Seriously, as consumers, typically we benefit when businesses (even big business) also benefit.
Of course, trickle-down economics. However, the kind of influence that is buying our politicians is not usually the kind that will ultimately benefit consumers. The contributors often expect something in return for their favor: for example, de-regulation that would allow them anti-competitive power.
Soft money contributions, not consumers, decided which issues were heard in this year's campaign and which the Democrats and Republicans ignored.
Turn off the TV, or at least ignore their 15 seconds of blab. Most of that > $100 million that Bush raised was for television advertising. Ironically, the money contributed mostly by big business is used to scum votes from the most impressionable Americans who are in no position to benefit from those business interests. That doesn't stop the bottom-feeding vote scums from saying whatever's necessary to win the election.
Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too.
No, that's false. I've read some/. posts from people who misunderstood Nader's concerns about the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. They incorrectly assume that he's pro-filter.
Gush and Bore are concerned about the "morality" issues and want to censor or rate television, film, and the internet. In contrast, Ralph wants to eliminate the greedy tactics used to peddle junk products to children. "Junk" such as snack food and entertainment with cheap low-grade sensuality and violence (not the artistic kind). All three of the politicians see a decline in the childhood experience, but Nader would propose solutions designed to harbor kids from the ad barrage. For example, he wants to ban Channel One from schools (a wise decision, I came from a Channel One school). He also wants to prevent those exclusive contracts that Coke and Pepsi sign with schools in an effort to get youngsters hooked on a lifetime of drinking carbonated corn syrup (or real sugar, for those lucky enough to be outside the U.S).
I have listend to Nader lecture and I have read his platform. I get the impression that he would rather promote quality rather than ban crap if at all possible. He has never proposed a requirement for filters in libraries or schools. If he has, then I challenge you to find a reputable informative link.
This is simply false, what more can I say? Go read his platform. Note that the "Education and Children" section makes no mention of censorship.
In fact, this is one of the primary differences between Nader and the other candidates. Nader is most concerned about advertisiers exploiting children for marketing purposes. Ads mock authority, encourage children to nag their parents, and use other greedy tactics designed to sell junky products. In contrast, the other candidates are distracting by the "morality" or "values" issues. i.e. they want less violence and smut in television, film, and the internet. Nader is simply objecting to the advertisements.
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it.
It's an extremely stupid algorithm. To illustrate why, let's first describe a proper use of the technique.
The idea is to histogram the colors in the image. For example, consider the image of a cherry. It will have peak colors in the reds but very few colors elsewhere. Now, what if that cherry was bruised? It will have two peaks, one at red and one at brown. That's how we can classify a cherry as "good" or "bruised" when it rolls past our camera.
That's a fine solution to such a simple problem. However, how can you take any arbitrary image off the 'net and classify it as "porn" or "non-porn"? We can't even count the number of people in the photograph.
Unfortunately, such stupid algorithms such as keyword filtering and flesh-tone counting are typical of the industry. The task requires better than the best Artificial Intelligence available, yet vendors make absurd claims about their effectiveness and reliability. They lie about their products to politicians who are under pressure to fight smut regardless of how bad the software is. Even if you agree that filters must be forcefully imposed upon libraries (most librarians will fight them), then the actual products are hopelessly inadequate for the task. For more information, visit peacefire.org.
Quake vs. Tomb Raider? Oh, please stop!
on
Trigger Happy
·
· Score: 1
I've read a lot of articles about the worth/unworth of playing games. Why must they be so homogenous? Why always the first-person and the third-person shooters? What about the muds, Civilization, and my two favorites for many years, Netrek and Core War. Those games are a diverse set that look nothing like each other. Don't just say "games are great" or "games are mind-numbing." It's like saying "books are bad" because you didn't like the last one that you read. Please consider that a computer is a programmable machine that can perform more than one kind of task.
If the/. crowd can generate this many really good tough questions for the candidates why can't journalists even come up with one?
No ambitious journalist wants to wreck his career by demanding a straight answer to a tough question. Candidates choose which journalists to give access and information to. They tend to choose the friendliest ones.
Do you support legislation intended to force schools to filter
their internet access? If so, then describe one solution that
you would approve. What blocking strategy would you use?
In general, I'm impressed by the quality of Salon reporting. I don't know much about this particular case, but when I've seen their reports on events that I've attended (for example, Ralph Nader rallies), they've been accurate and got their quotes exactly right. This is in contrast to every other news item that I've been involved in or knew something about. I've seen my own numbers embellished (this turned out in my favor actually), quotes from people who never talked to the reporter (obvious quotes that you'd expect someone to say), and various careless blunders as well as other blatant lies. As long as they qualify their stories with "an anonymous source said..." then I don't have a major problem it. You have to be skeptical anyway.
