I was in a big store the other day standing in front of some expensive TVs (£1000-£500) and every single one had really, really bad tearing problems. As long as the camera doesn't pan, then everything is great - beautiful colours, greaty contrast, incredible detail... but as soon as even a moderately fast panning shot comes up... if what you saw were a noise it would be "KRKRRKRRRRRRKKRKRR". Not good. The bigger the TV the worse it was.
I should think the implicit argument (they don't want to come out and say it) is that they're trying to protect the people who work in shops (like Zavvi), replication, logistics and so on that depend on the *physical* distribution of music. So really they're saying that they won't shift to a predominantly online distribution model, the actual copyright violation are pretty secondary.
Absolutely - but doesn't the body produce chemicals in response to all sorts of things? How do people get a taste for curries if not for the pain response? Or for horror films if not for the experience of fear?
No offence but I'd suggest you've got what people call an addictive personality. I'm a little bit like that but my wife is the total opposite. She has almost no interest in anything - no hobbies, passtimes or addictions. She does many things very well indeed and is a very lively person, but she doesn't spend all day "looking forward" to a particular activity.
When you play video games you get a lot of adrenalin flowing
Not all that much. Ever drive faster than you should or get drunk and pick a fight in a bar? That's adrenaline.
Doesn't dopamine do about a million different things, depending on the precise part of the brain it's in and the state of the brain at the time? That's why articles like TFA and the article you just posted p1ss off/. It's all about not jumping to conclusions because of a single headline. The brain is so complex and poorly understood. Who's to say what other activities can trigger dopamine release? In what quantities?
What I'm getting at is that I used to play a heap of video games and yeah certain other areas of my life probably suffered for it. But there was nothing holding me there making me play them. I just enjoyed doing it and when I had other stuff to do (my son was born) I virtually stopped. I'm playing a little bit of Xbox now but I'm not in danger of playing to the levels I used to, because I'm older and more into books, music and films. It's a completely different thing from a chemical dependency - I also smoke so I know of what I speak.
I can't provide scientific evidence regarding how the human brain works, but then neither can most psychologists. I'm just speculating really.
As to why you derive more pleasure from playing COD4 than either housework or playing guitar, I suggest it's because you like doing that the most, however you want to describe it. Perhaps if you enjoyed playing guitar better than anything else, you'd now be a professional musician.
Not sure why you felt the need to make a dig against "old people" but whatever.
No offence, Granddad! Just kidding. I'm sure there are lots of cool old people around.
It's an absurd analogy of course but I don't think it's impossible, just rather unusual. At any rate the point I was making is that there is a definite chemical mechanism involved in nicotine addiction or similar, whereas video games are just an enjoyable passtime. People like to say words like "addiciton" as it conjures up an image of junkies in flop houses shooting needles.
Old people are pathologically addicted to using the word "addiction" to make anything they don't like sound scary.
The brain can adapt to virtually any stimulus and once removed, will not function as well without it. So if you go for long countryside walks every day and enjoy it, then you get injured and can't do it for a few months, you'll miss going for those long countryside walks. That's completely different to chemical addiction you get from heroin or nicotine, but then most people can't tell the difference.
I really hated Jarhead - it's one of the few films I've ever given up on before the end. Just another cliched boot camp film where bugger all actually happened.
But yeah I think Forever War will be fantastic - the main thing about it was the total disorientation of a human being and the time machine effect, which reminded me of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, the social science anti-war angle, the romance, the fantasy future settings... Also the combat should be amazing with Cameron at the helm.
Exchange may be great for managers and admins (I'm a developer so I couldn't say) but Outlook is sucky for users. For one thing it can reduce even a newish mid-spec PC to a dreadful crawl. Just switching windows to it can take several whole seconds. Also, if I know I've got an email from somebody a while ago but can't remember when, how long does it take to search or sort a gigabyte of emails? Much too long. I have to go off and make a coffee. Now I'm not necessarily suggesting it as a direct replacement but if I could only use my Google Mail for business then I'd save all sorts of time.
Chevy don't own Opel, Vauxhall and Saab - GM do. Chevy only sell (as far as I know) rebadged Daewoo crud in Europe. That's what I mean - as tastes change, GM and Ford have at least got products to go with. Chevy have got d1ck all, I'm afraid.
Ah but the Chevrolet's small cars are all terrible. They don't sell small cars in Europe because the competition is so much better. They're losing out now because they concentrated too much on gas guzzlers while European and Japanese companies had a broader range that allowed them to change direction faster. True Ford got their asses kicked for a while but they'll come back, GM may even do ok in the next 5 years because they have great smaller cars like the Astra or Corsa that they can bring to the US market. Chevy has had it though if you ask me, they've got nothing.
