A desktop system with easy-to-program (read: the average consumer can do it) widgets and interfaces. Probably with some nice web services integration. People who just need to read email and surf the web only need a couple widgets, maybe a mail checker or something. People who work in offices and do really repetitive tasks have ways of easing that through the widgets (again, very easy to program/setup widgets!).
Call it flame bait, but what's wrong with Windows Media Player 10? Toss in a CD, switch to the RIP tab, turn off the DRM option and rip to MP3 or WMA.
Nothing wrong with that. But I gotta say, iTunes is even better in this department. You can set it to automatically rip the disc (to codex/bitrate x) when the disc is inserted, and eject automatically when finished. I did my CD collection this way; basically when I went to watch a movie or was reading, I'd just open the laptop next to me and put in the next disc when I heard the whir of the last disc ejecting. No clicking at all.
I got online the other night to play PGR2 with a guy who just flat-out demolished me. I haven't taken that disc out of the drive since the day we shipped it. I probably have around 800 hours on this thing. A situation like that-well, gee, if a kid spends 40 or 50 bucks on a title and then 50 bucks on a subscription, he or she's in for 100 bucks, but they've also played it for over a year. That's enormous value. Typically, a gamer like that would go out and buy five racing games to get a fix.
That has got to be bullshit. I don't think I've logged anywhere near 800 hours even in Warcraft, and I lived in that fucking game for awhile. His math looks a little RIAA to me.
I think this is not correct. On-line gaming is HUGE for you hardcore gamers, but on and off gamers like me don't have the skill or time necessary to get a good online experience. What fun is it to enter an online session just to be killed 5 seconds after you entered? Not much....I personally prefer to play games with friends in real life. We all have about the same skill level and we can drink and interact in ways you can't online. Ofcourse, if you are a hardcore gamer, you probably don't have too many real life friends since you spend most of your free time online playing games.
Don't worry - I can kick your ass in real life as well.
Guessing by your wording, you know what I'm talking about when I talk about the Revolution controller. Just how radically different it is from the current paradigm ensures that there will be great changes in gameplay coming from the Revolution. This is something that I'm looking forward to.
You are certainly not alone in thinking that, and I really love the concept of the Rev controller as well. Here's something I rarely see mentioned, however: Nintendo has innovated before in controllers, and pretty much each time those innovations made their way into the other consoles in short order (analog sticks, analog buttons, shoulder buttons, vibration, etc). So if Microsoft and Sony release something like a Rev controller for their consoles - assuming they can dodge the patents and whatnot (I'm positive Sony can) - where does that leave Nintendo?
When you play a 360 on a regular TV the image has to be squished and makes it look horrendous. This console just isn't made for a non-widescreen non-HD tv.
So what you are saying is - stuff looks better on a better television?
Just because mario doesn't have a gun, doesn't mean he's childish.
Doesn't mean he isn't either. The argument is getting tired. Sure a handful of games, Mario, Zelda, whatever. But its nearly the entire lineup. Cartoon does not equal childish, sure. But were I to go through the Nintendo lineup game by game and list the basic premise of each, you do pick up a certain pattern. I don't really fault them for this. The games are fun. But yes, many of them are simplistic and childish. Don't be so defensive about it - its about the gameplay, right? Katamari Damacy is totally childish, but I love it.
There is a solution, but no guarantee we'll reach it. We need to define an individual's personal information as belonging to that individual, and any use or reference to that information should only be with permission, and based on some good reason. To put actual teeth in such a legal principle, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to store your own information (presumably on your own computer). Without such a basis for protecting privacy... Well, you'd better get use to appearing all over the Internet when you least expect it.
I've been thinking about this; the problem is the legal route to this is pretty much a nonstarter already. But maybe there is a loophole; I think we should all start a church. The Church of the Super Paranoid, or something like that. That way we could cry religious persecution if intrusive privacy-stealing measures are used against us. I'm certain I would have no problem convincing a sizeable chunk of the Slashdot population to swear and affirm (on a stack of punched cards) that their right to crypto and absolute mastery over who sees their porn stash is both vital and indispensable to the very core of their identity. I think it could work.
At the very least, the crazy fundies will lobby for laws that would help us...:0
Surely the choice of font ought to be something individuals can set up in their web browser. A website doesn't really have much business selecting particular named fonts, content versus presentation and all that. If you use CSS then you can quite reasonably limit yourself to normal, sans-serif and monospaced - and trust that any sane web browser will choose something readable on the user's screen.
