For one, Myst had a large impact, as admitted in the question.
For another, when did critics imply that Myst heralded an era of "open ended" gameplay? It was not itself some intensely open ended experience. It was definitely leisurely, but it effectively replaced a game on rails with a game on a Gantt chart. You could approach a few things in any order, but there was usually a limiting factor elsewhere in the world.
Finally, there are numerous games with hugely developed background worlds and interaction with that world that far exceed the slowly expanding maze of puzzle locked doors that made up Myst. I read the Myst books as a kid and loved them, but some LucasArts games of the same era had worlds with a more cohesive character.
The most compelling argument I saw for the 5C, aside from appealing to a different aesthetic, is that it is trying to cannabilize it's own back-catalog of devices (iPhone 5,4s,etc.) that are still out there and already function as the "cheaper" iPhone. This drags that market into the future in terms of connectivity and features so that they can better sell their services and platform to all iPhone users.
Partially in jest, but it sounds like a decent friend filter for your kids. Even at that age, some kids *have* developed non-shallow personalities.
Indeed, if my wife and I were to do this once we have children, we would try to strike a middle ground. No outright banning of modern tech, but definitely limiting it. My nieces (12 and 4) each have their own tablet, and the older one has a new computer, Xbox 360, TV bigger than ours, her own cellphone, and no less than three portable gaming consoles. I'm a technology freak; I love to dabble with anything electronic...but in my opinion that's way too much tech for a developing child.
The problem with even partially going tech-free is that you become the outcast, and your children even more so. When I was growing up in the 80s, being the only kid without a Walkman and NES made me the "poor loser kid" on the block, even though financially we were no worse off than our neighbors. In today's world where children learn to read using Leapfrog tablets instead of actual books, the idea of being without some form of electronic device is considered a hardship at best.
However, it does feed the idea that the alarmism was trumped up for that purpose in the first place, a suspicion that many have had over the years. If too many people, scientist or not, subscribe to this "ends justifies the means" rationalization (instead of just saying that they were mistaken), that is not going to foster public trust in the scientific community.
I guess the smiley face wasn't making it clear I was going for a joke. Honestly, I would mod *myself* overrated, I was going for Funny, not Interesting!
I'm not usually a big proponent of what might be called 'political correctness' but I am a proponent of not being a cad.
In small circulation, you know everyone and they can tell you upfront if a name like this bothers them. But for wide circulation, it seems in slightly bad taste to name it after a pretty tragic act. I guess I would see the names Genocidal Giraffe, Raping Raccoon, or Junkie Jellyfish in a similar light.
Yes, I had fun coming up with those names, but I'm not naming a kernel version!
I think the particular usage of CNO here is mostly descriptive rather than a legal category, as the term itself is broad. Therefore I don't think you can infer a legal classification into crime, terrorism, act of war, etc. from that usage.
I think partially it's unclear, despite the name, where exactly they are, or if it is anything more than a loose affiliation, some of whom may be in the US.
I'm sure there's evidence aside from the group's own testimony. However, come to think of it, if I were a domestic hacker group, and I wanted to throw a sensationalist red herring in there, this isn't a bad idea. You could potentially end up drafting unsuspecting Syrian experts into running cover for you while they do their own thing.
I commented on this elsewhere, but I'll do it again because people are getting whipped up about it.
The IB Times is entirely responsible for using the label terrorism. The FBI did not call it terrorism. Here's a direct link to the FBI advisory requesting information about website defacement. Consistent with the FBI's domestic focus.
They could be after guns eventually. The NRA isn't stating the entire purpose of the data storage is to create a gun registry. They just believe that among the myriad possible abuses of such data are ones that conflict with their mission statement. I can't see faulting them for this; advocacy organizations can usually only spend money on issues related to their cause.
While paranoia of an individual applied to everyone around him can be absurd, when you apply paranoia to a large governmental organization that will exist longer than you or I, I prefer to think of it as testing edge cases.
Regardless of whether you think there should be a registry or not, I don't think it's absurd to imagine that given an NSA database, creating one becomes simply an algorithmic problem with the data you have (among a huge number of similar "Why don't we use this data to...." eventualities).
