My favorite (gaming related) memories of my first run through university were from the equivalent of LAN parties. Taking over a computer lab during a 3-day weekend and slugging down illicit beers while finding ways to break IRC/play MUDS/hot-seat Civ 1/Blitz Empire games/play Marathon on the Macs/Specta VR was *awesome*. It's not about the quality of the experience, it's about having a bunch of people sharing it and having a blast!
Nowadays that experience has been mostly replaced by party type games on the consoles - Rockband, Ravin' Rabbids and stuff like that - but it is occasionally nice to go out and do a LAN party and meet other nerdlings:)
White lies are what stupid people tell because they can't figure out how to tell truth gently.
Do you love that (really ugly fucking sweater) I gave you? Not really, grandmother, but I love you!
What do you think of (outfit that accentuates every single flaw of a person's figure)? You know I love the way you look, but this outfit doesn't really seem to suit your look.
At work they made me so mad I (did something really childish in response to a stupid coworker) - what do you think? It's great that you stand up for yourself - you always have a plan. What is your plan for handling the blowback if any of those idiots get upset?
All of those are honest but they are said in a way that is kind and speaks to the core issue. Allowing someone to look like a fool when they were counting on you for honesty is incredibly cruel.
Or we look for ways to educate people who have this trait and teach them how *not* to do those harmful things.
Let me give you an example: In my family, 2 of my siblings are dyslexic. My oldest sister and my younger brother. When my sister went to school and failed almost everything despite incredible efforts (I still cry when I hear her talk about literally tying herself to a chair when she was trying to learn to read so that she would stay there until she got it right) and it was only when she was 16 *and still in 7th grade* and about to drop out of school that she was evaluated for learning disabilities (this was the early 60's - she wasn't LD, she was "lazy"). She dropped out and eventually got her GED, but had such a miserable experience that she will not return to school. She's very, very bright - but because nobody really knew what the hell was going on, nobody could help her learn the way she needed to.
With my little brother, because of my older sister's experiences, we knew very early on because we spotted the signs, and he got special assistance from the start. He just graduated university with a 3.7 (out of 4) and is going to go to graduate school in education specializing in special needs. He was taught, from a VERY early age, ways to cope with the things he was experiencing, and his entire educational experience up to the middle of high school was geared towards helping him find ways to compensate for his difficulties. Further, his experiences will help him in the future because whereas most special education teachers don't know first hand what it's like, he does.
For most kids, learning to read isn't terribly hard, but for dyslexic kids, using the same methods you use to teach everyone else *will not work* and will lead to bad outcomes. Using special techniques, however, will let those kids learn and grow and do very well.
So, even if there is a perfect correlation between this structure and sociopathic tendencies, that doesn't require abortion; it would require us (the supposedly sane and compassionate ones) to use that sanity and compassion to find ways to educate those kids so that while they may still have different wiring, they don't act on it. Most kids learn the difference between right and wrong and are able to, eventually, become adults who at least try to do the right thing and are able to feel empathy for other people. But expecting a kid with this structure (if it is a cause of sociopathy) to learn right and wrong and to be empathic by the same ways everyone else is taught will just lead to what we have now. If we can find ways to help them understand from a much earlier age, and to create a specialized educational program geared towards their needs, and that lets them put their own special insights into use for the greater good of society - isn't *that* the best outcome?
I'm not anti-abortion by any means, but I will say that in this case, aborting people just because they may cause problems down the line seems like the option a sociopath would choose. Learning how to integrate them into our society in ways that are beneficial for all is the more compassionate choice.
You're begging the question - why is less power in the hands of businesses and more power in the hands of workers a *bad* thing?
Unions, in and of themselves, are not bad. Their intent and obligation is to protect workers (people who's wealth comes from wages, not from capital, usually) from the predations of management (people or groups where the wealth comes from capital, not wages).
Management's only obligation is to maximize profits/return on capital. In fact, in certain business structures, management can be sued because they weren't ruthless enough in maximizing their return on capital. So, if management were able to find a way to exploit their workers that wasn't illegal, they would in fact be *obligated* to do so or attempt to do so or face lawsuits!
The actual implementation of unions in the US and many other nations may be lacking in many ways, but the intent is good. Personally, I feel that the problem comes about when unions get too big and encompass multiple unrelated industries. Why, for example, should a union that protects retail workers also protect secretarial staff? The needs of each group are very different, and the only purpose for such a thing was to give one particular union more coercive power, not protect the workers.
The actual implementation of corporations in the US and many other nations is HORRIBLY broken. Corporations have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of being individuals under the law. Corporations are, by law, REQUIRED to behave in ways that are essentially sociopathic, and they protect the individuals responsible for the sociopathic behavior from prosecution except in EXTREMELY rare cases.
Personally, I think there needs to be an equilibrium achieved. If something is bad for businesses but good for workers (mandatory time and a half for overtime pay), it should be examined from a standpoint of what will provide the most overall good in the long run - in the case of overtime pay, for example, it turns out that this is a net good in that it allows certain workers to make a much better living than they might without overtime, encourages management to give individual workers a little overtime (cheaper to pay one guy 60k a year in salary & benefits than it is to hire another person at part time and have one at 40k and one at 20k due to administrative overhead), but also provides a disincentive for employers to overwork their staff (it becomes cheaper to hire another person than to pay the overtime rate, at a certain point). Some things may be bad for workers, but good for businesses (some employees are exempt from the overtime rules) but overall be good in the long run (exempt employees are generally going to be ones with more education and options - if management abuses them they can go to another employer, so employers can get a bit of extra work from them at no extra cost, as long as they don't abuse the privilege).
