Even the Russians themselves weren't as confident as you seem to be. They were convinced they would never be able to deal with fighting on two fronts, against Germany and Japan. They relied on the Chinese to hold off the Japanese. They even pushed the communists in China, who they were supporting, to aid the Nationalists in fighting the Japanese.
The Soviet Union might have made things tough for Germany but I doubt they'd be able to fend them off forever. They were successful specifically because of American involvement.
For now a matter-antimatter drive might as well be a pipe dream. We don't have a way to create antimatter in any meaningful quantity. Using the current process it would take 2 billion years to produce 1 gram of anti-hydrogen. Then there's storage. Anti-hydrogen has been kept from destroying itself for 10 seconds. (Thanks, Wikipedia.)
Before we start even talking about getting to other planets there are a few things we need to do. We need a space station far more robust than the ISS. One that allows manufacturing in space. Heavy-lift vehicles get all the materials we need into orbit. It's all assembled and launched from space. Needless to say, that's far easier said than done. But if we want to engage in real space exploration I think to start outside of Earth's gravity well. Too much energy is wasted just getting spacecraft into space and building them to survive launch and flight through the atmosphere. Although, I suppose even in space they have to withstand similar loads. But the point is that if you start in space you have many more options.
And I think it's high time we restarted research into nuclear propulsion.
If it turns out to be halfway decent I'm getting one. Having owned a tablet PC running XP I thought the thing had a lot of potential, they simply screwed up the execution. What those devices needed was an iOS-interface that streamlined used with a tablet. Instead they simply offered XP in it's standard form. But then, at the time touch screen technology wasn't where it was today, and PDAs and styluses were still in widespread use. A lot of effort by companies like Sony seemed to be expended on trying to integrate an external keyboard.
When I first heard of the iPad I was interested. But my hope was that it ran a modified version of OSX. So much for that idea.
I find it appealing that I could have a device as portable as the iPad but that allows me to do anything I could with a conventional PC. If nothing else, I want to be able to connect my ODB2 plug to it and run my car's diagnostic software on it.
If this device ends up being a flop or too expensive, I'll just go with a netbook I suppose.
I think it's that Japanese have always been meticulous in everything they do. They're also very good about following rules. In many countries, particularly the US, even people who believe in recycling would likely be pissed a the prospect of having to sort their garbage so extensively.
And I can't help but wonder, why is the recycling company not doing this? Aren't these people paying taxes so that their garbage is processed properly?
Aren't there already sites out there that do this, much more effectively? Snopes.com and FactCheck.org are two that immediately come to mind.
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this uncovers anything. How would it account for some actual event that causes a shift in the nature of associated tweets? It also seems like it might be subject to the old, persistent problem that if people repeat something enough eventually it's considered fact. And what's the benchmark for spotting astroturfing? Is it going to come down to cherry picking information? Anything someone doesn't agree with is dismissed as astroturfing. It also seems like this information, at least, currently is not presented in any meaningful manner that would allow anyone to take away anything useful.
There is a clear fundamental difference. In books and film you're passively watching someone else engage in those actions. When it's a game YOU are the one making the decision. You are the one who choose to play the game, who choose to shoot those people. It may all be fantasy but for a lot of people the situation is quite different. And this will become a more significant problem as games grow increasingly realistic.
It would be interesting to see if the psychological response is different for someone watching a murder in a movie compared to someone initiating it in a game. I think the real threat is that people are growing increasingly desensitized to horrors. This game is the perfect example of that. It's only shocking to non-gamers.
I think the problem is that by tweeting about something people think they've done their job. It's the equivalent of sticking all those ribbons on cars.
"I've devoted 30 seconds between fun and games to think about something important."
But honestly, I think it's more of a symptom of larger problems. Despite everything people piss and moan about Americans, and the developed world in general, by and large have it pretty good. There's a constant stream of entertainment and shiny toys. This stuff is the adult equivalent of a pacifier. And a lot of what seems to get people upset is the fact that they can't have more of it, or more time to enjoy it. I'm convinced we're living in an era where people don't want to be responsible for anything. They'll happily go to the government for all their needs, be it giving up rights for security or expecting handouts of every kind. So why expend any effort on actually doing something for yourself?
