Slashdot Mirror

If you want to read a really stallar critique of Lucas and the Star Wars movies, check out this Salon article by David Brin. It was written after SW:TPM came out, and I think it does a great job of tearing Lucas apart >:) IMO, Lucas is basically a hack with a really high budget.

I find it immensely interesting that an advertisement on the same page as the story is suggesting to us that "It's time to rejoin the fight. It's time to take on the right wing!"

Um, I thought that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C. was on the left wing, being a democrat and everything.

[sarcasm]Does that then mean that we should support President Bush because he is a tree-hugging liberal?[/sarcasm]

AIM is full of security holes. Another one was discovered this weekend. Here's some screenshots and another article.

After all, everyone knows that Java is the preferred language for child rapists

In fact, Patrick Naughton who told me that he was an inventor of Java, used the language to hunt down little girls on the internet.

As part of a plea, he used Java to trap his former friends in an FBI sting.

Any computer expert could look at the Java language and see its child-molestor roots. That's why I don't use Java, and I prohibit anyone on my staff from using it.

One more thing: If you like Java, you too must be a pedophile.

Now, I don't want to sound like a troll here, but why are so many fans so dedicated to the Star Wars phenonema?

Speaking about the Star Wars phenomenon, David Brin's "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists: Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun? is worth reading. Let me quote few paragraphs:

Well, I boycotted "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" -- for an entire week.

Why? What's to boycott? Isn't "Star Wars" good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.

Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four "Star Wars" flicks.)

Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?

One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.

By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.

Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?

• Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
• "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
• Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
• True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
• Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars." Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like "Star Trek." (We'll take a much closer look at some stark divergences between these two sci-fi universes below.)

Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Übermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.

Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest "Star Wars" film at all?

(read the rest)

Great read, in my opinion. I'd like to hear some comments from people here.

Now, I don't want to sound like a troll here, but why are so many fans so dedicated to the Star Wars phenonema?

Speaking about the Star Wars phenomenon, David Brin's "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists: Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun? is worth reading. Let me quote few paragraphs:

Well, I boycotted "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" -- for an entire week.

Why? What's to boycott? Isn't "Star Wars" good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.

Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four "Star Wars" flicks.)

Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?

One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.

By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.

Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?

• Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
• "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
• Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
• True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
• Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars." Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like "Star Trek." (We'll take a much closer look at some stark divergences between these two sci-fi universes below.)

Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Übermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.

Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest "Star Wars" film at all?

(read the rest)

Great read, in my opinion. I'd like to hear some comments from people here.

...but I agree with the sentiment. This article on Salon says things better than I could, and this one covers the values put forward in Star Wars pretty well.

...but I agree with the sentiment. This article on Salon says things better than I could, and this one covers the values put forward in Star Wars pretty well.

Does AI: Artificial Intelligence count? :)

For a company whose stated ambition was to make video games have the experiences of movies like 'Run Lola Run' and 'The Blair Witch Project', this sounds like a dodge back to the mainstream -- but then the similarity between XBox and PC means that there will be a cultural similarity to the games, with many appearing on one followed by the other (see a cite for that quote here -- I can't find the original article on Gamespot) (this sounds more like the MTV of video games to me, but hardly overly mainstream fare -- even if only because TBWP was so badly shot it was unwatchable).

Besides, look at the costs of production of the most recent Spielberg, Altman and Kubrick films. Could it be that Microsoft would prefer to make more games more cheaply and win a better reputation among hardcore gamers -- something that could be just as important in the long term to the overall success of the platform as initial big-game hype? They can afford to hire all three anyway :)

Fan fiction is probably one of the most interesting and creative parts of any franchise. I'm sure I'm not the only writer who started my career with a novel set in an existing universe (Star Trek in my case).

Having created a fairly complex science fiction series of my own called Raváj, I know that in one sense I wouldn't be terribly keen on having other people take it and write their own stories about it. It's a case of feeling that I'm the only one who really understands the universe enough, and knows the characters well enough to write about it. I wouldn't want people to do something with Raváj that I feel "isn't right". And, to a small extent, yes it feels a little threatening.

