What I wouldn't like to see is realistic knifing and killing with bare hands. I think that would be far too horrible, even to experience in a game. GTA has plenty of that. And I do find that disturbing too.
combat studies have shown that soldiers are very reluctant to actually kill during combat. Perhaps this will occur in video games. The more reallistic they become, the more uneasy we will become doing bad things I sure hope so. But I tend towards the pessimistic.
I wonder what the margin of error on the poll that produced the 2% statistic is. I'm guessing it's more than 2%.
Yeah, probably. I only mentioned it for humor. I found it a few years ago while doing research for debate team. Since we were a bunch of bored guys (and one really hot girl), we laughed about it a bit.
Which is kind of odd, when you live in a nation which fines people up to half a million for saying 'fuck' on radio, and a nation cries out in uproar when a breast is kinda-sorta-not-really shown on tv during of all things a football match.
Of course, all that stuff is immoral. However, it is perfectly acceptable to show "Saving Private Ryan" on ABC primetime on Veteran's Day. They said the F-word 27-ish (I forget exactly, the morning DJ counted) times and got away with it, but every time my favorite DJ (Elliot in the Morning for you DC guys out there) drops the bomb, he gets slammed.
And of course, we complain about the Janet Jackson "breast", and that Go-Daddy ad last year, but it's perfectly acceptable for girls to go and be cheerleaders and wear ridiculously skimpy clothes and dance around in the ways that if they did it on the dance floor, they'd have gotten suspended from school.
Just don't get arrogant thinking you are the perfect human because you probably are not. Yes, but when I have my own personal spaceship, the girls will flock to me...
Seriously, though, I feel like our culture does select for the wrong thing. I mean, we're being taught that the ideal male plays football (preferably QB) and has good hair. And TV tells me that I want to date the skinny cheerleader who wears the right clothes and looks good in a bikini. Now, I have nothing against skinny girls in bikinis, but our culture at best ignores intelligence and personality. And that's where half our problem is.
Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Even scarier, 2% of us think we are enemies with Britain. I guess they forgot that the Revolutionary War ended a few years ago...
I think that the idea is sort of rediculous. Video games by necessity are unrealistic, and the graphics are realistic. It'd drive people insane in a FPS if they shot a fully detailed human in the hand, and the hand didn't fall off/become useless. I mean, they can get away with it now, but realistic gameplay and realistic graphics go hand in hand.
Then there is fantasy. How realistic can you make a Chimera (sp?) look?
As one poster mentioned GTA, I'll bring it up here. The basic psychologic principle for why we can play violent video games and not be affected by them is because we know they aren't real. However, if the brain can't tell real from video game, it could affect us unconsciously. I have no problem understanding that it is encouraged that I shoot people up in GTA, but discouraged on campus. But if there becomes less and less of a distinction, there could be people who have a problem with it, especially people who already have some violence issues.
Something hand-built can be mass produced. They just have everyone build a little bit of it. Or maybe they mass-produce some of the parts and they are hand-installed, and thus the car as a whole is still "hand built".
Well, if the example doesn't work, then look at it from reverse, Ford buying part of RR in order to learn about their quality control. Google wants a jumpstart into the ISP business, and they probably think improving AOL is easier than building their own quality ISP.
This is like Rolls-Royce being "in talks" with Ford How about Rolls-Royce buying a Ford factory in order to learn how to mass-produce their cars?
Google, somewhere, somehow, has some massive omni-goal. It may be that they want to own the Internet. Or it may be something else. Regardless, they may be trying to learn the basics of and improve AOL's ISP stuff. Or maybe negotiate for the IM access.
Either way, if they apply "Do No Evil" to AOL's billing, I might be able to quit them finally.
I mean, why not MIT, etc, as his top five schools to visit? (No offense to any Wisconsiners out there, my Cheesehead suitemate will doubtlessly exact revenge on me for you)
Anyways, wouldn't high schools be an even better choice? I mean, I feel that if I'm in college, I'm either already studying Computer Science, or not. I mean, maybe you could convert engineering students from other disciplines, but most college students with a major in mind would be harder to get to switch. I think he'd do better at the high school level, esp. around junior level, when he can influence the people to apply to schools with a CompSci bent, or convince them to take CompSci as a high school senior.
