A person can be unobservant without being unintelligent. Though I often agree with Moore, he presents things in a misleading manner. If people were not susceptible to having their attention directed, magic tricks wouldn't work:
I would say he does numerous "tricks" with the medium, and therefore will never rely on what is presented in a Moore film to form my own opinions. (Anyway, why would I when I can rely on Slashdot, where every assertion anyone makes is picked apart for my reading pleasure? That way I don't have to be observant; I just need lots of time.)
Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof?
You are not the only one.
What surprises me is that there aren't more people pointing out the decline in youth violence. Media sources frame things such that it sounds like there's a terrible increase. The presentation is misleading, stirring up drama.
This is not evidence either way for video games causing violence; perhaps violence would have gone down more without video games. But the idea seems less likely, especially since the number of video games has only been increasing.
Actually, elusive and invisible is good -- fear of the unknown. I mean, we don't want anything to be too tangible, or Americans might start to think that they are not likely to get bombed at any second by nebulous terro-commies! Then they would start demanding more "rights" and other dangerous things. *shudder*
Actually, based on what a couple of my friends encountered when they visited China, it's worse than that. A large number of them follow the dogma that the Chinese government knows best, and rabidly support the propaganda they're fed. In other words, they DO care, but they are (duh) misinformed (to put it mildly). They don't see themselves as oppressed any more than overprotected religious children see themselves as sheltered -- and it's not their fault. The whole *point* of censorship, after all, is to keep people from seeing things about reality that would shake up the current power structure.
(This isn't to say that Google has the power to change this; I don't think it can.)
Because straight A students are the pillars of society, the hope for the future, the most likely to succeed. They are smart, honest, and good. They're the ones who are going to cure cancer.
In the unlikely event that something tragic happens, however, it is "just so terrible" when it's an A student. If it were a D student, then nobody cares because their future was to flip burgers at McDonald's.
Because to make structured, replicating molecules, you need some amount of stability. (And having elements other than hydrogen and helium is kind of important, too -- the sun and Jupiter are lacking. It would be like trying to build a structure from those little single-unit Legos, except worse, because you could only put two together at a time.) But even given bigger elements (eg. nitrogen, silicon) it would be difficult because they don't form nice long stable chains like carbon does. (It would be analogous to making a computer case out of paper. It would be too "reactive" to last very long. You want the *circuits* of the computer to react, but not the other stuff.) The "chance layers" we are familiar with (cell membranes) formed based on certain unique qualities of water and organic molecules. I would not claim this is the only way (who knows?), but there are specific chemical reasons that viable alternatives aren't jumping out at us.
But fire-based life would make a cool sci-fi story.
Problems that take habit changes, self evaluation, and the help of others can not be solved in a 10 minute blurb, or a book.
Of course they cannot be solved in a 10 minute blurb. But have you actually watched Dr. Phil? I have, because I was curious: WTF does he say to these people?!?
Well, first of all, he does a lot of research ahead of time. Interviews, videos, information on and from friends, family, etc. He does not go in blind.
He focuses the "blurb" on getting a person to gain some sort of insight -- often acknowledgment of what the issue is and the need to change. In most cases, Dr. Phil then outlines a long-term plan. He brings in whatever resources are needed. Usually this is setting them up with counseling/therapy near where they live. If it's an obese person, he sets them up with health professionals to work with the person in very specific ways. Sometimes more creative resources are necessary. For example, there was an Asian woman who invented a nail polish holder and had a dream of selling it. She made thousands of them, but never sold any, and her husband was super frustrated. Dr. Phil had some professionals do some marketing research on the invention, which he presented during the show. (She hadn't done any research at all and not very good marketing.) There was a show with a man who was an extreme pack rat. His house was uninhabitable and his family lived in a trailer outside. He couldn't bear to throw anything out. Dr. Phil told him he was going to send trucks to his house to haul everything away (none of it was being used) -- but not before the man's underlying issue was addressed: the need for control. He set him up with therapy, and a few months later the man was able to welcome the trucks and move on with his life.
I have to admit, I was impressed. He does a pretty good job of getting his point across, IMO, and I think viewers can benefit from watching these interactions. I mean, I do not agree with his inane comment about video games! But he deserves some credit, particularly since the people who come on the show are usually not aware of the forms of help they need. In other words, they are not going onto the show instead of taking practical steps on their own. They are ignorant of what they need to do.
