Or, to torture the analogy some more, it'll drive on new roads, but whenever a new road is laid down, there are some lanes that will be maintained and updated, and only the people who removed their 5th seat are permitted to drive on them.
Formally, it's an EULA issue. You license software with the implicit assumption that you will need to agree to the license agreement or not be able to use it. Sony's license agreement may not be fair (I don't think it is), but that isn't Amazon's fault.
huh. Still doesn't seem to me that that should be Amazon's responsibility. There's not exactly anything they could have done about it. I suppose the law also permits Amazon to recoup some of their costs under the same circumstances?
Let me get this out of the way: I'm disappointed in Sony for removing this feature. I firmly come down on the side of "this is bullshit"
However, I think that Amazon paying out for this unit is *also* bullshit. The product did do everything it was advertised to do. You separately agree to an EULA for use of the Playstation Network. Sony can do pretty much whatever it wants regarding that, up to and including terminating the network altogether, so your recourse, in this case, is to give up PSN usage to keep the Other OS feature. If Sony *did* discontinue the PSN service years after you purchased your system, would it be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon?
True, I've ridden the orange version of Mission Space, and it is an intense simulation. I wonder, if we were to spare no expense, if we could hook the rotation of the centrifuge up to accelerator and brake controls and, if we did, how close we'd come to approximating the feeling.
To me, the biggest hurdle, and one that's impossible to surmount in a simulator is the lack of acceleration. When driving, I get a better sense for how rapidly I've accelerated or braked by *feeling* it than by watching the terrain speed up or slow down in flying past me. I don't have the same intuitive sense of how fast I'm traveling in a simulator.
Yes, well.... it may not be racist to "notice", but it could very well still be racist to draw various conclusions from that. Dennis Miller is smart enough to be vague and let his audience draw their own conclusions so he can plausibly deny charges of racism.
a statistically significant result (p=.05 for instance) is as telling after 5 flips as after 40...
Errr.... I guess it *can* be if the observed result is sufficiently huge. Like if you flipped heads all 5 times, I suppose you get a p value of.... what?.03-ish? If you flipped heads 4/5 times, we've already got a large effect, but our p-value is only ~.16
Your observation, ultimately, is that, if you observe statistically significant results with a low sample size, you had to observe a large effect to do so, and the extrapolation is that observing a large effect increases the likelihood that there is an actual large effect.
That's reasonable. I had mistakenly taken you to mean that the results were less meaningful if you measured more, and I failed to see how you could get anything but more confidence from increased measurement. You were saying the results were less meaningful if you *had* to measure more to see statistical significance
I'm not really sure what you mean by "actually" significant vs "statistically" significant, and that might be where my confusion comes from, but I don't really follow this line of reasoning. I'd think your results are far less likely to be significant with a small N. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I want to know if blowing on dice before rolling creates luckier rolls (we'll arbitrarily define that to mean "higher"). If my procedure is to have a control where I roll N times and measure the results, and an experiment where I blow on the dice first and roll N times and measure the results, would you say there is a flaw in my design? Presuming that you would not, would you say, if N is small, and I see a significant effect, that my results are likely to be "actually" meaningful?
Sure, I'm cheating a bit. We know there is no "actual" effect at all, so *any* observed effect is not an "actual" effect, and yet we are more likely to see an effect for a smaller value of N since dice rolling only tends to its mean when repeated many times.
Seems to me that if you want more stopping distance and visibility, and you're going the same speed as the person ahead of you, you *could* jump over into the other lane. Or you could just slow down for a short time to let the person open up some distance.
An interesting idea. Kind of like earnest money for a house. And yeah, countersuing for legal fees seems to be the best recourse one has now, but it's a huge investment of time, the original plaintiff may not even have the money to pay your legal fees, and you won't see that money for a long time, so, in the short term, you're out a significant chunk of change. It's better than nothing, I guess, but I'm just generally uncomfortable with how easy it is to harass people with litigation.
This is the irritating thing about it. You can harass people with frivolous lawsuits, and, while the judge may throw them out, the lawyers still get paid. Provided the guy's lawyer asks for his fee up front, what is his disincentive to file lawsuits like this one? I really wish lawyers could receive some sort of punishment or censure for wasting the court's time and enabling harassment.
Presumably a reviewer would have commented if the game were *that* bad. You don't get your money back at a restaurant or a movie if the food wasn't to your liking or if you didn't care for the film. The examples you gave were grossly negligent, and if that's the only standard by which you feel entitled to your money back, there are reliable ways to find out without pirating the game.
