My point is, if you have in fact used the weedwacker, tent, or encryption software recently, there will be evidence of it; so simply saying "I never use them", when you have, won't fly.
The article's point was that if you use encryption software, you raise suspicion of yourself. You may have installed encryption software and not used it. If that's true, then a forensic analyst can look at your disk and find nothing but blocks full of zeros, deleted temporary internet files, and pr0n.
However, suppose that you have used the encryption software. The police seize your computer, and note that you have TrueCrypt installed. If you say, "Sure I installed it, but I never used it", a forensic expert can look at your disk, find blocks of what looks like encrypted data (which looks quite different from non-encrypted data), and call you a liar.
That was my point: (falseley) claiming you "haven't used it recently" won't protect you, in any of the cases you mentioned.
I've got a weed-wacker in my garage I haven't used in years. Tent up in the attic, I haven't been camping in decades.
Then why is there fresh oil dripping out of the weedwacker? Why is the tent damp, as though it had recently been out in the rain? Why are the leaves found inside still green, and not dried to a crisp?
I've got utilities that were going to save me time and money, some of which I even paid for, that I never used beyond the initial install. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Then why are big sections of your hard disk filled with data that looks encrypted?
Honestly, your response sounds like Hans Reiser's "I took my car seat out to wash it." Riiight...
So it sounds like what you need is a fingerprint reader with a secret key that will "sign" the biometric data (probably along with a nonce or some other way of avoiding a replay attack). A private key is a lot harder to get than just biometric data. The IT guy has the public key of your reader, and can check that the fingerprint was (probably) read by that reader. If it does get compromised (as in the scenario provided above), just change the key and the attacker is back to square 1.
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that he also changed a ton of information as well, and created a fake ID with the modified information; including a line that said, "I am a terrorist, please shoot me on sight."
IOW, there's no security, signing, encryption, anything at all (or if there is it's so broken that it might as well not be there). The fact that it's computerized makes it easier to fake out rather than harder, and simultaneously gives the illusion of being more reliable rather than less. It's bad all around.
I couldn't disagree with this more. My wife and I are both intelligent, sensitive, caring, dedicated people. But after being married for 5 years, we were seriously ready to throw in the towel if something didn't change. I'd share with people occasionally that we were having some trouble, and people would ask what it was about; my response was, "Honestly, we don't really know. If we understood what the problem was, it wouldn't be happening."
By a random chance (aka God's intervention), we were put onto the work of a guy named John Gottman. John Gottman actually did research on all kinds of couples. He'd wire them up with electrodes to measure their sweat and heart rates, and record their conversations. They even had an apartment rigged up where people would live for 2 days, and record their interactions. He then correlated what he saw with with people's marital satisfaction rating, and with the success of their marriage down the road. He got good enough that after listening to a 15-minute conversation about a hot-spot in their marriage, he could predict with 95% accuracy whether a couple would be divorced in 5 years' time.
We picked up his books, and a lot of what he described I saw in our marriage. Suddenly things aren't so mysterious anymore. We're definitely not out of the woods yet; 5 years of pain and bad habits don't just disappear. But now at least I feel like I have an idea what's going wrong, and even better, I have an idea of what "going right" looks like; and the "going right" is backed by real research, not just "This is my theory". I'd definitely recommend his books to anyone who ever wants to have a long-term relationship, even if it's pretty good right now.
Ten Lessons to Transform Your Marriage: Ten "case studies". The central theme is really the same, but seeing how it works out in each individual couple is helpful.
The Relationship Cure: Probably a must-read for any geek who has trouble connecting with people.
There is a "Spirit of the GPL", and it's RMS's strange ethical invention: "It's immoral to withhold source code from someone." Since they are making the source code available (as per the terms of the GPL), it is complying precisely with the spirit of the GPL. Obviously the guy who is objecting mistook the "Spirit of the GPL" for something else. He should have read the license he was giving his code out under a bit more carefully, as I know it specifically says you can charge for the software.
However, since the only smart thing to do in this situation is consult a lawyer, it's hard for me not to feel like he submitted this post to Slashdot to advertise his $2 app to a segment of the market most likely to buy it.
The word "faith" has several meanings. The one I think is important is "believing something you know to be true, in spite of a strong temptation not to". Suppose there's a high bridge over a canyon. As an engineer, you're perfectly satisfied that the structure is sound and will hold your weight. However, you're also afraid of heights. So when it comes to youactually crossing the bridge, there's a strong temptation to doubt the soundness of the bridge, in spite of all the evidence for its safety. Actually crossing the bridge takes something more than intellectual assent to a fact. You have to have faith to step onto the bridge.
