Nothing, they're just slightly different from us. Employee loyalty is a bit higher over there, and the workers on the subways in particular seem to take very high pride in their jobs. The conductors (or whatever you call the guys who push "go" on the trains) always impressed me with their imaculate uniforms and white gloves. I mean, why do they even wear gloves? The only things they touch are the controls on the train, they're not taking tickets from the unwashed masses. A quick wipedown with some windex every day would probably accomplish the same level of cleanliness in the cockpit without all the laundry. Maybe I'm misreading it, I didn't grow up in that culture and haven't ever talked with a japanese subway worker, but it seems like they take a lot of pride in their jobs.
There's also an increased emphasis on politeness that we don't have over here, and less of an emphasis on individuality, the mindset over there seems to be slightly more "the nail that stands out gets hammered the hardest."
I'd imagine some company exec thought it up as a way to make sure everyone was as polite looking as they could be and as uniform as possible, and most of the employees don't mind or at least don't want to be the first one to call it ridiculous. Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if the workers themselves came up with it.
I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot. A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans.
The bodies having sex are of legal age, so wouldn't these be closer depictions of Miley Cyrus having sex when she was of legal age? Porn from the future?
It's weird, but kind of makes sense to me in some ways. If you were to do the reverse and photoshop a legal-age woman's head on child porn, the finished product would still be offensive to me, and not just because of the starting materials.
It seems to me that if some guy is getting off on miley cyrus' image, but with a body that is of legal age, that's not quite pedophilia. Weird and perverted (and odd tastes in music, and isn't there enough clearly legal porn for you out there?) but not a pedophile. If it were a toddler's face, that could be different, and if it were a legal age woman that looked pre-pubescent, that's also more questionable.
(Not saying this should be any type of legal standard, and IANAL, just musing.)
There is a big difference between Depression and Bipolar/Manic-Depressive disorders.
In the symptoms, but they can have common genetic factors. DISC1 for example has been implicated in a few cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders even though there is a big difference between those two.
An infected gunshot wound on your arm and being shot in the gut are different injuries with different treatments, but they both were caused by someone shooting you.
You're saying the "elephant proof" isn't a good metric because if you have an elephant it's probably not going to step on your phone again?
I think the point is to demonstrate that since an elephant can step on it and it works, YOU don't need to be worried about stepping on it accidentally and breaking it.
I am currently living in Japan, so I have an ID that has my identity, and I am required to carry that (or my passport) on my person at all times. This means that if a police officer stops me, they can require my producing identification documents.
Honest question: how easy is it to get out of that with "Oh, I'm a stupid gaijin, I didn't know that I was supposed to carry ID at all times?" From what I've seen, Japanese people aren't rude to foreigners, but they don't expect much of them. I've heard of "Gaijin smash" where foreigners can get away with ignoring many rules of japanese society because of that.
That's a good point, although you seem to take it for granted that we can't keep eating this much meat. Is that a sure thing? Inefficient maybe, but eliminating inefficiency for it's own sake isn't something I'm willing to give up hamburgers for.
I agree we shouldn't stop engaging those pundits and politicians who are waging war on choice, since that's clearly not reasonable. But we go beyond that to attacking things as censorship when they're not. N'gai Croal said he was uncomfortable with race in resident evil 5, the gamer response was incoherent rage one would expect if N'gai were saying "you can't play this game." But he wasn't saying that at all. I'm saying lets be reasonable, and open to the possibility that videogames may increase violent tendancies, and that we may have to moderate somewhat. Not censoring games for adults mind you.
Anyway, as far as the pundits go, you raise a point that drug companies have so much money they force their way through. I'm not worried about the "censor videogames" crowd for the same reason: there's money to be had in the videogame industry, the money and lobbyists here are on OUR side.
Gamers react strongly because the concept is FUCKING STUPID.
