... and if you already have the games listed? Not only is there no compensation, but the re-sale value of those games just plummeted (in the event that you would consider selling the originals and using the downloadable version).
Bravo, Sony. Well played. You managed to piss in my pocket and tell me it was raining.
Just because it makes some fundies out there a tad more mad than they already are, is not a valid reason not to celebrate.
No, but a respect for human life and an awareness of the enormity of taking it is. It helps people recognise that it wasn't petty revenge; that it was the sober deliberation of reasonable and civilised people who had explored and exhausted other possibilities.
Last night I watched The Good, The Bad and the Ugly with someone who had never seen it before. It's about the fourth or fifth time I have seen the movie - often with different audiences. I know the story, so I got to sit back and appreciate the cinematography and the acting; to recall previous viewings and compare my reactions then to now and to talk about it with the person who had not seen it before.
Yesterday a colleague asked if anyone had a copy of King Fu Panda. I downloaded a copy, liked it and so bought the DVD. It was this that I loaned to him. I like being able to swap a disc with friends who don't have a media player or PC hooked up to their TV.
The same person who hadn't seen The Good... also hasn't seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai... I saw it on rental VHS years ago, downloaded a copy some time after that and have, since, picked up a copy on DVD. I expect that I'll be watching that, again, in the near future.
So perhaps you don't re-watch movies. I certainly do. Perhaps you don't buy a copy of something that you downloaded. I do - to re-watch; to have a copy in a format that is more widely usable by friends; to have it in a higher quality format (this is particularly true for animation, where part of what I am interested in is seeing the detail).
Introduction of such a rating would require consensus (and possibly unanimity) from the state's Attorney Generals. Atkinson, the AG from South Australia currently opposes this and is also refusing to allow publication of the results of public poinion on the matter.
Copies will be downloaded or imported just as they have for previous iterations of 'Refused Classification' games. Sure, kids who rely on their parents buying their games will probably be unable to get a hold of a copy - but that is already true of MA 15+ rated games. Anyone old enough to be able to buy a MA 15+ is perfectly capable of finding a copy and now it has an additional cachet of being 'forbidden'. All this does is inconvenience those adults who might wish to _legally_ obtain a copy and provides justifiaction for modding consoles to play 'backups' or downloading copies.
Thank you. That is the first decent example I have seen that shows that there is some effect from violent games.
I still think that it is a long bow to draw to suggest that a delay in helping people after exposure to simulated violence leads to a general desensitisation - but as you say, it is certainly worth pursuing (for example - I note that the non-violent games are also a lot less 'intense', testing for adrenaline levels and similar would be interesting).
I would also be curious to see if the effect is temporary. The article your link links to emphasises that even though the violent game players did help, it took longer and this was after just 20 minutes of playing. It may be (especially if related to elevated stress levels) that the effect is short term no matter how long or how frequently someone is exposed. If it is a stress response, it may even be that long time violent game players may be less effected by 20 minutes of game play (desensitising of another kind).
Not to diminish the findings (it is great to see some real work being done to try and work out what, if any, effect is felt), but if this is the strongest case that can be made, I think the author of the original article is needlessly fearmongering.
"With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering."
Perhaps the part of us that finds violence towards an on-screen representation of someone or something, but I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events. The implication that increasingly realistic graphics are somehow going to cross this divide is neither argued nor proven in this article.
Games are designed as entertainment. Entertainment is not realistic. No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life. It is this very knowledge that is part of what makes games enjoyable. We are freed of the normal consequences of our actions, free to explore a new environment, to discover the rules of cause-and-effect and to enjoy the difference between these and the world we normally live in.
Perhaps when we have the tech to seamlessly mimic reality there may grow a market for entertainment that deliberately blurs the line between Real and Game, but that relies on both an increase in technical realism and a deliberate move away from what makes a game a game.
Perhaps the author has forgotten what it means to play.
Speaking personally, there was no demo ("coming soon") when the game launched.
I downloaded a copy from Pirate Bay, played for 5 minutes, _loved_it_ and immediaetly paid for and downloaded an identical copy from the developer's site.