I have not read any of Dr. Phil's books. They are certainly marketed like every other self-help book out there: "Improve Your Life Now!!" But I know that his view on, say, weight loss, is that it takes long-term habit changes, so if somebody is going to buy a self-help book, better his than a fad diet book. Any book is far from ideal. However, professional help is expensive, so I think that self-help books (and people like Dr. Phil) have their place.
I don't think I missed what you were saying, though I could be wrong. What I *think* you were saying is that a circle of cheats could all agree to using WoW gold to trade (or discount) real-world items between each other. For the most part they would not be siphoning out gold to people outside the "circle" for cash. It would be like bartering items, except with an extra step in between. (Person A has a diamond ring, they trade it for gold, and then "spend" it on a boat from Person B and some skiing gear from Person C.) Correct me if I am wrong.
I asserted that this would be equivalent to any arbitrary "currency" chosen by the circle of cheats to eliminate actual transfer of cash, and that therefore there is nothing special about money in MMORPGs unless you take it outside the circle of cheats. I also am not thinking about what happens when the game shuts down; I am saying it's inherently volatile all of the time -- although this wasn't my main point. Mainly, I don't see how game money would be any more helpful for hiding the goods than anything else would be. The only thing I can think of is that it's owned by someone else -- which is both an advantage (to keep the cheats from cheating each other) and disadvantage (Blizzard reserves the right to delete). Am I missing something? I mean, I'm not exactly well-versed in tax evasion techniques.
(3) Firefighters refer to polyurethane foam as `solid gasoline' because of its flammability, and when burning, it emits deadly gases including arsenic.
That's strange. Arsenic (like mercury) is an element, so this would mean it's in the foam from the get-go, fire or no fire. I mean, this post has me convinced of the danger of the stuff, but perhaps they mean organic toxins like cyanide or carbon monoxide? That would make more sense.
If they don't take their money out of the game, then they're no better off than if they decided to use origami cranes as a currency. The thing that gives gold its value in WoW are the players who use it. The thing that gives it its value outside WoW is the fact that people will trade real-world money for it. If you neither use it nor take it out, its worth to you will quickly dissipate.
Besides, in the short run, origami cranes would probably be a more stable currency, since the labor it takes to make them is consistent, while WoW faces slow but steady MUDflation. Of course, in the long run someone would get a machine that folds paper into cranes, and the value of cranes would plummet. WoW gold can plummet due to exploits, expansions, and new players, but I don't think it would be so sudden. Still, it would be as risky to stockpile gold you weren't planning to cash in on promptly as stockpiling origami birds on your porch, where the first rain that comes along would be devastating.:)
I think that criminals/cheats would not use WoW gold as a currency (unless they played the game or sold it to players outside the criminal circle) for the same reasons they don't use cranes, leased cars, or other such things.
I agree that crime is nothing new, and the older stuff is no less tragic than the newer stuff. I do think there is some value, however, in hearing about this. People are familiar with the idea of pizzas being delivered to the wrong address, even though it's not in the news, because that particular prank has been around awhile and has seeped into popular culture. But since most people don't sit around all day thinking up pranks and crimes, newer scams (fake craigslist post, fake PayPal login page, etc) haven't occurred to them. Sure, as you get older, you (hopefully) are more savvy and not easily taken in by *any* form of chicanery. But hearing about a particular technique in the news can help you connect the dots a lot faster. (Or, if you're gullible, connect the dots *at all*...)
Of course, this isn't why it IS in the news; it's there because they can make new technology seem all dramatic and scary and silly things like that. But I do think it's a good thing to keep people informed, yes.
>Whats to stop you from transferring to a completely electronic brain and living on as long as you have juice?
What's to stop you?
Natural resources (or lack thereof). Money (being busy dealing with the cost of having a *place* to live -- not to mention retirement). Power (if you don't have any). Politics (all those people in developing countries ALSO wanting electronic brains, the greedy bastards -- and all the people in power who want to look like they care). You know, business as usual.
Besides, electronic != invulnerable. Don't people talk about how their cars or their computers "DIE"? Personally, I think our body has a good thing going with its cell division technology (as long as it has juice). Sadly, our cells are programmed to die... except for cancer cells, which are programmed to be immortal. I'm hoping for a fix in Homo sapiens 2.0.1.
I don't have a problem with an electronic brain. (I have money. Bring it on!) I'm just saying it's not the magic key to eternal life.
Yet here they are talking about genetically modifying people directly... Why are we willing to modify a sick person's genes, but not those of cows or maize?
I don't think the "'organic' food crowd" would be too happy about modifying a person's genes, either, especially considering that some of these people are in the anti-vaccine crowd, too. When did the small group of zealots in the first two paragraphs go to "we" in the third?
