"Yeah... unfortunately, the version of god I was raised under is considered infallible. If that is the true nature of god, then the logical conclusion is that all human suffering is intentional by design."
Theistic DRM! Haha- oh, I feel kind of bad for that joke now.
"Good art must instill emotion, not simply incite."
There you go. Perfect.
Just being 'art' doesn't make it 'good'. There's plenty of terrible art - but it's still art. If a piece of music doesn't instill emotion in you, is it then not music? If an open grave instills emotion in you, it it then art?
Elevator music was once art. Music, regardless of the listener's taste, is always art. And some police reports may be filled out with great emotion by the officer. Many police reports will insite emotional responses in people.
Um, prose that is 'instructional' in nature is, by definition, not a narrative. You can write a story about how to make Kraft Dinner, but simply writing instructions on how to make it isn't a story.
That said, what defines "art" is subjective. Is art 'art' regardless of popular belief? Is something 'art' because a person believes it to be art, or is art 'art' regardless? Must are evoke emotion, or is that simply a by-product of some art? If something is 'art' is it art to everyone, or just those that believe it's art? Is something 'art' only while...
Of course video games are art. An interactive visual narrative is still a narrative. Simple games, like Tetris and other plotless games, are simply "games" but almost all video games incorporate some kind of plot or story. "Are video games art"? The answer is 'yes'. Video games are art, just like novels, comic books, films, paintings, and a guy hitting a watermelon with a sledgehammer.
"did you get the idea that children and the mentally handicapped are often seduced into agreeing to rape???"
Ah, understandable confusion. I meant "molestation", being seduced or convinced into thinking what is happening is alright. Molestation is rape, but with added mental confusion. A pedophile or other sexual predator who preys on those of diminished capabilities (like children or the mentally handicapped) many times 'convince' them that "it's okay" and "not to tell anyone". They don't simply hold them down and fuck them, they take advantage of the fact that the victim can't really defend against a verbal assault (because they don't have the mental ability to).
My point in the analogy was that these people are taken advantage of and the predator has 'convinced' them that what he is doing is perfectly alright. I likened this to DRM, it takes advantage of people and they have been 'convinced' that DRM is perfectly alright for no other reason than that's what the people fucking them in the ass told them.
Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to insult anyone with this analogy. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing - and because I can so easily liken DRM to rape is my way of showing that it too is terrible.
Perhaps you missed my cleverly disguised hints. It's hard sometimes to catch on when I'm just repeating key words.
I'll bold some of the key words for you.
Rape:
-- Rape takes away the victim's ability to choose for themselves. It's something forced upon them - they don't want it but they cannot do anything about it. Their rights are being quashed by another.
-- Restricting another's rights is always violent. No one gives up their rights easily - everyone fights for it...[unless] they aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves.
-- [C]hildren, and the mentally handicapped... often are seduced into agreeing to such acts.
DRM:
-- most people don't know enough to resist the slick marketing campaigns that seduce them into using these 'services'
-- [Most] people really aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves. So, for most people, DRM is "digital seduction of the innocent, then rape".
I'm not saying rape and DRM are exactly the same - they're just similar enough in these specific ways to be used as an analogy - that's what an 'analogy' means, not the "same" but "similar". If you still can't see that both rape and DRM are based in taking rights and choice away from people, you might be one of those people who aren't qualified to make such desicions for themselves.
"This is a grossly offensive and inappropriate analogy"
Perhaps a better analogy would be "get raped, and then pay your rapist"? I didn't know being mugged was such a touchy subject.
"Almost nobody likes DRM"
I understand that many people don't care about DRM, most end-users don't know or care what it is. But I'd never think that anyone actually likes having their rights restricted.
"but the fact is that most studios wouldn't allow Apple or others to sell them as downloads without it"
I sorry, I missed the part where I said the movie studios weren't raping you too. I missed the part of my post where I said "Apple sucks for the DRM, Disney just wants its videos to be seen". I realise that the studios are pushing for DRM, I never said otherwise. It still doesn't make it acceptable, and still doesn't make it right.
"$14.99 is still cheaper than the cost of 2 people to see a movie at the theater (in most areas)"
Again, you're acting like I've said that the theatre doesn't rape you too. I've hated the theatre ('movie' theatres, not real theatre) for years. "Eight bucks for me, but four bucks for the kids to watch the same damn movie? Bullshit!"
