These games provide entertainment value, don't they? Ultimately, that's the point of a game, not whether it has a definable ending or not. If you're sending invites to friends for items presumably they're playing as well. If they are then the benefits provided are mutual.
I do have a real problem with all the pay walls and various schemes built into these games, and that's why I don't play them.
But if other people want to spend their time playing these games what the hell is the problem? And what exactly inherently "evil" about them? It's not like anyone is being misled; if you don't know what you're getting into from the start you're rather stupid. People really love throwing around that ridiculous term, don't they?
And States do what they can to attract corporations not merely because of whatever tax revenue they can bring in but all the other things they bring. Corporations draw in an educated labor pool. That means more people spending money locally, paying taxes and generally improving the quality of life. And the fact is, for a lot of companies setting up a corporate office is a big commitment, so usually they're in it for the long haul.
A perfect case study is the city where I live. All the neighboring cities are booming because they keep attracting companies. My city despite being centrally located for a lot of people has struggled for years because of ineptitude and corruption. They proclaim victory every time some second-rate retailer or some small-time industrial company opens up shop. But all they do is keep drawing from the same unskilled labor and keep getting screwed when many of these businesses fold or move out within a few years.
So there's a real incentive to keep Amazon around.
I find it amusing that there are those claiming Amazon hasn't paid it's share when it's us, the consumers, who have benefited from this. No one who's bought anything on Amazon has had to pay sales tax. However, if states force Amazon into paying sales taxes then rest assured we will be the ones paying them, not Amazon. The only expense Amazon will incur is from the extra work involved in handling sales tax. It's not like we're talking about tax dodging here; if that had been the case I'd be totally behind screwing them to the fullest extent of the law.
Amazon's prices have been going up for a few years now and in many cases they aren't much better than retail. Outside of hard-to-find items a sales tax would erase any real advantage they currently enjoy.
I can appreciate the value sales taxes provide. However, States also love to device all kinds of schemes to squeeze a bit more money from individuals and businesses. Back when I had my own business I got to learn about the world of charging sales tax for services. It was completely arbitrary what was assessed sales tax and what wasn't. It was very clear that certain industries were able to successfully lobby for no sales tax.
I've met people in similar positions. They get these impressive-sounding titles and an income to match. It's not that they don't work hard, but speaking to them you wouldn't think they do anything particularly special. The guy's only 34-years-old and living in NYC; he probably spends the entire weekend club-hopping like most other young people in the city. He's not some old-fashioned snob spending the weekends in the Hamptons.
I've never had a problem accidentally dialing numbers. I haven't had it happen once despite having a variety of phones, clamshell, candybar and sliders.
What I have noticed, however, is that "dumb" phones, at least on AT&T tend to have the media/internet button in an overly prominent position. It's trivial to hit it accidentally and end up on the web. And since data isn't cheap for those phones I can imagine it adding up. So what I've done is go into the settings so that it can't connect to the web.
As for Smartphones, it's inevitable that they're going to be online constantly, and checking for all kinds of updates on a regular basis. I don't know on the iPhone, but with my Android phone I can disable a lot of that functionality. Although, I can't say for certain I can disable it all.
It's my understanding that there is certain communication that takes places between the phone and the network that we're not supposed to be billed for. But otherwise, if the phone is checking for emails, software updates and who knows what else I would expect I'd pay for that data, even if I'm not actually interacting with the phone. If the iPhone doesn't allow you to disable that kind of access, however, I'd see it as a problem. But then that's Apple's problem, not AT&T's.
Not saying AT&T isn't overcharging. It's not like this sort of thing, in one form or another, hasn't happened before.
Absolutely you have to put effort into making yourself presentable. But you don't need money to pull it off. And a good personality can get you quite far. You don't have to be overly outgoing, but you have to at least be interesting to talk to and be willing to listen. And sometimes it's just about being in the right place at the right time, and especially knowing people. Keep yourself locked in your room, hang out with the same circle of friends, follow the same old routine and it's pretty much guaranteed you're never going to find anyone.
It's really not that hard, but a little bit of self-confidence and good presentation goes a long way.
Flaunting wealth works, but only if you're really wealthy. Most guys will go broke trying to pull that one off.
Yeah right... Consumers couldn't care less if anything is proprietary as long as, from their perspective, it just works. Windows and the iPhone are both proof of this.
And at this point, Jobs' ego is a selling point for Apple.
With a daughter who will be entering the school system in a few years I find this very concerning. I would be absolutely fucking furious to find out that teachers were avoiding teaching evolution properly.
I don't even understand the problem here. I'm convinced that the so-called controversy has been overblown on all sides. Perhaps I live in the wrong (right?) part of the country but I've never met anyone, even those who were religious, who didn't except the idea of evolution. The Catholic church has formally embraced evolution. Do a few idiots in these other sects of Christianity really have that much pull over scientific discourse in this country? Is the media simply blowing things out of proportion for the sake of ratings boosts? I have found that some people do tend to overstate the threat religion supposedly poses to them.