The only thing I can imagine is that you are a terrible parent or you have some cognitive dissonance going on - and I don't like making accusations about someone I don't know. Are you saying that if your child adopts a philosophy of "running into the middle of the street whenever he wants" you are going to tolerate this?
Thanks a bunch! It should be clear that "running into a road is a bad idea" is not a belief but a cold, hard fact. The difference between the two is not semantics but epistemology!I believe Xenophanes has a thing or two to day about your post. On parenting, I will explain my views and whatever beliefs I am saddled with to my children but I will refrain from influencing their development unduly. I do think they're better off listening to and absorbing the cutting edge of what cosmopolitan society has to offer than wallowing in the staid, middle-aged mainstream that their parents (me) will have to offer!
I think that epistemology has a definite relevance to this disagreement.
Overall, you seem to be a proponent of laissez-faire economics and probably social Darwinism. Although I am not an American, it is obvious that there exists a profound schism in political opinion between the city-dwellers of the coasts and the more religious and conservative rural areas in between. I respect the fact that you haven't dragged region or religion into this, however it looks to me like the USA is a country in danger of ripping itself in two over questions like this - education is one potential tearing point. Bear in mind that a lot of the social "dictatorship" you are against is historically European, specifically British, in origin and to us, total deregulation of education, public health standards and so on is an incredibly dangerous idea. Note well that things like this came into being long ago in Europe around the time of the industrial revolution (although drawing wisely upon the sage lessons of oriental cultures) and were a principal ingredient of the transformation of essentially medieval societies into the modern world we live in today.
Have we not learned from the ongoing financial crisis that some regulation/dictatorship is essential for the good of the nation as a whole? It is interesting that those responsible for the credit-crunch are likely to be the liberal city dwellers, but nonetheless the subject of regulation is undeniably significant.
You probably think that beliefs are unfounded conjectures about the nature of reality or something, while standards are some sort of objective measurement. You are entitled to such rationalizations, though I think there are more accurate (and healthy) definitions. Clearly, whether they are standards or beliefs, we appropriately prefer our own to those adopted by others.
Your steadfast relativism is not something I can overcome here. Also, internet arguments between people like us have been done so many times before as to have become extremely boring. However you do have to have to accept that at the heart of this is a difference between secular science and religious conservatism. Science is the way forward. It can put men on the moon, squash cities flat and spring upon us world-changing, unpredictable technologies like the internet. Do you want to rebel against that?
So what happens when a particular classroom contains 20 kids of creationist parents and 10 kids of secular parents? Do we have to tolerate those 10 kids getting taught a pile of tripe about how "evolution is not proven" and "other explanations exist" because they're in the minority?
Moreover, what if in 50 years time, a similar situation exists except the idealogical parents decide they're into racial purity and press the school into teaching that black and mixed-race people are inferior? It's happened before.
This isn't about your beliefs, or mine. I have a three year old boy and I would never, ever force feed him, much less anyone else's kids my "beliefs".
This is about something called "standards". Perhaps restaurant owners think the government has no right to force them to clean their kitchens - just let the diners decide where to eat and if some of them get salmonella, well that's tough luck. That's not to say we should dump public health and safety codes.
To everyone who exclaims "but they shouldn't be able to teach that in public school,"
Yes we're absolutely saying there are certain things children must be taught and also that they must not be taught anything demonstrably untrue. Same reason you're not allowed to teach kids that the alphabet goes ACB or that the moon is really called "bombliwollops" - it's downright malicious to deliberate teach kids things that are untrue.
If you can demonstrate your beliefs then fine, the public school system will teach it without you having to lobby for it.
Yeah exactly. They don't care as long as it's on the other side of the border. It could all be shutdown, but it would cost too much money. Hell, they could probably wipe out 90% of malaria and malnutrition for £100bn, and save 5,000 lives per day. But do they?
By no means! I'm not saying this justifies shutting down wikileaks at all. I think the governments concerned should get off their backsides and actually try shutting the kiddie fiddlers down and getting them in prison where they deserve to be, rather than trying to suppress information that only helps them block those people out from casual viewing.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a big store the other day standing in front of some expensive TVs (£1000-£500) and every single one had really, really bad tearing problems. As long as the camera doesn't pan, then everything is great - beautiful colours, greaty contrast, incredible detail... but as soon as even a moderately fast panning shot comes up... if what you saw were a noise it would be "KRKRRKRRRRRRKKRKRR". Not good. The bigger the TV the worse it was.
