Way to miss the point. Your suggestion is to ignore the abuse and stick with it. Bzzzt, wrong. That attitude will kill Netrek stone dead.
Here is the point that got "missed": a few encounters with poor sports does not handicap Netrek nearly as much as missing basic directions for downloading a client and learning how to play.
One big problem with Netrek is that new players can see that they're clueless.
That's not true. In Netrek, perhaps more than any other game, there are few solid clues to benchmark performance, especially in a full 8 x 8 game. In fact, the root cause of many problems is that naive players sometimes get false clues that they are good. I really wish that players could judge themselves appropriately.
However, I think that a well-written tutorial could do more than just teach the mechanics of playing; it would go a long way toward resolving sportsmanship issues too. The tutorial would give players a much better idea of what they have accomplished. That would eliminate a lot of arrogant team board messages that tend to seed conflicts.
Often the people who write about these grievances aren't telling the whole story. The players who attract the flames usually are NOT the cordial types who play in silent enjoyment and understand what they have to contribute to the team. They don't tell you what they did to contribute to the unpleasant situation.
Then they get together and trade horror stories about getting spontaneously ambushed by insults for no good reason. So there's a small network of "victims" with a really messed up image of "you Netrek assholes".
There are problem players who do stir up situations occasionally. However, this problem evaporates when you move from pick-up to scheduled league games.
Grow a thick skin -- you need it in real life anyway Ignore a few idiots and then you can enjoy fun and humorous games.
Re:When's the next hockey game?
on
Netrek
·
· Score: 2
I've tried to compile many different variations of the code but have failed during the make part of the build (under XDarwin).
There is a PowerPC/Darwin binary available now. I've been using it on my iBook for months.
Overview of Netrek
on
Netrek
·
· Score: 4, Informative
After 5 years of playing Netrek, it is now my sole computer recreation.
Netrek liberated me from any desire to play other video games
such as Civilization, Warcraft II, etc.
In my opinion, the primary reason why Netrek hasn't grown
in the past 5 years is simple: nobody has written
a comprehensive tutorial to the game (a useful one that
actually answers the correct questions). It could be easy
to learn, but the casual newcomer will inevitably hit
a learning roadblock. Consequently, everyone who plays now
was introduced by a mentor.
The main activity during play is "visual planning".
You look at a strategic map that overviews the positions
of all players and planets. Then you surround and trap
enemy ships. Or you set a screen for a friendly ship
to pass through (much like basketball). Or you
escort a fellow ship through enemy space. The best strategy
depends on the particular circumstances of the situation.
Unlike most computer games, it is never redundant.
The combat system rewards the first person to the action,
so anticipation is crucial. The combat itself is minimalist,
but fun. For example, there are tractors and pressors that
push and pull ships in an equal and opposite reaction.
Push your enemy into your teammate's torpedos, or pull
a friend out of harm's way. Or push a friendly ship
from behind to speed his progress.
Player's personalities are remarkably transparent.
e.g. there are selfish players, and there are cooperative ones.
The friendly players are the ones who win games.
Hey -- if some teenager smuggles an app. onto a corporate computer, he's a nasty hacker who must be punished. When corporations try to smuggle their crap onto my computer, that's smart business. Huh?
What's your point? Both are selfish actions that other people dislike. I don't see any paradox here.
You don't need experimental science to draw conclusions about certain games;
specifically, the type of games that occupy the user with a lot of audio/visual processing, but don't require much more than "see this, do that" reflexes.
Kids who are constantly receiving visual cues that demand attention to the game are given no opportunity to think about things like "what time is it?" and "do I have something better to do, like eat or sleep?" Usually such concerns are only considered when there is some kind of interruption of the game. Think about some of the older television variety shows that used to say "good night" to their audience at the end. You don't hear those words very often anymore, do you? Indeed, both television programs and video games are getting more sophisticated about keeping their audience engaged even without satisfying them or without making them feel any better. The usual consequence of a mind-numbing FPS marathon session is a splitting headache.
Now consider how preoccupied the players become with game-related goals instead of the real-life ones (such as rewarding social interaction with other people). I don't think that you need to be a doctor to see the problem with this formula.
this research does provide ammunition for arguments that could be used as another link between media violence and real violence.
I can explain the link without experimental science.
