I agree with you. But there are far too many stupid parents out there. Stand in the game section of any store and you don't have to wait very long to see some idiot parent buying some mature game for their pre-teen. And even when the employee warns them about it they're not deterred from the purchase. Knowing a few parents of this type, they're also the sort of people who generally do a piss poor of disciplining their children.
I don't think the games themselves are responsible for these kids having problems. I think it's merely a symptom of overall poor parenting. Because if parents don't care what their kids are playing why are they inclined to care about anything else their kids are doing? They don't discipline their own kids, but then get offended when someone else, usually a teacher, tries to do so. Ultimately everyone ends up paying for it because they end up incapable of holding a job or making something of themselves.
I fully realize I'm generalizing here. Not everyone turns out this way. But I've known too many people in this kind of situation not to see it as a serious problem. Parents need to be held accountable for their kid's problems and they need to be taught responsibility.
The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit. New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan
Bullshit. If you had visited Japan you'd realize that no way in hell does New Jersey have anything nearing the population density of Japan. The densest area I can think of is the Fort Lee/Edgewater area. That area is comparable to the suburbs of Yokohama/Tokyo. This means single-family comes on tiny plots of land and the occasional apartment tower. Even Manhattan has a misleadingly high population density because of all it's high-rise towers. Japan, and much of Asia manages similar high densities with considerably lower buildings. This means many more structures crammed together, separated by narrow streets that would barely pass for alleys in America.
That said, Japan has huge, sprawling suburbs. They are generally more dense than their American counterparts, but they're suburbs nonetheless and spread out in every direction from city cores. So logistically, they face the same issues with transportation that any American city would. The difference is that Americans love to piss and moan about every little change. You've either got people worried about the impact a big project will have to their neighborhood's character or some luddite environmentalists pissing themselves over some threat to mother earth. We can get anything done without excessive and pointless impact studies which end with researchers stating the obvious. Then there's all the excessive regulation. These might all be sensible measures to take, but they're constantly abused and in the end serve to cripple the country.
Bear in mind that the major railways in Japan are private, for profit companies. They're extremely successful and their service is impeccable. Government-owned Amtrak, on the other hand, is a pathetic joke. The other government managed garbage we have to put up with around here is Metronorth. A poorly run entity which can barely keep trains in running order. With a system like this why would anyone choose taking the train over driving?
I feel fairly strongly that Nintendo has dropped the ball with their motion technology. They certainly had a great idea and it has helped reshape gaming, Microsoft's and Sony's motion control systems are evidence of that. However, they failed to capitalize on the technology. Too many of their games, while fun, were limited in scope and felt a bit too much like tech demos. Too many third party games were crap. And I think in too many cases the controls felt forced, like there was an obligation to feature motion control. And I think it's becoming apparent that the limited processing power of the Wii is a hindrance. Certainly, the low cost of the console was a huge asset initially.
The problem is that Sony and Microsoft are catching up, and because their systems are more powerful they can offer a more satisfying gaming experience. At this point I think more dedicated gamers are shaping the market. It's amazing how the Wii appeal to casual gamers and even non-gamers. Friends of mine who had virtually no interest in games ended up getting a Wii. But like so many other people the only game they own in addition to Wii Sports is Wii Fit. This market is quite fickle.
In that light, Nintendo's performance at this E3 was almost as weak as last year's. Fortunately they still have a few decent games to fall back on, which will more likely appeal to more dedicated gamers. Super Mario Bros certainly looks fun, but it looks too much like more of the same. I'm actually somewhat disappointed by the graphics. I expected them to feel more exaggerated and juicy, instead they almost come off as a fan remake. The new Metroid was another high spot, but at this point it's little more than announcement and there isn't much to see.
Project Natal is very impressive, but at this point it feels too much like a concept. There are too many questions that need to be addressed. Sony's system, on the other hand, was nearly as impressive but actually seemed like a practical application of the technology. It definitely looked like it was ready to go to market. As for the PSP Go, although I don't like the slider format on any device, I think it's decent. It's a logical next step for the PSP.
As is the case every year E3 ultimately ends up being irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. Many, if not most, games featured aren't released before the following E3. And despite all the fanfare regarding the announcement or demonstration of any game at the event ultimately what matters is what the game is like upon release. At that point reviewers refer to E3 only as a comparison on whether or not the game lived up to initial hype. So from that standpoint I pay attention to see what's coming, but for little more than that. I see no point in getting excited, year after year, over games that are still years off from being completed or too often end up as a disappointment.
I see you're the sort of person who subscribes to the myth that all poor are hardworking and noble and all wealthy are selfish exploiters who do nothing but play all day. If you got your education on what it's like to be wealthy from MTV, I guess I can't blame you. You remind me of this intern I had years ago, about as white a cracker as you'd ever find and from a wealthy town no less. This guy was big into hip hop and bought into all the anti-establishment propaganda that the man was keeping the poor down. His idea of connecting with the common person was drive through a lower income neighborhood on his way to run an errand.
I grew up in what most people would consider the inner city. Not the safe little trendy urban neighborhoods that successful young professionals create for themselves. I find that people who grew up in these neighborhoods, like myself, are less sympathetic than people who grew up in safe white bread suburbs. Certainly I saw plenty of people who were very hard working. But then although they had to struggle a bit more than some they weren't actually poor. The ones who were actually poor, with the exception of those who were disabled, were outright lazy or were antagonistic towards everything, finding problems where there were none. Of course, ultimately how you come down on all this depends on whether you find these people responsible for their own actions, or if it's the fault of a system which has let them down.
I personally blame these individuals and their parents for teaching a sense of entitlement instead of respect and hard work, assuming they were even around at all. There were kids of all races who went to the worst schools in this city and managed to get into some of the top universities in the country. If they could pull that off there's no real excuse why anyone couldn't do well, provided of course they had parents pushing them to excel.
Sotomayor may have grown up in that kind of environment, but I tend to believe she's been away from it so long that she might as well have grown up in some upscale community all her life. But even if she had never grown up in a poor neighborhood what would preclude her from making a just decision based on the evidence presented. A good judge should be able to make a decision independently of their upbringing. Listening to her comments I'm left with the impression that she approaches her job with an inherent bias. Is she going to judge for the poor, even if they're wrong, just because she feels she has a connection with them?
I can't help but think that money wasted on the stimulus package couldn't have been better spent on research like this. Even if the end result was that this sort of power generation isn't practical I can't help but think that we'd learn a lot from it and come away with some sort of technological innovation. But of course, that's not how things work. Instead the money goes to whoever lobbies hardest and contributes to the right politicians.
But don't worry, China or India will do it first while the West is struggling to pay for its bloated, unproductive welfare programs. I don't deny there's some need for such programs, but the way I see things going our government is creating a class of people entirely dependent on the government instead of investing in programs which will ensure the long-term innovation prosperity.
Cut me a break. 95% of the time, the folks fighting against illegal immigration are racist as hell, and automatically label any hispanic person as a probable 'illegal'
95% of the time, huh? Care to back that up with some evidence?
So because I'm against illegal immigration I'm racist as hell. I'm tired of this bullshit argument. I'm an immigrant, not that I had much say in the matter since I came here as a baby. I've had a number of other family members immigrate to this country. My own wife is an immigrant who came here pretty much because of me.
And guess what?
They all immigrated legally, jumped through hoops for the opportunity and paid fairly exorbitant fees to do so. My uncle had to wait at least 7 years because he came up in the lottery with his family. Then he had to wait another couple of years while the paperwork was processed. I don't recall how much we spent for my wife but all told it probably $500 to $1000 from initial application, to green card to finally passport. And we got married overseas.
But then I'm supposed to accept and tolerate that people who don't have the patience or courtesy to follow proper channels somehow have a right to come to the US and take advantage of what this country has to offer. That's the big problem here. We're having to pay for all these social programs but then we're expected to accept that there are going to be people getting a free ride and in large numbers no less. Then there's the fact that these people have basically allowed themselves to be exploited because of how they found their way into this country.
Over the past five years I've been seeing groups of South Americans, primarily Mexicans, standing around in a few designated areas waiting, and hoping, someone comes along to give them work for the day. I feel miserable when I see this because it's clear all they want is to earn some money for their families. But sympathy isn't going to fix the problem. Given them all green cards won't solve the problem either. It might help those already here, but how will the government decide who gets to stay and who has to leave. And how can this possibly not encourage yet another flood of additional illegal immigrants? What are we supposed to do, start giving free green cards to anyone who finds their way into the US?
