I take objection to so much of what you're ranting about here that it's a challenge to keep this from becoming a counter-rant, but I'm going try by focussing only on your basic question.
The Alcor Patient Care Trust is legally obligated to care for those in suspension until they are repaired/revived. The maintenance costs for the patients in suspension is low, but at some point it becomes cheaper to revive them than to keep them perpetually suspended.
Additionally, in order to be on the board of the Trust it's a requirement that you be a signed Alcor member. Additionally, of the 5 people on the board, at least 3 of them must have a relative or significant other in suspension.
I concur. If death is the irreversible cessation of life functions and you can be revived, even if it requires exotic means and advanced nanotechnology, then you were never really "dead" in the first place- just really really bad off.
It's stunning to me how few people seem to grasp this relatively simple concept.
Nature hasn't "decided" this matter any more than nature has decided that people should die from polio or have an average lifespan of around 30 years.
Mankind has decided to cure diseases and improve overall health care. Mankind learned how to perform surgery and develop medicines. Cryonics is a medical procedure- nothing more. It shouldn't rail against your ethics any more than blood transfusions or open heart surgery do.
If it makes you feel any better, cryonics != immortality. You could get blown up or incinerated in a plane crash and still be permanently dead, and even if you manage to avoid that, it currently looks like the universe will end due to entropy eventually anyway. In the meantime, I see no reason to willfully allow myself to die needlessly.
Um, no. If you have the technology to do cellular repair on a molecular level (which is likely a prerequisite to reviving cryonics patients) then old age will be trivial to repair by comparison.
To be clear, when medical technology advances to the point where recovering cryonauts is an issue, the world will have already moved to a place where "natural causes" will have ceased to be a valid cause of death.
I think that actually you've brought up a good point (whether you meant to or not!). What is death really? The definition has changed over time. Given "near-death" experiences, I think a generally acceptable definition would be "the irreversible cessation of life functions". By this definition, if you're stored at the point of clinical death, and later can be repaired and brought back then I suppose you were never truly dead in the first place.
It seems to me that the important thing is the pattern- what makes you uniquely you. If ischemia can be sufficiently mitigated to allow you to be restored then no harm, no foul, no worrying about an ephemeral "soul" moving on to another line of work.:-)
It's only selfish and materialistic if you think that the world is better off without you. Personally, I don't think it's at all arrogant to believe that I'm capable of being a productive member of society- present or future.
I may not be a "great man", but I'm not a parasite on society. I have a lot to contribute. Your comment indicates that you feel otherwise about yourself.
Um, because at liquid nitrogen temperatures there is effectively no metabolic activity whatsoever? This isn't rocket science, 'ya know. It's not even voodoo.
You might wake up someday, but you'll be broke, jobless, a relative idiot, nowhere to live, no friends or family, and maybe will have a crushing medical bill.
Actually, after the first one or two people have been revived it's likely that the technology involved will be commodity and not to terribly expensive. Regardless, the cost is covered by the Patient Care Trust. If you don't have a trust set up then yes, you may come out of it broke, but not in debt.
Broke? Set up a trust like in the original article. There are a couple of different avenues to take in this regard.
Jobless? Probably at first. In all likelihood though, after the first successful resuscitation the rest of the patients (at least the ones who were sufficiently well-preserved as to be recoverable) will probably come out of the tank pretty quickly, allowing them to provide a support structure for each other as they're re-integrated into society.
Idiot? Speak for yourself!;-) By this I assume you mean "will have great difficulty adjusting to life in the future." It seems to me that the traits which will make someone better able to adapt- curiosity, a sense of adventure, zeal for life, willingness to think outside of the world they were originally taught- are the same traits which make one more likely to sign up for cryonics in the first place. It's a self-selecting group.
No friends or family? Again, speak for yourself! I have a few close friends who are already signed up for cryonics, and most of my closest loved ones are in the process of signing up right now. Additionally, the cryonics community is pretty small, and relatively tightly-knit (given geographic diversity). I've met many cryonicists, and despite varying backgrounds, personalities, ages, and "kookiness levels" (I'm being frank here), I've noticed a single commonality between them: I like them. Every one I've met has struck me as an interesting and friendly person, and I'll happily go into the future with them. Even the kooky ones.:-)
Thanks, but I think I might prefer to stay dead.
To each his own, I suppose. Best of luck with that. To my way of thinking, cryonic suspension is the second worst thing that can happen to you, but still worth the nearly trivial cost.
