Why the second sequel? It's because it was the first place that implemented a majority of current gameplay elements together without sucking. The DQ1 did not have multiple party members or any sort of nonlinear development, nor any real revelations in the plot to speak of. You could make a case for DQ2, though.
I don't mean to nit-pick (except really I do), but FF6 was 1994, and was ported to the Playstation in 1999. Still, it's hardly genre-defining. Perhaps it defines the 16-bit subset of console RPGs... but then you're getting far too specific for this issue.
I think it's safe to assume that console RPGs are a whole different animal than PC RPGs. They're only likely to diverge farther, too.
If there were a defining game for console RPGs, I'd put it at Dragon Warrior III.
Let's assume for the moment that there is such a social contract - it's not an unfair assumption. Advertisers have the right to advertise. Says so right there in the First Amendment.
Now then. Luddite terms. When I visit a page, my computer copies that page from the server, then it displays it. When I make that copy, the data becomes mine, in the same way that owning a book makes it yours, and I am free to edit it as I see fit. Ad-blocking software is merely an automated means of editing my data.
It's not cheap broadband that's un-American. Nor, since the time of John Maynard Keynes, has it been un-American for the government to provide services.
What's un-American is to suppose that the citizenry has a right to these services.
It's not un-American to have the right to acquire or provide these services privately... but when you call the service itself a right, that's what's un-American.
They have a point. Now if only the Slashdot article heading were accurate....
That's true. However, there are far more male fans of just about everything else that has a sizeable Internet following. The equity in anime is primarily what causes the minority to be even as large as it is.
I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. I don't disagree with anything you've said here but we're still arguing. In short, what we have here is Slashdot at its finest.
I wasn't talking about global interventionism. I was, rather, talking about global communitarianism. Not merely an economy with government-imposed controls on the economy, but with government-imposed redistribution of wealth - an economy wherein a single (centralized or decentralized) authority takes money from one country and gives it to another one.
So, yeah. Because nearly all redistribution of wealth between nations is voluntary, a global communitarian system could not be said to exist.
That's not saying it couldn't, of course. Just that it doesn't and hasn't.
"Survey Reveals Americans Support Blog Censorship." It would lead the reader to believe that evil, ignorant Americans don't think people should be able to speak freely on the Internet, lest they poison the minds of children, wouldn't it?
Would it have been that much harder to say "Survey Shows American Oppose Online Publication of Private Information?" 'Cause that's all the survey really showed.
Here's a poll: is unbiased reporting of news better or worse than biased reporting of news?
Perhaps you can clarify this. I thought we were discussing the possibility of socialism or social democracy (intervenstionism) on a global scale. What I am saying is that social democracy on a global scale is perfectly possible, and does not require any change to the existing nation-state structure. It is just as applicable on a global scale as capitalism. Do you disagree with this? If so, on what basis?
I disagree, on the basis that interventionism on any significant scale requires a central authority, be that in the form of a global government or a multinational agreement creating such an authority, to determine how it should be carried out. Individual nations only have control over their own economic decisions - in the absence of an entity with authority over the economic decisions of several nations, economics between those nations can only be capitalistic in nature. If there is to be an interventionist economy for every nation, then every nation must submit, to some degree, to the authority of another entity - and that sitation does not currently exist.
I don't deny that they're terribly destructive and I don't deny that a lot of things on earth would die if another one came along. I just think that unprotected gamma ray burst = extinction of human species, even indirectly.
This was in the middle of a discussion about the hypothetical possibility of a global-scale communitarian economic system. A lot of your questions can be answered with that.
Does giving money to poor countries today require participation of every country?
If it's going to be a global communitarian economic system, then yes. Yes it would.
I'm not trying to argue the merits of capitalism vs. socialism here.
this is entirely irrelevant to the national choice of economic system.
Indeed it is. It's highly relevant to the discussion at hand, however.
Either the government intervenes with the economy or it doesn't. That's the distinction. "Capitalism" and "socialism" are terms used to simplify the discussion, because they're less unwieldy than "An economy wherein government intervention, although not necessarily negligible, is not a primary factor in the function of this economy" and "An economy wherein the government intervenes on a large scale."
I wasn't aware that any economic model could even exist outside of this continuum. Perhaps we've simply misunderstood one another.
And if we did, would there be any way to protect the planet?
Why would there need to be one? It survived the last one, didn't it?