Also, while I am not in those crowds, I have heard that GM foods are modified to sell better (eg. redder tomatoes) with nutritional value not being a priority. In other words, they may not be bad for you, but they're not as good for you. This much, IMO, makes sense.
I know what you're saying... games are far more complicated than they used to be (heh, flying in Super Mario 3 used to seem so tricky...). Sometimes, even as a somewhat experienced gamer, reading about all the fancy features on the back of the box seems intimidating. (BTW, I am female.)
But I've also realized that lately, there are many games which do a good job of easing you into things. I have never played any of the Civ series, and recently I picked up Chronicles (which includes 1 to 4). I figured I'd just start with 1, since 1 is the first number, and I didn't want to deal with learning a lot of nuances or reading the manual. The interface fell far short of modern games. I certainly couldn't figure out what to do or how things worked. So, I tried Civ II, which had an interface that was a little bit better. Civ III was an improvement on Civ II, but I found Civ IV the easiest of them all.
Most of the time I've found I can trust that the game designer isn't going to toss me in blindly, as I stumble my way through town until I find myself in the field, at night, with poor vision, and a level 4 skeleton comes and kills me. (Ah, the old days of Everquest.)
Don't lose hope; I think things are improving in this area.
Music is often thought to be good conversation topic and a good meter for determining what type of personality someone has. 90% of the time actually starting such a conversation, however, results in canned responses based upon what social circle the person is in and what they think is "cool."
Especially "I like everything except country and rap." (Argh!) Then again, that response is more characteristic of certain demographics than others. A lot of small talk is about classification: how old you are, where you're from, what do you do for a living (or what your major is in school), what your hobbies are, exactly which distribution of Linux you use, that sort of thing. It serves a purpose. Sometimes a boring purpose, but it's a start.
I think music *could* be a good conversation topic (besides canned responses that indicate social circle) because it's personal without being threatening. It can be used to see what a person thinks about various things because lyrics bring up the subject matter... but you don't have to tip your own hand, leave yourself vulnerable by diving right in with your own opinions, because you're not the one who wrote the lyrics. But then, personally I like to feel people out before opening up too much. Is this how people usually discuss music? Probably not.
Personally, I like your approach. A lot of people say they hate small talk, but it is an effective tool for some goals. Categorizing someone can give you an idea of what to expect. (For example, if I found out someone was a Slashdot reader, I would except them to be in the category of people who say, "But I [insert list of eccentric characteristics]; I don't fit into a category!") And silence can be threatening, so generic topics are a way to be friendly. But there's more than one way to initiate interactions. If your goal is to have an interesting conversation and not a predictable one (gasp, what a concept), that murder comment's great.;)
I don't see how you can call people stupid when there is no alternative. Suppose that companies who hire programmers suddenly *all* decided to only pay $30,000 a year with no health insurance or other benefits, except for maybe a few star software engineers. (Imagine that they could outsource programming for cheap and none of them would budge. All it takes is some teamwork on the part of software companies, and maybe even a joint organization dedicated to intimidating people.) Programmers would be screwed. I mean, what could you do? What?
Suddenly, if you loved programming and wanted to make a career of it, you'd need to fight tooth and nail competing with other programmers for a position that barely pays off. You also could go on your own, programming shareware. But then you need to (a) think of something unique, (b) advertise, and (c) convince people it's worth paying for. Getting a job with an organization that has business contacts, an advertising budget, access to niche markets, and other resources (including the ability to reward you well if you're one of the rare people who manages to knock everyone's socks off) is more likely to pay off.
OR, of you course, you could give up programming except in your spare time, stop struggling, and get a "real job." I suppose that is a choice. Obviously, all these musicians are stupid because all they have to do is get a real job doing something where they're not beholden to jerks in power.
Today, there is no reason - utterly none at all - to pay for music.
Instant. Gratification.
Well, at least, instanter gratification. In most cases I've found it easier to just buy a CD or DVD than to comb through the P2P networks. (And businesses want things to be as impulse-buy friendly as possible. That is, when they're not distracted by stuff like this DRM nonsense.) Oh, and don't forget the irrational sense of comfort people get from "brand recognition."
Personally I'm in the "I like to compensate the artist" camp. But the bulk of people will go for the quickest, easiest, and most familiar thing.
The folks over 40 are supporting the media companies with their purchases.
I've observed that the young folks who have graduated from college (no more campus network) and have jobs (more money, less time) are also supporting the media companies.
