At what point do video games become so life like that it is difficult to differentiate between reality and the gam
Call me insensitive, but if your kids can't differentiate between a video game and reality, don't buy them the game. Parents really need to pay more attention to their kids. If they notice the kids behaving more badly after watching "Miami Vice", don't let them watch it anymore. If the kids get in with the wrong crowd and start acting badly, don't let them (yes, harder said than done but you can still try) hang with them. If your kids get a game and start exhibiting bad behavior, take it away from them. Why do so many parents fail to see this?
It baffles the mind that we need so many laws nowadays to keep people from killing each other or from harming themselves. "Warning, coffee is hot." WTF? You should know this. And now we have to make a LAW that says "keep your eyes and your mind on the road while driving"
Granted, some people are soooooo talented and they can talk on the phone, chew gum, read a map, drink coffee, compose a musical, write a novel, read a map, and go to the bathroom all while driving. But the other 99% of humanity finds that when you take your eyes off the road, especially for extended periods of time, and requiring the use of your brain to comprehend things other than driving (or swerving cars, kids running in the street, other people not paying attention, etc), their driving becomes severely impaired.
The part that REALLY gets me about this is that it shows how selfish and ignorant some people are. Fine, maybe you're a good driver. But you're out ther with thousands of other drivers. And other sudden hazzards and obstacles. Pay attention to the other drivers and keep everyone on the road safe.
First thought...just how much of this propellant can be produced by these microbes? It really seems like you'd need quite a bit to launch a missle. Can this be done from the work of some microbes?
Second...people will complain about how money is being spent on military research, but let's look at the positive here. It's a precursor to lowering colesterol. Who knows when we'll be working on developing some sort of funky things to melt enemy tires or something and come up with a compound that kills only cancer cells and leaves all other cells unharmed. It's exciting in an odd sort of way.
We know there will be a lot of posts about "yeah! Stick it to the Man!" and "Microsoft sucks! Serves them right!" going on. But let's think a bit deeper into this. I like the actual reasons Israel is saying "no, we're not going to live under your tyrannical rule. We will search out other options". That has been a major argument over the years..."everyone uses Office, so do we". Well that's not the case anymore. Microsoft is still trying to strongarm its customers by any means neccessary. It started with the OS, then to the nutty licensing, and now by their refusal to split up Office (which if you recall used to be a collection of software you could buy individually). Good for Israel. Now...what next? Will other large companies go "hm...well it worked for them. Let's try it too" or will they just go "they're crazy" and continue to be lemmings like most of humanity is?
why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and no, I'm not talking about Budweiser or Taco Bell ads)?
That's right. Those Bud commercials are sooooo mid '90s. It's all about the Coors commercials. And the TWEEEEEEIIIIIINNNNS. *drooling*
Of course, it is a shame US consumers don't get to see the good stuff. You just gotta love seeing all the good commercials in other countries and go "man...they get to see skin, funky music, and provocitive stuff on prime time. I have to wear a trench coat and sunglasses and drive to the shady part of town..."
Kinda like Jelly Belly jelly beans. How they can make jelly beans taste like popcorn and coffee is truly amazing. I remember getting "green" and "red" jelly beans when I was younger. I didn't like the black ones much...not a big licorice fan (yet I love Jagermeister...WTF?). The things they can do with chemicals now days...scary...but cool.
That's kinda funny because a few months ago I discovered the cappucino flavored soy milk. I used to use vanilla or chocolate soy milk with my plain cereal then found the joys of the coffee flavored stuff. It made plain Wheaties much more enjoyable to eat. Yum!
It kills me to see how people can be so surprised that nature is capable of producing such incredible things. When there is a new discovery of a naturally occuring disease cure in the Brazillian rain forest people go nuts. How about the fact spider's silk is stronger than kevlar? We've got plants that produce wonder cures. Animals that perform wondrous feats like this beetle that can make gems. And yet we humans still spend billions trying to "discover" new drugs or ways to manufacture crystals. We seriously need to look more at what nature has to offer and mimic that. It's more natural, it's been proven effective over thousands of years, and it will probably cost less.