It's a fact, however, that "science" is used in two ways. One is the "scientific method": propose a hypothesis, perform an experiment capable of disproving that hypothesis, repeat. The second way that "science" is used is to mean "learning about the physical world through experiments".
Your last paragraph shows that even you are confusing the two. Being able to use the scientific method to test something does not require that it obey physical laws. Furthermore, if you read the Bible at least, it never asks someone to believe in God without evidence or reason.
In fact, there's a great example of a classic Biblical character using the scientific method to determine whether God really told him to do something or whether there was some funky mold in the wine he drank. Judges 6:36-40 tells the story of Gideon asking God for two signs in succession. First time, he puts out a wool fleece overnight, and asks for the wool to be wet and the ground to be dry in the morning. It is. Next time, he puts out the wool fleece, and asks for the wool to be dry and the ground to be wet. The next morning it is. Since the conditions were the same, and the only thing different was what he prayed, he concluded that God was real. Now, the running of the experiment may not live up to modern scientific standards (not enough repetitions and control), but the logic of it is sound.
Back to the point at hand: suppose that an artificial brain without a "soul" did act similar to a human, but not exactly. How could we tell?
First, Microsoft has a 25-year history of lying and using these kinds of "leverage" techniques to "embrace, extend, extinguish". This has included multiple claims of "turning over a new leaf"-style committments to openness and interoperatibity that turned out to be more "embrace, extend extinguish" tactics. That leads to a well-deserved distrust from others, especially from the open-source community. This distrust is not going to be replaced by trust unless it's earned.
Second, as someone has pointed out, Microsoft releasing code under a GPL license doesn't commit Microsoft. They have not exercised use of the GPL, and are thus not bound by its terms. MS are extending the license to the driver code now, but they may be able to recall it later.
If your division really wants to grow faith, then you can do something which will be a legal "point-of-no-return" for Microsoft: distribute Linux binaries with the MS code in it. That's putting your money where your mouth is: MS wouldn't be able to retract the license then, since doing so would expose them to copyright-infringement lawsuits from the Linux community.
Except that Microsoft has a 25-year history of screwing people over. Go back and read the "findings of fact" from the 2000 anti-trust suit, and see if Microsoft, as a company, was worth trusting then; and then look at their handling of OOXML and see if they're still worth trusting. If someone you never met did something nice to you, you'd be paranoid to look for ulterior motives. If someone you've seen be a selfish, manipulative jerk for 25 years did something nice for you, you'd be an idiot not to look for ulterior motives.
Just a comment: Licensing it under a CC share-alike license isn't the same as just putting it in the public domain. It can only be used in works that are also placed under CC-SA licenses. That pretty much excludes any standard "for-profit" magazines or books (online or dead-tree versions), and probably any calendars, screensavers, &c that it might be used in.
I think you are right. Get marketing students or business students involved. Same goes for graphics designers and webmasters. Get the people who are experts to perform the right tasks.
You totally forgot usability experts. That's probably the single biggest reason OSS usability isn't anywhere near Apple's: usability / interface design as a distinct discipline isn't even on the radar.
Sounds like your son and you play games for different reasons.
I had a friend who played through games using "God mode" cheat all the time. Basically, he never took any damage. So what the heck as he playing for? The story. He wanted to see the sort of interactive story, and he didn't want to have to spend a lot of time developing skills.
Now, maybe it's a bad thing that your son doesn't see the value of puzzling things out for himself. But maybe it's not. If he likes following complex sets of instructions to the tee and doesn't get bored, there are plenty of good jobs for him in the future; jobs that you'd be tearing your hair out in. That's why it's good we're not all the same.:-)
You could always try saying that the thing you really liked about games was puzzling things out for yourself; and ask him what it is he enjoys about the game. Then maybe can watch him play again.:-)
Exactly... it's like saying you could reproduce a TomTom with just the source code. Well, the source code was interpreted with compilers, and it has to run on specific hardware.
However, the point still stands, that if I take undifferentiated stem cells, add some new DNA, and convince it to become a sperm cell, then use it to fertilize an egg (make in an ovary or in a lab), and the resulting zygote is allowed to mature (in a real uterus or a lab simulation), you'd have a hard time arguing that the resulting organism is not a human being, and thus not endowed with certain inalienable rights.
