I can understand what you're trying to say, it's not really the same thing though. If the game was just tossing a football, you would have a valid point. However, there is no way that I could put on pads, play 60 minutes of tackle football, and live to tell about it. I'm not in terrible shape, but I'm also not in great shape either. Most of the people who play these games are probably like that. It's a way for them to play in professional sports leagues without actually having to have the talent and drive required to play in the professional sport leagues.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening. According to an article at Gamespot which can be found here, the game sold 1.7 million copies the week it was released. According to EA (so I suppose this can be taken with a grain of salt), it is their best since they started the Madden franchise.
I don't mean to pretend that I know what I'm talking about. I'm not a climatologist or anything even closely related. I merely looked for information on the subject and posted it. I enjoy the discussion and hearing other people's points of view. I understand that having more than one source of information is important. It just took me a few hours to create that last post and I wanted to keep the discussion flowing in a somewhat timely manner. Besides, I don't want to have to do all of the work.:)
I see your point that dead is dead. However, don't nuclear weapons have a very adverse effect on the enviornment? If so, then perhaps it would be more beneficial (relatively speaking of course) to use conventional bombs instead of nuclear ones.
Figure 1 and Figure 2. These graphs indicate the average global tempature. The first graph is of the last 140 years. The second graph is the last 1000 years.
Figure 3 and Figure 4. The first graph shows the concentration of positive radiative emissions. The second graph shows negative radiative emissions. After reading the definition of radiative forcing, I admit it is very confusing to me. From reading other sources, it seems to suggest that a positive radiative force leads to warming, while a negative radiative force leads to cooling.
Figure 5. This graph shows the radiative forcing effect of different sources. It is from the year 2000 and is relative to the year 1750. I believe this means that starting from 1750 and going to 2000, each bar represents the total effect through the entire 250 years.
Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8. The first graph compares temperatures using both a climate model and recorded observations from natural forces: solar variation and volcanic activity. The second graph compares temperatures using a climate model and only anthropogenic forces. The third graph compares temperatures with a climate model and combined natural and anthropogenic forces.
These graphs were all taken from the 2001 IPCC report. That report can be found here. The report, along with these graphs, seems to indicate that "most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributed to human activities."
According to the report, volcanic eruptions only effect the climate for a few years. The report mentions that "combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly four decades."
A. Sun (I know it's a crackpot theory, but some people actually do think the sun has something to do with Earths Climate, and the Suns output does vary
Wouldn't they be able to tell if the sun was having some kind of effect? Aren't they able to measure these kinds of things?
B. Water vapor (Much greater greenhouse gas than either Methane or CO2, also dictated by the laws of Physics, also increasing over time through natural means)
I would think they could measure this also. If they can tell how many parts per million of CO2 is in the air, I would think they could do the same thing for water vapor.
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
I don't know what this has to do with global warming, so I can't comment on it.
D. Loss of cloud cover
Wouldn't the loss of cloud cover be a result of other things? The loss of cloud cover wouldn't really cause global warming. It would merely be the byproduct of something else that was causing it.
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses (Volcanoes, deepwater CO2 and Methane out-gassing)
Have there really been enough volcanoes in the last hundred years or so to produce the kind of effect that is happening?
Do you honestly think that's mans carbon emissions are the ONLY thing that effects climate. Do you think that the earth had no climate variations before man?
The climate has certainly changed many times before mankind was around. The question is, has it ever changed as drastically as has been reported?
If we know that CO2 can cause the greenhouse effect, and we know that our CO2 output has increased since the start of the industrial age, isn't it a safe bet to think that we are indeed changing the climate? Here are some graphs that show CO2 concentrations: The last 60 years. and the last 420,000 years.
Perhaps. I could be just much easier to please. This is probably on account that I'm just glad someone at least tried to put something a little deeper in the movie they were making. That's more than you can say about a lot of the stuff that gets put out these days.
Yes, knowing religious symbolism definitely does help. I'll admit that when I first saw the second and third movies I didn't care much for them. It wasn't until a little later that I found a new appreciation for them.
I liked all three Matrix movies. There was a lot of depth to all of them. I know the second and third one were not as popular, but there was a lot there, it was just a little harder to see.
I don't think you read my post correctly. It was a two part post so maybe that's why it confused you.
