We're all agnostic. If your answer to the question ''Do you believe in a god'' is yes, you are a theist. If it's anything but yes, then you are currently an atheist.
Theism=Belief
A-theism=Lack of said belief
Gnosticism=Knowing
Agnosticism=Not knowing.
We all either believe or not, but no one ''knows'' for sure. Hence, the agnosticism part. Whether or not you believe is a matter of being convinced by the evidence. ''What evidence?'' you may ask.
Well, pick a religion.
You know the ''holy'' books, the arguments, the stories, etc etc? That's the evidence. If you don't find any of them compelling enough that they have convinced you of their veracity, and none of the non specific arguments for a deity like the cosmological or teleological argumets have convinced you, then you're an atheist.
If they have convinced you, then you're a theist, and are either a deist (convinced by the nonspecific arguments, but not by a specific religion), or you were convinced by a specific religion and now are a Hindu, or a Christian, or whatever.
You cannot just simply be 'An Agnostic.'
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Gaming Sequels, New Ip's, and Ubisoft.
Sequelitis, New Ip's, and Ubisoft.
Ubisoft backing off new IP's as holiday sales slip
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6249972.html
In recent years, Ubisoft has launched a bevy of new series with varying degrees of success. Since 2006, the publisher has introduced gamers to Assassin's Creed, Shaun White Snowboarding, EndWar, HAWX, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Call of Juarez, and Haze, among others.
Assassin's Creed paid off for Ubisoft, but the publisher's looking to take fewer risks of that sort in the future. The flow of original intellectual properties from Ubisoft will be stemmed in the coming years, as the publisher is shifting its focus away from new franchises. In reporting its final results for the third fiscal quarter (three months ended December 31, 2009), Ubisoft confirmed a reduction in new creations investments.
The scaling back on new franchises is one part of a Ubisoft plan to ultimately have its major franchises seeing more frequent and regular releases.
UGH. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!
When I saw the headline on gamespot, I went into cynic/anger mode. I was ready to rage. What the fuck Ubisoft? Your new IP, Assassin's Creed, has sold in the MILLIONS (AC2 has sold 8 million....well, shipped, but still). All of your big hits were new IP's at one point. We're already suffering from sequelitis in this industry, and now you're going to make it worse?
FUCK YOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!
This feeling was amplified by 100 when I read this:
..reconfirms Oct.-Dec. earnings fell 3 percent to $682 million.
WHAT? You earned 682 MILLION fucking dollars in one quarter, and you're cutting IP's because that represented a 3 fucking percent drop? HOW GREEDY CAN YOU GET?
But then I read on:
For the full year ending March 31, 2010, the company expects to post an operating loss of €50 million ($69 million) off sales of €860 million ($1.19 billion).
...
Oh.
....
...
Oohhh.....
Now I get it. It's hard to believe, but damn, they're losing money.
This perfectly exemplifies the fact that it's possible to be be a huge corporation, raking in billions of dollars in sales, and still be in the red. Many people (myself included) often critisize these companies for what we perceive to be shady (some DLC) or just unfavourable (cutting new IP's in favour of sequelitis) practices. I happen to do this a lot. It's hard to think that these companies can make so much money, yet still post losses at the end of the year.
I guess I'm going to have to be careful from now on, and try not to be so reactionary when I hear news like this (that will be very hard, I'm sure, as it's going to be tough to seperate the legitimate moves from the lazy/greedy ones, unless full financial data is disclosed).
BUT HOLD ON.
It's unfortunate that things are going this way, and my initial reaction was to blame us, the gamers. We're not buying new IP's. It's our fault. And this is partly true. However, as I said earlier, Ubi just released the news that they have shipped 8 million copies of AC2. Now, I don't know how HAWX or Endwar sold. I don't know how the Raving Rabbids spinoffs of Rayman are selling. The thing is, if they aren't, maybe it's their fault.
Maybe they need to make better games.
Companies are so quick to deem something unfeasible or unprofitable once it has been tried unsuccessfully. ''People didn't buy enough copies to warrant a sequel.'' Well, maybe that's because it fucking sucked? Doesn't mean the IP isn't viable. It just needs to be done better.
