Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Current events
-
I hope everyone reads the fine print on that deal, where they're charging 5x a month what Xbox Live actually costs, for a net loss of about $100 over just buying the console and two years of live by yourself.
Then again, I guess it's for the people who DON'T have $300 right now, as all of them own Xboxes if they want them. -
It's an awesome deal that comes with a two-year contract that costs you $15 a month and requires, in my case, an eight hundred mile round-trip.
-
I think from the start the 360 and the PS3 have been "sell at a loss" units, and the manufacturers make up for it with video game sales. The Wii was actually sort of unique in that Nintendo actually sold the hardware for a profit.
Definitely interesting to see it go this far, though. Seems like everything is moving towards a subscription model these days - I'm pretty much ready to sign up for an Adobe Creative Cloud account, myself. -
Ack, I can't read the fine print here at work. Are you allowed to pay for the Xbox Live service by purchasing cards (which provide the service at a discount) or are you contractually obligated to pay $14.99 per month? If the latter then this is an absolutely awful deal, because you will pay more in the mandated service fee than you get as a discount on the hardware.
(I wasn't really considering this, I just saw it over at Penny Arcade and thought it was interesting.) -
It's not really that horrible a deal. It lowers the barrier to entry and gets more people on Live than wouldn't probably give it a shot otherwise. Granted if you can't afford a current 360 outright, the difference of like $50 might actually be important. It's not a good deal but it's not terrible. This is also clearly going to be the next systems pricing.
-
Meanwhile, I think I'll buy a unit from a pawn shop downtown, likely the same place I'll get a flat screen TV. Gotta keep that black market strong.
-
If you couldn't get three months for $15 by getting a card, it would be an okay deal. As it is, it's just shifting the total system cost to the future--you're getting a lower up-front cost, but you're losing the ability to get discounted Live service.
-
The difference between the cell phone plans and this one, is that you were going to pay for the plan regardless, you just have to stay with them for x amount of time. The 360 plan makes you pay for a more expensive monthly plan.
Also, I'm curious to see how they plan to deal with people giving CC's for the subscription and then cancelling them. I assume that's how they will do it as I don't see them asking for your SS# like a cell phone and reporting it to your credit. -
Now that, Creaty, is pure genius. Open a charge account, use that CC number for the overpriced Live service, close your charge account, victory.
-
There a Microsoft store in the mall down the street. They used to hold a "fighting game night" until it got a little tiresome since we have to abide by mall hours and had only 3 setups to split between different games.
They're pretty hard up for foot traffic since unlike Apple, people don't have much in the way of exciting Microsoft toys to play with to get them in the store. The exception is the Kinect, which they have a ton of setups for, both inside and outside.
The big thing they're doing that actually generates a line is "Take the Windows Phone challenge," as described here:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/27/2904524/smoke-and-mirrors-taking-microsoft-windows-phone-challenge
Which is actually not a bad idea. They've supposedly set up their interface to do handle use cases rather than putting apps first, so while the tasks themselves are clearly stacked in favor of their system, it's nothing outlandish or unrealistic. -
I bet he is secretly gay in addition to being a communist and a Muslim.
-
I dunno. Seems he could have done it without needing to ride on rednecks' coattails.
-
you forgot that he is also a Nazi.
-
I hate Illinois Nazis.
-
RobotBastard said:
I dunno. Seems he could have done it without needing to ride on rednecks' coattails.
Decades of other sitting presidents could have also done it...you know, ever.
-
You Northerners really don't get what a hugely mobilizing issue this is for 2/3rds of the country. Over half of the states have bans in their constitution for same-sex marriage. This really hurts Obama by mobilizing far right-wingers who would not vote for Romney or Obama due to apathy into voting for Romney. This is a much bigger deal for the election than I think anyone is willing to give it credit. A significant portion of the country just had this shoot to their number one campaign issue.
-
At the same time, there are probably tons of younger voters, and not to mention teh gay voters, that might bother to actively support him again this time around. Two-thirds of the country are not against gay marriage, and I seriously doubt he expects to pick up several of the states with laws/amendments against it. As for mobilizing right-wingers, I'm pretty sure his skin tone and ability to annunciate are all the reason they need. The "Democratic" base will be much more important for him this election, so for once I'm sure he cares much more what they think than the average heterogenous society hating, homo fearing, knowledge lacking rednecks.
-
I dunno, I work in a Caribbean neighborhood, I went to school in a hispanic one, not to get too stereotypical but gay anything can trigger some angry responses in both those places. Sitting in my locker room right now there are 3 of us, 2 are antigay with one being borderline violent about it.
