DRM that is only there if you bought DRM music or received music wirelessly from someone else.
DRM added to stuff I legally own?
False. It doesn't add DRM to stuff that you legally own. If you receive songs from other people wirelessly it will add DRM to the songs you receive because you may not legally own them. The whole reason the DRM is there is because the RIAA would have a field day with the Zune if it wasn't. But somehow Apple gets a free pass from being forced into DRM while Microsoft doesn't.
I hope you enjoy your Microsoft check too?
It hardly requires a Microsoft check to apply a little critical thinking and not make crap up. Seriously, I'm with the grandparent here. People love to go on and on about how the Zune is an inferior product, but they always fail to specify any way in which the iPod is superior. I mean, seriously.... DRMed wireless? The iPod doesn't even have wireless. I'm not sure how you can use that as proof that the iPod is better.
Oh by the way, iTunes bricked my iPod. Luckily it was still under warranty, so the Apple store replaced it.
I don't know about that. People are frequently floored when I tell them that I don't know who movie star X or pop singer Y is. Its possible for people to be disconnected from certain spheres of popular culture if they simply don't have any interest in them. Additionally, I can't recall Star Wars being often quoted outside of nerd culture, despite it having mass appeal.
I hear that a lot but people don't actually bring the studies up. Its repetition after repetition of the same old straw men: "I play video games and I haven't murdered anyone LOL" or "Man they're so stupid how can playing quake teach you to aim a gun LOLOL." It would probably be a good idea to at least throw out a link or two if there truly are so many studies.
Its only a valid disproof if your opponent is saying "Violent games always cause violence." What they're saying is more along the lines of "Violent games can sometimes be a trigger for violence," or more frequently "Violent games can increase violent tendencies, which may have an overall effect of increasing societal violence when systematically applied to a large population." The whole I-play-games-and-I'm-not-violent defense is pretty much worthless against such arguments, and makes you look uninformed. Why would anyone take you seriously if you don't even seem to understand the basic tenets of the argument at hand?
Well true, but since when have people like Jack Thompson had any regard for logic in the first place? If you read some of his correspondences, it becomes clear that his train of logic is more of a derailed-crashed-into-a-ditch-exploded-into-a-ball -of-flame train of logic.
I think that there needs to be a new tactic for dealing with this. Some actual science wouldn't hurt.
Nintendo has to be willing to share the spotlight with it's third party developers.
I don't see any evidence that Nintendo is unwilling to share the spotlight. Instead, it seems like third party developers just like to shovel crap games onto Nintendo systems. If they made good games, then they'd get acclaim. Look at Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube for example.
I'm not sure that gamers and game journalists repeatedly stating, "Games don't cause violence," is doing any good. Usually, its preaching to the choir. In the cases its not, simply saying, "Hey they don't cause violence," isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced. It seems to me that articles of these sorts are more mental masturbation than anything else.
Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof? If you want to convince people, how about trying something a bit more scientific?
Yeah, certainly a lot of American's believe in some form of creationism (about 40% iirc), however I'm not sure what the breakdown of schools is between "teaches evolution," "teaches creationism," "teaches both," "teaches neither." In my experience its a whole heap of the former with a dash of the latter three, while most people seem to hysterically claim its mostly the second.
Well, of course there are multiple problems with the world. Religion is definitely in the top 3. This has nothing to do with social grouping, but with blindly accepting claims without evidence; this practice is very dangerous and naturally leads to fundamentalist lunacy. If everyone questioned what they are taught to believe blindly, we wouldn't have this issue. The existence of good people who blindly accept what they are taught makes it easier for others to blindly accept the corruption they are taught.
My argument is that these multiple problems stem from the same source. Blindly accepting claims without evidence is a pretty human trait, and you can see this occur in the other problems (nationalism, racism, politics) as well. I've found that the average person mostly accepts just what they're told, and that the people who actually question are rare exceptions who have trained themselves not to do so. Heck even then, they'll probably just accept some things, as long as it doesn't run too contrary to what they believe. And don't believe for instance that I'm holding myself up as some golden standard... I'm just as bad as the rest of them.
Ok, for instance, why do you believe religion is the cause of these problems? Why is religion the cause and not the excuse? Could it be that the people doing these things have their own interests at heart, or are simply following what the alpha-leader puts forth, as is human tendency?
You're claiming: Religious people do bad things + Religious people tend to just accept things + religious people use religion as an excuse = religion is bad. I'm claiming: People do bad things + People just accept things + People use a variety of excuses to justify what they did = There are certain evolutionary traits that tend to cause problems.
My position is that blaming religion for problems is akin to blaming violent video games when a video gamer goes out and shoots people; there may be a correlation, but its far more likely that the person's violent tendencies led him to play violent video games, rather than violent video games led the person to have violent tendencies.