I'd like to get better informed about this issue. What are some good resources that I can use? I'd like to know why they are so bad.
Here is the first part. I mentioned that I was looking for information so I could make a more informed choice about this particular issue.
If they are as bad as people claim them to be, what can I do to help change the situation?
Here is the second part. I said IF ( this is an important part of the sentence ) patents are as bad as people are saying, what can I do to change the situation.
Hopefully this makes it a little more clear to you what it is I wanted.
I've read a lot of articles that have to do with software patents here on Slashdot. It seems like a majority of the people are against software patents. I'd like to get better informed about this issue. What are some good resources that I can use? I'd like to know why they are so bad. If they are as bad as people claim them to be, what can I do to help change the situation?
No, I didn't miss your overall point. Perhaps it was because of the formatting of the page, but my reply was to NetRaven.
He brought up the point that in Friday the 13th, killing was made to look bad because Jason was gross and evil. In The Matrix, killing was thought to be cool because of Neo.
I was just saying that it doesn't matter how the violent media is displayed. A parent who is involved in their child's life is more than capable of cancelling out or as you already said enhancing the effects of whatever violent media they are watching.
Young kids may be more impressionable, but that means they are more impressionable to both the good and the bad things in society. This is where it is the parents responsibility to instill proper morals in their children.
When I was a kid, me and my friends used to play guns. We would take our little plastic rifles and pistols, then we would go out and shoot each other. Whenever we got shot we would pretend to be dead, and it was a lot of fun. We made it "cool" to go around shooting people. However, at no point did I ever think it was alright to take a real gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. My parents taught me that there was a difference between pretend and reality. I always knew that there was no coming back if you got shot with a real gun.
This controversy always goes back to responsibility of being a parent. It falls on the parents shoulders to make sure their kids are being raised in a way that will make them constructive members of society.
I think the story and the character are part of the reason the game sells so well. There are plenty of other games out there that are violent that don't sell that well.
I don't know if you have ever played the game State of Emergency, but that is an example of a game that is pretty much just about violence. It doesn't have any real substance to it. I would probably consider Manhunt to be another game. I don't think it sold all that well either. Just because the game has violence in it, that doesn't automatically mean it will become popular.
Re:you get nailed by volume, though.
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
Did you have any hot coffee while you were at it?
Re:you get nailed by volume, though.
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
This is where being a smart shopper comes into play. $50.00 is a lot of money (at least for me), so it's important that the money is well spent. Read some reviews, talk to people, and rent the game if you can. It's possible that you may still get burned, but your chances definitely increase that you're going to get a game you actually enjoy playing.
I sympathize with the problems you face in developing websites. The fact is though, your average internet user has no clue about web pages or webpage standards. As long as they can get on and play their poker, or read the news, they stay pretty happy.
I don't think they do this on purpose. It's just the nature of the internet. For the most part, it's a nameless thing so people don't stop to consider that there are actually people who develop the website that they are using. Now, add that to the fact that they have no clue about different standards to begin with, and you can see why people just use what they think works for them.
If I see a store with a sign labeled 'open' on the front of it, would you consider me a burglar if I walked into it without asking the shopkeeper first?
This isn't really the same thing. A store that has an open sign is actively inviting people into the store. It's the accepted purpose of the sign to begin with. The same thing with your bus example. A bus is a public form of transportation, so when the door is open, it's common knowledge that it's okay to walk onto the bus.
A better analogy would be if I left my front door unlocked. If I did, is it okay for someone to come in off the street and walk into my house? Hopefully you answer no. If not, then I don't think anything is going to convince you that what this guy did was wrong.
I think this is a perfect example to the whole controversy over gaming. It's a clear example of poor parenting. In no way should that kid have ever been allowed to talk to his mother like that.
I know that one of the basic principles that this country is founded on is the freedom of expression. In an attempt to better inform myself about China and it's policies, I've started to ask questions to myself that I can't really seem to answer to my own satisfaction. I'm curious as to why freedom of expression, and freedom of speech are so important. Links to papers, websites, or your own personal views would be much appreciated.
