Shows what you know. The premise of MacGyver is that he's an action hero who doesn't use guns.
Shows what you know, in episode 13 - "Flame's end" he uses a gun as a wrench to stop the meltdown.
They continue on to the release valve, but Mac accidentally drops the wrench he needs to open it. However, Amy had picked up Trane's gun; Mac removes the piece that holds the bullets and the resulting hole enables him to grip the valve. It opens, and meltdown is averted.
As a lightsabre cauterizes as it cuts, the opponent won't bleed to death (although I bet he goes into shock pretty hard...)... By comparison, a gun (or blaster) is an all-or-nothing deal.
The only time I cried watching Star Wars was when Leia was hit by the blaster shot and died in a pool of blood... oh wait.
You cannot parry with a gun.
Well if Luke had better Skillz he could have parried that tuskan attack with his rifle in ANH.
And aside from its intended purpose, a gun can't do anything else.
What about pistol whipping those gangsta' rappas talk about. Oh yeah, and McGuyver stopped a nuclear reator meltdown with a revolver in that one episode.
But given that Jedi can parry gunfire with their lightsabres (neat trick, that - how do you practice?) and are trained enough that "ease of use" isn't a factor... the lightsabre starts to look pretty good.
Unless the Jedi faces a droid/bounty hunter that can overwhelm their ability with sheer volume of shots. Then the Jedi just runs around wildly dodging like the rest of us.
It assumes that greed can be arbitrarily rationed or eliminated. That humans not only can be but will be selfless, just because. We can't and we aren't.
Copyright law orignally assumed two things; 1 - society advances when ideas are freely exchanged, 2 - profit motivates people to create. There is a realization that there is a conflict within society when it comes to ideas. People generally won't create without getting something in return, but people can't create unless ideas are free. IP law seeks to balance these competing ideas. It gives the creator the opportunity to receive a return on what they create, but also ensure that eventually the ideas become property of the public.
The vast leverage offered by the ability to control information ("IP law") should be obvious.
Yes it exists, and is a "necessary evil". Like I said it's a balancing game. Too few protections and there is no specialization or investment to create new ideas. Too many restrictions and new ideas cannot be created because they infringe on ideas locked up by somebody else.
A dozen out of how many games released last year? Well over 100 games get released a year, so slightly more than 10% of 100 being in the "living up to hype" section is not really helping your argument.
There always has and always will be a large portion of games that are bad. What caused the collapse of video games in the past was the big name games that were atrocious, that caused players to be jaded, and bottom lines to suffer horribly (ie Pac-man & ET). Those 10% of games "living up to the hype" probably represented 80% of investment and marketing. So long as those games get good returns the industry won't collapse.
And with games like Super Mario 64 and TLoZ: Ocarina of Time, the genres were completely defined. SM64 created the template for what a 3D platformer should be; and Ocarina of Time defined what a 3D adventure game should be like (despite ofther 3D adventure games that came out before it).
For every franchise that dies, new ones pop up. No more Sonic, but now we have Splinter Cell which has defined stealth action games. Halo which has defined console FPS, and now Unreal Championship for multiplayer FPS, can be expected to go on for more iterations. Futher these franchises have much more loyal following than any game in the 80's. I expect in the future Final Fantasy 20 sitting next to Madden 2028 next to Metal Gear Titanium next to some entirely new franchise.
Because at the time, DVD players in Japan were much, much more expensive. Once the price of DVD players dropped, people in Japan stopped buying the PS2 for DVD playback, because it was clear that the PS2's DVD playback was pretty terrible compared to stand alone players.
PS3's will probably be picked up for the same reason, as the new Blu-ray disc players until the price of stand alone players drops.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many M rated titles that actually fit the bill of "mature in design"
A few examples off the top of my head GTA, Halo 2, Unreal Championship, Jade Empire, Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear, Resident Evil 4, etc. What I was actually referring to was how the games themselves have matured. It's no longer zap blocks that keep coming at you faster and faster until you lose. Games have become story telling vehicles and means of competition. There is a much wider range of genres and subgenres (ie FPS has traditional FPS, fragfests, tactical shooters) to appeal to people. The video game industry collapsed before in large part because people couldn't find something they wanted to play.