If we are going to start throwing 'facts' about... Thermate is correct, it is a variant of Thermite used by the military and pyrotechnics types for its larger area of effect with significantly more flame, a higher burning temperature than thermite and... it's lower ignition temperature (a quick google did not enlighten me as to what this might be nor how it would compare to burning fuel - but surely a conspiracy that can arrange the coincidence of a pair of jets and towers can shell out for a remote detonator?)
To address the GP, however, Thermate differs from Thermite by the addition of sulfur and barium compounds - no barium oxide has been found.
If there is a form of life on Mars, studying it might give us insights into the origin of life on our planet; provide examples of forms of life that can survive at very low temp/pressure and high radiation levels - which even if they are of no immediate use, may form the basis (through selective breeding or direct manipulation) of forms that are of use.
These opportunities and many others those with more time and smarts can think up are lost if we contaminate or wipe out the environment.
From personal experience I tend to 'learn' a response to certain situations (patterns of AI in games for eg). The first few instances are all reaction, but as time goes on it starts to become stimulus-response. I suspect that as you get older you accumulate a larger set experiences from which you can draw - simultaneously giving you a greater depth and refinement to your response, but requiring less and less pure reaction.
What you don't use, you lose. I dare say that just as physical fitness, which used to be so easy in our 20s now requires more effort to maintain, so too mental flexibility, responsiveness and reaction.
Anecdotally, I have not yet observed a degredation in raw reaction (late 30s), but I have been fairly agressive in making sure to constantly find things that require that I use/exercise this. Try learning a new physical activity/sport (and then another in a year or so). Find new ways to play games - yes, you can out-think your AI opponent, so how about playing with pistol/s only? No save/restores?.
It may be that the comparison to physical fitness/conditioning is a poor one and it is simply a matter of maintaining a 'familiarity' with novelty so that my brain doesn't insist on trying to find a learned response to use in every situation. Perhaps it will all catch up with me shortly, and/or my self-perception is more distorted than I have allowed. YMMV.
You bring it up, you discuss it. This gives you the opportunity to frame it in your own terms (interview questions like "Tell me about a time when..." are opportunities to talk about past mistakes and the lessons learned).
We all make mistakes, some of greater magnitude than others. How we deal with those is more a measure of worth than whether we have been caught out or not. I could quite happily consider working with, for or hiring someone who had delivered a rant like this, if and only if they were the one who raised the issue and then went on to talk about the circumstances under which they came to act as they did, the lessons they learned and went on to describe the consequences and where they are now.
That would not only satisfy me that they were unlikely to repeat the behaviour (whether from growing past it or simply out of a desire to avoid the fallout) but also that they had the courage and character to make mistakes and deal with them.
That said, I consider making mistakes (and learning from them) to be undervalued and vitally important. The corporate environments that encourage 'ass covering' and scapegoating are damaging to all involved. All activities involve some measure of risk and showing that you are able to balance failure and success, and handle the consequences of failure is (IMHO) far more important than demonstrating that you can 'play it safe' all the time.
You know, the type of emotionless, detached person who kills without regret or remorse is a _little_ scarier than the kids going nuts on a mix of sugar and red food colouring.
An equally compelling case can be argued that we have evolved from ancestors who formed societies of mutual co-operation. Our drive to altruism may be inherited biologically as can be seen in many animals that form complex social interactions (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ top pick from google).
Both are simplistic. We are more complex than a simple 'violent-pacifistic' spectrum and given the degree to which our behaviour is modified by learning and environment it is entirely reasonable to look at social conditions that are teaching, encouraging or even just triggering violent or agressive behaviour.
Sorry If I have been unclear. I am not denying that they do.
But a person who is happy and generally well off is much less likely to find something (narcotics or an addictive behaviour) appealing enough to get to the point of biochemical change. It's for the same reason that successful rehabilitation programs stress the need of not merely adressing the physical dependency, but also attempting to help rebuild a successful life for the person.
Lock a subject in a box where their only escape or source of pleasure is banging on a lever for another fix (or a page refresh) and is it any wonder, person or rat, that they become addicted? I am not attempting to suggest that physical dependency does not exacerbate the problem, but I think it's role is overestimated or perhaps, overemphasised.
If you take someone with a completely fulfilling life and give them heroin or any of a number of other drugs including caffeine and nicotine, they'll get addicted.
