Did their tradition include body penetrating explosive grenades and chainsaws? RTFA. Once again, this is not about the means of hunting. This is about the simple fact that these people and these whales have lived and died together for centuries. The whales are a part of the Inuit culture, and a part of their means of survival. We simply don't have the moral high-ground to say, "we know that your food supply was stable until we came along, but we'd like you to stop doing what we know to have no detrimental effect on the survival of the species, so that we can further justify getting our people to stop slaughtering vast numbers of these creatures." This is simply not a valid argument.
There is nothing wrong with whale hunting for survival. What's problematic is when people who don't live near the whales and don't need their meat decide that whale meat would be new and exotic, so they must have it. THAT is the trend we must focus on stopping, and any argument about the Inuit or similar cultures that kill small numbers of whale every year is simply a red herring that prevents true progress on this issue.
In interviews (I read this on AICN at one point), the director has said that RDJ was chosen specifically for this reason. There's some strong alcoholism-related character development in the movie, and Downy was chosen because he could give an authentic portrayal of the problems that Stark faces on the more realistic front, grounding the fantastic side of the movie.
No... step back. Go read the UN's report. The report that we wave around and call "consensus." The number is 10cm. 10cm. Get that number through your head.
Not 2m. Not "Florida will be the Disney Islands." 10cm. over 100 years.
Now, we can talk about inland Antarctic ice melting at an accelerating rate and blowing those numbers out by an order of magnitude. We can talk about impacts to seasonal patterns and ocean temperatures. We can talk about a number of theories for how this could be worse than the consensus predicts, but let's be clear: we're not talking about the consensus of the researchers in this field. We're talking about some relatively untested theories that may or may not pan out.
On the other hand, mercury poisoning from fish is not a theory. My Stepfather suffered from mercury poisoning because he had a fish-heavy diet. I'm much more concerned about mercury in our food than I am over the idea of having to relocate a km. or two inland over the next 100 years, even if that were likely to be necessary. Let's focus on the environment that we have (and are provably trashing) first, and then deal with the one that we might have tomorrow.
> Why is it that we support people who try to disprove our most well established theories in physics?
Because whether or not a cherished theory in physics gets confirmed or flames out doesn't involve trillions of dollars, the rise and fall of political dynasties and the great political question of our times. Sadly your cynicism is well-placed.
The really sad thing is that so many people think they're doing the right thing by yelling down anyone who disagrees with them right now. If you ask most people what the single largest political challenge to the ability to do good science in the U.S. is, they'd probably say Intelligent Design or stem cell research restrictions... I'd have to say the public debate and political fight over global warming and climate change.
Yeah, this was pretty absurd. The claim is that we can't get 20 light years or so out because it would a) take a long time and b) take a lot of energy.
I don't think either of those things are likely to stop human colonization... just slow us a bit.
Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want. Ideally, you are correct. In practice, I've yet to see a field of scientific pursuit that wasn't tainted by the expectations and desires of those doing the research.
Right now, in the United States, if you publish a paper that is referenced in support of an anti-global-warming political statement (doesn't matter if your data was neutral), you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and might want to consider a career change. That's unacceptable encroachment of politics on science. Worse, scientists who buck this system and lose their funding eventually turn to private funding, and are branded "sell outs," and ostracized by the scientific community.
The fate that befalls those who are genuine skeptics is even worse. They're literally treated as crackpots for expressing an agnostic view toward our current level of understanding of the climate and its forcers.
Why is it that we support people who try to disprove our most well established theories in physics? Aren't they bucking consensus? If an astronomer doesn't believe black holes exist, why is he able to keep working in the field when the consensus says they do? How do they get time on Hubble when they're obviously known to be crackpots? The reason is that attempting to assail established theory is what science is about. You only cross the line into crackpottery when you merely apply faulty logic or falsified data to your skepticism and proclaim it to be proof.
Indeed. What's truly horrible is how far we stretch the science to match our desired outcomes. For example, Gore is famous for showing people that Florida will sink under the sea, according to the U.N. Well... no. Florida will experience a nearly unmeasurable change in its coastlines according to the consensus, but then there are further theories that speculate about accelerating change in sea levels which could beat the consensus estimates by an order of magnitude. What you don't hear is this: the consensus is that that's not very likely.
