Quotulatiousness

April 16, 2010

Wargame company accused of “simulat[ing] violent combat”

Filed under: Gaming, History, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 16:19

<sarcasm>I know, I know, it’s shocking to discover that a wargaming company produces games that “simulate violent combat“. You’d think they’d realize that nobody is actually interested in violence or combat, and especially not “violent combat”, as this game is alleged to glorify:</sarcasm>

One player racks up points by defeating Native American tribal leaders, the other by snuffing out settlements of English colonists. Capture Boston or Plymouth Colony? Victory is yours.

That’s the gist of “King Philip’s War,” a board game based on a bloody and violent clash of the same name between colonists and Indian tribes in 17th-century New England, and developed by a company partly owned by former major league pitcher Curt Schilling.

The game’s designer says he hopes to educate children and others about a war that cost thousands of lives but receives scant attention in history books. But some Native Americans want the game blocked from release, saying it trivializes the conflict and insensitively perpetuates a stereotype of Indian tribes as bellicose savages.

The people getting all hot and bothered by this are clearly people who’ve never even seen a board wargame.

Given that the game wasn’t going to see publication until MMP got enough orders to justify printing and distributing it, I suspect this will end up being another Streisand Effect in operation.

Exposing the truth about government-run Ponzi schemes

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

Kathy Shaidle is exactly right in her analysis of the key weakness of the Tea Party movement:

The Tea party movement contains the seed of its own failure

It preaches self-reliance and small government, but old people still want their pittance of gubmit cheese, ie Social Security.

If they/we were intellectually honest, we would be calling on the raising of the eligibility age to 90, which is more in line with Bismark’s original plan: a little pension for those who were never expected to live long enough to ever get it.

It was meant to be a “look how generous I am” gesture with no real impact; the original designers never thought we’d live long enough to cash the checks.

Older Tea Partiers (and all of us) should be petitioning the government to write everyone a one time check for the exact amount they were forced to contribute, plus maybe 5% interest if that is do-able.

And then the program should be abolished.

I hope most of my readers are not depending on their “government benefits” to get them through in their retirement years: the economics of the situation almost certainly won’t allow it. There are several problems with government-run retirement schemes, starting with the fact that most of them are not in any sense of the word “funded”. Most governments have been using the contributions as a giant low-interest revolving fund: you contribute, they withdraw and leave a promissary note in the kitty. The promissary note is drawn on you and your children. There is, technically speaking, no money in the kitty.

The people who will be worst hurt by the necessary changes to government pension schemes are the ones who earned too little (or spent too much) during their working lives and didn’t make any private provision for retirement. As Kathy points out, the first government pensions were designed so that most potential recipients would be unable to collect, because the start date of the pension income was set beyond the average lifespan of the population. Looking forward to a pension would be much less realistic today if the official “retirement age” was set to 90!

QotD: Blog Post EULA

Filed under: Humour, Law, Quotations, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:05

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog post, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

Cory Doctorow, “Video-game shoppers surrender their immortal souls”, BoingBoing, 2010-04-16

Powered by WordPress