But then, it seems American culture has this imbecilic tendency be polarized about every damn thing and they're quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. Certain details regarding evolution turn out to be wrong, which is inevitable, and the ignorant see that as evidence that the entire concept should be abandoned.
Is this some kind of concerted effort to make Americans stupid at everything?
I'd be inclined to say the same thing about millennials. "Fuck them" as a generation.
They're self-centered and think they're entitled to the kinds of things everyone else has had to work for. I've come across a few millennials who seem to confuse ambition for wanting more stuff. They have this pretentiousness about them, that they're smarter than everyone who's come before, merely because they've played with more gadgets; and they're delusional, convinced they've got all the answers to fixing the world, like nobody in the history of the world hasn't already thought of all their ideas and have realized that they aren't necessarily practical or effective.
It's great to be idealistic, but the real world is usually far more nuanced than too many people seem to think it is. I can't stand boomers myself; I agree that they're responsible for some of the crap we're dealing with now. And they're way too eager to pat themselves on the back for the 60s, even though they've violated some of those principles a million times over since. They do also have an attitude of entitlement, but I'd say that's more of a cultural problem and a generational one.
And why should I be concerned about your student loans? You made the decision to take out those loans yourself, so own up to them. In fact, I dont get why people are upset over student loans at all when what they should really be complaining about is how outrageous college tuition is. Students should be taking to the streets to protest yearly tuition increases and more management of finances. Instead, they stupidly take to the streets to demand more government assistance which will only serve to perpetuate the problem. Not that government assistance is bad, but it wont fix the problem.
But that's just one example. Nobody is willing to do what needs to be done because nobody wants to sacrifice or work a bit harder. There's no sense of pride. Everyone has to choose sides on every damn agenda. You can't have a rational discussion with people because most refuse to accept that perhaps conservative principles are would work better here and maybe liberal principles would work better there.
Porsche has introduced a variation of the 918 which features a similar system, sitting in the passenger seat. I'm not sure how I'd feel about having something spinning so quickly, sitting right beside me.
The first Matrix movie was memorable. It played on rather simplistic metaphysical concepts but I still found it quite a bit more engaging than the usual action/sci-fi movie.
I didn't expect much from the sequels. However, with the exception of a few cringe-worthy scenes I found them entertaining. Certainly not memorable in the least as the two sequels were a blur of action punctuated some nonsensical exposition. There were a few moments where some potential showed through, but really they're not the sort of movies you're supposed to invest a whole lot of thought in.
Certainly, the new Star Wars trilogy was much worse and much more offensive in terms of dialog and storytelling. Transformers, the first I haven't yet seen the sequel, was quite terrible despite the fact that it was entertaining to watch giants robots fight. So in the scheme of things the Matrix sequels aren't that bad, or at least no worse than the crap that is usually pumped out of Hollywood.
I go back to the same set of problems being responsible for this; and they're especially obvious having lived in Asia for several years.
1) An excessive and irrational fixation on "being yourself". American culture is obsessed with stressing the supposed significance of being a special little snowflake. I can't count the number of children's shows that harp on about this nonsense. The irony is that Americans end up conforming themselves to pre-defined pigeon holes anyway way worse that I've seen in other countries.
And with this comes the idiocy that you're not going to be told what to do. You're going to live your life your own way. And that brings me to number 2:
2) A fixation on pleasure. American culture portrays this unrealistic image of what life should be. Basically, if we're not mountain climbing, or doing some other extreme activity, by day and not actively participating in the bar/club scene at night we're not living life. So what does that mean? We're supposed to devote our lives to pleasure and not work. We're suckers if we work for a living.
There's also this tendency to "do what you love" as opposed to doing what will ensure success. Along with this comes the compulsive desire to make science and math fun. I think that's great but in the right context. The fact is that science and math usually isn't fun; it's a lot of hard work. So stop instilling unrealistic expectations in the youth that they can grow up to do fun things.
3) A crap work ethic. Too many Americans have an awful work ethic. They do just enough to get by but somehow think they're entitled to that job. Far too often I seen people rationalize that mentality by arguing that they deserve better, that they could do what management does. Maybe they can, but given that they can barely do their own jobs right, I wouldn't bet on it. There's too much self-righteousness going around.
Not that Asia is this wonderland of success. There are a lot of people who end up going nowhere in life and get just as screwed as anyone you might find in the states. A common problem I encountered was that a lot of men were so obsessed with having their own business, despite lacking the skills or resources to accomplish this, that they refused to get a job and work for someone else. Some would get some low-wage job like driving taxis but most lived off their parents and, if married, their wives. I'd say a lot of that is due to the excessive positive reinforcement and generally spoiled lives a lot of boys there have encountered growing up. And in general, I've been seeing the same cultural attitudes we have in the US cropping up there.