Speaking of anecdotes, I myself was raised by a single parent, and we didn't have much money (lived in a trailer till I was 10). Nearly to a point my experience differs from your description. Got plenty of attention. Sure, I required the occasional babysitter or daycare while my mom was at work, but that's not a lot different from school, anyway. And while money would have been nice, the lack of it I think gave me an appreciation for money. My girlfriend was raised by fairly wealthy parents and she takes money far more for granted than I do.
Now my experience may not match the statistics, but it is what it is.
Not that I didn't want my parents to stay together at the time, and in an ideal world, they would have been better suited to each other, but we play the hand we're dealt, and I don't think mine turned out too badly.
Why do you and others make claims that sex is this super magical thing, that bows you to its "power"? It is just sex.
Well...... if only that were so for most people. Presumably you're making more a point about your own ability to separate the two, because I can't imagine a person getting to an age where they can speak coherent English and not being familiar with the idea that sex can be inextricably tied up with some pretty heavy emotions. Sure, some people swing, but even for many swingers, there's the very real possibility of jealousy or resentment rearing it's ugly head, and there's virtually no one act that can cause so much of that with so much efficiency. The typical wife or girlfriend may grow jealous if you're spending every night hanging out with the guys, but you can get a much more pronounced effect much faster by taking an hour to go sleep with her sister.
I thought the same thing he did. The implication when you say that condoms work 98% of the time when used is that, if you have sex with a condom, you run a 2% chance, per sexual encounter of getting the girl pregnant, which, as he pointed out, is inaccurate. The real statistic is far more acceptable.
And you're right that abstinence doesn't work because it isn't used, but it isn't used because it's impractical. If it were the only solution, then presumably it would be the tool of those with great willpower, lower than average sex drives, or worse than average sexual appeal (in the last case, practiced involuntarily). But since we have alternatives that are almost as effective, but far easier to use, the people with lower willpower, higher sex drives, and plenty of opportunity can still escape their teenage years without a life-changing pregnancy or STD.
Give us some data on children raised by two men or two women, and maybe you'll have something. Until then, the most clear difference between a single parent household and a two parent household is the number of parents, and not the presence or absence of one gender or the other.
Also, your original point was phrased as follows:
No, the issue comes when you assume that a woman can provide the same kind and quality of leadership as a man, or a man the same kind and quality of nurturing as a woman.
(emphasis mine)
Statistics about what actually happens in culture are ultimately not very meaningful in determining the true capabilities of the sexes. We could as easily have concluded, 50 years ago, that women generally didn't have what it took to be doctors. And we would have been wrong.
Not accusing you specifically, but it seems that this statement is commonly just a lazy argument to justify just about anything we might do in wartime. Stuff like "War sucks, but there was no way to know that kid didn't have a bomb strapped to him" or "War sucks, but wiping out that city block was the only way to be sure we killed so-and-so". And some of those things do have legitimate justifications depending on circumstances, but it's too easy to dismissively recognize that bad things happen in war.
If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk.
Which might be a deterrent... if they were *his* friends and family. When we shoot at such people anyway, we are making the judgment that it is more important for this person to be dead than it is for the people around him to be alive. It's a hard judgment to stomach, though it does seem compelling to me in some situations.
And what is the evidence that she genuinely mistook one for the other? No one can ask her. And as has been mentioned, the two objects are significantly different; plenty different enough for a 3-year-old to notice. The Wii link is idle speculation.
I still don't buy it. They wouldn't look that similar, and the weight would be way off. The idea that the 3-year-old mistook it for the Wii controller seems absurd, and it is, at best, idle speculation, since we can't exactly ask her now.
I'm not seeing the line of thinking here. Ultimately, if sales figures are poor, they need to justify that to internal management or their projects get canned. You think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of management with false piracy figures? And you know about it? You should tell their bosses and get them fired!
But kidding aside, this reasoning really doesn't make any sense. Consumers shouldn't care why a game is selling or isn't selling, so there's no lie that needs to be told to them. You can explain the necessity for DRM that way, but if there's no actual piracy, why on earth would they shoot themselves in the feet with inconvenient DRMs and try to dig themselves out of this mixed metaphor with an excuse to make consumers feel sorry for them?
There's no coherent thought process that leads to them doing what you say they would do. It just seems like an excuse to make pirates feel like they aren't hurting anything by pirating.
This is nonsensical. They can detect how many pirated copies are hitting their update servers. They don't just check a box for whether a cracked version exists or not. And if they detect that the number of pirated copies is holding steady or decreasing, but that their sales are also decreasing, they aren't going to inexplicably blame it on increased piracy any more than they'd blame it on demonic possession or any other absurd scapegoat.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, to torture the analogy some more, it'll drive on new roads, but whenever a new road is laid down, there are some lanes that will be maintained and updated, and only the people who removed their 5th seat are permitted to drive on them.