Sure, there might be widespread damage in a number of ecosystems, but it would hardly be fatal to global functioning - perhaps not even to human life.
Land-dwelling creatures are far more resistant to radiation than ocean-dwelling creatures, particularly we hairless mammals. Additionally, I'd say the chances are quite good that a majority of species alive today are descended from species which survived that most recent gamma burst, and an incidental resistance to gamma radiation, if it evolved prior to the last burst without any incentive to do so, is not a phenotype that's likely to have vanished.
That's not to say that there won't be damage, of course. But it won't be nearly as bad as the last time if it happens. We're not outside of nature, but we're also not completely at the mercy of natural events.
There'd be no way to enforce it. An economic system based on voluntary philanthropy, even (or especially) between independent sovereign governments, generally will not work on a large scale.
Perhaps if the standard procedure were not for citizens of various countries to consider the well-being of their country but the well-being of the world.... But even still, it would require the participation of every country to function on a global scale, and as long as participation is voluntary, it won't be every country who's participating.
I won't deny that the more socialize side of Keynesian capitalism can be implemented successfully on a national scale... but on a global one? Without a sovereign central government, you can't have effective statism.
That, of course, raises the question of what else would be implied by a single world government. An end to war? The most horrifically byzantine beaurocracy history has ever known? A single standardized language? Who can say?
It is a bit arrogant to consider this model of economics to be superior to any other.
If you'd care to explain how socialism can be adapted to a global scale, I'd love to hear it. In the mean time, in terms of international economics, capitalism is the best we've got.
I have a strategy for dealing with movies that have the potential to deviate from their excellent source material in a bad way.
Simply don't come into the movie with any expectations at all. Rather than expecting it to live up to (in this case) the book or the radio series, think of it as just another comedy.
It might be a bit tough but it's worth it. I mean, it's how I survived the Star Wars prequels.
Just because it may be worse doesn't mean it'll be bad on an objective scale.
It's very much a social exercise. With online play you often end up playing with idiots incapable of expressing themselves without insulting your sexuality in the process. With LAN play they're your idiots, and the insults are much more clever - not to mention the delivery is improved because they don't have to type it.
There's just something about knowing the people you're playing against and being able to gloat in person when you start winning that makes LANs so much more rewarding than online play.
There are some things on TV worth watching. Just not enough to justify paying for advertisements. If I want to see something (which is rare), I maybe download it or ask somebody who'd be watching it anyway to copy it for me or something. Put the bill at the feet of somebody who gets more benefit out of it. It's more efficient and you free yourself from the control of the magic box.
Slashdot Mirror
I gotta get in on this. I could make a good game.
Why the second sequel? It's because it was the first place that implemented a majority of current gameplay elements together without sucking. The DQ1 did not have multiple party members or any sort of nonlinear development, nor any real revelations in the plot to speak of. You could make a case for DQ2, though.
Would it kill Paramount to just make up their minds?
I don't mean to nit-pick (except really I do), but FF6 was 1994, and was ported to the Playstation in 1999. Still, it's hardly genre-defining. Perhaps it defines the 16-bit subset of console RPGs... but then you're getting far too specific for this issue.
I think it's safe to assume that console RPGs are a whole different animal than PC RPGs. They're only likely to diverge farther, too.
If there were a defining game for console RPGs, I'd put it at Dragon Warrior III.
Now then. Luddite terms. When I visit a page, my computer copies that page from the server, then it displays it. When I make that copy, the data becomes mine, in the same way that owning a book makes it yours, and I am free to edit it as I see fit. Ad-blocking software is merely an automated means of editing my data.
So, there's no violation here.
What's un-American is to suppose that the citizenry has a right to these services.
It's not un-American to have the right to acquire or provide these services privately... but when you call the service itself a right, that's what's un-American.
They have a point. Now if only the Slashdot article heading were accurate....
This discussion is over. You have inkoked Godwin's Law.
That's true. However, there are far more male fans of just about everything else that has a sizeable Internet following. The equity in anime is primarily what causes the minority to be even as large as it is.
I wasn't talking about global interventionism. I was, rather, talking about global communitarianism. Not merely an economy with government-imposed controls on the economy, but with government-imposed redistribution of wealth - an economy wherein a single (centralized or decentralized) authority takes money from one country and gives it to another one.
