I'm not going to make a long post since my title says it all but having a free Internet is the only way to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. For example, if everyone was using freenet, the Thai government wouldn't be able to do a thing.
Personally, I'm waiting for the "other" one that is a little bit past version 0.6 (they don't want us to name them on slashdot for now, too much publicity). If they could just work faster and get more donations though...
Also, we already have tons of extensions for firefox. I wouldn't imagine myself surfin the web without "customizegoogle" since I hate ads in gmail and in my google searches.:(
The eastern part of canada receives pollution from the United states. So before you start crying about how others can make your place more horrible, please consider that you too are making a part of the world less habitable. Not everyone likes acid rain you know?
Anyway, the FSF doesn't order us to do anything. They just say "If you want to be free to do what you want, this is the path to follow. Otherwise, someone will have control over things you own and that could eventually stop you from doing stuff like copying your movies, music and what not."
Imagine a bunch of mathematicians, meeting secretly and proving under the light of the torches that a solution existed for all the problems of the world... and yet, not knowing what the solution was.
They mostly want to show the graphics and the combat. They are reviewing that everywhere but I don't care. I'm awaiting this game for its intelligent side. You can actually play it without having to shoot first and ask questions later. This is rare nowadays...
A game that also rewards intelligent actions? Count me in Bethesda! And I hope other games like that will follow.
You shouldn't think like that. Just think about your question, seriously. Whatever we do is pointless and useless and everything will be destroyed eventually through the heat death of the universe.
That being said, all that is important is that you have fun doing whatever you do. Believe it or not, some people really dig maths. Also, it's one more thing the species knows.
Why not make it a coop then? But the real problem is that an arcology is supposed to be self-sufficient so you're not supposed to seek to make a profit with it by competing with other arcologies. If that were the case, then these would not be truly self-sufficient now, would they?
Yes but some people like to be challenged. It's like for tv shows really. Some people will watch America's funniest home videos because it's fun and they say the rest is crap. Others will watch philosophical scifi movies and, even though they will not have "fun" as much as you, they will think about what could happen and about where the human race could end up.
See, as long as most people think video games are solely for kids then it will shock. Not because these games make a statement, but because people think they were meant for kids.
Also, remember that for now, games rated "A" can't be sold in retail stores so for now the idea that games are for kids is going nowhere. It's the same thing with cartoons outside of Japan.
The government is "us". It's a democracy. If a corporation owns a city, then we're talking about a dictatorship. It's harder to fight corruption amongst the leaders when you don't elect them...
I just wanted to point to you that it's not because we didn't create a self-sustaining arcology that it's impossible to do so.
The earth is self-sustaining so the concept works. Also, small villages were self-sustaining in the past. So I don't see why something between the size of a village and the earth couldn't be self-sustaining.
That's right. Arcologies are supposed to be built so that you don't need a car. That means you could use public transportation to get everywhere in the "building". Since an arcology is self sufficient, these would be the greenest cities on earth.
Basically it is a combat flight simulator where you pilot a F-16 but whatever you do affects the war. If you destroy a bridge, the ennemy troops will have to find a new path. If you destroy an airport, planes will have to land somewhere else. If you destroy a factory, tanks, or whatever it was producing, will have to come from another place. Destroy a diplomatic building and you bring a bit of chaos to the land.
Now, apply that to a MMOG and let the players be grunts that can go solo or in teams. It's not complicated and it makes your actions count.
You can always add permanent quests to the mix of course...
I did read your link and found it interesting. The problem is that you are assuming the existence of a "mind" or "reality" or "consciousness" that transcends the materialistic point of view.
I can't disprove that a consciousness inhabits a body or not (zombie dilemna) but I find this irrelevant since the result is the same. In other words, the experiement wants to see if a bird can seperate itself from its environment.
Maybe the concept of consciousness is an illusion though, but even if we are complex machines, some machines can detect their own presence as being independant from the the rest of the other objects detected by their sensory inputs. Thus being "conscious" of their self.