And as I've mentioned these immigrants have only been arriving in the area in recent years. What's going to happen over the next few decades? Are we going to start facing the problems California and other border states have been contending with for years now? Heavy burdens on social programs, high crime, etc.
I completely embrace immigration. This country wouldn't exist and be the success it's been without immigrants. But that was achieved through legal immigration. This is not to say that I necessarily think it's realistic and sensible to start rounding up illegals and deporting them. But those who are found out should be deported, with one exception, if they're going to school. I think education is invaluable to ensuring people rise out of poverty and I even support educational programs for illegals.
The problem is that most politicans are selfish scumbags out for their own best interests. I'm convinced both democrats and republicans are interested in illegals specifically because they want to build a voter base. They don't want to alienate potential voters, first of all. And many South Americans tend to be religious and skew conservative which is obviously appealing to republicans. On the other hand they also accustomed to social programs in their own countries and expect the same in the US so democrats will bribe them that way. And although democrats love to pretend they represent the working class, let's face facts, nearly all are upper class and in bed with special interests and corporations so the more cheap, uneducated labor we've got the better for them.
But why bother discussing an issue and actually try find solutions when you can just resort to name calling?
I don't believe free market is the solution to everything. However, when the free market steps out of line there's someone to turn to. When the government steps out of line we're screwed; there's no one else to turn to.
You point out Microsoft. I'd argue that the free market is changing the market. Certainly, they needed to be punished, but Internet Explorers declining market share, Apple's increased popularity and open source's growing user base is certainly due to the free market. Those penalties imposed on Microsoft weren't responsible in opening up the market, it was the advent of good alternative products and a barrage of negative press that did the job.
As far as health care is concerned, I'd like to know how you figure that Americans spend twice as much on health care given that other nations tax so heavily to sustain their health care systems. We've basically shifted costs elsewhere. But if you think Europe is a wonderland of great healthcare you're sorely mistaken. I could go on about the problems family members of mine face in Europe.
What exactly is the basis for claiming that America's health care is near the bottom in terms of quality? The one statistic I know of, people love to trot out as a symbol of how bad things are here is infant mortality. But the fact is that Europe, for example, has a far stricter definition of infant mortality than does the US which essentially guarantees they have far lower numbers. And the US is generally more open and consistent in its reporting. This is not to say that the American system doesn't have it's problems. It certainly has a ton of problems which need to be addressed. But I'd far rather have the government properly regulating a private system, than taking over the whole thing themselves.
Here's a very important distinction between a company and the government. No matter what, a company exists to be profitable, this means offering an attractive product and controlling expenses. What does any government employee care about expenses? They haven't earned the money, first of all. They've essentially taken it from citizens by law. The money is always going to be there regardless of quality of their service. And if they need more all they have to do is raise taxes. There's virtually no incentive to cut spending. By the time they do get around to cutting expenses they've been forced into it because they're killing business and driving away citizens who cant afford or don't want to pay their high taxes. Of course, by having the government do all the thinking for the people it absolves them of any responsibility.
I believe many, if not most, gamers are desensitized to violence. So there's already an exaggerated expectation of how violence should be depicted, mainly that there should be gushes of blood everywhere and bodies torn apart. Even, myself, who is not keen on gore finds any game with bloodless violence to be quite tame.
Your average non-gamer, however, is likely to have a very different reaction. The simple act of pointing a gun at a character and shooting them is troubling to a lot of people. I'm not suggesting that gamers are going to resort to real life violence or anything as absurd as that. But certainly there is a thrill they get out excessive violence.
I personally have no problem with gore in a game if it's an integral part of the story. The problem I have is when developers get gratuitous with it for no clear reason other than, I suppose, to sell more games. It's not all that dissimilar to developers constantly objectifying and over-sexualizing women. I like watching hot girls as much as the next guy, but when it becomes the rule, not the exception I think there's a problem. In some ways I see all this as appealing to the more immature attitudes although I'm sure some people will disagree.
I don't think moderate speeding is an issue at all, by moderate speeding I'd say speeds up to perhaps 85mph, but it also depends on the vehicle. It probably should be lower for economy subcompacts and SUVs.
Beyond the obvious decrease in response time there are quite a few issues that come with excessive speeding. There's loss of stability at speed, due to design of the vehicle, tire grip, potholes and pavement and the design of the road itself. The main interstate in more area, about 20 or 30 miles east of where I live is generally straight and smooth. It's easy to sustain speeds upwards of 90mph. In my area, however, there are more potholes and the highway has tighter turns, even 80mph is pushing it in some areas. And some areas, like New York City, where the roads are utter garbage and incompetently designed, 70mph is pushing it. The problem of course, is that people drive like the road conditions never change.
So the biggest issue ultimately is driver skill. To be frank, most drivers aren't nearly as good as they think they are, particularly those who like to drive aggressively. Your average driver isn't a problem, these guys are.
Aggressive lane changes and tailgating are a big problem I'd say the biggest source of accidents. These people are always the ones disrupting the flow of traffic. Of course, police officers are always going to report speeding as a cause, because it can always be argued that speed is a contributor. We wouldn't have any accidents if cars were all parked. And the problem is that it's pretty difficult to spot aggressive drivers, at least not without air support.
Another important problem is the speed differential. If one guy is doing 90 and everyone else is traveling at 60, that's dangerous. But if everyone is cruising at 80mph, it really isn't an issue. And actually, I'd say this is more of a problem in Europe where there's a big discrepancy between vehicle performance. You'll have some econobox straining to maintain 70mph, then some guy comes along comes along in a BMW and blows by doing 100.
And that brings up another problem which is slow driving, mainly from people who sit in the passing lane. This is not nearly as much of a problem in Europe where people respect the passing lane and almost always get out of the way. But in the US people tend suffer from this indignant self-righteousness where they believe nobody needs to drive faster than they're driving. So they sit there in the passing lane and refuse to move out of the way for anyone. So what happens? Faster traffic is forced to pass on the right, again causing a disruption in the flow of traffic.
I'd say proper driver's education and more stringent tests would reduce accidents. But then, that would also empower people and governments can't have that. If anything, I'd say politicians seem to be trying to make driving undesirable. I'm not really surprised this is happening, and it's only a matter of time before technology is at a point where cars can drive themselves.
Special effects can add to an experience when they're so well integrated you don't even think about it. When they're bad or gratuitous it always hurts the movie, bad effects because they kill suspension of disbelief and gratuitous because they cause a viewer to focus on the effects. The problem is that with sci fi movies it's far too easy to get fixated on the effects.
Imagine a scene inside a house in a conventional, modern day drama. The focus may be on characters interacting with each other. Shots are focused on them and they only interact peripherally with their environment and usually as part of the plot or to give the scene more life. In a sci-fi movie, however, such a scene will descend into gadget porn. They'll take these wide shots where the actors are lost in the midst of this future-modern, impractically fashionable living space. Often we'll be greeted to these vistas of some impressive future city. Making things worse, every bit of technology will be extremely obtrusive in its functionality so as to remind the viewer that this is the future and everything is so freaking cool.
This is the problem I had with Star Trek Episodes 1 through 3, beyond the poor script. That said, they did an excellent job integrating live and computer rendered characters into these scenes. But every single setting in those movies didn't feel lived-in. And it felt like the designers were trying too hard to show off their imagination and effects prowess. To be fair, I think the original movies suffered from similar problems, but the technical limitations forced them to be a bit more down-to-earth and thus more convincing.
I personally think Blade Runner did a great job. The futuristic technology was there, but it didn't stand out. Deckard lived in what was basically a regular apartment.
It's important that technology looks plausible even if it's function is fantastic. A lot of movies feature technology that is so absurdly elaborate it's impractical. Much like Nero's ship which was ridiculous with all the pointy insect-like appendages. Transformers has the same problem with them being made of all these tiny, intricate pieces. How they aren't utterly destroyed with the smallest impacts is beyond me. And from a cinematic standpoint they're so complex it's often hard to know what exactly they're doing.
Another problem with technology in sci-fi, especially more recent movies, is the depiction of use. Futuristic gadgets are either overly pristine regardless of use or they're so worn down and beat up it's almost comical. It's like they're either museum pieces or they were fished out of garbage dumps.
And I have to ask... Did the Federation abolish the news media in the future? How could Nero not have known about Vulcan's attempts to save his planet? His entire scheme hinges on a colossal misunderstanding on his part that could have been avoided if he had watched the future version of Romulan television for five minutes.
