I don't and never will use Farcebork or any kind of social media service which is specifically designed to profit off of me, using my personal information, without my permission or consent, let alone knowledge.
I don't think an early comment on some website would qualify as "important".
Maybe writing an article about it and getting it submitted to
No, I think you need help, at least in figuring out how to discern relevance and context.
I've given up on mass media for nearly a decade now. I find independent sources of entertainment and pay the content creators directly.
The only way to kill the monster we collectively created is to starve it into non-existence. People have the power to effect positive change, but they have to be smart, educated, and courageous enough with their votes and their wallets to make it happen. Part of that entails educating their family and friends and spreading that knowledge and courage around.
For those that leave the system early, it's a lot tougher, but it will pay off in the long run.
I'm sure Farcebork brought them some more visibility than they had, but what evidence is there that even most of them are actual bona fide new users, rather than just new accounts? FB has a history of having a significant percentage of their "accounts" being little more than "likebots" to float their "pay for likes" scheme.
(See VSauce's channel on YT for a rather telling commentary on the FB "like" scam).
I don't think she does a very good job of explaining why good game design is difficult.
It's not that game design itself is difficult, it is that GOOD (ie, fun) game design is difficult. She's basically addressing the wrong problem set. What she is describing is simply software design and engineering issues, which boils down to 3 real categories:
1. Functional / feature design: the rules which govern whether they exist and how they can function. AKA "business rules" in normal software development.
2. User Interface design: how the user (player) interacts with it.
3. Engineering/Implementation issues: how do you make 1 & 2 real and work, while reducing undesired side-effects.
1 & 2 generally form a specification for the feature's design, and 3 is the specification for how to implement it.
This is not unlike many common design and implementation processes for standard software design and engineering of complex systems. The real difference is that, while a software system designed and implemented correctly may fulfill all the intended design objectives, there is an additional objective which games add to the mix that is not generally present in normal business applications: fun. Unfortunately, it is not an objective criteria, and requires "play-testing" to discern whether a particular design is fun or not. It is very difficult to design-in "fun" from the very start of a project.
That said, with the advent of Serious Games, adding the "is it fun?" criteria to real-world business applications is happening more often.
Lastly, as a game developer, the single greatest challenge I have encountered is simply to keep going through the "hard times". Like any difficult software development project, there are times when things get dark and depressing for whatever reason, and there is difficulty keeping motivated to continue, but you have to bear down and power through the hard parts. The reason most game development projects fail that I have seen is that people don't really understand how hard it can be at times, and give up when the going gets tough. To me, this is a more difficult hurdle than in typical business application development, because many people get into the development of games with an incorrect level of expectation about said difficulty.
It makes perfect sense, because it is germane to the issue, unlike your analogy.
There's nothing saying that Sony can't have a DMCA takedown printing press ready to fill in the blanks and fire a billion of them off on a moment's notice, or the technological equivalent thereof.
The fact that a) the video is blocked, b) on copyright (and, thus, statutory) grounds, at the behest of c) Sony says that the DMCA take-down process has been executed. If it hasn't, and YouTube just took it down willy-nilly, then they are liable for a plethora of legal challenges, including breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations.
The text that appears when you try to watch the video is:
"This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. "
Using the term "copyright" makes it unequivocal -- this is clearly a statutory issue, not a contractual one between two private entities.
You said:
If you don't know that basically all countries on the world have a free speech "section" in their constitution
I said:
No, only a handful of other countries grant free speech without ridiculous exceptions for things like blasphemy, attacking the authority of the State, etc.
These statements are not equivalent. Thus, strawman.
Next?
Considering I said nothing of the kind in EITHER of my posts, who is the moron for propping up strawmen?
No, only a handful of other countries grant free speech without ridiculous exceptions for things like blasphemy, attacking the authority of the State, etc. However, the US seems hell-bent on finding ways to add such exceptions in the name of "safety", "counter-terrorism", etc, so I am not so sure that is as much of a positive as it used to be.
Anyway, that was the point of the statement and, no, I am not a moron. Are you?
Can someone please post some meaningful, hopefully peer reviewed scientific evidence as to when and where we decided this was a fact?
You're on the Internet.. surely you can find some decent links to relevant scientific research and evidence. If not, here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
As for it being a fact, I don't think anyone can or should claim it as a fact, but the bulk of the research is leaning VERY strongly in that direction. In general, that usually means we're heading towards at least a de facto acceptance of it.
Specifically, when did we learn that homosexuality was genetic, ingrained, inescapable, and as intrinsically bound to us as our race?
