I'd like to see a revival of gonzo journalism. Though I'd take just about anything at this point other than more of "Can living with a cat kill you? Find out more after the break."
Not to say that I agree or disagree with the modding, but I think it's because the way you worded it made it sound as if Obama actually meant some sort of slight against the crippled/retarded (I refuse to use the term "differently abled. There is nothing wrong with either of those words.) when, given the context, it's most likely that he merely chose his words poorly.
And for the record, as much as I despised our previous president, it's not as if you could bad-mouth HIM here, either, without mods hitting you and posters starting up flamewars.
Atlus recently (as in the last few years) produced Persona 3 and Persona 4 on the PS2 and both share what is basically the same engine, but with all new art, style, characters, music, and tweaked gameplay. The PS2 still has a huge player base and as a result, the games did extremely well despite being on a "last gen" console (especially compared to how well they would have likely done had they gone to the PS3 with souped up graphics).
I hate to be the douchebag talking about how the "invisible hand of the market" will somehow make everything better, but... in this case it might. Good developers will find alternatives, mostly, and the bad ones won't. Or will cut half their staff.
I'm not saying this is all good for everyone, because it's not, and we'll see plenty of shit games go out and some good games die. But overall, the game industry can't die. Even if it means teams of nerds stripping the code out of old games to make new ones in a basement somewhere just because they can, or if only a few monolith developers remain, games will be around.
So, and I am honestly curious, while I disagree somewhat with your views, why are the above countries far worse off than America if both their socialist* governments and our capitalist** government are both flawed and lack profit motive?
To me, it seems foolhardy to blame a country's faults on its economic system. While there are certainly problems caused by them, I believe that problems are caused more by social issues rather than economic issues. Holding large portions of the population back due to long-held beliefs of superiority over women/foreigners/religious sects/etc. and not providing adequate education, social adjustment, medicine, and protection to these sectors can only destabilize the country as a whole.
Though, to be quite honest, the Ayn Rand-ish "Fuck you, I got mine you worthless poor person" mentality is almost as bad as well.
*Definition of "socialist government" may vary. **Definition of "capitalist government" may vary.
I have a number of complaints with your argument. 1. There are too many people on Earth as it is. 2. Who cares which race is in the majority/minority? 3. You act under the assumption that population growth/shrinkage rates are constant. This is far from the truth. We will likely see birth rates climb after a population drop due to increased availability of land. 4. Races, also, aren't constant. As different races settle in the same area, slowly but surely they begin to blend together. Who knows, maybe 5 or so generations into the future it will be very difficult to tell races apart in certain areas. Then people will find new reasons to descriminate people (Windows v. Linux brand cybernetics, perhaps?)
Same reason music execs continue to act as they do: Their medium has (for as long as THEY can remember) been the way it is NOW, and it's going to STAY THAT WAY.
Let's follow a TV executives train of logic and actions: 1. Something worked in the past. 2. If it worked in the past, it will always work at any time. 3. If it doesn't work, blame rivals/Internet/liberals 4. Make random, unnecessary changes, to line-up, encourage shows on-air to add more sassy, one-line spewing half-dressed women in gun-fights, even if it's a sitcom or gameshow. 5. 6 words: "This week's special guest: Justin Timberlake!" 6. Collect bonus. 7. Repeat steps 3 through 6
This I did not know about, but I'm not exactly an enthusiast when it comes to economics. In this regard how does the gaming industry compare to prices of other entertainment industries?
If I may be allowed to brown-nose Valve for a moment longer, let's not forget the FREE stuff they do throw in. Team Fortress 2 being the best example, they make new maps and modes themselves, select some choice community-made maps and add them to the official roster, are bolstering characters and adding weapons/achievements on top of patches and support. Compare this to other games where you're lucky if you get a patch to fix the known-bugs at release.
Granted this process can be frustratingly slow, but I can't really argue with the results.
Well, for me, there are developers like Valve whose products have demonstrated a truly well-done and polished quality that honestly deserves $50. Some other non-Valve titles I've acquired over the last few years that I truly would not mind having to spend full price on include Persona 3 and 4 (both of which were less than full price), Super Mario Galaxy, Civilization IV, Bioshock, Sam and Max, No More Heroes...
I think my point is simply that no, the price for games isn't too high (from my perspective)... if the game is actually WORTH that much. The above games were polished and fun. But I've also bought a lot of games not on the above list and when you consider, for example, that Persona 4 provided over 100 hours of very well-done RPG gaming, why should I feel the need to pay the same if not more on a game that will not provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Of course personal tastes come into play. I don't care for sports, racing, or fighting games. But when most games clearly do not show even close to the same objective measures of quality as others, it seems apparent that people will buy less.
tl:dr; Some games are worth full price for admission. Most are not.