Just my four cents. I found two extra in a vending machine, which doesn't even take pennies (stupid drunks)
Good call. With a lens they'd have to plant it like a thousand feet up or something. And building a thousand foot tower on short order with scrap materials would be tough for our army, much less an ancient Greek one. Still, a Burns-esque death-ray magnifying glass would rock.
Yeah, and if it was this year, that means 2027. But we would have to come back in the normal conditions anyways, so it isn't really worth it, unless we want to have an 11 year mission. And I don't know many people who would volunteer for 11 years of isolation millions of miles from home.
If she is on Yahoo chat, she must be atleast 18 right? That doesn't work. I could theoretically get in trouble if I hooked up with a girl I saw at a frat party if she was from the high school. Apparently, someone got nailed on this, despite the whole having consent thing. His logic was that she had to have been 21 or said she was 21 in order to get into the party. He didn't get thrown in jail or anything, but he couldn't get away with it. Granted, I heard that from a friend (female) who lived in my college town as a High Schooler, who heard it at her school.
I can see it now. The guy scientists gathering around the screen, then suddenly "Eeww, Gross! What's that?" "I don't know. Is it normal?" "Sadly, I wouldn't know"
define expired. As in, "smells bad"?, or "wouldn't drink it"?, or "too gross to use even on crappy reality TV"?, or "The FBI confiscated it as a bio-weapon"?
However, what if the original you did NOT get destroyed and there were two of you. How would you feel about that? Still feel like nothing changed? According to quantum mechanics, that isn't possible, as the very act of recording my information for transport would alter all the atoms in my body, destroying me. However, if that didn't work, then we're in a totally different ballgame. We're making clones or something, which would be bad.
The assumption of my statement was that the transporter worked perfectly, and a body and mind identical to me in every way appeared somewhere else, and the original body was destroyed. And in that case it would be ME, because it is an exact copy of ME, and the only copy of ME. There is only one of me, and it is identical to the me before the teleportation, just elsewhere.
Would I cease to exist? To my mind, I wouldn't notice anything between when the teleportation starts and ends. I'd be in an exactly identical body, and my mind would be exactly unchanged. therefore, I'm the same person. If I did it to you while you were sleeping, you'd never notice.
Your best bet is reversible computing, so that you don't use any actual energy, or failing that, some sort of Zero Point energy source, as it would be pretty much limitless. Or you could just buy the power adapter and charge it for an hour after every song.
Well, I think the ethical issues depend on how much is copied. If my entire body is copied, as well as my thoughts, memories, and personality, would it matter? I mean, if I could convince anyone who knows me (myself included) that I'm still me, then did I change at all?
Or, at the very minimum, companies may not sell bug fixes to their software. They must fix them free of charge. If they claim a 1.0 production can do something, and it can't or doesn't do it properly, then they need to fix it for free, not sell an update to fix it. I shouldn't have to pay for upgrades to programs that just fix something I already bought. Now, new features, or capability extensions I would pay for, but not crap security fixes that the publisher should have gotten right the first time.
Well, I heard it has been used quite successfully as a torture device, and is currently responsible for breaking the will of office workers and turning them into corporate zombies, surely that's worth something?
He was discussing the "core iPod lineup", and comparing it to a "new lineup" "including the iPod Nano", that will be ready by "the holiday season".
The lineup sounds like he's talking about the iPod lineup, but it isn't definite. I think the way he says it implies that there is at least one new iPod, and at least one very new product (a video iPod would fill both categories, but I don't think that's it).
Also, the schedule "by the holiday season" works out to an announcement in the next 2-3 weeks, and a release in mid- to late- November.
The Microsoft-AOL talks? I mean, weren't they in some sort of limited merger discussions? And wasn't Google competing with MS for AOL? I mean, if there were to be MS-AOL collaboration anywhere, shouldn't one of the areas be IM? Or is MS trying to push Google and AOL together?