Of course, this assumes that in the future there will be absolutely no humanitarians, and no other motivation for people to want to revive cryonauts simply for the sake of allowing someone to live again. Personally, I'm a bit more optimistic about the future than that.
However, even without any altruistic motivation you're still going to be revived. The Patient Care Trust is legally obligated to care for you until the time you are revived. At some point the cost of doing cellular-level repair and reviving you drops below the cost to keep you in storage.
As to the order in which people will be revived, that's likely to be a technical decision. Those who were suspended last will in general be the best preserved (since suspension technology isn't static, and has been improving steadily over the years), and hence the easiest to revive. So the general trend is likely to be last in-first out.
Actually, the body is "ruined" when the original relevant cell structures can no longer be inferred from the current structure. Given that even with current technology tissue samples, fetuses, and some entire organs can be preserved for an arbitrary period of time, thawed, and successfully used it's clear that the issue isn't so simple.
A lot depends on the quality of the suspension, and that can vary significantly depending on the circumstances surrounding the patient's "death". If a body is found after several days then yes, the outlook is grim. Generally a patient isn't just "frozen", but instead goes through a rather involved process to minimize cellular damage using either "standard" cryoprotectants or, more recently, a vitrification solution. There is abundant information available on these processes and their outcomes.
Please get your facts straight. I suggest starting here: http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm but by all means, go elsewhere and do research from other sources! Just please educate yourself on the topic before spouting off about it here.
So they can't cover their expenses well? So what is there to assure a person that Alcor will still be around in even 100 years? What happens to the corpsicles if they go bankrupt?
Alcor is actually two separate legal entities: the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Alcor Patient Care Trust. The Patient Care Trust is financially independent. It owns the property and the entire facility outright, as well as the actual insurance payouts from suspended members (before anyone even goes there, it's set up such that it can't be raided Enron-style). The Trust's sole concern is the care and maintenance (and eventual reanimation) of patients who are in suspension. The maintenance costs are less than most people think (for example: the dewars don't use electricity, and only need to have their liquid nitrogen topped off periodically), and the interest that the Trust earns is more than enough to meet those costs in perpetuity without dipping into the principal. In short, barring a total collapse of society it's not going anywhere.
Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the "face" of Alcor, and handles the actual suspensions, as well as research, PR, training, publishing Cryonics magazine, etc. It rents the facility from the Trust, employs the majority of Alcor's staff, and has significantly higher operating costs than the Trust, without the benefit of a self-sufficient source of income. This is what the grandparent post was referring to.
I think it's important to understand that ALEF needs the PCT, but the PCT does not need ALEF. In the unlikely event ALEF were to fold (I say unlikely because they've been around for over 30 years and have only grown more stable over time), the patients currently in suspension would not be affected one bit. Given that they are the most vulnerable people in the entire operation, I think it makes very good sense that the organization is structured in this way. I wouldn't be wearing this funky bracelet if it were otherwise.
As an aside, almost without exception every concern or objection that I've seen brought up in this thread directly relating to cryonics is addressed on Alcor's web site. A little research goes a long way.
From a functional standpoint I don't know if the Open Firmware tricks we all know and love will carry over, but I share your concern. Frankly, if I can't boot to Firewire Target Disk mode then I don't want one, no matter how fast they may be or what other bells & whistles they may have.
The "cap" of which you speak isn't a fixed number. It a factor of several variables, such as the state of the environment (as you mentioned). A much much bigger factor, however, is technology.
At our current food production technology level, we're nowhere close to the carrying capacity of the planet (yes, there are people starving, but it's not due to systemic limitations of the planet or our total ability to produce food). Conversely, if the current population existed 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, they'd be screwed.
This is an educated guess on my part, but I'd expect that our food production tech is currently almost keeping pace with our population growth. However, as time goes by I expect that the population growth curve will level off some, while the tech curve will continue to steepen. Once molecular assembly becomes widespread the whole food problem is likely to become moot.
I'm not sure how it got to be a secret. I've taken my 12" PowerBook into the local Apple store and had it sent off for out-of-warranty repair a couple of times, and I don't think it even cost me $350. In both instances the logic board needed to be replaced.
Maybe our local store folks just aren't motivated to hide it, or maybe they appreciate that I do thorough troubleshooting before contacting them. Who knows?