Furthermore, theatres get away with such high prices because the movies they show are new - iTunes isn't going to be showing movies that are still in theatres.
"and often times less expensive than the retail DVD"
True. That DRM'd movie file that I have to download off of iTunes, and can only play with iTunes, is a few dollars less than getting the movie in a physical format, with a protective case, perhaps a little booklet (or a really nice booklet, in many cases), probably some 'extra features' too (which might suck, but often are really interesting).
So, I'm still not impressed that I'm getting a severely inferior product for almost the same price.
"Simply because you don't like DRM doesn't give you the excuse to compare it to two violent and often times negatively life altering experiences."
"Often"? Did you just say that rape "often" affects you negatively? "Often"?
Rape takes away the victim's ability to choose for themselves. It's something forced upon them - they don't want it but they cannot do anything about it. Their rights are being quashed by another. Restricting another's rights is always violent. No one gives up their rights easily - everyone fights for it.
Well, except for children, and the mentally handicapped. They often are seduced into agreeing to such acts - but because they aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves.
So, I guess you're right. It's unfair to say that DRM is "digital rape". It's only rape if you know enough to fight back - most people don't know enough to resist the slick marketing campaigns that seduce them into using these 'services'. These people really aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves. So, for most people, DRM is "digital seduction of the innocent, then rape".
PS- No, I'm not trying to make fun of the mentally handicapped, and I'm not trying to diminish the sociological impact of rape. They're accurate analogies, not flamebait.
Making anything available outside of class time enables students to skip classes. Some students will skip more classes because they know they can get the notes later, other will never miss class, still others will miss class no matter what.
If you really want to help out good students put up these podcasts. Don't make it harder to get at because of a few bad apples, don't penalize good students because of the bad ones.
And then, there's the bottom line for all universities. Are they still paying for the class? Then get off their fuckin' backs about showing up all the time.
Did real money pass hands? If no real money passed hands, then it isn't a crime. If nothing really happened, then there's no crime. Be it theft, fraud, or murder - if it doesn't happen in the real world - it's not a crime in the real world.
Using murder as an example is perfect. No one would ever believe that character death is a real crime - thus it quickly puts this "crime" into perspective.
From the journals, here's some food for thought: Does a "crime" committed in an alternate world have any ramifications in the "real" world?
Maybe.
Case in point is this article from the Gamers With Jobs site outlining the exploits of one Dentara Rask, a character in CCP's Eve Online massively multiplayer online world. According to the the article, Dentara Rask ran a Ponzi scheme within the game, amassing a large amount of on-line wealth (700 billion ISK), and then bragging about it. The question is posed: since a Ponzi scheme in real life is a punishable criminal offense, what about when it happens in a MMORPG?
Um... nothing? Murder is a punishable criminal offense in real life, but we don't dream of prosecuting people for doing it in a game.
Assuming there are no rules within the game environment to prevent this, how would you go about punishing someone in the real world for something they did in an artificial one?
You wouldn't. It's stupid to try and hold someone responsible for what they did in a video game. Again, how many of us would be in jail right now for all the people we've killed in video games?
And can they be punished?
Well, legally we can't. But there are people in Guantanamo Bay with less proof of having committed a crime.
I think he's refereing specificallly to console games. Most game consoles (like DVD players) are region locked. Notable exceptions include the Gameboy DS, and the PS3 (apparently).
So, "Too violent" is an opinion, not a myth.
"More violent", "Increasingly violent" is a simple fact.
Well, not really. What's more "violent" than killing swarms of other people? How about vicious fantastical creatures? What's more violent than an alien overlord pillaging, kidnapping, and threatening genocide on a global scale?
There I was describing 'Mario Bros'. But I could have been describing half the games produced in the last 20 years.
The only difference between 'Mario Bros' and 'Doom' and 'Doom 3' is the graphical detail. Is the killing and threat of global domination more violent in any game? It's the same threat, just by different pixels.
The only difference is the visual brutality and gore. Would 'Doom 3' be any less "violent" if the hellions were replaced with bunnies? Liberals? Blue squares? What if the blood and brain splatter was replaced by green blood? Rainbow paint? Flowers? No. It's still "killing" the bunny, and it's still the bunny's insides sprayed against the wall.
