Oddly enough, generous funding for higher education and universal health care are two of the reasons for higher economic mobility elsewhere. At the time of the report, you were techinically right - the UK was about as bad as the US (and both lagged behind other European societies). Since then, the US has actually fallen even lower in mobility.
Adding that compatibility costs money (software compatibility was a bit of a dissapointment; hardware compatibility is spendy, makes the console bigger, etc.) The primary objections of the market were on price, not features. The PS3 at launch was, what, $500? $600 for the deluxe model?
I used to want PS2 compatibility, until I realized that a new, slim PS2 cost under a hundred bucks. I already have a PS2, so if Sony's going to discount the PS3 after getting rid of compatibility, I'm for it.
I think that the cost of adding full hardware-based compatibility to a PS3 would be about the same as getting a separate PS2 - about $100. Which would make the PS3 $100 less attractive to the majority of would-be buyers who already have a PS2.
They've just hit the price point and specs that I've been waiting for. I'm getting one.
Including links is no replacement for clear writing, and clear writing includes unpacking acronyms. The links should be used to provide detail, not to replace clarity.
There are a lot of environmentalists (myself include) who are pro-nuclear and pro-technology. And anti-gaia-hypothesis, as well. (When geeks object to "environmentalism", I think most of them are objecting to the anthropomorphizing of "nature"; but then they turn around and make technological change, or market forces, just as teleological.)
God forbid that they might have some differences in viewpoint or emphasis, despite a generally shared goal.
There are some green groups that focus on biodiversity and preventing extinctions. Others focus on creating large undeveloped wildlife preserves. Yet others are worried about contaminants and pollution, or on green design of industrial objects, or an reducing the impact of processes and pricing externalities. The larger goals overlap, but the foci are very different.
You ever go to those supermarkets that have the "scan it yourself" stations? You run your bag of chips under a scanner and bag it yourself? If Ford lots had those scanners, then your analogy would work.
It is not a legal contract per se (or else they'd be written by lawyers, not by instructors.) But I am explaining to you the sense in which it is like a contract - an explication of the mutual expectations and responsibilities, and is treated as such by academic review committees that deal with grade challenges within a university. It will go poorly for the instructor and well for the student if material not included in the syllabus winds up in the final, or if expectations are suddenly raised mid-term.
Agreements regarding turninit.com, the copyright of student works, etc are usually part of the acceptance to the school itself, and are indeed written by lawyers.
This is not the case, and most syllabuses (syllabi is hypercorrection) have a "we will reschedule if necessary" clause in them.
But if the teacher puts material in the final that is not mentioned in the syllabus, then she would, in fact, be in violation, and students would be able to challenge any poor grades she handed out because of it.
A good syllabus is an explanation of the expectations of the course, a description of what will be required of the student to succeed in the class. It may not reach the requirements of a legal contract per se, although I do know some universities that consider syllabuses to be a somewhat binding agreement on both student and teacher - meaning that if a teacher grades on material or assignments that aren't in the syllabus, the student could challenge it.
I'm in favor of turninit.com, by the way. I don't see anything that takes away a student's subsequent rights to their work, a "right not to have one's work archived" doesn't seem compelling to me. And cheating has become a huge problem.
The study details a number of theories that address 1. In fact, it is one of the stronger points of the paper. You did look at the paper, didn't you, and aren't wasting my time tilting at phantoms?
I don't see how your 2 follows at all. It's a complete non-sequitor.
There is a good point in 3, regarding the perceived cultural capital of the activities which surround the entry to those careers. But you trim 3 letters off of STEM when you make your observation about the change in participation in the sciences.
Your 4 is also a straw-man. it isn't about making all the poor not poor, it is about increasing access to approach levels that men have access to those careers. Yes, there might be slight downward pressure on wages if more people enter a field, but then that's an argument for ending education for literacy.
Do you know what a "Christian looking person" was back then? You'd be wrong if you guessed it would have much to do with skin color, or even language.
There were Christians living in that area under Muslim rule, and relatively peacefully, before the Crusades started. And they spoke the local language, etc. And there were Muslims who were European-looking.
The fact that you don't think they would shows you know almost nothing about the historical demographics of that era.
