didn't Jedi get enough responses in the UK last time to now be an officially recognized state religion?
To answer myself, it got a little less than 1% of the responses in one census but was treated as a protest/refuse to answer response by the government. Unofficially it was the 4th largest religion reported in the census. Some areas got over 2.5% people saying their religion was Jedi. And this was on an official government run census where some people might surely fear legal reprisal.
Some random organization asking questions- you'll get way more people giving fake answers for a laugh.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
When ever I have to fill out any information about myself I am always a black Jewish Lesbian that is over 100 years old and attended Harvard. The worst way to get information from people is to ask them questions in a survey.
I daresay a certain percent of people said they got their news from The Daily Show as a joke. Especially if the question was worded as such:
Where Do you get your news: a) CNN b) Fox News c) The Daily Show d-g) some other options.
People will see The Daily Show on the list and check it with a chuckle. I doubt that there are many people reading this that hasn't deliberately checked an incorrect response on a survey just for a laugh. Even on official government censuses there are always campaigns to get people say their religion is Jedi, didn't Jedi get enough responses in the UK last time to now be an officially recognized state religion?
When I see how crazily obsessed children are with Fortnite, when I see some adults here, comparing a Fortnite ban to human rights violation, it makes me think that maybe banning this shit would be a good thing.
I hate Fortnight and PUBG and that whole genre of FPS games too!
That's not what the worry is about, the worry is about yet another form of censorship from the world's largest market that will have impacts on us. It's getting to the point that what happens in China matters for the rest of the world. Just like people all over the world watch the American elections and dread which nincompoop gets elected this time, we're all going to start paying attention to China more- what China says and does has ripple effects throughout the world. Any move from China in the wrong direction means (in this global era) that it will impact what we have access to. And yes, Fortnight might be ridiculous crap, but even if you're more highbrow, your opera might be next, the ending has to change, or your films (no Asian allowed to be depicted as a villain- no capitalist or democratic sentiment in films).
China is big enough now that the problems of China's citizens are our problems.
Middle-class Chinese are traveling a lot these days. Let tourists discover what despite their new prosperity they can no longer have at home.
It is harder to organize dissent when everything you do is tracked and recorded. Not saying it won't happen, but it's a lot harder to organize a protest now than it was in the 1980's.
Terrible, barbaric, tyrannical governments that censor every little thing, should be CUT OFF FROM THE WORLD. Sell them NOTHING. Change NOTHING for them. Tell them take it or LEAVE it.
They outnumber us, and, well... the entire Western World. We don't cut them off from the world... they cut us off. If they ever come close to parity for production/earnings as the West they would easily be able to dominate the world. It's a shame about their government choice, for sure. I wish India would hurry up and modernize their economy and get to Western standards. Politically India is closer to the West in ideals and outlook. I'd much rather them dominate the world than China.
Just like the US has been able to enforce it's will around the globe for the last 80 years- give it a generation and China will be doing that. I don't like the sound of China modeling the world in it's image.
Well, sculpture would work. You have a hammer, chisel, and a block of marble in front of you and then wait for the whistle to blow before you start.
I must admit, that could actually be fun (fascinating might be better word) to watch if they were given a short period of time and had to work quick. Judging would be a hard task, but there again there are already so many subjective events in the Olympics.
Was there ever a time when Homo Sapiens traveled that little? The natives here regularly traveled to the interior (300+ miles) by foot to trade as well as paddling to Hawaii to get laid, not to mention the 10,000+ miles they traveled from Africa and then there's their cousins who went on to the southern tip of S. America. The America's were covered with trails used by the natives and I'd assume likewise everywhere else. There were some huge floods at the end of the ice age as well which may have been remembered.
Nomadic people obviously travelled more, but even they probably didn't travel far in the midst of flooding and storms.
I daresay the majority of people in Western Civilizations prior to 1600 (unless they were military, clergy, or traders) probably never travelled more than 20 miles from their home in their entire lives, they had no reason to. When everything around them was flooded I daresay they travelled even less.:)
In the era between proper civilization but after farming was discovered (so less migration) there were quite likely whole villages where no one in the village had left the immediate area. In the era between farming first being established and specialization in labour being established, leaving your farm would mean losing livestock or having your lands raided.
Er no, in the 1700s and 1800s, shooting was the primary means by which you put meat on the table for your family.