So, yeah. Because nearly all redistribution of wealth between nations is voluntary, a global communitarian system could not be said to exist.
That's not saying it couldn't, of course. Just that it doesn't and hasn't.
Anime, I'm pretty sure.
Would it have been that much harder to say "Survey Shows American Oppose Online Publication of Private Information?" 'Cause that's all the survey really showed.
Here's a poll: is unbiased reporting of news better or worse than biased reporting of news?
I disagree, on the basis that interventionism on any significant scale requires a central authority, be that in the form of a global government or a multinational agreement creating such an authority, to determine how it should be carried out. Individual nations only have control over their own economic decisions - in the absence of an entity with authority over the economic decisions of several nations, economics between those nations can only be capitalistic in nature. If there is to be an interventionist economy for every nation, then every nation must submit, to some degree, to the authority of another entity - and that sitation does not currently exist.
I don't deny that they're terribly destructive and I don't deny that a lot of things on earth would die if another one came along. I just think that unprotected gamma ray burst = extinction of human species, even indirectly.
This was in the middle of a discussion about the hypothetical possibility of a global-scale communitarian economic system. A lot of your questions can be answered with that.
Does giving money to poor countries today require participation of every country?
If it's going to be a global communitarian economic system, then yes. Yes it would.
I'm not trying to argue the merits of capitalism vs. socialism here.
this is entirely irrelevant to the national choice of economic system.
Indeed it is. It's highly relevant to the discussion at hand, however.
A different model for macroeconomics? Such as...?
Either the government intervenes with the economy or it doesn't. That's the distinction. "Capitalism" and "socialism" are terms used to simplify the discussion, because they're less unwieldy than "An economy wherein government intervention, although not necessarily negligible, is not a primary factor in the function of this economy" and "An economy wherein the government intervenes on a large scale."
I wasn't aware that any economic model could even exist outside of this continuum. Perhaps we've simply misunderstood one another.
Why would there need to be one? It survived the last one, didn't it?
Sure, there might be widespread damage in a number of ecosystems, but it would hardly be fatal to global functioning - perhaps not even to human life.
Land-dwelling creatures are far more resistant to radiation than ocean-dwelling creatures, particularly we hairless mammals. Additionally, I'd say the chances are quite good that a majority of species alive today are descended from species which survived that most recent gamma burst, and an incidental resistance to gamma radiation, if it evolved prior to the last burst without any incentive to do so, is not a phenotype that's likely to have vanished.
That's not to say that there won't be damage, of course. But it won't be nearly as bad as the last time if it happens. We're not outside of nature, but we're also not completely at the mercy of natural events.
Perhaps if the standard procedure were not for citizens of various countries to consider the well-being of their country but the well-being of the world.... But even still, it would require the participation of every country to function on a global scale, and as long as participation is voluntary, it won't be every country who's participating.
I won't deny that the more socialize side of Keynesian capitalism can be implemented successfully on a national scale... but on a global one? Without a sovereign central government, you can't have effective statism.
That, of course, raises the question of what else would be implied by a single world government. An end to war? The most horrifically byzantine beaurocracy history has ever known? A single standardized language? Who can say?
I bet Thomas Malthus would know.
If you'd care to explain how socialism can be adapted to a global scale, I'd love to hear it. In the mean time, in terms of international economics, capitalism is the best we've got.
Still, I expected better from Slashdot. I couldn't think of one, so I assumed that if anyone did, it would be hilariously clever. What a rip-off.
I have a strategy for dealing with movies that have the potential to deviate from their excellent source material in a bad way.
Simply don't come into the movie with any expectations at all. Rather than expecting it to live up to (in this case) the book or the radio series, think of it as just another comedy.
It might be a bit tough but it's worth it. I mean, it's how I survived the Star Wars prequels.
Just because it may be worse doesn't mean it'll be bad on an objective scale.
There's just something about knowing the people you're playing against and being able to gloat in person when you start winning that makes LANs so much more rewarding than online play.
There are some things on TV worth watching. Just not enough to justify paying for advertisements. If I want to see something (which is rare), I maybe download it or ask somebody who'd be watching it anyway to copy it for me or something. Put the bill at the feet of somebody who gets more benefit out of it. It's more efficient and you free yourself from the control of the magic box.
I did not know that. That not everybody got headaches from it, that is. I mean, I never knew anyone for whom it didn't cause headaches.