Note: a lot of Muslims and many Jews were caucasian during that time, and are today. Medieval Islam was generally more tolerant and hospitable than Medieval Christianity.
The problem is that one of the very, very few black protagonist/avatars in any video game appears in a videogame series where you always play as a criminal. If there were a bunch of black Gordon Freemans, Solid Snakes, Lara Crofts, Links, etc., then CJ wouldn't be such a bummer.
A couple successful characters worthy of mentioning, though: "Beyond Good and Evil"'s Jade and Zoe Castillo from Dreamfall. Very good characters.
Racism occurs in the interpretation. Behavior that, from white or Asian kids, would be interpreted as being rambunctious, lively, "just being kids", wacky hijinks, "boys-will-be-boys" behavior gets interpreted as thuggishness, delinquency, out-of-control behavior when it is engaged by black or hispanic kids. When people of one's own race clearly misbehave, it is treated as a problem of their economic class, or their personal moral defects, or poor parenting; when people of other races misbehave, it is ascribed to their race.
The problem isn't that a black character in GTA would be a gangster. It's that when you find black characters, it's only in games like GTA, where they'll obviously be gangsters.
1) Games aren't just about the games. They are about participation in a culture of gaming - in reading and writing gamefaqs, participating in forums, by being a recognized part of the market, in socializing over games, etc. That's participating. That women like the games in which representation is player-determined may actually prove their point: there is a chicken-and-egg problem, granted, but you dismiss it much too quickly.
2) There is more research than you think identifying benefits to game play, but again, the researchers aren't claiming that the benefits of participating in game-culture are simply because of the game play. I do think there are weaknesses to their model in this area (and to the STEM-gateway model in general) but I again think you aren't being fair to their argument.
3) Obviously, before games were important, they weren't STEM gateways. But see 2). Back in your day, it may have been the Chess club that mattered. I do think that the games -> STEM connection isn't worked out in a lot of this research, though.
4) STEM careers offer more social and economic mobility than any other. If you're poor, the best chance you have of lifting yourself up comes from getting skills in math and science and pursuing jobs in STEM careers. Women, and especially economically disadvantaged minorities, clearly would benefit from having more opportunity to pursue these careers successfully with a solid foundation in the skills required for them.
I also feel that the age component was the least logical; no one complains that most fairy-tale heroes are older than the children who are the canonical audiences for them, and one of my complaints about Japanese RPGs is that a lot of the characters are unrealistically young for the circumstances in which they are supposed to find themselves. For gender, race, and ethnicity, however, I think there is reasonable basis to suggest that a lot of players would benefit if there were more avatars - and, importantly, characters - that resembled them.
What he discovered is that scientists refer to scientific methodologies without adhering to it, that the method itself is generally a myth that isn't adhered to. If an instrument produces a reason inconsistent with a hypothesis, usually, the instrument is ignored or replaced with something that will produce data consistent with the hypothesis. Insofar as much modern science is really about the interpretation of instrument readings (or computer models), this is kind of a big deal.
He also observes that appeals to "nature" beg the question; if our claims about nature are themselves statements that we produce through processes that are based on the selective interpretation of readings, then it says nothing to say that nature "puts bounds." Latour is not saying that there is nothing real, only that "nature" as a concept is a product, not an input, into the process.
He also emphasizes several times that he is interested in areas where there is scientific controversy; he accepts the "closed books" of science as uncontroversial. But where science is still "at work," you can't appeal to "nature."
The concern of the researchers wasn't that there isn't 1-to-1 equity between white male representations and others in the interest of making a completely-equal Harrison-Bergeron-type society. It's that the absence of other representations discourages women and youth from other demographics from participating as full-fledged gamers, and that this is a problem because computer games are associated with building skills which are useful in pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) careers.
I have a problem with some of this narrative, too, particularly the idea that computer games are a gateway to STEM careers. But be fair: their claim of significance isn't based on a "perfect society" ideal, but on specific outcomes.
Slashdot Mirror
Your understanding is wrong. The US has less economic mobility than most developed nations.
Read this for more.
Oddly enough, generous funding for higher education and universal health care are two of the reasons for higher economic mobility elsewhere. At the time of the report, you were techinically right - the UK was about as bad as the US (and both lagged behind other European societies). Since then, the US has actually fallen even lower in mobility.
