Slashdot Mirror

(Sadly) this isn't the Chinese government kissing American butt. They've got some "bad" publicity last week, so this poor sap is being made an example of.

Meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA continue to lie, cheat and steal with politicans at their bidding (that's the DMCA Congressman).

(Sadly) this isn't the Chinese government kissing American butt. They've got some "bad" publicity last week, so this poor sap is being made an example of.

Meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA continue to lie, cheat and steal with politicans at their bidding (that's the DMCA Congressman).

You are either Orson Scott Card, slumming on Slashdot in disguise, or your opinions precisely parallel his own on the subject: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-15-1 .html He has written several articles discussing ideas about better city designs. I generally agree with him on those.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1 .html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml

> the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property.

The problem is that IP laws have been so twisted by lobbyists and big business. They seek to profit by taking away our rights. We are supposed to have rights to fair use, fair pricing, and things entering the public domain in a reasonable period, and the artists receiving a fair deal.

But when Mickey Mouse was supposed to enter the public domain, Disney went to the politicans so firmly in their pocket and got them to change the way. Same for the public domain period which congress just keeps setting back and back and back. And the DMCA which was a rights grab and now I can't even watch a DVD I purchased in another country without breaking the law. Some anime series are overpriced: the maker puts 5 episodes on the first DVD, whittling it down to 2 episodes (on a $30 DVD) on the last. Yet this is legal. And while the MPAA and the RIAA hiss and spit about how they're only protecting the authors' rights, they use Hollywood Accounting to rob those very same artists blind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting And look a the tactics the RIAA shareholders have used to steal royalties off music artists. Recently when someone submitting a movie to the MPAA for ratings, the MPAA made and distributed copies against their wishes, and the court found the MPAA could do what it wants. Their hypocrisy is staggering. We have the absurdity of Adobe, who engineered an incompetant encryption scheme, using the DMCA to throw the guy who exposed them into jail. The DMCA means Macrovision is now by law built into every video device, with the result that my old color TV can't watch new videos. In Australia Channel 9 was fiddling with their digital feed to stop people from copying shows, with the results digital TV sets across the country kept locking up. http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/case-of-th e-csi-lg-tv-freeze-cracked/2007/03/21/117415312601 5.html
The pendulum has clearly swung too far.

Orson Scott Card (Author of "Ender's Game") wrote an excellent essay on this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html

With today's Internet in place, the RIAA and MPAA and their moneyed up masters would have never come into existence. They're a cartel living off an old business model, with duplicitous congressmen with bulging pockets changing the law at their beckoned call. If you want to know which congressmen have supported it and which ones have fought it, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

> the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property.

The problem is that IP laws have been so twisted by lobbyists and big business. They seek to profit by taking away our rights. We are supposed to have rights to fair use, fair pricing, and things entering the public domain in a reasonable period, and the artists receiving a fair deal.

But when Mickey Mouse was supposed to enter the public domain, Disney went to the politicans so firmly in their pocket and got them to change the way. Same for the public domain period which congress just keeps setting back and back and back. And the DMCA which was a rights grab and now I can't even watch a DVD I purchased in another country without breaking the law. Some anime series are overpriced: the maker puts 5 episodes on the first DVD, whittling it down to 2 episodes (on a $30 DVD) on the last. Yet this is legal. And while the MPAA and the RIAA hiss and spit about how they're only protecting the authors' rights, they use Hollywood Accounting to rob those very same artists blind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting And look a the tactics the RIAA shareholders have used to steal royalties off music artists. Recently when someone submitting a movie to the MPAA for ratings, the MPAA made and distributed copies against their wishes, and the court found the MPAA could do what it wants. Their hypocrisy is staggering. We have the absurdity of Adobe, who engineered an incompetant encryption scheme, using the DMCA to throw the guy who exposed them into jail. The DMCA means Macrovision is now by law built into every video device, with the result that my old color TV can't watch new videos. In Australia Channel 9 was fiddling with their digital feed to stop people from copying shows, with the results digital TV sets across the country kept locking up. http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/case-of-th e-csi-lg-tv-freeze-cracked/2007/03/21/117415312601 5.html
The pendulum has clearly swung too far.

