Sorry, bub, but I'm a trained Small Claims Court Counsellor. You can't sue for emotional, time, or any other non-monetary kind of cost. If it can't be printed on a recipt, you can't sue. You can sue for time if it was part of an arrangement (i.e. plumber not getting paid for the job), but not for your time spent fixing this stuff. Unless he broke the machine and you had to have it serviced or replaced, there's nothing small claims court can do.
What were you smoking and/or drinking? LSD flashback perhaps? Yeah, I saw stuff like that when I was like 8 in a car, but then I was pretty tired and sick, so it was more likely an overactive imagination or memory of a dream.
I posted this a 2 months ago on a similar topic, and realized it could use re-posting:
Two quick thoughts - First, since old CDs and DVDs wouldn't have the tags (I presume), how would you play them?
Second, what about Indy labels? Not just them, actually, but people who make their own CDs (bar bands, etc). They either wouldn't be able to make useable CDs or they'd have to get an ID tag. If they can get an ID tag, a pirate could create a dummy band and tag copied CDs, no? By my estimation, you'll have to buy a new version of every CD you've got, and either small/Indy band won't be able to make CDs or the system is so un-thought out that it will crumble in a week. (Unless they have a way to update the hardware, someone can just make a CD burning program that has a single hacked or acquired code).
England. Hey, it's not too much better, but it is better, and that's what's important. There's no language barrier, it's not as remote as NZ (I'll definitely retire there), and it's not a desert of thieves like Australia (heh, no offense). The people are nicer, the land is nicer, the system on a whole is better (if you don't believe me on that, look for an intersection there - they even found a better way to have streets cross). Even from an atheist's viewpoint, it's better.
I'm getting tired of this. This is called invasion of privacy. If a police officer goes through your room and finds a bomb, without a warrant, he can't do anything with it, until he gets one from a judge. The evidence is inadmissable in court. Get a decent lawyer, and you'll go free undoubtedly.
If your ISP relays the message to you, ask who found it, them or the MPAA. Your ISP probably has the right to (they can check transfer logs, etc). If it was the MPAA, then you're losing your right to privacy, and you can sue your ISP and the MPAA. You didn't authorize their searching your computer, and your ISP shouldn't allow it either. Once again, they can't use the "evidence" if it's found like that.
This is why I'm leaving the US, the whole system is shit. MPAA, lack of government involvement with internet privacy, Constitutional rights that evaporate once you go digital (don't get me started on the pledge.
"when one keeps in mind that the entire series is really one movie split into different parts, this is most likely one of the highest grossing movies to ever be released"
That's not even close to reality. A sequel is not a continuation of the first movie, in nearly every instance. It is a SEQUEL not a CONTINUATION. LotR is a single movie in parts. It was shot at once and comes from a single source. Star Wars was a big hit, so Lucas made more. It was a stand alone movie. By your theory, all of the Bond movies are really just one big, ongoing, cut-up movie. That's just silly.
Actually, if you replicate any part of DNA it is considered cloning. PCR is most certainly cloning (it's typically called amplification, actually), but it won't give you a "clone" if you're referring specifically to a whole animal cloned from a single somatic cell.
Special thanks to Binghamton's Biology Dept;)
Two quick thoughts - First, since old CDs and DVDs wouldn't have the tags (I presume), how would you play them? Second, what about Indy labels? Not just them, actually, but people who make their own CDs (bar bands, etc). They either wouldn't be able to make useable CDs or they'd have to get an ID tag. If they can get an ID tag, a pirate could create a dummy band and tag copied CDs, no? By my estimation, you'll have to buy a new version of every CD you've got, and either small/Indy band won't be able to make CDs or the system is so un-thought out that it will crumble in a week. (Unless they have a way to update the hardware, someone can just make a CD burning program that has a single hacked or acquired code).
"Maybe instead of free super-low-bitrate songs- they could use snippets of songs, or internet radio stations to promote all of them- there is enough bandwidth to play more than the perceived cash-cow hits."