Also not applicable because, from your description, public school means something very different there.
Hong Kong probably has few lessons for a system that tries to provide education for all, rather than just recruiting the smartest and leaving the rest to fend for themselves.
That sounds rather regressive, honestly. Is there no public provision for everyone's education?
Legit question. What evidence are you talking about?
I'm no pot advocate. The smell is pretty sickening. However, I have known people who partake to some degree. While I frankly don't like how it affects them, it's not worse than being around annoying drunk people. Even illegal, it's not a huge drain on their income, and their use from what I can tell is maybe weekly, and far from being as compulsive as tobacco. No random scary freak outs either.
Maybe adds a bit of danger to society, but we allow people to do other things that are dangerous, including drinking and owning guns and there's just a huge cost to locking these people up, but monetarily and societally.
Honestly, why should I care that people smoke pot? What's the evidence that it's worth caring about? Convince me, here.
I've lost track of what the substitutionary word "'Murkin" or '"Merka" is even supposed to be making fun of any more. Haha, let's laugh at the accent of people that drive trucks? I just see it plopped into seemingly unrelated snarky posts about America. I mean, I'm all for being snarky, but I don't even get the point you're trying to make.
If anything that makes the issue far *more* problematic. If a one year old has "no consciousness to speak of", we have two options. Grant only subhuman rights to infants, or accept that human rights and right to life is not contingent only on consciousness .
Now, we've damaged the argument that these mini-brains are morally safe because they have no consciousness.
This made me feel very uneasy. These brains are probably equivalent to miscarriaged fetuses, but what if we grew them a little large? Started feeding them electrical signals from the outside? Accepted electrical signals they provided into a feedback loop that sent more complicated signals back? We've now introduced them to *an* outside world if not *our* outside world. When does that consciousness start?
We have no idea how long he was in Indonesia. He could easily have been symptomatic on his way back in.
They have guidelines for other symptomatic diseases, so customs clearly doesn't think it's not worth considering.
Just because precautionary guidelines won't work 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time, for totally valid reason you've mentioned, doesn't mean it's not worth having the guidelines at all.
The studies shown do not compared otherwise similar individuals in otherwise similar countries. They compare countries in which the IQ tests were designed with countries that are vastly different culturally, economically, and in many other ways. Twin studies are great, and I'm not saying IQ is not heritable. I'm saying the religious correlation is weakly argued.
Second, that still does not address the fact that the comparison between countries is nowhere approaching linear. It tops out at only 15% atheism. I suppose you could propose a saturation model of some sort, but that is now reaching for a model to make the data say what you want.
The only people refusing to get vaccinated are the religious nut jobs here.
Bzzzt. You try again. This fear cuts across the spectrum.
Even a few years ago Joel Stein talked about meetings with "doctors" who rattled off false statistics or even some horrifying statistics ("Oh only 1% of polio sufferers become paralyzed") as if they were nothing to convince people not to vaccinate. These were secular events attended by well off suburban parents, not "religious nutjobs". Jenny McCarthy still acts as a non-religious advocate for this position.
As an addendum, judging by the linked graph, you get almost all of the intelligence boost to your population with 15% atheism, and just noise after that. Honestly, it's noisiest exactly around 0% atheism. Almost like there's another variable in play:)
Another way to read it is just that the most intelligent countries are all over in terms of belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't accept the premise of the question.
For one, Myst had a large impact, as admitted in the question.
For another, when did critics imply that Myst heralded an era of "open ended" gameplay? It was not itself some intensely open ended experience. It was definitely leisurely, but it effectively replaced a game on rails with a game on a Gantt chart. You could approach a few things in any order, but there was usually a limiting factor elsewhere in the world.
Finally, there are numerous games with hugely developed background worlds and interaction with that world that far exceed the slowly expanding maze of puzzle locked doors that made up Myst. I read the Myst books as a kid and loved them, but some LucasArts games of the same era had worlds with a more cohesive character.
