That's me - I enjoyed Doom III a great deal, and even finished it. Half-Life II? Extremely impressive art direction, credible environments, etc, but I couldn't get into it to the same degree.
"Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!"
Erm, NPD (USA) and Media Create (Japan) keep close track of the sales of all major consoles, and as the PS3 has only been released in those territories, the statistics are comprehensive. Current stats:
November 2006: Xbox 360 -- 511K Wii -- 476K PS3 -- 197K
December 2006: Xbox 360 1.1 mm Wii 604.2 K PS3 490.7 K
January 2007: Xbox 360 294k Playstation 3 244k Wii 436k
NPD also does Canada stats, but the PS3 has been the slowest selling console there as well (by far).
In short, I do believe there is reason for Sony to worry, but not to panic. Yet. This is a marathon, not a sprint, after all...
Let me be the first to say that I am Shocked - Shocked! - to see Mr. Gates advocating the importing of low-cost labor in the very field where his company is a major employer.
In any case, claims of "labor shortages" should always be taken with a grain of salt - or two - when coming from prominent industry representatives.
Social anthropology is about as scientific as most other social studies diciplines - i.e. not very scientific at all. Genetics (a real science) is where the cutting edge work on human genetics and relatedness is done - anthropology hasn't been in the game for a long, long time.
- if by race, you mean genetic differentiation related to ancestry in humans.
Of course, much as we can discuss "is there such a thing as a chair" (or any choice of labelling) all day long without any results, we can try to obfuscate the reality of human genetic differences all day long using word games like "there is no such thing as race".
In everyday use though, there is indeed a social component - what is considered "black" in the US might not be considered "black" in Nigeria. For everyday use though, the social conception of race corresponds surprisingly well to the underlying biological reality.
Here is a neat summary of the current state of affairs:
"I. Genetic variation in humans forms clusters that correspond to geography
The fact that one can cluster humans together by geography based solely on their genetic information was most convincingly demonstrated in two papers (the second one is open access) by a group out of Stanford. These studies looked at several hundred variable places in the genome in 52 populations scattered across the globe. The hypothesis was as follows-- on applying a clustering algorithm to these data, individuals from similar geographic regions would end up together.
I've put a representation on the right, where colors represent poplations-- on top is a pattern of variation that would lead to no clustering (the colors all blend one into the next) while on the bottom is a pattern of variation that would lead to clustering (there are subtle but noticable jumps from yellow to green, for example, though there is much variation within each color). Note that the lack of clustering would not mean that all populations are genetically the same (in the top figure, yellow and orange are not "the same" even though you couldn't find a fixed boundry between them).
But indeed, the researchers found the situation corresponding to the bottom figure-- the individuals formed five clusters which represented, in the authors' words, "Africa, Eurasia (Europe, Middle East, and Central/South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas". Some populations were exceptions, of course (there are always exceptions in biology)-- they seemed to be a mix between two clusters, or could even form their own cluster in certain models.
But in general, the second model in the figure is a good fit for human variation based on the spots in the genome used by these researchers-- continents correspond to clusters, and geographic barriers like the Himalayas or an ocean correspond to those areas where a "jump" from one cluster to the next occurrs.
II. Clusters and race
The fact that humans cluster together based on genetic information could, in theory, be entirely orthoganal to the concept of race. However, at least in the United State (where this has been explicitly tested), this is not the case. The most important reason for this, in my mind, is that the ancestors of European-Americans and African-Americans were not randomly sampled from the globe (there's a bias towards points on the globe that are quite distant), and this non-random sampling accentuates the genetic differences between the two groups. But in any case, the reasons for this are irrelevant to the argument; let's look at the data.
The basis for this assertion comes from a paper (open access) by a different set of researchers at Stanford, who assembled a group of Americans who identified themselves as either African-American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. They followed a similar protocal as the studies in the first section-- they took DNA from all individuals, looked a hundreds of different DNA variants, and applied a clustering algorithm. They then looked to see if their clusters corresponded to self-reported group. And indeed, in 3631 out of 3636 cases (99.85%), the individuals were clustered by the algorithm into the "correct" racial
"one example would be people who still believe that HIV can only be transmitted through homosexual sex."