Sure, some great new IP's go overlooked. Okami and Psychonauts are two commonly touted examples of this. Often though, the new IP is mediocre, and the sales reflect that. Or perhaps, as is likely the case with Okami and Psychonauts, the game just doesn't appeal to a wide range of gamers.
Does this mean we cut out new ideas? Sure, a proven success is a proven success. But that's short term thinking. Don't they realize there won't be any industry left if all we have in ten years is COD, GH, Madden, Halo, and Assassin's Creed (extreme exaggeration, sure, but I think you get my point)?
Then again, every friggin new iteration of these games sells like hotcakes, so I guess gamers are getting what they deserve.
I don't know. I understand the sentiment. If people seem to want sequels, well, let's give it to them. We need to make money, and when we're losing money, we can't afford to take risks. But at the same time, I worry about gaming as a whole, and also, the creative/artistic aspect if it. I'm not some naive idealist, I understand that the companies are in it for the money, but damn, there should be more to it than that. It's better to create and earn then to rehash and really earn, in my opinion.
I'm starting to ramble now. When I started this I had a clear conclusion in mind, but now I don't know what to think.
What do you think?
Ubisoft backing off new IP's as holiday sales slip
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6249972.html
In recent years, Ubisoft has launched a bevy of new series with varying degrees of success. Since 2006, the publisher has introduced gamers to Assassin's Creed, Shaun White Snowboarding, EndWar, HAWX, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Call of Juarez, and Haze, among others.
Assassin's Creed paid off for Ubisoft, but the publisher's looking to take fewer risks of that sort in the future. The flow of original intellectual properties from Ubisoft will be stemmed in the coming years, as the publisher is shifting its focus away from new franchises. In reporting its final results for the third fiscal quarter (three months ended December 31, 2009), Ubisoft confirmed a reduction in new creations investments.
The scaling back on new franchises is one part of a Ubisoft plan to ultimately have its major franchises seeing more frequent and regular releases.
UGH. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!
When I saw the headline on gamespot, I went into cynic/anger mode. I was ready to rage. What the fuck Ubisoft? Your new IP, Assassin's Creed, has sold in the MILLIONS (AC2 has sold 8 million....well, shipped, but still). All of your big hits were new IP's at one point. We're already suffering from sequelitis in this industry, and now you're going to make it worse?
FUCK YOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!
This feeling was amplified by 100 when I read this:
..reconfirms Oct.-Dec. earnings fell 3 percent to $682 million.
WHAT? You earned 682 MILLION fucking dollars in one quarter, and you're cutting IP's because that represented a 3 fucking percent drop? HOW GREEDY CAN YOU GET?
But then I read on:
For the full year ending March 31, 2010, the company expects to post an operating loss of €50 million ($69 million) off sales of €860 million ($1.19 billion).
...
Oh.
....
...
Oohhh.....
Now I get it. It's hard to believe, but damn, they're losing money.
This perfectly exemplifies the fact that it's possible to be be a huge corporation, raking in billions of dollars in sales, and still be in the red. Many people (myself included) often critisize these companies for what we perceive to be shady (some DLC) or just unfavourable (cutting new IP's in favour of sequelitis) practices. I happen to do this a lot. It's hard to think that these companies can make so much money, yet still post losses at the end of the year.
I guess I'm going to have to be careful from now on, and try not to be so reactionary when I hear news like this (that will be very hard, I'm sure, as it's going to be tough to seperate the legitimate moves from the lazy/greedy ones, unless full financial data is disclosed).
BUT HOLD ON.
It's unfortunate that things are going this way, and my initial reaction was to blame us, the gamers. We're not buying new IP's. It's our fault. And this is partly true. However, as I said earlier, Ubi just released the news that they have shipped 8 million copies of AC2. Now, I don't know how HAWX or Endwar sold. I don't know how the Raving Rabbids spinoffs of Rayman are selling. The thing is, if they aren't, maybe it's their fault.
Maybe they need to make better games.