As I expected, a Google search for "catharsis" resulted in this article from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It is perfectly consistent with my point.
And pray tell, how is describing a mythic battle (complete with magic and monsters) going to make someone any better at killing REAL things?
If you hear the vivid details of a sword fight (disembowelment, etc.) then for a while you're going to think about fighting a lot more than other people would. Inevitably, you will consider strategies for fighting. Consequently, you are more likely to notice a good fighting solution to a problem before you notice the other solutions.
It seems unquestionable that humans are
by nature a violent and aggressive species.
So, if those tendencies are sublimated, acted
out in games, it is beneficial, not
harmful, no?
Oh, the popular release-of-energy myth.
You accumulate {violence, stress, vigor} until you find a channel for it, so release those energies on a game before you fill up your quota and explode (i.e. better to kick footballs before you fulfill the universal urge to kick other human beings).
Phooey. I hate to beat up a straw man, but that just isn't how it works.
Hitting stuff won't reduce your amount of violent substance; it will make you "better" at being violent. Now you have plenty of violent details to recall, so you're more likely to think that way next time.
Censorware vendors are motivated by opportunity rather than by cool AI techniques or by a desire to make genuinely practical software. Their target market is politically motivated and technically clueless. There are no decent censorware algorithms on the market. They simply hack up some obvious heuristics and hype up their product. Unfortunately, they get the usual glowing reviews from popular PC magazines.
Most censorware vendors keep their algorithms and access control lists secret. Presumably, this is to prevent the competition from stealing their product. However, the secrecy is necessary to prevent the bias and arbitrariness of the blocking strategies from being exposed and criticized. Consider these claims made by CyberSitter:
Intelligent "content recognition" system recognizes even brand new sites.
Guaranteed to block over 97% of all objectionable content!
These are claims made about the filterware that produced many of the embarrassing gaffes mentioned in the/.'d article. Unfortunately, this case is typical of the industry.
First, show me a product that works. Then we'll talk about the morality issues.
from the but-can-it-print-me-up-a-pizza? dept.
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 1
The Net is stuffed with chaos and hostility as well as information, and is being gobbled up nearly whole by restrictive new government regulations, lawyers and laws, copyright and patent fights, and greedy companies.
Example? Censorware. Greedy companies hack up some obvious AI and push it directly to congressmen who are under pressure to fight smut regardless of how bad the software is. Blocking software is probably the unmentioned example that Katz had in mind while writing: "The Net was developed as an open and democratic institution and it will remain so only as long as each of us respects these virtues and works to preserve."
However, barring threats to my internet access, I think that the deluge of junk is a normal and tolerable consequence of being "open and democratic". It doesn't make "intelligent discourse nearly impossible", it makes all forms of discourse more possible. The key is choice. What should I pay attention to? I just think that the web offers an incredibly useful mechanism (hyperlinking) for finding the good stuff. It's even better than channel surfing or browsing the headlines of a newspaper, especially since hyperlinking scales up nicely to huge amounts of information.
What's Nader out ranting about -- he's out there complaining that Hollywood is marketing violent video games and movies to kids, and should be punished. Oh yeah, that's something we've never heard from the Republicans and Democrats.
Actually, Nader emphasizes the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. While the Republocrats are distracted by smut in movies, Nader realizes the potential harm of the ad barrage directed at children, intended to hook them on Pepsi and Snickers for a lifetime. Saturday morning ads mock grown-ups and undermine parantel authority, encouraging children to whine and beg for the new toy which they just can't do without (at the expense of being cool). Advertising in schools (e.g. Channel One) is another nasty beast. Look at Commercial Alert to see why this ad barrage is a bad thing that causes real harm. Of course, the Republocrats won't criticize advertising, because it is the real source of their power (the cost of ads drives up campaign costs, ensuring that only Republocrats have enough money to gain the presidency). Entertainment is one of the major money contributors to the Duopoly, so it's not suprising that Republocrats are conveniently distracted by some trivial legislation while avoiding the real issue.
Did your congressperson vote for campaign finance reform? (Mine voted against it) Some organizations such as the ACLU and Common Cause keep track of a few issues, but normally I must learn the voting record from the candidates themselves before election. That forces me to parse their lies: "During my term, I increased funding for libraries and fought smut on the internet" translates to "I loaned libraries $100 and forced them to install useless $200 filters on their internet machines". If a few more people can go to the source and verify the politician's claims, then the politician won't have a free license to conveniently spin his story for re-election. A database that's searchable by topic would promote integrity in campaign literature and advertising.