According to the CDC, roughly 70% or the HIV cases in the US in 2004 were due to male-male transmission. Another 16 percent were due to injection drug use. That totals a mere 86 percent (including the cases where there is overlap).
That leaves a whooping 14 percent of cases to distribute among the vast majority of the population (90+ percent?) who do not have male-male sex (lesbians don't get AIDS from sex) and who do not inject drugs. In short, while it is not impossible to contract HIV/AIDS from heterosexual sex, the myth that it is impossible is much closer to the truth than the (often officially sanctioned) myth that heterosexual sex is just as dangerous as male-male hanky-panky.
...gets tiresome. Almost all modern countries have some sort of "legal personhood" instituted for corporations, independently of any US legal peculiarities. Why? Because it's damn practical, that's why.
Of course, the bonus rights of corporate persons (limited liability, etc.) is everywhere balanced by bonus obligations - i.e. huge amounts of regulation that normal persons are not subject to.
"Can you prove that, assuming that that is true, that it is indeed a facet of the respective religions, and not the persecution of Muslims (don't tell me there isn't any)?"
Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.
"because of the actions of a few"
Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.
"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"
For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)
Putting a "right to dignity" in your constitution is either:
a) A sign that the constitution will be applied in a very limited fashion, I.e. more as a nice-sounding statement of intent with very limited legal day-to-day application. I suspect this is the case in South Africa.
b) A legal train-wreck waiting to happen. Applying a legal concept of "a right to dignity" in practice makes many other infamous slippery legal issues seem easy by comparison. Expect a constantly changing (according to legal and political fashions) defintion of "dignity". What is certain is only that many new, cool "constitutional" concepts will emerge from the penumbra of dignity.
Why? Simply because there is hardly any consensus whatsoever as to what "dignity" means in many relevant situations - it's fuzzy beyond belief. I recently visited London for a few days, and was no doubt recorded by hundreds of CCTV cameras. Did I consider it a blow to my dignity? Not really. To you on the other hand, CCTV recordings appear to constitute a severe blow to your dignity. Which sort of illustrates my point.
(is also non-USA-ian, but wth...)...is illegal immigration. The major sponsors of illegal immigration*, primarily from Mexico, want to make sure that anti-ID theft measures, border control measures, etc. remain lax.
* Read: Various business lobbies (More profits) Ethnic lobbies (More voters = more power) George W Bush (More voters + God told me to) Most of the Democratic party (More voters)
"So your solution is that we keep receipts of every single thing we purchase because the burden is upon us, the consumers, to prove that everything we have purchased is legal?"
No - just for the expensive stuff. I certainly do - I don't expect them to repair my LCD TV out of the goodness of their hearts if it breaks, etc. Validation failure in Vista seems even less likely than my TV giving up.
I should add I presently run XP Corp PE (Pirate Edition). Works like a charm, but I won't pretend to get all morally indignated if MS found some way of shutting me down.
"So let me get this straight. If you take only one ballot from one party and no empty ballot, then that is what your vote will be? So party goons can easily check whether you voted for their party?"
Not "easily" - the ballot table is not under continous surveillance. Also, you can either just write in the party name on a blank ballot if you are especially secretive, alternatively take one of every ballot. Alternatively, you just bring your ballots with you from home (all major and some minor parties mail them out in advance) and take no ballots whatsoever from the table or functionaries.
Another option is the method used here in Sweden - the straight paper ballot, placed into an envelope, and then placed into the voting box by the voter him/her/itself, after officials check your name in the the voting register and eye your voter ID card (mailed out a few weeks earlier) and photo ID.
Ballots are picked up by the voter outside of the voting booth (there is a table available with all flavors) or brought in yourself. (Parties usually mail out their ballots prior to the election). Also, major parties will have their people outside, handing out ballots. Alternatively, you can just vote write-in by spelling out the party name on a blank ballot. (This results in "The Donald Duck Party", etc. garnering a few votes every year...;) )
One envelope per election (regional, local, national, referendums, etc.)