But the fact is that by and large hard work is still valued. Parents instill the importance of education and hardwork in their kids. They engage them in activities they're convinced will ensure academic success. They aren't fixated on raising athletes, celebrities or kids who are socially popular. And people tend choose careers based on what will provide the best living, not what will make them happiest. And they work their asses off, putting in long hours on a regular basis.
I know quite a few couples where the father barely sees their kids. And while not happy about the situation their perspective is that it's better to work hard now and ensure a good education and better life for their kids. Some of them probably don't even think that far, this is simply how life is.
My point has meandered a bit here, but the gist of what I'm saying is that Americans, and Europeans, don't value hard work like Asians do, but they're sure convinced they're entitled to success.
I find that the sort of stuff that ends up on the radio, which is mostly pop and hip hop, has a very short shelf life anyway. Most of it is low-quality consumable junk. It's tailored for mass appeal; people go nuts over it for that first month or two until it becomes grating. That means if people haven't bought the music during that short window they're likely never going to buy it. I'm shocked stupid music executives have taken this long to catch on to this.
What bothers me about the pervasiveness of buying individual songs is the loss of albums with a cohesive theme or outright concept albums. There's nothing to stop musicians from producing them, but if people aren't going to buy the whole thing I bet a lot of people will be a lot less inclined to bother making them. Financially, it probably makes sense to release individual songs from time to time instead of working on an entire album all in one go.
You'd be wrong about how people search... I've been finding an ever increasing number of people, including myself, search by typing out a sentence. I used to search exclusively using a stream of keywords, and I usually still do. But I've been finding that often times typing out an actual question seems more effective at producing the results I want. But obviously it doesn't work for everything.
I can appreciate the arguments that CDs may be wasteful to manufacture, however this is a real disappointment to me. Granted, the music industry often does a poor job recording music but it's still far superior to the crap we get with MP3s, ACC and other formats. I notice a difference even at 256 kbps; music just doesn't sound as crisp, like it's faintly muffled.
I'm convinced that people who claim they can't hear a difference simply aren't paying attention. I'd say the difference from 256kbps ACC to CD is greater than from CD to SACD or DVD audio. A study has shown that with either of those formats audio has to be uncomfortably loud for people to start noticing the difference. But with MP3s and whatnot all you need is to run the music through some decent speakers or headphones.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the convenience. I import my CDs into iTunes so that I have my music available in my car and at the office. But therein lies another major problem. With CDs I have the freedom to make as many copies as I like for any device I choose. With digital downloads I'm chained to wherever I purchased the music and I have far less flexibility with where I can enjoy that music.
For most people, however, this is certainly a situation where convenience has trumped quality.
I'm all for funding a project to put something on the mood. But make it something constructive, not some stupid, pointless tribute to a novel and movie. I like the movie and novels, but not so much that I was to see untold millions wasted on this nonsense.
How about spending a few thousand bucks and having one erected somewhere on Earth?
You're playing semantics. If plans were taken without the owner's permission then it was theft. Just because IP laws have been taken to an absurd level doesn't mean that there's no reason at all to protect intellectual property.
Given how close Taiwan and China's relationship has become in recent years I find that highly unlikely. Far more likely is that at some point they'll unite and set up a similar system to what Hong Kong has with China.
At this point the only way I'd see China taking military action against Taiwan is if their economy were to implode. They'd need a cause to rally the masses.
Interesting, but it doesn't sound particularly unique. I know of several companies which feature very similar technology. Actually, this one company in particular pairs it up to parking meters that allow the city to track if parked cars have paid for the spot or if they're in violation. That's not something your average person looks forward to, but they do also allow for the opportunity to inform drivers of open spots, as well as letting you know that your meter is about to expire.
I'm also not sure why this system's sensors need to be buried so closely together (9" apart) and apparently aren't connected to individual parking spaces. So presumably there's some level of extra complexity here in order for this to work. The ones I've seen feature a small unit under each parking spot. Each sensor corresponds to a specific spot which seems more logical to me. But for all I know the technology is a lot more similar than the article would indicate.
Access to the web and a countless number of apps all offer countless distractions competing for the attention of a user. And, more importantly, why pay for something that can be had for free online? There are certain types of content and a level of assured quality a reader might miss out on by not going with one of these publications, but even those things aren't guaranteed.
And admittedly consumers can be unreasonable at times about what they expect something should cost. I've read complaints that the cost of digital issues isn't low enough compared to the printed version. The problem is that most of the expense of producing that magazine isn't going into printing. The bulk of the expense goes into generating and laying out that content, something that has to be done for both print and digital.
I think we're far from seeing a solution. Perhaps publications need to move to more focused content. Maybe authors with a following will start selling their work directly to consumers.
I wouldn't say the problem, however, is that consumers don't want the content so much as the internet has instilled this attitude in people that content should be free.
