Who modded this insightful? A contradiction of common knowledge with no evidence to back it up? WTF?
Somebody please mod this back down. If the poster wants to make an insightful comment he/she can give some information to support it, as the child posters supported their claims to the contrary.
Well, if you follow my reasoning so far it doesn't allow mercy killing. Perhaps it can be extended to explore that case, but I haven't worked on it. Maybe mercy killing can be seen more as "giving up on recovering" rather than killing. I don't know.
As for the necessity of splitting hairs, that's just the nature of our complex world. The simplicity of "Thou shalt not" may be appealing, but it's appealing in the same way that the simplicity of being a mollusk is appealing. No decisions to make, just do what you do and then expire. Humans are moving on a trajectory away from such simplicity, to what pointless split-end nobody knows.
Exactly. When all I want to do is pay good money for unencrypted data that I can use as I choose. Why is it that the paying customer is the one getting screwed here?
Wow. You see the world from a perspective that I can't imagine. I hope we can discuss this issue and both gain a better idea of how others think.
First off, you say:
"We're talking about what's ethical, not about what God wants." That's too huge to deal with in this post, but I think most Christians believe that what God wants == what's moral.
This logically follows, but for the purpose of political debate it's a moot point. Christians may believe that what God wants == what's moral, but in this country we can't legislate based on that belief. In my view, it would be immoral to legislate based on that belief! Going back to the previous paragraph:
From that perspective, it's kind of irrelevant what scientists (no offence intended), or dead Greek philosophers, or George Bush, mean when they say 'human life'
you see that, legally, it does matter what these people mean when they say 'human life'. More specifically, what really matters is how we, as humans, define 'human life' and when (if ever) it is OK to destroy that life. Christians may be able to come to a conclusion easily, but how can they present their argument to a secular person? They can't subject others to laws based on a definition that's grounded in a belief in the supernatural.
So how do we come to a fair conclusion? I think a lot of people have a problem figuring out how to define what is right and what is wrong and why we should do one vs. the other. Traditionally we have fallen back on passing the buck to God - God says what's right and wrong and we merely have to follow those definitions. OK, that's nice and simple, but I think that a truly moral person should have better reasons for their behavior than "God said so." It's the difference between a kid that obeys the rules to avoid a spanking and a kid that obeys the rules when there is no threat of punishment. I'm not talking about the kid being well trained, I mean the kid is mature enough to understand why those rules exist and to obey them for the same reason that adults enforce them.
Does anyone know a secular answer that's more satisfyingly grounded?
Better than hedonism? I should think so! Here's my personal moral foundation: treat others as you would have them treat yourself. Yep, the standard golden rule. Why does this work, though? Why is the golden rule "right"? First off, I think that it works because it's physically ingrained in our behavior. Humans have lived in cooperative groups for millions of years, and groups that didn't follow this kind of rule probably didn't succeed. You can benefit yourself in the short term by lying, cheating, and stealing - but it does not benifit the group. In the long term, the destruction of the group means your destruction, also. I know by instinct that I should treat others fairly and with respect, and I can expect to demand the same fairness in return. I may not get it, but I will shun those who do not follow the rule, as will the group (human society) as a whole.
Now, why is the golden rule right? You probably realize by now what my answer is, but maybe you don't. We do have different perspectives, after all. I would say that it is "right" because it works. In fact, what benefits humans as a group is what defines "right" "good" or "moral"! Look at it from my perspective: I don't believe in God. I don't believe that the morals that we follow were given to us by God. I think that they were made up, over a very long period of time, by humans. I, personally, am almost entirely sure about this (if that sounds weak, I am equally confident about the existence of gravity). The morals that we live by today exist because they are the morals that allowed us to succeed. There is no ultimate good and evil, there are only the things that we label as good or evil for the benefit of us all.
This is the kind of groundwork that we're going to have to lay in order to finally c
You're on the right track, but there are a lot of complications. If you extrapolate your argument, you could argue that it's OK to poison someone in their sleep, since they're not conscious and will never know that they've been killed.