Orson Scott Card (Author of "Ender's Game") wrote an excellent essay on this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html

With today's Internet in place, the RIAA and MPAA and their moneyed up masters would have never come into existence. They're a cartel living off an old business model, with duplicitous congressmen with bulging pockets changing the law at their beckoned call. If you want to know which congressmen have supported it and which ones have fought it, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

It is if you don't support the FAITHFUL. That's the problem with this debate. We've been told all of our lives that within a decade the oceans would drown all costal cities, and NY, Miami, DC, etc. would all be under 10 feed to water. Well, I'm now almost 30 and as far as I know, the worlds oceans haven't increased to any measurable extent. If you want a really good explanation for why this debate isn't getting anywhere, and how it got as big as it did considering the lack of consistend scientific evidence check out this article http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1 .html. At the end he gives links to the relavent books, and data. I think that considering the significant scientific leanings of the slashdot crowd, you would all appreciate the fact that for once you can actually get your hands on a data set.

Even if that isn't enough to convince you, take a look at this http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key =b_lomborg, it's a video of a talk at TED. A meeting of rich, influential, and often famous people with the intention of saving the world. One of the topics that is always huge at the meeting is global warming, or as it is now called "Climate Change" since the global temperature is actually fluctuating and has recently gone down. This won't provide evidence either way as to the validity of the belief in global warming, but it'll put the "problem" into perspective.

If you have not intentions of RTFAs just think about this point from the first link. The whole reason there is a global temperature much above that of absolute zero is the sun. The amount of radiation hitting the earth from the sun fluctuates on various cycles. What is a simpler, and more probable expalanation of changes in the global temperature. Increases in the amount of radiation stricking the earth, or human activity. Especially since the vast majority of the increase in global temperature since the 1800's occured during the middle ages, prior to industrial revolution and significant increases in "Greenhouse gasses" as a result of human activity.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record.

Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He's right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support.

Orson Scott Card (who is a Democrat) talks about the war in this post.

He has a strategic perspective that Slashdottters might not be familiar with.

Before we get worked up into a frenzy over the impending doom from global warming, let's consider the other side of the issue. . .

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-03-06-1 .html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

There IS a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does NOT necessary imply that God did it, but that some intelligence did it. A good article rebuking the points that so many people like you make is at: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1 .html I won't tell you who the author is because if you knew beforehand, you'd never read it. People like you argue that there is no difference because of your prejudiced attitude against religion, especially Christianity. You're just a typical, know-it-all British twit to me. By the way, we don't need or want your bitchslapping as the US courts seem to handling the controversy quite well and frankly, I think your precious country is going to Hell in a handbasket a lot quicker than mine is.

If only divorce was still illegal! For the kids! HA!

[rant] Sigh. "Think of the children" arguments are so tired. Mostly because they are more often than not red-herrings. State involvement in marriage isn't for the children (well not any more than taxes or wars are for the children, i.e., so far removed as to be meaningless). Should the government be involved in who you can date, love, procreate with, child-rear with, etc.? I wish Uncle Sam could stay out of my relationship and out of my bedroom. Ironically, most people agree. Somehow the freedom haters keep influencing law (inflammatory language used sarcastically).

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.

No, definitely not. Not as a generalisation. A kid is better off being raised by happy, low stressed people in a stable relationship. Biological relationship simply does not come in here. It's always been 'a wise child who knows who his father is' - infidelity is a fact of life in all communities and at all periods of history. Kids grow up just fine raised by cuckolds, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, adoptive and foster parents. Biological relationship really isn't critical. Stability is critical. It may even be possible that it's important for children to have access to adult role models of both genders, which, if true, would be an argument against gay people adopting kids. But biological parents? No.

He's a complete asshole, his politics are slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, when I read this article ( http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1 .html ) I binned the few books I had of his.
There's no room in the 21st century for animals like him, except maybe in the Shite House.

This is as close as he gets:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1 .html

Read his political page here.

because he's a fascist.

Card knows his stuff. Here is what he said about MP3s 2 years ago:

Sep 7, 2003 MP3s Are Not the Devil - Orson Scott Card

Let moderators not consider you to have anti-Mormon sentiment, Orson Scott Card is truly insane; he has declared positions exactly equivalent to the tenets of fascism in his personal philosophy, particularly he has advocated mass censorship of media by the state for any purpose considered worth while by the state without oversight. Reference: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1 .html If in the US this does not allow one to consider his opinions on any matter to be worthless (the same sentiment as declaration that he is bat shit insane), what might? He constantly references Ender's Game that is little more than an apologia for Hitler, see essay by Elaine Radford, at every opportunity for a reason; one which I suspect is related to his devotion of particularly fascistic views himself.

The past several "insights" of OSC has revealed him to be bit of a crackpot. Why would anyone give a damn about anything he has to say?