Unless these are custom stations per album, it can't work. Think of how many singles are out and played on a station. Multiply that by, oh, 15. You'll have hour blocks of albums. "Tune in at 3AM to hear the new Zeppelin" isn't going to work too well. If you mix them up, you'll have too much music to work with (unless a computer with 500 CDs is set to "random" for a month). In that scenario, you'd play an artist 1/500th of the time, meaning listening less than, hmm... 500x4/60 = 33 hours/month just to have a chance of hearing a single song from an artist. Oofah.
2 problems there. First, many real artists ctually put a lot of time into track order and selection. You aren't supposed to listen to a song at a time, you're supposed to get the whole album experience (think of just watching a scene or two of a move - nice, but you miss the plot). Secondly, how would you know which tracks you liked without downloading them in the first place? Your "'I only like 5 songs on this CD' and paying $5 for them" argument crumbles under this likely scenario. The only way around that is to put out free super-low bitrate songs, but that would mean that those of us who have real ears couldn't tell if it would really be worth the cash. Whatever the case, a buck a song is too high a price, but any lower wouldn't be profitable (just making a transaction costs money, you know). Until they sell full 10-20 song albums in a non-lossy form (or at least high bitrate MP3s, and yes, I can hear the difference, but I'm not the average consumer) for $5 they won't succeed.
I wonder music stores can legally put this in a "CD rack"... Do they need a new section of the store for these things, or do they have to change the signs on the racks to say "Circular music-containing objects"? Can a store named "CD Warehouse" or any other store with "CD" in the name sell these without being guilty of misleading customers? Hmm...makes you think... Will CD players have to change their names too? Will they be "CD and Quasi-CD Players Not Supporting User-Created or Digital Video Disk Disk Players"?
We obviously can't call this Celine Dion product a "CD"...We're going to need a new term to denote CD-imposters...Lets see...
CC - Crash Circle
"CD" - Quote-Compact Disk-Unquote
ICD - Imposter Compact Disk
FD - Fool's Disk
ID - Incompatible Disk
SF - Sony Frisbee
CC - Celine Coaster
MW3 - Mommy, Why Won't it Work?
RCD - Record Companies Downfall
18POS - $18 Piece Of Sh*t
SLS - Sony's Last Stand
PD - Poo Disk
Any suggestions?
Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying that all cynics are pessimists, or that all skeptics are? And then you go on that the group is "perpetually bitter". I hope you aren't talking about cynics, because all the cynics I know are quite jolly, and are realists (which is the basis for skepticism and cynicism), not pessimists. If you go on with your insistance that cynics are thus (if that's what you were saying, it's not quite clear), then you are close-minded. I am presenting you with contrary evidence, don't dismiss me too quickly.
Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
Once again, it's a critique of universal skepticism, the extreme form of skepticism. "Absolutist knowledge" is an irrelevent comment here. A statement of "2+2=4" is essentially what he is making. If you look at this logically, it's the answer you are guaranteed to get.
Bittle doesn't suggest "absolute" knowledge at any point. He defines skepticism as universal doubt, which cannot be achieved without having a reason to doubt (even if it is simple logic on your part). This is contradictory.
I don't think you can say that his comments are "indicative of his own difficulty accepting the idea of a world without absolute truth than any inherent difficulty with the concept of skepticism" and expect anyone to back you up. The statement is completely unfounded, and appears to be a simple attack on his character to discount his statement.
You're trying to attribute a quote to something you have no evidence of, and, as a "doubtful" person, I can't accept such a ridiculous comment. Welcome to real skepticism: we don't bother with things that have no evidence or contradict logic or inherent knowledge.
Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
You forget that the "reasons" can be based on prior knowledge, they don't require brand new testings of each instance. The rational explanation is the one that conforms to logic - which is based on our experiences itself. Also, I stated this was a critique of "universal skepticism," which it is. Moderate skepticism isn't the same, neccessarily. It does raise a valid point about being overly skeptic.
Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
So long as someone defines themself with a word, semantics are of key import to those of us wishing to understand them. If you call yourself a skeptic, you had best understand the implications. The insight is most certainly "new" as I've never heard anyone present the argument so well before. And who sayd it's supposed to be new anyway (though I think it is)? It's insight, and that's what intelligent people look for, whether someone has original insight or is able to present forgotten or unconsidered insight.
Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 1
If we are talking about universal skeptics, you've got a dilemma to deal with ("The Skeptic's Dilemma," if you will).
"Skeptics either have valid reasons for their universal doubting, or they have no valid reasons for it. If they have valid reasons, they surely know something that is valid, and they no longer are real skeptics. If they have no valid reasons, they have no reason to doubt. In the first case their position is inconsistent, and in the second case their position is irrational. Whichever way they turn, their position is untenable." - C.N. Bittle
I am a cynic, and am therefore a moderate skeptic, who doubts anything that isn't scientific (something I can test myself). I am not close-minded. To say that skeptics are "healthy and reasonable" while insinuating that cynics are not, you are proving yourself, a skeptic, to be close-minded. I do not generalize that all skeptics are anything, other than skeptical.
If more people were cynics or skeptics, things like this wouldn't happen. Don't be so hypocritical, it's quite frustrating.
And to finish it off, a quote I added to my last post that seems appropriate: "Cynicism+Parsimony=Trouble" And a new one: "Hey skeptic, you won't believe what I have to say next."
Heh, as a cynic, lying is never a complex addition to me. Misinformation is the most simple answer, in fact.
When my father was out for ~6 minutes, he heard the nurses talking about him, and saw a white light. He has no trouble saying this is probably easily explained by science. Her seeing the object complicates things, but so long as someone mentioned the pen (or she heard it fall), she could have used her ears to "see" the pen fall. I still believe that there was some change in the story at one point (a fourth-party account is just as bad as playing "Telephone" in kindergarten).
Well said, Virg, I'd like to offer my hand in a virtual hand-shake. I would, though, like to point out that the answer to 4.) should have been "Yes". Parsimony always considers an invisible or unobservable force to be complex. Souls (or anything faith-based) by definition violate Ockham's Razor.
"I have read quite a bit about near-death experiences, enough to convince me that there is more to us than our biological bodies."
That's very nice, but that has nothing to do with science. In fact, science shows evidence against such things. When brain cells don't recieve enough oxygen, the effects are obvious and often called "near-death" experiences. My father had one during a heart attack, and he admits it probably was just some brain tissue flaring up or an optic nerve signaling one last desperate time (actually, it's the 27th anniversary of his non-death today). Science is based on a principle of testable observations and calculable data. You can't trust the account of someone whose only means of cognition is a set of dead or dying neurons.
Additionally, Galileo's observations were most certainly extraordinary, as is any theory that completely contradicts the currently accepted hypotheses.
As for "every claim and every test of those claims," any single test providing evidence is irrelevant unless the experiment can be repeated providing the same results each time (a significant result in a significant majority, to be more accurate). Once again, science steps in. If such things were occurring, I can assure you I'd have heard of it, barring some massive conspiracy.
"The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain. I have emotions and desires, quite apart from food and shelter."
I take it you don't have any pets, and perhaps have never seen a live animal. Watching any higher-order mammal, emotions are obvious. If you don't think a dog is feels guilt after urinating on the floor, you've got a lot to learn. Additionally, psychoactive drugs quite quickly prove that emotions and neurotransmitters are highly interconnected. As a formerly suicidal person, I can tell you that antidepressants undeniably work. If depression wasn't physical, that simply wouldn't be possible. Have you considered that fact that instincts are essentially desires in humans? A grown man wants food (regardless of need), he doesn't simply have a motor reaction to consume it on sight.
"And don't simply disbelieve because it seems too extraordinary, otherwise you might end up thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth."