I always find it annoying when people in the future encounter unsolvable problems that have been addressed and are basically non-issues in the present-day real world.
Pages lie different from the front to the back of the book, and books are bound differently. So you can't use a generic model and expect it to be accurate in most cases.
I actually think this is really cool because it seems to account for any scenario, including folded pages, I would assume. Although, I suppose that in extreme bends it might not be perfect, but certainly they just need to ensure that pages are adequately flat. It automates the entire process.
I wonder if they've built an automated page-turning mechanism; I would assume they have. Just drop in a book and let the machine go to town on it.
Every bulb in my house, excluding the 3 on a dimmer is a CFL. I've got no problem with them whatsoever.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that despite all my efforts to be economical my electricity bill is still absurdly high. I've got a friend in another state who is about as careless as anyone can be with their usage and they're paying half what I pay.
I shudder to think how bad things are going to get if things like cap and trade get implemented. And I assume things will only get worse as people start driving electric vehicles. The big irony, of course, is that the electricity in my area is generated with petroleum.
I'm looking to replace my electric water heater with a natural gas one. I can't help but wonder which one is more environmentally friendly, but certainly the gas one is far cheaper to operate.
That's nonsense... Even going out to McDonalds on a regular basis gets expensive. Buying pre-packaged foods, which is what I routinely see the overweight loading their shopping carts with, is also expensive especially if you're eating this stuff excessively.
Let's say you ate three meals a day at McDonalds. Each mean is roughly $5. That's $15 a day, $105 a week. You mean to tell me an individual couldn't spend $105 a week buying healthy foods only? You don't need to go organic, just buy basic fruits and vegetables and some meat. You can probably even squeeze in some dessert on the side.
The only way to ensure you're eating healthy if to cook for yourself. Of course, that isn't the only issue. I know quite a few people who cook for themselves on a daily basis, but what they cook isn't particularly healthy. That's where education comes in.
Then again, it's their own prerogative to eat whatever the hell they want. They're the ones who will pay the consequences. Be it financially or otherwise. Of course, with socialized healthcare the consequences of their choices are forced on everybody else.
I'm tired of this garbage that the poor somehow can't afford eating healthy. The truly poor have government assistance, and everyone else can easily afford to eat properly. It might come down to education but the resources are there for everyone to exploit without the government getting involved in yet another thing they have no business meddling with.
What are the chances that if you opened up a such a store in the US, you would have homeland security checking out your credentials?
Can you explain why this would be the case?
There are many Americans tinkering with robots and not being harassed by the government. Although I realize it's cool to pretend that the government is out to get you.
These kinds of stores would likely struggle to see any level of success and would likely only get by as a general hobby store.
You average American is unlikely to be interested in do-it-yourself robotics. They're more likely to go out and buy something finished, provided it's cheap. Those who are more interested in robotics are likely to build things themselves and go directly to the component manufacturers for parts, and they'd likely be buying online. The last time I checked the US government hasn't banned components for robots.
I'm not sure why these quirky shops thrive in Japan, although they certainly do pop up to meet the latest fads. I guess the population density is high enough to ensure these shops get enough customers and people do show up from far away. Japanese do have one huge advantage; they have a ton of disposable income. They can afford putting down several thousand dollars on these robots. How they find time for this is beyond me, but then I know a couple of guys there who pretty much live off their families.
I still think City of Heroes/Villains has, by far, the best fighting system of any MMO. It's the closest any game has come to real-time action. It's engaging and can be a lot of fun.
When I was playing there were a handful of interesting storylines and entertaining missions. However, virtually every single mission consistent of entering one of a handful of environments and beating the crap out of every enemy contained within. While it's very entertaining taking on 5 or more enemies at the same time it does get old after doing so for the hundredth time.
I haven't played in a couple of years, and I managed to get my main character up to level 45, the cap being 50. But I just lost interested in continuing because by that point I had seen nearly everything the game had to offer anyway. I've followed updates to some extent over the years and haven't found them to offer much in the way of compelling content.
I would have liked to have seen them build out existing plot lines further. And I think they've focused a bit too heavily on player interaction over providing more content. I think what they've done is great, but the core gameplay really needs more variety.
I thought I'd add to my rant... I rode this metro system for several years. That article is correct. The trains were always pristine and always punctual. The announcements were clear, even if not necessary because the trains were frequent and on time.
I think the first line opened a bit over 12 years ago. And it's already reasonably extensive, and they're working aggressively to expand service. I know of two or three lines currently under construction and pretty far along. And looking at the map of what they have planned it's very ambitious. And this is in addition to conventional rail lines and a high speed rail line which service the rest of the country.
One thing I admired was how clean everything was and how good passengers were about keeping things clean. I never saw some slob munching on some sloppy sandwich, dripping juices everywhere and then dropping the empty bag on the floor under his seat, putting down a coffee cup so that it inevitably falls over when the train lurches spilling it's contents all over the train. But in the US that's routine.
Just try telling Americans that they shouldn't be eating on the train. They'd get all indignant. How dare anyone tell them what to do. God forbid they wait half an hour to eat.
And those are the people who make a mess of public transportation unintentionally. Then there are the mental defectives who have this obsession with writing gibberish all over every flat surface they see. Or otherwise they have this compulsion to tear at seat cushions and pull on trim. All because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them to respect public property.
It goes back to what I see as fundamental cultural problems in the US. All this stuff is inter-related. This is yet another thing that has turned me off from public transportation. Why should I have to wait for trains that can't arrive on time and then have to be wary about where I sit when I can just drive anywhere I want where ever I want.
People keep talking about urban sprawl like it's an insurmountable issue. As I've said recently, Japanese cities have massive sprawl and they manage just fine.
As cool as high speed rail lines are the big problem is that they're a huge waste of money if there isn't some sort of infrastructure for getting people around each city without cars. What American cities and suburbs need are extensive rail systems which service outlying areas in addition to the city core.
And this doesn't just mean a spoke and hub layout, this means that those outlying areas should be directly connected as well. Take a look at this map of the rail lines owned by a single company around Tokyo.
Want to be really impressed? Check out this PDF. In that map, Shibukawa, tucked away in the upper left corner of that map is 120km from Tokyo. That should give you a sense of how extensive their rail system is.
If you want people to take rail seriously this is the sort of extensive service you need to provide. I'd take the train to work if it provided me this level of accessibility. Hell, I wouldn't even need a car.
This is the embarrassment that passes for a rail system in the New York area. Just imagine trying to get from somewhere like Poughkeepsie to New Haven.
Of course, there's another issue. The rail system in Japan runs like clockwork. With far fewer lines Metronorth is incapable of ever being punctual. Every year they send out press releases stating, with pride, that their trains are on average only 5 or 10 minutes late. I rode the New Haven line for years and I can't recall it ever being on time. Hell, it was even late departing the very first station.
Every so often the train manages to pull down power lines or at least damage them sufficiently to cause significant delays as has been happening the past week or so. The bathrooms are a cesspool and unfortunately a lot of riders are slobs who leave their crap on the train when they get off. And then there's the vandalism.
Despite increased ridership the MTA, which runs the rail system around New York, can barely stay afloat without drastically raising fees or getting bailouts from the government. Years ago they began ordering new trains. I've yet to see one. But the bigger joke is that some of these new cars are being pulled by diesel locomotives. On an electric line! It's crap from the bottom up.
These are all important issues that need to be taken seriously if anyone expects a rail line to be successful. But an extensive rail system does make far more sense than any high speed rail line.
Unfortunately, in the US there are far too many obstacles for any such system to ever see fruition. First, are all the environmentalists who piss and moan about everything even if it were to provide real long-term advantages. Just as bad are all the residents who have this irrational fear of any perceived threat to their idyllic communities. They're all wrapped up in their selfish desire to preserve their little communities even if these projects would ultimately benefit everyone. In the Northeast there are a number of extremely helpful projects which have been blocked by just these sort of people.
I'm quite pessimistic about the whole thing. American's have lost that can-do attitude a long time ago and I think have grown quite self-centered. I mean self-centered from the standpoint of wanting to be sheltered by the government from all the little challenges of life. Although, I don't doubt that the government will spend untold billions on some boondoggle.
You've described the problem I have with the game industry better than anyone else has thus far.