You seem to think that management being able to wield a club to keep the proles in line is a good thing; I suggest that it is not, and in fact find that line of reasoning to be abhorrent and a fine example of exactly what is wrong with the system we have in the US. It's disgusting to me that you would advocate fear as a motivator over satisfaction. You actually seem to want the happiness of the few (the economic elite) to come at the cost of the happiness of the many (working people) - and seem to actually *want* people to be miserable and afraid just so that capital interests (who in many cases aren't even human beings!) can be served. That's truly, truly sad.
I had been assuming that they were making cards and raiding accounts; I can't imagine a broken machine would get enough hits before being made "out of order" to even cover the cost of the fake ATM, if they only go for a couple of bucks.
A clever scammer would actually have the machine dispense a small amount of cash - say a maximum of $100 per transaction - to avert suspicion.
Load it with, say, $5000 and you can get a minimum of 50 PINs, which is probably worth more than the $5000. Have it say, "Due to high volume, this machine may only dispense $100 per transaction" or the like, which I've seen at various legit ATMs in high-traffic locations. To make it last even longer, have it every once in awhile simply give a message that it is unable to communicate with the network or whatever comments the type of machine you're spoofing usually gives.
If it fails to dispense cash, good samaritans may put "out of order" signs on it, or, if it doesn't dispense and still asks for your data, that makes people suspicious.
The $5000 is peanuts - and probably isn't even their money in the first place - and would almost certainly be less expensive in terms of avoiding detection & getting a LOT more accounts. Absolutely nobody would think that an ATM that dispensed cash is fake; lots of people might suspect one that takes your PIN and then fails to work.
Where were you in the US that people didn't know what a bathroom was? I mean that seriously - I've never in my life met someone who spoke English with at least medium facility who didn't know the terms "bathroom" "toilet" "restroom" "powder room" or "washroom," or any number of other more slangy terms for it. "WC" is a little less common in the US, but still generally understood.
And "Bank Machine" isn't a common term over here, but where were you that people weren't able to figure it out? If they were also completely flummoxed by "bath room" I'm going to guess it was an area where lead paint chips were a regional delicacy? Or was this so long ago that the devices were unknown to many? I did go on a trip to Oklahoma some years back where kids would actually ask if they could watch me use "the magic money machine," but those were children in a VERY small town, the machines were a novelty in many larger areas, and the kids in question were about 6-8 years old.
I absolutely don't mean to come off as hostile - I'm honestly amazed and curious.
No shit! The IRB at my university jumps all over us if we change the wording of an email announcing an appointment to participants, and that's for research classified as minimal risk!
I'm AMAZED.
The altruistic nature of the volunteers is wonderful to see, I agree.
In 10 minutes, come up with as many different ways as possible to use a 3' long bit of 2"x4" wood. Variations on a theme are not allowed - "Crushing a cockroach" and "Crushing an ant" would count as "smooshing little critters" for example.
How many did you come up with?
Then have many thousands of people world wide, of all genders, religions, socioeconomic status, cultures, etc. do the same exercise.
You'll wind up with a pretty normalized distribution after awhile (and it may vary depending on various cultural factors), but I'd say that'd be a rather nice measure of "creativity".
Now, if you want to measure the *quality* of the the creative impulse, THAT is an entirely different idea. Just because someone can come up with 500 novel ideas for a 2x4 in 10 minutes doesn't mean that any of those ideas will be good ones.
If a person isn't interested in "getting clean" (from whatever it is they're addicted to) and isn't willing to make any kind of sacrifices or changes, it's very unlikely that they will stop abusing whatever it is they're addicted to. They have to come to the realization that their addiction is causing them harm and actually *want* to stop. Simply humoring someone online would not reasonably lead to any kind of useful outcome.
Beyond that, trolling for people who are not asking for help is unethical in the extreme. If these people are not seeking out counseling, a counselor approaching them and attempting to initiate a discussion is a *horrible* breech of professional standards; worse than ambulance chasing. It would be manipulative and cruel at best. Only when someone presents a clear danger to themselves or others is involuntary involvement warranted, and it would be very, very, VERY hard to make the case that someone spending a lot of time playing a computer game is in any sort of danger that would qualify.
As I said in a different post, I suspect that this program is a research program into peer-driven outreach and intervention efficacy, NOT just counselors getting online to talk to players, and is being poorly explained by the author of TFA. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out any other rational explanation for what sounds on the face of it like an absurd, ridiculous, unethical, hopeless and possibly harmful practice.
Actually, having re-read the article and looked around a bit more, it sounds like they are trying to look into the efficacy of on-line interventions, especially peer-driven ones. Unsurprisingly, TFA portrayed what is almost certainly a feasibility study as an actual intervention/treatment, demonstrating once again that reporters are lazy.
I find it very hard to imagine anyone trolling for patients in the fashion described - a research study exploring possible modes of intervention seems far more likely.
Sure it'll jam - the instant there's a multi-lane accident, all the assholes who need to stop and gawk will clog it right up.
What we need are 20 lane highways and transponders in all cars that broadcast their ID. When an emergency service vehicle puts out a signal, it gets a position on all cars in range, and a sophisticated traffic analysis program determines which cars are causing the slow-down by rubbernecking and mails them citations.
Second time offenders are, of course, ground up and used for food. You want your future with 20 lane highways, I want my dystopia where idiots are ground up and fed to other people.