Maybe on the frontiers before settlements took off- but long before the 1700s farming had been the primary way most people got meat and food in established permanent settlements. In fact, in large swathes of the world very few people were even allowed to officially hunt, in Europe, and the areas controlled by Europe (which was most of the world in the 1800s) only the aristocracy was legally allowed to hunt in many areas. In most established areas there probably wouldn't have been enough wild animals near the towns to sustain the population if hunting were the only means of getting meat.
you're trying to draw an artificial difference between the various games so that you can place the traditional games in a more respectable class than the newer games.
Things like golf and billiards go back over 100 years they outdate the Olympics. It's got nothing to do with the age of the pastime. If videogames were 100 years old, I still wouldn't want them in. Heck, I would prefer to see Skate Boarding, or BMX riding as part of the Olympics ahead of video games or card games.
I see very little difference between professional Starcraft players and professional football players, other than that one of those two is more likely to be useful outside of the game.
Which one of those is useful outside of the game?
I would say athletics is a big separator between football (any of the sports that go by that name) and StarCraft. The difference between, say "darts, golf, and starcraft" and "football, running, and martial arts" is that whereas for either group one needs talent, skill and training to be the very best; the first group has very little to do with athletic ability and is almost purely just about technique. The second group, technique is very important too- but so is physical ability.
There's a reason chess, scrabble and poker have never made it into the Olympics (despite people trying to get them in multiple times)- it's absurd to include them in an athletics competition- and if poker isn't going to be in the Olympics anytime soon despite trying time and time again, video games won't be either.
Have either of them made it past the Oort cloud? No? When will that happen? So you're saying there's some distinction between "leaving the solar system" and "leaving the neighborhood of objects which orbit the sun"?
They probably won't be the first past the Oort cloud. I'm sure we will have vessels that can travel fast enough to overtake Voyager in time to beat them past that distance.
I've always been curious about how the sun's gravity can affect objects so far away from itself as the Oort cloud. Consider that I am thinking in terms of distance versus force where the intensity of the force decreases with distance, at such distances the intensity of the gravitational force should be really really small right?
It probably doesn't matter how small the force is as long as it is stronger than the other outside forces of gravity from other bodies. One billionth of a G in force is still stronger than nothing and if it is competing with "statistically" nothing it wins the tug of war.
A space probe made of Twinkies, piloted by cockroaches.
No cockroaches. If we're settling a planet- I don't want cockroaches sent there to populate it first. Earth 2.0 needs to be void of cockroaches, otherwise what's the point of leaving earth?
A lot of cultures have mythologies regarding a large, devastating flood covering the world to lend credence to the idea that there was a significant flooding event at some point in human history. Now, whether it was a global event or just one far enough back to affect common ancestors is up for debate.
Well, flooding has happened all over the world many times- in the old days before dams and river controls the paths of rivers didn't even stay put. The history of China is strongly linked with the Yellow River suddenly flooding and it's course moving hundreds of miles.
When all the world that you know about (which could only be an area of 10 square miles in an era when most people travelled by foot, not even horseback) quite possibly once every few generations they WOULD experience a flood that, to them, looked like it was covering the entire earth.
Seems weird that an almighty being would need a hammer, but who am I to argue with History.
He's not almighty. He can't defeat Iron Chariots.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
And finally, a lot of actors don't actually sell your data, they use it to send you targeted ads without letting advertisers know about you.
Honestly, although I always turn this option off. I don't have as much of problem with this. The problem I have with this is that it means they're storing that information which means someone hacking could steal it.
I have a problem with companies SHARING or SELLING data. You know (or should know) that if you work with a company that they could (and will) store data on you. But, you should have control over any third party that might receive the data from them. I don't think it should be legal for them to share data WITHOUT getting expressed permission for each and every data share.
Thanks, yeah, I had already looked. That's actually rather amusing and shows that it was a bit of a mess even then. Award for architecture going to guy who designed the stadium used for that Olympics seems pretty damn biased to me.:)
And this is probably the major reason why Video Gameswill probably never be part of the Olympics. Yeah- they shouldn't because not athletic... etc..etc..etc...
But ignoring all that; having Video Games as an event means partnering with certain Video Game publishers. Sharing events. Olympics is already disgustingly commercial- but if you start mixing in events based around games by EA, or Ubisoft, or any of the other major publishers and it becomes a commercial and biased minefield.
Also, whereas many video games are very popular all across the world. There are some only out in Russian or Mandarin that are very popular in those countries and not elsewhere. Do we settle for only the big American and Japanese publishers? Or is this truly inclusive and is the Ivansoft software treated equal? Does "shoot the white devil game" get equal billing with "fortnight"? Who picks, how much bribe money are they allowed to take?
