" I don't even expect them to take second in the end, for that matter (although I may yet be surprised). That doesn't make it a resounding failure, though. "
Matter of taste, of course, but with Sony coming from holding 70+ percent of the home console market last generation with the PS2, I would certainly consider dropping down to third place this gen a significant failure.
The hype was primarily based on the interface - not on some vision of "liberation from the telcos". The collaboration with AT&T was announced *during the keynote introduction of the phone, including AT&T on stage collaboration*.
It is the idiocy of your refusing to deal with reality, where piracy is rife, and where the dreaded "Vista DRM" has negligible impact on 99,9 percent of users that should be a source of shame. I should probably feel shame for lots of things, but living in The Real World (TM) with regards to media use patterns is not one of them.
Indeed - backup is a vital task. I remember those "backup machines" for the NES / Megadrive (Genesis in yankeeland) fondly. So, let's be quantitative here: Demand for non-DRM media is fuelled by:
- 90% "I want to pirate this stuff". (I'm in these 90%, but I don't fool myself) - 10% "I want to put the contents of the disk on my central media streaming server" (And I'm being generous here)
Knowing my own filesharing habits (or just checking out the amount of traffic on TPB), I can hardly fault content producers for wanting DRM. It's a fully legitimate safeguard.
Indeed - they are "crippled" as in, you can't rip the content easily. Which you no doubt have multiple legitimate reasons to do. (*rolls around on the floor laughing wildly*)
Not really, the main issue relates to support for BluRay / HDDVD, and desktop computer based players will always be a small niche of those formats. The DRM support is just a nice extra that allows playback of what would otherwise be more difficult to access on a computer.
So, I give your article a readthrough, and I have to take issue with some parts of your analysis (I am sticking to the Xbox comparison, because that's where I have something of a clue):
You write: "The PS3 has sold better out of the gate than the PS2 did in its first year (PS2: 6m in 1 year; PS3 6m in ~5 months)."
- The PS3 didn't sell 6 million in 5 months - they shipped 6 million from factories in the first 5 months. Sony have now shifted to the more conservative "shipped to retailers" estimate. (The same that Nintendo and Microsoft have been using) That's why they report 5,59 million shipped worldwide in their latest financial report (through 2007/09/30). (See: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202533)
- The PS3 released at the same time in the US and Japan (november), and in Europe in march, and was not supply constrained for a significant amount of time. The PS2 had serious supply issues initially and launched as follows:
Hence, comparing "first year sales", with vastly different launch schedules in various territories does not give a terribly accurate picture.
-As for the PS3 having outsold the Xbox 360 "in every market outside the US", that is simply factually inaccurate. (It is certainly very wrong indeed in Europe's largest console market, the UK, as well as Canada. Spain has certainly gone Sony's way, Germany is still PC dominated, and France is pretty close according to what information one can get, although Sony will probably gain a lead pretty soon if it hasn't already.
Finally, looking at the actual numbers available from tracking agencies (MC / NPD) can be interesting for those who are geeky enough to actually care about these things:
Breastfeeding is sort of the "default mode" for humans. As is not getting exposed to large doses of heavy metals in infancy, and so on. But that's not usually what we are usually discussing when talking about IQ mallability.
Let's try again, this time in a more structured fashion: -Significant hereditary/genetic impact (indicated by sibling studies/adoption studies/twin studies) -Significant non-genetic impact, BUT no effective long-term method for boosting IQ has been found (so far), despite significant efforts*
*There are many identified environmental/biological factors that can depress intelligence though, especially through early exposure.
Que? It is not as if there has never been any research into intelligence - and while there certainly is a significant environmental impact, actual answers as to which factors can actually make a difference are scarce. Which means that malleability in practice is limited.
I agree completely that a work ethic and motivation are crucial factors - which is what the article in large part is getting at. Having an IQ of 150 will do you no good if you spend your days as a high school dropout playing WoW and munching potato chips, or if you have a learning disability such as dyslexia that goes unnoticed.
The problem is that you are highly unlikely to get into, and much less to get through any kind of decent college with an IQ of, say, 90. Which is also significant.
Still, if we want to discuss the malleability of self command (roughly = contentiousness in big-five speak), that is a completely different discussion. I have recently seen some research that indicates there is most likely a very substantial genetic influence in that as well.
Since when does it hold that grades = intelligence?
PS. The empirics involved do not appear terribly impressive at first glance, but that's a separate discussion that requires more reading time than I have available right now. DS.
My point was merely that spouting the oh-so-tiresome boilerplate about "correlation and causation" whenever faced with some inconvenient result is a big waste of everyone's time.
Certainly correlation in itself does not imply causation. Correlation, plus a credible mechanism does make for a decent hypothesis, however - one that can often be tested by various means. The parent offered no actual substance in criticizing various unspecified scientific disciplines, however - he just put forth a tired cliché - hence my reply.
