Values are like opinions which are like assholes. Everybody's got one. As per the quote you see floating around on/.
Just to be devil's advocate:
It's not necessarily meaningful to extend the duration of a pursuit that's not necessarily meaningful. It's like multiplying a non-negative unknown variable. Sure it might be positive and you end up with a larger number, but it could also be zero and you end up with zero anyway.
-How important is 2008 in the grand scheme if you live till 2059?
With a longer life, the present loses a little bit of its preciousness as it becomes replaced with a surplus of time. "I could read this book now, but I have my whole life to get to it". Those who are confronted with their mortality often report a greater valuation of their life, leading me to:
-How important is 2008 if you're told you've got only 1 year to live?
You might want to prioritize your actions because everything has to count now. And everything you do may now be tagged with "...for the very last time."
-How important is 2008 if you're already dead by the end of 2007?
Is it worse when a 5 year old child dies compared to an 80 year old adult? They're both dead in the end. The whole deal is already over for them unless you include a spiritual afterlife in your framework for the universe. Lasting meaning beyond death isn't a universal value.
I'm not trying to point out a specific position, just the multitude of possible positions that other people can hold. Space exploration isn't necessarily going to be justified for these people who must also shoulder the price. That said, the price of space exploration right now is a tiny drop in the bucket among the many things that people are forced to pay for that they may not want to.
Using physical pain as punishment is inacceptable towards *anyone*. We don't do that to adults, I don't see how it should be different for kids. Perhaps you don't, but I do. I don't even see physical pain as punishment being unacceptable either.
And physical pain has a pretty wide range of possible punishment, just like incarceration. I certainly wouldn't approve all kinds of pain for any punishment.
I wouldn't write off physical pain as being unacceptable, I would just prefer that it not be used. The minimum amount of punishment necessary for getting the job done is what should be used. If it's not enough, more should be used, if it's too little, the punishment should increase. I wouldn't simply write off physical pain in general.
Spanking is pretty much all pain and no injury, no physical scarring or disability, just a temporary unpleasant experience. It doesn't belong in the same category as racking, flogging, etc. I got my share of spanking as a kid, but looking back, I'm glad my parents did it. I honestly believe that it proved beneficial to my development in the long run.
I think that it's nice that this kid is doing something. Many youths in my experience growing up were primarily concerned with the minimum requirement. A great deal of apathy in general.
The kid being enthusiastic and outgoing about anything at all is something positive that should be encouraged. Working hard at something because you want to, not because you have to. That's a pretty good life. If he can manage to preserve that way of life into adulthood I think his childhood was well spent.
I agree that the Wii's game line-up is pretty weak right now, there are some good games on the horizon, but there is still a need for good third party IPs.
However, considering the sales thus far in both hardware and game attach rates, (paraphrasing VG cats and Penny Arcade) I'm sure Nintendo is just crying all the way to the bank. Lying awake at night on pillows of money.
The Xbox has had cheating problems in the past in online multiplayer due to modded consoles. For the most part, consoles are a closed system, so it's more invasive and risky to cheat in online multiplayer, as opposed to simply running a background app or modifying files on your PC. With the added risk of bricking the system, cheating is further discouraged.
There will also be cheating, just like there will always be theft. But if the barriers are non-trivial and carry risks, it discourages idle incursion and limits the problem to only the most determined and knowledgable hackers.
Personally, I never even owned an xbox, I've only heard reports of the cheating that went on in Halo multiplayer, and can't vouch for how much was actually going on.
These anti-piracy ads are just ads for piracy. You go into the movie theater after paying to see it legally, to end up watching an ad talking to you about watching movies for free without fat smelly bastards sitting next to you and talking on his cellphone while noisy little punks kick your seat and throw popcorn from behind you at the kid in front of you getting his giggles off of shining a laser pointer on the screen.
The game sold very well. It seems pretty obvious that no overhaul is necessary.
Could sales be improved by a change? Possibly. Could they have been harmed by a change? Just as possible.
It's Zelda. The sales were very good and the game made money. That shows that there is room in the market for more of the same Zelda gameplay. If they want to change it, they can also make spin-offs.