You're talking about psychosis, not addiction - there are vast differences in how those two entirely different conditions should be treated. This article is about treating addiction, as were my comments - naturally my comments about using this as an approach to treating addiction wouldn't apply when talking about treating an entirely different disorder.
Text games via IM would be interesting, platform agnostic, and could lead to some entertaining gameplay concepts (multi-player geocaching adventure games?) I agree that the parsers would have to be substantially better than previous versions to make it less obnoxious to type it on a phone.
Forgive the self-reply, but I did also forget one other huge thing: confidentiality.
Because it would be taking place in an on-line setting where a 3rd party (or several 3rd parties, if using a combination of WoW's servers and a ventrillo/teamspeak server, or an addon that might capture all incoming/outgoing text), the confidentiality of the relationship would be exactly zero. GM's could simply get their kicks on eavesdropping on conversations between known "therapist" characters, for one obvious example.
I'm actually stunned that I forgot this in my first post, seeing as how it's a rather big deal. I suppose the client could waive confidentiality, but I can't imagine anyone actually opening up enough to get some benefit if they think they'll be overheard.
This would be the equivalent of trying to have a private conversation at a busy Starbucks.
I know quite a few clinical psychologists who won't participate in over-the-phone counseling except in cases of emergency because they feel that there is a staggering amount of information lost from the interaction due to the inability to perceive body language, eye-contact, or focus. I've staffed a hotline during an internship and a large part of the training was in dealing with those short-comings and it was universally recognized that it was not an optimal situation, but in the case where it was either talk to them on the phone or nothing, the phone is obviously preferable.
On top of that, it's notoriously difficult to convey any kind of emotional content or tone online or through text. I can't imagine any kind of reasonable therapeutic interaction taking place... "Hey, let's talk about how you feel compelled to only grind humanoid mobs..." "LOL FAG FEELINGS R 4 NUBS!" "..." "MeloveuGOLD most happiness! Many loves! Give you 10% CRAZY EXTRA FUN FUN GOLD gogogo now to wendygold.crom now!!!" Humor aside, I suppose it would be possible to talk over ventrillo or other voice methods, but even so, there would be so many distractions it'd be ridiculous.
If someone truly is addicted to WoW to the point where they are literally unable to tear themselves away from the game long enough to go to a therapy session in real life (and I would say the number of people in this situation is vanishingly small, approaching zero), then yes, this might be preferable, but as it is, it just sounds like something done to capitalize on the popularity of the game. It is, I suppose, an interesting thing to try this new avenue to test the efficacy, but I'm very strongly doubting that it'll be terribly effective.
I can see your point, I guess I just don't agree with it.
I guess my feeling is that there's no equality in this situation in the first place, and as long as it isn't having a huge effect on my experience, I don't really care what people have access to that I don't.
For example, I have a really nice gaming rig - I can play games at the highest settings and my FPS won't dip much at all when I'm in a huge battle. This is HUGE in player vs. player combat because I'll be able to react to events in real time; someone with a crap system might get slowed down to 1fps and thus be much less reactive. It's real-life money giving me an advantage in game - and definitely having more of an effect on other players than "You paid $5 for this widget, now you can have 8 new costume pieces with 100% more SPARKLES!" Should there be a *maximum* system allowance for multi-player games, so that outside factors don't play into the game much?
And, honestly, if a $.50 microtransaction to be able to have a special codpiece on your hero is going to be difficult to swing, paying $15 a month for a video game subscription is probably not the soundest choice. I don't know that "amount of disposable income" really enters into it once you're talking about paying for a luxury subscription service - if you're playing MMOs, it's really more about "how much money do you want to spend on playing video games" instead of haves vs. have-nots.
I will say that I did come up with one reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to spend RL money on things that will make their characters better (as opposed to cosmetic frippery) - advancement in the game (becoming more powerful) should reasonably only be achieved through playing the game. People who are unemployed and play the game for 12 hours a day are spending that time *in* the game, playing it, so it's fair that they are more powerful, whereas someone who works and can only play for 2 hours a day should not be able to just spend money to have as powerful a character - they aren't actually playing the game to get better.
I'm more interested in your time machine than your stock speculation advice, to be honest - it seems to not only send you about 6-7 years back into the past, but also into an alternate reality.
I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to this question, so I'll ask you:
Why do you care about how other people in the game came about obtaining the powers they have?
If I play for 30 minutes and get myself a +1 sword of backscratching (which sounds about like what the Champions guy was talking about - nothing major, just minor bennies) or I pay $.50 to get the same thing, what possible difference will it make to you that I've done so?
Please don't say that players who buy things vs. players who "earn" them in game are different - I've met *plenty* of people with months/played in various games who are among the worst when it comes to teaming, and I've met people who bought high-level characters off of eBay who are among the best. And do remember, they're talking about stuff that is mostly cosmetic and extremely low-powered/convenience stuff, not "buy a max level character" or "buy the power cosmic for your character" kind of stuff. So what's your reasoning for why it matters?
Threats to people should be protected by "real" police with the authority to use serious force. If you pose a real threat to the physical safety of other people (life, limb, etc) it's justifiable to use deadly force to prevent that threat in the most extreme cases.
Threats to property should be protected by the people who benefit financially from that property, and the force allowed should be limited to non-lethal means, and non-permanent. Catch 'em and turn 'em over to the civil authorities, but the civil authorities should NOT have to provide the protection in the first place.
