That's false. I've purchased many rubbish games because I got a positive impression from the reviews and from the hype, only to be thoroughly disappointed with the first-hand experience. Nothing, NOTHING can substitute for the first-hand experience. Because there is no try before you buy for games, it's very easy to be duped into buying a bad game.
The only exception to this would be if every single gamer rented before they purchased, but that's far from true for most gamers.
I rent games I have doubts about, and I go straight to purchase for games I feel confident about. However feeling confident does not always translate to being happy with the first-hand experience. I've been disappointed by major brands like Konami, Square-Enix, Sega, you name it. And these are some of the high-confidence brands for me.
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy.
Wrong. In order for a situation to persist, someone has to be happy in some way. So if you think no one is happy, think again. If no one was happy, the situation would change instantly.
Someone is benefiting from this situation and that's why it's not changing.
I'm sorry to reiterate the point made by geminidomino, but it's so important to understand this social dynamic, that it's worth it. If I had to guess, I would say you are a conservative, because conservatives often fail to notice any flaws or problems with the upper management, the corporations and so on. Had you been a liberal, you'd probably know instinctively who is profiting from the status quo. But that's just a guess. I can be wrong of course. In my experience the conservatives find faults with the empoyees and the liberals with the employers. Conservatives tend to blame the have-nots for all problems and the liberals tend to blame the haves.
What a great post you make! I just want to add to it.
Death is included in life. In other words, death is not an end to life, but rather, death is a process of life, just like birth. If there were no death, there would be no birth and no life at all.
Death is when something changes beyond recognition. This means when something can no longer be identified, we consider it dead. However, nothing completely disappears and nothing completely new appears, it's all a process of transformation and an imputation of identity onto that process.
Transformation is like a wave. We impute identities on waves and give them names. When waves "vanish", that is to say, they transform beyond our ability to recognize their shape, we call them dead, but nothing actually vanished with death, it simply became unrecognizable to our limited mindset.
A real Turing machine cannot exist in a bounded universe because by definition, it can store an unbounded amount of information.
You messed this up a little. The universe is unbounded (this is easy to show if you analyze boundaries -- you have to conclude that boundaries are all imaginary and non-physical; sorry there's no room for full analysis), and the machines, by definition, are bounded, since they are products of bounded human labor with bounds on their behaviors, which is what makes them so valuable.
The problem is that the tape going into the Turing machine is unbounded, and on the account of its theoretical endlessness is not part of the machine as such. Were the tape bounded, it could be considered to be a part of the machine. If the tape is endless, then the Turing machine is a machine like a water mill is a machine and the tape is a non-machine like the river is a non-machine.
You make a pretty good argument for the most part, but this bit caught my eye:
saves us writing a custom app to track change requests
I think this is a bad idea. If you use Google word processor or Google spreadsheet to keep track of issues, I think you owe it to yourself to stop. Google also has bug tracking software (I think it's part of the code.google.com), and if you are using THAT to track your issues, then please ignore what I am saying.
Keeping bugs/issues in a spreadsheet just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Exactly. That's how I look at it. I see my friend struggle with.NET hosting, and then I also tried to use the.NET myself and I constantly ran into the documentation problem. Java is just so much better documented. Secondly, I like how you can SSH into a Linux/BSD box and administer it using command line. You don't usually get this kind of thing with Windows hosting. And the security and the price are big issues. Usually Linux is cheaper, because they don't have to amortize the cost of Windows and MS SQL Server licenses.
Linux has almost all the advantages over Windows. The only exception would be the VS web page building GUI, which doesn't work if you use a custom framework, and some minor advantages of the C# language (but it also has some disadvantages as well) as compared to Java. This is nowhere near enough to sway my preference. It's not even close. I am not a GUI guy. I like command lines and I am very comfortable not having the click and drag interface. In fact, when I get an option to use click and drag I almost always drop into the source view and ignore it. I do like language features to be as advanced as possible, however this is mitigated by the proprietary nature of C# (I don't take Mono seriously...sorry, it's nowhere close to the GPL'ed Java in usefulness or speed or tools). I want closures and other functional features in Java, but I am willing to wait.
For me the proprietary nature of certain things is a real pragmatic drawback. I see real pragmatic benefits from open source. And I also agree with RMS, in that the principle of freedom is too important to give up. So I see it both ways. I agree with ESR and I agree with RMS as well. Open source development produces better software given that all other factors remain the same, and freedom really IS important. Freedom is pragmatic. Freedom is not just a wishful dream of an idealistic hippie. People have died for freedom, so we better value it, or we will lose it.
