@NotTelevision - That would be amazing. Just you, a NES, and a 13” CRT in a corner at a big fighting convention, talking at every passerby like, “You think Heihachi is tough? Have you ever defended 35 straight jump kicks from Abobo? What’cha gonna do Ryu, when Roper runs wild on youuuuu?!?”
I played Vs mode all the time with my brother. We’d usually play it a bit after a two player run in the main game. It was rage inducing, and never ended well between us.
@NintendoByNature - In reading your last few posts, I just realized I didn’t play the last expansion either. Maybe I’ll grab Treasure Trove for Switch in a sale.
@LetsGoSwitch Yes, I have. I only missed the first day, but I have been competing ever since. Not that I'm REALLY expecting to win something, what with only 20 download code giveaways per day, and probably millions of people joining in, but you never know, and not competing at all will definitely not result in any prices...
@ThanosReXXX Belated reply from the other day that went missing:
Oh, yeah, I thought your legal system was adversarial/common law as well, but it's apparently inquisitorial/civil law as well. Ultimately the two systems are equally balanced and derived from the same source. They have different mechanisms, different ways to corrupt them, and similar strengths. Everyone defends their own, but IMO, neither system is inherently worse than the other. Like every system from the competing legal systems to the competing economic systems from free market through command economies, I think the system design itself is almost irrelevant. They're all designed with a "good faith" mentality toward working. The problem is they're all equally based on the honor system and are only as good as the integrity of the actors involved, and over time, the integrity of the institutions themselves. The US system has become corrupted to the point of a tin pot island republic, not because the system design is any worse than yours but because the people that comprise it have been compromised for 50 years to the point of institutionalizing the corruption as the underlying system. But your system isn't immune to that either. Remember, PRC has the same system as you.....I'd not like to be caught in that legal system any time in the next 100 lifetimes....I'll take the worst circuit court in the US before that.
Well when it comes to building codes, certainly they haven't really built a residential building (other than high density apartments that are "commercial" buildings) out of anything but wood & plastic since 1950. I've always thought it stupid, plus the disposability of buildings, there seems to be a mentality here that a building is only good for 30-40 years and then it should be torn down and replaced because it basically wears out as a disposable good and should be modernized like the latest phone. Probably because it's made of wood & plastic. Coincidentally, mortgages are generally 30 year terms. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though....
That said, the "retail apocalypse" has nothing to do with the structures, it's about the industry in a state of open rapid collapse, in more countries than here, just not sure if it's in NED or not.
Here, retail is disappearing at an alarming rate with several thousand stores closing annually, and the number exponentially rising annually. Soon the very CONCEPT of going to a non-food store to buy something will be as obsolete as a knitted rotary phone on a wire. Retail purchasing offline will simply not exist at all outside high luxury goods with pampering/experience service to sell it. Anything you need, will always be 2 days away (maybe) for $130+/yr.)
More alarming, though, is that they bankers like to talk about it as an "industry correction" because "America has been over-retailed for a long, long time." - they like to point to the statistic that the US had 27 sq ft of retail space per capita, while EU and the rest of the world has 6 sq feet per capita. But what they fail to point out is due to the fact that America is built in a far less centralized way, the more frequent store availability is required because centralizing it creates unrealistic distances to travel to purchase anything.
It also neglects that a considerable portion of that square footage is due to a penchant here for using the stores as warehouses rather than having separate warehouses and display stores, so they build them large so that they don't have additional warehouse space to lease as well - meaning a good deal of the square footage they talk about here also exists in Europe, but it's not classified as retail square footage because the warehouse is in an industrial district apart from the store. And now that they're trying to consolidate and centralize (positively not social engineering, we swears on the precious) it basically puts retail out of reach of practicality for most people's shopping, forcing them online, and then they can't figure out why everyone's only shopping online.....
More alarmingly they point out that it's also a "correction" because a lot of stores "became redundant" - I find this the most interesting, revealing, and alarming point. Redundant stores are considered a "flaw to correct" in the system.
Let that sink in a moment.
Redundant stores are a product of competition. Competition is a central function of free market "capitalism." The statement that redundant stores, and therefore, competition, is a flaw that needs correction so as to only have one designated offering per category per area, is an accidental open declaration that competition, and therefore, capitalism, is not the goal, capitalism/competition is seen by the bank-rollers of society as a problem that needs to be eliminated for optimum efficiency, and therefore they are actively social-engineering a planned/command economy a.k.a Socialism or Communism, actively designed and engineered to replace all hallmarks of a free market system.
