The health of a human being. It is a paramount essence to ones' livelihood. The very thing that keeps a person alive and judges a persons' odds of living into tomorrow, next week, next month, or even next year. Our health is based on our heart, lungs, bone strength, and muscle strength among other factors. The proper maintenance of the factors of overall health is a top importance to anyone if they want to live a long life. A person alone, however, can not check how his or her heart is working and whether it needs to be examined. A person alone can not check their own teeth to see if they need fillings or a root canal. A person alone can not perform surgery on themselves to repair a torn ACL. This is why we have doctors, dentists, surgeons, and many other medical professionals. We visit them to get our check-up. We visit them when something in our body goes wrong. However, they, lust like anyone who has a job, needs to be paid. The bills are usually paid by the patient. The bills can be expensive, sometimes costing as much as a thousand dollars. Luckily, we have insurance that can co-pay the fees and bills.
Sadly insurance companies at times do not co-pay for operations. It is a depressing fact, but many who do not have good insurance and can not afford for surgeries that can save a person's life do not get the mandated treatment. They are turned away from the help they need. They are denied of the care that they mandate. Instead of having a doctor to take care of them, those who could not get the care they need to save their lives because of a bad insurance policy are left for dead. This is a sad dose of reality. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories of those who lost loved ones because some insurance companies are too cheap to co-pay for a surgery that could have saved their lives. This is a serious problem in this nation and it is a topic in the presidential campaign. A solution is needed.
The easiest solution and the one favored by the democratic presidential candidates is universal, or socialized, healthcare. Universal healthcare is a program used in Canada, England, and France among other countries that guarantees everyone healthcare regardless of insurance. The idea of universal healthcare in America sounds like a great solution. All of those who were turned away from healthcare because of affordability will get the healthcare because it is paid for by the government. That sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Our government pays for the police force and for the fire department. They also pay for the roads and their maintenance. Imagine if we had to pay for our police force or for the fire department. I tremble at the thought of the people not getting help from law enforcement because they could not pay for it. I wince at the thought of not getting help from the fire department because I could not pay them. If we do not have to pay for the police or fire departments, then why should we have to pay for healthcare. Universal healthcare is a fabulous idea...
...on paper.
Universal healthcare is not the best solution. In fact, it is far from the best solution. One of the flaws of universal healthcare are waiting lists. Those on the list have to wait several days or even months to get the treatment they need. They can not move ahead regardless of the severity of their condition. They have to wait some time in order to get the treatment they need. Imagine that you need a surgery as soon as possible, but you are put on a waiting list. You could wait for months, not getting the care you need while your condition worsens. You could even die while you are waiting for your operation. Even if the average waiting time is only a couple of days, a day or two could be the difference between life or death. This flaw is worsened by those who would go to the doctor when even the littlest thing in them goes wrong. Those who do that clog up the lists and holds up those who are in more need of medical care than those who may have nothing worse than a runny nose or morning sickness (the feeling you get when you wake up and quickly goes away).
Universal healthcare has other flaws, but none of which are as paramount as this. Earlier in this commentary, I noted that the police department, the fire department, and our roads are paid for by the government. Where does this money come from? It comes from...OUR TAXES. Those who claim that universal healthcare is free could not be further from the truth. The government uses our tax dollars to pay for law enforcement, our firemen, and our military among other things. Imagine your tax dollars going to a person who sees a doctor over nothing worse than a cough, or a person who sees a doctor to get a prescription for medicine to make meth, or even to those who commit fraud. The thought of those who abuse something that is paid by our taxes is sick, but those who would commit fraud with our tax dollars is beyond sick. It is repugnant. This can happen and possibly will happen with a universal healthcare system. This is a society that cares for others, but it is not selfish to think to yourself sometimes. The higher tax rates that come with universal healthcare will leave you with less money for the things you need. You will have less money for your home, your groceries, running water, electricity, and other essentials. Low-income families will be under a heavier burden with the higher tax rates and homeless rates could increase. Universal healthcare is paid by tax dollars. It is not free.
Backers of universal healthcare accuse hospitals of denying care to those who enter emergengy rooms if they can not pay for it. This is not only false, it is illegal. Federal law obligates emergency rooms to care for those who need it regardless of affordability.
The healthcare system in this nation is broken, but a universal healthcare system is not the answer. The waiting list will have patients needing an immediate surgery waiting either a day or half a year and taxes will sharply increase. In fact, nations that have socialized healthcare have higher tax rates than the U.S. France has a tax rate six times the rate in this country. Universal healthcare sounds good on paper, but it may not work in the United States.