Most of the shop guys who come here are at least homophobic and this is liberal NYC. Not saying that means anything in the larger scale of things but in my limited experience anti gay is very much a prominent thing to the point i'm not willing to push -
Finally back!!!
@karaokeninja: China is the future, unless it ends up being Japan 2.0. Who doesn't have a hard-on for the place that first invented toilet paper, now that's civilised!
@w2a3: All West Aussies love the Chinese, it because of them we're carrying the whole nations ecomony. And the West Coast Eagles are top of the table with 6 wins and ZERO losses.
@A_Tasty_Sub: Was there for 1 year and abit for work. Great place, nice people and food you could die for. Didn't see any of the stuff that mainstream media keeps harping on about.
You guys do know that correct name for Dim Sum is Yum Cha. They have it for breakfast and not lunch. Dim Sum actually means "choose your dish", while Yum Cha means "drink tea". Just thought you might like to know. :D -
Squirrel said:
I dunno, I work in a Caribbean neighborhood, I went to school in a hispanic one, not to get too stereotypical but gay anything can trigger some angry responses in both those places. Sitting in my locker room right now there are 3 of us, 2 are antigay with one being borderline violent about it.
Most of the shop guys who come here are at least homophobic and this is liberal NYC. Not saying that means anything in the larger scale of things but in my limited experience anti gay is very much a prominent thing to the point i'm not willing to push
This is extremely relevant. Social conservatives are using the gay marriage thing as a wedge issue to drive black and Latino voters away from the Democratic base. It's an explicit strategy, and, sadly for all involved, it works.
Here's a news article about this subject. -
http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2012/05/09/dear-the-old-people/
Was going to post this here regardless, but Dave's comment makes it coincidentally very relevant. -
Dave said:
Politician dude from North Carolina regarding marriage amendment: "It's a generational issue. If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years"
So basically "we are passing this for spite, knowing full-well that the tide of public opinion is changing."
Oh how nice! They're thinking of the children! And of their ever-growing responsibility to clean out the sludge gutter filled with national embarrassment and bigotry! THANKS GUISE! Seriously, there are way too many Republicans who believe that having the safety net of the Supreme Court and...well...history excuses them from voting against principles they themselves believe to be true.
-
I like this dude's opinion on the matter (he's the head of the gay Christian network): A challenge to both sides of the Amendment One debate.
JustinLee said:...everyone is the protagonist of their own story. Almost always, we do the things we do because we think they’re going to bring about something good. The people on both sides who voted on this amendment honestly believed they were doing the right thing. Whichever side you’re on, if you caricature those who disagree with you as merely bigoted, stupid, homophobic, sinful, or evil, you’ve greatly underestimated them as people.
-
Dave said:
Politician dude from North Carolina regarding marriage amendment: "It's a generational issue. If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years"
So basically "we are passing this for spite, knowing full-well that the tide of public opinion is changing."
Gay marriage to our generation is the segregation of our parent's generation. Our children and our children's children will look back at us and say "how could so many people be so hateful and incredibly wrong on such a black and white issue?" I am very happy that this is starting to change but the state governments across the United States have set up so many road blocks to try and stop this that I'm afraid it'll take 30 to 50 more years to change. The way that extreme conservatives will phrase it in this fight will be a states right issue versus "big government" not an issue of the rights of a minority being oppressed.
I find this incredibly sad. On the other hand with some luck, the right supreme court appointments, and any tea party "Libertarians" that are elected being true Libertarians when it comes to social values. -
JustinLee said:
...everyone is the protagonist of their own story. Almost always, we do the things we do because we think they’re going to bring about something good. The people on both sides who voted on this amendment honestly believed they were doing the right thing. Whichever side you’re on, if you caricature those who disagree with you as merely bigoted, stupid, homophobic, sinful, or evil, you’ve greatly underestimated them as people.
Except the side that voted against it wasn't actively trying to deny a minority the same rights and privileges that the majority enjoy by default. So I call bullshit. You can't draw an ethical equivalence between both sides when one side is demonstrably attempting to use the strong arm of the law to impede the lives of other people for no tangible societal benefit. -
Did you read the article?