But, on the other hand, I would strongly encourage anyone who liked Raváj to create fan-fiction based on it if they felt inclined. Writers will often create their own characters (as I did in my Star Trek novella) rather than using existing ones, because it just feels better. And if they decide to use the existing characters out of convenience, or because they want to start off slow, they're unlikely to do anything too terrible (although of course you'll always get the "romantics" who commit complete character-rape for the sake of silly, impossible relationships). And so what if they do? I don't have to like the fan-fiction that's written for it to be liked by others.

The natural feeling of possessiveness, at least in my case, is strongly overruled by the interest in what other people would do with Raváj, and my belief in freedom of speech (actually Raváj is copyleft for this reason). Often you gain some insight into your own creation by seeing how other people view it. And besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Now, this is just my own smug, arrogant opinion, but I don't consider people to be artists if they try to restrict how people use their work. I don't think Lucas is a good writer, let alone one worth the money he has. I don't like the values he portrays in his movies, and I don't like his pomposity, or his opportunistic manipulation of the facts surrounding the initial creation of Star Wars .

I think he's an untalented writer who got a lucky break. Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing at all against untalented writers, as long as they enjoy what they write and they're earnest about it. Everyone has a right to do what they enjoy, even if most people think it's crap (and obviously most people don't think Star Wars is crap; indeed, I quite enjoy it for its entertainment value). I just have issues when such people won't let others do the same thing. Once ideas ("intellectual property" if you will) are put on paper, on a screen or whatever, they become part of the thought processes of everyone who is exposed to them. They become something larger than the sum of their parts, and it's ridiculous to try to censor how people wish to develop them just because you were the initial creator. Certainly the creator should be able to get some reward for their own effort, be it money or simple recognition, but I don't believe that any book someone writes set in Raváj is mine, just as I don't believe that anyone who creates their own chair after seeing a chair I created should pay me for it.

Of course, prickly questions get raised by trademarks, but since this is a competition, I don't think that's applicable. Lucas is a greedy bastard with little respect for the values of a true artist--at least, where a "true artist" is someone who cares about art. I don't know if that's how an artist is defined any more. Seems like money has become the focus everywhere.

Fan fiction is probably one of the most interesting and creative parts of any franchise. I'm sure I'm not the only writer who started my career with a novel set in an existing universe (Star Trek in my case).

Having created a fairly complex science fiction series of my own called Raváj, I know that in one sense I wouldn't be terribly keen on having other people take it and write their own stories about it. It's a case of feeling that I'm the only one who really understands the universe enough, and knows the characters well enough to write about it. I wouldn't want people to do something with Raváj that I feel "isn't right". And, to a small extent, yes it feels a little threatening.

But, on the other hand, I would strongly encourage anyone who liked Raváj to create fan-fiction based on it if they felt inclined. Writers will often create their own characters (as I did in my Star Trek novella) rather than using existing ones, because it just feels better. And if they decide to use the existing characters out of convenience, or because they want to start off slow, they're unlikely to do anything too terrible (although of course you'll always get the "romantics" who commit complete character-rape for the sake of silly, impossible relationships). And so what if they do? I don't have to like the fan-fiction that's written for it to be liked by others.

The natural feeling of possessiveness, at least in my case, is strongly overruled by the interest in what other people would do with Raváj, and my belief in freedom of speech (actually Raváj is copyleft for this reason). Often you gain some insight into your own creation by seeing how other people view it. And besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Now, this is just my own smug, arrogant opinion, but I don't consider people to be artists if they try to restrict how people use their work. I don't think Lucas is a good writer, let alone one worth the money he has. I don't like the values he portrays in his movies, and I don't like his pomposity, or his opportunistic manipulation of the facts surrounding the initial creation of Star Wars .

I think he's an untalented writer who got a lucky break. Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing at all against untalented writers, as long as they enjoy what they write and they're earnest about it. Everyone has a right to do what they enjoy, even if most people think it's crap (and obviously most people don't think Star Wars is crap; indeed, I quite enjoy it for its entertainment value). I just have issues when such people won't let others do the same thing. Once ideas ("intellectual property" if you will) are put on paper, on a screen or whatever, they become part of the thought processes of everyone who is exposed to them. They become something larger than the sum of their parts, and it's ridiculous to try to censor how people wish to develop them just because you were the initial creator. Certainly the creator should be able to get some reward for their own effort, be it money or simple recognition, but I don't believe that any book someone writes set in Raváj is mine, just as I don't believe that anyone who creates their own chair after seeing a chair I created should pay me for it.