Good night and good luck.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Did a Rush to Beat Sony Cause the Red Rings of Death Controversy?
According to an anonymous inside source who was involved in the testing of the system, the Xbox 360 had "purposefully cheap heat sinks" and was rushed just to beat Sony. The sinks were the reported cause of many RROD problems. Also adding to the pain is the chance that Microsoft may run out of replacement systems for those who had the dreaded rings.
This is of right now a rumor. If it is true, then Microsoft should be ashamed.
Source of article: Joystiq
This is of right now a rumor. If it is true, then Microsoft should be ashamed.
Source of article: Joystiq
Friday, January 18, 2008
Website of the Week: GameTrailers
Imagine a website that has all of the following: previews, reviews, retrospectives, user-submitted content, and a bunch of other things on and about video games.
Well, no longer imagine. GameTrailers has all of that in one place. You will get video reviews, video previews, the ability to watch any video either in Standard Definition or High Definition. GameTrailers also features interviews with gaming luminaries and gives you an inside look at various industry events. I reccomend this website. Visit it often.
Website of the Week: GameTrailers
Well, no longer imagine. GameTrailers has all of that in one place. You will get video reviews, video previews, the ability to watch any video either in Standard Definition or High Definition. GameTrailers also features interviews with gaming luminaries and gives you an inside look at various industry events. I reccomend this website. Visit it often.
Website of the Week: GameTrailers
Directors Guild and Studios Reach Deal.
Could the writers strike come to an end soon? It could. The Directors Guild reached a deal with major film and TV studios. The deal is likely to put pressure on the writers to end the strike, which is ten weeks old and hurting the industry badly.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thoughts on Game Publishers Blacklisting Game Outlets for Bad Reviews.
Honesty. Integrity. The ability and value of accurate, fair, and balanced reporting on the stories that shape our world to those who read or listen to those stories. This is the essence of journalism. The connection of trust that reporters and writers have with their viewers and readers is paramount in the profession. The apex, the top essence, the utmost requirement, the peak importance among other peak importances of that sacred trust is the integrity that the journalist has when reporting or writing about news stories, sporting events, or even tragedies and hostage situations. The integrity of a journalist means that the he or she will report the story with no bias. The journalist will cover elections without any sign of party siding, which means he or she will not show any sign of joy or disappointment while announcing the results of an election. The journalist will never take payment from an oil company that is abusing the environment if said journalist reports only on the good in which said oil company does. The journalist understands the essence of the sacred trust between the news company, whether it be a newspaper or a news channel, and the viewer, who pays for the newspaper subscription and the news channel. It is a trust that is sacred as the trust between spouses in a marriage. It is NEVER to be violated.
Sadly, journalistic integrity is hard to come by. They will only report on good things a company does because they are paid by said company or only report on the negative things a company does because they pay their rivals. A conservative newspaper, magazine, or news channel will cover scandals affecting liberals more than covering scandals on conservatives. Vice-versa applies to liberal journalistic outlets. The lack of journalistic integrity has detrimental consequences not only to the news organizations, but to those who trust said outlets. The viewers, listeners, and readers trust journalists like they trust a home security system with their possessions, their homes, their families, and their lives. Readers, listeners, and viewers depend on the news. They do not know what is exactly happening in Iraq. They do not know what is exactly happening with global warming. They do not know what is exactly going on with the economy. This is why we all depend on journalists to give us the news. The lack of integrity in a journalist is a violation of that sacred trust within the viewer.
One last stallion of integrity in journalism is the video game journalist and, more specifically, the video game reviewer. The video game reviewer is like a movie critic. They play the games and give a score based on many aspects of the game, which includes graphics, control, design, story, and audio. The game reviewer has a tall responsibility. They are responsible with honest and accurate critiques of the games so that no one wastes money on a video game with horrible gameplay or that no one misses out on a blockbuster that is game of the year noteworthy because a reviewer falsely claimed the overall gameplay was terrible. That is the paramount task game reviewers undertake. A vast number of gamers, including myself, consult game review scores in a purchase of a game. They claim that review scores are a chief factor in a purchasing decision. Game journalists understand this. They are gamers too. They, just like you and I, cringe at the thought of wasting money on a video game with graphics that give players eye strain. They lament the thought of spending fifty dollars of hard earned money on a game with controls that are more sluggish than FEMA was when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast. They especially wince at the idea of spending money on a game that is plagued with glitches that make the game unplayable.