The "retail apocalypse", combined with the market bifurcation, a.k.a. "death of the middle class" that is one of the driving factors, is an overt, physical symptom of the fact that they are actively ending any pretense of a free market system and switching to a planned economy. But they distract everyone by pointing to Amazon as the source of the problem. A company that loses money by selling retail below cost to deliver and makes up most of the difference by selling data storage to everyone including the US government as a pseudo-monopoly.
It's not just a "retail apocalypse" - it's the demise of the entire post-Magna Carta Western system, rapidly accelerating over the course of a few years.
@NEStalgia Well, derived from the same source only in that respect that it's supposed to be based upon a democratic judicial system, but other than that, the two couldn't be more different. Dutch law is more based upon the more traditional, English method, with only professional jurors, and lawyers/barristers in black robes. No flashy lawyers that look like they're performing a solo act on Broadway...
As for the differences: yes, both have their pros and cons, like I already admitted earlier, but the cons of the European system seem considerably less worse to me. What I really dislike about the American system are the completely open and "out there" media coverage, exposing any and all accused to millions of viewers, whether they're actually guilty or not, and I also don't approve of the people's jury. The lawyers can take MASSIVE advantage of that, in their selection process, which in my view, is almost always detrimental to true justice. These kinds of decisions need to be made according to strict rules, and as objective as possible, without all the emotions that can (and will be) evoked in a people's jury. And of course the perspective of having to fight your way back out of already being seen as guilty, until proven innocent, whereas the burden of proof should be on the party that actually made the case against the accused, which is how it is done over here.
What we have in common is the right of the accused to remain silent, or plead the fifth, or whatever it's called again. An in my strong opinion annoying rule that both systems share, and which to this day still sounds insane to me, because why would you not speak freely if you're not guilty (also to help parents/family/friends of a victim), and how on Earth is it possible that people who DID do these things, are allowed to stay silent and leave parents, family and friends of a victim in constant insecurity and doubt? That doesn't sound like justice to me at all. It should always be victims first, and not something that looks like a "criminals are people too" campaign...
As for the retail apocalypse: yeah, we have that over here too. Brick and mortar disappearing entirely, or being taken over by another brand, subsequently closing down a third of the locations, to consolidate or whatever, and some even disappearing from the street entirely. In fact, just yesterday, I wanted to look up prices for a replacement hard drive for my PC, from one of my regular go to stores, so I went to the site and was presented with a notice that the store and brand was taken over by another company, and that they are now an online-only shop...
On a side note: the reason why I mentioned those disposable American "wood frame and stone strip" houses is because of a certain part or sentence in your previous comment, that I mistakenly interpreted as being about houses being able to be taken down easily, and of course that's far easier with these wood frame houses than with a full-on brick and mortar or rebar-mesh reinforced concrete house. So, I wasn't really replying directly to the retail apocalypse thing with that specific part of my comment, just making a side note/going on a bit of a tangent concerning the in my view inferior construction methods of a large part of private housing construction in America...
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@ThanosReXXX Eh, American lawyers all wear the same gray/black/navy business suit, Italian leather shoes, and Swiss wristwatch. Flashier than black robes but still essentially a uniform. I'm not a fan of American lawyers, but still...
Both do have equal advantages though. I'm not one to defend the US way of doing things often, but the system here, as designed, is perfectly good. It just fell into total institutional corruption where yours as not yet. And once it does that there's really no way to fix it at all short of total and sudden cancellation of the entire thing and restarting a brand new one from scratch with all new people. A not so small part of that process was set into motion in the 60's as part of a known, specific Soviet program to infiltrate our courts and institutions (not conspiracy theory, they openly announced it)....so a lot of the internal collapse of our systems can really be chalked up to casualties of a cold war that might be worse in terms of enduring damage than if they'd just bombed some cities. The cities can be rebuilt, the populations memorialized and remembered....but institutional corruption deals damage forever and tears the actual societal fabric apart. It's the most insidious of weapons.
The media on the other hand..... Technically that doesn't involve the system at all and has corrupted the functioning of the system at a civil and societal level. Our court system, the design of it is fine. The implementation is corrupt. But the media....it's entire existence isn't just a dumpster fire, it's a landfill fire in an oil field.
And I do agree about the manipulation of jury selection. It's actually MUCH worse than you probably even think it is. Yes, juries are cherry picked and beyond easy to manipulation. That, again, is the corruption, not the design. The idea was so that it was a trial by peers - a.k.a. people who are familiar with the situation and conditions of the accused, and arguably know the accused but are not personally directly connected to the accused (back in the 18th century.) The modern system of lawyers picking the "right" jury is one of those modern corruptions mentioned above.
