It's quite obviously a 'large heavyset gentlemen found hanging upside down and looking in from outside your window, watching everything you do' emoticon. I mean really, it's not that obscure, nothing like the 'mime laying on a ground while inside an invisible box that is shown here for dramatic effect even though it is not visible in reality' or the 'turtles all the way down' emoticons, that's one everyone should know!
Today's Headline - New Hieroglyph Discovered in Egyptian Pyramid
And in recent new today a new Hieroglyph has been discovered with the Great Pyramid of Giza. The symbol appears to consist of two vertically adjacent circles and a single curve segment whose curvature is oriented such that the 2 circles appear to be near the center of the circle that would be formed were the curve's slope extended out. Our man on the scene has provided us with a crude sketch of this Hieroglyph, whose meaning is unknown but which is suspected to be related to one of the primary emotions humans have experienced since the dawn of time.
: ) Note how the segment appears to be a piece of a general circle center on the 2 dots. Why a segment of a circle was chosen, ^ Rather than the full circle itself, and why it is centered on the dots, is currently unknown Also Note how the two circles are placed one directly over the other. Most other Hieroglyphs have utilized slight angles, generally sloping inwards, so this discovery may help understand a great many things that are currently unknown about Egyptian society
This has been Faux News' Archeology Department. Stay tuned for the weather.
The GP doesn't imply that anything is wrong with buying off the internet, he implies that buying based on ads is something stupid that he wouldn't do. Personally I agree with him on that, I'm one of the people unaffected by advertisements and so no matter how good an company or product is I'm not going to buy it based on an ad. I've only gotten interested in probably 10 products thanks to ads and I've only bought 1 item that I can remember where I originally heard of it from an ad (a christmas gift for someones).
Now, I don't agree with the whole 'click on random ads for no reason' thing. I'm not sure but I doubt the GP agrees with it either (I get the impression he does it once in a Blue Moon). I do, however, agree with the whole 'Click on ads from big name companies on sites you enjoy but whose sole source of income is advertising with no intent of purchasing'. While I wouldn't click on an ad for your company, as it would neither be featured on any of my favorite sites (no offense of course, most of my favorite sites are webcomics and I've never heard of a webcomic whose subject matter is remotely related to beads) nor is it a big name, I have been known to click on Ford, GM, Sony (*shivers involuntarily*) and other big name companies ads, then immediately close the link, just so my favorite website gets a buck. Is that right? Who knows, it has a benefit (comic artist gets payed) and a penalty (big name company loses money). Whether the good outweights the bad, visa versa, or some other combination applies is up to someone else.
I only click on ads when I know that the penalty for the company will be tiny (a dollar or 10 out of GM's wallet isn't going to bankrupt them) and the advantage for the advertiser great (they get paid).
Actually many documentaries* on the subject of kryptonite have shown that it can have numerous effects on human beings. For instance Lex Luthor has suffered in the past from deadly exposure to this dangerous form of radiation. Jimmy Olsen has also suffered from the use of these WMDS**. I, for one, think we should be thinking of our children who will have to grow up in a kyptonite infested world thanks to these rocks raining down on us. We should declare war on Krypton now, before it is too late. The more times one of these kyptonite rocks is allowed to fall to our planet the more times people will be able to threaten Superman and poison civilians and future presidents.
*Comics **Weapons of Mass Destruction (that mainly affect) Superman
Who cares, it's good for a laugh. If he's really one of those 'Any publicity is good publicity people' then cracking jokes at his expense are really the best service we can do him and everyone else, by giving him publicity and making him out to be about as knowledgeable as Bozo the Clown.
As for the actual argument, I think we all know that Jacky was going to try and stop GTA IV's release already, no matter what cases are currently centered around him (wasn't there a case to stop him from preventing GTA IV's release?) This is nothing more than a silly excuse for him to continue his attacks on video games, now only is the lawyer not clearly Jack Thompson (he's a person who thinks video games are evil, and happens to be a lawyer...I can think of half a dozen people who fit that mold. It's only Jack Thompson if, A: The person looks exactly like Jacky and quotes him or something, or B: The person playing the game thinks the best RL example is Jacky.) but even if he was parody is legal so Jack wouldn't even have a case then.
No, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain some publicity (I'm sure at least some of the big papers will play up how the gamers are getting their revenge somehow or something like that) and give him an excuse to try and stop the game's release beyond his tired old 'videogames are evil' routine.
Anyone else find it amusing that Jack Thompson seems to think a lawyer who says 'Guns don't kill people, Videogames do' is him? Kinda gives a little insight into what he thinks about the matter now doesn't it...
Why in the world was this modded informative? Tasers are not designed to cause pain, they're designed to overload the body's nervous system in order to prevent any and all voluntary actions from being usable. The pain they cause is a secondary effect of the body not liking having extra electricity overload it's nervous system.
If Taser's really worked by only causing pain then you'd see a lot more cases of 'Subject TASER'd but continues fighting'. Enough adrenaline can override even large amounts of pain and if the gun really worked how you profess it does then all I'd have to do to avoid being affected would be to get hyped up on some drug that makes you either not feel pain or just ignore it completely (can't remember what it's called but one of my friends was on some doctor prescribed drug while his arm was in a cast that he described as 'Feeling the pain but not caring about it').
Let me make this utterly and completely clear. Tasers do not work that way. Tasers do not cause pain in order to cause the subject to stop, they cause pain as a side-effect of the process they use to make the subject stop.
Once more, with feeling, Tasers do not intentionally cause pain, they cause a nervous system overload that also happens to cause pain.
Cause - Nervous System Overload Effect - Target cannot control their voluntary muscle groups for a period of time or loses some control over their voluntary muscles Side-Effect - Brain interprets signals it receives as pain
Lucky you. My high school was similar, being a private school, but College has been nearly completely curve based. Now I will point out it's not the Bell Curve, which seems to be the main topic of discussion, that has only been used by 1 teacher (and it was modified so that the average was a B- and there were more above than below the center). Rather most of my classes have been straight-curved, as I call it, where the highest grade (in many cases the highest grade that's lower than 95%, as perfect grade students can kill a standard curve) is curved up to a 100% and the other grades have the same amount added. Another, equally common, variant is the single-item straight curves, where each test/assignment/project has a curve applied to it. That's one of my favorites actually as it means that a particularly difficult test doesn't kill your grade.
However I've also seen reverse curves (everyone curved down so the highest grade is less than a 95%), the aforementioned Bell Curve, and a numerical curve which was similar to the bell curve but rather than %'s of people getting each grade there was a minimum number of people required to receive each grade, and the grades were curved to ensure that with the remainder receiving the same curving and ending up in different areas (so, while there may only be 2 required F's, 10 people may end up with it).
It's exceedingly rare to find a pure point system where I go. Even the most point-oriented classes have some curving/test dropping. Many times it's helpful, sometimes it's slightly painful, rarely it can kill your good grade.
It's about 50/50 in my experience, at least in College (High School for me was private so I have no idea what public high school is like). Most professors use a hybrid system, curving it so that a certain number of students get an A, and the rest get what they do. Some (the ones I particularly dislike) use the Bell Curve system, where the majority get a C and only a few can get A's or F's. I even had one professor who curved down the entire class, such that my 98% (it was a programming class...I've probably done more programming in my free time then the professor had) became a 90%, and was the third highest grade in the class. I've also had the pure points teachers, but even they curve tests often. The number of completely pure (no curving) teachers I've had is extremely small. Perhaps that's the result of going to a huge college, but it isn't exactly uncommon.
And this has nothing to do with morality at all. The only, very minor link is that some kids play too many games to the detriment of their grades. Those people are a very small sector of the game players and don't account for anywhere near the number of kids who are failing and also happen to play games. Often as not those kids are failing because their learning methods don't mesh with the professor's teaching methods. I knew a kid who was barely hanging on and who didn't play any video games during the school year at all, he spent 90% of his time studying as was still having a hard time. Are you saying that his buying of a game to play during winter break to de-stress, or over the summer when he wasn't working, is immoral and that he should be stopped from doing it?
Grades should have no bearing on the rest of your life and Gamestop shouldn't have been doing this at all. If a kid who is failing because of their game playing is trying to get another game it should be that kid's parents stopping them, not some random game store whose only effect is going to be to cause the kid to go to a BestBuy to get the game. It's an ineffectual and dumb method of playing parents, which retail stores really shouldn't be doing at all (I'm against the M rating being buyable by adults only, as an adult, but I accept it as a necessary evil as I know many parents are simply too out of the loop to understand games enough to regulate what their kid is playing). If a kid is failing because of their gaming their parents should be the ones to step in, not Gamestop. All that 'Games for Grades' program was going to accomplish would have been raising the other nearby game store's sales numbers.