Turn off the TV
What did Bush and Gore do with over $100,000,000 of campign money? 30 second commercials with thinly-veiled half-truths that should disgust any critical thinker. Television ads are the major reason why campaigns are so outrageously expensive. If you want third parties to introduce real issues into politics, then don't watch ads. Turn off the TV. That will even the chances for candidates with less money and more ideas. Then the greater influence will be the word-of-mouth from people who have researched the issues, not from a sensationalist appeal to undecided TV watchers.
Vote for a third party
Democrats insist that they are the only way to prevent Republicans from restricting abortion rights. Republicans keep right-wingers in the party by threatening: "if the Democrats gain power, they'll take away your guns." They've made those threats during every election for the past two decades. Don't let fear of the worst party prevent you from voting for the best. Don't worry about the magic of how new supreme court appointees will vote. Supreme Court members have suprised their nominators by voting fairly on the issues, not like the presidents intended. Don't let the Dems/Reps conspire to shut out third parties by restricting debates, by keeping campaign costs high, and by other means (for example, after Nader announced a rally in Flint, MI, then Clinton flew in for a seperate rally at the same time one block away). Vote your ideas!
First of all, I don't think that porn needs to be blocked. Perhaps some sites may cause real harm (internet gambling?), but the damage done by porn is theoretical and unproven. Do the obscure "benefits" of blocking justify the cost of purchasing, deploying, and maintaining the software?
With that in mind, I hope that none of the current batch of crapware gets proliferated in any more libraries. They frequently block good sites because of poor AI and because of the inherent difficulty in the decision-making task.
Let's look at three main methods of blocking to see why they don't work:
An Access Control List
Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).
Keyword filtering
This frequent technique has less intelligence than plankton. They do not use state-of-the-art AI algorithms to parse language. Their methods are crude and arbitrary. However, that doesn't stop vendors from making exhorbitant claims about their intelligence, as if a real nanny was protecting childeren while they surf.
Image processing
My experience with computer vision and pattern recognition suggests that cutting-edge technology is nowhere near distinguishing between pr0n and non-pr0n. How can you tell an innocent dance from a vile sex scene? How do even count the number of people in the photograph? One vendor claims to be able to interpret images (by counting the flesh-tones) to decide whether they are pornographic. Of course, all independent reviews of the software reveal it their algorithm to be complete arbitrary (they can only block 30% of pr0n by blocking 30% of the internet). Mostly, it just blocked people's faces.
In summary, censorware is not much more than cheap introductory-level AI with a lot of marketing hype. Why would we install this crap at the risk of undermining parental authority? Kids will not learn to respect authority by being forced to swallow such stupid and arbitrary protectionist measures.
Furthermore, the whole system reeks of abuse caused by deliberate blocking. Athiest, feminist, and gay newsgroups are frequently targeted. Sites that criticize censorship are often targetted. Remember when CyberSitter threaten to block out all sites on Peacefire's ISP unless the ISP yanked Peacefire's site (for criticizing CyberSitter and showing how lame it was)?
Access control lists and blocking algorithms are kept secret, presumably to prevent the competition from improving their filtering product. However, I think that they must disguise their poor algorithms and abusive practices.
Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org for more analysis of filtering software.
So please don't let your solution include a blocking filter.
Gore instead claimed that he "took the initiative" in a particular place at a particular time...
Gore long ago admitted that he regretted the mis-speak. However, that didn't prevent the Republicans from capitalizing on the public perception that Al really did "invent" the internet. They aggressively advertised Gore's little slip followed by the usual FUD about Gore's credibility. How ironic that their attack on his credibility is itself misleading. I guess Bush's vague platform (pro-hug?) isn't enough to fill a 15 second spot.
Baldur's Gate reminds me of Diablo, which bored me away from the entire genre.
I watched my brother play Diablo as a high-level wizard. He looked engrossed, but all I saw was repetition. He kept torching wave after wave of undead with the same flame-throwing spell. When he was promoted, he used his new spell all of the time. That reinforced my opinion of the demo: the gameplay gets tedious.
One way that games attract players, besides being fun, is to create artifical goals for the player. The theme of the introduction is that you will inevitably kill all of the bad guys, not that you will try it out and then leave satisfied. Presumably, when the player completes the mission, he will be rewarded, perhaps by the unraveling of a mystery. In the case of Diablo, the main goal is character developement
which is rewarded by seeing new animations, as well as bragging rights.