If at any point it's in any way a choice, then that's not discrimination. That's a difference of opinion. You're entitled to that choice, but that choice is not a RIGHT.
No matter how much we do or don't like it, or how socially acceptable it has become.
I don't think the issue of government acknowledgement and support of something as important between any two people such as marriage is really related to whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. Even if it is a choice, I think that, if two people love each other enough to consent to and accept the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, at least as far as the government is concerned, then the government (and everyone else) should get the hell out from between them.
How is it his fault that he's a homophobe any more than homosexuals are at fault for being homosexuals?
While the question of whether homophobia is something one is born with is an intriguing one, there is unfortunately no evidence to back it up.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has a significant amount of such evidence.
While it may be possible that his psychological makeup precludes eradicating an erroneous and/or irrational stance, the difference lies in the fact that homophobia, acted upon, affects other people, whereas homosexuality, acted upon, affects only themselves.
Marriage isn't a fundamental human right, it's a religious right (and therefore gays have the right to form their own church). The mainstream debate on this topic is myopic. Marriage should entail no advantage from the government, especially tax incentives.
I would have to strongly disagree with this. The ability to choose a person (or person(s)) to be lifemates, and to enjoy whatever life benefits society offers to those who partake in that choice, outside of the intrinsic benefits, is a fundamental human right. Legally, marriage is a secular artifice, but can be dressed up with any (or no) religious trappings the participants prefer. That secular artifice, including all the associated benefits and responsibilities, should be available to any and all who are able and willing to legally consent to it, regardless of any discriminatory differences between the participants.
That marriage should entail no advantage from the government I think is a bit myopic itself. There are some considerations that are part and parcel of marriage which I think deserve advantages from society and, by extension, government. Child-rearing, for one. This still applies to homosexual couples as well, since there is no reason that they cannot rear a child, despite being biologically incapable of bearing one of their own making.
Don't ask me, I am just the Usher.
Our "practices" were meant to stop proliferation of Communism — the most murderous (and, incidentally, homophobic) school of thought known to man...
Yes, I can see where the CIA-assisted overthrow of a sitting democratically-elected president at the behest of a large multinational corporation (said president who helped overthrow a fascist dictator who openly admired both Hitler and Mussolini and compared himself to them) would be considered "proliferation of Communism".
What a bunch of ignorant horseshit.
Chile, where we succeeded, is Latin America's top economy today. Cuba, where we failed, remains a shithole.
..for any arbitrary definition of "top economy" you like, anyway. Chile doesn't even make it into the Top 5 for GDP, and what does that say about them, especially including Venezuela, where I don't think you can claim it as an "American Success Story".
Speaking of Chile, what, exactly, did we do there? Oh, yeah, installed what was more or less another fascist dictator in the form of Pinochet, driving more revolutionaries into the ranks of anti-American interests, let alone making excuses for things like the "Caravan of Death".
Everywhere we get involved and use our imperialistic muscle, we screw things up worse for the people there and, ultimately, for ourselves, too.
There was nothing "righteous" about his outrage and "not the best" hardly describes him.
There was plenty "righteous" about his outrage. He witnessed first-hand the suffering of the Guatemalan people from the effects of our interference.
But that's all off-topic. My point was, people wearing Che Guevara T-shirts (as well as those with hummer-and-sickle and other Communist symbols) should be boycotted — but aren't. Because true Liberals are nowhere as vicious in pursuing their opponents, as the Illiberals are.
Well, get to it and boycott them. Personally, I couldn't care less, since I understand the reasons behind why people wear them, and it has nothing to do with a desire for a fascist dictatorship, or a desire for a poorly-constructed Communist government.
Sure, sure, no one who disagrees with you should be allowed to be a CEO, got it.
I think he'd make a great CEO for quite a few anti-gay-marriage businesses. Chick-Fil-A comes to mind.
Do you think he should be allowed to work for any company, or would you prefer some sort of re-education camp for those who dare to disagree with you?
Lest you think I'm trolling, I've seen calls for prison for those who continue to publically question AGW, and not that long ago there were calls for prison for those who "lied about Obamacare, e..g, suggesting is had death panels". Funny you don't hear so many people calling for prison over Obamacare lies these days, but that aside: seriously, how much of an "unperson" do you need to make someone who disagrees with you before you're happy?
Right, because seeking out the worst possible examples of opposition to your viewpoint and painting everyone who expresses any degree of opposition to your viewpoint with a wide brush dipped into that bucket of paint you've mixed up represents such a reasonable rebuttal?
With your bare hands?!?
