You'd be wrong, the first time I saw this the letters were substituted randomly instead of jumbled, and it worked fine. Jumbling is actually harder than substituting for a single letter - for example replacing the middle of the words with all x's makes what is going on abundantly clear, and actually easier to read.
Not for my girlfriend, who I just tried this on, and who gave up after a minute on "Yxx'd be wxxxg, txe fxxxt txxe I sxw txxs txe lxxxxxs wxxe sxxxxxxxxxd rxxxxxxy ixxxxxd of jxxxxxd, axd it wxxxxd fxxe." without working it out. For the record, her relaxed, typical reading rate is awfully fast, such that she routinely finishes 300+ page novels in an evening (normally, I wouldn't consider this pertinent, but I figured I'd anticipate a potential response). Furthermore, when I see something like jxxxxxd, I want to think "juxtaposed" because of the x, but if I were to see jlemubd, instead, I'd read the word in context without slowing.
My point was not that you read individual letters but that you recognize patterns of letters. That's why I pointed out that I parsed aulaclty as audacity rather than actually. Contextually, audacity made no sense in the sentence, but it had the right number of letters and it started and ended with the right letters. If that was *all* that mattered, I'd have chosen the word that made more contextual sense. But it isn't all that matters. It's just the most important thing.
Incidentally, I don't see what this has to do with speed reading or subvocalization. I didn't mistake aulaclty for audacity because it *sounds* similar but rather because it *looks* similar. If I were stumbling around on trying to sound out all of the jumbled words in that paragraph, I'd have read it very slowly indeed, and I misread aulaclty in an instant.
Perhaps you missed the part where he said "As a parent, I [...]" Not that I like the implication that you need to first be a parent or otherwise work with kids in order to express an opinion on the subject, but that's another issue altogether.
I.... *sort of* agree with this. It's a personal decision, and it all comes down to your own personal priorities and beliefs. If you make the decision by that metric, then one boycott is as good as any other. So if, subjectively, you give more weight to the harm of religion than the harm of child labor, it is reasonable for you to follow through on that belief.
If you're trying to use a less subjective metric, like "societal harm", you sort of seem to be suggesting that the two are on equal footing because you can make some arguments to that effect. But it's not enough to say you can argue a point and leave it at that. If we do apply a more objective metric like societal harm, we would actually have to perform the evaluation to determine if boycotting a place for being christian is as reasonable as boycotting a place for promoting child labor. They aren't automatically equivalent just because we can do a bit of hand-wavy equivocation.
To be a little more clear as to the distinction I'm making, it's the difference between saying "I intensely dislike Christianity and want to see it fail, but I don't particularly care one way or another about child labor" and "I think Christianity does more harm to society than child labor does." There is nothing to debate about the first point, but with the second, we could set about defining and measuring harm and could debate the merits of these definitions and measurements. Whether or not we come to agreement, the point is not purely subjective (though it has an element of subjectivity), so it's not fair to assume that something is true just because one party says it is.
Loosely yes, though I don't think it's quite so simple. First, the paragraph they gave has a lot of context and flow going for it, and it's mostly comprised of short, easy words. Also, the other letters matter quite a bit. With even a few random letters not in the original word jumbled in to each word, I suspect it'd be substantially harder to read. And as for the power of context, my mind originally turned "slelinpg" into "sleeping" rather than "spelling" and "aulaclty" into "audacity" rather than "actually". I still figured them out quickly enough on a second pass when it was clear they made no contextual sense, but, the first and last letters aren't the only important part of the pattern recognition.
Seems like people really enjoy quoting the 10th amendment. Or, in lieu of *quoting* it, informally summarizing or even bastardizing it.
Technically, what the constitution says is
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Previously to that, it had described the various powers. Some of them are fairly expansive, and the clause is itself taken to have a degree of "elasticity" in that it has been ruled to grant powers beyond a strict and limited reading of the enumerated powers.