I also suspect that politics have gotten so polarized and fear-mongering so rampant because that's the only way people will pay any attention at all.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, that it costs $110 to replace each sign or that it's actually going to take them 8 years to replace them all. Only in America.
The references to Taliban should have been kept in. There is no question there.
But let's face facts here... EA was banking on controversy to move the game, this wasn't some attempt to accurately depict current events. All that has happened is that management and marketing decided that the potential backlash would result in boycotts if not outright bannings, which would be harmful to sales.
And, while we're talking about free speech, people seem to forget that it goes both ways. EA is free to feature the Taliban. However, those offended, for one reason or another, are just as free to protest, to publicly express their displeasure in the form of demonstrations or boycotts. They don't cross the line when they protest, they cross the line when they start demanding that the game be banned because then they're infringing on the rights of others. Even if it's the right to play yet another derivative first-person shooter.
Interestingly, this is one of the few situations where citizens do have clear power over corporations.
The problem isn't that people are eating meat. It's how they're eating meat. They're eating heavily processed crap and from animals raised in the conditions described in the article. And even with the crap we're all supposedly eating humans in developed nations, even America, are living longer than they ever have before.
The solution isn't simply switching to vegan or vegetarian diets. It isn't switching to diet crap loaded with artificial sweetners. The problem is that Americans want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak. They think that they can eat whatever they want, as frequently as they feel like it and remain healthy, especially if's got a pretty diet label on it.
But it's not like other nations are enlightened with it comes to diet. It happens that American diets predispose Americans to certain kind of health problems, but plenty of other nations and cultures suffer from their own sets of health problems due to their particular diets. And obesity is becoming a world-wide problem, it's just that America is leading the pack on that somewhat, and are probably the first to openly acknowledge the problem.
Humans are omnivores. That's a fact of nature. While there are certain kinds of meats we could do without the fact is that we benefit greatly from meat. Sure, you can be quite healthy on a vegetarian diet, but it's going to take a lot more work to make sure you're getting all the proper nutrients.
There's no reason a scientist couldn't make a good president. The catch is that they can't just be a good scientist, they have to be skilled in a number of other areas and have to be able to pick the right people to aid them in their job.
The problem is that most young people who think they care about science are merely infatuated with the latest gadgets. Any venture that doesn't result in shiny toys to ogle and possess is a wasted endeavor.
What you're saying is that humans can feel strong withdrawal symptoms from anything they might get addicted to, even when it's not a chemical addiction. But, by some miracle, weed happens to be free of all that.
The Safety Commission should be more concerned about what the junk on Disney Channel, MTV and others is teaching out kids than whether or not a freaking ruler might be dangerous.
We've screwed up this planet to no end? Talk about hyperbole. You don't even have to be all that high up to see virtually no evidence of humanity's presence on Earth, short of observing the night side I suppose.
This is not to say we haven't done some substantial damage. We have. But short of some outright cataclysm it's safe to say life will likely outlast humans on Earth and will likely find a way to thrive. One of the problems is that we've entered an era where it's difficult to determine if an organism is going extinct for natural reasons or because of human activity. Of course everything some animal is endangered the knee-jerk reaction is that humans are responsible. We may be responsible for the eradication of some species but life overall will manage just fine. Life has always been challenged by a multitude of forces.
I've grow increasingly pessimistic over the years about our prospects for serious space exploration. There are far too many self-centered and/or shortsighted people who insist we "fix" all our problems on Earth first. And most politicians are solely interested in self-aggrandizement so they're only going to expend effort on anything that will secure more power for them. Projects requiring long-term commitment with potentially profound but yet unseen benefits aren't the sort of thing they'd ever support.
I've grown resigned to the fact that I won't see significant advances in space exploration within my lifetime, although I do still hope I'm proven wrong.
It seems to me the scope of this study was too limited. What they've defined as attractive seems dictated by celebrity culture. This means excessively thin women who then have to compensate by getting plastic surgery, especially in the US. My impression of many European, excluding England, and South American celebrities is that they're far healthier-looking than Americans.
Hell, look at Japanese illustrations and, excluding some fetishes, the distilled attractive female is generally well-endowed. I don't mean necessarily having large breasts, but nice hips and a fairly curvaceous body. And from personal, admittedly anecdotal, evidence guys are more immediately turned on by a woman with more shape, even if she trends towards being heavy, than they would ever be by someone who's thin.