Pros: Very simple, very unambigous (no "hanging chads" possible), straight paper trail, etc. Electronic tampering virtually impossible. Voter identity is assured.
Cons: Electoral secrecy compromised to some degree(although not fatally) if ballots stored out in the open. Sabotage against ballot storage is possible, and happens (I.e. snagging the ballots of "the enemy"). Voter ID requirements will garner cries of "voter suppression" from the usual suspects, not as TV-friendly (counting the votes takes some time).
The shutdown feature will probably make me paying for a legit copy eventually, provided the pirates don't manage to disable it in a reliable manner. Once my trusty pirated XP is no longer good enough (through forced upgrade moves like DX10, etc.) I will probably splurge on a copy (most likely when I build my next comp - OEM pricing). Linux? Not good enough for basic gaming. Might get a mac though.
"Women in general tend to be unimpressed by those whose ego exeeds their abilities"
Really? I would like some hard evidence for that - preferably some really hard evidence.
My take is rather that women are impressed with alpha males, not by the betas that mostly make up the geek population. Geeks are simply more interested in tech than alphas (who like to manage, not going deep into a single subject). Hence, geeks are generally the ones who advance technology, while alphas rule the roost.
Slashdot Mirror
That's me - I enjoyed Doom III a great deal, and even finished it. Half-Life II? Extremely impressive art direction, credible environments, etc, but I couldn't get into it to the same degree.
The above are NPD statistics only. For Japan sales, see:
http://www.m-create.com/eng/index.html
www.neogaf.com
"Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!"
Erm, NPD (USA) and Media Create (Japan) keep close track of the sales of all major consoles, and as the PS3 has only been released in those territories, the statistics are comprehensive. Current stats:
November 2006:
Xbox 360 -- 511K
Wii -- 476K
PS3 -- 197K
December 2006:
Xbox 360 1.1 mm
Wii 604.2 K
PS3 490.7 K
January 2007:
Xbox 360 294k
Playstation 3 244k
Wii 436k
NPD also does Canada stats, but the PS3 has been the slowest selling console there as well (by far).
In short, I do believe there is reason for Sony to worry, but not to panic. Yet. This is a marathon, not a sprint, after all...
Let me be the first to say that I am Shocked - Shocked! - to see Mr. Gates advocating the importing of low-cost labor in the very field where his company is a major employer.
In any case, claims of "labor shortages" should always be taken with a grain of salt - or two - when coming from prominent industry representatives.
Social anthropology is about as scientific as most other social studies diciplines - i.e. not very scientific at all. Genetics (a real science) is where the cutting edge work on human genetics and relatedness is done - anthropology hasn't been in the game for a long, long time.
- if by race, you mean genetic differentiation related to ancestry in humans.
Of course, much as we can discuss "is there such a thing as a chair" (or any choice of labelling) all day long without any results, we can try to obfuscate the reality of human genetic differences all day long using word games like "there is no such thing as race".
In everyday use though, there is indeed a social component - what is considered "black" in the US might not be considered "black" in Nigeria. For everyday use though, the social conception of race corresponds surprisingly well to the underlying biological reality.
Here is a neat summary of the current state of affairs:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-cons ensus.php
"I. Genetic variation in humans forms clusters that correspond to geography
The fact that one can cluster humans together by geography based solely on their genetic information was most convincingly demonstrated in two papers (the second one is open access) by a group out of Stanford. These studies looked at several hundred variable places in the genome in 52 populations scattered across the globe. The hypothesis was as follows-- on applying a clustering algorithm to these data, individuals from similar geographic regions would end up together.
I've put a representation on the right, where colors represent poplations-- on top is a pattern of variation that would lead to no clustering (the colors all blend one into the next) while on the bottom is a pattern of variation that would lead to clustering (there are subtle but noticable jumps from yellow to green, for example, though there is much variation within each color). Note that the lack of clustering would not mean that all populations are genetically the same (in the top figure, yellow and orange are not "the same" even though you couldn't find a fixed boundry between them).