PS. If correlation "often" implies causation or not is a matter of the definition of "often". DS.
I agree completely - but the parent derived from the article that "Intelligence is not a fixed, immutable property", which - as you point out - is a somewhat mistaken conclusion.
And axiomatic mathematical a priori reasoning is relevant to this topic... because?
As for philosophy, I indeed consider most of it useless, self-referential gibberish without much practical utility. There are exceptions, of course, such as the philosophy of science, but it is hard to imagine another field of endeavor where so much brainpower has been deployed throughout the ages, only to accomplish so little.
-Philosophy is more or less useless, and always has been. I hold it in roughly the same regard as theology. (Except some British philosophy of science, of course.)
-The rest of your post consists of a mix of gibberish and truism. Empiricism is indeed error-prone. But it sure beats the options - such as wishful thinking, ideology and religion (not to mention philosophy).
-Correlation often implies causation. What's your point? Who exactly are you referring to?
The article never really states that intelligence is terribly malleable. This is more of a general impression left with the reader - which is mostly incorrect. The article mainly states that it is preferable that children hold a more rose-tinted view of the nature of intelligence, as that tends to make them less prone to fatalism and more prone to work hard. Sort of like how a belief in Santa can make kids behave better.
"This is also an implicit critique for those in certain fields of biology, who, unwilling to question their genetic reductionistic assumptions, continuously attempt to explain everything about humanity in terms of genetics or selection pressure, as though their particular field exists within an epistemological vacuum."
No, it is not. Insofar as any discipline is actually scientific to some degree, they should follow the data, and should not focus on what would happen if their findings would be bastardized by some semi-trained K-12 educator. What makes people happy and productive and what is actually empirically true is not necessarily identical.
"Further injuring a man in a diabetic coma (who would look ill to any sane person) qualifies as attempted murder."
Murder usually requires an intent to kill. Genocide requires multiple (many, many multiples) people, and an intent to wipe out a population. None of these factors are likely to be present in the case you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
" I don't even expect them to take second in the end, for that matter (although I may yet be surprised). That doesn't make it a resounding failure, though. "
Matter of taste, of course, but with Sony coming from holding 70+ percent of the home console market last generation with the PS2, I would certainly consider dropping down to third place this gen a significant failure.
The hype was primarily based on the interface - not on some vision of "liberation from the telcos". The collaboration with AT&T was announced *during the keynote introduction of the phone, including AT&T on stage collaboration*.
It is the idiocy of your refusing to deal with reality, where piracy is rife, and where the dreaded "Vista DRM" has negligible impact on 99,9 percent of users that should be a source of shame. I should probably feel shame for lots of things, but living in The Real World (TM) with regards to media use patterns is not one of them.
Indeed - backup is a vital task. I remember those "backup machines" for the NES / Megadrive (Genesis in yankeeland) fondly. So, let's be quantitative here: Demand for non-DRM media is fuelled by:
- 90% "I want to pirate this stuff". (I'm in these 90%, but I don't fool myself)
- 10% "I want to put the contents of the disk on my central media streaming server" (And I'm being generous here)
Knowing my own filesharing habits (or just checking out the amount of traffic on TPB), I can hardly fault content producers for wanting DRM. It's a fully legitimate safeguard.
Indeed - they are "crippled" as in, you can't rip the content easily. Which you no doubt have multiple legitimate reasons to do. (*rolls around on the floor laughing wildly*)
Not really, the main issue relates to support for BluRay / HDDVD, and desktop computer based players will always be a small niche of those formats. The DRM support is just a nice extra that allows playback of what would otherwise be more difficult to access on a computer.
So, I give your article a readthrough, and I have to take issue with some parts of your analysis (I am sticking to the Xbox comparison, because that's where I have something of a clue):
You write: "The PS3 has sold better out of the gate than the PS2 did in its first year (PS2: 6m in 1 year; PS3 6m in ~5 months)."
- The PS3 didn't sell 6 million in 5 months - they shipped 6 million from factories in the first 5 months. Sony have now shifted to the more conservative "shipped to retailers" estimate. (The same that Nintendo and Microsoft have been using) That's why they report 5,59 million shipped worldwide in their latest financial report (through 2007/09/30).
(See: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202533)
- The PS3 released at the same time in the US and Japan (november), and in Europe in march, and was not supply constrained for a significant amount of time. The PS2 had serious supply issues initially and launched as follows:
Japan: March 4 2000
US: October 26 2000
Europe: November 23
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2)
Hence, comparing "first year sales", with vastly different launch schedules in various territories does not give a terribly accurate picture.
-As for the PS3 having outsold the Xbox 360 "in every market outside the US", that is simply factually inaccurate. (It is certainly very wrong indeed in Europe's largest console market, the UK, as well as Canada. Spain has certainly gone Sony's way, Germany is still PC dominated, and France is pretty close according to what information one can get, although Sony will probably gain a lead pretty soon if it hasn't already.