For all you sarcastic (I sure hope you're being sarcastic) and nameless people, that's what the analogy was pointing to. Yes, greenhouse gases. Duh.
The discussion of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect has been going on for years now. But it hasn't been tied to the global dimming phenomenon yet. People tend to assume greenhouse effect equals warmer planet and they stop there. The dimming is yet a new piece of the puzzle that ties it all together and makes it that much more of a concern.
Crude (correct or incorrect?) Analogy
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I wonder if this is similar to a greenhouse. This would explain both the dimming AND the global warming. The glass from a greenhouse (comparable to the atmospheric gasses) undoubtably blocks some of the sunlight getting to the plants/surface. Yet we all know it's a bit warmer in the greenhouse than in the surrounding area outside.
If this analogy is correct, we really do have a lot to fear. Not only will we continue to have global warming but it seems as if the humidity level of the planet may rise too. Of course, at some point (if we're losing 10% a decade) you would think there is a break-even point and we'll start experiencing global cooling because it'll be like putting the shades down on the windows.
I completely agree again. As a whole, society is much lazier and it's tough to find the active people to participate in sports in. Then you break it down geographically and it gets even worse. When I lived in Santa Cruz, there was NEVER a problem finding someone to go mtn biking with or some other outdoor activity. Finding someone to play football with was a bit tough but you could still find someone to be active with. And yet, I knew more gamers out there too. Now I'm in Philly and people think I'm a freak for even wanting to go out running. Impossible to find someone to go biking. I finally got tired of looking for people and now I've got a good little belly going. I did get lucky and find someone to play football with, but again it was with the inner city kids. If I didn't happen to work with them, I wouldn't find anyone to do anything with out here in the 'burbs. It's truly a shame that active kids/people are so hard to come by. I fear the trend may continue and people who play sports or want to be outside may be considered "fanatical health nuts" some day and kids parents will make snide comments about "the dirty Jones kid" who is always outside which will in effect have their own kid thinking "I don't want to be called a dirty kid".
Sheesh...there are so many factors that go into this. Lack of kids to participate in sports with, geographical differences making it harder to participate in sports (this includes living in places where the weather is so harsh that nobody will want to go outside anyway), socio-economic differences (cost factors to participate in sports), finding someone to participate with, and so on.
I find this an interesting though. I don't neccessarily agree with what you're saying...I think sports will be around for a long long time. But one must wonder how sports will evolve. Some sports may be for just the rich kids and hence played by the rich people. How many inner city children do you know that play golf or tennis? The poorer kids tend to play basketball or football and such. Take this and combine it with the fact it's the kids who come from more well-off families that will have gaming systems. Does this mean football will be played on PS2 by the rich kids, watched on TV by the rich kids, yet played by men who were brought up in more impoverished childhoods? Could our society regress to a state where football and basketball is for the "lower end of society"? The only way Johny from his happy suburban family play this is when he sits on his 30% overweight rump and plays it on PS2 or watches it on TV?
These two are totally unrelated. I love how the media will pick out all BAD aspects of society and blame it on games. Kids nowadays are just lazy. It's much easier to sit on your rump and play video games than it is to go find friends to play with. It's sad but true. If more kids are sitting at home playing sports games rather than going out and playing sports themselves because of this "gaming link", wouldn't the same twisted logic say the violence that the kids are participating in as they play their games would lead to a decrease in violence in society? Yet instead games are blamed for the violence. So by this logic again, playing sports games should lead to an INCREASE in kids playing sports.
Kids are out of shape and lazy. That's the simple truth. Don't try to blame it on games. Blame it on the parents who feed their kids fat and calorie laden food with no veggies, the parents who say it's ok to stay inside and play games for three or four hours a day and then watch another three or four hours of TV each day.
I was just about to say "who the hell wants to spend $800 for one speaker? Hell, for that I'll buy a whole system". But then as I sit here in my cramped room I went "oh yeah...it would be nice not having to string cable all over my room, find space for all the speakers, etc". If it really works (can't wait to read the reviews), it could be fun buying this and having my head messed with.
