Comment Re:Haven't gamed in a while, but,,, (Score 1) 432
at least they can look at Lara Croft and see someone who looks like them.
Heh, because the typical chesty woman is also an athletically built gymnast.
at least they can look at Lara Croft and see someone who looks like them.
Heh, because the typical chesty woman is also an athletically built gymnast.
However, does that percentage hold for every sector of gaming? For example, are 50% of console gamers women? It might be that there are certain areas where the desires of female gamers are being met abundantly, but other areas where they are not.
I did, however, think this was funny:
"Women not only exhibit different gaming behaviors than men, but also express attitudes about gaming that are dissimilar to those of their male counterparts," said Courtney Johnson, analyst for Intrepret. "For instance, they are much more likely to prefer to play solo than men, and play games for less competitive and more narrative- and character-driven reasons. "
That's exactly the sort of game I like, and I don't feel that my needs aren't met. In fact, I don't have enough time to play the games I have!
It certainly does seem that what made Duke Nukem 3D Awesome is missing from DNF. They've taken Halo and added Tits and dick jokes.
Not even that. Halo is a good game, even a great one, arguably.
I agree with what you're getting at here, but it's a poor analogy.
Well, it has one flaw, certainly, which is that it's open to the objection that crime-fighting puts me at risk.
Tell me if you think this is a better analogy:
I have the power to spend a large portion of my free time volunteering and doing charity work. This entails little or no risk to myself and would have a large positive impact on other people. Do you feel that I have a responsibility to sacrifice my free time to such an endeavor?
In fact, my odds of preventing crimes by spending my free time actively being a crimefighter are greater than the difference I make on Sony's bottom line by not buying their products.
This is where you lose me. This is obviously untrue. People buying Sony products is Sony's bottom line.
Yes, but my decision to buy a Sony product or not is a drop in the ocean. It is a measurable but tiny effect. You could similarly try to measure my chance of doing good as a crimefighter and estimate the effect there. I suspect that, every now and again, I could make a real difference in a real person's life, which is a much greater impact than Sony not getting money from me.
To try and offer a counter-analogy: You are walking to the store, and you see a woman getting mugged at gunpoint. You are unarmed. You have no opportunity to stop the crime in progress, but the criminal runs right past you as he tries to make his escape. Three big guys are chasing him. Do you have a moral responsibility to trip the mugger? Or, to bring this back around, do you have a moral responsibility to affect the outcome of the situation in a miniscule but measurable way?
I do not think you have a moral responsibility to do so, no. You probably *should* do so. It is the right and proper course of action as surely as the right thing to do when on fire is to stop, drop, and roll, but if the gunman escapes, you are not responsible for his actions or his escape. You did not behave optimally, but it was also not fair to expect you to behave optimally.
Maybe it would be different if you were an on duty policeman and you let him go, but that's because you have volunteered to take on that responsibility.
I do not think that having power or influence necessarily confers responsibility
I cannot imagine you rationalize that.
I don't have to. The alternative leads to absurd conclusions.
I would say that if you are in a situation where you can stop a crime being committed by means of physical violence, and the crime being committed is "worse" (for some value of "worse") than the violence you would inflict, yes, that is your moral responsibility. Neither more nor less responsibility than you have to boycott a company for their misdeeds.
This one is debatable. So let's change the parameters of the situation so that it is less ambiguous. There is likely a crime being committed right now somewhere in a 10 mile radius of me (I do live in a big city). My ability to prevent this crime by leaving my apartment, looking for it, and then taking action to stop it is extremely small... but it is not zero. If power *alone* confers responsibility, then I have a moral responsibility to do exactly that.
In fact, my odds of preventing crimes by spending my free time actively being a crimefighter are greater than the difference I make on Sony's bottom line by not buying their products. By power-based reasoning, therefore, my responsibility to be a crime fighter is *greater* than my responsibility to avoid Sony products. Do you think I have a responsibility to be a crime fighter? If so, I think we're done here. If not, then you should also not think I have a responsibility to avoid buying Sony products.
That is, unless there is more to responsibility than power.
Of course they do. Otherwise this would get no press whatsoever.
Good point. Most people don't know that 77 million PSN accounts were hacked due to the lack of press attention that it received. Now if they had published that information on the web for anyone to see, maybe a story or two might have been written about it.
Snark aside, Sony has been in the news almost continuosly for the last two months for a series of hacks (not just the PSN one), and this is the first one I am aware of where personal details were publicly shared. It's not necessary. As another poster suggested, they don't care about the consumers. Look at their name. They're in it for "lulz"
You honestly think that pretending you didn't see your neighbour getting mugged is more acceptable than failing to boycott Sony?
You honestly think that's a reasonable interpretation of what I said? If I see a crime, I'll report it, sure. If I stumble upon a crime I think I have a fair chance of preventing, I'll give it a try. I was talking about my responsibility to go patrol the streets at night and seek out evildoers. My power to do that is nonzero. Maybe not much above zero, but it *is* above zero. So power based reasoning suggests my *responsibility* to do so is also nonzero.
Presumably if you wanted the message to be clear, you'd have to send a letter or email or sign a petition. But I don't think consumers have an obligation to send a clear message. It is the company's responsibility to interpret their desires from their natural activities, and it is the responsibility of regulating bodies to make sure that the companies don't cross the line (whatever or wherever that may be). The responsibility of consumers is in their votes for public office, I think.
Which still does not confer responsibility. Buying a Sony product should not be taken as an endorsement of everything they do any more than boycotting Sony should send the message that you hate Playstation 3 exclusives (you certainly won't be playing them). Sony is a big company with a lot of activities, and not all of them are objectionable.
If we're really going to fall back on the invisible hand, then the conclusion is not that consumers are responsible for evil, but rather that Sony does more good than evil. Or that people are more evil than good (which I don't believe). Because ultimately the invisible hand assumes that, in aggregate, people will make the right choice and bad behavior will be selected out. So either the theory is flawed and thus not a good basis for determining responsibility, or people are evil and I guess they did deserve to have their personal details shared.
If the point of the hack is just to embarass Sony, they don't need to post customer information on their website. That is potentially hurting real people who are not responsible for Sony's activities. And no, paying for a Sony product does not make you responsible for their activities, particularly when it's you, the customer, who generally gets screwed by such activities.
That's like exposing a wife beater by publishing the names and addresses of all his past wives.
Before the first operation, the professor held a symposium to discuss the procedure, to which senior surgeons and a theologian were invited.
A theologian? What?
To do nothing is to be nothing.