I'm saying gamers reject on face the idea that videogames can cause violence, when the concept is not so stupid, and we do so without any proof of our own. Both sides are being ridiculous. And if someone actually show there is a link between the two, we should deal with it rather than deny it and get games banned or censored completely. If someone does show a link, we'd be wise to point out that that's a good reason to limit the sale of violent games to minors, but that's not a good reason to ban the sale of them to everyone.
If you still want a real live bar fight, I guarantee you that you can find a bar that will meet your needs. Probably within walking distance of wherever you happen to live.
Aw, walking? By the time I walk there, I'll be too TIRED to get drunk and smash someone's head!
Come to think of it, not in the best shape for a barfight...
Except anyone who keeps killing innocent photorealistic VR humans until 'the emotional backlash subsides' was probably a psychopath to begin with.
That doesn't sound as common sense to me as it may to you. I play games where you can kill innocent people and it's realistic. Sometimes I do kill them, there is not much emotional backlash for me, I reason that it's a game and not real. I don't know if it affects me. Could it be causing a slippery slope effect, where in a confrontation I'm more likely to say "This guy is an asshole, not an innocent, so it's okay for me to kill him?"
I can't think of a way to prove that one way or the other. I don't think we should legislate on it, but I know I wouldn't let my kid play the games I play, just to be on the safe side.
Gamers have a tendency to overreact against threats of censorship. In general, we are more likely to reject arguments about videogames causing violence on face, without actually looking at whether or not they've proved anything, than considering them. But eventually, someone is going to find real results one way or the other. It would be nice if we'd be reasonable and if violence in videogames do indeed cause violence in real life, we would deal with that rather than flat out waging war against whoever made the study.
I say let it go down. Regulate them into the dust. (Full disclosure, I abhor the meat industry.)
It's fair to have that opinion, but you do realize that a LARGE part of the economy is dependant on cattle. If you think the economy sucks now, let the "meat industry" (including dairy, fast food, grocery stores and numerous other) die.
Even if it all doesn't fall down like dominoes (and it would), you're talking about a lot of people losing their jobs, most of the physical area of the US falling into economic decay. Maybe you didn't mean to flamebait, but geez, what you're talking about is pretty terrible stuff in reality.
I don't think it's a woosh when you hijack a joke. Attempt to anyway. Even if it's unsuccessful. A woosh in this case would be if I thought it was actually an ad for burma shave?
Unless... aw crap, was that a self-fulfilling woosh?
That's not really nintendo's MO. They've been making their own hardware for longer than anyone else in the gaming market, and always introduce innovations to their control schemes. Nintendo's already done a touch screen, but they also threw in another screen, a d pad, and 6 buttons. Plus, on the subject of the DS, they'd be competing with themselves if they did that. It seems pretty unlikely to me that they'd move to another company's platform for portable gaming when they just released their own portable division is doing decent and they just dropped the DSi.
The New York Times gladly hid behind the 1st Amendment and blabbed about a 100% legal, effective and yet secret means to track terrorist money around the globe, yet clammed up when it was their hide on the line.
- That wiki article suggests it wasn't really secret. - The two are not the same. Exposing that may have made one investigative technique less effective. Exposing the kidnapping could have gotten the guy killed. As the times was quoted in that article "the reporting bore 'no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." - Credibility is an issue. Bush, and government as a general rule, hid behind the "It's secret for national security, don't publish it" too many times when it turned out not to be. Common sense though tells you that elevating a taliban kidnapping increases the chances of the kidnapped being killed, especially given the Daniel Pearl case.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is wrong with the Japanese?
Nothing, they're just slightly different from us. Employee loyalty is a bit higher over there, and the workers on the subways in particular seem to take very high pride in their jobs. The conductors (or whatever you call the guys who push "go" on the trains) always impressed me with their imaculate uniforms and white gloves. I mean, why do they even wear gloves? The only things they touch are the controls on the train, they're not taking tickets from the unwashed masses. A quick wipedown with some windex every day would probably accomplish the same level of cleanliness in the cockpit without all the laundry. Maybe I'm misreading it, I didn't grow up in that culture and haven't ever talked with a japanese subway worker, but it seems like they take a lot of pride in their jobs.