I love how in the article they say iTMS is giving Apple a mere $0.10 per song. 10% profit doesn't sound too bad to me, especially in the highly-comoditized PC market. Granted, it's not what Apple is used to. They're used to 30% profit margins from their computer sales. But 10% of millions (and some day billions) is nothing to cough at. I wouldn't mind a nice steady stream of 10% of $500 million. But like Steve said...they're selling iPods which gives them a cool 35% or so for each one sold. Niiiiiice.
Each month, Apple comes out with some sort of announcement that still blows me away. MacWorld after MacWorld they have new products to support this digital hub lifestyle. When will it end???
How many of you scoffed when Jobs mentioned the "digital hub"? I did. "WTF is a digital hub? The Mac already does all of these things he's talking about. Simple ways to work with your digital camera, for adding new hardware, etc" Yet they come out with the iPod, a non-computer/non-software item. And it sells like nuts. Then they sell it to Windows users. And now with iTunes Music Service, it's become quite evident Apple is interested in more than being simply a computer manufacturer. People scoffed at the idea, but one million songs in a few days is nothing to laugh at. Can't wait to see what happens to iPod sales (and conversely iTMS sales) in the holiday season.
I found the review of iTunes for Windows to be pretty thorough and I enjoyed reading everyone's praises and complaints that they're experiencing so far. One thing to keep in mind though is what people will be using iTunes for.
Some people won't care about ripping everything. The average consumer (ie, not a power user) will love how it ties in with their iPod. Some people may want a simple way to organize their library. I'm not sure how many people will want to use each and every feature of iTunes, including the music store.
I for one downloaded it at work (Win2000) simply because I'm used to the iTunes radio stations I listen to at home and was a bit tired of listening to Launch on Yahoo. I find iTunes to be much faster, more reliable, better selection of music, and just more enjoyable.
Apple is truly proving itself to be a company that can change with the times. Their bottom line will be increasing from their excellent APPLE products with the Mac supporting those efforts.
You know what's really irksome about this? It's pretty evident that Apple Computer is not Apple Corps Ltd. I guess the breach of contract thing is a suable offense, but c'mon people. Let's stop the litigation and go about running business. Thinking back to when people were saying Apple Computer was infringing on Apple Corps copyrights and patents...please. With this logic, it's surprising Atari didn't sue Apple for Jaguar. That seems to be a more related product than a computer company and a record label...
You gotta love the whole AOL and Apple connection. I really think this is going somewhere.
First you've got the whole AIM integration with iChat. That seemed to be a pretty big thing back in the day. Next, iTunes signs the major labels. Hmmm...who's in there? And now today it's announced that AOL users will be able to purchase from the iTMS.
This is big stuff. Major collaborations on a few different projects now. It makes you wonder...what's next?
And yet Apple stock is still down 6% today. Damn beleaguered companies. AOL tie-ins, opening up the music store to a HUGE customer base...but what does Apple know?
"However, I've done 'Upgrade' from Jaguar to Panther three times so far with no problems whatsoever. FYI."
Thanks. That's good stuff to know. Maybe it's the old school mentality of "if you're going to install, do it from scratch unless it's a nice minor upgrade". So I traditionally do from scratch. The three Jag-to-Panther success rate you've got gives me hope. The fact the article was so blase about it had me a bit concerned...not for myself but for the new Mac users out there that may not be power users.
The author states in the article "I installed clean on both my Macs, because upgrading wouldn't work on my 12" Powerbook (Jaguar "had errors" the installation was insisting). That was not a big deal for me as I don't have any important data on my Macs, but it may be troublesome for people who who are trying to install on their primary machine."
Then he goes and gives "Installation" a 10 out of 10. What gives? This actually is a big concern for me though. I don't want to have to do a clean install of this OS. To save all my data, reinstall all my applications, etc. Can I do it? Yes. Do I want to? No. Doesn't anyone else find this a bit disconcerting?