Many gamers seem to be extremely immature in their attitudes towards mature games. To them mature seems to be excessive violence or sex and nudity.I can't count the times I've read gamers criticize a violent game because it didn't depict enough blood and gore.
Certainly, the game industry doesn't help when they pander to this culture. They seem to be a pack of immature dimwits themselves. Women are depicted as nothing but hyper-sexualized, scantily clad tarts. Any act of violence requires cartoonish gushes of blood and the rending of body parts. Crime is depicted as cool and otherwise threats seem to predominantly come in the form, of horrific, shambling hellspawn.
All that is well and good. I occasionally enjoy such games, but there's a problem when the vast majority of games default back to this crap. But then, can I really fault the industry for going back to this sort of content? It obviously sells.
But lets face the facts here, what people are looking for out of these games isn't mature themes, it's titillation. There's a thrill to be had in experiencing shocking content. But something that is truly shocking, such as experiencing what actually happened in Fallujah, for example, is unacceptable. The reason being that the end result is that it demands something more of the viewer, it makes them think and it certainly doesn't leave them feeling good. These gamers don't want to come away feeling bad about something. You can't expect much of people who get worked up about seeing a pair of tits in a game.
And the fact is that mature themes don't necessarily have anything to do with violence. Does every mature game have to be about administering headshots and generally brutalizing people?
When it comes down to it, I have a hard time taking the gaming industry seriously, not because the potential isn't there for great storytelling, but because very few people actually take advantage. Certainly, most of what comes out of Hollywood is garbage, but every year there are some gems. Even relatively good games are still weak, in my opinion, in terms of storytelling and conveying messages that aren't contrived and overly simplistic.
I didn't so much have a problem with Cochrane's excessive drinking as I had with the fact that a spaceship capable of warp speeds was built in the middle of the woods in the midst of what amounted to a campsite.
As for Cochrane, for all his drinking I would have expected him to be a more serious scientist when it came to his work.
And while we're at it, why didn't the borg come back to the 20th century where they could wipe out humans effortlessly?
I'm not sure what sort of people you've spoken to, but I completely disagree. Not only did I think it was an excellent movie, but I think it ranks among the best of the Star Trek movies and this is coming from someone who prefers the more intellectual stories of The Next Generation series.
The biggest issue I had was with the villain and a portion of the plot surrounding his actions. He came off the same sort of loser we've seen from the villains of the last couple of Star Trek movies. But as for the depiction of the Enterprise, the Federation and it's crew I thought it was great.
The only concern I have at this point for potential futures movies is that they continue with these goofy villains or they slip back into mediocrity.
The argument that supposedly American suburbs aren't conducive to a rail system are very weak. Have you been to Japan. Japanese cities may be dense but the sprawl extends for miles and miles. And the suburbs extend out beyond that in every direction.
The average Japanese commute is in the range of 70 minutes which is more than double the average American commute. Many people live closer to central urban areas, but many more live out in the suburbs and ride the train in.
Several times, I've ridden the train from one end of the Tokyo metropolitan area, closer to the suburbs of Yokohama out to the Narita airport area. Over the 2 hour ride you're pretty much passing through densely populated areas. And this level of development pretty much extends in a massive circle around Tokyo bay. I've said it many times, Americans have little comprehension of what massive over-development is.
If anything, it should be more difficult to establish rail lines in a nation like Japan because of the all the heavily developed areas these lines have to cut through. And yet they manage it.
Has anyone taken a look at rail maps of Japan? Those trains go over where. People give directions to where they live according to train stations. Around Tokyo, and probably many other Japanese cities, you're unlikely to be further than a 20-30 minute walk from a train station. And it also helps that the trains are extremely punctual. About the only thing that causes a train delay is the occasional suicide. Compare that to here in the Northeast US where we're stuck with a single rail line where the trains are constantly late and they routinely pull down the overhead power lines.
I can't speak for China or South Korea, but in Taiwan the government has invested heavily in expanding the subway system in Taipei and they already have a decent rail system which services more outlying areas. From what I've been told, however, China and South Korea seem to have similarly extensive rail systems. In addition to that Taiwanese cities do have have a decent bus system which unfortunately does get bogged down in heavy traffic. But at least they run buses every 5 to 10 minutes depending on the line.
This is not to say they don't own cars, because in Taipei, for example, there apparently are something like 2 cars for every officially designated parking spot. And a lot of people still drive. But the important thing is that the government is serious about providing good public transportation. And perhaps, more importantly, the people embrace it.
I think that is the biggest problem in the US. Nothing can get done because of either residents who don't want anything to change in their neighborhood or environmentalists who seem intent on hindering progress on any level.
The solution isn't just building out the rail system, but improving the highway infrastructure as well. For as good as Japan's rail system is, they've got an excellent and extensive highway system as well.
But again, whereas in Asia they generally embrace development, in the US there are constantly efforts to block everything. It's kind of pathetic, actually. And I'm not optimistic that things will change because it seems to be more of a cultural problem.
Having taught a class at a university where they hand out laptops to every student, I'm convinced it's a huge mistake and counter-productive to the goal of providing a good education.
All these laptops do provide a huge distraction, and I teach a class where we need computers. As I walk around the class I'll notice them closing chat windows or minimizing browsers.
Having grown up around computers I know first hand how distracting they can be in the class, and we didn't even have anything like the internet at the time. Now, obviously it's far worse given how much these kids will have access to.
I certainly believe computers are invaluable and it's good to expose children to them early on. But students don't need their own laptops. What they need are good, current text books. A class with a focus on computers makes far more sense, or perhaps a couple of computers in each classroom for children to share.
Then there's the fact that most of these laptops wont survive the school year. College kids do a good job of trashing their machines it will only be worse with children.
Really what children need is a more challenging educational environment and more discipline needs to be imposed. And many parents need to be made more responsible for their children's education. Too many parents just don't care how their kids do in school or just accept the fact that their kids will under-perform. They don't discipline their kids like they should, but then get offended when a teacher tries to do so.
And I think there's too much fixation on trying to make education fun and approachable. Certainly it can be made entertaining and should be made so when practical. But when it comes down to it, it really is work. You're studying hard to get ahead in life, because it's your responsibility, not because you think it should be a game.
Americans seem to believe that throwing money at education will solve every problem. It hasn't solved anything and only aggravates the existing problems. The city where I live spends more per student, by far, than any other country on Earth and I'd say that the quality of education is sorely lacking.
First, completely ban campaign contributions. I'm inclined to say lobbyists should be banned as well, or at least very strictly regulated.
Second, lower corporate tax, simplify the tax code, and ease up on certain regulations. I realize it's the latest fad to bash corporations, but the fact is that they're the ones who create jobs. They're the ones who produce products and provide services. If taxes go up it means they either raise process or lay off people, it's not complicated.
Another massive problem I see, particularly for small businesses is the burden of excessive regulation. Obviously, it's necessary to some extent, but this regulation essentially helps ensure that those at the top remain there and the upstarts have a hard time being truly successful.
One reason asian economies are thriving is because of the success of small business and their governments are actively promoting their growth through a variety of means. Taiwan, for example, offers extremely low interest rate business loans, South Korea I believe is offering dramatically lower tax rates for the first few years of business. And they aren't encumbered by all the absurd regulations American companies have to deal with, both state and federal.
Third, when a company does break the law they should be punished harshly and promptly. I'm not so naive as to believe that there aren't people out there looking to take advantage of the system. Obviously consumers need to also be protected from abuses. And if a company is poorly run, there's no justifiable reason to bail them out. To be honest, the problem with the banks, for example, is that the government allowed them to get too large. But even if it meant some short-term economic pain I tend to think they should have been allowed to fail. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
Using tax havens, in my opinion, ranks fairly low on my list of offenses. If the US offered a more attractive business environment these companies wouldn't have the incentive to move money offshore.
It always bothers me when they come up with these arbitrarily low estimates for how much was spent on these productions. 3000 pounds? I can only assume they didn't actually have to pay anyone's salary.
It's nice when people are willing to work for free for the sake of the project, whether it be because they're passionate about it or they believe that they can move onto something greater because of it. But the reality is that most people need to earn a living and you can't get away with this sort of thing too long.
Major studios certainly throw away money on crap, and doubtless celebrities are overpaid. Under regular circumstances, however, a movie of this nature would cost far more than 3000 pounds. I just find such claims a bit disingenuous but more and more people seem to have this belief that everything should be free. Perhaps once we abandon currency that will be true, but it isn't yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. But there are far too many stupid parents out there. Stand in the game section of any store and you don't have to wait very long to see some idiot parent buying some mature game for their pre-teen. And even when the employee warns them about it they're not deterred from the purchase. Knowing a few parents of this type, they're also the sort of people who generally do a piss poor of disciplining their children.
