Microsoft disabling certain offline capabilities of modded consoles still isn't a lawsuit-worthy offense. The entire device and all the functionality contained therein is their baby, not yours, until you mod it. Then it becomes your baby entirely. Want to save games to the console's HDD? Write a patch to make it happen. Want to get your Netflix streaming working again? Write the code for it. You still have ALL of this capability, but Microsoft simply isn't going to let you use the functionality they built in - if you want to mod the console, then you get to figure out how to make those things work all by yourself.
Is that petty? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Not a chance. Illegal would be fining you for modifying the hardware, or somehow permanently disabling ALL functionality remotely such that you couldn't even turn it on.
Also, there has to be a line drawn somewhere on the "EULAs are legally binding contracts" vs. "EULAs are just junk and not binding in any way, shape, or form" argument. You can't sign away your civil rights by agreeing to an EULA, but at the same time, a company has to be allowed to set forth conditions upon which their services depend. To say that the EULA shouldn't be binding, even though it explicitly states that you are not entitled to using a modded console on their network, is to say that Microsoft should have absolutely no say in how their network is used. That would mean that they'd have to allow modded Wiis, Playstations, heck, even iPhones... to use their service in its entirety. They have zero obligation to allow this. Short of making you sign a full-blown, notarized contract before you are allowed to use XBox Live, the EULA is their only method of making you aware of their terms of service and thus having something to back their decisions in regards to denial of service.
You're not entitled to anything by the copper and plastic that makes up the console. What you do with it is your decision, but allowing you to use Microsoft's services or perks is solely at their discretion.
Great point, except that the brain -doesn't- learn everything by imitation, it learns it by simple cause and effect at first, with reasoning following soon after. The language example was a good one, except that the brain initially has to make the decision that learning the language is necessary. An infant would never learn to talk if, for some reason, it never thought, "hey, these people make noises toward one another, and get what they want, make things happen. I should make those noises!" Then the imitation kicks in.
The water example was poor simply because, well, you're brain screams for water when you are dehydrated, because it knows you'll die without it, so it doesn't care if other people are drinking water.
The berry idea is more of a "passed down knowledge" issue. It seems to me that the more likely scenario would be along the lines of, "no one else eats these berries, but they look really good. Oh well, their loss," assuming there as no interference or guidance from another person.
In regards to games, it seems to me that the brain's reasoning capabilities are what cause us to refrain from imitating what we see. The brain is smart enough to realize that the game isn't real, and performing the in-game acts in real life on real people is not going to bring about the same result as it did in the game.
Ah, yes, the ever-present typographical error. And yes, I do know what an adaptation is, as it happens to be one of those naggingly requisite pieces of knowledge for bioinformaticians such as myself. At best, the walking analogy can be likened to a change in a behavioral trait, which is as loose a definition as can be given to the word adaptation. It falls a bit short of this description, however, because as I mentioned before, "everything is in walking distance if you have the time." Given enough time, you could travel the world over on foot. You don't need a genetic adaptation to travel further tomorrow than you have in the past. Also, even if such excessive travel is an attempt to find a new habitat that is more conducive to reproduction, it is hardly a full-blown behavioral change, as such a move is generally not something that needs to take place every generation.
If you have anymore wonderfully insightful messages to post regarding my ignorance on the subject, please feel free to share them. I look forward to another profound response such as the last one you left.
Actually the distinction is in the scientific community's full description of evolution, which includes two very distinct "types" of evolution, both micro and macro. A general university biology text can explain it pretty well.
Also, your example of "microwalking" and "macrowalking," if I understood you right, doesn't function as the kind of example you seemed to want it to... The separation presented by walking farther ("macrowalking") is actually the first step of speciation, which is called genetic isolation, more specifically, geographical isolation. Speciation is the process by which macroevolution takes place.
Of course, walking short distances or walking long distances really isn't an example of an adaption anyways... just the result of a decision to... not... stop walking so soon...? In the ever-brilliant words of Steven Wright, "Everywhere is in walking distance... if you have the time."