See, I would disagree with that; I think a web designer has every right to set the named fonts and presentation of their site, the same way a magazine designer does.
However, I realize that some (geeks) really just want the info, and they want maximum control over what is flowing across their screen.
My suggestion? Two versions of the site. One in PDF/SVG, one in RSS.:)
Nope. Don't forget the Patriot Act. You're guilty until trial, which may happen at an undetermined time, without a lawyer, in a closed court of the government's choosing.
This bears repeating, every damn day, until its not true anymore.
Child wellness, government regulation, self gratification, and an emerging media format combine to form a really confusing issue. Other subjects approaching child wellness are easier to deal with. Alcohol and drugs stymie proper development, guns can lead to early death, TV can result in mimictry - which is more rude than culturally shifting in my opinion. The interactivity of this medium adds a new twist that is not easily quantifiable.
Well said - we are in agreement. And really, you nailed it there - its not the video games, its the drawing-in of interactive (maturing) entertainment into the child-rearing discussion.. which will be contentious, well, forever. Thanks for the reply.
Now, according to your argument, two of these groups are wrong. There is no way to make that call here without injecting your perspective as a fact. Every one of these camps has "fact" to back up their argument and counter arguments for the other two positions. There is no clear and absolute truth of the matter as far as we know.
I disagree, vehemently. Because we are not talking about what these groups of people think of the games, what their opinion is. We are talking about the alleged behavioural/social harm that is being inflicted by this entertainment - and the rule of laws governing the production and sale of these things.
Now, I made no such argument. My quote was: "There are not always two sides." What I meant was, sometimes, you can look at the facts and know who is right about a given argument. I do not believe that everything is truly, practically, relative. And yes, of course everyone is free to interpret the facts the way they see fit; this no more makes then right than anyone who is ignorant of said facts. I mean this is the whole Enlightenment thing, right? We bow to reason? So I would submit that by my argument any one of your three examples (well-defined I might add) could be proven right or wrong; the point is that you can make that judgement given the right set of facts. If the facts are truly unattainable (or incomplete), as in metaphysics or string theory or whatnot, then it stays in the realm of debate. In this case, the question is: do video games cause increased violent activity in children. No serious study - and I am aware of the bad ones - supports this assertation in any meaningful way. It just isn't there, to the best of our knowledge so far. That's all you can ask for.
A brief diversion here. I believe in constructive argument. I try to hold it in my mind, even now as I type this, that you possibly have an excellent point and I am missing some fundamental understanding of the argument. I think a lot of people (most) argue mindlessly, just forever defending themselves at any cost, and that is totally counterproductive. It is important to keep an open mind. Having said all that, where do you stop? If someone is standing there and literally telling me the sky is red, and I'm saying Ok, In Your World Its Red, is that not just basic intellectual dishonesty?
Where did you get the idea someone has to be right? There is room for understanding and different viewpoints in much more than you think.
At first I didn't know how to respond to this at all. What do you know about how I think? anything? Now thats some powerful relativism. (I kid. Sorta.)
If we are to use the example given in the article, the MIT professor who is mostly defending video games against the alleged harmful effects, he would be 'right' if put in opposition to someone like Jack Thompson. Mr. Thompson claims that video games can cause violence in children, and states flawed (and probably politically motivated - but I can't prove it, lets leave that alone) studies to prove his point. I won't get into unpacking his argument here. But I think it is safe to say that the MIT Prof debunks a significant number of them. Violence amongst youth declining to a 30-year low for example. Another: carjackings have plummeted in North America since Grand Theft Auto 3 appeared. Those are things you can point to and say yes, the facts support it, the MIT guy is right. That's what I mean.
Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.
Gee, thanks for the lesson. *rolls eyes*
Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.
Look, I agree in that I think this happens a lot. Groupthink is a powerful thing, educated or no. But you cannot just leap from there to 'everything is relative to everybody'. It is intellectually lazy and it does nothing to further the discussion. Indeed, why talk about anything if all reality is in the eye of each beholder? Kind of pointless. Unless I misunderstand you. Again.
Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.
No, I get it. But there was research in the article. Very cursory and brief, but it was there.
You do understand the absurdity of you arguing with me about whether or not there is a right and wrong... right?
There's always at least two sides to any discussion and if you think there is only one valid side, then perhaps you missed something in your education.
NO. No no no no. There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right. You've been watching too much cable news.
While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.