It's not like diagnosing it was what I came there for. I was seeing a therapist to deal with depression and stress. It just turned out the guy was something of a specialist in autism research as well and saw it.
Besides, it's not like diagnosing something has any special implications or requirements.
"Well, this is probably a reason why you act like you do, which is fine." "Ok, cool."
I was diagnosed with asperger's disorder 5 or 6 years ago. On the whole, my life has not been affected in any major way. While I can identify some of the signs quite easily, and I definitely have problems socializing, I would not say this somehow makes me all that far off from your usual nerd. Yes, I'm a shut-in, for the most part, with nothing but the cold glow of my LCD monitor to keep me warm, but, again, I'm posting on/. so no surprise.
Kidding aside, the doctor who diagnosed me said it was obvious to see, but that it is not so much a condition as it is a personality trait. He explained how autism is a spectrum and how severe it can be. I wasn't doomed to a life at the end of the short bus nor was I "gifted" with incredible genius the likes of which man has never seen, despite what the average idiot and mother thinks, respectively.
In most places I go, I can't mention the diagnosis without being mocked and told that I think I'm a "special little snowflake" blaming all of his problems and social defects on a made-up disease. It's really annoying.
I guess I'm just trying to say... it's better to be more conservative with the diagnosis as you showed, and to remind people that it's not necessarily a world-shattering condition in many cases.
While I understand the point of your post, I think it's not too close to the situation in question. We're not talking about potential threats to hundreds or thousands of people in a matter of seconds. We're talking about people already arrested, in custody, who may or may not have information. And let's not forget that torture is NOT widely regarded as an effective tool for obtaining said information.
I have heard how effective the military's training is in getting obedience, and that's partially why I would never, under any circumstances, join it. I simply could never accept "it was an order" as an excuse for an act that should be considered heinous not just in basic morality, but goes against our very nature.
But I admit this may just be a bias on my part, as I simply could not give up the freedom to argue and question my actions. Also, I do agree with the posters who say that this matter is better off settled in courts, so protecting soldiers with blacked out names, at least until they are tried, is a good idea.
I agree with your premise, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion. They are humans. That's the problem.
In short, I don't trust anyone who is "at the top of their field," at least where business is concerned. I doubt people get there without some dirty play. Perhaps it's merely my own anecdotal evidence, but I've never met a man who works for a corporate office that was anything other than a stubborn and emotionless suit. I've met investment bankers who subscribe to the ideas of Social Darwinism who left some sectors of business because they could not stand the cut-throat dealings that go on.
So honestly, I don't think it's unfair for us to distrust the motives of people at the top of the business field. That does not mean that, I suppose, there aren't good ones out there who somehow make it that high, but it just seems more realistic to take the more cynical view.
Well, I think the main problem is that people assume the way to decrease a population boom is to keep teens from from . This doesn't work. Because teens want to have sex. And they will. They always have and they always will. Instead of preventing them from being near members of the opposite sex and then expecting them to understand and live properly with them a la homeschooling, or the good ol' method of an angry health teacher telling them that if they have sex even ONCE before marriage they'll get pregnant with the AIDS, or the timeless "Almighty God, in his infinite mercy, will painfully smite your ass for eternity if you so much even LOOK at a pair of breasts, you horrific sinner (P.S. He loves you, though)" we might consider, I don't know, telling teens "You really shouldn't go wild with sex, but if you do have it, at least be safe."
It's crazy, I know, but I just think it might work.
This is a poor analogy. I mean, the mobsters at least won't break your store if you pay (As compared to losing service for a DRM-enabled music file). Members of the mafia work hard, and don't appreciate such an insulting comparison.
While I like your idea of judges voting, I think you're missing the most basic point.
No matter how well you word a law, no matter how thorough you are to close up the loopholes and no matter how specific you make it, some idiot, somewhere, will screw it up. It's a law of nature. Innocents will be hurt and the guilty will get away.
It's just a matter of being careful enough in your wording to make these instances as rare as you can.
Maybe it's just me then. If you're not actually up and bouncing along to the music and making a genuine ass of yourself doing it, I just don't see the point.
Slashdot Mirror
[i]they're in it for the money, and that's it.[/i]
This just in: Company works for money, customers shocked.
Tune in for the details after our special investigative report "Water: It's wet."
I'd like to see a revival of gonzo journalism. Though I'd take just about anything at this point other than more of "Can living with a cat kill you? Find out more after the break."
Again, he said MOST people.
You can argue this point, as well, but it's a statement that inherently says that some may disagree.
