IIRC, there has never been a single clinical or scientific study which showed single- or multiple-frame subliminal advertising actually works.
It was first tried out in movie theatres, and on the strength of purely anecdotal evidence it was promptly banned in movies, TV, pretty much everywhere.
Non-subliminal advertising (liminal advertising?) works very well - billboards and the like can and do have a long-term effect.
However, one of the most striking differences I see between people "at home" on the net and those who are very obviously not at home is the ability to assimilate, categorise and discard information. In addition, one of the wonderful things about the net is how full it is of bullshit, so a difference would likely be the strength and efficiency of people's BS filters.
To be clear: I don't doubt that in-game advertising might have some effect, especially with the increase in the number of people who play games. However, I think anyone hoping it'll work well, or even as well as TV, are in for a nasty shock.
Plus, y'know, I'd imagine it's relatively trivial to write packet-level ad-blocking utils for any given popular game, which again you can't do with your TV.
Yes, but the CIA doesn't have the right priorities to make a decision of this type.
They're worried about silly, little things like terrorism, insurgency, defectors and people giving away classified information.
The Whitehouse is worried about the really important stuff, like whether the information makes them look bad, or contradicts any of the vast edifice of lies, spin and propaganda they've painstakingly erected. Especially now it's starting to show a few cracks.
Exactly. When you watch TV you're passively receptive, so advertising works because you're already passive and receptive to being "told" messages and instructions - what's coming out of the TV is the object of the exercise
Computer games and the web are much more active, intellectual media - you're constantly deciding where you want to go and what you want to do, and a large part of successful game playing/web browsing consists of quickly and efficiently identifying the useful information presented to you, isolating it from the irrelevant information and ignoring the rest - the computer game or website is a method to achieve the object of the exercise, not the object of the exercise itself. And (as we all know), anything that interrupts you in your pursuit of an aim doesn't persuade you so much as irritate the living shit out of you.
TV advertising is aimed at people who are sitting there waiting to be told things.
In-game and online advertising is aimed at people who already know exactly where they want to go and what they want to do, and unless it's an essential part of their activity your advertising can and will be ignored and discarded as fast as the user can humanly process it.
Comparable means you can compare the two things - one might be wonderful and the other total shit, but they exist on the same spectrum.
Apples and oranges are (canonically) not comparable because they're different fruit, so they have different criteria to be fairly judged on.
You can compare a nice apple with, say, a shitty, maggot-ridden one - they both have the same criteria, so comparison is valid.
So, on the basis they're both managed programming environments, both compile to bytecode, both tackle the same kinds of tasks in a similar way, you can compare Mono,.NET and Java.
You might believe one is better than the others, but that doesn't make them incomparable.
"Java Script / J Script is the devil. Development is a sloppy crap shoot, but we use it because it's there. It's now being used for ridiculous things that it was never really designed for."
What exactly is wrong with the javascript language? Everything you're ranting about is the fault of browser manufacturers and faulty/incomplete/deliberately broken implementations of javascript. The DOM support of various browsers sucks
Some news: Lisp would be shit if there were three or four wildly-divergent implementations, each claiming to be "the" lisp. And especially if the dominant version was a bastardised Microsoft Lisp-alike which everyone who didn't know better coded-to.
Javascript the language is actually quite compact, elegant and usable.
"This Hypnotoad thingy wouldn't happen to have been nicked from Asimov now, would it?"
Almost certainly, because every idea is conceived-of exactly once in the entire lifetime of the universe, and every instance of anything remotely similar afterwards is clearly therefore by definition a rip-off. Right?
Or, maybe, it's a complete coincidence, or perhaps a respectful reference. It's not exactly like Futurama's lacking in deliberate sci-fi references, is it?
Nobody hates Microsoft because Windows doesn't look quite as pretty as it should. They hate Microsoft because Windows is still (in many ways) a fundamentally broken operating system.
The bits that Linux really gets right compared to Windows tend to be low-level OS-and-application stuff - avoiding memory leaks, networking, a proper designed-in security/permissions architecture, etc.
Microsoft ignored all of that for years to concentrate on putting in prettier buttons and integrating everything into the Windows kernel to give them a business "advantage".
"Your point was to emphasize that people see anyone 'shouting' their opinion as a religious fundamentalist, I got that. My point was that not everyone 'shouting' their opinion IS a religious fundamentalist. By the way, you remember that saying about assuming??;) "
Not quite. My point was that when someone is clearly religious and shouting, or shouting about religion that person is usually/often a fundamentalist.
And people assume this because non-fundamentalists don't normally shout about religion (or opinions derived therefrom) - non-fundamentalists normally engage in quiet, one-on-one debates that actually generate useful dialogue. Media-whoring idiots courting controversy in public are normally fundamentalists.
"Would I be more correct (in your view) of saying anyone expressing their opinion is a religious fundamentalist?"