If they recognise the dot and try to remove it from the mirror reflection then they don't understand that they are an object in a world full of objects.
On the other hand, if their first reaction is to act on their own body to remove the dot, then they do understand that they exist as an individual object.
They might not be able to talk about it or have deep thoughts on the subject but they are aware of their own existence.
I now understand your opinion. It seems we agree on everything except one point:
Making irrelevant (is there a verb for that?) the emotional link between mother and child would definitely crucial in infant experimentation. I don't think it's good enough, though. It's an emotional strain on the scientists who work with them, and it's an emotional strain on the citizenry who find themselves contemplating the horrifying existence of experiment-babies. It's not rational, but it doesn't have to be.
It seems that because you wouldn't be able to do it that you think nobody would be able to do it. Am I right? Yet, there are scientists that are doing tests on animals and they don't really care. Veterinarians have to learn with corpses of animals freshly killed and they accept the situation. When it is for a good cause, some scientists close their eyes without a second thought.
As for citizens, well, we have slaughterhouses and nobody wants to think about them and we have scientists experimenting on animals and nobody wants to think about that either. So I don't think the majority would mind that much if it is not done in vain. Sure, a minority are against all that but society at large accepts the situation.
Of course, I'm only right if scientists explain clearly the whole situation to the rest of the world. Not everyone knows about babies not being sentient so we might not be there yet. When society understands the whole subject more, I am sure experimenting on newborns will be the next logical step if we need it. Meanwhile, baby monkeys will always be more acceptable for society. It's not too bad when it's not your own people right?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to make a long post since my title says it all but having a free Internet is the only way to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. For example, if everyone was using freenet, the Thai government wouldn't be able to do a thing.
Personally, I'm waiting for the "other" one that is a little bit past version 0.6 (they don't want us to name them on slashdot for now, too much publicity). If they could just work faster and get more donations though...
Also, we already have tons of extensions for firefox. I wouldn't imagine myself surfin the web without "customizegoogle" since I hate ads in gmail and in my google searches. :(
The eastern part of canada receives pollution from the United states. So before you start crying about how others can make your place more horrible, please consider that you too are making a part of the world less habitable. Not everyone likes acid rain you know?
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/index.htm
Hello, thanks for trolling.
Anyway, the FSF doesn't order us to do anything. They just say "If you want to be free to do what you want, this is the path to follow. Otherwise, someone will have control over things you own and that could eventually stop you from doing stuff like copying your movies, music and what not."
The guy never signed any of the drafts... I wish he'd have at least signed one of them. The drafts are funny though :D
Imagine a bunch of mathematicians, meeting secretly and proving under the light of the torches that a solution existed for all the problems of the world... and yet, not knowing what the solution was.
Priceless
They mostly want to show the graphics and the combat. They are reviewing that everywhere but I don't care. I'm awaiting this game for its intelligent side. You can actually play it without having to shoot first and ask questions later. This is rare nowadays...
A game that also rewards intelligent actions? Count me in Bethesda! And I hope other games like that will follow.
You're complaining?
I studied psychology!
:(
You shouldn't think like that. Just think about your question, seriously. Whatever we do is pointless and useless and everything will be destroyed eventually through the heat death of the universe.
That being said, all that is important is that you have fun doing whatever you do. Believe it or not, some people really dig maths. Also, it's one more thing the species knows.
Why not make it a coop then? But the real problem is that an arcology is supposed to be self-sufficient so you're not supposed to seek to make a profit with it by competing with other arcologies. If that were the case, then these would not be truly self-sufficient now, would they?
Each person elected represents a part of society so...
Yes but some people like to be challenged. It's like for tv shows really. Some people will watch America's funniest home videos because it's fun and they say the rest is crap. Others will watch philosophical scifi movies and, even though they will not have "fun" as much as you, they will think about what could happen and about where the human race could end up.