I'm an environmentalist, and that's why the Global Warming debate bothers me. I want mercury taken out of our environment, not pumped into it in increasing quantity. I want to stop and think very hard about the things we do to our oceans. I want to investigate the impact of all the highways we pour tar over every year. I want to fully understand our impact on the planet (and those areas where we don't impact it), and act accordingly to maintain the environment, not without change, but without further degradation.
Sadly, we can't do that. We're instead going to saber-rattle over which nation will reduce their CO2 emissions first because, in the end, we know that that merely costs money, and doesn't actually require us to stop destroying the balance of nature.
Here is exactly the kind of question we should be posing to candidates. "Who was the best captain on a Star Trek show." There are three possible results:
* You say "Kirk," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote. * You say "Picard," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote. * You say something which demonstrates you have no right leading round of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," much less the United States executive branch.
Consider a tribe of cannibals. Should we allow them to continue raiding nearby villages because that's their traditional way of feeding their communities? Do we have the moral high ground then? As a separate thread, this argument is moot. There's no such thing as the classical view of a "tribe of cannibals," so your example is purely hypothetical. Cannibalism as we understand it in popular culture (a group of savages who ate anyone who approached their village) was almost entirely fabricated by European governments as a means to justify slavery. This was a result of edits that outlawed slavery except in cases where servitude would improve the living conditions of native peoples. Since cannibalism was considered a demonstration of moral depravity which could be eliminated by enslavement, this was an often used excuse.
So, again you have the noble (sarcasm) European imposing his morality (sarcasm) on the native peoples of the world. Joy.
"We have no moral high ground to say that they should stop feeding their children because we over-hunted the whales,"...yes, we do. They don't need to eat whales to survive any more. No more than I need to eat simple bread, a bit of mutton once a week and dried fruits to survive like my ancestors did. My culture has moved away from subsistence farming on marginal land. Theirs can, too: especially when they're hunting endangered species. Actually, no they can't. You're talking about a people that, for the most part, live below the poverty line and in a climate where agriculture is radically limited at best. These are isolated populations that hunt to survive (that's what "sustenance" means). If your argument is going to end with, "let them eat cake," I'll point out now that cake isn't cheap.
I should point out - their 'heritage' now apparently includes rocket-propelled harpoons and chainsaws. Their ancient ways include eating the whales to sustain themselves. It's not a bunch of guys getting together and saying, "let's re-enact the great whale hunts of yesteryear," it's the traditional way that these people have fed their communities through harsh conditions for a long, long time. We have no moral high ground to say that they should stop feeding their children because we over-hunted the whales, and what's more.... if we stop killing their whales, the species will recover just fine, even with native sustenance hunting.
And to follow up with a bit more information:
Alaska Natives continue to kill small numbers of Bowhead Whales in subsistence hunts each year. This level of killing (25-40 animals annually) is not expected to affect the population's recovery. The Bowhead Whale population off Alaska's coast (also called the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock) appears to be recovering but remains at about 7,800 animals (1990), roughly 41 percent of the pre-whaling population. -"Bowhead Whale", Wikipedia
If the well was down to a month's supply of water, it would be sort of stupid to rush out and fill the swimming pool out of spite just to make a point. This is an entirely spurious argument. The Inuit are not "rushing out and filling the swimming pool," by any analogy that could possibly track. They're hunting for sustenance. Commercial whaling is something that should be closely monitored and moderated to the extent that it's possible. I'm not against hunting and killing things that live a long time or have cute eyes, but I'm certainly against hunting anything beyond its capacity to reproduce. Why that position isn't common sense among whalers is beyond my capacity to understand.
Gaming addiction is a myth, but it's tied to a real mental health issue which I wish people could get enough perspective to see. Gambling, video games, ebaying, and many other practices that suck people in for large chunks of their time do so because they present a compelling numbers game which there is a natural tendency for humans to want to optimize. Optimizing numbers is something we do instinctually. We want more money, even if we're rich. We want larger bombs even when we can destroy all life. We race to go faster; have higher test scores, etc. We're a race driven by numbers since even before we had the counting system we use today.
This is fairly normal and usually healthy, but when an activity presents a simplistic optimization problem that has no logical conclusion, some people can become locked in a cycle of constant attempts to "max". High scores, winning hands, whatever... it's all the same problem, and results from the need to optimize overriding other instincts for survival which allow us to function normally in society.
Disclaimer: I play World of Warcraft, and I'd say that I'm definitely in the danger zone, but manage to take enough time off that I continue to have a life and do my job. I'd be the same way if I got into gambling (thankfully I haven't). I'd really like it if the AMA would recognize the real problem here, as that could potentially lead to guidelines that would help video game companies craft games that are enthralling, but avoid the harmful feedback loops that end up burning out their customers.
We make fun of Sen. Stevens because he's a raging idiot that somehow got elected to public office. It's not about his party (for some of us), or his one most popular gaff (though that certainly brought him to everyone's attention).
The man's famous for rants about nonsense and rambling tirades that barely manage to stick to English grammar. I would make a horrible senator, but even I would be better than Stevens.
Cruel as in humans (or their avatars) being hurt in ways that are disproportionate to any offense they may have committed.
This is a no-brainer. No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to buy such a game.... Of course, it would be foolish to restrict JUST the virtual world, so no one under the age of 21 should be allowed to join a military or police force either. World governments can agree to that small modification of their laws, right?;-)
I think sales tax on selling in-game resources will always be sufficient. The resources in the game have no value until they're sold, and there's no default expectation that they ever will be sold.
Didn't we already know about superluminal motion (which turns out to be near-speed-of-light motion, viewed oddly), active galactic nuclei, etc.? What's the new info, here or is it just confirmation of what we'd known before?
You were complaining about the death of a PEN AND PAPER franchise, Dungeons and Dragons. Nope. I was complaining about the fact that Wizards killed Dragon and Dungeon magazines in favor of this horrible abomination of a portal, both being oriented toward pen and paper, tabletop roleplaying.
I'm telling you WotC didn't kill D&D, computers and the explosive growth of MMORPGs did. Not at all. D&D is still a popular game. I play both MMORPGs and tabletop games, D&D among them. Many others do as well. MMORPGs come and go, but D&D is what you come home to.
WotC just happened to be the ones left holding the reins when that horse fell over dead. Wizards continues to see substantial revenue from D&D as a pen-and-paper game AND as an MMORPG. I don't see any dead horses, here. I do see a stupid web site that appears to have been designed by someone's teenage little bother, though.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a game which encouraged the players to try to beat the system. I'd envisioned a game, back in 1990, like that, but the technology didn't exist to implement it yet. The core concept was that magic in the game world was a set of pre-defined routines in a programming language that more advanced users would slowly gain access to, turning the game into more of a test of "crafting magic" than just pressing the "1" button 70 times to kill the bad guy.
Modern MMORPGs sort of do this. They present a variety of complex mechanics, and let the players determine how best to use them all together. I see the math that folks crank out for World of Warcraft, and I'm constantly amazed that such a simple game can be so complex.
I never thought Wizards of the Coast would fall this far, but they actually killed the two most widely read and respected D&D publications for... THIS? Ugh.
The key here is to allow for the evaluation of these technologies on equal footing. Free and Open Source Software won't always be the best choice, but when it is, schools should have the freedom to choose it. Often, they do not. THAT is the first and most important hurdle to surmount.
When will you stop making games designed to waste huge gobs of time? When they stop being the most popular games.
I don't put up with random 10 minute periods of doing nothing in other games, why should I with yours? I don't know, but it does seem to attract billions of dollars worth of gamers...
Any game that makes me sit/travel/do nothing for 10 minutes running I immediately uninstall. Then clearly, you're not in the target audience.
I'd like a modern adventure game, but for some reason they refuse to jump to the next level on this issue. The problem is one of resources. You can afford to spend X amount of time on content development. You need players to spend Y amount of time interacting with that content where Y is at least larger than X, if not a substantial multiple. The most reliable way to do this is to make progression slower. Add reasons to repeat content (rare drops, faction farming, etc.), set time restrictions (raid resets once a week, daily quests, etc.)
These things are there because the most vocal members of the community tend to be those that play the most, and if the "buzz" is that the top-end players are done, and have "finished" the content, your game will not continue to grow.
That's not to say there aren't other approaches. I'd like to see an MMORPG where you progress more quickly, but there's a reason to level a second character once you achieve some goal with your first, for just one example.