I don't think the games themselves are responsible for these kids having problems. I think it's merely a symptom of overall poor parenting. Because if parents don't care what their kids are playing why are they inclined to care about anything else their kids are doing? They don't discipline their own kids, but then get offended when someone else, usually a teacher, tries to do so. Ultimately everyone ends up paying for it because they end up incapable of holding a job or making something of themselves.
I fully realize I'm generalizing here. Not everyone turns out this way. But I've known too many people in this kind of situation not to see it as a serious problem. Parents need to be held accountable for their kid's problems and they need to be taught responsibility.
Bullshit. If you had visited Japan you'd realize that no way in hell does New Jersey have anything nearing the population density of Japan. The densest area I can think of is the Fort Lee/Edgewater area. That area is comparable to the suburbs of Yokohama/Tokyo. This means single-family comes on tiny plots of land and the occasional apartment tower. Even Manhattan has a misleadingly high population density because of all it's high-rise towers. Japan, and much of Asia manages similar high densities with considerably lower buildings. This means many more structures crammed together, separated by narrow streets that would barely pass for alleys in America.
That said, Japan has huge, sprawling suburbs. They are generally more dense than their American counterparts, but they're suburbs nonetheless and spread out in every direction from city cores. So logistically, they face the same issues with transportation that any American city would. The difference is that Americans love to piss and moan about every little change. You've either got people worried about the impact a big project will have to their neighborhood's character or some luddite environmentalists pissing themselves over some threat to mother earth. We can get anything done without excessive and pointless impact studies which end with researchers stating the obvious. Then there's all the excessive regulation. These might all be sensible measures to take, but they're constantly abused and in the end serve to cripple the country.
Bear in mind that the major railways in Japan are private, for profit companies. They're extremely successful and their service is impeccable. Government-owned Amtrak, on the other hand, is a pathetic joke. The other government managed garbage we have to put up with around here is Metronorth. A poorly run entity which can barely keep trains in running order. With a system like this why would anyone choose taking the train over driving?
I feel fairly strongly that Nintendo has dropped the ball with their motion technology. They certainly had a great idea and it has helped reshape gaming, Microsoft's and Sony's motion control systems are evidence of that. However, they failed to capitalize on the technology. Too many of their games, while fun, were limited in scope and felt a bit too much like tech demos. Too many third party games were crap. And I think in too many cases the controls felt forced, like there was an obligation to feature motion control. And I think it's becoming apparent that the limited processing power of the Wii is a hindrance. Certainly, the low cost of the console was a huge asset initially.
The problem is that Sony and Microsoft are catching up, and because their systems are more powerful they can offer a more satisfying gaming experience. At this point I think more dedicated gamers are shaping the market. It's amazing how the Wii appeal to casual gamers and even non-gamers. Friends of mine who had virtually no interest in games ended up getting a Wii. But like so many other people the only game they own in addition to Wii Sports is Wii Fit. This market is quite fickle.
In that light, Nintendo's performance at this E3 was almost as weak as last year's. Fortunately they still have a few decent games to fall back on, which will more likely appeal to more dedicated gamers. Super Mario Bros certainly looks fun, but it looks too much like more of the same. I'm actually somewhat disappointed by the graphics. I expected them to feel more exaggerated and juicy, instead they almost come off as a fan remake. The new Metroid was another high spot, but at this point it's little more than announcement and there isn't much to see.
Project Natal is very impressive, but at this point it feels too much like a concept. There are too many questions that need to be addressed. Sony's system, on the other hand, was nearly as impressive but actually seemed like a practical application of the technology. It definitely looked like it was ready to go to market. As for the PSP Go, although I don't like the slider format on any device, I think it's decent. It's a logical next step for the PSP.
As is the case every year E3 ultimately ends up being irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. Many, if not most, games featured aren't released before the following E3. And despite all the fanfare regarding the announcement or demonstration of any game at the event ultimately what matters is what the game is like upon release. At that point reviewers refer to E3 only as a comparison on whether or not the game lived up to initial hype. So from that standpoint I pay attention to see what's coming, but for little more than that. I see no point in getting excited, year after year, over games that are still years off from being completed or too often end up as a disappointment.
I see you're the sort of person who subscribes to the myth that all poor are hardworking and noble and all wealthy are selfish exploiters who do nothing but play all day. If you got your education on what it's like to be wealthy from MTV, I guess I can't blame you. You remind me of this intern I had years ago, about as white a cracker as you'd ever find and from a wealthy town no less. This guy was big into hip hop and bought into all the anti-establishment propaganda that the man was keeping the poor down. His idea of connecting with the common person was drive through a lower income neighborhood on his way to run an errand.
I grew up in what most people would consider the inner city. Not the safe little trendy urban neighborhoods that successful young professionals create for themselves. I find that people who grew up in these neighborhoods, like myself, are less sympathetic than people who grew up in safe white bread suburbs. Certainly I saw plenty of people who were very hard working. But then although they had to struggle a bit more than some they weren't actually poor. The ones who were actually poor, with the exception of those who were disabled, were outright lazy or were antagonistic towards everything, finding problems where there were none. Of course, ultimately how you come down on all this depends on whether you find these people responsible for their own actions, or if it's the fault of a system which has let them down.
I personally blame these individuals and their parents for teaching a sense of entitlement instead of respect and hard work, assuming they were even around at all. There were kids of all races who went to the worst schools in this city and managed to get into some of the top universities in the country. If they could pull that off there's no real excuse why anyone couldn't do well, provided of course they had parents pushing them to excel.
Sotomayor may have grown up in that kind of environment, but I tend to believe she's been away from it so long that she might as well have grown up in some upscale community all her life. But even if she had never grown up in a poor neighborhood what would preclude her from making a just decision based on the evidence presented. A good judge should be able to make a decision independently of their upbringing. Listening to her comments I'm left with the impression that she approaches her job with an inherent bias. Is she going to judge for the poor, even if they're wrong, just because she feels she has a connection with them?
I can't help but think that money wasted on the stimulus package couldn't have been better spent on research like this. Even if the end result was that this sort of power generation isn't practical I can't help but think that we'd learn a lot from it and come away with some sort of technological innovation. But of course, that's not how things work. Instead the money goes to whoever lobbies hardest and contributes to the right politicians.
But don't worry, China or India will do it first while the West is struggling to pay for its bloated, unproductive welfare programs. I don't deny there's some need for such programs, but the way I see things going our government is creating a class of people entirely dependent on the government instead of investing in programs which will ensure the long-term innovation prosperity.
95% of the time, huh? Care to back that up with some evidence?
So because I'm against illegal immigration I'm racist as hell. I'm tired of this bullshit argument. I'm an immigrant, not that I had much say in the matter since I came here as a baby. I've had a number of other family members immigrate to this country. My own wife is an immigrant who came here pretty much because of me.
And guess what?
They all immigrated legally, jumped through hoops for the opportunity and paid fairly exorbitant fees to do so. My uncle had to wait at least 7 years because he came up in the lottery with his family. Then he had to wait another couple of years while the paperwork was processed. I don't recall how much we spent for my wife but all told it probably $500 to $1000 from initial application, to green card to finally passport. And we got married overseas.
But then I'm supposed to accept and tolerate that people who don't have the patience or courtesy to follow proper channels somehow have a right to come to the US and take advantage of what this country has to offer. That's the big problem here. We're having to pay for all these social programs but then we're expected to accept that there are going to be people getting a free ride and in large numbers no less. Then there's the fact that these people have basically allowed themselves to be exploited because of how they found their way into this country.
Over the past five years I've been seeing groups of South Americans, primarily Mexicans, standing around in a few designated areas waiting, and hoping, someone comes along to give them work for the day. I feel miserable when I see this because it's clear all they want is to earn some money for their families. But sympathy isn't going to fix the problem. Given them all green cards won't solve the problem either. It might help those already here, but how will the government decide who gets to stay and who has to leave. And how can this possibly not encourage yet another flood of additional illegal immigrants? What are we supposed to do, start giving free green cards to anyone who finds their way into the US?