It depends. As more and more smaller studios and publishers get absorbed into larger ones, or die off completely, we'll see a decline in things like innovation and varied game play elements, and we'll be stuck in a video game industry of Madden 3456 and other sports titles, which might as well be a dead industry, as far as I am concerned.
Uncheck, the last year has had alot of great titles, moreso than in previous years. Probably a dozen or more big name games that lived up to the hype (or did at least good job)
and this notion that the same tired videogames will continue to sell after GTA 9, NFL 2k28, and the rest of the current market, I don't think so!
The Madden Franchise is like 15 years old, how many Mario and Zelda games have there been?
The environment is different now, you have a generation that has grown up with video games, consoles are now being treated as entertainment platforms rather than game players (ie people in Japan bought PS2s for the DVD funtionality), and multiple and mature genres that cater to many interests (as opposed to almost pure "action" titles available in the past).
The video game industry may decline, but it won't collapse completely.
Now if the ONLY way to get it is to pay the $4.99, I'll stop playing on the spot.
Most likely what you will see items sold for aesthetics rather than gameplay. You can get a +5 sword of smiting from the black knight, but you can only get a +5 sword of energy for $4.99. Functionally they could be the same, only the sword of energy has cool electrical sparks on the blade.
I recall reading the same 'all about money' thing regarding the collectable card games of the last decade or so - MTG. Still, I think most tournaments and most players would stick to straight vanilla games
This brings up a good point, there is a difference between casual and competitive. I had older cards that weren't balanced which I could use in causal play, however, in competitive play those cards were banned, so they were useless.
Microsoft/Sony can sell all the toys they want so long as they are kept out of competitive play. All it will do is change the gameplay experience for those who buy it. Those who buy it will have more fun, but it won't decrease the level of fun for you. In a twitch game like Halo, maybe you could buy extra weapons or vehicles, so long as those things are kept out of PvP there is no imbalance.
I.e. you can't use patented info without getting the patent owner's permission. You can copy patented info all that you want.
It's still an artificial restriction on information, you give restricted monopolies to creators. Most patents aren't wholely conceived devices, they are ideas or methods to complete a task. Patents prevent directly copying the same ideas. Trademarks give somebody the right that nobody else in the world is allowed to use a name or symbol, which is also an artificial restriction of information. The arguement about copyright that restriction is "unnatural" because my use does not prevent the use of others, holds true for patents and trademarks. All 3 are in the same category There is value in the concept of intellectual property and giving limited control to creators. Just because the law has become to restricted doesn't mean the concept is inherently flawed. Copyright definately needs fixing, as do patents; but don't just throw them out completely.
And if you want to seperately discuss trademarks (which are mostly ok to me), and patents, then fine, but please don't lump them all together like that.
Patents and trademarks are based on the same notion that as a society we can agree on laws to restrict copying of information.
Copyrights only financially benefit a few creators (eg madonna) and do very little else for 90% of other creators out there
It prevents Madonna from taking a song you wrote and making money from her performance of it without compensating you. It gives legal remedy to a group like Pear PC if somebody tries to take credit for what they create.
GNU/Linux has well over $100 mln worth of development behind it and that was made possible because in an environment where people's ability to copy freely isn't restricted
And an environment that enables those companies making the investment to recoup their money through sales of associated proprietary technology, services, and software. Movies and books have no such method of getting a return on investment.
I think the problem here is that the "pragmatic" approach here has already been tried 200 years ago, and it failed miserably just as society hit the information age.
We probably wouldn't be in the information age yet without IP protection. Throw out Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright and you enter a very slow moving generic world. The implementation of the current system is too restrictive, but you don't have to scrap it completely.
If someone said "lets limit food to the 3rd world more than it already is because we want to get more profit"
IP protections were never meant to ensure profits, it was to encourage development by offering a chance at profit. Realizing that creating an idea is not free, but the distribution is; IP protections were created so you can get a chance at getting a return on your investment of time, money, and effort.