You might want to believe that the Wii has the best control scheme for FPSs but you'd be wrong. The Wii has nowhere near the precision or responsiveness that a mouse and keyboard provide. And a player's arms and hands are generally in a resting position while playing on a PC where extended play on the Wii guarantees exhaustion. And given the complexity of many current FPSs, which is totally unnecessary in my opinion, the limited options of a Wiimote only aggravates the situation.
My fear is that she will actually win the election. I get the impression that to a lot of conservatives she represents the anti-Obama. She represents "change" from the Republican perspective and being female her election would be considered a milestone.
There also seems to be this trend in American politics where the president takes the blame for EVERYTHING negative and the opposing party seems to make it their mission to oppose everything they do. It certainly happened with Bush, and it's happening now with Obama.
And American politics seems to adore a polarizing president. It gives everyone a sense of righteous indignation. If anything, Palin would be the perfect president for this kind of political climate. Even if she managed to be competent, which I don't think is very likely, she'd never get the credit for it.
Commander Keen... What an awesome series of games with tons of personality.
Having always been more of a PC gamer I felt like the platform was deprived by a distinct lack of good platforming games. Then Commander Keen came along and there was something quite good to point to; the PC can do it too.
Compared to other platformers of the time it was actually a decent game, especially the later games where the tiling wasn't as simplistic and graphics and gameplay were more robust.
Yet another example of short-sighted thinking that's all too common. Firstly, we have no idea what to expect from anyone in the future. The idea that we're suddenly going to inhabit a peaceful utopia is naive and stupid.
Take China, for example, their military spending is increasing dramatically year after year. They're in the fortunate situation that they've been able to grow into a burgeoning superpower in an era where military action isn't quite so necessary. I'd argue the cold war has ultimately enabled such a world. But they're not as myopic in their view of the world as a lot of others and are not putting their eggs in one basket.
But okay, forget military strength because you wont get an argument from me that we're spending way too much. But that's also a consequence of the our military being expected to serve as a de facto military for a lot of countries.
Would you advocate also cutting back on space exploration because you fail to see immediate benefits for humanity? Do you lack the imagination to see what benefits a rail gun could provide to us? The most obvious uses I see would be as a possible defense from meteorites but a more realistic application I'd say is as a method of propulsion for putting vehicles into orbit.
But the fact is that most technological advances this sort of research inspires are far more subtle. In the days of Sputnik I'm sure a lot of people argued that launching the satellite was an expensive method of dick-waving. Who would have foreseen all the things satellites have enabled. It's not like a bunch of research sat around and decided they were going to invent mobile phones, along with communications satellites, cell towers and all the infrastructure needed to make them a reality. How about all the research that originally went into military aircraft that found its way into civilian aircraft? And again, I keep going back to obvious examples here.
Ending military spending isn't going to any of the problems America is faced with. Handouts aren't going to help anyone but cause dependencies which will only make things worse. Companies will continue to outsource everything they do. Those problems are far more profound than people realize and are tied to social problems. All the entitlement programs in the world aren't going to fix this.
And, as a friend recently pointed out, military technology is the one thing America is truly good at, something which few others can compete with. We give that up and then what have we got? Too much of the economy is dependent on spending and not enough on actually making things.
It seems to me that it's simply another example of positive emotional feedback. Humans seem to have quite a tendency to get addicted to anything that feels good, or at least feels good to that particular individual. That seems to be where the distinction lies. I suppose most people tend to gravitate towards something that requires less effort, alcohol or drugs. But there are people truly addicted to things like work or exercise. I know of exercise fanatics who've had their spouse leave them because they were so fixated on it. My old boss's wife almost left him because he did nothing but work. He spent all his free time at the office; doing what I don't know but he was always there. Whether or not someone else is directly harmed by the activity is irrelevant.
That this particular case involves sex I'd say is largely irrelevant. Of course, the big factor here is that you're engaging another person. So it isn't simply wanting to do something but convincing someone else to do it with you. This is the sort of thing that requires self-confidence and to some extent, experience. And, judging from people I know, it wasn't a conscious decision. They simply enjoyed being with other people. But at some point they ended up in a relationship. Those urges, however, never went away so when they found themselves in a situation where they could cheat they did so. Hell, being in a relationship probably made it easier. Because from their perspective there's nothing to lose. There's more to lose from following through with the affair. And from the perspective of the other individual there must be something desirable about this person for them to be in a relationship.
And the headline doesn't fit the summary. One night stands are a totally different thing than infidelity. That's simply being able to screw someone and dump them the next day. That's one of those things that people seem to have to work up to. And in my experience someone inevitably ends up getting hurt. But that's another story.
Why the myopic view? This is a test vehicle. Who's to say they aren't planner a larger, manned version? There's not much a robotic plane can do in space. Take photos? Satellites already do that job. Launch satellites? I would assume using conventional rockets is more efficient and cheaper. And even if this thing never ends up being manned, we're still going to learn a ton of valuable information from it.