The Milky-what-now?
Yeah they're very cool little motors but the na,e puts me off. Reminds me of the symptoms of Porphyria.
I should think the implicit argument (they don't want to come out and say it) is that they're trying to protect the people who work in shops (like Zavvi), replication, logistics and so on that depend on the *physical* distribution of music. So really they're saying that they won't shift to a predominantly online distribution model, the actual copyright violation are pretty secondary.
As per cannabis prohibition?? Or motorway speed limits?
How did this retarded article get FP'd?
Have you ever heard of runner's high?
Absolutely - but doesn't the body produce chemicals in response to all sorts of things? How do people get a taste for curries if not for the pain response? Or for horror films if not for the experience of fear? No offence but I'd suggest you've got what people call an addictive personality. I'm a little bit like that but my wife is the total opposite. She has almost no interest in anything - no hobbies, passtimes or addictions. She does many things very well indeed and is a very lively person, but she doesn't spend all day "looking forward" to a particular activity.
When you play video games you get a lot of adrenalin flowing
Not all that much. Ever drive faster than you should or get drunk and pick a fight in a bar? That's adrenaline.
Doesn't dopamine do about a million different things, depending on the precise part of the brain it's in and the state of the brain at the time? That's why articles like TFA and the article you just posted p1ss off /. It's all about not jumping to conclusions because of a single headline. The brain is so complex and poorly understood. Who's to say what other activities can trigger dopamine release? In what quantities?
What I'm getting at is that I used to play a heap of video games and yeah certain other areas of my life probably suffered for it. But there was nothing holding me there making me play them. I just enjoyed doing it and when I had other stuff to do (my son was born) I virtually stopped. I'm playing a little bit of Xbox now but I'm not in danger of playing to the levels I used to, because I'm older and more into books, music and films. It's a completely different thing from a chemical dependency - I also smoke so I know of what I speak.
I can't provide scientific evidence regarding how the human brain works, but then neither can most psychologists. I'm just speculating really.
As to why you derive more pleasure from playing COD4 than either housework or playing guitar, I suggest it's because you like doing that the most, however you want to describe it. Perhaps if you enjoyed playing guitar better than anything else, you'd now be a professional musician.
Not sure why you felt the need to make a dig against "old people" but whatever.
No offence, Granddad! Just kidding. I'm sure there are lots of cool old people around.
It's an absurd analogy of course but I don't think it's impossible, just rather unusual. At any rate the point I was making is that there is a definite chemical mechanism involved in nicotine addiction or similar, whereas video games are just an enjoyable passtime. People like to say words like "addiciton" as it conjures up an image of junkies in flop houses shooting needles.
Old people are pathologically addicted to using the word "addiction" to make anything they don't like sound scary. The brain can adapt to virtually any stimulus and once removed, will not function as well without it. So if you go for long countryside walks every day and enjoy it, then you get injured and can't do it for a few months, you'll miss going for those long countryside walks. That's completely different to chemical addiction you get from heroin or nicotine, but then most people can't tell the difference.
For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being
You mean a Homunculus?
I really hated Jarhead - it's one of the few films I've ever given up on before the end. Just another cliched boot camp film where bugger all actually happened.
But yeah I think Forever War will be fantastic - the main thing about it was the total disorientation of a human being and the time machine effect, which reminded me of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, the social science anti-war angle, the romance, the fantasy future settings... Also the combat should be amazing with Cameron at the helm.
Exchange may be great for managers and admins (I'm a developer so I couldn't say) but Outlook is sucky for users. For one thing it can reduce even a newish mid-spec PC to a dreadful crawl. Just switching windows to it can take several whole seconds. Also, if I know I've got an email from somebody a while ago but can't remember when, how long does it take to search or sort a gigabyte of emails? Much too long. I have to go off and make a coffee. Now I'm not necessarily suggesting it as a direct replacement but if I could only use my Google Mail for business then I'd save all sorts of time.
Sorry sorry sorry meant Chrysler! Damn.
Chevy don't own Opel, Vauxhall and Saab - GM do. Chevy only sell (as far as I know) rebadged Daewoo crud in Europe. That's what I mean - as tastes change, GM and Ford have at least got products to go with. Chevy have got d1ck all, I'm afraid.
Ah but the Chevrolet's small cars are all terrible. They don't sell small cars in Europe because the competition is so much better. They're losing out now because they concentrated too much on gas guzzlers while European and Japanese companies had a broader range that allowed them to change direction faster. True Ford got their asses kicked for a while but they'll come back, GM may even do ok in the next 5 years because they have great smaller cars like the Astra or Corsa that they can bring to the US market. Chevy has had it though if you ask me, they've got nothing.
