You probably want to switch careers to something with more long-term prospects then. How about a caregiver? There's no shortage of people getting older and it's a lot more satisfying to help them rather than sue them.
Insane Troll Logic is the kind of logic that just can't be argued with because it's so demented, so lost in its own insanity, that any attempts to make it rational would make it more incomprehensible. It is logic failure that crosses over into parody or Poe's Law. A character says something so blatantly illogical that it has to be deliberate on the part of the writer.
For examples of Insane Troll Logic by video game developers, see You Can't Get Ye Flask, Moon Logic Puzzle, and [extreme examples of] Guide Dang It.
For examples of characters who engage in this, see The Ditz, Cloudcuckoolander, Strawmen, Moral Guardians, and of course trolls of both internet and mythological origin. A character will tend to use this when he thinks he is smarter than he really is. For when the Insane Troll Logic leads to a true conclusion, see Bat Deduction and Right for the Wrong Reasons. If this trope is exaggerated beyond the point that it even makes grammatical sense, it can become a Word Salad Philosophy. Irrational Hatred may have this as its basis, and Chewbacca Defense is literally built of it. And then, sometimes it's just Obfuscating Stupidity or Obfuscating Insanity in action. No relation to Insane Clown Posse...for the most part.
Remember that not all bad or faulty logic is Insane Troll Logic. Insane Troll Logic is so badly screwed up that it isn't even wrong - usually either the presenter or the audience have no grasp of even the concept where the "logic" should apply.
A character consumed by this trope tends to say things along the lines of "Because I say it is!" or "You're a liar!"
Warning: trying to understand such trains of logic may make your brain hurt.
I'd think if Dodd was being misrepresented, you'd be able to talk more about all the good things he's done for us. Your thesis is poorly constructed and lacks support.
I also find it ironic that the people who claim that Net Neutrality will allow the government to take over the internet are the same people who would push the government to do exactly that if they came to power. In actuality, Net Neutrality acts like the building and fire codes that keep your house from falling apart or burning down.
That's still true. When you download and install a Steam game, you can access it via the Start menu in Windows, just like any other non-Steam game you install. You get unrestricted offline play and everything.
At its worst, Steam is like a rich, crazy uncle that smells funny. It's not the villain that must be slain in the struggle to preserve consumers' ownership rights. Don't attack Steam, but instead promote Good Old Games and The Humble Store.
For me, this news is significant because it indicates we may already be in the midst of the next, great, long-prophecized video game industry crash. There's been a LOT of bad gaming news lately; Jeff Minter being harassed, Maxis shutting down, Sony still in trouble, Kojima leaving Konami, and more. It's hard to not get the feeling that everything is falling apart. The last time that happened, way back in 1983, the console market imploded and the survivors fled to the PC market and helped it boom, which is what freaking Nintendo may actually be trying to do here.
It still wouldn't be adequate though for the same reason that motion control ended up being just a fad. There's no sensory feedback; the feel of a button compressing under your finger is an often overlooked but indispensable part of playing a game. It instantly tells you that you performed an input correctly so you don't have to mash the touchscreen trying to figure out what the game wants from you.
Pretty much my perspective too. Smartphones not only require rather specific kinds of games, but the sea of awful games out there for them is as bad as the Atari 2600's library ended up being. (And, heck, arguably the Wii's as well.)
Nintendo's new YouTube partnership program would make for a much better story than this and would highlight their flaws more effectively.
If i'm reading you right you're assuming that because i don't believe in free-will i have to be a nihilist (or some flavor of that type of ideology), which i find illogical. Free-will might not be real, but pain a suffering most certainly are. Wanting to ease both for everyone is the logical course of action regardless of the math that both emerge from.
Well, no, that's not quite right. Like how you don't mean to be disrespectful, I don't mean to pigeonhole you or dictate what you absolutely must believe. It's actually very reassuring to see that you still believe in helping your fellow man, and as long as you're actually doing that, all this fanwank between us is ultimately irrelevant.