You do have one thing a little wrong though: We also are based on "innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" as the absolute most sanctified core of our system. It's the civil/inquisitorial law that most of the EU has that is the other way around, guilty until proven innocent.. NED sounds like a hybrid of the civil/inquisitional and the common/adversarial systems, actually, not quite fully in either camp. France, Germany, Japan, etc follows "guilty until proven innocent" - So it sounds like both the US and NED has the "innocent until proven guilty" basis, thankfully. That's the technicalities that such famous acquittals as OJ Simpson was awarded a not guilty verdict. Everyone may "know he did it", but there was a shadow of a doubt, and thus he was innocent in the eyes of the courts. Until, of course, he assaulted someone else and got locked away anyway.
Right to remain silent makes sense when lawyers are around. Not everyone is eloquent with writing textwalls, or speaking them Some people may make themselves sound guilty with clumsy or situational language, even if they're innocent, or may be afraid of ramifications of speaking the truth (think mob trials), or are maybe trying to protect someone else, etc, or may be easily tricked/badgered by clever silver tongued lawyers to say things that make themselves look guilty even though they aren't. There's a lot of reasons for a lot of people that speaking is a poor choice, and the facts, evidence, and salesmen laywers should speak for them.
Ahh, yeah, so it's hitting you guys too. Guaranteed that's going to be a nightmare. Online isn't going to be cheap and convenient forever. VERY few companies, not even the big ones, actually make money with online retail, and the mailman is not set up to be your daily retail point of sale. It's going to come back to bite VERY hard in the not so distant future. It's all fun and games until your replacement toilet flapper takes 4 days to get there and costs $20 after shipping. Online is all the rage because people still browse the real stores and then order from online for less. Without the retail stores acting as showrooms, guaranteed, sales go down across the board, too. And then there's returns.... It can eat brick and mortar so long as they're willing to sell at a loss and float on investor largess. Next recession, pop go the weasels. And then the real retail land will be long gone and turned into housing and can't return either.
Also, on reinforced concrete, I can't believe that's so common there. I mentioned before I'm a fan of brutalism, especially at it's height in the 70's, but I thought that was passe now, especially since it tends to stain and decay in ugly ways over time. I miss it, personally. I guess here they'd call it "mall architecture" now since most of them were designed that way and become kind of iconic.
Guys I did my first thing with polymer clay. I call it "Post-apocalyptic Piece" as it is like a tile of a place.
It is creepy and I did it to see how the clay is baked and how it is painted.
Now I want to do a one Pokémon work. Does anyone here like Drowzee?
@NEStalgia Ah, my bad then. All we ever see over here is when some court case happens in America, people are basically already "it" before the trial has even started, so that was a misconception on my part. But lawyers with flashy suits and ties is something ENTIRELY different from men in black robes and a white collar, almost making them look like court vicars or wizards, so that really doesn't compare...
And besides what you mentioned, which I'll assume is true since you say it's proven, so I'll take your word for it, there's still the FAR too big media coverage, and the no anonymity policy for the accused, so everybody in the States who watches these trials knows the names and faces of these people. Over here, surnames are unknown, faces are covered, and there's very little live footage shot in court, so you're not witness to the entire trial while sitting in front of your TV.
And even if they do broadcast it, you'll only ever hear the voice of the defendant, often times also digitally altered, so that makes a BIG difference towards not slandering/labeling people in case they are ultimately proven innocent, so they can still attempt to live a relatively normal life afterwards, instead of being pointed and shouted at after having been on TV for weeks on end or longer. And don't get me started on how media pressure has so often resulted in convictions of completely innocent people, some of which spent decades in jail. I always admire how most of these aren't even angry when they're finally released and reinstated. I'd probably completely destroy and sue the hell out of the person that put me behind bars, but I suppose that's just how I look at it now, from my perspective. They themselves will probably think it's not even worth it...
You've not convinced me of the jury system either. I firmly believe that this should simply not consist of ordinary citizens, peers or not. Hardly any of them, if any at all, have studied law, and more often than not, they act upon emotions, and obviously, the majority rules, which influences the "impartial" judgment. Over here, it's just facts and figures and testimonies. And depending on how well or complete those things are presented/used, someone is either convicted or acquitted. And yes, that does mean that here too, criminals can dodge a bullet thanks to technicalities, but it's still a better system in my opinion.