The advantage of IP protection is it encourages people to specialize and take risks in the area of information. In the case of specialization, instead of spending 40 hours a week working and 20 hours on their intellectual hobby, they can devote all their time as a professional programmer, songwriter, inventor. People have more time to hone their skill, and more time to create new ideas. On the risk taking side, it allows movie studios to invest $100 million dollars on a movie, or companies to spend $2 billion on R&D because there is a chance to have and edge on the competition and get a good return on those investments. The quality and pace of innovation is increased.
Like you said the current approach was developed 200 years ago. The pace of change and communication has increased, the time to product realization and distribution has decreased. We should be taking a fresh look, but not abandon something that has worked well.
Right now the law is too far on the protectionist side of things. It's a balancing game, if IP laws are too restrictive innovation is stifled by lawsuits, not restrictive enough and innovation is stifled by lack of resources.
Translation: " We can now keep charging you the same amount we alway havew,we might eventake a few hundred dollars off the multi-thousand price tag while still generating more profit because you think we are giving you a break."
As a consumer if I can get the same TV for a few hundred dollars off, who cares if the manufacturer is able to get a few extra % profit. Besides in the long run the for consumer electronics cost savings trickle down to the consumer and the margins become razor thin.
The US isn't the driver for cellphones, it's the rest of the world that is asking for the advanced features, the US is just along for the ride. Americans can afford a 5MP camera, an iPod, and 10,000 minutes airtime. In many countries the cellphone is the electronic device. People who can't afford standalone top-of-the-line digital cameras, mp3 players, blackberrys, etc. appreciate having all these functions on their cellphone. Also, text messaging is their primary means of communication, since air time is too expensive for them to afford.
Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference. There is no difference. Just because some jobs are lost domestically, and some jobs are created overseas, does not mean the overseas jobs are direct replacements for domestic ones. Some jobs are replacements, just like some downloads replace sales; the problem is you can't acurately quantify either one. The RIAA lives in a dream world if they believe that 100% of downloads are lost sales. Just like those complaining about outsourcing, are incorrect in assuming 100% of jobs for American companies created in India and China are replacement for domestic jobs. China and India represent huge potential and growing markets, it makes sense that American companies would want to increase their presence.
Furthermore, homeschoolers again are showing the way: learning disabled children who are homeschooled often wind up ahead of the U.S. median, and always at lower cost than the ineffective public child-warehouses
Homeschoolers have involved parents who encourage their children. Many parents who send their children to public schools don't provide the same level of involvement. Probably the biggest difference in education between the US and other countries is the parents and cultural emphasis on educatin. In many countries it is very important that their child get into the right school. It becomes a point of pride to brag about in the community, much the same way sports and athletics are emphasized in the US.
All of those countries have their share of economic and social problems, but many of them seem to have smaller and more tractable social problems than we do. Their economic problems don't seem to be caused by poor education to the extent ours are, either.
The US does a good job with respect to educating and encouraging individuality and entreprenuership which have kept the US economy relatively strong. The US doesn't have horrible economic problems, things may not be great, but the US hasn't lagged in a 10 year recession, nor seen 10%+ inflation rates, or 9%+ unemployment rate.
Does this mean that our wiring is completely different, or does will come into play?
Yes our wiring is different. Between genetic and environmental effects, the wiring can end up being different.
Are you just here to be controlled by a hard-wired apparatus that you can do nothing about?
Why not, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Computers are in their infancy, and we can create pretty good AI's. The machine does not have a will, it just follows a set of rules. The human mind is far more complex, so it could have larger more complex set of rules.
Imagine it this way: I have sysadmin powers in my house, so I can know what's going on on every computer if I so choose. However for the sake of the freedom of my wife to make her own decisions, and for our trust relationship, I choose to not monitor things as such. It doesn't mean I couldn't, it just means I don't, and our relationship is healthier because of it. God cannot choose ignorance, because ignorance is lack of knowledge, and this conflicts with him being omniscient. Your analogy is flawed because you are limited by time. Let's say you are a super admin, and you know everything about the past, present, and future of your system. Even if you choose to ignore what your wife is doing, you will know that spyware will be installed at some point in the future. Ignoring the cause doesn't mean you don't know the effect, but therefore her choice has already been predetermined.