Now when I get some software that I am FREE to use in any way I want, including modifying and redistributing said software, that's a freedom I really appreciate.
"We can expect an open source Silverlight viewer?"
That won't be enough. We would want the entire stack to be open source and not just the viewer. In other words,.NET needs to become OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/) open source as well, at the very least, or better yet free GPL or LGPL software.
If Microsoft releases the entire.NET stack as GPL, then I will ignore that Microsoft is the parent, and trust the offspring, because I trust GPL so much that I can ignore the Microsoft's previous behavior. Otherwise -- not a chance.
Well said. The people steering the company have vastly more power and vastly more responsibility for their actions. This is why it is not wrong to focus somewhat more on them. At the same time the rank and file troopers are complicit too.
"Dude, you are posting on Slashdot. You may not identify yourself as a geek, but you are on a geek website, espousing geeky points of view about FOSS..."
I like some points that...
Christians make Buddhists make Hindus make Atheists make Taoists make Materialists make Nihilists make Geeks make Democrats make Republicans make... and yet I don't call myself any of the above. If I had to strongly identify with only one or some of the groups, then I'd have to exclude the knowledge of some of the opposing groups from my mind. This would mean a loss of contemplative range. To me, that's not a good outcome. This is why I feel free to like any amount of FOSS and slashdot and play any amount of games, without ever acquiring the corresponding group identity. It also makes it easy to do different things. Say one day I decide to lift weights or to do mountain climbing -- no problem, because I don't have as much baggage.
Of course I still have baggage and I have problems of my own, but I think my problems would be worse if I added group identity upkeep and corresponding mental restrictions that come with maintaining a group identity on top of all my other problems.
Sometimes when I talk to people they forget I am not of their group. Like a Christian for a second might forget I am not a Christian, or a Buddhist might forget I am not a Buddhist, or a materialist might forget I am not a materialist -- because often (but not always) I have a fairly easy time talking to them.
"the point is that you are not one of the sheeple"
I sure like to think so, however the reality is that my mind has a certain conditioning operating within it, and I am affected by it. I try to discover what this conditioning is and if I can or should change any of it, but this doesn't mean I appreciate the full extent of what I am doing or where I am at.
It's flattering to think I might not be a "sheeple", but at the same time do any "sheeple" think they are "sheeple"? I bet all the "sheeple" think they are independent. So I have to be cautious.
I say "we" because I am not alone. I don't know how many people think like I do, but I know that there are enough people for me to be comfortable using "we" in that context.
I don't identify with geeks or any other group. I like software and I like FOSS in particular and I have nothing against geeks if that's what they want to be, but I don't think of myself as a geek (or as anything else for that matter).
"Very few people really value freedom unless they are being personally hampered by it."
If I look around, I find your statement to be mostly true. However, I cannot allow myself to be restricted by what others think. I value freedom, not because it is an ideal, but because it is ultimately my true state. In other words, I am free. This means that any restrictions I feel are my responsibility. I am part of this culture also. If I am very strong internally about my values, then I will influence the culture and not the other way around. If I am weak, then I will be influenced by the culture. Since I am strong and I value freedom strongly, I don't worry about the fact that currently not too many people value freedom. I look ahead and speak the way a captain of the ship speaks. I know where I am going and I know where all of us are going, because I am going there.:)
There is a lot to it. There is a profound reason why I can speak the way I do, but I can't explain everything in one post. So, if any of this makes no sense, or if you think I am idealistic, that's because there is a lot of information I cannot convey in this short time and space.
"They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price."
This is not true. I'm a user and I do care whether something is free and open source. It's not ALL I care about, sure, but I do care.
So, while you are ultimately right anyway, it is all about what I want at a reasonable price, what I want is a broader, deeper and more profound "thing" than you realize.
I realize that little decisions I make impact the greater state of things. So while I want a phone, I do not want to pay for the phone with any of my freedoms. So, ultimately what I want is not a phone per se, but an experience that has a phone-like element in it, but the main feature of that experience is freedom. The phone-like element doesn't even have to be a phone, but freedom is essential and cannot be replaced by anything.
So even though I want a phone, I am careful that the phone I pick doesn't hurt things I want just as much or even more than a phone.
As the people become more and more enlightened to the true impact of their day to day decisions, what I am saying will become more and more relevant. People are going to see the connection between little mundane things and transcendental concerns such as freedom and they will act accordingly.