The most compelling argument I saw for the 5C, aside from appealing to a different aesthetic, is that it is trying to cannabilize it's own back-catalog of devices (iPhone 5,4s,etc.) that are still out there and already function as the "cheaper" iPhone. This drags that market into the future in terms of connectivity and features so that they can better sell their services and platform to all iPhone users.
Partially in jest, but it sounds like a decent friend filter for your kids. Even at that age, some kids *have* developed non-shallow personalities.
Indeed, if my wife and I were to do this once we have children, we would try to strike a middle ground. No outright banning of modern tech, but definitely limiting it. My nieces (12 and 4) each have their own tablet, and the older one has a new computer, Xbox 360, TV bigger than ours, her own cellphone, and no less than three portable gaming consoles. I'm a technology freak; I love to dabble with anything electronic...but in my opinion that's way too much tech for a developing child.
The problem with even partially going tech-free is that you become the outcast, and your children even more so. When I was growing up in the 80s, being the only kid without a Walkman and NES made me the "poor loser kid" on the block, even though financially we were no worse off than our neighbors. In today's world where children learn to read using Leapfrog tablets instead of actual books, the idea of being without some form of electronic device is considered a hardship at best.
I don't know, it's cached until he eats it.
It's not a bad thing, per se.
However, it does feed the idea that the alarmism was trumped up for that purpose in the first place, a suspicion that many have had over the years. If too many people, scientist or not, subscribe to this "ends justifies the means" rationalization (instead of just saying that they were mistaken), that is not going to foster public trust in the scientific community.
I guess the smiley face wasn't making it clear I was going for a joke. Honestly, I would mod *myself* overrated, I was going for Funny, not Interesting!
Good dissection.
...trying to offer us the web a la carte, like we wanted for cable? The whole web is one big bundle! There's tons of crap I don't want to pay for! :)
I'm not usually a big proponent of what might be called 'political correctness' but I am a proponent of not being a cad.
In small circulation, you know everyone and they can tell you upfront if a name like this bothers them. But for wide circulation, it seems in slightly bad taste to name it after a pretty tragic act. I guess I would see the names Genocidal Giraffe, Raping Raccoon, or Junkie Jellyfish in a similar light.
Yes, I had fun coming up with those names, but I'm not naming a kernel version!
Ah well. Controversy brings attention I suppose.
I think the particular usage of CNO here is mostly descriptive rather than a legal category, as the term itself is broad. Therefore I don't think you can infer a legal classification into crime, terrorism, act of war, etc. from that usage.
I think partially it's unclear, despite the name, where exactly they are, or if it is anything more than a loose affiliation, some of whom may be in the US.
I'm sure there's evidence aside from the group's own testimony. However, come to think of it, if I were a domestic hacker group, and I wanted to throw a sensationalist red herring in there, this isn't a bad idea. You could potentially end up drafting unsuspecting Syrian experts into running cover for you while they do their own thing.
I commented on this elsewhere, but I'll do it again because people are getting whipped up about it.
The IB Times is entirely responsible for using the label terrorism. The FBI did not call it terrorism. Here's a direct link to the FBI advisory requesting information about website defacement. Consistent with the FBI's domestic focus.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SEA.pdf
To be honest, that is incredibly bad journalism. No one is sourced for the word terrorism; it is an invention of this Ryan Neal fellow.
No, you were right. Direct link below to the FBI advisory PDF. There is no mention of terrorism.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SEA.pdf
The one page advisory does *not* use the word terrorism.
The story mentions terrorism. The headline mentions terrorism.
However, the actual one page FBI advisory does NOT use the word terrorism.
They could be after guns eventually. The NRA isn't stating the entire purpose of the data storage is to create a gun registry. They just believe that among the myriad possible abuses of such data are ones that conflict with their mission statement. I can't see faulting them for this; advocacy organizations can usually only spend money on issues related to their cause.
While paranoia of an individual applied to everyone around him can be absurd, when you apply paranoia to a large governmental organization that will exist longer than you or I, I prefer to think of it as testing edge cases.
Regardless of whether you think there should be a registry or not, I don't think it's absurd to imagine that given an NSA database, creating one becomes simply an algorithmic problem with the data you have (among a huge number of similar "Why don't we use this data to...." eventualities).
