No. I cannot disagree more. Jail is never about punishment. It is nobody's job to punish anyone, and it is certainly not the job of the the state to dole out punishments. Jail should purely be about rehabilitation, and if it isn't about rehabilitation then we have a problem. People like this twisted fuck are sick and need rehabilitation themselves.
They had better not have been affected. They're a cornerstore of the gaming world.
But then again, so was Sierra and look where that got them. I guess, in the end, the quality of game you make really doesn't make too much of a difference. I'm just glad they're finally laying the burnt-out shell that was Sierra to rest.
It's fucking sickening to see that people not only don't take responsibility for their own actions, but try to make someone else do it for them! And this, apparently, is the American dream.
No, it's definitely Lucas. If you look at movies that he's worked on--Indiana Jones, the original and special edition Star Wars--he really seems to have a thing for 'kids movies.' "The Temple of Doom," for example, was a terrible movie and the worst of the three Indiana Jones movies. It was also the one in which Lucas was most involved. He seems to have a penchant for making terrible kids movies, and I think it's just getting worse with age.
With the original Star Wars trilogy, he was limited by technology... but now, he can throw whatever he wants into a movie to fulfill his 'vision.' If the special edition 'improvements' he added to the original trilogy were really making Star Wars into what he wanted it to be thirty years ago, you can see that trend: adding useless scenes with robot antics, Han stepping on Jabba's tail, and loads of other childish slapstick crap like that. The best he could do thirty years ago with Ewoks.
In conclusion, any guy who dreams up Jar-Jar Binks is obviously nuts. You can't blame market pressure for a guy who seems to get off on terrible kids movies.
Age restrictions on Internet usage really means limiting the access of dangerous (or unpopular/undesirable) ideas to those who have not yet been conditioned. Like it or not, public schools are an excellent way to instill cultural ideas into a nation's populace. In fact, schools are perhaps the only way to reliably build a nation of any size and maintain a sense of cohesion.
Schools definitely have their own inherent benefits, but the accessibility of such young citizens is just too good a chance at perpetuating the country's ideals to let pass. I'm not saying that there's a massive and finely calculate effort to 'brainwash' children, but it is undeniably a useful tool of empire-building. This article is an excellent example of that. While China's actions are rather more extreme than anything you'd see in the West, don't think it isn't done here either. It is a very commonly used tool in every 'civilized' nation.
This interview really sheds some objective light on Valenti. He seems like a pretty respectable person who only needs to be informed. I didn't know that he was 83 years old. At that age, I'm sure it's incredibly difficult to keep upwith new technologies. Especially when, as he said, he's no technologist.
An open and objective exchange would really be the best thing to resolve issues like these, and Valenti is right to criticize congress' lack of such a forum. Hopefully, conscientious reporters can encourage this type of mindset in the future because without it, the democratic process is good as dead.
The first time I played Soul Calibur II was the first time I had played any kind of fighting game since Mortal Kombat. And I kicked ass.
Let's face it, these games require very little skill, and this is no accident. There are purposefully two ways to play: one for beginners who aren't even sure which button is kick and which is punch, and one for the people who spend all their time memorizing combo moves. But the thing is, the beginner's technique is often more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack!
Is this a flaw? No, it's definitely a feature, but perhaps it's a feature that a player should be able to turn off. How about customizable rulesets like in Worms? This is an obstacle that can easily be circumvented if the players really want it. But for now, it is part of the game, like it or not.
A corporation has similar legal rights to an individual. This does not mean that a corporation is a person.
My point was not how the law treats a corporation: this is all just paperwork. Instead, my point was about perception, and how people tend to anthropomorphize everything, instead of really trying to understand the mindset of these things. Despite how the law might be worded, a corporation is not a person in that it does not have emotion, it does not have a mind of its own, it does not have any motivation other than profit because it exists solely for that reason. Economics dictate its actions, pure and simple.
Thus, you can't try to communicate to a corporation with the idea that it is a person. You can't reason with it, you can't appeal to its compassionate side, you can't ask it to play nice. You have to speak its language, which means fines, or subsidies, or some other economic change. Saying that a corporation is "killing your children" is ridiculous, because the corporation just doesn't see your children. These people are trying to communicate with the corporation on the wrong level. It's simply the wrong approach.