And as I've mentioned these immigrants have only been arriving in the area in recent years. What's going to happen over the next few decades? Are we going to start facing the problems California and other border states have been contending with for years now? Heavy burdens on social programs, high crime, etc.
I completely embrace immigration. This country wouldn't exist and be the success it's been without immigrants. But that was achieved through legal immigration. This is not to say that I necessarily think it's realistic and sensible to start rounding up illegals and deporting them. But those who are found out should be deported, with one exception, if they're going to school. I think education is invaluable to ensuring people rise out of poverty and I even support educational programs for illegals.
The problem is that most politicans are selfish scumbags out for their own best interests. I'm convinced both democrats and republicans are interested in illegals specifically because they want to build a voter base. They don't want to alienate potential voters, first of all. And many South Americans tend to be religious and skew conservative which is obviously appealing to republicans. On the other hand they also accustomed to social programs in their own countries and expect the same in the US so democrats will bribe them that way. And although democrats love to pretend they represent the working class, let's face facts, nearly all are upper class and in bed with special interests and corporations so the more cheap, uneducated labor we've got the better for them.
But why bother discussing an issue and actually try find solutions when you can just resort to name calling?
I don't believe free market is the solution to everything. However, when the free market steps out of line there's someone to turn to. When the government steps out of line we're screwed; there's no one else to turn to.
You point out Microsoft. I'd argue that the free market is changing the market. Certainly, they needed to be punished, but Internet Explorers declining market share, Apple's increased popularity and open source's growing user base is certainly due to the free market. Those penalties imposed on Microsoft weren't responsible in opening up the market, it was the advent of good alternative products and a barrage of negative press that did the job.
As far as health care is concerned, I'd like to know how you figure that Americans spend twice as much on health care given that other nations tax so heavily to sustain their health care systems. We've basically shifted costs elsewhere. But if you think Europe is a wonderland of great healthcare you're sorely mistaken. I could go on about the problems family members of mine face in Europe.
What exactly is the basis for claiming that America's health care is near the bottom in terms of quality? The one statistic I know of, people love to trot out as a symbol of how bad things are here is infant mortality. But the fact is that Europe, for example, has a far stricter definition of infant mortality than does the US which essentially guarantees they have far lower numbers. And the US is generally more open and consistent in its reporting. This is not to say that the American system doesn't have it's problems. It certainly has a ton of problems which need to be addressed. But I'd far rather have the government properly regulating a private system, than taking over the whole thing themselves.
Here's a very important distinction between a company and the government. No matter what, a company exists to be profitable, this means offering an attractive product and controlling expenses. What does any government employee care about expenses? They haven't earned the money, first of all. They've essentially taken it from citizens by law. The money is always going to be there regardless of quality of their service. And if they need more all they have to do is raise taxes. There's virtually no incentive to cut spending. By the time they do get around to cutting expenses they've been forced into it because they're killing business and driving away citizens who cant afford or don't want to pay their high taxes. Of course, by having the government do all the thinking for the people it absolves them of any responsibility.
I believe many, if not most, gamers are desensitized to violence. So there's already an exaggerated expectation of how violence should be depicted, mainly that there should be gushes of blood everywhere and bodies torn apart. Even, myself, who is not keen on gore finds any game with bloodless violence to be quite tame.
Your average non-gamer, however, is likely to have a very different reaction. The simple act of pointing a gun at a character and shooting them is troubling to a lot of people. I'm not suggesting that gamers are going to resort to real life violence or anything as absurd as that. But certainly there is a thrill they get out excessive violence.
I personally have no problem with gore in a game if it's an integral part of the story. The problem I have is when developers get gratuitous with it for no clear reason other than, I suppose, to sell more games. It's not all that dissimilar to developers constantly objectifying and over-sexualizing women. I like watching hot girls as much as the next guy, but when it becomes the rule, not the exception I think there's a problem. In some ways I see all this as appealing to the more immature attitudes although I'm sure some people will disagree.
I don't think moderate speeding is an issue at all, by moderate speeding I'd say speeds up to perhaps 85mph, but it also depends on the vehicle. It probably should be lower for economy subcompacts and SUVs.
Beyond the obvious decrease in response time there are quite a few issues that come with excessive speeding. There's loss of stability at speed, due to design of the vehicle, tire grip, potholes and pavement and the design of the road itself. The main interstate in more area, about 20 or 30 miles east of where I live is generally straight and smooth. It's easy to sustain speeds upwards of 90mph. In my area, however, there are more potholes and the highway has tighter turns, even 80mph is pushing it in some areas. And some areas, like New York City, where the roads are utter garbage and incompetently designed, 70mph is pushing it. The problem of course, is that people drive like the road conditions never change.
So the biggest issue ultimately is driver skill. To be frank, most drivers aren't nearly as good as they think they are, particularly those who like to drive aggressively. Your average driver isn't a problem, these guys are.
Aggressive lane changes and tailgating are a big problem I'd say the biggest source of accidents. These people are always the ones disrupting the flow of traffic. Of course, police officers are always going to report speeding as a cause, because it can always be argued that speed is a contributor. We wouldn't have any accidents if cars were all parked. And the problem is that it's pretty difficult to spot aggressive drivers, at least not without air support.
Another important problem is the speed differential. If one guy is doing 90 and everyone else is traveling at 60, that's dangerous. But if everyone is cruising at 80mph, it really isn't an issue. And actually, I'd say this is more of a problem in Europe where there's a big discrepancy between vehicle performance. You'll have some econobox straining to maintain 70mph, then some guy comes along comes along in a BMW and blows by doing 100.
And that brings up another problem which is slow driving, mainly from people who sit in the passing lane. This is not nearly as much of a problem in Europe where people respect the passing lane and almost always get out of the way. But in the US people tend suffer from this indignant self-righteousness where they believe nobody needs to drive faster than they're driving. So they sit there in the passing lane and refuse to move out of the way for anyone. So what happens? Faster traffic is forced to pass on the right, again causing a disruption in the flow of traffic.
I'd say proper driver's education and more stringent tests would reduce accidents. But then, that would also empower people and governments can't have that. If anything, I'd say politicians seem to be trying to make driving undesirable. I'm not really surprised this is happening, and it's only a matter of time before technology is at a point where cars can drive themselves.
Special effects can add to an experience when they're so well integrated you don't even think about it. When they're bad or gratuitous it always hurts the movie, bad effects because they kill suspension of disbelief and gratuitous because they cause a viewer to focus on the effects. The problem is that with sci fi movies it's far too easy to get fixated on the effects.
Imagine a scene inside a house in a conventional, modern day drama. The focus may be on characters interacting with each other. Shots are focused on them and they only interact peripherally with their environment and usually as part of the plot or to give the scene more life. In a sci-fi movie, however, such a scene will descend into gadget porn. They'll take these wide shots where the actors are lost in the midst of this future-modern, impractically fashionable living space. Often we'll be greeted to these vistas of some impressive future city. Making things worse, every bit of technology will be extremely obtrusive in its functionality so as to remind the viewer that this is the future and everything is so freaking cool.
This is the problem I had with Star Trek Episodes 1 through 3, beyond the poor script. That said, they did an excellent job integrating live and computer rendered characters into these scenes. But every single setting in those movies didn't feel lived-in. And it felt like the designers were trying too hard to show off their imagination and effects prowess. To be fair, I think the original movies suffered from similar problems, but the technical limitations forced them to be a bit more down-to-earth and thus more convincing.
I personally think Blade Runner did a great job. The futuristic technology was there, but it didn't stand out. Deckard lived in what was basically a regular apartment.
It's important that technology looks plausible even if it's function is fantastic. A lot of movies feature technology that is so absurdly elaborate it's impractical. Much like Nero's ship which was ridiculous with all the pointy insect-like appendages. Transformers has the same problem with them being made of all these tiny, intricate pieces. How they aren't utterly destroyed with the smallest impacts is beyond me. And from a cinematic standpoint they're so complex it's often hard to know what exactly they're doing.
Another problem with technology in sci-fi, especially more recent movies, is the depiction of use. Futuristic gadgets are either overly pristine regardless of use or they're so worn down and beat up it's almost comical. It's like they're either museum pieces or they were fished out of garbage dumps.
And I have to ask... Did the Federation abolish the news media in the future? How could Nero not have known about Vulcan's attempts to save his planet? His entire scheme hinges on a colossal misunderstanding on his part that could have been avoided if he had watched the future version of Romulan television for five minutes.
I always find it annoying when people in the future encounter unsolvable problems that have been addressed and are basically non-issues in the present-day real world.