I think that watching violence simply increases the chance that you will think about violence in the future. For example, suppose two different people are looking at a sword in a museum. The person who just watched a swordfight at the movies will naturally think about fighting with it. The other unbiased person might simply be engaged in the artistic engraving on the sword. If presented with a challenge, the moviegoer might notice a good swordfighting solution first before thinking of a more typical reaction like the other guy. Violent media causes violence because it gives people more opportunities to think of violent solutions.
Having said that, I still love a good fight scene.
Face it, despite the ravings of Browne and Nader, our children will grow up in an America that's largely controlled by corporations.
Check out some of Nader's "ravings" here, including the damning truth about ZapMe (Commercial Alert is a group founded by Nader).
This is one way in which Nader differs from the two major presidential candidates. All of them see a decline in the childhood experience, but the Bush/Gore response is to censor or rate film, television and the internet. In contrast, Nader's solutions prevent the over-commercialization of schools. Whereas Bush and Gore propose mandatory internet filters in schools and libraries, Nader wants to eliminate Channel One, ZapMe, exclusive soft drink contracts with schools, etc.
America was founded by corporations (Hudson BAy Company, anyone), and corporations have caused America to become the great place it is, do you remember "What's good for General Motors is good for America."
ZapMe will not contribute to anyone's future greatness. The junk products peddled by ZapMe and their destructive advertising strategies do not add overall value to America or anywhere else.
John McCain lost due to some dirty tricks specifically funded by "soft money". Some right-wing christian looneys (Falwell and freinds) got together in a key state (Michigan), and spammed phone calls out to the electorate saying that John McCain cut funding for breast cancer research - which was true, but it was simply that he voted against a bill that had a ton of unacceptable riders, He's not "pro breast cancer", as the phone calls said.
McCain won Michigan.
However, you are correct that the pro-Bush troops drained their vast soft money reserves to run a negative ad blitz against McCain. Since McCain did not respond with similarly effective dirty tricks, he lost.
Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.
Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).
Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.
But the kind of regulation that you're talking about, where we force auto companies to have a certain average gas mileage, is inappropriate.
Why is it inappropriate, when it's much less expensive and more enforcable than your proposal:
...run my car through a pollution tester every year, and I get charged a fee proportional to how much crap I dump in the air. I'll then have an incentive to pollute less, so I'll want to buy cars that pollute less, and GM will want to sell cars that pollute less.
The people who would pay the largest fees will be poor people who cannot yet afford to buy a newer, cleaner car (similar to my situation when I was a student).
This happens all the time, and it is because of big government being bought by corporations and special interest groups.
Yes, and that is precisely the problem that Nader wants to solve.
Eliminate the governments power to have power over people on behalf of corporations and you solve the problem.
In contrast to your "wisdom", corporations have repeatedly demonstrated that they will sacrifice the environment in favor of higher profits (such as General Electric, the example that I just linked).
Perhaps a little thought experiment will help to illustrate why.
Consider automobiles. Let's suppose that we get rid of all environmental regulations today and suddenly General Motors can make a car however they want. Now they build a new kind of gas-guzzler even cheaper. I buy the car. I benefit, since some of the savings were passed on to me. I don't pay much for the increased pollution that I breathe in comparison to the money that I personally saved, so both GM and myself benefit from the deal.
However, my transaction with GM comes at your expense. Even if you never drove an automobile, you still breathe that air and suffer from something that you never participated in. Furthermore, you indirectly pay the medical costs for people who get sick because of that pollution. It's a tough situation because the people who are polluting most are also gaining the most, so they are motivated to continue.
The reason why they have no such incentive, is because what they are polluting is public property. The Libertarian solution is to simply privatize as much of this property as possible, because people don't tend to pollute their own backyards.
Okay, so people have some incentive to clean up their own backyard. That's true regardless of their form of government. Obviously, I was referring to polluters who ruin it for other people.
For example, consider automobiles. Let's suppose that we get rid of all environmental regulations today and suddenly General Motors can make a car however they want. Now they build a new kind of gas-guzzler even cheaper. I buy the car. I benefit, since some of the savings were passed on to me. I don't pay much for the increased pollution that I breathe in comparison to the money that I personally saved, so both GM and myself benefit from the deal.
However, my transaction with GM comes at your expense. Even if you never drove an automobile, you still breathe that air and suffer from something that you never participated in. Furthermore, you indirectly pay the medical costs for people who get sick because of that pollution. It's a tough situation because the people who are polluting most are also gaining the most, so they are motivated to continue.
