Interestingly, this is exactly what I would have done if I were a subversive anti-DRM engineer working at SONY. Make a DRM system with such onerous consequences for anyone who touches it that there was sure to be a significant public backlash. It makes me wonder just how much of a 'mistake' was involved here.
Re:PS3? No thanks, Sony; you screwed the pooch
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
And also not necessarily to change your mind or anything, but do you really think Sony's business practices averaged over say the last 5 years are worse than Microsoft's? I mean yes, this week sony has done a huge bad, and Microsoft has done a small good, but it's like saying you'd prefer the company of the devil who gave you a nice lollipop today to the saint who slapped you in a brief fit of anger over your stealing of his cane.
Actually, ask a scientist and they will tell you a linear scale is most effective when you use the full range. That's the big problem people have with, for example, ice skating: the worst performance of the night will score 5/6 with glaring painful to watch errors, and the most perfect performance of the night will score 5.9/6.
Taken to a logical extreme, you should really never rate a game higher than 0/10, because surely the same game with significant graphics enhancements could be made 10 more times, and surely you would agree that each major step in graphics enhancement should deserve at least a one point improvement in score?
I take a 10/10 score on a game review to mean: reviewer didn't find anything he didn't like in the time he had to play it before the review came out. A reviewer with even a minor nit to pick will drop the perfect 10 and harp on his pet peeve, hoping to get the company to fix his pet peeve in the next version.
Only 150mph in the viper on a racetrack? Man, I drove my Nissan Altima that fast on the 5. I have to agree though, no motion blur. However, as others have pointed out, since you are limited to 30fps on most tvs (60fps on a few relatively expensive tvs), motion blur is all an xbox360 is going to do, since you can't crank the frame rate high enough to avoid the frame stutter effect (which takes more like 90-120 fps, offered on no tv that I know of).
Actually I don't commute at all, I work from home. I'm just pointing out that some people make more responsible choices than others, and that often those choices are made within a framework of a real life. Given a choice between a high mpg car and a low mpg car, a person choosing a high mpg car is being more responsible. Given a choice between a short commute and a long commute, choosing the short commute is responsible. These are independent decisions, and often only one may be available.
That's only true to the extent that we have control over our commutes. Most people have very limited choices about where they can live, and often concerns about things like your children's physical welfare outweigh your concern about number of gallons of gas used. However, within that framework, there is still room to make a more responsible choice to limit your gas consumption where you can. And so it may actually be quite reasonable for a person consuming as little gas as they can to scoff at a person using less gas but at the same time much more than they need.
The key to this argument is to make clear that science is the study of natural processes inside the universe. An ID outside the universe isn't a valid field of study for science, as we have no way of accessing 'outside' the universe.
Inside the universe, it seems fairly clear that we can just perform a simple grid search of the universe, which will surely be time consuming, but will otherwise not even be particularly interesting. Either we find something which designed the various unexplained things we see in nature or we don't. If we don't, we've at least ruled out ID as a science.
Sorry, at the time all of the mods were off for the joke (ie no interesting, informative, funny, or troll mods any of which I would have considered on for the joke, with troll being a maybe). I don't think 'offtopic' helps to perpetuate the joke, because that just hides the comment for most people.
Certainly there are a number of possible internal causes, all essentially having 'something wierd happens to brain' as their categorical description. The doctors game me a clean bill of health, but that obviously doesn't rule out internal cause.
My experience didn't tell me to kill anyone nor to convert anyone, nor really to take any other irrational-ish action, so it hasn't really crippled my ability to reason, the way that say organized religion tends to with a lot of people.
I doubt you'll see this since you posted AC, but they seem to be happy enough, until you marry a psychologist, and then you hear the stories about how messed up these people really are inside. It's more than enough to make you sad for them.
It's meant to be mildly funny, but the point I'm trying to make with the humor is serious: I'm completely convinced that there is no way to know whether or not you are under mind control of some kind. Descartes is wrong when he argues there is any way to ration or logic your way to knowledge of whether or not your mental experience reflects reality, or if you are just a brain in a vat being fed artificial stimulation.
If you accept that assumption, and given an experience that you are incapable of denying, then I think you reach the conclusion that either some external entity has directly modified you, whatever you are (whether you are a conventional person as we think we understand that, or if you are just some brain in a vat, or who knows what else we might actually be), or you reach the conclusion that your mind has been naturally (calling a stroke natural) modified. One way or another, your mind has been altered. Either that happened internally or externally. The internal possibilities are basically stroke, drug reaction, accident to my knowledge. The external possibilities are intelligence in 3 flavors: man, not-man-but-not-god (aliens), or god. Anything external but not intelligent I threw into the internal accident category for convenience (ie icepick through the forehead isn't exactly internal, but the effect is roughly the same as a stroke for purposes of this discussion).