So? There are already non-athletic events, and were more in the past. Meh, it's a business and will calculate what will draw the biggest paying crowd, and highest TV licensing rights. Clearly e-sports aren't there yet.
There are some, yeah, and most have historical connection going way back when that non-athletic endeavour was frequently linked with either the military (and by virtue an athletic lifestyle) or linked with some other athletic lifestyle.
There's also some in the Winter Olympics that I think are there because they had to pad the Winter Olympics to have enough events at one point and now they've stuck as traditional events.
I'd be very happy if they split the non-athletic sports into a different event. Heck, they could put video games in that split off too.
cause the same people will probably say that Golf is sport rather than a game... lol
I'd say Golf IS a game not a sport. Obviously it is one that takes years to master and there is a huge amount of skill involved and some hand eye-coordination. I'm not dissing the talent required to golf professionally- but I would classify it as a game not a sport.
I'd put pool, snookers, darts, archery and croquet in that list too.
In terms of athleticism how is eSports different then from many of the Shooting sports.
Honestly, other than the ones where they ski across country first, or combine with athletic endeavours, Shooting isn't athletic and probably would be better out and not in the Olympics. It is historically part of the modern Olympics though and certain groups would probably protest if there were a movement to remove it. Shooting was probably first included by association with athletic endeavours. In the 1800's there were probably few people for whom shooting involved going to the gun range or resting in a deer stand waiting for a deer to pass. It frequently involved a military occupation and athletic association.
If shooting wasn't historically part of the Olympics and they tried to add it new today, I'd probably be against it like I am Video Games.
It's an e-sport, not a sport. That's why we have the 2 different words. The Olympics can add anything they like, there's no "sport-only" rule. They broke with tradition when they went beyond the decathlon - it's all just arbitrary competitions..
There is still generally a convention that almost all Olympic sports involve some form of athleticism. Olympics isn't really about "sport" either, there are some sports involved, but it is "Athletics" (and obviously most sports involve some athletics). They obviously can do whatever they want- they can even add basket weaving if they so chose.
But adding non-athletic games would dilute the brand and probably have a consumer backlash.
Slashdot Mirror
didn't Jedi get enough responses in the UK last time to now be an officially recognized state religion?
To answer myself, it got a little less than 1% of the responses in one census but was treated as a protest/refuse to answer response by the government. Unofficially it was the 4th largest religion reported in the census. Some areas got over 2.5% people saying their religion was Jedi. And this was on an official government run census where some people might surely fear legal reprisal.
Some random organization asking questions- you'll get way more people giving fake answers for a laugh.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
When ever I have to fill out any information about myself I am always a black Jewish Lesbian that is over 100 years old and attended Harvard. The worst way to get information from people is to ask them questions in a survey.
I daresay a certain percent of people said they got their news from The Daily Show as a joke. Especially if the question was worded as such:
Where Do you get your news:
a) CNN
b) Fox News
c) The Daily Show
d-g) some other options.
People will see The Daily Show on the list and check it with a chuckle. I doubt that there are many people reading this that hasn't deliberately checked an incorrect response on a survey just for a laugh. Even on official government censuses there are always campaigns to get people say their religion is Jedi, didn't Jedi get enough responses in the UK last time to now be an officially recognized state religion?
When I see how crazily obsessed children are with Fortnite, when I see some adults here, comparing a Fortnite ban to human rights violation, it makes me think that maybe banning this shit would be a good thing.
I hate Fortnight and PUBG and that whole genre of FPS games too!
That's not what the worry is about, the worry is about yet another form of censorship from the world's largest market that will have impacts on us. It's getting to the point that what happens in China matters for the rest of the world. Just like people all over the world watch the American elections and dread which nincompoop gets elected this time, we're all going to start paying attention to China more- what China says and does has ripple effects throughout the world. Any move from China in the wrong direction means (in this global era) that it will impact what we have access to. And yes, Fortnight might be ridiculous crap, but even if you're more highbrow, your opera might be next, the ending has to change, or your films (no Asian allowed to be depicted as a villain- no capitalist or democratic sentiment in films).
China is big enough now that the problems of China's citizens are our problems.
Middle-class Chinese are traveling a lot these days. Let tourists discover what despite their new prosperity they can no longer have at home.
It is harder to organize dissent when everything you do is tracked and recorded. Not saying it won't happen, but it's a lot harder to organize a protest now than it was in the 1980's.
Terrible, barbaric, tyrannical governments that censor every little thing, should be CUT OFF FROM THE WORLD. Sell them NOTHING. Change NOTHING for them. Tell them take it or LEAVE it.
