While I admit, in theory, it sounded like a great idea, helping to keep a lot of unwanted images out of my google searches, there were just too many holes in the idea and too many ways it could be abused for it to seriously work. Defining what constitutes as pr0n, whether it should be manadatory or merely encouraged, and the fact that not all pr0n sites are here in America.
I don't know about adamatium, but I do know in the SW Universe there exist metals that can withstand a Jedi's lightsaber. Cortosis, I believe it's called. Most metallic weapons in Knights of the Old Republic used them so you couldn't just mow down enemies, and Jedi Knight II had villains who made armor out of it. I don't know how, exactly, it resists a lightsaber, but it seems pretty good at it.
I understand where you're coming from, though. Looking back, I should have mentioned primaries in my original post. But being merely 19 and in a rural farm community, I don't tend to be near any large scale political event or process, or I would do more. But I am considering a career somehow involved in reporting or reforming the process. Right now, I'm just trying to do my best to stay informed and to discuss things, as was my original idea here. I still have a ways to go, though. I apologize for rambling.
In my previous response, I realized I was quite rude, and wanted to take the time to apologize. Re-reading my original post, I did come off the warong way unintentionally. I do believe the U.S. government censors things, but not in the way my original post stated. As far as I'm concerned, all 1st world nations use censorship. Austrailia, Canada, Germany, France... Obviously, it's not as bad as, say, China, but I still consider it censorship. However, my original post did not convey this very well, and my response to you was demeaning and angry, which was wrong.
That would be lovely. However, thanks to the nature of primaries, I'm often quite left out. Especially when it comes to Presidential elections. However, since I'm in New York, and not in New Hampshire or Iowa, that limits my ability to do so. However, if there is a primary in my area, where I'm legally able to (closed primaries are around, after all), I can and will vote. Even then, though, I feel the selection pool to be a little too narrow for my tastes.
You're making the false assumption that I meant to say the U.S. government censors everything. Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.
I do not think the U.S. government is the worst country in the world when it comes to censorship. Not by a long, long, long shot. But it does do it in subtle ways. Remember the "Free Speech Zones?" How about the Patriot Act? (I know I just opend a can of worms right there, sadly, but it's true) How about that woman who was arressted during the President's State of the Union Address for wearing a dissenting t-shirt? How about every god damn senator who blames *insert common form of popular media here* and tries to ban/alter it every election year?
No, this is not as bad as other countries. No, people generally aren't being murdered or kidnapped in the streets for saying "I don't like the war."I'm not so daft as to compare this to Stalinist Russia, but there is censorship in America, and I think it's a rising issue. Just because I'm not afraid of seeing TV jerk-off pundit #647 or myself getting kidnapped by a spy because we said something not nice about the government on the Internet doesn't mean censorship doesn't happen.
I was not attempting to imply that the many had a better candidate truly, but rather just the simple matter that, in any election, regardless of its nature, a great number of people (I said many, because I refuse to say "vast majority" or "well over half" or whatever because I do not have hard data to back that up. This is my opinion alone, and I will admit I'm not overflowing with statistics and base this on my experiences alone. If someone can bring me or lead me to data to prove otherwise, I will gladly change my opinion) would never want to actually choose between any of the candidates. Aside from a few extremists (the Michael Moore/Bill O'Rielly worshippers), no one in the last presidential race that I've heard of actually WANTED to vote for Bush/Kerry, so much as they didn't want to vote for the other guy.
It feels kind of like someone saying, "You can either be stabbed or you can be raped. Which would you prefer?" That is, obviously, a bit of an extreme example, but I feel it's true nevertheless.
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer living here in the U.S., with it's problems and all, over living in Iran. But I do think it proves a famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those that came before it."
To be fair, here in the U.S. is the choice of who runs for high offices really open to much choice? Democrat or Republican, many felt that both choices were awful (and I intend to agree). Pretty much the same can be said of any third party candidate, too. As South Park has explained so well, pretty much every election in history has been about choosing between a douche and a turd, when in reality you wouldn't likely ever choose either one.
There is a key difference, though, that I will openly admit. Voting for a U.S. president (or senator, or representative, etc.) is basically choosing which jark will try to screw you and censor you. In these elections, such as Iran's, IMHO, it's essentially about choosing who's going to try and kill who and censor you. (A bit of a generalization, I'll admit)
The only problem I see with that is that the UK is the only place (that I know of) that does that.