The video game companies see things a different way.
Sadly and unfortunately, the integrity of game reviewers are now under attack. Not from the head of game magazines, game websites, or game channels, but from the developers and publishers of the games. I am not talking about all game companies. Just those who can not accept criticism, low scores, and the fact that the game is just not any good or any fun to play. This started last fall with the now-overhyped Playstation 3 dragon flight game "Lair". When the game received scores that ranged from mediocre to terrible, developer Factor 5 and publisher Sony sent a guide on how to review the game to nearly every outlet, whether it be magazine, website, or channel. Factor 5 and Sony were bashed for this childish act. The fact that they would stoop to such a low level is ridiculous and is the trigger, a cause, of public relations hell. The lengths of what a game company will do to game reviewers who truthfully give bad scores to games came to a head last month when long time Gamespot reviewer Jeff Gerstmann, the reviewer who gave "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" a perfect 10, which is the first and only game to get such a paramount honor from the website, was terminated when he gave the game "Kane & Lynch" a mediocre score. The publishers Eidos interactive, who had adverts for the game on Gamespot, threatened to pull their ads if Jeff was not terminated. This triggered a massive and vast anger from the entire gaming community, whether they be journalists or players. Many Gamespot readers gave abysmal reader reviews for the game as a protest against Gerstmann's termination. Those were quickly tarnished as well as Gerstmann's review. Many Gamespot subscribers ceased their subscriptions and even their staffers started to depart.
The game companies are in no position to bully game reviewers. They do not have the right nor the privilege to force a reviewers termination because of their honesty. This is the equivalent of a petulant little brat who does not take no for an answer. This is the equivalent of a child losing in a game and demanding a two out of three or a three out of five. This is the equivalent of one who responds to criticism in an inappropriate fashion. If game companies want good reviews or some of the hard-earned money of those who shell out the fifty dollars for such games, then they perhaps need to take a long look in the mirror and come to a realization. A realization in which a game company needs to accept the fact that in order to get great reviews and millions of copies of a game sold, they need to develop and tune the game to meet such lofty goals. The game companies are not to force game reviewers to sacrifice their integrity, the integrity that is essential for the trust between the reviewer and the reader. The reviewer should never have to lose his or her job because he or she was being honest, fair, and balanced. That is what Eidos did. Instead of taking criticism as a learning experience, they instead decided to go after Jeff, costing him his job in the process and giving Gamespot, CNet, and Eidos a publicity nightmare so treacherous, the publicists of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Brittany Spears would be unenviable of such a task. Even the PR department of Take-Two Interactive would not undergo such a hellish...well...hell. Jeff Gerstmann is an unfortunate victim of a company's ego vastly over-inflated and pride more foolish than that of our president.
To the game reviewers: stay strong and never budge. Your integrity is paramount in our trust we put in you. Your fairness and honesty is the peak difference in buying a game that is one of the greatest ever or a game that is one of the worst ever. Also to the CEOs of the gaming outlets: never give in to the demands of a game company. They are not to tell you how to run the magazine, website, or network. You run the ship, they do not. What the game companies do to your employees is nothing short of wrongful termination, which results in lawsuits. You can not fire journalists for being honest, fair, accurate, and balanced. That is what you hire your employees for. You do not fire your employees for doing their jobs. You do not fire them for what they do. They play a game thoroughly and give an honest critique of the game. The importance of integrity is something that can never...NEVER...be stressed enough. If you give in to the demands from a game company that is too egotistical to accept the fact that their game is bad, you will go through what Gamespot has to go through. The protests, the PR hell, the sudden departures of fellow co-workers who feel that if they do not lie and say a game is good when in fact it is a complete 180 from good, and paramount of all the loss of readers and viewers that are vital to your company as much as gasoline is vital to an automobile, as vital as oxygen and a heartbeat is to a human being. Do not do what Gamestop and CNet did to your employees.
The journalism profession has a sacred trust between the reporter and the listener, reader, or viewer. The utmost factor in that trust is integrity. The sacred trust is NEVER to be violated in any way imaginable. The game companies extorting good game reviews, holding reviewers hostage with their jobs for high scores and have no qualms for their termination, is nothing short of a dispicalbe and selfish act.
Good night and good luck.