No. Anyone stating their opinions, thoughtfully engaging in dialogue and actually trying to persuade people are generally assumed to be non-fundamentalists. Anyone shouting from the rooftops and comdemning people to hell are normally fundamentalists.
At least, in the opinion of a non-religious person.
"It sure looks to me like you lumped yourself in with those who share this view."
Sorry - it sure looks like this to everyone, but I know this is not always the case. I'm saying "people who are loud and abrasive about their views on religion are normally X", and you're hearing "people who express any opinion on religion are X" - that's not what I said, and certainly not what I intended to convey.
"Also, to extend a little, why aren't the loud shouty militant homosexuals (for example) being criticized as much as the loud shouty religious types?"
I think it's probably a historical fluke, tied in with our current cultural outlook. Or perfectly justified karma, depending on how you look at it.
The church/religion-as-an-institution has historically been one of the greatest forces for judging people, and condemning people for personal choices. Historically, claiming (or citing) religion has given impeccable authority for whatever your agenda might be, whether you honestly believe it's What God Wants or you're just looking to make a lot of money and get laid a lot. Thus religion has become very strongly identified with repression and judgementalism.
These days homosexuality or alternative lifestyles are perfectly acceptable, and anyone who condemns them are looked-down-on as backward or reactionary.
Religion-as-an-institution has spent hundreds of years being what is now considered backward and reactionary, and although many churches or religions have quietly modernised and dropped the most offensive parts of their beliefs (and what does that imply about the sanctity of those beliefs?), the loudest and hardest-to-avoid "religious publicity" is now conducted by the lunatic fringe.
That's why religion comes in for more flack than (say) homosexuality - it's not acceptable to bash people for who they want to put their genitals inside, but it is acceptable (almost uniquely!) to look down on people for being judgemental and unaccepting of others.
Homosexuals (for example) have generally been persecuted, not the ones doing the persecuting. Now persecuting is taboo, ex-persecutors come in for the most flack. It's not difficult.
Is it fair? In some ways.
Is it fair that non-persecuting religious people get offended? No, which is why I suggested those handy substitutions so you don't get offended by sentiments that aren't aimed at you personally.
OTOH, is it hugely unfair that given innocent homosexuals/pagans/whoever were tortured, ruined or burned at the stake by religion-as-an-institution, now religious people occasionally have to put up with a few sarky comments on a forum? That's a harder case to make.
"Anytime religion comes up on slashdot, we see these arguments wh
Oh dear, oh dear, I think someone missed the entire point...
"Semi off topic, but why must you assume that any person with an opinion is a religious fuckwit fundamentalist?"
1. The GP is talking about religion. I did not make this a topic about religion. We were talking about religion, and someone was complaining about how people perceive "people with strong religious opinions" are "religious fundamentalists". I was explaining that (for the non-religious) that's because those people shout loudest, so we have most experience of them. I don't actually share this view, but it is a handy mental shortcut that many people take, and it does often prove fairly reliable.
Why do you think "Islam" is often (completely wrongly) identified with the kind of people who hate foreigners and blow themselves up to make a point? And yet many of the same people to take offence at the previous generalisation will argue in favour of this one!
2. I don't believe "anyone with an opinion" is a religious fundamentalist - I have many friends, with many fine opinions, many of which I disagree with, and some of whom are religious. There is no connection.
3. I'm not, actually, an athiest. I am an "evangelical (fuckwit) agnostic". I don't think it's possible to prove whether God exists or not, I think anyone who chooses to belief/emphatically deny without proof is silly (why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?), and anyone who claims to have proof either way doesn't understand the meaning of the word "proof".
Good luck arguing against that position.;-)
"so you assume I'm a Christian fundamentalist."
Did I say that? All I said was that non-religious types only really hear from the (loud, shouty) lunatic fringe, so naturally they assume anyone shouting is one of those loons.
Quiet, demonstrative religious types keep themselves to themselves, kind of like moderate muslims, non-militant homosexuals and paedophiles who live with their urges but never even think of abusing a child.
Where are their cheerleaders jumping up and down at the slightest perceived slight?
All these groups are persecuted or "disapproved-of" because of the lunatic fringe. I was explaining how/why this happens, not agreeing with it. Get a grip.
"P.S. What the hell is evolutionary marriage, I've never heard of that, nor have I heard about anyone wanting to ban violent video games in the army or banning gays, just gay marriage."
Oh sweet Jesus - this was supposed to be a joke. Violent games in the army aren't a controversial subject - they've already got fucking guns, for christ's sake. I was humorously referencing:
Evolution (teaching of) Gays in the army Gay marriage Banning violent video vames Banning guns
I've got to say, though, you're doing a wonderful job of conforming to the Humourless Christian stereotype that so many people (wrongly) subscribe to.
And since it's clearly been mis-interpreted, let me just clarify the following phrase from my previous post:
"And the world could be a wonderful place if groups of people identified predominantly by their religion would stop bashing everyone and everything else, too."