There's also an increased emphasis on politeness that we don't have over here, and less of an emphasis on individuality, the mindset over there seems to be slightly more "the nail that stands out gets hammered the hardest."
I'd imagine some company exec thought it up as a way to make sure everyone was as polite looking as they could be and as uniform as possible, and most of the employees don't mind or at least don't want to be the first one to call it ridiculous. Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if the workers themselves came up with it.
Be warned fellow citizens, in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism: protected stagnation.
There's only one solution: kill eldavojohn to save the economy!
I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot. A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans.
The bodies having sex are of legal age, so wouldn't these be closer depictions of Miley Cyrus having sex when she was of legal age? Porn from the future?
It's weird, but kind of makes sense to me in some ways. If you were to do the reverse and photoshop a legal-age woman's head on child porn, the finished product would still be offensive to me, and not just because of the starting materials.
It seems to me that if some guy is getting off on miley cyrus' image, but with a body that is of legal age, that's not quite pedophilia. Weird and perverted (and odd tastes in music, and isn't there enough clearly legal porn for you out there?) but not a pedophile. If it were a toddler's face, that could be different, and if it were a legal age woman that looked pre-pubescent, that's also more questionable.
(Not saying this should be any type of legal standard, and IANAL, just musing.)
There is a big difference between Depression and Bipolar/Manic-Depressive disorders.
In the symptoms, but they can have common genetic factors. DISC1 for example has been implicated in a few cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders even though there is a big difference between those two.
An infected gunshot wound on your arm and being shot in the gut are different injuries with different treatments, but they both were caused by someone shooting you.
Slashdot: replacing scientific skepticism with "If it isn't summed up so as to fit in a twiter post, it is a lie."
You're saying the "elephant proof" isn't a good metric because if you have an elephant it's probably not going to step on your phone again?
I think the point is to demonstrate that since an elephant can step on it and it works, YOU don't need to be worried about stepping on it accidentally and breaking it.
I am currently living in Japan, so I have an ID that has my identity, and I am required to carry that (or my passport) on my person at all times. This means that if a police officer stops me, they can require my producing identification documents.
Honest question: how easy is it to get out of that with "Oh, I'm a stupid gaijin, I didn't know that I was supposed to carry ID at all times?" From what I've seen, Japanese people aren't rude to foreigners, but they don't expect much of them. I've heard of "Gaijin smash" where foreigners can get away with ignoring many rules of japanese society because of that.
That's a good point, although you seem to take it for granted that we can't keep eating this much meat. Is that a sure thing? Inefficient maybe, but eliminating inefficiency for it's own sake isn't something I'm willing to give up hamburgers for.
I agree we shouldn't stop engaging those pundits and politicians who are waging war on choice, since that's clearly not reasonable. But we go beyond that to attacking things as censorship when they're not. N'gai Croal said he was uncomfortable with race in resident evil 5, the gamer response was incoherent rage one would expect if N'gai were saying "you can't play this game." But he wasn't saying that at all. I'm saying lets be reasonable, and open to the possibility that videogames may increase violent tendancies, and that we may have to moderate somewhat. Not censoring games for adults mind you.
Anyway, as far as the pundits go, you raise a point that drug companies have so much money they force their way through. I'm not worried about the "censor videogames" crowd for the same reason: there's money to be had in the videogame industry, the money and lobbyists here are on OUR side.
Gamers react strongly because the concept is FUCKING STUPID.
I'm saying gamers reject on face the idea that videogames can cause violence, when the concept is not so stupid, and we do so without any proof of our own. Both sides are being ridiculous. And if someone actually show there is a link between the two, we should deal with it rather than deny it and get games banned or censored completely. If someone does show a link, we'd be wise to point out that that's a good reason to limit the sale of violent games to minors, but that's not a good reason to ban the sale of them to everyone.
Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or form
Right, that's why the pixels are arranged in the shape of humans when you kill them :-P
If you still want a real live bar fight, I guarantee you that you can find a bar that will meet your needs. Probably within walking distance of wherever you happen to live.
Aw, walking? By the time I walk there, I'll be too TIRED to get drunk and smash someone's head!
Come to think of it, not in the best shape for a barfight...
Except anyone who keeps killing innocent photorealistic VR humans until 'the emotional backlash subsides' was probably a psychopath to begin with.
That doesn't sound as common sense to me as it may to you. I play games where you can kill innocent people and it's realistic. Sometimes I do kill them, there is not much emotional backlash for me, I reason that it's a game and not real. I don't know if it affects me. Could it be causing a slippery slope effect, where in a confrontation I'm more likely to say "This guy is an asshole, not an innocent, so it's okay for me to kill him?"
I can't think of a way to prove that one way or the other. I don't think we should legislate on it, but I know I wouldn't let my kid play the games I play, just to be on the safe side.
Gamers have a tendency to overreact against threats of censorship. In general, we are more likely to reject arguments about videogames causing violence on face, without actually looking at whether or not they've proved anything, than considering them. But eventually, someone is going to find real results one way or the other. It would be nice if we'd be reasonable and if violence in videogames do indeed cause violence in real life, we would deal with that rather than flat out waging war against whoever made the study.
I say let it go down. Regulate them into the dust. (Full disclosure, I abhor the meat industry.)
It's fair to have that opinion, but you do realize that a LARGE part of the economy is dependant on cattle. If you think the economy sucks now, let the "meat industry" (including dairy, fast food, grocery stores and numerous other) die.
Even if it all doesn't fall down like dominoes (and it would), you're talking about a lot of people losing their jobs, most of the physical area of the US falling into economic decay. Maybe you didn't mean to flamebait, but geez, what you're talking about is pretty terrible stuff in reality.
I don't think it's a woosh when you hijack a joke. Attempt to anyway. Even if it's unsuccessful. A woosh in this case would be if I thought it was actually an ad for burma shave?
Unless... aw crap, was that a self-fulfilling woosh?
True, all they're going to find is Maple Syrup porn. Which is the sweetest kind.
Actually they go by Myanmar now, and they BORDER china, they're not part of china.
That's not really nintendo's MO. They've been making their own hardware for longer than anyone else in the gaming market, and always introduce innovations to their control schemes. Nintendo's already done a touch screen, but they also threw in another screen, a d pad, and 6 buttons. Plus, on the subject of the DS, they'd be competing with themselves if they did that. It seems pretty unlikely to me that they'd move to another company's platform for portable gaming when they just released their own portable division is doing decent and they just dropped the DSi.
You say butt over here and you'll just get laughed at
This is my biggest fear, meaning to say something serious about a butt in the UK and getting laughed at.
Trolling? I'm assuming it's the Bush using national security as a cover. Fine, you disagree, good for you. It wasn't trolling.
Answer to what? Pedantic? Forgot your pills?
I'm sure this researcher doesn't appreciate being the butt of your joke
He'd better get used to it. This is an assinine study.
There's a difference for most of us between thinking ABOUT moving our foot and thinking TO move our foot.
The New York Times gladly hid behind the 1st Amendment and blabbed about a 100% legal, effective and yet secret means to track terrorist money around the globe, yet clammed up when it was their hide on the line.
- That wiki article suggests it wasn't really secret.
- The two are not the same. Exposing that may have made one investigative technique less effective. Exposing the kidnapping could have gotten the guy killed. As the times was quoted in that article "the reporting bore 'no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals."
- Credibility is an issue. Bush, and government as a general rule, hid behind the "It's secret for national security, don't publish it" too many times when it turned out not to be. Common sense though tells you that elevating a taliban kidnapping increases the chances of the kidnapped being killed, especially given the Daniel Pearl case.
No, don't go last! Everyone knows if you don't get into these "first post" pyramid schemes early, you lose everything!