Sadly, journalistic integrity is hard to come by. They will only report on good things a company does because they are paid by said company or only report on the negative things a company does because they pay their rivals. A conservative newspaper, magazine, or news channel will cover scandals affecting liberals more than covering scandals on conservatives. Vice-versa applies to liberal journalistic outlets. The lack of journalistic integrity has detrimental consequences not only to the news organizations, but to those who trust said outlets. The viewers, listeners, and readers trust journalists like they trust a home security system with their possessions, their homes, their families, and their lives. Readers, listeners, and viewers depend on the news. They do not know what is exactly happening in Iraq. They do not know what is exactly happening with global warming. They do not know what is exactly going on with the economy. This is why we all depend on journalists to give us the news. The lack of integrity in a journalist is a violation of that sacred trust within the viewer.
One last stallion of integrity in journalism is the video game journalist and, more specifically, the video game reviewer. The video game reviewer is like a movie critic. They play the games and give a score based on many aspects of the game, which includes graphics, control, design, story, and audio. The game reviewer has a tall responsibility. They are responsible with honest and accurate critiques of the games so that no one wastes money on a video game with horrible gameplay or that no one misses out on a blockbuster that is game of the year noteworthy because a reviewer falsely claimed the overall gameplay was terrible. That is the paramount task game reviewers undertake. A vast number of gamers, including myself, consult game review scores in a purchase of a game. They claim that review scores are a chief factor in a purchasing decision. Game journalists understand this. They are gamers too. They, just like you and I, cringe at the thought of wasting money on a video game with graphics that give players eye strain. They lament the thought of spending fifty dollars of hard earned money on a game with controls that are more sluggish than FEMA was when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast. They especially wince at the idea of spending money on a game that is plagued with glitches that make the game unplayable.
The video game companies see things a different way.
Sadly and unfortunately, the integrity of game reviewers are now under attack. Not from the head of game magazines, game websites, or game channels, but from the developers and publishers of the games. I am not talking about all game companies. Just those who can not accept criticism, low scores, and the fact that the game is just not any good or any fun to play. This started last fall with the now-overhyped Playstation 3 dragon flight game "Lair". When the game received scores that ranged from mediocre to terrible, developer Factor 5 and publisher Sony sent a guide on how to review the game to nearly every outlet, whether it be magazine, website, or channel. Factor 5 and Sony were bashed for this childish act. The fact that they would stoop to such a low level is ridiculous and is the trigger, a cause, of public relations hell. The lengths of what a game company will do to game reviewers who truthfully give bad scores to games came to a head last month when long time Gamespot reviewer Jeff Gerstmann, the reviewer who gave "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" a perfect 10, which is the first and only game to get such a paramount honor from the website, was terminated when he gave the game "Kane & Lynch" a mediocre score. The publishers Eidos interactive, who had adverts for the game on Gamespot, threatened to pull their ads if Jeff was not terminated. This triggered a massive and vast anger from the entire gaming community, whether they be journalists or players. Many Gamespot readers gave abysmal reader reviews for the game as a protest against Gerstmann's termination. Those were quickly tarnished as well as Gerstmann's review. Many Gamespot subscribers ceased their subscriptions and even their staffers started to depart.
The game companies are in no position to bully game reviewers. They do not have the right nor the privilege to force a reviewers termination because of their honesty. This is the equivalent of a petulant little brat who does not take no for an answer. This is the equivalent of a child losing in a game and demanding a two out of three or a three out of five. This is the equivalent of one who responds to criticism in an inappropriate fashion. If game companies want good reviews or some of the hard-earned money of those who shell out the fifty dollars for such games, then they perhaps need to take a long look in the mirror and come to a realization. A realization in which a game company needs to accept the fact that in order to get great reviews and millions of copies of a game sold, they need to develop and tune the game to meet such lofty goals. The game companies are not to force game reviewers to sacrifice their integrity, the integrity that is essential for the trust between the reviewer and the reader. The reviewer should never have to lose his or her job because he or she was being honest, fair, and balanced. That is what Eidos did. Instead of taking criticism as a learning experience, they instead decided to go after Jeff, costing him his job in the process and giving Gamespot, CNet, and Eidos a publicity nightmare so treacherous, the publicists of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Brittany Spears would be unenviable of such a task. Even the PR department of Take-Two Interactive would not undergo such a hellish...well...hell. Jeff Gerstmann is an unfortunate victim of a company's ego vastly over-inflated and pride more foolish than that of our president.
