3rd ed had full round, standard, move, free, swift, and immediate actions. Further complicating things was the fact that you had to combine your standard and move for a full round, and you could trade your standard down for a move action, but couldn't trade anything down for a swift action. 4e removed the full round action and renamed swift and immediate to minor. No more combining, and you can always trade down.
Um, to be fair, 3.x only added swift and immediate actions with splatbooks. In core, there was just standard, move, full, and free. The closest thing to a swift action in core was in the quicken spell feat, which used the free action terminology with an added exception as part of the feat. Taken from the 3.5 SRD...
QUICKEN SPELL [METAMAGIC]
Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a free action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spellâ(TM)s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
The second problem is that Cloverfield doesn't explain anything. Where does the monster come from? I dunno. Why is it in Manhatten? No clue.
Well, supposedly if you look at the upper right area of the screen right before the credits, you do get a clue as to where it came from and why it's in Manhattan. It's pretty easy to miss, though.
How come when the little killer lice bite you your head explodes?
Actually it's the body that exploded. It never seemed to me like it was the head blowing up. To further back this up, there's a youtube clip of it happening in slow motion. Should be pretty easy to find. Anyway, it seems pretty logical that if you get bit in the body and then your body explodes and the doctors want to quarantine you for being bit, you probably got impregnated with a (implausibly) quick-growing, quick-hatching egg.
Anyway, I don't blame you much for missing or confusing those details. Watching that movie's epileptic camera work and missing your save seems to inflict a -10 penalty to spot checks.
Opposite trend? I see a pretty similar trend, actually. Seems related to Moore's law and economies of scale. You're getting more for your money now than you did before, even though the price tag for what you get is higher. Computers and videogames have also grown more popular as time has gone on. You could also do a very similar breakdown between computers as you can by comparing, say, Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario 64 with the upcoming Mario Galaxy.
However one key difference between hardware and software is that advances in technology tend to make old hardware obsolete, while advances in technology don't necessarily make old software (games, rather) obsolete. You can enjoy Super Mario Bros. even after Super Mario 64 is out because they both accomplish the goal of "fun" successfully. Some people may even enjoy Super Mario Bros. for its simplicity and lower learning curve compared to Super Mario 64. A new and more advanced computer accomplishes the goal of faster computation definitively more so than an older and less advanced computer however.
And another difference is that a major chunk of development costs for games goes into art, something largely exclusive to game development compared to hardware development. I don't know of any equivalent expense factors for hardware development that are largely exclusive to hardware. I could be wrong but I'd say programmers in software are rough equivalents to engineers in hardware. Anyway, art has been the driving force behind increased production costs for games...Which is why this generation Nintendo has gone lower tech with the Wii and DS, instead of cutting into their margins by catering to high-def and massive poly counts. I'd say this point address your concern the most.
As for comparing games to movies or music a la your follow up post, it's like comparing apples to oranges, mostly. All three do experience a rise in production costs for special visual effects and sound engineering programs/equipment. However games have, with few exceptions, grown in content significantly over time. Rather than taking an hour or less to get through on a perfect play through (i.e., speed runs), many recent games take several times that. Hell, God of War II is almost twice as long as the original! It's not like music CDs have exploded in terms of content. In some cases with music, it's reversed (singles)! Same goes with movies - the length of time during which you're experiencing new things with the media hasn't changed much. Old videogames relied on their immense difficulty to extend the play time via retries, or by doing reiterations of the same exact stage with the same art, music, and sound effects with very minor variations each time (Space Invaders era).
Who doesn't make sequels? Even Katamari Damacy has a sequel. The difference is that Miyamoto takes chances here and there. Sometimes his new stuff is successful. Sometimes it isn't. He doesn't only reiterate game designs to make $$.
If Miyamoto has heard Connor's "retort", I'm sure he laughed. Connor could be taken seriously if he said he was coming up with something new and fun that will sell just as well as Halo. Instead he said he intends to make something that he already knows people want, by implying he's going to copy Miyamoto's years-old idea, Super Mario Bros. Given the sales of New Super Mario Bros., I don't blame him. But he reaffirmed Miaymoto's comment, not countered it.
