000 dead, because this is not news at all. Especially since most of the people killed are probably uneducated simple-minded folks, who lived in shitty houses.
And of course one should not care about terrorism, just as one should not care about sharks, about killer bees and other extremely unlikely threats. Murders are on the list, though, because quite a lot of people are murdered each year (16,500 in the USA, for example), but they are not very high.
1) I am not a US citizen. 2) I don't care about a few hundreds people dying each year from terrorism in my country. 3) I do care about statistically significant threats, such as car accidents and heart desease. 4) I did not object to people who cared because they had a reason to care, such as living in Sri Lanka. I object to people, who live on the other side of the world, have no friends/relatives who are affected, are not affected in any other way, but still act as if they care, because they were conditioned to react that way and because "it's on TV", while not giving a flying shit about real problems, such as (for starters) world hunger.
So how many does it need to be to stop being a big deal? Would you care to quantify that for us?
Would you? How many does it need to become a big deal? Any specific number is clearly arbitrary, but overall I'd say that ordinary people should not care until it's at least ten times that. Of course, relatives, friends, emergency services, humanitarian agencies, media outlets, geologists and the like have their reasons to be concerned, but the majority of people clearly have no reason at all to worry. I am not calling those who died or those who lost a friend idiots, I am calling idiots the 99.99% of people, who will not be affected in any way, but pretend that they give a shit.
I am just asking for some rationality. Yes, if it's your city, you need to be worried. Yes, if your sister was on vacation in that region, you need to be worried. But most of us shouldn't. And if someone wants to worry about global issues, about people suffering in remote regions of the world, then he is an idiot, because a child still dies from hunger every five seconds, which means about 17 thousand children in the world die from hunger every day. This is more than died in that stupid earthquake, this only includes children and this happens every fucking day of the year, not just once in 40 decades. So I am saying that if someone obviously cares about this stupid earthquake, but does not care about much greater number of people dying otherwise, that person is an idiot.
Google's GMail took a lot of features from good and innovative e-mail clients like Opera's M2. Yes, doing it in JavaScript was cool, but I don't think Google strives for "Master of Cool JavaScript Hacks" position.:)
OK, so 10000 people died. Big fucking deal. That's just 4% more than die on average day from other causes. Who the fuck cares? Answer - idiots who pretend to be caring and tender people, but are just idiots who (a) don't know math and (b) consider whatever was reported on teevee to be important, relevant and valuable news. You are all idiots, people, face it.
BTW, the ten leading causes of death in mid-90s were:
Tsunamis and giant earthquakes? You must be kidding!
If you are intelligent and truly caring you should be pushing for more medical research, particularly anti-aging research. Most people die because they get older, not because there is giant earthquake where they live.
And if you just pretend to care (and fool yourself in the process), watch teevee and discuss with others how horrible the loss of life was, I have just one thing to say - you are an idiot!
You should also add that PCs are really cheap. Next generation consoles are going to cost a lot, probably about 500$ (though cheaper "lite" versions has been promised too) because they need to include a lot of expensive hardware, first of all videocards. Why put all that in a separate device, then pay for most of the parts again when you need a PVR/TV tuner when you can have it all in your computer? Consider that you need a DVD player for the console and for the media player. Why pay for both, when you can have it in one device? Yes, you can start integrating an XBox with a PVR, but then you think "why not add wordprocessing and IM" and before you know you are talking about a PC.:)
Well, imagine that we no longer need to imprison people for several years for common crimes, but instead offer them to be monitored to prevent future crimes and have them do community service. Yeah, not gonna happen with the private prison industry in the USA, but isn't that a good idea in principle? Imagine that a rapist and murdurer can remain a productive member of the society, develop and grow as a person under a watchful eye of the law enforcement instead of raping inmates and becoming a goon for organised crime. Meanwhile, the people would be safe, because (1) he would know everything he does is recorded and (2) you can add a remotely activated electrical shocker or something.
This is what Wikinfo.org is about, a "fork" of Wikipedia. It encourages biased articles that are supposed to balance each other. But it's not good enough for Wikipedia - a non-biased article is more difficult to create, but once it's done, it's much better.