I suggest you stop trivializing what we want. We don't want just some device. We want a good experience. While a device may or may not be a part of it, freedom is essential. It's not optional. The device is optional. Please don't get this backwards.
They can pass their little secret treaties, but how long and how seriously do they think people who are not privy to these secret meetings will honor these treaties?
If our rights as common people are being so openly snubbed, then this means the end of the copyright, because no one is going to respect it.
This is already happening, but I am surprised these copyright idiots don't see that what they are doing, these secret meetings and taking into consideration only "powerful" interests is destroying what they want to accomplish. They forget that without people getting on board of this train it is going nowhere fast.
No shit. I noticed that right away. What a bunch of filthy scumbags. Frankly I don't think any copyrights should be respected if that's the climate we are in.
Ha... I made a mistake. I said "Kindness is social deference, often of a formulaic and protocol-like nature." What I meant was "Respect... " instead of "Kindness..." I think it is obvious, but thought I'd mention it.
"You know, even if you're doing something good, if you do it with ill temper and lack of grace, you're still being an arse."
What do you call someone who is technically incompetent, and yet is polite and socially well respected?
Do you call this type "a nice guy"?
Everyone wants respect these days instead of kindness. There is a difference. Kindness is social deference, often of a formulaic and protocol-like nature. Kindness is when something is aligned with your intention at the deepest level, while not necessarily flowery or concerned with protocol.
I wouldn't being being disrespected by someone who was kind to me. But I wouldn't want to be respected by someone who is not kind to me. But that's just me I guess. Most people want to be the ego sugar, even if there is no substance to it.
"That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious."
If you want to embarrass someone for fun or for "lulz", I'd agree with you. But what if you want to embarrass someone who rightly should be embarrassed of themselves? What if it's not just for "lulz"?
The problem is that many school officials are assholes and they should not even be working in the educational setting, since they hate kids and they hate education and learning. And somehow they end up there, probably the same way many "programmers" end up programming even though they hate programming as an art or as a craft.
The way I'd like to judge that is to see what actually happened. I think some instances of lewdness are wanton and inappropriate, but not all. I think some may be quite appropriate.
It's good to know and to face these fears. It just so happens that maybe the Republicans need to face theirs first in this case (since the researchers looked at them first). They should definitely do a study on the fears of any and all party identities.
It all comes down to identity and what is important for that identity. The person wants to protect that identity, starting with the key elements first.
So, if a Republican wants a strong gender identity, then gay marriage is a threat to that, because even though physically there is no threat, but socially and mentally the gender roles are blurring with the gays entering the mainstream. And people who like strong, clearly defined, traditional gender roles will of course react in fear and panic to any news of gays succeeding in any way, especially in public.
That's just one example of how identity preservation works.
"Many of the other researchers interviewed by NPR were skeptical of these findings. Their belief was that the study failed to show that these responses were set biologically and not by environmental stimuli."
In this case it wouldn't be a useful distinction to make. When someone acts on fear, it's not that interesting to know if it's biological or environmentally based.
It's only useful if you want to change or cure the person. Then if it's biologically based, you develop a bio cure, and if it's environmentally based you see what you can do about the environment.
But, if it's just for the purpose of understanding the psychology, it's not important to know what is causing it. Not knowing the cause does not invalidate or cheapen the research as long as the rest of it is rigorous. Simply knowing the fear dynamic plays out a certain way in a Republican mind is valuable enough.
"All investment is gambling- some is just more risky than others. This doesn't make it a bad thing."
Why not? It seems to me that placing one's long-term value on something without value is irresponsible. After all, gambling IS considered a bad thing if you do it to sustain yourself. It's called an addiction for a reason.
If you gamble with the attitude "If I lose these 50 bucks, it's OK, but I had fun", sure it's not bad -- it is entertainment. So are you saying stock investment is not bad because it's entertainment? If so, why should our pensions hinge on it? Etc. Etc.
I think investment is basically bad as it currently stands on the stock market today.
Slashdot Mirror
Whithout birth there is no life or death.
A birth cannot occur in an environment of unlife. Life must already be the case for something to be born.
This is one of the most lucid posts on the topic. Too bad you're anonymous -- you deserve accolades for this. :)
Rubbish games don't sell the first time arround.
That's false. I've purchased many rubbish games because I got a positive impression from the reviews and from the hype, only to be thoroughly disappointed with the first-hand experience. Nothing, NOTHING can substitute for the first-hand experience. Because there is no try before you buy for games, it's very easy to be duped into buying a bad game.