As for the accused individual potentially not being eloquent enough to speak: they could also inform their lawyer (or counsel/counsel man as they are more often called over here) and then he or she could give the judge the eloquent version of the simpleton's statement, so I see no excuse there in any kind of scenario for that not to happen. Over here right now, we have a couple of big court cases running, and in two of them, the accused are guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Now, one of these cases involves a young boy scout who was taken, abused and then killed, and the defendant continuously answers every question from the judge with "I call upon my right to remain silent", and other than that, he keeps saying he's innocent, but he can't or won't give any kind of clarification that could even remotely explain as to why he was where he was when the boy disappeared, and/or how his DNA ended up being found on the body and clothes of the victim, instead constantly invoking his "rights" to stay silent and not explaining anything. Which, if he truly IS innocent, should be SO easy to do, and also the logical and decent thing to do, because what he's doing now, is causing unnecessary and prolonged anguish, hurt and rage in the parents, who are also present at every hearing, having to listen to this piece of trash repeatedly denying everything, or when talked into a corner he can't get out of, constantly invoking his right to remain silent instead of even ever so slightly alleviating these poor people's pain.
Just imagine what that must be like... Talking about letting something sink in...
@ThanosReXXX Hah, yeah, the court of public opinion here never actually left the Salem Witch Trials. "Guilty until proven guilty, we've decided!" But the actual legal courts are definitely "innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" (Or until a plea bargain is signed off on... that's the real primary blight of the adversarial system.)
Well, the flash and ties adds an element of salesmanship to a trial (your fav! ), while the robes adds a sense of immutable power and authority. Just different ways of selling the result I suppose. I, too, prefer the latter, but if I think about it logically, it's really different traditions with the same objective.
I definitely like your rules for anonymity though. Ever since OJ and the rise of CourtTV and the like the genie will never go back in the bottle here. Too profitable to exploit the accused. I do wish we had your system for that. The thing here is, it's one of those cases where "freedom" hurts. The court filings are inherently public filings, and as public filings it means they're open to everyone. On paper that's a good thing - open society, transparent government proceedings, no secret trials of unknown individuals. Seems like a good plan. However freedom of press gets in the way when media companies realized people love watching train wrecks ( ) in motion and love throwing stones at people, so covering every detail of the accused as a gossip rag disguised as news realizes big profits. It's one of those "good intentions always gets used for ill gotten gains at someone else's expense" things. I'd definitely like to see some anonymity requirements. But...then, especially with plea bargains available, imagine how the blackmail would work with that?
I agree entirely with all things media related you mentioned. Not really part of our legal system at all. It's part of our nasty media corporations exploiting every soft point in the legal system to boost their margins by selling stones and torches, and some opportunistic lawyers who try to utilize that mechanism.
I don't disagree on juries either. There's how it was intended to work from the perspective of 18th century agrarian life and the way it works today. The jury back then was going to be the butcher down the street, the pig farmer that traded some straw with the accused a few years ago, the landlord, and the paperboy. People connected to the scene, events, people, etc. The real idea was so it was impartial and not corrupted by the heavy hand of government being the judge and jury. Which is smart. But I'm not sure the average 2019 moron is a better alternative. Maybe not worse, maybe not better. But I also know, here, a government jury would rule based on political objectives with quietly organized initiatives. It's just our corruption here...
Well, regarding the right to remain silent...it still makes sense to me. In the cases where an indivitual is innocent but can't represent themselves, they let the evidence speak for them (and hope their lawyer is competent.) In cases where the individual is guilty pleading innocent but refuses to explain how he feels like he can prove he's innocent, like your example....well, he's also letting the evidence speak for him....
The problem (at least in our system) with requiring the defendant to testify is the prosecution could lead the witness, putting words in their mouth by supposition and suggestion that sway the ruling, if they're innocent. Or similarly the defense could lead the witness to a narrative of clever weaving the same way even if they're guilty as anything. Leading is against court rules, and the testimony is to be stricken from the record if called on it....but.....once heard it can't be unheard, etc. Personally, I think it makes more sense than not because the evidence always is heard loud and clear if it exists for a guilty party, but may not be so audible if the party is innocent.
In your example, I can't imagine saying nothing is worse than making up stories to disprove with evidence, assuming he's actually guilty. Pleading innocent at all if he's guilty would be the main problem. Either way the evidence would be required so it probably speeds things up, if anything, for him to just be quiet.
@bimmy-lee Haha yeah. Same here. I have a brother that’s 6 years older than me and after we failed to make it out of that dang cave in Stage 3, we’d play the Vs. mode for a bit. The Vs. mode was fun, but my brother would just piss me off. He’d either beat me by using some cheap strategy or run around the stage so I couldn’t hit him. It just devolved into several Abobos running around, smacking into either each other or the wall.
I was gonna say something more risky purely for lulz but my signature is enough. But am I the only one who had never heard of Gender Reveal parties until the past year?
