Yes except that um... "purchasing this software has given you the right to run it"
Actually, from my understanding of the law, which may be faulty... simply posessing it gives you that right. Whether or not you even obtained it legally isn't even part of the equasion... because copyright ONLY covers (this may have changed with the DMCA et al) distribution. Once its in your private hands, legally obtained or not, there is no law that applies to what you do with it (unless, of course, the use you have is illegal... like using it to break into someones computer etc)
Of course your wording doesn't exactly contradict any of that, just that its more specific than it really needs to be. It wasn't the purchase that conveys that right, simply the posession.
Im sorry officer, I wasn't aware of how fast I was going
Believe it or not, never gotten a speeding ticket, and been pulled over for it twice (once doing 90 in a 55).
Remember, the police officer is NOT on your side, there is absolutly no reason to ever GIVE him evidence (like a statment of guilt) against you. I never have, and never will admit to knowing how fast I was going... he better have his radar gun calibrated too... I have a friend who got off on a ticket because the cop didn't have his calibration records with him in court.
Actully...funny story... he was in court and the officer aparently said something that pissed the judge off. So the judge asked for the records... he didn't have them. Case dismissed. Then my friends case came up, same cop. The Judge just turned to the cop, still livid, and said "so do you have the calibration records now?" "no" "case dismissed!"
Just that when you distribute software to someone, you are distributing instructions to his computer.
HIS computer. Which he should have the right to know what HIS computer is doing, for real. It would solve many problems like spyware. Now spyware is in the code, if someone finds it, it comes out, company is humilited... and a patch can be released so all the users can fix their versions and keep going.
What if I need some very small change or feature to a program that I can code myself? Its my fucking machine. Why shouldn't I have the right to make the change I need to make my computer do what I want the way I want?
We all know that binaries are not code, and auditing or editing binaries is far beyond anything resembling a reasonable way to go about doing any of these things that a computer owner should be able to do.
It would be like selling upgrades to a persons car that involve welding metal plates around the parts so the user can't see what its doing or fix any problems with it himself.
Whether it should be legal or not...shit maybe your right. I do however think its a sin that people put up with it at all. I would like to see us start to vote with our dollars and fuck any company that wont release source, let them not see any sales either.
Sadly, people don't seem to understand or care that they are getting screwed.
(er and like a dumbass I don't go back and state this, but by consumer protection I meant that the consumer needs the ability to protect himself from potentially malintent of the vendor... hence the need for source code to audit... whether or not he audits it, or has it audited, is of course, his perogative)
(BTW the story of Mel is one of my all time favorite tales... good ref even if I don't agree with your conclusions)
two words: consumer protection.
Food is another story. Food is a product, the end result of a recipe. I am fine with keeping a recipe secret and selling food.
Sadly there is no real analogy between the source of a program and the binary, and the recipe for a food and anything else. There is just no analog.
It would be like a company found a way to distribute a recipe such that you could easily use it to produce a food, but couldn't easily (or possibly at all without lots of time and very special knowledge far beyond that of the average programmer, probably more so than the people that produced it), tell what ingredients were used, or what was done to them.
If such a form existed, then it would be analogous to a binary, most certainly not the food.
I agree, the differences that I propose would have prevented the software industry, as we know it today, from existing. However, I doubt that would make much difference in net effect.
It would make selling software harder, if not simply untennable as a buisness model. However, I don't think our inability to imagine what buisness models would crop up to fill the need for quality software is reason enough to make laws to shoe horn old school buisness models into current day reality.
As a matter of fact, there are already software companies that produce products that are freely redistributable and modifiable, yet still manage to make money. Hence proving that such protections are not needed for commerce, just needed to treat software like something its not... a physical good.
I, for one, would like to be able to call a spade a damned shovel.
> You do realize you've just argued against both closed > and current open source in favour of EVERYTHING going > strictly public domain, right? Open source today > depends just as much (more!) on copyright as closed > source.
I would be happy with that. "Open Source" or more specifically "Free Software" (which came first, even though the two are roughly equivalent in all but ideology) used copyright as a hack to enforce basically a form of anti-copyright.
Basically I would argue that what should be in force for all software is something basically akin to the gpl... in net effect, not minute detail of implimentation.
And I would disagree that coke publishing their recipe is akin to this at all. To reverse it back onto the software analogy, that would be like I argued that if you write a text document, you should be made to distribute vi, including the source to vi with the doc.
No, certainly not. Coke is a product, not instructions for doing something. However, if coke was to release their recipe, I don't think they should be able to hold copyright on it.... and in fact, they already can't.
> prior to copyright law, methods of mass production did not > exist.
I think you have that backwards. I am pretty sure the printing press predated copyright law. In fact, it was the ability of publishers to churn out copies that was the problem. Prior to copyright they could take your work, churn it out, and sell it, and not give you a dime.
There was simply no need for copyright before mass production.
However... why should computer software be copyrighted?
Sure, this is a settled issue buy the courts now, but I think that allowing software to fall under copyright was a mistake in the first place.
Software is instructions for your computer, much like a recipe is instructions for how to make food, instructions for your hands.
It has long been held that, while you can copyright a book of recipes as a complete work, you can't actually hold copyright on the individual recipes themselves, as they constitute instructions on how to do something and NOT an actual creative work in and of themselves.
I would say the the same is true of software. Software is instructions, its useless in and of itself. In fact, its instructions for a peice of hardware that you own... that tell it how to do something. There may be creativity involved in comming up with how those instructions work together, but, the instructions themselves, not so much. Hell, they don't even generally do much of anything until your computer splices them together with a whole bunch of other peices already on the computer.
I would argue that if software should fall under any law, it should be a new one... requiring full disclosure of what a peice fo software does to the consumer. That is, the source code. You should have the right to know, if you wish to know, what your computer is being told to do, and you should have the right to read it in a human intelligable form, and the right to change those instrucitons to fit your own needs.
It would be absurd to think that there should be a law against adding more sugar to your cake recipe, why do we not think it is absurd to do the moral equivalnet to the software recipe that someone has sold us?
Is the loss of converting to DC centrally with a beefy power supply that can handle enough amperage to run all the houses devices and distributing via wires a few hundred feet more or less than distributing via AC and then converting it into DC with lots of little AC to DC converters?
Besides, sure you will have several hundred feet in a wired house, but... what if you say... put AC/DC converters in several places in the house to keep wire runs small? Or plan for more circuits through the house to decrease the length of each one?
It would be interesting to see the numbers run up on a few configurations to see whats more efficient (for all I know using many little wall warts is more efficient than one big switching power supply)
So anybody got the elctrical chops to run down some real figures on this?
Note that for the sake of argument, I am (as many here are) ignoring the fact that one of the requirments to be "addicted" is the presence of a physical withdrawl syndrome, if you lack that, then we are talking about a "dependancy". This is not to imply that kicking a dependancy is easier, or even that the user doesn't subjectivly experience some withdrawl, just that the syndrome doesn't have a physical cause.
You can be addicted to caffine, alcohol, or heroine (obviously 3 very different degrees of addiction potential). However while quitting cocaine is every bit as hard and painful, its not actually addictive, since the withdrawl syndrome has no physiological cause. (note that withdrawls from caffine or alcohol can actually kill you in and of themselves if you are badly enough addicted... coke withdrawls will just make you wish you were dead)
The thing is this... why can't computers be addictive in the same way as drugs... in fact, why not gambling?