If you cause an isolated individual that nobody knows to die instantly, then who is harmed? You could say that the "future self" of the person yas been harmed, by never being allowed to exist. This is the same "destruction of potential" argument that anti abortionists use. This is pretty weak, though, because you can't really "harm" someone who does not and will not exist. That person will feel no pain and will experience no emotional anguish at their loss.
I would argue, however, that the past self is also harmed - basically the collection of memories in the person's nervous system. They exist at the time of death, and are destroyed forever in the process. The person may not be consciously aware of their destruction, but that information is lost nonetheless. Note that this argument only applies to individuals that have been conscious at some point in the past - not to collections of cells that have not yet formed a brain.
It may sound like splitting hairs, but this is a pretty complex issue. Basically I'm narrowing it down by saying that we should prohibit the destruction of a being that has been conscious, rather than prohibiting the destruction of a being that is currently conscious. A being that has never been conscious does not have to be treated the same way, as I see it - regardless of the potential to be conscious in the future.
Here's something to think about: would you be willing to grow a clone of yourself, for the purpose of organ/tissue harvesting, only without an entire brain? Basically a body in a coma - never conscious.
It sounds disgusting, but is there really anything wrong with it? These are the kinds of questions we're going to have to deal with in the near future - ethical dilemmas that will test our "common sense" and our ability to decide what is "right." Hell, they'll test our definition of what "right" is.
I don't know where the hell you live, but the whole west coast is spreading out into the countryside at an alarming rate. People want to live in big suburban subdivisions, and developers are converting forest into landscaping as fast as possible.
I like your positive attitude, but I'm afraid things aren't going as well as you think. We need to put the brakes on our population growth, stop building roads in National Forest, and start designating more wilderness.
Well, that's my opinion anyway. I'm pretty sure that we can develop the technology to survive without our natural environment, but I for one don't want to. I need to get away from civilization sometimes. I need to go where I can't tell that there are other humans on the planet. Maybe we'll pull back into cities and our population will decrease as you say, but it's certainly *not* happening right now.
In a normal case, I would be happy to see more competition in the market. I would even say that Microsoft's presence has so far been positive - they've spurred the market into a competitive frenzy. This is good.
In the longer term, though, I don't think things will go so well. Judging by Microsoft's track record, I predict that by the 4th generation XBox 90% of games will be developed for the MS platform. They may have to flood the streets with $100 bills, but if they want the market then they'll take it. There goes your competition down the drain.
When you say that you want to boycott them, what is the wonderful existing market that boycotting them saves?
The one that includes more than one console manufacturer.
Once they get a significant enough market share they can strongarm developers into exclusives...
Which is why I don't understand Slashdotters buying XBoxes. Why help MS do the same thing to video game consoles that they did to browsers? What are you thinking?
I not only boycotted the XBox entirely, I go out of my way to diss it whenever possible. Sure, it may be a powerful console, and it may even have a couple of fun games - but the cost of allowing MS into the market is too steep. If you want to play XBox games then contribute to the development of an emulator.
That sucks. Best solution is to just yank the keys out like the rotten teeth that they are. I bought an ultra cheap keyboard a while back with a key up next to F12 that had a "power" symbol on it. I really didn't think it could do anything unless I installed a special driver or something. Imagine the swearing when I went to hit "save as" (F12) and windows immediately shut down. Needless to say, that key no longer physically exists.
We can't reproduce a supernova either - we have to study them by observation. To assert that we can't study the history of life on our planet by observation of the fossil record and the mechanisms by which oraganisms change today is asinine. Let me repeat: asinine.
So we have a planet full of organisms that are related by their physical structure and genetic code. It's also full of fossilized organisms that are also related to modern organisms by their physical structure. Do you suggest that we not investigate these coincidences? Do you also suggest that, after all of the investigation that we have done, we shouldn't be pretty confident that mammals have a common ancestor? Do you have a better explanation for why we have all the same bones and muscles, only mutated into different forms? Do you have a better explanation for why there are primitive, fossilized organisms that are quite obviously our ancestors but that have physical features that are more similar to apes?