I wonder if the report includes the number of links removed from Google under DMCA and the number of people searching for items that would have brought these links...
I saw the same or similar graph and it wasn't crap. Actually it wasn't designed to dissuade people there is anything scare about space rocks, on the contrary, it presented the real risks quite well. It's just that the data itself can't change public opinion. For that you either need the threat to become very real (e.g. a 10% hit by a 1 km asteroid or comet in 10 years) or for a lot of money to be spent on education. But most of the people who are in the position to understand and explain the danger get their funding from the very society which requires this education.
Asking people to stop buying DRMed media is just not realistic. Unless "we" spend millions of dollars on education campaigns explaining to "ordinary" people that DRM is bad, the majority would still buy the copy-restricted content. So let's just drop that idea altogether.
But we can (and I believe will) win. There are two ways - one is to cleverly win legal battles. It's hard, but at least it is possible. Support the EFF, help them support the file-sharers, the P2P companies, etc. This is not all that expensive and you can help. The second way is to ensure that there is always an alternative distribution mechanism - the piracy scene and the P2P. Use P2P for all your media needs, share files, upload, support the development of clients, support link sites (even though they tend to be raided by police after buying shiny new servers), support piracy groups (you can donate good hardware, cash or high-bandwidth sites). An average person can easily "consume" 500-1000$ worth of music and movies each year. Consider giving at least 10% of that to support the "alternative distribution". You can always get this money back by getting something for free from P2P. Don't be stingy, donate and help. Our future free access to art and other media depends on it.
This won't help. The only way the industry would react to such glitches is be more cautious, make DRM more reliable and include clearer information on the packages. It would still be DRM and it would still be evil. No, the only way we can chane anything is by putting on black facemasks, visiting the houses RIAA/MPAA execs, slicing their throats,raping their children, drinking their bear and burning their houses to the ground. An alternative is a truckload of fertilizer (a cistern of nitroglycerin or a can with FAX would be even more effective) delivered straight to Congress.
Seriously, check out if there is a music/movie industry exec living nearby, and pay them a visit. Discuss a copyright reform, while you cut their scalp and feed it to their dog.
Doesn't work that way, like another poster said. The problem with DRM is not that you can't view the movie - this is just a temporary technical problem that the studio would be eager to correct. After all, it would be insane to purposefully make it impossible to use the product you sell. Don't beleive even for a second that we must prevent DRM to be able to watch DVDs. Don't ever offer this T2 story as an example. Please, I am serious, forget about the problem this guy had, it's not important.
The real problem is when the DRM works, not when it fails. When DRM works, you would be able to effortlessly play the DVD in hi-definition on your 4-metre home theatre, with zero glitches, even if you are completely computer-illiterate. What's the problem, you say? That the limitations on everthing else would be rock-solid. You won't be able to shift it between formats or devices, unless this option was included by the publisher. You won't be able to play it more times than paid for, or more often, or after a certain date. Don't even think about making screenshots or copying clips - that would be technically impossible because of "trusted" computing.
Seriously, this is worse than you realise. Our only hope lies in technology, namely in secure anonymous ubiquitous wireless broadband global filesharing networks. And in the leet and mighty pirate groups, who tirelessly work on their 0-day releases. Alternatively we need to organise and play their game of lobbying, lawsuits, astroturfing, etc., which we don't like and aren't as motivated because we have no monetary interest. But in the long term we will win, even though the next few years might be somewhat rough. And we shouldn't complain, really, as in many places on this planet for 20 dollars (plus the price of the computer) we can get unlimited access to a huge library of artistic works. Even though some are trying to take it from us, we are still winning. So, in the end, we should not despair.
Gaming needs new ideas, all right. But these new ideas can be incorporated into sequels, unless by "new" you mean "revolutionary" ideas, which are rare in every field. There is nothing really wrong with game sequels. It's just a way for game companies to cash on the idiocy of the average gamer. This isn't some sad characteristic of the game indsutry, lack of creativity or aversion to risk-taking. It's just the fact that if you take a relatively unknown "Corsars 2" from a Russian studio and slap "Pirates of the Carribean" on it, you'll make shitloads of money without changing any content. This is a bad thing, I agree, but a relatively unimportant bad thing. Movies have stars (so you can market your new movie as "a film with Julia Roberts"), games don't, so games are forced to reuse old characters.