Or they could just have naturally elevated heart rates. My heart beat averages about 90 beats/min, with 100bpm not being uncommon even when I'm not stressed at all, 20 higher than the average. That's partially due to a lack of exercise and partially just how my body works. How will this machine determine what's elevated? If they say anything over average is elevated then I'm going to register as dangerous pretty much all the time. If they go with elevated meaning higher than the average range of 60-90 then I still have a pretty good chance of registering dangerous even when perfectly rested. If they go with over 110 or something they'll miss people who have naturally low heart-beats but are extremely stressed (one of my friends, an athlete, has measured their heart-beat while stressing as under 100bpm).
When the average deviation is 15bpm from average where do you draw the line for elevated and how do you determine if the cause is stress, recent exercise, naturally high heart-beats and actual dangerous/threatening thoughts?
(Hmm...my heart beat right now, having been on the computer nearly stationary for over half an hour, is 90bpm as measured with the 6-second method. Guess I must be thinking about attacking those cops monitoring me, what other explanation could there be for my elevated heart beat?)
Man...I thought I'd seen the full extent of the religious bashing on/. but modding this insightful? It has nothing to do with the article ('unholy' thoughts are unlikely the produce the same elevated heart rate as threatening thoughts, though neither should be all that effective honestly, an elevated heart rate has little to do with thoughts in my experience and more to do with what you're doing at the time) and it's pure troll bashing of a certain group. There is no reason this post should have been modded anything honestly, except maybe troll (though that would be a bit of a waste). Really people, get a life beyond bashing others...
As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's. This is really quite a dumb thing for them to do, I hope some kind of counter-claim is filed and the videos are put back up. There are some extreme Creationists out there who don't want to debate the topic and just want to shut up anyone who doesn't believe, I would hate for those people to become the stereotypical Creationist when they're really the minority (though having been on/. a which that stereotype is already in effect to an extent...ugh).
Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.
I'm more curious how they're going to get 95% accuracy on who the person is without a large number of samples of non-anonymous writings from them. It seems obvious that they're really claiming that, with a large number of writing samples from the writer, they can get 95% accuracy. If they're actually claiming to be able to determine who anonymous people are without any non-anonymous writing by them then that's a system I have to see...
Dead? Of course not, they'll simply blame illegal ringtone downloads for the lack of sales and use it to promote more cracking down on pirates. They long ago showed that their view of the world is that the only reason someone wouldn't give them money is because they're a thief who should be sued, don't expect that to change just because of one badly thought out idea.
I love how the argument is always made that 'If I can photograph it, they should be able to create a three dimensional replica for use in a for-profit video game that the church may or may not like'. The two aren't the same at all*. Now then, the law may or may not have supported Sony, that depends on a huge number of factors and, in the end, a single judge's decision. Either way the nice thing to do is ask for permission, Sony didn't do that.
Here's my POV. It is entirely possible to trademark a building's appearance, at least in the US, I don't know where the argument that that's not possible came from. Now then, in this case, the Church was probably not trademarked (unless the view is taken that any distinctive looking building is trademarked, which is a possible view). The inside of the Church, however, is private property. Unless I'm mistaken (having never played the game, I'm not a big horror person) Sony did model the inside of the Church. That is questionably legal without permission. In the US you're allowed to model (photograph, actually, but I'm extending it to modeling for this example) any non-trademarked buildings that can be seen from public property. Since the inside of the church can't be seen from public property...*cue drum roll*...that means that Sony was using private property in their for-profit game without permission. Whether or not that is legal, since the Church probably lets anyone in, is unknown but it's wrong to just say 'Yeah, that's legal' when it may or may not be.
If I'm wrong on anything please point it out to me. Personally I think Sony should be able to do what they did, they should have asked for permission but it should be legal. Whether or not it is legal is something I believe to be unknown.
"For those of us older than 2^5, such deviations from one's normal schedule can be pretty disruptive."
