It's probably because nobody expected the Wii to be as good as it turned out to be. Even Nintendo hadn't planned for the Wii to be this popular, and weren't prepared for all this demand.
I'm sure that 3rd party developers have their stuff in the works, but it'll take time before it arrives. I agree, the Wii needs more 3rd party games.
While I'm sure some are clear on the definitions, I'm sure many are not. I am probably going to fall within the former. And so, I think it would be constructive to take a moment to clarify where one idea ends and another begins.
By my understanding, capitalism and communism are conceptual extremes of economic order? Capitalism has individuals determining their economic status by their own individual efforts, and communism has a group determining their economic status by a group effort. And in-between there's socialism? What's the distinction between socialism and communism?
Fascism, Marxism, Democracy, Republic, etc. these are all seperate political concepts right? Naturally economic and political policies will bleed over into one another since the two are going to interact in the system, but are still separable into distinct concepts right?
There are more concepts out there, but these are the most relevant ones in today's world AFAIK.
So in getting to the original question of what's wrong with communism, I would say it's a lack of competition due to uncertain rewards for productivity, and lack of danger in failure. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Why can't there be a democratic communist system rather than an authoritarian dictatorship(Are those two words redundant when used together?)
Laissez faire capitalism doesn't sound very attractive either, and most if not all countries do have some sort of market regulation because pure capitalism can be pretty cannibalistic.
With diminishing returns at both extremes, it seems to me that an ideal solution would sit at equilibrium somewhere in-between.
Action-adventure 3rd-person gameplay, broken by time increments where everything in the world is paused and you can swivel around the selected character in mid-action for a fun bullet-time effect with fireballs, gunfire, lightning all around. (Seen the Timeshift trailer?)
From there, numbers resulting from that turn pop up, and a menu comes up asking for what the non-controlled characters in the party should do in the next turn. So the action comes from how you control your character during a turn, and the turn-based comes from the tactics chosen in the pauses. Game balance will be required so that players will need to include both modes of control in order to do well.
But in all likelihood, that is not going to be how this plays out.
What it probably means is that it's regular turn-based fighting, with action minigames here and there.
Pain affects our emotional state, happy when not engulfed in flames, sad when engulfed in flames.
For a robot, it wouldn't so much be "pain", just another sense of awareness. I am on flame. No perjorative connotation. The sky is blue. Water is wet. It doesn't have to be suffering, it just has to be noted and assigned a priority. A homework assignment due tommorow, vs. a project due next month. No flinching away, just a measured response appropriate to the situation.
I believe there was a CS map that did something similar. (havana?)
Every fresh round, it'd pick one of 3 routes through the map to unlock so that the hotspots moved. I don't know if it was random though, because it seems everybody else managed to find the unlocked area perfectly:P
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to the addiction like alcoholism, perhaps gambling?
But in the end it still came down to a decision, and as much as we would like it to be otherwise, we are faced with the reality that we are responsible for our actions regardless of the factors that influenced the decision. You can be predisposed to being fat, but it does not excuse you in the eyes of society. When it really comes down to it, gun to the head, people will see bodyfat as a reflection on that person's character. Whether or not the circumstances are "fair" doesn't make much of a difference.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
You have to factor in the PC's monitor into the cost if you include the TV in the console's cost. Also the TV size would be compared against the monitor's size. Not really fair to compare a 20inch monitor to a 50inch TV, not an apples to apples comparison.
Or in my case, I'm playing the wii and xbox360 off the same two monitors that my PC is hooked up to.
Monitors don't really fit into the equation.
The primary difference is that the consoles have less variance in their specs compared to PC. It's a pro and a con. As console generation pass and the feature sets grow more similar, this standardization vs. flexibility will remain the primary difference distinguishing the two.
For what it's worth, Saints Row already has trouble loading the city at a rate fast enough to keep up with their top tier cars. I'm sure there are optimizations that can help, but there will still be an upper limit on what the Xbox360 can stream. It's not outrageous to believe that GTAIV would benefit from a harddrive or faster stream.