I haven't read the article and don't intend to (I stay clear of Card's writings)

Why is that? Because you ran across one of his articles on ornery.org and decided he was a Christian asshole?* Like most authors, some of his work is dreck and some is good. Card has produced some truly excellent fiction (the first two books in the Ender series and the Homecoming novels). He focuses on characterization, sometimes to the detriment of plot, but his best work is definitely worth reading. If you like science fiction, give him a shot.

*<flame-shield>I'm an athiest and don't always agree with his columns, but they're always well-written and provocative.</flame-shield>

Card is an excellent writer - his Ender character is immortal, and the writing is some of the best in the genre of his contemporaries. But outside of his own novels, who cares what he thinks about anything else? For example, he's an insane Christian homophobe. That doesn't affect his SF writing, but it does impugn his judgment about "society", even the place of the writing of others in society.

On the other hand, he has held his opposition in more secular contexts, too. Homophobia seems an inappropriate characterization, as he at least portrays the appearance of a rational arguement for his position, as opposed to unreasoning fear. It would seem fair, however, to characterize his position as discriminatory against practicing homosexuals.

I believe R.K. Milholland, who writes Something Positive, has been addressing that issue in some recent comic strips. I'd mod him insightful, but mod points don't seem to work off slashdot for some reason....

As far as Card's stated views, he makes a better case than most religious zealots as for why gay marriage is a bad idea from a sociological standpoint. He's at least willing to argue from a sociology standpoint, which while not as rock solid a science as physics, are at least an improvement over "Thuh Bible saiyz so."

Not that his argument is convincing. I think several of his assertions in the (typical) article I noted are made with insuficient justification (EG: "Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization") or just plain wrong ("Calling a homosexual contract 'marriage' [...] will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization"). I think he is right to be concerned about the continued impact of some earlier social changes from the early to mid-20th century. The changes that have weakened "the family" over the last 50 years, that have led to the symptomatic high divorce rates and working single parents, have in turn caused major problem on a lot of levels, and that the present situation has Major Problems. Unfortunately, he sees allowing gays to marry as yet another step towards doom, instead of potentially increasing the number and variety of stable model family units for children to imprint off of, in the event that they are in a disfuntional family.

He also doesn't get that by prohibiting gays from marrying, it artificially and unjustly creates a legal discrimination of heterosexual non-reporoductive partnerships versus homosexual non-reproductive partnerships. Of course, his reference to Plessy versus Fergesson when condemning judicial activism in his followup shows he's closer to a legal idiot than a legal scholar-- that case upheld the law as legislated all the way.

His worry for society is well placed, but his fears have the wrong target. Frankly, most of this attention deficit generation seems to lack the long-term focus and the ability to compromise that seems necessary for maintaining a stable partnership. The problem is further compounded by the last several decades' economic strains on the family; now, two working parents seems all but required. The present situation is dangerous, but trying to force the clock back will trigger disaster; though it has risks, further change offers hope.

As for his wrtiting, Card isn't worth buying in hardcover (except perhaps Ender's Game itself), but I've still picked up some of his more recent books in paperback after checking them out from the local library. As for the movie... I'll wait for the reviews.

Well I know why I'm not going to see this movie, because I im not in the habit of supporting rabid fundamentalists.

What exactly was rabid about the linked article. He used practically no religious justification to support his conclusions. It was primarily a socialogical arguement, with a hint of social darwinism. That is hardly what I would expect from a "rabid fundamentalist". While I don't agree with all of his beliefs, this article is hardly the example to hang your hat on if you are trying to show taint or negative bias.

Wow.

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1 .html

Well I know why I'm not going to see this movie, because I im not in the habit of supporting rabid fundamentalists.

I used to love Card, but since I found out that he's nuts, I can't read (or buy) his stuff anymore. Google yourself. This and this are good examples (both are his own words, not someone ranting about him). I really can't believe that people are still making that "at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified" argument at this point. He wrote those words in Jan 2005. He pretends to be a centrist dem but is a very far from it.

I used to love Card, but since I found out that he's nuts, I can't read (or buy) his stuff anymore. Google yourself. This and this are good examples (both are his own words, not someone ranting about him). I really can't believe that people are still making that "at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified" argument at this point. He wrote those words in Jan 2005. He pretends to be a centrist dem but is a very far from it.

A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web.

If the President of the ALA has such a low opinion of bloggers, perhaps his organization should stop giving so many major awards to them.