That said, having some reasonable choice for a language I think is pretty important. Teaching people algorithms in a made-up assembly language because "it's all mathematically equivalent" is like teaching someone all about linguistics using only Esperanto, and then sending them to China to translate. If you don't have a "real" language that someone uses, you're not going to know why proper documentation is important, or have a real grasp of other "non-coding" aspects of programming.
Dijkstra's idea of using a functional language for the first year to get people to think a certain way (I think that was it) may be a good pedagogical tool, but it has to be followed up with a language people are likely to encounter.
When did Apple ever release "me too!" products to jump into temporarily hot markets?
In fact, Apple has done an amazing job revolutionizing markets that had been hot with promise, then just fizzled; or at least stagnated. See "iPod", "iPhone". If Apple enters the netbook market, it will be after very careful consideration, and probably after people have decided netbooks aren't really all they're cracked up to be.
What reason would you propose for getting a "higher education"? We're not talking about graduating high school here, we're talking about advanced degrees like a Master's or PhD.
Having a PhD myself, I can say that it's a hard enough process if you actually *do* enjoy research. If you don't enjoy it, it's just torture.
And in the end, everything anyone does is aimed at enjoyment of some kind. The difference between "good" people and "bad" people isn't whether they try to do things that make them happy, but what they choose to pursue to make them happy.
Don't forget who is giving you the advice. It's just a fact that people tend to view the choices they've made as good, and the activities they do as important.
What do you expect to gain from a Master's degree? Do you want to have a deeper understanding of computer science, so that you can more effectively solve complex problems? Or are you hoping that it will impress people and increase your chances of getting a job / getting a higher paying job?
The problem with any degree is that it doesn't actually imply the ability to code effectively, or lead a team. A lot of people with degrees can't code worth anything. The first thing any real computer company will do in interviews is try to ascertain whether you can actually solve problems, write code, debug things, think independently, and so on.
I have a PhD in Computer Science, in the field of Operating Systems (which is a very practical, implement-it-and-test-it-on-real-hardware sort of field). Building my research prototype involved a ton of OS-level coding, and some pretty damn hard debugging. It also included a lot of deep thinking about fundamental issues, and exposure to a lot of really smart people whose job it was to have a deep understanding of what's going on. As a result, I feel well prepared to tackle complex real-world problems and implement a good solution.
But no one would hire me just based on my PhD. Everywhere I interviewed after graduation, I had to prove that I *can* code; and everyone I have subsequently interviewed, the degrees were only a mild interest; interviews were key to sort the wheat from the chaff.
So if you really find the class work interesting, if you're an abstract thinker, good at understanding and applying principles, and want to hone that capability with some extra classes, go for it. A focused time to study the theoretical basis of things can be useful. There's nothing more practical than good theory, in the hands of someone who enjoys both theory and practice. But if you're just looking to improve your resume with a couple of more years of slog-work, then I'd say go for work experience.
The order does look funny to me. It should have been books, music and then video.
All things being equal, yes... but things are not equal:
Listening to music on a computer is a lot better than reading a book on a computer.
Portable mp3 players are a lot cheaper than portable book readers; and you needed some technical thing to listen to that CD or casset anyway, whereas the non-technical version of books are still the preferred method for the vast majority of consumers.
Digitizing music from a CD (or even a cassette) is orders of magnitude easier for a consumer than digitizing a book.
There's also a whole bunch of other tools/features VMWare has that are really slick, but the OS support is a big one. Unless Xen gets good at supporting Windows as a guest, and by good I mean no problems, high speed, native tools, etc, it just doesn't compare. Same deal with Hyper-V. It may be the best thing ever for Windows on Windows, but if it's Linux support isn't equally good, then I don't see it as threatening VMWare.
You seem to be confusing open-source Xen with Ctirix's XenServer product.
Open-source Xen is just the hypervisor; a good place to start, but as you say, not a good place to end.
XenServer has been specifically targeting Windows as guests for two years now. It includes drivers ("native tools") for Windows guests, and the main GUI is written in.NET. Recent independent performance benchmarks show XenServer on par and often beating ESX.
Ah, but natural selection doesn't care about people being smarter or knowing the truth more, it cares about propagation. For example, if you don't believe in God, then you must believe that religion evolved as well, and was a smashing success in spite of being completely wrong.