Could this lead to a total takeover of Yahoo by MS? I mean, they start with the IM service, then merge the email client somehow, then the next thing you know, the search stuff. Is this MS's reaction to a company they can't buy out? Buy out the company's competitor?
Not that I'm overly anti-MS, just that I don't understand the logic here. But then again, I am a liberal arts major, not a Commerce School major.
Now targeted ads might be one concern, but this could be a good thing (I don't need a car, please stop yelling at me:)
I agree. I think it could be great for all involved, but there are issues. The fact that I only see ads I'm interested in, and the company only distributes to people who care, is very good. And the ads won't be crap, because they'll cost serious money to make (being video ads, I assume), so only companies with serious products (as opposed to "imported prescription drugs" or whatever) could use them).
However, there are a few bugs. This system already exists to some degree in TV. They place ads in shows based on who is likely to watch.
Additionally, let's say we have a thirtyish couple with young child (which could be me in ten years, when this is fully established). If the adults watch serious shows (drama or comedy or whatever), and the hypothetical kid watches Barney or whatever, there is a decent chance the kid will get the parent ads, and vice-versa, making the system a bit less efficient. Now, I bet they could program around that extreme an example, but let's face facts, TVs are used by a lot of people. I don't think they could get around that if the TV in my suite has 4-6 different types of personality watching it (when we finally get the cable to work). I don't want my roommate's ads, and he doesn't want mine.
Lastly, this might be bad, in that it could reveal something about the dominant watcher that they don't like. For instance, if a guy's girlfriend is watching his TV and a "Girls Gone Wild" ad comes up in an unusual place, that is evidence that you were watching something besides CNN and NBC comedies.
Slashdot Mirror
What I wouldn't like to see is realistic knifing and killing with bare hands. I think that would be far too horrible, even to experience in a game. GTA has plenty of that. And I do find that disturbing too.
combat studies have shown that soldiers are very reluctant to actually kill during combat. Perhaps this will occur in video games. The more reallistic they become, the more uneasy we will become doing bad things
I sure hope so. But I tend towards the pessimistic.
I wonder what the margin of error on the poll that produced the 2% statistic is. I'm guessing it's more than 2%.
Yeah, probably. I only mentioned it for humor. I found it a few years ago while doing research for debate team. Since we were a bunch of bored guys (and one really hot girl), we laughed about it a bit.
Which is kind of odd, when you live in a nation which fines people up to half a million for saying 'fuck' on radio, and a nation cries out in uproar when a breast is kinda-sorta-not-really shown on tv during of all things a football match.
Of course, all that stuff is immoral. However, it is perfectly acceptable to show "Saving Private Ryan" on ABC primetime on Veteran's Day. They said the F-word 27-ish (I forget exactly, the morning DJ counted) times and got away with it, but every time my favorite DJ (Elliot in the Morning for you DC guys out there) drops the bomb, he gets slammed.
And of course, we complain about the Janet Jackson "breast", and that Go-Daddy ad last year, but it's perfectly acceptable for girls to go and be cheerleaders and wear ridiculously skimpy clothes and dance around in the ways that if they did it on the dance floor, they'd have gotten suspended from school.
Just don't get arrogant thinking you are the perfect human because you probably are not.
Yes, but when I have my own personal spaceship, the girls will flock to me...
Seriously, though, I feel like our culture does select for the wrong thing. I mean, we're being taught that the ideal male plays football (preferably QB) and has good hair. And TV tells me that I want to date the skinny cheerleader who wears the right clothes and looks good in a bikini. Now, I have nothing against skinny girls in bikinis, but our culture at best ignores intelligence and personality. And that's where half our problem is.
Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Even scarier, 2% of us think we are enemies with Britain. I guess they forgot that the Revolutionary War ended a few years ago...
Yes, I wholehearted approve of their move. Now let's hope it's a trend rather than a one-time thing.
