James

[quote name='Recaldy']Whole thing made me choke up as well. Have a good soundtrack and you can go pretty far emotionally. The FFVII thing that got me was the sorrowfull music played through the Boss fight. Don't know about other but that got to me more than the FMV before it.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]This reminds me, actually, I do remember feeling emotional at several points in FFVII. One thing that really sticks out in my mind is the Sector 7 slums. I remember thinking about all the scenes where you'd see children running around and playing happily, despite living in utter poverty and being treated like second class citizens. When the [spoiler]upper plate was destroyed and killed thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people[/spoiler], I actually felt a sense of loss about that. The cynical nature of the event (on the part of Shinra) made it even worse.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I can't think of a game that actually made me cry, although I've definitely had emotional reactions to games. Most great games I've played have given me some sort of emotional reaction (usually positive, admittedly).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome Venussama, Hello Panda, Recaldy, Pinku-Tan and Gurara! I hope you guys enjoy your stay here. Feel free to ask any questions you like either here or in the Information Kiosk forum. We definitely want to see more anime fans around, so make yourselves at home. Gurara: I promise we won't bite. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote name='Sangome'][SIZE="1"]And here I thought movies, even anime, were supposed to go to Sight & Sound...[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Hm, really? As far as I know, anime movies have [i]always[/i] found their home in Anime Central. Nerdsy: Good point, although I'm not complaining about the lack of a Ponyo thread. I'm just genuinely surprised that there isn't one by now.[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master']I had contact with a senior today. Did not go well. I was sitting in the very back of the bus and this group of girls walks up. The blonde one says, "Okaaay, I don't know what's going on, 'cause, like, the seniors sit in the back!" I was silent, and tried to ignore her, and her friend says, "Hey, you don't even know what grade she's in! Hey, what grade are you in?!" ".....Actually, I'm a fresman, so I guess she's right," I answered. She replied with, "Oh. My. Gawd. You did [B]not[/B] just give me attitude!" Yeah, I am going to get along REALLY well with some of these people...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]So did you stay sitting in the back? Oh, and I just have to add as a general comment... why is there no [b]Ponyo[/b] thread in Anime Central? Shouldn't that be some sort of crime?[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry, dark_zero...this RPG was created all the way back in 2002. I recommend checking the first page of the Auditions forum for new RPGs to join. If you don't find anything that interests you, you're welcome to create your own new RPG (either by yourself or you can collaborate with others). Good luck![/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]pikaquil, I think it may be best to ask people to sign up in the Auditions thread itself. Most members are unlikely to just give you their email address (and rightly so). Also I'd suggest creating a full sign-up sheet if you want to encourage more sign-ups (i.e. character name, age, picture - whatever you want really). It's certainly not a rule or anything, but it helps. And sometimes other people get ideas by looking at other people's sign-ups. Hope this advice helps. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm a huge GW fan, so I will definitely be buying Guild Wars 2 - even if it means I need to buy a new computer! Haha. I did see the trailer for it last night and it looks absolutely gorgeous. I'm interested to see how the story will fit in with the previous games in practice.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Without getting into the specifics at this stage, I do want to say that we acknowledge there are multiple ways theOtaku.com needs to improve. I can tell you that I have a pretty long wishlist at this point, not only in terms of bringing Worlds into party with myOtaku but also to push it further. But there are a few general problems. First, there's the time factor - performing any major revision to theOtaku is a massive (and often costly) exercise. I know that Adam is principally focused on his game at the moment and unfortunately his focus can't be everywhere at once. And secondly, in relation to myOtaku, it's true that it is physically impossible for us to perform all of the major/necessary upgrades to the site. The foundation design was never meant to be expanded as far as it has been so far, even. If we try to throw more and more things on top of that, it will end up being ridiculously messy - you add one item and then another breaks because the two are incompatible. The design isn't built for the necessary growth. So although I think it's 100% fair to acknowledge that theOtaku's Worlds system still has a long way to go, there are limits to what can be achieved at this point. All we can do is put forward suggestions and keep trying to improve the system. I'm not sure when more changes/upgrades will be done to theO, but I would suggest that the big ticket stuff just won't be happening while Adam's game is under development.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Wow, I'm happy to hear something positive. This movie has had some pretty flat reviews so far, so your comments make me a bit more interested in seeing it.