Slashdot Mirror
At what point do video games become so life like that it is difficult to differentiate between reality and the gam
Call me insensitive, but if your kids can't differentiate between a video game and reality, don't buy them the game. Parents really need to pay more attention to their kids. If they notice the kids behaving more badly after watching "Miami Vice", don't let them watch it anymore. If the kids get in with the wrong crowd and start acting badly, don't let them (yes, harder said than done but you can still try) hang with them. If your kids get a game and start exhibiting bad behavior, take it away from them. Why do so many parents fail to see this?
It baffles the mind that we need so many laws nowadays to keep people from killing each other or from harming themselves. "Warning, coffee is hot." WTF? You should know this. And now we have to make a LAW that says "keep your eyes and your mind on the road while driving"
Granted, some people are soooooo talented and they can talk on the phone, chew gum, read a map, drink coffee, compose a musical, write a novel, read a map, and go to the bathroom all while driving. But the other 99% of humanity finds that when you take your eyes off the road, especially for extended periods of time, and requiring the use of your brain to comprehend things other than driving (or swerving cars, kids running in the street, other people not paying attention, etc), their driving becomes severely impaired.
The part that REALLY gets me about this is that it shows how selfish and ignorant some people are. Fine, maybe you're a good driver. But you're out ther with thousands of other drivers. And other sudden hazzards and obstacles. Pay attention to the other drivers and keep everyone on the road safe.
First thought...just how much of this propellant can be produced by these microbes? It really seems like you'd need quite a bit to launch a missle. Can this be done from the work of some microbes?
Second...people will complain about how money is being spent on military research, but let's look at the positive here. It's a precursor to lowering colesterol. Who knows when we'll be working on developing some sort of funky things to melt enemy tires or something and come up with a compound that kills only cancer cells and leaves all other cells unharmed. It's exciting in an odd sort of way.
We know there will be a lot of posts about "yeah! Stick it to the Man!" and "Microsoft sucks! Serves them right!" going on. But let's think a bit deeper into this. I like the actual reasons Israel is saying "no, we're not going to live under your tyrannical rule. We will search out other options". That has been a major argument over the years..."everyone uses Office, so do we". Well that's not the case anymore. Microsoft is still trying to strongarm its customers by any means neccessary. It started with the OS, then to the nutty licensing, and now by their refusal to split up Office (which if you recall used to be a collection of software you could buy individually). Good for Israel. Now...what next? Will other large companies go "hm...well it worked for them. Let's try it too" or will they just go "they're crazy" and continue to be lemmings like most of humanity is?
why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and no, I'm not talking about Budweiser or Taco Bell ads)?
That's right. Those Bud commercials are sooooo mid '90s. It's all about the Coors commercials. And the TWEEEEEEIIIIIINNNNS. *drooling*
Of course, it is a shame US consumers don't get to see the good stuff. You just gotta love seeing all the good commercials in other countries and go "man...they get to see skin, funky music, and provocitive stuff on prime time. I have to wear a trench coat and sunglasses and drive to the shady part of town..."
Kinda like Jelly Belly jelly beans. How they can make jelly beans taste like popcorn and coffee is truly amazing. I remember getting "green" and "red" jelly beans when I was younger. I didn't like the black ones much...not a big licorice fan (yet I love Jagermeister...WTF?). The things they can do with chemicals now days...scary...but cool.
That's kinda funny because a few months ago I discovered the cappucino flavored soy milk. I used to use vanilla or chocolate soy milk with my plain cereal then found the joys of the coffee flavored stuff. It made plain Wheaties much more enjoyable to eat. Yum!
It kills me to see how people can be so surprised that nature is capable of producing such incredible things. When there is a new discovery of a naturally occuring disease cure in the Brazillian rain forest people go nuts. How about the fact spider's silk is stronger than kevlar? We've got plants that produce wonder cures. Animals that perform wondrous feats like this beetle that can make gems. And yet we humans still spend billions trying to "discover" new drugs or ways to manufacture crystals. We seriously need to look more at what nature has to offer and mimic that. It's more natural, it's been proven effective over thousands of years, and it will probably cost less.
For all you sarcastic (I sure hope you're being sarcastic) and nameless people, that's what the analogy was pointing to. Yes, greenhouse gases. Duh.