Back in my Air Force ROTC days, there was a plaque on one wall of our detachment building that said something to the effect of:
"You can shoot down every plane the enemy puts in the air, but if you get back to base and the lead Soviet tank commander is having breakfast in your mess hall you've lost the war, Jack." -A-10 Pilot's Axiom
My very first computer was a Sinclair ZX-80 connected to an old black and white TV. 1k of memory and a membrane keyboard. I didn't even have a cassette drive for the thing. If I wanted to run a program I had to type it in by hand, and as soon as I cut the power it would be gone again. Still, it's what I learned BASIC on. I still have it somewhere, and with a bit of soldering I imagine I could get it back up and running again. Hmmmm... sounds like a weekend project.
Like many on/., my first "real" computer was a C-64. It was a *huge* part of my childhood. (300 baud, baby!) It was still my primary computer well into my college days. I remember typing papers in SpeedScript, and printing them out on an Okidata tractor feed printer. Those were the days! I still have my 64 too, as well as a big box
Next came my Amiga 1200 upgrade, which was like a whole new world. 3.5" floppies, 20 MB hard drive, fully multitasking, and a 2400 baud modem. Still have that, too!
Like you, my introduction to PCs was with Packard Bell. I splurged and got one of the blazing-fast new Pentium processors (60 MHz). I supplemented the original 420 MB drive with an additional 540 MB drive and had no idea what I'd ever do with all of that room. I mean, it was almost a Gig!
Nowadays I can emulate all of them on my PowerBook.:-)
...but the window isn't going to make a bit of difference.
In actuality, the idea of of "observation" from a quantum physics perspective is generally misunderstood. Rather than "observe", perhaps "interact" would be a more colloquially accurate term.
For the waveform to collapse to a single state does not require a conscious entity to literally observe the closed system. Anything which interacts with the system would be considered an observer, whether it be a single x-ray passing through the box or even any kind of gravitational effects from the mass inside (since in theory, given sufficiently sensitive equipment the center of gravitational mass of a cat that's standing up and a cat that's lying dead on the floor are measurably different from outside the box).
In reality, the box would almost have to exist in a different dimension to be a truly closed system, and even then there remains the possibility of interaction on a quantum level.
I swear to you, I'm not posting this to be a dick. It's only because you brought it up first, and I think this stuff is fascinating.:-)
Is this a mission statement from the early 1990's or something?
Probably. It's also another chunk of brain cells that I can throw away, having etched the now-obsolete old mission statement into permanent memory back in my ROTC days.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to organize, train, and equip air forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations in the air." How is it that I remember this off the top of my head after not giving it a thought in over 12 years, yet I can't recall what I had for lunch yesterday?
If you wanted a game with *real* risk (not this pussy "no permadeath!" fake risk that you champion), then after you "get killed" in Quake, rusty metal spikes would shoot out of your PC into your eyes, heart, and genitals.
That's a great idea! Except... how many people do you think would play a game that's likely to kill and/or maim them in real life? My guess is that such a game would set records for poor sales.
Why do you think that is? Simple- only the most deranged or mentally crippled people don't clearly and intuitively grasp the difference between video game violence and real-world violence.
I can't believe that after over 25 years of video games being a mainstream phenomenon people still make these ludicrous arguments. It saddens me to think that you feel that people are so feebleminded as to be that easily influenced.
The first example is ascribing unrealistic levels of influence to playing a video game. The second is simply a matter of TV misinforming viewers. Huge difference.
I can spread bogus information all day, and if I make it sound sufficiently technical a good chunk of the populace will believe it. That doesn't mean that I can convince people that it's okay to go on a killing spree.
This is a perfect example of why I almost never watch TV, but still play video games.
I also play MxO, and have no problem with the billboards. The game takes place in a city, so billboards are a natural part of the environment. They've rotated enough to stay fresh and interesting, and are an unobtrusive bit of extra 'color' to the universe. (I personally liked the Alienware ads.)
At times they've even been relevent to the plot of the game. There was story arc that included coded graffiti on the billboards. It didn't influence me to buy any particular products, but it was fun.
Like most of Slashdot, Sony is on my shit list right now, but frankly I have no problem with them taking advantage of alternative revenue streams like this.
Slashdot Mirror
I take objection to so much of what you're ranting about here that it's a challenge to keep this from becoming a counter-rant, but I'm going try by focussing only on your basic question.
u nd.html
The Alcor Patient Care Trust is legally obligated to care for those in suspension until they are repaired/revived. The maintenance costs for the patients in suspension is low, but at some point it becomes cheaper to revive them than to keep them perpetually suspended.