Personally, I do believe something as simple as a universal ratings system could work wonders in helping parents understand games better. For some reason, I've noticed they tend to be very lazy (at least where I live) in trying to understand more than one system. They know the movie system well (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) but can't figure out a second for games (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO).
While I think this points out some disturbing trends in parenting, and will do nothing to solve that problem, it would at least make parents snap back and realize, yes, a game that has an M is just as bad as an R rated movie.
That's odd. I have both Jet Grinf Radio and Jet Set Radio Future, and both games are rated T, with the the reason cited being "inappropriate lyrics," I believe. Though the game DOES open with a disclaimer, saying it does not condone the act of vandalism in any way.
My moral decisions are based solely on my own experiences. I'll give you an example.
I like good things. I like it when people do good things for me. When I do something that one would be considered "nice" by one, that person is far more likely to do the same for me. Ergo, it is better to do nice things unto others, as they are more likely to do the same unto you.
I admit that this example is extremely basic (as often what one would consider "nice" can be seen as "evil" by others.). But I don't really have the time nor the inclincation to write a document a few hundred pages long, describing my beliefs on morality in pain-staking detail.
If we get right down to it, it's extremely hard to even DEFINE morality. What seperates good from evil, or are such ideas man-made? I find it unlikely that anyone will ever discover a 100% answer to that question (And I doubt there even is an answer). Thus, I will try to summarize the basis of my moral choices as such:
I try to do that which will, in both the long and the short term, benefit myself and society as a whole the most. Rarely do my actions completely reflect this, as I am human and, therefore, am fallible. However, I try to learn from these inefficiencies and inaccuracies, so that my future actions may be of a greater use to society.
Again, such a design is not perfect. And my actions often clash with the designs of others, thinking that their designs are more useful than mine. But such is the erroneous nature of humanity. We're not perfect, but we should try our damndest to be so.
I apologize if that was hard to follow, but it's always difficult to summarize my beliefs. I do not pretend to be perfect, nor do I pretend to be perfectly moral, but I try to help. That is the basis of my personal philosophy. I do what I do because I believe it in my human mind, not because someone else tells me to.
With all due respect, not everyone believes and follows the Bible. Say what you will about the people who don't, but why should all human morality be based on religious scripture that not everyone adheres to?
I know my argument here is cliche, but seriously. I'm not a Christian. Personally, I don't believe in souls. I consider myself an agnostic. So, why, then, should what I believe be based upon the Bible?
I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming. That is not my intent at all. I'm not saying I'm for abortion (and I'm not going to say I'm against it. My position on it is irrelevent to this point). But I'm not going to accept any rationale for the legality or illegality of abortion if it is based merely on religious tones. The laws of the land should be based on science, rationale, and concrete evidence. Religious law is fine for some, but it has no place in matters that concern those who don't follow it.
"If you kill the embryo, it will float in space until it finds you and haunt you for the rest of your life."
And this part baffles me. What part of the Bible discusses men being haunted by the souls of fetuses?
Does anyone else find it ironic that the radio station he was interviewed for has the same name as a GTA radio station, a series he's always been so avidly fighting? (In GTAIII, the talk radio station was called Chatterbox, hosted by Lazlo, for anyone who didn't know)...Anyone? Didn't think so.
The key thing you're missing here is that these games don't require you to own the system they play on (unless it's a PC game, obviously).
I personally love playing games (and I mean actually playing them, not watching them) but I find Red vs. Blue to be brilliant in a very smart-ass way. It's another example of using a medium to spoof the medium. A lot of the humor of RvB revolves around making fun of FPS conventions (like that island or whatever from season 2 where everyone talks like those annoying 12 year old online gamers).
Another positive note, you don't have to own the game. For me, this can be VERY good because I cannot STAND Halo, but still love RvB.
Judge a video or series based on its quality, not how it is made (unless you're judging animation QUALITY of course).
I've read a lot of articles comparing subs and dubs, with both sides arguing good points. I my opinion, a person whould just watch whatever they prefer and leave it at that. Maybe an artist didn't intend for their show to be heard in English, but they never intended for it to be viewed with yellow text at the bottom, either.
I've seen anime that does superb dubbing (Cowboy Bebop being the most well known, and I'd argue Fullmetal Alchemist), some avaerage jobs (most of what I see on TV), some horrible dubs (Love Hina, anyone?) and some that argue all over the board (Excel Saga).
Ah, I, too, live in New York, and saw that same story (I don't normally watch FOX News, and listening to that story reminded me why). Essentially, FOX made it out to be like "Game companies are trying to sell your kids porn. These games aren't for adults. These games are about mindless sex and force your kids for hours to have nothing but the filthiest of sex."