I think that the idea is sort of rediculous. Video games by necessity are unrealistic, and the graphics are realistic. It'd drive people insane in a FPS if they shot a fully detailed human in the hand, and the hand didn't fall off/become useless. I mean, they can get away with it now, but realistic gameplay and realistic graphics go hand in hand.
Then there is fantasy. How realistic can you make a Chimera (sp?) look?
As one poster mentioned GTA, I'll bring it up here. The basic psychologic principle for why we can play violent video games and not be affected by them is because we know they aren't real. However, if the brain can't tell real from video game, it could affect us unconsciously. I have no problem understanding that it is encouraged that I shoot people up in GTA, but discouraged on campus. But if there becomes less and less of a distinction, there could be people who have a problem with it, especially people who already have some violence issues.
Something hand-built can be mass produced. They just have everyone build a little bit of it. Or maybe they mass-produce some of the parts and they are hand-installed, and thus the car as a whole is still "hand built".
Well, if the example doesn't work, then look at it from reverse, Ford buying part of RR in order to learn about their quality control. Google wants a jumpstart into the ISP business, and they probably think improving AOL is easier than building their own quality ISP.
This is like Rolls-Royce being "in talks" with Ford
How about Rolls-Royce buying a Ford factory in order to learn how to mass-produce their cars?
Google, somewhere, somehow, has some massive omni-goal. It may be that they want to own the Internet. Or it may be something else. Regardless, they may be trying to learn the basics of and improve AOL's ISP stuff. Or maybe negotiate for the IM access.
Either way, if they apply "Do No Evil" to AOL's billing, I might be able to quit them finally.
I mean, why not MIT, etc, as his top five schools to visit? (No offense to any Wisconsiners out there, my Cheesehead suitemate will doubtlessly exact revenge on me for you)
Anyways, wouldn't high schools be an even better choice? I mean, I feel that if I'm in college, I'm either already studying Computer Science, or not. I mean, maybe you could convert engineering students from other disciplines, but most college students with a major in mind would be harder to get to switch. I think he'd do better at the high school level, esp. around junior level, when he can influence the people to apply to schools with a CompSci bent, or convince them to take CompSci as a high school senior.
Just my four cents. I found two extra in a vending machine, which doesn't even take pennies (stupid drunks)
Good call. With a lens they'd have to plant it like a thousand feet up or something. And building a thousand foot tower on short order with scrap materials would be tough for our army, much less an ancient Greek one. Still, a Burns-esque death-ray magnifying glass would rock.
Yeah, and if it was this year, that means 2027. But we would have to come back in the normal conditions anyways, so it isn't really worth it, unless we want to have an 11 year mission. And I don't know many people who would volunteer for 11 years of isolation millions of miles from home.
If she is on Yahoo chat, she must be atleast 18 right? That doesn't work. I could theoretically get in trouble if I hooked up with a girl I saw at a frat party if she was from the high school. Apparently, someone got nailed on this, despite the whole having consent thing. His logic was that she had to have been 21 or said she was 21 in order to get into the party. He didn't get thrown in jail or anything, but he couldn't get away with it. Granted, I heard that from a friend (female) who lived in my college town as a High Schooler, who heard it at her school.
I can see it now. The guy scientists gathering around the screen, then suddenly "Eeww, Gross! What's that?" "I don't know. Is it normal?" "Sadly, I wouldn't know"
define expired. As in, "smells bad"?, or "wouldn't drink it"?, or "too gross to use even on crappy reality TV"?, or "The FBI confiscated it as a bio-weapon"?
However, what if the original you did NOT get destroyed and there were two of you. How would you feel about that? Still feel like nothing changed?
According to quantum mechanics, that isn't possible, as the very act of recording my information for transport would alter all the atoms in my body, destroying me. However, if that didn't work, then we're in a totally different ballgame. We're making clones or something, which would be bad.