What they should be doing is changing their economic landscape to alter how these corporation behave. Is a corporation doing things that may harm your children? Then tax them for doing that, and they'll quickly stop. Want them to be more 'socially conscious'? Then offer tax benefits for doing so. Money is their language, and a corporation understands nothing else.
It all boils down to understanding that a corporation is an entirely artifical product of our law, and that these laws and systems are arbitrary. The "free market" is actually rigorously maintained: it is a space of freedom made possible by the walls that surround it. And these corporations are entirely at the mercy of those that keep the walls.
So don't waste your time picketing, and don't waste your time painting corporations as 'evil.' A corporation is about as evil as a lion killing an antelope in order to feed. The lion's environment mandates that it do this to survive, so if we want to change the lion we have to change its environment. The same approach must be taken when dealing with corporations.
Really, I think that the boundary between 'self' and a 'fake character' is nonexistent. The same person is playing both roles, and there is certainly a bleed-through of skills from one persona to another.
But, if the game's just a click-fest, you're right: it's no better than gambling.
Obviously the drive for efficiency and better profits has sacrificed some conscientiousness, but a corporation is about as human as the chair you sit on. It's a entity native to capitalism that strives for efficiency. If you want to change its behaviour, you have to change the system that created it. But let's get off the hapless demonization, please: it's not a person.
Cars that can run on water have been developed, but the major oil corporations quickly silenced their development. I saw all this on an episode of that documentary television series, "The X-Files." That show really blows my mind... they report some very sobering facts. They took it off the air, of course, but you might still be able to find some recordings if you know where to look.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's not like I can walk 35 miles to work every day. :(
;)
Baby. Why, in my day...
No. I cannot disagree more. Jail is never about punishment. It is nobody's job to punish anyone, and it is certainly not the job of the the state to dole out punishments. Jail should purely be about rehabilitation, and if it isn't about rehabilitation then we have a problem. People like this twisted fuck are sick and need rehabilitation themselves.
Somehow, I doubt they were too worried about that.
*gag*
Too bad ID doesn't care. Actually, not really.
I'd rather put a single-use 24-shot 35mm on each table with instructions for the guests to use up all the shots by the end of the event.
Wow.
Quite frankly, that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
And I think the reasons are obvious.
...sort of like Space Quest II!
Dude, she was a soldier. It was her duty to die.
They had better not have been affected. They're a cornerstore of the gaming world.
But then again, so was Sierra and look where that got them. I guess, in the end, the quality of game you make really doesn't make too much of a difference. I'm just glad they're finally laying the burnt-out shell that was Sierra to rest.
Nobody mentioned the coffee case. That is pretty cut-and-dry, I think. I believe the original poster was referring to the case of the fat fucks who are suing McDonald's over their own inability to control themselves.
It's fucking sickening to see that people not only don't take responsibility for their own actions, but try to make someone else do it for them! And this, apparently, is the American dream.
Fuck.
Maybe, but we could've done without the silly noises and eyes bulging out.
No, it's definitely Lucas. If you look at movies that he's worked on--Indiana Jones, the original and special edition Star Wars--he really seems to have a thing for 'kids movies.' "The Temple of Doom," for example, was a terrible movie and the worst of the three Indiana Jones movies. It was also the one in which Lucas was most involved. He seems to have a penchant for making terrible kids movies, and I think it's just getting worse with age.
With the original Star Wars trilogy, he was limited by technology... but now, he can throw whatever he wants into a movie to fulfill his 'vision.' If the special edition 'improvements' he added to the original trilogy were really making Star Wars into what he wanted it to be thirty years ago, you can see that trend: adding useless scenes with robot antics, Han stepping on Jabba's tail, and loads of other childish slapstick crap like that. The best he could do thirty years ago with Ewoks.
In conclusion, any guy who dreams up Jar-Jar Binks is obviously nuts. You can't blame market pressure for a guy who seems to get off on terrible kids movies.
what the hell is a "moblog"?
And who comes up with these ridiculous names?
"Get 'em while they're young."
Age restrictions on Internet usage really means limiting the access of dangerous (or unpopular/undesirable) ideas to those who have not yet been conditioned. Like it or not, public schools are an excellent way to instill cultural ideas into a nation's populace. In fact, schools are perhaps the only way to reliably build a nation of any size and maintain a sense of cohesion.