Not to say that I agree or disagree with the modding, but I think it's because the way you worded it made it sound as if Obama actually meant some sort of slight against the crippled/retarded (I refuse to use the term "differently abled. There is nothing wrong with either of those words.) when, given the context, it's most likely that he merely chose his words poorly.
And for the record, as much as I despised our previous president, it's not as if you could bad-mouth HIM here, either, without mods hitting you and posters starting up flamewars.
I agree. It's a good one. Both because it's subtle AND it punishes the tendency to not RTFA. Bravo, /.
Atlus recently (as in the last few years) produced Persona 3 and Persona 4 on the PS2 and both share what is basically the same engine, but with all new art, style, characters, music, and tweaked gameplay. The PS2 still has a huge player base and as a result, the games did extremely well despite being on a "last gen" console (especially compared to how well they would have likely done had they gone to the PS3 with souped up graphics).
I hate to be the douchebag talking about how the "invisible hand of the market" will somehow make everything better, but... in this case it might. Good developers will find alternatives, mostly, and the bad ones won't. Or will cut half their staff.
I'm not saying this is all good for everyone, because it's not, and we'll see plenty of shit games go out and some good games die. But overall, the game industry can't die. Even if it means teams of nerds stripping the code out of old games to make new ones in a basement somewhere just because they can, or if only a few monolith developers remain, games will be around.
So, and I am honestly curious, while I disagree somewhat with your views, why are the above countries far worse off than America if both their socialist* governments and our capitalist** government are both flawed and lack profit motive?
To me, it seems foolhardy to blame a country's faults on its economic system. While there are certainly problems caused by them, I believe that problems are caused more by social issues rather than economic issues. Holding large portions of the population back due to long-held beliefs of superiority over women/foreigners/religious sects/etc. and not providing adequate education, social adjustment, medicine, and protection to these sectors can only destabilize the country as a whole.
Though, to be quite honest, the Ayn Rand-ish "Fuck you, I got mine you worthless poor person" mentality is almost as bad as well.
*Definition of "socialist government" may vary.
**Definition of "capitalist government" may vary.
I have a number of complaints with your argument.
1. There are too many people on Earth as it is.
2. Who cares which race is in the majority/minority?
3. You act under the assumption that population growth/shrinkage rates are constant. This is far from the truth. We will likely see birth rates climb after a population drop due to increased availability of land.
4. Races, also, aren't constant. As different races settle in the same area, slowly but surely they begin to blend together. Who knows, maybe 5 or so generations into the future it will be very difficult to tell races apart in certain areas. Then people will find new reasons to descriminate people (Windows v. Linux brand cybernetics, perhaps?)
Same reason music execs continue to act as they do:
Their medium has (for as long as THEY can remember) been the way it is NOW, and it's going to STAY THAT WAY.
Let's follow a TV executives train of logic and actions:
1. Something worked in the past.
2. If it worked in the past, it will always work at any time.
3. If it doesn't work, blame rivals/Internet/liberals
4. Make random, unnecessary changes, to line-up, encourage shows on-air to add more sassy, one-line spewing half-dressed women in gun-fights, even if it's a sitcom or gameshow.
5. 6 words: "This week's special guest: Justin Timberlake!"
6. Collect bonus.
7. Repeat steps 3 through 6
I'm glad I wasn't drinking tea when I read that or else I'd be currently on the market for a new monitor.
This I did not know about, but I'm not exactly an enthusiast when it comes to economics. In this regard how does the gaming industry compare to prices of other entertainment industries?
If I may be allowed to brown-nose Valve for a moment longer, let's not forget the FREE stuff they do throw in. Team Fortress 2 being the best example, they make new maps and modes themselves, select some choice community-made maps and add them to the official roster, are bolstering characters and adding weapons/achievements on top of patches and support. Compare this to other games where you're lucky if you get a patch to fix the known-bugs at release.
Granted this process can be frustratingly slow, but I can't really argue with the results.
Well, for me, there are developers like Valve whose products have demonstrated a truly well-done and polished quality that honestly deserves $50. Some other non-Valve titles I've acquired over the last few years that I truly would not mind having to spend full price on include Persona 3 and 4 (both of which were less than full price), Super Mario Galaxy, Civilization IV, Bioshock, Sam and Max, No More Heroes...
I think my point is simply that no, the price for games isn't too high (from my perspective)... if the game is actually WORTH that much. The above games were polished and fun. But I've also bought a lot of games not on the above list and when you consider, for example, that Persona 4 provided over 100 hours of very well-done RPG gaming, why should I feel the need to pay the same if not more on a game that will not provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Of course personal tastes come into play. I don't care for sports, racing, or fighting games. But when most games clearly do not show even close to the same objective measures of quality as others, it seems apparent that people will buy less.
tl:dr; Some games are worth full price for admission. Most are not.