True enough; but in the absence of compelling (researched, fact-checked) counter-argument, the opinion stands. So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.
so wait... we've got a Microsoft operating system (whatever the Xbox 360 OS is) running on what is commonly considered Apple-type processors *and* we'll soon have an Apple OS running on top of what is commonly considered Microsoft-type processors?
Not only that... but the X360 programmers will soon know the joys of altivec... whereas the Apple people now have to kiss it goodbye... strange times indeed.
And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
Here is a source for the Tokien-Lewis relationship. It is indeed true that Tolkien (and Dyson) persuaded Lewis to turn to Christianity in that infamous long walk. The second, usually unmentioned part of that story is: Tolkien hated Narnia.
I also find it strange that no one comments on the observation that, while Christian in message, the characters and themes in Narnia are unmistakably pagan in nature. But I guess you could say that about Christianity in general.
Consider that for his heresy, this guy got a beating that 99.99% of his fellow countrymen think was unjustified.
See, here's the thing. That ain't the stat. And there's no way that is the stat for Kansas, in particular.
I submit that a depressingly large percentage of the population, if polled, would actually agree with the beating of this man. I have no proof of course; I base my opinion on the fundamentalist opinions that many Kansas residents have expressed, and find no likely disconnect. They're really into wrath.
I'm not saying he deserved a beating, not at all. I was talking about the other bit. When you hold a professional position and act unprofessionally (remember, he was communicating with a school organization), there are consequences.
Consequences? Sure, like professional censure. He did apologize. But let's keep in mind what actually happened here: A Kansas prof wrote an email to an atheist society explaining his reasons for teaching "intelligent design" in a mythology class, and expressed unprofessional disrespect for those faculty/board members that are pushing (in curriculum) a patently ludicrous belief. And then some thugs beat the shit out of him.
If the implication is that the "other side" deserves respect, well, I don't think they do, frankly. Not intellectual respect. Its not nice to be rude, but I empathize with the prof's reaction, especially since the discussion directly involves the school's actual curriculum.
1. Dogmatic Christians pushing their belief system as the anti-science.
2. Dogmatic Athiests pushing their belief system as the anti-religion.
3. The Rest Of Us.
Alright, I am about to trample this argument, and I apologize for this in advance, for it will sound harsher than I likely mean it to.
This whole "everybody sucks" argument has to be one of the most intellectually lazy things you can put out there. It comes up in every big hot-button slashdot discussion. And it is so easy to play the wizened cynic, I've-seen-it-all, and have everybody nod along with you but it adds nothing to the conversation that is worthwhile.
"Christians suck!" - "Atheists suck!" - "They ALL suck, am I right fellas?"
"Democrats suck!" - "Republicans suck!" - "They ALL suck, right fellas?"
"Sony sucks!" - "Microsoft sucks!" - "They ALL suck, isn't it true fellas?"
It reminds me of this bullshit he-said-she-said format the cable news channels like to promote and it seems to have somehow seeped into the public consciousness. Sometimes, someone really IS right and someone really is wrong. Sometimes a point of view can be dismissed as nonsense out-of-hand. Really. Its true.
If, on the other hand, you mean to say that not all atheist hold the SAME belief system then I would tend to agree. There are those who put faith in physics and do not believe in God and there are those that believe neither the scientists nor the religious have things right. They're both a type of atheistic belief system, though not the same.
You are splitting hairs, and flat out incorrect to boot. A 'belief system' can mean basically anything, it is a nearly useless phrase. You do not put 'faith' in physics for physics is verifiable and provable - faith is belief without proof. I simply believe what can be proven, is that a belief system? No. There is no 'system'. It is basic intellectual honesty.
Slashdot Mirror
*cough*OpenDoc*cough*
That's funny - the Mac zealots I talk to are going around complaining about Starbuck's supposedly inefficient "vanilla latte foaming technique".
(Ya, I am a Mac zealot... busted. I have X11 installed as well, came with Tiger.)
Thanks for the suggestion... I have seen Foobar2k but my home machine is a mac, so no go.
Nothing wrong with that. But I gotta say, iTunes is even better in this department. You can set it to automatically rip the disc (to codex/bitrate x) when the disc is inserted, and eject automatically when finished. I did my CD collection this way; basically when I went to watch a movie or was reading, I'd just open the laptop next to me and put in the next disc when I heard the whir of the last disc ejecting. No clicking at all.