How is this going to be able to lift off from the surface of Mars again?
The only thing I can imagine is that you are a terrible parent or you have some cognitive dissonance going on - and I don't like making accusations about someone I don't know. Are you saying that if your child adopts a philosophy of "running into the middle of the street whenever he wants" you are going to tolerate this?
Thanks a bunch! It should be clear that "running into a road is a bad idea" is not a belief but a cold, hard fact. The difference between the two is not semantics but epistemology!I believe Xenophanes has a thing or two to day about your post. On parenting, I will explain my views and whatever beliefs I am saddled with to my children but I will refrain from influencing their development unduly. I do think they're better off listening to and absorbing the cutting edge of what cosmopolitan society has to offer than wallowing in the staid, middle-aged mainstream that their parents (me) will have to offer!
I think that epistemology has a definite relevance to this disagreement.
Overall, you seem to be a proponent of laissez-faire economics and probably social Darwinism. Although I am not an American, it is obvious that there exists a profound schism in political opinion between the city-dwellers of the coasts and the more religious and conservative rural areas in between. I respect the fact that you haven't dragged region or religion into this, however it looks to me like the USA is a country in danger of ripping itself in two over questions like this - education is one potential tearing point. Bear in mind that a lot of the social "dictatorship" you are against is historically European, specifically British, in origin and to us, total deregulation of education, public health standards and so on is an incredibly dangerous idea. Note well that things like this came into being long ago in Europe around the time of the industrial revolution (although drawing wisely upon the sage lessons of oriental cultures) and were a principal ingredient of the transformation of essentially medieval societies into the modern world we live in today.
Have we not learned from the ongoing financial crisis that some regulation/dictatorship is essential for the good of the nation as a whole? It is interesting that those responsible for the credit-crunch are likely to be the liberal city dwellers, but nonetheless the subject of regulation is undeniably significant.
You probably think that beliefs are unfounded conjectures about the nature of reality or something, while standards are some sort of objective measurement. You are entitled to such rationalizations, though I think there are more accurate (and healthy) definitions. Clearly, whether they are standards or beliefs, we appropriately prefer our own to those adopted by others.
Your steadfast relativism is not something I can overcome here. Also, internet arguments between people like us have been done so many times before as to have become extremely boring. However you do have to have to accept that at the heart of this is a difference between secular science and religious conservatism. Science is the way forward. It can put men on the moon, squash cities flat and spring upon us world-changing, unpredictable technologies like the internet. Do you want to rebel against that?
So what happens when a particular classroom contains 20 kids of creationist parents and 10 kids of secular parents? Do we have to tolerate those 10 kids getting taught a pile of tripe about how "evolution is not proven" and "other explanations exist" because they're in the minority?
Moreover, what if in 50 years time, a similar situation exists except the idealogical parents decide they're into racial purity and press the school into teaching that black and mixed-race people are inferior? It's happened before.
This isn't about your beliefs, or mine. I have a three year old boy and I would never, ever force feed him, much less anyone else's kids my "beliefs".
This is about something called "standards". Perhaps restaurant owners think the government has no right to force them to clean their kitchens - just let the diners decide where to eat and if some of them get salmonella, well that's tough luck. That's not to say we should dump public health and safety codes.
To everyone who exclaims "but they shouldn't be able to teach that in public school,"
Yes we're absolutely saying there are certain things children must be taught and also that they must not be taught anything demonstrably untrue. Same reason you're not allowed to teach kids that the alphabet goes ACB or that the moon is really called "bombliwollops" - it's downright malicious to deliberate teach kids things that are untrue.
If you can demonstrate your beliefs then fine, the public school system will teach it without you having to lobby for it.
Yeah exactly. They don't care as long as it's on the other side of the border. It could all be shutdown, but it would cost too much money. Hell, they could probably wipe out 90% of malaria and malnutrition for £100bn, and save 5,000 lives per day. But do they?
For heaven's sake man! I wasn't saying one was better than t'other!
One is a legitimate political movement that was co-opted by tyrants, another is child abuse. Apples and oranges.
Time to chill the f*ck out, eh?
By no means! I'm not saying this justifies shutting down wikileaks at all. I think the governments concerned should get off their backsides and actually try shutting the kiddie fiddlers down and getting them in prison where they deserve to be, rather than trying to suppress information that only helps them block those people out from casual viewing.
You can't compare communists to child pr0nographers.