From a brain chemistry perspective, isn't everything all electricity and "drugs". Or rather "Electricity and neurotransmitters"... but as far as your brain is concerned, drugs are either neurotransmitters or something that affects the levels of them (hence effectivly "being" neurotransmitters in effect if not in actual mechanism)?
So Whats the REAL difference (to your brain) between say, injecting morphine into your blood and running a marathon until your body produces morphine-like endorphins? You still have reduction in sensation of pain, you still positive reinforcment on the activity (admittedly, you may say that positive reinforcment on running marathons as an activity is 'good' whereas positive reinforcement on sticking a needle in your veins maybe not so much)
Gambling? Well I dunno about you but I play poker... gambling is just another form of adrenaline addiction.
In fact, as far as drugs go... adrenaline is easily as strong of a high as anything I have ever done, even if it only lasts a few minutes.
In email i can say what I want, without your input.
That is, I can think out what I want to say, and then say it. You don't get to interrupt me mid thought, or ask a question that sends us off in a new direction.
This can be good, or bad.
It also means you can't ask for clarification. So if I am using a metaphor that doesn't make sense to you or you take some meaning from that I don't intend, then you can't say "wait do you mean...?"... no i just keep going on my way, and if you took it wrong, then you might just keep taking it wrong.
This causes discussions that would never or seldom happen in a more interactive medium to happen. Again, this has its pluses and minuses.
Its easy to go very in depth in email. Its also very easy to go off the deep end. The same goes for forums like/.
I only had to make the statment because I was being called a homophobe. For what? For defending a companies right to regulate in game advertising on their servers.
For saying, hey the people who don't want to have people comming up to them and being told about guilds that are based explicitly on acceptance of sexual preference, might have a point?
Didn't realise that these specific viewpoints were so GLBT unfriendly. Shit, I didn't realise that I was such a homophobe.
Guess next time a friend of mine gives me a back rub and tries to get frisky, I should be all indignant and punch him in the face rather than politly reminding him that I am not gay. Seeing as I am such a homophobe and all.
Sad too... I rather enjoyed the backrubs. But good that everyone here let me know what a homophobe I am so I can respond properly next time.
Anyway All I am saying is, its blizzards house, and they set the standards for "decency".
but I am a homophobe? Because I don't think blizzard was wrong to ask this group to not go around advertising in game as "glbt friendly"?
Well, I assure you, that if thats homophobia, then thats the furthest extent of mine. Besides, my arguments are much more hetronormative than homophobic.
Am I anti-semetic because I don't agree with Isreali foreign policy?
Thank you for mischaracterising what I said. Theres no feeling quite like seeing how poorly your point has been made. Allow me to try again.
There is a line. Its hard to define, but there is a line. It is about the appropriatness of information for the context. Mentioning your partner, especially when relevant to the conversation, is always acceptable, and anyone who is uncomfortable, well... I have little sympathy for. They can learn to deal.
This gives us the info that ok, your straight, or your gay, it only tells us you are bi if you mention more than one, and they are of different sexes. Fine, whatever. Its an appropriate vector for that information to enter a whole array of contexts.
Now how about we take out the whole boyfriend to the hospital. Would it be appropriate for either Jane or John to say "Sorry I am late, my boyfriend was snoring pretty bad last night and really kept me up."... too much info. Now...again this will depend on context...
Now take it further "Sorry I am late, I met this guy last night and we had amazing sex all night long". Ya know, I am not going to feel uncomfortable and complain no matter who says it. *I* don't care.
I do however think that my personal standards of acceptance of what people want to share about themselves, or do with others, is quite tolerant, and more tolerant than really needs to be required in ALL circumstances.
Frankly if any coworker of mine, male or female, walked into a meeting at work and started talking about the intimate details of their sex life... I wouldn't complain. It wouldn't be the first time that I had seen a work group meeting go down a completely personal and non-work related path. However, its not very professional, and if someone was uncomfortable and complained, I couldn't really blame them.
On some level it is up to the speaker to take stock of their audience before they speak. Let me give you an example. I have done group job interviews. We had a candidate once who was energetic. Seemed like he knew his stuff. Mentioned cocaine a few too many times. Always in relation to his ex boss and parties they threw. However, he seemed not uncomfortable mentioning coke to a room full of strangers who were interviewing him for a job.
One question that came, and turned out to be a very interesting interview question was "Tell me a joke". I have actually heard Q: what do you call a lesbian with fat fingers? A: Well hung
Now, the entire room broke down laughing at the joke. What was commented on later during our private session, was that if he knew the audience better, that would have been fine and we liked his sense of humor, but that it wasn't a good sign that he pulled it out in front of a bunch of strangers at a job interview. It was inappropriate and recognized as so, even by the very same group of people that were nearly gasping for breath after hearing the joke.
So we have a private community, set up by blizzard, which everyone pays for. They don't want you brinigng this aspect of your like thats related to your sexuality into game for recruitment purposes... thats a pretty minor restriction.
You can recruit out of the game. You can still talk about whatever you want in your guild and with your in game friends... just like the private conversations in offices and corner cubicles at work often stray far past what would be appropriate in the conference room with 2 levels of management.
Or lets bring it home. If one of my roomates decides to have sex with his partner on the couch, I wont complain if I walk in on it. I would however understand and say something (realising I am the landlord too) if one of my other roomates complained about it. It is something that I would understand if a person thought was inappropriate.... however if one of them came to me about them kissing on the couch... I am going to laugh at him.
Blizzards sets the conduct for public and I think really, just having this restriction on guild recruiting in game, is pretty small.
Ok look... I think Blizzard made the right decision... about recruiting in game. Maybe I wasn't clear... Neither I, nor aparently Blizzard from what I can tell, care how or why you organize and choose to allow into your guild.
All they are saying is theres limits on your conduct in terms of going around IN GAME and enticing people to sign up. Thats all.
> GLBT isn't a type of sex act. It is perfectly acceptable > (and common) in WoW to discuss romantic relationships.
And NOBODY has said any different, or that there is ANYTHING wrong with that, not me, and not blizzard. The issue is in game recruiting for a guild... not discussions that happened between guild members.
This isn't about some guy talking about his boyfriend, this is about advertising.
And I do think organizing a guild just for glbt people is silly, but if you think I have a problem with people being silly, I have been misunderstood.
I have no problem with people being GLBT friendly, or organizing groups etc. Seeing homosexuals touch, kisss, hell I have accidently walked in on gay friends having sex, doesn't really phase me one bit.
All I am saying is that it seems to me that going around and activly recruiting for a GLBT friendly guild, in game, just rubs me the wrong way. It seems like an aspect that, if it is going to be advertised, should be done out of band.
There are people, beyond this, that go above and beyond in terms of being very "out there" with their sexuality. In general, I have little problem with it, but I just think its something that is not appropriate in all contexts, no matter what your preferences.
I would be just as adamant if they had censured a group that was advertising itself as a "straights friendly guild".