This means that the world would be a wonderful place if some people who called themselves religious stopped bashing everyone else.
Like, "religion wouldn't get bashed so much if so many fuckwits didn't push their own agendas in its name".
It does not mean all Christians are dog-rapists, or whatever you were thinking, ok?
it down and read it carefully... and strap down that jerking knee before you do yourself a mischief.;-)
And because you clearly missed it the first time, let me re-iterate (this time, with annotations!):
"To a degree, you are correct. I don't know of anyone who has taken a group of children and raised them in a specific manner as to test these claims, and compare them against another group of children who were strictly kept from these kinds of exposures."
Happily, there's another way to test it, that's almost as good as the one you suggest.
We take one group of children and raise them in a hazily-remembered "golden age", when people didn't lock their doors, nobody had ever heard of drugs and video games were unknown - say, roughly 1976.
Take another group of children and raise them in a sharply-delineated "modern" world, with mass-media, pornography, violence nightly on the TV and violent video games in every bedroom - say around 2006.
Now, take national statistics from both groups, and what do you find?
The US DOJ does this each and every year, and the result is that violent crime, including violent crime by minors has dropped in a more-or-less straight line ever since 1973. I've seen other similar charts which purport to go back even further - to 1903 in one case. All show the same trend.
Say it with me: Media Hysteria != Factual Statistics
"However, if the military knows that to weaken (to the point of destruction) a person's inhibitions against doing X, they just need to "brainwash" them into doing X over and over, the idea has some merit, no?"
No. Brainwashing != playing. The military uses an entire suite of techniques to break down civilian response-sets and inculcate military-appropriate ones - reduction of sleep, tightly regimented lifestyle, punishment for hesitation or disobedience, etc, etc, etc. This is why boot camp isn't "fun" - it's deliberately stress-inducing and unpleasant.
A kid can turn off their console at any point, and games which aren't "fun" don't sell.
It's like comparing apples and peas, because they're superficially similar and both involve "green".
"So, repetitive exposure to exercises where you shoot a human-shaped target creates a habit and a reflex such that you then do this without thinking. This isn't rocket science. It's how you create habits."
The main aim of repetitive exercises is to build up "muscle memory", making the action automatic. Soldiers use guns, and actually run around in muddy fields.
Our kids sit in warm heated/air-conditioned rooms and use joypads or mice.
All we're training our kids to do is to wave a mouse at an enemy soldier and click.
I can see where you're coming from, but this does indicate:
1. A lack of understanding of the technical details of indoctrination/brainwashing procedures 2. A lack of understanding of muscle memory 3. A completely unproven (in fact, counter-indicated) link between two disparare activites 4. A complete inability to differentiate between a fun, unreal game and a real life-or-death choice
"t should not be that difficult to apply the understanding of techniques for creating a habit to the situation of a child with minimal (or oppressive) parental supervision who has a TV or a computer for a baby-sitter."
Aaaaah, the venerable "Of course, my kids are well-brought-up and know the difference, but think of the poor kids with bad parents" argument.
How about we also ban:
* Action figures or toy guns (since it involves actual movement it's more "realistic" training than FPSs) * Plastic bags (Timmy might choke) * All cars (Timmy might run out into the road) * Etc.
"No, this is not the beloved Scientific Method; it involves more than following a rote set of rules and procedures. But if you seriously think about it, it will take you out of your comfort zone, particularly if you enjoy those kinds of games, but mostly because it can apply to multiple areas of life outside of gaming."
Not necessarily. But if we don't start valuing science and experts over charlatans, quackery and baseless comfort beliefs, we'll get there a lot quicker.
"Feel free to make fun of the "crazies". It's okay. But don't bring Jesus into stuff like this."
Ummm, technically he only invoked "Jebus". I dunno about you, but in my alphabet "b" and "s" are different letters. Maybe he was intentionally doing this to avoid offending anyone reasonable who does believe in Jesus?
"Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing."
And the world could be a wonderful place if groups of people identified predominantly by their religion would stop bashing everyone and everything else, too.
"People on the fringes don't speak for all of us."
No, but they speak the loudest. So all us non-religious types hear is fuckwit fundamentalists complaining about violent video games in the army, opposing evolutionary marriage and banning gays.
" I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can."
Then well done - you're pursuing the only path that stands a chance of really converting anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together.
If it helps, try the following:
s/christian/fuckwit fundamentalist christians/ s/religion/what's done in the name of religion by fuckwits/
I'm pretty sure that's the mental shorthand of most reasonable people on Slashdot - religion has done very good things, but these days most of the good things are shouted down by the constant media-whoring of the lunatic fringe.
Good points, every one. I should have substituted the word "fairness" instead of "equality".
Is it "equal" that a doctor with ten years' education in medicine can ignore my request for $heavily_advertised_designer_drug and prescribe me what he thinks I really need? No.
Is it "fair" that he can do this, given his aforementioned ten years in medicine versus my thirty-second education-by-advert? Yes.