A plane full of people is a piece of private property, but if it is damaged unduly in flight, people are at risk; the government should therefore take steps to secure it, up to and including deadly force if necessary. Note that I'm absolutely NOT saying that the way flights are protected now is anything but an absolute joke - anyone with an IQ over 80 could likely come up with dozens of ways to inflict mass casualties without even engaging the airline security.
On the case of the idiot this story is about - I think one of the ways to *actually* provide security is pre-emptively investigating potential threats. This kid certainly wasn't a potential threat (though I bet it was funny to watch him pee a little when they came to get him - I often wish Barrens-chat could be punishable by arrest and cavity search). What I *am* glad about is that we're hearing about it, rather than the kid just... disappeared.
I agree with the overall point of your argument - there's no evidence *for* god, so it's probably reasonable to not believe or to be dubious - but I think you're not really being fair to the other side.
For example, "Basilisk" *could* mean a mythical creature that can turn flesh to stone with a look - which certainly sounds absurd. Or, it could mean "a really scary freakin' lizard that triggers instincts in people who see it and they stand completely frozen out of fear," which sounds unlikely, but not impossible (as someone who has literally peed her pants when she woke up with a VERY FREAKING LARGE iguana sitting on her chest, I can attest that it's DAMN sure not impossible!) Similarly, "God" can mean "the omnipotent/omniscient god of modern judeo/christian belief who is immune to logic and paradox" (which sounds completely ridiculous to me, and essentially pointless) or it could mean "A being that is MUCH more powerful than we are, but who still operates by rules that can be understood within a logical framework." Having read the old testament, I always felt like Yahweh was subject to quite a few limits and flaws - sure, he could create a universe, but once he created it, it behaved in ways he wasn't able to control, like an experiment - so, god *could* simply be a being or beings far in advance of us. (I don't think such beings created the universe or mankind, but I absolutely think that it may be possible for mankind or our descendants to one day create other life forms or, possibly, "universes" [whether simulations or through black holes or whatever])
And the "box" in this case isn't nearly as well understood and observed as you say in your post. We're still not even sure about fundamental forces at work in our universe, don't know for sure what our universe even is, mostly. We aren't sure what the greater framework our universe exists within (if there is one). Let's at least come up with a demonstrated working grand unified theory first before we even try to suggest that we're sure what size and shape the "box" is, and we can't say that we've observed it closely; our observations of the universe to date would be roughly equivalent to saying that we had explored the entire Earth because we'd one time walked about half a mile over to a tree-stump and stood on top of it and looked around for a couple of minutes.
Like I said, I agree with the overall point, but the analogy is a bit too simple, and implies that we have more understanding of things than we actually do. I absolutely don't think we need to manufacture a supreme (or even just superior) being (or any other complicating factor for which we have no evidence), and I absolutely wouldn't include "god" on a list of the usual suspects for interesting phenomena, but I also can't say that we're exactly fully informed yet of just what the heck is actually going on around us.
It must be demonstrated in court that you chose your victim specifically because you believed they belonged to a specific group in order for it to be a hate crime.
If you kill someone who happens to be of a particular group, but you killed them for reasons not having to do with that, it's homicide. If you kill someone who you believe to be of a particular group - even if they are not, in fact, of that group - and there is evidence to support this motive, and that evidence is sufficient to remove reasonable doubt, then yes, it's a hate crime.
You might be surprised to know that a black lesbian muslim woman could kill a white straight christian male and it can be a hate crime if she did so specifically because of his race/sexual orientation/religion/sex.
I will, however, admit, that it is much more likely that a murder of a minority by a person of the majority (in whatever particular aspect - race, religion, orientation) will be looked at as a possible hate crime than the reverse. However, that's largely on the basis of history - the vast majority of hate crimes have been perpetrated by the majority on the minority, so it makes sense in the same way that if a married person is murdered, the spouse is the first person investigated.
Personally, I view hate crimes as, essentially, terrorist acts - the perpetrators are attempting to frighten an entire class of people/send a message. I think we have laws on the books about terrorist acts, and definitely think we should use those rather than make entirely new laws to handle such things, but if we aren't willing to call a domestic terrorist what they are, then I think I am OK with other laws that help to eliminate crimes based on that kind of absurd thinking.
Touch like multi-touch on a screen that's placed to be most ergonomic (I'm thinking slanted at a 30-50 degree angle, a bit in front and above my lap would be great for me), would be FANTASTIC for an RTS - I can very easily imagine how the interface would work and be very powerful.
Motion - as in "motion at the level of the almost certainly fake Natal promo videos" where it captures and maps your body with great fidelity to movement and minimal lag - would be great for lots of current kinds of games (sports, dancing, silly mini-games, certain platformers, etc.) and could certainly lead to quite a bit of new and interesting stuff.
Speech - if it were good (MUCH better than today's consumer-grade efforts) not as an integral control scheme, but as an addition to the already extant controls, could be very interesting. I'd get a kick out of RPGs where, when I call someone over a phone or through some kind of communicator device, I have to actually talk to them, or if we're in combat I can yell "Watch out!" or some other warning to get the attention of someone I'm allied with.
Personally, I think that if we can find GOOD new control schemes (and I'm cautiously excited about some of the motion stuff coming up) there can be a lot of new avenues opened up in gaming. Keyboard + mouse is pretty simple and easy to use - but there are lots of interesting game ideas that cannot be done on it (or done well on it), or gamepads, or any currently existing interface.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite (gaming related) memories of my first run through university were from the equivalent of LAN parties. Taking over a computer lab during a 3-day weekend and slugging down illicit beers while finding ways to break IRC/play MUDS/hot-seat Civ 1/Blitz Empire games/play Marathon on the Macs/Specta VR was *awesome*. It's not about the quality of the experience, it's about having a bunch of people sharing it and having a blast!