The tenth amendment, which specifically references the states as you did, reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It does not further limit the "necessary and proper" clause, quoted above, so it has no particular impact on the notion of implied powers, which means even if no one in this thread could find a place in the constitution that expressly permitted federal copyright legislation, it could still fall under an implied power. States rights people really seem to like the 10th amendment, perhaps because it gives a shout out to the states, but the real debate should be over how elastic the necessary and proper clause should be permitted to be. Of course in this case, it was perhaps a bit embarassing for you that it did not need to stretch at all.
There is, however, an upper bound on the usefulness of high res displays. It is an upper bound we are already at for many people. While we continue to find applications for more and more drive space, no one I've heard of is seriously proposing we enhance the human eye or the brain's ability to perceive detail. I'm not saying we're actually at the point where it doesn't matter at all, but once you get to HD resolution and beyond, I know I, with my sorta shitty vision that I happily live with, can not tell the difference.
The thing that is causing more and more of the PC gaming community to feel bitterly antagonistic is the continuing trend of "consolized" games being released for PC.
Ah. I could see how that could be frustrating. I played Oblivion on the PC first, and I thought the spell selection system was a bit bizarre (coming off of NWN as my last PC RPG before it). Later discovered it was because of console support. On the other hand, that's laziness on Bethesda's part more than anything. Dragon Age on PC has a more proper hotkey bar, for example. Developing for consoles doesn't prevent a company from doing the PC version right, they just sometimes lazily choose not to...
The PC is capable of a vastly better fps experience than the console is. Period.
Vastly better for whom? For everyone? Because having played both extensively, I can say that that isn't true, since it is not a vastly better fps experience for me. I'm sure it is for you, and I respect that.
And this is the sort of thing I'm getting at. The only reason there's a PC vs console argument among gamers at all is that we speak in absolutes. The quality of an experience is highly subjective, and a person isn't wrong for having more fun one way vs another.
It's easy for me to see both sides having been on both sides, and the PC players have some compelling points when they're talking about the merits of the system and not just blanketly calling people wrong for enjoying something.
Mouse and keyboard is unquestionably more precise and responsive. For the competitive gamer a strong case can be made that it's the way to go. On the other hand, the controller has rudimentary haptics to simulate kick, and a proper trigger you can pull. Having used both, the mouse feels more like I'm controlling a game and the controller feels more like I'm immersed in the situation. I think that for the more casual player who is interested in the experience more than the challenge, a strong case can be made for the controller (for the convenience of lounging back in your recliner without perching your mouse and keyboard awkwardly and precariously around you as well). If those perks don't particularly appeal to you, that's fine, you're clearly playing on the right platform, then.
However, none of that matters when the majority FPSs are developed with the limitations of consoles in mind (cover systems being a perfect case in point.)
Hmmm..... It's definitely the case that tilting a joystick is more natural for peaking out of cover than moving a mouse, though, fundamentally, I think cover mechanics serve a very worthwhile cross-platform purpose, specifically the idea that you can aim and shoot at enemies without exposing your whole body to fire. In realistic tactical shooters where you can't take much damage, it's important to have ways to reduce the risk of getting hit, and it improves the feeling of being a real life spec ops agent rather than a power suited space marine who could survive a tank round.
So the bitterness is a product of envy. Not of your systems, but of your popularity. Many PC gamers are feeling increasingly ignored by the mainstream gaming industry.
Hard for me to speak to that. PC gaming is still pretty popular last I heard, so if there really is an industry apathy toward PC development, I'd blame the industry and not console gamers. Maybe they figure that if they transition to consoles exclusively, their PC fans will follow them, and then they can develop in a magical fantasy land where piracy doesn't exist at all.....
Oh, and the feedback of pulling an actual trigger to shoot and getting some vibration when you do so makes me feel more like I'm actually firing a gun, and I'm more of an immersive roleplaying guy than a leet skill-oriented arcade player guy at heart.
Yeah, I've tried it both ways. Played FPS games on PC exclusively until just a few years ago. Never figured that a console could be equal to the task. But then the convenience that comes with console ownership inspired me to try. It was clunky and difficult at first, but after a while, I got used to it and it became second nature. Not being tied down to a surface to put the mouse on and a big clunky keyboard to use ends up being nice. You definitely trade some precision, and the game coddles you a bit with aim assist, but if that sort of thing doesn't bother you (doesn't bother me), the convenience of the console, the compact controller, and the recliner lounging that comes with it is all very compelling.
