It's a little harder than that, though. You not only have to fake a server connection, but you have to actually write your own server for it. For example, the save file management is all done by the server opaquely. It's not as easy as an authorization. It's likely not impossible either, but it's considerably more work.
At this point the major pirate groups have a better reputation than game publishers.
If true, that's a real shame. Game developers just want to make money from their work. What is it the pirates want, exactly? We can say they want to free gamers from the shackles of oppressive DRM, but if we follow this chicken and egg back to the start, there were pirates long before there was DRM.
Besides, if you don't like the DRM, the ethical course of action is to *not buy the game* and not to steal it. Pirates aren't modern day Robin Hoods. They're plain old thieves, and they're an integral part of the conflict that is destroying PC gaming. I'd call them an inexorable force of nature, like a storm or something, but they are still people with free will, and they use that free will to take for free what others toiled to produce.
The problem is that they mistakenly assumed that not purchasing at all would have a different effect than pirating the game, it doesn't. If AC2 came out and was not pirated at all but a similar number of people didn't buy it ubisoft would STILL BLAME PIRACY.
That makes no sense. And I realize you could just respond with something like "that's my point", but I really mean it makes no sense. They have evidence the game is pirated by looking at their update servers. If that evidence disappeared, on what grounds would they continue to blame piracy?
That sounds pretty reasonable. My probability and confidence numbers would probably be closer to 10%/10%, but I emphasize the second 10% as you did, which is to say that I have a feeling about it that I'm ultimately not hugely confident in. My first number is so low primarily from personal experience and anecdotal evidence, which is also why my second number is so low:)
"Therefore, I can dismiss their findings out of hand and continue to believe what I already believe."
Your reasoning, according to you:
Tell me that you've [...] read several papers with sound statistics showing no correlation, and maybe I'll think about believing that video game violence does not promote real violence. Until then, I will consider video game violence a potential risk.
Do you consider everything a potential risk as a default stance? If not, isn't that the same reasoning you are criticizing?
Because the public is *fascinated* with stories where no causal link between violence and video games is shown. Or, if you prefer, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that no one has yet linked to a detailed debunking of the contents of the study (which no one here even seems to have seen) is not evidence that no such debunking exists or that such a debunking is impossible.
Or we could just design it so that it likes to work. Whenever we imagine something that is intelligent, we imagine something that is humanlike. An intelligent being doesn't *have* to be self-interested to be intelligent, it just has to be self-interested to thrive in a world where survival is a competition. If survival were not a fundamental rule, but were instead an extension of the desire to help others, we could have robots that don't care about personal reward, and only care that they are given the ability to help more.
It will not achieve that until it is smarter than actual humans, informally speaking. So an AI that's as smart as a 3rd grader, I would expect, will independently contribute as much to the advancement of AI as an actual 3rd grader.
Better medicine increasing survivability does not imply that people are more healthy, it just means it's easier to survive when unhealthy.
That seems like an odd distinction. They had to die of something, and I would be reluctant to call them healthy at that point. We may be fatter, but we smoke less. We're fairly disease-free compared to people of that era. People who live into their 70s aren't, by and large, getting round the clock medical care to preserve their fat, unhealthy asses.
I'm not enough of an expert to decisively reject your conclusion, but I'm not exactly arriving at it either.
Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.
Excellent! So in theory, all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true! I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you. Before long, you'll have a majority, and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe!
Finally I'd like to conclude that spirituality is not a "feeling". I don't wake up one day and say I feel more spiritual than another day. Spirituality is your relationship with God. Do you dismiss God and go about your way, or do you realize he is there and strive to live differently as a result?
It absolutely is a feeling. People don't arrive at faith in god through logic. They may employ post hoc rationalization to obfuscate the issue and try to convince themselves and others that they did, but "realizing God is there" is a spiritual feeling, not an intellectual deduction.
I'm reminded of the study in skeptic magazine that, to paraphrase, found that people who believed in god tended to claim that they arrived at their belief in rational ways, but that they think others arrived at their faith through feelings and a desire for comfort and a sense of purpose. I thought that was interesting. It indicates that people recognize feelings as a big motivator for belief in god, but that they are also uncomfortable with admitting to being anything less than perfectly rational. Your denial of spirituality being a feeling coupled with your focus on god defining your life and how you should live it indicates to me that you're the kind of person who needs that comfort and purpose from an outside source, but is uncomfortable admitting to it.
1) Seems like overkill. He evidently doesn't notice that you are stopped at a light with solid brake lights, but if your brake lights are flashing, it'll dawn on him that he should stop? Maybe I'll buy that it improves your chances, but a guy has to be pretty damn unobservant to hit you in the first place, so I wouldn't be so sure he'll notice that either. For my part, driving a stick, I'll start drifting if I do that on a hill.