Companies are so quick to deem something unfeasible or unprofitable once it has been tried unsuccessfully. ''People didn't buy enough copies to warrant a sequel.'' Well, maybe that's because it fucking sucked? Doesn't mean the IP isn't viable. It just needs to be done better.
Sure, some great new IP's go overlooked. Okami and Psychonauts are two commonly touted examples of this. Often though, the new IP is mediocre, and the sales reflect that. Or perhaps, as is likely the case with Okami and Psychonauts, the game just doesn't appeal to a wide range of gamers.
Does this mean we cut out new ideas? Sure, a proven success is a proven success. But that's short term thinking. Don't they realize there won't be any industry left if all we have in ten years is COD, GH, Madden, Halo, and Assassin's Creed (extreme exaggeration, sure, but I think you get my point)?
Then again, every friggin new iteration of these games sells like hotcakes, so I guess gamers are getting what they deserve.
I don't know. I understand the sentiment. If people seem to want sequels, well, let's give it to them. We need to make money, and when we're losing money, we can't afford to take risks. But at the same time, I worry about gaming as a whole, and also, the creative/artistic aspect if it. I'm not some naive idealist, I understand that the companies are in it for the money, but damn, there should be more to it than that. It's better to create and earn then to rehash and really earn, in my opinion.
I'm starting to ramble now. When I started this I had a clear conclusion in mind, but now I don't know what to think.
What do you think?
New Research: Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Sarah Palin: 100K for Q/A, Still Needs Crib Notes
So Sarah Palin uses crib notes for a Q&A session, during which she was asked general queestions about concepts and things she supports. She is unable to even recall her own stances on policy?
Here's the question for which she needed to consult her hand:
What are the top three priorities once there's a conservative president and congress?
....
---
Can someone please, please, help me out here. Explain to me how someone so incredibly useless can get paid 100K for a speaking engagement, and possibly run for president, after all of the stupid, stupid things she has said? And even now after this, people will continue to take her seriously.
What must one do to lose credibility anymore? It used to be that people had integrity, and were qualified for the positions they were running for (and even if they didn't, and weren't, they knew how to hide it).
Now......ya, I don't understand it. You can be a war criminal and still get paid huge money for speaking engagements, rather than be placed in jail like you should be (Bush), you can be a complete and utter dolt, still get paid for speaking engagements, get hired to work for a news channel (if you can call it that) and possibly run for US presidencey (Palin).
What the **** is going on down there?
How did we get this far? We have free speech on trial in Amsterdam, we have this woman who:
1) Doesn't know her own policies
2) Still fails prescreened questions
3) Tried to ban books
4) Thinks foreign policy consists of proximity and visibility
etc etc etc
And somehow, rather than be made a laughing stock, she:
1) Has a million plus selling book
2) Gets paid 100 thousand dollars to speak to disenfranchised people about greed
3) Was a presidential running mate
4) May be running for US presidency in 2 years
etc etc etc.
It hurts. It honestly hurts. I'm only 28, and I can honestly say I sometimes feel like I might as well give up, it's over. This is one of those times.
Am I the only one who gets nostalgic for time periods in which he did not even live? I see images and video of the early 20th century, and I wish I was there....but, yes, I am aware of the rose tinted glasses thing. I know the folly of the ''sinking ship'' view of the current generation.
It's just so hard sometimes......
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Confession Time
I'm not really a 28 year old male video game enthusaist. I am actually a Brazilan woman with dark hair, C cups, and an enigmatic smile.
That is all.
That is all.
Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth
Two Years in Jail for "Offending People?"
This blog, by Douglas Murra, a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London, describes an ongoing trial in Amsterdam, which consists of a popular politican being put on trial for.......are you ready for this?
Offending Muslims.
Yes, freedom of speech is on trial in Amsertdam.
A small excerpt:
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
This video talks about the issue:
This blog, by Douglas Murra, a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London, describes an ongoing trial in Amsterdam, which consists of a popular politican being put on trial for.......are you ready for this?
Offending Muslims.
Yes, freedom of speech is on trial in Amsertdam.
A small excerpt:
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
This video talks about the issue:
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)