...Well, that's a nice thought; a legion of highly trained, battle-hardened, weak minded fools who are voting age and lust for power, -another effect of repeatedly conquering the world in their minds, aka- "virtual-reality." (Remember, a gun doesn't respect the strong minded, and 'Natural Selection' of that type doesn't always ensure survival. Species did go extinct before mankind stuck their hands in the world.)
No, I am not talking about the militia's in Idaho and Montana. I am talking about your average "urban warrior," your gang members, the young teenagers who will be playing these proposed games for 5+ hours a day. (Anyone who plays video games for 5+ hours a day is weak minded... sorry. If you refuse to life in true reality, you are doing so because you are too 'weak-minded' to handle it.) Playing games that much will mean that you choose, yes you choose, to make that VR, your true reality. (if you want proof of this, look at the Star Trek cult following. They lead a life where Picard is god and they will follow. -okay, maybe that is a bit over the top, but you see my point.
I think you just want this new 'revolution' without wanting to know any other side effects. If you want it, that's fine, but be honest with yourself. Where you choose to live your life is your reality. If that is a game......well, look at WoW players or any other popular mmorpg; the life of the player is... in 'there,' in the game.
What you are proposing is revolutionary, but toes the line between reality and gaming. If you make a game so real that the mind is tricked to believe it is reality, then the effects of reality will apply. Outcome: post traumatic stress syndrome or hardened killer from game-play. When you eat, drink, and sleep violence, (exposure at a high level), it starts to effect you.
I am not saying that games are inherently bad; I am saying that there is a moral line. At the moment, little stands between a simulation/training exercise for the army SF's, and our computer games; the 'feel' experience that you are talking about. Why do you think the US army produces America's Army as a "Free" game for the masses?
Think about it.
So, if it wasn't a surprise that this was based on the NT kernel, how many other dev's thought of that too, and maybe even malware dev's?
Would it be possible, since the 360 is so "live" (aka internet) reliant, that we will have spyware and popup problems for xbox? Or do you think that they "hacked" off the parts that made them vulnerable...:P
interesting...
Your reading of all/.'ers having the same dichotomy,(correct spelling btw), that you do is shortsighted. Are the majority of/.'ers oppressed by the computers, or are they simply self-confined to their cubicles because they are enabled by the computer age to do so? Look around, the very same technology that "enables us" to do things also can be used to "oppress." If you don't believe me, ask anyone who wants to use the internet, but has a spyware/adware problem.
"...then like red-light cameras they'll be red-light RFID readers (to help catch people who run red lights, of course)... The end result will indeed be tracking of everyone's movements. Technology as an oppressor. NO ONE has to have that idea in mind now for that to be what happens; it's simply where the current trend will end up."
well... My wife was t-boned by a hit&run red-light offender, I can see use for this too. I think that, like others have said, this will end up being more work than it is worth for the government. Don't forget that the founding fathers built in an outlet for your red-light-running anarchist passions; the right to bear arms. Just because the government knows that 150mil.+ citizens LEGALLY own weapons doesn't mean that the government can stop them. That is why the floodgates can be shut.
remember, the government can only rule you as long as you let them....in the mean-time, go ahead and run those red-lights with impunity, I am sure no-one will begrudge you your 'right' to break the law, or the subsequent 'right' to go to jail. (Someone should call the ACLU about those rights.)
If you are looking for 'smaller' government, you can't vote for Democrats or Republicans. I suggest you look for or start another alternative, because it is obvious both parties, and thus the gov., is failing you.
... I find your tangent interesting, though confusing.
just FYI, when you get down to debating the existance of an idea, a reference will not help you. when you get down to the "1's & 0's" of terminology I must point out that even dictionaries become a farce.