I'm not going to go into too detailed of an argument with you, because I'm guessing by your post that you probably won't give much thought to what I'm saying. Here's a suggestion - gather some information. Read up on what we know about biology, and I think you'll be surprised. It's not as mysterious as you probably think it is. Here's a dare - I challenge you to read a Richard Dawkins book and really pay attention to what he's talking about. If it doesn't convince you that the scientific study of life's origins is real theory and not "philosophy" then I'll eat the book.
And Metroid 2 was the same game with some different frickin' maps.
...and different visors, and different weapons, and the different plot on a different planet with the little light world/dark world thing... you're right, it was practically the exact same game. Seriously, how much can you change and still have a Metroid game?
Yeah, and the new Zelda game for GC comes out in November.
You missed out on Metroid Prime? It's definitely worth picking up, as is the sequel, Echoes. I actually enjoyed the second one even more than the first.
One tip though - the first thing you want to do on starting a new game is turn off the "hints." They're on by default, and nothing ruins a good metroid game like knowing where to go next. 8P
Huh. I just don't get it. Maybe I didn't play it long enough, but the controls in VC drove me nuts. I played it for a few hours and then gave it up - if I remember correctly it was hard to look around and you couldn't aim. WTF? Maybe it's because the only other Rockstar game that I've played is Red Dead Revolver (which has excellent controls, IMO) and I went into GTA expecting the controls to be the same. I'll admit that the driving was fun, but every time I got involved in a shootout it pissed me off to no end.
Well, if you don't mind the commercials then lucky for you I guess. I'd pay an extra 5 bucks to have a blank screen while I'm waiting for the movie to start. No crappy pop music either, please. Sure, I could wait until the movie (or at least the previews) started before going in, but then I'm going to get the last choice of seats, and I'll possibly have to climb over people to get to any seat at all.
So my policy is that I don't go go theaters that show commercials. If I go to a new theater I ask them at the ticket booth first. The bummer is that very few theaters don't show commercials anymore - luckily my local theater is still holding out. If they started, then I would probably quit going out to the movies.
What parts of the internet will require DRM? Buying media? I don't buy DRM'd media, so that's not a problem. What else? Will I need a "trusted" OS to read slashdot? To send and receive email? To do searches? If so then fuck that noise. I'll participate in whatever "alternate" internet springs up in response to such repression.
...a kernel that can guarantee me that, if properly implemented, no unauthorised code will be run! Gee, isn't this what we want?
Close. Add the ability to flag executables as "authorized" to run as trusted on my own computer and you have what we, the users, want. In fact, nothing less is tolerable. I will not give the slightest bit of support to any trusted OS that does not have this critical feature. In fact, I feel that it is my duty to slander them far and wide.
So, will OSX86 allow me to decide what code is trusted and what code is not? As far as I can tell, it will not - so fuck those bastards. I was considering a switch to Apple once win2k isn't feasable any more, but not now. I'm giving them the same one finger salute that I'm giving MS.
So you're saying that evil exists outside of the human mind? I don't get it. Evil is a category, more than anything. Some people group certain behaviors or other people into that category. I think that there's a lot of overlap in the sets that different people consider "evil", but that hardly makes evil some kind of universal force.
Evil exists only as a concept - a human abstraction - and is meaningless otherwise. Think about it - if I say that something is large, or cold, or liquid, I'm actually describing a physical feature of that object. If I say that the object is "beautiful", I'm assigning a quality to it that only makes sense to me and to other entities that think in the same way that I do. Beauty is truly in the eye and in the mind of the beholder - it means nothing outside of the observer. Evil is much the same.
In fact, it's pretty easy to see where the concept of evil came from in the first place. Evil is that which breaks down society. The humans that were our ancestors decided (by collective, unspoken consensus) that murder and stealing were "wrong". As a result, these humans were able to form cohesive groups and become the successful species that we are today. Many other animals steal, murder their own kind, even eat their own offspring. That's nature. Hyenas have no concept of evil. Humans basically made up some useful rules that allowed them to succeed as a group. Other groups probably had different rules - and weren't as successful. Even today, we're still trying to optimize our set of "morals." Rules that worked in the dark ages don't necessarily work in modern society, and modern ideas about individuality and equality demand new morals that didn't exist in the past.