So the question then becomes, can you rule out the internal category? You can try, but ultimately you can't be sure. You can go to the doctors to try to rule out a stroke / drug reaction / accident. Ultimately, you'll never be sure, but you can gain as much confidence as external confirmation can give you.
All right, suppose as an individual with such an experience, you've visited the doctor, and done your best to rule out the internal causes. Can you narrow down the external cause? I'd say at this point, no, you're stuck. You can't know for sure whether it was God or the Aliens (or the Government). Maybe you can rule out the government to some degree, because you visited the doctor and asked around and no one else seems to think that this scenario is realistic. The government becomes less likely. Maybe the aliens become less likely also by the same argument. Still, you can never be sure, you're always relying on the external confirmation or denial.
So now the question is: are you better off trusting that the people who wrote down the bible had a more direct experience of God than you did, and that no one since has tampered with the message, or are you better off listening to your own personal message?
I'd argue that even if you could make a decision about whether to believe the bible or your personal experience, you're way better off listening to your personal message, the bible path seems fraught with the possibility of corruption by comparison. And again, I'll point out that if you've really had one of these experiences, you can't even consider the possibility that the bible is right and you are wrong.
Finally, I don't know who God grants such experiences to. I've had one, and the doctors couldn't find anything wrong with me.
That's neither legally true nor morally true. Legally, I can say what I want, and you can ask me to leave at any time, which I must do, barring various situations in which you automatically lose the right to ask me to leave immediately. Morally, it's fairly straightforward that I can say what I want, but you have a right to a certain separation so that I can't keep you up at night.
Note definition 1: 1. The belief that everyone is out to get you.
Note that it doesn't specify being right or wrong. If you believe everyone is out to get you, then you are paranoid, even if they really are out to get you.
Be sure to notice that, as others have pointed out, this study was done on aluminum foil hats, not tin foil hats. Your tin foil hats are as effective as ever they were.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, this is exactly what I would have done if I were a subversive anti-DRM engineer working at SONY. Make a DRM system with such onerous consequences for anyone who touches it that there was sure to be a significant public backlash. It makes me wonder just how much of a 'mistake' was involved here.
And also not necessarily to change your mind or anything, but do you really think Sony's business practices averaged over say the last 5 years are worse than Microsoft's? I mean yes, this week sony has done a huge bad, and Microsoft has done a small good, but it's like saying you'd prefer the company of the devil who gave you a nice lollipop today to the saint who slapped you in a brief fit of anger over your stealing of his cane.
Actually, ask a scientist and they will tell you a linear scale is most effective when you use the full range. That's the big problem people have with, for example, ice skating: the worst performance of the night will score 5/6 with glaring painful to watch errors, and the most perfect performance of the night will score 5.9/6.
Taken to a logical extreme, you should really never rate a game higher than 0/10, because surely the same game with significant graphics enhancements could be made 10 more times, and surely you would agree that each major step in graphics enhancement should deserve at least a one point improvement in score?
I take a 10/10 score on a game review to mean: reviewer didn't find anything he didn't like in the time he had to play it before the review came out. A reviewer with even a minor nit to pick will drop the perfect 10 and harp on his pet peeve, hoping to get the company to fix his pet peeve in the next version.
Only 150mph in the viper on a racetrack? Man, I drove my Nissan Altima that fast on the 5. I have to agree though, no motion blur. However, as others have pointed out, since you are limited to 30fps on most tvs (60fps on a few relatively expensive tvs), motion blur is all an xbox360 is going to do, since you can't crank the frame rate high enough to avoid the frame stutter effect (which takes more like 90-120 fps, offered on no tv that I know of).
Well, since you've held off, you don't really have to make a decision til april./ 1724242&tid=211
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/12
http://games.slashdot.org/
Or maybe your are suggesting a 'non-video' games section?
Awww man that cracked me up. Suvs saving power! Heh heh!
Actually I don't commute at all, I work from home. I'm just pointing out that some people make more responsible choices than others, and that often those choices are made within a framework of a real life. Given a choice between a high mpg car and a low mpg car, a person choosing a high mpg car is being more responsible. Given a choice between a short commute and a long commute, choosing the short commute is responsible. These are independent decisions, and often only one may be available.
That's only true to the extent that we have control over our commutes. Most people have very limited choices about where they can live, and often concerns about things like your children's physical welfare outweigh your concern about number of gallons of gas used. However, within that framework, there is still room to make a more responsible choice to limit your gas consumption where you can. And so it may actually be quite reasonable for a person consuming as little gas as they can to scoff at a person using less gas but at the same time much more than they need.
Even worse, centuries of scientific evidence suggest that Occam's razor is incorrect!