Of course, there still are "iterative" sequels like GTA 3, GTA: VC and GTA: SA, which have basically the same engine and gameplay. But it's a good thing, because it allows developers to create value by reusing assets they developed without reinventing the wheel every year.
It's like Shrek and Shrek 2. Both movies are great, and the second probably reused some content (and most of the style) from the first, although it's not as efficient as in games. Most games resemble Shrek/Shrek 2 more than Lion King/Lion King 1.5.
New ideas are always injected into new games. It's just that you can't reinvent the genre with each next title - you got to keep the good stuff.
Because they are a retail company - they don't produce $250 bn worth of products or services, it's just their turnover. They gross profit is what matters and it's bound to be much smaller, may be $10-25 bn. Still impressive, but not as huge as one may initially believe.
Every decent movie has a lame game tucked on it and vice versa.
BTW, the latest game based on a movie license, The Chronicles of Riddick: The Escape from Butcher Bay is actually one of the best action titles of the year with many reviewers saying it was even better than the 2004 big three (Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2). Movie spin-offs don't have to suck.
May be because dying is a big deal. It really changes you and your priorities. Imagine you were a closet gay and you didn't tell your parents for 20 years. Then you have cancer, you have a few months left to live and you want your boyfriend visit you in the hospital. Wouldn't you think that it changes everything and possibly makes it the right thing to come out and tell your parents? Don't you think they would react differently in such situation? That's just one example - when a person is dead, his relationships with other people change.:) What was private may now be used for them to better understand who he was. Of course, this is up to you, but there are good reasons for revealing private e-mails to relatives and loved ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I am saying that the idiocy of our reactions IS a simple monotonic function, not a boolean one with the possible results of idiotic (jump out of the window) and not idiotic ("Indonesia? Never knew anyone from Indonesia?" Half kidding).
The emotional reaction to the news is normal. You are shown professionally made footage of a serious disaster, it's normal too think "poor people", "I am so happy to be alive with my family here", "I once met a guy from China, I wonder how's he" (many people don't know geography well), etc. The images are supposed to evoke an emotional reaction. But, as you correctly point out, the real question is what do you do after that.
And my view is that if you choose to
a) watch more news about essentially the same story, which is totally irrelevant to you
b) talk to people about how horrible it is
c) act as if you care (even if you really believe it)
d) act as if this is important
then you are being more and more idiotic. Of course, it's still not idiotic enough to meet the clinical definition of idiocy, but more than enough to be called an idiot in the common sense by me.
Let's be realistic, shall we? All other things equal, a life of a less educated person is worth less than of a more educated one. I am aware that many people were programmed to think otherwise, and there is not much I can do about it (to explain why they are wrong requires personal contact and a few hours of my time), but I hope you are not one of them.
Now if we agree on that one, let's consider who died in this disaster. I must admit that I didn't follow the news very closely, but from what I know about the countries hit most, there are a lot of poor people who live in poor houses, and many of those live near the coasts. Now, my house may be shitty by modern west european standards (all our west european friends were probably too polite to say that), but at least it was built moderately well and won't fall down and bury its inhabitants under the rubble.
I am not saying that those people were somehow less worthy for living in a shitty house, I am just saying that statistically those living there were likely to have shitty education as well. And while I am certainly not saying that there can be no decent people without a quality modern education, I believe that had this disaster occured near Japan or New Zealand, the quality of "human resources" lost would be much higher.
It's hard to quantify, especially when people imply that compassion means "everybody is as valuable as everybody else". But when people with arrow range of interest, with little knowledge of the world behind their village, with oiir understanding of history, humanity place in the universe and stuff like that die, I feel the loss is smaller than it would be if a similar number people in Holland died because their dams didn't stop a tsunami.