Games today aren't "more violent" they're more "graphic". Violent games of yesteryear seem quaint now because of their now lackluster visuals, and this year's bloodbath game will be just as quaint in a few years for exactly the same reason.
Are they trying to say anyone ever believed in these "myths"? I can't pick out anything that any normal person would actually believe.
1. The Playstation 3 will Fail
Huh? What's the difference between this playstation and the last one? This scenario is exactly like when the PS2 was introduced: nothing really ground-breaking, better graphics, new media options, better controllers... and people still bought the PS2. I see no reason the PS3 won't do just as well.
2. PC Games are Doomed
Who the hell ever said that? I can't even fathom where that idea came from.
3. You Need a $500 Graphics Card
When has that ever been true? You need a mid-range ($150-$200) video card for top-notch graphics and performance. That has been true for nearly a decade. As new games come out and need better graphics cards, new graphics cards come out and push down the price of the older ones.
4. Console Games are for Twitch Gamers
Huh? Consoles are for platformers, auto-aim shooters, and RPGs. Where does "twitch" come into play there? The console controller doesn't lend itself to 'twich gameplay' at all. A computer mouse, on the other (twitchy) hand...
5. Handheld Games are for Kids
I've heard "video games are for kids" but nothing about handheld games specifically. Why would handheld games (the majority of which are styled after, or are remakes of, old console games) be treated differently than a TV-based console game?
6. Console Games are Too Simple
Huh? You mean the few console-only games? Most games on consoles are ports of PC games, or vice versa.
7. PC Games are Too Complicated
How is this even it's own entry? Isn't this just the inverse for the last "myth"?
8. PC Copy Protection is Too Onerous
That is true. Just being there is too onerous for my tastes. Strangely though, there's no mention of the extraordinarily more onerous 'console game copy protection'.
9. Games are Too Violent
Is Jack Thompson still alive?
10. I'm Embarrassed About Gaming
I can't imagine anyone being embarrassed about playing video games. Perhaps there's some shame in 14-hour WoW sessions, but with the general "coolness" regarded to video games over the last five years or so, I can't see anyone hiding the fact that they play Mario on occasion.
Unless they meant "myths" like 'believed by a few crackpots who have no idea what their talking about', then yes - these certainly ARE myths.
If AT&T is the pizza guy, they didn't show up late; they showed up with shitty pizza, charged me way too much for it, has been regularly giving my delivery records (including my name, number, address, pizza info, time of delivery, etc.) to the NSA, and have such slip-shod security that information gets leaked putting me (and 19,000 other pizza loving customers) at risk for identity fraud.
"Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor."
And that's when I stopped listen to your crazy rantings.
Apple sells hardware bundled with software. They do their damnedest to make sure their software only runs on their hardware, and vice versa. They blatantly lie in their ads, they use anti-competitive methods to sell their products, and have been cutting corners in hardware production for years.
Stop acting like Apple's the best just because they say so. If they're so great you can probably come up with something better than "experience vendor".
Sadly, there are many things that the public at large believes without any kind of scientific backing. If you get enough people to believe you, it doesn't matter that you can't prove it.
I mean, there's no proof that 'Global Warming' is making the Earth hotter than ever - but people believe it. There's no proof that a "god" created the universe - but people believe it. There's no proof that recycling is beneficial to the environment - but people believe it. There's no proof that second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer - but people believe it. There's no proof that genetically engineered food is dangerous to people - but it's becoming more and more common a belief.
GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly before release. That said, we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).
So, while GE foods could pose health risks (both to humans and the enviroment), they usually don't.
Slashdot Mirror
"I for one, encode all my information in Dual-ROT13, this makes sure that people snooping will ignore it since I wouldn't be THAT dumb."
Small potatoes, I write in quadruple-reverse-ROT13.
"Yeah... unfortunately, the version of god I was raised under is considered infallible. If that is the true nature of god, then the logical conclusion is that all human suffering is intentional by design."
Theistic DRM! Haha- oh, I feel kind of bad for that joke now.
"Art must instill emotion, not simply incite."
Almost, but not quite...
