"Undeserved Profit"? Pretty sure no one has ever been forced to buy things from them. I'm not sure if he's insinuating they've committed some type of fraud, but from the context of the video I think he's making a value judgement.

The idea that Steam is a small player, 100% squeaky clean and all about the customer? Well, they're a damn-sight better than most of their competitors, but I point you to their allowance of regional pricing hikes as one example (see the Australian store). As for their size, Steam sales equate to approximately 70+% of all digital sales, I think they're gonna be okay next to Origin.

BTW, no one has forced anyone to use Origin. As much as I want to play BF3, ME3, etc., I've managed to go without buying games released on it (and that doesn't mean pirating them either). If it's really a problem for you, show some self control.

For that matter, if you don't agree with their treatment of workers, there's another reason not to use their products.

Vote with your wallets, look elsewhere for your entertainment. There's a veritable Golden-Age of independent games going on all around you!

Your right but back then they were still constricted by programming and memory constraints since the average computer had maybe 128k of ram to work with. I remember programming in Basic when I was like 8yrs old. I remember having to do programs sometimes upwards of 500 lines or more that only ran once and couldn't be saved in anyway. And the finished product was some Pixel Art or maybe a song that played "Mary had a Little Lamb" through a PC Speaker. Granted Basic was a very limited programming language to begin with.

Then there was the gaming crash of 83' that pretty much destroyed those same bedroom coders your speaking of.
It wasn't really till the invention of Shareware which didn't become widely used till the late 80's that things started to get back on track and people had some of the freedoms we are enjoying now with indie games and crowd-funding. Though I see and acknowledge your point about things being cyclical. If games hadn't suffered such a major setback in the early 80's things would have been very different today.


>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Auger8:
A new age has dawned for games. The ideas of the common man can now be expressed to the world in a way that was never possible before. Free of the restrictions of publishers and corporate giants. Free of the expectation to make the next great cookie cutter FPS or RPG. We can now for the first time in history truly make the games that we WANT to make. We can innovate. We can push the boundaries of the old genres. We can create new genres and we can tell the stories that not only change the industry but change the hearts of the players we strive so hard to reach. This is the second Golden Age of Gaming and I for one couldn't be more excited to see it arrive!

Erm, hardly 'for the first time'.
The first games on home computers, back in the mid 80s, were largely one man jobs. A whole collection of bedroom coders made buckets of money back then creating games for computers like the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64.
Yeah, it then became taken over by the giant media companies, and yes it's now becoming far more accessible for people to be able to code quality games with tiny teams, and have them reach people via the internet and delivery systems like Steam.
But it's a return to that, not a first time thing, it's all cyclic

>> ^Auger8:

A new age has dawned for games. The ideas of the common man can now be expressed to the world in a way that was never possible before. Free of the restrictions of publishers and corporate giants. Free of the expectation to make the next great cookie cutter FPS or RPG. We can now for the first time in history truly make the games that we WANT to make. We can innovate. We can push the boundaries of the old genres. We can create new genres and we can tell the stories that not only change the industry but change the hearts of the players we strive so hard to reach. This is the second Golden Age of Gaming and I for one couldn't be more excited to see it arrive!


Erm, hardly 'for the first time'.

The first games on home computers, back in the mid 80s, were largely one man jobs. A whole collection of bedroom coders made buckets of money back then creating games for computers like the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64.

Yeah, it then became taken over by the giant media companies, and yes it's now becoming far more accessible for people to be able to code quality games with tiny teams, and have them reach people via the internet and delivery systems like Steam.

But it's a return to that, not a first time thing, it's all cyclic

A new age has dawned for games. The ideas of the common man can now be expressed to the world in a way that was never possible before. Free of the restrictions of publishers and corporate giants. Free of the expectation to make the next great cookie cutter FPS or RPG. We can now for the first time in history truly make the games that we WANT to make. We can innovate. We can push the boundaries of the old genres. We can create new genres and we can tell the stories that not only change the industry but change the hearts of the players we strive so hard to reach. This is the second Golden Age of Gaming and I for one couldn't be more excited to see it arrive!

>> ^Quboid:

Serious question - do Americans respond well to things like that flag in the background?

Speaking only for myself, I find it rather tacky. We have the flag attached to so many selfish purposes on a daily basis that it took until my mid-twenties for me to realize that it's a symbol that should give me a sense of pride or value.

