Despite all the medical and technical advances, have we really made life better?
As a person living with MS, my life ( I shouldn't speak for anyone else) is probably better now than it would have been 100 or 1000 or 6000 years ago - due to medical and technical advances.
So what denomination were they? These were smart folks, so they must have agreed on one version of christianity. Can you tell me which denomination Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and John Adams were?
There's an interesting book called moral minority that discusses the religious beliefs of the founders - it's really a big collection of quotes with some commentary. It suggests that, at best, the founding fathers were deists who didn't really care about religion. Many were outright atheists, as was somewhat fashionable among enlightenment intellectuals at the time.
The places where Bush scored highly used Diebold machines, true, but they also had very heavy Republican bases in the first place.
I think this suggests a useful way to conduct elections in the future: just assume that a district will vote the same way it always has in the past. This would allow us to bypass all that tedious "voting." I know it's a pain for me to have to get to my polling place before work.
I also find it quite funny that we're sitting here agonizing over our treatment of enemy combatants that goes above and beyond what we're required to do while the other side is busy sawing off heads of both combatants AND civilians with wanton disregard.
You're arguing here about the things you disagree about. Every sane person agrees that sawing off heads is wrong, and those who do it should be punished - severely, one hopes. What you're disagreeing about is how you should establish whether people currently in Gitmo fought Americans in Afghanistan. Should you assume that if someone is in Gitmo, they must have fought Americans (while disguised as civilians), or should you ask for more disclosure from the government? In addition, there's a question of how someone in Gitmo should be treated while they await a decision (and, of course, how long they should have to wait).
It's also worth noting that there's a weird metaphor in the phrase "the other side," which implies that the people in Gitmo are on the same side as those cutting off heads. If they are, then I'm in your camp, but if they aren't, I'd rather know what it was they did before we punish them for their actions. I suspect that many of them may not be on the same side, since many have suggested they may have been turned in by bounty hunters for cash.
Why? Why is it wrong that a person dies from a disease?
The problem here is not that a person may die from a disease, but that someone could help, and won't, because it isn't profitable.
So justify it. And do so without emotionally charged arguments, because we all know it is a terrible thing when a loved one gets cancer. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing me to pay for her care.
You're asking a whole lot here, since we're talking about morality, a subject with no inherent underlying truth. I think it's difficult to justify why all society should pay to catch the person who murdered someone else's mother, without using emotional arguments, but that's standard practice in most countries, even when the murderer likely won't kill anyone else.
Here's a non-emotionally-charged argument, though. You don't know if you're going to get cancer in the future, nor do you know if your children or grandchildren will get cancer. When healthcare providers treat someone else for cancer, or spend research money on treatment, they get practice and knowledge, and are thus in a better position to treat you, or someone you love, in the (uncertain) future.
I understand your position that, if you don't care about your own possible future treatments, or the possible future treatments of those you love, you shouldn't be forced to pay for the current treatments of those you don't love, but I think that path leads to a governmental system close to anarchy (e.g., by analogy, if you don't know someone who was murdered, you shouldn't have pay for their capture, and if you don't use a road, you shouldn't pay for it's upkeep, and if you aren't worried about being attacked by another country, you shouldn't pay for defense, etc.).
Ultimately I feel you need to be making an argument not based on generalities like "I don't want to pay for your mother's cancer treatment!" which frankly makes you sound like an ass, but rather based on the idea that more people would be better off in the long run under the system you propose. I think that's a much harder case for you to make (and a harder case for someone else to take issue with).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, But my recollection is that Clinton did not perjure himself. He was a little weasely. The question was something like "was there an affair?"
His reply was something like "there is no affair," technically true, because the affair had ended at that point, which led to the whole, "it depends what the definition of "is" is thing. So if "is" means "was" then he perjured himself.
Again, I haven't looked at any of this stuff recently, and don't care enough to now (point about apathy taken), so forgive me if I'm remembering incorrectly.
Often students seem to believe that lecture time is when the professor Speaks and the students are supposed to Remember.
I occasionally teach a course at the local University. I am willing to be led off track by my students, if they bring up a topic that's interesting and relevent. Every semester in my evaluations, I have at least two students complaining that I let people ask too many questions in class (and spend too much time answering them). I think they want me to simply dictate what they need to know for the tests and quizzes. It's very disheartening.