Wow...just wow...2^5? I'm left wondering if you intentionally planned that out, doing the math on purpose, or just naturally think of your age in multiples of 2...either one leaves me simultaneously frightened and wanting to learn more...
And yeah, it's unfair to ask someone used to getting up at a certain time to get up 3 hours earlier when there's no good reason (no matter the age). But calling it an undue hardship is kinda pushing it, I wouldn't exactly call having to get up early a hardship, though it is undue. More like unnecessary annoyance...hardship makes it sound like the patent agency is asking them to go without food for a month or something.
Yeah, just noticed the 2 to non-ionizing. The second was supposed to be microwave but I guess I copied it wrong. And what's wrong with using wikipedia as a starting point?
As for your first point, guess what...gamma rays are electromagnetic as well and a common output of radioactive events. Just because they're electromagnetic doesn't mean they're not radiation.
I agree that/. editors may be fooled occasionally. Trying to link this to playing games, however, ruins what credibility you have. How in the world can you say that playing Halo would make you more likely to be fooled by pseudo-science? I mean, where in Halo is there a grunt selling radiation absorbing compounds discovered by the Russians in the Arctic? Where in any game is that?
Honestly how can you even try to make a comparison like this and retain any shred of dignity? 'Group x plays games. Group x has, on occasion, been fooled by realistic looking articles on pseudo-science that also happen to fool pretty much everyone else who reads them, including the non-game playing media. Therefore it can be conclusively stated that playing games is what makes Group x unable to discern reality from fake articles.'
To the GP: I found a number of fallacies in your argument beyond it's absurdity, don't want to be arguing ad absurdom. For instance you use an Ad Hominem attack on gamers, trying to use it to generate sympathy and silence your opponents in an appeal to pity. You also proceed to Straw Man their arguments, turning the 'Games are a useful diversion' into 'Games help us avoid reality' which is something I've never heard any gamer claim. You fallaciously place the burden of proof on the/. editors in your last sentence, despite the fact that you're the one making the hard to accept claim, not them. Your entire argument is based on a Confused Cause and Effect, or, more accurately, an assumed cause and effect in which neither is conclusively shown to be a cause or effect of anything. You fallaciously use division, saying that since some/. editors are fooled by fake science, and that some play games, then they all must be confused and play games. Your argument also commits the fallacy of hasty generalization, as not every/. editor has been fooled and, from what I've seen, the sample of those who are fooled is quite small. You try to use Misleading vividness to make it seem like fake science tops/. all the time, when it's more of a rarity in actuality. You also try to poison the well by making the/. editors seem out of touch with reality, which backfires a little because the well you're poisoning happens to be one that I, and a large number of/. readers, draw from, the well of gaming.
The worst part, however, is that your entire argument (I keep saying that don't I?) is based on ignoring a common cause and assuming Post Hoc, that there is not possible connection between pseudo-science and games (like, perhaps, that both are entertaining to nerds?) beyond the one you present and that since gaming precedes the false science it must be the cause.
Honestly I could go on but I think that over a quarter of the list of 42 fallacies I found in a Google search is plenty to show that you're argument is, while not necessarily wrong, certainly baseless and fallacious and therefore should not be modded up, but rather ignored as it is clearly not a logical argument.
And it has to insult linux, call evolution a fake, and then be found out to all be the working of the RIAA, funded by Sony who is working for the CIA. Then you'd have a lot of angry/.er...or at least angrier than normal...
Why can't you believe that? The summary (and presumably the article, though I was far too lazy to actually read it) says that the boat is super efficient. Now to me, super efficient means better than 2 mpg. Even if 2 mpg is great for the boating world the article should be written for those outside that world (the majority) and so should say something like 'The catamaran, extremely efficient for a ship at sea, can go almost 5,000 mi on a single tank, or about 2 mpg.' Not saying the mpg and claiming to be super efficient means you're asking to be proven wrong if that mpg is less than expected, much like advertising super hi-speed internet that's only a little better than standard broadband leaves you open to ridicule.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite obviously a 'large heavyset gentlemen found hanging upside down and looking in from outside your window, watching everything you do' emoticon. I mean really, it's not that obscure, nothing like the 'mime laying on a ground while inside an invisible box that is shown here for dramatic effect even though it is not visible in reality' or the 'turtles all the way down' emoticons, that's one everyone should know!