But these two games also reveal part of the challenge, in that a game in the purest sense, as James Earnest (of Cheapass Games) used to attempt to impress upon me often, doesn't care about plot or story or pretty graphics. A game is about rules and play and fun, and that's it.
Actually, that's a very good point. There have been games around since before writing began. But no one has ever tried to say that Poker, or Hearts, or Chess, or Monopoly, or golf were "art". That's not what the inventors of those games was going for. The difference is that a lot of modern video games involve both the "game" aspect and the "story" aspect. And for the vast majority of games, the "story" aspect isn't particularly respectable art (nor does it particularly need to be).
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, if you have in fact used the weedwacker, tent, or encryption software recently, there will be evidence of it; so simply saying "I never use them", when you have, won't fly.
The article's point was that if you use encryption software, you raise suspicion of yourself. You may have installed encryption software and not used it. If that's true, then a forensic analyst can look at your disk and find nothing but blocks full of zeros, deleted temporary internet files, and pr0n.
However, suppose that you have used the encryption software. The police seize your computer, and note that you have TrueCrypt installed. If you say, "Sure I installed it, but I never used it", a forensic expert can look at your disk, find blocks of what looks like encrypted data (which looks quite different from non-encrypted data), and call you a liar.
That was my point: (falseley) claiming you "haven't used it recently" won't protect you, in any of the cases you mentioned.
Then why is there fresh oil dripping out of the weedwacker? Why is the tent damp, as though it had recently been out in the rain? Why are the leaves found inside still green, and not dried to a crisp?
Then why are big sections of your hard disk filled with data that looks encrypted?
Honestly, your response sounds like Hans Reiser's "I took my car seat out to wash it." Riiight...
So it sounds like what you need is a fingerprint reader with a secret key that will "sign" the biometric data (probably along with a nonce or some other way of avoiding a replay attack). A private key is a lot harder to get than just biometric data. The IT guy has the public key of your reader, and can check that the fingerprint was (probably) read by that reader. If it does get compromised (as in the scenario provided above), just change the key and the attacker is back to square 1.
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that he also changed a ton of information as well, and created a fake ID with the modified information; including a line that said, "I am a terrorist, please shoot me on sight."
IOW, there's no security, signing, encryption, anything at all (or if there is it's so broken that it might as well not be there). The fact that it's computerized makes it easier to fake out rather than harder, and simultaneously gives the illusion of being more reliable rather than less. It's bad all around.
I couldn't disagree with this more. My wife and I are both intelligent, sensitive, caring, dedicated people. But after being married for 5 years, we were seriously ready to throw in the towel if something didn't change. I'd share with people occasionally that we were having some trouble, and people would ask what it was about; my response was, "Honestly, we don't really know. If we understood what the problem was, it wouldn't be happening."
By a random chance (aka God's intervention), we were put onto the work of a guy named John Gottman. John Gottman actually did research on all kinds of couples. He'd wire them up with electrodes to measure their sweat and heart rates, and record their conversations. They even had an apartment rigged up where people would live for 2 days, and record their interactions. He then correlated what he saw with with people's marital satisfaction rating, and with the success of their marriage down the road. He got good enough that after listening to a 15-minute conversation about a hot-spot in their marriage, he could predict with 95% accuracy whether a couple would be divorced in 5 years' time.
We picked up his books, and a lot of what he described I saw in our marriage. Suddenly things aren't so mysterious anymore. We're definitely not out of the woods yet; 5 years of pain and bad habits don't just disappear. But now at least I feel like I have an idea what's going wrong, and even better, I have an idea of what "going right" looks like; and the "going right" is backed by real research, not just "This is my theory". I'd definitely recommend his books to anyone who ever wants to have a long-term relationship, even if it's pretty good right now.
Recommended books:
There is a "Spirit of the GPL", and it's RMS's strange ethical invention: "It's immoral to withhold source code from someone." Since they are making the source code available (as per the terms of the GPL), it is complying precisely with the spirit of the GPL. Obviously the guy who is objecting mistook the "Spirit of the GPL" for something else. He should have read the license he was giving his code out under a bit more carefully, as I know it specifically says you can charge for the software.
However, since the only smart thing to do in this situation is consult a lawyer, it's hard for me not to feel like he submitted this post to Slashdot to advertise his $2 app to a segment of the market most likely to buy it.