Note; you can never really define anything, only give a brief description using synonyms to illustrate the idea. (I understand this is a debatable point, but since this is the english language we are dealing with, the "rules" are defined by the 'old guys' in charge, of which, there are 12 PHD's at the institution I work for who will vouch for my assertion.)Under such scrutiny as you are placing this concept, 'definitions' must be compatable
To illustrate my point, there is a complete failure to communicate here. Your 'discussion' is revolving around the same word with different meanings attatched to it. At the current moment, you are both thowing equally useless words at each other trying to have an effect. (Like trying to get my dog to eat broccoli, he values it differently than I do) Until you set a meaning for a word, you will get nowhere in your 'discussion.'
until then, I must 'agree with the other guy' that you cannot have a meaningful discussion
Just curious, now that you have me completely confused about your meanings, I will ask you straight; what is your definition of, moral, immorral, and amoral? because, like Killjoe alluded to, I think you have different meanings/concepts attatched to the same term, like a chinese person trying to speak to a martian.
Thanks for the well-thought post, and the moderate tone-- proof that there still are people out there who think for themselves and can read between the lines.
wow, you take it upon yourself to assume that I don't believe in evolution or in any of it's components. I just simply stated that there are other options out there. Your read of my post was very closed-minded, I regret to admit. I also never said that 'Mormon' was offensive, though I also remember the 1st. pres. asking us to refer to ourselves by our proper name, (I was given the understanding that they asked that because of groups in southern Utah which are polygamous, and refer to themselves as 'mormon's,'...in which case... I am NOT polygamous and not to be refered to in the same grouping as they.)
I also know that we don't believe in 'creationism' (-- the creating out of nothing) which is a fallacy from a mis-translated word in the bible. The Aramaic word that the King James bible translates as 'creation,' actually means 'Organize.' I do believe that God uses means plain and understandable to man, and that we really don't know how long he took to do it. I never said differently in my post. Please RTA before you accuse or assume.
In any case,/. is not a place for theological discussion, if you wish to e-mail me, feel free to do so at bricebitter@hotmail.com, I don't mind talking about any of this at all, but I also don't wish to misuse this forum.
...I am a Latter Day Saint-(LDS, as opposed to Mormon which is a nick my ancestors recievedfrom those who drove them from their homes at gunpoint, 6 times... here in good ol' america), and if you actually read the Book of Mormon, you would find that there are remains of other people in the land who arrived far before the Nephite migration you refer to. Also there are references to other peoples who live on the continent who are not of the 'nephites,' but are contemporaries.
I would also refer you to the bible, which, though out of your timetable, speaks of how the land was "divided" in the days of Peleg; denoting that it was once in Man's history all one landmass... if that be true, how difficult would it be to surmise that a short walk away from North Africa, would South Carolina be?...in either case, I am not the see-all, end-all in LDS doctrine, and this is far from being conclusive evidence- it is a first post of an event that scientists are sure to be scrutinizing for a while yet. So, until they "know" what is going on, rather than "speculting" on fresh evidence that they really aren't sure of yet, I will wait....Besides, who knows but 'science' will declare some new theory about 'humanities origin' in another 20-50 years, and evolution, though functional today, be scoffed at as the 'earth-is-flat' theory of the 20-21st centuries.
Evolution, like most scientific THEORIES, is still full of holes. Not that I am saying that it is false, it may turn out to be 'true,' but relies heavily on technologies like Carbon and Ka dating, which are 'estimations' based on our current knowledge, (or perception) of nuculear decay. These as well are theories. Darwin developed his theory on what he observed, and placed it in the extreme. Yes, there have been findings that support his conclusions... but we have no idea of how old they really are. We could be right. we could be wrong. Our 'estimations' of how long the earth took to form are just that, estimations. The rock in the earth's crust is recycled, according to the plate techtonics Theory, before that age could be read by carbon dating, as well as Ka, or any other element. to put it short.. we don't know. Honestly don't konw. Any scientist who tells you that 'I Know what happened' while basing his findings on a theory, which is based on theories, is a simpleton. They usually say that they *think this is what happened....Why? well we are not *sure carbon dating is constant or works through the time tables that it is predicting - because there is nothing that we have that we know is that old, which has not been *confirmed that age by carbon dating. Carbon dating then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, I am not saying that it is wrong, I am saying that it is a Theory at best. Theory, by the way, though based on *fact and *evidence, is still only a guess. (Look up hypothesis, which turns to theory with enough evidence.)THere is also evidence against Evolution, Carbon dating,(which even science admits must be done under certain circumstances for it to be accurate), and other theories. But, put on tin foil hat, like most things, they will not teach you that in school. Most things really worth knowing, you must search out yourself.