Schools definitely have their own inherent benefits, but the accessibility of such young citizens is just too good a chance at perpetuating the country's ideals to let pass. I'm not saying that there's a massive and finely calculate effort to 'brainwash' children, but it is undeniably a useful tool of empire-building. This article is an excellent example of that. While China's actions are rather more extreme than anything you'd see in the West, don't think it isn't done here either. It is a very commonly used tool in every 'civilized' nation.
How many times have you pledged your allegiance?
This interview really sheds some objective light on Valenti. He seems like a pretty respectable person who only needs to be informed. I didn't know that he was 83 years old. At that age, I'm sure it's incredibly difficult to keep upwith new technologies. Especially when, as he said, he's no technologist.
An open and objective exchange would really be the best thing to resolve issues like these, and Valenti is right to criticize congress' lack of such a forum. Hopefully, conscientious reporters can encourage this type of mindset in the future because without it, the democratic process is good as dead.
No, most of it was just overvalued in the first place.
I guess Citibank just can't believe people might purchase stuff from a Russian company.
Good to know they're actually looking after your money, though.
Penrose is also an unscientific nutbar. He's not mentioned for a good reason.
Nah, this "Linus" guy should just be quiet and mind his own business!
Oh wait...
...but it'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
I, for one, couldn't care less. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
The first time I played Soul Calibur II was the first time I had played any kind of fighting game since Mortal Kombat. And I kicked ass.
Let's face it, these games require very little skill, and this is no accident. There are purposefully two ways to play: one for beginners who aren't even sure which button is kick and which is punch, and one for the people who spend all their time memorizing combo moves. But the thing is, the beginner's technique is often more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack!
Is this a flaw? No, it's definitely a feature, but perhaps it's a feature that a player should be able to turn off. How about customizable rulesets like in Worms? This is an obstacle that can easily be circumvented if the players really want it. But for now, it is part of the game, like it or not.
so what, people do silly/apparently pointless things all the time...
:)
Yeah, it's called life.
A corporation has similar legal rights to an individual. This does not mean that a corporation is a person.
My point was not how the law treats a corporation: this is all just paperwork. Instead, my point was about perception, and how people tend to anthropomorphize everything, instead of really trying to understand the mindset of these things. Despite how the law might be worded, a corporation is not a person in that it does not have emotion, it does not have a mind of its own, it does not have any motivation other than profit because it exists solely for that reason. Economics dictate its actions, pure and simple.
Thus, you can't try to communicate to a corporation with the idea that it is a person. You can't reason with it, you can't appeal to its compassionate side, you can't ask it to play nice. You have to speak its language, which means fines, or subsidies, or some other economic change. Saying that a corporation is "killing your children" is ridiculous, because the corporation just doesn't see your children. These people are trying to communicate with the corporation on the wrong level. It's simply the wrong approach.
What they should be doing is changing their economic landscape to alter how these corporation behave. Is a corporation doing things that may harm your children? Then tax them for doing that, and they'll quickly stop. Want them to be more 'socially conscious'? Then offer tax benefits for doing so. Money is their language, and a corporation understands nothing else.
It all boils down to understanding that a corporation is an entirely artifical product of our law, and that these laws and systems are arbitrary. The "free market" is actually rigorously maintained: it is a space of freedom made possible by the walls that surround it. And these corporations are entirely at the mercy of those that keep the walls.
So don't waste your time picketing, and don't waste your time painting corporations as 'evil.' A corporation is about as evil as a lion killing an antelope in order to feed. The lion's environment mandates that it do this to survive, so if we want to change the lion we have to change its environment. The same approach must be taken when dealing with corporations.
Really, I think that the boundary between 'self' and a 'fake character' is nonexistent. The same person is playing both roles, and there is certainly a bleed-through of skills from one persona to another.
But, if the game's just a click-fest, you're right: it's no better than gambling.
- chemicals are bad,
- genetic engineering is evil,
- and "family farms" are ideal.
Obviously the drive for efficiency and better profits has sacrificed some conscientiousness, but a corporation is about as human as the chair you sit on. It's a entity native to capitalism that strives for efficiency. If you want to change its behaviour, you have to change the system that created it. But let's get off the hapless demonization, please: it's not a person.Cars that can run on water have been developed, but the major oil corporations quickly silenced their development. I saw all this on an episode of that documentary television series, "The X-Files." That show really blows my mind... they report some very sobering facts. They took it off the air, of course, but you might still be able to find some recordings if you know where to look.