Of course, prickly questions get raised by trademarks, but since this is a competition, I don't think that's applicable. Lucas is a greedy bastard with little respect for the values of a true artist--at least, where a "true artist" is someone who cares about art. I don't know if that's how an artist is defined any more. Seems like money has become the focus everywhere.

'if in fact somebody is using our characters to create a story unto itself, that's not in the spirit of what we think fandom is about. Fandom is about celebrating the story the way it is.'

Check out Lucas' opinion of critics in this Salon piece

An excerpt: "I mean, they aren't like the rest of us. They don't have any knowledge of anything. They're not successful in any world that I've ... They certainly don't know anything about history; they don't know anything about film. They don't know anything about politics. They don't know anything about sociology or psychology or anything. I mean, it's like, you get into a conversation with them and it's hard to find a subject that they can actually converse on."

What can I add? Not exaclty Mr. Open-Mind. I don't like the idea of him as a judge.

Zathrus writes:
Kurzweil repeatedly refers to "The Singularity", which is (as he defines it), "a merger between human intelligence and machine intelligence that is going to create something bigger than itself." For reference, this is very similar to something that Vernor Vinge [amazon.com] has espoused in several novels, chiefly Marooned in Realtime [amazon.com]. Basically that technological progress is logarithmic in scale, not linear.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the "Singularity" is just Rapture For Nerds . That's Ken McLeod's phrase, not mine.

Blind faith in the "Singularity" is nothing more or less than an epiphenomena of the psychological condition of technophilia that borders on fetishism.

First the record companies are going to look for public support for their anti-piracy crusade: legislation, taxes, anything they can touch. I think that from the general reaction to the SSSCA/CBDTPA, it is a pretty reasonable guess that support for these measures will not be forthcoming. If companies like the RIAA want to wage war, the public says, they can pay for it from their own coffers. And they will.

The next step will be for the media companies to take matters into their own hands, spending lots of money on anti-piracy advertising and plenty of lawsuits. They'll lose a serious chunk of change doing this, of course, but in their eyes it will be justified as protection of future revenue.

By this time, consumer opinion will be sufficiently turned against these companies as to foster even broader piracy networks and easier methods of digital reproduction. It's already incredibly easy to turn CDs into MP3s; think of how easy it will be in another two or three years, even with all these new copy-protection schemes. As piracy grows, the record companies will push back even harder; as they push back, piracy will continue to grow.

Meanwhile, as more artists get screwed over by recording companies (like in this Salon article), more artists will see the Web as a cheap and easy vehicle for publicity. Eventually, I predict, some BIG act (and I mean huge) will come up that distributes its music completely free on the web, actually boosts its record and concert sales, and then the wave will come crashing down. Once a huge name is willing to fully endorse digital sharing, to use it as their publicity agent (instead of the record companies), they'll start an unstoppable trend.

After that, it'll only be a matter of sitting back and watching the RIAA slowly fade into obsolescence.

• Price fixing, why does an audio CD still cost about as much as a DVD? Isn't an album much cheeper to produce (as in creating the content, not the physical media) than a full length movie.

I don't want to be in the position of defending the RIAA or the record labels, but I do want to point out a basic misunderstanding of economics embodies in the above.

Products are not priced based on what they cost to produce, they are priced based on what people are willing to pay for them.

If the market is competitive, prices are driven down to near the cost of producing the item, but there are various reasons for markets not being competitive.

In the case of Music and Movies (CDs and DVDs), there is the fact that the creators have been granted a monopoly on their own material through copyrights. So, there's no competition for a particular music CD and they price them to optimize profits without regard to the cost to produce them.

Now we, as a people, aren't powerless here. We've granted the copyright monopolies to promote the useful arts. I don't know about you, but I think we need to revisit our IP laws to make sure "useful arts" are actually being promoted.

Certainly, the 95 year copyright extension is not in the spirit of the Constitution. This story ,recently referened on Slashdot seems to indicate that the interests of artists are not being promoted by the present system.

Also, humans might need frequent "decontamination" by flashing lights (LEDs have been used for therapeutic benefit in today's technology--one example) into the body and then re-introducing the "good" nanos through a pill.

Diamond Age Summary
Diamond Age Review and audio sample

Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD? Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?