Formally, it's an EULA issue. You license software with the implicit assumption that you will need to agree to the license agreement or not be able to use it. Sony's license agreement may not be fair (I don't think it is), but that isn't Amazon's fault.
huh. Still doesn't seem to me that that should be Amazon's responsibility. There's not exactly anything they could have done about it. I suppose the law also permits Amazon to recoup some of their costs under the same circumstances?
That *is* really close. I'd add one thing. You have the option to keep your fifth seat, but if you do, they'll withold OnStar support.
Let me get this out of the way: I'm disappointed in Sony for removing this feature. I firmly come down on the side of "this is bullshit"
However, I think that Amazon paying out for this unit is *also* bullshit. The product did do everything it was advertised to do. You separately agree to an EULA for use of the Playstation Network. Sony can do pretty much whatever it wants regarding that, up to and including terminating the network altogether, so your recourse, in this case, is to give up PSN usage to keep the Other OS feature. If Sony *did* discontinue the PSN service years after you purchased your system, would it be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon?
True, I've ridden the orange version of Mission Space, and it is an intense simulation. I wonder, if we were to spare no expense, if we could hook the rotation of the centrifuge up to accelerator and brake controls and, if we did, how close we'd come to approximating the feeling.
To me, the biggest hurdle, and one that's impossible to surmount in a simulator is the lack of acceleration. When driving, I get a better sense for how rapidly I've accelerated or braked by *feeling* it than by watching the terrain speed up or slow down in flying past me. I don't have the same intuitive sense of how fast I'm traveling in a simulator.
Yes, well.... it may not be racist to "notice", but it could very well still be racist to draw various conclusions from that. Dennis Miller is smart enough to be vague and let his audience draw their own conclusions so he can plausibly deny charges of racism.
a statistically significant result (p=.05 for instance) is as telling after 5 flips as after 40...
Errr.... I guess it *can* be if the observed result is sufficiently huge. Like if you flipped heads all 5 times, I suppose you get a p value of.... what? .03-ish? If you flipped heads 4/5 times, we've already got a large effect, but our p-value is only ~.16
Your observation, ultimately, is that, if you observe statistically significant results with a low sample size, you had to observe a large effect to do so, and the extrapolation is that observing a large effect increases the likelihood that there is an actual large effect.
That's reasonable. I had mistakenly taken you to mean that the results were less meaningful if you measured more, and I failed to see how you could get anything but more confidence from increased measurement. You were saying the results were less meaningful if you *had* to measure more to see statistical significance
I'm not really sure what you mean by "actually" significant vs "statistically" significant, and that might be where my confusion comes from, but I don't really follow this line of reasoning. I'd think your results are far less likely to be significant with a small N. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I want to know if blowing on dice before rolling creates luckier rolls (we'll arbitrarily define that to mean "higher"). If my procedure is to have a control where I roll N times and measure the results, and an experiment where I blow on the dice first and roll N times and measure the results, would you say there is a flaw in my design? Presuming that you would not, would you say, if N is small, and I see a significant effect, that my results are likely to be "actually" meaningful?
Sure, I'm cheating a bit. We know there is no "actual" effect at all, so *any* observed effect is not an "actual" effect, and yet we are more likely to see an effect for a smaller value of N since dice rolling only tends to its mean when repeated many times.
Seems to me that if you want more stopping distance and visibility, and you're going the same speed as the person ahead of you, you *could* jump over into the other lane. Or you could just slow down for a short time to let the person open up some distance.
An interesting idea. Kind of like earnest money for a house. And yeah, countersuing for legal fees seems to be the best recourse one has now, but it's a huge investment of time, the original plaintiff may not even have the money to pay your legal fees, and you won't see that money for a long time, so, in the short term, you're out a significant chunk of change. It's better than nothing, I guess, but I'm just generally uncomfortable with how easy it is to harass people with litigation.
This is the irritating thing about it. You can harass people with frivolous lawsuits, and, while the judge may throw them out, the lawyers still get paid. Provided the guy's lawyer asks for his fee up front, what is his disincentive to file lawsuits like this one? I really wish lawyers could receive some sort of punishment or censure for wasting the court's time and enabling harassment.
Presumably a reviewer would have commented if the game were *that* bad. You don't get your money back at a restaurant or a movie if the food wasn't to your liking or if you didn't care for the film. The examples you gave were grossly negligent, and if that's the only standard by which you feel entitled to your money back, there are reliable ways to find out without pirating the game.
Can you also not stand how slow people talk in every day conversation? I mean, it's basically like having someone tell you a story.