That said, I don't care if students take notes by pencil, computer, or subvocal dictation, as long as they don't disturb anybody else. It's their job to pay attention in the way that's best for them, not mine.
I dare say that some people, if exposed to violent games (or films, or books, etc) will go off and do stupid, stupid things. Chances are, though, that these people would have done stupid things even without the exposure.
This does not seem to be the case. I'm not talking here about walking up to a random man on the street and shooting him, but violent video games do seem to increase violent behavior. For example, people who play violent video games and are then given a choice regarding how long to shock somebody, tend to give longer and more intense shocks than people who haven't played video games.
This article has been linked to a lot already, but I don't think more exposure can hurt: Anderson & Bushman, 2001
The reason to fight against the idea of censoring violent video games has nothing to do with whether or not games make you violent. You should fight against the idea of censoring violent video games because it's censorship, and if we value our freedom, then we should abhor it when ideas are censored. Yes, some ideas will make you violent (apparantly, for example, the idea that teleportation research on mars has just transported in demons from hell, but also other, more political ideas) but you should not, in general, suppress anything that may make someone act in violent ways.
And of course, you don't want them to get too far ahead in any one area, since a kid who's terribly advanced in math, but behind in social skills, will have a rough time in school.
There's a good book, called Math Coach by Wayne Wickelgren (a pretty renowned psychologist, but also a math lover - you can see some of the books his kids have written on amazon too) that discusses this exact problem. His suggestion (if I recall correctly) is to see that your kids can go to another school for just one period so that they can get the instruction they need, and then return to their main school where their peers are. Check out the book - it's pretty good.
"Human a-la-carte - create your own dish out of fresh human body parts and side dishes... 35.99"
No - you completely missed the point of the article. Clearly, at current inflationary rates, the prices you quote are almost ridiculously high. 35.99 for human a-la carte? Remember, this was ten thousand years ago! The price would have been almost HALF what you cite. Geez - don't people ever read the articles around here?
I'm late to this article, but I'm curious to hear your answer, and can't stop myself from posting. How would you have re-framed the article so that it wasn't a "blatantly political hit piece"? I understand that your argument is that this isn't a technical enough piece to warrant posting on/., but is there a way to simply report the information in a way that's fair to all sides?
For what it's worth, this does strike me as nerdy enough to be discussed on/., given some of the previous (e.g., non-technical aspects of Star Wars) topics that have been discussed in the past.
I got what you were saying, although some seem to have interpreted it differently. I think the misinterpretation seems to occur when people misplace where the sarcasm tags were supposed to go (by the way, I think it's more effective if you imagine someone rolling their eyes during the sarcasm tags. It's also more fun!)
He stole the election <sarcasm> fair 'n' square </sarcasm>
is very different from
He <sarcasm> stole </sarcasm> the election fair 'n' square
Just a pointless thought; worth what you pay for it.
You are of course labouring under the illusion that the whole thing isn't a hoax on the viewer.
Wait til I get going!
The science is so moronic that it can clearly not be a hoax on the participants. But the premise that someone would fall for it is so foolish that it can clearly not be hoax on the viewers! But the show is produced in the UK, and only Doctor Who fans come from the UK! Doctor Who fans are knowledgeable about science, so it can clearly not be a hoax on the participants! But Doctor Who is ALSO known for reversing the polarity as an explanation for time travel, so it can clearly not be a hoax on the viewers!
Once again, I don't really disagree with you here. (You're correct, by the way - there's a disturbing lack of flamage in these posts.) I just think the question is about where you draw the boundary on what constitutes sexism. Everybody (male and female) would like to be perceived as attractive, and pretty much nobody selects an icon in a roleplaying game that is both ugly and incompetent-looking.
I'm hearing you suggest that women are somewhat more likely than men to reject a character who is ugly in favor of one who is attractive, and that's another thing I don't really disagree with - but I'm no expert on the subject, so my opinion here is worth exactly what you're paying for it. It'd be nice if there was some data available somewhere so we could verify the idea. On the other hand, that's a lot more work than I'm willing to put into this.:-) For what it's worth, I've seen my wife pass over ugly looking female characters in role-playing games in favor of more attractive, more scantily-clad ones - but never in favor of a playboy playmate looking character, either.