It seems to me that given your stance that the randomization closes the gap between elite players and casual players, you're assuming there will be no difference in how fast an elite player will adapt to random map changes compared to a casual player, nor that there's any skill or genetics involved in speed of understanding your surroundings and the tactical implications. I personally disagree with such an assumption.
Not to mention that TFC's item spawns are all inside bases, not scattered about the map a la deathmatch style maps. And classes generally start kitted out with everything they need, minus some extra armor/ammo/nades that can be picked up within seconds of spawning in your spawning room.
1) The killer was wearing a vest and had ammo strapped to him according to the reports.
2) Statistically speaking, licensed concealed-carry bearing civilians at the scene of a crime actually have a higher rate of firing upon the right guy than do police, most likely since they're right there as it goes down and can readily identify the aggressor. They don't have a lag time before arriving on the scene as police do. They don't have to assess who is the aggressor from second hand information, like police do.
3) Go through concealed carry training before considering the hypothetical courses of action and their probabilities if there were several concealed carry-licensed civilians responding to a premeditated killer in the same room.
Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.
Of course in this case, the shooter had a vest on and ammo strapped to him. That'd make him just a little easier to identify as a pre-meditated killer. Other than that, go through concealed carry training yourself before you comment on what might happen when a killer opens fire in an area with concealed carry licensees/users.
I agree. Not to mention that energy prices aren't going to stay cheap like this forever...when oil production begins to slip, the price of energy will go up. And oil production will drop, sooner or later. It's just a question of when it will. It's not an infinite nor renewable resource.
See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot.
It may come to that later, but unless there's been a recent change I'm unaware of, current standards of military conduct contradict your postulation. The Milgram studies on obedience and authority which explained how the holocaust was able to be carried out by ordinary people have changed the US Army's take on disobedience.
From page 5 of the article http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-200203 01-000037.html
"One important place where the lessons of Milgram's work have been taken seriously and acted upon is in the U.S. Army. Milgram's research and its implications are discussed in two mandatory psychology courses at the U.S. Military Academy. In 1985, the head of the academy's department of behavioral sciences and leadership wrote, "One of the desired outcomes of this is that our future military leaders will be fully cognizant not only of their authority but also of their responsibility to make decisions that are well considered and morally sound."
I highly recommend you read the article in full. Milgram's work is in my opinion one of the most important works in the history of psychology.
And Hugh Thompson, Jr., a soldier serving in Vietnam, was awarded the Soldier's medal for disobeying superiors' orders and even having his squad turn their guns on them, for sake of doing what they felt was right, rather than what they were ordered to do. Wikipedia entry here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr
And the actions detailed in Thompson's case don't quite match up with your postulation of
Let's say a particular group points their guns at the commander instead. What next? They sure aren't going back to the base to "get more supplies" -- they'll end up in a brig waiting for court martial while the action moves on.
And other whistleblowers like Samuel Provance have been demoted for their actions, but continue in service. Tony Lagouranis wasn't demoted for his whistleblowing actions. Joseph Darby was honored by politicians and some military personnel, while other members of the military disparaged him. So it's not nearly as clear cut as you assume.
To sum it up, back up your words with cited sources and examples or else your points, while interesting, hold no more water than those you're arguing against.
Aggressive behavior in all its loosely defined glory is used, no, key to business and sports. We highly value business, sports, and competitiveness in general yet fear aggression. What a mixed message.
Wow. I saw you were modded funny so I thought you were joking. But then I saw the commercial...wow. Just, wow.
Anyway you should've been modded informative I think:o
I don't think there's really even any effort in video gaming. Anyone can do it. Those guys just sit on their asses twelve hours a day, play a video game and drink Coca-Cola. Kind of like every other hardcore gamer on the planet, but the only difference is that for some reason they're just a little better than others...
I'm glad you admit to not knowing the reason. Let me relieve you of your ignorance. That reason is that when playing they train instead of casually playing for fun. Just as professional atheletes play the game in such a way to improve themselves and spend time on things like strategy and specific techniques, so too do professional gamers. Professional gamers spend a great deal of time analyzing strategies and meta-game information like collision detection systems, frames of animation, damage per second, cost per attribute, etc.
There just isn't any real effort involved. Think about how much effort someone needs to put into a sport like boxing. All the training, conditioning, repetition, injuries...