The assumption of my statement was that the transporter worked perfectly, and a body and mind identical to me in every way appeared somewhere else, and the original body was destroyed. And in that case it would be ME, because it is an exact copy of ME, and the only copy of ME. There is only one of me, and it is identical to the me before the teleportation, just elsewhere.
ahref=http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/10/12/app le.video.ipod.ap/index.htmlrel=url2html-3093http:/ /www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/10/12/apple.video.ipo d.ap/index.html>
Yeah, it was exactly 2 sentences when I first read it. Not really informative, I just found it funny that we got more ads then story on that page.
Would I cease to exist? To my mind, I wouldn't notice anything between when the teleportation starts and ends. I'd be in an exactly identical body, and my mind would be exactly unchanged. therefore, I'm the same person. If I did it to you while you were sleeping, you'd never notice.
Your best bet is reversible computing, so that you don't use any actual energy, or failing that, some sort of Zero Point energy source, as it would be pretty much limitless. Or you could just buy the power adapter and charge it for an hour after every song.
Well, I think the ethical issues depend on how much is copied. If my entire body is copied, as well as my thoughts, memories, and personality, would it matter? I mean, if I could convince anyone who knows me (myself included) that I'm still me, then did I change at all?
Or, at the very minimum, companies may not sell bug fixes to their software. They must fix them free of charge. If they claim a 1.0 production can do something, and it can't or doesn't do it properly, then they need to fix it for free, not sell an update to fix it. I shouldn't have to pay for upgrades to programs that just fix something I already bought. Now, new features, or capability extensions I would pay for, but not crap security fixes that the publisher should have gotten right the first time.
Well, I heard it has been used quite successfully as a torture device, and is currently responsible for breaking the will of office workers and turning them into corporate zombies, surely that's worth something?
He was discussing the "core iPod lineup", and comparing it to a "new lineup" "including the iPod Nano", that will be ready by "the holiday season".
The lineup sounds like he's talking about the iPod lineup, but it isn't definite. I think the way he says it implies that there is at least one new iPod, and at least one very new product (a video iPod would fill both categories, but I don't think that's it).
Also, the schedule "by the holiday season" works out to an announcement in the next 2-3 weeks, and a release in mid- to late- November.
The Microsoft-AOL talks? I mean, weren't they in some sort of limited merger discussions? And wasn't Google competing with MS for AOL? I mean, if there were to be MS-AOL collaboration anywhere, shouldn't one of the areas be IM? Or is MS trying to push Google and AOL together?
Could this lead to a total takeover of Yahoo by MS? I mean, they start with the IM service, then merge the email client somehow, then the next thing you know, the search stuff. Is this MS's reaction to a company they can't buy out? Buy out the company's competitor?
Not that I'm overly anti-MS, just that I don't understand the logic here. But then again, I am a liberal arts major, not a Commerce School major.
Now targeted ads might be one concern, but this could be a good thing (I don't need a car, please stop yelling at me :)
I agree. I think it could be great for all involved, but there are issues. The fact that I only see ads I'm interested in, and the company only distributes to people who care, is very good. And the ads won't be crap, because they'll cost serious money to make (being video ads, I assume), so only companies with serious products (as opposed to "imported prescription drugs" or whatever) could use them).
However, there are a few bugs. This system already exists to some degree in TV. They place ads in shows based on who is likely to watch.
Additionally, let's say we have a thirtyish couple with young child (which could be me in ten years, when this is fully established). If the adults watch serious shows (drama or comedy or whatever), and the hypothetical kid watches Barney or whatever, there is a decent chance the kid will get the parent ads, and vice-versa, making the system a bit less efficient. Now, I bet they could program around that extreme an example, but let's face facts, TVs are used by a lot of people. I don't think they could get around that if the TV in my suite has 4-6 different types of personality watching it (when we finally get the cable to work). I don't want my roommate's ads, and he doesn't want mine.
Lastly, this might be bad, in that it could reveal something about the dominant watcher that they don't like. For instance, if a guy's girlfriend is watching his TV and a "Girls Gone Wild" ad comes up in an unusual place, that is evidence that you were watching something besides CNN and NBC comedies.