Moebius

Well Blizzard completely scrapped StarCraft: Ghost because the studio they outsourced the game to did not do a satisfactory job. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to do the same with D3. I have complete faith in Blizzard. So far EVERY SINGLE ONE of their titles have become industry standards in their respective genres. Until shown otherwise, I see no reason why we should doubt them.

No, we DON'T KNOW that he had WMDs. Do not state that as a fact when it simply isn't. Unless you're talking about the mustard gas from the 70s -- expired and with no means of long range delivery. I think the inspectors found a couple of empty barrels with traces of those stuff.

I think the more often you threaten the less effective it is and in the long run probably net you more animosity and/or suspicion internationally. Ideally it is probably more effective if you use the threat of force sparingly but forcefully, and with an unequivocal moral position. It is not that I disagree with this sentiment, but this would be viable only if the moral judgment of the United States was beyond reproach. For instance we couldn't just make like Commodore Perry and just park a ship in another country's sea port, demand that they open up trade with the aid of cannons, and then deem the retaliating samurai as a sign of belligerence. More recently, that whole deal with WMDs and Iraq is sure to raise questions about the United States' dubious motivations for invasion. Historically the military actions of the United States has not always been necessarily justified. It isn't hard to see why another country might worry that the United States would simply make up some sort of false accusation as an excuse for invasion in order to expand our interests through force. Without an extremely strong moral position EVERY SINGLE TIME we use force, we'll just end up with a network of allies based on duress and a web of underground enemies (kind of like the way it is right now).

Aside from the fact that Catwoman is probably the most iconic Batman villain besides the Joker and Twoface, Nolan's Batman took a lot of inspiration from the comic book story lines A Long Halloween and Batman Year One, both of which included Catwoman as one of its major support characters. This means it is very likely that Catwoman will have at least an appearance if not a major role in the next film. Personally my guess is that the next film will feature Harvey Dent as the fully transforming Twoface as he break all the prisoners out of Arkham Asylum, with Batman having to put each and everyone of them back behind bars. I think the new Batman franchise should just stick within the Batman characters instead of randomly bringing in a character from a completely different franchise (granted they're both DC characters...). There are still many facets of Gotham that can be explored without reaching out to Superman. Not to mention the possibility of confusing or alienating casual fans.

How do you provide solid, objective proof if this was a full grown adult that she grasps the act and its consequences and has rationally concluded that this would be a value for her? You really can't, short of reading her mind. Anyway there is a difference between pretense and a reasonable assumption. Without knowing the girl there is no way to decide. I certainly think that it is possible that a 13 year old is capable of consent, just that most probably aren't.

How do you define "living on their own" or "maturity"? Without defining those terms first your test very well could be subjective. An 8 year old with a 10 million dollar trust fund can conceivably live on his own. If you're talking about making their own money, that would mean the same kid at age 25 and has never had to work shouldn't be allowed to have sex either. Does picking food out of garbage cans count as living in reality? It just seems like an arbitrary test.

ArenaMan, So Sarah was sleeping with Adam AND Aaron? Or, I dunno, what is the deal? Are they the same person?

Yeah you're absolutely right. Although I think more so than a higher population, a DENSER population offers more opportunities for specialization. Hence the tendency for human urbanization going as far back as pre-history. As far as the musical chairs go, I agree that there is an unlimited potential for demand. But I think at any given point in the economy there is a finite amount of established firms and industries that all compete on the same battle field. There are two paths to success -- you can either build a bigger, stronger, faster, more efficient production machine than your competition, or you develop a brand new market niche with little or no competition. The musical chair analogy refers to the former situation.