The key to this argument is to make clear that science is the study of natural processes inside the universe. An ID outside the universe isn't a valid field of study for science, as we have no way of accessing 'outside' the universe.
Inside the universe, it seems fairly clear that we can just perform a simple grid search of the universe, which will surely be time consuming, but will otherwise not even be particularly interesting. Either we find something which designed the various unexplained things we see in nature or we don't. If we don't, we've at least ruled out ID as a science.
Sorry, at the time all of the mods were off for the joke (ie no interesting, informative, funny, or troll mods any of which I would have considered on for the joke, with troll being a maybe). I don't think 'offtopic' helps to perpetuate the joke, because that just hides the comment for most people.
Hint: the funny is not in the dictionary.
Ah well, I tried. Sorry to disappoint, I'll try to be cleverer next time.
Certainly there are a number of possible internal causes, all essentially having 'something wierd happens to brain' as their categorical description. The doctors game me a clean bill of health, but that obviously doesn't rule out internal cause.
My experience didn't tell me to kill anyone nor to convert anyone, nor really to take any other irrational-ish action, so it hasn't really crippled my ability to reason, the way that say organized religion tends to with a lot of people.
:-)
Always a pleasure to see someone who reads carefully and understands what they're reading.
The point of which, was that I was out to manipulate the OP's mind. :-) I was really out to get him.
It might be worth checking my websters link to enjoy the true humor of my post.
Feel free to check my websters link to enjoy the true humor of my post.
I doubt you'll see this since you posted AC, but they seem to be happy enough, until you marry a psychologist, and then you hear the stories about how messed up these people really are inside. It's more than enough to make you sad for them.
It's meant to be mildly funny, but the point I'm trying to make with the humor is serious: I'm completely convinced that there is no way to know whether or not you are under mind control of some kind. Descartes is wrong when he argues there is any way to ration or logic your way to knowledge of whether or not your mental experience reflects reality, or if you are just a brain in a vat being fed artificial stimulation.
If you accept that assumption, and given an experience that you are incapable of denying, then I think you reach the conclusion that either some external entity has directly modified you, whatever you are (whether you are a conventional person as we think we understand that, or if you are just some brain in a vat, or who knows what else we might actually be), or you reach the conclusion that your mind has been naturally (calling a stroke natural) modified. One way or another, your mind has been altered. Either that happened internally or externally. The internal possibilities are basically stroke, drug reaction, accident to my knowledge. The external possibilities are intelligence in 3 flavors: man, not-man-but-not-god (aliens), or god. Anything external but not intelligent I threw into the internal accident category for convenience (ie icepick through the forehead isn't exactly internal, but the effect is roughly the same as a stroke for purposes of this discussion).
So the question then becomes, can you rule out the internal category? You can try, but ultimately you can't be sure. You can go to the doctors to try to rule out a stroke / drug reaction / accident. Ultimately, you'll never be sure, but you can gain as much confidence as external confirmation can give you.
All right, suppose as an individual with such an experience, you've visited the doctor, and done your best to rule out the internal causes. Can you narrow down the external cause? I'd say at this point, no, you're stuck. You can't know for sure whether it was God or the Aliens (or the Government). Maybe you can rule out the government to some degree, because you visited the doctor and asked around and no one else seems to think that this scenario is realistic. The government becomes less likely. Maybe the aliens become less likely also by the same argument. Still, you can never be sure, you're always relying on the external confirmation or denial.
So now the question is: are you better off trusting that the people who wrote down the bible had a more direct experience of God than you did, and that no one since has tampered with the message, or are you better off listening to your own personal message?
I'd argue that even if you could make a decision about whether to believe the bible or your personal experience, you're way better off listening to your personal message, the bible path seems fraught with the possibility of corruption by comparison. And again, I'll point out that if you've really had one of these experiences, you can't even consider the possibility that the bible is right and you are wrong.
Finally, I don't know who God grants such experiences to. I've had one, and the doctors couldn't find anything wrong with me.
Ok mods, I'm losing faith here. Please discover why the above is funny.
That's neither legally true nor morally true. Legally, I can say what I want, and you can ask me to leave at any time, which I must do, barring various situations in which you automatically lose the right to ask me to leave immediately. Morally, it's fairly straightforward that I can say what I want, but you have a right to a certain separation so that I can't keep you up at night.
No, no, it is still paranoia:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paranoia
(assuming you can trust merriam webster):
Note definition 1:
1. The belief that everyone is out to get you.
Note that it doesn't specify being right or wrong. If you believe everyone is out to get you, then you are paranoid, even if they really are out to get you.
Be sure to notice that, as others have pointed out, this study was done on aluminum foil hats, not tin foil hats. Your tin foil hats are as effective as ever they were.