Today's Headline - New Hieroglyph Discovered in Egyptian Pyramid
And in recent new today a new Hieroglyph has been discovered with the Great Pyramid of Giza. The symbol appears to consist of two vertically adjacent circles and a single curve segment whose curvature is oriented such that the 2 circles appear to be near the center of the circle that would be formed were the curve's slope extended out. Our man on the scene has provided us with a crude sketch of this Hieroglyph, whose meaning is unknown but which is suspected to be related to one of the primary emotions humans have experienced since the dawn of time.
: ) Note how the segment appears to be a piece of a general circle center on the 2 dots. Why a segment of a circle was chosen,
^ Rather than the full circle itself, and why it is centered on the dots, is currently unknown
Also Note how the two circles are placed one directly over the other. Most other Hieroglyphs have utilized slight angles, generally sloping inwards, so this discovery may help understand a great many things that are currently unknown about Egyptian society
This has been Faux News' Archeology Department. Stay tuned for the weather.
The GP doesn't imply that anything is wrong with buying off the internet, he implies that buying based on ads is something stupid that he wouldn't do. Personally I agree with him on that, I'm one of the people unaffected by advertisements and so no matter how good an company or product is I'm not going to buy it based on an ad. I've only gotten interested in probably 10 products thanks to ads and I've only bought 1 item that I can remember where I originally heard of it from an ad (a christmas gift for someones).
Now, I don't agree with the whole 'click on random ads for no reason' thing. I'm not sure but I doubt the GP agrees with it either (I get the impression he does it once in a Blue Moon). I do, however, agree with the whole 'Click on ads from big name companies on sites you enjoy but whose sole source of income is advertising with no intent of purchasing'. While I wouldn't click on an ad for your company, as it would neither be featured on any of my favorite sites (no offense of course, most of my favorite sites are webcomics and I've never heard of a webcomic whose subject matter is remotely related to beads) nor is it a big name, I have been known to click on Ford, GM, Sony (*shivers involuntarily*) and other big name companies ads, then immediately close the link, just so my favorite website gets a buck. Is that right? Who knows, it has a benefit (comic artist gets payed) and a penalty (big name company loses money). Whether the good outweights the bad, visa versa, or some other combination applies is up to someone else.
I only click on ads when I know that the penalty for the company will be tiny (a dollar or 10 out of GM's wallet isn't going to bankrupt them) and the advantage for the advertiser great (they get paid).
Actually many documentaries* on the subject of kryptonite have shown that it can have numerous effects on human beings. For instance Lex Luthor has suffered in the past from deadly exposure to this dangerous form of radiation. Jimmy Olsen has also suffered from the use of these WMDS**. I, for one, think we should be thinking of our children who will have to grow up in a kyptonite infested world thanks to these rocks raining down on us. We should declare war on Krypton now, before it is too late. The more times one of these kyptonite rocks is allowed to fall to our planet the more times people will be able to threaten Superman and poison civilians and future presidents.
*Comics
**Weapons of Mass Destruction (that mainly affect) Superman
Who cares, it's good for a laugh. If he's really one of those 'Any publicity is good publicity people' then cracking jokes at his expense are really the best service we can do him and everyone else, by giving him publicity and making him out to be about as knowledgeable as Bozo the Clown.
As for the actual argument, I think we all know that Jacky was going to try and stop GTA IV's release already, no matter what cases are currently centered around him (wasn't there a case to stop him from preventing GTA IV's release?) This is nothing more than a silly excuse for him to continue his attacks on video games, now only is the lawyer not clearly Jack Thompson (he's a person who thinks video games are evil, and happens to be a lawyer...I can think of half a dozen people who fit that mold. It's only Jack Thompson if, A: The person looks exactly like Jacky and quotes him or something, or B: The person playing the game thinks the best RL example is Jacky.) but even if he was parody is legal so Jack wouldn't even have a case then.
No, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain some publicity (I'm sure at least some of the big papers will play up how the gamers are getting their revenge somehow or something like that) and give him an excuse to try and stop the game's release beyond his tired old 'videogames are evil' routine.
Anyone else find it amusing that Jack Thompson seems to think a lawyer who says 'Guns don't kill people, Videogames do' is him? Kinda gives a little insight into what he thinks about the matter now doesn't it...