Additionally, in order to be on the board of the Trust it's a requirement that you be a signed Alcor member. Additionally, of the 5 people on the board, at least 3 of them must have a relative or significant other in suspension.
Check here for more information:
http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/patientcaretrustf
-Cybrex
I concur. If death is the irreversible cessation of life functions and you can be revived, even if it requires exotic means and advanced nanotechnology, then you were never really "dead" in the first place- just really really bad off.
It's stunning to me how few people seem to grasp this relatively simple concept.
-Cybrex
Nature hasn't "decided" this matter any more than nature has decided that people should die from polio or have an average lifespan of around 30 years.
Mankind has decided to cure diseases and improve overall health care. Mankind learned how to perform surgery and develop medicines. Cryonics is a medical procedure- nothing more. It shouldn't rail against your ethics any more than blood transfusions or open heart surgery do.
If it makes you feel any better, cryonics != immortality. You could get blown up or incinerated in a plane crash and still be permanently dead, and even if you manage to avoid that, it currently looks like the universe will end due to entropy eventually anyway. In the meantime, I see no reason to willfully allow myself to die needlessly.
-Cybrex
Well put, sir. That's exactly the argument I was going to make, though you worded it much more lucidly than I likely would have.
-Cybrex
Um, no. If you have the technology to do cellular repair on a molecular level (which is likely a prerequisite to reviving cryonics patients) then old age will be trivial to repair by comparison.
To be clear, when medical technology advances to the point where recovering cryonauts is an issue, the world will have already moved to a place where "natural causes" will have ceased to be a valid cause of death.
I think that actually you've brought up a good point (whether you meant to or not!). What is death really? The definition has changed over time. Given "near-death" experiences, I think a generally acceptable definition would be "the irreversible cessation of life functions". By this definition, if you're stored at the point of clinical death, and later can be repaired and brought back then I suppose you were never truly dead in the first place.
:-)
It seems to me that the important thing is the pattern- what makes you uniquely you. If ischemia can be sufficiently mitigated to allow you to be restored then no harm, no foul, no worrying about an ephemeral "soul" moving on to another line of work.
It's only selfish and materialistic if you think that the world is better off without you. Personally, I don't think it's at all arrogant to believe that I'm capable of being a productive member of society- present or future.
I may not be a "great man", but I'm not a parasite on society. I have a lot to contribute. Your comment indicates that you feel otherwise about yourself.
Um, because at liquid nitrogen temperatures there is effectively no metabolic activity whatsoever? This isn't rocket science, 'ya know. It's not even voodoo.
You might wake up someday, but you'll be broke, jobless, a relative idiot, nowhere to live, no friends or family, and maybe will have a crushing medical bill.
;-) By this I assume you mean "will have great difficulty adjusting to life in the future." It seems to me that the traits which will make someone better able to adapt- curiosity, a sense of adventure, zeal for life, willingness to think outside of the world they were originally taught- are the same traits which make one more likely to sign up for cryonics in the first place. It's a self-selecting group.
:-)
Actually, after the first one or two people have been revived it's likely that the technology involved will be commodity and not to terribly expensive. Regardless, the cost is covered by the Patient Care Trust. If you don't have a trust set up then yes, you may come out of it broke, but not in debt.
Broke? Set up a trust like in the original article. There are a couple of different avenues to take in this regard.
Jobless? Probably at first. In all likelihood though, after the first successful resuscitation the rest of the patients (at least the ones who were sufficiently well-preserved as to be recoverable) will probably come out of the tank pretty quickly, allowing them to provide a support structure for each other as they're re-integrated into society.
Idiot? Speak for yourself!
No friends or family? Again, speak for yourself! I have a few close friends who are already signed up for cryonics, and most of my closest loved ones are in the process of signing up right now. Additionally, the cryonics community is pretty small, and relatively tightly-knit (given geographic diversity). I've met many cryonicists, and despite varying backgrounds, personalities, ages, and "kookiness levels" (I'm being frank here), I've noticed a single commonality between them: I like them. Every one I've met has struck me as an interesting and friendly person, and I'll happily go into the future with them. Even the kooky ones.
Thanks, but I think I might prefer to stay dead.
To each his own, I suppose. Best of luck with that. To my way of thinking, cryonic suspension is the second worst thing that can happen to you, but still worth the nearly trivial cost.
Of course, this assumes that in the future there will be absolutely no humanitarians, and no other motivation for people to want to revive cryonauts simply for the sake of allowing someone to live again. Personally, I'm a bit more optimistic about the future than that.