Unfortunately, the ideal nowadays, for women, seems to be sickeningly thin. And it's generally quite bad in Asia. I'm convinced there's a serious anorexia problem being overlooked out there.
The ideal figure must be aspirational. Looking at classical paintings women were always depicted as a bit heavyset. Generally, it was a considered a sign of wealth given that most didn't have the means to eat so well. Today, in the developed world who doesn't have access to plenty of food. Hell, people who are often considered poor manage to be overweight. So the goal now is to be thin. In some cases it's even been associated with wealth, the argument being that the poor don't have access to good food or have the luxury of being able to work out.
The crazy stuff is sent because it generates hype. Bloggers rush to post about every little thing they receive and routinely gush about how awesome it is that they have it in with the publishers. Publishers bombard publications with all kinds of assorted gifts and marketing crap to foster this sense of good will, they give them special behind-the-scenes access, they offer exclusive interviews. This is all done in an effort to foster this sense of goodwill on the part of reviewers. There's usually no need for anything as overt as outright bribery.
With mainstream games the reviews are irrelevant. It's the pre-release hype that counts, hence the absurd gifts. Considering the number of people who are so impatient they need to pre-order or even wait in line for a game, there's not much of a chance of reviews having any impact on them. And given the American gamer's obsession with violence it's really not surprising that publishers are going to find odd ways to drive that point home.
I disagree that Enterprise was better than Voyager. Voyager certainly had it's low points, but it was generally consistent all throughout. It was entertaining and occasionally showed a glimmer of what made the better shows so good.
Enterprise was quite lame for a good portion of its run. The final season was quite good, and I would agree even surpassed Voyager. But one season doesn't save what was an overall weak show.
I had the same experience. I didn't like DS9 initially and didn't make much of an effort to follow it. I don't recall at what point I did start following it but I found myself enjoying it immensely. I'd have to rate it up there with TNG and TOS.
There were two things I recall not liking about DS9 initially. Firstly, It felt a bit too much like a soap opera. Secondly, after having come from The Next Generation with all the exploration and variety of experiences DS9 felt extremely confined; it was almost like being in a prison. I think the writers did a great job of making the characters interesting. Sisko made for an extremely charismatic leader; I'd say as good as Picard or Kirk in his own way. It's quite a feat considering he commanded a space station. But it worked and made his significance very convincing.
The writers also did a great job establishing compelling scenarios. They threw some interesting moral dilemmas at characters and were effective at conveying the challenges that still faced the Federation. It wasn't a perfect utopia, but they managed not to drag everything through the mud in an attempt to make things gritty. Perhaps if the series had been produced today they would have taken that aspect too far.
As a contrast, Voyager, while still quite entertaining, managed to do far less with much more potential. And let's not even mention Enterprise. Although that series got quite good in the last season, when it was far too late to save it.
The moment I learned the same developer who had built City of Heroes was working on Star Trek Online I knew I'd never touch the game. From what I've seen of screenshots it almost looks like City of Heroes reskinned.
Not that City of Heroes was a completely bad game. What it did well, combat, it did extremely well. It was more engaging than almost any other MMO out there. And at release it offered a more robust character creation tool than any other MMO out there; it was exceedingly rare to see clones running around. But that's about all the game had going for it.
The game was nothing but combat. Story was delivered in small text windows and every single mission involved beating up a bunch of bad guys. There was nothing else to do. There weren't many avenues for character development so the entire focus was on leveling. It took the developers years before they began introducing something different; I was long gone by that point.
In terms of environmental design, the use of templates was far too obvious. Far too often not enough effort was make zones feel unique. Step into a zone and you've pretty much seen it all.
So the criticisms I've read of Star Trek Online are not surprising at all.
Boo hoo... You wont be able to get away with building a dong. All the aspirations of children around the world have been crushed! Apparently you've reached the limits of your imagination quite quickly.
I find it rather obnoxious how offended people get when they aren't allowed to do something offensive or lewd. Do these things define your existence? You can't just once accept that people might not want to be exposed to this, especially in a kid's game?
Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if my daughter came across this sort of thing but I do find it ridiculous how immature people get about having this insatiable need for "mature" content.
Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.
One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.