As someone who has trained in various martial arts for 8 years and played videogames competitively, I've gotten injuries from both. Competitive gamers train and do repetitive actions too. And they have to deal with RSI-related injuries, eye strain, etc. Ironically due to an injury from martial arts on my right ulnar nerve, I now have to limit my gaming because I'm now more succeptible to RSI in that arm. And on a similar note, top gamers have to keep in shape because it adds just that little extra edge to their mental functioning, and generally the more you increase strength in a muscle group, the more control you gain over it. Very few top players are in average shape or worse.
if we compare video gaming with something like chess, I don't think it still qualifies. Chess is an ancient and well-established game, and being the best isn't quite as simple as being the best Counter-Strike player. It requires more effort, more intelligence, more talent, more training.
Both require effort, intelligence, talent, and training to be the best. They have different demands though, given the differences in game pace and that one is a team-based game, whereas the other is a one-on-one game. As for Starcraft...Achieving the actions-per-minute of the top Starcraft players requires a great deal of training, effort, concentration, and talent. Utilizing those actions per minute in a coherent way requires intelligence as well.
Your post smacks of uninformed commentary that is anything but insightful. If gaming is so easy to you, see about joining up in CAL-Open or any other low-level competitive gaming division, and see how often you'll have to scrim and practice to do well. See how much the way you look at the game changes. Or do it the easy way and get to know a player who is in Clan Complexity, Team Pandemic, or any of the other cross-game sponsored teams, and see how often they have to spend time scrimming, practicing, playing matches, talking strategy for future games and what went right/wrong in previous matches, testing in-game mechanics, etc. You'd be suprised at how much thought and practice goes into being at the top of any given competitive gaming division.
I agree that interactive entertainment is superb at teaching children, but teaching them what?
Vocabulary? Speed reading? Critical thinking skills? Analytical skills? Concentration? Planning? Perseverance? Matching thought with precise input? Thinking from the perspective of the designer (be it a test or game)?
That's what I learned through my adolescence from videogames, anyway. I placed in the top 3% of my class in highschool, and except for the 3 people tied for valedictorian, all those with GPAs above mine took fewer AP/dual credit courses or took none at all. Sure I studied (only for my AP/dual credit courses) and did other stuff too. But I still played videogames a shitload.
Seriously, the very type of games you mentioned taught me more of the aforementioned skills than any other game type. RPGs require just those skills to more fully enjoy the plot and beat the game faster/with a lower rate of death. The only way they hurt grades for me was when they directly cut into time specifically allocated for sleep or schoolwork. But that's a matter of discipline; the same would apply for any other activity, be it partying, talking on the phone, sports, working, etc.
Not the ones in this day and age. They all dump WIS in favor of CHA so they can get more money and followers. That's why they can't cast spells like they used to thousands of years ago =\
Jeebus: It's = it is
"It is been... seconds since you last sucessfully posted a comment..."
It must stuck to be born in the US and still get pwned grammatically by an ESL exchange student from Dubai.
It may be different in WoW, but in EQ, all of the high-end guilds except maybe the tip-top guilds across servers such as afterlife and legacy of steel had dumbasses in them. It's just that those dumbasses so happened to play a class absolutely necessary to groups and raiding - i.e. cleric, enchanter, and so on. So with few exceptions it didn't matter how bad they were, they were a needed class so everyone wanted them because the game mechanics forced certain party compositions on the players.
One thing I know for sure is that EA is killing the game industry by setting the example of a shortsighted, low-risk, low-innovation business model. And a certain segment of the consumer population is killing the game industry by proving time and time again with their nigh-freely given money that EA's business model still works.
Yeah, that makes me think of the difference between me and my childhood friend. Both my parents have mental illnesses and don't make much. My dad's 40k in debt, and doesn't file his taxes, but sends a check to the IRS so they don't bug him. My mom's credit is ruined too. She's had over 20 extended manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and had to go to the mental hospital each time for 6+ weeks. Each episode included her not sleeping for 3-4 days in a row, increases in hallucinations, nonsensical speaking and yelling, harassment, and violence. And due to our financial situation, we couldn't send her to the hospital, because we couldn't afford it. We had to let her go nuts until she'd go out and do something so crazy that she'd get picked up by the cops, who would forward her to an institution. However my parents did the best they could to get the necessities and a little extra by skipping out on luxuries like air conditioning. I was taught to read at age 3, and encouraged to read and spend time on art before I started school. I busted my ass in school and passed up on alot of luxuries that my more well-off peers enjoyed, and saved money for college. My parents pushed me hard. Anything less than an "A" was failure and grounds for accusing me of being on drugs. In college, due to the tax situation with my dad, I couldn't get any financial aid from FAFSA. My university's scholarships are largely linked with FAFSA as well, so despite my 3.9 GPA (with the non-A's being in electives) I couldn't get any university scholarships beyond the entry scholarship I recieved for a great SAT score, despite applying for the general academic scholarship and others every year. So I had to work two jobs and once again, pass on luxuries that my more well off peers could afford due to their parents not being fucked in the head.