But there's always a benefit to be had from having more of a resource. You just work with what you have. Crackdown lets you see the other side of the city if you can get high enough. The game is cel-shaded and isn't trying to push photo-realism, but that's how they made it happen with the resources at hand. It plays butter smooth even with hell being unleashed all over the neighborhood.
It's not all that hard to imagine. The Wii itself isn't spectacular, it's main goal is being cost-effective with a small budget. It's the controller which is bringing the innovation and the controller has already been applied to various other applications.
No reason why there can't be a fast and innovative category. Nintendo could do it themselves if they want to expand in that direction. Nintendo said it plans to compete using innovation instead by performance benchmarks. But it's possible for someone to do both.
Innovation doesn't have to ditch the tried and true. Just like how new games aren't always good, and games that just do the same stuff with better execution can be a hit.
No imperialist nation had a history of imperialist actions prior to their imperialist actions. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't; just because it can happen, doesn't mean it will either. It just means that history teaches us about what has gone before, but when the situation changes it's terrible at predicting the future. You have to compare apples to apples to extract the lesson, and China is undergoing rapid change and we don't know if that may be a good thing or a bad thing.
And the GP post is not hypocrisy. It's criticizing Iraq and America's similar actions. It's not saying two wrongs make a right. It's saying that two wrongs make for two wrongs. America has had a history of imperialism as well. China too.
"China is defensive of areas it considers part of itself, which is not particularly different of any other country." Which doesn't mean they deserve those areas either. There's no issue of ethical high ground here. American "manifest destiny" claimed the U.S from coast to coast by invading Native American lands and claiming it for the U.S. The formation of China itself was from an an assembly of smaller kingdoms. Invading those kingdoms successfully, and then redubbing the result as a part of itself doesn't change what happens.
These are seperate bodies of people who didn't want to be governed by another political body. These are then overpowered and forced into submission. Time passes, they become assimilated, and the distinction passes. We did it to the South too. China wants to do it to Taiwan. But two wrongs don't make for a right. Just because the side with the bigger guns wants to do something doesn't make it right. Taiwan wants self-determination and China wants to take it; it's not "China wants to prevent it", Taiwan has successfully seceded for quite a long time now, and several generations of Taiwanese have been born under Taiwanese independence. My grandparents were Taiwanese, my parents were Taiwanese, and I am American working at Formosa(Trans.: Taiwan) Plastics USA.
Local LAN Party around my area had the guy (Was it Hobbit? I can't remember too well) who made cs_office, and de_prodigy visit. Guy walked around a bit and whacked out a map of the Lan party's building in just a few hours. Soon we were all taking cover behind our respective computers and blowing each other away. It made for a fun little gimmick, it's not hard to see why someone would want to recreate an area just for kicks.
I use both. I use Digg to see articles, I use Slashdot to see comments. Digg has more articles. There are more submitters, weaker filters, and broader topics. Slashdot has more comments because the moderation system and threading is much better at producing meaningful discussion or at the very least, allowing some sort of organization so that I can sift out the chaff more easily.
Much better. I popped on to Digg to see the site destroyed by the stupid code. No articles, just the stupid code. And MAYBE 1 in every 5 actually say what the code is and what's going on. You have to piece it together from the headlines flashing by through the refreshes.
Here on Slashdot, we've got one story. And it's got information.
Those in power don't have to care what happens to the people below them. In the U.S they might get voted out, in China it's irrelevant. Sanctions have little impact on the people who make the decisions that caused the sanctions in the first place. They have a big fat impact on the people below them.
"People who like violence will play violent video games."