It's true will cannot be measured physically, as it is a creation of philosophy. To have will requires accepting the idea of influence from outside the boundaries of the universe. Therefore the reason human action cannot be predicted is because it is in fact random
I prefer to look at human action as a complex system, like the weather. We do not accept the weather as having free will, it doesn't rain when we predict it should be sunny because it wants to. It is a system that theoretically could be understood, however, the vast number of variables put it beyond our abilities. The human mind is the same way, a kid doesn't just decide to kill a bunch of people, theoretically such action could be predicted, however the vast number of genetic and environmental influences puts it beyond us.
Everything you do and think is based on the electrochemical reactions in your brain. If we understood how all the wiring of the brain works, and understood all the inputs the output could be predicted. There is no freewill, just a reaction to a given series of inputs.
Lucas knew what stories he wanted to tell when he first wrote Star Wars, and he started with what he thought was the most exciting one He started with the one that was easiest to sell to hollywood execs. The ending of ANH is a dead giveaway that the movie was designed to be neatly packaged, though leaving a few open ends in case it was popular enough to spawn a sequel. The medal ceremony was such a cheesy ending, and was just there to give "closure," there was no assupmtion that a sequel would be made.
Japanese? That guy must be living in some crazy ass fantasy world.. Yes a crazy fantasy world. A land thousands of miles away, with anime everywhere, almost every gadget imaginable, beer vending machines on street corners, and even cute chicks who will talk to nerdy guys. Can't wait to go back:)
Slashdot Mirror
Shows what you know. The premise of MacGyver is that he's an action hero who doesn't use guns.
Shows what you know, in episode 13 - "Flame's end" he uses a gun as a wrench to stop the meltdown.
They continue on to the release valve, but Mac accidentally drops the wrench he needs to open it. However, Amy had picked up Trane's gun; Mac removes the piece that holds the bullets and the resulting hole enables him to grip the valve. It opens, and meltdown is averted.
Or just toss a bomb next to them. I don't understand why they don't have hand grenades in the future.
:)
Star Wars "happened" a long time ago, and they do have thermal detonators.
Or just toss a bomb next to them
And a quick force push will hurl it right back at you. Actually those Sonic canons in episode 2 worked pretty well
As a lightsabre cauterizes as it cuts, the opponent won't bleed to death (although I bet he goes into shock pretty hard...) ... By comparison, a gun (or blaster) is an all-or-nothing deal.
The only time I cried watching Star Wars was when Leia was hit by the blaster shot and died in a pool of blood... oh wait.
You cannot parry with a gun.
Well if Luke had better Skillz he could have parried that tuskan attack with his rifle in ANH.
And aside from its intended purpose, a gun can't do anything else.
What about pistol whipping those gangsta' rappas talk about. Oh yeah, and McGuyver stopped a nuclear reator meltdown with a revolver in that one episode.
But given that Jedi can parry gunfire with their lightsabres (neat trick, that - how do you practice?) and are trained enough that "ease of use" isn't a factor... the lightsabre starts to look pretty good.
Unless the Jedi faces a droid/bounty hunter that can overwhelm their ability with sheer volume of shots. Then the Jedi just runs around wildly dodging like the rest of us.
It assumes that greed can be arbitrarily rationed or eliminated. That humans not only can be but will be selfless, just because. We can't and we aren't.
Copyright law orignally assumed two things; 1 - society advances when ideas are freely exchanged, 2 - profit motivates people to create.
There is a realization that there is a conflict within society when it comes to ideas. People generally won't create without getting something in return, but people can't create unless ideas are free.
IP law seeks to balance these competing ideas. It gives the creator the opportunity to receive a return on what they create, but also ensure that eventually the ideas become property of the public.
The vast leverage offered by the ability to control information ("IP law") should be obvious.
Yes it exists, and is a "necessary evil". Like I said it's a balancing game. Too few protections and there is no specialization or investment to create new ideas. Too many restrictions and new ideas cannot be created because they infringe on ideas locked up by somebody else.