2) As mentioned elsewhere, sometimes you won't be able to see the intersection well enough at that distance, and sometimes a sensor won't trigger. And as for a car looking like it's going to rear end you, how do you tell? People bear down pretty fast sometimes and they almost never actually hit you. Are you going to gun the car and swerve off to the side every time a person waits questionably long before braking?
3) This is not bad advice, exactly, but it doesn't seem appreciably different, in principle, from just suggesting people never drive at all to reduce their chances of being in an accident. Sometimes driving at those times is unavoidable. Sometimes it's part of your lifestyle.
4) Again, good advice. In general, avoid driving in poor weather conditions. But sometimes you don't have a choice. Or at least the alternative could seem worse.
*shrug* sure, I was just pointing out the Christian bias that leads one to immediately conclude that mocking the creation story is primarily bias against Christians rather than against Jews or, as you point out, Muslims.
More pertinent would be whether or not it would buy a house she would consider purchasing. I don't know enough about her situation to say one way or another on that, but for what little it's worth, she doesn't sound terribly wealthy.
i really hope you go to jail and get aids in a jail rape..
I would like to point out that it doesn't amount to a lost opportunity to acquire AIDS by other means, just because a prisoner distributed it to him for free.
It says they have to "adversely affect" the business to be considered slander per se. How do you prove adverse effect without proving that damage was done?
Good point, but distributing 3000 CDs doesn't mean it will stop there either. Anyone you distribute the CD to could distribute their own CDs or even rip the CDs and share the songs on filesharing networks. So, for sake of analogy, we should probably stick to what a person distributes *personally*.
Actually, the correct analogy would be that you shoplifted the CD and then the courts *presumed without evidence* that you had printed off 3000 CDs and given them away for free.
Keep an eye on that vein in your forehead.... Honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. You could most likely buy *a* house in her area with 54,000 dollars. If it wouldn't be enough for a reasonably nice house, maybe that undermines his point a bit, but the point is that 54,000 dollars is still quite a lot of money for a person who isn't independently wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
How bad could it be? Basically every multiplayer game ever uses this scheme. Just substitute "AI" for "Human beings"
Sure, people complain about lag, but it's very tolerable, or people would have given up on online gaming long ago.
It's a little harder than that, though. You not only have to fake a server connection, but you have to actually write your own server for it. For example, the save file management is all done by the server opaquely. It's not as easy as an authorization. It's likely not impossible either, but it's considerably more work.
At this point the major pirate groups have a better reputation than game publishers.
If true, that's a real shame. Game developers just want to make money from their work. What is it the pirates want, exactly? We can say they want to free gamers from the shackles of oppressive DRM, but if we follow this chicken and egg back to the start, there were pirates long before there was DRM.
Besides, if you don't like the DRM, the ethical course of action is to *not buy the game* and not to steal it. Pirates aren't modern day Robin Hoods. They're plain old thieves, and they're an integral part of the conflict that is destroying PC gaming. I'd call them an inexorable force of nature, like a storm or something, but they are still people with free will, and they use that free will to take for free what others toiled to produce.
The problem is that they mistakenly assumed that not purchasing at all would have a different effect than pirating the game, it doesn't. If AC2 came out and was not pirated at all but a similar number of people didn't buy it ubisoft would STILL BLAME PIRACY.
That makes no sense. And I realize you could just respond with something like "that's my point", but I really mean it makes no sense. They have evidence the game is pirated by looking at their update servers. If that evidence disappeared, on what grounds would they continue to blame piracy?
There is a downside though.
The manager who greenlights the DRM scheme and the engineers who design and code it are different people.
That sounds pretty reasonable. My probability and confidence numbers would probably be closer to 10%/10%, but I emphasize the second 10% as you did, which is to say that I have a feeling about it that I'm ultimately not hugely confident in. My first number is so low primarily from personal experience and anecdotal evidence, which is also why my second number is so low :)
"Therefore, I can dismiss their findings out of hand and continue to believe what I already believe."
Your reasoning, according to you:
Tell me that you've [...] read several papers with sound statistics showing no correlation, and maybe I'll think about believing that video game violence does not promote real violence. Until then, I will consider video game violence a potential risk.
Do you consider everything a potential risk as a default stance? If not, isn't that the same reasoning you are criticizing?
As it should be. Or do you think parents should be criminals if they decide that the government is wrong about what is appropriate for their children?
Because the public is *fascinated* with stories where no causal link between violence and video games is shown. Or, if you prefer, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that no one has yet linked to a detailed debunking of the contents of the study (which no one here even seems to have seen) is not evidence that no such debunking exists or that such a debunking is impossible.