I think the main thing the article's author is talking about is the extreme, "character walks around in only a leather thong" kind of thing, which even kind of bugs me. But maybe you were talking about the "character walks around in only a leather thong" kind of thing when you mentioned the character your girlfriend favored.
As a final non-sequitor, my wife has on exactly one occassion refused to play a game because the main character was too ugly - Planescape: Torment had a (male) main character that she just couldn't look at. I don't have any theories about how this relates to the overall debate we're talking about. Just thought it was worth bringing up.
I actualy have more I would like to say, but real life issues force me to cut this short, I'm afraid.... I may revisit this later, if the topic is still active.
Well, I'd like to hear what you have to say, for what it's worth, although I may have to flame you for it, just to keep the discussion lively.
Very very few of the male gamers out there actually look like Duke Nukem or any of the male characters in todays video games. Even Gordon Freemen, an engineer with glasses who should, by that description alone, be at the top of the geek stereotype, is a buff, cut good-looking individual. Do these unrealistic characters drive away the male populace?
Your point is well-taken, but it's worth noting that there's a difference. Gordon Freeman is buff, good-looking, and competent, but he's never really presented in anything resembling sexual terms. I think a lot of (male, heterosexual) gamers would have been put off the game if he had been. For example (stop reading here if you put a whole lot of value on your heterosexuality), imagine Gordon Freeman in cut-off shorts and a tank top. He'd be presented primarily in a sexual fashion, rather than as a competent hero, and you probably wouldn't be quite so interested in playing the game.
So Gordon Freeman, say, or even somebody more muscular, like Sarge from the Doom series or that guy from Serious Sam (Sam?), are not good counterexamples. It's very rare to see a man in a comic presented in a primarilly sexual fashion.
There are comics out there that present men as sexual objects (I discovered from reading Allison Bechdel's wonderful autobiographical comic The indelible Allison Bechdel). I'd provide a direct link to such comics, but I'm at work, and don't so much feel like doing a search for "sexual men cartoon" right now. But the characters are kind of passive, the mostly react to the actions of others, they tend to have features exaggerrated to the point of absurdity (much like Blondie's features in the comics), and they are not anybody you'd want to play in a computer game.
So, even though we often see competent, fit men in computer games, you rarely see them sexualized. Women characters portrayed entirely as sexual objects are also rare (I suspect), but not quite as rare as men. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few women characters that seem similar to a Gordon Freeman-style portrayal: Kate Walker, from Syberia; Samus, from Metroid; Cate Archer, from No One Lives Forever and (I'm not sure if this counts, since she was introduced on TV before video games) Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These are portrayals of women who are attractive, and yet aren't primarily sexual characters. Male or female, you don't mind playing them. Contrast them with the utterly forgettable but ubiquitous female characters you see running around wearing tiny thongs. I wish I could post an example - they're all over the place, but the games tend to suck, and I can't remember any names - only asses.
I think an interesting borderline case is Lara Croft. I didn't really know any women who had a problem with her when the first game in the series came out (although some did note that her short shorts and tight shirt seemed designed to attract men), but when the second game came out, and it was revealed that programmers had enhanced her various features, almost all the women I knew pretty much gave up on the game without trying it.
Anyway, my point is that competent, fit men are not really the equivalent of women who are presented as sexual objects.
I think we're supposed to take this with a certain amount of salt.
I don't see any reason why I should have to consume salt while reading your post. Salt has been linked to a number of serious health problems, including hypertension, osteoporosis, and stomach cancer. In fact, I find it disgusting that you're encouraging me to damage my health simply because I didn't get the (completely immature and childish in my opinion) irony of the story. Sickening.
While I am sure there will be plenty of purists out there that will be up in arms at this I think it might be quite a good thing.
I agree, and feel compelled to point out that this is really nothing particularly new. When I was a kid, I remember my dad giving me some old "classic comic books" he had - comic book versions of classic stories. I read them, mostly because the stories are fun, and my friends read them too. Eventually (okay, not frequently, but occasionally), we got curious enough about some of the stories to check out the original versions. I remember in particular wanting to learn more about The Moonstone.
The text messaging thing is a new twist, but once you take away that gimmick, it's really just another method of making the classics more accessible; Classic Comics did it, Cliff's Notes did it, Reader's Digest did it, and I'm sure others will continue to do it in the future.