They outnumber us, and, well... the entire Western World. We don't cut them off from the world... they cut us off. If they ever come close to parity for production/earnings as the West they would easily be able to dominate the world. It's a shame about their government choice, for sure. I wish India would hurry up and modernize their economy and get to Western standards. Politically India is closer to the West in ideals and outlook. I'd much rather them dominate the world than China.
Just like the US has been able to enforce it's will around the globe for the last 80 years- give it a generation and China will be doing that. I don't like the sound of China modeling the world in it's image.
Well, sculpture would work. You have a hammer, chisel, and a block of marble in front of you and then wait for the whistle to blow before you start.
I must admit, that could actually be fun (fascinating might be better word) to watch if they were given a short period of time and had to work quick. Judging would be a hard task, but there again there are already so many subjective events in the Olympics.
Was there ever a time when Homo Sapiens traveled that little? The natives here regularly traveled to the interior (300+ miles) by foot to trade as well as paddling to Hawaii to get laid, not to mention the 10,000+ miles they traveled from Africa and then there's their cousins who went on to the southern tip of S. America.
The America's were covered with trails used by the natives and I'd assume likewise everywhere else.
There were some huge floods at the end of the ice age as well which may have been remembered.
Nomadic people obviously travelled more, but even they probably didn't travel far in the midst of flooding and storms.
I daresay the majority of people in Western Civilizations prior to 1600 (unless they were military, clergy, or traders) probably never travelled more than 20 miles from their home in their entire lives, they had no reason to. When everything around them was flooded I daresay they travelled even less. :)
In the era between proper civilization but after farming was discovered (so less migration) there were quite likely whole villages where no one in the village had left the immediate area. In the era between farming first being established and specialization in labour being established, leaving your farm would mean losing livestock or having your lands raided.
Er no, in the 1700s and 1800s, shooting was the primary means by which you put meat on the table for your family.
Maybe on the frontiers before settlements took off- but long before the 1700s farming had been the primary way most people got meat and food in established permanent settlements. In fact, in large swathes of the world very few people were even allowed to officially hunt, in Europe, and the areas controlled by Europe (which was most of the world in the 1800s) only the aristocracy was legally allowed to hunt in many areas. In most established areas there probably wouldn't have been enough wild animals near the towns to sustain the population if hunting were the only means of getting meat.
you're trying to draw an artificial difference between the various games so that you can place the traditional games in a more respectable class than the newer games.
Things like golf and billiards go back over 100 years they outdate the Olympics. It's got nothing to do with the age of the pastime. If videogames were 100 years old, I still wouldn't want them in. Heck, I would prefer to see Skate Boarding, or BMX riding as part of the Olympics ahead of video games or card games.
I see very little difference between professional Starcraft players and professional football players, other than that one of those two is more likely to be useful outside of the game.
Which one of those is useful outside of the game?
I would say athletics is a big separator between football (any of the sports that go by that name) and StarCraft. The difference between, say "darts, golf, and starcraft" and "football, running, and martial arts" is that whereas for either group one needs talent, skill and training to be the very best; the first group has very little to do with athletic ability and is almost purely just about technique. The second group, technique is very important too- but so is physical ability.
There's a reason chess, scrabble and poker have never made it into the Olympics (despite people trying to get them in multiple times)- it's absurd to include them in an athletics competition- and if poker isn't going to be in the Olympics anytime soon despite trying time and time again, video games won't be either.
Have either of them made it past the Oort cloud?
No? When will that happen?
So you're saying there's some distinction between "leaving the solar system" and "leaving the neighborhood of objects which orbit the sun"?
They probably won't be the first past the Oort cloud. I'm sure we will have vessels that can travel fast enough to overtake Voyager in time to beat them past that distance.
I've always been curious about how the sun's gravity can affect objects so far away from itself as the Oort cloud. Consider that I am thinking in terms of distance versus force where the intensity of the force decreases with distance, at such distances the intensity of the gravitational force should be really really small right?
It probably doesn't matter how small the force is as long as it is stronger than the other outside forces of gravity from other bodies. One billionth of a G in force is still stronger than nothing and if it is competing with "statistically" nothing it wins the tug of war.
A space probe made of Twinkies, piloted by cockroaches.
No cockroaches. If we're settling a planet- I don't want cockroaches sent there to populate it first. Earth 2.0 needs to be void of cockroaches, otherwise what's the point of leaving earth?
