People are afraid that if they don't get the event "right" it will somehow ruin the memory of their loved one
Or other people will think that they don't care. It seems that we have created a fake obligation... we all think that everyone else is thinking something when they probably actually aren't or simply don't care... but we are so fearful of our "reputation" that we think people are thinking about us all the time. World revolves around us, better not disapoint it!
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making. Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?
The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government!... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).
Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...
At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money. They can't just tax their non-customers.
It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.
Because people are willing to pay for a fancy coffin to bury someone in.
Spending lots of money on burials is nothing new. Pretty ancient tradition.
However, as far as coffins costing a lot - people are willing to pay that much, so why not? You can get cheap coffins somewhere, I'm sure. Or just use a wooden box. Or cremate. Why do people spend $100k on a car when they probably never drive it over 110mph anyway? People have money and like spending it for expensive things... that way people know they have the money that they can spend on expensive things...
"Greed" usually gets tossed around as though wanting to "make money" is "greed." I'm not sure that is always the case, though. Who decides how much a coffin should cost and how much over that cost is can be attributed to greed? Isn't it greedy for anyone to work and expect more money than he needs to simply live in an apartment with food and clothing? Anything extra is greedy!...
... there's a lot of demand for burials. People still die. People still bury people. Usually with respect and in something nice. I don't see why it's so weird that Wal-Mart would want to provide a supply of caskets to people that would buy them. Aside from the fact that humanity likes to pretend death doesn't exist, it seems.
I have used PuppyLinux and it's pretty good, but he said 28mb RAM...
RAM : 128 MB physical RAM for releases since version 1.0.2 or failing that a Linux swap file and/or swap partition is required for all included applications to run; 64 MB for releases previous to 1.0.2
I think your definition of obsolete is different from my definition. Obsolete means "unused." I guess it can mean out of date or not current, but I don't think mots people use it that way... hehe.
I am guessing "most" people don't know what an "unsecured access point" is. I don't think most people really think about computer security, until they are compromised or someone talks to them about it...
I've had Chrome, Firefox, and IE all crash. I don't recall Opera crashing but I didn't use it for very long. However, none of the above crash within a few hours of normal use. "Normal" being fewer than 10 tabs and the only flash-heavy site being youtube.
Google provides disused: no longer in use; "obsolete words"
WEP isn't even obsolete, let alone WPA. Many people still use "old" standards. Not everyone keeps up to date with the latest wireless security. Many have unsecured networks. Many use WEP just to keep off annoying neighbors. I don't know anyone that uses WPA2+AES at home. I take it back, I do know one person that does.
Seriously, I was going to say the same thing. Crashing once with a few hours of use is pretty iffy...
Of course, it depends on what crashed it. But still. The bias towards liking it is obvious, too.. "but only once."
That's like saying that I got a virus in Windows - but only once. So Windows is actually really secure!...
I am a software tester. If the software I test crashes and I am inclined to think it was a problem with the software, I actually am paid to try to reproduce the problem... not pass it off as only happening and thus not an issue.:)
I used it more as a ambiguous reference to problems in society. I realize things are not "worse than they used to be." The Romans weren't particularly against murder and violence, either. Nor most any civ in history that I can think of. It seems to be pretty basic human nature, whether good or bad. I think the problem right now is that people refuse to think that human nature is violent by nature and try to come with other "psychological" or genetic reasons for violence.
Maybe my main problem with "society" (American, at any rate) is that we're not really taught about murder (or why it's wrong) and those sorts of things, but we watch movies and play games where it seems to be okay.
And if you do not have the moral capability to understand that, then I suggest you seek help, as everyone else is stating.
This tends to be the common answer. If anyone suggests that video games affect your real life, people think you're a "mental case."
I have shot a real gun, and I've played video games. I'm quite sane (well, I think so, anyway!)... aside from being on Slashdot talking about philosophy, which is one of the more insane things I've ever done;)
The idea that virtual reality - books, TV, vieo games, movies, etc. - have no affect on the person is a strange one that seems to go back to almost Greek philosophy (the "spirit" is removed from the flesh and thus it doesn't matter what you do in your flesh). I don't think it's correct. Whether or not violence in video games directly correlates to violence in real life is, of course, not what I'm really trying to argue. What I'm trying to ask is what effect "virtual violence" (or virtual sex, virtual romance, virtual adventures, virtual anything) has on a person in real life. Does it change their behavior, their views and opinions, their morals, their ethics, their way of life, etc.
I know taking a life in real life is different than a video game. I also know that virtual reality can affect people to the extent that people kill themselves over it or use to make people very, very angry. WoW is not the only example, of course, but there certainly have been some high profile ones.
"Virtual murder" is very different from real life murder, certainly. But I'm not sure that enjoying watching/doing "virtual murder" is a good thing...