Upholding human society is the very foundation upon which our morals are built, but I don't think that most people give it much thought. A lot of people don't think that they need to follow the moral rules set by society, because they can't see the basis for them. Why shouldn't I steal? What makes it wrong? What is the basis for saying that stealing is wrong? The answer is that our cohesion as a group is at stake. We have morals so that we can continue to exist. Not all of them are necessary or even fair anymore, but those will be shed even as we adopt the new ones that we need.
Oh and, no offense, but does "SatanicPuppy" mean that you believe in Satan? Satan is another in a long line of mythological characters, with no basis in reality. He's a fictional character created to represent everything that we fear and loathe. Satan is no more real than Adam and Eve or Santa Claus. Don't be a fool.
Unless I'm mistaken, all of the tony hawk games use licensed music for the soundtrack. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a "best soundtrack" award when you consider soundtracks that aren't *original* music.
I don't think the author cares who MTV picks, so long as they pick from actual video game scores, rather than existing recorded music.
Of course, this whole discussion is pointless - nobody would expect MTV to do anything other than pick games that contain music that is popular on MTV. It's commercial television - there should be no expectation of any amount of quality.
No, "evil" does not have a definite meaning. Evil is defined by humans, and I highly doubt that you could get a consensus on any particular definition. No word has one definite meaning, although some may have a definite legal meaning.
I agree that legality and morality are not the same thing, although I would hope that they are at least slightly related. I think that a lot of our laws are amoral, but then so are the people running the country.
I think that playing professional football is a suspension of disbelief for most people. Of course, the advertising is a *part* of the suspension in this case - it would seem fake if there were no advertising.
I'm not saying that advertising cannot be used in games, but I'm saying that there are certain genres where it's impossible to have ads without ruining the game itself.
Then games are doomed, as "suspension of disbelief" is what they're about.
You're creeping down an alien corridor. You turn a corner and find an elevator. After a quick check left and right, you step in and hit the button. The view switches to third person and your character disappears upward with the sound of grinding gears... HEY! Next time your thirst is OUT OF THIS WORLD, pick up a PEPSI! YEAH! [jingle plays]. Switch back to first person view, elevator door opens, roomful of ugly aliens look up from their workstations and reach for their rifles...
HEY! This game SUCKS! YEAH! I'm taking it back to the FUCKING STORE! YEAH!
I see games not so much as games, but as mini vacations. I get to go to another place and do fun things. I am literally there in my mind, and seeing an ad that doesn't fit into the game itself is going to ruin the experience.
Anyway, games are not doomed. Suspension of disbelief *is* profitable, and has been for quite some time. There were no ads in LOZ, and there won't be any in "Zelda 27, Ganon Returns Another Time Again Once More". Free web games are going to have ads, but not real games. Product placement, maybe, but not ads - and product placement doesn't work when your game doesn't involve Earthlings or is set in the distant past.
You connected to someone's website, and they sent you data and requested data. You still control what you send and what you don't send.
Exactly. I control whether my computer stores and sends cookie data. As it should be. You say that it's not a problem as long as "everyone controls their own level of involvement and commitment" - OK, my chosen level of involvement is 0% and my commitment is 100% opposed. What is my simple option for making sure that my wishes are fulfilled? There isn't one, but there should be.
I certainly wouldn't call using demographics and statistics for marketing purposes "evil," but I do call it "obnoxious." It shouldn't be illegal, but it should certainly be socially unacceptable. Think that most people should be fine with it? Then make it opt-in. The way I see it, almost everything should be opt-in. Maybe there's nothing wrong with collecting data about me, but you ought to get my permission first.
Perhaps opt-in data collection schemes are doomed to fail, but if they do then you have to concede that they shouldn't exist to begin with. The people will have spoken. On the other hand, opt-in data is probably going to have a lot less garbage in it.
Assuming they use the information to market specificaly towards you and people like you, they aren't forcing you to buy anything.