"Good art must instill emotion, not simply incite."
There you go. Perfect.
Just being 'art' doesn't make it 'good'. There's plenty of terrible art - but it's still art. If a piece of music doesn't instill emotion in you, is it then not music? If an open grave instills emotion in you, it it then art?
Elevator music was once art. Music, regardless of the listener's taste, is always art. And some police reports may be filled out with great emotion by the officer. Many police reports will insite emotional responses in people.
Um, prose that is 'instructional' in nature is, by definition, not a narrative. You can write a story about how to make Kraft Dinner, but simply writing instructions on how to make it isn't a story.
...
That said, what defines "art" is subjective. Is art 'art' regardless of popular belief? Is something 'art' because a person believes it to be art, or is art 'art' regardless? Must are evoke emotion, or is that simply a by-product of some art? If something is 'art' is it art to everyone, or just those that believe it's art? Is something 'art' only while
Well, you get the idea.
"There's no narrative in a Warhol soup can or the Mona Lisa, either. Just because Tetris has no story doesn't mean it's "just a game."
True, but what constitutes "art" is, itself, subjective. I used the 'narrative' example as an easy one (I thought) no one would argue with.
Of course video games are art. An interactive visual narrative is still a narrative. Simple games, like Tetris and other plotless games, are simply "games" but almost all video games incorporate some kind of plot or story. "Are video games art"? The answer is 'yes'. Video games are art, just like novels, comic books, films, paintings, and a guy hitting a watermelon with a sledgehammer.
"Good art" is another question entirely.
"did you get the idea that children and the mentally handicapped are often seduced into agreeing to rape???"
Ah, understandable confusion. I meant "molestation", being seduced or convinced into thinking what is happening is alright. Molestation is rape, but with added mental confusion. A pedophile or other sexual predator who preys on those of diminished capabilities (like children or the mentally handicapped) many times 'convince' them that "it's okay" and "not to tell anyone". They don't simply hold them down and fuck them, they take advantage of the fact that the victim can't really defend against a verbal assault (because they don't have the mental ability to).
My point in the analogy was that these people are taken advantage of and the predator has 'convinced' them that what he is doing is perfectly alright. I likened this to DRM, it takes advantage of people and they have been 'convinced' that DRM is perfectly alright for no other reason than that's what the people fucking them in the ass told them.
Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to insult anyone with this analogy. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing - and because I can so easily liken DRM to rape is my way of showing that it too is terrible.
Perhaps you missed my cleverly disguised hints. It's hard sometimes to catch on when I'm just repeating key words.
...[unless] they aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves.
-- [C]hildren, and the mentally handicapped ... often are seduced into agreeing to such acts.
I'll bold some of the key words for you.
Rape:
-- Rape takes away the victim's ability to choose for themselves. It's something forced upon them - they don't want it but they cannot do anything about it. Their rights are being quashed by another.
-- Restricting another's rights is always violent. No one gives up their rights easily - everyone fights for it
DRM:
-- most people don't know enough to resist the slick marketing campaigns that seduce them into using these 'services'
-- [Most] people really aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves. So, for most people, DRM is "digital seduction of the innocent, then rape".
I'm not saying rape and DRM are exactly the same - they're just similar enough in these specific ways to be used as an analogy - that's what an 'analogy' means, not the "same" but "similar". If you still can't see that both rape and DRM are based in taking rights and choice away from people, you might be one of those people who aren't qualified to make such desicions for themselves.
I'm tired of these motherfuckin' snakes in these motherfuckin' computers!
In all fairness, the "variant covers syndrome" was one of the reasons McFarlane left Marvel to start Image comics.
"This is a grossly offensive and inappropriate analogy"
Perhaps a better analogy would be "get raped, and then pay your rapist"? I didn't know being mugged was such a touchy subject.
"Almost nobody likes DRM"
I understand that many people don't care about DRM, most end-users don't know or care what it is. But I'd never think that anyone actually likes having their rights restricted.
"but the fact is that most studios wouldn't allow Apple or others to sell them as downloads without it"
I sorry, I missed the part where I said the movie studios weren't raping you too. I missed the part of my post where I said "Apple sucks for the DRM, Disney just wants its videos to be seen". I realise that the studios are pushing for DRM, I never said otherwise. It still doesn't make it acceptable, and still doesn't make it right.
