"In France in the first half of 2008, album releases by new artists fell by 16 per cent and local repertoire accounted for 10 per cent of albums, compared to 15 per cent in the first half of 2005."
France also has some of the strictest IP laws in the world. So obviously they are doing something right.
Fair enough. My understanding of agnosticism is that it is the lack of belief specifically because of a lack of evidence (as opposed to a general lack of belief)
Wikipedia has some interesting definitions under atheism:
Practical atheism In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
Theoretical atheism Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods.
These seem to describe the two different but similar views we share. Ultimately, I think either definition is acceptable culturally, and the more that I think about it, if we were to split hairs your view probably would technically be better. If my view were correct, that atheism means the lack of belief (therefore the a- is modifying the belief and not the presence of god), then polytheism should be more than one belief in god, and not the belief in more than one god. Of course, polytheism is the single belief that there is more than one god, thus, to be consistent, your definition of atheism would be more appropriate. Interesting, thanks for the insight.
You are wrong. Theism is the belief in at least one god. The prefix a- is a lack of the root. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God (one way or the other.) Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, monotheism is the belief in one god. And -ism is a belief or doctrine. Atheism, as a word, is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief. Of course, culturally, atheism has been equated with a belief that there is no god, but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god.
It's simple logic:
"If I believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is possible," does not infer "If I do not believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is impossible."
If you are going to split hairs, you might as well do it correctly.
Maybe they didn't pay directly, but the users are paying by having AOL advertising on their webpages. It's not like AOL was offering this service out of the kindness of their hearts. The users are paying for hosting by driving traffic to AOL's services, and with that in mind, they are just as much paying customers as those who pay with cash. Maybe AOL won't be legally responsible, but they will likely pay for it in traffic and reputation. The thing with free services is that there is nothing stopping users from moving else where.
In BC, Canada, we got rid of photo radar. I don't know if it is because we have the right to face our accuser or not, but we had them for a while and then they stopped. I think there were too many problems with them, the cops were charging people who did like 5km/h over the speed limit and it just created a big problem for politicians. We still have red light cameras, so I doubt it has anything to do with facing your accuser.
Just because some people pirate reasonably cheap games doesn't mean all people do. I think there are a fair number of people out there that know full well that they could pirate software if they wanted, but purchase it anyways to support the brand.
I think what more companies need to realize is that they aren't just selling a product, they are selling a brand. If they do shitty things, it is really easy for potential customers to hit back and hard. Companies that earn a good reputation, I hope, can do well for themselves.
There are a lot of other fine alternatives to google, but google has a great reputation (mostly) and people stick with it.
As they say, if Speed, Quality or Quantity are the options you can pick two. One of those options will have to be qualified. I'd say set the two things you want out first, and highlight the option you are not so concerned with. At least then you are being honest, and hopefully they will respect you for it.
Actually yea now that I think about it, it would be weird, because as you moved you head, you would be looking away from the TV. But maybe there is some sort of way, who knows. Wishful thinking, maybe.
But imagine, say you are playing halo, maybe instead of having the two joysticks (one to look, one to strafe), the looking control is coupled to your head tracking device. So then the natural temptation to move your head to see around something actually has meaning.
Even if it wouldn't work for an FPS, I'm sure there could be other possibilities.
I really liked the head tracking demonstration. It would be really cool if Nintendo made some games that incorporated head tracking.
In the demo, the guy said that head tracking would only work for that individuals perspective (the person playing), but in FPS' the screen is split anyways when in multiplayer mode, so you could have different head tracking for the individual players. I bet that set up would really sell.
Slashdot Mirror
"In France in the first half of 2008, album releases by new artists fell by 16 per cent and local repertoire accounted for 10 per cent of albums, compared to 15 per cent in the first half of 2005."
France also has some of the strictest IP laws in the world. So obviously they are doing something right.
Fair enough. My understanding of agnosticism is that it is the lack of belief specifically because of a lack of evidence (as opposed to a general lack of belief)
Wikipedia has some interesting definitions under atheism:
Practical atheism
In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
Theoretical atheism
Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods.
These seem to describe the two different but similar views we share. Ultimately, I think either definition is acceptable culturally, and the more that I think about it, if we were to split hairs your view probably would technically be better. If my view were correct, that atheism means the lack of belief (therefore the a- is modifying the belief and not the presence of god), then polytheism should be more than one belief in god, and not the belief in more than one god. Of course, polytheism is the single belief that there is more than one god, thus, to be consistent, your definition of atheism would be more appropriate. Interesting, thanks for the insight.
You are wrong. Theism is the belief in at least one god. The prefix a- is a lack of the root. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God (one way or the other.) Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, monotheism is the belief in one god. And -ism is a belief or doctrine. Atheism, as a word, is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief. Of course, culturally, atheism has been equated with a belief that there is no god, but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god. It's simple logic: "If I believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is possible," does not infer "If I do not believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is impossible." If you are going to split hairs, you might as well do it correctly.
Maybe they didn't pay directly, but the users are paying by having AOL advertising on their webpages. It's not like AOL was offering this service out of the kindness of their hearts. The users are paying for hosting by driving traffic to AOL's services, and with that in mind, they are just as much paying customers as those who pay with cash. Maybe AOL won't be legally responsible, but they will likely pay for it in traffic and reputation. The thing with free services is that there is nothing stopping users from moving else where.
In BC, Canada, we got rid of photo radar. I don't know if it is because we have the right to face our accuser or not, but we had them for a while and then they stopped. I think there were too many problems with them, the cops were charging people who did like 5km/h over the speed limit and it just created a big problem for politicians. We still have red light cameras, so I doubt it has anything to do with facing your accuser.
Just because some people pirate reasonably cheap games doesn't mean all people do. I think there are a fair number of people out there that know full well that they could pirate software if they wanted, but purchase it anyways to support the brand. I think what more companies need to realize is that they aren't just selling a product, they are selling a brand. If they do shitty things, it is really easy for potential customers to hit back and hard. Companies that earn a good reputation, I hope, can do well for themselves. There are a lot of other fine alternatives to google, but google has a great reputation (mostly) and people stick with it.
As they say, if Speed, Quality or Quantity are the options you can pick two. One of those options will have to be qualified. I'd say set the two things you want out first, and highlight the option you are not so concerned with. At least then you are being honest, and hopefully they will respect you for it.
Actually yea now that I think about it, it would be weird, because as you moved you head, you would be looking away from the TV. But maybe there is some sort of way, who knows. Wishful thinking, maybe.
But imagine, say you are playing halo, maybe instead of having the two joysticks (one to look, one to strafe), the looking control is coupled to your head tracking device. So then the natural temptation to move your head to see around something actually has meaning. Even if it wouldn't work for an FPS, I'm sure there could be other possibilities.
I really liked the head tracking demonstration. It would be really cool if Nintendo made some games that incorporated head tracking. In the demo, the guy said that head tracking would only work for that individuals perspective (the person playing), but in FPS' the screen is split anyways when in multiplayer mode, so you could have different head tracking for the individual players. I bet that set up would really sell.