Whether or not Rockstar is irresponsible, that's one of those things you're supposed to talk about, and work in the social sphere to shame, and to influence.
But not in the legal sphere.
The argument: "Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this."...is basically a call for vigilante justice by way of legal harassment.
BUT... the problem, from a scientific perspective, is that the more we learn about genetics the more evidence exists that there ARE behavioral and personality traits linked to our genes.
Not at all;
Genetics is still in infancy, and all we're finding is statistical correlations.
There is not a single good scientific explanation (I said scientific, not just materialistic -- that is, it has to be backed by experience and have stood to scientific criticism) alive that tells, mechanically, how you get from specific genes, to specific behaviors.
Instead, what you have is a bunch of materialistic explanations ("This gene here,... We think it increases chemical agent X,... Which is statistically correlated with behavior Y..,") that are not scientific (because they have not stood up well to alternative, equally plausible explanations,) that appeal to people with pre-determined beliefs aka "pre-judgements" aka "prejudices."...who then go on to say, "Because this is a materialist explanation, it is therefor scientific truth."
That, my friend, is the state of things.
Evolutionary Psychology is rife with fraud, and you can't throw a stone in a scientific establishment without (A) hitting someone who is passionately sure that it's real, and then (B) the stone riccocheting off to hit some other scientist, who'll say, "This is just wishful thinking on their part, and their literature leaks like a sieve."
"None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it... the invention simply wouldn't exist!"
You see, this is why popular belief is against the legal professionals. It's because you say insane things like this.
I also want to know where the little guy went, when the little guy independently invents something. Where, oh where, is the little guy argument? For some reason, the argument disappears.
Yet the computer software industry is full of little guys, independently inventing, and then told: "You can't use that." "I wasn't even going to patent it!" "Oh, you have goodness in your heart, that's nice. Still, you can't use it." "But it's obvious!" "Nothing is obvious, my dear friend, nothing."
I hope you know that, if all free software "inventions" were patented, and placed into a gigantic Free Software pool, we could completely gum up all software development in the world, or perhaps the WIPO subscribing world, or, hey, let's face it- at least just in the United States. It's only because we don't have the money and the time to do it, that it doesn't happen. I do hope that you realize this.
Tangentially related, you may be interested in SelectivelyOpenMinded, and PassagesOfPerspective. They can clarify a lot of mis-thinking. ("Open mindedness, carte blanc, is a virtue. I can criticize you for not being open minded, like me.") ("No, people must hold fast to their ideas, or else, what do they stand for?")
Arguments about how we should argue, how we should play our thoughts out, are important, and interesting, and deserve wider propagation.
As long as software for communicating, collaborating, organizing data, and organizing ourselves gets better, we're going to see more and more things go "free."
Think this way: Wikipedia couldn't exist, before you had the wiki basis software. Theoretically, you could do it by emailing documents back and forth, over and over again. But practically? Not going to happen.
So it's the wiki software that makes Wikipedia plausible.
The thing is, we're continuing to make more and more software the likes of Wiki. We're getting better at collaborating, we're getting better at organizing ourselves, we're developing more fluid communications technology, yadda yadda yadda.
So, the natural end of this line of thought is: More and more high quality free content.
I don't really consider the FF series to even be in the same world even.
I guess they're in the same "super-world," though. That is, there's some bag full of universes, and that bag itself is the world that the FF series live in.
And Cid is in every. Single. Bag.
At least Cid wasn't in the Super Mario Brothers RPG.
Yep; X-2 is a bona fida sequal to X.
I keep wishing I could play a game that took place in the Secret of Mana world, as a small story that took place in the ice forest, or something like that.
Well, freedom hater, here is how you draw the line.
If you kill someone with a gun in real life and they die, that's bad. But if you kill someone with a gun in a game, and they don't die in real life, that's okay.
If we need to draw a physical line, we can draw a nice outline around the chips in your computer. Until knives and bullets come flying out of your computer chips, the line has not been crossed.
Now as for the next question: "Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?"...the answer is, "no."
You are free to limit your own mind, for the sake of protecting yourself from whatever horrible creatures of the imagination you want to avoid choosing for yourself. But that does not give you blanket authority to determine the operation of other people's imaginations, no matter how much you fear the creatures of their imagining.
Punish them for their actions, but not their drawings. I mean words.
Do you think that preserving freedom of speech in law is a bad idea?
Just because America has a ton of moral failings, it doesn't mean that we don't have a ton of moral strengths, either.
Something tells me: You'd be at home in a community circle, working together with others, and realizing each other's strengths and weaknesses, and affirming the value of every human being.
Why then, such bitter hatred, of America, as to claim that America doesn't have moral lessons for the world?
I've heard leftists say: "No, no, you got me all wrong: I don't hate America, I love America, and that's why I'm doing all this activist work." But then you hear something like how it has "no moral lessons to give," and you understand the complaint: "Leftists hate America."