That statement is fine, but I'd also like to add that people who like games will also play violent video games. There's two attraction factors being addressed here. Violence, and gaming. The vast majority is being drawn by gaming. The goal in Counterstrike is to win, or get points. Violence is just being painted over what is really just people playing a form of "tag" at a distance...virtually. The violence is hardly worth mentioning, and goes unnoticed by a player, but is readily apparent to an observer. The observer isn't seeing the game, the player is all about the game.
That said, even if people could die from violent video games, that still doesn't mean we shouldn't get to play it. People die from freedom, computers, security, movies, books, sports, etc. These are all things we can jettison from our lives to preserve the lives of others. It's simple to see how you can reallocate the resources expended on these things to save a life. Hell, a fistula costs what, a few hundred USD? This computer alone costs more(and yours too probably). But the fact is that we're ok with not spending that $200 on a fistula. How much in your life would you trade to save a life? How much of a society's life would you trade to save a life? How much should the world be willing to sacrifice to save 1 life? How about 2? A million dollars? How about 100 million? A billion? Or on a personal level, how much poverty are you willing to endure to save a life? Anyone can find the few hundred dollars necessary to save a life but they haven't paid that money out. There is a price tag on lives and the fact is that the/vast/ majority don't want to pay it.
And here's the extreme statement with respect to the above. Even if Columbine's primary and sole source of motivation was a video game...I'd be ok with it. Virginia Tech had nothing to do with games at all, but if it did? I'd still be ok with it. That says something about my morals with respect to the things I'd rather have instead of a life being saved. But so do our cars, vacuum sealed foods, computers, pretty much everything makes a similar statement.
So who gets to decide where the cut-off point is in terms of morals for luxury? Who is the man without sin who gets to cast the first stone? Because I'm damn sure anybody who qualifies is already too poor to have even heard anything about videogame violence controversy.
We recently installed 4 CFL lights in the kitchen, and one normal bulb in the center. (Think of the 5-dot configuration on a 6-sided die). One switch for the CFLs if the kitchen lights'll be on for awhile, and the regular bulb if we want immediate light when just popping into the kitchen for a glass of water and such.
Heh, DDR does have some automated derision though. I've grown to hate that smarmy bitch of an announcer in DDR "You must have 3 left feet!", "Is your dance pad broken?!".
This is a very good point. Playing DDR does give a small bit of personal pride.
I remember getting tired after about 30-40 minutes of play and stumbling through 3-4 step songs. Now I can combo almost all the 6-step(highest difficulty is 9 step) songs in DDR Universe, and play pretty much all day. After a grueling 1-hour non-stop battle against the CPU(the random bonus modifiers kept getting assinged to the CPU...truly bad luck) I finally won and was proud to see how much better I'd gotten at the game. I expect some geeky kids at school would enjoy a small personal achievement like this.
It's irrelevant as an achievement outside of DDR, but there are health benefits, and this is about as much as you could hope for in many sports.
This guy managed to weightgain. It's doable. Don't expects results quite like him since he's got a pretty vicious regimen, but you can get something.
It's based on eating a ton of clean calories(not just random junkfood calories, actual nutrious food). About a 40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat balance in your diet. You want a large caloric excess, combined with weight training. Wait at least 3 months into the regimen before giving up.
For a weight training regimen, google Rippetoe: Starting Strength. Don't necessarily need the book since the principles are straightforward enough that you can probably get enough of the info from the relevant posting regarding the book on bodybuilding.com
I went to my friend's house constantly back in highschool, about 6-9 years ago I think?(I forget exactly when DDR got popular).
DDR Universe released recently for the Xbox360 and I bought it.
The in-game calorie counter says I've spent about 5000 calories on it(That's about 1.42lbs of fat). I weighed 195, and about a month later, I weigh 193(5'10, 15% bodyfat). So I'm pretty happy with the result of losing weight from playing a videogame. I already have an active lifestyle(weightlifting 3-4 times a week) and a healthy diet. So the 2lbs of weightloss is being added to a high level of weight maintenance(I weigh 230+ if I live normally).