The word "faith" has several meanings. The one I think is important is "believing something you know to be true, in spite of a strong temptation not to". Suppose there's a high bridge over a canyon. As an engineer, you're perfectly satisfied that the structure is sound and will hold your weight. However, you're also afraid of heights. So when it comes to you actually crossing the bridge, there's a strong temptation to doubt the soundness of the bridge, in spite of all the evidence for its safety. Actually crossing the bridge takes something more than intellectual assent to a fact. You have to have faith to step onto the bridge.
I still scoff at Java guys. -A C Programmer
It's a fact, however, that "science" is used in two ways. One is the "scientific method": propose a hypothesis, perform an experiment capable of disproving that hypothesis, repeat. The second way that "science" is used is to mean "learning about the physical world through experiments".
Your last paragraph shows that even you are confusing the two. Being able to use the scientific method to test something does not require that it obey physical laws. Furthermore, if you read the Bible at least, it never asks someone to believe in God without evidence or reason.
In fact, there's a great example of a classic Biblical character using the scientific method to determine whether God really told him to do something or whether there was some funky mold in the wine he drank. Judges 6:36-40 tells the story of Gideon asking God for two signs in succession. First time, he puts out a wool fleece overnight, and asks for the wool to be wet and the ground to be dry in the morning. It is. Next time, he puts out the wool fleece, and asks for the wool to be dry and the ground to be wet. The next morning it is. Since the conditions were the same, and the only thing different was what he prayed, he concluded that God was real. Now, the running of the experiment may not live up to modern scientific standards (not enough repetitions and control), but the logic of it is sound.
Back to the point at hand: suppose that an artificial brain without a "soul" did act similar to a human, but not exactly. How could we tell?
Two points.
First, Microsoft has a 25-year history of lying and using these kinds of "leverage" techniques to "embrace, extend, extinguish". This has included multiple claims of "turning over a new leaf"-style committments to openness and interoperatibity that turned out to be more "embrace, extend extinguish" tactics. That leads to a well-deserved distrust from others, especially from the open-source community. This distrust is not going to be replaced by trust unless it's earned.
Second, as someone has pointed out, Microsoft releasing code under a GPL license doesn't commit Microsoft. They have not exercised use of the GPL, and are thus not bound by its terms. MS are extending the license to the driver code now, but they may be able to recall it later.
If your division really wants to grow faith, then you can do something which will be a legal "point-of-no-return" for Microsoft: distribute Linux binaries with the MS code in it. That's putting your money where your mouth is: MS wouldn't be able to retract the license then, since doing so would expose them to copyright-infringement lawsuits from the Linux community.
Except that Microsoft has a 25-year history of screwing people over. Go back and read the "findings of fact" from the 2000 anti-trust suit, and see if Microsoft, as a company, was worth trusting then; and then look at their handling of OOXML and see if they're still worth trusting. If someone you never met did something nice to you, you'd be paranoid to look for ulterior motives. If someone you've seen be a selfish, manipulative jerk for 25 years did something nice for you, you'd be an idiot not to look for ulterior motives.
Just a comment: Licensing it under a CC share-alike license isn't the same as just putting it in the public domain. It can only be used in works that are also placed under CC-SA licenses. That pretty much excludes any standard "for-profit" magazines or books (online or dead-tree versions), and probably any calendars, screensavers, &c that it might be used in.
I think you are right. Get marketing students or business students involved. Same goes for graphics designers and webmasters. Get the people who are experts to perform the right tasks.
You totally forgot usability experts. That's probably the single biggest reason OSS usability isn't anywhere near Apple's: usability / interface design as a distinct discipline isn't even on the radar.
Sounds like your son and you play games for different reasons.
:-)
:-)
I had a friend who played through games using "God mode" cheat all the time. Basically, he never took any damage. So what the heck as he playing for? The story. He wanted to see the sort of interactive story, and he didn't want to have to spend a lot of time developing skills.
Now, maybe it's a bad thing that your son doesn't see the value of puzzling things out for himself. But maybe it's not. If he likes following complex sets of instructions to the tee and doesn't get bored, there are plenty of good jobs for him in the future; jobs that you'd be tearing your hair out in. That's why it's good we're not all the same.
You could always try saying that the thing you really liked about games was puzzling things out for yourself; and ask him what it is he enjoys about the game. Then maybe can watch him play again.