Hmmm... I didn't *think* I got off topic... Sorry if I offended, though. Talking to random people on the internet, I don't tend to be quite as sensitive as usual.
I genuinely don't get why people feel the need to argue that consoles are no good for playing FPS games. I mean, sure, if you don't personally like the control scheme, that's reasonable, and it's reasonable to say so, but if someone else does enjoy it, why all the sass about them not being able to handle the truth or whatever?
It seems like PC FPS players have something to prove, and I'm not sure exactly what it is. Do they need to feel like they have the better experience? That's fine. Presumably they play on PC *because* they feel like they have a better experience that way, so I'd think that would be enough.
So, my only conclusion is that they feel like they need everyone else to recognize that they have the superior experience. It's not enough to enjoy playing a game and prefer the way you play it, but you also need everyone else to recognize the superiority of your preference.
Which is exactly what you're throwing up on the keyboard?
I'm trash talking you in that I'm accusing you of trash talk? Sure, whatever. If it makes you feel better, look at it however you like. I'm not really expecting a lot from this conversation.
If you're feel so insulted by pointing that out, well, I think you would do well to the world hiding under that fucking rock.
Insult me? I think you have an inflated sense of your own importance. It's not so much that I'm threatened by your opinion as perplexed. If a person enjoys playing first person shooters on a console, what do you care? I thought the point of video games was to entertain yourself and have fun.
Aren't we far enough into this generation to call it "current gen" instead? It's getting to the point that when someone says "Next Gen" I get my hopes up for a moment that I'm going to hear some news about the Xbox 720 or whatever inane thing they decide to call it.
Well, he's damn right. If you can't handle that,well, hide under a rock.
Instead of hiding under a rock, can I just continue to play and enjoy my console games where I shoot people from a first person perspective?
FPS games will never be console games unless some sort of revolutionary control pad appears.
*shrug* call them whatever you want, I guess. There's shooting, it's from a first person perspective, and it's fun. But I wouldn't want that to stop you from trying to shit all over someone else's enjoyment with your pointless sass and trash talk.
A video game unplayed is, to the player, all unrealized potential. When you play the game, a set of experiences emerge from those interactive sessions. Perhaps you forge a narrative in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Perhaps it's some form of finessed performance art in a game like Flower. Whatever it is, the art is there once the game has been played from its beginning to its completion. A unique advantage of the medium is the freedom to create new or different art on subsequent traversals of the game.
Interestingly, this is not fundamentally different from any other art. Would a painting or a book or any other recognized piece of art be art if there was no human to experience it? I think not. A painting is an unremarkable thing until a human being looks upon it and interacts with it emotionally. Perhaps the interaction is limited to your imagination, but there definitely is interaction.
And finally, as to the argument that you can't win art, I wholeheartedly disagree. The creator of the art has a definite sense of whether he won or lost based on how happy he is with the finished product. A game player is a co-creator in the art, since it is emergent from the playing experience, and, similarly, winning and losing is about perception.... the game just tends to make it a bit more clear whether or not you should be happy with a given outcome... but with many games it's more nebulous. Not everyone survived my first playthrough of Mass Effect 2, and yet I felt more satisfied with that result than if there had been a perfectly happy ending free of consequences.
Study seemed to be focused on children. Maybe future tech geeks are significantly more likely to be shut-ins as kids? Doesn't seem implausible, I suppose. On the other hand, I have no idea how big of a difference this effect has on whether or not these kids will need glasses, and the study doesn't seem to say explicitly.
Incidentally, a potentially worthless personal anecdote: I spend vast quantities of my time indoors at work and in my free time, and my eyesight is identical to when I was 16 (I barely passed the vision test for my driver's license then, and I barely pass it now). So I'd be less inclined to extrapolate this study to adults.