Adding that compatibility costs money (software compatibility was a bit of a dissapointment; hardware compatibility is spendy, makes the console bigger, etc.) The primary objections of the market were on price, not features. The PS3 at launch was, what, $500? $600 for the deluxe model?
I used to want PS2 compatibility, until I realized that a new, slim PS2 cost under a hundred bucks. I already have a PS2, so if Sony's going to discount the PS3 after getting rid of compatibility, I'm for it.
I think that the cost of adding full hardware-based compatibility to a PS3 would be about the same as getting a separate PS2 - about $100. Which would make the PS3 $100 less attractive to the majority of would-be buyers who already have a PS2.
They've just hit the price point and specs that I've been waiting for. I'm getting one.
Well, depends on how you dress.
Including links is no replacement for clear writing, and clear writing includes unpacking acronyms. The links should be used to provide detail, not to replace clarity.
Clearly, "success" consists of getting substantial amounts of grant money in order to design and perform experiments on children.
By the by, I wonder why an economist hasn't chimed in with an argument about the declining marginal utility of marshmallows...
The theory is that people like to use up their surplus mental energy, and that the more of it you do at work, the less you do afterward.
"Killing brain cells with chemicals" counts as using up surplus mental energy.
You bastard, that song is one of my all-time most virulent ear-worms.
Every couple of years, the "videogames are overtaking cinema" claim pops up. And every time, it's been wrong.
There are a lot of environmentalists (myself include) who are pro-nuclear and pro-technology. And anti-gaia-hypothesis, as well. (When geeks object to "environmentalism", I think most of them are objecting to the anthropomorphizing of "nature"; but then they turn around and make technological change, or market forces, just as teleological.)
It's a lot more efficient if we eliminate you and 9 others first.
God forbid that they might have some differences in viewpoint or emphasis, despite a generally shared goal.
There are some green groups that focus on biodiversity and preventing extinctions. Others focus on creating large undeveloped wildlife preserves. Yet others are worried about contaminants and pollution, or on green design of industrial objects, or an reducing the impact of processes and pricing externalities. The larger goals overlap, but the foci are very different.
You ever go to those supermarkets that have the "scan it yourself" stations? You run your bag of chips under a scanner and bag it yourself? If Ford lots had those scanners, then your analogy would work.
It is not a legal contract per se (or else they'd be written by lawyers, not by instructors.) But I am explaining to you the sense in which it is like a contract - an explication of the mutual expectations and responsibilities, and is treated as such by academic review committees that deal with grade challenges within a university. It will go poorly for the instructor and well for the student if material not included in the syllabus winds up in the final, or if expectations are suddenly raised mid-term.
Agreements regarding turninit.com, the copyright of student works, etc are usually part of the acceptance to the school itself, and are indeed written by lawyers.
This is not the case, and most syllabuses (syllabi is hypercorrection) have a "we will reschedule if necessary" clause in them.
But if the teacher puts material in the final that is not mentioned in the syllabus, then she would, in fact, be in violation, and students would be able to challenge any poor grades she handed out because of it.
A good syllabus is an explanation of the expectations of the course, a description of what will be required of the student to succeed in the class. It may not reach the requirements of a legal contract per se, although I do know some universities that consider syllabuses to be a somewhat binding agreement on both student and teacher - meaning that if a teacher grades on material or assignments that aren't in the syllabus, the student could challenge it.
I'm in favor of turninit.com, by the way. I don't see anything that takes away a student's subsequent rights to their work, a "right not to have one's work archived" doesn't seem compelling to me. And cheating has become a huge problem.
The study details a number of theories that address 1. In fact, it is one of the stronger points of the paper. You did look at the paper, didn't you, and aren't wasting my time tilting at phantoms?
I don't see how your 2 follows at all. It's a complete non-sequitor.
There is a good point in 3, regarding the perceived cultural capital of the activities which surround the entry to those careers. But you trim 3 letters off of STEM when you make your observation about the change in participation in the sciences.
Your 4 is also a straw-man. it isn't about making all the poor not poor, it is about increasing access to approach levels that men have access to those careers. Yes, there might be slight downward pressure on wages if more people enter a field, but then that's an argument for ending education for literacy.
