I don't give a damn who advocates it. Let's evaluate the ideas and the data and forget about the names, shall we? Ad hominem mofo.
What if you were shown data that demonstrated that exposure to violence resulted in a statistically significant (that usually means very small) increase in violent behaviour? Of course, that wouldn't be me because I have free will, blah, blah, blah blah blah. Well sorry, buddy. We are all conditioned creatures, conditioned constantly. Just because we can't connect all the dots doesn't mean the lines aren't there. Yes, I have seen kids trying to be some Street Fighter character in the schoolyard. Just because you're impervious to human nature, doesn't mean the rest of us are so lucky.
Yes, I've played violent video games. Lots of em. I've watched violent movies. Lots of em. How many people have I killed? None. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Was I a borderline case? Has my behaviour been influenced rather than radically changed? Is violence more intellectually/emotionally an option than it would have been without the exposure? Try asking the difficult questions instead of knocking down straw men.
And apparently you've never read your laws. What about "Possess Break and Enter Tools" or "Possess Goods Obtained By Crime" or "Possess Narcotic"?
These are crimes with a reverse onus. YOU have to offer some reasonable evidence that you didn't know you had the contraband. Why? Because if they allowed the excuse "Oh, I didn't know" they'd never be able to prosecute anyone, and it'd make a mockery of that law. What, do they need to be able to read your mind? "But officer! Why is it illegal for me to carry this concealed weapon? It's not like I've shot someone. I'm just able to shoot someone!"
So now you're expecting MS to allow modchips and simply prevent hacks/cheaters. Well, easier said than done, don't you think? And if they can't tell the difference, or it ends up as the inevitable modder/patch war these things end up being, MS doesn't have the right to avoid the issue? (provided they WARN the consumer) Bullshit. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it's their service. Don't like it, don't use it.
Yes, you may not be able to use your modchip on Live! Yes, you may have to sacrifice some personal freedom to laws because those laws protect people and property. Don't like it, go find a lawless state and see how you like survival of the fittest for awhile.
Are you serious? I don't have the tech skills to install a mod chip, either. Luckily for me, when I wanted one, modders were advertising in the local papers!
Good point, Egg! Although I suppose that these players have already bought into the premise of the game, so don't object to playing in a world bound by consumerism (oh so unlike ours).
By the way Egg, what's that? It's a Six Demon Bag
A Six Demon Bag. Fantastic, Egg. What's in it? Wind. Fire. All that kind of thing.
Bowling balls and cars. Right. Gee, bullets and shot are awful tiny. No biggie if I drop them on my car . Of course, if they're travelling at killer velocities...
A small bird can take out the windshield of a 747 because of the speeds involved. the earth is travelling 29 km per second around the sun. If we were to hit an asteroid head on, we can just go ahead and add that speed to that of the asteroid when calculating the impact. Of course, the chance of that is small, but space is huge , folks. We're talking a tiny chance, here, to begin with. Regardless of our direction of travel relative to the asteroid, if there was an impact, you can bet that the speeds involved would be enormous. Large chunks or small chunks. Our odds improve as we get missed, not hit with smaller stuff (yes, unless we're talking sand, but come on. How are you going to accomplish that?)
Oh, and if we're voting for a solution, I'd go with lasers, simply because of the accuracy involved. No guidance and much quicker feedback on what you're doing, which would be a big thing. Course, if we were voting for expenditure of money, I'd vote for improving the world as it is so we have something worth saving. Sure, billions of dollars would be worth it if we were going to get killed by this thing. But if the chances are small (very small, I think) isn't the money better spent elsewhere? Remember, we're not starving, here. I'm not talking about a P-IV upgrade or a nicer car.
It was pointed out much earlier but basically ignored so I'll restate. This is not simply insertion of some McD visuals into the game. It's building in reward (and by lack of rewarded behaviour, punishment) in a game that simulates modern life. I'm glad the article was posted here because until then I didn't really get the objection. Yeah, more product placement. Whatever. I don't play that Sim stuff, myself. But consider the (probably) hundreds of hours spent in the game where players take seriously the rewards and punishments dished out within. Don't bother just dissing that expenditure of time. Instead -- try understanding the effects! If we get influenced by a brief flash of one brand or another in a film (and the stats say we do), then how much more real-world influence comes when you condition behaviours to those products over hundreds of hours?
Also, the article's point about the absence of an ability to protest something that IS protested in the real world makes sense to me. Only because it's a virtual community -- real people interacting. All of you would get in an uproar if they started some heavy censorship on slashdot, yet it's not the "real world" by any stretch. But silencing dissent on another virtual community -- the Sims -- is ok? For a community (slashdot) devoted to stretching our brains a little, let's question a few assumptions, people! All you guys do is dis!