I hope someone reads this rant... I could tell from the tone of your post, ("HA! What of your faith now?!"), that you most likely wouldn't listen anyway. Just don't crtiticize 'blind faith' in religion while practicing blind faith in science,(which, btw, is in incredible flux).
...uh, what the hell does that have to do with robot cockroach moses leading the mass suicidal migration of roaches everywhere to raid's door?
Your post is understood, and well pointed out, though as off-topic as a flying cow with a bucket of KFC for a helmet... now I am hungry.
Off-topic, yes. Flaimbait, possibly. Negative Karma-whore? Yeah, that's me.
...I am sorry to hear that you lost faith in God by watching men.
--psst!!-- If you haven't noticed; Men are not perfect. That is why they are not God.
...the founding fathers' lack of visioin?
Hold up before you start calling the founding fathers a group of dumb a**'s, you are starting to sound like you are crying, or you are very uneducated.
If you didn't know, the reason we have the political mess you are talking about is because in the days of W. H. Taft, and later on with T. Marshall,(Supreme Court justices), the U.S. Supreme Court userped power from the legislative and Executive branches of the government and started mandating legislation for the entire nation in cases that should have been resolved at the state level. How long has it been since you heard the phrase 'States' rights?' Yeah, I haven't heard it outside history class either.
The founding fathers were not blind, neither did they have a lack of vision. We are the ones who lost it. We have stepped past their vision and ignore what they setup to take care of these problems; the state government, (which, btw, has elections based on population).
Very rarely, (I don't know, but I think it has only happened once), does the popular vote differ from the electorial vote, and if there is a 5-to-1, rural-to-urban vote problem, then I would assume that that urban population is either happy with what is happening, or they don't care. If there is the population in the major citits to elect the officials, then they should be easily able to do so. 5-to-1 makes it sound like the rural area's either have more citizens, or more law abiding citizens; if either are true, your attack is fallacious.
Calling the rural population, (which feeds you and every other shmuck in the city), horrible is outright ludicrous. If you are so eager to be rid of them, go ahead and try to live without them. Don't buy any food grown or produced in the rural united states and see how you fare.
I fully agree with you that the electoral college needs to be changed, but calling for the demise of the senate and for the rule of the urban cities over the entire nation would be catastrophic. A heavily populated area governing a distant group of people which the urban area really has no idea about is the same senario that provided the tinder for the spark of the Revolution. Did you get that? What you're proposing is one of the very reasons we broke away from England. It wasn't anything wrong with England, it was a need for us.
Please post intelligently. Try not to push us back more than two hundred years.
Hey, just wondering if you could enighten me a little more of how, if in fact, the satellite not reading an increase in temperature is supportive to the global warming thesis? If I understand the greenhouse gas effects correctly, it is that more heat is retained, thus resulting in LESS radiant energy being detected from space... right? (I understand that there was no mention of detected radient temperature dropping along with the comment that it wasn't increasing. If it is otherwise, then I would like a url so I can also be infomed.) IF, (and a big if at that), there is no decrease in radient energy then this also goes against the global warming thesis, unless the sun decided to add a massive amount of extra energy to the earth all of a sudden.
-- also, I would add that I am somewhat curious and amused at this entire argument. Instead of just telling us what is wrong, how about suggesting a cure?...Or is there no such suggestion because it is too complex for us to actually know if we would be able to have an effect? Are we really this haughty as a race, or are we actually advanced far enough to presume to 'control' the global climate? -- just curious.
...wait a minute. I have one question for you; what is religion? Do you mean a belief in god, or an organized set of values adheared to by any group of people? If it is a belief in god, then you must ask the supreme court to seperate the original intents of all of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, (who were all strictly "religious" individuals). If it is a set of beliefs followed by people, you must remove science, atheism, and all governmental laws. NOTE: seperation, does NOT mean segregation. If you read the constitution, you will find religious beliefs everywhere. Don't just preach your side, look at the other, and understand. Then, you can decide.