Nowadays that experience has been mostly replaced by party type games on the consoles - Rockband, Ravin' Rabbids and stuff like that - but it is occasionally nice to go out and do a LAN party and meet other nerdlings :)
White lies are what stupid people tell because they can't figure out how to tell truth gently.
Do you love that (really ugly fucking sweater) I gave you? Not really, grandmother, but I love you!
What do you think of (outfit that accentuates every single flaw of a person's figure)? You know I love the way you look, but this outfit doesn't really seem to suit your look.
At work they made me so mad I (did something really childish in response to a stupid coworker) - what do you think? It's great that you stand up for yourself - you always have a plan. What is your plan for handling the blowback if any of those idiots get upset?
All of those are honest but they are said in a way that is kind and speaks to the core issue. Allowing someone to look like a fool when they were counting on you for honesty is incredibly cruel.
Or we look for ways to educate people who have this trait and teach them how *not* to do those harmful things.
Let me give you an example:
In my family, 2 of my siblings are dyslexic. My oldest sister and my younger brother. When my sister went to school and failed almost everything despite incredible efforts (I still cry when I hear her talk about literally tying herself to a chair when she was trying to learn to read so that she would stay there until she got it right) and it was only when she was 16 *and still in 7th grade* and about to drop out of school that she was evaluated for learning disabilities (this was the early 60's - she wasn't LD, she was "lazy"). She dropped out and eventually got her GED, but had such a miserable experience that she will not return to school. She's very, very bright - but because nobody really knew what the hell was going on, nobody could help her learn the way she needed to.
With my little brother, because of my older sister's experiences, we knew very early on because we spotted the signs, and he got special assistance from the start. He just graduated university with a 3.7 (out of 4) and is going to go to graduate school in education specializing in special needs. He was taught, from a VERY early age, ways to cope with the things he was experiencing, and his entire educational experience up to the middle of high school was geared towards helping him find ways to compensate for his difficulties. Further, his experiences will help him in the future because whereas most special education teachers don't know first hand what it's like, he does.
For most kids, learning to read isn't terribly hard, but for dyslexic kids, using the same methods you use to teach everyone else *will not work* and will lead to bad outcomes. Using special techniques, however, will let those kids learn and grow and do very well.
So, even if there is a perfect correlation between this structure and sociopathic tendencies, that doesn't require abortion; it would require us (the supposedly sane and compassionate ones) to use that sanity and compassion to find ways to educate those kids so that while they may still have different wiring, they don't act on it. Most kids learn the difference between right and wrong and are able to, eventually, become adults who at least try to do the right thing and are able to feel empathy for other people. But expecting a kid with this structure (if it is a cause of sociopathy) to learn right and wrong and to be empathic by the same ways everyone else is taught will just lead to what we have now. If we can find ways to help them understand from a much earlier age, and to create a specialized educational program geared towards their needs, and that lets them put their own special insights into use for the greater good of society - isn't *that* the best outcome?
I'm not anti-abortion by any means, but I will say that in this case, aborting people just because they may cause problems down the line seems like the option a sociopath would choose. Learning how to integrate them into our society in ways that are beneficial for all is the more compassionate choice.
You're begging the question - why is less power in the hands of businesses and more power in the hands of workers a *bad* thing?
Unions, in and of themselves, are not bad. Their intent and obligation is to protect workers (people who's wealth comes from wages, not from capital, usually) from the predations of management (people or groups where the wealth comes from capital, not wages).
Management's only obligation is to maximize profits/return on capital. In fact, in certain business structures, management can be sued because they weren't ruthless enough in maximizing their return on capital. So, if management were able to find a way to exploit their workers that wasn't illegal, they would in fact be *obligated* to do so or attempt to do so or face lawsuits!
The actual implementation of unions in the US and many other nations may be lacking in many ways, but the intent is good. Personally, I feel that the problem comes about when unions get too big and encompass multiple unrelated industries. Why, for example, should a union that protects retail workers also protect secretarial staff? The needs of each group are very different, and the only purpose for such a thing was to give one particular union more coercive power, not protect the workers.
The actual implementation of corporations in the US and many other nations is HORRIBLY broken. Corporations have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of being individuals under the law. Corporations are, by law, REQUIRED to behave in ways that are essentially sociopathic, and they protect the individuals responsible for the sociopathic behavior from prosecution except in EXTREMELY rare cases.
Personally, I think there needs to be an equilibrium achieved. If something is bad for businesses but good for workers (mandatory time and a half for overtime pay), it should be examined from a standpoint of what will provide the most overall good in the long run - in the case of overtime pay, for example, it turns out that this is a net good in that it allows certain workers to make a much better living than they might without overtime, encourages management to give individual workers a little overtime (cheaper to pay one guy 60k a year in salary & benefits than it is to hire another person at part time and have one at 40k and one at 20k due to administrative overhead), but also provides a disincentive for employers to overwork their staff (it becomes cheaper to hire another person than to pay the overtime rate, at a certain point). Some things may be bad for workers, but good for businesses (some employees are exempt from the overtime rules) but overall be good in the long run (exempt employees are generally going to be ones with more education and options - if management abuses them they can go to another employer, so employers can get a bit of extra work from them at no extra cost, as long as they don't abuse the privilege).