It sounds to me like your group did the right thing. You had a charter, put it in the charter, and were done with the issue. There is a line however where you cross over from being GLBT friendly, to pushing GLBT friendliness.... and it sounds to me like using it for recruiting, which is what we are really talking about here, is crossing that line.
What really amuses me about this is that according to blizzards own policies are GLBT friendly, so if people are actually being given a hard time or offended by the way some people talk, they could just report it to blizzard anyway.
Now if blizzard is selectivly enforcing those policies... that would be a real news story here.
Meh I will defend his point here. I don't agree with his concluion but his point is valid. People do discuss sex and it is a social scene. A virtual social scene but hey... its people. Really playing WoW is no different that joining a bowling league... people come, people play, people socialise while they play
People being people, sometimes od other things. Just like you may go out for beer or date someone that you met from the bowling league, sometimes it happens on WoW too... sometimes they even have sex.
And yah people will talk about sex too. The issue isn't who you choose to team up with, talk to, meet, or date. Its recruiting. Going around and advertising in public and chatting up strangers. That, is where I differ in opinion... I see no problem with Blizzard regulating that manner of activity.
Ya know what.... nothing. Nothing would justify that ever.
I am a huge user of racial, sexual, and ethnic slurs. All the time I refer niggers, kikes, pollaks, guineas and towel heads. However, I do it because I think its funny, in jest, and I make sure that anyone who doesn't know me well either never hears it or knows for damned sure its a joke. (but hey I have a jewish friend that makes jokes about kosher lampshades, maybe I run with a weird crew...)
However, I firmly believe that theres nothing wrong with being any of those things, I also firmly believe that its generally not justified to call someone names in an intentionally hurtful manner. (well personally, like "your an inconsiderate asshole, and I can barely believe you just did that!" is one thing... but "you fucking cheap kike" is different)
People who are intolerant of others lifestyles really boil my blood.
If they really allow christians only guilds, thats pretty dumb, and if it doesn't violate their non-discrimination policy, then their policy is dumb too. (as I may have mentioned, I don't know, I don't play WoW)
That said... I could see an argument for not allowing GLBT and allowing a jesus guild... community standards of decency.
Admittedly, I think they are silly... however... as a private community, they are within their rights to have some code of decency. Sex is pretty taboo in our culture and in many cultures around the world. By openly organizing a GLBT guild, you are openly in the eyes of the full community, bringing up sexual issues and parading around wearing your sexuality on your shoulder. (note: I am only talking about public behavious and seen things, if they were trying to ban the topics from private messages or team chat channels, that would be another story)
Would I make a code of decency like that? No way in hell. Then again, I would make the game full open anything goes PvP at all times everywhere. So obviously i don't get to make game policy decisions.
Its like walking into a masonic lodge, joining up, then wondering why they get upset with you when you walk into the lodge and start trying to goad everyone into discussions of politics and religion (for those that don't know: discussion of either is prohibited in their lodges, one of the few things about their organization that they tell the public)
Sure people talk about all sorts of things, even things way outside the game. However, theres a difference between having a conversation about sexuality and organizing a gaming group around it.
I mean, I don't really care how or why people organize themselves. Organize a pedophiles guild for all I care. However, as the company that makes the servers, and runs them, and makes the rules that everyone agrees to, Blizzard gets to keep the peace. If they say they don't want people in game openly organizing around sexuality, then thats simply their perogative.
Lets not forget what we are talking about here, people joining a game that expresses rules about being fammily friendly and not allowing discrimination etc, and looking to openly organize and recruit for a group based on their sexuality.
They could easily make a guild called anything, and then let whoever they want in their guild... then just advertise it to GLBT people out of band... its not like they couldn't do this without raising the ire of the admins.
Now if someone could show unequal treatment... GLBT groups get the axe while christian groups get to stay? What about straights only groups? Blacks only? whites? Albanians? I would argue axe all of them if they are recruiting in game. Whatever they want to talk about amongst themselves is fine... however...
when it comes to recruiting... communicating with random people, with whom you have no affiliation, broadcasting in "public"... that I would argue should rightly be regulated.... and I see no reason why all of the types of groups I mention above should be censured for it.
And ya know... there is another issue here... "outness". I am all for it in general. None of my friends are closeted and I think thats really cool and good overall for social progress. However... there is "out of the closet" and there is "out in the street". Theres a big difference between being open and against prejudice, and shoving your views/lifestyle in everyones face.
Now, I don't personally get offended. Some of my best friends are very open bisexual and gay people. I don't mind discussing sex and sexuality with them or anyone really. However, frankly, I think that if I meet you, and find out for no aparent reason that you are bisexual within 5 minutes of meeting you, then maybe you need to consider that you are going a bit far with this openness and may even be doing your own cause harm by making people feel like you are pushing acceptance of your lifestyle on them. _I_ wont personally feel that way... but others will and I think it does hurt the cause of fighting for equality for ALL people.
Of course thats a rule of thumb, certainly it wasn't inappropriate for one of my friends to have told me she was bi within 5 minutes of meeting her... since I met her when she was interviewing for a room in my apartment and that sort of lifestyle discussion is entirly appropriate in that context (note I said room not apartment, that info is entirly relevant to shared living situations and even as landlord I was well within my rights to say "sorry bisexuals need not apply" by law for just that reason... obviously I didn't, since you can infer from my meeting her at the interview and refering to her as a friend that she got the room... and you would be right in your inference)
My point here is that I am on the side of GLBT people and their desires to be accepted and treated like everyone else. However, you arn't winning ANYONE over, and in fact hurt the cause of tolerance when you make people feel alienated, or make them feel like they are having a view pushed in their face, and thats what this sounds like to me.
Remember, when you tell someone "We have a GLBT guild, want to jouin?" You are implicitly a) announcing the set of sexual situations that your preferences fall into and b) asking others what their preferences are. Most people just arn't comfortable with that being "out in the open" because of that implication.
Is there a double standard? Yah most probably. Should
I mean, I am about as GLBT friendly as a person gets, but this entire issue just goes too far. In fact, it goes too far on so many levels.
Ok I understand the family friendly stuff... thats why I don't play WoW. I am offended by the familyy friendly nazis everywhere that I run into them. I avoid them. I don't like their viepoint. I don't agree with their implicit assumption that language or exposure to sexuality, or whatever is in some way damaging to children. Frankly, I consider their viewpoint stupid.... but I still respect it. I leave them the fuck alone and expect the same respect in return.
as H L Menken said "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.". Words to live by in any area of life.
But anyway... GLBT? Good for you. Why is it so important to tell everyone and organize around it. Have your clubs, have PACs, get together and rant and rave and do whatever. Why must you (and I realise this is only a subset of GLBT people that I am addressing here), shove it in everyones face?
In fact, its a game designed to have people team up and work together and be social based on the game dynamics. Why bring in outside dynamics? Why form a guild of GLBTs when GLBT has no meaning inside the game at all? Your character doesn't even have sexual organs for gods sake! Do you really care that much if the people you play with are GLBT? Wats wrong with us straight people?
How would you feel if you saw a "Straight as an Arrow" guild? Wouldn't it seem silly? WoW isn't a dating site, goto match.com or some such and announce your sexuality there, if you really want to converse with more GLBTs... or go to a sci fi con or something.