Why in the world was this modded informative? Tasers are not designed to cause pain, they're designed to overload the body's nervous system in order to prevent any and all voluntary actions from being usable. The pain they cause is a secondary effect of the body not liking having extra electricity overload it's nervous system.
If Taser's really worked by only causing pain then you'd see a lot more cases of 'Subject TASER'd but continues fighting'. Enough adrenaline can override even large amounts of pain and if the gun really worked how you profess it does then all I'd have to do to avoid being affected would be to get hyped up on some drug that makes you either not feel pain or just ignore it completely (can't remember what it's called but one of my friends was on some doctor prescribed drug while his arm was in a cast that he described as 'Feeling the pain but not caring about it').
Let me make this utterly and completely clear. Tasers do not work that way. Tasers do not cause pain in order to cause the subject to stop, they cause pain as a side-effect of the process they use to make the subject stop.
Once more, with feeling, Tasers do not intentionally cause pain, they cause a nervous system overload that also happens to cause pain.
Cause - Nervous System Overload
Effect - Target cannot control their voluntary muscle groups for a period of time or loses some control over their voluntary muscles
Side-Effect - Brain interprets signals it receives as pain
Lucky you. My high school was similar, being a private school, but College has been nearly completely curve based. Now I will point out it's not the Bell Curve, which seems to be the main topic of discussion, that has only been used by 1 teacher (and it was modified so that the average was a B- and there were more above than below the center). Rather most of my classes have been straight-curved, as I call it, where the highest grade (in many cases the highest grade that's lower than 95%, as perfect grade students can kill a standard curve) is curved up to a 100% and the other grades have the same amount added. Another, equally common, variant is the single-item straight curves, where each test/assignment/project has a curve applied to it. That's one of my favorites actually as it means that a particularly difficult test doesn't kill your grade.
However I've also seen reverse curves (everyone curved down so the highest grade is less than a 95%), the aforementioned Bell Curve, and a numerical curve which was similar to the bell curve but rather than %'s of people getting each grade there was a minimum number of people required to receive each grade, and the grades were curved to ensure that with the remainder receiving the same curving and ending up in different areas (so, while there may only be 2 required F's, 10 people may end up with it).
It's exceedingly rare to find a pure point system where I go. Even the most point-oriented classes have some curving/test dropping. Many times it's helpful, sometimes it's slightly painful, rarely it can kill your good grade.
It's about 50/50 in my experience, at least in College (High School for me was private so I have no idea what public high school is like). Most professors use a hybrid system, curving it so that a certain number of students get an A, and the rest get what they do. Some (the ones I particularly dislike) use the Bell Curve system, where the majority get a C and only a few can get A's or F's. I even had one professor who curved down the entire class, such that my 98% (it was a programming class...I've probably done more programming in my free time then the professor had) became a 90%, and was the third highest grade in the class. I've also had the pure points teachers, but even they curve tests often. The number of completely pure (no curving) teachers I've had is extremely small. Perhaps that's the result of going to a huge college, but it isn't exactly uncommon.
And this has nothing to do with morality at all. The only, very minor link is that some kids play too many games to the detriment of their grades. Those people are a very small sector of the game players and don't account for anywhere near the number of kids who are failing and also happen to play games. Often as not those kids are failing because their learning methods don't mesh with the professor's teaching methods. I knew a kid who was barely hanging on and who didn't play any video games during the school year at all, he spent 90% of his time studying as was still having a hard time. Are you saying that his buying of a game to play during winter break to de-stress, or over the summer when he wasn't working, is immoral and that he should be stopped from doing it?
Grades should have no bearing on the rest of your life and Gamestop shouldn't have been doing this at all. If a kid who is failing because of their game playing is trying to get another game it should be that kid's parents stopping them, not some random game store whose only effect is going to be to cause the kid to go to a BestBuy to get the game. It's an ineffectual and dumb method of playing parents, which retail stores really shouldn't be doing at all (I'm against the M rating being buyable by adults only, as an adult, but I accept it as a necessary evil as I know many parents are simply too out of the loop to understand games enough to regulate what their kid is playing). If a kid is failing because of their gaming their parents should be the ones to step in, not Gamestop. All that 'Games for Grades' program was going to accomplish would have been raising the other nearby game store's sales numbers.