My friend on the other hand, had divorced, drug addicted parents who would bounce him around between the husband's custody, the wife's custody, and the custody of the grandparents on either side of the family. He never had a stable place to live, or a stable source of caregiving. When I would visit him (ages 7-10), we were not well fed, despite complaints. In most the places he had to live, there simply wasn't much food around the house or trailer. In some places there wasn't any food around the place of living because the people that lived there only ate out. My friend had a somewhat emanciated build and stunted growth until his late teens, when he got jobs at food places to both eat and pay for food. Not having sufficient nutrition in your formative years hinders your mental capabilities, a simple fact found by developmental psychologists. So it's not unexpected to me that while I did well in school, he did poorly. In highschool he got into drugs and dropped out. He then had a kid with his girlfriend at age 19 and broke up with her in less than a year later, so he's repeated the vicious cycle. I haven't spoken with him in years.
Now, a good chunk of why he's fucked over includes the choices he made. But part of it had to do with the situation he was born into. I had it worse than nearly all my peers, but he had it far, far worse than I did. I fully agree with you when you say that you have no sympathy for the parents...but for their children? The kids are wasted potential. You can say they shouldn't have ever been born in the first place, and I can see the reasoning. But it's not like the child chose to be born into that situation, or born at all for that matter. Some people get dealt a hand so shitty that there's little they can do about it, because so early on in their development they got screwed by lack of nutrition, secure emotional attachments, and other fundamental factors needed for healthy development as a human. Sure there are people like Oprah, who had a hard life but thrived anyway. However in her first six years her grandmother made sure she developed well, and taught her to read at age 3. Her dad also pushed her hard in her teens. She still had support and opportunities that many n
Slashdot Mirror
Um, to be fair, 3.x only added swift and immediate actions with splatbooks. In core, there was just standard, move, full, and free. The closest thing to a swift action in core was in the quicken spell feat, which used the free action terminology with an added exception as part of the feat. Taken from the 3.5 SRD...
QUICKEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a free action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spellâ(TM)s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.Actually it's the body that exploded. It never seemed to me like it was the head blowing up. To further back this up, there's a youtube clip of it happening in slow motion. Should be pretty easy to find. Anyway, it seems pretty logical that if you get bit in the body and then your body explodes and the doctors want to quarantine you for being bit, you probably got impregnated with a (implausibly) quick-growing, quick-hatching egg.
Anyway, I don't blame you much for missing or confusing those details. Watching that movie's epileptic camera work and missing your save seems to inflict a -10 penalty to spot checks.
However one key difference between hardware and software is that advances in technology tend to make old hardware obsolete, while advances in technology don't necessarily make old software (games, rather) obsolete. You can enjoy Super Mario Bros. even after Super Mario 64 is out because they both accomplish the goal of "fun" successfully. Some people may even enjoy Super Mario Bros. for its simplicity and lower learning curve compared to Super Mario 64. A new and more advanced computer accomplishes the goal of faster computation definitively more so than an older and less advanced computer however.
And another difference is that a major chunk of development costs for games goes into art, something largely exclusive to game development compared to hardware development. I don't know of any equivalent expense factors for hardware development that are largely exclusive to hardware. I could be wrong but I'd say programmers in software are rough equivalents to engineers in hardware. Anyway, art has been the driving force behind increased production costs for games...Which is why this generation Nintendo has gone lower tech with the Wii and DS, instead of cutting into their margins by catering to high-def and massive poly counts. I'd say this point address your concern the most.