Better yet, I would rather that they make a new game, entirely without Link, Hyrule, etc. and create a new IP. Don't just "tweak" or "refresh" the gameplay. Go the distance and come up with something new. No need to cover a new game with an old IP.
I prefer subtitled anime over dubs because the voice actors communicate the emotion properly as I read the subtitles. Dubs are usually done by whoever was willing to take the job for the least amount of money, and the quality of the acting reflects that.
The actual words being said by the Japanese voice actors is pure gibberish to me, just like the gibberish I hear from Midna.
They got the important part of the voice, the tone. I am fine with reading the words. Hell, Simlish communicates pretty well with just the tone and body language, without words.
"I'm gonna kick your ass" means different things depending on how its said. It could mean you're about to get hit, It could be an empty threat during friendly competition, It could even be playful flirting.
It may not revolve around trust. Perhaps it's just ass-covering if they hire someone and that person screws the company over. When they try to pass the blame to HR, they can point to the standard industry recruitment practices and hand over the relevant data collected using these practices to show that they followed procedure.
Now they can provide documentation showing they did not encounter anything that would have signaled such behavior would occur in the future. And also that they did the standard tests to check for signs. Thus the blame moves on elsewhere. Where? Doesn't matter. As long as it's not theirs.
If HR isn't authorized to use a hiring process that can screen out addicts, it's pretty silly to fire them and hand them the blame.
How do you screen an addict? A drug test. But a drug test only shows if there's drugs in them at the time. And most drug addicts start off without any drugs in them, it's after they get addicted that they show signs, and that could be after the initial screening. So some places have regular screenings. That's more "cattle treatment".
It's really easy to just pass the problem and the blame to someone else. This isn't saying that the treatment in the summary is justified. Just pointing out that if the responsibility is going to be laid at someone's feet, they are also going to need the power to handle that responsibility.
Flickr's obligations were through a social contract rather than a legal one. Just as she was subject to the repercussions of her actions, clearly delineated by the site's TOS, Flickr too is subject to the repercussions of their enforcement of the TOS. The large amount of negative attention is also legal.
Whether something is right or wrong is irrelevant beyond what these subjective opinions translate to in the real world when the subject is bound within the terms of reality. Law and the free market are of course subject to the constraints of reality. It's up to the individuals to decide if there is such a thing as right and wrong in a matter since there is no objective evidence of "justice". It's merely a matter of preference in how we want to perceive it. I can understand your viewpoint and it's perfectly valid. Still, I must respectfully disagree. The result is the same either way, Flickr restored the account.
I'm going to say Flickr was "wrong". Only because I happen to sympathize more with the affronted end-user than the company until the company is actually sued for allowing her to vent on her account. It sucks getting screwed and not being able to afford the legal cost of "justice". I too would be upset in her case, and so I see this situation as "wrong" and "unfair" even if it has no bearing on how the events unfold.
All the news and retailer sites thus far were pointing to November for Halo 3 (I have no idea who makes these guesses or how...). But seeing as how the 3-week beta was due to hit today, I was a bit suprised to see an official release date of September 25th.
I wonder, can they really fix the issues that will crop up after these 3 weeks for the gold version before September 25th? Or do they not expect anything to come up after the mass testing?
The news has to be gripping to get ad revenues. This can be through entertainment, or fear, or informing the viewer. Though it should be primarily focused on information, if not exclusively, the eye-time is the same no matter which of the 3 methods are used.
And it doesn't seem like this is the sort of thing that viewers want to see. Anna Nicole Smith rates above the war in Iraq.
This e-mail story just needs some nudity and (sexual)scandal. I'm sure somebody's in-box is packed with h0t y o ung g1rl$!!! The story just needs better presentation.
This is slashdot, it's not like the readers aren't familiar with the issue at hand.
Software copyright infringement is like........software copyright infringement.
I think that should encompass all the idiosyncratic details related to the issue at hand without blurring the issue. An imperfect analogy here only serves to derail the topic by bringing to light all the flaws in the analogy rather than the original point of discussion. An analogy is only useful when the issue isn't clear. This is slashdot and it's crystal clear. Points should stand upon their own merit rather than a reference to an imperfect analogy.
He's against the idea of sequels and admits shame(more like regret) at having created a sequel for his game. He wants more creativity in the industry but did a sequel anyway because there was a market for it.