Addictive behaviours provide something. Escapism is a big one, but things like web addictions and gaming can also be about feeling a sense of control where you feel powerless otherwise, or receive recognition and acceptance where IRL you struggle.
For a person who has a fulfilling and satisfying life even narcotics are not going to provide something they do not already have, except by degree, and even that is not going to be as dramitically above their day-to-day baseline as for someone who is depressed, anxious, powerless or otherwise unfulfilled. I know I am over-simplifying, but nothing is instantly addictive and there has to be a reason to pursue a behaviour to the point where it can become an addiction.
These sorts of programs are as successful as they are because they take the time and effort to show those who participate what they _can_ do. They demonstrate what can be achieved with the crutch of the addiction kicked away and (hopefully) start people down the path towards self-sufficiency. As others have more humourously noted, 'get them laid' - addictions are filling a need (at least initially). Trying to remove the addiction without adressing the need is asking someone to go back to a distressing state. They have already found one (poor) solution. If you want them to let it go, show and _demonstrate_ a better one.
I have had Thinkpads (mostly T series) last 5+ years, including drops and spills. Part of that is excellent design, part of it is the ease with which every part could be ordered and replaced. I am not so familiar with the post-Lenovo quality 'though.
Some early, high end Dell laptops were still useful at similar timeframes (I am thinkning mostly of the C840), but the later Inspirons, less so.
You will pay for them, but in each generation there are machines that will last 4-5 years of even moderately hard use. Consider the design - avoid 'consumer' grade equpiment that is competing on price, not durability. Look at the warranty and support offered by the company - can you order parts and repair in-house, are there local repair centers or does everything have to go off-shore? Oh, and avoid Acer. Period.
Re:question about the RPG "element"
on
Call of Duty 4 Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not entirely.
Caveats - I have just finished playing online for the third time - a total of perhaps 5-6 hours of play, but I have been playing FPS' for... some time. I have played a couple of the previous CoDs but not been a big fan. Xbox 360, mostly with and against Australians - YMMV.
When you begin, you have access to some basic packages that include standard weapons and pre-set 'perks' (the ability to sprint for longer, take more damage, have your rounds do more damage or penetrate further etc.). For the first few levels, that is all you can use. In my case, by the time I had familiarised myself with the controls and gameplay, I had advanced sufficiently to be able to create my own arrangement of weapons and perks and even unlocked a couple of them.
I have been playing almost entirely with people 20-30 'levels' above me and while their skill and familiarity with the maps is evident, this is much more significant than their weapons (which you can collect and use when they drop them) or perks.
The more advanced weapons are slightly better than standard, but usually at some sort of cost (more power but more recoil for e.g.) and so require more skill to use. In my case, I am happier sticking with the basic weapons than picking up someone else's. The perks that I have seen are more flavour than anything else (drop a live grenade when you die - easy to spot and dodge; pull a pistol and shoot from the ground for a few seconds before you die - surprised me the first time, now I make sure they really are dead).
I am used to being able to learn how many shots it takes to kill someone, how far a person can run before they stop etc. Having some weapons do more damage and some people with more HP adds an element of randomness that is frustrating that ability, but is a refreshing change to the standard FPS. Things are a little more uncertain. I find myself watching someone that has dropped, just to make sure they stay down. Firing a few more rounds than I think will do, just in case it doesn't. Perhaps as I play more I will unconsciously adapt to these elements, but for now it has significantly increased the play time required before I 'learn' the game. Which is fantastic.
The gameplay may be similar to a lot of other material in this genre, but it is packaged and presented in a very polished fashion and the progression is both addictive (one more round and I'll level...) and adds depth and dimension.
In both 1 and 2 the speed mentioned is referred to as the "top" speed. In 3 you are reminded only that "raptors run at 10m/s". Presuming no error, then this leads to the conclusion that raptors do not always run at their top speed, but have a 'cruising' speed. Not an unreasonable presumption.
Or the complexity of having to include acceleration/deceleration and turning radius was beyond the scope of the question and so it was simplified to an 'average' of 10 m/s. The 'reminder' even points you away from this sort of calculation and hints that you should simply concentrate on finding an optimal path.
You are probably right, it was an error, but how about you play along.