I agree with the objections to external control (analogous to having devices in cars which automatically enforce speed limits). But in addition to that, I want to see a whole new business model, not The Perfect DRM. I want artists to be able to distribute and market their work much more directly. As a consumer, I'm eager to compensate the artists, but less than thrilled about paying more for several layers of middlemen whose marketing doesn't help me find the things I'm interested in or fairly pay the artists I love. I think the old paradigm will crumble, and I can only hope that something better will emerge. DRMs just seem like a tool based on the status quo.
firstly, a story centered around a little kid is naturally not as interesting (for most 16+ audiences) as an older character
I don't think that's true. It depends on the characters and storytelling. Ender's Game (and Ender's Shadow et. al.) centers around kids, but there's much of interest to adults. Of course, the kids are cynical geniuses that are almost like adults. There's a movie planned, though Scott Card has commented on the difficulty of finding anybody who wanted to do a movie with Ender as a little kid; they wanted to make him a teenager in order to attract teen audiences.
Well, perhaps you are right. Maybe most 16+ audiences do assume that a kid can't be interesting. What do I know about "most" movie audiences?
I do think it's harder to make a kid interesting to adults, but a good storyteller can do it. (I agree that this is not the case in Episode I!)
Time release/enteric versions. Coating something (with a standard, commonly used coating) to make it time released or gentle on the stomach isn't obvious, for some silly reason. Sorry, no example of this one. An example is Wellbutrin IR (immediate release) vs SR (sustained release) vs XL (extended release). XL is supposed to be easiest on the stomach, but is also for more convenient dosing (ie. once a day). I don't think the XL is just a coating; it goes *all* the way through your digestive system. Kind of creepy, actually. SR doesn't.
Xanax XR is another, and Ambien CR (NOTHING to do with patent expiration, I'm sure).
I also have RSI, and also generally avoid painkillers for it. I totally agree that when misused, they can downright aggravate the condition. I'm glad you brought this up.
But isn't this an issue of medical usage, rather than medical research? I strongly support the research and subsequent availability of new pharmaclogical tools. In addition I support research about the numerous forms of chronic pain and investigation into treatments that are solutions rather than just management. I agree that currently we rely too much on painkillers, and are rarely presented with any other options -- chronic pain is not well understood. Furthermore, I dislike the way the media discusses these things, very focused on drugs.
But by Science I still want as many painkiller options as possible! (I want as many antibiotic options as possible, even though many diseases are viral.) This is important.
In the end, it largely comes down to what your doctors conclude in the 10 minutes of time they have to see you. I don't think that having more painkillers is going to make them more "pro-painkiller." They are appropriate for some people (not us), and having more options can make a huge difference for them.
No, no, it MUST be the internet that's doing it. Sigh.
While I agree that it would be short-sighted and unproductive to "blame the Internet," I do think it plays an important role in this just by being what it is. The Internet doesn't make people cheat; people who cheat are responsible for their own actions. But the Internet and computers make it far easier to find things to plagiarize and to be sneaky about it. The risk of getting caught is lower. Reality is different from what it used to be; of course people will take advantage of this.
This doesn't mean it's the *only* thing that's different. The increased pressure to go to college (I think this brings in people who wouldn't have otherwise gone to college), and the increased financial investment in doing so. Increased media (people see far more images of success and indulgance than they used to). The pressure on professors to focus more on their research than their classes so they can bring more money into the university, which needs increasing amounts of money. The amount of publicity a university gets and how damaging bad publicity would be if they DID kick out a large number of students for cheating. There are a lot of structural differences that can create a breeding ground for cheating. Don't get me wrong; I'm not "blaming" anything. It's not like this stuff somehow makes people more evil. I'm giving possible reasons why a larger percentage is choosing to act on its selfish urges.
So how do we stop people from taking these actions? I support increased punishment for cheating, but this doesn't alleviate the lower risk of getting caught (ie. it might not be much of a deterrent). It may be that the format of teaching and classwork in itself has to be transformed as the world around it has. It's being transformed anyway, just not necessarily for the better.
Whether they do a good job or not, this whole "digital remastering" idea has to appeal to somebody... at the VERY least their advertisers. But then, the advertisers must think it's going to bring in more money than broadcasting it untouched.
I can see why a lot of fans would complain. Perhaps they figure that fans will watch it anyway, but that they really will bring in new audiences who really are turned off by the lack of uber digital hollywood prettiness. Being a geek, though, it's hard for me to imagine these audiences.