Slashdot Mirror
These games provide entertainment value, don't they? Ultimately, that's the point of a game, not whether it has a definable ending or not. If you're sending invites to friends for items presumably they're playing as well. If they are then the benefits provided are mutual.
I do have a real problem with all the pay walls and various schemes built into these games, and that's why I don't play them.
But if other people want to spend their time playing these games what the hell is the problem? And what exactly inherently "evil" about them? It's not like anyone is being misled; if you don't know what you're getting into from the start you're rather stupid. People really love throwing around that ridiculous term, don't they?
And States do what they can to attract corporations not merely because of whatever tax revenue they can bring in but all the other things they bring. Corporations draw in an educated labor pool. That means more people spending money locally, paying taxes and generally improving the quality of life. And the fact is, for a lot of companies setting up a corporate office is a big commitment, so usually they're in it for the long haul.
A perfect case study is the city where I live. All the neighboring cities are booming because they keep attracting companies. My city despite being centrally located for a lot of people has struggled for years because of ineptitude and corruption. They proclaim victory every time some second-rate retailer or some small-time industrial company opens up shop. But all they do is keep drawing from the same unskilled labor and keep getting screwed when many of these businesses fold or move out within a few years.
So there's a real incentive to keep Amazon around.
I find it amusing that there are those claiming Amazon hasn't paid it's share when it's us, the consumers, who have benefited from this. No one who's bought anything on Amazon has had to pay sales tax. However, if states force Amazon into paying sales taxes then rest assured we will be the ones paying them, not Amazon. The only expense Amazon will incur is from the extra work involved in handling sales tax. It's not like we're talking about tax dodging here; if that had been the case I'd be totally behind screwing them to the fullest extent of the law.
Amazon's prices have been going up for a few years now and in many cases they aren't much better than retail. Outside of hard-to-find items a sales tax would erase any real advantage they currently enjoy.
I can appreciate the value sales taxes provide. However, States also love to device all kinds of schemes to squeeze a bit more money from individuals and businesses. Back when I had my own business I got to learn about the world of charging sales tax for services. It was completely arbitrary what was assessed sales tax and what wasn't. It was very clear that certain industries were able to successfully lobby for no sales tax.
I've met people in similar positions. They get these impressive-sounding titles and an income to match. It's not that they don't work hard, but speaking to them you wouldn't think they do anything particularly special. The guy's only 34-years-old and living in NYC; he probably spends the entire weekend club-hopping like most other young people in the city. He's not some old-fashioned snob spending the weekends in the Hamptons.
That transcript looks totally convincing to me.
I've never had a problem accidentally dialing numbers. I haven't had it happen once despite having a variety of phones, clamshell, candybar and sliders.
What I have noticed, however, is that "dumb" phones, at least on AT&T tend to have the media/internet button in an overly prominent position. It's trivial to hit it accidentally and end up on the web. And since data isn't cheap for those phones I can imagine it adding up. So what I've done is go into the settings so that it can't connect to the web.
As for Smartphones, it's inevitable that they're going to be online constantly, and checking for all kinds of updates on a regular basis. I don't know on the iPhone, but with my Android phone I can disable a lot of that functionality. Although, I can't say for certain I can disable it all.
It's my understanding that there is certain communication that takes places between the phone and the network that we're not supposed to be billed for. But otherwise, if the phone is checking for emails, software updates and who knows what else I would expect I'd pay for that data, even if I'm not actually interacting with the phone. If the iPhone doesn't allow you to disable that kind of access, however, I'd see it as a problem. But then that's Apple's problem, not AT&T's.
Not saying AT&T isn't overcharging. It's not like this sort of thing, in one form or another, hasn't happened before.
Absolutely you have to put effort into making yourself presentable. But you don't need money to pull it off. And a good personality can get you quite far. You don't have to be overly outgoing, but you have to at least be interesting to talk to and be willing to listen. And sometimes it's just about being in the right place at the right time, and especially knowing people. Keep yourself locked in your room, hang out with the same circle of friends, follow the same old routine and it's pretty much guaranteed you're never going to find anyone.
It's really not that hard, but a little bit of self-confidence and good presentation goes a long way.
Flaunting wealth works, but only if you're really wealthy. Most guys will go broke trying to pull that one off.
Yeah right... Consumers couldn't care less if anything is proprietary as long as, from their perspective, it just works. Windows and the iPhone are both proof of this.
And at this point, Jobs' ego is a selling point for Apple.
With a daughter who will be entering the school system in a few years I find this very concerning. I would be absolutely fucking furious to find out that teachers were avoiding teaching evolution properly.
I don't even understand the problem here. I'm convinced that the so-called controversy has been overblown on all sides. Perhaps I live in the wrong (right?) part of the country but I've never met anyone, even those who were religious, who didn't except the idea of evolution. The Catholic church has formally embraced evolution. Do a few idiots in these other sects of Christianity really have that much pull over scientific discourse in this country? Is the media simply blowing things out of proportion for the sake of ratings boosts? I have found that some people do tend to overstate the threat religion supposedly poses to them.