Or we could just design it so that it likes to work. Whenever we imagine something that is intelligent, we imagine something that is humanlike. An intelligent being doesn't *have* to be self-interested to be intelligent, it just has to be self-interested to thrive in a world where survival is a competition. If survival were not a fundamental rule, but were instead an extension of the desire to help others, we could have robots that don't care about personal reward, and only care that they are given the ability to help more.
It is not a theory; it is a fact.
Wow, that's a staggering lack of reading comprehension. I am staggered, sir.
I expect people to respect my right to believe that God is real and for them to do so without trying to claim I suffer from retardation.
You get that a lot, do you?
It will not achieve that until it is smarter than actual humans, informally speaking. So an AI that's as smart as a 3rd grader, I would expect, will independently contribute as much to the advancement of AI as an actual 3rd grader.
Better medicine increasing survivability does not imply that people are more healthy, it just means it's easier to survive when unhealthy.
That seems like an odd distinction. They had to die of something, and I would be reluctant to call them healthy at that point. We may be fatter, but we smoke less. We're fairly disease-free compared to people of that era. People who live into their 70s aren't, by and large, getting round the clock medical care to preserve their fat, unhealthy asses.
I'm not enough of an expert to decisively reject your conclusion, but I'm not exactly arriving at it either.
Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.
Excellent! So in theory, all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true! I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you. Before long, you'll have a majority, and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe!
Finally I'd like to conclude that spirituality is not a "feeling". I don't wake up one day and say I feel more spiritual than another day. Spirituality is your relationship with God. Do you dismiss God and go about your way, or do you realize he is there and strive to live differently as a result?
It absolutely is a feeling. People don't arrive at faith in god through logic. They may employ post hoc rationalization to obfuscate the issue and try to convince themselves and others that they did, but "realizing God is there" is a spiritual feeling, not an intellectual deduction.
I'm reminded of the study in skeptic magazine that, to paraphrase, found that people who believed in god tended to claim that they arrived at their belief in rational ways, but that they think others arrived at their faith through feelings and a desire for comfort and a sense of purpose. I thought that was interesting. It indicates that people recognize feelings as a big motivator for belief in god, but that they are also uncomfortable with admitting to being anything less than perfectly rational. Your denial of spirituality being a feeling coupled with your focus on god defining your life and how you should live it indicates to me that you're the kind of person who needs that comfort and purpose from an outside source, but is uncomfortable admitting to it.
1) Seems like overkill. He evidently doesn't notice that you are stopped at a light with solid brake lights, but if your brake lights are flashing, it'll dawn on him that he should stop? Maybe I'll buy that it improves your chances, but a guy has to be pretty damn unobservant to hit you in the first place, so I wouldn't be so sure he'll notice that either. For my part, driving a stick, I'll start drifting if I do that on a hill.
2) As mentioned elsewhere, sometimes you won't be able to see the intersection well enough at that distance, and sometimes a sensor won't trigger. And as for a car looking like it's going to rear end you, how do you tell? People bear down pretty fast sometimes and they almost never actually hit you. Are you going to gun the car and swerve off to the side every time a person waits questionably long before braking?
3) This is not bad advice, exactly, but it doesn't seem appreciably different, in principle, from just suggesting people never drive at all to reduce their chances of being in an accident. Sometimes driving at those times is unavoidable. Sometimes it's part of your lifestyle.
4) Again, good advice. In general, avoid driving in poor weather conditions. But sometimes you don't have a choice. Or at least the alternative could seem worse.
*shrug* sure, I was just pointing out the Christian bias that leads one to immediately conclude that mocking the creation story is primarily bias against Christians rather than against Jews or, as you point out, Muslims.
Christians? I thought Genesis was a Jewish story, first.
More pertinent would be whether or not it would buy a house she would consider purchasing. I don't know enough about her situation to say one way or another on that, but for what little it's worth, she doesn't sound terribly wealthy.
i really hope you go to jail and get aids in a jail rape..
I would like to point out that it doesn't amount to a lost opportunity to acquire AIDS by other means, just because a prisoner distributed it to him for free.
It says they have to "adversely affect" the business to be considered slander per se. How do you prove adverse effect without proving that damage was done?
Good point, but distributing 3000 CDs doesn't mean it will stop there either. Anyone you distribute the CD to could distribute their own CDs or even rip the CDs and share the songs on filesharing networks. So, for sake of analogy, we should probably stick to what a person distributes *personally*.
Actually, the correct analogy would be that you shoplifted the CD and then the courts *presumed without evidence* that you had printed off 3000 CDs and given them away for free.
Keep an eye on that vein in your forehead.... Honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. You could most likely buy *a* house in her area with 54,000 dollars. If it wouldn't be enough for a reasonably nice house, maybe that undermines his point a bit, but the point is that 54,000 dollars is still quite a lot of money for a person who isn't independently wealthy.