However, that just doesn't motivate me.
Once I envision the theoretical possibility that my character can gain gold and levels, I just don't care about seeing it actually happen. I played rogue, so I know that I can do it eventually. I am more interested in being challenged. Any monkey can build a high-level character if they waste enough hours on it. As for the imagery, it was nothing special. I can guess approximately what a fireball looks like. I don't need to spend hours to get it.
Just because you can stress the limits of your machine doesn't mean that you must. Some of those simple, old-fashioned games were way more fun. Sure, the space ships were 2D cartoon-like icons, but the whole picture was a strategic overhead view and an exercise in visual planning, anticipating how all of those interacting sprites would move around. Contrast that with first person shooters, which naturally limit participation to parsing complex, fast-changing scenery.
Rather than join the hoards of compulsive upgraders, I will continue to play classic games with fun cartoonish figures and strategic 2D overhead views.
The main purpose of MoodWatch is obviously to see how many "chili peppers" you can score. It's like riding in the back of the bus with your elementary school friend; you make faces at people outside and get points depending upon their reaction. Obviously whoever receives the coveted middle finger wins the game immediately. Ah that good ol' juvenile humor.
thank you for taking the time to prove this guy a bonehead.
Actually, you should be skeptical. What if I submitted the original flame myself just so that I could refute it? Or worse, what if you are really my 2nd troll account and I'm waging a solitary three-way troll-fest? What if all of Slashdot was a conspiracy... nah.
That reminds me though. Why do we have the flamebait mod? It's redundant; anything that's flamebait is also a troll. Just think of the origin of those terms. What does a fisherman troll with? Bait!
Perhaps just "flame" would be more appropriate? Or maybe we should replace it with something new? We could have a poll:
Slashdot Mirror
This morning I start up my browser and see an article which is asking how to spell a word??????? Come on, guys.
It's all about the omellete.
Seriously, as consumers, typically we benefit when businesses (even big business) also benefit.
Of course, trickle-down economics. However, the kind of influence that is buying our politicians is not usually the kind that will ultimately benefit consumers. The contributors often expect something in return for their favor: for example, de-regulation that would allow them anti-competitive power.
Soft money contributions, not consumers, decided which issues were heard in this year's campaign and which the Democrats and Republicans ignored.
Turn off the TV, or at least ignore their 15 seconds of blab. Most of that > $100 million that Bush raised was for television advertising. Ironically, the money contributed mostly by big business is used to scum votes from the most impressionable Americans who are in no position to benefit from those business interests. That doesn't stop the bottom-feeding vote scums from saying whatever's necessary to win the election.
Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too.
No, that's false. I've read some /. posts from people who misunderstood Nader's concerns about the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. They incorrectly assume that he's pro-filter.
Gush and Bore are concerned about the "morality" issues and want to censor or rate television, film, and the internet. In contrast, Ralph wants to eliminate the greedy tactics used to peddle junk products to children. "Junk" such as snack food and entertainment with cheap low-grade sensuality and violence (not the artistic kind). All three of the politicians see a decline in the childhood experience, but Nader would propose solutions designed to harbor kids from the ad barrage. For example, he wants to ban Channel One from schools (a wise decision, I came from a Channel One school). He also wants to prevent those exclusive contracts that Coke and Pepsi sign with schools in an effort to get youngsters hooked on a lifetime of drinking carbonated corn syrup (or real sugar, for those lucky enough to be outside the U.S).
I have listend to Nader lecture and I have read his platform. I get the impression that he would rather promote quality rather than ban crap if at all possible. He has never proposed a requirement for filters in libraries or schools. If he has, then I challenge you to find a reputable informative link.
Nader wants censorship of the Internet too.
False.
This is simply false, what more can I say? Go read his platform. Note that the "Education and Children" section makes no mention of censorship. In fact, this is one of the primary differences between Nader and the other candidates. Nader is most concerned about advertisiers exploiting children for marketing purposes. Ads mock authority, encourage children to nag their parents, and use other greedy tactics designed to sell junky products. In contrast, the other candidates are distracting by the "morality" or "values" issues. i.e. they want less violence and smut in television, film, and the internet. Nader is simply objecting to the advertisements.
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it.
It's an extremely stupid algorithm. To illustrate why, let's first describe a proper use of the technique.
The idea is to histogram the colors in the image. For example, consider the image of a cherry. It will have peak colors in the reds but very few colors elsewhere. Now, what if that cherry was bruised? It will have two peaks, one at red and one at brown. That's how we can classify a cherry as "good" or "bruised" when it rolls past our camera.