As for comparing games to movies or music a la your follow up post, it's like comparing apples to oranges, mostly. All three do experience a rise in production costs for special visual effects and sound engineering programs/equipment. However games have, with few exceptions, grown in content significantly over time. Rather than taking an hour or less to get through on a perfect play through (i.e., speed runs), many recent games take several times that. Hell, God of War II is almost twice as long as the original! It's not like music CDs have exploded in terms of content. In some cases with music, it's reversed (singles)! Same goes with movies - the length of time during which you're experiencing new things with the media hasn't changed much. Old videogames relied on their immense difficulty to extend the play time via retries, or by doing reiterations of the same exact stage with the same art, music, and sound effects with very minor variations each time (Space Invaders era).
Inflation and rising development costs result in both a higher price tag and acceptance of a higher price tag. News at 11.
Who doesn't make sequels? Even Katamari Damacy has a sequel. The difference is that Miyamoto takes chances here and there. Sometimes his new stuff is successful. Sometimes it isn't. He doesn't only reiterate game designs to make $$.
If Miyamoto has heard Connor's "retort", I'm sure he laughed. Connor could be taken seriously if he said he was coming up with something new and fun that will sell just as well as Halo. Instead he said he intends to make something that he already knows people want, by implying he's going to copy Miyamoto's years-old idea, Super Mario Bros. Given the sales of New Super Mario Bros., I don't blame him. But he reaffirmed Miaymoto's comment, not countered it.
Not to mention that TFC's item spawns are all inside bases, not scattered about the map a la deathmatch style maps. And classes generally start kitted out with everything they need, minus some extra armor/ammo/nades that can be picked up within seconds of spawning in your spawning room.
2) Statistically speaking, licensed concealed-carry bearing civilians at the scene of a crime actually have a higher rate of firing upon the right guy than do police, most likely since they're right there as it goes down and can readily identify the aggressor. They don't have a lag time before arriving on the scene as police do. They don't have to assess who is the aggressor from second hand information, like police do.
3) Go through concealed carry training before considering the hypothetical courses of action and their probabilities if there were several concealed carry-licensed civilians responding to a premeditated killer in the same room.
Of course in this case, the shooter had a vest on and ammo strapped to him. That'd make him just a little easier to identify as a pre-meditated killer. Other than that, go through concealed carry training yourself before you comment on what might happen when a killer opens fire in an area with concealed carry licensees/users.
I agree. Not to mention that energy prices aren't going to stay cheap like this forever...when oil production begins to slip, the price of energy will go up. And oil production will drop, sooner or later. It's just a question of when it will. It's not an infinite nor renewable resource.
Well, he is a former military pilot...so the learning curve for him probably wasn't as high for him as it would be for most.
It may come to that later, but unless there's been a recent change I'm unaware of, current standards of military conduct contradict your postulation. The Milgram studies on obedience and authority which explained how the holocaust was able to be carried out by ordinary people have changed the US Army's take on disobedience. From page 5 of the article http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-200203 01-000037.html
I highly recommend you read the article in full. Milgram's work is in my opinion one of the most important works in the history of psychology. And Hugh Thompson, Jr., a soldier serving in Vietnam, was awarded the Soldier's medal for disobeying superiors' orders and even having his squad turn their guns on them, for sake of doing what they felt was right, rather than what they were ordered to do. Wikipedia entry here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr
And the actions detailed in Thompson's case don't quite match up with your postulation of
And other whistleblowers like Samuel Provance have been demoted for their actions, but continue in service. Tony Lagouranis wasn't demoted for his whistleblowing actions. Joseph Darby was honored by politicians and some military personnel, while other members of the military disparaged him. So it's not nearly as clear cut as you assume.
To sum it up, back up your words with cited sources and examples or else your points, while interesting, hold no more water than those you're arguing against.
Aggressive behavior in all its loosely defined glory is used, no, key to business and sports. We highly value business, sports, and competitiveness in general yet fear aggression. What a mixed message.
Wow. I saw you were modded funny so I thought you were joking. But then I saw the commercial...wow. Just, wow. Anyway you should've been modded informative I think :o
Your post smacks of uninformed commentary that is anything but insightful. If gaming is so easy to you, see about joining up in CAL-Open or any other low-level competitive gaming division, and see how often you'll have to scrim and practice to do well. See how much the way you look at the game changes. Or do it the easy way and get to know a player who is in Clan Complexity, Team Pandemic, or any of the other cross-game sponsored teams, and see how often they have to spend time scrimming, practicing, playing matches, talking strategy for future games and what went right/wrong in previous matches, testing in-game mechanics, etc. You'd be suprised at how much thought and practice goes into being at the top of any given competitive gaming division.