Are you aware of modern science? The Earth's revolution isn't extraordinary anymore, since we've collected data and have simple ways to prove our hypothesis with regard to it. Additionally, your version of an open mind is accepting anything you don't feel hasn't not been disproved enough (yes, that's what I meant to write). Through your theory, I can prove the existence of quijibo's by means of the fact that no one has disproved their existence. Until someone proves something, don't just accept it as an alternative.
Ah, it's too late to think about these things. Oh, and for the record I'm a psychology major at Binghamton University, so I do know a good deal about the human mind and statistical testing, etc.
Firstly, how is fighting a virtual war that different than writing about a fictional one? The interactivity enhances the experience, not demerits it.
How about this one, then -
Lets say I use the paintball cheat in Goldeneye to write something on a wall, is that free speech? What about using buried Zerglings to do it? True you can't write much, but you can in other games, along the same lines. You could theoretically write a novel through character names. Can there be free speech inside an explicitly non-speech environment?
Merit is opinion-based, which is why I dislike it as a standard. I wouldn't say "Pat the Bunny" has any merit (btw, that "bunny" looks like a deformed caterpillar). Free speech is a protection of art, in a way. Art is conidered a form of comminucation, is it not? A picture is worth a thousand words, a painting can be studied for a lifetime. How can you say that The Last Supper doesn't say anything? It says more than many books I've read (there's a lot of junk out there, you know).
Starcraft's movies shouldn't be considered seperate from the game. They are clearly part of it. You can't watch them without playing it. Perhaps the value of the game is unlocking the movies, then. A toll, in effect. The value of book can't be realized if you don't pay or can't read. Perhaps it's just a different form payment for speech (free speech is rarely free).
So long as someone expresses their opinion, they are exercizing free speech. What if their statement is about the brutality of war, and can only be realized by someone witnessing it first hand (enter Wolfenstein, etc)?
Ach, I've been ranting too long, missing the Mets game, adios;)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, bub, but I'm a trained Small Claims Court Counsellor. You can't sue for emotional, time, or any other non-monetary kind of cost. If it can't be printed on a recipt, you can't sue. You can sue for time if it was part of an arrangement (i.e. plumber not getting paid for the job), but not for your time spent fixing this stuff. Unless he broke the machine and you had to have it serviced or replaced, there's nothing small claims court can do.
Perhaps you saw some test planes? Ever think of that, bub? They do things like fly and circle! There might even be more than one in a formation!
What were you smoking and/or drinking? LSD flashback perhaps? Yeah, I saw stuff like that when I was like 8 in a car, but then I was pretty tired and sick, so it was more likely an overactive imagination or memory of a dream.
I posted this a 2 months ago on a similar topic, and realized it could use re-posting:
Two quick thoughts -
First, since old CDs and DVDs wouldn't have the tags (I presume), how would you play them? Second, what about Indy labels? Not just them, actually, but people who make their own CDs (bar bands, etc). They either wouldn't be able to make useable CDs or they'd have to get an ID tag. If they can get an ID tag, a pirate could create a dummy band and tag copied CDs, no?
By my estimation, you'll have to buy a new version of every CD you've got, and either small/Indy band won't be able to make CDs or the system is so un-thought out that it will crumble in a week. (Unless they have a way to update the hardware, someone can just make a CD burning program that has a single hacked or acquired code).
England. Hey, it's not too much better, but it is better, and that's what's important. There's no language barrier, it's not as remote as NZ (I'll definitely retire there), and it's not a desert of thieves like Australia (heh, no offense). The people are nicer, the land is nicer, the system on a whole is better (if you don't believe me on that, look for an intersection there - they even found a better way to have streets cross). Even from an atheist's viewpoint, it's better.
I'm getting tired of this. This is called invasion of privacy. If a police officer goes through your room and finds a bomb, without a warrant, he can't do anything with it, until he gets one from a judge. The evidence is inadmissable in court. Get a decent lawyer, and you'll go free undoubtedly.
