Something that seems to be ignored in the used games debate

[AppleQueso]

Now, do I want trash on the side of the road, poisonous air, and filthy unsanitary water systems? No, of course not.

So what's the problem then?

Every cause has its share attention-seeking zealots, don't fret over it so much.

[J T]

Now, do I want trash on the side of the road, poisonous air, and filthy unsanitary water systems? No, of course not. But I think some take it to the next level and zealously campaign about it when I think a lot of it is fueled by personal gain and self serving motives.

I don't really understand your concern about self serving motives, unless that actually ends up biasing the scientific data, but science has more checks and balances against that particular problem than any other method of understanding the world around us. That is one of the main reasons I care about getting my information from scientists rather than politicians, news reporters, friends, family members, etc. Science makes a concerted effort to reduce bias. That's why I posted the NASA summary, it's both simple and founded in empirical studies.

But beyond that, I don't care if people make money off of "save the earth" projects, as long as those projects actually help save the earth. In fact, I think they should be compensated for that kind of work. I don't like people overinflating the claims made by science to sell goods, but as long as they are honest about what is happening and working towards improving the environment, I'm all for it.

[Jmustang1968]

Now, do I want trash on the side of the road, poisonous air, and filthy unsanitary water systems? No, of course not.

So what's the problem then?

Every cause has its share attention-seeking zealots, don't fret over it so much.

I guess mine is more of a minimalist approach. And like I said, I am not sold on human caused global warming. Global warming and trash on the side of the road aren't the necessarily same discussion. Some similarities sure.

This cause has more than its normal share of attention seeking zealots... but it int the attention seeking that bothers me as much. Its the, are these companies and politicians pushing for these environmental issues because they believe it and are backing some science or are they trying to raise the bottom line or get themselves elected or donations? Are the scientists giving biased reports to gain recognition and grant money off a naturally occuring coincidence? Is it all a bit of both? Possibly... I think it is still just unproven theory, but it affects our life like it is proven gospel

[YoshiEgg25]

I'm going to leave now.

[Cronozilla]

The way I see environmentalism:

I think people label environmentalism as a negative word, because there's that stereotypical hippie idiot image where they'll say the "natural" state of Earth with plants and shit is more important than people ... but in reality, that's not what environmentalists are arguing.

Environmentalism is about protecting OUR habitat. We are humans, we breath air ... not carbon dioxide. We like it at about 300 kelvin, not 350 or 400. Regardless if we're responsible for rising temperatures or not we STILL need to do something about it because we live here! If the Earth naturally wants to go back to a state where we, and all the modern life on the planet wouldn't survive ... it's our responsibility to ensure we stop that from happening ... or at least try.

Now, currently, there's very strong evidence that we are directly responsible for the modern changes in atmosphere and climate. And we can fix it. It's not even that hard. If someone makes the argument of fossil fuels are A-OK. they're actually making the argument of profit over human lives. Even if you can show that fossil fuels aren't causing climate change ... they're still responsible for an enormous amount of illness and death on our planet. From the pits they drill in other countries, to the countless workers who die on oil rigs, and the people who live next to coal refineries getting lung cancer from the uranium in the dust ... it's an all around harmful affair. AND, it's more expensive than out other alternatives, we currently have a much safer alternative in Nuclear power and the emerging fusion plants Both of which cost less, produce more energy, and have killed WAY less people. Not to mention energy production needs to INCREASE not stay where it is. This is just not possible on fossil fuels alone.

I will agree that solar and wind and even hydroelectric are not the end all solution (in fact solar would be pretty useless as a major power option, it would work best used on individual homes and devices to alleviate the power need on the grids)

And all evidence shows that eventually ... our planet will be destroyed from a million possible cosmological events ... why make it happen faster? At least if we allow it to happen naturally we could find another place to live ... but bickering for 150 years over oil is nonsense.

I really never understood the "oh every console sold will eventually end up in a landfill" argument ... that makes no sense, Who throws consoles away? They are a limitedly produced luxury that almost always hold value EVEN if they're broken.

It's not a microwave where model X, Y, and Z have no difference between them and is entirely utilitarian.

Computer parts, consumer electronics ... yes, these need to have those heavy restrictions on them ... but environmental arguments make no sense in regards to games because the video game culture tends to encourage hoarding and collecting

If people aren't throwing away 2600s, NES', and Jaguar's by now ... they're likely not going to.

Environmental arguments with games make no sense. Like those "eco-friendly" boxes with all the plastic missing that is a FINANCIAL benefit.

Anti-used game nonsense response:

And if game companies want to continue to sell games as a product, they need to get over the fact that people aren't going to pay them four times for a single copy. They keep saying, "Games are a service", but that's bullshit. If it was a service, there'd be continual support! Not PAID DLC. That is still a product model!

What's happening now is publishers are losing money because they're using archaic business practices on a new type of business, and it's not working. So, instead of ... I don't know ... changing their business model ... they're trying to hammer that square block into the very small circle hole. They not only want you to have LESS content and exercisable ability as a consumer ... they also want you to pay multiple times over for it; they do this with absolutely no support.

No, publishers. You can't do that. You have to choose a model that is fair, not one built on the idea of screwing over your consumer.

The core issue is the way they spend their money on making games (and gobbling up all the profit at the expense of their staff). It's pretty bad right now. They will generally pour massive amounts of money into marketing just to get it to sell initially and then abandon it if it doesn't break records (Aw what the hell, It only broke even! bullshit!). How stupid. And to note, those marketing campaigns, generally cost as much or more than it did to make the games!

[AppleQueso]

I'm going to leave now.

Right, because that's how scientists reach conclusions: just pulling a bunch of stuff out of their ass and making random uninformed guesses about things.

[YoshiEgg25]

I'm going to leave now.

Right, because that's how scientists reach conclusions: just pulling a bunch of stuff out of their ass and making random uninformed guesses about things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

OKAY NOW I'M LEAVING I HATE GETTING IN GLOBAL WARMING DEBATES FUCK FUCK FUCK

[Jmustang1968]

Right, because that's how scientists reach conclusions: just pulling a bunch of stuff out of their ass and making random uninformed guesses about things.

Ya that's what a theory is lol. They then try to back up those theories with experiments and suggestive evidence. The science is in interpreting and analyzing the data and trying to come up with the best conclusion. Many scientists disagree about the analysis of the same sets of data all the time. The data is clear, what it means always isn't. I am not a scientist, but an engineer, so I have some level of appreciation for what goes on heh.

I'm not really referring to that graph, but the pull it out of their asses comment, which is sometimes what they do.

[dsheinem]

The next episode of the podcast will now be about Global Warming

[AppleQueso]

Right, because that's how scientists reach conclusions: just pulling a bunch of stuff out of their ass and making random uninformed guesses about things.

Ya that's what a theory is lol. They then try to back up those theories with experiments and suggestive evidence. The science is in interpreting and analyzing the data and trying to come up with the best conclusion. Many a scientists disagree in the same sets of data all the time. The data is clear, what it means always isn't. I am not a scientist, but an engineer, so I have some level of appreciation for what goes on heh.

I'm not really referring to that graph, but the pull it out of their asses comment, which is sometimes what they do.

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis" here.