However, even without any altruistic motivation you're still going to be revived. The Patient Care Trust is legally obligated to care for you until the time you are revived. At some point the cost of doing cellular-level repair and reviving you drops below the cost to keep you in storage.
As to the order in which people will be revived, that's likely to be a technical decision. Those who were suspended last will in general be the best preserved (since suspension technology isn't static, and has been improving steadily over the years), and hence the easiest to revive. So the general trend is likely to be last in-first out.
-Cybrex
Actually, the body is "ruined" when the original relevant cell structures can no longer be inferred from the current structure. Given that even with current technology tissue samples, fetuses, and some entire organs can be preserved for an arbitrary period of time, thawed, and successfully used it's clear that the issue isn't so simple.
A lot depends on the quality of the suspension, and that can vary significantly depending on the circumstances surrounding the patient's "death". If a body is found after several days then yes, the outlook is grim. Generally a patient isn't just "frozen", but instead goes through a rather involved process to minimize cellular damage using either "standard" cryoprotectants or, more recently, a vitrification solution. There is abundant information available on these processes and their outcomes.
Please get your facts straight. I suggest starting here: http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm but by all means, go elsewhere and do research from other sources! Just please educate yourself on the topic before spouting off about it here.
There is actually a trust already set up in Liechtenstein for precisely this purpose, as there are no perpetuity laws there.
-Cybrex
So they can't cover their expenses well? So what is there to assure a person that Alcor will still be around in even 100 years? What happens to the corpsicles if they go bankrupt?
Alcor is actually two separate legal entities: the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Alcor Patient Care Trust. The Patient Care Trust is financially independent. It owns the property and the entire facility outright, as well as the actual insurance payouts from suspended members (before anyone even goes there, it's set up such that it can't be raided Enron-style). The Trust's sole concern is the care and maintenance (and eventual reanimation) of patients who are in suspension. The maintenance costs are less than most people think (for example: the dewars don't use electricity, and only need to have their liquid nitrogen topped off periodically), and the interest that the Trust earns is more than enough to meet those costs in perpetuity without dipping into the principal. In short, barring a total collapse of society it's not going anywhere.
Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the "face" of Alcor, and handles the actual suspensions, as well as research, PR, training, publishing Cryonics magazine, etc. It rents the facility from the Trust, employs the majority of Alcor's staff, and has significantly higher operating costs than the Trust, without the benefit of a self-sufficient source of income. This is what the grandparent post was referring to.
I think it's important to understand that ALEF needs the PCT, but the PCT does not need ALEF. In the unlikely event ALEF were to fold (I say unlikely because they've been around for over 30 years and have only grown more stable over time), the patients currently in suspension would not be affected one bit. Given that they are the most vulnerable people in the entire operation, I think it makes very good sense that the organization is structured in this way. I wouldn't be wearing this funky bracelet if it were otherwise.
As an aside, almost without exception every concern or objection that I've seen brought up in this thread directly relating to cryonics is addressed on Alcor's web site. A little research goes a long way.
I've heard that it uses an Intel technology called "Extensible Firmware Interface" (EFI). http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
From a functional standpoint I don't know if the Open Firmware tricks we all know and love will carry over, but I share your concern. Frankly, if I can't boot to Firewire Target Disk mode then I don't want one, no matter how fast they may be or what other bells & whistles they may have.
The "cap" of which you speak isn't a fixed number. It a factor of several variables, such as the state of the environment (as you mentioned). A much much bigger factor, however, is technology.
At our current food production technology level, we're nowhere close to the carrying capacity of the planet (yes, there are people starving, but it's not due to systemic limitations of the planet or our total ability to produce food). Conversely, if the current population existed 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, they'd be screwed.
This is an educated guess on my part, but I'd expect that our food production tech is currently almost keeping pace with our population growth. However, as time goes by I expect that the population growth curve will level off some, while the tech curve will continue to steepen. Once molecular assembly becomes widespread the whole food problem is likely to become moot.
I'm not sure how it got to be a secret. I've taken my 12" PowerBook into the local Apple store and had it sent off for out-of-warranty repair a couple of times, and I don't think it even cost me $350. In both instances the logic board needed to be replaced.
Maybe our local store folks just aren't motivated to hide it, or maybe they appreciate that I do thorough troubleshooting before contacting them. Who knows?