I've been playing around with linux mostly as a hobby for the last 4 or 5 years. When I set up my last computer, I made sure to include two hard drives, one for linux and one for windows. I mostly used the windows side of things (yes, mostly for the games), but one day it started hiccuping at boot. Eventually, I couldn't even get a dos prompt anymore. I'm sure I could've fixed it, but since I had basically everything I needed on the linux side - office applications, ftp, palm software, OCTAVE (I used to use MATLAB, but for the most part OCTAVE is just as good for everything I've tried so far) - I just migrated over there.
I've been using only linux at home for about 6 months now. It's actually been pretty helpful not having the games, because I get a little more work done, and get to spend more time with my family. (Although I have been spending a disturbing amount of time lately with gnugo.)
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist."
...
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree."
How do they reconcile that with the study suggesting that FOX news listeners are most often wrong about the facts? Surely they're not suggesting that
1) FOX news viewers are dumber than other news viewers. (I know that one isn't true - I know some very smart folks who watch FOX.)
2) The truth has a liberal bias.:-)
I'm sort-of joking, but not entirely. Seriously - why does the most centrist news channel produce the most misinformed viewers?
Things could be worse in the States, and the GP is a troll, but don't forget that if the President of the US declares you an enemy combatant, you can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial (pending Supreme Court review). So, the worst isn't that you don't like the liberal slant of CNN, but rather that you go to prison for life and never get to defend yourself.
. . . psychology itself barely flirts with science
This is an idea that comes up from time to time on slashdot - that psychology somehow isn't a real science. For certain, there are "psychologists" that are highly nonscientific - Freud, for example, didn't do much in the way of science. Nowadays, however, most of psychology is quite scientific. For example, have a look at the Journal of Experimental Psychology or similar journals. Most of the papers in those journals use the scientific method and draw strong, reliable conclusions about specific, testable hypotheses. Often (although not always) they'll attempt to relate behavioral data to underlying neurology.
I'm not denying that there are crackpot psychologists out there of the "Men Are From Mars . .." self-help ilk, but I tend to think those types are more akin to the free energy crowd in physics than to mainstream psychology. I think the crackpot psychology ideas are just a little more marketable to the average person.
The NT is about the transition from good to evil, but to me it doesn't feel as well-executed as it could have been.
For comparison, take the Lex Luthor character from the TV show Smallville. (I know, but we were never exactly talking about the great works of literature in the first place.) Here's a character in much the same situation as Anakin: we know he's going to turn into slimey evil at some point in the future, but right now he's supposed to be kind of a good guy. With Lex, I can see both sides - he's a pretty stand-up guy now, but I can believe that he'll turn (really) evil in the future. With Anakin, it's harder for me to see - he's kind of a good guy now, but mostly he just whines. So I could see Anakin turning into a "whiney drug junkie" kind of evil, but not so much the "galactic conqueror" kind of evil. My tendency is to not so much blame the actor as the writing, but I don't really know anything about either one, so I should probably just leave it alone.:-)
It is easy to figure out the average roll of a standard die, but you might be surprised how many people get it wrong (or maybe not). Lots of people I know seem to think the average of a 20-sided die is 10, and the average of a 6-sided die is 3. (Instead of 10.5 and 3.5, respectively.)
I was a complete dunce about probability when I dungeon-mastered for our group back in high school. Rolling for stats, my players would ask to roll a 20-sided die instead of 3 six-siders. They'd take rolls of 19 or 20 and count them as 18s (and then ignore 1s or 2s). This completely went against the intent of the bell-shaped curve produced by 3 six-siders, but I was too dumb to know the difference.
A lot of people talk about how D&D really helped them with their math and statistics courses, but my math and statistics courses really helped my D&D. Which just seems kinda sad, really.
Slashdot Mirror
As a person living with MS, my life ( I shouldn't speak for anyone else) is probably better now than it would have been 100 or 1000 or 6000 years ago - due to medical and technical advances.
Still not great, but better, I'm guessing.
So what denomination were they? These were smart folks, so they must have agreed on one version of christianity. Can you tell me which denomination Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and John Adams were?
There's an interesting book called moral minority that discusses the religious beliefs of the founders - it's really a big collection of quotes with some commentary. It suggests that, at best, the founding fathers were deists who didn't really care about religion. Many were outright atheists, as was somewhat fashionable among enlightenment intellectuals at the time.