I loved TNG when I was in junior high, but as an adult, I look at it now and see a show made for teenagers. Feeling isolated and different? Don't worry, Data, Worf, Wesley, and Jordy are ALL there to remind you that you're not alone. DS9, however, is good science-fiction , period. Two absolutely great episodes, Far Beyond The Stars and In The Pale Moonlight were simply great fiction in any milieu, which I just didn't find the other series delivering. (rather, it seemed to be all about seeing our much-beloved gang in new situations -- look: the night shift! look: Data with a cat! Ok, sometimes this worked to spectacular effect -- case in point, Picard's lifetime spent on the dying planet)
I did initially find DS9 to be rather boring -- I didn't care about Bajorans OR Cardassians. But a few seasons in, I started seeing some of my favorite science fiction anywhere. Don't know about you, but I could have watched half a season of O'Brien skulking around with "The Syndicate." Though if they made another episode where O'Brien and Keiko continuously squabbled, I would have shot myself in the head and bled contempt.
I see what some of you are saying about B5, but honestly, I just don't get it. Yes, no one hour solutions. Yes, bold attempt to create a non-Trek universe (difficult these days when Trek has such a grip on pop culture). But somehow... they just seem to do it all so badly.
As for other series, I'll be shilling out whatever I can afford to get Six Feet Under when it comes out... after I get my DS9, of course.:)
Oh, and had to get some James Darren tunes. I'm spending my rehab time at Vic's place.
Oh, don't even get me started on Voyager.
Great, so the laptop itself is redundant in five, but the power source lasts 200 years?
The only use for this is so the post-apocalyptic tribe can come along and re-discover the "magic" of the ancients (aka Time Machine, Planet of the Apes, and other sci-fi debacles)
> at least respect that a majority of
peoples'behaviours dictate the morality
Enough valid criticism has been levelled at this, I think. But it reminds me of a study done in psychology not too long ago. For decades, psychologists of the personality and social psychology schools have been battling it out -- a version of the nature/nurture argument (though the personality theorists are simply saying that a lasting personality exists that is resistant to environmental change; not that it's necessarily genetic). Well, it seems that recently, in an evalutation of the honesty of grade school children, it was found that ALL of the children observed cheated on tests when they had clear cues that they would get away with it. This was seen as a major victory for the social psych theorists, because one would think that many of these children would test as fairly "honest" individuals. The whole notion of "honesty" as a stable trait was thrown into question.
Add that to the points made about the chance of getting caught siphoning your neighbour's gas, and the tell me that morality is determined by majority vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Change my brain chemistry, change my emotions.
Last time I checked, Deep Blue's epinephrine and serotonin levels were nonexistant.
What if you were shown data that demonstrated that exposure to violence resulted in a statistically significant (that usually means very small) increase in violent behaviour? Of course, that wouldn't be me because I have free will, blah, blah, blah blah blah. Well sorry, buddy. We are all conditioned creatures, conditioned constantly. Just because we can't connect all the dots doesn't mean the lines aren't there. Yes, I have seen kids trying to be some Street Fighter character in the schoolyard. Just because you're impervious to human nature, doesn't mean the rest of us are so lucky.
Yes, I've played violent video games. Lots of em. I've watched violent movies. Lots of em. How many people have I killed? None. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Was I a borderline case? Has my behaviour been influenced rather than radically changed? Is violence more intellectually/emotionally an option than it would have been without the exposure? Try asking the difficult questions instead of knocking down straw men.
These are crimes with a reverse onus. YOU have to offer some reasonable evidence that you didn't know you had the contraband. Why? Because if they allowed the excuse "Oh, I didn't know" they'd never be able to prosecute anyone, and it'd make a mockery of that law. What, do they need to be able to read your mind? "But officer! Why is it illegal for me to carry this concealed weapon? It's not like I've shot someone. I'm just able to shoot someone!"
So now you're expecting MS to allow modchips and simply prevent hacks/cheaters. Well, easier said than done, don't you think? And if they can't tell the difference, or it ends up as the inevitable modder/patch war these things end up being, MS doesn't have the right to avoid the issue? (provided they WARN the consumer) Bullshit. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it's their service. Don't like it, don't use it.
Yes, you may not be able to use your modchip on Live! Yes, you may have to sacrifice some personal freedom to laws because those laws protect people and property. Don't like it, go find a lawless state and see how you like survival of the fittest for awhile.
Are you serious? I don't have the tech skills to install a mod chip, either. Luckily for me, when I wanted one, modders were advertising in the local papers!
By the way Egg, what's that?
It's a Six Demon Bag
A Six Demon Bag. Fantastic, Egg. What's in it?
Wind. Fire. All that kind of thing.