But then, it seems American culture has this imbecilic tendency be polarized about every damn thing and they're quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. Certain details regarding evolution turn out to be wrong, which is inevitable, and the ignorant see that as evidence that the entire concept should be abandoned.
Is this some kind of concerted effort to make Americans stupid at everything?
I'd be inclined to say the same thing about millennials. "Fuck them" as a generation.
They're self-centered and think they're entitled to the kinds of things everyone else has had to work for. I've come across a few millennials who seem to confuse ambition for wanting more stuff. They have this pretentiousness about them, that they're smarter than everyone who's come before, merely because they've played with more gadgets; and they're delusional, convinced they've got all the answers to fixing the world, like nobody in the history of the world hasn't already thought of all their ideas and have realized that they aren't necessarily practical or effective.
It's great to be idealistic, but the real world is usually far more nuanced than too many people seem to think it is. I can't stand boomers myself; I agree that they're responsible for some of the crap we're dealing with now. And they're way too eager to pat themselves on the back for the 60s, even though they've violated some of those principles a million times over since. They do also have an attitude of entitlement, but I'd say that's more of a cultural problem and a generational one.
And why should I be concerned about your student loans? You made the decision to take out those loans yourself, so own up to them. In fact, I dont get why people are upset over student loans at all when what they should really be complaining about is how outrageous college tuition is. Students should be taking to the streets to protest yearly tuition increases and more management of finances. Instead, they stupidly take to the streets to demand more government assistance which will only serve to perpetuate the problem. Not that government assistance is bad, but it wont fix the problem.
But that's just one example. Nobody is willing to do what needs to be done because nobody wants to sacrifice or work a bit harder. There's no sense of pride. Everyone has to choose sides on every damn agenda. You can't have a rational discussion with people because most refuse to accept that perhaps conservative principles are would work better here and maybe liberal principles would work better there.
Formula 1 has been using a kinetic energy recovery system for about a year now.
Porsche has introduced a variation of the 918 which features a similar system, sitting in the passenger seat. I'm not sure how I'd feel about having something spinning so quickly, sitting right beside me.
The first Matrix movie was memorable. It played on rather simplistic metaphysical concepts but I still found it quite a bit more engaging than the usual action/sci-fi movie.
I didn't expect much from the sequels. However, with the exception of a few cringe-worthy scenes I found them entertaining. Certainly not memorable in the least as the two sequels were a blur of action punctuated some nonsensical exposition. There were a few moments where some potential showed through, but really they're not the sort of movies you're supposed to invest a whole lot of thought in.
Certainly, the new Star Wars trilogy was much worse and much more offensive in terms of dialog and storytelling. Transformers, the first I haven't yet seen the sequel, was quite terrible despite the fact that it was entertaining to watch giants robots fight. So in the scheme of things the Matrix sequels aren't that bad, or at least no worse than the crap that is usually pumped out of Hollywood.
I go back to the same set of problems being responsible for this; and they're especially obvious having lived in Asia for several years.
1) An excessive and irrational fixation on "being yourself". American culture is obsessed with stressing the supposed significance of being a special little snowflake. I can't count the number of children's shows that harp on about this nonsense. The irony is that Americans end up conforming themselves to pre-defined pigeon holes anyway way worse that I've seen in other countries.
And with this comes the idiocy that you're not going to be told what to do. You're going to live your life your own way. And that brings me to number 2:
2) A fixation on pleasure. American culture portrays this unrealistic image of what life should be. Basically, if we're not mountain climbing, or doing some other extreme activity, by day and not actively participating in the bar/club scene at night we're not living life. So what does that mean? We're supposed to devote our lives to pleasure and not work. We're suckers if we work for a living.
There's also this tendency to "do what you love" as opposed to doing what will ensure success. Along with this comes the compulsive desire to make science and math fun. I think that's great but in the right context. The fact is that science and math usually isn't fun; it's a lot of hard work. So stop instilling unrealistic expectations in the youth that they can grow up to do fun things.
3) A crap work ethic. Too many Americans have an awful work ethic. They do just enough to get by but somehow think they're entitled to that job. Far too often I seen people rationalize that mentality by arguing that they deserve better, that they could do what management does. Maybe they can, but given that they can barely do their own jobs right, I wouldn't bet on it. There's too much self-righteousness going around.
Not that Asia is this wonderland of success. There are a lot of people who end up going nowhere in life and get just as screwed as anyone you might find in the states. A common problem I encountered was that a lot of men were so obsessed with having their own business, despite lacking the skills or resources to accomplish this, that they refused to get a job and work for someone else. Some would get some low-wage job like driving taxis but most lived off their parents and, if married, their wives. I'd say a lot of that is due to the excessive positive reinforcement and generally spoiled lives a lot of boys there have encountered growing up. And in general, I've been seeing the same cultural attitudes we have in the US cropping up there.