Like I knew baby showers were a thing but I can't imagine anyone but self-obsessed, dumb rich people throwing a party for something like this. I'd be pissed at my parents if they spent money on even a cake for such a stupid thing (especially in hindsight, hurhur). And now apparently people might die from them based on whenever they end up being news. More like, explosion reveal parties. Hahaha wtf
And for those of you who haven't heard of gender reveal parties...good.
@kkslider5552000 People are dying from gender reveal parties? That's some shady type of balloon sellers, then...
But yeah, these are a thing nowadays. Personally, I don't have any kind of objections to them, nor would I prefer them. It's just a bit of an evolution of existing methods of telling the world that you are expecting a boy or a girl, so in that regard, it's also not really something to be bothered by, in my humble opinion.
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@NEStalgia Funny you mentioned Salem: that's a show on Fox that I watch and of which (witch?) the new season just recently started...
But strange, isn't it, how judicial systems, based upon exactly the same principals have become so different over the period of around a 100 - 150 years (give or take, because initially, it WAS the European system, being brought over to the Americas by settlers/colonists, obviously). And it already veered off pretty quickly, because somewhere between the time of the Old West and the Wild West, public juries were already instigated/used, so probably as soon as the English were chased off, they also pulled the plug on their judicial system or something...
The whole leading the witness thing isn't applicable here, because the questioning and such mainly comes from the judges and their tribunal. The lawyers/counselors mainly present their cases. They will ask for proof of things, but that question is asked to the room, and then the judge prompts the other party to reply. That's also what I meant initially with all the flashy bits and Broadway stages comment. American lawyers sometimes do come across as bad stage actors, or good ones, if they win...
No such role-playing over here. All business and dry as old biscuits and such.
As for the whole "not speaking" thing, perhaps I need to elaborate or explain myself further: what I meant is that if you, as an accused, really ARE innocent, then why not tell the judge and more importantly: the family and friends of the victim, why you were at a crime scene, or what your alibi is, if you can truly prove your innocence?
It's the decent thing to do, and you're not adding to the misery and suffering of the family/friends of the victim by needlessly keeping your mouth shut, also creating doubt in regards of you maybe being guilty after all, so you're also throwing shadows on yourself, perhaps unnecessarily so.
P.S.
There's a time and place for sales & marketing, and a court room DEFINITELY isn't the time and place, so I detest flashy a*holes acting out a one man show, trying to persuade a jury of non-relevant "peers" to put a vote in the hat for their client.
I've never been that slick of a salesman anyways. I'm more of a truth and quality guy. Seldom, I know, but I feel far better for it...
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
Sooo....What did I miss? The internet doesn't seem to have exploded while I was gone. Unless it did and was just reborn into the same thing.
I actually stayed clear of the site and a good chunk of the internet for about a week, then slowly worked my way back into things. I'm back to (near) normal activity, or what I can manage with the holidays coming up. I've decided to still be somewhat less obsessed with posting or checking the forums lol. Please don't be offended if I occasionally don't respond to something for a couple of days. Part of my hiatus was due to some work crunch that I'm just now getting into the downhill slide from.
On gender reveal parties: They do seem frivolous to me, but ultimately I feel it's up to the parents about whether or not they want to waste much $$$ or energy on those. Personally I think it's more fun for junior's gender to be a surprise.
My son told us at dinner he’s asking Santa for his “very own batendo (Nintendo) to play Mario and Luigi” for Christmas. It was like watching years of subtle, low key brain washing all come to a head in a single, glorious moment.
@Tyranexx - Hey, welcome back. Hope you enjoyed unplugging for a bit and got caught back up to normal with work. We made a sugar cream pie and ate it together. We got together at Hobbit’s place because the weather was nice.
@bimmy-lee Thanks! We're almost caught up. I'm in the midst of an interesting project a little outside my wheelhouse right now, but that's coming along nicely. The main thing is that the coworker I'm trying to work with on it is beyond swamped; one of our other developers was let go, so he's had to take on more duties for a little while until someone else gets hired. I get with him when I can and have been doing other work in the meantime. I'm trying to give him some space and sanity until things start settling down more. I'd love to help him out with his workload, but I have very little experience with what the other dev was working with and little to no time to be cross-trained into that. Things have been interesting.
Shame I missed heading to Hobbit's place, though the weather here this week hasn't been too bad. I regret missing that sugar cream pie.
I'm now adding "Batendo" to my mental dictionary just to confuse people.
Forums
Topic: The Chit-Chat Thread
Posts 36,821 to 36,840 of 97,846
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic