Uh we're still talking about politicians here right? Because this conversation acts as if the people in question actually have souls...and well last I checked those get sold at the door when you enter public offic. Maybe I'm missing something though;)
To be slightly pedantic and trollish, Halo was the killer ap. Most people who bought Halo 2 already had the XBox. I don't know of many people who bought an XBox because of Halo 2 but I know a ton of people [myself included] who bought an xbox because of the original Halo.
Halo 2 sucked balls in my opinion, something just feels off to me but that's not really the point of this post:)
And the award for "Most Overly Melodramatic Slashdot USer" goes to BARAKN for his wonderful on Batman Begins! Who cares man? Advertising is everywhere, and SOMEONE may have found the article interesting and informative. If it's a plug for the movie, it's a plug for the movie...I bet you've seen at least 10 such forms of advertising today already.
It's called a race to the bottom, same thing happened in the cold war...same thing happens in our consumer society... two Canadian Philosophers wrote a book on it called Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture became Consumer Culture Very interesting read...
At least someone here looks like they understand what poker is all about...bluffing is when you bet heavy on a hand that is not the best possible hand for the given cards because you think either A) the other person doesn't have that best hand or B) you can make that person think you do have that best hand.
Bluffing is not random "Oh I'm going in heavy this hand because I feel hot!". As the parent said, we all have patterns...
I hope you are wrong. I don't think we can function as a collective group of shut-ins, plus that sounds rather depressing to me. It's not to say that one cannot build relationships in a virtual world but I believe they are fundamentally different.
It's really a case of the law of unintended consequences; I don't pretend to understand the human genome nor is there any scientific evidence that I know of from the scientific community regarding a potential consequence but for the sake of argument...
To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect that on a genetic level we require direct human interaction for survival. Obviously, millenia of evolutionary selection promoted the interaction of human beings. Societies formed because they gave people a better chance to survive, now what if there were chemical interactions occuring as well. What if, over that time, Homo sapiens became chemically dependant on other Homo sapiens. There is already evidence suggesting that "" women with semen in their reproductive tract felt happier than women without"; there is more going on here than meets the eye and as both a society and as geeks it's something that needs to be watched.
Interesting response but I hope for all our sakes you are wrong with the direction where are taking...
Yeah well I believe you have a perception problem that is causing you to be blind of the truth! Just kidding, I had to get my obligatory troll in..sorta like morning coffee.
I don't really agree with you though, I'm not going to say that you're wrong because I have no evidence to back it up but it's my belief that we're all born with various levels of potentiality when it comes all things: physical prowess, mental prowess, sexual prowess, etc.
Let's take a for instance, although physical prowess is slightly different than mental prowess, it's fair to assert that physical prowess is a finite thing determined by our DNA. I may want to play professional basketball but the fact of the matter is I'm too short, I'm not fast, I'm not quick, I don't have a thirty-six inch verticle leap. With proper training, I could probably dunk a basketball (can touch the rim at 5'9) but I'd never be able to take it to the rack over MJ [unless he become a parapalegic in the next 40 years or so, and then maybe I'd have a chance but I still doubt it]. It's just not reasonable.
I view intelligence similarly, yes society plays a role but I don't think we all got equal pieces of the pie when it comes to intelligence...if we did there are some major fuckups in this world then:)
You obviously don't interact with many women. My statement is not an indictment of either gender, rather I was expressing something that scientists have observered. This isn't some hocus-pocus mombo-jumbo, it's emperical fact. Servognome put it very well, it's a desire for support.
Doesn't take much of a stretch to understand how this model of interaction evolved....
And the award for lamest assertion that cannot possibly be backed by any scientific evidence goes to...PBOULANG!
Whether someone is a jock or a geek has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual capacity. I know we all like to think that at least we're smarter than everyone else but that just isn't true. I know some "geeks" who are dumb as nails just as I know some "jocks" are brilliant.
Let's use professional football as an example. Just like anything, people run the gambit on the old intelligence scale. You have uber-morons like Kellen Winslow Jr. who decide to ride motorcycles without a license and get really injured. Then you have guys like Peyton Manning; what he is able to do because of his intelligence and his preparation is amazing.
Actually this is a difference between men and women, this is not a difference between geeks and non-geeks. When men talk about their problems, they tend to do it in order to come up with concrete solutions to the problem. Women view it more as a means of clearing the air and putting things on the table; she wants you to listen not give advice. It's just a difference in the way that men and women communicate [this statement is based on the norm, there are exceptions and it is not the case with everything but there are indeed psycological studies to back this up].
To nitpik here (hey that's what I'm doing so I might as well admit it), if a "smart pill" were introduced it would not raise IQ. IQ tests scores are static. Every decade or so they rewrite the tests to keep 100 the average...go take a 60's IQ test and your score would probably go up 10-15 points:)
You're talking about two seperate things though, intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge is attained through hard work and intelligence applies knowledge for practical reasons. Yes, a greater knowledge base probably includes better techniques of information deployment but reading a book probably isn't going to raise your IQ or improve your Raven scores.
I've met plenty of people who did very well academically but were incapable, or at least at the age I knew them at, were unable to deploy that knowledge in an effective manner. These were the kids who would spend an entire class period attempting to discern the answer that the teacher wanted on the essay. This is not intelligence, this is knowledge regergitation. Intelligence is taking knowledge and synthesizing it for a greater purpose...two completely different things in my mind.
That's fair but I'm talking about myself and how I percieve a community such as the one described in the article. I could be fundamentally flawed in my understanding of the situation and it could just be a group of like minded individuals taking solace in each others uniqueness; that being said it's hardly fair to chop the world up in to two categories [minority = geeks and majority = jocks/cheerleaders]. That's an oversimplification of the problem. Also, I don't want people to think that I don't still have geeky aspects of my personality, merely that I forced myself to expand in to other groups of people and have found that I can happily exist amongst "the normal people".
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that we spend a lot of time categorizing people and it damaging to all members of a society. I find things are most interesting when I'm around an ecclectic group of people.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that, I believe the inability to interact effectively is not something that you are born with; rather it's a learned behavior. For many reasons, I did not feel worthy of my peers thus I turned to anti-social behaviors. Once I dealt with that underlying misperception of myself, I was able to slowly start building confidence. Maybe I'm the exception not the rule, but I just feel this sort of stuff should not be encouraged. Society at large is negatively effected by shut-ins. It inhibits communication and interaction and also leads to depression [at least in my case].
Ultimately, my choice to become a computer shut-in was caused by a warped perception of self. In essence, I was a fat kid with bracers and acne and no self-esteem. Computers were always easy to me and I was rewarded because of my intelligence playing games online [Played a MUD for eight years]. It was a simple pattern of success in the virtual world, cuppled with percieved values in the real world [getting rejected by a girl, not making the basketball team etc]. At the time I didn't have the coping mechanisms to deal with these sorts of things properly so I became introverted.
So I guess, from my experience, I would suggest talking to your sons about how they feel about themeselves. Figure out a way to get them to talk about how they percieve themeselves. Some methods that might work are what there dreams/goals/aspirations or who their idols are, I've found with myself those things were a reverse manifestation of how I really felt about myself. I dunno if any of that is a help but let me know.
Seeing as I am a recovering geek/computer nerd shut-in, I can empathize with some of the potential problems brought up by the article. It's taken me five years to become confident once again in social situations because of the amount of time I wasted sitting in front of a computer screen playing games. This is no one's fault but my own and it wasn't until I took responibility for my life that things started to change but I do honestly wish my parents had kicked me out of the house in high school and forced me to go out and be social; it would have made college life a lot easier. I don't think societies should encourage this sort of behavior because it is ultimately destructive; these people indulge in their hobbies without developing entirely as human beings. This is NOT a good thing in my mind...oh well just my two cents:)
Many stores, particularly online stores will sell you OEM software even w/o a hardware purchase. To them it's just about making money, I would imagine they just tag the purchase on to someone invoice who bought the required items for microsofts paperwork.
Plus, from working at a Computer Retail Shop, I was under the impression that a Motherboard/Processcor was enough for an OEM purchase but this was six years ago and we may not have been following the rules:)
You most definately can get ten meters underwater surfing, although that's usually a real real bad thing and you probably just tried to surf a wave that was way too big:)
The point that intelligent people are attempting to make here is not that parallel's don't exist and it's most certainly not with the content of the political commentary; rather it's the sophomoric presentation. When making such a loaded commentary [by loaded I mean, it's going to turn some heads] it needs to be done intelligently. Lucas' just beats you over the head with it in this style that is like "Hey look at me, I'm a politcal film-maker! I'm stroking my ego because I think my political agenda matters to the rest of the world";personally this doesn't really do much for me but maybe I'm crazy:)
Last I checked, the discussion was about Single Molecule Transistor's and not about Yoda's alleged philosophy and it's alleged foundation in our world. Yoda is a figment of your imagination as is the entire star wars world. Let's try not to make sophomoric validations of a weak movie series [Although fiscally incredibly successful, my hat is off to you Mr. Lucas].
And, as apropos as Lucas' commentary about our current political plight could have been, it failed miserably; it's an insult to the collective movie going population to have those sort of asinine political commentary.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your marshmellows and I raise you HoHo's.
Prepare to defend yourself!
Uh we're still talking about politicians here right? Because this conversation acts as if the people in question actually have souls...and well last I checked those get sold at the door when you enter public offic. Maybe I'm missing something though ;)
To be slightly pedantic and trollish, Halo was the killer ap. Most people who bought Halo 2 already had the XBox. I don't know of many people who bought an XBox because of Halo 2 but I know a ton of people [myself included] who bought an xbox because of the original Halo.
:)
Halo 2 sucked balls in my opinion, something just feels off to me but that's not really the point of this post
And the award for "Most Overly Melodramatic Slashdot USer" goes to BARAKN for his wonderful on Batman Begins! Who cares man? Advertising is everywhere, and SOMEONE may have found the article interesting and informative. If it's a plug for the movie, it's a plug for the movie...I bet you've seen at least 10 such forms of advertising today already.
It's called a race to the bottom, same thing happened in the cold war...same thing happens in our consumer society ... two Canadian Philosophers wrote a book on it called Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture became Consumer Culture Very interesting read...
I think that was Joseph Campbell and note hollywood, but I wouldn't put it past the blokes in hollywood saying they came up with it first :)
At least someone here looks like they understand what poker is all about...bluffing is when you bet heavy on a hand that is not the best possible hand for the given cards because you think either A) the other person doesn't have that best hand or B) you can make that person think you do have that best hand.
Bluffing is not random "Oh I'm going in heavy this hand because I feel hot!". As the parent said, we all have patterns...
I hope you are wrong. I don't think we can function as a collective group of shut-ins, plus that sounds rather depressing to me. It's not to say that one cannot build relationships in a virtual world but I believe they are fundamentally different.
It's really a case of the law of unintended consequences; I don't pretend to understand the human genome nor is there any scientific evidence that I know of from the scientific community regarding a potential consequence but for the sake of argument...
To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect that on a genetic level we require direct human interaction for survival. Obviously, millenia of evolutionary selection promoted the interaction of human beings. Societies formed because they gave people a better chance to survive, now what if there were chemical interactions occuring as well. What if, over that time, Homo sapiens became chemically dependant on other Homo sapiens. There is already evidence suggesting that "" women with semen in their reproductive tract felt happier than women without"; there is more going on here than meets the eye and as both a society and as geeks it's something that needs to be watched.
Interesting response but I hope for all our sakes you are wrong with the direction where are taking...
Yeah well I believe you have a perception problem that is causing you to be blind of the truth! Just kidding, I had to get my obligatory troll in..sorta like morning coffee.
:)
I don't really agree with you though, I'm not going to say that you're wrong because I have no evidence to back it up but it's my belief that we're all born with various levels of potentiality when it comes all things: physical prowess, mental prowess, sexual prowess, etc.
Let's take a for instance, although physical prowess is slightly different than mental prowess, it's fair to assert that physical prowess is a finite thing determined by our DNA. I may want to play professional basketball but the fact of the matter is I'm too short, I'm not fast, I'm not quick, I don't have a thirty-six inch verticle leap. With proper training, I could probably dunk a basketball (can touch the rim at 5'9) but I'd never be able to take it to the rack over MJ [unless he become a parapalegic in the next 40 years or so, and then maybe I'd have a chance but I still doubt it]. It's just not reasonable.
I view intelligence similarly, yes society plays a role but I don't think we all got equal pieces of the pie when it comes to intelligence...if we did there are some major fuckups in this world then
Fair enough
Again this is not a golden rule, just a trend.
You obviously don't interact with many women. My statement is not an indictment of either gender, rather I was expressing something that scientists have observered. This isn't some hocus-pocus mombo-jumbo, it's emperical fact. Servognome put it very well, it's a desire for support.
Doesn't take much of a stretch to understand how this model of interaction evolved....
And the award for lamest assertion that cannot possibly be backed by any scientific evidence goes to...PBOULANG!
Whether someone is a jock or a geek has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual capacity. I know we all like to think that at least we're smarter than everyone else but that just isn't true. I know some "geeks" who are dumb as nails just as I know some "jocks" are brilliant.
Let's use professional football as an example. Just like anything, people run the gambit on the old intelligence scale. You have uber-morons like Kellen Winslow Jr. who decide to ride motorcycles without a license and get really injured. Then you have guys like Peyton Manning; what he is able to do because of his intelligence and his preparation is amazing.
Intelligence == geek and jock == stupid.
Actually this is a difference between men and women, this is not a difference between geeks and non-geeks. When men talk about their problems, they tend to do it in order to come up with concrete solutions to the problem. Women view it more as a means of clearing the air and putting things on the table; she wants you to listen not give advice. It's just a difference in the way that men and women communicate [this statement is based on the norm, there are exceptions and it is not the case with everything but there are indeed psycological studies to back this up].
Touche sir, touche.
To nitpik here (hey that's what I'm doing so I might as well admit it), if a "smart pill" were introduced it would not raise IQ. IQ tests scores are static. Every decade or so they rewrite the tests to keep 100 the average...go take a 60's IQ test and your score would probably go up 10-15 points :)
You're talking about two seperate things though, intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge is attained through hard work and intelligence applies knowledge for practical reasons. Yes, a greater knowledge base probably includes better techniques of information deployment but reading a book probably isn't going to raise your IQ or improve your Raven scores.
I've met plenty of people who did very well academically but were incapable, or at least at the age I knew them at, were unable to deploy that knowledge in an effective manner. These were the kids who would spend an entire class period attempting to discern the answer that the teacher wanted on the essay. This is not intelligence, this is knowledge regergitation. Intelligence is taking knowledge and synthesizing it for a greater purpose...two completely different things in my mind.
That's fair but I'm talking about myself and how I percieve a community such as the one described in the article. I could be fundamentally flawed in my understanding of the situation and it could just be a group of like minded individuals taking solace in each others uniqueness; that being said it's hardly fair to chop the world up in to two categories [minority = geeks and majority = jocks/cheerleaders]. That's an oversimplification of the problem. Also, I don't want people to think that I don't still have geeky aspects of my personality, merely that I forced myself to expand in to other groups of people and have found that I can happily exist amongst "the normal people".
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that we spend a lot of time categorizing people and it damaging to all members of a society. I find things are most interesting when I'm around an ecclectic group of people.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that, I believe the inability to interact effectively is not something that you are born with; rather it's a learned behavior. For many reasons, I did not feel worthy of my peers thus I turned to anti-social behaviors. Once I dealt with that underlying misperception of myself, I was able to slowly start building confidence. Maybe I'm the exception not the rule, but I just feel this sort of stuff should not be encouraged. Society at large is negatively effected by shut-ins. It inhibits communication and interaction and also leads to depression [at least in my case].
Ultimately, my choice to become a computer shut-in was caused by a warped perception of self. In essence, I was a fat kid with bracers and acne and no self-esteem. Computers were always easy to me and I was rewarded because of my intelligence playing games online [Played a MUD for eight years]. It was a simple pattern of success in the virtual world, cuppled with percieved values in the real world [getting rejected by a girl, not making the basketball team etc]. At the time I didn't have the coping mechanisms to deal with these sorts of things properly so I became introverted.
So I guess, from my experience, I would suggest talking to your sons about how they feel about themeselves. Figure out a way to get them to talk about how they percieve themeselves. Some methods that might work are what there dreams/goals/aspirations or who their idols are, I've found with myself those things were a reverse manifestation of how I really felt about myself. I dunno if any of that is a help but let me know.
Ah yes, a balanced person...don't come across many of you here on slashdot...begone evilnik before you corrupt us all!
Seeing as I am a recovering geek/computer nerd shut-in, I can empathize with some of the potential problems brought up by the article. It's taken me five years to become confident once again in social situations because of the amount of time I wasted sitting in front of a computer screen playing games. This is no one's fault but my own and it wasn't until I took responibility for my life that things started to change but I do honestly wish my parents had kicked me out of the house in high school and forced me to go out and be social; it would have made college life a lot easier. I don't think societies should encourage this sort of behavior because it is ultimately destructive; these people indulge in their hobbies without developing entirely as human beings. This is NOT a good thing in my mind...oh well just my two cents :)
Many stores, particularly online stores will sell you OEM software even w/o a hardware purchase. To them it's just about making money, I would imagine they just tag the purchase on to someone invoice who bought the required items for microsofts paperwork.
:)
Plus, from working at a Computer Retail Shop, I was under the impression that a Motherboard/Processcor was enough for an OEM purchase but this was six years ago and we may not have been following the rules
You most definately can get ten meters underwater surfing, although that's usually a real real bad thing and you probably just tried to surf a wave that was way too big :)
The point that intelligent people are attempting to make here is not that parallel's don't exist and it's most certainly not with the content of the political commentary; rather it's the sophomoric presentation. When making such a loaded commentary [by loaded I mean, it's going to turn some heads] it needs to be done intelligently. Lucas' just beats you over the head with it in this style that is like "Hey look at me, I'm a politcal film-maker! I'm stroking my ego because I think my political agenda matters to the rest of the world";personally this doesn't really do much for me but maybe I'm crazy :)
Oh yeah, I got those results back in yesterday...
Last I checked, the discussion was about Single Molecule Transistor's and not about Yoda's alleged philosophy and it's alleged foundation in our world. Yoda is a figment of your imagination as is the entire star wars world. Let's try not to make sophomoric validations of a weak movie series [Although fiscally incredibly successful, my hat is off to you Mr. Lucas].
And, as apropos as Lucas' commentary about our current political plight could have been, it failed miserably; it's an insult to the collective movie going population to have those sort of asinine political commentary.