"$14.99 is still cheaper than the cost of 2 people to see a movie at the theater (in most areas)"
Again, you're acting like I've said that the theatre doesn't rape you too. I've hated the theatre ('movie' theatres, not real theatre) for years. "Eight bucks for me, but four bucks for the kids to watch the same damn movie? Bullshit!"
Furthermore, theatres get away with such high prices because the movies they show are new - iTunes isn't going to be showing movies that are still in theatres.
"and often times less expensive than the retail DVD"
True. That DRM'd movie file that I have to download off of iTunes, and can only play with iTunes, is a few dollars less than getting the movie in a physical format, with a protective case, perhaps a little booklet (or a really nice booklet, in many cases), probably some 'extra features' too (which might suck, but often are really interesting).
So, I'm still not impressed that I'm getting a severely inferior product for almost the same price.
"Simply because you don't like DRM doesn't give you the excuse to compare it to two violent and often times negatively life altering experiences."
"Often"? Did you just say that rape "often" affects you negatively? "Often"?
Rape takes away the victim's ability to choose for themselves. It's something forced upon them - they don't want it but they cannot do anything about it. Their rights are being quashed by another. Restricting another's rights is always violent. No one gives up their rights easily - everyone fights for it.
Well, except for children, and the mentally handicapped. They often are seduced into agreeing to such acts - but because they aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves.
So, I guess you're right. It's unfair to say that DRM is "digital rape". It's only rape if you know enough to fight back - most people don't know enough to resist the slick marketing campaigns that seduce them into using these 'services'. These people really aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves. So, for most people, DRM is "digital seduction of the innocent, then rape".
PS- No, I'm not trying to make fun of the mentally handicapped, and I'm not trying to diminish the sociological impact of rape. They're accurate analogies, not flamebait.
'Rewarding' a movie studio by paying ten or twenty bucks for a DRM'd video file is like 'rewarding' a mugger by getting raped too.
This is like announcing the best games of the year in January.
Making anything available outside of class time enables students to skip classes. Some students will skip more classes because they know they can get the notes later, other will never miss class, still others will miss class no matter what.
If you really want to help out good students put up these podcasts. Don't make it harder to get at because of a few bad apples, don't penalize good students because of the bad ones.
And then, there's the bottom line for all universities. Are they still paying for the class? Then get off their fuckin' backs about showing up all the time.
Did real money pass hands? If no real money passed hands, then it isn't a crime. If nothing really happened, then there's no crime. Be it theft, fraud, or murder - if it doesn't happen in the real world - it's not a crime in the real world.
Using murder as an example is perfect. No one would ever believe that character death is a real crime - thus it quickly puts this "crime" into perspective.
From the journals, here's some food for thought: Does a "crime" committed in an alternate world have any ramifications in the "real" world?
Maybe.
Case in point is this article from the Gamers With Jobs site outlining the exploits of one Dentara Rask, a character in CCP's Eve Online massively multiplayer online world. According to the the article, Dentara Rask ran a Ponzi scheme within the game, amassing a large amount of on-line wealth (700 billion ISK), and then bragging about it. The question is posed: since a Ponzi scheme in real life is a punishable criminal offense, what about when it happens in a MMORPG?
Um... nothing? Murder is a punishable criminal offense in real life, but we don't dream of prosecuting people for doing it in a game.
Assuming there are no rules within the game environment to prevent this, how would you go about punishing someone in the real world for something they did in an artificial one?
You wouldn't. It's stupid to try and hold someone responsible for what they did in a video game. Again, how many of us would be in jail right now for all the people we've killed in video games?
And can they be punished?
Well, legally we can't. But there are people in Guantanamo Bay with less proof of having committed a crime.
I think he's refereing specificallly to console games. Most game consoles (like DVD players) are region locked. Notable exceptions include the Gameboy DS, and the PS3 (apparently).
Violent Pornography?
So, "Too violent" is an opinion, not a myth.
"More violent", "Increasingly violent" is a simple fact.
Well, not really. What's more "violent" than killing swarms of other people? How about vicious fantastical creatures? What's more violent than an alien overlord pillaging, kidnapping, and threatening genocide on a global scale?