"There are lots of discussions about this, and I don't think it will ever die as a discussion. Especially with a current world religion that practices the opposite openly: murder/martyrdom as a tool."
Not to nit-pick, but Islam no more teaches violence and martyrdom than Christianity does.
Some governments and clerics in Mulsim countries do, but then Christian Pro-Life demonstrators murder abortion clinic workers, fundamentalist televangelists openly preach assassination of world leaders, and nominally christian countries recently invaded an entire soverign nation on trumped-up charges, so what was your point again?
"'As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.' There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups..."
Technically Godwin's Law does no such thing, but the codicil of application of Godwin's Law ending/losing a thread is now so firmly attached to the original that it's pretty pointlessly pedantic to argue against the idea.
"Godwin's Law" in popular usage therefore indicates both Godwin's Law and the associated tradition of it ending threads.
You can argue about the "meaning" of words or phrases all you like, but words have no intrinsic meaning - they're just collections of sounds we've arbitrarily drawn a ring around and decided to call "a word". If the majority of people use a word to mean X, the word now means X, irrespective of what it meant before. C.F. "gay/cheerful", "gay/homosexual", "gay/bad".
"Godwin's Law" now includes the codicil about ending threads. We can now call a halt to pedantic dick-waving competitions the world over.:-D
Intelligent people with far too much time on their hands debating the fastest possible application of an online in-joke, and even going so far as to introduce notation for the problem in order to discuss it more easily.
From TFA: "As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become more reassured that these devices are safe, but the final word is not there yet,"
Yes, yes, yes, but what you're forgetting is that this whole thing about cell-phones not causing cancer is only a theory. It's not proven, so it could be wrong, and thus it's vitally important to also teach children in school that brain cancer might be caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If the USA doesn't lead the world in science and technology, what does it lead in?
Economically? Not in 20 years when China's completed its long-overdue industrial revolution and moved straight into the information age. And what do you think keeps your economy afloat? Technological innovation.
Morally/Politically? Not since September 2001.
Militarily? Maybe, but when your science and technology goes to shit, who'll be supplying all the cool toys that keep your military powerful despite their tiny (and falling) head-count?
Educationally? Not with the rise of "sponsored" teaching materials/ID/Fundamentalism/Creationism/other interference in educational curriculums (curricula?) from special-interest groups.
Socially? The USA is positively in the dark ages compared to many countries - without even a national health service.
Face it - the USA either leads the world in science and technology, or it trails the world in everything else (even the pathetic ones, like population or "who's got the biggest army").
Seriously - what apart from science/technology (and the things science/technology make possible) are you leading the world in?
"If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?"
But that would inevitably lead to a system which repeatedly cranked out sequel after sequel, hammering home the same tired franchises over and over again, refusing to produce anything new or innovative because it might not be profitable.
I would kill for mod-points. How is the parent still languishing at 0, a full half-hour after it was posted?
People want respect and money, but they'll compromise on the money for respect and self-worth. Culture and the media dictates how much respect people get for their job. Our culture and media is getting pretty vehemently "anti-expert"[1]. Scientists are basically paid experts. Remove respect from a profession, and watch people desert it. Remove people from a profession, and watch the country fall behind in that field.
Cheapen science in the media, encourage the perception that experts have no more to offer than anyone else and your country falls behind because nobody wants to waste time learning to become something so disrespected. QED.
Footnotes:
[1] Are there really always two sides to every story? Does everyone's opinion really have equal weight? Should everyone always have equal input on every decision?
If you answered yes to all three, congratulations - you're a fully-paid-up brainwashed member of our generation.
You're also wrong, and likely dangerously stupid.
What about flying a plane - should we leave it to the couple of guys who've trained for years to do it, or should we consult everyone on the plane and have a vote about which way to turn to avoid the other oncoming 747?
Say it with me: Equality is an abstract goal, not an existing achievement.
I took "A criminally smart President doesn't mean a criminal President" to mean a president with criminal intentions (ie, "criminally smart") doesn't have to be able to successfully break the law ("become a criminal President")... which was reinforced by your later point about keeping him in check.
What you actually meant was someone who knows how criminals think ("criminally smart") doesn't actually have to act criminally, right?
Fair point, then... but I still think this qualifies them more for work in law-enforcement than law-making. I'd want a president who was politically, diplomatically and economically smart, rather than criminally, per se.
I think we're both agreed, though, that a criminal president with the brains of a concussed chicken is something neither of us want, right?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, there has never been a single clinical or scientific study which showed single- or multiple-frame subliminal advertising actually works.
It was first tried out in movie theatres, and on the strength of purely anecdotal evidence it was promptly banned in movies, TV, pretty much everywhere.
Non-subliminal advertising (liminal advertising?) works very well - billboards and the like can and do have a long-term effect.