You seem to think that management being able to wield a club to keep the proles in line is a good thing; I suggest that it is not, and in fact find that line of reasoning to be abhorrent and a fine example of exactly what is wrong with the system we have in the US. It's disgusting to me that you would advocate fear as a motivator over satisfaction. You actually seem to want the happiness of the few (the economic elite) to come at the cost of the happiness of the many (working people) - and seem to actually *want* people to be miserable and afraid just so that capital interests (who in many cases aren't even human beings!) can be served. That's truly, truly sad.
I had been assuming that they were making cards and raiding accounts; I can't imagine a broken machine would get enough hits before being made "out of order" to even cover the cost of the fake ATM, if they only go for a couple of bucks.
A clever scammer would actually have the machine dispense a small amount of cash - say a maximum of $100 per transaction - to avert suspicion.
Load it with, say, $5000 and you can get a minimum of 50 PINs, which is probably worth more than the $5000. Have it say, "Due to high volume, this machine may only dispense $100 per transaction" or the like, which I've seen at various legit ATMs in high-traffic locations. To make it last even longer, have it every once in awhile simply give a message that it is unable to communicate with the network or whatever comments the type of machine you're spoofing usually gives.
If it fails to dispense cash, good samaritans may put "out of order" signs on it, or, if it doesn't dispense and still asks for your data, that makes people suspicious.
The $5000 is peanuts - and probably isn't even their money in the first place - and would almost certainly be less expensive in terms of avoiding detection & getting a LOT more accounts. Absolutely nobody would think that an ATM that dispensed cash is fake; lots of people might suspect one that takes your PIN and then fails to work.
I'm baffled by this...
Where were you in the US that people didn't know what a bathroom was? I mean that seriously - I've never in my life met someone who spoke English with at least medium facility who didn't know the terms "bathroom" "toilet" "restroom" "powder room" or "washroom," or any number of other more slangy terms for it. "WC" is a little less common in the US, but still generally understood.
And "Bank Machine" isn't a common term over here, but where were you that people weren't able to figure it out? If they were also completely flummoxed by "bath room" I'm going to guess it was an area where lead paint chips were a regional delicacy? Or was this so long ago that the devices were unknown to many? I did go on a trip to Oklahoma some years back where kids would actually ask if they could watch me use "the magic money machine," but those were children in a VERY small town, the machines were a novelty in many larger areas, and the kids in question were about 6-8 years old.
I absolutely don't mean to come off as hostile - I'm honestly amazed and curious.
No shit! The IRB at my university jumps all over us if we change the wording of an email announcing an appointment to participants, and that's for research classified as minimal risk!
I'm AMAZED.
The altruistic nature of the volunteers is wonderful to see, I agree.
Try the following exercise:
In 10 minutes, come up with as many different ways as possible to use a 3' long bit of 2"x4" wood. Variations on a theme are not allowed - "Crushing a cockroach" and "Crushing an ant" would count as "smooshing little critters" for example.
How many did you come up with?
Then have many thousands of people world wide, of all genders, religions, socioeconomic status, cultures, etc. do the same exercise.
You'll wind up with a pretty normalized distribution after awhile (and it may vary depending on various cultural factors), but I'd say that'd be a rather nice measure of "creativity".
Now, if you want to measure the *quality* of the the creative impulse, THAT is an entirely different idea. Just because someone can come up with 500 novel ideas for a 2x4 in 10 minutes doesn't mean that any of those ideas will be good ones.
If a person isn't interested in "getting clean" (from whatever it is they're addicted to) and isn't willing to make any kind of sacrifices or changes, it's very unlikely that they will stop abusing whatever it is they're addicted to. They have to come to the realization that their addiction is causing them harm and actually *want* to stop. Simply humoring someone online would not reasonably lead to any kind of useful outcome.
Beyond that, trolling for people who are not asking for help is unethical in the extreme. If these people are not seeking out counseling, a counselor approaching them and attempting to initiate a discussion is a *horrible* breech of professional standards; worse than ambulance chasing. It would be manipulative and cruel at best. Only when someone presents a clear danger to themselves or others is involuntary involvement warranted, and it would be very, very, VERY hard to make the case that someone spending a lot of time playing a computer game is in any sort of danger that would qualify.
As I said in a different post, I suspect that this program is a research program into peer-driven outreach and intervention efficacy, NOT just counselors getting online to talk to players, and is being poorly explained by the author of TFA. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out any other rational explanation for what sounds on the face of it like an absurd, ridiculous, unethical, hopeless and possibly harmful practice.
Actually, having re-read the article and looked around a bit more, it sounds like they are trying to look into the efficacy of on-line interventions, especially peer-driven ones. Unsurprisingly, TFA portrayed what is almost certainly a feasibility study as an actual intervention/treatment, demonstrating once again that reporters are lazy.
I find it very hard to imagine anyone trolling for patients in the fashion described - a research study exploring possible modes of intervention seems far more likely.
Sure it'll jam - the instant there's a multi-lane accident, all the assholes who need to stop and gawk will clog it right up.
What we need are 20 lane highways and transponders in all cars that broadcast their ID. When an emergency service vehicle puts out a signal, it gets a position on all cars in range, and a sophisticated traffic analysis program determines which cars are causing the slow-down by rubbernecking and mails them citations.
Second time offenders are, of course, ground up and used for food. You want your future with 20 lane highways, I want my dystopia where idiots are ground up and fed to other people.
You're talking about psychosis, not addiction - there are vast differences in how those two entirely different conditions should be treated. This article is about treating addiction, as were my comments - naturally my comments about using this as an approach to treating addiction wouldn't apply when talking about treating an entirely different disorder.