Of course, the RIAA will claim that the drop in sales from those who are boycotting them are the result of piracy and place more pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation to allow them to recoup their 'losses'. The lawsuits are not about generating revenue (they don't, they are a significant loss), they are a kind of marketing. They are fighting for mindshare, for the idea that sharing intangibles is 'wrong' (or "legitimately breaking the law"), for the political environment where they can dictate legislation (the DMCA in the US that cripples reverse-engineering), for the social acceptance of the inevitability of BigCorporation punishing you for doing something that it doesn't want.
Some time ago in NSW, Australia, the local Milk Board brought charges against a person who was found to have a milk crate in their possession (a stackable plastic crate used to deliver milk by the dairy's and as storage and/or furniture by just about everyone else). The crate is clearly marked as being the property of the dairy but the judge, in his comments noted that so many people assumed that it was ok to take them and use them that he was dismissing the case. He confessed that even he could not be sure that he did not have a couple in his garage.
Obeying laws that have been bought and paid for and which clearly do _not_ reflect what people consider to be 'wrong' is no virtue. Boycotting is unlikely to make the point you are hoping it will make and misses the point of these lawsuits - it's not about revenue, it's about social acceptance and behavioural change.
And in your case they have won. Here you are advocating (for the best of reasons) that people turn away from 'piracy' (their term, btw) and not expose themselves to the risk of lawsuit.
To return to my metaphor - the usual goal of the abuser is not the violence, it is the change in behaviour that the violence (or fear of that violence) creates.
or they are no longer replacing LPs and cassettes with CDs, or CDs with MP3s,
or the market has become saturated and is dominated by inherently conservative organisations that would rather heavily market mediocrity than risk taking chances with innovation (either in content or business methodology) and so alienates anyone who is not part of the targetted 'majority',
or cultural attitudes are changing and as media is becoming less fragile (LPs scratch, cassettes stretch...), as duplication becomes cheaper ('best of' albums, compilations, remaindered stock) and as the marketing machines wring every cent of value from a work (albums, singles, re-mixes, covers, ringtones) the value of actually owning a particular work is plummeting in value,
or (on a similar note to the last) that same marketing machine is dividing what used to be a relatively homogenous market into dozens of smaller groups and discovering that the market for music consumption is not infinite and that having too many options can cause consumers to make no decision.
As far as pirating music goes, the answer is simple - don't do it, otherwise you're just giving record labels some means to try and earn revenue (via litigation).
"... don't give him/her an excuse to get angry..."
the cry of abuse victims
Ever consider that the x-box bears a remarkable resemblance to what Microsoft wants to do in the PC arena in terms of hardware verification of software, trusted computing etc?
Sure, having it make money and chiselling their way into another niche would be nice, but if this is just a research exercise into the viability of some of their ideas then it looks fairly successful. Sure there are plenty of mod-chips, most taking advantage of the 'hack here' points left on the boards. The various projects (legit and otherwise) have exposed some security holes, pointed out vulnerabilities and otherwise provided some hard data that would have been impossible to obtain otherwise - namely how long the 'hobbyist' crowd to hack their secure system.
I may just be tired, but why can't those who are being sued claim that the music they were offering for upload was initially downloaded by them under the assumption that it was available (legally) for free? Why is it presumed that the accused should know that the songs offered for download on their P2P software are being offered illegally?
I would love to see someone argue that they had no idea who Britney Spears was and assumed they wanted their music to spread widely and so had allowed it to be distributed.
I developed the habit when the scams involved a live person trying to read your keystrokes and even then it relies on 'more difficult' not 'impossible' but this level of sophistication is making that moot.
Most of the scams I have seen like this rely on recording your PIN based on what you type.
The earliest versions simply had someone peering over your shoulder, or using a camera/telescope mounted up and behind and stealing the original.
Get in the habit of 'embedding' your PIN within a larger number. Type this longer number too lightly to casue the pressure sensor to register and varying your pressure only on the 'key' digits. It won't fool decent resolution or close observation, but given the angles/lighting conditions and cheaper digitial cameas that are starting to show up, I am guessing that they are going to have trouble working out which hits are the real McCoy.