Sure ok, but now we're back to the idea of there being a correlation between geekery and eye problems. I'm not saying I know there isn't, but I'm just slightly incredulous that such a correlation exists.
I'm a strong proponent of transparency in advertising. If a retailer is dishonest or hides pertinent information, I want them to fry for it (figuratively). But if they are advertising in good faith and providing information that they have verified to be correct (and not misleading) to the best of their ability, I feel uncomfortable penalizing them merely for having bigger pockets.
And consumers choose which products they buy. This argument would only have traction with me if the reseller was privy to critical information that it refused to pass to the consumer, thus handicapping the consumer's ability to make an informed decision. Otherwise, I fail to see how the reseller is any more responsible for their bad decision than the consumer. Had the consumer sold a used game to Gamestop in good faith and support was later removed, would it be reasonable for Gamestop to go demand money from the private individual?
Perhaps it is their legal responsibility, but I don't think it *should* be.
ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.
And if the goods did not function as advertised, *when* advertised, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But we're putting extra words in their mouth. They didn't advertise "Will connect to the playstation network forever!" or even "Will connect to the playstation network for no less than the next 5 years" . Hell, I didn't see the wording, but I'd bet there was even a "subject to terms and conditions" disclaimer.
More pertinent to the point I'm making, I'd be surprised if it wasn't present tense, and since they don't have control over Sony's service, an honest present tense description is the best they can do and the most to which they should be held.
Under UK law it would be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon if Sony discontinued the PSN service within "a reasonable time" (probably 5 years), if it was an important function of the device. (I don't have a PS3, I don't know if this is the case.)
This still seems crazy to me. What if Sony went out of business? (absurd, I know) Amazon would have to pick up the bill? I'm all for protecting consumers, but a reseller doesn't have any more direct control or responsibility for the actions of a manufacturer than the consumer does. Informally, it seems like trying to collect a debt from a dead person's relative.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a Halo game you control by playing tasty guitar licks.
You'd be wrong, the first time I saw this the letters were substituted randomly instead of jumbled, and it worked fine. Jumbling is actually harder than substituting for a single letter - for example replacing the middle of the words with all x's makes what is going on abundantly clear, and actually easier to read.
Not for my girlfriend, who I just tried this on, and who gave up after a minute on "Yxx'd be wxxxg, txe fxxxt txxe I sxw txxs txe lxxxxxs wxxe sxxxxxxxxxd rxxxxxxy ixxxxxd of jxxxxxd, axd it wxxxxd fxxe." without working it out. For the record, her relaxed, typical reading rate is awfully fast, such that she routinely finishes 300+ page novels in an evening (normally, I wouldn't consider this pertinent, but I figured I'd anticipate a potential response). Furthermore, when I see something like jxxxxxd, I want to think "juxtaposed" because of the x, but if I were to see jlemubd, instead, I'd read the word in context without slowing.
My point was not that you read individual letters but that you recognize patterns of letters. That's why I pointed out that I parsed aulaclty as audacity rather than actually. Contextually, audacity made no sense in the sentence, but it had the right number of letters and it started and ended with the right letters. If that was *all* that mattered, I'd have chosen the word that made more contextual sense. But it isn't all that matters. It's just the most important thing.
Incidentally, I don't see what this has to do with speed reading or subvocalization. I didn't mistake aulaclty for audacity because it *sounds* similar but rather because it *looks* similar. If I were stumbling around on trying to sound out all of the jumbled words in that paragraph, I'd have read it very slowly indeed, and I misread aulaclty in an instant.
Perhaps you missed the part where he said "As a parent, I [...]" Not that I like the implication that you need to first be a parent or otherwise work with kids in order to express an opinion on the subject, but that's another issue altogether.
I.... *sort of* agree with this. It's a personal decision, and it all comes down to your own personal priorities and beliefs. If you make the decision by that metric, then one boycott is as good as any other. So if, subjectively, you give more weight to the harm of religion than the harm of child labor, it is reasonable for you to follow through on that belief.