Pages lie different from the front to the back of the book, and books are bound differently. So you can't use a generic model and expect it to be accurate in most cases.
I actually think this is really cool because it seems to account for any scenario, including folded pages, I would assume. Although, I suppose that in extreme bends it might not be perfect, but certainly they just need to ensure that pages are adequately flat. It automates the entire process.
I wonder if they've built an automated page-turning mechanism; I would assume they have. Just drop in a book and let the machine go to town on it.
Every bulb in my house, excluding the 3 on a dimmer is a CFL. I've got no problem with them whatsoever.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that despite all my efforts to be economical my electricity bill is still absurdly high. I've got a friend in another state who is about as careless as anyone can be with their usage and they're paying half what I pay.
I shudder to think how bad things are going to get if things like cap and trade get implemented. And I assume things will only get worse as people start driving electric vehicles. The big irony, of course, is that the electricity in my area is generated with petroleum.
I'm looking to replace my electric water heater with a natural gas one. I can't help but wonder which one is more environmentally friendly, but certainly the gas one is far cheaper to operate.
That's nonsense... Even going out to McDonalds on a regular basis gets expensive. Buying pre-packaged foods, which is what I routinely see the overweight loading their shopping carts with, is also expensive especially if you're eating this stuff excessively.
Let's say you ate three meals a day at McDonalds. Each mean is roughly $5. That's $15 a day, $105 a week. You mean to tell me an individual couldn't spend $105 a week buying healthy foods only? You don't need to go organic, just buy basic fruits and vegetables and some meat. You can probably even squeeze in some dessert on the side.
The only way to ensure you're eating healthy if to cook for yourself. Of course, that isn't the only issue. I know quite a few people who cook for themselves on a daily basis, but what they cook isn't particularly healthy. That's where education comes in.
Then again, it's their own prerogative to eat whatever the hell they want. They're the ones who will pay the consequences. Be it financially or otherwise. Of course, with socialized healthcare the consequences of their choices are forced on everybody else.
I'm tired of this garbage that the poor somehow can't afford eating healthy. The truly poor have government assistance, and everyone else can easily afford to eat properly. It might come down to education but the resources are there for everyone to exploit without the government getting involved in yet another thing they have no business meddling with.
Can you explain why this would be the case?
There are many Americans tinkering with robots and not being harassed by the government. Although I realize it's cool to pretend that the government is out to get you.
These kinds of stores would likely struggle to see any level of success and would likely only get by as a general hobby store.
You average American is unlikely to be interested in do-it-yourself robotics. They're more likely to go out and buy something finished, provided it's cheap. Those who are more interested in robotics are likely to build things themselves and go directly to the component manufacturers for parts, and they'd likely be buying online. The last time I checked the US government hasn't banned components for robots.
I'm not sure why these quirky shops thrive in Japan, although they certainly do pop up to meet the latest fads. I guess the population density is high enough to ensure these shops get enough customers and people do show up from far away. Japanese do have one huge advantage; they have a ton of disposable income. They can afford putting down several thousand dollars on these robots. How they find time for this is beyond me, but then I know a couple of guys there who pretty much live off their families.
I still think City of Heroes/Villains has, by far, the best fighting system of any MMO. It's the closest any game has come to real-time action. It's engaging and can be a lot of fun.
When I was playing there were a handful of interesting storylines and entertaining missions. However, virtually every single mission consistent of entering one of a handful of environments and beating the crap out of every enemy contained within. While it's very entertaining taking on 5 or more enemies at the same time it does get old after doing so for the hundredth time.
I haven't played in a couple of years, and I managed to get my main character up to level 45, the cap being 50. But I just lost interested in continuing because by that point I had seen nearly everything the game had to offer anyway. I've followed updates to some extent over the years and haven't found them to offer much in the way of compelling content.
I would have liked to have seen them build out existing plot lines further. And I think they've focused a bit too heavily on player interaction over providing more content. I think what they've done is great, but the core gameplay really needs more variety.
I thought I'd add to my rant... I rode this metro system for several years. That article is correct. The trains were always pristine and always punctual. The announcements were clear, even if not necessary because the trains were frequent and on time.
I think the first line opened a bit over 12 years ago. And it's already reasonably extensive, and they're working aggressively to expand service. I know of two or three lines currently under construction and pretty far along. And looking at the map of what they have planned it's very ambitious. And this is in addition to conventional rail lines and a high speed rail line which service the rest of the country.
One thing I admired was how clean everything was and how good passengers were about keeping things clean. I never saw some slob munching on some sloppy sandwich, dripping juices everywhere and then dropping the empty bag on the floor under his seat, putting down a coffee cup so that it inevitably falls over when the train lurches spilling it's contents all over the train. But in the US that's routine.
Just try telling Americans that they shouldn't be eating on the train. They'd get all indignant. How dare anyone tell them what to do. God forbid they wait half an hour to eat.
And those are the people who make a mess of public transportation unintentionally. Then there are the mental defectives who have this obsession with writing gibberish all over every flat surface they see. Or otherwise they have this compulsion to tear at seat cushions and pull on trim. All because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them to respect public property.
It goes back to what I see as fundamental cultural problems in the US. All this stuff is inter-related. This is yet another thing that has turned me off from public transportation. Why should I have to wait for trains that can't arrive on time and then have to be wary about where I sit when I can just drive anywhere I want where ever I want.
People keep talking about urban sprawl like it's an insurmountable issue. As I've said recently, Japanese cities have massive sprawl and they manage just fine.
As cool as high speed rail lines are the big problem is that they're a huge waste of money if there isn't some sort of infrastructure for getting people around each city without cars. What American cities and suburbs need are extensive rail systems which service outlying areas in addition to the city core.
And this doesn't just mean a spoke and hub layout, this means that those outlying areas should be directly connected as well. Take a look at this map of the rail lines owned by a single company around Tokyo.
Want to be really impressed? Check out this PDF. In that map, Shibukawa, tucked away in the upper left corner of that map is 120km from Tokyo. That should give you a sense of how extensive their rail system is.
If you want people to take rail seriously this is the sort of extensive service you need to provide. I'd take the train to work if it provided me this level of accessibility. Hell, I wouldn't even need a car.
This is the embarrassment that passes for a rail system in the New York area. Just imagine trying to get from somewhere like Poughkeepsie to New Haven.
Of course, there's another issue. The rail system in Japan runs like clockwork. With far fewer lines Metronorth is incapable of ever being punctual. Every year they send out press releases stating, with pride, that their trains are on average only 5 or 10 minutes late. I rode the New Haven line for years and I can't recall it ever being on time. Hell, it was even late departing the very first station.
Every so often the train manages to pull down power lines or at least damage them sufficiently to cause significant delays as has been happening the past week or so. The bathrooms are a cesspool and unfortunately a lot of riders are slobs who leave their crap on the train when they get off. And then there's the vandalism.
Despite increased ridership the MTA, which runs the rail system around New York, can barely stay afloat without drastically raising fees or getting bailouts from the government. Years ago they began ordering new trains. I've yet to see one. But the bigger joke is that some of these new cars are being pulled by diesel locomotives. On an electric line! It's crap from the bottom up.
These are all important issues that need to be taken seriously if anyone expects a rail line to be successful. But an extensive rail system does make far more sense than any high speed rail line.
Unfortunately, in the US there are far too many obstacles for any such system to ever see fruition. First, are all the environmentalists who piss and moan about everything even if it were to provide real long-term advantages. Just as bad are all the residents who have this irrational fear of any perceived threat to their idyllic communities. They're all wrapped up in their selfish desire to preserve their little communities even if these projects would ultimately benefit everyone. In the Northeast there are a number of extremely helpful projects which have been blocked by just these sort of people.
I'm quite pessimistic about the whole thing. American's have lost that can-do attitude a long time ago and I think have grown quite self-centered. I mean self-centered from the standpoint of wanting to be sheltered by the government from all the little challenges of life. Although, I don't doubt that the government will spend untold billions on some boondoggle.
You've described the problem I have with the game industry better than anyone else has thus far.
Many gamers seem to be extremely immature in their attitudes towards mature games. To them mature seems to be excessive violence or sex and nudity.I can't count the times I've read gamers criticize a violent game because it didn't depict enough blood and gore.