The discussion of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect has been going on for years now. But it hasn't been tied to the global dimming phenomenon yet. People tend to assume greenhouse effect equals warmer planet and they stop there. The dimming is yet a new piece of the puzzle that ties it all together and makes it that much more of a concern.
I wonder if this is similar to a greenhouse. This would explain both the dimming AND the global warming. The glass from a greenhouse (comparable to the atmospheric gasses) undoubtably blocks some of the sunlight getting to the plants/surface. Yet we all know it's a bit warmer in the greenhouse than in the surrounding area outside.
If this analogy is correct, we really do have a lot to fear. Not only will we continue to have global warming but it seems as if the humidity level of the planet may rise too. Of course, at some point (if we're losing 10% a decade) you would think there is a break-even point and we'll start experiencing global cooling because it'll be like putting the shades down on the windows.
I completely agree again. As a whole, society is much lazier and it's tough to find the active people to participate in sports in. Then you break it down geographically and it gets even worse. When I lived in Santa Cruz, there was NEVER a problem finding someone to go mtn biking with or some other outdoor activity. Finding someone to play football with was a bit tough but you could still find someone to be active with. And yet, I knew more gamers out there too. Now I'm in Philly and people think I'm a freak for even wanting to go out running. Impossible to find someone to go biking. I finally got tired of looking for people and now I've got a good little belly going. I did get lucky and find someone to play football with, but again it was with the inner city kids. If I didn't happen to work with them, I wouldn't find anyone to do anything with out here in the 'burbs. It's truly a shame that active kids/people are so hard to come by. I fear the trend may continue and people who play sports or want to be outside may be considered "fanatical health nuts" some day and kids parents will make snide comments about "the dirty Jones kid" who is always outside which will in effect have their own kid thinking "I don't want to be called a dirty kid".
Sheesh...there are so many factors that go into this. Lack of kids to participate in sports with, geographical differences making it harder to participate in sports (this includes living in places where the weather is so harsh that nobody will want to go outside anyway), socio-economic differences (cost factors to participate in sports), finding someone to participate with, and so on.
I find this an interesting though. I don't neccessarily agree with what you're saying...I think sports will be around for a long long time. But one must wonder how sports will evolve. Some sports may be for just the rich kids and hence played by the rich people. How many inner city children do you know that play golf or tennis? The poorer kids tend to play basketball or football and such. Take this and combine it with the fact it's the kids who come from more well-off families that will have gaming systems. Does this mean football will be played on PS2 by the rich kids, watched on TV by the rich kids, yet played by men who were brought up in more impoverished childhoods? Could our society regress to a state where football and basketball is for the "lower end of society"? The only way Johny from his happy suburban family play this is when he sits on his 30% overweight rump and plays it on PS2 or watches it on TV?
These two are totally unrelated. I love how the media will pick out all BAD aspects of society and blame it on games. Kids nowadays are just lazy. It's much easier to sit on your rump and play video games than it is to go find friends to play with. It's sad but true. If more kids are sitting at home playing sports games rather than going out and playing sports themselves because of this "gaming link", wouldn't the same twisted logic say the violence that the kids are participating in as they play their games would lead to a decrease in violence in society? Yet instead games are blamed for the violence. So by this logic again, playing sports games should lead to an INCREASE in kids playing sports.
Kids are out of shape and lazy. That's the simple truth. Don't try to blame it on games. Blame it on the parents who feed their kids fat and calorie laden food with no veggies, the parents who say it's ok to stay inside and play games for three or four hours a day and then watch another three or four hours of TV each day.
I was just about to say "who the hell wants to spend $800 for one speaker? Hell, for that I'll buy a whole system". But then as I sit here in my cramped room I went "oh yeah...it would be nice not having to string cable all over my room, find space for all the speakers, etc". If it really works (can't wait to read the reviews), it could be fun buying this and having my head messed with.