I do suppose it's fitting for a presidential race, but I'd rather something more subdued -- the traditional label pin is fine. Plastering every news room, pro athlete, domestic beer, Ford/Chevy truck, rock band, country singer and golden age comic hero with stars and stripes has left me with a serious case of patriotism fatigue.

Nice. I was just looking through previous what are you readings yesterday for suggestions.

Starting The Mote in God's Eye. Looks promising.

Skim-read The Reluctant Fundamentalist this afternoon - it's rather dreadful.

Finished Crime and Punishment a couple of days ago. Loved it. One of those few 'classic' novels that isn't all hype. It's engaging and enjoyable, and very rewarding. The ultimate message that we should stop trying to think for ourselves and just do what Jesus says is possibly not the best, but that doesn't overwhelm and the style isn't preachy. I have yet to read a novel more perfectly structured.
It was a little distracting that one of the characters is basically Columbo. When he did the 'just one more thing' routine I had to put the book down for a minute. Turns out Columbo was based on Porphyrius. Man, that makes it weird for the modern reader.
I'm developing a taste for golden age russian literature; I hope to read a lot more soon.

Before that I burned through I Am Legend in one sitting. It's electrifying.

Brave New World needs to be more widely read.

The Algebraist is notable for having one of the least likeable villains ever. Genuinely, I think that's its main literary achievement. I have huge respect for Iain Banks for writing a world-conquering, star-spanning tyrant who is in no way cool or enviable. Archimandrite Luseferous is like a parody of a fourteen-year-old's power fantasies; not a Magnificent Bastard, he's just a contemptible, nasty (occasionally terrifying) creature with no charisma or real intelligence and we need to see more of that.
There's great stuff in this book, but it does follow the standard disappointing SF novel arc of: 'big ideas, big ideas, oh no the plot is taking over, narrowing focus, narrowing focus, now it's just about this guy and his Quest, how did the galaxy get so small, inevitable convenient climax.' Very much worth reading to pick out the many great elements in this book, but those elements don't really come together.
I'll get round to the Culture novels eventually.

Oh, I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for the first time since I was five, but couldn't carry the enthusiasm on to the rest of the Narnia books.

Thinking about Crime and Punishment reminded me, I really need to pick up a cheap second-hand ereader so I can stop paying for public domain books.

I like the sound of The Quantum Thief, that goes on the list.

The golden age of the internet, can it survive the attack? History says no, less likely a complete selling out, but a slow degradation.

OH MY FUCKING GOD! SLOW MOTION STUDIES ON WAVE PROPAGATION IN FIRM BUTTOCKS! BEERS THAT FILL MAGICALLY FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE CUP! NOW ROBOTS TO PUT KETCHUP ON YOUR BURGER!!?!?!!

I am SO DAMN happy I live in this Golden Age of Technological Marvels. We are truly blessed.

I'll grant you that early Wonder Woman comics often played up bondage themes, but I haven't seen that exploitation post-Crisis.

I can't speak for all DC superheroes, but I think several good writers have really given Wonder Woman a well-rounded personality. Conversely, some have made her flat as paper. Still, I admire the character. If she had consistently good writing and a few top-notch villains (Cheetah's good, but the others are somewhat lacking) she'd be a top seller every month.

For a while Joss Whedon was attached to a Wonder Woman live-action film, but he's not now. If they could get him back I'm sure it would be a great film, and Wonder Woman's popularity would skyrocket like Batman's did after the Nolan films. Unfortunately the WW film is still in development hell, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.>> ^xxovercastxx:

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.
That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.
Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.

That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.

Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now. >> ^rebuilder:

Call me a cranky heretic, but the superhero comic is the worst thing that ever happened to US comics... There's good stuff coming out all the time, but so much of the comic output seems to basically be softcore porn with outlandish, paper-thin action plots it's not even funny. At least in Europe, when they want to make porn, they make straight up porn - and the plot still beats the shit out of the usual Marvel fare.

>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^mrsid:
What's wrong with wheels?

Wheels are like Madonna... their golden age is over but they refuse to go away.

Naw, it's simply like that: Robot legs make everything awesome.


Big Dog is awesome, this is not...

http://videosift.com/video/Boston-Dynamics-Big-Dog

>> ^mrsid:

What's wrong with wheels?