God but I loved that game.
Syndicate and Populous were two of my favorites.
I'd also like to see Bilestoad redone - I got a kick out of the gladiator theme. It'd be really fun as a multi-player networked free-for-all.
Text games via IM would be interesting, platform agnostic, and could lead to some entertaining gameplay concepts (multi-player geocaching adventure games?) I agree that the parsers would have to be substantially better than previous versions to make it less obnoxious to type it on a phone.
Forgive the self-reply, but I did also forget one other huge thing: confidentiality.
Because it would be taking place in an on-line setting where a 3rd party (or several 3rd parties, if using a combination of WoW's servers and a ventrillo/teamspeak server, or an addon that might capture all incoming/outgoing text), the confidentiality of the relationship would be exactly zero. GM's could simply get their kicks on eavesdropping on conversations between known "therapist" characters, for one obvious example.
I'm actually stunned that I forgot this in my first post, seeing as how it's a rather big deal. I suppose the client could waive confidentiality, but I can't imagine anyone actually opening up enough to get some benefit if they think they'll be overheard.
This would be the equivalent of trying to have a private conversation at a busy Starbucks.
I know quite a few clinical psychologists who won't participate in over-the-phone counseling except in cases of emergency because they feel that there is a staggering amount of information lost from the interaction due to the inability to perceive body language, eye-contact, or focus. I've staffed a hotline during an internship and a large part of the training was in dealing with those short-comings and it was universally recognized that it was not an optimal situation, but in the case where it was either talk to them on the phone or nothing, the phone is obviously preferable.
On top of that, it's notoriously difficult to convey any kind of emotional content or tone online or through text. I can't imagine any kind of reasonable therapeutic interaction taking place... "Hey, let's talk about how you feel compelled to only grind humanoid mobs..." "LOL FAG FEELINGS R 4 NUBS!" "..." "MeloveuGOLD most happiness! Many loves! Give you 10% CRAZY EXTRA FUN FUN GOLD gogogo now to wendygold.crom now!!!" Humor aside, I suppose it would be possible to talk over ventrillo or other voice methods, but even so, there would be so many distractions it'd be ridiculous.
If someone truly is addicted to WoW to the point where they are literally unable to tear themselves away from the game long enough to go to a therapy session in real life (and I would say the number of people in this situation is vanishingly small, approaching zero), then yes, this might be preferable, but as it is, it just sounds like something done to capitalize on the popularity of the game. It is, I suppose, an interesting thing to try this new avenue to test the efficacy, but I'm very strongly doubting that it'll be terribly effective.
I can see your point, I guess I just don't agree with it.
I guess my feeling is that there's no equality in this situation in the first place, and as long as it isn't having a huge effect on my experience, I don't really care what people have access to that I don't.
For example, I have a really nice gaming rig - I can play games at the highest settings and my FPS won't dip much at all when I'm in a huge battle. This is HUGE in player vs. player combat because I'll be able to react to events in real time; someone with a crap system might get slowed down to 1fps and thus be much less reactive. It's real-life money giving me an advantage in game - and definitely having more of an effect on other players than "You paid $5 for this widget, now you can have 8 new costume pieces with 100% more SPARKLES!" Should there be a *maximum* system allowance for multi-player games, so that outside factors don't play into the game much?
And, honestly, if a $.50 microtransaction to be able to have a special codpiece on your hero is going to be difficult to swing, paying $15 a month for a video game subscription is probably not the soundest choice. I don't know that "amount of disposable income" really enters into it once you're talking about paying for a luxury subscription service - if you're playing MMOs, it's really more about "how much money do you want to spend on playing video games" instead of haves vs. have-nots.
I will say that I did come up with one reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to spend RL money on things that will make their characters better (as opposed to cosmetic frippery) - advancement in the game (becoming more powerful) should reasonably only be achieved through playing the game. People who are unemployed and play the game for 12 hours a day are spending that time *in* the game, playing it, so it's fair that they are more powerful, whereas someone who works and can only play for 2 hours a day should not be able to just spend money to have as powerful a character - they aren't actually playing the game to get better.
I'm more interested in your time machine than your stock speculation advice, to be honest - it seems to not only send you about 6-7 years back into the past, but also into an alternate reality.
I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to this question, so I'll ask you:
Why do you care about how other people in the game came about obtaining the powers they have?
If I play for 30 minutes and get myself a +1 sword of backscratching (which sounds about like what the Champions guy was talking about - nothing major, just minor bennies) or I pay $.50 to get the same thing, what possible difference will it make to you that I've done so?
Please don't say that players who buy things vs. players who "earn" them in game are different - I've met *plenty* of people with months /played in various games who are among the worst when it comes to teaming, and I've met people who bought high-level characters off of eBay who are among the best. And do remember, they're talking about stuff that is mostly cosmetic and extremely low-powered/convenience stuff, not "buy a max level character" or "buy the power cosmic for your character" kind of stuff. So what's your reasoning for why it matters?
I think the line I have in my mind is:
Threats to people should be protected by "real" police with the authority to use serious force. If you pose a real threat to the physical safety of other people (life, limb, etc) it's justifiable to use deadly force to prevent that threat in the most extreme cases.
Threats to property should be protected by the people who benefit financially from that property, and the force allowed should be limited to non-lethal means, and non-permanent. Catch 'em and turn 'em over to the civil authorities, but the civil authorities should NOT have to provide the protection in the first place.