This is silly. WoW was right. They did the right thing. If you don't like it, then play a better game. WoW kinda sucks anyway... City Of Villians now... there is a game.
"Not only does this [marketing] policy cost the industry over 50% of its potential market on gender terms alone, but in a few years time, it's also going to cut out a huge audience on the age side of things too. "
This makes some interesting assumptions, the biggest one is that marketing does what it claims to do.
That is to say, we assume that marketing "aimed at" 15 year old males has no relevance to older or differently gendered people. What is this marketing exactly and how exactly is it so tailored for a specific age and gender?
Remember, it is in the interests of marketers to convince us that A) Marketing works and B) Targeted marketing actually targets - whether either of these is true or not isn't so much relevant, they are assumptions that the marketeers sell to companies.
Frankly, all a game advertisement has to do is make you say "oh hey that looks cool" and make you say, when your in the store "I have seen an ad for that game, and it looked cool". Thats it. It doesn't matter if you have seen the advertisement once or one thousand times, as long as it gets you to recotgnize the product and take a look at it when you are in a position to buy it, then it has done its job.
Taking that into account, I think you will find very little difference between marketing a product to one group from another. In fact, I would bet that the gaming industry could cut its advertising budgets drastically without hardly any loss in terms of purchasing.
I think its alot more marketers and analysts who like to overthink everything comming up with ideas and selling them than a real issue. Remember, its in the interests of both media publishers and marketers to see more marketing to more groups.
In fact, if this says anything, it says that the marketers are wrong. If the marketing is nominally aimed at 15 year old males, but the real demographic is shifting older, then either A) the current marketing scheme is working just fine for older age groups or B) marketing has no real effect whatsoever (a conclusion that marketers would rather you not ever draw of course)
Remember, as someone here once said to me: marketing is marketing marketing.
We were having brown outs a few years back and my PC ran just fine with no glitches, even when I measured voltages as low as 90 volts.
Not to say that more robust server class machines will do the same, but I imagine at least some of them will... especially for the varying definitions of what class of hardware belongs in a machine room.
Actually no...he is right. And I think you are loudly agreeing with him, because you seem to be saying the same thing, just confrontationally.
Its only an issue if it causes a problem. In fact, thats part of the very definition of any mental disorder. Check out the DSM if you want... unless there is a problem, there is no disease.
It doesn't matter if you see angels and deamons sitting on peoples shoulders telling you what to do. As long as thats not causing a problem for you in your job, social interaction, general contentness of life, or running you afoul of the law, then you are in absolutly fine mental health.
Now..... it IS causing a problem. Maybe not a problem for her, but a problem for him and thus for their relationship. Maybe that means she says 'get over it' and maybe he does... problem solved.
However, if he thinks its a problem, and he values the relationship, then I go with 'push her'. Now, there is push and there is push. I think he should make his feelings known, and say how he sees it as a problem, and offer to help. Thats a push, a gentle one. I don't think a strong push "get help or I am gone" is a good idea... but maybe just because its not my style.
Bottom line, they are in a relationship. He has as much right to be bothered by her actions and make requests about them as she has to do what she wants. If they can't reconcile those rights and desires, then it may be time to end the relationship. However, thats completly up to them.
In any case, when it comes to someone that you love, be it a fammily member, lover, or good friend, it is your duty not only to support them in their decisions to whatever extent that you can, but to point out to them when and why you can't, and when you feel their decision is a mistake.
Whether your opinion is right or wrong is of ourse dependand on the situation, and furthermore is a value judgement itself. However, it is never wrong to say what you honestly think. If that person values you and your opinion, they will listen, if for no other reason than because you feel it is important for them to. If they can't at least do you that respect, then why is it your wasting your time with them?
So I say if its a problem then give her a nudge, and if need be a push. However, if she can't convince you as to why its not really a problem and still continues despite your best efforts.... maybe its just time to walk. Then again, its all conjecture. Honestly, I thought the original question was a joke.
In my own experience, I have found this to be very true, both from my own experiences with addiction, and seeing it in friends. I have said for a long time that addiction is more a function of the person than the object of their addiction.
I mean sure, some drugs help things along by chemically driving the re-enforcement o fthe behaviour, or providing a nasty withdrawl syndrome, but in the end... it was your choice to play nethack, or pick up that ciggarette, or pack that bowl, or shoot that heroin. If you simply stop choosing it, there is no longer an addiction.
Almost makes it sound easy. The hard part is never doing it, the hard part is actually wanting to stop and realising that you can decide to stop.
Its like one of my old tae kwon do instructors said of double leg side kicks (thats jumping into the air and kicking sideways to with both legs to the same side together)... he told me that its not about your body being able to do it, its about convincing your mind that you can do it, and getting over the fact that your just not going to land on your feet when your done. (most of the problem I and other beginners had was that we would not execute the kick properly because we kept pulling the kick to avoid the fall to the ground)
take me and coffee. The only reason i don't consider myself an addict is because I am fully aware of how much I drink and how often. I KNOW that I am headed for physical dependance and it is only a matter of another week or two before I start to see physical signs (headaches in morning before the first cup etc)... but I do not consider myself an addict because I have been here before and I know enough to stop. Soon as I get a headache in the morning, I will stop drinking coffee until my tolerance goes down and dependance goes away.
its not the most healthy and balanced approach, but it works for me, and its a cycle that I have maintained on and off for years (and when the cycle is off, I mean, I am not consuming hardly any caffiene, I don't even drink soda)
Now pot, thats another story. I used to not be addicted to pot, I could take it or leave it anytime and never craved it when I didn't have it. I would smoke, then go weeks or months without smoking again.
Now, its harder. social pressure has been added. Not pressure as in "hey take a drag man, its good" but as in I have friends that smoke and I hang out with them. Its there, its easy, its social... so I do it... every day. I am also bored, man being stoned makes being bored so much more bearable.
In the past month i got a job, after months of being out of work, I started a martial arts class, my pot use is way down. Maybe cut in 1/3rd.
Just like you said... not dealing with issues. Or as an old boss of mine said "I found I was smoking alot of pot because I had nothing to do, so smoking pot became something to do"... same here. Its very easy to let something entertaining and distracting take over your life.... its such an easy decision to make to spend "a little while right now" doing it... then later... and then again... tell next thing you know, its your whole life and you never intended that!
That said it was also a pretty cheap way to kill time when I was out of work. So it did serve its purpose there (a pot habbit actually isn't that expensive when you compare it against alot of things in terms of cost per day... even with the really good stuff... then again, being a single professional in my industry, I also tend to have alot of disposable income.. even when on the dole)
Is pot or coffee special? I don't think so. Ive done or seen it done with video games, religion, sex, food (ever gone to the fridge looking for food only to realise you arn't hungry at all, just bored?) etc.
As for addicts needing professional help... meh. I would like to think that we all posess the raw ability to rise ourselves out of situations, but thats not to say that you are wrong. I only disagree with need. A professional such as yourself can help guide a perso
Slashdot Mirror
Yes except that um... "purchasing this software has given you the right to run it"
Actually, from my understanding of the law, which may be faulty... simply posessing it gives you that right. Whether or not you even obtained it legally isn't even part of the equasion... because copyright ONLY covers (this may have changed with the DMCA et al) distribution. Once its in your private hands, legally obtained or not, there is no law that applies to what you do with it (unless, of course, the use you have is illegal... like using it to break into someones computer etc)
Of course your wording doesn't exactly contradict any of that, just that its more specific than it really needs to be. It wasn't the purchase that conveys that right, simply the posession.