I'm not concerned about being "forced to buy" something. I'm concerned about giving support (via valuable information) to someone who is engaging in something that I despise. I find advertising to be distasteful and offensive. I don't fight back against "consumer profiling" only out of concern for privacy, I also fight it because it is a tool of advertising. I whitelist my cookies for the same reason that I change the station when a commercial comes on. Why would I want to sit and listen to a commercial? Why would I want to help someone's advertising campaign by storing a cookie? Why would I want to help doubleclick continue to exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody please mod this back down. If the poster wants to make an insightful comment he/she can give some information to support it, as the child posters supported their claims to the contrary.
As for the necessity of splitting hairs, that's just the nature of our complex world. The simplicity of "Thou shalt not" may be appealing, but it's appealing in the same way that the simplicity of being a mollusk is appealing. No decisions to make, just do what you do and then expire. Humans are moving on a trajectory away from such simplicity, to what pointless split-end nobody knows.
First off, you say:
This logically follows, but for the purpose of political debate it's a moot point. Christians may believe that what God wants == what's moral, but in this country we can't legislate based on that belief. In my view, it would be immoral to legislate based on that belief! Going back to the previous paragraph:
you see that, legally, it does matter what these people mean when they say 'human life'. More specifically, what really matters is how we, as humans, define 'human life' and when (if ever) it is OK to destroy that life. Christians may be able to come to a conclusion easily, but how can they present their argument to a secular person? They can't subject others to laws based on a definition that's grounded in a belief in the supernatural.
So how do we come to a fair conclusion? I think a lot of people have a problem figuring out how to define what is right and what is wrong and why we should do one vs. the other. Traditionally we have fallen back on passing the buck to God - God says what's right and wrong and we merely have to follow those definitions. OK, that's nice and simple, but I think that a truly moral person should have better reasons for their behavior than "God said so." It's the difference between a kid that obeys the rules to avoid a spanking and a kid that obeys the rules when there is no threat of punishment. I'm not talking about the kid being well trained, I mean the kid is mature enough to understand why those rules exist and to obey them for the same reason that adults enforce them.
Better than hedonism? I should think so! Here's my personal moral foundation: treat others as you would have them treat yourself. Yep, the standard golden rule. Why does this work, though? Why is the golden rule "right"? First off, I think that it works because it's physically ingrained in our behavior. Humans have lived in cooperative groups for millions of years, and groups that didn't follow this kind of rule probably didn't succeed. You can benefit yourself in the short term by lying, cheating, and stealing - but it does not benifit the group. In the long term, the destruction of the group means your destruction, also. I know by instinct that I should treat others fairly and with respect, and I can expect to demand the same fairness in return. I may not get it, but I will shun those who do not follow the rule, as will the group (human society) as a whole.
Now, why is the golden rule right? You probably realize by now what my answer is, but maybe you don't. We do have different perspectives, after all. I would say that it is "right" because it works. In fact, what benefits humans as a group is what defines "right" "good" or "moral"! Look at it from my perspective: I don't believe in God. I don't believe that the morals that we follow were given to us by God. I think that they were made up, over a very long period of time, by humans. I, personally, am almost entirely sure about this (if that sounds weak, I am equally confident about the existence of gravity). The morals that we live by today exist because they are the morals that allowed us to succeed. There is no ultimate good and evil, there are only the things that we label as good or evil for the benefit of us all.
This is the kind of groundwork that we're going to have to lay in order to finally c
If you cause an isolated individual that nobody knows to die instantly, then who is harmed? You could say that the "future self" of the person yas been harmed, by never being allowed to exist. This is the same "destruction of potential" argument that anti abortionists use. This is pretty weak, though, because you can't really "harm" someone who does not and will not exist. That person will feel no pain and will experience no emotional anguish at their loss.
I would argue, however, that the past self is also harmed - basically the collection of memories in the person's nervous system. They exist at the time of death, and are destroyed forever in the process. The person may not be consciously aware of their destruction, but that information is lost nonetheless. Note that this argument only applies to individuals that have been conscious at some point in the past - not to collections of cells that have not yet formed a brain.
