We probably agree, for the most part, so don't take any of this as argumentativeness. My real point is that executive stooges tend to be precisely that, no matter what, even when they are otherwise capable people. Take Colin Powell in the Iraq war lead-up, for example.
Regarding the President being "called to account" every four years or so: very true, but I'm not sure that many voters consider potential executive appointees (aside from, perhaps, Supreme Court justices) when they go to the presidential polls. As long as they don't screw up too badly, all but a few are almost completely ignored by the public while they're in office.
In the case of this position, my real concern is stated quite succinctly in a paragraph from TFA:
Unlike inspectors general at federal agencies, these privacy officers lack the subpoena power necessary to conduct investigations and don't report to Congress.
I guess I am being an armchair quarterback here, but I can think about suggestions for alternatives and get back to you, if you'd like.:)
All right, the only reason I clicked this one is because I thought there was something particularly hindering game development in the geographical Indies.
Remember, Guild Wars doesn't have a monthly fee. I'm not saying it isn't a "hack/slash, hunt/gather, boring, repetitive, do this same crap over and over just so I can level up," but I found it diverting for a few months. The level cap makes strategy pretty interesting, multiplayer-wise, too.
Of course, I haven't played in several months, so it could all be different now...
I agree on all counts. However, "shareholder value" is the issue at hand, and your comments about the customers of each--while accurate stereotypes IMHO--ignore that issue. If you compare the stocks of Whole Foods to Walmart's over the past year, two, or three, Whole Foods has trounced them, market value-wise.
Actually, there is increasing evidence that socially responsible companies, like Whole Foods and Starbucks, actually do increase "shareholder value" equally or, particularly in the cases of the two I've just mentioned, much better than the market average.
What an apologistic cop-out. My point is that it wasn't even attempted. Also, the president won't even give us anything other than his word that this program has been protecting us from terrorists.
The big deal is that it is perfectly reasonable to devise a system of "terrorist surveilance" including judicial oversight.
The big deal is that if the president can authorize torture, detainment of american citizens nullum habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and torture by american troops, precisely where do his powers end?
The big deal is that the "just trust us" theory behind the current administration's national security policy is unethical, undemocratic, and unamerican.
I completely agree. Arrested Development has been the best show on television for the past few years, and I find that after watching it, even some of my favorites (South Park, Seinfeld, Futurama) just don't seem as great.
In my experience, someone who is exposed to the show almost always likes it--it's a problem of marketing and timing, not in and of the show itself.
Tragic, really. Television already categorically sucks, and one of the few gems is being pushed out.
I say Paramount parked outside his house and uploaded the movie. Talk about "perponderance of evidence"... They get publicity for a crappy, unknown movie, and another lawsuit on their side to boot--sounds like the #1 corporate strategy:
...Gravity's Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon? I don't know if I would call the book necessarily "geeky," but it definitely is the sort that appeals to geek-types. Same with his The Crying of Lot 49.
...kids being "more tech-savvy" than parents is indeed an "issue" for parental controls, but the solution is parents need to be just plain interested in their children and what they're spending their time doing. Simply put, a well-chosen password of reasonable length and character combination just won't be guessed. However, I know what MY response to this type of parental control would have been: resentment and embarrassment (when friends come over and you have to call "HEY MOM! CAN YOU COME ENTER THE PASSWORD PLEASE???"). It's plastic, sterile control, the kind you use for burglars and animals, not the sort that ought to be part of a parent's relationship with their child.
First, the rating system should be slightly more complex. Violence, sexual content, language, and horror-type content affect different people in different ways. They should be separately rated (by numbers, 1-10?) on games, and not lumped together in four or five categories of movie-type ratings.
Second, retailers need to be forced to abide by the ratings. Don't sell games with such-and-such ratings to minors. It should be law, and it should be well-enforced.
Third, and in my opinion most important, parents should play the games with their kids. Everybody wins. Parents see that the game has value beyond what Pat Robertson decries, spend time with their children, and are able to identify specific concerns they may have and address them with their child directly and specifically. "I don't want you playing violent games" is empty, authoritarian, and, frankly, unreasonable in many cases.
I argue that a responsible judge WOULD set a precedent for punishing spammers. Unlike most other advertising media, such as junk snail-mail, spam takes advantage of resources (e.g. bandwidth) that you PAY for, without your consent. It's criminal as well as annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
But only so I don't email/IM/etc. drunk... gmail's "goggles" are complete garbage. ;)
I browsed the comments and didn't notice anyone mentioning:
-The X-Men arcade game
-TMNT2 for the NES
Sounds a bit too much like Newspeak, for my tastes... ;)
Regarding the President being "called to account" every four years or so: very true, but I'm not sure that many voters consider potential executive appointees (aside from, perhaps, Supreme Court justices) when they go to the presidential polls. As long as they don't screw up too badly, all but a few are almost completely ignored by the public while they're in office.