The only exception to this would be if every single gamer rented before they purchased, but that's far from true for most gamers.
I rent games I have doubts about, and I go straight to purchase for games I feel confident about. However feeling confident does not always translate to being happy with the first-hand experience. I've been disappointed by major brands like Konami, Square-Enix, Sega, you name it. And these are some of the high-confidence brands for me.
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy.
Wrong. In order for a situation to persist, someone has to be happy in some way. So if you think no one is happy, think again. If no one was happy, the situation would change instantly.
Someone is benefiting from this situation and that's why it's not changing.
I'm sorry to reiterate the point made by geminidomino, but it's so important to understand this social dynamic, that it's worth it. If I had to guess, I would say you are a conservative, because conservatives often fail to notice any flaws or problems with the upper management, the corporations and so on. Had you been a liberal, you'd probably know instinctively who is profiting from the status quo. But that's just a guess. I can be wrong of course. In my experience the conservatives find faults with the empoyees and the liberals with the employers. Conservatives tend to blame the have-nots for all problems and the liberals tend to blame the haves.
What a great post you make! I just want to add to it.
Death is included in life. In other words, death is not an end to life, but rather, death is a process of life, just like birth. If there were no death, there would be no birth and no life at all.
Death is when something changes beyond recognition. This means when something can no longer be identified, we consider it dead. However, nothing completely disappears and nothing completely new appears, it's all a process of transformation and an imputation of identity onto that process.
Transformation is like a wave. We impute identities on waves and give them names. When waves "vanish", that is to say, they transform beyond our ability to recognize their shape, we call them dead, but nothing actually vanished with death, it simply became unrecognizable to our limited mindset.
A real Turing machine cannot exist in a bounded universe because by definition, it can store an unbounded amount of information.
You messed this up a little. The universe is unbounded (this is easy to show if you analyze boundaries -- you have to conclude that boundaries are all imaginary and non-physical; sorry there's no room for full analysis), and the machines, by definition, are bounded, since they are products of bounded human labor with bounds on their behaviors, which is what makes them so valuable.
The problem is that the tape going into the Turing machine is unbounded, and on the account of its theoretical endlessness is not part of the machine as such. Were the tape bounded, it could be considered to be a part of the machine. If the tape is endless, then the Turing machine is a machine like a water mill is a machine and the tape is a non-machine like the river is a non-machine.
You make a pretty good argument for the most part, but this bit caught my eye:
saves us writing a custom app to track change requests
I think this is a bad idea. If you use Google word processor or Google spreadsheet to keep track of issues, I think you owe it to yourself to stop. Google also has bug tracking software (I think it's part of the code.google.com), and if you are using THAT to track your issues, then please ignore what I am saying.
Keeping bugs/issues in a spreadsheet just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
"Get some pragmatism..."
Exactly. That's how I look at it. I see my friend struggle with .NET hosting, and then I also tried to use the .NET myself and I constantly ran into the documentation problem. Java is just so much better documented. Secondly, I like how you can SSH into a Linux/BSD box and administer it using command line. You don't usually get this kind of thing with Windows hosting. And the security and the price are big issues. Usually Linux is cheaper, because they don't have to amortize the cost of Windows and MS SQL Server licenses.
Linux has almost all the advantages over Windows. The only exception would be the VS web page building GUI, which doesn't work if you use a custom framework, and some minor advantages of the C# language (but it also has some disadvantages as well) as compared to Java. This is nowhere near enough to sway my preference. It's not even close. I am not a GUI guy. I like command lines and I am very comfortable not having the click and drag interface. In fact, when I get an option to use click and drag I almost always drop into the source view and ignore it. I do like language features to be as advanced as possible, however this is mitigated by the proprietary nature of C# (I don't take Mono seriously...sorry, it's nowhere close to the GPL'ed Java in usefulness or speed or tools). I want closures and other functional features in Java, but I am willing to wait.
For me the proprietary nature of certain things is a real pragmatic drawback. I see real pragmatic benefits from open source. And I also agree with RMS, in that the principle of freedom is too important to give up. So I see it both ways. I agree with ESR and I agree with RMS as well. Open source development produces better software given that all other factors remain the same, and freedom really IS important. Freedom is pragmatic. Freedom is not just a wishful dream of an idealistic hippie. People have died for freedom, so we better value it, or we will lose it.