You need environmental regulations. Otherwise, this behavior would plummet Earth into a smokey filthy cancerous Hell.
How will a political party go about accomplishing [environmental issues]? By LAW. By FORCE. Laws telling you and your business what resources you can use and how you can use them.
Yes, indeed. Protecting the environment is one of the major reasons why we must have government action today. Pollution is an example of a socialized cost that is passed off to everyone else while the polluter has no incentive to clean up. Such socialized costs are the major reason that libertarians have no case. I've never read any decent libertarian solutions to the pollution problem (besides denial). For example, how would the libertarians have cleaned up General Electric's mess?
Indeed, television and newspapers are optimized to make the reader believe that he is well-informed. If they happen to include some information, then that's nice too. However, they like to encapsulate everything in a nice little package. Just look at how traditional media pigeonholes all politics as "left" and "right". If they weren't able to summarize everything then you wouldn't feel smart and empowered by their news source.
I disagree that "people can still read good newspapers and be just as informed."
There are vital differences between television/newspaper and the 'net. With TV/newspaper, you are limited to channel-surfing or browsing a few headlines to find interesting information. In contrast, hyperlinking scales up nicely to the huge size of the 'net. It's much easier to find unpopular information on the 'net than it is in traditional media, which has become homogenous because they must cater to the most popular demand.
The MOST likely vote from you (collectively as Nader supporters, not individuallY) in the absense of Nader and/or the Greens would be to vote Gore
Wrong. If I had only those two choices, then I would repeat my '96 decision: Not vote. Hence the name of Nader's "Non-Voter" tour to appeal to non-voters in general.
I've always been so turned off by those politics that I've always avoided the whole thing. Nader is the first candidate that ever inspired me to vote. Now, I'm not going to vote for the bottom-feeder who is still perpetuating this corrupt system. I'm going to vote for the guy who has already demonstrated that he is above that system.
You are being really shortsighted. what is at stake here is the supreme court which will dictate a very large ammount of the deep legal issues for decades.
I'm fully aware of the three retiring supreme court justices. It's a calculated risk. Some previous appointees have NOT ruled as their nominators have expected, so I'm not going to speculate about the "magic" that goes on inside the supreme court.
What I do know is that Democrats having been making the same threat in every election since the Roe vs. Wade decision: you'll lose it if you vote for them! How long must we be bullied by this threat while the other issues go conveniently unnoticed?
Maybe it would make a bit more sense if you read the article.
Of course I read the article, so I don't need your recap of it. My post was prepared because I've already heard this idea. My point is that I see this election stuff as a long-term process. Voting for Gore now does not help us to clean up the 2004 election.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded by massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
Find someone in a non-swing state who is rational, but pro-Gore. Tell them that you will vote Gore if they vote Nader.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. My primary concern is to see reform in the election process (I mostly much agree with Katz's observations about how hopeless it is). However, Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded my massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
The ability, or inability, to resolve this kind of problem is an important distinguishing performance factor for evaluating Web filters, but Peacefire and its cheerleaders seem to prefer glossing over such complications because it makes it easier for them to draw colorful, simplistic, haha-aren't-those-big-bad-censors-stupid conclusions. (Yes, I know, it's not in Peacefire's best interests to be fair about such analyses anyway.)
Ugh, let me answer this troll. You don't need the data to know that the filters are bad. As someone who knows a fair amount about AI (Artificial Intelligence) it's obvious to me that censorware claims promise more than the best AI currently available, but use the stupidest algorithms (keyword match, flesh-tone counting, etc.). The only decent tactic is a human-picked access control list, but a few people simply can't censor the entire net. Even then, human-picked lists have their own problems because they tend to be politically motivated and impractical (which is possible since the blocking strategies are secret).
Therefore, it should be obvious that Peacefire doesn't need to make up any data. They should have an ample supply of true facts to work with. Contrast this to the exhorbitant claims of the censorware vendors (CyberSitter: "Guaranteed to block over 97% of all objectionable content!")
Wouldn't it make sense to also consider the percentage of unblocked pornographic sites?
I asked Bennett Haselton (of Peacefire) the same question. He replied by mail (8/5/2000):
Bennett Haselton wrote:
The information is not intended to persuade people who support censorship
because by that age people generally don't change their mind anyway. The
information is to help people such as librarians who are embattled in their
local community because they don't censor Internet access on their computers.