I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to leak information. It's nice to have a single, organized source, but it also makes for a convenient target.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the Russians themselves weren't as confident as you seem to be. They were convinced they would never be able to deal with fighting on two fronts, against Germany and Japan. They relied on the Chinese to hold off the Japanese. They even pushed the communists in China, who they were supporting, to aid the Nationalists in fighting the Japanese.
The Soviet Union might have made things tough for Germany but I doubt they'd be able to fend them off forever. They were successful specifically because of American involvement.
You forgot about the abacus which, in some forms, is over 4000 years old.
For now a matter-antimatter drive might as well be a pipe dream. We don't have a way to create antimatter in any meaningful quantity. Using the current process it would take 2 billion years to produce 1 gram of anti-hydrogen. Then there's storage. Anti-hydrogen has been kept from destroying itself for 10 seconds. (Thanks, Wikipedia.)
Before we start even talking about getting to other planets there are a few things we need to do. We need a space station far more robust than the ISS. One that allows manufacturing in space. Heavy-lift vehicles get all the materials we need into orbit. It's all assembled and launched from space. Needless to say, that's far easier said than done. But if we want to engage in real space exploration I think to start outside of Earth's gravity well. Too much energy is wasted just getting spacecraft into space and building them to survive launch and flight through the atmosphere. Although, I suppose even in space they have to withstand similar loads. But the point is that if you start in space you have many more options.
And I think it's high time we restarted research into nuclear propulsion.
If it turns out to be halfway decent I'm getting one. Having owned a tablet PC running XP I thought the thing had a lot of potential, they simply screwed up the execution. What those devices needed was an iOS-interface that streamlined used with a tablet. Instead they simply offered XP in it's standard form. But then, at the time touch screen technology wasn't where it was today, and PDAs and styluses were still in widespread use. A lot of effort by companies like Sony seemed to be expended on trying to integrate an external keyboard.
When I first heard of the iPad I was interested. But my hope was that it ran a modified version of OSX. So much for that idea.
I find it appealing that I could have a device as portable as the iPad but that allows me to do anything I could with a conventional PC. If nothing else, I want to be able to connect my ODB2 plug to it and run my car's diagnostic software on it.
If this device ends up being a flop or too expensive, I'll just go with a netbook I suppose.
I think it's that Japanese have always been meticulous in everything they do. They're also very good about following rules. In many countries, particularly the US, even people who believe in recycling would likely be pissed a the prospect of having to sort their garbage so extensively.
And I can't help but wonder, why is the recycling company not doing this? Aren't these people paying taxes so that their garbage is processed properly?
Aren't there already sites out there that do this, much more effectively? Snopes.com and FactCheck.org are two that immediately come to mind.
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this uncovers anything. How would it account for some actual event that causes a shift in the nature of associated tweets? It also seems like it might be subject to the old, persistent problem that if people repeat something enough eventually it's considered fact. And what's the benchmark for spotting astroturfing? Is it going to come down to cherry picking information? Anything someone doesn't agree with is dismissed as astroturfing. It also seems like this information, at least, currently is not presented in any meaningful manner that would allow anyone to take away anything useful.
There is a clear fundamental difference. In books and film you're passively watching someone else engage in those actions. When it's a game YOU are the one making the decision. You are the one who choose to play the game, who choose to shoot those people. It may all be fantasy but for a lot of people the situation is quite different. And this will become a more significant problem as games grow increasingly realistic.
It would be interesting to see if the psychological response is different for someone watching a murder in a movie compared to someone initiating it in a game. I think the real threat is that people are growing increasingly desensitized to horrors. This game is the perfect example of that. It's only shocking to non-gamers.
I think the problem is that by tweeting about something people think they've done their job. It's the equivalent of sticking all those ribbons on cars.
"I've devoted 30 seconds between fun and games to think about something important."
But honestly, I think it's more of a symptom of larger problems. Despite everything people piss and moan about Americans, and the developed world in general, by and large have it pretty good. There's a constant stream of entertainment and shiny toys. This stuff is the adult equivalent of a pacifier. And a lot of what seems to get people upset is the fact that they can't have more of it, or more time to enjoy it. I'm convinced we're living in an era where people don't want to be responsible for anything. They'll happily go to the government for all their needs, be it giving up rights for security or expecting handouts of every kind. So why expend any effort on actually doing something for yourself?