Now when I get some software that I am FREE to use in any way I want, including modifying and redistributing said software, that's a freedom I really appreciate.
"We can expect an open source Silverlight viewer?"
That won't be enough. We would want the entire stack to be open source and not just the viewer. In other words, .NET needs to become OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/) open source as well, at the very least, or better yet free GPL or LGPL software.
If Microsoft releases the entire .NET stack as GPL, then I will ignore that Microsoft is the parent, and trust the offspring, because I trust GPL so much that I can ignore the Microsoft's previous behavior. Otherwise -- not a chance.
"Insulting or otherwise being unprofessional to your interviewer isn't going to go well for you."
How about insulting the interviewee or being unprofessional to the interviewee? Is that OK?
It seems so, eh? If the company treats you like garbage, why should you respect that company?
Ahhh, I've always loved The Inquirer and I used to love The Register when Mike Magee was there.
Dang, I looked it up, looks like Mike Magee's new site is itexaminer.com. I guess I have to check it out. :) I just like Mike's approach.
Well said. The people steering the company have vastly more power and vastly more responsibility for their actions. This is why it is not wrong to focus somewhat more on them. At the same time the rank and file troopers are complicit too.
"Dude, you are posting on Slashdot. You may not identify yourself as a geek, but you are on a geek website, espousing geeky points of view about FOSS..."
I like some points that ...
Christians make ... and yet I don't call myself any of the above. If I had to strongly identify with only one or some of the groups, then I'd have to exclude the knowledge of some of the opposing groups from my mind. This would mean a loss of contemplative range. To me, that's not a good outcome. This is why I feel free to like any amount of FOSS and slashdot and play any amount of games, without ever acquiring the corresponding group identity. It also makes it easy to do different things. Say one day I decide to lift weights or to do mountain climbing -- no problem, because I don't have as much baggage.
Buddhists make
Hindus make
Atheists make
Taoists make
Materialists make
Nihilists make
Geeks make
Democrats make
Republicans make
Of course I still have baggage and I have problems of my own, but I think my problems would be worse if I added group identity upkeep and corresponding mental restrictions that come with maintaining a group identity on top of all my other problems.
Sometimes when I talk to people they forget I am not of their group. Like a Christian for a second might forget I am not a Christian, or a Buddhist might forget I am not a Buddhist, or a materialist might forget I am not a materialist -- because often (but not always) I have a fairly easy time talking to them.
"the point is that you are not one of the sheeple"
I sure like to think so, however the reality is that my mind has a certain conditioning operating within it, and I am affected by it. I try to discover what this conditioning is and if I can or should change any of it, but this doesn't mean I appreciate the full extent of what I am doing or where I am at.
It's flattering to think I might not be a "sheeple", but at the same time do any "sheeple" think they are "sheeple"? I bet all the "sheeple" think they are independent. So I have to be cautious.
"good luck with that."
You can help, then maybe I won't need so much luck.
I say "we" because I am not alone. I don't know how many people think like I do, but I know that there are enough people for me to be comfortable using "we" in that context.
I don't identify with geeks or any other group. I like software and I like FOSS in particular and I have nothing against geeks if that's what they want to be, but I don't think of myself as a geek (or as anything else for that matter).
"Very few people really value freedom unless they are being personally hampered by it."
If I look around, I find your statement to be mostly true. However, I cannot allow myself to be restricted by what others think. I value freedom, not because it is an ideal, but because it is ultimately my true state. In other words, I am free. This means that any restrictions I feel are my responsibility. I am part of this culture also. If I am very strong internally about my values, then I will influence the culture and not the other way around. If I am weak, then I will be influenced by the culture. Since I am strong and I value freedom strongly, I don't worry about the fact that currently not too many people value freedom. I look ahead and speak the way a captain of the ship speaks. I know where I am going and I know where all of us are going, because I am going there. :)
There is a lot to it. There is a profound reason why I can speak the way I do, but I can't explain everything in one post. So, if any of this makes no sense, or if you think I am idealistic, that's because there is a lot of information I cannot convey in this short time and space.
"They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price."
This is not true. I'm a user and I do care whether something is free and open source. It's not ALL I care about, sure, but I do care.
So, while you are ultimately right anyway, it is all about what I want at a reasonable price, what I want is a broader, deeper and more profound "thing" than you realize.
I realize that little decisions I make impact the greater state of things. So while I want a phone, I do not want to pay for the phone with any of my freedoms. So, ultimately what I want is not a phone per se, but an experience that has a phone-like element in it, but the main feature of that experience is freedom. The phone-like element doesn't even have to be a phone, but freedom is essential and cannot be replaced by anything.