It may sound like splitting hairs, but this is a pretty complex issue. Basically I'm narrowing it down by saying that we should prohibit the destruction of a being that has been conscious, rather than prohibiting the destruction of a being that is currently conscious. A being that has never been conscious does not have to be treated the same way, as I see it - regardless of the potential to be conscious in the future.
Here's something to think about: would you be willing to grow a clone of yourself, for the purpose of organ/tissue harvesting, only without an entire brain? Basically a body in a coma - never conscious.
It sounds disgusting, but is there really anything wrong with it? These are the kinds of questions we're going to have to deal with in the near future - ethical dilemmas that will test our "common sense" and our ability to decide what is "right." Hell, they'll test our definition of what "right" is.
I like your positive attitude, but I'm afraid things aren't going as well as you think. We need to put the brakes on our population growth, stop building roads in National Forest, and start designating more wilderness.
Well, that's my opinion anyway. I'm pretty sure that we can develop the technology to survive without our natural environment, but I for one don't want to. I need to get away from civilization sometimes. I need to go where I can't tell that there are other humans on the planet. Maybe we'll pull back into cities and our population will decrease as you say, but it's certainly *not* happening right now.
In the longer term, though, I don't think things will go so well. Judging by Microsoft's track record, I predict that by the 4th generation XBox 90% of games will be developed for the MS platform. They may have to flood the streets with $100 bills, but if they want the market then they'll take it. There goes your competition down the drain.
The one that includes more than one console manufacturer.I not only boycotted the XBox entirely, I go out of my way to diss it whenever possible. Sure, it may be a powerful console, and it may even have a couple of fun games - but the cost of allowing MS into the market is too steep. If you want to play XBox games then contribute to the development of an emulator.
Seriously.
So we have a planet full of organisms that are related by their physical structure and genetic code. It's also full of fossilized organisms that are also related to modern organisms by their physical structure. Do you suggest that we not investigate these coincidences? Do you also suggest that, after all of the investigation that we have done, we shouldn't be pretty confident that mammals have a common ancestor? Do you have a better explanation for why we have all the same bones and muscles, only mutated into different forms? Do you have a better explanation for why there are primitive, fossilized organisms that are quite obviously our ancestors but that have physical features that are more similar to apes?
I'm not going to go into too detailed of an argument with you, because I'm guessing by your post that you probably won't give much thought to what I'm saying. Here's a suggestion - gather some information. Read up on what we know about biology, and I think you'll be surprised. It's not as mysterious as you probably think it is. Here's a dare - I challenge you to read a Richard Dawkins book and really pay attention to what he's talking about. If it doesn't convince you that the scientific study of life's origins is real theory and not "philosophy" then I'll eat the book.
...and different visors, and different weapons, and the different plot on a different planet with the little light world/dark world thing... you're right, it was practically the exact same game. Seriously, how much can you change and still have a Metroid game?
Yeah, and the new Zelda game for GC comes out in November.
One tip though - the first thing you want to do on starting a new game is turn off the "hints." They're on by default, and nothing ruins a good metroid game like knowing where to go next. 8P
So my policy is that I don't go go theaters that show commercials. If I go to a new theater I ask them at the ticket booth first. The bummer is that very few theaters don't show commercials anymore - luckily my local theater is still holding out. If they started, then I would probably quit going out to the movies.
So, will OSX86 allow me to decide what code is trusted and what code is not? As far as I can tell, it will not - so fuck those bastards. I was considering a switch to Apple once win2k isn't feasable any more, but not now. I'm giving them the same one finger salute that I'm giving MS.
Sit 'n spin, Jobs.
Evil exists only as a concept - a human abstraction - and is meaningless otherwise. Think about it - if I say that something is large, or cold, or liquid, I'm actually describing a physical feature of that object. If I say that the object is "beautiful", I'm assigning a quality to it that only makes sense to me and to other entities that think in the same way that I do. Beauty is truly in the eye and in the mind of the beholder - it means nothing outside of the observer. Evil is much the same.