But indeed, the researchers found the situation corresponding to the bottom figure-- the individuals formed five clusters which represented, in the authors' words, "Africa, Eurasia (Europe, Middle East, and Central/South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas". Some populations were exceptions, of course (there are always exceptions in biology)-- they seemed to be a mix between two clusters, or could even form their own cluster in certain models.
But in general, the second model in the figure is a good fit for human variation based on the spots in the genome used by these researchers-- continents correspond to clusters, and geographic barriers like the Himalayas or an ocean correspond to those areas where a "jump" from one cluster to the next occurrs.
II. Clusters and race
The fact that humans cluster together based on genetic information could, in theory, be entirely orthoganal to the concept of race. However, at least in the United State (where this has been explicitly tested), this is not the case. The most important reason for this, in my mind, is that the ancestors of European-Americans and African-Americans were not randomly sampled from the globe (there's a bias towards points on the globe that are quite distant), and this non-random sampling accentuates the genetic differences between the two groups. But in any case, the reasons for this are irrelevant to the argument; let's look at the data.
The basis for this assertion comes from a paper (open access) by a different set of researchers at Stanford, who assembled a group of Americans who identified themselves as either African-American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. They followed a similar protocal as the studies in the first section-- they took DNA from all individuals, looked a hundreds of different DNA variants, and applied a clustering algorithm. They then looked to see if their clusters corresponded to self-reported group. And indeed, in 3631 out of 3636 cases (99.85%), the individuals were clustered by the algorithm into the "correct" racial
"one example would be people who still believe that HIV can only be transmitted through homosexual sex."
According to the CDC, roughly 70% or the HIV cases in the US in 2004 were due to male-male transmission. Another 16 percent were due to injection drug use. That totals a mere 86 percent (including the cases where there is overlap).
That leaves a whooping 14 percent of cases to distribute among the vast majority of the population (90+ percent?) who do not have male-male sex (lesbians don't get AIDS from sex) and who do not inject drugs. In short, while it is not impossible to contract HIV/AIDS from heterosexual sex, the myth that it is impossible is much closer to the truth than the (often officially sanctioned) myth that heterosexual sex is just as dangerous as male-male hanky-panky.
Obesity sure correlates with educational level in a broad sense, but I wouldn't bet any money on education having much to do with the issue directly.
...this proposal covered porn as well, so Norway has all bases covered ;)
"Hate towards the government"
Can't have that, now can we?
Still, the moniker "hate" has indeed turned out to be the key for re-introducing classical censorship legislation to western nations.
...gets tiresome. Almost all modern countries have some sort of "legal personhood" instituted for corporations, independently of any US legal peculiarities. Why? Because it's damn practical, that's why.
Of course, the bonus rights of corporate persons (limited liability, etc.) is everywhere balanced by bonus obligations - i.e. huge amounts of regulation that normal persons are not subject to.
"Can you prove that, assuming that that is true, that it is indeed a facet of the respective religions, and not the persecution of Muslims (don't tell me there isn't any)?"
Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.
"because of the actions of a few"
Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.
"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"
For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)
Could someone start a petition to purge "enabling" from the english language? Please?
"I mean like a patriot act level of breach of trust."
Curious - could you specify your objection to the Patriot act, and the "breach of trust" contained therein?
Putting a "right to dignity" in your constitution is either:
a) A sign that the constitution will be applied in a very limited fashion, I.e. more as a nice-sounding statement of intent with very limited legal day-to-day application. I suspect this is the case in South Africa.
b) A legal train-wreck waiting to happen. Applying a legal concept of "a right to dignity" in practice makes many other infamous slippery legal issues seem easy by comparison. Expect a constantly changing (according to legal and political fashions) defintion of "dignity". What is certain is only that many new, cool "constitutional" concepts will emerge from the penumbra of dignity.