However, one of the most striking differences I see between people "at home" on the net and those who are very obviously not at home is the ability to assimilate, categorise and discard information. In addition, one of the wonderful things about the net is how full it is of bullshit, so a difference would likely be the strength and efficiency of people's BS filters.
To be clear: I don't doubt that in-game advertising might have some effect, especially with the increase in the number of people who play games. However, I think anyone hoping it'll work well, or even as well as TV, are in for a nasty shock.
Plus, y'know, I'd imagine it's relatively trivial to write packet-level ad-blocking utils for any given popular game, which again you can't do with your TV.
Yes, but the CIA doesn't have the right priorities to make a decision of this type.
They're worried about silly, little things like terrorism, insurgency, defectors and people giving away classified information.
The Whitehouse is worried about the really important stuff, like whether the information makes them look bad, or contradicts any of the vast edifice of lies, spin and propaganda they've painstakingly erected. Especially now it's starting to show a few cracks.
Priorities, people, priorites...
Exactly. When you watch TV you're passively receptive, so advertising works because you're already passive and receptive to being "told" messages and instructions - what's coming out of the TV is the object of the exercise
Computer games and the web are much more active, intellectual media - you're constantly deciding where you want to go and what you want to do, and a large part of successful game playing/web browsing consists of quickly and efficiently identifying the useful information presented to you, isolating it from the irrelevant information and ignoring the rest - the computer game or website is a method to achieve the object of the exercise, not the object of the exercise itself. And (as we all know), anything that interrupts you in your pursuit of an aim doesn't persuade you so much as irritate the living shit out of you.
TV advertising is aimed at people who are sitting there waiting to be told things.
In-game and online advertising is aimed at people who already know exactly where they want to go and what they want to do, and unless it's an essential part of their activity your advertising can and will be ignored and discarded as fast as the user can humanly process it.
"Comparable" != "identical to"
.NET and Java.
Comparable means you can compare the two things - one might be wonderful and the other total shit, but they exist on the same spectrum.
Apples and oranges are (canonically) not comparable because they're different fruit, so they have different criteria to be fairly judged on.
You can compare a nice apple with, say, a shitty, maggot-ridden one - they both have the same criteria, so comparison is valid.
So, on the basis they're both managed programming environments, both compile to bytecode, both tackle the same kinds of tasks in a similar way, you can compare Mono,
You might believe one is better than the others, but that doesn't make them incomparable.
Fair point, but not all those Lisp interpreters claim to "support" the same standard.
Ok, how about:
"You might as well say C/C++/C# are shit because Windows and Linux don't support exactly the same libraries".
Better?
"Java Script / J Script is the devil. Development is a sloppy crap shoot, but we use it because it's there. It's now being used for ridiculous things that it was never really designed for."
What exactly is wrong with the javascript language? Everything you're ranting about is the fault of browser manufacturers and faulty/incomplete/deliberately broken implementations of javascript. The DOM support of various browsers sucks
Some news: Lisp would be shit if there were three or four wildly-divergent implementations, each claiming to be "the" lisp. And especially if the dominant version was a bastardised Microsoft Lisp-alike which everyone who didn't know better coded-to.
Javascript the language is actually quite compact, elegant and usable.
"This Hypnotoad thingy wouldn't happen to have been nicked from Asimov now, would it?"
Almost certainly, because every idea is conceived-of exactly once in the entire lifetime of the universe, and every instance of anything remotely similar afterwards is clearly therefore by definition a rip-off. Right?
Or, maybe, it's a complete coincidence, or perhaps a respectful reference. It's not exactly like Futurama's lacking in deliberate sci-fi references, is it?
Nobody hates Microsoft because Windows doesn't look quite as pretty as it should. They hate Microsoft because Windows is still (in many ways) a fundamentally broken operating system.
The bits that Linux really gets right compared to Windows tend to be low-level OS-and-application stuff - avoiding memory leaks, networking, a proper designed-in security/permissions architecture, etc.
Microsoft ignored all of that for years to concentrate on putting in prettier buttons and integrating everything into the Windows kernel to give them a business "advantage".
SG-onanists?
"Your point was to emphasize that people see anyone 'shouting' their opinion as a religious fundamentalist, I got that. My point was that not everyone 'shouting' their opinion IS a religious fundamentalist. By the way, you remember that saying about assuming?? ;) "
Not quite. My point was that when someone is clearly religious and shouting, or shouting about religion that person is usually/often a fundamentalist.
And people assume this because non-fundamentalists don't normally shout about religion (or opinions derived therefrom) - non-fundamentalists normally engage in quiet, one-on-one debates that actually generate useful dialogue. Media-whoring idiots courting controversy in public are normally fundamentalists.
"Would I be more correct (in your view) of saying anyone expressing their opinion is a religious fundamentalist?"
No. Anyone stating their opinions, thoughtfully engaging in dialogue and actually trying to persuade people are generally assumed to be non-fundamentalists. Anyone shouting from the rooftops and comdemning people to hell are normally fundamentalists.