The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.

i was just trying to put some names to faces from the super pow-wow discussed on the salon article.

anyway, came across Dave Riola (WebTV)'s home page and found it quite funny that he uses these little icons that look like the Debian logo! checkit

The judges statement,

Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

But these things don't bother me as much as they used to. One reason is that the video game industry is obviously all grown up and can take care of themselves as part of the larger content industry. The other reason is that I think that these conservative, midwestern cities are just deliberately trying to stir up controversies. Maybe they want to show, "Hey, we big government conservatives can be just as intrusive and divisive as the most left wing commie fanatics out there."

I mean, how else would this judge get a chance to make a whole moral value judgement on a technology he happens to despise, and get carried everywhere in papers. (I've noticed that conservatives like to be in your face every bit as much as your left wing protest groups, they just have different ways of going about it.)

I mean, I hate hearing about it as much as I hate hearing about government oppression in any place.

Of course, it is not nearly as big as Falun Gong protesters paying the price for taking over the cable service in Changchun province in the People's Republic of China. (Which I'm surprised wasn't covered here on Slashdot as it was a clever hack in the service of free speech, peaceful protest, and justice for people who are being tortured and murdered for their belief systems.)

I do think we will get there (in the United States) soon though, probably within my lifetime. But we aren't there yet.

I saw them once at an adult industry convention, and I can assure you they do not resemble a sleeping girl...

They resemble a DEAD girl.

The creep factor is surpassed only by the imagery of a room full of headless realdolls hanging from hooks.

Don't forget the fact that the artists are getting screwed no matter what the music fans do.

Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow. "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability. Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough. True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited. Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars"...

The Brin piece is very interesting reading. Full text: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15 / rin_main/print.html.

Vegas isn't run by the mob anymore, just Italian guy with funny nicknames. Oh, and our mayor wasn't a mob lawyer either. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep looking that way towards the bright blinking lights and pay our taxe.... er, um I mean fund out monorai... shit, I mean take a gamble and win a million.

Now I remember why I didn't become a tour guide here in town

The only people whose ox is getting gored from "the culture of CD burning" are the Five Families of the Record Business and the RIAA. The artists already get it up the butt, with no vaseline and definitely no reach-around.

If Sheryl Crow and Elvis Costello want to see more return from their music, then they should go indie and set up a site where people can download their music legally for a fair price. Unfortunately it's not so easy to get out of a record contract...it really is like indentured servitude at the moment.

So yeah, let Hilary Rosen, Vivendi, Sony, AOL-TW/WEA, Bertlesmann and EMI weep in their beer all they want. I have no sympathy for those bastards.

I will continue to buy my music used because I don't want them to make money off my musical tastes. If I want to rip my own mix CDs from CDs I bought, then that's my own damn business. I don't do P2P...I am naturally paranoid about my network and am not into opening up holes in it lightly.

Until artists get the fair shake they deserve, I do not see my actions as hurting them. They are suffering enough as it is at the hands of the same people who cry buckets of crocodile tears about "the poor artists" in the media.

And it's not a boycott. It's the fact that Episode I sucked big time, and last week I was watching Montecristo (great movie) and saw trailers for Attack of the Clones.
And suddenly it hit me.
I was planning to watch it, it was pretty much a given. And then, seeing the scenes, I realized I don't really have a wish to see it. I just had a lemming reaction. The hype got to me. I had been brainwashed.
That is, I was going to watch it because it was a Star Wars film. But nothing I saw on the trailer, and nothing I saw in the prequel, compelled me to see it.
So, ask yourself: If this film wasn't a "Star Wars" movie, would I be compelled to see it? Would I feel it is a good film?.
I have decided it's not. And I won't give in to the hype, however alluring it becomes.

PS: For the opinion or David Brin, great science fiction writer who makes George Lucas look like the hack he is, read this.