-Cybrex
Back in my Air Force ROTC days, there was a plaque on one wall of our detachment building that said something to the effect of:
"You can shoot down every plane the enemy puts in the air, but if you get back to base and the lead Soviet tank commander is having breakfast in your mess hall you've lost the war, Jack." -A-10 Pilot's Axiom
-Cybrex
The article also mentions that computer sales are still the largest portion of their revenue. So much for "quietly de-emphasizing."
I still have a sizable collection of RUN and Compute!'s Gazette, including the first issues of each. I wonder if they're worth anything?
This whole thread is really making me nostalgic. I need to break out my old stuff and fire up a game of Canyons of Zelaz.
My very first computer was a Sinclair ZX-80 connected to an old black and white TV. 1k of memory and a membrane keyboard. I didn't even have a cassette drive for the thing. If I wanted to run a program I had to type it in by hand, and as soon as I cut the power it would be gone again. Still, it's what I learned BASIC on. I still have it somewhere, and with a bit of soldering I imagine I could get it back up and running again. Hmmmm... sounds like a weekend project.
/., my first "real" computer was a C-64. It was a *huge* part of my childhood. (300 baud, baby!) It was still my primary computer well into my college days. I remember typing papers in SpeedScript, and printing them out on an Okidata tractor feed printer. Those were the days! I still have my 64 too, as well as a big box
:-)
Like many on
Next came my Amiga 1200 upgrade, which was like a whole new world. 3.5" floppies, 20 MB hard drive, fully multitasking, and a 2400 baud modem. Still have that, too!
Like you, my introduction to PCs was with Packard Bell. I splurged and got one of the blazing-fast new Pentium processors (60 MHz). I supplemented the original 420 MB drive with an additional 540 MB drive and had no idea what I'd ever do with all of that room. I mean, it was almost a Gig!
Nowadays I can emulate all of them on my PowerBook.
...but the window isn't going to make a bit of difference.
:-)
In actuality, the idea of of "observation" from a quantum physics perspective is generally misunderstood. Rather than "observe", perhaps "interact" would be a more colloquially accurate term.
For the waveform to collapse to a single state does not require a conscious entity to literally observe the closed system. Anything which interacts with the system would be considered an observer, whether it be a single x-ray passing through the box or even any kind of gravitational effects from the mass inside (since in theory, given sufficiently sensitive equipment the center of gravitational mass of a cat that's standing up and a cat that's lying dead on the floor are measurably different from outside the box).
In reality, the box would almost have to exist in a different dimension to be a truly closed system, and even then there remains the possibility of interaction on a quantum level.
I swear to you, I'm not posting this to be a dick. It's only because you brought it up first, and I think this stuff is fascinating.
Cheers!
-Cybrex
Is this a mission statement from the early 1990's or something?
Probably. It's also another chunk of brain cells that I can throw away, having etched the now-obsolete old mission statement into permanent memory back in my ROTC days.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to organize, train, and equip air forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations in the air." How is it that I remember this off the top of my head after not giving it a thought in over 12 years, yet I can't recall what I had for lunch yesterday?
If you wanted a game with *real* risk (not this pussy "no permadeath!" fake risk that you champion), then after you "get killed" in Quake, rusty metal spikes would shoot out of your PC into your eyes, heart, and genitals.
That's a great idea! Except... how many people do you think would play a game that's likely to kill and/or maim them in real life? My guess is that such a game would set records for poor sales.
Why do you think that is? Simple- only the most deranged or mentally crippled people don't clearly and intuitively grasp the difference between video game violence and real-world violence.
I can't believe that after over 25 years of video games being a mainstream phenomenon people still make these ludicrous arguments. It saddens me to think that you feel that people are so feebleminded as to be that easily influenced.
-Cybrex
The first example is ascribing unrealistic levels of influence to playing a video game. The second is simply a matter of TV misinforming viewers. Huge difference.
I can spread bogus information all day, and if I make it sound sufficiently technical a good chunk of the populace will believe it. That doesn't mean that I can convince people that it's okay to go on a killing spree.
This is a perfect example of why I almost never watch TV, but still play video games.
-Cybrex
I also play MxO, and have no problem with the billboards. The game takes place in a city, so billboards are a natural part of the environment. They've rotated enough to stay fresh and interesting, and are an unobtrusive bit of extra 'color' to the universe. (I personally liked the Alienware ads.)
At times they've even been relevent to the plot of the game. There was story arc that included coded graffiti on the billboards. It didn't influence me to buy any particular products, but it was fun.
Like most of Slashdot, Sony is on my shit list right now, but frankly I have no problem with them taking advantage of alternative revenue streams like this.