Sure it relies on making your case more difficult than your neighbours, but to an extent that is all most locks and security devices do. Sure it's paranoid, and it does take some effort to set up, but muscle memory handles most of the work after a while and these days I only get a few false hits. YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
... and if you already have the games listed? Not only is there no compensation, but the re-sale value of those games just plummeted (in the event that you would consider selling the originals and using the downloadable version).
Bravo, Sony. Well played. You managed to piss in my pocket and tell me it was raining.
Just because it makes some fundies out there a tad more mad than they already are, is not a valid reason not to celebrate.
No, but a respect for human life and an awareness of the enormity of taking it is. It helps people recognise that it wasn't petty revenge; that it was the sober deliberation of reasonable and civilised people who had explored and exhausted other possibilities.
That may well be your experience, here's mine ...
... also hasn't seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai ... I saw it on rental VHS years ago, downloaded a copy some time after that and have, since, picked up a copy on DVD. I expect that I'll be watching that, again, in the near future.
Last night I watched The Good, The Bad and the Ugly with someone who had never seen it before. It's about the fourth or fifth time I have seen the movie - often with different audiences. I know the story, so I got to sit back and appreciate the cinematography and the acting; to recall previous viewings and compare my reactions then to now and to talk about it with the person who had not seen it before.
Yesterday a colleague asked if anyone had a copy of King Fu Panda. I downloaded a copy, liked it and so bought the DVD. It was this that I loaned to him. I like being able to swap a disc with friends who don't have a media player or PC hooked up to their TV.
The same person who hadn't seen The Good
So perhaps you don't re-watch movies. I certainly do. Perhaps you don't buy a copy of something that you downloaded. I do - to re-watch; to have a copy in a format that is more widely usable by friends; to have it in a higher quality format (this is particularly true for animation, where part of what I am interested in is seeing the detail).
Introduction of such a rating would require consensus (and possibly unanimity) from the state's Attorney Generals. Atkinson, the AG from South Australia currently opposes this and is also refusing to allow publication of the results of public poinion on the matter.
Copies will be downloaded or imported just as they have for previous iterations of 'Refused Classification' games. Sure, kids who rely on their parents buying their games will probably be unable to get a hold of a copy - but that is already true of MA 15+ rated games. Anyone old enough to be able to buy a MA 15+ is perfectly capable of finding a copy and now it has an additional cachet of being 'forbidden'. All this does is inconvenience those adults who might wish to _legally_ obtain a copy and provides justifiaction for modding consoles to play 'backups' or downloading copies.
Thank you.
That is the first decent example I have seen that shows that there is some effect from violent games.
I still think that it is a long bow to draw to suggest that a delay in helping people after exposure to simulated violence leads to a general desensitisation - but as you say, it is certainly worth pursuing (for example - I note that the non-violent games are also a lot less 'intense', testing for adrenaline levels and similar would be interesting).
I would also be curious to see if the effect is temporary. The article your link links to emphasises that even though the violent game players did help, it took longer and this was after just 20 minutes of playing. It may be (especially if related to elevated stress levels) that the effect is short term no matter how long or how frequently someone is exposed. If it is a stress response, it may even be that long time violent game players may be less effected by 20 minutes of game play (desensitising of another kind).
Not to diminish the findings (it is great to see some real work being done to try and work out what, if any, effect is felt), but if this is the strongest case that can be made, I think the author of the original article is needlessly fearmongering.
From the article;
"With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering."
Perhaps the part of us that finds violence towards an on-screen representation of someone or something, but I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events. The implication that increasingly realistic graphics are somehow going to cross this divide is neither argued nor proven in this article.
Games are designed as entertainment. Entertainment is not realistic. No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life. It is this very knowledge that is part of what makes games enjoyable. We are freed of the normal consequences of our actions, free to explore a new environment, to discover the rules of cause-and-effect and to enjoy the difference between these and the world we normally live in.
Perhaps when we have the tech to seamlessly mimic reality there may grow a market for entertainment that deliberately blurs the line between Real and Game, but that relies on both an increase in technical realism and a deliberate move away from what makes a game a game.
Perhaps the author has forgotten what it means to play.
Speaking personally, there was no demo ("coming soon") when the game launched.