The Real War On Terrorism by Robert Pelton April 23, 2002 | Back in December of last year, television viewers watched CNN in disbelief as John Walker Lindh was seen squirming on a cot in Afghanistan claiming to be an American member of the Taliban. It was one of those moments when the madness -- not to mention the weirdness -- of war gets fully depicted on a single human face. The person interviewing Walker Lindh was Robert Young Pelton, a sort of anti-travel writer who, over the course of several books and magazine articles, has demonstrated a strong affinity for war zones and rebel causes. For Pelton, this coup of an interview was another interesting case of being in the right place at the right time. In addition to talking with Walker Lindh in the aftermath of the Qala Jangi fortress uprising, Pelton had, "through intermediaries," arranged to spend time with legendary Northern Alliance general Abdul Rashid Dostum just as U.S. activities in Afghanistan were gaining momentum. Dostum and his troops were working in conjunction with a Green Beret unit to liberate Mazar-e-Sharif when Pelton arrived on the scene. His story of that endeavor ran in National Geographic Adventure magazine and provided a firsthand glimpse of the war and the soldiers fighting it. In fact, Pelton had the kind of access that seems to have eluded many other reporters covering the conflict; his up-close and personal portrayal of a Special Forces unit in both moments of reflection and acts of bravery harks back to the days when journalists were actually among the fighting troops, not relegated to the briefing room at base camp. Accessibility continues to be a bone of contention between the press and the Pentagon. Meanwhile, Pelton thinks the real story of the war is either being told too late, after the public has moved on to other topics, or is never even properly explored by mainstream media outlets that allow foreign governments to promulgate a more Western-friendly side of the story. Pelton's blunt appraisals find their way into his travel books too; they focus on skulls and crossbones rather than sandy beaches. He's the author of "The World's Most Dangerous Places," a compendium of key information about how to get into -- and, more important, how to get out of -- various war zones, drug dens and atrocity-ridden enclaves the world over. The book is devoted to far-flung disaster areas like Sierra Leone and Somalia. Not surprisingly, Afghanistan gets a chapter. Pelton has been going there since 1995 to cover both the Taliban regime and the late Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud's efforts to topple it. Pelton was getting ready to head back to Afghanistan to work on a documentary about the fortress uprising in Mazar-e Sharif when this interview was conducted. Regarding your piece in National Geographic, you seemed to have access that members of the mainstream press didn't have, and I'm wondering how you went about achieving that. Well, I'm not a journalist first of all, so that's probably why I have better access. There were about 200 journalists that had been waiting for six weeks in Termiz and Tashkent when I went over. I was quite intrigued by the activities in Mazar-e Sharif because I knew that most of the journalists had gone to the Panjshir Valley, which was a popular way to get into Afghanistan. But there wasn't much going on there. So there were about 2,000 journalists, according to my friends, sitting in the Panjshir area north of Kabul twiddling their thumbs, and I knew there was something going on in the north. Just based on people that you talked with? Or just an inkling? There were some preliminary news reports out of Iran and the Afghan press, plus I knew that Dostum had gone back in April so I was just intrigued why I wasn't hearing anything from there. And so I started calling [Western Afghan warlord] Ismael Khan's friends and Dostum's friends in the States and then once I set my trip up I actually called the president of CNN news and then I also called National Geographic and asked if they'd be interested in anything. It felt like nobody was really covering the war; they were all talking about what they had for breakfast and what it's like to hear a bullet fly by and all this kind of crap. But nobody was really involved in the actual war. And obviously it was ongoing. So surprisingly, they both said yes. So I brought in a cameraman and myself and my assistant, and it took me four hours to cross the Friendship Bridge [leading from Uzbekistan into Afghanistan], and it was fairly easy to cross, even though the actual bridge was closed. The day I got there was the day of the fortress uprising. There were some journalists that came across on a day trip and they just stayed, which pissed off the Uzbeks something fierce. That's the thing. You hear a lot about the press talking about how they have such limited access, but the military actually says that they can go wherever they want to go. Well you'll hear this from the military. Every time you ask the military, "OK, I want to be put on a plane and I want to go to the front lines and I need to be back by 5 o'clock," they just laugh, because it's not their responsibility to chauffeur people around and to entertain them and feed them and protect them. But it's also a different country -- it's Afghanistan -- so if you want to go to the front lines in Afghanistan you have to talk to Afghans, and nobody seemed to talk to Afghans. I talked to Afghans. If I want to go into a country, whether it's Algeria or the Philippines or whatever, I don't ask the government's permission. Next page | "We have killed thousands of people" 1, 2, 3, 4

Salon has a nice article that shows how "well" Sony Music takes care of artists, at least in one instance...

This is the article.

From Windows 95 you've had the `Open With' option. Windows 2000 (and maybe WinME) improves on this with a menu that expands and shows a list of available apps exactly as you describe. RTFM, people!

