You buy a pair of shoes, the maker is paid. Why do you have to pay the bastard every month?

True. But if that happened to you involuntary data violations would be the least of your problems.

Unfortunately this has always been the case with other country’s rules. I’m not a fan of US gun culture, but I’m not American, so I don’t get a vote.

Nobody is forcing you to visit either Singapore or North Korea.

Actually, nobody goes to heaven when they die (according to the bible). Everyone must wait until judgement day when all the graves, etc, open and we all face judgement at that point. This surprised me when I first learned it because it goes against all the Christian culture I’ve ever been taught and experienced.

So grandma isn’t currently in heaven no matter how good she was.

If you have a point to make, it’s alluded me.

Why do we have to sign up to every fucking thing and it’s brother? Everything gets hacked eventually. Why don’t we just hand over our data to the hackers and cut out the middle man?

If they follow her advice, it’s on them. Stupidity has a price.

I disagree. Voting with your wallet is the only metric they understand. They just ascribe different analysis as to why it failed to their boardrooms. In the end, you put 70 million into the development and marketing of a game that doesn’t sell, that is going to get attention. Complaining on Reddit won’t.

It’s like the corporate world has made gaming into a twisted version of THEIR game. How do we grind money out of these idiots?

Well, I think that they will probably work it out in the end by going bust. Every CEO - in the end - blames the consumer, not the product nor the service.

Speak it brother. I’m currently playing Far Cry 3 and other past greats. I have money in my pocket, happy to buy something worthwhile, but nothing new AND good is available. Nothing.

I would say that you continue to litigate a point that I never made in the first place. I have no opinion about the rights or wrongs of Hancock’s theories/claims. My entire point - my only point - is that if he is making entertainment, so what? Not allowing him to film in national parks because it offends science is wrong on so many levels.

Lastly, I didn’t ask you to chime in, so I’m not bothered if you beg off. See ya!

As you like.

Sounds like a whole lot of butthurt to me?

Science isn’t perfect either, a fact which scientists tend to push under the rug.

I’m an old fart, so I can remember the great scientific scare campaign of the 1970. Global cooling. It didn’t come from the great unwashed masses either, it can from professional researchers in white coats and worried brows. They got it wrong, and contributed to the beginnings of scientific distrust we have today.

Spare me the whole diatribe about intellectual fraud. You guys need to get your act together and communicate better rather than just sit in the friggin clouds and tut tut against the hoi polloi.

So criticise Hancock’s theories. Nobody is saying that archeologists can’t do that scientifically.

What I’m suggesting is that acting all butthurt when confronted with alternate theories and banning amateurs from entering the field is akin to protecting the priesthood.

Once again, not defending Hancock’s ideas, but I’m being critical of science’s reaction to them. Anyway, you guys are not very adroit in doing so. We are about to start watching the third season and he’s using your actions to fuel the fire.

Very good explanation, and I respect your point of view.

Even with that in hand, scientists can still be sometimes too precious. Being the official and truth holder of all things can also keep gifted amateurs out of the running. I’m not anti-science, I’m a fan. There is a long history of professionals jealousy guarding a patch that is not necessarily always ethical.

Anyway, that is the exception.

You will have to point out where he was obnoxious or abusive. I’ve not seen either of these traits from watching the show.

That’s a good example. Another is from my country, Australia. The idea that the Aborigines were just nomad hunter gatherers was seriously upset by the discovered fish farming settlements in the north of the country as well as the remains of basic stone buildings. Settler farmers have been destroying the evidence of these artifacts for 150 years because they upset the politics of “peaceful European settlement”.

Don’t have a boat in this race, but banning him from otherwise open historical sites because they don’t like his ideas is not scientific, but more like the mediaeval Catholic church.

Science is full of bigoted thinking as any other discipline. If you don’t already know this, you have never met a scientist.

Having said all that, it is a silly idea, but I enjoy the incidental geology that he employs to illustrate his argument. Not that I buy into the argument itself.

I feel like he is stepping on a classic white dude’s crime. Way to break the glass ceiling!

No acknowledged historian believes that the strategic bombing of Germany shortened the war to any significant degree. The Nazi leaders didn’t care and the civilians endured.

The Londoners didn’t overthrow their government during their blitz, nor did the Germans during theirs.