I got online the other night to play PGR2 with a guy who just flat-out demolished me. I haven't taken that disc out of the drive since the day we shipped it. I probably have around 800 hours on this thing. A situation like that-well, gee, if a kid spends 40 or 50 bucks on a title and then 50 bucks on a subscription, he or she's in for 100 bucks, but they've also played it for over a year. That's enormous value. Typically, a gamer like that would go out and buy five racing games to get a fix.
That has got to be bullshit. I don't think I've logged anywhere near 800 hours even in Warcraft, and I lived in that fucking game for awhile. His math looks a little RIAA to me.
Don't worry - I can kick your ass in real life as well.
(Seriously mods, wtf?)
You are certainly not alone in thinking that, and I really love the concept of the Rev controller as well. Here's something I rarely see mentioned, however: Nintendo has innovated before in controllers, and pretty much each time those innovations made their way into the other consoles in short order (analog sticks, analog buttons, shoulder buttons, vibration, etc). So if Microsoft and Sony release something like a Rev controller for their consoles - assuming they can dodge the patents and whatnot (I'm positive Sony can) - where does that leave Nintendo?
So what you are saying is - stuff looks better on a better television?
I gotta check this out!
Doesn't mean he isn't either. The argument is getting tired. Sure a handful of games, Mario, Zelda, whatever. But its nearly the entire lineup. Cartoon does not equal childish, sure. But were I to go through the Nintendo lineup game by game and list the basic premise of each, you do pick up a certain pattern. I don't really fault them for this. The games are fun. But yes, many of them are simplistic and childish. Don't be so defensive about it - its about the gameplay, right? Katamari Damacy is totally childish, but I love it.
I've been thinking about this; the problem is the legal route to this is pretty much a nonstarter already. But maybe there is a loophole; I think we should all start a church. The Church of the Super Paranoid, or something like that. That way we could cry religious persecution if intrusive privacy-stealing measures are used against us. I'm certain I would have no problem convincing a sizeable chunk of the Slashdot population to swear and affirm (on a stack of punched cards) that their right to crypto and absolute mastery over who sees their porn stash is both vital and indispensable to the very core of their identity. I think it could work.
At the very least, the crazy fundies will lobby for laws that would help us... :0
See, I would disagree with that; I think a web designer has every right to set the named fonts and presentation of their site, the same way a magazine designer does.
However, I realize that some (geeks) really just want the info, and they want maximum control over what is flowing across their screen.
My suggestion? Two versions of the site. One in PDF/SVG, one in RSS. :)
Depends on what you mean by 'effective'. That page is deeply hideous, for someone who supposedly cares deeply about fonts.
This bears repeating, every damn day, until its not true anymore.
Well said - we are in agreement. And really, you nailed it there - its not the video games, its the drawing-in of interactive (maturing) entertainment into the child-rearing discussion.. which will be contentious, well, forever. Thanks for the reply.
I disagree, vehemently. Because we are not talking about what these groups of people think of the games, what their opinion is. We are talking about the alleged behavioural/social harm that is being inflicted by this entertainment - and the rule of laws governing the production and sale of these things.
Now, I made no such argument. My quote was: "There are not always two sides." What I meant was, sometimes, you can look at the facts and know who is right about a given argument. I do not believe that everything is truly, practically, relative. And yes, of course everyone is free to interpret the facts the way they see fit; this no more makes then right than anyone who is ignorant of said facts. I mean this is the whole Enlightenment thing, right? We bow to reason? So I would submit that by my argument any one of your three examples (well-defined I might add) could be proven right or wrong; the point is that you can make that judgement given the right set of facts. If the facts are truly unattainable (or incomplete), as in metaphysics or string theory or whatnot, then it stays in the realm of debate. In this case, the question is: do video games cause increased violent activity in children. No serious study - and I am aware of the bad ones - supports this assertation in any meaningful way. It just isn't there, to the best of our knowledge so far. That's all you can ask for.
A brief diversion here. I believe in constructive argument. I try to hold it in my mind, even now as I type this, that you possibly have an excellent point and I am missing some fundamental understanding of the argument. I think a lot of people (most) argue mindlessly, just forever defending themselves at any cost, and that is totally counterproductive. It is important to keep an open mind. Having said all that, where do you stop? If someone is standing there and literally telling me the sky is red, and I'm saying Ok, In Your World Its Red, is that not just basic intellectual dishonesty?
At first I didn't know how to respond to this at all. What do you know about how I think?
anything? Now thats some powerful relativism. (I kid. Sorta.)