Exactly... it's like saying you could reproduce a TomTom with just the source code. Well, the source code was interpreted with compilers, and it has to run on specific hardware.
However, the point still stands, that if I take undifferentiated stem cells, add some new DNA, and convince it to become a sperm cell, then use it to fertilize an egg (make in an ovary or in a lab), and the resulting zygote is allowed to mature (in a real uterus or a lab simulation), you'd have a hard time arguing that the resulting organism is not a human being, and thus not endowed with certain inalienable rights.
That said, having some reasonable choice for a language I think is pretty important. Teaching people algorithms in a made-up assembly language because "it's all mathematically equivalent" is like teaching someone all about linguistics using only Esperanto, and then sending them to China to translate. If you don't have a "real" language that someone uses, you're not going to know why proper documentation is important, or have a real grasp of other "non-coding" aspects of programming.
Dijkstra's idea of using a functional language for the first year to get people to think a certain way (I think that was it) may be a good pedagogical tool, but it has to be followed up with a language people are likely to encounter.
In fact, Apple has done an amazing job revolutionizing markets that had been hot with promise, then just fizzled; or at least stagnated. See "iPod", "iPhone". If Apple enters the netbook market, it will be after very careful consideration, and probably after people have decided netbooks aren't really all they're cracked up to be.
What reason would you propose for getting a "higher education"? We're not talking about graduating high school here, we're talking about advanced degrees like a Master's or PhD.
Having a PhD myself, I can say that it's a hard enough process if you actually *do* enjoy research. If you don't enjoy it, it's just torture.
And in the end, everything anyone does is aimed at enjoyment of some kind. The difference between "good" people and "bad" people isn't whether they try to do things that make them happy, but what they choose to pursue to make them happy.
Don't forget who is giving you the advice. It's just a fact that people tend to view the choices they've made as good, and the activities they do as important.
What do you expect to gain from a Master's degree? Do you want to have a deeper understanding of computer science, so that you can more effectively solve complex problems? Or are you hoping that it will impress people and increase your chances of getting a job / getting a higher paying job?
The problem with any degree is that it doesn't actually imply the ability to code effectively, or lead a team. A lot of people with degrees can't code worth anything. The first thing any real computer company will do in interviews is try to ascertain whether you can actually solve problems, write code, debug things, think independently, and so on.
I have a PhD in Computer Science, in the field of Operating Systems (which is a very practical, implement-it-and-test-it-on-real-hardware sort of field). Building my research prototype involved a ton of OS-level coding, and some pretty damn hard debugging. It also included a lot of deep thinking about fundamental issues, and exposure to a lot of really smart people whose job it was to have a deep understanding of what's going on. As a result, I feel well prepared to tackle complex real-world problems and implement a good solution.
But no one would hire me just based on my PhD. Everywhere I interviewed after graduation, I had to prove that I *can* code; and everyone I have subsequently interviewed, the degrees were only a mild interest; interviews were key to sort the wheat from the chaff.
So if you really find the class work interesting, if you're an abstract thinker, good at understanding and applying principles, and want to hone that capability with some extra classes, go for it. A focused time to study the theoretical basis of things can be useful. There's nothing more practical than good theory, in the hands of someone who enjoys both theory and practice. But if you're just looking to improve your resume with a couple of more years of slog-work, then I'd say go for work experience.
All things being equal, yes... but things are not equal:
Did you consider calling a Citrix sales rep? Or posting on the Citrix XenServer forums?
You seem to be confusing open-source Xen with Ctirix's XenServer product.
Open-source Xen is just the hypervisor; a good place to start, but as you say, not a good place to end.
XenServer has been specifically targeting Windows as guests for two years now. It includes drivers ("native tools") for Windows guests, and the main GUI is written in .NET. Recent independent performance benchmarks show XenServer on par and often beating ESX.
Ah, but natural selection doesn't care about people being smarter or knowing the truth more, it cares about propagation. For example, if you don't believe in God, then you must believe that religion evolved as well, and was a smashing success in spite of being completely wrong.
Are they really a health risk if everyone else in the community has been vaccinated?
Actually, that's a very good point. There have been games around since before writing began. But no one has ever tried to say that Poker, or Hearts, or Chess, or Monopoly, or golf were "art". That's not what the inventors of those games was going for. The difference is that a lot of modern video games involve both the "game" aspect and the "story" aspect. And for the vast majority of games, the "story" aspect isn't particularly respectable art (nor does it particularly need to be).