Do you know what a "Christian looking person" was back then? You'd be wrong if you guessed it would have much to do with skin color, or even language.
There were Christians living in that area under Muslim rule, and relatively peacefully, before the Crusades started. And they spoke the local language, etc. And there were Muslims who were European-looking.
The fact that you don't think they would shows you know almost nothing about the historical demographics of that era.
Note: a lot of Muslims and many Jews were caucasian during that time, and are today. Medieval Islam was generally more tolerant and hospitable than Medieval Christianity.
The problem is that one of the very, very few black protagonist/avatars in any video game appears in a videogame series where you always play as a criminal. If there were a bunch of black Gordon Freemans, Solid Snakes, Lara Crofts, Links, etc., then CJ wouldn't be such a bummer.
A couple successful characters worthy of mentioning, though: "Beyond Good and Evil"'s Jade and Zoe Castillo from Dreamfall. Very good characters.
Racism occurs in the interpretation. Behavior that, from white or Asian kids, would be interpreted as being rambunctious, lively, "just being kids", wacky hijinks, "boys-will-be-boys" behavior gets interpreted as thuggishness, delinquency, out-of-control behavior when it is engaged by black or hispanic kids. When people of one's own race clearly misbehave, it is treated as a problem of their economic class, or their personal moral defects, or poor parenting; when people of other races misbehave, it is ascribed to their race.
The problem isn't that a black character in GTA would be a gangster. It's that when you find black characters, it's only in games like GTA, where they'll obviously be gangsters.
1) Games aren't just about the games. They are about participation in a culture of gaming - in reading and writing gamefaqs, participating in forums, by being a recognized part of the market, in socializing over games, etc. That's participating. That women like the games in which representation is player-determined may actually prove their point: there is a chicken-and-egg problem, granted, but you dismiss it much too quickly.
2) There is more research than you think identifying benefits to game play, but again, the researchers aren't claiming that the benefits of participating in game-culture are simply because of the game play. I do think there are weaknesses to their model in this area (and to the STEM-gateway model in general) but I again think you aren't being fair to their argument.
3) Obviously, before games were important, they weren't STEM gateways. But see 2). Back in your day, it may have been the Chess club that mattered. I do think that the games -> STEM connection isn't worked out in a lot of this research, though.
4) STEM careers offer more social and economic mobility than any other. If you're poor, the best chance you have of lifting yourself up comes from getting skills in math and science and pursuing jobs in STEM careers. Women, and especially economically disadvantaged minorities, clearly would benefit from having more opportunity to pursue these careers successfully with a solid foundation in the skills required for them.
I also feel that the age component was the least logical; no one complains that most fairy-tale heroes are older than the children who are the canonical audiences for them, and one of my complaints about Japanese RPGs is that a lot of the characters are unrealistically young for the circumstances in which they are supposed to find themselves. For gender, race, and ethnicity, however, I think there is reasonable basis to suggest that a lot of players would benefit if there were more avatars - and, importantly, characters - that resembled them.
What he discovered is that scientists refer to scientific methodologies without adhering to it, that the method itself is generally a myth that isn't adhered to. If an instrument produces a reason inconsistent with a hypothesis, usually, the instrument is ignored or replaced with something that will produce data consistent with the hypothesis. Insofar as much modern science is really about the interpretation of instrument readings (or computer models), this is kind of a big deal.
He also observes that appeals to "nature" beg the question; if our claims about nature are themselves statements that we produce through processes that are based on the selective interpretation of readings, then it says nothing to say that nature "puts bounds." Latour is not saying that there is nothing real, only that "nature" as a concept is a product, not an input, into the process.
He also emphasizes several times that he is interested in areas where there is scientific controversy; he accepts the "closed books" of science as uncontroversial. But where science is still "at work," you can't appeal to "nature."
The concern of the researchers wasn't that there isn't 1-to-1 equity between white male representations and others in the interest of making a completely-equal Harrison-Bergeron-type society. It's that the absence of other representations discourages women and youth from other demographics from participating as full-fledged gamers, and that this is a problem because computer games are associated with building skills which are useful in pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) careers.
I have a problem with some of this narrative, too, particularly the idea that computer games are a gateway to STEM careers. But be fair: their claim of significance isn't based on a "perfect society" ideal, but on specific outcomes.