I knew perfectly well that that paragraph was provocative, but I see no reason to deny my feelings about that (or lack thereof), even though it wasn't vital to my main arguments (too few people died to care).
Exactly. Consider the other story about the earthquake. 10000 people died, but anyone who dares to point out that 300000 died routinely every day from other causes is modded flaimbait. This particular asteroid is actually a rather minor threat, simply because it's small and slow, but you are completely right about the general problem.
Do you cry every time 10000 people die? Do you at least make a sad face and observe a minute of silence each time 10000 people die? May you you should start now? After all, you would need to sob only for half an hour each day, because, no matter how big of a surprise it is for you, 300000 people die each day.
May be you would explain how you react to all those deaths, or the "live inside" one? Please take a moment of your busy schedule mourning the untold deaths and explain us how you care about an even greater tragedy happening each day? And if (as I suspect) you don't give a crap about those other deaths, then please explain the reason for such a difference in attitudes.
Well, do I have any reason to expect otherwise? There are more than 6 billion people living on Earth. With that many people, most of whom are not immortal yet, death is to be expected. Several hundreds of thousands of people die every day. Now there are 10000 more. Could you explain, why exactly this is a big deal? Why exactly should we care?
P.S. Of course, it's a big deal to those who losed their loved ones, but let me tell you, I didn't and I bet you didn't too. In fact, assuming about 100 close friends per victim (I am being extremely generous), only about 0.015% of all people on Earth have such personal reason to care.
You are talking to me? The loss of life wasn't terrible, because the number of people killed was quite small, frankly. Just as many people died each hour from a variety of other causes. I don't see breaking news reports about those deaths. But every once in a while (once per 40 years, to be exact) there is a large earthquake and suddenly everyone cares. Bullshit, I say. I can see a reason to be curious about the earthquake, because the earthquake IS news. But there is no reason to care about 10000 dead, because this is not news at all. Especially since most of the people killed are probably uneducated simple-minded folks, who lived in shitty houses.
And of course one should not care about terrorism, just as one should not care about sharks, about killer bees and other extremely unlikely threats. Murders are on the list, though, because quite a lot of people are murdered each year (16,500 in the USA, for example), but they are not very high.
1) I am not a US citizen.
2) I don't care about a few hundreds people dying each year from terrorism in my country.
3) I do care about statistically significant threats, such as car accidents and heart desease.
4) I did not object to people who cared because they had a reason to care, such as living in Sri Lanka. I object to people, who live on the other side of the world, have no friends/relatives who are affected, are not affected in any other way, but still act as if they care, because they were conditioned to react that way and because "it's on TV", while not giving a flying shit about real problems, such as (for starters) world hunger.
So how many does it need to be to stop being a big deal? Would you care to quantify that for us?
Would you? How many does it need to become a big deal? Any specific number is clearly arbitrary, but overall I'd say that ordinary people should not care until it's at least ten times that. Of course, relatives, friends, emergency services, humanitarian agencies, media outlets, geologists and the like have their reasons to be concerned, but the majority of people clearly have no reason at all to worry. I am not calling those who died or those who lost a friend idiots, I am calling idiots the 99.99% of people, who will not be affected in any way, but pretend that they give a shit.
I am just asking for some rationality. Yes, if it's your city, you need to be worried. Yes, if your sister was on vacation in that region, you need to be worried. But most of us shouldn't. And if someone wants to worry about global issues, about people suffering in remote regions of the world, then he is an idiot, because a child still dies from hunger every five seconds, which means about 17 thousand children in the world die from hunger every day. This is more than died in that stupid earthquake, this only includes children and this happens every fucking day of the year, not just once in 40 decades. So I am saying that if someone obviously cares about this stupid earthquake, but does not care about much greater number of people dying otherwise, that person is an idiot.
Google's GMail took a lot of features from good and innovative e-mail clients like Opera's M2. Yes, doing it in JavaScript was cool, but I don't think Google strives for "Master of Cool JavaScript Hacks" position. :)
OK, so 10000 people died. Big fucking deal. That's just 4% more than die on average day from other causes. Who the fuck cares? Answer - idiots who pretend to be caring and tender people, but are just idiots who (a) don't know math and (b) consider whatever was reported on teevee to be important, relevant and valuable news. You are all idiots, people, face it.