If we focus on the fact that blocking software doesn't block enough
pornography, then we're betraying our cause because part of the point of
what we're doing is that pornography is not harmful. Now, how do you
persuade people to believe *that*, if they already have formed the belief
that porn is harmful? I don't think you can, which is why we have the
censorware-disabling instructions on our site; you can't reason with
parents not to use the software, so we can at least give people a means to
get around it...
-Bennett
In fact, judges typically decide court cases because of what is wrongfully blocked, rather than because not enough material was censored.
(PS: Sorry for posting private email, but I think that Bennett would approve)
Let me share one of my many disheartening experiences with newspapers. A few years ago I rented a house with a girl who helped to start a precision skating team at my school. They were scheduled to skate at halftime during the hockey games. A few days before their first game, they were written about by the local paper. They quoted one of the girls as saying "we're cheerleaders on the ice". I thought that was weird because the girls definitely do NOT think of themselves as cheerleaders; they are artistic skaters. I checked. Only the captain of the group had ever spoken to the reporter, although she had given the roster to the journalist. The journalist had simply pulled a name off the roster to attribute a conveniently contrived quote to. Since then, I have noticed journalist's tendencies to include obvious, typical quotes in every story to characterize and summarize the situation, straight "from the horse's mouth" to enhance their credibility.
Here's an article about how Gore's camp is pissed that the Nader vote may swing key states towards Bush.
I will vote for Nader, but I would love to read the headline "Bush Wins, Nader Blamed". I would like nothing more than to see Al's run spoiled. Why?
This election is about more than just the next four years. This will affect elections in 2004, 2008, etc. Currently, Al Gore completely ignores the important issues that Nader proposes solutions for (corporate welfare, putting congressional voting records online, etc.). Al might have gotten my vote if he had taken up Nader's issues, but apparently Al believes that he will fare better by pandering to potential Bush supporters.
Even if you believe that the duopoly will remain in power forever, we must send a message to the parties that Ralph's issues cannot be ignored. I would be happy to give the Democrats a "tough love" lesson by electing Bush if they would actually pay attention to Ralph's issues during 2004. Of course, I look forward to the day when 3rd party candidates like Ralph actually have a chance of winning based on their issues. Voting for Ralph can only help.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to miss the point. Your suggestion is to ignore the abuse and stick with it. Bzzzt, wrong. That attitude will kill Netrek stone dead.
Here is the point that got "missed": a few encounters with poor sports does not handicap Netrek nearly as much as missing basic directions for downloading a client and learning how to play.
One big problem with Netrek is that new players can see that they're clueless.
That's not true. In Netrek, perhaps more than any other game, there are few solid clues to benchmark performance, especially in a full 8 x 8 game. In fact, the root cause of many problems is that naive players sometimes get false clues that they are good. I really wish that players could judge themselves appropriately.
However, I think that a well-written tutorial could do more than just teach the mechanics of playing; it would go a long way toward resolving sportsmanship issues too. The tutorial would give players a much better idea of what they have accomplished. That would eliminate a lot of arrogant team board messages that tend to seed conflicts.
Problems with abuse are typically over-reported.
Often the people who write about these grievances aren't telling the whole story. The players who attract the flames usually are NOT the cordial types who play in silent enjoyment and understand what they have to contribute to the team. They don't tell you what they did to contribute to the unpleasant situation.
Then they get together and trade horror stories about getting spontaneously ambushed by insults for no good reason. So there's a small network of "victims" with a really messed up image of "you Netrek assholes".
There are problem players who do stir up situations occasionally. However, this problem evaporates when you move from pick-up to scheduled league games.
Grow a thick skin -- you need it in real life anyway Ignore a few idiots and then you can enjoy fun and humorous games.
I've tried to compile many different variations of the code but have failed during the make part of the build (under XDarwin).
There is a PowerPC/Darwin binary available now. I've been using it on my iBook for months.
After 5 years of playing Netrek, it is now my sole computer recreation. Netrek liberated me from any desire to play other video games such as Civilization, Warcraft II, etc.
In my opinion, the primary reason why Netrek hasn't grown in the past 5 years is simple: nobody has written a comprehensive tutorial to the game (a useful one that actually answers the correct questions). It could be easy to learn, but the casual newcomer will inevitably hit a learning roadblock. Consequently, everyone who plays now was introduced by a mentor.