Wheels are like Madonna... their golden age is over but they refuse to go away.


Naw, it's simply like that: Robot legs make everything awesome.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.
...
There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

That's why I'm saying the issue I'm raising is largely a semantic quibble. I don't think you mean what you're saying. I think you mean to say something close to, but not exactly what you said.

I think you meant to say this:

A totalitarian system has to break the will of every person trapped inside it before freedom can truly be eradicated. Even then, it seems that eventually it springs up anew in people, sometimes it just takes a little longer than others.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

True, but the threat of those repercussions constrain you from acting as you would like to. To draw on the Babylon 5 clip above, they told him to submit, or die. He was already locked in a cell. He'd already been tortured. He'd been beaten. Starved. Deprived of sleep. Poisoned. They even threatened his father's life. The lives of everyone he'd ever loved. In the end, they threatened his own life. They even staged a mock execution, and only at the last second...they just started over at the beginning, as if nothing had happened.

Had he submitted, would you consider his freedom stolen, or surrendered willingly?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Yeah, but are they really self-evident? Are they really inalienable? Those were beautiful words, and they were a massively revolutionary sentiment at the time, but it wasn't really a statement of fact about how the universe works. It was a declaration of how things should be, not how they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

Since pot is still illegal, it's clearly not a right government has given us. It's also clearly not a right -- I can't demand that I can smoke pot, anywhere, anytime, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I also can't expect pot to be provided to me, whether I can pay for it or not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities.

I agree with that, and I was phrasing things the way I was more to illustrate those different ideas about freedom than because I'm enslaved by some black and white view of the world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?


For one, property rights only exist as function of government. Otherwise, "property" would just be whatever you could stop other people from taking away from you.

Most "rights" follow a similar pattern, e.g. right of habeas corpus, right to vote, right to a redress of grievances, etc.

As for "freedoms", you are free to change jobs (or quit entirely) because of government. You are free to demand, and expect pay for your labor. You are free to walk around unarmed thanks to the expectation of law enforcement. No one is allowed to force you to do anything, and if they try, the government is expected to stop them.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

As I see it, there seem to be powerful people who are hell bent on eroding the laws and traditions that make up that equilibrium. (And yes, I think they largely wield "conservatives" as a blunt instrument to that end, using them like an auto-immune disease to kill government, so they can go back to the good old days of monarchy)

People on the right seem to act like rights and freedom are something they have that can't be taken away. I think that's insane. Without government, your "freedom" will be taken from you before you can say "caveat emptor." Freedom can and has been stolen, all throughout history. If anything we live in an unprecedented golden age of man where freedom is for most intents and purposes is in the hands of the individual, largely because we turned our governments into democratic collective entities charged with creating a society where individuals can expect to be free.

It's not an academic paper, just an opinion piece. So I conclude you haven't taken a look. I recommend that you do.

Your implication of racism is nonsense.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
I was never convinced by that or the contribution of any religion.
Here's a quote from a very good article (which covers Christianity as well) "Myth of Islamic Contribution to Human Civilization" by Muhammed A. Hussain.
"Thus, the Islamic Golden Age is a time, which was characterized by the development of a rather anti-Islamic Mutazili theology, inspired by the rational reasoning and freethinking of the pre-Christianity Greek Rationalism. And those Muslims scholars, who enriched science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy and rational thinking - the defining elements of the Islamic Golden Age, belonged to the un-Islamic Mutazili school, unlike contemporary Sunni Islamic scholars, such as al-Bukhari, Abu Daud and Imam Ghazali et al., of the true Islamic school. Given these facts, it is totally untenable and silly to claim that the golden era of progress and prosperity of Islamic world was ever positively influenced by Islam but instead, it was made possible because true Islamic ideology took the back seat during that era."
http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/myth_islams_contribution.htm
>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


So you've got one paper...good for you.
Look this is just racism plain and simple...it's just nicer than QMs form of racism. Put a nice face on it...Liberal commentators during the cold war were explaining why the Russians say "No" all the time at the UN. They came to the conclusion with the support of psychiatrists that it was because Russian mothers dress their babies in swaddling clothes that doesn't allow them to move. This was an academically supported reason for why they wouldn't cooperate at the UN supported by experts. So when I see stuff like this...it's just obvious bullshit and furthermore it doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me. You're just trying to say one thing by hiding behind another...ok but it's not that hard to see through.