At least, in the opinion of a non-religious person.
"It sure looks to me like you lumped yourself in with those who share this view."
Sorry - it sure looks like this to everyone, but I know this is not always the case. I'm saying "people who are loud and abrasive about their views on religion are normally X", and you're hearing "people who express any opinion on religion are X" - that's not what I said, and certainly not what I intended to convey.
"Also, to extend a little, why aren't the loud shouty militant homosexuals (for example) being criticized as much as the loud shouty religious types?"
I think it's probably a historical fluke, tied in with our current cultural outlook. Or perfectly justified karma, depending on how you look at it.
The church/religion-as-an-institution has historically been one of the greatest forces for judging people, and condemning people for personal choices. Historically, claiming (or citing) religion has given impeccable authority for whatever your agenda might be, whether you honestly believe it's What God Wants or you're just looking to make a lot of money and get laid a lot. Thus religion has become very strongly identified with repression and judgementalism.
These days homosexuality or alternative lifestyles are perfectly acceptable, and anyone who condemns them are looked-down-on as backward or reactionary.
Religion-as-an-institution has spent hundreds of years being what is now considered backward and reactionary, and although many churches or religions have quietly modernised and dropped the most offensive parts of their beliefs (and what does that imply about the sanctity of those beliefs?), the loudest and hardest-to-avoid "religious publicity" is now conducted by the lunatic fringe.
That's why religion comes in for more flack than (say) homosexuality - it's not acceptable to bash people for who they want to put their genitals inside, but it is acceptable (almost uniquely!) to look down on people for being judgemental and unaccepting of others.
Homosexuals (for example) have generally been persecuted, not the ones doing the persecuting. Now persecuting is taboo, ex-persecutors come in for the most flack. It's not difficult.
Is it fair? In some ways.
Is it fair that non-persecuting religious people get offended? No, which is why I suggested those handy substitutions so you don't get offended by sentiments that aren't aimed at you personally.
OTOH, is it hugely unfair that given innocent homosexuals/pagans/whoever were tortured, ruined or burned at the stake by religion-as-an-institution, now religious people occasionally have to put up with a few sarky comments on a forum? That's a harder case to make.
"Anytime religion comes up on slashdot, we see these arguments wh
"Semi off topic, but why must you assume that any person with an opinion is a religious fuckwit fundamentalist?"
1. The GP is talking about religion. I did not make this a topic about religion. We were talking about religion, and someone was complaining about how people perceive "people with strong religious opinions" are "religious fundamentalists". I was explaining that (for the non-religious) that's because those people shout loudest, so we have most experience of them. I don't actually share this view, but it is a handy mental shortcut that many people take, and it does often prove fairly reliable.
Why do you think "Islam" is often (completely wrongly) identified with the kind of people who hate foreigners and blow themselves up to make a point? And yet many of the same people to take offence at the previous generalisation will argue in favour of this one!
2. I don't believe "anyone with an opinion" is a religious fundamentalist - I have many friends, with many fine opinions, many of which I disagree with, and some of whom are religious. There is no connection.
3. I'm not, actually, an athiest. I am an "evangelical (fuckwit) agnostic". I don't think it's possible to prove whether God exists or not, I think anyone who chooses to belief/emphatically deny without proof is silly (why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?), and anyone who claims to have proof either way doesn't understand the meaning of the word "proof".
Good luck arguing against that position.
"so you assume I'm a Christian fundamentalist."
Did I say that? All I said was that non-religious types only really hear from the (loud, shouty) lunatic fringe, so naturally they assume anyone shouting is one of those loons.
Quiet, demonstrative religious types keep themselves to themselves, kind of like moderate muslims, non-militant homosexuals and paedophiles who live with their urges but never even think of abusing a child.
Where are their cheerleaders jumping up and down at the slightest perceived slight?
All these groups are persecuted or "disapproved-of" because of the lunatic fringe. I was explaining how/why this happens, not agreeing with it. Get a grip.
"P.S. What the hell is evolutionary marriage, I've never heard of that, nor have I heard about anyone wanting to ban violent video games in the army or banning gays, just gay marriage."
Oh sweet Jesus - this was supposed to be a joke. Violent games in the army aren't a controversial subject - they've already got fucking guns, for christ's sake. I was humorously referencing:
Evolution (teaching of)
Gays in the army
Gay marriage
Banning violent video vames
Banning guns
I've got to say, though, you're doing a wonderful job of conforming to the Humourless Christian stereotype that so many people (wrongly) subscribe to.
And since it's clearly been mis-interpreted, let me just clarify the following phrase from my previous post:
This means that the world would be a wonderful place if some people who called themselves religious stopped bashing everyone else.
;-)
Like, "religion wouldn't get bashed so much if so many fuckwits didn't push their own agendas in its name".
It does not mean all Christians are dog-rapists, or whatever you were thinking, ok?
it down and read it carefully... and strap down that jerking knee before you do yourself a mischief.