If the U.S kills iraqis, anti-U.S sentiment grows.
If an insurgent kills iraqis, it's because they were trying to kill U.S occupation forces, and again, anti-U.S sentiment grows.
I would agree that there are probably good things being done in Iraq that don't get reported, because good news is not news. People like to watch the news when it's bad because they feel a threat and want to be sure they can either solve it or escape it. When they hear good news, they turn the channel because "alls well". So the news will always be primarily bad news in Iraq or at home, or whereever you are. Nobody wants to hear "BREAKING NEWS: Things are going pretty smoothly." The news is just trying to give the audience what they will watch.
However, it seems to me that even if there is a negative bias in the news, I don't think it can account for how bad the situation appears to me. There's a limit to how much spin can be put on an amount of money spent, and how many lives lost, eventually at the end you've still got a number to stare at.
I can understand how it can be considered "the right thing to do", I really can. But I have to simply disagree because I don't see how any reasonable goals here can justify the price.
I don't remember if the author was quoting someone else, but as Paul Fussell wrote, "All war is ironic." because the reality of war is always worse than what was imagined.
The existence of Jesus isn't the controversial part, his existence has been more or less accepted by historians.
The controversial part is the rest of it. Only a few tidbits of information concerning what he accomplished in his short life have enough verification to be attributed to him. Most of it is still up in the air, possibly fabricated by his followers after his death.
During Jesus's life, he was fairly unimportant. Saviors and "Sons of God" like him weren't uncommon, and there were several others making similar claims and performing "miracles".
So his existence is pretty much accepted as "fact", the controversy is whether or not his existence is important or not. The events that came afterward were obviously important since it spawned a powerful religion, but the solid facts around his life so far doesn't show the actual man to be all that special for his time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go ask the chicken. You guys consult the egg.
Values are like opinions which are like assholes. Everybody's got one. As per the quote you see floating around on /.
Just to be devil's advocate:
It's not necessarily meaningful to extend the duration of a pursuit that's not necessarily meaningful. It's like multiplying a non-negative unknown variable. Sure it might be positive and you end up with a larger number, but it could also be zero and you end up with zero anyway.
-How important is 2008 in the grand scheme if you live till 2059?
With a longer life, the present loses a little bit of its preciousness as it becomes replaced with a surplus of time. "I could read this book now, but I have my whole life to get to it". Those who are confronted with their mortality often report a greater valuation of their life, leading me to:
-How important is 2008 if you're told you've got only 1 year to live?
You might want to prioritize your actions because everything has to count now. And everything you do may now be tagged with "...for the very last time."
-How important is 2008 if you're already dead by the end of 2007?
Is it worse when a 5 year old child dies compared to an 80 year old adult? They're both dead in the end. The whole deal is already over for them unless you include a spiritual afterlife in your framework for the universe. Lasting meaning beyond death isn't a universal value.
I'm not trying to point out a specific position, just the multitude of possible positions that other people can hold. Space exploration isn't necessarily going to be justified for these people who must also shoulder the price. That said, the price of space exploration right now is a tiny drop in the bucket among the many things that people are forced to pay for that they may not want to.
And physical pain has a pretty wide range of possible punishment, just like incarceration. I certainly wouldn't approve all kinds of pain for any punishment.
I wouldn't write off physical pain as being unacceptable, I would just prefer that it not be used. The minimum amount of punishment necessary for getting the job done is what should be used. If it's not enough, more should be used, if it's too little, the punishment should increase. I wouldn't simply write off physical pain in general.
Spanking is pretty much all pain and no injury, no physical scarring or disability, just a temporary unpleasant experience. It doesn't belong in the same category as racking, flogging, etc. I got my share of spanking as a kid, but looking back, I'm glad my parents did it. I honestly believe that it proved beneficial to my development in the long run.
I think that it's nice that this kid is doing something. Many youths in my experience growing up were primarily concerned with the minimum requirement. A great deal of apathy in general.
The kid being enthusiastic and outgoing about anything at all is something positive that should be encouraged. Working hard at something because you want to, not because you have to. That's a pretty good life. If he can manage to preserve that way of life into adulthood I think his childhood was well spent.