BTW, the ten leading causes of death in mid-90s were:
Tsunamis and giant earthquakes? You must be kidding! If you are intelligent and truly caring you should be pushing for more medical research, particularly anti-aging research. Most people die because they get older, not because there is giant earthquake where they live. And if you just pretend to care (and fool yourself in the process), watch teevee and discuss with others how horrible the loss of life was, I have just one thing to say - you are an idiot!You should also add that PCs are really cheap. Next generation consoles are going to cost a lot, probably about 500$ (though cheaper "lite" versions has been promised too) because they need to include a lot of expensive hardware, first of all videocards. Why put all that in a separate device, then pay for most of the parts again when you need a PVR/TV tuner when you can have it all in your computer? Consider that you need a DVD player for the console and for the media player. Why pay for both, when you can have it in one device? Yes, you can start integrating an XBox with a PVR, but then you think "why not add wordprocessing and IM" and before you know you are talking about a PC. :)
Well, imagine that we no longer need to imprison people for several years for common crimes, but instead offer them to be monitored to prevent future crimes and have them do community service. Yeah, not gonna happen with the private prison industry in the USA, but isn't that a good idea in principle? Imagine that a rapist and murdurer can remain a productive member of the society, develop and grow as a person under a watchful eye of the law enforcement instead of raping inmates and becoming a goon for organised crime. Meanwhile, the people would be safe, because (1) he would know everything he does is recorded and (2) you can add a remotely activated electrical shocker or something.
Damn Gillette. With the prices for their "shaving systems" complete epilation of facial hair for ~500-1000$ starts to look like a bargain.
This is what Wikinfo.org is about, a "fork" of Wikipedia. It encourages biased articles that are supposed to balance each other. But it's not good enough for Wikipedia - a non-biased article is more difficult to create, but once it's done, it's much better.
I wonder if the report includes the number of links removed from Google under DMCA and the number of people searching for items that would have brought these links...
I saw the same or similar graph and it wasn't crap. Actually it wasn't designed to dissuade people there is anything scare about space rocks, on the contrary, it presented the real risks quite well. It's just that the data itself can't change public opinion. For that you either need the threat to become very real (e.g. a 10% hit by a 1 km asteroid or comet in 10 years) or for a lot of money to be spent on education. But most of the people who are in the position to understand and explain the danger get their funding from the very society which requires this education.
Looks like Matrix: Reloaded, the highway chase, to me. :)
Asking people to stop buying DRMed media is just not realistic. Unless "we" spend millions of dollars on education campaigns explaining to "ordinary" people that DRM is bad, the majority would still buy the copy-restricted content. So let's just drop that idea altogether.
But we can (and I believe will) win. There are two ways - one is to cleverly win legal battles. It's hard, but at least it is possible. Support the EFF, help them support the file-sharers, the P2P companies, etc. This is not all that expensive and you can help. The second way is to ensure that there is always an alternative distribution mechanism - the piracy scene and the P2P. Use P2P for all your media needs, share files, upload, support the development of clients, support link sites (even though they tend to be raided by police after buying shiny new servers), support piracy groups (you can donate good hardware, cash or high-bandwidth sites). An average person can easily "consume" 500-1000$ worth of music and movies each year. Consider giving at least 10% of that to support the "alternative distribution". You can always get this money back by getting something for free from P2P. Don't be stingy, donate and help. Our future free access to art and other media depends on it.
This won't help. The only way the industry would react to such glitches is be more cautious, make DRM more reliable and include clearer information on the packages. It would still be DRM and it would still be evil. No, the only way we can chane anything is by putting on black facemasks, visiting the houses RIAA/MPAA execs, slicing their throats,raping their children, drinking their bear and burning their houses to the ground. An alternative is a truckload of fertilizer (a cistern of nitroglycerin or a can with FAX would be even more effective) delivered straight to Congress.