Btw, you're not alone. Scott Rosenberg wrote a completely stupid article on exactly this topic for Salon once. You can probably find the /. thread this resulted in.

Are they with us, or will they rather stay quiet hoping for a fatter paycheck?

It varies from artist to artist. Most of the smaller ones are with us. Even some of the larger ones are starting to see the record industry for what it really is. The Offspring, for example, wanted to release the entire Conspiracy of One album on their website (for free) several weeks before it was released on CD. Columbia (their distributor), wouldn't allow it, and since they preferred to spend their time touring rather than in court, they dropped the idea. I'm sure there are several other famous artists who support the consumer, but the Offspring and Courtney Love are the only ones who spring to mind.

wait till we see the stuff he spouts from the witness stand next week when he takes the stand for the first time in the 4 year trial

If the music industry is as sophisticated as any other big business (and you've got to believe so, given the profits they crank out), They've got plenty of people whose sole responsibility is forecasting sales/profit curves and the like.

I'm sure they determined long ago the multiplier for $ spent in marketing hype : CD price charged. And think about it, although we grumbled, before Napster and other peer-to-peer networks came up, most of us bit the bullet and paid.

Now that we have more options for free (as in not purchased) music, all the finance-geek-spreadsheet-models are out the window. What did they do? Panic, cry foul, legal action, yadda yadda.

If/Once they find a way to make $$ on p2p, they'll be able to plug it into their financial models and things will calm down again.

[digression]
Salon.com has an article today about how game companies have shared code to allow game mods, and how it's helped grow their business. Record companies should take note.
[/digression]

For those interested, salon had a simmilar article a few days ago.

• The Truth About Cats and Dogs

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Salon ran a story about it back in 1998. But as computer gaming becomes more and more mainstream, it's bound to become a bigger and bigger problem.

My take on the whole thing is that fan reviews are preferable to professional ones any day--someone who would play the game for free is obviously going to have more interest in the game itself, and probably has a closer perspective to the reader's than a commercial reviewer would. Luckily, there are plenty of excellent non-profit gaming sites out there. I highly recommend The Gaming Intelligence Agency for console games, although their coverage is limited to the RPG, adventure, puzzle and rhythm genres. Anyone else have any favorites?

I read this article, and an article it linked to, "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists

Neither of these articles look very favorable on Star Wars. They are entitled to their opinion, but I tend to disagree, at least on some points.

The Star Wars movies are not a visionary gift that we have been granted by Wise Sage Lucas. The Middichlorians never happened, much like Highlander 2. Jar Jar exists for the solepurpose of getting gibbed in Ep. 2. The movies as a whole are, however, very entertaining, and they do strike chords deep in our cultural selves.

I'll relate it to bibical history, since it's what I know. The Jedi may well harken back to the Lensmen (I don't know, this is the first I have heard of them), but they also harken back to the Judges of the Old Testament. Both are the leaders and protectors of their nation. Both are choosen and annointed by some higher power. Both have their heros, and those who fell from grace.

Both tell the tale of a youth that nobody expected much out of, but who went on to a great destiny; Luke Skywalker in SW, and one of the most consistant themes in the Bible is the choosing of the younger son, despite cultural norms

Both paint morality in terms of black and white, right and wrong. There are servants of good, servants of evil, and peopel caught in between.

The link above also rails against the redemption of Darth Vader, saying that is a moral outrage, but this is one of the clearest messages of the Bible; repent, and you will be forgiven. Everything is not magically made better in either case (Vader still dies in the end, after all), but your soul can be at peace.

I could go on, but I think you can see the parallels. Now, is Star Wars a religious experience? No. Is the Trash Compactor scene a re-telling of Jonnah and the Whale? No. But Star Wars does share common threads with many of our oldest stories. It is not surprising that it shares threads with other, modern stories, especially if they are drawing from the same archetypes.

The article I linked to goes on to compare SW and Star Trek, saying that ST paints a better future, one where technology is our friend, governments are beningn, and normal men can successfuly challenge these benign governments when parts of them get out of hand. It then asks "[w]where would you rather live, assuming you'll be a normal citizen and no demigod? In Roddenberry's Federation? Or Lucas' Empire?" Good question. A better one, though, is where are you more likely to live?