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft disabling certain offline capabilities of modded consoles still isn't a lawsuit-worthy offense. The entire device and all the functionality contained therein is their baby, not yours, until you mod it. Then it becomes your baby entirely. Want to save games to the console's HDD? Write a patch to make it happen. Want to get your Netflix streaming working again? Write the code for it. You still have ALL of this capability, but Microsoft simply isn't going to let you use the functionality they built in - if you want to mod the console, then you get to figure out how to make those things work all by yourself.
Is that petty? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Not a chance. Illegal would be fining you for modifying the hardware, or somehow permanently disabling ALL functionality remotely such that you couldn't even turn it on.
Also, there has to be a line drawn somewhere on the "EULAs are legally binding contracts" vs. "EULAs are just junk and not binding in any way, shape, or form" argument. You can't sign away your civil rights by agreeing to an EULA, but at the same time, a company has to be allowed to set forth conditions upon which their services depend. To say that the EULA shouldn't be binding, even though it explicitly states that you are not entitled to using a modded console on their network, is to say that Microsoft should have absolutely no say in how their network is used. That would mean that they'd have to allow modded Wiis, Playstations, heck, even iPhones... to use their service in its entirety. They have zero obligation to allow this. Short of making you sign a full-blown, notarized contract before you are allowed to use XBox Live, the EULA is their only method of making you aware of their terms of service and thus having something to back their decisions in regards to denial of service.
You're not entitled to anything by the copper and plastic that makes up the console. What you do with it is your decision, but allowing you to use Microsoft's services or perks is solely at their discretion.
Great point, except that the brain -doesn't- learn everything by imitation, it learns it by simple cause and effect at first, with reasoning following soon after. The language example was a good one, except that the brain initially has to make the decision that learning the language is necessary. An infant would never learn to talk if, for some reason, it never thought, "hey, these people make noises toward one another, and get what they want, make things happen. I should make those noises!"
Then the imitation kicks in.
The water example was poor simply because, well, you're brain screams for water when you are dehydrated, because it knows you'll die without it, so it doesn't care if other people are drinking water.
The berry idea is more of a "passed down knowledge" issue. It seems to me that the more likely scenario would be along the lines of, "no one else eats these berries, but they look really good. Oh well, their loss," assuming there as no interference or guidance from another person.
In regards to games, it seems to me that the brain's reasoning capabilities are what cause us to refrain from imitating what we see. The brain is smart enough to realize that the game isn't real, and performing the in-game acts in real life on real people is not going to bring about the same result as it did in the game.
Ah, yes, the ever-present typographical error. And yes, I do know what an adaptation is, as it happens to be one of those naggingly requisite pieces of knowledge for bioinformaticians such as myself. At best, the walking analogy can be likened to a change in a behavioral trait, which is as loose a definition as can be given to the word adaptation. It falls a bit short of this description, however, because as I mentioned before, "everything is in walking distance if you have the time." Given enough time, you could travel the world over on foot. You don't need a genetic adaptation to travel further tomorrow than you have in the past. Also, even if such excessive travel is an attempt to find a new habitat that is more conducive to reproduction, it is hardly a full-blown behavioral change, as such a move is generally not something that needs to take place every generation. If you have anymore wonderfully insightful messages to post regarding my ignorance on the subject, please feel free to share them. I look forward to another profound response such as the last one you left.
Actually the distinction is in the scientific community's full description of evolution, which includes two very distinct "types" of evolution, both micro and macro. A general university biology text can explain it pretty well.
Also, your example of "microwalking" and "macrowalking," if I understood you right, doesn't function as the kind of example you seemed to want it to... The separation presented by walking farther ("macrowalking") is actually the first step of speciation, which is called genetic isolation, more specifically, geographical isolation. Speciation is the process by which macroevolution takes place.
Of course, walking short distances or walking long distances really isn't an example of an adaption anyways... just the result of a decision to... not... stop walking so soon...? In the ever-brilliant words of Steven Wright, "Everywhere is in walking distance... if you have the time."