A small bird can take out the windshield of a 747 because of the speeds involved. the earth is travelling 29 km per second around the sun. If we were to hit an asteroid head on, we can just go ahead and add that speed to that of the asteroid when calculating the impact. Of course, the chance of that is small, but space is huge , folks. We're talking a tiny chance, here, to begin with. Regardless of our direction of travel relative to the asteroid, if there was an impact, you can bet that the speeds involved would be enormous. Large chunks or small chunks. Our odds improve as we get missed, not hit with smaller stuff (yes, unless we're talking sand, but come on. How are you going to accomplish that?)
Oh, and if we're voting for a solution, I'd go with lasers, simply because of the accuracy involved. No guidance and much quicker feedback on what you're doing, which would be a big thing. Course, if we were voting for expenditure of money, I'd vote for improving the world as it is so we have something worth saving. Sure, billions of dollars would be worth it if we were going to get killed by this thing. But if the chances are small (very small, I think) isn't the money better spent elsewhere? Remember, we're not starving, here. I'm not talking about a P-IV upgrade or a nicer car.
It was pointed out much earlier but basically ignored so I'll restate. This is not simply insertion of some McD visuals into the game. It's building in reward (and by lack of rewarded behaviour, punishment) in a game that simulates modern life. I'm glad the article was posted here because until then I didn't really get the objection. Yeah, more product placement. Whatever. I don't play that Sim stuff, myself. But consider the (probably) hundreds of hours spent in the game where players take seriously the rewards and punishments dished out within. Don't bother just dissing that expenditure of time. Instead -- try understanding the effects! If we get influenced by a brief flash of one brand or another in a film (and the stats say we do), then how much more real-world influence comes when you condition behaviours to those products over hundreds of hours? Also, the article's point about the absence of an ability to protest something that IS protested in the real world makes sense to me. Only because it's a virtual community -- real people interacting. All of you would get in an uproar if they started some heavy censorship on slashdot, yet it's not the "real world" by any stretch. But silencing dissent on another virtual community -- the Sims -- is ok? For a community (slashdot) devoted to stretching our brains a little, let's question a few assumptions, people! All you guys do is dis!
I loved TNG when I was in junior high, but as an adult, I look at it now and see a show made for teenagers. Feeling isolated and different? Don't worry, Data, Worf, Wesley, and Jordy are ALL there to remind you that you're not alone. DS9, however, is good science-fiction , period. Two absolutely great episodes, Far Beyond The Stars and In The Pale Moonlight were simply great fiction in any milieu, which I just didn't find the other series delivering. (rather, it seemed to be all about seeing our much-beloved gang in new situations -- look: the night shift! look: Data with a cat! Ok, sometimes this worked to spectacular effect -- case in point, Picard's lifetime spent on the dying planet) I did initially find DS9 to be rather boring -- I didn't care about Bajorans OR Cardassians. But a few seasons in, I started seeing some of my favorite science fiction anywhere. Don't know about you, but I could have watched half a season of O'Brien skulking around with "The Syndicate." Though if they made another episode where O'Brien and Keiko continuously squabbled, I would have shot myself in the head and bled contempt. I see what some of you are saying about B5, but honestly, I just don't get it. Yes, no one hour solutions. Yes, bold attempt to create a non-Trek universe (difficult these days when Trek has such a grip on pop culture). But somehow... they just seem to do it all so badly. As for other series, I'll be shilling out whatever I can afford to get Six Feet Under when it comes out... after I get my DS9, of course. :)
Oh, and had to get some James Darren tunes. I'm spending my rehab time at Vic's place.
Oh, don't even get me started on Voyager.
Great, so the laptop itself is redundant in five, but the power source lasts 200 years? The only use for this is so the post-apocalyptic tribe can come along and re-discover the "magic" of the ancients (aka Time Machine, Planet of the Apes, and other sci-fi debacles)
Buy one and reprogram it. Then juice it up. Say, to 16 m/min.
**robot enters house with pantyhose on head**
**goes for jewelry box**
**security robot intervenes**
**slow-motion chase ensues**
Does this mean I have to remove the "Dirty Deeds and They're Done Dirt Cheap" from my business card?
Enough valid criticism has been levelled at this, I think. But it reminds me of a study done in psychology not too long ago. For decades, psychologists of the personality and social psychology schools have been battling it out -- a version of the nature/nurture argument (though the personality theorists are simply saying that a lasting personality exists that is resistant to environmental change; not that it's necessarily genetic). Well, it seems that recently, in an evalutation of the honesty of grade school children, it was found that ALL of the children observed cheated on tests when they had clear cues that they would get away with it. This was seen as a major victory for the social psych theorists, because one would think that many of these children would test as fairly "honest" individuals. The whole notion of "honesty" as a stable trait was thrown into question. Add that to the points made about the chance of getting caught siphoning your neighbour's gas, and the tell me that morality is determined by majority vote.