If we are to use the example given in the article, the MIT professor who is mostly defending video games against the alleged harmful effects, he would be 'right' if put in opposition to someone like Jack Thompson. Mr. Thompson claims that video games can cause violence in children, and states flawed (and probably politically motivated - but I can't prove it, lets leave that alone) studies to prove his point. I won't get into unpacking his argument here. But I think it is safe to say that the MIT Prof debunks a significant number of them. Violence amongst youth declining to a 30-year low for example. Another: carjackings have plummeted in North America since Grand Theft Auto 3 appeared. Those are things you can point to and say yes, the facts support it, the MIT guy is right. That's what I mean.
Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.
Gee, thanks for the lesson. *rolls eyes*
Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.
Look, I agree in that I think this happens a lot. Groupthink is a powerful thing, educated or no. But you cannot just leap from there to 'everything is relative to everybody'. It is intellectually lazy and it does nothing to further the discussion. Indeed, why talk about anything if all reality is in the eye of each beholder? Kind of pointless. Unless I misunderstand you. Again.
Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.
No, I get it. But there was research in the article. Very cursory and brief, but it was there.
You do understand the absurdity of you arguing with me about whether or not there is a right and wrong... right?
NO. No no no no. There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right. You've been watching too much cable news.
While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.
True enough; but in the absence of compelling (researched, fact-checked) counter-argument, the opinion stands. So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.
Not only that... but the X360 programmers will soon know the joys of altivec... whereas the Apple people now have to kiss it goodbye... strange times indeed.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
Here is a source for the Tokien-Lewis relationship. It is indeed true that Tolkien (and Dyson) persuaded Lewis to turn to Christianity in that infamous long walk. The second, usually unmentioned part of that story is: Tolkien hated Narnia.
I also find it strange that no one comments on the observation that, while Christian in message, the characters and themes in Narnia are unmistakably pagan in nature. But I guess you could say that about Christianity in general.
See, here's the thing. That ain't the stat. And there's no way that is the stat for Kansas, in particular.
I submit that a depressingly large percentage of the population, if polled, would actually agree with the beating of this man. I have no proof of course; I base my opinion on the fundamentalist opinions that many Kansas residents have expressed, and find no likely disconnect. They're really into wrath.
What's the total up to now? A few billion?
+43298572 Crushingly, Painfully, Soul-rendingly, Gnashingly, Wailingly, I-Weep-For-The-Speciesingly Insightful.
Consequences? Sure, like professional censure. He did apologize. But let's keep in mind what actually happened here: A Kansas prof wrote an email to an atheist society explaining his reasons for teaching "intelligent design" in a mythology class, and expressed unprofessional disrespect for those faculty/board members that are pushing (in curriculum) a patently ludicrous belief. And then some thugs beat the shit out of him.
If the implication is that the "other side" deserves respect, well, I don't think they do, frankly. Not intellectual respect. Its not nice to be rude, but I empathize with the prof's reaction, especially since the discussion directly involves the school's actual curriculum.
Hey, thanks very much for the quote. I had no idea Huxley coined the term.
2. Dogmatic Athiests pushing their belief system as the anti-religion.
3. The Rest Of Us.
Alright, I am about to trample this argument, and I apologize for this in advance, for it will sound harsher than I likely mean it to.
This whole "everybody sucks" argument has to be one of the most intellectually lazy things you can put out there. It comes up in every big hot-button slashdot discussion. And it is so easy to play the wizened cynic, I've-seen-it-all, and have everybody nod along with you but it adds nothing to the conversation that is worthwhile.
"Christians suck!" - "Atheists suck!" - "They ALL suck, am I right fellas?"
"Democrats suck!" - "Republicans suck!" - "They ALL suck, right fellas?"
"Sony sucks!" - "Microsoft sucks!" - "They ALL suck, isn't it true fellas?"
It reminds me of this bullshit he-said-she-said format the cable news channels like to promote and it seems to have somehow seeped into the public consciousness. Sometimes, someone really IS right and someone really is wrong. Sometimes a point of view can be dismissed as nonsense out-of-hand. Really. Its true.
You are splitting hairs, and flat out incorrect to boot. A 'belief system' can mean basically anything, it is a nearly useless phrase. You do not put 'faith' in physics for physics is verifiable and provable - faith is belief without proof. I simply believe what can be proven, is that a belief system? No. There is no 'system'. It is basic intellectual honesty.