If you're trying to use a less subjective metric, like "societal harm", you sort of seem to be suggesting that the two are on equal footing because you can make some arguments to that effect. But it's not enough to say you can argue a point and leave it at that. If we do apply a more objective metric like societal harm, we would actually have to perform the evaluation to determine if boycotting a place for being christian is as reasonable as boycotting a place for promoting child labor. They aren't automatically equivalent just because we can do a bit of hand-wavy equivocation.
To be a little more clear as to the distinction I'm making, it's the difference between saying "I intensely dislike Christianity and want to see it fail, but I don't particularly care one way or another about child labor" and "I think Christianity does more harm to society than child labor does." There is nothing to debate about the first point, but with the second, we could set about defining and measuring harm and could debate the merits of these definitions and measurements. Whether or not we come to agreement, the point is not purely subjective (though it has an element of subjectivity), so it's not fair to assume that something is true just because one party says it is.
Loosely yes, though I don't think it's quite so simple. First, the paragraph they gave has a lot of context and flow going for it, and it's mostly comprised of short, easy words. Also, the other letters matter quite a bit. With even a few random letters not in the original word jumbled in to each word, I suspect it'd be substantially harder to read. And as for the power of context, my mind originally turned "slelinpg" into "sleeping" rather than "spelling" and "aulaclty" into "audacity" rather than "actually". I still figured them out quickly enough on a second pass when it was clear they made no contextual sense, but, the first and last letters aren't the only important part of the pattern recognition.
Seems like people really enjoy quoting the 10th amendment. Or, in lieu of *quoting* it, informally summarizing or even bastardizing it.
Technically, what the constitution says is
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Previously to that, it had described the various powers. Some of them are fairly expansive, and the clause is itself taken to have a degree of "elasticity" in that it has been ruled to grant powers beyond a strict and limited reading of the enumerated powers.
The tenth amendment, which specifically references the states as you did, reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It does not further limit the "necessary and proper" clause, quoted above, so it has no particular impact on the notion of implied powers, which means even if no one in this thread could find a place in the constitution that expressly permitted federal copyright legislation, it could still fall under an implied power. States rights people really seem to like the 10th amendment, perhaps because it gives a shout out to the states, but the real debate should be over how elastic the necessary and proper clause should be permitted to be. Of course in this case, it was perhaps a bit embarassing for you that it did not need to stretch at all.
There is, however, an upper bound on the usefulness of high res displays. It is an upper bound we are already at for many people. While we continue to find applications for more and more drive space, no one I've heard of is seriously proposing we enhance the human eye or the brain's ability to perceive detail. I'm not saying we're actually at the point where it doesn't matter at all, but once you get to HD resolution and beyond, I know I, with my sorta shitty vision that I happily live with, can not tell the difference.
The thing that is causing more and more of the PC gaming community to feel bitterly antagonistic is the continuing trend of "consolized" games being released for PC.
Ah. I could see how that could be frustrating. I played Oblivion on the PC first, and I thought the spell selection system was a bit bizarre (coming off of NWN as my last PC RPG before it). Later discovered it was because of console support. On the other hand, that's laziness on Bethesda's part more than anything. Dragon Age on PC has a more proper hotkey bar, for example. Developing for consoles doesn't prevent a company from doing the PC version right, they just sometimes lazily choose not to...
The PC is capable of a vastly better fps experience than the console is. Period.
Vastly better for whom? For everyone? Because having played both extensively, I can say that that isn't true, since it is not a vastly better fps experience for me. I'm sure it is for you, and I respect that.
And this is the sort of thing I'm getting at. The only reason there's a PC vs console argument among gamers at all is that we speak in absolutes. The quality of an experience is highly subjective, and a person isn't wrong for having more fun one way vs another.
It's easy for me to see both sides having been on both sides, and the PC players have some compelling points when they're talking about the merits of the system and not just blanketly calling people wrong for enjoying something.