The case of this MIT dean aside, I'd like to respectfully disagree. I believe that justice is good and mercy is better. Delivering justice instead of mercy is not wrong, it is still good. Delivering mercy instead of justice is better. However, mercy all the time means there would be no justice. And justice all the time...would still at least, be just.
Coming back to a particular case such as this MIT Dean, I don't believe she deserves any punishment beyond the embarrassment of apologizing. She shown she can do the job and making a big deal out this doesn't guarantee anything constructive. However, now that the secret is out, she can't continue. Not because of some great moral error on her part, but for the maintenance of social order. If she can lie, get caught, and get off with a slap on the wrist, it's providing an example that sometimes it's worth it to just lie if you can get something good out of it. And without the risk of punishment when the lie is exposed, then only the honest will suffer because the dishonest will all have lied their way past the honest.
Like vigilantism. Where's the moral problem if the vigilante justice results in a punishment equal to the punishment that would have been handed down by the system? I don't see any moral problem. However, even if the vigilante is/dead-certain/ that what he's doing is right, and even if I agree he's right in that case, I would still agree with laws that discourage vigilante justice. Because that law exists to preserve social order. Even if he's doing what he thinks is morally correct, he could still wreak havoc if he's got the wrong person, or if he encourages others who are less discriminating to follow his example and apply more punishment than deserved. That's why it needs to be left in the hands of the justice system instead of a vigilante who is personally invested and may do tremendous wrong even when absolutely certain that his actions are moral and correct.
Yeah, I used to assume that, but people kept bitching that Canada, Central America, and South America are American too. Then they resented that they had to share the designation with the U.S. I would agree that everybody knows what I mean if I say I'm American, but I wanted to head that grievance off before it begins.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably because nobody expected the Wii to be as good as it turned out to be. Even Nintendo hadn't planned for the Wii to be this popular, and weren't prepared for all this demand.
I'm sure that 3rd party developers have their stuff in the works, but it'll take time before it arrives. I agree, the Wii needs more 3rd party games.
While I'm sure some are clear on the definitions, I'm sure many are not. I am probably going to fall within the former. And so, I think it would be constructive to take a moment to clarify where one idea ends and another begins.
By my understanding, capitalism and communism are conceptual extremes of economic order? Capitalism has individuals determining their economic status by their own individual efforts, and communism has a group determining their economic status by a group effort. And in-between there's socialism? What's the distinction between socialism and communism?
Fascism, Marxism, Democracy, Republic, etc. these are all seperate political concepts right? Naturally economic and political policies will bleed over into one another since the two are going to interact in the system, but are still separable into distinct concepts right?
There are more concepts out there, but these are the most relevant ones in today's world AFAIK.
So in getting to the original question of what's wrong with communism, I would say it's a lack of competition due to uncertain rewards for productivity, and lack of danger in failure. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Why can't there be a democratic communist system rather than an authoritarian dictatorship(Are those two words redundant when used together?)
Laissez faire capitalism doesn't sound very attractive either, and most if not all countries do have some sort of market regulation because pure capitalism can be pretty cannibalistic.
With diminishing returns at both extremes, it seems to me that an ideal solution would sit at equilibrium somewhere in-between.
I could imagine an example:
Action-adventure 3rd-person gameplay, broken by time increments where everything in the world is paused and you can swivel around the selected character in mid-action for a fun bullet-time effect with fireballs, gunfire, lightning all around. (Seen the Timeshift trailer?)
From there, numbers resulting from that turn pop up, and a menu comes up asking for what the non-controlled characters in the party should do in the next turn. So the action comes from how you control your character during a turn, and the turn-based comes from the tactics chosen in the pauses. Game balance will be required so that players will need to include both modes of control in order to do well.
But in all likelihood, that is not going to be how this plays out.
What it probably means is that it's regular turn-based fighting, with action minigames here and there.
Pain affects our emotional state, happy when not engulfed in flames, sad when engulfed in flames.