The main activity during play is "visual planning". You look at a strategic map that overviews the positions of all players and planets. Then you surround and trap enemy ships. Or you set a screen for a friendly ship to pass through (much like basketball). Or you escort a fellow ship through enemy space. The best strategy depends on the particular circumstances of the situation. Unlike most computer games, it is never redundant.
The combat system rewards the first person to the action, so anticipation is crucial. The combat itself is minimalist, but fun. For example, there are tractors and pressors that push and pull ships in an equal and opposite reaction. Push your enemy into your teammate's torpedos, or pull a friend out of harm's way. Or push a friendly ship from behind to speed his progress.
Player's personalities are remarkably transparent. e.g. there are selfish players, and there are cooperative ones. The friendly players are the ones who win games.
Here's what the characters mean:
x - In use
o - Vacant
! - Unoccupied, but something's swimming in the bowl
w - warning: average stay here: 2 secondsYou wrote:
Hey -- if some teenager smuggles an app. onto a corporate computer, he's a nasty hacker who must be punished. When corporations try to smuggle their crap onto my computer, that's smart business. Huh?
What's your point? Both are selfish actions that other people dislike. I don't see any paradox here.
You don't need experimental science to draw conclusions about certain games;
specifically, the type of games that occupy the user with a lot of audio/visual processing, but don't require much more than "see this, do that" reflexes.
Kids who are constantly receiving visual cues that demand attention to the game are given no opportunity to think about things like "what time is it?" and "do I have something better to do, like eat or sleep?" Usually such concerns are only considered when there is some kind of interruption of the game. Think about some of the older television variety shows that used to say "good night" to their audience at the end. You don't hear those words very often anymore, do you? Indeed, both television programs and video games are getting more sophisticated about keeping their audience engaged even without satisfying them or without making them feel any better. The usual consequence of a mind-numbing FPS marathon session is a splitting headache.
Now consider how preoccupied the players become with game-related goals instead of the real-life ones (such as rewarding social interaction with other people). I don't think that you need to be a doctor to see the problem with this formula.
this research does provide ammunition for arguments that could be used as another link between media violence and real violence.
I can explain the link without experimental science.
I think that watching violence simply increases the chance that you will think about violence in the future. For example, suppose two different people are looking at a sword in a museum. The person who just watched a swordfight at the movies will naturally think about fighting with it. The other unbiased person might simply be engaged in the artistic engraving on the sword. If presented with a challenge, the moviegoer might notice a good swordfighting solution first before thinking of a more typical reaction like the other guy. Violent media causes violence because it gives people more opportunities to think of violent solutions.
Having said that, I still love a good fight scene.
Face it, despite the ravings of Browne and Nader, our children will grow up in an America that's largely controlled by corporations.
Check out some of Nader's "ravings" here, including the damning truth about ZapMe (Commercial Alert is a group founded by Nader).
This is one way in which Nader differs from the two major presidential candidates. All of them see a decline in the childhood experience, but the Bush/Gore response is to censor or rate film, television and the internet. In contrast, Nader's solutions prevent the over-commercialization of schools. Whereas Bush and Gore propose mandatory internet filters in schools and libraries, Nader wants to eliminate Channel One, ZapMe, exclusive soft drink contracts with schools, etc.
America was founded by corporations (Hudson BAy Company, anyone), and corporations have caused America to become the great place it is, do you remember "What's good for General Motors is good for America."
ZapMe will not contribute to anyone's future greatness. The junk products peddled by ZapMe and their destructive advertising strategies do not add overall value to America or anywhere else.
John McCain lost due to some dirty tricks specifically funded by "soft money". Some right-wing christian looneys (Falwell and freinds) got together in a key state (Michigan), and spammed phone calls out to the electorate saying that John McCain cut funding for breast cancer research - which was true, but it was simply that he voted against a bill that had a ton of unacceptable riders, He's not "pro breast cancer", as the phone calls said.
McCain won Michigan.
However, you are correct that the pro-Bush troops drained their vast soft money reserves to run a negative ad blitz against McCain. Since McCain did not respond with similarly effective dirty tricks, he lost.
I know of no way to resolve this dilemma
I know how you can resolve it. Vote for Nader.
Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.
Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).
Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.
But the kind of regulation that you're talking about, where we force auto companies to have a certain average gas mileage, is inappropriate.
Why is it inappropriate, when it's much less expensive and more enforcable than your proposal:
The people who would pay the largest fees will be poor people who cannot yet afford to buy a newer, cleaner car (similar to my situation when I was a student).