Well, despite my desire to not feed trolls, I'll bite:
Sometimes, you know, it can be relevant to a conversation already in progress.
It's not like diagnosing it was what I came there for. I was seeing a therapist to deal with depression and stress. It just turned out the guy was something of a specialist in autism research as well and saw it.
Besides, it's not like diagnosing something has any special implications or requirements.
"Well, this is probably a reason why you act like you do, which is fine."
"Ok, cool."
I offer you my non-existent mod-points.
I was diagnosed with asperger's disorder 5 or 6 years ago. On the whole, my life has not been affected in any major way. While I can identify some of the signs quite easily, and I definitely have problems socializing, I would not say this somehow makes me all that far off from your usual nerd. Yes, I'm a shut-in, for the most part, with nothing but the cold glow of my LCD monitor to keep me warm, but, again, I'm posting on /. so no surprise.
Kidding aside, the doctor who diagnosed me said it was obvious to see, but that it is not so much a condition as it is a personality trait. He explained how autism is a spectrum and how severe it can be. I wasn't doomed to a life at the end of the short bus nor was I "gifted" with incredible genius the likes of which man has never seen, despite what the average idiot and mother thinks, respectively.
In most places I go, I can't mention the diagnosis without being mocked and told that I think I'm a "special little snowflake" blaming all of his problems and social defects on a made-up disease. It's really annoying.
I guess I'm just trying to say... it's better to be more conservative with the diagnosis as you showed, and to remind people that it's not necessarily a world-shattering condition in many cases.
Not for much longer, if we have anything to do with it!
The sad thing is, I can hear a flock (herd? school? murder?) of pundits, "experts," and analysts saying this exact phrase, only without the sarcasm.
While I understand the point of your post, I think it's not too close to the situation in question. We're not talking about potential threats to hundreds or thousands of people in a matter of seconds. We're talking about people already arrested, in custody, who may or may not have information. And let's not forget that torture is NOT widely regarded as an effective tool for obtaining said information.
I have heard how effective the military's training is in getting obedience, and that's partially why I would never, under any circumstances, join it. I simply could never accept "it was an order" as an excuse for an act that should be considered heinous not just in basic morality, but goes against our very nature.
But I admit this may just be a bias on my part, as I simply could not give up the freedom to argue and question my actions. Also, I do agree with the posters who say that this matter is better off settled in courts, so protecting soldiers with blacked out names, at least until they are tried, is a good idea.
I agree with your premise, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion. They are humans. That's the problem.
In short, I don't trust anyone who is "at the top of their field," at least where business is concerned. I doubt people get there without some dirty play. Perhaps it's merely my own anecdotal evidence, but I've never met a man who works for a corporate office that was anything other than a stubborn and emotionless suit. I've met investment bankers who subscribe to the ideas of Social Darwinism who left some sectors of business because they could not stand the cut-throat dealings that go on.
So honestly, I don't think it's unfair for us to distrust the motives of people at the top of the business field. That does not mean that, I suppose, there aren't good ones out there who somehow make it that high, but it just seems more realistic to take the more cynical view.
Well, I think the main problem is that people assume the way to decrease a population boom is to keep teens from from . This doesn't work. Because teens want to have sex. And they will. They always have and they always will. Instead of preventing them from being near members of the opposite sex and then expecting them to understand and live properly with them a la homeschooling, or the good ol' method of an angry health teacher telling them that if they have sex even ONCE before marriage they'll get pregnant with the AIDS, or the timeless "Almighty God, in his infinite mercy, will painfully smite your ass for eternity if you so much even LOOK at a pair of breasts, you horrific sinner (P.S. He loves you, though)" we might consider, I don't know, telling teens "You really shouldn't go wild with sex, but if you do have it, at least be safe."
It's crazy, I know, but I just think it might work.
That would be the joke.
This is a poor analogy.
I mean, the mobsters at least won't break your store if you pay (As compared to losing service for a DRM-enabled music file). Members of the mafia work hard, and don't appreciate such an insulting comparison.
While I like your idea of judges voting, I think you're missing the most basic point.
No matter how well you word a law, no matter how thorough you are to close up the loopholes and no matter how specific you make it, some idiot, somewhere, will screw it up. It's a law of nature. Innocents will be hurt and the guilty will get away.
It's just a matter of being careful enough in your wording to make these instances as rare as you can.
Maybe it's just me then. If you're not actually up and bouncing along to the music and making a genuine ass of yourself doing it, I just don't see the point.