For a robot, it wouldn't so much be "pain", just another sense of awareness. I am on flame. No perjorative connotation. The sky is blue. Water is wet. It doesn't have to be suffering, it just has to be noted and assigned a priority. A homework assignment due tommorow, vs. a project due next month. No flinching away, just a measured response appropriate to the situation.
I believe there was a CS map that did something similar. (havana?)
Every fresh round, it'd pick one of 3 routes through the map to unlock so that the hotspots moved. I don't know if it was random though, because it seems everybody else managed to find the unlocked area perfectly:P
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to the addiction like alcoholism, perhaps gambling?
But in the end it still came down to a decision, and as much as we would like it to be otherwise, we are faced with the reality that we are responsible for our actions regardless of the factors that influenced the decision. You can be predisposed to being fat, but it does not excuse you in the eyes of society. When it really comes down to it, gun to the head, people will see bodyfat as a reflection on that person's character. Whether or not the circumstances are "fair" doesn't make much of a difference.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
You have to factor in the PC's monitor into the cost if you include the TV in the console's cost. Also the TV size would be compared against the monitor's size. Not really fair to compare a 20inch monitor to a 50inch TV, not an apples to apples comparison.
Or in my case, I'm playing the wii and xbox360 off the same two monitors that my PC is hooked up to.
Monitors don't really fit into the equation.
The primary difference is that the consoles have less variance in their specs compared to PC. It's a pro and a con. As console generation pass and the feature sets grow more similar, this standardization vs. flexibility will remain the primary difference distinguishing the two.
For what it's worth, Saints Row already has trouble loading the city at a rate fast enough to keep up with their top tier cars. I'm sure there are optimizations that can help, but there will still be an upper limit on what the Xbox360 can stream. It's not outrageous to believe that GTAIV would benefit from a harddrive or faster stream.
But there's always a benefit to be had from having more of a resource. You just work with what you have. Crackdown lets you see the other side of the city if you can get high enough. The game is cel-shaded and isn't trying to push photo-realism, but that's how they made it happen with the resources at hand. It plays butter smooth even with hell being unleashed all over the neighborhood.
Sorry, that was my bad. My brain must have blinked.
What I should have typed is "Innovation isn't the only benchmark for quality in gaming."
3rd category?
Fast and innovative.
It's not all that hard to imagine. The Wii itself isn't spectacular, it's main goal is being cost-effective with a small budget. It's the controller which is bringing the innovation and the controller has already been applied to various other applications.
No reason why there can't be a fast and innovative category. Nintendo could do it themselves if they want to expand in that direction. Nintendo said it plans to compete using innovation instead by performance benchmarks. But it's possible for someone to do both.
Innovation doesn't have to ditch the tried and true. Just like how new games aren't always good, and games that just do the same stuff with better execution can be a hit.
No imperialist nation had a history of imperialist actions prior to their imperialist actions. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't; just because it can happen, doesn't mean it will either. It just means that history teaches us about what has gone before, but when the situation changes it's terrible at predicting the future. You have to compare apples to apples to extract the lesson, and China is undergoing rapid change and we don't know if that may be a good thing or a bad thing.
And the GP post is not hypocrisy. It's criticizing Iraq and America's similar actions. It's not saying two wrongs make a right. It's saying that two wrongs make for two wrongs. America has had a history of imperialism as well. China too.
"China is defensive of areas it considers part of itself, which is not particularly different of any other country." Which doesn't mean they deserve those areas either. There's no issue of ethical high ground here. American "manifest destiny" claimed the U.S from coast to coast by invading Native American lands and claiming it for the U.S. The formation of China itself was from an an assembly of smaller kingdoms. Invading those kingdoms successfully, and then redubbing the result as a part of itself doesn't change what happens.