...to vote or not. Yes they may have to deal with a slight bias against them, but how I understood it was that she would fail to be generous; maening that she would not give out any freebies. These kids are not being penalized, just denied anything extra that they could have recieved, if they had done something extra. Hmmm, sounds like extra credit to me. As for the teacher "forcing" the students to vote, whoever thinks that is full of it. The teacher is not going to follow them around and force them into the booth. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop crying. If they do 'A' work in class and decide not to vote, they will still get an 'A.' Relax. No story here.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am not talking about the militia's in Idaho and Montana. I am talking about your average "urban warrior," your gang members, the young teenagers who will be playing these proposed games for 5+ hours a day. (Anyone who plays video games for 5+ hours a day is weak minded... sorry. If you refuse to life in true reality, you are doing so because you are too 'weak-minded' to handle it.) Playing games that much will mean that you choose, yes you choose, to make that VR, your true reality. (if you want proof of this, look at the Star Trek cult following. They lead a life where Picard is god and they will follow. -okay, maybe that is a bit over the top, but you see my point.
I think you just want this new 'revolution' without wanting to know any other side effects. If you want it, that's fine, but be honest with yourself. Where you choose to live your life is your reality. If that is a game...
What you are proposing is revolutionary, but toes the line between reality and gaming. If you make a game so real that the mind is tricked to believe it is reality, then the effects of reality will apply. Outcome: post traumatic stress syndrome or hardened killer from game-play. When you eat, drink, and sleep violence, (exposure at a high level), it starts to effect you.
I am not saying that games are inherently bad; I am saying that there is a moral line. At the moment, little stands between a simulation/training exercise for the army SF's, and our computer games; the 'feel' experience that you are talking about. Why do you think the US army produces America's Army as a "Free" game for the masses?
Think about it.
So, if it wasn't a surprise that this was based on the NT kernel, how many other dev's thought of that too, and maybe even malware dev's? :P
Would it be possible, since the 360 is so "live" (aka internet) reliant, that we will have spyware and popup problems for xbox? Or do you think that they "hacked" off the parts that made them vulnerable...
interesting... /.'ers having the same dichotomy,(correct spelling btw), that you do is shortsighted. Are the majority of /.'ers oppressed by the computers, or are they simply self-confined to their cubicles because they are enabled by the computer age to do so? Look around, the very same technology that "enables us" to do things also can be used to "oppress." If you don't believe me, ask anyone who wants to use the internet, but has a spyware/adware problem. ...in the mean-time, go ahead and run those red-lights with impunity, I am sure no-one will begrudge you your 'right' to break the law, or the subsequent 'right' to go to jail. (Someone should call the ACLU about those rights.)
Your reading of all
"...then like red-light cameras they'll be red-light RFID readers (to help catch people who run red lights, of course)... The end result will indeed be tracking of everyone's movements. Technology as an oppressor. NO ONE has to have that idea in mind now for that to be what happens; it's simply where the current trend will end up."
well... My wife was t-boned by a hit&run red-light offender, I can see use for this too. I think that, like others have said, this will end up being more work than it is worth for the government. Don't forget that the founding fathers built in an outlet for your red-light-running anarchist passions; the right to bear arms. Just because the government knows that 150mil.+ citizens LEGALLY own weapons doesn't mean that the government can stop them. That is why the floodgates can be shut.
remember, the government can only rule you as long as you let them.
If you are looking for 'smaller' government, you can't vote for Democrats or Republicans. I suggest you look for or start another alternative, because it is obvious both parties, and thus the gov., is failing you.
... I find your tangent interesting, though confusing.
just FYI, when you get down to debating the existance of an idea, a reference will not help you. when you get down to the "1's & 0's" of terminology I must point out that even dictionaries become a farce.