To the game reviewers: stay strong and never budge. Your integrity is paramount in our trust we put in you. Your fairness and honesty is the peak difference in buying a game that is one of the greatest ever or a game that is one of the worst ever. Also to the CEOs of the gaming outlets: never give in to the demands of a game company. They are not to tell you how to run the magazine, website, or network. You run the ship, they do not. What the game companies do to your employees is nothing short of wrongful termination, which results in lawsuits. You can not fire journalists for being honest, fair, accurate, and balanced. That is what you hire your employees for. You do not fire your employees for doing their jobs. You do not fire them for what they do. They play a game thoroughly and give an honest critique of the game. The importance of integrity is something that can never...NEVER...be stressed enough. If you give in to the demands from a game company that is too egotistical to accept the fact that their game is bad, you will go through what Gamespot has to go through. The protests, the PR hell, the sudden departures of fellow co-workers who feel that if they do not lie and say a game is good when in fact it is a complete 180 from good, and paramount of all the loss of readers and viewers that are vital to your company as much as gasoline is vital to an automobile, as vital as oxygen and a heartbeat is to a human being. Do not do what Gamestop and CNet did to your employees.
The journalism profession has a sacred trust between the reporter and the listener, reader, or viewer. The utmost factor in that trust is integrity. The sacred trust is NEVER to be violated in any way imaginable. The game companies extorting good game reviews, holding reviewers hostage with their jobs for high scores and have no qualms for their termination, is nothing short of a dispicalbe and selfish act.
Good night and good luck.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Website of the Week: Newgrounds
Flash movies are funny as hell and flash games give players something to pass the time at work (NOT condoning) while giving up and coming programmers a chance to learn basic programming skills.
Flash game/movie sites are abound on the internet, but none are as known and have not as many flash works other than Newgrounds. Founded and run by Tom Fulp, Newgrounds hosts various flash movies and games. The flash movies on this site parody many things, from Anime to Video Games, which are hilarious. Many flash artists also got their start on Newgrounds. Go there, now!
Website of the Week: Newgrounds
Flash game/movie sites are abound on the internet, but none are as known and have not as many flash works other than Newgrounds. Founded and run by Tom Fulp, Newgrounds hosts various flash movies and games. The flash movies on this site parody many things, from Anime to Video Games, which are hilarious. Many flash artists also got their start on Newgrounds. Go there, now!
Website of the Week: Newgrounds
Thursday, January 10, 2008
A Timeline of "The Legend of Zelda" Video Game Series According to The Outlet. *SPOILERS*
The Legend of Zelda chronological timeline is one of the most debated topics in video games. Fans of the series have always debated which game came first, second, or last. Many rumors abounded and suggestions have been made.
After lengthy and strong consideration and thinking, I have came up with my own chronological timeline of the series. This is my own thought and you may disagree.
Before I begin, "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" has two endings. One ending takes place when the adult Link going back to his own time. Another ending has young Link leaving the temple of time and the fairy Navi flies away. This results in a dual-timeline: one after the end of the game and another after the older Link is transported back to his original time. Another reason why the "Ocarina of Time" is first is because Zelda and Link did not know each other.
Without further ado, here is "The Legend of Zelda" series timeline.
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (end of game)
2. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
3. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
4. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
5. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
6. The Legend of Zelda
7. Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
8. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
9. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages/Seasons.
10. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (after Link is sent back to original time)
2. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
3. The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
This is my iteration of the Zelda timeline. You may agree or disagree. This is still an open debate and will be for some time to come.
Maybe Nintendo did not intend a chronological story for the series and put gameplay ahead of a story line.
After lengthy and strong consideration and thinking, I have came up with my own chronological timeline of the series. This is my own thought and you may disagree.
Before I begin, "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" has two endings. One ending takes place when the adult Link going back to his own time. Another ending has young Link leaving the temple of time and the fairy Navi flies away. This results in a dual-timeline: one after the end of the game and another after the older Link is transported back to his original time. Another reason why the "Ocarina of Time" is first is because Zelda and Link did not know each other.
Without further ado, here is "The Legend of Zelda" series timeline.
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (end of game)
2. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
3. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
4. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
5. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
6. The Legend of Zelda
7. Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
8. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
9. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages/Seasons.
10. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (after Link is sent back to original time)
2. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
3. The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
This is my iteration of the Zelda timeline. You may agree or disagree. This is still an open debate and will be for some time to come.
Maybe Nintendo did not intend a chronological story for the series and put gameplay ahead of a story line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)