Or they could just have naturally elevated heart rates. My heart beat averages about 90 beats/min, with 100bpm not being uncommon even when I'm not stressed at all, 20 higher than the average. That's partially due to a lack of exercise and partially just how my body works. How will this machine determine what's elevated? If they say anything over average is elevated then I'm going to register as dangerous pretty much all the time. If they go with elevated meaning higher than the average range of 60-90 then I still have a pretty good chance of registering dangerous even when perfectly rested. If they go with over 110 or something they'll miss people who have naturally low heart-beats but are extremely stressed (one of my friends, an athlete, has measured their heart-beat while stressing as under 100bpm).
When the average deviation is 15bpm from average where do you draw the line for elevated and how do you determine if the cause is stress, recent exercise, naturally high heart-beats and actual dangerous/threatening thoughts?
(Hmm...my heart beat right now, having been on the computer nearly stationary for over half an hour, is 90bpm as measured with the 6-second method. Guess I must be thinking about attacking those cops monitoring me, what other explanation could there be for my elevated heart beat?)
Man...I thought I'd seen the full extent of the religious bashing on /. but modding this insightful? It has nothing to do with the article ('unholy' thoughts are unlikely the produce the same elevated heart rate as threatening thoughts, though neither should be all that effective honestly, an elevated heart rate has little to do with thoughts in my experience and more to do with what you're doing at the time) and it's pure troll bashing of a certain group. There is no reason this post should have been modded anything honestly, except maybe troll (though that would be a bit of a waste). Really people, get a life beyond bashing others...
As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's. This is really quite a dumb thing for them to do, I hope some kind of counter-claim is filed and the videos are put back up. There are some extreme Creationists out there who don't want to debate the topic and just want to shut up anyone who doesn't believe, I would hate for those people to become the stereotypical Creationist when they're really the minority (though having been on /. a which that stereotype is already in effect to an extent...ugh).
Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.
"I think this would be a very appropriate case of the old saying about lemons and lemonade."
Yeah, "When life gives you lemons, find someone who has vodka and throw a party."...wait, that doesn't sound quite right...
I believe you're looking for sayings involving Pots, Kettles, and a the color #000000.
Read the comment titles? You must be new here...
I'm more curious how they're going to get 95% accuracy on who the person is without a large number of samples of non-anonymous writings from them. It seems obvious that they're really claiming that, with a large number of writing samples from the writer, they can get 95% accuracy. If they're actually claiming to be able to determine who anonymous people are without any non-anonymous writing by them then that's a system I have to see...
Dead? Of course not, they'll simply blame illegal ringtone downloads for the lack of sales and use it to promote more cracking down on pirates. They long ago showed that their view of the world is that the only reason someone wouldn't give them money is because they're a thief who should be sued, don't expect that to change just because of one badly thought out idea.
I love how the argument is always made that 'If I can photograph it, they should be able to create a three dimensional replica for use in a for-profit video game that the church may or may not like'. The two aren't the same at all*. Now then, the law may or may not have supported Sony, that depends on a huge number of factors and, in the end, a single judge's decision. Either way the nice thing to do is ask for permission, Sony didn't do that.
Here's my POV. It is entirely possible to trademark a building's appearance, at least in the US, I don't know where the argument that that's not possible came from. Now then, in this case, the Church was probably not trademarked (unless the view is taken that any distinctive looking building is trademarked, which is a possible view). The inside of the Church, however, is private property. Unless I'm mistaken (having never played the game, I'm not a big horror person) Sony did model the inside of the Church. That is questionably legal without permission. In the US you're allowed to model (photograph, actually, but I'm extending it to modeling for this example) any non-trademarked buildings that can be seen from public property. Since the inside of the church can't be seen from public property...*cue drum roll*...that means that Sony was using private property in their for-profit game without permission. Whether or not that is legal, since the Church probably lets anyone in, is unknown but it's wrong to just say 'Yeah, that's legal' when it may or may not be.
If I'm wrong on anything please point it out to me. Personally I think Sony should be able to do what they did, they should have asked for permission but it should be legal. Whether or not it is legal is something I believe to be unknown.
Yeah, cause it's not like being a geek has little to do with appearance. Whatever happened to the recognition that stereotypes are usually wrong?
"For those of us older than 2^5, such deviations from one's normal schedule can be pretty disruptive."