Why? Simply because there is hardly any consensus whatsoever as to what "dignity" means in many relevant situations - it's fuzzy beyond belief. I recently visited London for a few days, and was no doubt recorded by hundreds of CCTV cameras. Did I consider it a blow to my dignity? Not really. To you on the other hand, CCTV recordings appear to constitute a severe blow to your dignity. Which sort of illustrates my point.
(is also non-USA-ian, but wth...) ...is illegal immigration. The major sponsors of illegal immigration*, primarily from Mexico, want to make sure that anti-ID theft measures, border control measures, etc. remain lax.
*
Read:
Various business lobbies (More profits)
Ethnic lobbies (More voters = more power)
George W Bush (More voters + God told me to)
Most of the Democratic party (More voters)
"So your solution is that we keep receipts of every single thing we purchase because the burden is upon us, the consumers, to prove that everything we have purchased is legal?"
No - just for the expensive stuff. I certainly do - I don't expect them to repair my LCD TV out of the goodness of their hearts if it breaks, etc. Validation failure in Vista seems even less likely than my TV giving up.
I should add I presently run XP Corp PE (Pirate Edition). Works like a charm, but I won't pretend to get all morally indignated if MS found some way of shutting me down.
"So let me get this straight. If you take only one ballot from one party and no empty ballot, then that is what your vote will be? So party goons can easily check whether you voted for their party?"
Not "easily" - the ballot table is not under continous surveillance. Also, you can either just write in the party name on a blank ballot if you are especially secretive, alternatively take one of every ballot. Alternatively, you just bring your ballots with you from home (all major and some minor parties mail them out in advance) and take no ballots whatsoever from the table or functionaries.
Another option is the method used here in Sweden - the straight paper ballot, placed into an envelope, and then placed into the voting box by the voter him/her/itself, after officials check your name in the the voting register and eye your voter ID card (mailed out a few weeks earlier) and photo ID.
;) )
Ballots are picked up by the voter outside of the voting booth (there is a table available with all flavors) or brought in yourself. (Parties usually mail out their ballots prior to the election). Also, major parties will have their people outside, handing out ballots. Alternatively, you can just vote write-in by spelling out the party name on a blank ballot. (This results in "The Donald Duck Party", etc. garnering a few votes every year...
One envelope per election (regional, local, national, referendums, etc.)
Pros: Very simple, very unambigous (no "hanging chads" possible), straight paper trail, etc. Electronic tampering virtually impossible. Voter identity is assured.
Cons: Electoral secrecy compromised to some degree(although not fatally) if ballots stored out in the open. Sabotage against ballot storage is possible, and happens (I.e. snagging the ballots of "the enemy"). Voter ID requirements will garner cries of "voter suppression" from the usual suspects, not as TV-friendly (counting the votes takes some time).
"
Pirates have the WGA crack installed and it passes with flying colors downloading all apps and patches without problem.
"
Some do. I just unistalled WGA, and who really cares about IE7, etc? You still get the security updates.
Actual piracy numbers are likely to be even larger.
Why? Two main reasons.
One: Pirates are probably far less likely to attempt to run a WGA certification compared to a legitimate licence holder. For obvious reasons.
Two: "Borrowed" corporate editions, etc. will validate despite being, well, "borrowed".
The shutdown feature will probably make me paying for a legit copy eventually, provided the pirates don't manage to disable it in a reliable manner. Once my trusty pirated XP is no longer good enough (through forced upgrade moves like DX10, etc.) I will probably splurge on a copy (most likely when I build my next comp - OEM pricing). Linux? Not good enough for basic gaming. Might get a mac though.
"Pirating" has been the term in general use for, well, ever. I used to "pirate" = "piratkopiera" ST games back in the day from my friends.
Correct - I just upgraded after being prompted by Windows update. I mean, why not do it - it's better.
"Women in general tend to be unimpressed by those whose ego exeeds their abilities"
Really? I would like some hard evidence for that - preferably some really hard evidence.
My take is rather that women are impressed with alpha males, not by the betas that mostly make up the geek population. Geeks are simply more interested in tech than alphas (who like to manage, not going deep into a single subject). Hence, geeks are generally the ones who advance technology, while alphas rule the roost.