go home Sean Young, you're drunk
Oh, "The Left" has it's own peculiarities. But the efforts to turn every one of their own inherent properties into an accusation against their opponents is a hallmark of the Religious Right.
Its a subscription-based MMO. $15 a month. In today's market, that is a recipe for fail.
On the other hand, I only play games that I pay for. I don't want anything for free, and most definitely not a game. Every single F2P game gives me a creepy feeling.
And I figure, since I'm not exceptional in any way, there are probably other people like me, who are happy to pay for a game that provides value. In fact, if the game was good enough, and provided enough value, I'd pay even more than the current price-tag for an AAA game.
I'm not much on MMO's or really, multiplayer anything, but by charging for their work, at least Blizzard has placed Wildstar in the category of games that I will consider playing.
One thing you can always say about the right-wing in America:
It's always about projection.
They have it in their DNA to try to misdirect by blaming others for that which is their most defining property. They think it's some kind of super-secret jujutsu that they can do because some consultant told them to. But it doesn't fool anyone. Look how long they've been trying it.
Smitty makes a big deal about his Christian faith and lives and breathes dishonesty. He thinks that it's OK because he's doing God's work or something. Just look into fhe faces - into the eyes - of the old-line soldiers in the Right to see where this ends up. Go find a photo of Mark Levin and look at the dead, flat eyes. That is not what the grace of God looks like.
Smitty, let go of the corruption before it gets to the point where it will never let go of you.
. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private.
No, you need for people to be not seen.
The act of watching, when it is not wanted, is a transgression against the individual. Now, you may say we've moved into a "post-individual" age, where only the collective matters, but I'm pretty sure that's not what people want. There is a basic human dignity that is violated by unwanted surveillance on people who are not suspected of crime. It's why the framers of the US Constitution made a big deal about:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It was a good idea then, and it's a much better idea now. Because when corporations and governments have the power of ubiquitous surveillance, there is no way NOT for it to be abused. Governments and corporations just don't know any better, because they are not human.
The fact that there are so many people who object to being watched should be enough. No means no. I have a right to be unwatched as much as a woman has a right to travel unmolested. If I don't want to be watched, I have a right not to be watched, when I'm in my own home, or even walking down the street.
Ah, but who are the "takers"?
Maybe this will help a little: http://pando.com/2014/02/26/fo...
There's a difference between surveillance and transparency.
People have a basic, animal need to be left alone sometimes. If there is "omnipresent surveillance", and you can't possibly know who's watching, how can you ever say "no"?
I don't think "decorum" is something that is decided democratically. It is almost imposed on us by the powerful, and that means that it will be beneficial to a few and less so to everyone else.
But again, it's good that smart people like you are talking about this.
These days, if you're not a political dissident, you are not paying attention.
fly a gun inside
It makes me feel better knowing there are smart, tech-savvy people saying what you're saying.
I get a little disheartened when I hear otherwise informed people say, "It's the internet age. You don't have any privacy, so just get over it". They just don't seem to have any awareness of the role that privacy, agency and basic human liberty have played in getting us to a point where we can have such powerful technology.
If there had been ubiquitous surveillance thirty years ago, we might not even have an Internet as we know it today. And the gains we have made will not protect themselves.
I doubt you're a political dissident or whatever.
but I'd like to go on record as joining the beta sucks bandwagon
Instead of cursing the darkness, why not light a candle?
You learn where not to go, and what not to see
The difference is, at the inner city school, the kids have next to nothing. It's gladiator school.
The kids at Francis Parker on the other hand, have every advantage. If you sit in the coffee shop across Clark Street facing the window at 7:30am, you will see the line of Bentleys, Aston Martins, etc, dropping off little Trevor for school. And those are the less wealthy families. You can tell the really wealthy families because the children are dropped off by a non-white driver, sitting alone in the front seat (and yes, I have seen little Driving Miss Daisy caps on the drivers). They don't give little Mitt a lunchbox, they give him a platinum visa so he can pop down the street at lunchtime and eat on proper tablecloths and terrorize the wait staff. The parents treat the faculty of Francis Parker a little worse than they treat the undocumented aliens they hire to do their lawn care and nannying.
Anyone who believes there are no social classes in the United States just needs to spend an hour at Francis Parker to learn the truth.
Francis Parker School in Chicago is where the 1% send their kids. So, there is a substantial number of entitled little turds who have learned from their parents that bullying is one of the perks of being rich and powerful.
It does not surprise me that this has happened at that school.
I have first-hand experience there and far poorer inner city schools, and there is behavior at FP that you would never see in the inner-city school.
So you're argument is Cruz might be an Obama of the right, roping in a lot of people and then carrying on as a progressive?
No, that he's an Obama of the Right, incompetent, self-absorbed and unable to make a difference on any of the important issues that matter to either of us.