I exaggerate a little, but, honestly, to get the freakin' mini-game, you need to download a mod, which means you need to know the mini-game exists in the FIRST PLACE, which means you've probably seen a LOT worse than a couple of low detailed game characters doing whatever the game is about.
Actually, I was reading an old EGM issue today where they say the ESRB takes 50 volunteers, usually non-gamers, and shows them a VIDEO of the worst parts of the game.The testers never actually touch the game. They just see the game's naughty parts and vote on a rating.
I disagree. While this is a horrible tragedy (is there any other kind of tregedy?), humor must not be lost. Humor can keep one sane during dark times and keep spirits high, which is always needed.
The last thing we need people to do right now is go into a frenzy of "let's kill all the bastards for what these few did!" That only makes things worse. This is the time to make a joke, to calm down, and to think things through rationally, trying to avoid acting based solely on emotion.
Well, to put it simply. I won't argue about how useful Socialism is (I'll just add my opinion that it's not a bad idea). I want to just explain why "socialism" is viewed as bad.
During the Cold War, the U.S. saw Communism as THE evil in the world. Nothing was more evil. It was wrong, period. Is this true? I doubt it, but it's what people believed and socialism, it was believed, was just one step away from Communism. Capitalism = good, coumminism = bad, socialism = communism, or so people felt. Illogical, yes, but the mentality exists to this day.
You make some very good points, but I'd like to point out one small detail: I believe it was recently made into law that in Canada, privatized health care is now legal. You CAN compete with the Canadian government's system, but given that this is so new, I'm guessing no actual competition has sprung up yet.
Also, might I add, when Nintendo released that collector's edition disc for Gamecube with old Zelda games, it flew pretty fast. I played the original NES ones again, and they're still so much fun today. (Not to mention they're a lot harder than these newer Zeldas)
Slashdot Mirror
While I admit, in theory, it sounded like a great idea, helping to keep a lot of unwanted images out of my google searches, there were just too many holes in the idea and too many ways it could be abused for it to seriously work. Defining what constitutes as pr0n, whether it should be manadatory or merely encouraged, and the fact that not all pr0n sites are here in America.
Nothing else to see here, move along...
I don't know about adamatium, but I do know in the SW Universe there exist metals that can withstand a Jedi's lightsaber. Cortosis, I believe it's called. Most metallic weapons in Knights of the Old Republic used them so you couldn't just mow down enemies, and Jedi Knight II had villains who made armor out of it. I don't know how, exactly, it resists a lightsaber, but it seems pretty good at it.
I understand where you're coming from, though. Looking back, I should have mentioned primaries in my original post. But being merely 19 and in a rural farm community, I don't tend to be near any large scale political event or process, or I would do more. But I am considering a career somehow involved in reporting or reforming the process. Right now, I'm just trying to do my best to stay informed and to discuss things, as was my original idea here. I still have a ways to go, though. I apologize for rambling.
In my previous response, I realized I was quite rude, and wanted to take the time to apologize. Re-reading my original post, I did come off the warong way unintentionally. I do believe the U.S. government censors things, but not in the way my original post stated. As far as I'm concerned, all 1st world nations use censorship. Austrailia, Canada, Germany, France... Obviously, it's not as bad as, say, China, but I still consider it censorship. However, my original post did not convey this very well, and my response to you was demeaning and angry, which was wrong.
That would be lovely. However, thanks to the nature of primaries, I'm often quite left out. Especially when it comes to Presidential elections. However, since I'm in New York, and not in New Hampshire or Iowa, that limits my ability to do so. However, if there is a primary in my area, where I'm legally able to (closed primaries are around, after all), I can and will vote. Even then, though, I feel the selection pool to be a little too narrow for my tastes.
You're making the false assumption that I meant to say the U.S. government censors everything. Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.
I do not think the U.S. government is the worst country in the world when it comes to censorship. Not by a long, long, long shot. But it does do it in subtle ways. Remember the "Free Speech Zones?" How about the Patriot Act? (I know I just opend a can of worms right there, sadly, but it's true) How about that woman who was arressted during the President's State of the Union Address for wearing a dissenting t-shirt? How about every god damn senator who blames *insert common form of popular media here* and tries to ban/alter it every election year?