I downloaded a copy from Pirate Bay, played for 5 minutes, _loved_it_ and immediaetly paid for and downloaded an identical copy from the developer's site.
If we are going to start throwing 'facts' about ... ... it's lower ignition temperature (a quick google did not enlighten me as to what this might be nor how it would compare to burning fuel - but surely a conspiracy that can arrange the coincidence of a pair of jets and towers can shell out for a remote detonator?)
Thermate is correct, it is a variant of Thermite used by the military and pyrotechnics types for its larger area of effect with significantly more flame, a higher burning temperature than thermite and
To address the GP, however, Thermate differs from Thermite by the addition of sulfur and barium compounds - no barium oxide has been found.
Self interest.
If there is a form of life on Mars, studying it might give us insights into the origin of life on our planet; provide examples of forms of life that can survive at very low temp/pressure and high radiation levels - which even if they are of no immediate use, may form the basis (through selective breeding or direct manipulation) of forms that are of use.
These opportunities and many others those with more time and smarts can think up are lost if we contaminate or wipe out the environment.
From personal experience I tend to 'learn' a response to certain situations (patterns of AI in games for eg). The first few instances are all reaction, but as time goes on it starts to become stimulus-response. I suspect that as you get older you accumulate a larger set experiences from which you can draw - simultaneously giving you a greater depth and refinement to your response, but requiring less and less pure reaction.
What you don't use, you lose. I dare say that just as physical fitness, which used to be so easy in our 20s now requires more effort to maintain, so too mental flexibility, responsiveness and reaction.
Anecdotally, I have not yet observed a degredation in raw reaction (late 30s), but I have been fairly agressive in making sure to constantly find things that require that I use/exercise this. Try learning a new physical activity/sport (and then another in a year or so). Find new ways to play games - yes, you can out-think your AI opponent, so how about playing with pistol/s only? No save/restores?.
It may be that the comparison to physical fitness/conditioning is a poor one and it is simply a matter of maintaining a 'familiarity' with novelty so that my brain doesn't insist on trying to find a learned response to use in every situation. Perhaps it will all catch up with me shortly, and/or my self-perception is more distorted than I have allowed. YMMV.
You own it.
..." are opportunities to talk about past mistakes and the lessons learned).
You bring it up, you discuss it. This gives you the opportunity to frame it in your own terms (interview questions like "Tell me about a time when
We all make mistakes, some of greater magnitude than others. How we deal with those is more a measure of worth than whether we have been caught out or not. I could quite happily consider working with, for or hiring someone who had delivered a rant like this, if and only if they were the one who raised the issue and then went on to talk about the circumstances under which they came to act as they did, the lessons they learned and went on to describe the consequences and where they are now.
That would not only satisfy me that they were unlikely to repeat the behaviour (whether from growing past it or simply out of a desire to avoid the fallout) but also that they had the courage and character to make mistakes and deal with them.
That said, I consider making mistakes (and learning from them) to be undervalued and vitally important. The corporate environments that encourage 'ass covering' and scapegoating are damaging to all involved. All activities involve some measure of risk and showing that you are able to balance failure and success, and handle the consequences of failure is (IMHO) far more important than demonstrating that you can 'play it safe' all the time.
You know, the type of emotionless, detached person who kills without regret or remorse is a _little_ scarier than the kids going nuts on a mix of sugar and red food colouring.
Just sayin'
An equally compelling case can be argued that we have evolved from ancestors who formed societies of mutual co-operation. Our drive to altruism may be inherited biologically as can be seen in many animals that form complex social interactions (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ top pick from google).
Both are simplistic. We are more complex than a simple 'violent-pacifistic' spectrum and given the degree to which our behaviour is modified by learning and environment it is entirely reasonable to look at social conditions that are teaching, encouraging or even just triggering violent or agressive behaviour.
Sorry If I have been unclear. I am not denying that they do.
But a person who is happy and generally well off is much less likely to find something (narcotics or an addictive behaviour) appealing enough to get to the point of biochemical change. It's for the same reason that successful rehabilitation programs stress the need of not merely adressing the physical dependency, but also attempting to help rebuild a successful life for the person.