It doesn't help that I find that most people that claim religion as a cause don't seem to think it through. Every time I bring this up, I just get a bunch of regurgitated facts about how religious people have done bad things, which doesn't even begin to address my points.
Interesting. Was creationism actually taught in your schools?
I used to live in Texas, but I was at the age where real biology wasn't taught in classes. I live in Illinois now, so I could be wrong about this if its just confined to southern states.
Ah Jack Chick makes these little comics that you can order and put around in public places in order to convert people to Christianity. Most people find them entertaining, more because of how hilariously crazy and uninformed they are.
Some gems include the one associating Dungeons and Dragons with witchcraft, and one where a religious student shows up a biology teacher teaching evolution using paper-thin "logic."
Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.
If exposing a religions teachings accurately causes such an outrage that support for the religion crumbles, then how is that undeserved? If merely telling the truth about a religion causes people to abandon it, then I would say that religion deserves to be abandoned. Religions don't have some innate right to exist. They are made and supported by people, and if the people find the ideas in that religion reprehensible, then I don't see any reason why they should not be able to discard those ideas, personally and societally (so long as they are not forced to).
why isn't the west as closely tied to those parts of africa and asia? is it because of race? is it because of culture?
if it is culture and not race, isn't race still a significant factor in culture?
I'm not knowledgeable enough in history to answer that question, but it could be many things, ranging from racism to lack of easily exploitable resources. Because of my ignorance in this area, I'm not ready to start accusing people of racism. Any people familiar with the history in this area willing to step in and educate me?
Religion is the source of the problem and the only cure is irreligion.
No sorry, but thats wrong. Religion is a symptom of the problem, not the source. Eliminate religion tomorrow and something will raise up in its place. That something can be stuff such as nationalism, racism, sexuality, and whether Sally is stylish enough.
Humans are social animals, and our natural instinct is to form groups and try to expand the influence of our group. Its evolved into us. Recognizing this is the first step to fixing the problem. Scapegoating will only delay solving the problem.
That you blame religion and fail to recognize the pattern means you have not given this enough thought, and are likely just regurgitating stuff told to you. Think!
At the risk of sounding cold, but couldn't it simply be because we are not as closely tied to those parts of Africa and Asia as we are to the rest of Europe? It could just be because its not as culturally relevant to us. It *should* be, but I'm hesitant to whip out the race card at the drop of a hat.
Really? How many schools today in America are teaching creationism? Do you know for a fact that the teaching of such is really widespread in America? Sure there was one highly publicized case, where the perpetrators were basically smacked down, removed from power, and all the damage was reversed.
I was taught evolution, with no hint of creationism. Ditto for my friends. Catholic schools even teach evolution. Is there really evidence that evolution is being questioned in schools systematically, rather than highly publicized isolated incidents? If so, please produce proof.
Young-earth creationism does exist in America. My father, for one, believes it, and I've known others. Now, it really depends on the type of church you go to and the people you associate with. For example, when I was still fairly religious, I went to a Baptist church on a University campus, and the consensus with the church-goers there was that evolution was fact.
However, the reason this came up in my church was because a creationist apologist came to campus and attempted to debate some scientists (although those in my church that had actually attended felt that the scientists did an exceedingly poor job, and were disappointed). So there's no doubt there is a movement trying to give it legitimacy.
But in terms of it sharing space, or replacing, evolution in the classroom, thats fairly overblown.
Theres a lot of panic about it on Slashdot, but the fact of the matter is its not really that widespread in America. I was taught evolution, not creationism, in two separate high schools. Ditto for pretty much all my friends. I don't know a single person who was not taught evolution. I know anecdote isn't data, but lets also look at the facts that caused all the publicity.
The problem came from one school district in Kansas. It was smacked down by the Supreme Court. The board that supported creationism was voted out, and replaced with one that supported evolution. It was, in every way, a complete loss for the creationism crowd. Thats not to say that they're not dangerous, but they've completely failed to make any serious inroads into our educational system.
So, yes, it does exist, and there is a serious movement by a Christian minority to push intelligent design. So far they're not making very much progress, but we still have to keep our guard up.
No, it wouldn't eliminate it. Its more accurate to say it would slow evolution. After all you'll still get mutations, and you'll still get selection from the environment. It just lowers the diversity and a big selection pressure (getting chosen as a mate). There was a time when asexual reproduction was the norm (bacteria, single-celled life forms), and you can see for yourself the result of that.