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I almost feel that the PS3 Slim is the "real" launch of PS3. Prior to this, Sony just wasn't terribly competitive. It took them a long time to get the PS3 firmware right and Home took forever to hit the market. Also, price was a huge factor for many people (myself included). I would have paid that price if PS3 had offered really brilliant exclusives...but owning an Xbox 360 kind of negated a lot of that for me. It just didn't have the appeal. But now things have changed. With a price drop and an improved design, I think Sony can "re-launch" the PS3 and actually have a better chance of competing. Backwards compatibility is a big sticking point for me personally, because I still play PS2 games. Some games I am likely to just buy on the PlayStation Store (especially those that end up with some sort of visual improvement), but it's kind of lame that I have to re-buy my game library. I'm sure backwards compatibility isn't a huge issue for many consumers, but I do think Sony underrates it quite a bit, especially considering that PS2 is [i]still[/i] a viable platform.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Hm, I kind of like the idea, but I'm just not sure if there's enough demand for it. Perhaps we could try it out. Maybe it'd be a good idea to try a Polls sub-forum of some kind, where people can publish whatever polls they like - what do you think?[/font]

[quote name='EaterofSouls101']o sorry about that,didnt think about looking for a thread .-.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Not a problem! :catgirl: Hope you enjoy your stay here. If you have any questions, most stuff is answered on the Rules or FAQ pages (on the left nav menu). But also you can check the Info Kiosk and ask a question there if you like. Hope that helps.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome everyone! EaterofSouls101, I've just merged your thread into this one, since this is our little intro section. For your question, signature images can be 550 pixels wide and 110 pixels tall. You can find out more about that here: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/rules/OtakuBoards%3A%20Rules.html[/url][/font]

[quote name='UncleYaris'][COLOR=Red]It was a difficult toss up between Alchemist and Bleach...but ultimately decided on FMA[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]We already have an FMA forum though - I'm thinking about whether we should hold a new vote with new options.[/font] :catgirl:

[font=franklin gothic medium]So I have a question about this thread. Now that we have our Fullmetal Alchemist forum, I am wondering whether we should begin implementing new series-based forums from this poll (so Death Note would be next) or, should we do a new poll with new options? What do you guys think?[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So do you mean something like a poll where people would vote for who would win? I mean as opposed to a fully written spar? :catgirl: I just want to make sure I'm understanding your idea.[/font]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]James, is there any way you could post a link or two to sources describing the differences in health care between the US and nations with a public option? I hear quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of public health care, but have yet to run across figures to substantiate these claims. To be honest, I want some talking points for my Republican friend. We always grill each other, and more information is always a plus.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think the claims are substantiated by those of us who have experienced these systems, frankly. I mean, when I hear certain American politicians saying stuff about foreign systems... much of it is largely untrue. I'm not quite sure what would be a good source to adequately explain the contrasts clearly, but I'd start here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia[/url] The biggest difficulty to overcome is really just ignorance. It's tough to explain the differences when many of the people who complain the loudest simply haven't experienced health care systems in foreign countries. Unfortunately, despite the figures and structure and evidence, this sort of thing often comes down to physical experience more than anything else.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Without getting into the detail of the OP (there are plenty of general points I agree with, as well as many I don't), I just want to point one thing out. Before Version Vibrant was on the table, I was talking with Adam about doing a new version of myOtaku. In fact, we had a design ready to go. The problem was that myOtaku wasn't built to be expanded as needed. Also if we'd done a major upgrade, we would have destroyed a [i]lot[/i] of content - especially people's custom pages. Although I was really opposed to the idea of splitting the userbase between myOtaku and theOtaku, it was necessary to build an entirely new site, because it wasn't physically possible to do what we had to do with myOtaku.[/font]

[quote]So having a Federal system means constantly balancing it against the interests of everyone nationwide, and that's not an easy thing to do. So it becomes an issue of "yes, Big Government has the ability to do this a lot better and more fairly, but can they do it without everyone getting ticked off at everyone else", and that's where a lot of Republicans get their local/personal responsibility thing.