Speaking of anecdotes, I myself was raised by a single parent, and we didn't have much money (lived in a trailer till I was 10). Nearly to a point my experience differs from your description. Got plenty of attention. Sure, I required the occasional babysitter or daycare while my mom was at work, but that's not a lot different from school, anyway. And while money would have been nice, the lack of it I think gave me an appreciation for money. My girlfriend was raised by fairly wealthy parents and she takes money far more for granted than I do.
Now my experience may not match the statistics, but it is what it is.
Not that I didn't want my parents to stay together at the time, and in an ideal world, they would have been better suited to each other, but we play the hand we're dealt, and I don't think mine turned out too badly.
Why do you and others make claims that sex is this super magical thing, that bows you to its "power"? It is just sex.
Well...... if only that were so for most people. Presumably you're making more a point about your own ability to separate the two, because I can't imagine a person getting to an age where they can speak coherent English and not being familiar with the idea that sex can be inextricably tied up with some pretty heavy emotions. Sure, some people swing, but even for many swingers, there's the very real possibility of jealousy or resentment rearing it's ugly head, and there's virtually no one act that can cause so much of that with so much efficiency. The typical wife or girlfriend may grow jealous if you're spending every night hanging out with the guys, but you can get a much more pronounced effect much faster by taking an hour to go sleep with her sister.
I thought the same thing he did. The implication when you say that condoms work 98% of the time when used is that, if you have sex with a condom, you run a 2% chance, per sexual encounter of getting the girl pregnant, which, as he pointed out, is inaccurate. The real statistic is far more acceptable.
And you're right that abstinence doesn't work because it isn't used, but it isn't used because it's impractical. If it were the only solution, then presumably it would be the tool of those with great willpower, lower than average sex drives, or worse than average sexual appeal (in the last case, practiced involuntarily). But since we have alternatives that are almost as effective, but far easier to use, the people with lower willpower, higher sex drives, and plenty of opportunity can still escape their teenage years without a life-changing pregnancy or STD.
Give us some data on children raised by two men or two women, and maybe you'll have something. Until then, the most clear difference between a single parent household and a two parent household is the number of parents, and not the presence or absence of one gender or the other.
Also, your original point was phrased as follows:
No, the issue comes when you assume that a woman can provide the same kind and quality of leadership as a man, or a man the same kind and quality of nurturing as a woman.
(emphasis mine)
Statistics about what actually happens in culture are ultimately not very meaningful in determining the true capabilities of the sexes. We could as easily have concluded, 50 years ago, that women generally didn't have what it took to be doctors. And we would have been wrong.
War sucks ...
Not accusing you specifically, but it seems that this statement is commonly just a lazy argument to justify just about anything we might do in wartime. Stuff like "War sucks, but there was no way to know that kid didn't have a bomb strapped to him" or "War sucks, but wiping out that city block was the only way to be sure we killed so-and-so". And some of those things do have legitimate justifications depending on circumstances, but it's too easy to dismissively recognize that bad things happen in war.
If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk.
Which might be a deterrent... if they were *his* friends and family. When we shoot at such people anyway, we are making the judgment that it is more important for this person to be dead than it is for the people around him to be alive. It's a hard judgment to stomach, though it does seem compelling to me in some situations.
And what is the evidence that she genuinely mistook one for the other? No one can ask her. And as has been mentioned, the two objects are significantly different; plenty different enough for a 3-year-old to notice. The Wii link is idle speculation.
I still don't buy it. They wouldn't look that similar, and the weight would be way off. The idea that the 3-year-old mistook it for the Wii controller seems absurd, and it is, at best, idle speculation, since we can't exactly ask her now.
I tried to come up with a fitting response
And you subsequently failed, yet posted anyway.
I'm not seeing the line of thinking here. Ultimately, if sales figures are poor, they need to justify that to internal management or their projects get canned. You think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of management with false piracy figures? And you know about it? You should tell their bosses and get them fired!
But kidding aside, this reasoning really doesn't make any sense. Consumers shouldn't care why a game is selling or isn't selling, so there's no lie that needs to be told to them. You can explain the necessity for DRM that way, but if there's no actual piracy, why on earth would they shoot themselves in the feet with inconvenient DRMs and try to dig themselves out of this mixed metaphor with an excuse to make consumers feel sorry for them?
There's no coherent thought process that leads to them doing what you say they would do. It just seems like an excuse to make pirates feel like they aren't hurting anything by pirating.
This is nonsensical. They can detect how many pirated copies are hitting their update servers. They don't just check a box for whether a cracked version exists or not. And if they detect that the number of pirated copies is holding steady or decreasing, but that their sales are also decreasing, they aren't going to inexplicably blame it on increased piracy any more than they'd blame it on demonic possession or any other absurd scapegoat.