Just because it has several metric fucktons of players doesn't mean it's good
Metric fucktons of players is pretty much what developers are going for.
I agree that the Wii's game line-up is pretty weak right now, there are some good games on the horizon, but there is still a need for good third party IPs.
However, considering the sales thus far in both hardware and game attach rates, (paraphrasing VG cats and Penny Arcade) I'm sure Nintendo is just crying all the way to the bank. Lying awake at night on pillows of money.
The Xbox has had cheating problems in the past in online multiplayer due to modded consoles. For the most part, consoles are a closed system, so it's more invasive and risky to cheat in online multiplayer, as opposed to simply running a background app or modifying files on your PC. With the added risk of bricking the system, cheating is further discouraged.
There will also be cheating, just like there will always be theft. But if the barriers are non-trivial and carry risks, it discourages idle incursion and limits the problem to only the most determined and knowledgable hackers.
Personally, I never even owned an xbox, I've only heard reports of the cheating that went on in Halo multiplayer, and can't vouch for how much was actually going on.
These anti-piracy ads are just ads for piracy. You go into the movie theater after paying to see it legally, to end up watching an ad talking to you about watching movies for free without fat smelly bastards sitting next to you and talking on his cellphone while noisy little punks kick your seat and throw popcorn from behind you at the kid in front of you getting his giggles off of shining a laser pointer on the screen.
These ads do not work as intended.
The game sold very well. It seems pretty obvious that no overhaul is necessary.
Could sales be improved by a change? Possibly. Could they have been harmed by a change? Just as possible.
It's Zelda. The sales were very good and the game made money. That shows that there is room in the market for more of the same Zelda gameplay. If they want to change it, they can also make spin-offs.
Better yet, I would rather that they make a new game, entirely without Link, Hyrule, etc. and create a new IP. Don't just "tweak" or "refresh" the gameplay. Go the distance and come up with something new. No need to cover a new game with an old IP.
Parent is spot on.
I prefer subtitled anime over dubs because the voice actors communicate the emotion properly as I read the subtitles. Dubs are usually done by whoever was willing to take the job for the least amount of money, and the quality of the acting reflects that.
The actual words being said by the Japanese voice actors is pure gibberish to me, just like the gibberish I hear from Midna.
They got the important part of the voice, the tone. I am fine with reading the words. Hell, Simlish communicates pretty well with just the tone and body language, without words.
"I'm gonna kick your ass" means different things depending on how its said. It could mean you're about to get hit, It could be an empty threat during friendly competition, It could even be playful flirting.
I am having a blast with the game, and yet, I still agree with you.
The beginning of Twilight Princess was slow and boring. The start of a game should be carefully paced to avoid this.
http://www.digg.com/xbox_360/Halo_3_Beta_Begins_Bu t_Not_For_Crackdown_Owners_Yet#c6717428
People were freaking out about a 1 day delay. I knew they'd just extend the beta 1 day.
Thank you, that was a good post.
It may not revolve around trust. Perhaps it's just ass-covering if they hire someone and that person screws the company over. When they try to pass the blame to HR, they can point to the standard industry recruitment practices and hand over the relevant data collected using these practices to show that they followed procedure.
Now they can provide documentation showing they did not encounter anything that would have signaled such behavior would occur in the future. And also that they did the standard tests to check for signs. Thus the blame moves on elsewhere. Where? Doesn't matter. As long as it's not theirs.
If HR isn't authorized to use a hiring process that can screen out addicts, it's pretty silly to fire them and hand them the blame.
How do you screen an addict? A drug test. But a drug test only shows if there's drugs in them at the time. And most drug addicts start off without any drugs in them, it's after they get addicted that they show signs, and that could be after the initial screening. So some places have regular screenings. That's more "cattle treatment".
It's really easy to just pass the problem and the blame to someone else. This isn't saying that the treatment in the summary is justified. Just pointing out that if the responsibility is going to be laid at someone's feet, they are also going to need the power to handle that responsibility.
Flickr's obligations were through a social contract rather than a legal one. Just as she was subject to the repercussions of her actions, clearly delineated by the site's TOS, Flickr too is subject to the repercussions of their enforcement of the TOS. The large amount of negative attention is also legal.