-Steve
Im sorry officer, I wasn't aware of how fast I was going
Believe it or not, never gotten a speeding ticket, and been pulled over for it twice (once doing 90 in a 55).
Remember, the police officer is NOT on your side, there is absolutly no reason to ever GIVE him evidence (like a statment of guilt) against you. I never have, and never will admit to knowing how fast I was going... he better have his radar gun calibrated too... I have a friend who got off on a ticket because the cop didn't have his calibration records with him in court.
Actully...funny story... he was in court and the officer aparently said something that pissed the judge off. So the judge asked for the records... he didn't have them. Case dismissed. Then my friends case came up, same cop. The Judge just turned to the cop, still livid, and said "so do you have the calibration records now?" "no" "case dismissed!"
-Steve
And I never said copyright was inherintly bad....
Just that when you distribute software to someone, you are distributing instructions to his computer.
HIS computer. Which he should have the right to know what HIS computer is doing, for real. It would solve many problems like spyware. Now spyware is in the code, if someone finds it, it comes out, company is humilited... and a patch can be released so all the users can fix their versions and keep going.
What if I need some very small change or feature to a program that I can code myself? Its my fucking machine. Why shouldn't I have the right to make the change I need to make my computer do what I want the way I want?
We all know that binaries are not code, and auditing or editing binaries is far beyond anything resembling a reasonable way to go about doing any of these things that a computer owner should be able to do.
It would be like selling upgrades to a persons car that involve welding metal plates around the parts so the user can't see what its doing or fix any problems with it himself.
Whether it should be legal or not...shit maybe your right. I do however think its a sin that people put up with it at all. I would like to see us start to vote with our dollars and fuck any company that wont release source, let them not see any sales either.
Sadly, people don't seem to understand or care that they are getting screwed.
-Steve
(er and like a dumbass I don't go back and state this, but by consumer protection I meant that the consumer needs the ability to protect himself from potentially malintent of the vendor... hence the need for source code to audit... whether or not he audits it, or has it audited, is of course, his perogative)
(BTW the story of Mel is one of my all time favorite tales... good ref even if I don't agree with your conclusions)
two words: consumer protection.
Food is another story. Food is a product, the end result of a recipe. I am fine with keeping a recipe secret and selling food.
Sadly there is no real analogy between the source of a program and the binary, and the recipe for a food and anything else. There is just no analog.
It would be like a company found a way to distribute a recipe such that you could easily use it to produce a food, but couldn't easily (or possibly at all without lots of time and very special knowledge far beyond that of the average programmer, probably more so than the people that produced it), tell what ingredients were used, or what was done to them.
If such a form existed, then it would be analogous to a binary, most certainly not the food.
I agree, the differences that I propose would have prevented the software industry, as we know it today, from existing. However, I doubt that would make much difference in net effect.
It would make selling software harder, if not simply untennable as a buisness model. However, I don't think our inability to imagine what buisness models would crop up to fill the need for quality software is reason enough to make laws to shoe horn old school buisness models into current day reality.
As a matter of fact, there are already software companies that produce products that are freely redistributable and modifiable, yet still manage to make money. Hence proving that such protections are not needed for commerce, just needed to treat software like something its not... a physical good.
I, for one, would like to be able to call a spade a damned shovel.
-Steve
> You do realize you've just argued against both closed
> and current open source in favour of EVERYTHING going
> strictly public domain, right? Open source today
> depends just as much (more!) on copyright as closed
> source.
I would be happy with that. "Open Source" or more specifically "Free Software" (which came first, even though the two are roughly equivalent in all but ideology) used copyright as a hack to enforce basically a form of anti-copyright.
Basically I would argue that what should be in force for all software is something basically akin to the gpl... in net effect, not minute detail of implimentation.
And I would disagree that coke publishing their recipe is akin to this at all. To reverse it back onto the software analogy, that would be like I argued that if you write a text document, you should be made to distribute vi, including the source to vi with the doc.
No, certainly not. Coke is a product, not instructions for doing something. However, if coke was to release their recipe, I don't think they should be able to hold copyright on it.... and in fact, they already can't.
-Steve
> prior to copyright law, methods of mass production did not
> exist.
I think you have that backwards. I am pretty sure the printing press predated copyright law. In fact, it was the ability of publishers to churn out copies that was the problem. Prior to copyright they could take your work, churn it out, and sell it, and not give you a dime.
There was simply no need for copyright before mass production.
-Steve
I agree...2-3 years is way too short
However... why should computer software be copyrighted?
Sure, this is a settled issue buy the courts now, but I think that allowing software to fall under copyright was a mistake in the first place.
Software is instructions for your computer, much like a recipe is instructions for how to make food, instructions for your hands.
It has long been held that, while you can copyright a book of recipes as a complete work, you can't actually hold copyright on the individual recipes themselves, as they constitute instructions on how to do something and NOT an actual creative work in and of themselves.
I would say the the same is true of software. Software is instructions, its useless in and of itself. In fact, its instructions for a peice of hardware that you own... that tell it how to do something. There may be creativity involved in comming up with how those instructions work together, but, the instructions themselves, not so much. Hell, they don't even generally do much of anything until your computer splices them together with a whole bunch of other peices already on the computer.
I would argue that if software should fall under any law, it should be a new one... requiring full disclosure of what a peice fo software does to the consumer. That is, the source code. You should have the right to know, if you wish to know, what your computer is being told to do, and you should have the right to read it in a human intelligable form, and the right to change those instrucitons to fit your own needs.
It would be absurd to think that there should be a law against adding more sugar to your cake recipe, why do we not think it is absurd to do the moral equivalnet to the software recipe that someone has sold us?
-Steve
Of course the question really is...
Is the loss of converting to DC centrally with a beefy power supply that can handle enough amperage to run all the houses devices and distributing via wires a few hundred feet more or less than distributing via AC and then converting it into DC with lots of little AC to DC converters?
Besides, sure you will have several hundred feet in a wired house, but... what if you say... put AC/DC converters in several places in the house to keep wire runs small? Or plan for more circuits through the house to decrease the length of each one?
It would be interesting to see the numbers run up on a few configurations to see whats more efficient (for all I know using many little wall warts is more efficient than one big switching power supply)
So anybody got the elctrical chops to run down some real figures on this?
-Steve
Ok Ill bite, tho its based on what "they say"
... but as far as your brain is concerned, drugs are either neurotransmitters or something that affects the levels of them (hence effectivly "being" neurotransmitters in effect if not in actual mechanism)?
Note that for the sake of argument, I am (as many here are) ignoring the fact that one of the requirments to be "addicted" is the presence of a physical withdrawl syndrome, if you lack that, then we are talking about a "dependancy". This is not to imply that kicking a dependancy is easier, or even that the user doesn't subjectivly experience some withdrawl, just that the syndrome doesn't have a physical cause.