A plane full of people is a piece of private property, but if it is damaged unduly in flight, people are at risk; the government should therefore take steps to secure it, up to and including deadly force if necessary. Note that I'm absolutely NOT saying that the way flights are protected now is anything but an absolute joke - anyone with an IQ over 80 could likely come up with dozens of ways to inflict mass casualties without even engaging the airline security.
On the case of the idiot this story is about - I think one of the ways to *actually* provide security is pre-emptively investigating potential threats. This kid certainly wasn't a potential threat (though I bet it was funny to watch him pee a little when they came to get him - I often wish Barrens-chat could be punishable by arrest and cavity search). What I *am* glad about is that we're hearing about it, rather than the kid just ... disappeared.
I agree with the overall point of your argument - there's no evidence *for* god, so it's probably reasonable to not believe or to be dubious - but I think you're not really being fair to the other side.
For example, "Basilisk" *could* mean a mythical creature that can turn flesh to stone with a look - which certainly sounds absurd. Or, it could mean "a really scary freakin' lizard that triggers instincts in people who see it and they stand completely frozen out of fear," which sounds unlikely, but not impossible (as someone who has literally peed her pants when she woke up with a VERY FREAKING LARGE iguana sitting on her chest, I can attest that it's DAMN sure not impossible!) Similarly, "God" can mean "the omnipotent/omniscient god of modern judeo/christian belief who is immune to logic and paradox" (which sounds completely ridiculous to me, and essentially pointless) or it could mean "A being that is MUCH more powerful than we are, but who still operates by rules that can be understood within a logical framework." Having read the old testament, I always felt like Yahweh was subject to quite a few limits and flaws - sure, he could create a universe, but once he created it, it behaved in ways he wasn't able to control, like an experiment - so, god *could* simply be a being or beings far in advance of us. (I don't think such beings created the universe or mankind, but I absolutely think that it may be possible for mankind or our descendants to one day create other life forms or, possibly, "universes" [whether simulations or through black holes or whatever])
And the "box" in this case isn't nearly as well understood and observed as you say in your post. We're still not even sure about fundamental forces at work in our universe, don't know for sure what our universe even is, mostly. We aren't sure what the greater framework our universe exists within (if there is one). Let's at least come up with a demonstrated working grand unified theory first before we even try to suggest that we're sure what size and shape the "box" is, and we can't say that we've observed it closely; our observations of the universe to date would be roughly equivalent to saying that we had explored the entire Earth because we'd one time walked about half a mile over to a tree-stump and stood on top of it and looked around for a couple of minutes.
Like I said, I agree with the overall point, but the analogy is a bit too simple, and implies that we have more understanding of things than we actually do. I absolutely don't think we need to manufacture a supreme (or even just superior) being (or any other complicating factor for which we have no evidence), and I absolutely wouldn't include "god" on a list of the usual suspects for interesting phenomena, but I also can't say that we're exactly fully informed yet of just what the heck is actually going on around us.
No, that's absolutely not the case.
It must be demonstrated in court that you chose your victim specifically because you believed they belonged to a specific group in order for it to be a hate crime.
If you kill someone who happens to be of a particular group, but you killed them for reasons not having to do with that, it's homicide.
If you kill someone who you believe to be of a particular group - even if they are not, in fact, of that group - and there is evidence to support this motive, and that evidence is sufficient to remove reasonable doubt, then yes, it's a hate crime.
You might be surprised to know that a black lesbian muslim woman could kill a white straight christian male and it can be a hate crime if she did so specifically because of his race/sexual orientation/religion/sex.
I will, however, admit, that it is much more likely that a murder of a minority by a person of the majority (in whatever particular aspect - race, religion, orientation) will be looked at as a possible hate crime than the reverse. However, that's largely on the basis of history - the vast majority of hate crimes have been perpetrated by the majority on the minority, so it makes sense in the same way that if a married person is murdered, the spouse is the first person investigated.
Personally, I view hate crimes as, essentially, terrorist acts - the perpetrators are attempting to frighten an entire class of people/send a message. I think we have laws on the books about terrorist acts, and definitely think we should use those rather than make entirely new laws to handle such things, but if we aren't willing to call a domestic terrorist what they are, then I think I am OK with other laws that help to eliminate crimes based on that kind of absurd thinking.
Touch like multi-touch on a screen that's placed to be most ergonomic (I'm thinking slanted at a 30-50 degree angle, a bit in front and above my lap would be great for me), would be FANTASTIC for an RTS - I can very easily imagine how the interface would work and be very powerful.
Motion - as in "motion at the level of the almost certainly fake Natal promo videos" where it captures and maps your body with great fidelity to movement and minimal lag - would be great for lots of current kinds of games (sports, dancing, silly mini-games, certain platformers, etc.) and could certainly lead to quite a bit of new and interesting stuff.
Speech - if it were good (MUCH better than today's consumer-grade efforts) not as an integral control scheme, but as an addition to the already extant controls, could be very interesting. I'd get a kick out of RPGs where, when I call someone over a phone or through some kind of communicator device, I have to actually talk to them, or if we're in combat I can yell "Watch out!" or some other warning to get the attention of someone I'm allied with.
Personally, I think that if we can find GOOD new control schemes (and I'm cautiously excited about some of the motion stuff coming up) there can be a lot of new avenues opened up in gaming. Keyboard + mouse is pretty simple and easy to use - but there are lots of interesting game ideas that cannot be done on it (or done well on it), or gamepads, or any currently existing interface.
Because I didn't buy it from Amazon.
And more and more I'm looking at alternative sources for any ebooks I buy, because Amazon keeps doing this kind of shit.