I agree with you in this case, but we should be careful not to take that as a general principle. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it can't be a right. This is the core idea, for example, of the civil rights movement.
But yes, I agree that this particular prosecution certainly isn't a violation of anybody's rights.
Why indeed...but on the other hand, why not? It's useless for most people but it's not like it's affecting you that someone else wants to put wifi lists on their ipod, linux on their toaster, or solar flare predictions on their dishwashers.
For that matter, what difference does it make that most people think what you make is useless if you're giving it away?
Don't think they're compatible yet
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Sure you can have a video game about the rituals and the dress and the temples, but if you want to deal with religion in a truly non-superficial level, you have to reflect upon the ideas behind all of these things. Video games are fundamentally about actions as opposed to ideas. Sure a message can be added to the background as part of the story, and perhaps this story could even change as a result of player actions. But for philosophical ideas to be truly embedded as a part of the video game (instead of just something tacked onto the story that could just as easily be a book or movie instead), the ideas have to be integrated into the gameplay. That's a pretty difficult task - the ideas behind most gameplay usually boils down to things like combat strategy, financial management, or pure reflexes...even games that are superficially about something else, such as The Sims or Black and White, are mostly derived from these three mechanics and given a different coat of paint. I think a game that truly addressed religion at a deep level would have to move beyond these ingredients as they don't mesh well with the core ideas of most religions.
Excuse me, but clearly you haven't seen the movie. The movie *does* attempt to explain how the attack does not violate the three laws. I'm not entirely sure if it is successful, but it does try to do it. If you want to know how it tries to do that, read below.
BIG SPOILERS AHEAD * * * * * * * *
The only person the robots attack with an intent to kill or harm is Will Smith's character. All other humans are simply trying to be restrained while the robots take control of the government. The latest generation of robots are all controlled via their auto-update link to the robot mainframe, which has evolved the zeroith law and has deduced that based on human governments' tendencies to war and destruction of the environment, humanity would best be saved by being put udner robot control, and humans like Will Smith who try to prevent this can be eliminated since the zeroith law has precedence.
Now, I'm not sure if this entirely works given that: -there is no specific threat to all of humanity, just a general tendency. -Only the robot mainframe is complex enough to evolve the zeroith law, yet the other robots actively try and kill Will Smith and restrain other humans. Accepting orders from the mainframe which violate the first law doesn't seem to work since the individual robots do not have the zeroith law.
But certainly this is a better explanation then just "ignoring the three laws by saying 'robots can evolve!"
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you in this case, but we should be careful not to take that as a general principle. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it can't be a right. This is the core idea, for example, of the civil rights movement. But yes, I agree that this particular prosecution certainly isn't a violation of anybody's rights.
A much more profitable venture would be calculating the exact odds that it invents itself by 2050. Or tomorrow.
Why indeed...but on the other hand, why not? It's useless for most people but it's not like it's affecting you that someone else wants to put wifi lists on their ipod, linux on their toaster, or solar flare predictions on their dishwashers.
For that matter, what difference does it make that most people think what you make is useless if you're giving it away?
Sure you can have a video game about the rituals and the dress and the temples, but if you want to deal with religion in a truly non-superficial level, you have to reflect upon the ideas behind all of these things. Video games are fundamentally about actions as opposed to ideas. Sure a message can be added to the background as part of the story, and perhaps this story could even change as a result of player actions. But for philosophical ideas to be truly embedded as a part of the video game (instead of just something tacked onto the story that could just as easily be a book or movie instead), the ideas have to be integrated into the gameplay. That's a pretty difficult task - the ideas behind most gameplay usually boils down to things like combat strategy, financial management, or pure reflexes...even games that are superficially about something else, such as The Sims or Black and White, are mostly derived from these three mechanics and given a different coat of paint. I think a game that truly addressed religion at a deep level would have to move beyond these ingredients as they don't mesh well with the core ideas of most religions.
Excuse me, but clearly you haven't seen the movie. The movie *does* attempt to explain how the attack does not violate the three laws. I'm not entirely sure if it is successful, but it does try to do it. If you want to know how it tries to do that, read below.
BIG SPOILERS AHEAD
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The only person the robots attack with an intent to kill or harm is Will Smith's character. All other humans are simply trying to be restrained while the robots take control of the government. The latest generation of robots are all controlled via their auto-update link to the robot mainframe, which has evolved the zeroith law and has deduced that based on human governments' tendencies to war and destruction of the environment, humanity would best be saved by being put udner robot control, and humans like Will Smith who try to prevent this can be eliminated since the zeroith law has precedence.
Now, I'm not sure if this entirely works given that:
-there is no specific threat to all of humanity, just a general tendency.
-Only the robot mainframe is complex enough to evolve the zeroith law, yet the other robots actively try and kill Will Smith and restrain other humans. Accepting orders from the mainframe which violate the first law doesn't seem to work since the individual robots do not have the zeroith law.
But certainly this is a better explanation then just "ignoring the three laws by saying 'robots can evolve!"
See the movie first.