A lot of cultures have mythologies regarding a large, devastating flood covering the world to lend credence to the idea that there was a significant flooding event at some point in human history. Now, whether it was a global event or just one far enough back to affect common ancestors is up for debate.
Well, flooding has happened all over the world many times- in the old days before dams and river controls the paths of rivers didn't even stay put. The history of China is strongly linked with the Yellow River suddenly flooding and it's course moving hundreds of miles.
When all the world that you know about (which could only be an area of 10 square miles in an era when most people travelled by foot, not even horseback) quite possibly once every few generations they WOULD experience a flood that, to them, looked like it was covering the entire earth.
Seems weird that an almighty being would need a hammer, but who am I to argue with History.
He's not almighty. He can't defeat Iron Chariots.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
And finally, a lot of actors don't actually sell your data, they use it to send you targeted ads without letting advertisers know about you.
Honestly, although I always turn this option off. I don't have as much of problem with this. The problem I have with this is that it means they're storing that information which means someone hacking could steal it.
I have a problem with companies SHARING or SELLING data. You know (or should know) that if you work with a company that they could (and will) store data on you. But, you should have control over any third party that might receive the data from them. I don't think it should be legal for them to share data WITHOUT getting expressed permission for each and every data share.
I'll make it easy for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thanks, yeah, I had already looked. That's actually rather amusing and shows that it was a bit of a mess even then. Award for architecture going to guy who designed the stadium used for that Olympics seems pretty damn biased to me. :)
So there was a silver lining to Google+ getting hacked again?
And this is probably the major reason why Video Gameswill probably never be part of the Olympics. Yeah- they shouldn't because not athletic... etc..etc..etc...
But ignoring all that; having Video Games as an event means partnering with certain Video Game publishers. Sharing events. Olympics is already disgustingly commercial- but if you start mixing in events based around games by EA, or Ubisoft, or any of the other major publishers and it becomes a commercial and biased minefield.
Also, whereas many video games are very popular all across the world. There are some only out in Russian or Mandarin that are very popular in those countries and not elsewhere. Do we settle for only the big American and Japanese publishers? Or is this truly inclusive and is the Ivansoft software treated equal? Does "shoot the white devil game" get equal billing with "fortnight"? Who picks, how much bribe money are they allowed to take?
True, but up until 1948 the Olympics included architecture, literature, music, painting and sculpture categories at various times.
I'm not sure if that's a joke or for real- I'll have to google. If that were really the case- thank goodness those days are gone.
So? There are already non-athletic events, and were more in the past. Meh, it's a business and will calculate what will draw the biggest paying crowd, and highest TV licensing rights. Clearly e-sports aren't there yet.
There are some, yeah, and most have historical connection going way back when that non-athletic endeavour was frequently linked with either the military (and by virtue an athletic lifestyle) or linked with some other athletic lifestyle.
There's also some in the Winter Olympics that I think are there because they had to pad the Winter Olympics to have enough events at one point and now they've stuck as traditional events.
I'd be very happy if they split the non-athletic sports into a different event. Heck, they could put video games in that split off too.
cause the same people will probably say that Golf is sport rather than a game... lol
I'd say Golf IS a game not a sport. Obviously it is one that takes years to master and there is a huge amount of skill involved and some hand eye-coordination. I'm not dissing the talent required to golf professionally- but I would classify it as a game not a sport.
I'd put pool, snookers, darts, archery and croquet in that list too.
So... should History be an Olympic Sport? :)
In terms of athleticism how is eSports different then from many of the Shooting sports.
Honestly, other than the ones where they ski across country first, or combine with athletic endeavours, Shooting isn't athletic and probably would be better out and not in the Olympics. It is historically part of the modern Olympics though and certain groups would probably protest if there were a movement to remove it. Shooting was probably first included by association with athletic endeavours. In the 1800's there were probably few people for whom shooting involved going to the gun range or resting in a deer stand waiting for a deer to pass. It frequently involved a military occupation and athletic association.
If shooting wasn't historically part of the Olympics and they tried to add it new today, I'd probably be against it like I am Video Games.
It's an e-sport, not a sport. That's why we have the 2 different words. The Olympics can add anything they like, there's no "sport-only" rule. They broke with tradition when they went beyond the decathlon - it's all just arbitrary competitions. .
There is still generally a convention that almost all Olympic sports involve some form of athleticism. Olympics isn't really about "sport" either, there are some sports involved, but it is "Athletics" (and obviously most sports involve some athletics). They obviously can do whatever they want- they can even add basket weaving if they so chose.
But adding non-athletic games would dilute the brand and probably have a consumer backlash.