I love how in the article they say iTMS is giving Apple a mere $0.10 per song. 10% profit doesn't sound too bad to me, especially in the highly-comoditized PC market. Granted, it's not what Apple is used to. They're used to 30% profit margins from their computer sales. But 10% of millions (and some day billions) is nothing to cough at. I wouldn't mind a nice steady stream of 10% of $500 million. But like Steve said...they're selling iPods which gives them a cool 35% or so for each one sold. Niiiiiice.
Each month, Apple comes out with some sort of announcement that still blows me away. MacWorld after MacWorld they have new products to support this digital hub lifestyle. When will it end???
How many of you scoffed when Jobs mentioned the "digital hub"? I did. "WTF is a digital hub? The Mac already does all of these things he's talking about. Simple ways to work with your digital camera, for adding new hardware, etc" Yet they come out with the iPod, a non-computer/non-software item. And it sells like nuts. Then they sell it to Windows users. And now with iTunes Music Service, it's become quite evident Apple is interested in more than being simply a computer manufacturer. People scoffed at the idea, but one million songs in a few days is nothing to laugh at. Can't wait to see what happens to iPod sales (and conversely iTMS sales) in the holiday season.
I found the review of iTunes for Windows to be pretty thorough and I enjoyed reading everyone's praises and complaints that they're experiencing so far. One thing to keep in mind though is what people will be using iTunes for.
Some people won't care about ripping everything. The average consumer (ie, not a power user) will love how it ties in with their iPod. Some people may want a simple way to organize their library. I'm not sure how many people will want to use each and every feature of iTunes, including the music store.
I for one downloaded it at work (Win2000) simply because I'm used to the iTunes radio stations I listen to at home and was a bit tired of listening to Launch on Yahoo. I find iTunes to be much faster, more reliable, better selection of music, and just more enjoyable.
Apple is truly proving itself to be a company that can change with the times. Their bottom line will be increasing from their excellent APPLE products with the Mac supporting those efforts.
You know what's really irksome about this? It's pretty evident that Apple Computer is not Apple Corps Ltd. I guess the breach of contract thing is a suable offense, but c'mon people. Let's stop the litigation and go about running business. Thinking back to when people were saying Apple Computer was infringing on Apple Corps copyrights and patents...please. With this logic, it's surprising Atari didn't sue Apple for Jaguar. That seems to be a more related product than a computer company and a record label...
True so true. Their 52 week high was yesterday I believe.
You gotta love the whole AOL and Apple connection. I really think this is going somewhere.
First you've got the whole AIM integration with iChat. That seemed to be a pretty big thing back in the day. Next, iTunes signs the major labels. Hmmm...who's in there? And now today it's announced that AOL users will be able to purchase from the iTMS.
This is big stuff. Major collaborations on a few different projects now. It makes you wonder...what's next?
And yet Apple stock is still down 6% today. Damn beleaguered companies. AOL tie-ins, opening up the music store to a HUGE customer base...but what does Apple know?
"However, I've done 'Upgrade' from Jaguar to Panther three times so far with no problems whatsoever. FYI."
Thanks. That's good stuff to know. Maybe it's the old school mentality of "if you're going to install, do it from scratch unless it's a nice minor upgrade". So I traditionally do from scratch. The three Jag-to-Panther success rate you've got gives me hope. The fact the article was so blase about it had me a bit concerned...not for myself but for the new Mac users out there that may not be power users.
The author states in the article "I installed clean on both my Macs, because upgrading wouldn't work on my 12" Powerbook (Jaguar "had errors" the installation was insisting). That was not a big deal for me as I don't have any important data on my Macs, but it may be troublesome for people who who are trying to install on their primary machine."
Then he goes and gives "Installation" a 10 out of 10. What gives? This actually is a big concern for me though. I don't want to have to do a clean install of this OS. To save all my data, reinstall all my applications, etc. Can I do it? Yes. Do I want to? No. Doesn't anyone else find this a bit disconcerting?
Hey...let's just remember the standard response. "PCs are so much cheaper than Macs". "I can build a PC cheaper than your Mac". Am I missing any?
Who gives a flyin' F if WATER freezes at 32F. What's the freezing temperature for squirrel blood? If it's 20F, then they still have a good way to go.