These are seperate bodies of people who didn't want to be governed by another political body. These are then overpowered and forced into submission. Time passes, they become assimilated, and the distinction passes. We did it to the South too. China wants to do it to Taiwan. But two wrongs don't make for a right. Just because the side with the bigger guns wants to do something doesn't make it right. Taiwan wants self-determination and China wants to take it; it's not "China wants to prevent it", Taiwan has successfully seceded for quite a long time now, and several generations of Taiwanese have been born under Taiwanese independence. My grandparents were Taiwanese, my parents were Taiwanese, and I am American working at Formosa(Trans.: Taiwan) Plastics USA.
Local LAN Party around my area had the guy (Was it Hobbit? I can't remember too well) who made cs_office, and de_prodigy visit. Guy walked around a bit and whacked out a map of the Lan party's building in just a few hours. Soon we were all taking cover behind our respective computers and blowing each other away. It made for a fun little gimmick, it's not hard to see why someone would want to recreate an area just for kicks.
I use both. I use Digg to see articles, I use Slashdot to see comments. Digg has more articles. There are more submitters, weaker filters, and broader topics. Slashdot has more comments because the moderation system and threading is much better at producing meaningful discussion or at the very least, allowing some sort of organization so that I can sift out the chaff more easily.
Much better. I popped on to Digg to see the site destroyed by the stupid code. No articles, just the stupid code. And MAYBE 1 in every 5 actually say what the code is and what's going on. You have to piece it together from the headlines flashing by through the refreshes.
Here on Slashdot, we've got one story. And it's got information.
Those in power don't have to care what happens to the people below them. In the U.S they might get voted out, in China it's irrelevant. Sanctions have little impact on the people who make the decisions that caused the sanctions in the first place. They have a big fat impact on the people below them.
"People who like violence will play violent video games."
/vast/ majority don't want to pay it.
That statement is fine, but I'd also like to add that people who like games will also play violent video games. There's two attraction factors being addressed here. Violence, and gaming. The vast majority is being drawn by gaming. The goal in Counterstrike is to win, or get points. Violence is just being painted over what is really just people playing a form of "tag" at a distance...virtually. The violence is hardly worth mentioning, and goes unnoticed by a player, but is readily apparent to an observer. The observer isn't seeing the game, the player is all about the game.
That said, even if people could die from violent video games, that still doesn't mean we shouldn't get to play it. People die from freedom, computers, security, movies, books, sports, etc. These are all things we can jettison from our lives to preserve the lives of others. It's simple to see how you can reallocate the resources expended on these things to save a life. Hell, a fistula costs what, a few hundred USD? This computer alone costs more(and yours too probably). But the fact is that we're ok with not spending that $200 on a fistula. How much in your life would you trade to save a life? How much of a society's life would you trade to save a life? How much should the world be willing to sacrifice to save 1 life? How about 2? A million dollars? How about 100 million? A billion? Or on a personal level, how much poverty are you willing to endure to save a life? Anyone can find the few hundred dollars necessary to save a life but they haven't paid that money out. There is a price tag on lives and the fact is that the
And here's the extreme statement with respect to the above. Even if Columbine's primary and sole source of motivation was a video game...I'd be ok with it. Virginia Tech had nothing to do with games at all, but if it did? I'd still be ok with it. That says something about my morals with respect to the things I'd rather have instead of a life being saved. But so do our cars, vacuum sealed foods, computers, pretty much everything makes a similar statement.
So who gets to decide where the cut-off point is in terms of morals for luxury? Who is the man without sin who gets to cast the first stone? Because I'm damn sure anybody who qualifies is already too poor to have even heard anything about videogame violence controversy.
We recently installed 4 CFL lights in the kitchen, and one normal bulb in the center. (Think of the 5-dot configuration on a 6-sided die). One switch for the CFLs if the kitchen lights'll be on for awhile, and the regular bulb if we want immediate light when just popping into the kitchen for a glass of water and such.