No, this is not as bad as other countries. No, people generally aren't being murdered or kidnapped in the streets for saying "I don't like the war."I'm not so daft as to compare this to Stalinist Russia, but there is censorship in America, and I think it's a rising issue. Just because I'm not afraid of seeing TV jerk-off pundit #647 or myself getting kidnapped by a spy because we said something not nice about the government on the Internet doesn't mean censorship doesn't happen.
I was not attempting to imply that the many had a better candidate truly, but rather just the simple matter that, in any election, regardless of its nature, a great number of people (I said many, because I refuse to say "vast majority" or "well over half" or whatever because I do not have hard data to back that up. This is my opinion alone, and I will admit I'm not overflowing with statistics and base this on my experiences alone. If someone can bring me or lead me to data to prove otherwise, I will gladly change my opinion) would never want to actually choose between any of the candidates. Aside from a few extremists (the Michael Moore/Bill O'Rielly worshippers), no one in the last presidential race that I've heard of actually WANTED to vote for Bush/Kerry, so much as they didn't want to vote for the other guy.
It feels kind of like someone saying, "You can either be stabbed or you can be raped. Which would you prefer?" That is, obviously, a bit of an extreme example, but I feel it's true nevertheless.
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer living here in the U.S., with it's problems and all, over living in Iran. But I do think it proves a famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those that came before it."
To be fair, here in the U.S. is the choice of who runs for high offices really open to much choice? Democrat or Republican, many felt that both choices were awful (and I intend to agree). Pretty much the same can be said of any third party candidate, too. As South Park has explained so well, pretty much every election in history has been about choosing between a douche and a turd, when in reality you wouldn't likely ever choose either one.
There is a key difference, though, that I will openly admit. Voting for a U.S. president (or senator, or representative, etc.) is basically choosing which jark will try to screw you and censor you. In these elections, such as Iran's, IMHO, it's essentially about choosing who's going to try and kill who and censor you. (A bit of a generalization, I'll admit)
The only problem I see with that is that the UK is the only place (that I know of) that does that.
Personally, I do believe something as simple as a universal ratings system could work wonders in helping parents understand games better. For some reason, I've noticed they tend to be very lazy (at least where I live) in trying to understand more than one system. They know the movie system well (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) but can't figure out a second for games (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO).
While I think this points out some disturbing trends in parenting, and will do nothing to solve that problem, it would at least make parents snap back and realize, yes, a game that has an M is just as bad as an R rated movie.
That's odd. I have both Jet Grinf Radio and Jet Set Radio Future, and both games are rated T, with the the reason cited being "inappropriate lyrics," I believe. Though the game DOES open with a disclaimer, saying it does not condone the act of vandalism in any way.
My moral decisions are based solely on my own experiences. I'll give you an example.
I like good things. I like it when people do good things for me. When I do something that one would be considered "nice" by one, that person is far more likely to do the same for me. Ergo, it is better to do nice things unto others, as they are more likely to do the same unto you.
I admit that this example is extremely basic (as often what one would consider "nice" can be seen as "evil" by others.). But I don't really have the time nor the inclincation to write a document a few hundred pages long, describing my beliefs on morality in pain-staking detail.
If we get right down to it, it's extremely hard to even DEFINE morality. What seperates good from evil, or are such ideas man-made? I find it unlikely that anyone will ever discover a 100% answer to that question (And I doubt there even is an answer). Thus, I will try to summarize the basis of my moral choices as such:
I try to do that which will, in both the long and the short term, benefit myself and society as a whole the most. Rarely do my actions completely reflect this, as I am human and, therefore, am fallible. However, I try to learn from these inefficiencies and inaccuracies, so that my future actions may be of a greater use to society.
Again, such a design is not perfect. And my actions often clash with the designs of others, thinking that their designs are more useful than mine. But such is the erroneous nature of humanity. We're not perfect, but we should try our damndest to be so.
I apologize if that was hard to follow, but it's always difficult to summarize my beliefs. I do not pretend to be perfect, nor do I pretend to be perfectly moral, but I try to help. That is the basis of my personal philosophy. I do what I do because I believe it in my human mind, not because someone else tells me to.
"You should read the Bible more carefully."
With all due respect, not everyone believes and follows the Bible. Say what you will about the people who don't, but why should all human morality be based on religious scripture that not everyone adheres to?
I know my argument here is cliche, but seriously. I'm not a Christian. Personally, I don't believe in souls. I consider myself an agnostic. So, why, then, should what I believe be based upon the Bible?
