It still wouldn't be adequate though for the same reason that motion control ended up being just a fad. There's no sensory feedback; the feel of a button compressing under your finger is an often overlooked but indispensable part of playing a game. It instantly tells you that you performed an input correctly so you don't have to mash the touchscreen trying to figure out what the game wants from you.
Pretty much my perspective too. Smartphones not only require rather specific kinds of games, but the sea of awful games out there for them is as bad as the Atari 2600's library ended up being. (And, heck, arguably the Wii's as well.)
Nintendo's new YouTube partnership program would make for a much better story than this and would highlight their flaws more effectively.
If i'm reading you right you're assuming that because i don't believe in free-will i have to be a nihilist (or some flavor of that type of ideology), which i find illogical. Free-will might not be real, but pain a suffering most certainly are. Wanting to ease both for everyone is the logical course of action regardless of the math that both emerge from.
Well, no, that's not quite right. Like how you don't mean to be disrespectful, I don't mean to pigeonhole you or dictate what you absolutely must believe. It's actually very reassuring to see that you still believe in helping your fellow man, and as long as you're actually doing that, all this fanwank between us is ultimately irrelevant.
Still, your gracious attitude does seem to be at odds with your worldview. You technically can't take action or strive for anything or even want anything when free will doesn't exist. Whether you take steps to help people or not is beyond your control. You're talking about willfully using math and knowledge for problem-solving when you have no will to exercise. You're talking about using freedom of choice to make plans for a better world when such freedom doesn't actually exist. That's why your ideas are fundamentally absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it here.
To be fair though, there may be another reason why the terms are so difficult to work with in discussions like these. Even if math and the signals in our brains make the idea of free will questionable, that doesn't make the concept obsolete. Instead it moves free will to the area occupied by Newtonian physics. A good amount of scientists have gradually come to hate Newtonian physics because for some reason, the laws of physics change at the atomic level. Newtonian physics allowed us to erect buildings and lay infrastructure, but we needed the theory of relativity to get us to the moon. Something seems to be wrong with Newtonian physics somewhere, but we can't just ditch them because they're still valid and useful, to the point that mankind has based its entire society around them. Engineers rely on classical physics to create all the inventions and landmarks that make up our world, much like how we rely on free will to prosecute criminals and encourage people to not waste their lives. Society as we know it would collapse without these concepts.
If all that is true though... then you still need to learn that respect is a dynamic between two people, not something you can take from others.
I like the way you present your ideas, but I find them quite difficult to agree with. Unfortunately I'm not sure I can articulate the precise technicalities of why within the confines of a blog comment, but perhaps if we could have tea together and take things one piece at a time, we'd both emerge more enlightened for it.
For one, I fail to see how a worldview that absolves everyone of personal responsibility and the need to better themselves can possibly be good. For me, it brings to mind a scene from Red Dwarf 8 where Christine Kochansky is lying nude in bed, saying, "I'm not sure about this. This is the first time I've been seduced by predeterminism theory." You talk about giving kind words and helping hands to strangers, but you seem to advocate this in spite of your views, not because of them. There's a leap in logic there that's unaccounted for.
I do kinda respect you for being thorough, polite, and articulate, but I fear you use mathematics the same way a munchkin uses numbers and rules to cheat and metagame at a tabletop RPG session. Sometimes one's accumulated knowledge only serves to make one more ignorant, depending on how it is wielded.
Ah, so this is ultimately a study in religious beliefs. Or at least, that's what it sounds like, for all intents and purposes.
Saying there's no such thing as free will is a very hard thing to prove though. Boiling everything down to electrical and chemical impulses in the brain oversimplifies things to the point of misinformation. I don't think that view is supported by quantum mechanics, for one, and even in linear stories, characters exercise free will. A good author merely follows along behind his characters and records what they do while occasionally giving events around them a nudge to keep the plot moving.
See, the problem there is if that is all respect really is, then what good is it to anyone? You describe it as merely a blip on a radar or a flashing light, something that's a mere novelty at best, and that's a clear lie. It wouldn't be so widely sought after if its meaning was that shallow.
Respect is symbiotic state between two parties. The party exercising respect uses the other party as a role model to pattern his life after, and the party receiving respect gains support and clout it can use to overcome future hardships. The vampiric sapping of good feelings you describe plays no part in respect. In fact, it's really hard to respect someone with such a short-sighted, unwise, robotic viewpoint.
You encounter a similar problem with people who believe that love is an emotion. If that's true, then does that mean that when you get angry with your wife, you stop loving her? Of course not. Any marriage counselor in the world will tell you that's bull. Love is a choice to stick by someone even when they're driving you crazy, not a feeling.
Remember that the movie theaters were the ones to reject The Interview before Sony first decided to pull it from circulation. I wonder if, years from now, this film will be seen as one of the landmark moments in the long, drawn-out death of the traditional cinema.
See, the reason you always lose these arguments as soon as you start to type is because... OK, let's assume, for arguments' sake, that Mike really is dishonest. What's the alternative? Listening to you? Yeah, you sure sound real honest yourself the way you come marching in thumping your bible, all determined to convert the lost souls here to the way of truth and light.
I want to believe this. I want to believe that the police over there are honest and dependable, but if this is true, then why is it that everything the law and government have done during the case has seemed specifically designed to make the disaster worse?
At best, Ferguson seems a situation where neither side wants peace at all. If anyone over there still loves their fellow man, they should escape immediately.
I really think you need to try something other than such wooden responses, for one. Is it any wonder that people don't trust the government when its representatives act like robots bent on humanity's annihilation?
1.) One of the article's points is that the internet is many, many times bigger than Google. Everyone who actually knows how to use torrents has been avoiding Google for some time now.
2.) Everyone who doesn't know how to use torrents is suddenly ripe for being exploited by a bunch of malware sites, and the only way to combat said sites is with a futile game of whack-a-mole. I don't think you're going to see Torrent Freak engaging in the same ineffective strategy that the MPAA and RIAA keeping falling back on.