This happens all the time, and it is because of big government being bought by corporations and special interest groups.
Yes, and that is precisely the problem that Nader wants to solve.
Eliminate the governments power to have power over people on behalf of corporations and you solve the problem.
In contrast to your "wisdom", corporations have repeatedly demonstrated that they will sacrifice the environment in favor of higher profits (such as General Electric, the example that I just linked).
Perhaps a little thought experiment will help to illustrate why.
Consider automobiles. Let's suppose that we get rid of all environmental regulations today and suddenly General Motors can make a car however they want. Now they build a new kind of gas-guzzler even cheaper. I buy the car. I benefit, since some of the savings were passed on to me. I don't pay much for the increased pollution that I breathe in comparison to the money that I personally saved, so both GM and myself benefit from the deal.
However, my transaction with GM comes at your expense. Even if you never drove an automobile, you still breathe that air and suffer from something that you never participated in. Furthermore, you indirectly pay the medical costs for people who get sick because of that pollution. It's a tough situation because the people who are polluting most are also gaining the most, so they are motivated to continue.
You need environmental regulations.
The reason why they have no such incentive, is because what they are polluting is public property. The Libertarian solution is to simply privatize as much of this property as possible, because people don't tend to pollute their own backyards.
Okay, so people have some incentive to clean up their own backyard. That's true regardless of their form of government. Obviously, I was referring to polluters who ruin it for other people.
For example, consider automobiles. Let's suppose that we get rid of all environmental regulations today and suddenly General Motors can make a car however they want. Now they build a new kind of gas-guzzler even cheaper. I buy the car. I benefit, since some of the savings were passed on to me. I don't pay much for the increased pollution that I breathe in comparison to the money that I personally saved, so both GM and myself benefit from the deal.
However, my transaction with GM comes at your expense. Even if you never drove an automobile, you still breathe that air and suffer from something that you never participated in. Furthermore, you indirectly pay the medical costs for people who get sick because of that pollution. It's a tough situation because the people who are polluting most are also gaining the most, so they are motivated to continue.
You need environmental regulations. Otherwise, this behavior would plummet Earth into a smokey filthy cancerous Hell.
So, do the libertarians have a better solution?
How will a political party go about accomplishing [environmental issues]? By LAW. By FORCE. Laws telling you and your business what resources you can use and how you can use them.
Yes, indeed. Protecting the environment is one of the major reasons why we must have government action today. Pollution is an example of a socialized cost that is passed off to everyone else while the polluter has no incentive to clean up. Such socialized costs are the major reason that libertarians have no case. I've never read any decent libertarian solutions to the pollution problem (besides denial). For example, how would the libertarians have cleaned up General Electric's mess?
Indeed, television and newspapers are optimized to make the reader believe that he is well-informed. If they happen to include some information, then that's nice too. However, they like to encapsulate everything in a nice little package. Just look at how traditional media pigeonholes all politics as "left" and "right". If they weren't able to summarize everything then you wouldn't feel smart and empowered by their news source.
I disagree that "people can still read good newspapers and be just as informed."
There are vital differences between television/newspaper and the 'net. With TV/newspaper, you are limited to channel-surfing or browsing a few headlines to find interesting information. In contrast, hyperlinking scales up nicely to the huge size of the 'net. It's much easier to find unpopular information on the 'net than it is in traditional media, which has become homogenous because they must cater to the most popular demand.
The MOST likely vote from you (collectively as Nader supporters, not individuallY) in the absense of Nader and/or the Greens would be to vote Gore
Wrong. If I had only those two choices, then I would repeat my '96 decision: Not vote. Hence the name of Nader's "Non-Voter" tour to appeal to non-voters in general.
I've always been so turned off by those politics that I've always avoided the whole thing. Nader is the first candidate that ever inspired me to vote. Now, I'm not going to vote for the bottom-feeder who is still perpetuating this corrupt system. I'm going to vote for the guy who has already demonstrated that he is above that system.
You are being really shortsighted. what is at stake here is the supreme court which will dictate a very large ammount of the deep legal issues for decades.
I'm fully aware of the three retiring supreme court justices. It's a calculated risk. Some previous appointees have NOT ruled as their nominators have expected, so I'm not going to speculate about the "magic" that goes on inside the supreme court.