Lock a subject in a box where their only escape or source of pleasure is banging on a lever for another fix (or a page refresh) and is it any wonder, person or rat, that they become addicted? I am not attempting to suggest that physical dependency does not exacerbate the problem, but I think it's role is overestimated or perhaps, overemphasised.
Not necessarily.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park (yes, I know, a wiki link, but it's the first I could find quickly)
Addictive behaviours provide something. Escapism is a big one, but things like web addictions and gaming can also be about feeling a sense of control where you feel powerless otherwise, or receive recognition and acceptance where IRL you struggle.
For a person who has a fulfilling and satisfying life even narcotics are not going to provide something they do not already have, except by degree, and even that is not going to be as dramitically above their day-to-day baseline as for someone who is depressed, anxious, powerless or otherwise unfulfilled. I know I am over-simplifying, but nothing is instantly addictive and there has to be a reason to pursue a behaviour to the point where it can become an addiction.
These sorts of programs are as successful as they are because they take the time and effort to show those who participate what they _can_ do. They demonstrate what can be achieved with the crutch of the addiction kicked away and (hopefully) start people down the path towards self-sufficiency. As others have more humourously noted, 'get them laid' - addictions are filling a need (at least initially). Trying to remove the addiction without adressing the need is asking someone to go back to a distressing state. They have already found one (poor) solution. If you want them to let it go, show and _demonstrate_ a better one.
What makes/models?
I have had Thinkpads (mostly T series) last 5+ years, including drops and spills. Part of that is excellent design, part of it is the ease with which every part could be ordered and replaced. I am not so familiar with the post-Lenovo quality 'though.
Some early, high end Dell laptops were still useful at similar timeframes (I am thinkning mostly of the C840), but the later Inspirons, less so.
You will pay for them, but in each generation there are machines that will last 4-5 years of even moderately hard use. Consider the design - avoid 'consumer' grade equpiment that is competing on price, not durability. Look at the warranty and support offered by the company - can you order parts and repair in-house, are there local repair centers or does everything have to go off-shore? Oh, and avoid Acer. Period.
Not entirely.
... some time. I have played a couple of the previous CoDs but not been a big fan. Xbox 360, mostly with and against Australians - YMMV.
...) and adds depth and dimension.
Caveats - I have just finished playing online for the third time - a total of perhaps 5-6 hours of play, but I have been playing FPS' for
When you begin, you have access to some basic packages that include standard weapons and pre-set 'perks' (the ability to sprint for longer, take more damage, have your rounds do more damage or penetrate further etc.). For the first few levels, that is all you can use. In my case, by the time I had familiarised myself with the controls and gameplay, I had advanced sufficiently to be able to create my own arrangement of weapons and perks and even unlocked a couple of them.
I have been playing almost entirely with people 20-30 'levels' above me and while their skill and familiarity with the maps is evident, this is much more significant than their weapons (which you can collect and use when they drop them) or perks.
The more advanced weapons are slightly better than standard, but usually at some sort of cost (more power but more recoil for e.g.) and so require more skill to use. In my case, I am happier sticking with the basic weapons than picking up someone else's. The perks that I have seen are more flavour than anything else (drop a live grenade when you die - easy to spot and dodge; pull a pistol and shoot from the ground for a few seconds before you die - surprised me the first time, now I make sure they really are dead).
I am used to being able to learn how many shots it takes to kill someone, how far a person can run before they stop etc. Having some weapons do more damage and some people with more HP adds an element of randomness that is frustrating that ability, but is a refreshing change to the standard FPS. Things are a little more uncertain. I find myself watching someone that has dropped, just to make sure they stay down. Firing a few more rounds than I think will do, just in case it doesn't. Perhaps as I play more I will unconsciously adapt to these elements, but for now it has significantly increased the play time required before I 'learn' the game. Which is fantastic.
The gameplay may be similar to a lot of other material in this genre, but it is packaged and presented in a very polished fashion and the progression is both addictive (one more round and I'll level
Or the complexity of having to include acceleration/deceleration and turning radius was beyond the scope of the question and so it was simplified to an 'average' of 10 m/s. The 'reminder' even points you away from this sort of calculation and hints that you should simply concentrate on finding an optimal path.
You are probably right, it was an error, but how about you play along.
I do.