You can be addicted to caffine, alcohol, or heroine (obviously 3 very different degrees of addiction potential). However while quitting cocaine is every bit as hard and painful, its not actually addictive, since the withdrawl syndrome has no physiological cause. (note that withdrawls from caffine or alcohol can actually kill you in and of themselves if you are badly enough addicted... coke withdrawls will just make you wish you were dead)
The thing is this... why can't computers be addictive in the same way as drugs... in fact, why not gambling?
From a brain chemistry perspective, isn't everything all electricity and "drugs". Or rather "Electricity and neurotransmitters"
So Whats the REAL difference (to your brain) between say, injecting morphine into your blood and running a marathon until your body produces morphine-like endorphins? You still have reduction in sensation of pain, you still positive reinforcment on the activity (admittedly, you may say that positive reinforcment on running marathons as an activity is 'good' whereas positive reinforcement on sticking a needle in your veins maybe not so much)
Gambling? Well I dunno about you but I play poker... gambling is just another form of adrenaline addiction.
In fact, as far as drugs go... adrenaline is easily as strong of a high as anything I have ever done, even if it only lasts a few minutes.
-Steve
Theres another factor too...
/.
In email i can say what I want, without your input.
That is, I can think out what I want to say, and then say it. You don't get to interrupt me mid thought, or ask a question that sends us off in a new direction.
This can be good, or bad.
It also means you can't ask for clarification. So if I am using a metaphor that doesn't make sense to you or you take some meaning from that I don't intend, then you can't say "wait do you mean...?"... no i just keep going on my way, and if you took it wrong, then you might just keep taking it wrong.
This causes discussions that would never or seldom happen in a more interactive medium to happen. Again, this has its pluses and minuses.
Its easy to go very in depth in email. Its also very easy to go off the deep end. The same goes for forums like
-Steve
I only had to make the statment because I was being called a homophobe. For what? For defending a companies right to regulate in game advertising on their servers.
For saying, hey the people who don't want to have people comming up to them and being told about guilds that are based explicitly on acceptance of sexual preference, might have a point?
Didn't realise that these specific viewpoints were so GLBT unfriendly. Shit, I didn't realise that I was such a homophobe.
Guess next time a friend of mine gives me a back rub and tries to get frisky, I should be all indignant and punch him in the face rather than politly reminding him that I am not gay. Seeing as I am such a homophobe and all.
Sad too... I rather enjoyed the backrubs. But good that everyone here let me know what a homophobe I am so I can respond properly next time.
Cheers,
-Steve
Hmmm Didn't check for more replies.
Anyway All I am saying is, its blizzards house, and they set the standards for "decency".
but I am a homophobe? Because I don't think blizzard was wrong to ask this group to not go around advertising in game as "glbt friendly"?
Well, I assure you, that if thats homophobia, then thats the furthest extent of mine. Besides, my arguments are much more hetronormative than homophobic.
Am I anti-semetic because I don't agree with Isreali foreign policy?
Yawn...
Thank you for mischaracterising what I said. Theres no feeling quite like seeing how poorly your point has been made. Allow me to try again.
There is a line. Its hard to define, but there is a line. It is about the appropriatness of information for the context. Mentioning your partner, especially when relevant to the conversation, is always acceptable, and anyone who is uncomfortable, well... I have little sympathy for. They can learn to deal.
This gives us the info that ok, your straight, or your gay, it only tells us you are bi if you mention more than one, and they are of different sexes. Fine, whatever. Its an appropriate vector for that information to enter a whole array of contexts.
Now how about we take out the whole boyfriend to the hospital. Would it be appropriate for either Jane or John to say "Sorry I am late, my boyfriend was snoring pretty bad last night and really kept me up."... too much info. Now...again this will depend on context...
Now take it further "Sorry I am late, I met this guy last night and we had amazing sex all night long". Ya know, I am not going to feel uncomfortable and complain no matter who says it. *I* don't care.
I do however think that my personal standards of acceptance of what people want to share about themselves, or do with others, is quite tolerant, and more tolerant than really needs to be required in ALL circumstances.
Frankly if any coworker of mine, male or female, walked into a meeting at work and started talking about the intimate details of their sex life... I wouldn't complain. It wouldn't be the first time that I had seen a work group meeting go down a completely personal and non-work related path. However, its not very professional, and if someone was uncomfortable and complained, I couldn't really blame them.
On some level it is up to the speaker to take stock of their audience before they speak. Let me give you an example. I have done group job interviews. We had a candidate once who was energetic. Seemed like he knew his stuff. Mentioned cocaine a few too many times. Always in relation to his ex boss and parties they threw. However, he seemed not uncomfortable mentioning coke to a room full of strangers who were interviewing him for a job.
One question that came, and turned out to be a very interesting interview question was "Tell me a joke". I have actually heard Q: what do you call a lesbian with fat fingers? A: Well hung
Now, the entire room broke down laughing at the joke. What was commented on later during our private session, was that if he knew the audience better, that would have been fine and we liked his sense of humor, but that it wasn't a good sign that he pulled it out in front of a bunch of strangers at a job interview. It was inappropriate and recognized as so, even by the very same group of people that were nearly gasping for breath after hearing the joke.
So we have a private community, set up by blizzard, which everyone pays for. They don't want you brinigng this aspect of your like thats related to your sexuality into game for recruitment purposes... thats a pretty minor restriction.
You can recruit out of the game. You can still talk about whatever you want in your guild and with your in game friends... just like the private conversations in offices and corner cubicles at work often stray far past what would be appropriate in the conference room with 2 levels of management.
Or lets bring it home. If one of my roomates decides to have sex with his partner on the couch, I wont complain if I walk in on it. I would however understand and say something (realising I am the landlord too) if one of my other roomates complained about it. It is something that I would understand if a person thought was inappropriate.... however if one of them came to me about them kissing on the couch... I am going to laugh at him.
Blizzards sets the conduct for public and I think really, just having this restriction on guild recruiting in game, is pretty small.
-Steve
Ok look... I think Blizzard made the right decision... about recruiting in game. Maybe I wasn't clear... Neither I, nor aparently Blizzard from what I can tell, care how or why you organize and choose to allow into your guild.
All they are saying is theres limits on your conduct in terms of going around IN GAME and enticing people to sign up. Thats all.
> GLBT isn't a type of sex act. It is perfectly acceptable
> (and common) in WoW to discuss romantic relationships.
And NOBODY has said any different, or that there is ANYTHING wrong with that, not me, and not blizzard. The issue is in game recruiting for a guild... not discussions that happened between guild members.
This isn't about some guy talking about his boyfriend, this is about advertising.
And I do think organizing a guild just for glbt people is silly, but if you think I have a problem with people being silly, I have been misunderstood.
-Steve
I think you misunderstand me.
I have no problem with people being GLBT friendly, or organizing groups etc. Seeing homosexuals touch, kisss, hell I have accidently walked in on gay friends having sex, doesn't really phase me one bit.
All I am saying is that it seems to me that going around and activly recruiting for a GLBT friendly guild, in game, just rubs me the wrong way. It seems like an aspect that, if it is going to be advertised, should be done out of band.
There are people, beyond this, that go above and beyond in terms of being very "out there" with their sexuality. In general, I have little problem with it, but I just think its something that is not appropriate in all contexts, no matter what your preferences.