I think this suggests a useful way to conduct elections in the future: just assume that a district will vote the same way it always has in the past. This would allow us to bypass all that tedious "voting." I know it's a pain for me to have to get to my polling place before work.
You're arguing here about the things you disagree about. Every sane person agrees that sawing off heads is wrong, and those who do it should be punished - severely, one hopes. What you're disagreeing about is how you should establish whether people currently in Gitmo fought Americans in Afghanistan. Should you assume that if someone is in Gitmo, they must have fought Americans (while disguised as civilians), or should you ask for more disclosure from the government? In addition, there's a question of how someone in Gitmo should be treated while they await a decision (and, of course, how long they should have to wait).
It's also worth noting that there's a weird metaphor in the phrase "the other side," which implies that the people in Gitmo are on the same side as those cutting off heads. If they are, then I'm in your camp, but if they aren't, I'd rather know what it was they did before we punish them for their actions. I suspect that many of them may not be on the same side, since many have suggested they may have been turned in by bounty hunters for cash.
The problem here is not that a person may die from a disease, but that someone could help, and won't, because it isn't profitable.
So justify it. And do so without emotionally charged arguments, because we all know it is a terrible thing when a loved one gets cancer. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing me to pay for her care.
You're asking a whole lot here, since we're talking about morality, a subject with no inherent underlying truth. I think it's difficult to justify why all society should pay to catch the person who murdered someone else's mother, without using emotional arguments, but that's standard practice in most countries, even when the murderer likely won't kill anyone else.
Here's a non-emotionally-charged argument, though. You don't know if you're going to get cancer in the future, nor do you know if your children or grandchildren will get cancer. When healthcare providers treat someone else for cancer, or spend research money on treatment, they get practice and knowledge, and are thus in a better position to treat you, or someone you love, in the (uncertain) future.
I understand your position that, if you don't care about your own possible future treatments, or the possible future treatments of those you love, you shouldn't be forced to pay for the current treatments of those you don't love, but I think that path leads to a governmental system close to anarchy (e.g., by analogy, if you don't know someone who was murdered, you shouldn't have pay for their capture, and if you don't use a road, you shouldn't pay for it's upkeep, and if you aren't worried about being attacked by another country, you shouldn't pay for defense, etc.).
Ultimately I feel you need to be making an argument not based on generalities like "I don't want to pay for your mother's cancer treatment!" which frankly makes you sound like an ass, but rather based on the idea that more people would be better off in the long run under the system you propose. I think that's a much harder case for you to make (and a harder case for someone else to take issue with).
His reply was something like "there is no affair," technically true, because the affair had ended at that point, which led to the whole, "it depends what the definition of "is" is thing. So if "is" means "was" then he perjured himself.
Again, I haven't looked at any of this stuff recently, and don't care enough to now (point about apathy taken), so forgive me if I'm remembering incorrectly.
I occasionally teach a course at the local University. I am willing to be led off track by my students, if they bring up a topic that's interesting and relevent. Every semester in my evaluations, I have at least two students complaining that I let people ask too many questions in class (and spend too much time answering them). I think they want me to simply dictate what they need to know for the tests and quizzes. It's very disheartening.
That said, I don't care if students take notes by pencil, computer, or subvocal dictation, as long as they don't disturb anybody else. It's their job to pay attention in the way that's best for them, not mine.
This does not seem to be the case. I'm not talking here about walking up to a random man on the street and shooting him, but violent video games do seem to increase violent behavior. For example, people who play violent video games and are then given a choice regarding how long to shock somebody, tend to give longer and more intense shocks than people who haven't played video games.
This article has been linked to a lot already, but I don't think more exposure can hurt: Anderson & Bushman, 2001
The reason to fight against the idea of censoring violent video games has nothing to do with whether or not games make you violent. You should fight against the idea of censoring violent video games because it's censorship, and if we value our freedom, then we should abhor it when ideas are censored. Yes, some ideas will make you violent (apparantly, for example, the idea that teleportation research on mars has just transported in demons from hell, but also other, more political ideas) but you should not, in general, suppress anything that may make someone act in violent ways.
Duh, the ENEMY!
There's a good book, called Math Coach by Wayne Wickelgren (a pretty renowned psychologist, but also a math lover - you can see some of the books his kids have written on amazon too) that discusses this exact problem. His suggestion (if I recall correctly) is to see that your kids can go to another school for just one period so that they can get the instruction they need, and then return to their main school where their peers are. Check out the book - it's pretty good.