Wow...just wow...2^5? I'm left wondering if you intentionally planned that out, doing the math on purpose, or just naturally think of your age in multiples of 2...either one leaves me simultaneously frightened and wanting to learn more...
And yeah, it's unfair to ask someone used to getting up at a certain time to get up 3 hours earlier when there's no good reason (no matter the age). But calling it an undue hardship is kinda pushing it, I wouldn't exactly call having to get up early a hardship, though it is undue. More like unnecessary annoyance...hardship makes it sound like the patent agency is asking them to go without food for a month or something.
Yeah, just noticed the 2 to non-ionizing. The second was supposed to be microwave but I guess I copied it wrong. And what's wrong with using wikipedia as a starting point?
As for your first point, guess what...gamma rays are electromagnetic as well and a common output of radioactive events. Just because they're electromagnetic doesn't mean they're not radiation.
Mod parent up.
/. editors may be fooled occasionally. Trying to link this to playing games, however, ruins what credibility you have. How in the world can you say that playing Halo would make you more likely to be fooled by pseudo-science? I mean, where in Halo is there a grunt selling radiation absorbing compounds discovered by the Russians in the Arctic? Where in any game is that?
/. editors in your last sentence, despite the fact that you're the one making the hard to accept claim, not them. Your entire argument is based on a Confused Cause and Effect, or, more accurately, an assumed cause and effect in which neither is conclusively shown to be a cause or effect of anything. You fallaciously use division, saying that since some /. editors are fooled by fake science, and that some play games, then they all must be confused and play games. Your argument also commits the fallacy of hasty generalization, as not every /. editor has been fooled and, from what I've seen, the sample of those who are fooled is quite small. You try to use Misleading vividness to make it seem like fake science tops /. all the time, when it's more of a rarity in actuality. You also try to poison the well by making the /. editors seem out of touch with reality, which backfires a little because the well you're poisoning happens to be one that I, and a large number of /. readers, draw from, the well of gaming.
I agree that
Honestly how can you even try to make a comparison like this and retain any shred of dignity? 'Group x plays games. Group x has, on occasion, been fooled by realistic looking articles on pseudo-science that also happen to fool pretty much everyone else who reads them, including the non-game playing media. Therefore it can be conclusively stated that playing games is what makes Group x unable to discern reality from fake articles.'
To the GP: I found a number of fallacies in your argument beyond it's absurdity, don't want to be arguing ad absurdom. For instance you use an Ad Hominem attack on gamers, trying to use it to generate sympathy and silence your opponents in an appeal to pity. You also proceed to Straw Man their arguments, turning the 'Games are a useful diversion' into 'Games help us avoid reality' which is something I've never heard any gamer claim. You fallaciously place the burden of proof on the
The worst part, however, is that your entire argument (I keep saying that don't I?) is based on ignoring a common cause and assuming Post Hoc, that there is not possible connection between pseudo-science and games (like, perhaps, that both are entertaining to nerds?) beyond the one you present and that since gaming precedes the false science it must be the cause.
Honestly I could go on but I think that over a quarter of the list of 42 fallacies I found in a Google search is plenty to show that you're argument is, while not necessarily wrong, certainly baseless and fallacious and therefore should not be modded up, but rather ignored as it is clearly not a logical argument.
Wow...that makes perfect sense. Cause there can't be any types of radiation that won't kill you instantly. That would be absurd!
I sincerely hope you were kidding...
I wonder how many /.ers, who are against Guantanamo on average, would feel about that. I'm sure there would be some mixed feelings.
And it has to insult linux, call evolution a fake, and then be found out to all be the working of the RIAA, funded by Sony who is working for the CIA. Then you'd have a lot of angry /.er...or at least angrier than normal...
Why can't you believe that? The summary (and presumably the article, though I was far too lazy to actually read it) says that the boat is super efficient. Now to me, super efficient means better than 2 mpg. Even if 2 mpg is great for the boating world the article should be written for those outside that world (the majority) and so should say something like 'The catamaran, extremely efficient for a ship at sea, can go almost 5,000 mi on a single tank, or about 2 mpg.' Not saying the mpg and claiming to be super efficient means you're asking to be proven wrong if that mpg is less than expected, much like advertising super hi-speed internet that's only a little better than standard broadband leaves you open to ridicule.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best way to reply to a pedantic post...by being more pedantic.