Note; you can never really define anything, only give a brief description using synonyms to illustrate the idea. (I understand this is a debatable point, but since this is the english language we are dealing with, the "rules" are defined by the 'old guys' in charge, of which, there are 12 PHD's at the institution I work for who will vouch for my assertion.)Under such scrutiny as you are placing this concept, 'definitions' must be compatable
To illustrate my point, there is a complete failure to communicate here. Your 'discussion' is revolving around the same word with different meanings attatched to it. At the current moment, you are both thowing equally useless words at each other trying to have an effect. (Like trying to get my dog to eat broccoli, he values it differently than I do) Until you set a meaning for a word, you will get nowhere in your 'discussion.'
until then, I must 'agree with the other guy' that you cannot have a meaningful discussion
Just curious, now that you have me completely confused about your meanings, I will ask you straight; what is your definition of, moral, immorral, and amoral? because, like Killjoe alluded to, I think you have different meanings/concepts attatched to the same term, like a chinese person trying to speak to a martian.
Thanks for the well-thought post, and the moderate tone-- proof that there still are people out there who think for themselves and can read between the lines.
wow, you take it upon yourself to assume that I don't believe in evolution or in any of it's components. I just simply stated that there are other options out there. Your read of my post was very closed-minded, I regret to admit. I also never said that 'Mormon' was offensive, though I also remember the 1st. pres. asking us to refer to ourselves by our proper name, (I was given the understanding that they asked that because of groups in southern Utah which are polygamous, and refer to themselves as 'mormon's,' ...in which case... I am NOT polygamous and not to be refered to in the same grouping as they.)
/. is not a place for theological discussion, if you wish to e-mail me, feel free to do so at bricebitter@hotmail.com, I don't mind talking about any of this at all, but I also don't wish to misuse this forum.
I also know that we don't believe in 'creationism' (-- the creating out of nothing) which is a fallacy from a mis-translated word in the bible. The Aramaic word that the King James bible translates as 'creation,' actually means 'Organize.' I do believe that God uses means plain and understandable to man, and that we really don't know how long he took to do it. I never said differently in my post. Please RTA before you accuse or assume.
In any case,
--
I post ambivalently.
I would also refer you to the bible, which, though out of your timetable, speaks of how the land was "divided" in the days of Peleg; denoting that it was once in Man's history all one landmass... if that be true, how difficult would it be to surmise that a short walk away from North Africa, would South Carolina be?
Evolution, like most scientific THEORIES, is still full of holes. Not that I am saying that it is false, it may turn out to be 'true,' but relies heavily on technologies like Carbon and Ka dating, which are 'estimations' based on our current knowledge, (or perception) of nuculear decay. These as well are theories. Darwin developed his theory on what he observed, and placed it in the extreme. Yes, there have been findings that support his conclusions... but we have no idea of how old they really are. We could be right. we could be wrong. Our 'estimations' of how long the earth took to form are just that, estimations. The rock in the earth's crust is recycled, according to the plate techtonics Theory, before that age could be read by carbon dating, as well as Ka, or any other element. to put it short.. we don't know. Honestly don't konw. Any scientist who tells you that 'I Know what happened' while basing his findings on a theory, which is based on theories, is a simpleton. They usually say that they *think this is what happened.
Again, I am not saying that it is wrong, I am saying that it is a Theory at best. Theory, by the way, though based on *fact and *evidence, is still only a guess. (Look up hypothesis, which turns to theory with enough evidence.)THere is also evidence against Evolution, Carbon dating,(which even science admits must be done under certain circumstances for it to be accurate), and other theories. But, put on tin foil hat, like most things, they will not teach you that in school. Most things really worth knowing, you must search out yourself.
I hope someone reads this rant... I could tell from the tone of your post, ("HA! What of your faith now?!"), that you most likely wouldn't listen anyway. Just don't crtiticize 'blind faith' in religion while practicing blind faith in science,(which, btw, is in incredible flux).
Why don't people go find out for themselves?
...uh, what the hell does that have to do with robot cockroach moses leading the mass suicidal migration of roaches everywhere to raid's door?
Your post is understood, and well pointed out, though as off-topic as a flying cow with a bucket of KFC for a helmet... now I am hungry.
Off-topic, yes. Flaimbait, possibly. Negative Karma-whore? Yeah, that's me.
...and I thought that it was Clinton who had fun in the oval office... ...silly me.