I also suspect that politics have gotten so polarized and fear-mongering so rampant because that's the only way people will pay any attention at all.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, that it costs $110 to replace each sign or that it's actually going to take them 8 years to replace them all. Only in America.
The references to Taliban should have been kept in. There is no question there.
But let's face facts here... EA was banking on controversy to move the game, this wasn't some attempt to accurately depict current events. All that has happened is that management and marketing decided that the potential backlash would result in boycotts if not outright bannings, which would be harmful to sales.
And, while we're talking about free speech, people seem to forget that it goes both ways. EA is free to feature the Taliban. However, those offended, for one reason or another, are just as free to protest, to publicly express their displeasure in the form of demonstrations or boycotts. They don't cross the line when they protest, they cross the line when they start demanding that the game be banned because then they're infringing on the rights of others. Even if it's the right to play yet another derivative first-person shooter.
Interestingly, this is one of the few situations where citizens do have clear power over corporations.
The problem isn't that people are eating meat. It's how they're eating meat. They're eating heavily processed crap and from animals raised in the conditions described in the article. And even with the crap we're all supposedly eating humans in developed nations, even America, are living longer than they ever have before.
The solution isn't simply switching to vegan or vegetarian diets. It isn't switching to diet crap loaded with artificial sweetners. The problem is that Americans want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak. They think that they can eat whatever they want, as frequently as they feel like it and remain healthy, especially if's got a pretty diet label on it.
But it's not like other nations are enlightened with it comes to diet. It happens that American diets predispose Americans to certain kind of health problems, but plenty of other nations and cultures suffer from their own sets of health problems due to their particular diets. And obesity is becoming a world-wide problem, it's just that America is leading the pack on that somewhat, and are probably the first to openly acknowledge the problem.
Humans are omnivores. That's a fact of nature. While there are certain kinds of meats we could do without the fact is that we benefit greatly from meat. Sure, you can be quite healthy on a vegetarian diet, but it's going to take a lot more work to make sure you're getting all the proper nutrients.
The people who don't think the parties are equally bad are delusional.
There's no reason a scientist couldn't make a good president. The catch is that they can't just be a good scientist, they have to be skilled in a number of other areas and have to be able to pick the right people to aid them in their job.
The problem is that most young people who think they care about science are merely infatuated with the latest gadgets. Any venture that doesn't result in shiny toys to ogle and possess is a wasted endeavor.
What you're saying is that humans can feel strong withdrawal symptoms from anything they might get addicted to, even when it's not a chemical addiction. But, by some miracle, weed happens to be free of all that.
The Safety Commission should be more concerned about what the junk on Disney Channel, MTV and others is teaching out kids than whether or not a freaking ruler might be dangerous.
We've screwed up this planet to no end? Talk about hyperbole. You don't even have to be all that high up to see virtually no evidence of humanity's presence on Earth, short of observing the night side I suppose.
This is not to say we haven't done some substantial damage. We have. But short of some outright cataclysm it's safe to say life will likely outlast humans on Earth and will likely find a way to thrive. One of the problems is that we've entered an era where it's difficult to determine if an organism is going extinct for natural reasons or because of human activity. Of course everything some animal is endangered the knee-jerk reaction is that humans are responsible. We may be responsible for the eradication of some species but life overall will manage just fine. Life has always been challenged by a multitude of forces.
I've grow increasingly pessimistic over the years about our prospects for serious space exploration. There are far too many self-centered and/or shortsighted people who insist we "fix" all our problems on Earth first. And most politicians are solely interested in self-aggrandizement so they're only going to expend effort on anything that will secure more power for them. Projects requiring long-term commitment with potentially profound but yet unseen benefits aren't the sort of thing they'd ever support.
I've grown resigned to the fact that I won't see significant advances in space exploration within my lifetime, although I do still hope I'm proven wrong.
It seems to me the scope of this study was too limited. What they've defined as attractive seems dictated by celebrity culture. This means excessively thin women who then have to compensate by getting plastic surgery, especially in the US. My impression of many European, excluding England, and South American celebrities is that they're far healthier-looking than Americans.
Hell, look at Japanese illustrations and, excluding some fetishes, the distilled attractive female is generally well-endowed. I don't mean necessarily having large breasts, but nice hips and a fairly curvaceous body. And from personal, admittedly anecdotal, evidence guys are more immediately turned on by a woman with more shape, even if she trends towards being heavy, than they would ever be by someone who's thin.