And because you clearly missed it the first time, let me re-iterate (this time, with annotations!):
"To a degree, you are correct. I don't know of anyone who has taken a group of children and raised them in a specific manner as to test these claims, and compare them against another group of children who were strictly kept from these kinds of exposures."
Happily, there's another way to test it, that's almost as good as the one you suggest.
We take one group of children and raise them in a hazily-remembered "golden age", when people didn't lock their doors, nobody had ever heard of drugs and video games were unknown - say, roughly 1976.
Take another group of children and raise them in a sharply-delineated "modern" world, with mass-media, pornography, violence nightly on the TV and violent video games in every bedroom - say around 2006.
Now, take national statistics from both groups, and what do you find?
Well, this, actually.
The US DOJ does this each and every year, and the result is that violent crime, including violent crime by minors has dropped in a more-or-less straight line ever since 1973. I've seen other similar charts which purport to go back even further - to 1903 in one case. All show the same trend.
Say it with me: Media Hysteria != Factual Statistics
"However, if the military knows that to weaken (to the point of destruction) a person's inhibitions against doing X, they just need to "brainwash" them into doing X over and over, the idea has some merit, no?"
No. Brainwashing != playing. The military uses an entire suite of techniques to break down civilian response-sets and inculcate military-appropriate ones - reduction of sleep, tightly regimented lifestyle, punishment for hesitation or disobedience, etc, etc, etc. This is why boot camp isn't "fun" - it's deliberately stress-inducing and unpleasant.
A kid can turn off their console at any point, and games which aren't "fun" don't sell.
It's like comparing apples and peas, because they're superficially similar and both involve "green".
"So, repetitive exposure to exercises where you shoot a human-shaped target creates a habit and a reflex such that you then do this without thinking. This isn't rocket science. It's how you create habits."
The main aim of repetitive exercises is to build up "muscle memory", making the action automatic. Soldiers use guns, and actually run around in muddy fields.
Our kids sit in warm heated/air-conditioned rooms and use joypads or mice.
All we're training our kids to do is to wave a mouse at an enemy soldier and click.
I can see where you're coming from, but this does indicate:
1. A lack of understanding of the technical details of indoctrination/brainwashing procedures
2. A lack of understanding of muscle memory
3. A completely unproven (in fact, counter-indicated) link between two disparare activites
4. A complete inability to differentiate between a fun, unreal game and a real life-or-death choice
"t should not be that difficult to apply the understanding of techniques for creating a habit to the situation of a child with minimal (or oppressive) parental supervision who has a TV or a computer for a baby-sitter."
Aaaaah, the venerable "Of course, my kids are well-brought-up and know the difference, but think of the poor kids with bad parents" argument.
How about we also ban:
* Action figures or toy guns (since it involves actual movement it's more "realistic" training than FPSs)
* Plastic bags (Timmy might choke)
* All cars (Timmy might run out into the road)
* Etc.
"No, this is not the beloved Scientific Method; it involves more than following a rote set of rules and procedures. But if you seriously think about it, it will take you out of your comfort zone, particularly if you enjoy those kinds of games, but mostly because it can apply to multiple areas of life outside of gaming."
Bonus points her
Not necessarily. But if we don't start valuing science and experts over charlatans, quackery and baseless comfort beliefs, we'll get there a lot quicker.
"Feel free to make fun of the "crazies". It's okay. But don't bring Jesus into stuff like this."
Ummm, technically he only invoked "Jebus". I dunno about you, but in my alphabet "b" and "s" are different letters. Maybe he was intentionally doing this to avoid offending anyone reasonable who does believe in Jesus?
"Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing."
And the world could be a wonderful place if groups of people identified predominantly by their religion would stop bashing everyone and everything else, too.
"People on the fringes don't speak for all of us."
No, but they speak the loudest. So all us non-religious types hear is fuckwit fundamentalists complaining about violent video games in the army, opposing evolutionary marriage and banning gays.
" I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can."
Then well done - you're pursuing the only path that stands a chance of really converting anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together.
If it helps, try the following:
s/christian/fuckwit fundamentalist christians/
s/religion/what's done in the name of religion by fuckwits/
I'm pretty sure that's the mental shorthand of most reasonable people on Slashdot - religion has done very good things, but these days most of the good things are shouted down by the constant media-whoring of the lunatic fringe.
Bingo. Refuse to believe in "better" and "worse", and you remove any possibility of improvement.
And since "worse" is generally easier than "better", this begins the long slow, unrecoverable slide to "worst".
Exactly, but note the near-disaster on the landing (and the fact that no successful landing was reported).
Decision-by-committee and "everyone's exactly equal" is a great principle for very many things, but for some things it's:
A. Wrong, and
B. Fucking stupid
For another example, how about crowdsourced brain surgery?
Good points, every one. I should have substituted the word "fairness" instead of "equality".