Of course, the RIAA will claim that the drop in sales from those who are boycotting them are the result of piracy and place more pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation to allow them to recoup their 'losses'. The lawsuits are not about generating revenue (they don't, they are a significant loss), they are a kind of marketing. They are fighting for mindshare, for the idea that sharing intangibles is 'wrong' (or "legitimately breaking the law"), for the political environment where they can dictate legislation (the DMCA in the US that cripples reverse-engineering), for the social acceptance of the inevitability of BigCorporation punishing you for doing something that it doesn't want.
Some time ago in NSW, Australia, the local Milk Board brought charges against a person who was found to have a milk crate in their possession (a stackable plastic crate used to deliver milk by the dairy's and as storage and/or furniture by just about everyone else). The crate is clearly marked as being the property of the dairy but the judge, in his comments noted that so many people assumed that it was ok to take them and use them that he was dismissing the case. He confessed that even he could not be sure that he did not have a couple in his garage.
Obeying laws that have been bought and paid for and which clearly do _not_ reflect what people consider to be 'wrong' is no virtue. Boycotting is unlikely to make the point you are hoping it will make and misses the point of these lawsuits - it's not about revenue, it's about social acceptance and behavioural change.
And in your case they have won. Here you are advocating (for the best of reasons) that people turn away from 'piracy' (their term, btw) and not expose themselves to the risk of lawsuit.
To return to my metaphor - the usual goal of the abuser is not the violence, it is the change in behaviour that the violence (or fear of that violence) creates.
or they are no longer replacing LPs and cassettes with CDs, or CDs with MP3s, ...), as duplication becomes cheaper ('best of' albums, compilations, remaindered stock) and as the marketing machines wring every cent of value from a work (albums, singles, re-mixes, covers, ringtones) the value of actually owning a particular work is plummeting in value,
or the market has become saturated and is dominated by inherently conservative organisations that would rather heavily market mediocrity than risk taking chances with innovation (either in content or business methodology) and so alienates anyone who is not part of the targetted 'majority',
or cultural attitudes are changing and as media is becoming less fragile (LPs scratch, cassettes stretch
or (on a similar note to the last) that same marketing machine is dividing what used to be a relatively homogenous market into dozens of smaller groups and discovering that the market for music consumption is not infinite and that having too many options can cause consumers to make no decision.
or, as you say, it could be piracy.
"... don't give him/her an excuse to get angry
the cry of abuse victims
Ever consider that the x-box bears a remarkable resemblance to what Microsoft wants to do in the PC arena in terms of hardware verification of software, trusted computing etc?
Sure, having it make money and chiselling their way into another niche would be nice, but if this is just a research exercise into the viability of some of their ideas then it looks fairly successful. Sure there are plenty of mod-chips, most taking advantage of the 'hack here' points left on the boards. The various projects (legit and otherwise) have exposed some security holes, pointed out vulnerabilities and otherwise provided some hard data that would have been impossible to obtain otherwise - namely how long the 'hobbyist' crowd to hack their secure system.
I may just be tired, but why can't those who are being sued claim that the music they were offering for upload was initially downloaded by them under the assumption that it was available (legally) for free? Why is it presumed that the accused should know that the songs offered for download on their P2P software are being offered illegally?
I would love to see someone argue that they had no idea who Britney Spears was and assumed they wanted their music to spread widely and so had allowed it to be distributed.
Good point.
I developed the habit when the scams involved a live person trying to read your keystrokes and even then it relies on 'more difficult' not 'impossible' but this level of sophistication is making that moot.
Most of the scams I have seen like this rely on recording your PIN based on what you type.
The earliest versions simply had someone peering over your shoulder, or using a camera/telescope mounted up and behind and stealing the original.
Get in the habit of 'embedding' your PIN within a larger number. Type this longer number too lightly to casue the pressure sensor to register and varying your pressure only on the 'key' digits. It won't fool decent resolution or close observation, but given the angles/lighting conditions and cheaper digitial cameas that are starting to show up, I am guessing that they are going to have trouble working out which hits are the real McCoy.
Sure it relies on making your case more difficult than your neighbours, but to an extent that is all most locks and security devices do. Sure it's paranoid, and it does take some effort to set up, but muscle memory handles most of the work after a while and these days I only get a few false hits. YMMV