I don't particularly find enjoyment in killing birds, deer, or squirrels, especially for the sake of killing them. I do understand the draw to competition and challenges though... hunting, target-shooting, sports, etc. I personally love playing sports and definitely understand that. And I understand the draw of a game's storyline/"want to complete" as well, having played Baldur's Gate I/II, Neverwinter Nights I/II, Oblivion, all Monkey Island games, and many others...
So... an interesting question. Does the curiosity of "I wonder what I would feel like?" seem to outweigh the reasoning from the victim's point of view?
Maybe a video game in which you, the protagonist, get murdered and that's the end of the game would be an interesting one. I don't think anyone would like it though. Strange that we can turn off the sympathetic side of humanity so easily when our curiosity is piqued:)
Also, it's interesting to me that you seem to acknowledge the connection between your real life conscience/guilt and what you do virtually. If it can disturb your "stomach" then would it not follow that doing it often enough to the point that you CAN stomach it represents a change in your "stomach" ?
I am, by the way, just wandering through the philosophical arguments of this, not trying to show how wrong you are. I'm not completely sure what I think the connection between virtual deeds (which we willfully do) and my character/nature/conscience/guilt/"stomach"/whatever you want to call it.
You misunderstand what I'm saying (and purposely, it sounds like).
Not really. I do have my opinion which likely is coloring my interpretation though.
A World War II game is a very abstracted version of what occurred nearly a decade ago, and to say that's it's even mildly close to the real history behind the horror is to be dishonest.
You mean, the outliers?
I'm ignorant. What do you mean?:) Looks like you explain later on though, so only explain if you feel it wasn't explained later in your post... I've never heard the term before, I don't think.
Now stop pretending that this represents the group as a whole.
Certainly the wholesale expression of this feeling or comprehension or desire (or whatever) is not the normal person... but judging from how many people are "addicted" to things like facebook, myspace, twitter, etc., there is something about projecting an image that is not really themselves that is attractive... or wanting to pretend to be something that they aren't *in the real world*.
which is a fascinating statement of the medium and an emotionally complex piece that is sure to be discussed for a long time.
Well, can't argue with that. We'll see how many people are morally repelled.:)
Isn't there a difference between doing something similar - i.e., your cat playfully biting you - and doing something exactly the same but not in real life - i.e., murdering someone in a computer game?
The cat is showing (practicing?) restraint. The other is not. The other is doing what you "don't want to actually do" because you can and nothing "bad" will come of it.
Wrestling with your brothers in real life is not the same as virtually breaking someone's arm for pleasure. One is showing physical restraint/power-under-control. The other shows no restraint, and if anything, shows a strange pleasure in causing lasting physical harm. If your cat manifested pleasure in causing you lasting physical harm - but did it playfully - I doubt you would have your cat for very long.
Of course you don't! What you really want to do is pay more so that you can have your health care, income, and retirement completely managed by the federal government. It will make everyone much happier. [/sarcasm]
Almost everything a real person sees and hears affects him (and, by extension, his life). A real person is playing the game. The game thus has more than "nothing" to do with real life. I'm not arguing that it's necessarily good or bad affects, but it definitely affects people. Otherwise, you may as well argue that TV shows, comedies, and cartoons have "no affect on real life," but they definitely do... if only in what people say and the expressions of speech they use.
If there's anything this generation of teenagers has a grasp on, it's the difference between reality and virtual reality.
I'm not sure that they do. There are a whole lot of teenagers that I see as I drive through downtown that look like they're trying to look like something they aren't based on books, movies, or video games. Maybe they know it's "just virtual reality," but that doesn't mean they don't start wishing that the "virtual reality" was actually reality. Getting so far into virtual reality that you wish it was reality, and thus fail to integrate/interact with reality is not a good thing.
Incidentally, if teenagers know the difference between reality and virtual reality so well and know that the game has nothing to do with reality, why in the world do they waste so much time of their lives doing something that has no affect on their life and is just a game? Or is it perhaps actually affecting them in real life?
I'm sure it's a pretty niche market these days though:D.
A lot of people still ride horses (for fun) and buggy/carriages (especially with ponies) are still pretty popular. Not for most city-folk, of course, but once you get into rural areas where people still like "land" and not just "Starbucks"...:)
Slashdot Mirror
People are afraid that if they don't get the event "right" it will somehow ruin the memory of their loved one
Or other people will think that they don't care. It seems that we have created a fake obligation... we all think that everyone else is thinking something when they probably actually aren't or simply don't care... but we are so fearful of our "reputation" that we think people are thinking about us all the time. World revolves around us, better not disapoint it!
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making. Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?
The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government! ... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).
Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...
At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money. They can't just tax their non-customers.