I'm kind of neutral on the idea myself; it all depends on how they do the remastering.
Slashdot Mirror
A person can be unobservant without being unintelligent. Though I often agree with Moore, he presents things in a misleading manner. If people were not susceptible to having their attention directed, magic tricks wouldn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE
I would say he does numerous "tricks" with the medium, and therefore will never rely on what is presented in a Moore film to form my own opinions. (Anyway, why would I when I can rely on Slashdot, where every assertion anyone makes is picked apart for my reading pleasure? That way I don't have to be observant; I just need lots of time.)
Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof?
c e-in-schools/national-statistics.html
You are not the only one.
What surprises me is that there aren't more people pointing out the decline in youth violence. Media sources frame things such that it sounds like there's a terrible increase. The presentation is misleading, stirring up drama.
Some statistics:
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violen
This is not evidence either way for video games causing violence; perhaps violence would have gone down more without video games. But the idea seems less likely, especially since the number of video games has only been increasing.
Actually, elusive and invisible is good -- fear of the unknown. I mean, we don't want anything to be too tangible, or Americans might start to think that they are not likely to get bombed at any second by nebulous terro-commies! Then they would start demanding more "rights" and other dangerous things. *shudder*
If the off-brand were United Fruit, they might.
Actually, based on what a couple of my friends encountered when they visited China, it's worse than that. A large number of them follow the dogma that the Chinese government knows best, and rabidly support the propaganda they're fed. In other words, they DO care, but they are (duh) misinformed (to put it mildly). They don't see themselves as oppressed any more than overprotected religious children see themselves as sheltered -- and it's not their fault. The whole *point* of censorship, after all, is to keep people from seeing things about reality that would shake up the current power structure.
(This isn't to say that Google has the power to change this; I don't think it can.)
Because straight A students are the pillars of society, the hope for the future, the most likely to succeed. They are smart, honest, and good. They're the ones who are going to cure cancer.
In the unlikely event that something tragic happens, however, it is "just so terrible" when it's an A student. If it were a D student, then nobody cares because their future was to flip burgers at McDonald's.
It's a way to be more dramatic.
Because to make structured, replicating molecules, you need some amount of stability. (And having elements other than hydrogen and helium is kind of important, too -- the sun and Jupiter are lacking. It would be like trying to build a structure from those little single-unit Legos, except worse, because you could only put two together at a time.) But even given bigger elements (eg. nitrogen, silicon) it would be difficult because they don't form nice long stable chains like carbon does. (It would be analogous to making a computer case out of paper. It would be too "reactive" to last very long. You want the *circuits* of the computer to react, but not the other stuff.) The "chance layers" we are familiar with (cell membranes) formed based on certain unique qualities of water and organic molecules. I would not claim this is the only way (who knows?), but there are specific chemical reasons that viable alternatives aren't jumping out at us.
But fire-based life would make a cool sci-fi story.
Problems that take habit changes, self evaluation, and the help of others can not be solved in a 10 minute blurb, or a book.
Of course they cannot be solved in a 10 minute blurb. But have you actually watched Dr. Phil? I have, because I was curious: WTF does he say to these people?!?
Well, first of all, he does a lot of research ahead of time. Interviews, videos, information on and from friends, family, etc. He does not go in blind.
He focuses the "blurb" on getting a person to gain some sort of insight -- often acknowledgment of what the issue is and the need to change. In most cases, Dr. Phil then outlines a long-term plan. He brings in whatever resources are needed. Usually this is setting them up with counseling/therapy near where they live. If it's an obese person, he sets them up with health professionals to work with the person in very specific ways. Sometimes more creative resources are necessary. For example, there was an Asian woman who invented a nail polish holder and had a dream of selling it. She made thousands of them, but never sold any, and her husband was super frustrated. Dr. Phil had some professionals do some marketing research on the invention, which he presented during the show. (She hadn't done any research at all and not very good marketing.) There was a show with a man who was an extreme pack rat. His house was uninhabitable and his family lived in a trailer outside. He couldn't bear to throw anything out. Dr. Phil told him he was going to send trucks to his house to haul everything away (none of it was being used) -- but not before the man's underlying issue was addressed: the need for control. He set him up with therapy, and a few months later the man was able to welcome the trucks and move on with his life.
I have to admit, I was impressed. He does a pretty good job of getting his point across, IMO, and I think viewers can benefit from watching these interactions. I mean, I do not agree with his inane comment about video games! But he deserves some credit, particularly since the people who come on the show are usually not aware of the forms of help they need. In other words, they are not going onto the show instead of taking practical steps on their own. They are ignorant of what they need to do.