Full disclosure - he's my uncle-in-law.
No - you completely missed the point of the article. Clearly, at current inflationary rates, the prices you quote are almost ridiculously high. 35.99 for human a-la carte? Remember, this was ten thousand years ago! The price would have been almost HALF what you cite. Geez - don't people ever read the articles around here?
For what it's worth, this does strike me as nerdy enough to be discussed on /., given some of the previous (e.g., non-technical aspects of Star Wars) topics that have been discussed in the past.
He stole the election <sarcasm> fair 'n' square </sarcasm>
is very different from
He <sarcasm> stole </sarcasm> the election fair 'n' square
Just a pointless thought; worth what you pay for it.
Wait til I get going!
The science is so moronic that it can clearly not be a hoax on the participants. But the premise that someone would fall for it is so foolish that it can clearly not be hoax on the viewers! But the show is produced in the UK, and only Doctor Who fans come from the UK! Doctor Who fans are knowledgeable about science, so it can clearly not be a hoax on the participants! But Doctor Who is ALSO known for reversing the polarity as an explanation for time travel, so it can clearly not be a hoax on the viewers!
[Greylouser falls over dead]
I'm hearing you suggest that women are somewhat more likely than men to reject a character who is ugly in favor of one who is attractive, and that's another thing I don't really disagree with - but I'm no expert on the subject, so my opinion here is worth exactly what you're paying for it. It'd be nice if there was some data available somewhere so we could verify the idea. On the other hand, that's a lot more work than I'm willing to put into this. :-) For what it's worth, I've seen my wife pass over ugly looking female characters in role-playing games in favor of more attractive, more scantily-clad ones - but never in favor of a playboy playmate looking character, either.
I think the main thing the article's author is talking about is the extreme, "character walks around in only a leather thong" kind of thing, which even kind of bugs me. But maybe you were talking about the "character walks around in only a leather thong" kind of thing when you mentioned the character your girlfriend favored.
As a final non-sequitor, my wife has on exactly one occassion refused to play a game because the main character was too ugly - Planescape: Torment had a (male) main character that she just couldn't look at. I don't have any theories about how this relates to the overall debate we're talking about. Just thought it was worth bringing up.
I actualy have more I would like to say, but real life issues force me to cut this short, I'm afraid.... I may revisit this later, if the topic is still active.
Well, I'd like to hear what you have to say, for what it's worth, although I may have to flame you for it, just to keep the discussion lively.
Your point is well-taken, but it's worth noting that there's a difference. Gordon Freeman is buff, good-looking, and competent, but he's never really presented in anything resembling sexual terms. I think a lot of (male, heterosexual) gamers would have been put off the game if he had been. For example (stop reading here if you put a whole lot of value on your heterosexuality), imagine Gordon Freeman in cut-off shorts and a tank top. He'd be presented primarily in a sexual fashion, rather than as a competent hero, and you probably wouldn't be quite so interested in playing the game.
So Gordon Freeman, say, or even somebody more muscular, like Sarge from the Doom series or that guy from Serious Sam (Sam?), are not good counterexamples. It's very rare to see a man in a comic presented in a primarilly sexual fashion.
There are comics out there that present men as sexual objects (I discovered from reading Allison Bechdel's wonderful autobiographical comic The indelible Allison Bechdel). I'd provide a direct link to such comics, but I'm at work, and don't so much feel like doing a search for "sexual men cartoon" right now. But the characters are kind of passive, the mostly react to the actions of others, they tend to have features exaggerrated to the point of absurdity (much like Blondie's features in the comics), and they are not anybody you'd want to play in a computer game.
So, even though we often see competent, fit men in computer games, you rarely see them sexualized. Women characters portrayed entirely as sexual objects are also rare (I suspect), but not quite as rare as men. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few women characters that seem similar to a Gordon Freeman-style portrayal: Kate Walker, from Syberia; Samus, from Metroid; Cate Archer, from No One Lives Forever and (I'm not sure if this counts, since she was introduced on TV before video games) Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These are portrayals of women who are attractive, and yet aren't primarily sexual characters. Male or female, you don't mind playing them. Contrast them with the utterly forgettable but ubiquitous female characters you see running around wearing tiny thongs. I wish I could post an example - they're all over the place, but the games tend to suck, and I can't remember any names - only asses.