If your ISP relays the message to you, ask who found it, them or the MPAA. Your ISP probably has the right to (they can check transfer logs, etc). If it was the MPAA, then you're losing your right to privacy, and you can sue your ISP and the MPAA. You didn't authorize their searching your computer, and your ISP shouldn't allow it either. Once again, they can't use the "evidence" if it's found like that.
This is why I'm leaving the US, the whole system is shit. MPAA, lack of government involvement with internet privacy, Constitutional rights that evaporate once you go digital (don't get me started on the pledge.
Ramble On
"when one keeps in mind that the entire series is really one movie split into different parts, this is most likely one of the highest grossing movies to ever be released"
That's not even close to reality. A sequel is not a continuation of the first movie, in nearly every instance. It is a SEQUEL not a CONTINUATION. LotR is a single movie in parts. It was shot at once and comes from a single source. Star Wars was a big hit, so Lucas made more. It was a stand alone movie. By your theory, all of the Bond movies are really just one big, ongoing, cut-up movie. That's just silly.
Actually, if you replicate any part of DNA it is considered cloning. PCR is most certainly cloning (it's typically called amplification, actually), but it won't give you a "clone" if you're referring specifically to a whole animal cloned from a single somatic cell. Special thanks to Binghamton's Biology Dept ;)
Two quick thoughts -
First, since old CDs and DVDs wouldn't have the tags (I presume), how would you play them?
Second, what about Indy labels? Not just them, actually, but people who make their own CDs (bar bands, etc). They either wouldn't be able to make useable CDs or they'd have to get an ID tag. If they can get an ID tag, a pirate could create a dummy band and tag copied CDs, no?
By my estimation, you'll have to buy a new version of every CD you've got, and either small/Indy band won't be able to make CDs or the system is so un-thought out that it will crumble in a week. (Unless they have a way to update the hardware, someone can just make a CD burning program that has a single hacked or acquired code).
"Maybe instead of free super-low-bitrate songs- they could use snippets of songs, or internet radio stations to promote all of them- there is enough bandwidth to play more than the perceived cash-cow hits."
Unless these are custom stations per album, it can't work. Think of how many singles are out and played on a station. Multiply that by, oh, 15. You'll have hour blocks of albums. "Tune in at 3AM to hear the new Zeppelin" isn't going to work too well. If you mix them up, you'll have too much music to work with (unless a computer with 500 CDs is set to "random" for a month). In that scenario, you'd play an artist 1/500th of the time, meaning listening less than, hmm... 500x4/60 = 33 hours/month just to have a chance of hearing a single song from an artist. Oofah.
2 problems there. First, many real artists ctually put a lot of time into track order and selection. You aren't supposed to listen to a song at a time, you're supposed to get the whole album experience (think of just watching a scene or two of a move - nice, but you miss the plot). Secondly, how would you know which tracks you liked without downloading them in the first place? Your "'I only like 5 songs on this CD' and paying $5 for them" argument crumbles under this likely scenario. The only way around that is to put out free super-low bitrate songs, but that would mean that those of us who have real ears couldn't tell if it would really be worth the cash. Whatever the case, a buck a song is too high a price, but any lower wouldn't be profitable (just making a transaction costs money, you know). Until they sell full 10-20 song albums in a non-lossy form (or at least high bitrate MP3s, and yes, I can hear the difference, but I'm not the average consumer) for $5 they won't succeed.
You know, I thought of FUD right after I posted... It's good to know we're all on the same wavelength when it comes to stuff like this. Heh..."FUD"...
I wonder music stores can legally put this in a "CD rack"... Do they need a new section of the store for these things, or do they have to change the signs on the racks to say "Circular music-containing objects"? Can a store named "CD Warehouse" or any other store with "CD" in the name sell these without being guilty of misleading customers? Hmm...makes you think... Will CD players have to change their names too? Will they be "CD and Quasi-CD Players Not Supporting User-Created or Digital Video Disk Disk Players"?