It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.
Time to start a non-political-party party!
Online Rich Web Application with Cloud Based Virtual Cyber Hotspot 2.0!
Because people are willing to pay for a fancy coffin to bury someone in.
Spending lots of money on burials is nothing new. Pretty ancient tradition.
However, as far as coffins costing a lot - people are willing to pay that much, so why not? You can get cheap coffins somewhere, I'm sure. Or just use a wooden box. Or cremate. Why do people spend $100k on a car when they probably never drive it over 110mph anyway? People have money and like spending it for expensive things... that way people know they have the money that they can spend on expensive things...
"Greed" usually gets tossed around as though wanting to "make money" is "greed." I'm not sure that is always the case, though. Who decides how much a coffin should cost and how much over that cost is can be attributed to greed? Isn't it greedy for anyone to work and expect more money than he needs to simply live in an apartment with food and clothing? Anything extra is greedy! ...
... there's a lot of demand for burials. People still die. People still bury people. Usually with respect and in something nice. I don't see why it's so weird that Wal-Mart would want to provide a supply of caskets to people that would buy them. Aside from the fact that humanity likes to pretend death doesn't exist, it seems.
So, you're saying users can't download malware and install on Unix based systems? Why not? The system protects users from installing software?
RAM : 128 MB physical RAM for releases since version 1.0.2 or failing that a Linux swap file and/or swap partition is required for all included applications to run; 64 MB for releases previous to 1.0.2
I think your definition of obsolete is different from my definition. Obsolete means "unused." I guess it can mean out of date or not current, but I don't think mots people use it that way... hehe.
I am guessing "most" people don't know what an "unsecured access point" is. I don't think most people really think about computer security, until they are compromised or someone talks to them about it...
Either that or the first two letters were supposed to be "OM".
Or the last two letters...
(favorite in game advertising was that pirate with the huge pin that said Ask me about Loom...)
The Slashdot sample of wireless encryption users may be different than most samples, hehe...
I don't think WEP nor WPA are obsolete. People still use it fairly regularly, if anything at all.
They SHOULD be obsolete - I'll agree with that statement... :)
I've had Chrome, Firefox, and IE all crash. I don't recall Opera crashing but I didn't use it for very long. However, none of the above crash within a few hours of normal use. "Normal" being fewer than 10 tabs and the only flash-heavy site being youtube.
Please provide your definition "obsolete."
Google provides disused: no longer in use; "obsolete words"
WEP isn't even obsolete, let alone WPA. Many people still use "old" standards. Not everyone keeps up to date with the latest wireless security. Many have unsecured networks. Many use WEP just to keep off annoying neighbors. I don't know anyone that uses WPA2+AES at home. I take it back, I do know one person that does.
Seriously, I was going to say the same thing. Crashing once with a few hours of use is pretty iffy...
Of course, it depends on what crashed it. But still. The bias towards liking it is obvious, too.. "but only once."
That's like saying that I got a virus in Windows - but only once. So Windows is actually really secure! ...
I am a software tester. If the software I test crashes and I am inclined to think it was a problem with the software, I actually am paid to try to reproduce the problem... not pass it off as only happening and thus not an issue. :)
I used it more as a ambiguous reference to problems in society. I realize things are not "worse than they used to be." The Romans weren't particularly against murder and violence, either. Nor most any civ in history that I can think of. It seems to be pretty basic human nature, whether good or bad. I think the problem right now is that people refuse to think that human nature is violent by nature and try to come with other "psychological" or genetic reasons for violence.
Cats don't play video games
lolcats disagrees with you, I'm sure. ;)
Maybe my main problem with "society" (American, at any rate) is that we're not really taught about murder (or why it's wrong) and those sorts of things, but we watch movies and play games where it seems to be okay.
And if you do not have the moral capability to understand that, then I suggest you seek help, as everyone else is stating.
This tends to be the common answer. If anyone suggests that video games affect your real life, people think you're a "mental case."
I have shot a real gun, and I've played video games. I'm quite sane (well, I think so, anyway!)... aside from being on Slashdot talking about philosophy, which is one of the more insane things I've ever done ;)
The idea that virtual reality - books, TV, vieo games, movies, etc. - have no affect on the person is a strange one that seems to go back to almost Greek philosophy (the "spirit" is removed from the flesh and thus it doesn't matter what you do in your flesh). I don't think it's correct. Whether or not violence in video games directly correlates to violence in real life is, of course, not what I'm really trying to argue. What I'm trying to ask is what effect "virtual violence" (or virtual sex, virtual romance, virtual adventures, virtual anything) has on a person in real life. Does it change their behavior, their views and opinions, their morals, their ethics, their way of life, etc.