I think what he actually meant to say was something along the lines of:

"A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable -- except for ALA literary award winners such as Orson Scott Card or Neil Gaiman or Sherwood Smith or David Brin or Jane Yolen or Dianne Duane or, oh, bugger, you know, all those other ALA award-winning authors who also blog, not that I want to imply that ALA award-winning librarians who blog, like Kathleen de la Peña McCook, are bad either, and oh, yeah, I definitely don't want to seem to be criticizing PLABlog, the brand new blog of the Public Library Association, especially not when we put out a nifty little press release crowing about it, just last month, because that would look pretty stupid, now, wouldn't it -- er, um, what was I saying, again?"

I like reading most of the stuff Card has written. A LOT. He can make me laugh, and he can make me cry. He can make me feel angry, disgusted, or hopeless. He can make me want to go out and slug someone, or stand up and cheer.

That, in my opinion, is the mark of a good writer, and he's one of the best. He ought to be--he's been doing it a long time. And he doesn't just write. He goes to workshops with other excellent writers. He compares his work and theirs. He gives and accepts critiques. He teaches students. He tries new things and merges them with old techniques. He's always working to make his writing better. And he thinks long and hard about things before he publishes them. I don't find myself wondering about loose ends that he forgot to wrap up as much as with some authors.

I remember participating in several on-line polls about what was the best fiction book people had ever read. It was pretty consistent that about 7 out of 10 would choose Ender's Game. That was pretty impressive to me. Now that was about 5 years ago, and there have been some pretty good fiction books come out since then, but I expect it would still be pretty high in the rankings. I know I've bought 4 copies myself because I tend to lose them when I lend them to nieces and nephews who get old enough to enjoy it.

Anyway, before you diss ALL of his non-fiction writing, read this.

Some folks on here have suggested some of Orson Scott Card's fiction. I would also like to suggest some read his non-fiction. He is an outspoken critic of homosexuality and gay marriage. I read those works by Orson Scott Card and they were enough to convince me that I didn't want to read any of his fiction. Your mileage may vary, but it doesn't hurt to be an informed consumer.

Orson Scott Card?

You don't give him enough credit. Have you read Songmaster, with protagonists in homosexual relationships without hint of negativity? While he definitely opposes gay marriage, you can't write off his attitudes/opinions with a simple "dang homophobe." There's a lot more complexity to it than that.

In a review of Hugh Hewitt's recent book, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It, Card lays his take on the upcoming US Presidential Election, Kerry vs Bush.

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785263195/ hughhewittcom%22%3EIf%20It

Card's Review:
http://ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-08-29-1.htm l

Card labels himself as a Democrat, yet deciding Bush over Kerry in this one.

Non-relevant fact:
Orson Scott Card is also a Mormon .

Actually, in this essay, OSC refers to himself as a Democrat.

Yeah, I mean, as if we've had a good president or candidate for president in years... :-) Honestly. I personally consider Bush the lesser of two^H^H^H many evils. That certainly doesn't make him great and I disagree with a lot of the current "policy"; I just think most of the alternatives are worse.

Hurray for politics and a crappy two-party system!

Right, left, it doesn't matter. You have to actively participate in the political process and police whatever abuses either side thinks they can get away with.

For my part, I'm really digging Orson Scott Card's take on current political issues (at least, 95% of the time.)

Right. And living in cities in bad because we have made it bad. We plan them to be unliveable. Orson Scott Card wrote a pretty nice essay describing city planning sins:

Death by Government

Once again, we have a case where the court system is overstepping its bounds - without any precedent or constitutional reference, a court decides that a law is invalid. When our checks & balances are messed up, how do we fix them? Why are we allowing our courts to destroy the rule of law? To see some more examples of this happening, check out this article by Orson Scott Card. It is one of many, and brings up some good, and scary, points.

From his column on April 28 this year:

Within Iran itself, the people are coming to detest more and more the meaningless rigidities of religious rule. Being ruled by clerics is like being ruled by Microsoft -- somebody decides what's right for everybody and from then on no variation is permitted.

But -- again as with Microsoft -- while the people already trapped within the system are furious with the incompetence, blindness, and sheer meanness of their rulers, Iran's rulers are looking to expand their defective system into new territory.

Anyone else constantly impressed with this guy?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Anyone else constantly impressed with this guy?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Did this remind anyone else of the genius ghetto children in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Shadow?

I sent a note to the webmaster at one of his web sites asking for his comments. This struck me as a delighful case of life imitating art.

This is an incredible story about some of the amazing new military technology we've got.

We'll need it, too, if this guy is right. It's a well-written essay.