I think an interesting borderline case is Lara Croft. I didn't really know any women who had a problem with her when the first game in the series came out (although some did note that her short shorts and tight shirt seemed designed to attract men), but when the second game came out, and it was revealed that programmers had enhanced her various features, almost all the women I knew pretty much gave up on the game without trying it.
Anyway, my point is that competent, fit men are not really the equivalent of women who are presented as sexual objects.
I think we're supposed to take this with a certain amount of salt. I don't see any reason why I should have to consume salt while reading your post. Salt has been linked to a number of serious health problems, including hypertension, osteoporosis, and stomach cancer. In fact, I find it disgusting that you're encouraging me to damage my health simply because I didn't get the (completely immature and childish in my opinion) irony of the story. Sickening.
I agree, and feel compelled to point out that this is really nothing particularly new. When I was a kid, I remember my dad giving me some old "classic comic books" he had - comic book versions of classic stories. I read them, mostly because the stories are fun, and my friends read them too. Eventually (okay, not frequently, but occasionally), we got curious enough about some of the stories to check out the original versions. I remember in particular wanting to learn more about The Moonstone.
The text messaging thing is a new twist, but once you take away that gimmick, it's really just another method of making the classics more accessible; Classic Comics did it, Cliff's Notes did it, Reader's Digest did it, and I'm sure others will continue to do it in the future.
I've been using only linux at home for about 6 months now. It's actually been pretty helpful not having the games, because I get a little more work done, and get to spend more time with my family. (Although I have been spending a disturbing amount of time lately with gnugo.)
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree."
How do they reconcile that with the study suggesting that FOX news listeners are most often wrong about the facts? Surely they're not suggesting that
1) FOX news viewers are dumber than other news viewers. (I know that one isn't true - I know some very smart folks who watch FOX.)
2) The truth has a liberal bias. :-)
I'm sort-of joking, but not entirely. Seriously - why does the most centrist news channel produce the most misinformed viewers?
Things could be worse in the States, and the GP is a troll, but don't forget that if the President of the US declares you an enemy combatant, you can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial (pending Supreme Court review). So, the worst isn't that you don't like the liberal slant of CNN, but rather that you go to prison for life and never get to defend yourself.
This is an idea that comes up from time to time on slashdot - that psychology somehow isn't a real science. For certain, there are "psychologists" that are highly nonscientific - Freud, for example, didn't do much in the way of science. Nowadays, however, most of psychology is quite scientific. For example, have a look at the Journal of Experimental Psychology or similar journals. Most of the papers in those journals use the scientific method and draw strong, reliable conclusions about specific, testable hypotheses. Often (although not always) they'll attempt to relate behavioral data to underlying neurology.
I'm not denying that there are crackpot psychologists out there of the "Men Are From Mars . . ." self-help ilk, but I tend to think those types are more akin to the free energy crowd in physics than to mainstream psychology. I think the crackpot psychology ideas are just a little more marketable to the average person.
For comparison, take the Lex Luthor character from the TV show Smallville. (I know, but we were never exactly talking about the great works of literature in the first place.) Here's a character in much the same situation as Anakin: we know he's going to turn into slimey evil at some point in the future, but right now he's supposed to be kind of a good guy. With Lex, I can see both sides - he's a pretty stand-up guy now, but I can believe that he'll turn (really) evil in the future. With Anakin, it's harder for me to see - he's kind of a good guy now, but mostly he just whines. So I could see Anakin turning into a "whiney drug junkie" kind of evil, but not so much the "galactic conqueror" kind of evil. My tendency is to not so much blame the actor as the writing, but I don't really know anything about either one, so I should probably just leave it alone. :-)
I was a complete dunce about probability when I dungeon-mastered for our group back in high school. Rolling for stats, my players would ask to roll a 20-sided die instead of 3 six-siders. They'd take rolls of 19 or 20 and count them as 18s (and then ignore 1s or 2s). This completely went against the intent of the bell-shaped curve produced by 3 six-siders, but I was too dumb to know the difference.
A lot of people talk about how D&D really helped them with their math and statistics courses, but my math and statistics courses really helped my D&D. Which just seems kinda sad, really.