How exactly was he lying? They said that they would code drivers for free for companies that released their specs, and they did. The "marketing hype" was that they were making a big deal and advertising for something that they already did, and would have done anyway
Thank you AC. My friend did, indeed, do his job, and refused to sell to the child. However, he could do nothing about the parent buying the game for her child, despite his protests.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM that is only there if you bought DRM music or received music wirelessly from someone else.
DRM added to stuff I legally own?False. It doesn't add DRM to stuff that you legally own. If you receive songs from other people wirelessly it will add DRM to the songs you receive because you may not legally own them. The whole reason the DRM is there is because the RIAA would have a field day with the Zune if it wasn't. But somehow Apple gets a free pass from being forced into DRM while Microsoft doesn't.
I hope you enjoy your Microsoft check too?It hardly requires a Microsoft check to apply a little critical thinking and not make crap up. Seriously, I'm with the grandparent here. People love to go on and on about how the Zune is an inferior product, but they always fail to specify any way in which the iPod is superior. I mean, seriously.... DRMed wireless? The iPod doesn't even have wireless. I'm not sure how you can use that as proof that the iPod is better.
Oh by the way, iTunes bricked my iPod. Luckily it was still under warranty, so the Apple store replaced it.
I don't know about that. People are frequently floored when I tell them that I don't know who movie star X or pop singer Y is. Its possible for people to be disconnected from certain spheres of popular culture if they simply don't have any interest in them. Additionally, I can't recall Star Wars being often quoted outside of nerd culture, despite it having mass appeal.
The treatment is a success!
I hear that a lot but people don't actually bring the studies up. Its repetition after repetition of the same old straw men: "I play video games and I haven't murdered anyone LOL" or "Man they're so stupid how can playing quake teach you to aim a gun LOLOL." It would probably be a good idea to at least throw out a link or two if there truly are so many studies.
Its only a valid disproof if your opponent is saying "Violent games always cause violence." What they're saying is more along the lines of "Violent games can sometimes be a trigger for violence," or more frequently "Violent games can increase violent tendencies, which may have an overall effect of increasing societal violence when systematically applied to a large population." The whole I-play-games-and-I'm-not-violent defense is pretty much worthless against such arguments, and makes you look uninformed. Why would anyone take you seriously if you don't even seem to understand the basic tenets of the argument at hand?
Well true, but since when have people like Jack Thompson had any regard for logic in the first place? If you read some of his correspondences, it becomes clear that his train of logic is more of a derailed-crashed-into-a-ditch-exploded-into-a-ball -of-flame train of logic.
I think that there needs to be a new tactic for dealing with this. Some actual science wouldn't hurt.
I don't see any evidence that Nintendo is unwilling to share the spotlight. Instead, it seems like third party developers just like to shovel crap games onto Nintendo systems. If they made good games, then they'd get acclaim. Look at Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube for example.
I'm not sure that gamers and game journalists repeatedly stating, "Games don't cause violence," is doing any good. Usually, its preaching to the choir. In the cases its not, simply saying, "Hey they don't cause violence," isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced. It seems to me that articles of these sorts are more mental masturbation than anything else.
Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof? If you want to convince people, how about trying something a bit more scientific?
Yeah, certainly a lot of American's believe in some form of creationism (about 40% iirc), however I'm not sure what the breakdown of schools is between "teaches evolution," "teaches creationism," "teaches both," "teaches neither." In my experience its a whole heap of the former with a dash of the latter three, while most people seem to hysterically claim its mostly the second.
My argument is that these multiple problems stem from the same source. Blindly accepting claims without evidence is a pretty human trait, and you can see this occur in the other problems (nationalism, racism, politics) as well. I've found that the average person mostly accepts just what they're told, and that the people who actually question are rare exceptions who have trained themselves not to do so. Heck even then, they'll probably just accept some things, as long as it doesn't run too contrary to what they believe. And don't believe for instance that I'm holding myself up as some golden standard... I'm just as bad as the rest of them.
Ok, for instance, why do you believe religion is the cause of these problems? Why is religion the cause and not the excuse? Could it be that the people doing these things have their own interests at heart, or are simply following what the alpha-leader puts forth, as is human tendency?
You're claiming: Religious people do bad things + Religious people tend to just accept things + religious people use religion as an excuse = religion is bad.
I'm claiming: People do bad things + People just accept things + People use a variety of excuses to justify what they did = There are certain evolutionary traits that tend to cause problems.
My position is that blaming religion for problems is akin to blaming violent video games when a video gamer goes out and shoots people; there may be a correlation, but its far more likely that the person's violent tendencies led him to play violent video games, rather than violent video games led the person to have violent tendencies.
It doesn't help that I find that most people that claim religion as a cause don't seem to think it through. Every time I bring this up, I just get a bunch of regurgitated facts about how religious people have done bad things, which doesn't even begin to address my points.