I would be just as adamant if they had censured a group that was advertising itself as a "straights friendly guild".
It sounds to me like your group did the right thing. You had a charter, put it in the charter, and were done with the issue. There is a line however where you cross over from being GLBT friendly, to pushing GLBT friendliness.... and it sounds to me like using it for recruiting, which is what we are really talking about here, is crossing that line.
What really amuses me about this is that according to blizzards own policies are GLBT friendly, so if people are actually being given a hard time or offended by the way some people talk, they could just report it to blizzard anyway.
Now if blizzard is selectivly enforcing those policies... that would be a real news story here.
Meh I will defend his point here. I don't agree with his concluion but his point is valid. People do discuss sex and it is a social scene. A virtual social scene but hey... its people. Really playing WoW is no different that joining a bowling league... people come, people play, people socialise while they play
People being people, sometimes od other things. Just like you may go out for beer or date someone that you met from the bowling league, sometimes it happens on WoW too... sometimes they even have sex.
And yah people will talk about sex too. The issue isn't who you choose to team up with, talk to, meet, or date. Its recruiting. Going around and advertising in public and chatting up strangers. That, is where I differ in opinion... I see no problem with Blizzard regulating that manner of activity.
-Steve
Ya know what.... nothing. Nothing would justify that ever.
I am a huge user of racial, sexual, and ethnic slurs. All the time I refer niggers, kikes, pollaks, guineas and towel heads. However, I do it because I think its funny, in jest, and I make sure that anyone who doesn't know me well either never hears it or knows for damned sure its a joke. (but hey I have a jewish friend that makes jokes about kosher lampshades, maybe I run with a weird crew...)
However, I firmly believe that theres nothing wrong with being any of those things, I also firmly believe that its generally not justified to call someone names in an intentionally hurtful manner. (well personally, like "your an inconsiderate asshole, and I can barely believe you just did that!" is one thing... but "you fucking cheap kike" is different)
People who are intolerant of others lifestyles really boil my blood.
-Steve
If they really allow christians only guilds, thats pretty dumb, and if it doesn't violate their non-discrimination policy, then their policy is dumb too. (as I may have mentioned, I don't know, I don't play WoW)
That said... I could see an argument for not allowing GLBT and allowing a jesus guild... community standards of decency.
Admittedly, I think they are silly... however... as a private community, they are within their rights to have some code of decency. Sex is pretty taboo in our culture and in many cultures around the world. By openly organizing a GLBT guild, you are openly in the eyes of the full community, bringing up sexual issues and parading around wearing your sexuality on your shoulder.
(note: I am only talking about public behavious and seen things, if they were trying to ban the topics from private messages or team chat channels, that would be another story)
Would I make a code of decency like that? No way in hell. Then again, I would make the game full open anything goes PvP at all times everywhere. So obviously i don't get to make game policy decisions.
Its like walking into a masonic lodge, joining up, then wondering why they get upset with you when you walk into the lodge and start trying to goad everyone into discussions of politics and religion (for those that don't know: discussion of either is prohibited in their lodges, one of the few things about their organization that they tell the public)
-Steve
Sure people talk about all sorts of things, even things way outside the game. However, theres a difference between having a conversation about sexuality and organizing a gaming group around it.
I mean, I don't really care how or why people organize themselves. Organize a pedophiles guild for all I care. However, as the company that makes the servers, and runs them, and makes the rules that everyone agrees to, Blizzard gets to keep the peace. If they say they don't want people in game openly organizing around sexuality, then thats simply their perogative.
Lets not forget what we are talking about here, people joining a game that expresses rules about being fammily friendly and not allowing discrimination etc, and looking to openly organize and recruit for a group based on their sexuality.
They could easily make a guild called anything, and then let whoever they want in their guild... then just advertise it to GLBT people out of band... its not like they couldn't do this without raising the ire of the admins.
Now if someone could show unequal treatment... GLBT groups get the axe while christian groups get to stay? What about straights only groups? Blacks only? whites? Albanians? I would argue axe all of them if they are recruiting in game.
Whatever they want to talk about amongst themselves is fine... however...
when it comes to recruiting... communicating with random people, with whom you have no affiliation, broadcasting in "public"... that I would argue should rightly be regulated.... and I see no reason why all of the types of groups I mention above should be censured for it.
And ya know... there is another issue here... "outness". I am all for it in general. None of my friends are closeted and I think thats really cool and good overall for social progress. However... there is "out of the closet" and there is "out in the street". Theres a big difference between being open and against prejudice, and shoving your views/lifestyle in everyones face.
Now, I don't personally get offended. Some of my best friends are very open bisexual and gay people. I don't mind discussing sex and sexuality with them or anyone really. However, frankly, I think that if I meet you, and find out for no aparent reason that you are bisexual within 5 minutes of meeting you, then maybe you need to consider that you are going a bit far with this openness and may even be doing your own cause harm by making people feel like you are pushing acceptance of your lifestyle on them. _I_ wont personally feel that way... but others will and I think it does hurt the cause of fighting for equality for ALL people.
Of course thats a rule of thumb, certainly it wasn't inappropriate for one of my friends to have told me she was bi within 5 minutes of meeting her... since I met her when she was interviewing for a room in my apartment and that sort of lifestyle discussion is entirly appropriate in that context (note I said room not apartment, that info is entirly relevant to shared living situations and even as landlord I was well within my rights to say "sorry bisexuals need not apply" by law for just that reason... obviously I didn't, since you can infer from my meeting her at the interview and refering to her as a friend that she got the room... and you would be right in your inference)
My point here is that I am on the side of GLBT people and their desires to be accepted and treated like everyone else. However, you arn't winning ANYONE over, and in fact hurt the cause of tolerance when you make people feel alienated, or make them feel like they are having a view pushed in their face, and thats what this sounds like to me.
Remember, when you tell someone "We have a GLBT guild, want to jouin?" You are implicitly a) announcing the set of sexual situations that your preferences fall into and b) asking others what their preferences are. Most people just arn't comfortable with that being "out in the open" because of that implication.
Is there a double standard? Yah most probably. Should
Good point.
I mean, I am about as GLBT friendly as a person gets, but this entire issue just goes too far. In fact, it goes too far on so many levels.
Ok I understand the family friendly stuff... thats why I don't play WoW. I am offended by the familyy friendly nazis everywhere that I run into them. I avoid them. I don't like their viepoint. I don't agree with their implicit assumption that language or exposure to sexuality, or whatever is in some way damaging to children. Frankly, I consider their viewpoint stupid.... but I still respect it. I leave them the fuck alone and expect the same respect in return.
as H L Menken said "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.". Words to live by in any area of life.
But anyway... GLBT? Good for you. Why is it so important to tell everyone and organize around it. Have your clubs, have PACs, get together and rant and rave and do whatever. Why must you (and I realise this is only a subset of GLBT people that I am addressing here), shove it in everyones face?
In fact, its a game designed to have people team up and work together and be social based on the game dynamics. Why bring in outside dynamics? Why form a guild of GLBTs when GLBT has no meaning inside the game at all? Your character doesn't even have sexual organs for gods sake! Do you really care that much if the people you play with are GLBT? Wats wrong with us straight people?