So do Leftism a favor, and recognize the value of all people and nations. We're all human. If any of us are going to make it through the next century, we have to remember that.
The issue is that he seems to be saying that we should be putting control of regulation of what games kids can play into the state, and I'm arguing that it should be the parents that decide what kinds of games their kids can play. (And books read, and movies see, etc., etc., etc.,.)
And she's made mutalisks by taping together two bridge blocks together, (one bridge forming the wings, the other forming the body, taped back to back,) and then taking a little bit of left over shrimp tail from a dinner, and taping it on to one end.
But I haven't seen her attempt merged templars yet. (Though she's fascinated by them.)
Maybe you think i'm off base, but kids are NOT adults and they can NOT judge things for themselves.
Ah......and maybe adults shouldn't be allowed to judge what media their kids can interact with, either, right?
My daughter's 4 years old, and plays a pretty mean game of Protoss vs. the Zerg. But perhaps the overmind thinks this is a poor way to bring up a child? Go regulate kids in some other country.
Slashdot Mirror
Infinging on rights is not due diligence.
...is basically a call for vigilante justice by way of legal harassment.
Whether or not Rockstar is irresponsible, that's one of those things you're supposed to talk about, and work in the social sphere to shame, and to influence.
But not in the legal sphere.
The argument: "Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this."
BUT... the problem, from a scientific perspective, is that the more we learn about genetics the more evidence exists that there ARE behavioral and personality traits linked to our genes.
... We think it increases chemical agent X, ... Which is statistically correlated with behavior Y..,") that are not scientific (because they have not stood up well to alternative, equally plausible explanations,) that appeal to people with pre-determined beliefs aka "pre-judgements" aka "prejudices." ...who then go on to say, "Because this is a materialist explanation, it is therefor scientific truth."
Not at all;
Genetics is still in infancy, and all we're finding is statistical correlations.
There is not a single good scientific explanation (I said scientific, not just materialistic -- that is, it has to be backed by experience and have stood to scientific criticism) alive that tells, mechanically, how you get from specific genes, to specific behaviors.
Instead, what you have is a bunch of materialistic explanations ("This gene here,
That, my friend, is the state of things.
Evolutionary Psychology is rife with fraud, and you can't throw a stone in a scientific establishment without (A) hitting someone who is passionately sure that it's real, and then (B) the stone riccocheting off to hit some other scientist, who'll say, "This is just wishful thinking on their part, and their literature leaks like a sieve."
Wha-?
I always thought it was the conservatives who hate Free Speech.
It's the conservatives who want women to cover up, who can't stand for a stray boob on TV, who want to force people to pledge allegience to the flag.
It's conservatives who get in a tissy, whenever somebody burns a flag.
Or did you turn a blind eye to your own side's weakness?
There's people for and against Free Speech, on both sides!
Go convert your own people to the ideals of a Liberal Democracy.
"None of this would even be a question if the inventor hadn't patented it ... the invention simply wouldn't exist!"
You see, this is why popular belief is against the legal professionals. It's because you say insane things like this.
I also want to know where the little guy went, when the little guy independently invents something. Where, oh where, is the little guy argument? For some reason, the argument disappears.
Yet the computer software industry is full of little guys, independently inventing, and then told: "You can't use that." "I wasn't even going to patent it!" "Oh, you have goodness in your heart, that's nice. Still, you can't use it." "But it's obvious!" "Nothing is obvious, my dear friend, nothing."
I hope you know that, if all free software "inventions" were patented, and placed into a gigantic Free Software pool, we could completely gum up all software development in the world, or perhaps the WIPO subscribing world, or, hey, let's face it- at least just in the United States. It's only because we don't have the money and the time to do it, that it doesn't happen. I do hope that you realize this.
I agree with the kind of reasoning you are giving.
I, too, am working to engage this sort of reasoning.
I see that you have a wiki; Let me suggest using it to economize on your propagation.
Tangentially related, you may be interested in SelectivelyOpenMinded, and PassagesOfPerspective. They can clarify a lot of mis-thinking. ("Open mindedness, carte blanc, is a virtue. I can criticize you for not being open minded, like me.") ("No, people must hold fast to their ideas, or else, what do they stand for?")
Arguments about how we should argue, how we should play our thoughts out, are important, and interesting, and deserve wider propagation.
Her favorite configuration is Protoss (her) & Protoss (me) vs. Zerg (computer.)
I wrote about how she used to play the Terrans on my blog a while back.
If I'm lost in online stuff, I hear: "C'mon daddy, it's time to play StarCraft."
As long as software for communicating, collaborating, organizing data, and organizing ourselves gets better, we're going to see more and more things go "free."
Think this way: Wikipedia couldn't exist, before you had the wiki basis software. Theoretically, you could do it by emailing documents back and forth, over and over again. But practically? Not going to happen.