Well it says right on the Wiki front page that it is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know what an "average person" know about Wikipedia, but frankly you probably don't either. Does your "average" include 80 year olds that doesn't even know how to operate a computer? 5 year olds that can barely read? So on and so forth. If we're going by opinions, then I would say pretty much anyone that spend an extended amount of time online on a daily basis know what a Wiki is. Well to be honest I think Wiki is a reasonable reference in a medium such as a forum conversation. It is somewhat ironic that eriatarka used it because a large portion of this thread had been about the unreliability of Wikipedia, but that was not the context with which Eriatarka used Wiki as source. The fact that there are external links on the Wiki page is somewhat of an implicit knowledge for any regular Wiki user, so I think that he may just be under the impression that anyone partaking in this conversation is somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. I detect that you have somewhat of a bias against blogs. Honestly if this was 4-5 years ago when blogs are mostly run by kids living out of their parent's basements, I may agree with you. However at this point of web development I think we need to recognize that blogs has slowly begin to mature as a medium, with a large number of reputable blogs (both written for free and for profit) that are of very high quality, many of which backed by corporate or non-profit sponsors with a board of director. Wikipeida just happens to be by far the most successful example and I think probably the most important development on the web since Google. It's true that Wikipedia has its limits in terms of quality control, particularly of new articles. But its software is designed to limit vandalism, while the fact that there are such a large amount of editors around serve as a form of self-correcting mechanism. In theory there far more people knowledgeable and interested in the truth than folks with special interests. And in the case of split opinions on a major topic, there are almost always another article specifically addressing the dissenting opinion (and if there isn't, anyone is free to write one). Wikipedia is what it is. For me at least it is useful most of the time for quick references and absolutely awesome for casual reading. If your problem with Wikipedia is that people use the information therein as absolute truth, recognize that it is not a fault of Wikipedia itself. Nor should you dismiss the project as completely worthless (well yeah you didn't actually say that but your sentiments seems to be along those lines).

This is not a fault restricted only to Wikipedia. In fact on the topic of Global Warming in particular you can go to the local book store and STILL find accredited authors who state that similar premises are right. Even for an "innocent" and "unsuspecting" person, the intellectual responsibility of deciding what is the truth and what isn't lies with himself. In fact, I would go as far as to say that at least with Wikipedia, you know going in that it is what it is -- basically a public blog. You use the information at your own risk. If you actually read the section of Wikipedia on global warming, it even includes a section on dissenting voices about Global Warming controversies. But when you are in a book store or a library, you would probably be more likely to assume the information acquired there to be facts without the same easy access other opinions.

I agree that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. But I also think we have overall a much more rational society today than at any other period in our history. Bottom line is that I think all people are born with the capacity for rationality. But that capacity is something that needs to be developed and cultivated. It might not be possible to make every single person this way, but realistically I think you just need to reach a critical mass of rational people in a population for the system to work.

This would really depend on how efficient the market is. In a perfectly efficient market, the effects would be seen IMMEDIATELY. The pharmaceutical market in particular is extremely inefficient largely because of government regulations AND the fact that it is an extremely specialized field where information acquisition is difficult and require a high level of knowledge to make rational judgments and analysis. No. Under a Free Market coercion does not exist, BY DEFINITION. The concept of anarchy does not apply since comparing the Free Market to a political system is like comparing apples to oranges. There is really no point arguing about this. I will say again -unequivocally- that I believe the Free Market works. However I think an instant de-regulation would be like throwing a man dying from hypothermia into a tub of extremely hot water. If he is strong enough then perhaps he could survive the shock, but if he isn't his systems might shut down from shock and you'll end up with a bigger mess on your hands. I am suggesting that it is better to place him in cool water and slowly bring up his body temperature. The ultimate goal in both approach is to restore the man's health.

I don't think it has anything to do with freedom. You are talking about an era where the population size is smaller, information travels slower, and most people are uneducated. Naturally there are far more opportunities for the capable to move into due to far worse competition. Today education is ubiquitous, almost anybody can acquire large amounts of information in their area of interest at an extreme pace, and you are competing against other talents globally. Naturally there are far less opportunities for the young, especially if you live in a more developed society where most market niches have already been saturated by giant conglomerates with far more resources than you. For folks that live in the first world, their best shot at success is by developing completely new markets with a low cost of entry and very little competition (for instance web-based ventures). On the other hand, when you look at the strongest of the emerging markets such as China, it is a complete wild west. The population have a huge amount of newly acquired capital, but have extremely few and under-developed consumption venues for them to funnel those cash into. A poorly educated but capable man can make his own way by finding a market niche, cultivate it, and then rapidly expand across a vast population. There is less of a need to be original because the consumption patterns have not been as clearly defined and taken over by corporate chains through economy of scale. It is just like playing musical chairs, only with far more empty seats. The actual education aside, Ivy League can give you two things: 1. a degree that automatically conveys a positive first impression to many people. Useful for opening doors and scoring (deserved or not) respect. 2. huge amount of connections and networks. Useful in virtually all professions. They're just tools that gives you an edge. All else being equal you are likely to be exposed to more opportunities that someone else of similar qualities. Tribalism factors in, as does our tendency to rank and organize people into social hierarchies.