Levelling in LOTRO isn't nearly as bas as WoW I think you missed the part where I mentioned that the problem stems from the content development process as the game transitions from release to long-term expansion cycles. One of the reasons that so many EQ players moved to WoW was because WoW provided fast leveling, fewer levels, and did not have the many-layered progression required to join friends in gaming that EQ had. Today, WoW has nearly as many progression hurdles as EQ had when WoW came out, and the content is still expanding.
So, the question isn't one of the hurdles presented by LOTRO *today*, but how content and progression can exist in a system that doesn't provide those hurdles *tomorrow*.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing wrong with whale hunting for survival. What's problematic is when people who don't live near the whales and don't need their meat decide that whale meat would be new and exotic, so they must have it. THAT is the trend we must focus on stopping, and any argument about the Inuit or similar cultures that kill small numbers of whale every year is simply a red herring that prevents true progress on this issue.
In interviews (I read this on AICN at one point), the director has said that RDJ was chosen specifically for this reason. There's some strong alcoholism-related character development in the movie, and Downy was chosen because he could give an authentic portrayal of the problems that Stark faces on the more realistic front, grounding the fantastic side of the movie.
No... step back. Go read the UN's report. The report that we wave around and call "consensus." The number is 10cm. 10cm. Get that number through your head.
Not 2m. Not "Florida will be the Disney Islands." 10cm. over 100 years.
Now, we can talk about inland Antarctic ice melting at an accelerating rate and blowing those numbers out by an order of magnitude. We can talk about impacts to seasonal patterns and ocean temperatures. We can talk about a number of theories for how this could be worse than the consensus predicts, but let's be clear: we're not talking about the consensus of the researchers in this field. We're talking about some relatively untested theories that may or may not pan out.
On the other hand, mercury poisoning from fish is not a theory. My Stepfather suffered from mercury poisoning because he had a fish-heavy diet. I'm much more concerned about mercury in our food than I am over the idea of having to relocate a km. or two inland over the next 100 years, even if that were likely to be necessary. Let's focus on the environment that we have (and are provably trashing) first, and then deal with the one that we might have tomorrow.
Because whether or not a cherished theory in physics gets confirmed or flames out doesn't involve trillions of dollars, the rise and fall of political dynasties and the great political question of our times. Sadly your cynicism is well-placed.
The really sad thing is that so many people think they're doing the right thing by yelling down anyone who disagrees with them right now. If you ask most people what the single largest political challenge to the ability to do good science in the U.S. is, they'd probably say Intelligent Design or stem cell research restrictions... I'd have to say the public debate and political fight over global warming and climate change.
Yeah, this was pretty absurd. The claim is that we can't get 20 light years or so out because it would a) take a long time and b) take a lot of energy.
I don't think either of those things are likely to stop human colonization... just slow us a bit.
Right now, in the United States, if you publish a paper that is referenced in support of an anti-global-warming political statement (doesn't matter if your data was neutral), you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and might want to consider a career change. That's unacceptable encroachment of politics on science. Worse, scientists who buck this system and lose their funding eventually turn to private funding, and are branded "sell outs," and ostracized by the scientific community.
The fate that befalls those who are genuine skeptics is even worse. They're literally treated as crackpots for expressing an agnostic view toward our current level of understanding of the climate and its forcers.
Why is it that we support people who try to disprove our most well established theories in physics? Aren't they bucking consensus? If an astronomer doesn't believe black holes exist, why is he able to keep working in the field when the consensus says they do? How do they get time on Hubble when they're obviously known to be crackpots? The reason is that attempting to assail established theory is what science is about. You only cross the line into crackpottery when you merely apply faulty logic or falsified data to your skepticism and proclaim it to be proof.
Indeed. What's truly horrible is how far we stretch the science to match our desired outcomes. For example, Gore is famous for showing people that Florida will sink under the sea, according to the U.N. Well... no. Florida will experience a nearly unmeasurable change in its coastlines according to the consensus, but then there are further theories that speculate about accelerating change in sea levels which could beat the consensus estimates by an order of magnitude. What you don't hear is this: the consensus is that that's not very likely.
I'm an environmentalist, and that's why the Global Warming debate bothers me. I want mercury taken out of our environment, not pumped into it in increasing quantity. I want to stop and think very hard about the things we do to our oceans. I want to investigate the impact of all the highways we pour tar over every year. I want to fully understand our impact on the planet (and those areas where we don't impact it), and act accordingly to maintain the environment, not without change, but without further degradation.