Oops, now I realize what you were talking about. hehe, too many geek things in my brain.
*Stares blankly*
Man I haven't played in waaaaayy too long, last set I remember was Fallen Empires
A dozen out of how many games released last year? Well over 100 games get released a year, so slightly more than 10% of 100 being in the "living up to hype" section is not really helping your argument.
There always has and always will be a large portion of games that are bad. What caused the collapse of video games in the past was the big name games that were atrocious, that caused players to be jaded, and bottom lines to suffer horribly (ie Pac-man & ET).
Those 10% of games "living up to the hype" probably represented 80% of investment and marketing. So long as those games get good returns the industry won't collapse.
And with games like Super Mario 64 and TLoZ: Ocarina of Time, the genres were completely defined. SM64 created the template for what a 3D platformer should be; and Ocarina of Time defined what a 3D adventure game should be like (despite ofther 3D adventure games that came out before it).
For every franchise that dies, new ones pop up. No more Sonic, but now we have Splinter Cell which has defined stealth action games. Halo which has defined console FPS, and now Unreal Championship for multiplayer FPS, can be expected to go on for more iterations.
Futher these franchises have much more loyal following than any game in the 80's. I expect in the future Final Fantasy 20 sitting next to Madden 2028 next to Metal Gear Titanium next to some entirely new franchise.
Because at the time, DVD players in Japan were much, much more expensive. Once the price of DVD players dropped, people in Japan stopped buying the PS2 for DVD playback, because it was clear that the PS2's DVD playback was pretty terrible compared to stand alone players.
PS3's will probably be picked up for the same reason, as the new Blu-ray disc players until the price of stand alone players drops.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many M rated titles that actually fit the bill of "mature in design"
A few examples off the top of my head GTA, Halo 2, Unreal Championship, Jade Empire, Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear, Resident Evil 4, etc. What I was actually referring to was how the games themselves have matured. It's no longer zap blocks that keep coming at you faster and faster until you lose. Games have become story telling vehicles and means of competition. There is a much wider range of genres and subgenres (ie FPS has traditional FPS, fragfests, tactical shooters) to appeal to people. The video game industry collapsed before in large part because people couldn't find something they wanted to play.
It depends. As more and more smaller studios and publishers get absorbed into larger ones, or die off completely, we'll see a decline in things like innovation and varied game play elements, and we'll be stuck in a video game industry of Madden 3456 and other sports titles, which might as well be a dead industry, as far as I am concerned.
Just like the movie industry is dead.
crap to good game ratio too high
Uncheck, the last year has had alot of great titles, moreso than in previous years. Probably a dozen or more big name games that lived up to the hype (or did at least good job)
and this notion that the same tired videogames will continue to sell after GTA 9, NFL 2k28, and the rest of the current market, I don't think so!
The Madden Franchise is like 15 years old, how many Mario and Zelda games have there been?
The environment is different now, you have a generation that has grown up with video games, consoles are now being treated as entertainment platforms rather than game players (ie people in Japan bought PS2s for the DVD funtionality), and multiple and mature genres that cater to many interests (as opposed to almost pure "action" titles available in the past).
The video game industry may decline, but it won't collapse completely.
Now if the ONLY way to get it is to pay the $4.99, I'll stop playing on the spot.
Most likely what you will see items sold for aesthetics rather than gameplay. You can get a +5 sword of smiting from the black knight, but you can only get a +5 sword of energy for $4.99. Functionally they could be the same, only the sword of energy has cool electrical sparks on the blade.
I recall reading the same 'all about money' thing regarding the collectable card games of the last decade or so - MTG. Still, I think most tournaments and most players would stick to straight vanilla games
This brings up a good point, there is a difference between casual and competitive. I had older cards that weren't balanced which I could use in causal play, however, in competitive play those cards were banned, so they were useless.