How would you feel if you saw a "Straight as an Arrow" guild? Wouldn't it seem silly? WoW isn't a dating site, goto match.com or some such and announce your sexuality there, if you really want to converse with more GLBTs... or go to a sci fi con or something.
This is silly. WoW was right. They did the right thing. If you don't like it, then play a better game. WoW kinda sucks anyway... City Of Villians now... there is a game.
-Steve
"Not only does this [marketing] policy cost the industry over 50% of its potential market on gender terms alone, but in a few years time, it's also going to cut out a huge audience on the age side of things too. "
This makes some interesting assumptions, the biggest one is that marketing does what it claims to do.
That is to say, we assume that marketing "aimed at" 15 year old males has no relevance to older or differently gendered people. What is this marketing exactly and how exactly is it so tailored for a specific age and gender?
Remember, it is in the interests of marketers to convince us that A) Marketing works and B) Targeted marketing actually targets - whether either of these is true or not isn't so much relevant, they are assumptions that the marketeers sell to companies.
Frankly, all a game advertisement has to do is make you say "oh hey that looks cool" and make you say, when your in the store "I have seen an ad for that game, and it looked cool". Thats it. It doesn't matter if you have seen the advertisement once or one thousand times, as long as it gets you to recotgnize the product and take a look at it when you are in a position to buy it, then it has done its job.
Taking that into account, I think you will find very little difference between marketing a product to one group from another. In fact, I would bet that the gaming industry could cut its advertising budgets drastically without hardly any loss in terms of purchasing.
I think its alot more marketers and analysts who like to overthink everything comming up with ideas and selling them than a real issue. Remember, its in the interests of both media publishers and marketers to see more marketing to more groups.
In fact, if this says anything, it says that the marketers are wrong. If the marketing is nominally aimed at 15 year old males, but the real demographic is shifting older, then either A) the current marketing scheme is working just fine for older age groups or B) marketing has no real effect whatsoever (a conclusion that marketers would rather you not ever draw of course)
Remember, as someone here once said to me:
marketing is marketing marketing.
-Steve
Not always true...
We were having brown outs a few years back and my PC ran just fine with no glitches, even when I measured voltages as low as 90 volts.
Not to say that more robust server class machines will do the same, but I imagine at least some of them will... especially for the varying definitions of what class of hardware belongs in a machine room.
-Steve
Actually no...he is right. And I think you are loudly agreeing with him, because you seem to be saying the same thing, just confrontationally.
Its only an issue if it causes a problem. In fact, thats part of the very definition of any mental disorder. Check out the DSM if you want... unless there is a problem, there is no disease.
It doesn't matter if you see angels and deamons sitting on peoples shoulders telling you what to do. As long as thats not causing a problem for you in your job, social interaction, general contentness of life, or running you afoul of the law, then you are in absolutly fine mental health.
Now..... it IS causing a problem. Maybe not a problem for her, but a problem for him and thus for their relationship. Maybe that means she says 'get over it' and maybe he does... problem solved.
However, if he thinks its a problem, and he values the relationship, then I go with 'push her'. Now, there is push and there is push. I think he should make his feelings known, and say how he sees it as a problem, and offer to help. Thats a push, a gentle one. I don't think a strong push "get help or I am gone" is a good idea... but maybe just because its not my style.
Bottom line, they are in a relationship. He has as much right to be bothered by her actions and make requests about them as she has to do what she wants. If they can't reconcile those rights and desires, then it may be time to end the relationship. However, thats completly up to them.
In any case, when it comes to someone that you love, be it a fammily member, lover, or good friend, it is your duty not only to support them in their decisions to whatever extent that you can, but to point out to them when and why you can't, and when you feel their decision is a mistake.
Whether your opinion is right or wrong is of ourse dependand on the situation, and furthermore is a value judgement itself. However, it is never wrong to say what you honestly think. If that person values you and your opinion, they will listen, if for no other reason than because you feel it is important for them to. If they can't at least do you that respect, then why is it your wasting your time with them?
So I say if its a problem then give her a nudge, and if need be a push. However, if she can't convince you as to why its not really a problem and still continues despite your best efforts.... maybe its just time to walk. Then again, its all conjecture. Honestly, I thought the original question was a joke.
-Steve
Absolutly.
In my own experience, I have found this to be very true, both from my own experiences with addiction, and seeing it in friends. I have said for a long time that addiction is more a function of the person than the object of their addiction.
I mean sure, some drugs help things along by chemically driving the re-enforcement o fthe behaviour, or providing a nasty withdrawl syndrome, but in the end... it was your choice to play nethack, or pick up that ciggarette, or pack that bowl, or shoot that heroin. If you simply stop choosing it, there is no longer an addiction.
Almost makes it sound easy. The hard part is never doing it, the hard part is actually wanting to stop and realising that you can decide to stop.
Its like one of my old tae kwon do instructors said of double leg side kicks (thats jumping into the air and kicking sideways to with both legs to the same side together)... he told me that its not about your body being able to do it, its about convincing your mind that you can do it, and getting over the fact that your just not going to land on your feet when your done. (most of the problem I and other beginners had was that we would not execute the kick properly because we kept pulling the kick to avoid the fall to the ground)
take me and coffee. The only reason i don't consider myself an addict is because I am fully aware of how much I drink and how often. I KNOW that I am headed for physical dependance and it is only a matter of another week or two before I start to see physical signs (headaches in morning before the first cup etc)... but I do not consider myself an addict because I have been here before and I know enough to stop. Soon as I get a headache in the morning, I will stop drinking coffee until my tolerance goes down and dependance goes away.
its not the most healthy and balanced approach, but it works for me, and its a cycle that I have maintained on and off for years (and when the cycle is off, I mean, I am not consuming hardly any caffiene, I don't even drink soda)
Now pot, thats another story. I used to not be addicted to pot, I could take it or leave it anytime and never craved it when I didn't have it. I would smoke, then go weeks or months without smoking again.
Now, its harder. social pressure has been added. Not pressure as in "hey take a drag man, its good" but as in I have friends that smoke and I hang out with them. Its there, its easy, its social... so I do it... every day. I am also bored, man being stoned makes being bored so much more bearable.
In the past month i got a job, after months of being out of work, I started a martial arts class, my pot use is way down. Maybe cut in 1/3rd.
Just like you said... not dealing with issues. Or as an old boss of mine said "I found I was smoking alot of pot because I had nothing to do, so smoking pot became something to do"... same here. Its very easy to let something entertaining and distracting take over your life.... its such an easy decision to make to spend "a little while right now" doing it... then later... and then again... tell next thing you know, its your whole life and you never intended that!
That said it was also a pretty cheap way to kill time when I was out of work. So it did serve its purpose there (a pot habbit actually isn't that expensive when you compare it against alot of things in terms of cost per day... even with the really good stuff... then again, being a single professional in my industry, I also tend to have alot of disposable income.. even when on the dole)
Is pot or coffee special? I don't think so. Ive done or seen it done with video games, religion, sex, food (ever gone to the fridge looking for food only to realise you arn't hungry at all, just bored?) etc.
As for addicts needing professional help... meh. I would like to think that we all posess the raw ability to rise ourselves out of situations, but thats not to say that you are wrong. I only disagree with need. A professional such as yourself can help guide a perso