Finally, looking at the actual numbers available from tracking agencies (MC / NPD) can be interesting for those who are geeky enough to actually care about these things:
Hardware LTD Japan: (MC)
WII - 4,060,486
PS3 - 1,467,083
360 - 482,568
Hardware LTD America: (NPD)
360: 7,862,151
WII: 6,019,685
PS3: 2,446,649
...a funny definition of "permanent"... ;P
Breastfeeding is sort of the "default mode" for humans. As is not getting exposed to large doses of heavy metals in infancy, and so on. But that's not usually what we are usually discussing when talking about IQ mallability.
Let's try again, this time in a more structured fashion:
-Significant hereditary/genetic impact (indicated by sibling studies/adoption studies/twin studies)
-Significant non-genetic impact, BUT no effective long-term method for boosting IQ has been found (so far), despite significant efforts*
*There are many identified environmental/biological factors that can depress intelligence though, especially through early exposure.
Que? It is not as if there has never been any research into intelligence - and while there certainly is a significant environmental impact, actual answers as to which factors can actually make a difference are scarce. Which means that malleability in practice is limited.
I agree completely that a work ethic and motivation are crucial factors - which is what the article in large part is getting at. Having an IQ of 150 will do you no good if you spend your days as a high school dropout playing WoW and munching potato chips, or if you have a learning disability such as dyslexia that goes unnoticed.
The problem is that you are highly unlikely to get into, and much less to get through any kind of decent college with an IQ of, say, 90. Which is also significant.
Still, if we want to discuss the malleability of self command (roughly = contentiousness in big-five speak), that is a completely different discussion. I have recently seen some research that indicates there is most likely a very substantial genetic influence in that as well.
Definition: IQ
What does mostly incorrect mean?: It means that it is very hard to substantially and lastingly boost IQ.
Since when does it hold that grades = intelligence?
PS.
The empirics involved do not appear terribly impressive at first glance, but that's a separate discussion that requires more reading time than I have available right now.
DS.
My point was merely that spouting the oh-so-tiresome boilerplate about "correlation and causation" whenever faced with some inconvenient result is a big waste of everyone's time.
Certainly correlation in itself does not imply causation. Correlation, plus a credible mechanism does make for a decent hypothesis, however - one that can often be tested by various means. The parent offered no actual substance in criticizing various unspecified scientific disciplines, however - he just put forth a tired cliché - hence my reply.
PS.
If correlation "often" implies causation or not is a matter of the definition of "often".
DS.
I agree completely - but the parent derived from the article that "Intelligence is not a fixed, immutable property", which - as you point out - is a somewhat mistaken conclusion.
And axiomatic mathematical a priori reasoning is relevant to this topic... because?
As for philosophy, I indeed consider most of it useless, self-referential gibberish without much practical utility. There are exceptions, of course, such as the philosophy of science, but it is hard to imagine another field of endeavor where so much brainpower has been deployed throughout the ages, only to accomplish so little.
-Philosophy is more or less useless, and always has been. I hold it in roughly the same regard as theology. (Except some British philosophy of science, of course.)
-The rest of your post consists of a mix of gibberish and truism. Empiricism is indeed error-prone. But it sure beats the options - such as wishful thinking, ideology and religion (not to mention philosophy).
-Correlation often implies causation. What's your point? Who exactly are you referring to?
The article never really states that intelligence is terribly malleable. This is more of a general impression left with the reader - which is mostly incorrect. The article mainly states that it is preferable that children hold a more rose-tinted view of the nature of intelligence, as that tends to make them less prone to fatalism and more prone to work hard. Sort of like how a belief in Santa can make kids behave better.
"This is also an implicit critique for those in certain fields of biology, who, unwilling to question their genetic reductionistic assumptions, continuously attempt to explain everything about humanity in terms of genetics or selection pressure, as though their particular field exists within an epistemological vacuum."
No, it is not. Insofar as any discipline is actually scientific to some degree, they should follow the data, and should not focus on what would happen if their findings would be bastardized by some semi-trained K-12 educator. What makes people happy and productive and what is actually empirically true is not necessarily identical.
"Further injuring a man in a diabetic coma (who would look ill to any sane person) qualifies as attempted murder."
Murder usually requires an intent to kill. Genocide requires multiple (many, many multiples) people, and an intent to wipe out a population. None of these factors are likely to be present in the case you mention.
"This is why statistics are often useless BS. When it comes to environmental impact, and lives affected, a photo is worth a thousand reports."
This is truly the stuff that idiocy is made of.
Why not go with genocide right out of the gate? That should teach 'em!
Overlap. Sure, people don't want to be defrauded, but they also (generally) have strong moral reservations. (Not a coincidence, of course)
...is to some (usually large) degree based on morality. Fraud is illegal, because, well - people believe it is wrong. And so on.