So even though I want a phone, I am careful that the phone I pick doesn't hurt things I want just as much or even more than a phone.
As the people become more and more enlightened to the true impact of their day to day decisions, what I am saying will become more and more relevant. People are going to see the connection between little mundane things and transcendental concerns such as freedom and they will act accordingly.
I suggest you stop trivializing what we want. We don't want just some device. We want a good experience. While a device may or may not be a part of it, freedom is essential. It's not optional. The device is optional. Please don't get this backwards.
This is a huge deal. I'm definitely paying attention to this.
They can pass their little secret treaties, but how long and how seriously do they think people who are not privy to these secret meetings will honor these treaties?
If our rights as common people are being so openly snubbed, then this means the end of the copyright, because no one is going to respect it.
This is already happening, but I am surprised these copyright idiots don't see that what they are doing, these secret meetings and taking into consideration only "powerful" interests is destroying what they want to accomplish. They forget that without people getting on board of this train it is going nowhere fast.
No shit. I noticed that right away. What a bunch of filthy scumbags. Frankly I don't think any copyrights should be respected if that's the climate we are in.
Ha... I made a mistake. I said "Kindness is social deference, often of a formulaic and protocol-like nature." What I meant was "Respect ... " instead of "Kindness ..." I think it is obvious, but thought I'd mention it.
"You know, even if you're doing something good, if you do it with ill temper and lack of grace, you're still being an arse."
What do you call someone who is technically incompetent, and yet is polite and socially well respected?
Do you call this type "a nice guy"?
Everyone wants respect these days instead of kindness. There is a difference. Kindness is social deference, often of a formulaic and protocol-like nature. Kindness is when something is aligned with your intention at the deepest level, while not necessarily flowery or concerned with protocol.
I wouldn't being being disrespected by someone who was kind to me. But I wouldn't want to be respected by someone who is not kind to me. But that's just me I guess. Most people want to be the ego sugar, even if there is no substance to it.
"That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious."
If you want to embarrass someone for fun or for "lulz", I'd agree with you. But what if you want to embarrass someone who rightly should be embarrassed of themselves? What if it's not just for "lulz"?
The problem is that many school officials are assholes and they should not even be working in the educational setting, since they hate kids and they hate education and learning. And somehow they end up there, probably the same way many "programmers" end up programming even though they hate programming as an art or as a craft.
The way I'd like to judge that is to see what actually happened. I think some instances of lewdness are wanton and inappropriate, but not all. I think some may be quite appropriate.
It's good to know and to face these fears. It just so happens that maybe the Republicans need to face theirs first in this case (since the researchers looked at them first). They should definitely do a study on the fears of any and all party identities.
It all comes down to identity and what is important for that identity. The person wants to protect that identity, starting with the key elements first.
So, if a Republican wants a strong gender identity, then gay marriage is a threat to that, because even though physically there is no threat, but socially and mentally the gender roles are blurring with the gays entering the mainstream. And people who like strong, clearly defined, traditional gender roles will of course react in fear and panic to any news of gays succeeding in any way, especially in public.
That's just one example of how identity preservation works.
"Many of the other researchers interviewed by NPR were skeptical of these findings. Their belief was that the study failed to show that these responses were set biologically and not by environmental stimuli."
In this case it wouldn't be a useful distinction to make. When someone acts on fear, it's not that interesting to know if it's biological or environmentally based.
It's only useful if you want to change or cure the person. Then if it's biologically based, you develop a bio cure, and if it's environmentally based you see what you can do about the environment.
But, if it's just for the purpose of understanding the psychology, it's not important to know what is causing it. Not knowing the cause does not invalidate or cheapen the research as long as the rest of it is rigorous. Simply knowing the fear dynamic plays out a certain way in a Republican mind is valuable enough.
"All investment is gambling- some is just more risky than others. This doesn't make it a bad thing."
Why not? It seems to me that placing one's long-term value on something without value is irresponsible. After all, gambling IS considered a bad thing if you do it to sustain yourself. It's called an addiction for a reason.
If you gamble with the attitude "If I lose these 50 bucks, it's OK, but I had fun", sure it's not bad -- it is entertainment. So are you saying stock investment is not bad because it's entertainment? If so, why should our pensions hinge on it? Etc. Etc.
I think investment is basically bad as it currently stands on the stock market today.