I know taking a life in real life is different than a video game. I also know that virtual reality can affect people to the extent that people kill themselves over it or use to make people very, very angry. WoW is not the only example, of course, but there certainly have been some high profile ones.
"Virtual murder" is very different from real life murder, certainly. But I'm not sure that enjoying watching/doing "virtual murder" is a good thing...
I don't particularly find enjoyment in killing birds, deer, or squirrels, especially for the sake of killing them. I do understand the draw to competition and challenges though... hunting, target-shooting, sports, etc. I personally love playing sports and definitely understand that. And I understand the draw of a game's storyline/"want to complete" as well, having played Baldur's Gate I/II, Neverwinter Nights I/II, Oblivion, all Monkey Island games, and many others...
you're already at +5, but that was one of the funniest meme posts I've seen. :)
So... an interesting question. Does the curiosity of "I wonder what I would feel like?" seem to outweigh the reasoning from the victim's point of view?
Maybe a video game in which you, the protagonist, get murdered and that's the end of the game would be an interesting one. I don't think anyone would like it though. Strange that we can turn off the sympathetic side of humanity so easily when our curiosity is piqued :)
Also, it's interesting to me that you seem to acknowledge the connection between your real life conscience/guilt and what you do virtually. If it can disturb your "stomach" then would it not follow that doing it often enough to the point that you CAN stomach it represents a change in your "stomach" ?
I am, by the way, just wandering through the philosophical arguments of this, not trying to show how wrong you are. I'm not completely sure what I think the connection between virtual deeds (which we willfully do) and my character/nature/conscience/guilt/"stomach"/whatever you want to call it.
You misunderstand what I'm saying (and purposely, it sounds like).
Not really. I do have my opinion which likely is coloring my interpretation though.
A World War II game is a very abstracted version of what occurred nearly a decade ago, and to say that's it's even mildly close to the real history behind the horror is to be dishonest.
You mean, the outliers?
I'm ignorant. What do you mean? :) Looks like you explain later on though, so only explain if you feel it wasn't explained later in your post... I've never heard the term before, I don't think.
Now stop pretending that this represents the group as a whole.
Certainly the wholesale expression of this feeling or comprehension or desire (or whatever) is not the normal person... but judging from how many people are "addicted" to things like facebook, myspace, twitter, etc., there is something about projecting an image that is not really themselves that is attractive... or wanting to pretend to be something that they aren't *in the real world*.
which is a fascinating statement of the medium and an emotionally complex piece that is sure to be discussed for a long time.
Well, can't argue with that. We'll see how many people are morally repelled. :)
Isn't there a difference between doing something similar - i.e., your cat playfully biting you - and doing something exactly the same but not in real life - i.e., murdering someone in a computer game?
The cat is showing (practicing?) restraint. The other is not. The other is doing what you "don't want to actually do" because you can and nothing "bad" will come of it.
Wrestling with your brothers in real life is not the same as virtually breaking someone's arm for pleasure. One is showing physical restraint/power-under-control. The other shows no restraint, and if anything, shows a strange pleasure in causing lasting physical harm. If your cat manifested pleasure in causing you lasting physical harm - but did it playfully - I doubt you would have your cat for very long.
I wish I was exempt.
Of course you don't! What you really want to do is pay more so that you can have your health care, income, and retirement completely managed by the federal government. It will make everyone much happier. [/sarcasm]
the game has nothing to do with real life.
Almost everything a real person sees and hears affects him (and, by extension, his life). A real person is playing the game. The game thus has more than "nothing" to do with real life. I'm not arguing that it's necessarily good or bad affects, but it definitely affects people. Otherwise, you may as well argue that TV shows, comedies, and cartoons have "no affect on real life," but they definitely do ... if only in what people say and the expressions of speech they use.
If there's anything this generation of teenagers has a grasp on, it's the difference between reality and virtual reality.
I'm not sure that they do. There are a whole lot of teenagers that I see as I drive through downtown that look like they're trying to look like something they aren't based on books, movies, or video games. Maybe they know it's "just virtual reality," but that doesn't mean they don't start wishing that the "virtual reality" was actually reality. Getting so far into virtual reality that you wish it was reality, and thus fail to integrate/interact with reality is not a good thing.
Incidentally, if teenagers know the difference between reality and virtual reality so well and know that the game has nothing to do with reality, why in the world do they waste so much time of their lives doing something that has no affect on their life and is just a game? Or is it perhaps actually affecting them in real life?
It's a cute way of indicating individual people
I'd say that depends on the individual's abdomen... :P
I'm sure it's a pretty niche market these days though :D.
A lot of people still ride horses (for fun) and buggy/carriages (especially with ponies) are still pretty popular. Not for most city-folk, of course, but once you get into rural areas where people still like "land" and not just "Starbucks" ... :)