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This argument makes a [i]lot[/i] more sense to me. I think you've framed this in a way that many people just aren't articulating. So far, most of the objections I've seen relate simply to the idea of a "public system" (my use of the term public being a synonym for something funded largely via the public tax system). On that raw basis, these arguments consistently fall flat on their faces - particularly those that seek to compare public healthcare to "socialized healthcare". I doubt that many of the people who put forward such arguments even have a genuine understanding of what socialism means. But the way you've described it here not only makes more sense, but raises even more fundamental questions. If one state already has a great healthcare system and its neighbouring states don't, then I can understand being nervous about a federal mandate - especially if this means you are actually moving to an inferior model. Having said that, I think it's also clear that the division of powers on a single portfolio is difficult. Either the individual states are entirely responsible for health [i]or[/i] health becomes a federal responsibility. The only alternative I can think of is if the federal system simply provides that [i]basic[/i] universal healthcare and the states can choose to go further if they like (and of course, private entities could offer whatever services they wish). We are having a similar problem in Australia, whereby health responsibilities are divided between federal and state governments. It's not nearly as messy as America, but it means that if something goes wrong, it's easy for blame to jump back and forth between the state and federal levels. Right now there is growing momentum in support of the Commonwealth Government (federal) taking full control of the entire health system, so that it can iron out inconsistencies and inefficiencies where they appear. Anyway, as I said, you made a very compelling point. It would be great to see that level of consideration from Republican politicans, rather than their constant bleating about socialism.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I actually disagree, James. I believe that the design of the current healthcare system is actually decent, but it's the [I]practice[/I], the [I]execution[/I] of the plan where the system falls short. See, even with the Federal healthcare plan, the potential still exists for the money to be fiddled with at the top, as well as the potential for the incentives to deny coverage that you mentioned with our current system, which I am in no hurry to sidestep. Like what happened with our Social Security situation; the collected money got irresponsibly used and the system got put into a bit of a bind. [/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think the design of the current system is fundamentally flawed, based on the contradictions you pointed out earlier. My feeling is that if it works at all, it is working [i]despite[/i] the design rather than because of it (at least in many cases this seems to be true). You are completely right in saying that a federal system still has the potential for money issues, but as I mentioned earlier, at least governments are responsible to the people (rather than to shareholders). For this reason, there should be no encouragement to deny coverage - unless, of course, the system has limited coverage for financial sustainability reasons (like not including optional surgeries or whatever). If you take the insurance industry out of the equation - at least for basic level public care - you are able to have care-based incentives without being impeded by the need to generate profit or dividends. Having said all of that, I agree with the basic premise you're making. All I'm really pointing out is that a system can be flawed no matter whether it's public or private. The problem I see is that many people have a paranoia of anything public simply [i]because[/i] it's public.[/font]

[quote]A guarantee of service is nice, but that doesn't mean it'll be good service. Or timely service. So it's like having a car that runs one day out of the week. I'm sure the health care will be good for yearly checkups, I'm not so sure I want the health care for when I have a ruptured appendix. Or a rare form of cancer whose treatments are still in the experimental stage.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure why you assume it'll automatically be bad or untimely service. That entirely depends on how the service is structured and funded, rather than whether it's public or private. At least in a public system, it would be possible to place the emphasis on a) service delivery targets and b) to have a bias [i]for[/i] patient recovery rather than denial of service. In the end, the bias is in favor of a basic public system anyway. The studies and comparisons between America versus other developed nations are stark. Even if you argue on an ideological basis, it's difficult to argue on a service delivery or satisfactory outcome basis. In terms of your last sentence, this is precisely why a public system shouldn't attempt to be all things for all people. The most fundamental/critical healthcare should at least be covered by a public option, but I wouldn't expect a public system to pay for some radical experimental cancer treatment - in other words, it doesn't have to be-all and end-all; there's plenty of room to create a clear dichotomy between public and private if that is deemed necessary.[/font] [quote]Although on the plus side, it will be easier to abuse pain medication now... [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]On what basis?[/font] [quote]I can't imagine this not going to the post office. Or the DMV. Unless you saw a health problem coming two months in advance, you didn't make an appointment and you wait half the day, week, month? to see the doctor. Doctors I see are overloaded with patients now, and I've seen everything from the rich doctors in Orange County to the extremely poor ones in rural San Bernardino county. I'm not sure the government has figured out the answer to how to come up enough doctors to treat everyone under their plan.