What I do know is that Democrats having been making the same threat in every election since the Roe vs. Wade decision: you'll lose it if you vote for them! How long must we be bullied by this threat while the other issues go conveniently unnoticed?
Maybe it would make a bit more sense if you read the article.
Of course I read the article, so I don't need your recap of it. My post was prepared because I've already heard this idea. My point is that I see this election stuff as a long-term process. Voting for Gore now does not help us to clean up the 2004 election.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded by massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
Find someone in a non-swing state who is rational, but pro-Gore. Tell them that you will vote Gore if they vote Nader.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. My primary concern is to see reform in the election process (I mostly much agree with Katz's observations about how hopeless it is). However, Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded my massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
The ability, or inability, to resolve this kind of problem is an important distinguishing performance factor for evaluating Web filters, but Peacefire and its cheerleaders seem to prefer glossing over such complications because it makes it easier for them to draw colorful, simplistic, haha-aren't-those-big-bad-censors-stupid conclusions. (Yes, I know, it's not in Peacefire's best interests to be fair about such analyses anyway.)
Ugh, let me answer this troll. You don't need the data to know that the filters are bad. As someone who knows a fair amount about AI (Artificial Intelligence) it's obvious to me that censorware claims promise more than the best AI currently available, but use the stupidest algorithms (keyword match, flesh-tone counting, etc.). The only decent tactic is a human-picked access control list, but a few people simply can't censor the entire net. Even then, human-picked lists have their own problems because they tend to be politically motivated and impractical (which is possible since the blocking strategies are secret).
Therefore, it should be obvious that Peacefire doesn't need to make up any data. They should have an ample supply of true facts to work with. Contrast this to the exhorbitant claims of the censorware vendors (CyberSitter: "Guaranteed to block over 97% of all objectionable content!")
Wouldn't it make sense to also consider the percentage of unblocked pornographic sites?
I asked Bennett Haselton (of Peacefire) the same question. He replied by mail (8/5/2000):
Bennett Haselton wrote:
The information is not intended to persuade people who support censorship because by that age people generally don't change their mind anyway. The information is to help people such as librarians who are embattled in their local community because they don't censor Internet access on their computers.
If we focus on the fact that blocking software doesn't block enough pornography, then we're betraying our cause because part of the point of what we're doing is that pornography is not harmful. Now, how do you persuade people to believe *that*, if they already have formed the belief that porn is harmful? I don't think you can, which is why we have the censorware-disabling instructions on our site; you can't reason with parents not to use the software, so we can at least give people a means to get around it...
-Bennett
In fact, judges typically decide court cases because of what is wrongfully blocked, rather than because not enough material was censored.
(PS: Sorry for posting private email, but I think that Bennett would approve)
An excellent first post, Jon.
Let me share one of my many disheartening experiences with newspapers. A few years ago I rented a house with a girl who helped to start a precision skating team at my school. They were scheduled to skate at halftime during the hockey games. A few days before their first game, they were written about by the local paper. They quoted one of the girls as saying "we're cheerleaders on the ice". I thought that was weird because the girls definitely do NOT think of themselves as cheerleaders; they are artistic skaters. I checked. Only the captain of the group had ever spoken to the reporter, although she had given the roster to the journalist. The journalist had simply pulled a name off the roster to attribute a conveniently contrived quote to. Since then, I have noticed journalist's tendencies to include obvious, typical quotes in every story to characterize and summarize the situation, straight "from the horse's mouth" to enhance their credibility.
Here's an article about how Gore's camp is pissed that the Nader vote may swing key states towards Bush.
I will vote for Nader, but I would love to read the headline "Bush Wins, Nader Blamed". I would like nothing more than to see Al's run spoiled. Why?
This election is about more than just the next four years. This will affect elections in 2004, 2008, etc. Currently, Al Gore completely ignores the important issues that Nader proposes solutions for (corporate welfare, putting congressional voting records online, etc.). Al might have gotten my vote if he had taken up Nader's issues, but apparently Al believes that he will fare better by pandering to potential Bush supporters.
Even if you believe that the duopoly will remain in power forever, we must send a message to the parties that Ralph's issues cannot be ignored. I would be happy to give the Democrats a "tough love" lesson by electing Bush if they would actually pay attention to Ralph's issues during 2004. Of course, I look forward to the day when 3rd party candidates like Ralph actually have a chance of winning based on their issues. Voting for Ralph can only help.