Seriously, check out if there is a music/movie industry exec living nearby, and pay them a visit. Discuss a copyright reform, while you cut their scalp and feed it to their dog.
Doesn't work that way, like another poster said. The problem with DRM is not that you can't view the movie - this is just a temporary technical problem that the studio would be eager to correct. After all, it would be insane to purposefully make it impossible to use the product you sell. Don't beleive even for a second that we must prevent DRM to be able to watch DVDs. Don't ever offer this T2 story as an example. Please, I am serious, forget about the problem this guy had, it's not important.
The real problem is when the DRM works, not when it fails. When DRM works, you would be able to effortlessly play the DVD in hi-definition on your 4-metre home theatre, with zero glitches, even if you are completely computer-illiterate. What's the problem, you say? That the limitations on everthing else would be rock-solid. You won't be able to shift it between formats or devices, unless this option was included by the publisher. You won't be able to play it more times than paid for, or more often, or after a certain date. Don't even think about making screenshots or copying clips - that would be technically impossible because of "trusted" computing.
Seriously, this is worse than you realise. Our only hope lies in technology, namely in secure anonymous ubiquitous wireless broadband global filesharing networks. And in the leet and mighty pirate groups, who tirelessly work on their 0-day releases. Alternatively we need to organise and play their game of lobbying, lawsuits, astroturfing, etc., which we don't like and aren't as motivated because we have no monetary interest. But in the long term we will win, even though the next few years might be somewhat rough. And we shouldn't complain, really, as in many places on this planet for 20 dollars (plus the price of the computer) we can get unlimited access to a huge library of artistic works. Even though some are trying to take it from us, we are still winning. So, in the end, we should not despair.
Gaming needs new ideas, all right. But these new ideas can be incorporated into sequels, unless by "new" you mean "revolutionary" ideas, which are rare in every field. There is nothing really wrong with game sequels. It's just a way for game companies to cash on the idiocy of the average gamer. This isn't some sad characteristic of the game indsutry, lack of creativity or aversion to risk-taking. It's just the fact that if you take a relatively unknown "Corsars 2" from a Russian studio and slap "Pirates of the Carribean" on it, you'll make shitloads of money without changing any content. This is a bad thing, I agree, but a relatively unimportant bad thing. Movies have stars (so you can market your new movie as "a film with Julia Roberts"), games don't, so games are forced to reuse old characters.
Of course, there still are "iterative" sequels like GTA 3, GTA: VC and GTA: SA, which have basically the same engine and gameplay. But it's a good thing, because it allows developers to create value by reusing assets they developed without reinventing the wheel every year.
It's like Shrek and Shrek 2. Both movies are great, and the second probably reused some content (and most of the style) from the first, although it's not as efficient as in games. Most games resemble Shrek/Shrek 2 more than Lion King/Lion King 1.5.
New ideas are always injected into new games. It's just that you can't reinvent the genre with each next title - you got to keep the good stuff.
Because they are a retail company - they don't produce $250 bn worth of products or services, it's just their turnover. They gross profit is what matters and it's bound to be much smaller, may be $10-25 bn. Still impressive, but not as huge as one may initially believe.
Every decent movie has a lame game tucked on it and vice versa.
BTW, the latest game based on a movie license, The Chronicles of Riddick: The Escape from Butcher Bay is actually one of the best action titles of the year with many reviewers saying it was even better than the 2004 big three (Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2). Movie spin-offs don't have to suck.
They should sue Yahoo! and ask the judge to order Yahoo! to protect the account data from deletion. They need to act quickly.
May be because dying is a big deal. It really changes you and your priorities. Imagine you were a closet gay and you didn't tell your parents for 20 years. Then you have cancer, you have a few months left to live and you want your boyfriend visit you in the hospital. Wouldn't you think that it changes everything and possibly makes it the right thing to come out and tell your parents? Don't you think they would react differently in such situation? That's just one example - when a person is dead, his relationships with other people change. :) What was private may now be used for them to better understand who he was. Of course, this is up to you, but there are good reasons for revealing private e-mails to relatives and loved ones.