Is it "equal" that a doctor with ten years' education in medicine can ignore my request for $heavily_advertised_designer_drug and prescribe me what he thinks I really need? No.
Is it "fair" that he can do this, given his aforementioned ten years in medicine versus my thirty-second education-by-advert? Yes.
"There are lots of discussions about this, and I don't think it will ever die as a discussion. Especially with a current world religion that practices the opposite openly: murder/martyrdom as a tool."
Not to nit-pick, but Islam no more teaches violence and martyrdom than Christianity does.
Some governments and clerics in Mulsim countries do, but then Christian Pro-Life demonstrators murder abortion clinic workers, fundamentalist televangelists openly preach assassination of world leaders, and nominally christian countries recently invaded an entire soverign nation on trumped-up charges, so what was your point again?
Of course, even the Jargon File goes on to say:
:-D
"'As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.' There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups..."
Technically Godwin's Law does no such thing, but the codicil of application of Godwin's Law ending/losing a thread is now so firmly attached to the original that it's pretty pointlessly pedantic to argue against the idea.
"Godwin's Law" in popular usage therefore indicates both Godwin's Law and the associated tradition of it ending threads.
You can argue about the "meaning" of words or phrases all you like, but words have no intrinsic meaning - they're just collections of sounds we've arbitrarily drawn a ring around and decided to call "a word". If the majority of people use a word to mean X, the word now means X, irrespective of what it meant before. C.F. "gay/cheerful", "gay/homosexual", "gay/bad".
"Godwin's Law" now includes the codicil about ending threads. We can now call a halt to pedantic dick-waving competitions the world over.
See, posts like this are why I love /.
Intelligent people with far too much time on their hands debating the fastest possible application of an online in-joke, and even going so far as to introduce notation for the problem in order to discuss it more easily.
Wonderful.
From TFA: "As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become more reassured that these devices are safe, but the final word is not there yet,"
Yes, yes, yes, but what you're forgetting is that this whole thing about cell-phones not causing cancer is only a theory. It's not proven, so it could be wrong, and thus it's vitally important to also teach children in school that brain cancer might be caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If the USA doesn't lead the world in science and technology, what does it lead in?
Economically? Not in 20 years when China's completed its long-overdue industrial revolution and moved straight into the information age. And what do you think keeps your economy afloat? Technological innovation.
Morally/Politically? Not since September 2001.
Militarily? Maybe, but when your science and technology goes to shit, who'll be supplying all the cool toys that keep your military powerful despite their tiny (and falling) head-count?
Educationally? Not with the rise of "sponsored" teaching materials/ID/Fundamentalism/Creationism/other interference in educational curriculums (curricula?) from special-interest groups.
Socially? The USA is positively in the dark ages compared to many countries - without even a national health service.
Face it - the USA either leads the world in science and technology, or it trails the world in everything else (even the pathetic ones, like population or "who's got the biggest army").
Seriously - what apart from science/technology (and the things science/technology make possible) are you leading the world in?
Not a troll, just curious.
"If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?"
But that would inevitably lead to a system which repeatedly cranked out sequel after sequel, hammering home the same tired franchises over and over again, refusing to produce anything new or innovative because it might not be profitable.
Oh, wait-
A-fucking-MEN!
I would kill for mod-points. How is the parent still languishing at 0, a full half-hour after it was posted?
People want respect and money, but they'll compromise on the money for respect and self-worth.
Culture and the media dictates how much respect people get for their job.
Our culture and media is getting pretty vehemently "anti-expert"[1].
Scientists are basically paid experts.
Remove respect from a profession, and watch people desert it.
Remove people from a profession, and watch the country fall behind in that field.
Cheapen science in the media, encourage the perception that experts have no more to offer than anyone else and your country falls behind because nobody wants to waste time learning to become something so disrespected. QED.
Footnotes:
[1] Are there really always two sides to every story? Does everyone's opinion really have equal weight? Should everyone always have equal input on every decision?
If you answered yes to all three, congratulations - you're a fully-paid-up brainwashed member of our generation.
You're also wrong, and likely dangerously stupid.
What about flying a plane - should we leave it to the couple of guys who've trained for years to do it, or should we consult everyone on the plane and have a vote about which way to turn to avoid the other oncoming 747?
Say it with me: Equality is an abstract goal, not an existing achievement.
Ah - I see what you were getting at now.
;-)
I took "A criminally smart President doesn't mean a criminal President" to mean a president with criminal intentions (ie, "criminally smart") doesn't have to be able to successfully break the law ("become a criminal President")... which was reinforced by your later point about keeping him in check.
What you actually meant was someone who knows how criminals think ("criminally smart") doesn't actually have to act criminally, right?
Fair point, then... but I still think this qualifies them more for work in law-enforcement than law-making. I'd want a president who was politically, diplomatically and economically smart, rather than criminally, per se.
I think we're both agreed, though, that a criminal president with the brains of a concussed chicken is something neither of us want, right?