Mouse and keyboard is unquestionably more precise and responsive. For the competitive gamer a strong case can be made that it's the way to go. On the other hand, the controller has rudimentary haptics to simulate kick, and a proper trigger you can pull. Having used both, the mouse feels more like I'm controlling a game and the controller feels more like I'm immersed in the situation. I think that for the more casual player who is interested in the experience more than the challenge, a strong case can be made for the controller (for the convenience of lounging back in your recliner without perching your mouse and keyboard awkwardly and precariously around you as well). If those perks don't particularly appeal to you, that's fine, you're clearly playing on the right platform, then.
However, none of that matters when the majority FPSs are developed with the limitations of consoles in mind (cover systems being a perfect case in point.)
Hmmm..... It's definitely the case that tilting a joystick is more natural for peaking out of cover than moving a mouse, though, fundamentally, I think cover mechanics serve a very worthwhile cross-platform purpose, specifically the idea that you can aim and shoot at enemies without exposing your whole body to fire. In realistic tactical shooters where you can't take much damage, it's important to have ways to reduce the risk of getting hit, and it improves the feeling of being a real life spec ops agent rather than a power suited space marine who could survive a tank round.
So the bitterness is a product of envy. Not of your systems, but of your popularity. Many PC gamers are feeling increasingly ignored by the mainstream gaming industry.
Hard for me to speak to that. PC gaming is still pretty popular last I heard, so if there really is an industry apathy toward PC development, I'd blame the industry and not console gamers. Maybe they figure that if they transition to consoles exclusively, their PC fans will follow them, and then they can develop in a magical fantasy land where piracy doesn't exist at all.....
Refusing to expound on its merits creates an air of mystery about it. If nothing else, you'll succeed in getting me to research it :)
Hmmm..... you do make a compelling case.
Oh, and the feedback of pulling an actual trigger to shoot and getting some vibration when you do so makes me feel more like I'm actually firing a gun, and I'm more of an immersive roleplaying guy than a leet skill-oriented arcade player guy at heart.
Yeah, I've tried it both ways. Played FPS games on PC exclusively until just a few years ago. Never figured that a console could be equal to the task. But then the convenience that comes with console ownership inspired me to try. It was clunky and difficult at first, but after a while, I got used to it and it became second nature. Not being tied down to a surface to put the mouse on and a big clunky keyboard to use ends up being nice. You definitely trade some precision, and the game coddles you a bit with aim assist, but if that sort of thing doesn't bother you (doesn't bother me), the convenience of the console, the compact controller, and the recliner lounging that comes with it is all very compelling.
Hmmm... I didn't *think* I got off topic... Sorry if I offended, though. Talking to random people on the internet, I don't tend to be quite as sensitive as usual.
I genuinely don't get why people feel the need to argue that consoles are no good for playing FPS games. I mean, sure, if you don't personally like the control scheme, that's reasonable, and it's reasonable to say so, but if someone else does enjoy it, why all the sass about them not being able to handle the truth or whatever?
It seems like PC FPS players have something to prove, and I'm not sure exactly what it is. Do they need to feel like they have the better experience? That's fine. Presumably they play on PC *because* they feel like they have a better experience that way, so I'd think that would be enough.
So, my only conclusion is that they feel like they need everyone else to recognize that they have the superior experience. It's not enough to enjoy playing a game and prefer the way you play it, but you also need everyone else to recognize the superiority of your preference.
Which is exactly what you're throwing up on the keyboard?
I'm trash talking you in that I'm accusing you of trash talk? Sure, whatever. If it makes you feel better, look at it however you like. I'm not really expecting a lot from this conversation.
If you're feel so insulted by pointing that out, well, I think you would do well to the world hiding under that fucking rock.
Insult me? I think you have an inflated sense of your own importance. It's not so much that I'm threatened by your opinion as perplexed. If a person enjoys playing first person shooters on a console, what do you care? I thought the point of video games was to entertain yourself and have fun.
Aren't we far enough into this generation to call it "current gen" instead? It's getting to the point that when someone says "Next Gen" I get my hopes up for a moment that I'm going to hear some news about the Xbox 720 or whatever inane thing they decide to call it.
Well, he's damn right. If you can't handle that ,well, hide under a rock.
Instead of hiding under a rock, can I just continue to play and enjoy my console games where I shoot people from a first person perspective?