Sadly, we can't do that. We're instead going to saber-rattle over which nation will reduce their CO2 emissions first because, in the end, we know that that merely costs money, and doesn't actually require us to stop destroying the balance of nature.
Here is exactly the kind of question we should be posing to candidates. "Who was the best captain on a Star Trek show." There are three possible results:
* You say "Kirk," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote.
* You say "Picard," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote.
* You say something which demonstrates you have no right leading round of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," much less the United States executive branch.
Problem solved.
So, again you have the noble (sarcasm) European imposing his morality (sarcasm) on the native peoples of the world. Joy.
Gaming addiction is a myth, but it's tied to a real mental health issue which I wish people could get enough perspective to see. Gambling, video games, ebaying, and many other practices that suck people in for large chunks of their time do so because they present a compelling numbers game which there is a natural tendency for humans to want to optimize. Optimizing numbers is something we do instinctually. We want more money, even if we're rich. We want larger bombs even when we can destroy all life. We race to go faster; have higher test scores, etc. We're a race driven by numbers since even before we had the counting system we use today.
This is fairly normal and usually healthy, but when an activity presents a simplistic optimization problem that has no logical conclusion, some people can become locked in a cycle of constant attempts to "max". High scores, winning hands, whatever... it's all the same problem, and results from the need to optimize overriding other instincts for survival which allow us to function normally in society.
Disclaimer: I play World of Warcraft, and I'd say that I'm definitely in the danger zone, but manage to take enough time off that I continue to have a life and do my job. I'd be the same way if I got into gambling (thankfully I haven't). I'd really like it if the AMA would recognize the real problem here, as that could potentially lead to guidelines that would help video game companies craft games that are enthralling, but avoid the harmful feedback loops that end up burning out their customers.
We make fun of Sen. Stevens because he's a raging idiot that somehow got elected to public office. It's not about his party (for some of us), or his one most popular gaff (though that certainly brought him to everyone's attention).
The man's famous for rants about nonsense and rambling tirades that barely manage to stick to English grammar. I would make a horrible senator, but even I would be better than Stevens.
Cruel as in humans (or their avatars) being hurt in ways that are disproportionate to any offense they may have committed.
;-)
This is a no-brainer. No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to buy such a game.... Of course, it would be foolish to restrict JUST the virtual world, so no one under the age of 21 should be allowed to join a military or police force either. World governments can agree to that small modification of their laws, right?
I think sales tax on selling in-game resources will always be sufficient. The resources in the game have no value until they're sold, and there's no default expectation that they ever will be sold.
Didn't we already know about superluminal motion (which turns out to be near-speed-of-light motion, viewed oddly), active galactic nuclei, etc.? What's the new info, here or is it just confirmation of what we'd known before?
On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a game which encouraged the players to try to beat the system. I'd envisioned a game, back in 1990, like that, but the technology didn't exist to implement it yet. The core concept was that magic in the game world was a set of pre-defined routines in a programming language that more advanced users would slowly gain access to, turning the game into more of a test of "crafting magic" than just pressing the "1" button 70 times to kill the bad guy.
Modern MMORPGs sort of do this. They present a variety of complex mechanics, and let the players determine how best to use them all together. I see the math that folks crank out for World of Warcraft, and I'm constantly amazed that such a simple game can be so complex.
You know that this is about tabletop roleplaying, right?
I never thought Wizards of the Coast would fall this far, but they actually killed the two most widely read and respected D&D publications for... THIS? Ugh.
The key here is to allow for the evaluation of these technologies on equal footing. Free and Open Source Software won't always be the best choice, but when it is, schools should have the freedom to choose it. Often, they do not. THAT is the first and most important hurdle to surmount.
These things are there because the most vocal members of the community tend to be those that play the most, and if the "buzz" is that the top-end players are done, and have "finished" the content, your game will not continue to grow.
That's not to say there aren't other approaches. I'd like to see an MMORPG where you progress more quickly, but there's a reason to level a second character once you achieve some goal with your first, for just one example.
So, the question isn't one of the hurdles presented by LOTRO *today*, but how content and progression can exist in a system that doesn't provide those hurdles *tomorrow*.