Microsoft/Sony can sell all the toys they want so long as they are kept out of competitive play. All it will do is change the gameplay experience for those who buy it. Those who buy it will have more fun, but it won't decrease the level of fun for you. In a twitch game like Halo, maybe you could buy extra weapons or vehicles, so long as those things are kept out of PvP there is no imbalance.
I.e. you can't use patented info without getting the patent owner's permission. You can copy patented info all that you want.
It's still an artificial restriction on information, you give restricted monopolies to creators. Most patents aren't wholely conceived devices, they are ideas or methods to complete a task. Patents prevent directly copying the same ideas. Trademarks give somebody the right that nobody else in the world is allowed to use a name or symbol, which is also an artificial restriction of information.
The arguement about copyright that restriction is "unnatural" because my use does not prevent the use of others, holds true for patents and trademarks. All 3 are in the same category
There is value in the concept of intellectual property and giving limited control to creators. Just because the law has become to restricted doesn't mean the concept is inherently flawed. Copyright definately needs fixing, as do patents; but don't just throw them out completely.
And if you want to seperately discuss trademarks (which are mostly ok to me), and patents, then fine, but please don't lump them all together like that.
Patents and trademarks are based on the same notion that as a society we can agree on laws to restrict copying of information.
Copyrights only financially benefit a few creators (eg madonna) and do very little else for 90% of other creators out there
It prevents Madonna from taking a song you wrote and making money from her performance of it without compensating you. It gives legal remedy to a group like Pear PC if somebody tries to take credit for what they create.
GNU/Linux has well over $100 mln worth of development behind it and that was made possible because in an environment where people's ability to copy freely isn't restricted
And an environment that enables those companies making the investment to recoup their money through sales of associated proprietary technology, services, and software. Movies and books have no such method of getting a return on investment.
I think the problem here is that the "pragmatic" approach here has already been tried 200 years ago, and it failed miserably just as society hit the information age.
We probably wouldn't be in the information age yet without IP protection. Throw out Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright and you enter a very slow moving generic world. The implementation of the current system is too restrictive, but you don't have to scrap it completely.
If someone said "lets limit food to the 3rd world more than it already is because we want to get more profit"
IP protections were never meant to ensure profits, it was to encourage development by offering a chance at profit. Realizing that creating an idea is not free, but the distribution is; IP protections were created so you can get a chance at getting a return on your investment of time, money, and effort.
The advantage of IP protection is it encourages people to specialize and take risks in the area of information. In the case of specialization, instead of spending 40 hours a week working and 20 hours on their intellectual hobby, they can devote all their time as a professional programmer, songwriter, inventor. People have more time to hone their skill, and more time to create new ideas. On the risk taking side, it allows movie studios to invest $100 million dollars on a movie, or companies to spend $2 billion on R&D because there is a chance to have and edge on the competition and get a good return on those investments. The quality and pace of innovation is increased.
Like you said the current approach was developed 200 years ago. The pace of change and communication has increased, the time to product realization and distribution has decreased. We should be taking a fresh look, but not abandon something that has worked well.
Right now the law is too far on the protectionist side of things. It's a balancing game, if IP laws are too restrictive innovation is stifled by lawsuits, not restrictive enough and innovation is stifled by lack of resources.
Translation: " We can now keep charging you the same amount we alway havew,we might eventake a few hundred dollars off the multi-thousand price tag while still generating more profit because you think we are giving you a break."
As a consumer if I can get the same TV for a few hundred dollars off, who cares if the manufacturer is able to get a few extra % profit. Besides in the long run the for consumer electronics cost savings trickle down to the consumer and the margins become razor thin.
The US isn't the driver for cellphones, it's the rest of the world that is asking for the advanced features, the US is just along for the ride. Americans can afford a 5MP camera, an iPod, and 10,000 minutes airtime.
In many countries the cellphone is the electronic device. People who can't afford standalone top-of-the-line digital cameras, mp3 players, blackberrys, etc. appreciate having all these functions on their cellphone. Also, text messaging is their primary means of communication, since air time is too expensive for them to afford.
Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference.
There is no difference. Just because some jobs are lost domestically, and some jobs are created overseas, does not mean the overseas jobs are direct replacements for domestic ones. Some jobs are replacements, just like some downloads replace sales; the problem is you can't acurately quantify either one.