But the fact is that by and large hard work is still valued. Parents instill the importance of education and hardwork in their kids. They engage them in activities they're convinced will ensure academic success. They aren't fixated on raising athletes, celebrities or kids who are socially popular. And people tend choose careers based on what will provide the best living, not what will make them happiest. And they work their asses off, putting in long hours on a regular basis.
I know quite a few couples where the father barely sees their kids. And while not happy about the situation their perspective is that it's better to work hard now and ensure a good education and better life for their kids. Some of them probably don't even think that far, this is simply how life is.
My point has meandered a bit here, but the gist of what I'm saying is that Americans, and Europeans, don't value hard work like Asians do, but they're sure convinced they're entitled to success.
I find that the sort of stuff that ends up on the radio, which is mostly pop and hip hop, has a very short shelf life anyway. Most of it is low-quality consumable junk. It's tailored for mass appeal; people go nuts over it for that first month or two until it becomes grating. That means if people haven't bought the music during that short window they're likely never going to buy it. I'm shocked stupid music executives have taken this long to catch on to this.
What bothers me about the pervasiveness of buying individual songs is the loss of albums with a cohesive theme or outright concept albums. There's nothing to stop musicians from producing them, but if people aren't going to buy the whole thing I bet a lot of people will be a lot less inclined to bother making them. Financially, it probably makes sense to release individual songs from time to time instead of working on an entire album all in one go.
You'd be wrong about how people search... I've been finding an ever increasing number of people, including myself, search by typing out a sentence. I used to search exclusively using a stream of keywords, and I usually still do. But I've been finding that often times typing out an actual question seems more effective at producing the results I want. But obviously it doesn't work for everything.
I can appreciate the arguments that CDs may be wasteful to manufacture, however this is a real disappointment to me. Granted, the music industry often does a poor job recording music but it's still far superior to the crap we get with MP3s, ACC and other formats. I notice a difference even at 256 kbps; music just doesn't sound as crisp, like it's faintly muffled.
I'm convinced that people who claim they can't hear a difference simply aren't paying attention. I'd say the difference from 256kbps ACC to CD is greater than from CD to SACD or DVD audio. A study has shown that with either of those formats audio has to be uncomfortably loud for people to start noticing the difference. But with MP3s and whatnot all you need is to run the music through some decent speakers or headphones.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the convenience. I import my CDs into iTunes so that I have my music available in my car and at the office. But therein lies another major problem. With CDs I have the freedom to make as many copies as I like for any device I choose. With digital downloads I'm chained to wherever I purchased the music and I have far less flexibility with where I can enjoy that music.
For most people, however, this is certainly a situation where convenience has trumped quality.
I'm all for funding a project to put something on the mood. But make it something constructive, not some stupid, pointless tribute to a novel and movie. I like the movie and novels, but not so much that I was to see untold millions wasted on this nonsense.
How about spending a few thousand bucks and having one erected somewhere on Earth?
You're playing semantics. If plans were taken without the owner's permission then it was theft. Just because IP laws have been taken to an absurd level doesn't mean that there's no reason at all to protect intellectual property.
Given how close Taiwan and China's relationship has become in recent years I find that highly unlikely. Far more likely is that at some point they'll unite and set up a similar system to what Hong Kong has with China.
At this point the only way I'd see China taking military action against Taiwan is if their economy were to implode. They'd need a cause to rally the masses.
Interesting, but it doesn't sound particularly unique. I know of several companies which feature very similar technology. Actually, this one company in particular pairs it up to parking meters that allow the city to track if parked cars have paid for the spot or if they're in violation. That's not something your average person looks forward to, but they do also allow for the opportunity to inform drivers of open spots, as well as letting you know that your meter is about to expire.
I'm also not sure why this system's sensors need to be buried so closely together (9" apart) and apparently aren't connected to individual parking spaces. So presumably there's some level of extra complexity here in order for this to work. The ones I've seen feature a small unit under each parking spot. Each sensor corresponds to a specific spot which seems more logical to me. But for all I know the technology is a lot more similar than the article would indicate.
Is this a surprise?
Access to the web and a countless number of apps all offer countless distractions competing for the attention of a user. And, more importantly, why pay for something that can be had for free online? There are certain types of content and a level of assured quality a reader might miss out on by not going with one of these publications, but even those things aren't guaranteed.
And admittedly consumers can be unreasonable at times about what they expect something should cost. I've read complaints that the cost of digital issues isn't low enough compared to the printed version. The problem is that most of the expense of producing that magazine isn't going into printing. The bulk of the expense goes into generating and laying out that content, something that has to be done for both print and digital.
I think we're far from seeing a solution. Perhaps publications need to move to more focused content. Maybe authors with a following will start selling their work directly to consumers.
I wouldn't say the problem, however, is that consumers don't want the content so much as the internet has instilled this attitude in people that content should be free.