In fact, it's pretty easy to see where the concept of evil came from in the first place. Evil is that which breaks down society. The humans that were our ancestors decided (by collective, unspoken consensus) that murder and stealing were "wrong". As a result, these humans were able to form cohesive groups and become the successful species that we are today. Many other animals steal, murder their own kind, even eat their own offspring. That's nature. Hyenas have no concept of evil. Humans basically made up some useful rules that allowed them to succeed as a group. Other groups probably had different rules - and weren't as successful. Even today, we're still trying to optimize our set of "morals." Rules that worked in the dark ages don't necessarily work in modern society, and modern ideas about individuality and equality demand new morals that didn't exist in the past.
Upholding human society is the very foundation upon which our morals are built, but I don't think that most people give it much thought. A lot of people don't think that they need to follow the moral rules set by society, because they can't see the basis for them. Why shouldn't I steal? What makes it wrong? What is the basis for saying that stealing is wrong? The answer is that our cohesion as a group is at stake. We have morals so that we can continue to exist. Not all of them are necessary or even fair anymore, but those will be shed even as we adopt the new ones that we need.
Oh and, no offense, but does "SatanicPuppy" mean that you believe in Satan? Satan is another in a long line of mythological characters, with no basis in reality. He's a fictional character created to represent everything that we fear and loathe. Satan is no more real than Adam and Eve or Santa Claus. Don't be a fool.
I don't think the author cares who MTV picks, so long as they pick from actual video game scores, rather than existing recorded music.
Of course, this whole discussion is pointless - nobody would expect MTV to do anything other than pick games that contain music that is popular on MTV. It's commercial television - there should be no expectation of any amount of quality.
I agree that legality and morality are not the same thing, although I would hope that they are at least slightly related. I think that a lot of our laws are amoral, but then so are the people running the country.
I'm not saying that advertising cannot be used in games, but I'm saying that there are certain genres where it's impossible to have ads without ruining the game itself.
You're creeping down an alien corridor. You turn a corner and find an elevator. After a quick check left and right, you step in and hit the button. The view switches to third person and your character disappears upward with the sound of grinding gears... HEY! Next time your thirst is OUT OF THIS WORLD, pick up a PEPSI! YEAH! [jingle plays]. Switch back to first person view, elevator door opens, roomful of ugly aliens look up from their workstations and reach for their rifles...
HEY! This game SUCKS! YEAH! I'm taking it back to the FUCKING STORE! YEAH!
I see games not so much as games, but as mini vacations. I get to go to another place and do fun things. I am literally there in my mind, and seeing an ad that doesn't fit into the game itself is going to ruin the experience.
Anyway, games are not doomed. Suspension of disbelief *is* profitable, and has been for quite some time. There were no ads in LOZ, and there won't be any in "Zelda 27, Ganon Returns Another Time Again Once More". Free web games are going to have ads, but not real games. Product placement, maybe, but not ads - and product placement doesn't work when your game doesn't involve Earthlings or is set in the distant past.
I certainly wouldn't call using demographics and statistics for marketing purposes "evil," but I do call it "obnoxious." It shouldn't be illegal, but it should certainly be socially unacceptable. Think that most people should be fine with it? Then make it opt-in. The way I see it, almost everything should be opt-in. Maybe there's nothing wrong with collecting data about me, but you ought to get my permission first.
Perhaps opt-in data collection schemes are doomed to fail, but if they do then you have to concede that they shouldn't exist to begin with. The people will have spoken. On the other hand, opt-in data is probably going to have a lot less garbage in it.
I'm not concerned about being "forced to buy" something. I'm concerned about giving support (via valuable information) to someone who is engaging in something that I despise. I find advertising to be distasteful and offensive. I don't fight back against "consumer profiling" only out of concern for privacy, I also fight it because it is a tool of advertising. I whitelist my cookies for the same reason that I change the station when a commercial comes on. Why would I want to sit and listen to a commercial? Why would I want to help someone's advertising campaign by storing a cookie? Why would I want to help doubleclick continue to exist?In the case of the dictionaries, since the information that they store isn't self modifying I would consider it to be "non-conscious."