Whether something is right or wrong is irrelevant beyond what these subjective opinions translate to in the real world when the subject is bound within the terms of reality. Law and the free market are of course subject to the constraints of reality. It's up to the individuals to decide if there is such a thing as right and wrong in a matter since there is no objective evidence of "justice". It's merely a matter of preference in how we want to perceive it. I can understand your viewpoint and it's perfectly valid. Still, I must respectfully disagree. The result is the same either way, Flickr restored the account.
I'm going to say Flickr was "wrong". Only because I happen to sympathize more with the affronted end-user than the company until the company is actually sued for allowing her to vent on her account. It sucks getting screwed and not being able to afford the legal cost of "justice". I too would be upset in her case, and so I see this situation as "wrong" and "unfair" even if it has no bearing on how the events unfold.
All the news and retailer sites thus far were pointing to November for Halo 3 (I have no idea who makes these guesses or how...). But seeing as how the 3-week beta was due to hit today, I was a bit suprised to see an official release date of September 25th.
I wonder, can they really fix the issues that will crop up after these 3 weeks for the gold version before September 25th? Or do they not expect anything to come up after the mass testing?
This is probably the best explanation.
The news has to be gripping to get ad revenues. This can be through entertainment, or fear, or informing the viewer. Though it should be primarily focused on information, if not exclusively, the eye-time is the same no matter which of the 3 methods are used.
And it doesn't seem like this is the sort of thing that viewers want to see. Anna Nicole Smith rates above the war in Iraq.
This e-mail story just needs some nudity and (sexual)scandal. I'm sure somebody's in-box is packed with h0t y o ung g1rl$!!! The story just needs better presentation.
Heh, if he is jailed for leaking the e-mails, I suppose he could just say he misaddressed them...
Source?
I've got a better analogy.
This is slashdot, it's not like the readers aren't familiar with the issue at hand.
Software copyright infringement is like........software copyright infringement.
I think that should encompass all the idiosyncratic details related to the issue at hand without blurring the issue. An imperfect analogy here only serves to derail the topic by bringing to light all the flaws in the analogy rather than the original point of discussion. An analogy is only useful when the issue isn't clear. This is slashdot and it's crystal clear. Points should stand upon their own merit rather than a reference to an imperfect analogy.
What's more interesting is that you referenced Katamari Damacy, created by Keita Takahashi.
= 12233
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid
He's against the idea of sequels and admits shame(more like regret) at having created a sequel for his game. He wants more creativity in the industry but did a sequel anyway because there was a market for it.
If the U.S kills iraqis, anti-U.S sentiment grows.
If an insurgent kills iraqis, it's because they were trying to kill U.S occupation forces, and again, anti-U.S sentiment grows.
I would agree that there are probably good things being done in Iraq that don't get reported, because good news is not news. People like to watch the news when it's bad because they feel a threat and want to be sure they can either solve it or escape it. When they hear good news, they turn the channel because "alls well". So the news will always be primarily bad news in Iraq or at home, or whereever you are. Nobody wants to hear "BREAKING NEWS: Things are going pretty smoothly." The news is just trying to give the audience what they will watch.
However, it seems to me that even if there is a negative bias in the news, I don't think it can account for how bad the situation appears to me. There's a limit to how much spin can be put on an amount of money spent, and how many lives lost, eventually at the end you've still got a number to stare at.
I can understand how it can be considered "the right thing to do", I really can. But I have to simply disagree because I don't see how any reasonable goals here can justify the price.
I don't remember if the author was quoting someone else, but as Paul Fussell wrote, "All war is ironic." because the reality of war is always worse than what was imagined.
The existence of Jesus isn't the controversial part, his existence has been more or less accepted by historians.
The controversial part is the rest of it. Only a few tidbits of information concerning what he accomplished in his short life have enough verification to be attributed to him. Most of it is still up in the air, possibly fabricated by his followers after his death.
During Jesus's life, he was fairly unimportant. Saviors and "Sons of God" like him weren't uncommon, and there were several others making similar claims and performing "miracles".
So his existence is pretty much accepted as "fact", the controversy is whether or not his existence is important or not. The events that came afterward were obviously important since it spawned a powerful religion, but the solid facts around his life so far doesn't show the actual man to be all that special for his time.
Suprise sex.