If you have a Wii, you can get it on Virtual Console for $8.00. If you don't have a Wii, you can buy one and add the $8.00 and still be substantially under $300.
FWIW, I had played the original Metroid on NES and loved it, but I didn't play Super Metroid until a couple of years ago (after having played the whole Prime series). I enjoyed it a lot, but of course it's a different experience playing it nowadays than it would've been when it first came out.
a criminal’s debt to society is never fully repaid
By virtue of serving his/her time, the criminal is allowed to go free -- that's the whole deal. He/She is not thereby entitled to have the rest of society act as if the original crime never happened. Society's response will depend partly on the crime itself and partly on the criminal's subsequent words and actions. And of course on how marketable he/she is.
I think the same question relates to the topic of gender roles that came up recently -- there are plenty of people in traditional societies, women and men, who take comfort in the idea that their roles have been chosen for them and are hostile to the idea that they should be free to choose.
This isn't a new question, of course -- see the "Grand Inquisitor" story in The Brothers Karamazov...
Aren’t the cell phone records public information as well?
To some extent I'm repeating what others have said, but -- no. If I ask AT&T for your call history, they're under no obligation to give it to me. What they can and can't share is governed by the contract you signed with them -- perhaps they could make those records public (and not just shared with certain other private parties) if they chose and if that were permitted by the contract, but they have a pretty strong incentive not to do so.
As for the difference between Verizon or AT&T having this data and the government having it, I'd think that that's pretty obvious -- Verizon and AT&T don't have any police power at their disposal. They can search my records as much as they want, but they can't lock me up because of what they find.
Well, there are some similarities. If a cop stakes out your house, s/he can see who comes to the door, who you talk to, and who you let in, but can't hear your actual conversations (unless you're shouting). That's sort of like seeing whom you've called but not what you talked about.
But obviously with the stake-out, the cop is seeing inherently public information, unlike with the cell phone records.
It's always a joy to read one random guy on the internet offer a disquisition on the faults of another random guy on the internet as if the first random guy's opinion on such matters is somehow authoritative.
I fondly remember a series of Doonesbury strips from the '70s where a dad presents his college-age son with a bill for all the parenting services rendered up to that point.
If people would stop getting so effin’ fixated on why the other guy is such a horrible person and instead stick to talking about outcomes and failures, the government would probably function a lot better.
And it'd probably cut out about 80% of the comment volume here.
What, you are hoping for some theory that, in its brilliance, compels everyone to agree?
Are you responding to Brandon? If so, I'm pretty sure his answer is No, since he's saying the same thing you're saying, in response to someone criticizing Libertarianism specifically on this basis.
My memory may be faulty, but I thought TARP and the bailouts were the major driver, or at least the last straw, for the Tea Party stuff, so to some extent the timing might be coincidental rather than politically motivated.
But even if not, I think it's defensible, in the same way that liberals as a whole are more muted in their criticism of Obama's security policies than they would be if Bush were making the same decisions. The guy on their own team wasn't doing what they wanted, but putting the other team in charge sure as hell wouldn't make it any better -- the problem in their eyes was exactly that their own team had become too much like the other team.
I’m an historian by training, not an economist. And, to be honest, I’ve never been much impressed by economics
If someone says to you something along the lines of "I'm not a historian and haven't really done any in-depth study, but all the historians I've read are totally botching the causes and impact of [historical event]", and their interpretation of that event just happens to support their other political beliefs, how reliable would you expect that person's opinion to be? Given your admitted lack of training in economics, shouldn't you be more skeptical of your own opinions about that subject, especially where your existing ideological commitments are apt to influence your analysis?
We've done this a lot too -- small company without well-defined jobs and outside of a major metropolitan area, if someone comes in who seems promising and isn't asking for much money, chances are we'll hire him/her and figure out the best fit later.
I don't know that this really prevents those useful conversations -- there are a few people on the right and left who are ready to have them or who are already doing so, but most folks on both sides are happy enough to avoid thinking that hard.
I get what you're saying. For me, the overall event is unspeakably horrible but not "evil" per se. The only way I would justify using that word for it would be if I had the perspective that the Devil orchestrated the whole thing, but that's not my world view.
OTOH, it comprised many individual "evil" acts, no doubt falling into both of my categories above, as well as non-evil but horribly misguided acts.
Judging by the online dictionaries I checked, I guess my definition is idiosyncratic, but I tend to think of "evil" as synonymous with "malevolent" -- an evil act is the act of someone who knows what's good and consciously, purposefully chooses the opposite. The maximally evil act is when this choice is made purely for its own sake (e.g. a sociopath who enjoys making people suffer); somewhat less evil is when the choice is made as a means to some other personal reward (perhaps a mobster who brutalizes or kills people he knows to be "innocent" in order to consolidate power and/or make money).