In the case of this position, my real concern is stated quite succinctly in a paragraph from TFA:I guess I am being an armchair quarterback here, but I can think about suggestions for alternatives and get back to you, if you'd like.
An executive-appointed position--regardless of which party is in power--is precisely where we cannot depend on our civil liberties being protected.
Pharyngula, PZ Myers's blog, is good reading.
More like the behavior of an idiot than an addict, I think.
There is no longer a $500 value question ;)
Massively negative commentary from good ol' PZ.
All right, the only reason I clicked this one is because I thought there was something particularly hindering game development in the geographical Indies.
Guess I need another cup of coffee.
"Simulated deeds," eh? I haven't heard that euphamism for wanking before.
Remember, Guild Wars doesn't have a monthly fee. I'm not saying it isn't a "hack/slash, hunt/gather, boring, repetitive, do this same crap over and over just so I can level up," but I found it diverting for a few months. The level cap makes strategy pretty interesting, multiplayer-wise, too.
Of course, I haven't played in several months, so it could all be different now...
I don't dispute your post at all, perhaps it was a bad example on my part :).
I suppose my thinking was targeted on their treatment of employees and environmental policies, which seem to me, at least, to be much better than par.
I wholeheartedly admit to not having done my homework here, though (I don't drink coffee anyway), and apologize!
I agree on all counts. However, "shareholder value" is the issue at hand, and your comments about the customers of each--while accurate stereotypes IMHO--ignore that issue. If you compare the stocks of Whole Foods to Walmart's over the past year, two, or three, Whole Foods has trounced them, market value-wise.
Actually, there is increasing evidence that socially responsible companies, like Whole Foods and Starbucks, actually do increase "shareholder value" equally or, particularly in the cases of the two I've just mentioned, much better than the market average.
What an apologistic cop-out. My point is that it wasn't even attempted. Also, the president won't even give us anything other than his word that this program has been protecting us from terrorists.
The big deal is that it is perfectly reasonable to devise a system of "terrorist surveilance" including judicial oversight.
The big deal is that if the president can authorize torture, detainment of american citizens nullum habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and torture by american troops, precisely where do his powers end?
The big deal is that the "just trust us" theory behind the current administration's national security policy is unethical, undemocratic, and unamerican.
Maybe I can see the ending of Zelda II...
When can we blame Bush's war in Iraq on Call of Duty or SOCOM?
I completely agree. Arrested Development has been the best show on television for the past few years, and I find that after watching it, even some of my favorites (South Park, Seinfeld, Futurama) just don't seem as great. In my experience, someone who is exposed to the show almost always likes it--it's a problem of marketing and timing, not in and of the show itself. Tragic, really. Television already categorically sucks, and one of the few gems is being pushed out.
I say Paramount parked outside his house and uploaded the movie. Talk about "perponderance of evidence" ... They get publicity for a crappy, unknown movie, and another lawsuit on their side to boot--sounds like the #1 corporate strategy:
...am I joking? Hmmmmm
1. Do illegal and/or unethical things
2. Profit
...Gravity's Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon? I don't know if I would call the book necessarily "geeky," but it definitely is the sort that appeals to geek-types. Same with his The Crying of Lot 49.
...kids being "more tech-savvy" than parents is indeed an "issue" for parental controls, but the solution is parents need to be just plain interested in their children and what they're spending their time doing. Simply put, a well-chosen password of reasonable length and character combination just won't be guessed. However, I know what MY response to this type of parental control would have been: resentment and embarrassment (when friends come over and you have to call "HEY MOM! CAN YOU COME ENTER THE PASSWORD PLEASE???"). It's plastic, sterile control, the kind you use for burglars and animals, not the sort that ought to be part of a parent's relationship with their child. First, the rating system should be slightly more complex. Violence, sexual content, language, and horror-type content affect different people in different ways. They should be separately rated (by numbers, 1-10?) on games, and not lumped together in four or five categories of movie-type ratings. Second, retailers need to be forced to abide by the ratings. Don't sell games with such-and-such ratings to minors. It should be law, and it should be well-enforced. Third, and in my opinion most important, parents should play the games with their kids. Everybody wins. Parents see that the game has value beyond what Pat Robertson decries, spend time with their children, and are able to identify specific concerns they may have and address them with their child directly and specifically. "I don't want you playing violent games" is empty, authoritarian, and, frankly, unreasonable in many cases.
I argue that a responsible judge WOULD set a precedent for punishing spammers. Unlike most other advertising media, such as junk snail-mail, spam takes advantage of resources (e.g. bandwidth) that you PAY for, without your consent. It's criminal as well as annoying.