Unfortunately, the ideal nowadays, for women, seems to be sickeningly thin. And it's generally quite bad in Asia. I'm convinced there's a serious anorexia problem being overlooked out there.
The ideal figure must be aspirational. Looking at classical paintings women were always depicted as a bit heavyset. Generally, it was a considered a sign of wealth given that most didn't have the means to eat so well. Today, in the developed world who doesn't have access to plenty of food. Hell, people who are often considered poor manage to be overweight. So the goal now is to be thin. In some cases it's even been associated with wealth, the argument being that the poor don't have access to good food or have the luxury of being able to work out.
Is this a surprise?
The crazy stuff is sent because it generates hype. Bloggers rush to post about every little thing they receive and routinely gush about how awesome it is that they have it in with the publishers. Publishers bombard publications with all kinds of assorted gifts and marketing crap to foster this sense of good will, they give them special behind-the-scenes access, they offer exclusive interviews. This is all done in an effort to foster this sense of goodwill on the part of reviewers. There's usually no need for anything as overt as outright bribery.
With mainstream games the reviews are irrelevant. It's the pre-release hype that counts, hence the absurd gifts. Considering the number of people who are so impatient they need to pre-order or even wait in line for a game, there's not much of a chance of reviews having any impact on them. And given the American gamer's obsession with violence it's really not surprising that publishers are going to find odd ways to drive that point home.
I disagree that Enterprise was better than Voyager. Voyager certainly had it's low points, but it was generally consistent all throughout. It was entertaining and occasionally showed a glimmer of what made the better shows so good.
Enterprise was quite lame for a good portion of its run. The final season was quite good, and I would agree even surpassed Voyager. But one season doesn't save what was an overall weak show.
I had the same experience. I didn't like DS9 initially and didn't make much of an effort to follow it. I don't recall at what point I did start following it but I found myself enjoying it immensely. I'd have to rate it up there with TNG and TOS.
There were two things I recall not liking about DS9 initially. Firstly, It felt a bit too much like a soap opera. Secondly, after having come from The Next Generation with all the exploration and variety of experiences DS9 felt extremely confined; it was almost like being in a prison. I think the writers did a great job of making the characters interesting. Sisko made for an extremely charismatic leader; I'd say as good as Picard or Kirk in his own way. It's quite a feat considering he commanded a space station. But it worked and made his significance very convincing.
The writers also did a great job establishing compelling scenarios. They threw some interesting moral dilemmas at characters and were effective at conveying the challenges that still faced the Federation. It wasn't a perfect utopia, but they managed not to drag everything through the mud in an attempt to make things gritty. Perhaps if the series had been produced today they would have taken that aspect too far.
As a contrast, Voyager, while still quite entertaining, managed to do far less with much more potential. And let's not even mention Enterprise. Although that series got quite good in the last season, when it was far too late to save it.
The moment I learned the same developer who had built City of Heroes was working on Star Trek Online I knew I'd never touch the game. From what I've seen of screenshots it almost looks like City of Heroes reskinned.
Not that City of Heroes was a completely bad game. What it did well, combat, it did extremely well. It was more engaging than almost any other MMO out there. And at release it offered a more robust character creation tool than any other MMO out there; it was exceedingly rare to see clones running around. But that's about all the game had going for it.
The game was nothing but combat. Story was delivered in small text windows and every single mission involved beating up a bunch of bad guys. There was nothing else to do. There weren't many avenues for character development so the entire focus was on leveling. It took the developers years before they began introducing something different; I was long gone by that point.
In terms of environmental design, the use of templates was far too obvious. Far too often not enough effort was make zones feel unique. Step into a zone and you've pretty much seen it all.
So the criticisms I've read of Star Trek Online are not surprising at all.
Boo hoo... You wont be able to get away with building a dong. All the aspirations of children around the world have been crushed! Apparently you've reached the limits of your imagination quite quickly.
I find it rather obnoxious how offended people get when they aren't allowed to do something offensive or lewd. Do these things define your existence? You can't just once accept that people might not want to be exposed to this, especially in a kid's game?
Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if my daughter came across this sort of thing but I do find it ridiculous how immature people get about having this insatiable need for "mature" content.
Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.
One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.
I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to leak information. It's nice to have a single, organized source, but it also makes for a convenient target.