Your analogy is incomplete. In the Wiki-restaurant: 1. the people that make your food are anonymous but not necessarily completely random -- they are mostly a self-selected group of people that specialize and really enjoy cooking that item of their choice, granted with a varied level of skills. 2. you get to order almost any kind of food you want even if it is extremely obscure or specific -- the menu is far larger than any other restaurant on Earth. 3. the food is delivered to your doorsteps as soon as you placed the order. 4. there is definitely a small chance that the food is bad, but you can look at it or sample it first before you decide whether to eat it. 5. the food is not only cheaper, IT IS COMPLETELY FREE. So hell yeah, I'd eat there. It certainly won't be my sole diet, but if I wanted to try something new or had a sudden craving, it'd be the first place I go. And yes, it is certainly a remarkable achievement.

Then I advise you in cases where you are confused to take the words precisely the way they are stated instead of adding your own assumptions. And I am sorry for your confusion. I regard the free market theory as the highest ideal and the final expression of human rationality. It is the eventual goal, to get there we must take it one step at a time. An example of collusion between manufacturer and third party evaluator is a pharmaceutical company providing kick-backs or gifts for doctors and hospitals that recommend their product. As far as government protecting against fraud -- that is its assumed role under an Objectivist system. By definition a Free Market assume no coercion or fraud between buyer and seller (or from third parties), with everything determined by transactions based on mutual consent governed solely by the law of supply and demand. As you can see, that requires ALL CONSUMERS and PRODUCERS to be honest, rational, and aware. That is why while I consider it to be the ultimate expression, practically other steps must be taken first. Rather than commenting on the validity of the Free Market, I was commenting on the length of the path getting there.

I ask you AGAIN and for the final time to please stop putting words in my mouth. I already stated that the free market would solve the problem in theory. Following your inability to comprehend what I had actually said, I further clarified that I am a believer of the said theory. And here you are attempting ONCE AGAIN to claim that I do no believe the free market actually works in practice. First of all, the free market concept IS a theory. So I am correct in stating it as such. Second of all, when someone specifically said they believe in something, they generally believe that it works. My point was simply that to put the said theory in practice requires more than simply ridding all regulations in one swift stroke. IN PRACTICE, a government monitoring system and a heightened consumer awareness must be set in place first, before the market can be deregulated. In other words, you do not teach a child to swim by throwing him into a shark-filled ocean. You begin with a shallow pool and some floating devices and work your way up in order to minimize the potential risks. A free market is the eventual goal, but it would be better for the system as a whole if we take it slow. While I believe that humans are rational beings capable of making their own decisions, the capacity to do so is something that needs to be honed and cultivated.

Good call! Sad but true...

Wow someone other than me actually likes Killer Croc. He was an awesome character in the anime -- a very interesting, tragic, and complex character that is equal parts villain and victim struggling to come to grip with the duality of both his body and his soul. If anybody can make him work on film, I believe that Nolan could. Penguin would work well with the tone of the series. I have trouble coming up with who would play him though.

I'd like to see Catwoman (played by Angelina Jolie) or Talia al Ghul (played by Monica Bellucci). Heck, even Poison Ivey (Jennifer Love Hewitt) or Harley Quinn (Keira Knightley). Any ass-kicking hot chick villain basically. It is time that Bruce Wayne meet a more attractive love interest than Rachel. Aside from those guys, I'd like to see Bane (Vin Diesel) and the Croc (Clive Owen + CGI & Makeup).

I consider Dark Knight the Empire Strikes Back of the Batman franchise. It is one of the best sequels ever (only a handful that I can think of is better: Terminator II, Aliens, Godfather II -- and ties with Empire). That said, there are a couple of things I'd like to point out: 1. Bruce Wayne is not sacrificing himself for the greater good. He is sacrificing a "normal life" for his highest ideals -- a better Gotham. He is dedicating all of his will, power, and skill in order to create a world consistent with his values. In the first film he began is somewhat of a nihilist motivated by revenge. In the second film he began to understand what he wants and what he has to do. The movie is about his choice and its consequences. 2. As far as folks laughing at the Joker scene -- I chuckled also and muttered "daaymn..." when I saw that. If you've seen the movie Casino, there's a scene where Joe Pesci stabs a guy to death with a fountain pen -- I laughed during that scene too. I won't overtly psychologize, but these sort of scenes are absurd, violent, and intense, and laughing is a mechanism for releasing tension. You are shook on some levels by the complete and utter evilness and insanity of the Joker, but you also realize then that you are removed from the situation in the safety of your seat. So you laugh, perhaps in relief, because it normalizes your emotions. Obviously it wouldn't be funny if you were saw the situation in real life.