Everything sounds like it's going to be great except the crash mode. I don't know if I like the idea of using a "launch control." I just want to be able to hit the gas button and go. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but this just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand what you're trying to say, it's not really the same thing though. If the game was just tossing a football, you would have a valid point. However, there is no way that I could put on pads, play 60 minutes of tackle football, and live to tell about it. I'm not in terrible shape, but I'm also not in great shape either. Most of the people who play these games are probably like that. It's a way for them to play in professional sports leagues without actually having to have the talent and drive required to play in the professional sport leagues.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening. According to an article at Gamespot which can be found here, the game sold 1.7 million copies the week it was released. According to EA (so I suppose this can be taken with a grain of salt), it is their best since they started the Madden franchise.
I don't mean to pretend that I know what I'm talking about. I'm not a climatologist or anything even closely related. I merely looked for information on the subject and posted it. I enjoy the discussion and hearing other people's points of view. I understand that having more than one source of information is important. It just took me a few hours to create that last post and I wanted to keep the discussion flowing in a somewhat timely manner. Besides, I don't want to have to do all of the work. :)
I see your point that dead is dead. However, don't nuclear weapons have a very adverse effect on the enviornment? If so, then perhaps it would be more beneficial (relatively speaking of course) to use conventional bombs instead of nuclear ones.
Figure 1 and Figure 2.
These graphs indicate the average global tempature. The first graph is of the last 140 years. The second graph is the last 1000 years.
Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The first graph shows the concentration of positive radiative emissions. The second graph shows negative radiative emissions. After reading the definition of radiative forcing, I admit it is very confusing to me. From reading other sources, it seems to suggest that a positive radiative force leads to warming, while a negative radiative force leads to cooling.
Figure 5.
This graph shows the radiative forcing effect of different sources. It is from the year 2000 and is relative to the year 1750. I believe this means that starting from 1750 and going to 2000, each bar represents the total effect through the entire 250 years.
Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8.
The first graph compares temperatures using both a climate model and recorded observations from natural forces: solar variation and volcanic activity. The second graph compares temperatures using a climate model and only anthropogenic forces. The third graph compares temperatures with a climate model and combined natural and anthropogenic forces.
These graphs were all taken from the 2001 IPCC report. That report can be found here. The report, along with these graphs, seems to indicate that "most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributed to human activities."
According to the report, volcanic eruptions only effect the climate for a few years. The report mentions that "combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly four decades."
A. Sun (I know it's a crackpot theory, but some people actually do think the sun has something to do with Earths Climate, and the Suns output does vary
Wouldn't they be able to tell if the sun was having some kind of effect? Aren't they able to measure these kinds of things?
B. Water vapor (Much greater greenhouse gas than either Methane or CO2, also dictated by the laws of Physics, also increasing over time through natural means)
I would think they could measure this also. If they can tell how many parts per million of CO2 is in the air, I would think they could do the same thing for water vapor.
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
I don't know what this has to do with global warming, so I can't comment on it.
D. Loss of cloud cover
Wouldn't the loss of cloud cover be a result of other things? The loss of cloud cover wouldn't really cause global warming. It would merely be the byproduct of something else that was causing it.
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses (Volcanoes, deepwater CO2 and Methane out-gassing)
Have there really been enough volcanoes in the last hundred years or so to produce the kind of effect that is happening?
Do you honestly think that's mans carbon emissions are the ONLY thing that effects climate. Do you think that the earth had no climate variations before man?
The climate has certainly changed many times before mankind was around. The question is, has it ever changed as drastically as has been reported?
If we know that CO2 can cause the greenhouse effect, and we know that our CO2 output has increased since the start of the industrial age, isn't it a safe bet to think that we are indeed changing the climate? Here are some graphs that show CO2 concentrations: The last 60 years. and the last 420,000 years.
Perhaps. I could be just much easier to please. This is probably on account that I'm just glad someone at least tried to put something a little deeper in the movie they were making. That's more than you can say about a lot of the stuff that gets put out these days.
Yes, knowing religious symbolism definitely does help. I'll admit that when I first saw the second and third movies I didn't care much for them. It wasn't until a little later that I found a new appreciation for them.
Yes, and there are also people who still believe we didn't land on the moon and that the world is flat.
How did the plot not make sense?
I liked all three Matrix movies. There was a lot of depth to all of them. I know the second and third one were not as popular, but there was a lot there, it was just a little harder to see.
I don't think you read my post correctly. It was a two part post so maybe that's why it confused you.
I'd like to get better informed about this issue. What are some good resources that I can use? I'd like to know why they are so bad.