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Why on earth would this go to the post office or the DMV? Why is that the logical conclusion? Besides, this in itself is almost a side issue. Coming up with enough doctors is a separate problem to the idea that people should be able to have public health access - at least on a basic level. In Australia we've had problems with nurse shortages, but this has nothing to do with the private/public issue (in fact, nurses are generally paid higher in public settings)...it has everything to do with not enough people commencing nursing degrees. So I think unfortunately this keeps coming back to public = bad, private = good. It's just not that simple. [b]Edit:[/b] See Ravenstorture's post. Again the issue is [i]not[/i] about public/private, but how the system itself is designed.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's crazy, but I'm kind of interested in the upcoming Zune HD. Does anyone here own an existing Zune? Are they worthwhile? I currently have an iPhone, which I deliberately chose because it combines music and the phone together (I was sick of carrying around both an iPod and a phone)...but I must admit, the Zune HD looks rather tempting. Must be that new gadget gloss or something.[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master']I understand that there are many people that can't afford insurance, but I am sick and tired of this idealistic "take from the rich and give to the poor" crap. It doesn't work that way. Why should wealthier people have to suffer simply because they have more money than the average person? The good majority of wealthy people EARNED that money. And I'm not saying that people with less money are lazy and don't deserve better, but people can't just ask for the government to come into their lives and fix things every time something unfortunate happens. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]But we're not talking about welfare here like unemployment benefits or something - we're talking about healthcare. Are you saying it's right to deny someone a critical life-saving operation simply because they can't afford to pay for it privately? And nobody is talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the idea of public healthcare. [i]Every[/i] public system involves contribution from all working citizens - this is true of most infrastructure and many critical public services as well. You will find that successful capitalist democracies around the world are able to both encourage private endeavour while also maintaining a strong safety net for all of society (whether rich or poor). This is the difficult balance that must be struck.[/font] [quote] Can the government even AFFORD to give everybody health care? Aren't we as a country in enough debt as it is? What does health care have to do with the government anyway? As far as I'm concerned, there should be lines seperating my personal life from politics that the government just should not cross.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]In terms of affording healthcare, I think it doesn't matter whether it's public or private - designing an affordable and sustainable system is important. That's why a mixture of public and private is likely necessary. The current system in America is largely private, but I don't think anyone would suggest that it's affordable or sustainable in its current form. As far as government involvement goes, I think that question has already been answered. There are numerous services that you rely on as a citizen, which are already funded and/or administered by government. This doesn't mean that government is somehow interfering with your personal life. I would personally be a lot more worried if my [i]healthcare[/i] - the most fundamentally important thing I have to be concerned about - is in the hands of an insurance firm, whose interest lies solely in decreasing my chances of making a claim...rather than actually having a genuine interest in health outcomes.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Isn't that because, as I understand it, insurance is a business now instead of an actual coverage system? Refusing claims saves the company money. The less money the company spends, the more it makes. The more it makes, the more it can pay certain employees. Same thing happened with the loan "industry"?it shouldn't have been an "industry" in the first place.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yes, you're 100% correct. I mean, you can compare this situation to home insurance. If you think about what home insurance entails, there are usually a number of things that won't be covered (say, for example, flood damage is covered but earthquake damage isn't). But what happens is, if you ever do make a claim, the insurance company is shareholder-bound to increase the chance that a claim will be rejected. So if there's an earthquake that causes a flood, you might say that your house was destroyed by the flood. But the insurer will come back and say "Sorry, no, the earthquake caused the flood, so we won't pay". Usually this stuff is hidden in small print. In principle I have no problem with private health insurance, though. We have a form of it in Australia. I can pay privately for a specific health insurance plan that gives me certain benefits (for instance I can get reimbursed for certain extra things that the public system won't cover - like buying new glasses or cosmetic surgery or whatever). That's fine and that's a great option to have if you can afford it. [i]But[/i], the entire system shouldn't be dominated by insurance agencies. Insurance and health just don't go together - the goals of both are mutually exclusive. I think private insurance should be the option, rather than the default. Even a basic public system with a private "premium" option would be better. And this is essentially how it works here in Australia. There is a basic public system designed so that every citizen has access to healthcare, including necessary operations (i.e. it wouldn't cover cosmetic surgery for instance). But on [i]top[/i] of that, you can choose to shop around for private insurance options.[/font]