He's not drawing an ethical equivalence between the two sides. What he's saying is that neither side is the caricature that the other widely believes it to be. His hope, as he states in the article, is that in refusing to villainize the other side, an honest relational dialogue would occur, in which understanding will eventually occur. If you refuse to talk to the other side of the argument except in rhetoric through a megaphone, you will fail to convince them of anything. -
I appreciate the point he is trying to make, but as much as I agree I find his idea that a real dialogue would solve anything is pretty suspect. You'd either get a discussion on how one side is still opposed based on religion, or possibly be against giving things like tax breaks to gay couples. Either of these arguments are still, as Paul put so well that I'm stealing it, "impeding the lives of other people for no tangible societal benefit." A large reason the shouting and slander comes out is not just to put the other side down, but also so that they don't have to address and shed light on their own position.
-
See, the problem with "everyone's the star of their own movie" is that the movies we watch these days tell us that our opponents are inherently Stupid and Evil.
-
I agree that simply labeling people as bigoted or homophobic does not advance the dialogue. It's also not necessarily accurate.
So, what rational, secular reasons does the other side propose for why this specific minority doesn't deserve equal protection under the law?
And what evidence do they provide that denying homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy by default contributes to the greater good of society? What evidence do they present that this course of action doesn't needlessly increase human suffering?
Frankly, I feel that if you've abdicated your moral authority to a supernatural being, you'll be hard-pressed to contribute anything useful to a reasoned debate. It takes two sides to have a proper dialogue, and one side isn't holding up their end of the conversation. -
Gokiburi_Chachacha said:
Frankly, I feel that if you've abdicated your moral authority to a supernatural being, you'll be hard-pressed to contribute anything useful to a reasoned debate.
Hear hear!
-
Justin Lee is right in that education on the issue is the most important. However, that is exactly why things may take until the next generation to pass. I'm not declaring anyone stupid on this, but as he says in his article, you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. They aren't stupid. They're stubborn. Look at what Dave posted and you'll see exactly that. They're smart enough to know that there are reasons they are wrong, but completely unwilling to care. So yes, we should be working to educate everyone on how to treat each other like human beings, but that should not give free pass to those that willingly choose to, and find no reason not to, treat others as if they weren't.
-
They may not be stupid, but they are assholes.
-
Paul, you are under the impression that dialogue can only take place with cool, secular logic, which is not what Justin Lee is prescribing. The type of dialogue he's talking about is a relationship...
JustinLee said:Most of us don’t begin with open minds on issues we think we already understand. Most of the time, our minds have to be opened by circumstances, experiences, stories, and people who are patient with us.
-
I feel like I have a lot to say about this, but I also need to go hide in a closet and pee myself in anticipation of court tomorrow. If I find a benzo in that closet, perhaps I shall return!
-
I'm open-minded. But I'm still waiting for the opposite side to present something that doesn't require ten seconds of rational thought to discard.
It's not like they're arguing over who gets the last slice of coconut creme cake. They're voting to deny people equal protection under the law. They need to provide a damn good reason to justify that.
The problem as I see it is that the author has to work really hard to reconcile his commitment to a religion that scorns and despises him. The Bible says some lovely things about forgiveness and compassion, but it also codifies who it's okay to oppress and why, depending on how you choose to interpret specific verses. The author's not willing to give up his faith, so he treats the people that would spurn him and revile him and deny him equality for religious reasons as if they must have something powerfully relevant to say on the matter. I'm not convinced that they do. And the opponents of marriage equality are not doing a very good job convincing me otherwise. Really, the ball is in their court. They are the one's making the positive claim. It's their duty to back it up, if they can. -
"Really, the ball is in their court. They are the one's making the positive claim."
Well, yeah, but "gay marriage is OK and won't cause any problems" is a positive claim.
It could be disproven by example. Which, as it happens, the North Carolina amendment has specific provisions to prevent.
It's the civil unions thing. Because that is how people are going to come to an acceptance of homosexuals--by actually knowing some. Most of the people who vote against gay marriage do it more out of habit than anything else. Were they able to see a same-sex couple that's exactly like any opposite-sex couple, other than the "same" bit, they'd probably change their minds (or, at least, switch their apathy from "status quo" to "don't oppose".) Banning civil unions works to prevent that happening, and I think that's a bad thing. -
I wish they would all die. I don't care about their fucking families. Just fucking kill them already. I'm tired of fucking waiting because of their bullshit.
-
For a very brief moment I thought, "when did I write this?" but that one was a little more violent than I think I muster. I fall somewhere in between Paul and Nick, I'm not ashamed to call them ignorant morons who deserve to spend some time getting shit on for who they are. They've done it to minorities for decades, I don't care that yelling makes people shut they're ears. Shut your fucking ears, you're still an asshole who's tempting a back hand.
