...how intrepid of it.

/ducks

Parent is not offtopic. Bioshock addresses religion in exactly the manner that the quote indicates--people, for instance, create a smuggling ring around religious artifacts from the surface. It's stated that Rapture was created to get away from its influence. This is clearly not the light that the evangelists are looking to see it in, but it's there and there's no denying that.

Assassin's Creed also involves religious elements, to the point where the devs felt a disclaimer was necessary at the beginning. The first deals with assassinations during the crusades, and the second has *SPOILER*





you assassinating the fucking pope.





*/SPOILER* So, I'd argue that religion as a plot element is reasonably common in modern games, and that the production quality of those two games/series alone is enough to offset the summary's assertion. And for that matter, I've not heard of many boycotts of the above titles. They're titles that sold quite well, so if there had been such boycotts, they can't have had much effect.

Now, if they want to talk about games that portray religion in a positive light, that's a different story.

My father was without power for fourteen days in this storm--in urban Massachusetts.

"Useful" really depends on the context. If you live in an area prone to black/brownouts (thunderstorms in IN killed my home server about once a week this summer before I got my UPS) or where the infrastructure is older/more fragile, it's no longer an issue of *if* our power becomes so erratic that they make sense so much as how big of a battery one ought to invest in.

Mod parent up. Informative.

I bet somebody once said that about people rebuilding cities on top of active faults.

Yes, let's all regurgitate xkcd, instead.

I don't know where things like this fit into the discussion... it's really quite a mathematical hack, and hard as hell to understand, but once you realize what it's doing, you realize it's saving a lot of time in a function that's called reasonably often.

This. Exactly this.

All medications have side effects, and as consumers of those medications we weigh the potential risks against the potential benefits. In this case, if you're afflicted with a condition that this could cure at the expense of increased risk of (even near-guaranteed) cancer long-term, well, you've got a choice between longevity and quality of life.

Yes. They're exactly the same as all the possible illegal uses of any other kind of computing.

C'mon now. Troll? Really? I found it to be an entirely appropriate joke. You made me laugh, AC, and I'm a very good driver.

I knew it! "Free Tibet" is just a front organization for the Association of Avian Baguette Bombers. Sent from the future.

RACK vs. SSC is something of an important distinction for people who are involved in it. It lets them know what to expect from people with whom they might become involved. It's really a kind of community shorthand, moreso than anything pedantic. Another part is that not everyone's definition of "safe" is the same--e.g., breath play. It's unsafe in some cases, but people do it anyway, hence "risk-aware".

And, obviously, my legitimate question gets modded as a troll.

Look, they clearly need to eat and pay rent, but if they're so much more ethical than the bloggers (which is the natural conclusion that follows from the assertion that they're more fact-checked and more objective) then why do blogs so often end up being the ones to fact-check the national news?

This is why I bring up Fox. It's just an example, but it's illustrative: a network that is *objectively* biased in its news coverage (same applies for MSNBC). That's not to say that everyone there is unethical personally, but how unethical does your employer have to be before your personal ethics kick in and tell you to look elsewhere? If your news network is actively misinforming people, omitting or manipulating important, relevant information, what code of ethics allows an objective journalist to contribute to that, even if they themselves are doing everything right? I wouldn't much like to work somewhere that I know my objective, unbiased work will be distorted, manipulated, and used to lie.

And even if it is true that blogs are more biased on an individual basis (and it probably is) I'd argue that blogs give a more accurate assessment, all taken together, than the mainstream media does, because they fact check not only themselves but each other, and supporting information is only a click away.

I've one simple question for you:

If any or all of that is true, what justification does any ethical journalist have for taking a job at, say, Fox News?

"On this spot in 1989, nothing happened."