Someone who sees his victims as not worthy of consideration and thus treats them horribly doesn't fall under my definition of "evil", at least to the extent that he doesn't have the sense that he's doing wrong.
I don't see it as condescension so much as a rhetorical tactic to claim intellectual superiority without having to provide any real evidence for it. To me it always suggests that the speaker doesn't really have a command of the recommended material, or else s/he would provide a brief summary of the relevant argument -- can't say whether that applies in this case.
As Brandon said -- taking steps to eliminate that doesn't depend on outlawing organ sales. And until you accomplish that goal, outlawing organ sales simply hurts the people you're purporting to defend.
I understand the negative reaction to this concept, but you should really step back and consider it a bit more. And perhaps try not to call people fucking morons when they say something you disagree with, especially when your own opinion is just a gut reaction rather than a carefully-considered position.
+1. The BHL post that Murali's Self-Criticism post referenced had in turn referenced a Bryan Caplan post along similar lines, though specific to macroeconomics.
What, you're doubting the Post's veracity? Their record is practically spotless!
But FWIW, here is a cached version of the VIP Tours page -- it does sound a tad suspicious (at least, it certainly doesn't do anything to disprove the accusation). The current version of that page says "Due to inaccurate press and slander, Dream Tours is not offering VIP tours at this time. Our focus has primarily always been providing magical vacations for adults with special needs and helping their dreams to come true." Make of that what you will (paying special attention to the word "primarily").
To paraphrase Sextus Empiricus ...eventually, someone will come along and discredit or at least call into serious question every position you now hold to be true.
Yes, but this position was subsequently discredited.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Best Video Game Ever: “Super Metroid””
If you have a Wii, you can get it on Virtual Console for $8.00. If you don't have a Wii, you can buy one and add the $8.00 and still be substantially under $300.
FWIW, I had played the original Metroid on NES and loved it, but I didn't play Super Metroid until a couple of years ago (after having played the whole Prime series). I enjoyed it a lot, but of course it's a different experience playing it nowadays than it would've been when it first came out.
On “Survey Says? BZZZZZZZ!”
I think you mean "Fived."
On “The Rehabilitation of Mike Tyson”
a criminal’s debt to society is never fully repaid
By virtue of serving his/her time, the criminal is allowed to go free -- that's the whole deal. He/She is not thereby entitled to have the rest of society act as if the original crime never happened. Society's response will depend partly on the crime itself and partly on the criminal's subsequent words and actions. And of course on how marketable he/she is.
On “Putting a Price on Kidneys”
I think the same question relates to the topic of gender roles that came up recently -- there are plenty of people in traditional societies, women and men, who take comfort in the idea that their roles have been chosen for them and are hostile to the idea that they should be free to choose.
This isn't a new question, of course -- see the "Grand Inquisitor" story in The Brothers Karamazov...
On “David Simon Misses the Point”
To some extent I'm repeating what others have said, but -- no. If I ask AT&T for your call history, they're under no obligation to give it to me. What they can and can't share is governed by the contract you signed with them -- perhaps they could make those records public (and not just shared with certain other private parties) if they chose and if that were permitted by the contract, but they have a pretty strong incentive not to do so.
As for the difference between Verizon or AT&T having this data and the government having it, I'd think that that's pretty obvious -- Verizon and AT&T don't have any police power at their disposal. They can search my records as much as they want, but they can't lock me up because of what they find.
"
Rats, inconsistent who/whoms. I hate when I do that.
"
Well, there are some similarities. If a cop stakes out your house, s/he can see who comes to the door, who you talk to, and who you let in, but can't hear your actual conversations (unless you're shouting). That's sort of like seeing whom you've called but not what you talked about.
But obviously with the stake-out, the cop is seeing inherently public information, unlike with the cell phone records.
On “Driving Blind: I Spy”
It's always a joy to read one random guy on the internet offer a disquisition on the faults of another random guy on the internet as if the first random guy's opinion on such matters is somehow authoritative.
On “Comment Rescue: A Priorism in Libertarianism”
it is absolutely essential that we do not “assume the cake.”
The cake is a lie.
"
I fondly remember a series of Doonesbury strips from the '70s where a dad presents his college-age son with a bill for all the parenting services rendered up to that point.
"
If people would stop getting so effin’ fixated on why the other guy is such a horrible person and instead stick to talking about outcomes and failures, the government would probably function a lot better.
And it'd probably cut out about 80% of the comment volume here.
"
What, you are hoping for some theory that, in its brilliance, compels everyone to agree?