See, as long as most people think video games are solely for kids then it will shock. Not because these games make a statement, but because people think they were meant for kids.
Also, remember that for now, games rated "A" can't be sold in retail stores so for now the idea that games are for kids is going nowhere. It's the same thing with cartoons outside of Japan.
Yeah it fell but the one in Dubai will work. All they need is Pauly Shore :D
I don't know if I should laugh because it's funny, or cry because I understand all the references to The Simpsons...
The government is "us". It's a democracy. If a corporation owns a city, then we're talking about a dictatorship. It's harder to fight corruption amongst the leaders when you don't elect them...
I just wanted to point to you that it's not because we didn't create a self-sustaining arcology that it's impossible to do so.
The earth is self-sustaining so the concept works. Also, small villages were self-sustaining in the past. So I don't see why something between the size of a village and the earth couldn't be self-sustaining.
I never said it would be easy though...
'nuff said.
That's right. Arcologies are supposed to be built so that you don't need a car. That means you could use public transportation to get everywhere in the "building". Since an arcology is self sufficient, these would be the greenest cities on earth.
Alright, I'm late in the discussion but hear me out.
If the game is based around a war it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Just look at the campains in Falcon 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0:_Allied_Force
Basically it is a combat flight simulator where you pilot a F-16 but whatever you do affects the war. If you destroy a bridge, the ennemy troops will have to find a new path. If you destroy an airport, planes will have to land somewhere else. If you destroy a factory, tanks, or whatever it was producing, will have to come from another place. Destroy a diplomatic building and you bring a bit of chaos to the land.
Now, apply that to a MMOG and let the players be grunts that can go solo or in teams. It's not complicated and it makes your actions count.
You can always add permanent quests to the mix of course...
Someone is using logic on Slashdot!
I did read your link and found it interesting. The problem is that you are assuming the existence of a "mind" or "reality" or "consciousness" that transcends the materialistic point of view.
I can't disprove that a consciousness inhabits a body or not (zombie dilemna) but I find this irrelevant since the result is the same. In other words, the experiement wants to see if a bird can seperate itself from its environment.
Maybe the concept of consciousness is an illusion though, but even if we are complex machines, some machines can detect their own presence as being independant from the the rest of the other objects detected by their sensory inputs. Thus being "conscious" of their self.
I don't see why it would be the case.
If they recognise the dot and try to remove it from the mirror reflection then they don't understand that they are an object in a world full of objects.
On the other hand, if their first reaction is to act on their own body to remove the dot, then they do understand that they exist as an individual object.
They might not be able to talk about it or have deep thoughts on the subject but they are aware of their own existence.
I think you should read the other posts. Especially this one.
I now understand your opinion. It seems we agree on everything except one point:
Making irrelevant (is there a verb for that?) the emotional link between mother and child would definitely crucial in infant experimentation. I don't think it's good enough, though. It's an emotional strain on the scientists who work with them, and it's an emotional strain on the citizenry who find themselves contemplating the horrifying existence of experiment-babies. It's not rational, but it doesn't have to be.It seems that because you wouldn't be able to do it that you think nobody would be able to do it. Am I right? Yet, there are scientists that are doing tests on animals and they don't really care. Veterinarians have to learn with corpses of animals freshly killed and they accept the situation. When it is for a good cause, some scientists close their eyes without a second thought.
As for citizens, well, we have slaughterhouses and nobody wants to think about them and we have scientists experimenting on animals and nobody wants to think about that either. So I don't think the majority would mind that much if it is not done in vain. Sure, a minority are against all that but society at large accepts the situation.
Of course, I'm only right if scientists explain clearly the whole situation to the rest of the world. Not everyone knows about babies not being sentient so we might not be there yet. When society understands the whole subject more, I am sure experimenting on newborns will be the next logical step if we need it. Meanwhile, baby monkeys will always be more acceptable for society. It's not too bad when it's not your own people right?