Certainly, the game industry doesn't help when they pander to this culture. They seem to be a pack of immature dimwits themselves. Women are depicted as nothing but hyper-sexualized, scantily clad tarts. Any act of violence requires cartoonish gushes of blood and the rending of body parts. Crime is depicted as cool and otherwise threats seem to predominantly come in the form, of horrific, shambling hellspawn.
All that is well and good. I occasionally enjoy such games, but there's a problem when the vast majority of games default back to this crap. But then, can I really fault the industry for going back to this sort of content? It obviously sells.
But lets face the facts here, what people are looking for out of these games isn't mature themes, it's titillation. There's a thrill to be had in experiencing shocking content. But something that is truly shocking, such as experiencing what actually happened in Fallujah, for example, is unacceptable. The reason being that the end result is that it demands something more of the viewer, it makes them think and it certainly doesn't leave them feeling good. These gamers don't want to come away feeling bad about something. You can't expect much of people who get worked up about seeing a pair of tits in a game.
And the fact is that mature themes don't necessarily have anything to do with violence. Does every mature game have to be about administering headshots and generally brutalizing people?
When it comes down to it, I have a hard time taking the gaming industry seriously, not because the potential isn't there for great storytelling, but because very few people actually take advantage. Certainly, most of what comes out of Hollywood is garbage, but every year there are some gems. Even relatively good games are still weak, in my opinion, in terms of storytelling and conveying messages that aren't contrived and overly simplistic.
I didn't so much have a problem with Cochrane's excessive drinking as I had with the fact that a spaceship capable of warp speeds was built in the middle of the woods in the midst of what amounted to a campsite.
As for Cochrane, for all his drinking I would have expected him to be a more serious scientist when it came to his work.
And while we're at it, why didn't the borg come back to the 20th century where they could wipe out humans effortlessly?
I'm not sure what sort of people you've spoken to, but I completely disagree. Not only did I think it was an excellent movie, but I think it ranks among the best of the Star Trek movies and this is coming from someone who prefers the more intellectual stories of The Next Generation series.
The biggest issue I had was with the villain and a portion of the plot surrounding his actions. He came off the same sort of loser we've seen from the villains of the last couple of Star Trek movies. But as for the depiction of the Enterprise, the Federation and it's crew I thought it was great.
The only concern I have at this point for potential futures movies is that they continue with these goofy villains or they slip back into mediocrity.
The argument that supposedly American suburbs aren't conducive to a rail system are very weak. Have you been to Japan. Japanese cities may be dense but the sprawl extends for miles and miles. And the suburbs extend out beyond that in every direction.
The average Japanese commute is in the range of 70 minutes which is more than double the average American commute. Many people live closer to central urban areas, but many more live out in the suburbs and ride the train in.
Several times, I've ridden the train from one end of the Tokyo metropolitan area, closer to the suburbs of Yokohama out to the Narita airport area. Over the 2 hour ride you're pretty much passing through densely populated areas. And this level of development pretty much extends in a massive circle around Tokyo bay. I've said it many times, Americans have little comprehension of what massive over-development is.
If anything, it should be more difficult to establish rail lines in a nation like Japan because of the all the heavily developed areas these lines have to cut through. And yet they manage it.
Has anyone taken a look at rail maps of Japan? Those trains go over where. People give directions to where they live according to train stations. Around Tokyo, and probably many other Japanese cities, you're unlikely to be further than a 20-30 minute walk from a train station. And it also helps that the trains are extremely punctual. About the only thing that causes a train delay is the occasional suicide. Compare that to here in the Northeast US where we're stuck with a single rail line where the trains are constantly late and they routinely pull down the overhead power lines.
I can't speak for China or South Korea, but in Taiwan the government has invested heavily in expanding the subway system in Taipei and they already have a decent rail system which services more outlying areas. From what I've been told, however, China and South Korea seem to have similarly extensive rail systems. In addition to that Taiwanese cities do have have a decent bus system which unfortunately does get bogged down in heavy traffic. But at least they run buses every 5 to 10 minutes depending on the line.
This is not to say they don't own cars, because in Taipei, for example, there apparently are something like 2 cars for every officially designated parking spot. And a lot of people still drive. But the important thing is that the government is serious about providing good public transportation. And perhaps, more importantly, the people embrace it.
I think that is the biggest problem in the US. Nothing can get done because of either residents who don't want anything to change in their neighborhood or environmentalists who seem intent on hindering progress on any level.
The solution isn't just building out the rail system, but improving the highway infrastructure as well. For as good as Japan's rail system is, they've got an excellent and extensive highway system as well.
But again, whereas in Asia they generally embrace development, in the US there are constantly efforts to block everything. It's kind of pathetic, actually. And I'm not optimistic that things will change because it seems to be more of a cultural problem.
Having taught a class at a university where they hand out laptops to every student, I'm convinced it's a huge mistake and counter-productive to the goal of providing a good education.
All these laptops do provide a huge distraction, and I teach a class where we need computers. As I walk around the class I'll notice them closing chat windows or minimizing browsers.
Having grown up around computers I know first hand how distracting they can be in the class, and we didn't even have anything like the internet at the time. Now, obviously it's far worse given how much these kids will have access to.
I certainly believe computers are invaluable and it's good to expose children to them early on. But students don't need their own laptops. What they need are good, current text books. A class with a focus on computers makes far more sense, or perhaps a couple of computers in each classroom for children to share.
Then there's the fact that most of these laptops wont survive the school year. College kids do a good job of trashing their machines it will only be worse with children.
Really what children need is a more challenging educational environment and more discipline needs to be imposed. And many parents need to be made more responsible for their children's education. Too many parents just don't care how their kids do in school or just accept the fact that their kids will under-perform. They don't discipline their kids like they should, but then get offended when a teacher tries to do so.
And I think there's too much fixation on trying to make education fun and approachable. Certainly it can be made entertaining and should be made so when practical. But when it comes down to it, it really is work. You're studying hard to get ahead in life, because it's your responsibility, not because you think it should be a game.
Americans seem to believe that throwing money at education will solve every problem. It hasn't solved anything and only aggravates the existing problems. The city where I live spends more per student, by far, than any other country on Earth and I'd say that the quality of education is sorely lacking.
I've wondered about that thread of gasoline but never bothered to do the math. Now someone has done it for me, thanks!
All things aside, one has to admit that it's impressive that a 1.5 ton vehicle can be motivated to travel 70mph on such a small feed of gasoline.
Want to stop abuse on the part of corporations?
First, completely ban campaign contributions. I'm inclined to say lobbyists should be banned as well, or at least very strictly regulated.
Second, lower corporate tax, simplify the tax code, and ease up on certain regulations. I realize it's the latest fad to bash corporations, but the fact is that they're the ones who create jobs. They're the ones who produce products and provide services. If taxes go up it means they either raise process or lay off people, it's not complicated.
Another massive problem I see, particularly for small businesses is the burden of excessive regulation. Obviously, it's necessary to some extent, but this regulation essentially helps ensure that those at the top remain there and the upstarts have a hard time being truly successful.
One reason asian economies are thriving is because of the success of small business and their governments are actively promoting their growth through a variety of means. Taiwan, for example, offers extremely low interest rate business loans, South Korea I believe is offering dramatically lower tax rates for the first few years of business. And they aren't encumbered by all the absurd regulations American companies have to deal with, both state and federal.
Third, when a company does break the law they should be punished harshly and promptly. I'm not so naive as to believe that there aren't people out there looking to take advantage of the system. Obviously consumers need to also be protected from abuses. And if a company is poorly run, there's no justifiable reason to bail them out. To be honest, the problem with the banks, for example, is that the government allowed them to get too large. But even if it meant some short-term economic pain I tend to think they should have been allowed to fail. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
Using tax havens, in my opinion, ranks fairly low on my list of offenses. If the US offered a more attractive business environment these companies wouldn't have the incentive to move money offshore.
It always bothers me when they come up with these arbitrarily low estimates for how much was spent on these productions. 3000 pounds? I can only assume they didn't actually have to pay anyone's salary.
It's nice when people are willing to work for free for the sake of the project, whether it be because they're passionate about it or they believe that they can move onto something greater because of it. But the reality is that most people need to earn a living and you can't get away with this sort of thing too long.
Major studios certainly throw away money on crap, and doubtless celebrities are overpaid. Under regular circumstances, however, a movie of this nature would cost far more than 3000 pounds. I just find such claims a bit disingenuous but more and more people seem to have this belief that everything should be free. Perhaps once we abandon currency that will be true, but it isn't yet.