One of the things I like about Star Wars is that it takes an esentially believeable univers and adds space travel and magic. Technlogy sometimes fails. Ships get banged up now and then, and there isn't always a replicator around to whip up spare parts. 3PO has a silver leg because that's all they had laying around. And all-powerful governments are not benign; they are a thing to be fought, in just the same way our country was founded.

Here's a link to the side article too.

"Once considered a sensitive actor, Reeves now gets by on his athletic bearing and stoic demeanor."

. . . yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking after watching Bill & Ted, Speed, and Johnny Mnemonic... He's a SENSITIVE actor. Whoa.

Why does Salon seem to go to such great lengths to "pop" Lucas as a "gasbag"?

I don't think it matters if Lucas intentially tried to use classic myths as basic plot-lines. Isn't it a good argument that Star Wars was as popular as it was BECAUSE it hit on so many deep rooted cultural myths? Intentially or otherwise?

I think Salon is using the "if I call someone BIG dirty names, it makes me BIG" line of reasoning. -jhon

A good companion to this article is another Salon Article that ran in 1999 by David Brin. Excellent read on why Star Wars' morality sucks. :)

It's KIND of like the RIAA, but not completely. First off, few authors make that much money off their books to begin with. Secondly, it's not like they are 'banning' this (the sale/resale of used books or the sharing of books), they are just suggesting that the authors link to a different website so that the author can still make money. It's not like the publishers are saying to the public 'you can't sell used books or share books'... It's not like they are giving the books some 'weird license' about how you use the book either. As far as they care, you can use it to prop up your couch.
Plus, in my opinion the Authors Guild represents the 'creative talent' of writing more, the authors, not the publishers, while (in my opinion) the RIAA seems to represent the business side of the music industry (the corporations such as BMG, virgin, sony, etc...) and not as much 'the artists'. Think of the Authors Guild as more of a 'union'. Compare The Authors Guild and The RIAA.

Still, I can't help but be reminded of This comic.

Try this column instead.

This Salon article asks if people would trust Microsoft enough to allow their programming to fly planes or spaceships. Of course, a plane running on windows 3.1 or win98 would be scary indeed... but even a bloated NT/XP or *nix installation would make anybody nervous.

... but what about a DOS box?

... what about a stripped down *nix box?

It seems to me (a windows user) that the power of the *nix systems is the ability to strip it down to the bare essentials... to remove variables that could cause problems. DOS also kinda had the feel to me.

I wonder if we all would trust microsoft stuff more if we as users could completely remove the nonessential parts... and slowly build as we needed. Everybody knows it's impossible to debug in multiple dimensions...

Until that time... nobody would fly in one of those planes... due to the constant worrying if the movie that they are watching will suddenly change into the "blue screen of death."

Anyway... be gentle... my karma is so fragile...

Davak

>Blocking certain portions of a site's content because you don't personally want to see it is definitely immoral and arguably illegal.

Yes, when I read a book using a wood ruler (which blocks a portion of what I'm reading it in order to aid my reading of the actual content, just like a web site) or cover my book with brown paper to keep the cover decent (just like I keep my computer decent by not running scumware) I am definately breaking the law and deserve to be put in jail for the rest of my life, and perhaps tortured after I'm sent to camp X-Ray.

Why that didn't make it into the Patriot Act, we'll never know. Heck, it should already be part of the "Trading with the enemy act". Blocking out ads is tantamount to smoking a cuban cigar.

BTW: I expect you to stare at all the McDonald's and Camel billboards [not to mention the "xyz miles 'till you're South of the border" ads] while driving on all highways from now on. Not doing so (even if it would cause an accident) is promotion of communisim, and, might I say, it shows that you must hate America so much .

yeah, that's the exact same thing I thought. I'm pretty sure it's "Innitech" in Office Space, though (at least, according to salon). Definitely has the same ring to it.

sean

...is that it points to an old Salon piece about Larry Wall and the creation of Perl.

In case you're not familiar with it, you can read all about it here.

Juliette would have been a better deal. As posted here, it was only a cool mission on ebay. Besides, you'll always win the "my sub can kick you sub's ass" contest.

"US prepares to invade your hard drive"

a letter to FL Sen Bill Nelson

All easily found courtesy of google (probably the better place to ask this question, anyway.)

-XDG