Heh, DDR does have some automated derision though. I've grown to hate that smarmy bitch of an announcer in DDR "You must have 3 left feet!", "Is your dance pad broken?!".
Heh, I remember a similar competition in honors bio class, it wasn't even hard for this guy, he could win in under a minute. Amazing.
This is a very good point. Playing DDR does give a small bit of personal pride.
I remember getting tired after about 30-40 minutes of play and stumbling through 3-4 step songs. Now I can combo almost all the 6-step(highest difficulty is 9 step) songs in DDR Universe, and play pretty much all day. After a grueling 1-hour non-stop battle against the CPU(the random bonus modifiers kept getting assinged to the CPU...truly bad luck) I finally won and was proud to see how much better I'd gotten at the game. I expect some geeky kids at school would enjoy a small personal achievement like this.
It's irrelevant as an achievement outside of DDR, but there are health benefits, and this is about as much as you could hope for in many sports.
http://www.johnstonefitness.com/all/front/m.php
This guy managed to weightgain. It's doable. Don't expects results quite like him since he's got a pretty vicious regimen, but you can get something.
It's based on eating a ton of clean calories(not just random junkfood calories, actual nutrious food). About a 40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat balance in your diet. You want a large caloric excess, combined with weight training. Wait at least 3 months into the regimen before giving up.
For a weight training regimen, google Rippetoe: Starting Strength. Don't necessarily need the book since the principles are straightforward enough that you can probably get enough of the info from the relevant posting regarding the book on bodybuilding.com
I went to my friend's house constantly back in highschool, about 6-9 years ago I think?(I forget exactly when DDR got popular).
DDR Universe released recently for the Xbox360 and I bought it.
The in-game calorie counter says I've spent about 5000 calories on it(That's about 1.42lbs of fat). I weighed 195, and about a month later, I weigh 193(5'10, 15% bodyfat). So I'm pretty happy with the result of losing weight from playing a videogame. I already have an active lifestyle(weightlifting 3-4 times a week) and a healthy diet. So the 2lbs of weightloss is being added to a high level of weight maintenance(I weigh 230+ if I live normally).
The case of this MIT dean aside, I'd like to respectfully disagree. I believe that justice is good and mercy is better. Delivering justice instead of mercy is not wrong, it is still good. Delivering mercy instead of justice is better. However, mercy all the time means there would be no justice. And justice all the time...would still at least, be just.
/dead-certain/ that what he's doing is right, and even if I agree he's right in that case, I would still agree with laws that discourage vigilante justice. Because that law exists to preserve social order. Even if he's doing what he thinks is morally correct, he could still wreak havoc if he's got the wrong person, or if he encourages others who are less discriminating to follow his example and apply more punishment than deserved. That's why it needs to be left in the hands of the justice system instead of a vigilante who is personally invested and may do tremendous wrong even when absolutely certain that his actions are moral and correct.
Coming back to a particular case such as this MIT Dean, I don't believe she deserves any punishment beyond the embarrassment of apologizing. She shown she can do the job and making a big deal out this doesn't guarantee anything constructive. However, now that the secret is out, she can't continue. Not because of some great moral error on her part, but for the maintenance of social order. If she can lie, get caught, and get off with a slap on the wrist, it's providing an example that sometimes it's worth it to just lie if you can get something good out of it. And without the risk of punishment when the lie is exposed, then only the honest will suffer because the dishonest will all have lied their way past the honest.
Like vigilantism. Where's the moral problem if the vigilante justice results in a punishment equal to the punishment that would have been handed down by the system? I don't see any moral problem. However, even if the vigilante is
Yeah, I used to assume that, but people kept bitching that Canada, Central America, and South America are American too. Then they resented that they had to share the designation with the U.S. I would agree that everybody knows what I mean if I say I'm American, but I wanted to head that grievance off before it begins.
No...no...
I think it's more like having a bad analogy for a well-undeerstood and exceptional situation that really doesn't need analogies for clarification.