Here is the first part. I mentioned that I was looking for information so I could make a more informed choice about this particular issue.
If they are as bad as people claim them to be, what can I do to help change the situation?
Here is the second part. I said IF ( this is an important part of the sentence ) patents are as bad as people are saying, what can I do to change the situation.
Hopefully this makes it a little more clear to you what it is I wanted.
I've read a lot of articles that have to do with software patents here on Slashdot. It seems like a majority of the people are against software patents. I'd like to get better informed about this issue. What are some good resources that I can use? I'd like to know why they are so bad. If they are as bad as people claim them to be, what can I do to help change the situation?
No, I didn't miss your overall point. Perhaps it was because of the formatting of the page, but my reply was to NetRaven.
He brought up the point that in Friday the 13th, killing was made to look bad because Jason was gross and evil. In The Matrix, killing was thought to be cool because of Neo.
I was just saying that it doesn't matter how the violent media is displayed. A parent who is involved in their child's life is more than capable of cancelling out or as you already said enhancing the effects of whatever violent media they are watching.
Young kids may be more impressionable, but that means they are more impressionable to both the good and the bad things in society. This is where it is the parents responsibility to instill proper morals in their children.
When I was a kid, me and my friends used to play guns. We would take our little plastic rifles and pistols, then we would go out and shoot each other. Whenever we got shot we would pretend to be dead, and it was a lot of fun. We made it "cool" to go around shooting people. However, at no point did I ever think it was alright to take a real gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. My parents taught me that there was a difference between pretend and reality. I always knew that there was no coming back if you got shot with a real gun.
This controversy always goes back to responsibility of being a parent. It falls on the parents shoulders to make sure their kids are being raised in a way that will make them constructive members of society.
I think the story and the character are part of the reason the game sells so well. There are plenty of other games out there that are violent that don't sell that well.
I don't know if you have ever played the game State of Emergency, but that is an example of a game that is pretty much just about violence. It doesn't have any real substance to it. I would probably consider Manhunt to be another game. I don't think it sold all that well either. Just because the game has violence in it, that doesn't automatically mean it will become popular.
Did you have any hot coffee while you were at it?
This is where being a smart shopper comes into play. $50.00 is a lot of money (at least for me), so it's important that the money is well spent. Read some reviews, talk to people, and rent the game if you can. It's possible that you may still get burned, but your chances definitely increase that you're going to get a game you actually enjoy playing.
At the same time, you have to consider what the newer consoles have that Atari didn't.
A controller with more than one button.
The ability to play online.
Far superior graphics
A DVD player
That's just to name a few. They were both made using the technology that was available at the time. I think it's a pretty fair comparison.
I sympathize with the problems you face in developing websites. The fact is though, your average internet user has no clue about web pages or webpage standards. As long as they can get on and play their poker, or read the news, they stay pretty happy.
I don't think they do this on purpose. It's just the nature of the internet. For the most part, it's a nameless thing so people don't stop to consider that there are actually people who develop the website that they are using. Now, add that to the fact that they have no clue about different standards to begin with, and you can see why people just use what they think works for them.
If I see a store with a sign labeled 'open' on the front of it, would you consider me a burglar if I walked into it without asking the shopkeeper first?
This isn't really the same thing. A store that has an open sign is actively inviting people into the store. It's the accepted purpose of the sign to begin with. The same thing with your bus example. A bus is a public form of transportation, so when the door is open, it's common knowledge that it's okay to walk onto the bus.
A better analogy would be if I left my front door unlocked. If I did, is it okay for someone to come in off the street and walk into my house? Hopefully you answer no. If not, then I don't think anything is going to convince you that what this guy did was wrong.
Thanks, I appreciate the information.
I think this is a perfect example to the whole controversy over gaming. It's a clear example of poor parenting. In no way should that kid have ever been allowed to talk to his mother like that.
I know that one of the basic principles that this country is founded on is the freedom of expression. In an attempt to better inform myself about China and it's policies, I've started to ask questions to myself that I can't really seem to answer to my own satisfaction. I'm curious as to why freedom of expression, and freedom of speech are so important. Links to papers, websites, or your own personal views would be much appreciated.
Everything sounds like it's going to be great except the crash mode. I don't know if I like the idea of using a "launch control." I just want to be able to hit the gas button and go. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but this just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.