The RIAA lives in a dream world if they believe that 100% of downloads are lost sales. Just like those complaining about outsourcing, are incorrect in assuming 100% of jobs for American companies created in India and China are replacement for domestic jobs. China and India represent huge potential and growing markets, it makes sense that American companies would want to increase their presence.
Furthermore, homeschoolers again are showing the way: learning disabled children who are homeschooled often wind up ahead of the U.S. median, and always at lower cost than the ineffective public child-warehouses
Homeschoolers have involved parents who encourage their children. Many parents who send their children to public schools don't provide the same level of involvement. Probably the biggest difference in education between the US and other countries is the parents and cultural emphasis on educatin. In many countries it is very important that their child get into the right school. It becomes a point of pride to brag about in the community, much the same way sports and athletics are emphasized in the US.
All of those countries have their share of economic and social problems, but many of them seem to have smaller and more tractable social problems than we do. Their economic problems don't seem to be caused by poor education to the extent ours are, either.
The US does a good job with respect to educating and encouraging individuality and entreprenuership which have kept the US economy relatively strong. The US doesn't have horrible economic problems, things may not be great, but the US hasn't lagged in a 10 year recession, nor seen 10%+ inflation rates, or 9%+ unemployment rate.
Does this mean that our wiring is completely different, or does will come into play?
Yes our wiring is different. Between genetic and environmental effects, the wiring can end up being different.
Are you just here to be controlled by a hard-wired apparatus that you can do nothing about?
Why not, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Computers are in their infancy, and we can create pretty good AI's. The machine does not have a will, it just follows a set of rules. The human mind is far more complex, so it could have larger more complex set of rules.
Now we're gonna see Mighty Morphin Pac-Man Ranger toys, TV shows, and video games
Imagine it this way: I have sysadmin powers in my house, so I can know what's going on on every computer if I so choose. However for the sake of the freedom of my wife to make her own decisions, and for our trust relationship, I choose to not monitor things as such. It doesn't mean I couldn't, it just means I don't, and our relationship is healthier because of it.
God cannot choose ignorance, because ignorance is lack of knowledge, and this conflicts with him being omniscient.
Your analogy is flawed because you are limited by time. Let's say you are a super admin, and you know everything about the past, present, and future of your system. Even if you choose to ignore what your wife is doing, you will know that spyware will be installed at some point in the future. Ignoring the cause doesn't mean you don't know the effect, but therefore her choice has already been predetermined.
It's true will cannot be measured physically, as it is a creation of philosophy. To have will requires accepting the idea of influence from outside the boundaries of the universe. Therefore the reason human action cannot be predicted is because it is in fact random
I prefer to look at human action as a complex system, like the weather. We do not accept the weather as having free will, it doesn't rain when we predict it should be sunny because it wants to. It is a system that theoretically could be understood, however, the vast number of variables put it beyond our abilities.
The human mind is the same way, a kid doesn't just decide to kill a bunch of people, theoretically such action could be predicted, however the vast number of genetic and environmental influences puts it beyond us.
Everything you do and think is based on the electrochemical reactions in your brain. If we understood how all the wiring of the brain works, and understood all the inputs the output could be predicted. There is no freewill, just a reaction to a given series of inputs.
Yes, please help those in Japan, who have to wait until JULY 9th!!!!
Lucas knew what stories he wanted to tell when he first wrote Star Wars, and he started with what he thought was the most exciting one
He started with the one that was easiest to sell to hollywood execs. The ending of ANH is a dead giveaway that the movie was designed to be neatly packaged, though leaving a few open ends in case it was popular enough to spawn a sequel. The medal ceremony was such a cheesy ending, and was just there to give "closure," there was no assupmtion that a sequel would be made.
Japanese? That guy must be living in some crazy ass fantasy world.. :)
Yes a crazy fantasy world. A land thousands of miles away, with anime everywhere, almost every gadget imaginable, beer vending machines on street corners, and even cute chicks who will talk to nerdy guys. Can't wait to go back