Vocabulary? Speed reading? Critical thinking skills? Analytical skills? Concentration? Planning? Perseverance? Matching thought with precise input? Thinking from the perspective of the designer (be it a test or game)?
That's what I learned through my adolescence from videogames, anyway. I placed in the top 3% of my class in highschool, and except for the 3 people tied for valedictorian, all those with GPAs above mine took fewer AP/dual credit courses or took none at all. Sure I studied (only for my AP/dual credit courses) and did other stuff too. But I still played videogames a shitload.
Seriously, the very type of games you mentioned taught me more of the aforementioned skills than any other game type. RPGs require just those skills to more fully enjoy the plot and beat the game faster/with a lower rate of death. The only way they hurt grades for me was when they directly cut into time specifically allocated for sleep or schoolwork. But that's a matter of discipline; the same would apply for any other activity, be it partying, talking on the phone, sports, working, etc.
TFA dated September 25 2006. The author apparently has either found a time machine or hasn't been playing enough Brain Age!
Not the ones in this day and age. They all dump WIS in favor of CHA so they can get more money and followers. That's why they can't cast spells like they used to thousands of years ago =\
Well gee, if you were a native English speaker or bothered with dictionary.com you'd know that it's also = it has. Go take a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=it's&x=0& y=0
Or you know what, I'll just copy and paste it here for you and save you some precious time and effort.
GG
It may be different in WoW, but in EQ, all of the high-end guilds except maybe the tip-top guilds across servers such as afterlife and legacy of steel had dumbasses in them. It's just that those dumbasses so happened to play a class absolutely necessary to groups and raiding - i.e. cleric, enchanter, and so on. So with few exceptions it didn't matter how bad they were, they were a needed class so everyone wanted them because the game mechanics forced certain party compositions on the players.
The 100% prime record is 1:28 by Paul 'Bartendorsparky' Evans.
Red Scarlet, the holder of the fastest 100% completion Super Metroid (non-tool assisted) speed run, is female.
One thing I know for sure is that EA is killing the game industry by setting the example of a shortsighted, low-risk, low-innovation business model. And a certain segment of the consumer population is killing the game industry by proving time and time again with their nigh-freely given money that EA's business model still works.
Thanks for your perspective!
My friend on the other hand, had divorced, drug addicted parents who would bounce him around between the husband's custody, the wife's custody, and the custody of the grandparents on either side of the family. He never had a stable place to live, or a stable source of caregiving. When I would visit him (ages 7-10), we were not well fed, despite complaints. In most the places he had to live, there simply wasn't much food around the house or trailer. In some places there wasn't any food around the place of living because the people that lived there only ate out. My friend had a somewhat emanciated build and stunted growth until his late teens, when he got jobs at food places to both eat and pay for food. Not having sufficient nutrition in your formative years hinders your mental capabilities, a simple fact found by developmental psychologists. So it's not unexpected to me that while I did well in school, he did poorly. In highschool he got into drugs and dropped out. He then had a kid with his girlfriend at age 19 and broke up with her in less than a year later, so he's repeated the vicious cycle. I haven't spoken with him in years.
Now, a good chunk of why he's fucked over includes the choices he made. But part of it had to do with the situation he was born into. I had it worse than nearly all my peers, but he had it far, far worse than I did. I fully agree with you when you say that you have no sympathy for the parents...but for their children? The kids are wasted potential. You can say they shouldn't have ever been born in the first place, and I can see the reasoning. But it's not like the child chose to be born into that situation, or born at all for that matter. Some people get dealt a hand so shitty that there's little they can do about it, because so early on in their development they got screwed by lack of nutrition, secure emotional attachments, and other fundamental factors needed for healthy development as a human. Sure there are people like Oprah, who had a hard life but thrived anyway. However in her first six years her grandmother made sure she developed well, and taught her to read at age 3. Her dad also pushed her hard in her teens. She still had support and opportunities that many n