Do you see my point?
Interesting. Was creationism actually taught in your schools?
I used to live in Texas, but I was at the age where real biology wasn't taught in classes. I live in Illinois now, so I could be wrong about this if its just confined to southern states.
Ah Jack Chick makes these little comics that you can order and put around in public places in order to convert people to Christianity. Most people find them entertaining, more because of how hilariously crazy and uninformed they are.
Some gems include the one associating Dungeons and Dragons with witchcraft, and one where a religious student shows up a biology teacher teaching evolution using paper-thin "logic."
If exposing a religions teachings accurately causes such an outrage that support for the religion crumbles, then how is that undeserved? If merely telling the truth about a religion causes people to abandon it, then I would say that religion deserves to be abandoned. Religions don't have some innate right to exist. They are made and supported by people, and if the people find the ideas in that religion reprehensible, then I don't see any reason why they should not be able to discard those ideas, personally and societally (so long as they are not forced to).
I'm not knowledgeable enough in history to answer that question, but it could be many things, ranging from racism to lack of easily exploitable resources. Because of my ignorance in this area, I'm not ready to start accusing people of racism. Any people familiar with the history in this area willing to step in and educate me?
No sorry, but thats wrong. Religion is a symptom of the problem, not the source. Eliminate religion tomorrow and something will raise up in its place. That something can be stuff such as nationalism, racism, sexuality, and whether Sally is stylish enough.
Humans are social animals, and our natural instinct is to form groups and try to expand the influence of our group. Its evolved into us. Recognizing this is the first step to fixing the problem. Scapegoating will only delay solving the problem.
That you blame religion and fail to recognize the pattern means you have not given this enough thought, and are likely just regurgitating stuff told to you. Think!
At the risk of sounding cold, but couldn't it simply be because we are not as closely tied to those parts of Africa and Asia as we are to the rest of Europe? It could just be because its not as culturally relevant to us. It *should* be, but I'm hesitant to whip out the race card at the drop of a hat.
Really? How many schools today in America are teaching creationism? Do you know for a fact that the teaching of such is really widespread in America? Sure there was one highly publicized case, where the perpetrators were basically smacked down, removed from power, and all the damage was reversed.
I was taught evolution, with no hint of creationism. Ditto for my friends. Catholic schools even teach evolution. Is there really evidence that evolution is being questioned in schools systematically, rather than highly publicized isolated incidents? If so, please produce proof.
Young-earth creationism does exist in America. My father, for one, believes it, and I've known others. Now, it really depends on the type of church you go to and the people you associate with. For example, when I was still fairly religious, I went to a Baptist church on a University campus, and the consensus with the church-goers there was that evolution was fact.
However, the reason this came up in my church was because a creationist apologist came to campus and attempted to debate some scientists (although those in my church that had actually attended felt that the scientists did an exceedingly poor job, and were disappointed). So there's no doubt there is a movement trying to give it legitimacy.
But in terms of it sharing space, or replacing, evolution in the classroom, thats fairly overblown.
Theres a lot of panic about it on Slashdot, but the fact of the matter is its not really that widespread in America. I was taught evolution, not creationism, in two separate high schools. Ditto for pretty much all my friends. I don't know a single person who was not taught evolution. I know anecdote isn't data, but lets also look at the facts that caused all the publicity.
The problem came from one school district in Kansas. It was smacked down by the Supreme Court. The board that supported creationism was voted out, and replaced with one that supported evolution. It was, in every way, a complete loss for the creationism crowd. Thats not to say that they're not dangerous, but they've completely failed to make any serious inroads into our educational system.
So, yes, it does exist, and there is a serious movement by a Christian minority to push intelligent design. So far they're not making very much progress, but we still have to keep our guard up.
Thanks, I'll have to go through these when I have some free time. :)
Do you actually have some sources for that? I'd be interested in reading up on that.
No, it wouldn't eliminate it. Its more accurate to say it would slow evolution. After all you'll still get mutations, and you'll still get selection from the environment. It just lowers the diversity and a big selection pressure (getting chosen as a mate). There was a time when asexual reproduction was the norm (bacteria, single-celled life forms), and you can see for yourself the result of that.
I had a friend who wrote an essay on the dangers of oxygen addiction. One of the facts was that 100% of people addicted to oxygen eventually die.
As far as I know, the Wal-Mart still does it. I've also been carded at several GameStops.
How exactly was he lying? They said that they would code drivers for free for companies that released their specs, and they did. The "marketing hype" was that they were making a big deal and advertising for something that they already did, and would have done anyway
Thank you AC. My friend did, indeed, do his job, and refused to sell to the child. However, he could do nothing about the parent buying the game for her child, despite his protests.