...I am sorry to hear that you lost faith in God by watching men.
--psst!!-- If you haven't noticed; Men are not perfect. That is why they are not God.
...the founding fathers' lack of visioin?
Hold up before you start calling the founding fathers a group of dumb a**'s, you are starting to sound like you are crying, or you are very uneducated.
If you didn't know, the reason we have the political mess you are talking about is because in the days of W. H. Taft, and later on with T. Marshall,(Supreme Court justices), the U.S. Supreme Court userped power from the legislative and Executive branches of the government and started mandating legislation for the entire nation in cases that should have been resolved at the state level. How long has it been since you heard the phrase 'States' rights?' Yeah, I haven't heard it outside history class either.
The founding fathers were not blind, neither did they have a lack of vision. We are the ones who lost it. We have stepped past their vision and ignore what they setup to take care of these problems; the state government, (which, btw, has elections based on population).
Very rarely, (I don't know, but I think it has only happened once), does the popular vote differ from the electorial vote, and if there is a 5-to-1, rural-to-urban vote problem, then I would assume that that urban population is either happy with what is happening, or they don't care. If there is the population in the major citits to elect the officials, then they should be easily able to do so. 5-to-1 makes it sound like the rural area's either have more citizens, or more law abiding citizens; if either are true, your attack is fallacious.
Calling the rural population, (which feeds you and every other shmuck in the city), horrible is outright ludicrous. If you are so eager to be rid of them, go ahead and try to live without them. Don't buy any food grown or produced in the rural united states and see how you fare.
I fully agree with you that the electoral college needs to be changed, but calling for the demise of the senate and for the rule of the urban cities over the entire nation would be catastrophic. A heavily populated area governing a distant group of people which the urban area really has no idea about is the same senario that provided the tinder for the spark of the Revolution. Did you get that? What you're proposing is one of the very reasons we broke away from England. It wasn't anything wrong with England, it was a need for us.
Please post intelligently. Try not to push us back more than two hundred years.
...finally, the whore of all the earth challenges babylon...
Do you think they will sell ringside tickets?
...does this mean that mankind will actually have to adapt?! Will the THEORY of evolution be proved once and for all?
Hey, just wondering if you could enighten me a little more of how, if in fact, the satellite not reading an increase in temperature is supportive to the global warming thesis? If I understand the greenhouse gas effects correctly, it is that more heat is retained, thus resulting in LESS radiant energy being detected from space... right? (I understand that there was no mention of detected radient temperature dropping along with the comment that it wasn't increasing. If it is otherwise, then I would like a url so I can also be infomed.) IF, (and a big if at that), there is no decrease in radient energy then this also goes against the global warming thesis, unless the sun decided to add a massive amount of extra energy to the earth all of a sudden. -- also, I would add that I am somewhat curious and amused at this entire argument. Instead of just telling us what is wrong, how about suggesting a cure? ...Or is there no such suggestion because it is too complex for us to actually know if we would be able to have an effect? Are we really this haughty as a race, or are we actually advanced far enough to presume to 'control' the global climate? -- just curious.
...I don't know, I've seen Clinton dig himself out of deeper holes...
...wait a minute. I have one question for you; what is religion? Do you mean a belief in god, or an organized set of values adheared to by any group of people? If it is a belief in god, then you must ask the supreme court to seperate the original intents of all of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, (who were all strictly "religious" individuals). If it is a set of beliefs followed by people, you must remove science, atheism, and all governmental laws. NOTE: seperation, does NOT mean segregation. If you read the constitution, you will find religious beliefs everywhere. Don't just preach your side, look at the other, and understand. Then, you can decide.
...to vote or not. Yes they may have to deal with a slight bias against them, but how I understood it was that she would fail to be generous; maening that she would not give out any freebies. These kids are not being penalized, just denied anything extra that they could have recieved, if they had done something extra. Hmmm, sounds like extra credit to me. As for the teacher "forcing" the students to vote, whoever thinks that is full of it. The teacher is not going to follow them around and force them into the booth. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop crying. If they do 'A' work in class and decide not to vote, they will still get an 'A.' Relax. No story here.