I have not read any of Dr. Phil's books. They are certainly marketed like every other self-help book out there: "Improve Your Life Now!!" But I know that his view on, say, weight loss, is that it takes long-term habit changes, so if somebody is going to buy a self-help book, better his than a fad diet book. Any book is far from ideal. However, professional help is expensive, so I think that self-help books (and people like Dr. Phil) have their place.
I don't think I missed what you were saying, though I could be wrong. What I *think* you were saying is that a circle of cheats could all agree to using WoW gold to trade (or discount) real-world items between each other. For the most part they would not be siphoning out gold to people outside the "circle" for cash. It would be like bartering items, except with an extra step in between. (Person A has a diamond ring, they trade it for gold, and then "spend" it on a boat from Person B and some skiing gear from Person C.) Correct me if I am wrong.
I asserted that this would be equivalent to any arbitrary "currency" chosen by the circle of cheats to eliminate actual transfer of cash, and that therefore there is nothing special about money in MMORPGs unless you take it outside the circle of cheats. I also am not thinking about what happens when the game shuts down; I am saying it's inherently volatile all of the time -- although this wasn't my main point. Mainly, I don't see how game money would be any more helpful for hiding the goods than anything else would be. The only thing I can think of is that it's owned by someone else -- which is both an advantage (to keep the cheats from cheating each other) and disadvantage (Blizzard reserves the right to delete). Am I missing something? I mean, I'm not exactly well-versed in tax evasion techniques.
(3) Firefighters refer to polyurethane foam as `solid gasoline' because of its flammability, and when burning, it emits deadly gases including arsenic.
That's strange. Arsenic (like mercury) is an element, so this would mean it's in the foam from the get-go, fire or no fire. I mean, this post has me convinced of the danger of the stuff, but perhaps they mean organic toxins like cyanide or carbon monoxide? That would make more sense.
If they don't take their money out of the game, then they're no better off than if they decided to use origami cranes as a currency. The thing that gives gold its value in WoW are the players who use it. The thing that gives it its value outside WoW is the fact that people will trade real-world money for it. If you neither use it nor take it out, its worth to you will quickly dissipate.
:)
Besides, in the short run, origami cranes would probably be a more stable currency, since the labor it takes to make them is consistent, while WoW faces slow but steady MUDflation. Of course, in the long run someone would get a machine that folds paper into cranes, and the value of cranes would plummet. WoW gold can plummet due to exploits, expansions, and new players, but I don't think it would be so sudden. Still, it would be as risky to stockpile gold you weren't planning to cash in on promptly as stockpiling origami birds on your porch, where the first rain that comes along would be devastating.
I think that criminals/cheats would not use WoW gold as a currency (unless they played the game or sold it to players outside the criminal circle) for the same reasons they don't use cranes, leased cars, or other such things.
I agree that crime is nothing new, and the older stuff is no less tragic than the newer stuff. I do think there is some value, however, in hearing about this. People are familiar with the idea of pizzas being delivered to the wrong address, even though it's not in the news, because that particular prank has been around awhile and has seeped into popular culture. But since most people don't sit around all day thinking up pranks and crimes, newer scams (fake craigslist post, fake PayPal login page, etc) haven't occurred to them. Sure, as you get older, you (hopefully) are more savvy and not easily taken in by *any* form of chicanery. But hearing about a particular technique in the news can help you connect the dots a lot faster. (Or, if you're gullible, connect the dots *at all*...)
Of course, this isn't why it IS in the news; it's there because they can make new technology seem all dramatic and scary and silly things like that. But I do think it's a good thing to keep people informed, yes.
>Whats to stop you from transferring to a completely electronic brain and living on as long as you have juice?
What's to stop you?
Natural resources (or lack thereof). Money (being busy dealing with the cost of having a *place* to live -- not to mention retirement). Power (if you don't have any). Politics (all those people in developing countries ALSO wanting electronic brains, the greedy bastards -- and all the people in power who want to look like they care). You know, business as usual.
Besides, electronic != invulnerable. Don't people talk about how their cars or their computers "DIE"? Personally, I think our body has a good thing going with its cell division technology (as long as it has juice). Sadly, our cells are programmed to die... except for cancer cells, which are programmed to be immortal. I'm hoping for a fix in Homo sapiens 2.0.1.
I don't have a problem with an electronic brain. (I have money. Bring it on!) I'm just saying it's not the magic key to eternal life.