I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming. That is not my intent at all. I'm not saying I'm for abortion (and I'm not going to say I'm against it. My position on it is irrelevent to this point). But I'm not going to accept any rationale for the legality or illegality of abortion if it is based merely on religious tones. The laws of the land should be based on science, rationale, and concrete evidence. Religious law is fine for some, but it has no place in matters that concern those who don't follow it.
"If you kill the embryo, it will float in space until it finds you and haunt you for the rest of your life."
And this part baffles me. What part of the Bible discusses men being haunted by the souls of fetuses?
Thanks a lot. Now I have the image of a sweaty Italian plumber dressed like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever.
I shan't be sleeping tonight...
Assuming, that is, that you can survive -220C. Better bring a few extra towels.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the radio station he was interviewed for has the same name as a GTA radio station, a series he's always been so avidly fighting? (In GTAIII, the talk radio station was called Chatterbox, hosted by Lazlo, for anyone who didn't know) ...Anyone? Didn't think so.
The key thing you're missing here is that these games don't require you to own the system they play on (unless it's a PC game, obviously).
I personally love playing games (and I mean actually playing them, not watching them) but I find Red vs. Blue to be brilliant in a very smart-ass way. It's another example of using a medium to spoof the medium. A lot of the humor of RvB revolves around making fun of FPS conventions (like that island or whatever from season 2 where everyone talks like those annoying 12 year old online gamers).
Another positive note, you don't have to own the game. For me, this can be VERY good because I cannot STAND Halo, but still love RvB.
Judge a video or series based on its quality, not how it is made (unless you're judging animation QUALITY of course).
I've read a lot of articles comparing subs and dubs, with both sides arguing good points. I my opinion, a person whould just watch whatever they prefer and leave it at that. Maybe an artist didn't intend for their show to be heard in English, but they never intended for it to be viewed with yellow text at the bottom, either.
I've seen anime that does superb dubbing (Cowboy Bebop being the most well known, and I'd argue Fullmetal Alchemist), some avaerage jobs (most of what I see on TV), some horrible dubs (Love Hina, anyone?) and some that argue all over the board (Excel Saga).
Ah, I, too, live in New York, and saw that same story (I don't normally watch FOX News, and listening to that story reminded me why). Essentially, FOX made it out to be like "Game companies are trying to sell your kids porn. These games aren't for adults. These games are about mindless sex and force your kids for hours to have nothing but the filthiest of sex."
I exaggerate a little, but, honestly, to get the freakin' mini-game, you need to download a mod, which means you need to know the mini-game exists in the FIRST PLACE, which means you've probably seen a LOT worse than a couple of low detailed game characters doing whatever the game is about.
Actually, I was reading an old EGM issue today where they say the ESRB takes 50 volunteers, usually non-gamers, and shows them a VIDEO of the worst parts of the game.The testers never actually touch the game. They just see the game's naughty parts and vote on a rating.
I disagree. While this is a horrible tragedy (is there any other kind of tregedy?), humor must not be lost. Humor can keep one sane during dark times and keep spirits high, which is always needed.
The last thing we need people to do right now is go into a frenzy of "let's kill all the bastards for what these few did!" That only makes things worse. This is the time to make a joke, to calm down, and to think things through rationally, trying to avoid acting based solely on emotion.
At least, this is how I view it.
Also, I wish the British well.
Ummm... do you mean The Simpson's Hit and Run? Road Rage was actually a poor Crazy Taxi rip off, where as Hit and Run I've played and it is some fun.
Well, to put it simply. I won't argue about how useful Socialism is (I'll just add my opinion that it's not a bad idea). I want to just explain why "socialism" is viewed as bad.
During the Cold War, the U.S. saw Communism as THE evil in the world. Nothing was more evil. It was wrong, period. Is this true? I doubt it, but it's what people believed and socialism, it was believed, was just one step away from Communism. Capitalism = good, coumminism = bad, socialism = communism, or so people felt. Illogical, yes, but the mentality exists to this day.
You make some very good points, but I'd like to point out one small detail: I believe it was recently made into law that in Canada, privatized health care is now legal. You CAN compete with the Canadian government's system, but given that this is so new, I'm guessing no actual competition has sprung up yet.
This was the last place I expected to see a Calvin and Hobbes Reference. Well played, man. Well played.
Also, might I add, when Nintendo released that collector's edition disc for Gamecube with old Zelda games, it flew pretty fast. I played the original NES ones again, and they're still so much fun today. (Not to mention they're a lot harder than these newer Zeldas)
Classics are still in. Some games age perfectly.