Are you responding to Brandon? If so, I'm pretty sure his answer is No, since he's saying the same thing you're saying, in response to someone criticizing Libertarianism specifically on this basis.
On “How the Tea Party Movement Is Often About Things Uglier Than Fiscal Restraint, and a Challenge to Public Conservatives Who Claim Otherwise”
My memory may be faulty, but I thought TARP and the bailouts were the major driver, or at least the last straw, for the Tea Party stuff, so to some extent the timing might be coincidental rather than politically motivated.
But even if not, I think it's defensible, in the same way that liberals as a whole are more muted in their criticism of Obama's security policies than they would be if Bush were making the same decisions. The guy on their own team wasn't doing what they wanted, but putting the other team in charge sure as hell wouldn't make it any better -- the problem in their eyes was exactly that their own team had become too much like the other team.
On “Some mansplaining on women’s access to the workplace”
If someone says to you something along the lines of "I'm not a historian and haven't really done any in-depth study, but all the historians I've read are totally botching the causes and impact of [historical event]", and their interpretation of that event just happens to support their other political beliefs, how reliable would you expect that person's opinion to be? Given your admitted lack of training in economics, shouldn't you be more skeptical of your own opinions about that subject, especially where your existing ideological commitments are apt to influence your analysis?
"
We've done this a lot too -- small company without well-defined jobs and outside of a major metropolitan area, if someone comes in who seems promising and isn't asking for much money, chances are we'll hire him/her and figure out the best fit later.
On “Why Conservatives Can’t Win the Non-Male Vote, “I’m Fishing Speechless” Edition”
I don't know that this really prevents those useful conversations -- there are a few people on the right and left who are ready to have them or who are already doing so, but most folks on both sides are happy enough to avoid thinking that hard.
On “On the Nature of Evil: A Question for the Hive Mind”
I get what you're saying. For me, the overall event is unspeakably horrible but not "evil" per se. The only way I would justify using that word for it would be if I had the perspective that the Devil orchestrated the whole thing, but that's not my world view.
OTOH, it comprised many individual "evil" acts, no doubt falling into both of my categories above, as well as non-evil but horribly misguided acts.
"
Judging by the online dictionaries I checked, I guess my definition is idiosyncratic, but I tend to think of "evil" as synonymous with "malevolent" -- an evil act is the act of someone who knows what's good and consciously, purposefully chooses the opposite. The maximally evil act is when this choice is made purely for its own sake (e.g. a sociopath who enjoys making people suffer); somewhat less evil is when the choice is made as a means to some other personal reward (perhaps a mobster who brutalizes or kills people he knows to be "innocent" in order to consolidate power and/or make money).
Someone who sees his victims as not worthy of consideration and thus treats them horribly doesn't fall under my definition of "evil", at least to the extent that he doesn't have the sense that he's doing wrong.
On “Sunday Morning Atheism”
I don't see it as condescension so much as a rhetorical tactic to claim intellectual superiority without having to provide any real evidence for it. To me it always suggests that the speaker doesn't really have a command of the recommended material, or else s/he would provide a brief summary of the relevant argument -- can't say whether that applies in this case.
"
all talk about God is completely meaningless
What do you mean by "meaningless"? I suspect you're confusing meaning with reference.
It is as meaningless as a community of people blind since birth trying to talk about the experience of seeing blue.
I think it would be more like such a community trying to talk about that thing that makes them feel warm when they walk outside during the day.
On “Popular and Wrong”
As Brandon said -- taking steps to eliminate that doesn't depend on outlawing organ sales. And until you accomplish that goal, outlawing organ sales simply hurts the people you're purporting to defend.
I understand the negative reaction to this concept, but you should really step back and consider it a bit more. And perhaps try not to call people fucking morons when they say something you disagree with, especially when your own opinion is just a gut reaction rather than a carefully-considered position.
"
So how better to help that someone than to remove an option for relieving that financial duress!
On “Ideology is the Enemy: The Creeping Victory of “Consistent” over “Judicious””
+1. The BHL post that Murali's Self-Criticism post referenced had in turn referenced a Bryan Caplan post along similar lines, though specific to macroeconomics.
On “You have no idea how upset this makes me…”
What, you're doubting the Post's veracity? Their record is practically spotless!
But FWIW, here is a cached version of the VIP Tours page -- it does sound a tad suspicious (at least, it certainly doesn't do anything to disprove the accusation). The current version of that page says "Due to inaccurate press and slander, Dream Tours is not offering VIP tours at this time. Our focus has primarily always been providing magical vacations for adults with special needs and helping their dreams to come true." Make of that what you will (paying special attention to the word "primarily").
On “Self Criticism!”
Yes, but this position was subsequently discredited.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.