Yet here they are talking about genetically modifying people directly... Why are we willing to modify a sick person's genes, but not those of cows or maize?
I don't think the "'organic' food crowd" would be too happy about modifying a person's genes, either, especially considering that some of these people are in the anti-vaccine crowd, too. When did the small group of zealots in the first two paragraphs go to "we" in the third?
Also, while I am not in those crowds, I have heard that GM foods are modified to sell better (eg. redder tomatoes) with nutritional value not being a priority. In other words, they may not be bad for you, but they're not as good for you. This much, IMO, makes sense.
I know what you're saying... games are far more complicated than they used to be (heh, flying in Super Mario 3 used to seem so tricky...). Sometimes, even as a somewhat experienced gamer, reading about all the fancy features on the back of the box seems intimidating. (BTW, I am female.)
But I've also realized that lately, there are many games which do a good job of easing you into things. I have never played any of the Civ series, and recently I picked up Chronicles (which includes 1 to 4). I figured I'd just start with 1, since 1 is the first number, and I didn't want to deal with learning a lot of nuances or reading the manual. The interface fell far short of modern games. I certainly couldn't figure out what to do or how things worked. So, I tried Civ II, which had an interface that was a little bit better. Civ III was an improvement on Civ II, but I found Civ IV the easiest of them all.
Most of the time I've found I can trust that the game designer isn't going to toss me in blindly, as I stumble my way through town until I find myself in the field, at night, with poor vision, and a level 4 skeleton comes and kills me. (Ah, the old days of Everquest.)
Don't lose hope; I think things are improving in this area.
Music is often thought to be good conversation topic and a good meter for determining what type of personality someone has. 90% of the time actually starting such a conversation, however, results in canned responses based upon what social circle the person is in and what they think is "cool."
;)
Especially "I like everything except country and rap." (Argh!) Then again, that response is more characteristic of certain demographics than others. A lot of small talk is about classification: how old you are, where you're from, what do you do for a living (or what your major is in school), what your hobbies are, exactly which distribution of Linux you use, that sort of thing. It serves a purpose. Sometimes a boring purpose, but it's a start.
I think music *could* be a good conversation topic (besides canned responses that indicate social circle) because it's personal without being threatening. It can be used to see what a person thinks about various things because lyrics bring up the subject matter... but you don't have to tip your own hand, leave yourself vulnerable by diving right in with your own opinions, because you're not the one who wrote the lyrics. But then, personally I like to feel people out before opening up too much. Is this how people usually discuss music? Probably not.
Personally, I like your approach. A lot of people say they hate small talk, but it is an effective tool for some goals. Categorizing someone can give you an idea of what to expect. (For example, if I found out someone was a Slashdot reader, I would except them to be in the category of people who say, "But I [insert list of eccentric characteristics]; I don't fit into a category!") And silence can be threatening, so generic topics are a way to be friendly. But there's more than one way to initiate interactions. If your goal is to have an interesting conversation and not a predictable one (gasp, what a concept), that murder comment's great.
Naive and gullible people make stupid decisions.
I don't see how you can call people stupid when there is no alternative. Suppose that companies who hire programmers suddenly *all* decided to only pay $30,000 a year with no health insurance or other benefits, except for maybe a few star software engineers. (Imagine that they could outsource programming for cheap and none of them would budge. All it takes is some teamwork on the part of software companies, and maybe even a joint organization dedicated to intimidating people.) Programmers would be screwed. I mean, what could you do? What?
Suddenly, if you loved programming and wanted to make a career of it, you'd need to fight tooth and nail competing with other programmers for a position that barely pays off. You also could go on your own, programming shareware. But then you need to (a) think of something unique, (b) advertise, and (c) convince people it's worth paying for. Getting a job with an organization that has business contacts, an advertising budget, access to niche markets, and other resources (including the ability to reward you well if you're one of the rare people who manages to knock everyone's socks off) is more likely to pay off.
OR, of you course, you could give up programming except in your spare time, stop struggling, and get a "real job." I suppose that is a choice. Obviously, all these musicians are stupid because all they have to do is get a real job doing something where they're not beholden to jerks in power.
Today, there is no reason - utterly none at all - to pay for music.
Instant. Gratification.
Well, at least, instanter gratification. In most cases I've found it easier to just buy a CD or DVD than to comb through the P2P networks. (And businesses want things to be as impulse-buy friendly as possible. That is, when they're not distracted by stuff like this DRM nonsense.) Oh, and don't forget the irrational sense of comfort people get from "brand recognition."