So it's the wiki software that makes Wikipedia plausible.
The thing is, we're continuing to make more and more software the likes of Wiki. We're getting better at collaborating, we're getting better at organizing ourselves, we're developing more fluid communications technology, yadda yadda yadda.
So, the natural end of this line of thought is: More and more high quality free content.
Eventually, you'll get full 3D textured models out of your pen "scanner."
When these kids grow up, nobody will be doing postal sorting.
By super-world, I mean "world of worlds." That is, the games have common thematic and substantial elements.
...
An experiment: Take Final Fantasy 16, which no one has ever seen, and relabel it something else: "Seikken Densetsu 6" or something.
Let someone play it. Can they tell it's a Final Fantasy game, in the "Final Fantasy super-world?" My guess: Probably so.
I mean, "Cid" is a dead giveaway. Applying Ether's, invoking summons, riding Chocobo, perhaps there's a Mog somewhere around there, giant Meteor,
Sesshomaru, I can't find your email address, so I'll just leave this here: You may be interested in a page I wrote on CommunityWiki, called "SuperFreudianism."
I don't really consider the FF series to even be in the same world even.
I guess they're in the same "super-world," though. That is, there's some bag full of universes, and that bag itself is the world that the FF series live in.
And Cid is in every. Single. Bag.
At least Cid wasn't in the Super Mario Brothers RPG.
Yep; X-2 is a bona fida sequal to X.
I keep wishing I could play a game that took place in the Secret of Mana world, as a small story that took place in the ice forest, or something like that.
It's not in sequence?
Well, freedom hater, here is how you draw the line.
...the answer is, "no."
If you kill someone with a gun in real life and they die, that's bad. But if you kill someone with a gun in a game, and they don't die in real life, that's okay.
If we need to draw a physical line, we can draw a nice outline around the chips in your computer. Until knives and bullets come flying out of your computer chips, the line has not been crossed.
Now as for the next question: "Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?"
You are free to limit your own mind, for the sake of protecting yourself from whatever horrible creatures of the imagination you want to avoid choosing for yourself. But that does not give you blanket authority to determine the operation of other people's imaginations, no matter how much you fear the creatures of their imagining.
Punish them for their actions, but not their drawings. I mean words.
Glad to be of service.
Why make sequels, when you can tell a different story, in the same world?
I'm fine with reusing worlds.
That's a powerful link; Plain spoken, though technical, and it explains the ITRS well.
Just a link: Evolutionary Christianity.
It's basically a whole view on God, life's purpose, yadda yadda yadda, that is both religious and scientific.
Intel said they were going to be releasing x100-core processors by 2015.
Just watch the Intel 2005 Keynote speech, (video) hear about x100 cores and x100 GBits/sec chip-chip data transfer.
It's not like this is a big secret or anything.
We don't have any moral lessons?
Do you think that preserving freedom of speech in law is a bad idea?
Just because America has a ton of moral failings, it doesn't mean that we don't have a ton of moral strengths, either.
Something tells me: You'd be at home in a community circle, working together with others, and realizing each other's strengths and weaknesses, and affirming the value of every human being.
Why then, such bitter hatred, of America, as to claim that America doesn't have moral lessons for the world?
I've heard leftists say: "No, no, you got me all wrong: I don't hate America, I love America, and that's why I'm doing all this activist work." But then you hear something like how it has "no moral lessons to give," and you understand the complaint: "Leftists hate America."
So do Leftism a favor, and recognize the value of all people and nations. We're all human. If any of us are going to make it through the next century, we have to remember that.
You might like "Metal Gear Solid," as well.
The first doesn't require a PS2.
What would you, a "grey gamer," like to play?
I'd earnestly like to know the answers to these questions.
It's clear that you can "learn new tricks," otherwise you wouldn't be playing these games. So, what sorts of new tricks do you want to perform?
Parents everywhere?
The issue is that he seems to be saying that we should be putting control of regulation of what games kids can play into the state, and I'm arguing that it should be the parents that decide what kinds of games their kids can play. (And books read, and movies see, etc., etc., etc.,.)
Actually, she does warp in pylons in her room.
And she's made mutalisks by taping together two bridge blocks together, (one bridge forming the wings, the other forming the body, taped back to back,) and then taking a little bit of left over shrimp tail from a dinner, and taping it on to one end.
But I haven't seen her attempt merged templars yet. (Though she's fascinated by them.)
Maybe you think i'm off base, but kids are NOT adults and they can NOT judge things for themselves.
...and maybe adults shouldn't be allowed to judge what media their kids can interact with, either, right?
Ah...
My daughter's 4 years old, and plays a pretty mean game of Protoss vs. the Zerg. But perhaps the overmind thinks this is a poor way to bring up a child? Go regulate kids in some other country.
I just saw this link on MetaFilter, but haven't investigated it.
If anyone has more info, it'd be appreciated.