If it isn't a "CD" does this violate the patent on Compact Disks, as it is same technology, just with a few 0s and 1s?
Works for me!
We obviously can't call this Celine Dion product a "CD"...We're going to need a new term to denote CD-imposters...Lets see...
CC - Crash Circle
"CD" - Quote-Compact Disk-Unquote
ICD - Imposter Compact Disk
FD - Fool's Disk
ID - Incompatible Disk
SF - Sony Frisbee
CC - Celine Coaster
MW3 - Mommy, Why Won't it Work?
RCD - Record Companies Downfall
18POS - $18 Piece Of Sh*t
SLS - Sony's Last Stand
PD - Poo Disk
Any suggestions?
"cyncic implies skeptisicm + pessimism + "being perpetually bitter"
Are you saying that all cynics are pessimists, or that all skeptics are? And then you go on that the group is "perpetually bitter". I hope you aren't talking about cynics, because all the cynics I know are quite jolly, and are realists (which is the basis for skepticism and cynicism), not pessimists. If you go on with your insistance that cynics are thus (if that's what you were saying, it's not quite clear), then you are close-minded. I am presenting you with contrary evidence, don't dismiss me too quickly.
Once again, it's a critique of universal skepticism, the extreme form of skepticism. "Absolutist knowledge" is an irrelevent comment here. A statement of "2+2=4" is essentially what he is making. If you look at this logically, it's the answer you are guaranteed to get.
Bittle doesn't suggest "absolute" knowledge at any point. He defines skepticism as universal doubt, which cannot be achieved without having a reason to doubt (even if it is simple logic on your part). This is contradictory.
I don't think you can say that his comments are "indicative of his own difficulty accepting the idea of a world without absolute truth than any inherent difficulty with the concept of skepticism" and expect anyone to back you up. The statement is completely unfounded, and appears to be a simple attack on his character to discount his statement.
You're trying to attribute a quote to something you have no evidence of, and, as a "doubtful" person, I can't accept such a ridiculous comment. Welcome to real skepticism: we don't bother with things that have no evidence or contradict logic or inherent knowledge.
You forget that the "reasons" can be based on prior knowledge, they don't require brand new testings of each instance. The rational explanation is the one that conforms to logic - which is based on our experiences itself. Also, I stated this was a critique of "universal skepticism," which it is. Moderate skepticism isn't the same, neccessarily. It does raise a valid point about being overly skeptic.
So long as someone defines themself with a word, semantics are of key import to those of us wishing to understand them. If you call yourself a skeptic, you had best understand the implications. The insight is most certainly "new" as I've never heard anyone present the argument so well before. And who sayd it's supposed to be new anyway (though I think it is)? It's insight, and that's what intelligent people look for, whether someone has original insight or is able to present forgotten or unconsidered insight.
I am a cynic, and am therefore a moderate skeptic, who doubts anything that isn't scientific (something I can test myself). I am not close-minded. To say that skeptics are "healthy and reasonable" while insinuating that cynics are not, you are proving yourself, a skeptic, to be close-minded. I do not generalize that all skeptics are anything, other than skeptical.
If more people were cynics or skeptics, things like this wouldn't happen. Don't be so hypocritical, it's quite frustrating.
And to finish it off, a quote I added to my last post that seems appropriate:
"Cynicism+Parsimony=Trouble"
And a new one:
"Hey skeptic, you won't believe what I have to say next."
Heh, as a cynic, lying is never a complex addition to me. Misinformation is the most simple answer, in fact.
When my father was out for ~6 minutes, he heard the nurses talking about him, and saw a white light. He has no trouble saying this is probably easily explained by science. Her seeing the object complicates things, but so long as someone mentioned the pen (or she heard it fall), she could have used her ears to "see" the pen fall. I still believe that there was some change in the story at one point (a fourth-party account is just as bad as playing "Telephone" in kindergarten).