Personally I'm in the "I like to compensate the artist" camp. But the bulk of people will go for the quickest, easiest, and most familiar thing.
The folks over 40 are supporting the media companies with their purchases.
I've observed that the young folks who have graduated from college (no more campus network) and have jobs (more money, less time) are also supporting the media companies.
I agree with the objections to external control (analogous to having devices in cars which automatically enforce speed limits). But in addition to that, I want to see a whole new business model, not The Perfect DRM. I want artists to be able to distribute and market their work much more directly. As a consumer, I'm eager to compensate the artists, but less than thrilled about paying more for several layers of middlemen whose marketing doesn't help me find the things I'm interested in or fairly pay the artists I love. I think the old paradigm will crumble, and I can only hope that something better will emerge. DRMs just seem like a tool based on the status quo.
firstly, a story centered around a little kid is naturally not as interesting (for most 16+ audiences) as an older character
I don't think that's true. It depends on the characters and storytelling. Ender's Game (and Ender's Shadow et. al.) centers around kids, but there's much of interest to adults. Of course, the kids are cynical geniuses that are almost like adults. There's a movie planned, though Scott Card has commented on the difficulty of finding anybody who wanted to do a movie with Ender as a little kid; they wanted to make him a teenager in order to attract teen audiences.
Well, perhaps you are right. Maybe most 16+ audiences do assume that a kid can't be interesting. What do I know about "most" movie audiences?
I do think it's harder to make a kid interesting to adults, but a good storyteller can do it. (I agree that this is not the case in Episode I!)
Xanax XR is another, and Ambien CR (NOTHING to do with patent expiration, I'm sure).
I also have RSI, and also generally avoid painkillers for it. I totally agree that when misused, they can downright aggravate the condition. I'm glad you brought this up.
But isn't this an issue of medical usage, rather than medical research? I strongly support the research and subsequent availability of new pharmaclogical tools. In addition I support research about the numerous forms of chronic pain and investigation into treatments that are solutions rather than just management. I agree that currently we rely too much on painkillers, and are rarely presented with any other options -- chronic pain is not well understood. Furthermore, I dislike the way the media discusses these things, very focused on drugs.
But by Science I still want as many painkiller options as possible! (I want as many antibiotic options as possible, even though many diseases are viral.) This is important.
In the end, it largely comes down to what your doctors conclude in the 10 minutes of time they have to see you. I don't think that having more painkillers is going to make them more "pro-painkiller." They are appropriate for some people (not us), and having more options can make a huge difference for them.
WoW is cheap and not illegal, eliminating the need to suck dick for WoW. I'm willing to bet there are people who would if they had to.
No, no, it MUST be the internet that's doing it. Sigh.
While I agree that it would be short-sighted and unproductive to "blame the Internet," I do think it plays an important role in this just by being what it is. The Internet doesn't make people cheat; people who cheat are responsible for their own actions. But the Internet and computers make it far easier to find things to plagiarize and to be sneaky about it. The risk of getting caught is lower. Reality is different from what it used to be; of course people will take advantage of this.
This doesn't mean it's the *only* thing that's different. The increased pressure to go to college (I think this brings in people who wouldn't have otherwise gone to college), and the increased financial investment in doing so. Increased media (people see far more images of success and indulgance than they used to). The pressure on professors to focus more on their research than their classes so they can bring more money into the university, which needs increasing amounts of money. The amount of publicity a university gets and how damaging bad publicity would be if they DID kick out a large number of students for cheating. There are a lot of structural differences that can create a breeding ground for cheating. Don't get me wrong; I'm not "blaming" anything. It's not like this stuff somehow makes people more evil. I'm giving possible reasons why a larger percentage is choosing to act on its selfish urges.
So how do we stop people from taking these actions? I support increased punishment for cheating, but this doesn't alleviate the lower risk of getting caught (ie. it might not be much of a deterrent). It may be that the format of teaching and classwork in itself has to be transformed as the world around it has. It's being transformed anyway, just not necessarily for the better.
Who, I wonder, are they marketing to?
Whether they do a good job or not, this whole "digital remastering" idea has to appeal to somebody... at the VERY least their advertisers. But then, the advertisers must think it's going to bring in more money than broadcasting it untouched.
I can see why a lot of fans would complain. Perhaps they figure that fans will watch it anyway, but that they really will bring in new audiences who really are turned off by the lack of uber digital hollywood prettiness. Being a geek, though, it's hard for me to imagine these audiences.
I'm kind of neutral on the idea myself; it all depends on how they do the remastering.