Still, your gracious attitude does seem to be at odds with your worldview. You technically can't take action or strive for anything or even want anything when free will doesn't exist. Whether you take steps to help people or not is beyond your control. You're talking about willfully using math and knowledge for problem-solving when you have no will to exercise. You're talking about using freedom of choice to make plans for a better world when such freedom doesn't actually exist. That's why your ideas are fundamentally absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it here.
To be fair though, there may be another reason why the terms are so difficult to work with in discussions like these. Even if math and the signals in our brains make the idea of free will questionable, that doesn't make the concept obsolete. Instead it moves free will to the area occupied by Newtonian physics. A good amount of scientists have gradually come to hate Newtonian physics because for some reason, the laws of physics change at the atomic level. Newtonian physics allowed us to erect buildings and lay infrastructure, but we needed the theory of relativity to get us to the moon. Something seems to be wrong with Newtonian physics somewhere, but we can't just ditch them because they're still valid and useful, to the point that mankind has based its entire society around them. Engineers rely on classical physics to create all the inventions and landmarks that make up our world, much like how we rely on free will to prosecute criminals and encourage people to not waste their lives. Society as we know it would collapse without these concepts.
If all that is true though... then you still need to learn that respect is a dynamic between two people, not something you can take from others.
I like the way you present your ideas, but I find them quite difficult to agree with. Unfortunately I'm not sure I can articulate the precise technicalities of why within the confines of a blog comment, but perhaps if we could have tea together and take things one piece at a time, we'd both emerge more enlightened for it.
For one, I fail to see how a worldview that absolves everyone of personal responsibility and the need to better themselves can possibly be good. For me, it brings to mind a scene from Red Dwarf 8 where Christine Kochansky is lying nude in bed, saying, "I'm not sure about this. This is the first time I've been seduced by predeterminism theory." You talk about giving kind words and helping hands to strangers, but you seem to advocate this in spite of your views, not because of them. There's a leap in logic there that's unaccounted for.
I do kinda respect you for being thorough, polite, and articulate, but I fear you use mathematics the same way a munchkin uses numbers and rules to cheat and metagame at a tabletop RPG session. Sometimes one's accumulated knowledge only serves to make one more ignorant, depending on how it is wielded.
Ah, so this is ultimately a study in religious beliefs. Or at least, that's what it sounds like, for all intents and purposes.
Saying there's no such thing as free will is a very hard thing to prove though. Boiling everything down to electrical and chemical impulses in the brain oversimplifies things to the point of misinformation. I don't think that view is supported by quantum mechanics, for one, and even in linear stories, characters exercise free will. A good author merely follows along behind his characters and records what they do while occasionally giving events around them a nudge to keep the plot moving.
See, the problem there is if that is all respect really is, then what good is it to anyone? You describe it as merely a blip on a radar or a flashing light, something that's a mere novelty at best, and that's a clear lie. It wouldn't be so widely sought after if its meaning was that shallow.
Respect is symbiotic state between two parties. The party exercising respect uses the other party as a role model to pattern his life after, and the party receiving respect gains support and clout it can use to overcome future hardships. The vampiric sapping of good feelings you describe plays no part in respect. In fact, it's really hard to respect someone with such a short-sighted, unwise, robotic viewpoint.
You encounter a similar problem with people who believe that love is an emotion. If that's true, then does that mean that when you get angry with your wife, you stop loving her? Of course not. Any marriage counselor in the world will tell you that's bull. Love is a choice to stick by someone even when they're driving you crazy, not a feeling.
Remember that the movie theaters were the ones to reject The Interview before Sony first decided to pull it from circulation. I wonder if, years from now, this film will be seen as one of the landmark moments in the long, drawn-out death of the traditional cinema.
See, the reason you always lose these arguments as soon as you start to type is because... OK, let's assume, for arguments' sake, that Mike really is dishonest. What's the alternative? Listening to you? Yeah, you sure sound real honest yourself the way you come marching in thumping your bible, all determined to convert the lost souls here to the way of truth and light.