Cynicism+Parsimony=Trouble
Well said, Virg, I'd like to offer my hand in a virtual hand-shake. I would, though, like to point out that the answer to 4.) should have been "Yes". Parsimony always considers an invisible or unobservable force to be complex. Souls (or anything faith-based) by definition violate Ockham's Razor.
"I have read quite a bit about near-death experiences, enough to convince me that there is more to us than our biological bodies."
That's very nice, but that has nothing to do with science. In fact, science shows evidence against such things. When brain cells don't recieve enough oxygen, the effects are obvious and often called "near-death" experiences. My father had one during a heart attack, and he admits it probably was just some brain tissue flaring up or an optic nerve signaling one last desperate time (actually, it's the 27th anniversary of his non-death today). Science is based on a principle of testable observations and calculable data. You can't trust the account of someone whose only means of cognition is a set of dead or dying neurons.
Additionally, Galileo's observations were most certainly extraordinary, as is any theory that completely contradicts the currently accepted hypotheses.
As for "every claim and every test of those claims," any single test providing evidence is irrelevant unless the experiment can be repeated providing the same results each time (a significant result in a significant majority, to be more accurate). Once again, science steps in. If such things were occurring, I can assure you I'd have heard of it, barring some massive conspiracy.
"The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain. I have emotions and desires, quite apart from food and shelter."
I take it you don't have any pets, and perhaps have never seen a live animal. Watching any higher-order mammal, emotions are obvious. If you don't think a dog is feels guilt after urinating on the floor, you've got a lot to learn. Additionally, psychoactive drugs quite quickly prove that emotions and neurotransmitters are highly interconnected. As a formerly suicidal person, I can tell you that antidepressants undeniably work. If depression wasn't physical, that simply wouldn't be possible.
Have you considered that fact that instincts are essentially desires in humans? A grown man wants food (regardless of need), he doesn't simply have a motor reaction to consume it on sight.
"And don't simply disbelieve because it seems too extraordinary, otherwise you might end up thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth."
Are you aware of modern science? The Earth's revolution isn't extraordinary anymore, since we've collected data and have simple ways to prove our hypothesis with regard to it. Additionally, your version of an open mind is accepting anything you don't feel hasn't not been disproved enough (yes, that's what I meant to write). Through your theory, I can prove the existence of quijibo's by means of the fact that no one has disproved their existence. Until someone proves something, don't just accept it as an alternative.
Ah, it's too late to think about these things. Oh, and for the record I'm a psychology major at Binghamton University, so I do know a good deal about the human mind and statistical testing, etc.
Firstly, how is fighting a virtual war that different than writing about a fictional one? The interactivity enhances the experience, not demerits it.
;)
How about this one, then -
Lets say I use the paintball cheat in Goldeneye to write something on a wall, is that free speech? What about using buried Zerglings to do it? True you can't write much, but you can in other games, along the same lines. You could theoretically write a novel through character names. Can there be free speech inside an explicitly non-speech environment?
Merit is opinion-based, which is why I dislike it as a standard. I wouldn't say "Pat the Bunny" has any merit (btw, that "bunny" looks like a deformed caterpillar). Free speech is a protection of art, in a way. Art is conidered a form of comminucation, is it not? A picture is worth a thousand words, a painting can be studied for a lifetime. How can you say that The Last Supper doesn't say anything? It says more than many books I've read (there's a lot of junk out there, you know).
Starcraft's movies shouldn't be considered seperate from the game. They are clearly part of it. You can't watch them without playing it. Perhaps the value of the game is unlocking the movies, then. A toll, in effect. The value of book can't be realized if you don't pay or can't read. Perhaps it's just a different form payment for speech (free speech is rarely free).
So long as someone expresses their opinion, they are exercizing free speech. What if their statement is about the brutality of war, and can only be realized by someone witnessing it first hand (enter Wolfenstein, etc)?
Ach, I've been ranting too long, missing the Mets game, adios
Angram