There I was describing 'Mario Bros'. But I could have been describing half the games produced in the last 20 years.
The only difference between 'Mario Bros' and 'Doom' and 'Doom 3' is the graphical detail. Is the killing and threat of global domination more violent in any game? It's the same threat, just by different pixels.
The only difference is the visual brutality and gore. Would 'Doom 3' be any less "violent" if the hellions were replaced with bunnies? Liberals? Blue squares? What if the blood and brain splatter was replaced by green blood? Rainbow paint? Flowers? No. It's still "killing" the bunny, and it's still the bunny's insides sprayed against the wall.
Games today aren't "more violent" they're more "graphic". Violent games of yesteryear seem quaint now because of their now lackluster visuals, and this year's bloodbath game will be just as quaint in a few years for exactly the same reason.
Are they trying to say anyone ever believed in these "myths"? I can't pick out anything that any normal person would actually believe.
1. The Playstation 3 will Fail
Huh? What's the difference between this playstation and the last one? This scenario is exactly like when the PS2 was introduced: nothing really ground-breaking, better graphics, new media options, better controllers... and people still bought the PS2. I see no reason the PS3 won't do just as well.
2. PC Games are Doomed
Who the hell ever said that? I can't even fathom where that idea came from.
3. You Need a $500 Graphics Card
When has that ever been true? You need a mid-range ($150-$200) video card for top-notch graphics and performance. That has been true for nearly a decade. As new games come out and need better graphics cards, new graphics cards come out and push down the price of the older ones.
4. Console Games are for Twitch Gamers
Huh? Consoles are for platformers, auto-aim shooters, and RPGs. Where does "twitch" come into play there? The console controller doesn't lend itself to 'twich gameplay' at all. A computer mouse, on the other (twitchy) hand...
5. Handheld Games are for Kids
I've heard "video games are for kids" but nothing about handheld games specifically. Why would handheld games (the majority of which are styled after, or are remakes of, old console games) be treated differently than a TV-based console game?
6. Console Games are Too Simple
Huh? You mean the few console-only games? Most games on consoles are ports of PC games, or vice versa.
7. PC Games are Too Complicated
How is this even it's own entry? Isn't this just the inverse for the last "myth"?
8. PC Copy Protection is Too Onerous
That is true. Just being there is too onerous for my tastes. Strangely though, there's no mention of the extraordinarily more onerous 'console game copy protection'.
9. Games are Too Violent
Is Jack Thompson still alive?
10. I'm Embarrassed About Gaming
I can't imagine anyone being embarrassed about playing video games. Perhaps there's some shame in 14-hour WoW sessions, but with the general "coolness" regarded to video games over the last five years or so, I can't see anyone hiding the fact that they play Mario on occasion.
Unless they meant "myths" like 'believed by a few crackpots who have no idea what their talking about', then yes - these certainly ARE myths.
If AT&T is the pizza guy, they didn't show up late; they showed up with shitty pizza, charged me way too much for it, has been regularly giving my delivery records (including my name, number, address, pizza info, time of delivery, etc.) to the NSA, and have such slip-shod security that information gets leaked putting me (and 19,000 other pizza loving customers) at risk for identity fraud.
Late pizza is the least of my worries.
"Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor."
And that's when I stopped listen to your crazy rantings.
Apple sells hardware bundled with software. They do their damnedest to make sure their software only runs on their hardware, and vice versa. They blatantly lie in their ads, they use anti-competitive methods to sell their products, and have been cutting corners in hardware production for years.
Stop acting like Apple's the best just because they say so. If they're so great you can probably come up with something better than "experience vendor".
Sadly, there are many things that the public at large believes without any kind of scientific backing. If you get enough people to believe you, it doesn't matter that you can't prove it.
I mean, there's no proof that 'Global Warming' is making the Earth hotter than ever - but people believe it. There's no proof that a "god" created the universe - but people believe it. There's no proof that recycling is beneficial to the environment - but people believe it. There's no proof that second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer - but people believe it. There's no proof that genetically engineered food is dangerous to people - but it's becoming more and more common a belief.
GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly before release. That said, we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).
So, while GE foods could pose health risks (both to humans and the enviroment), they usually don't.