You might want to believe that the Wii has the best control scheme for FPSs but you'd be wrong. The Wii has nowhere near the precision or responsiveness that a mouse and keyboard provide. And a player's arms and hands are generally in a resting position while playing on a PC where extended play on the Wii guarantees exhaustion. And given the complexity of many current FPSs, which is totally unnecessary in my opinion, the limited options of a Wiimote only aggravates the situation.
My fear is that she will actually win the election. I get the impression that to a lot of conservatives she represents the anti-Obama. She represents "change" from the Republican perspective and being female her election would be considered a milestone.
There also seems to be this trend in American politics where the president takes the blame for EVERYTHING negative and the opposing party seems to make it their mission to oppose everything they do. It certainly happened with Bush, and it's happening now with Obama.
And American politics seems to adore a polarizing president. It gives everyone a sense of righteous indignation. If anything, Palin would be the perfect president for this kind of political climate. Even if she managed to be competent, which I don't think is very likely, she'd never get the credit for it.
Commander Keen... What an awesome series of games with tons of personality.
Having always been more of a PC gamer I felt like the platform was deprived by a distinct lack of good platforming games. Then Commander Keen came along and there was something quite good to point to; the PC can do it too.
Compared to other platformers of the time it was actually a decent game, especially the later games where the tiling wasn't as simplistic and graphics and gameplay were more robust.
Yet another example of short-sighted thinking that's all too common. Firstly, we have no idea what to expect from anyone in the future. The idea that we're suddenly going to inhabit a peaceful utopia is naive and stupid.
Take China, for example, their military spending is increasing dramatically year after year. They're in the fortunate situation that they've been able to grow into a burgeoning superpower in an era where military action isn't quite so necessary. I'd argue the cold war has ultimately enabled such a world. But they're not as myopic in their view of the world as a lot of others and are not putting their eggs in one basket.
But okay, forget military strength because you wont get an argument from me that we're spending way too much. But that's also a consequence of the our military being expected to serve as a de facto military for a lot of countries.
Would you advocate also cutting back on space exploration because you fail to see immediate benefits for humanity? Do you lack the imagination to see what benefits a rail gun could provide to us? The most obvious uses I see would be as a possible defense from meteorites but a more realistic application I'd say is as a method of propulsion for putting vehicles into orbit.
But the fact is that most technological advances this sort of research inspires are far more subtle. In the days of Sputnik I'm sure a lot of people argued that launching the satellite was an expensive method of dick-waving. Who would have foreseen all the things satellites have enabled. It's not like a bunch of research sat around and decided they were going to invent mobile phones, along with communications satellites, cell towers and all the infrastructure needed to make them a reality. How about all the research that originally went into military aircraft that found its way into civilian aircraft? And again, I keep going back to obvious examples here.
Ending military spending isn't going to any of the problems America is faced with. Handouts aren't going to help anyone but cause dependencies which will only make things worse. Companies will continue to outsource everything they do. Those problems are far more profound than people realize and are tied to social problems. All the entitlement programs in the world aren't going to fix this.
And, as a friend recently pointed out, military technology is the one thing America is truly good at, something which few others can compete with. We give that up and then what have we got? Too much of the economy is dependent on spending and not enough on actually making things.
It seems to me that it's simply another example of positive emotional feedback. Humans seem to have quite a tendency to get addicted to anything that feels good, or at least feels good to that particular individual. That seems to be where the distinction lies. I suppose most people tend to gravitate towards something that requires less effort, alcohol or drugs. But there are people truly addicted to things like work or exercise. I know of exercise fanatics who've had their spouse leave them because they were so fixated on it. My old boss's wife almost left him because he did nothing but work. He spent all his free time at the office; doing what I don't know but he was always there. Whether or not someone else is directly harmed by the activity is irrelevant.
That this particular case involves sex I'd say is largely irrelevant. Of course, the big factor here is that you're engaging another person. So it isn't simply wanting to do something but convincing someone else to do it with you. This is the sort of thing that requires self-confidence and to some extent, experience. And, judging from people I know, it wasn't a conscious decision. They simply enjoyed being with other people. But at some point they ended up in a relationship. Those urges, however, never went away so when they found themselves in a situation where they could cheat they did so. Hell, being in a relationship probably made it easier. Because from their perspective there's nothing to lose. There's more to lose from following through with the affair. And from the perspective of the other individual there must be something desirable about this person for them to be in a relationship.
And the headline doesn't fit the summary. One night stands are a totally different thing than infidelity. That's simply being able to screw someone and dump them the next day. That's one of those things that people seem to have to work up to. And in my experience someone inevitably ends up getting hurt. But that's another story.
Why the myopic view? This is a test vehicle. Who's to say they aren't planner a larger, manned version? There's not much a robotic plane can do in space. Take photos? Satellites already do that job. Launch satellites? I would assume using conventional rockets is more efficient and cheaper. And even if this thing never ends up being manned, we're still going to learn a ton of valuable information from it.