FPS games will never be console games unless some sort of revolutionary control pad appears.
*shrug* call them whatever you want, I guess. There's shooting, it's from a first person perspective, and it's fun. But I wouldn't want that to stop you from trying to shit all over someone else's enjoyment with your pointless sass and trash talk.
A video game unplayed is, to the player, all unrealized potential. When you play the game, a set of experiences emerge from those interactive sessions. Perhaps you forge a narrative in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Perhaps it's some form of finessed performance art in a game like Flower. Whatever it is, the art is there once the game has been played from its beginning to its completion. A unique advantage of the medium is the freedom to create new or different art on subsequent traversals of the game.
Interestingly, this is not fundamentally different from any other art. Would a painting or a book or any other recognized piece of art be art if there was no human to experience it? I think not. A painting is an unremarkable thing until a human being looks upon it and interacts with it emotionally. Perhaps the interaction is limited to your imagination, but there definitely is interaction.
And finally, as to the argument that you can't win art, I wholeheartedly disagree. The creator of the art has a definite sense of whether he won or lost based on how happy he is with the finished product. A game player is a co-creator in the art, since it is emergent from the playing experience, and, similarly, winning and losing is about perception.... the game just tends to make it a bit more clear whether or not you should be happy with a given outcome... but with many games it's more nebulous. Not everyone survived my first playthrough of Mass Effect 2, and yet I felt more satisfied with that result than if there had been a perfectly happy ending free of consequences.
Also, I would say that there is art to playing chess well. The art in chess is emergent when the game is played and not intrinsic to the rules.
Study seemed to be focused on children. Maybe future tech geeks are significantly more likely to be shut-ins as kids? Doesn't seem implausible, I suppose. On the other hand, I have no idea how big of a difference this effect has on whether or not these kids will need glasses, and the study doesn't seem to say explicitly.
Incidentally, a potentially worthless personal anecdote: I spend vast quantities of my time indoors at work and in my free time, and my eyesight is identical to when I was 16 (I barely passed the vision test for my driver's license then, and I barely pass it now). So I'd be less inclined to extrapolate this study to adults.
Sure ok, but now we're back to the idea of there being a correlation between geekery and eye problems. I'm not saying I know there isn't, but I'm just slightly incredulous that such a correlation exists.
Are you saying there's a correlation between being a tech geek and having bad eyesight? Or is it that tech geeks aren't vain enough to get contacts?
I'm a strong proponent of transparency in advertising. If a retailer is dishonest or hides pertinent information, I want them to fry for it (figuratively). But if they are advertising in good faith and providing information that they have verified to be correct (and not misleading) to the best of their ability, I feel uncomfortable penalizing them merely for having bigger pockets.
They do choose which products they sell.
And consumers choose which products they buy. This argument would only have traction with me if the reseller was privy to critical information that it refused to pass to the consumer, thus handicapping the consumer's ability to make an informed decision. Otherwise, I fail to see how the reseller is any more responsible for their bad decision than the consumer. Had the consumer sold a used game to Gamestop in good faith and support was later removed, would it be reasonable for Gamestop to go demand money from the private individual?
ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.
And if the goods did not function as advertised, *when* advertised, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But we're putting extra words in their mouth. They didn't advertise "Will connect to the playstation network forever!" or even "Will connect to the playstation network for no less than the next 5 years" . Hell, I didn't see the wording, but I'd bet there was even a "subject to terms and conditions" disclaimer.
More pertinent to the point I'm making, I'd be surprised if it wasn't present tense, and since they don't have control over Sony's service, an honest present tense description is the best they can do and the most to which they should be held.
Under UK law it would be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon if Sony discontinued the PSN service within "a reasonable time" (probably 5 years), if it was an important function of the device. (I don't have a PS3, I don't know if this is the case.)
This still seems crazy to me. What if Sony went out of business? (absurd, I know) Amazon would have to pick up the bill? I'm all for protecting consumers, but a reseller doesn't have any more direct control or responsibility for the actions of a manufacturer than the consumer does. Informally, it seems like trying to collect a debt from a dead person's relative.