How about you read what I actually wrote instead of what you assume I meant. I identified the problem as the USE OF FORCE to coerce labeling. I identified the solution as the FREE MARKET. So... what is your problem again? The fact that I wrote "in theory" behind it? That is because that is what it is. And before you start drawing erroneous conclusions about my statement again, I DO in fact agree with the free market in spirit. However as far as practicality goes, it would obviously be far more complicated when it is introduced into reality. For instance, I think the government is still needed to monitor collusion and fraud between manufacturers and third party labelers, at least until such time that a critical mass of consumers are educated and aware enough to make rational decisions -- so on and so forth. I don't think it is necessarily efficient to simply deregulate everything all at once given the state of our society as is.

Or I could take my chances and buy it anyway, which I would be just as likely to do depending on the product in question. Even if NONE of the food in the supermarket had nutrition labels, I am still going to eat. But yes, like I have ALREADY said, theoretically the free market solves. So what is your point again? I did not say it was right. In fact I said the OPPOSITE. But it is like welfare -- even if you do not morally agree with the system, if it's there, use it. The moral responsibility does not lie with you. You are reading non-existent assumptions between my lines. Objectivism includes the free market concept, and the free market concept argues that the market solves. That is, if you must nit-pick. There are plenty of staple food that doesn't come with nutritional messages -- veggies, meat, grains, etc. Did I say that food producers would stop including nutritional facts if the government didn't force them? No. So again, I don't understand what your point is by quoting me.

I don't think it is necessarily healthy to enter a marriage thinking about divorce. If you and your spouse have common (or at least very similar) values then controlling her actions shouldn't be an issue. I just got married, and I make significantly more money than my wife. But I still pool all the money together and take only a bit of allowance. I don't plan on getting divorced (no one does I guess...) and I consider the chance of it happening as so small that if it happens, then it happens. If you are confident about your decision to get married, then instead of basing your financial decisions based on a potential divorce, you should base it on maximizing your marriage. Joint finance is in generally much more efficient as far as decision making and saving time goes (instead of sitting around figuring out who pays for what when you live together). It's true that it is important to have your own money to do as you please. How much that should be as a percentage to your income is for you to discuss with your spouse. Just curious: on what basis do you equate strippers and porn stars with gold diggers? *** Mod's note: The discussion on strippers was split out here. ***

I just got married last month, but I have been dating my wife for about five years and living together for about two years. This is one of the issues we discussed. It seems to me that the problem you had with your ex really wouldn't be a problem if he was simply more responsible with his finances. The issue here isn't whether the budget is shared, but that your ex simply isn't very good at keeping books. That is not an unusual problem, and to be honest I was (and still am from time to time) the same way early on while co-habitating with my wife. The only way to solve it is continuous communication about long term goals and values. As long as you have synchronized your long term financial goals and values, it's easy to come up with a financial strategy. After that it's just about practice. It's only a real problem if you and your spouse have fundamentally different ideas regarding values and life style with neither refusing to compromise. But then this is probably something that should have been worked out before finalizing the marriage and splitting up probably isn't the worst thing that could happen (certainly better than being enslaved by your mortgages for the rest of your life buying things that you cannot afford). As far as the actual system goes, my wife and I have a mostly combined finance with roughly 80% of our income in a joint account used to run the household, invest, and save (also vacations and whatever larger expenses that needs to be discussed). Whatever is left we divide roughly 30-70 (she's 30 and I am 70) as allowances -- this due to the fact that I tend to be the one paying when we go out together or when shopping for pleasure. She keeps all the books, and I make all the major investment decisions. This has been working out fine so far, and as far as I can tell the ratios can easily be adjusted as we take on housing mortgages, cars, and children.

Yeah but oftentimes it would be a huge waste of time and resources locating an "expert" if all I wanted to know was how many grams of fat is in the cheese that I am buying. To be honest as a consumer I generally quite enjoy the results of "consumer rights". I think the real issue here is that producers are forced at gun point to provide these information. Objectivism would probably argue that if there are enough consumers like me, the market would automatically adjust itself to include these labels since those products would be preferred and therefore more competitive -- theoretically.