Like the Galaxy Note 12.2? Not sure if there's an actual full range of pressure sensitivity though.
Also not applicable because, from your description, public school means something very different there.
Hong Kong probably has few lessons for a system that tries to provide education for all, rather than just recruiting the smartest and leaving the rest to fend for themselves.
That sounds rather regressive, honestly. Is there no public provision for everyone's education?
Legit question. What evidence are you talking about?
I'm no pot advocate. The smell is pretty sickening. However, I have known people who partake to some degree. While I frankly don't like how it affects them, it's not worse than being around annoying drunk people. Even illegal, it's not a huge drain on their income, and their use from what I can tell is maybe weekly, and far from being as compulsive as tobacco. No random scary freak outs either.
Maybe adds a bit of danger to society, but we allow people to do other things that are dangerous, including drinking and owning guns and there's just a huge cost to locking these people up, but monetarily and societally.
Honestly, why should I care that people smoke pot? What's the evidence that it's worth caring about? Convince me, here.
I've lost track of what the substitutionary word "'Murkin" or '"Merka" is even supposed to be making fun of any more. Haha, let's laugh at the accent of people that drive trucks? I just see it plopped into seemingly unrelated snarky posts about America. I mean, I'm all for being snarky, but I don't even get the point you're trying to make.
If anything that makes the issue far *more* problematic. If a one year old has "no consciousness to speak of", we have two options. Grant only subhuman rights to infants, or accept that human rights and right to life is not contingent only on consciousness .
Now, we've damaged the argument that these mini-brains are morally safe because they have no consciousness.
This made me feel very uneasy. These brains are probably equivalent to miscarriaged fetuses, but what if we grew them a little large? Started feeding them electrical signals from the outside? Accepted electrical signals they provided into a feedback loop that sent more complicated signals back? We've now introduced them to *an* outside world if not *our* outside world. When does that consciousness start?
We have no idea how long he was in Indonesia. He could easily have been symptomatic on his way back in.
They have guidelines for other symptomatic diseases, so customs clearly doesn't think it's not worth considering.
Just because precautionary guidelines won't work 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time, for totally valid reason you've mentioned, doesn't mean it's not worth having the guidelines at all.
The studies shown do not compared otherwise similar individuals in otherwise similar countries. They compare countries in which the IQ tests were designed with countries that are vastly different culturally, economically, and in many other ways. Twin studies are great, and I'm not saying IQ is not heritable. I'm saying the religious correlation is weakly argued.
Second, that still does not address the fact that the comparison between countries is nowhere approaching linear. It tops out at only 15% atheism. I suppose you could propose a saturation model of some sort, but that is now reaching for a model to make the data say what you want.
Just read the summary, even.
They were substituting a pseudoscientific action to protect their kids from autism for a scientific action to protect them from measles.
They were NOT substituting religious beliefs to protect their kids from measles for a scientific action to protect them from measles.
The only people refusing to get vaccinated are the religious nut jobs here.
Bzzzt. You try again. This fear cuts across the spectrum.
Even a few years ago Joel Stein talked about meetings with "doctors" who rattled off false statistics or even some horrifying statistics ("Oh only 1% of polio sufferers become paralyzed") as if they were nothing to convince people not to vaccinate. These were secular events attended by well off suburban parents, not "religious nutjobs". Jenny McCarthy still acts as a non-religious advocate for this position.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924497,00.htm
These people suffer a lack of discernment because they lack understanding of science. This isn't a blindness just introduced by religion.
Maybe it's receded among the more highly educated, but it had currency, and people ply this crap to whoever listens.
But their beliefs aren't in their genes.
This is probably false. Religiosity is strongly and negatively correlated with IQ, and IQ is heritable.
As an addendum, judging by the linked graph, you get almost all of the intelligence boost to your population with 15% atheism, and just noise after that. Honestly, it's noisiest exactly around 0% atheism. Almost like there's another variable in play :)
Another way to read it is just that the most intelligent countries are all over in terms of belief.