That's a fine solution to such a simple problem. However, how can you take any arbitrary image off the 'net and classify it as "porn" or "non-porn"? We can't even count the number of people in the photograph.
Unfortunately, such stupid algorithms such as keyword filtering and flesh-tone counting are typical of the industry. The task requires better than the best Artificial Intelligence available, yet vendors make absurd claims about their effectiveness and reliability. They lie about their products to politicians who are under pressure to fight smut regardless of how bad the software is. Even if you agree that filters must be forcefully imposed upon libraries (most librarians will fight them), then the actual products are hopelessly inadequate for the task. For more information, visit peacefire.org.
I've read a lot of articles about the worth/unworth of playing games. Why must they be so homogenous? Why always the first-person and the third-person shooters? What about the muds, Civilization, and my two favorites for many years, Netrek and Core War. Those games are a diverse set that look nothing like each other. Don't just say "games are great" or "games are mind-numbing." It's like saying "books are bad" because you didn't like the last one that you read. Please consider that a computer is a programmable machine that can perform more than one kind of task.
If the /. crowd can generate this many really good tough questions for the candidates why can't journalists even come up with one?
No ambitious journalist wants to wreck his career by demanding a straight answer to a tough question. Candidates choose which journalists to give access and information to. They tend to choose the friendliest ones.
Do you support legislation intended to force schools to filter their internet access? If so, then describe one solution that you would approve. What blocking strategy would you use?
In general, I'm impressed by the quality of Salon reporting. I don't know much about this particular case, but when I've seen their reports on events that I've attended (for example, Ralph Nader rallies), they've been accurate and got their quotes exactly right. This is in contrast to every other news item that I've been involved in or knew something about. I've seen my own numbers embellished (this turned out in my favor actually), quotes from people who never talked to the reporter (obvious quotes that you'd expect someone to say), and various careless blunders as well as other blatant lies. As long as they qualify their stories with "an anonymous source said..." then I don't have a major problem it. You have to be skeptical anyway.
So you're saying catharsis is a myth?
As I expected, a Google search for "catharsis" resulted in this article from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It is perfectly consistent with my point.
And pray tell, how is describing a mythic battle (complete with magic and monsters) going to make someone any better at killing REAL things?
If you hear the vivid details of a sword fight (disembowelment, etc.) then for a while you're going to think about fighting a lot more than other people would. Inevitably, you will consider strategies for fighting. Consequently, you are more likely to notice a good fighting solution to a problem before you notice the other solutions.
It seems unquestionable that humans are by nature a violent and aggressive species. So, if those tendencies are sublimated, acted out in games, it is beneficial, not harmful, no?
Oh, the popular release-of-energy myth. You accumulate {violence, stress, vigor} until you find a channel for it, so release those energies on a game before you fill up your quota and explode (i.e. better to kick footballs before you fulfill the universal urge to kick other human beings).
Phooey. I hate to beat up a straw man, but that just isn't how it works. Hitting stuff won't reduce your amount of violent substance; it will make you "better" at being violent. Now you have plenty of violent details to recall, so you're more likely to think that way next time.
Censorware vendors are motivated by opportunity rather than by cool AI techniques or by a desire to make genuinely practical software. Their target market is politically motivated and technically clueless. There are no decent censorware algorithms on the market. They simply hack up some obvious heuristics and hype up their product. Unfortunately, they get the usual glowing reviews from popular PC magazines.
Most censorware vendors keep their algorithms and access control lists secret. Presumably, this is to prevent the competition from stealing their product. However, the secrecy is necessary to prevent the bias and arbitrariness of the blocking strategies from being exposed and criticized. Consider these claims made by CyberSitter:
- Intelligent "content recognition" system recognizes even brand new sites.
- Guaranteed to block over 97% of all objectionable content!
These are claims made about the filterware that produced many of the embarrassing gaffes mentioned in theFirst, show me a product that works. Then we'll talk about the morality issues.
No, but this can.
The Net is stuffed with chaos and hostility as well as information, and is being gobbled up nearly whole by restrictive new government regulations, lawyers and laws, copyright and patent fights, and greedy companies.
Example? Censorware. Greedy companies hack up some obvious AI and push it directly to congressmen who are under pressure to fight smut regardless of how bad the software is. Blocking software is probably the unmentioned example that Katz had in mind while writing: "The Net was developed as an open and democratic institution and it will remain so only as long as each of us respects these virtues and works to preserve."
However, barring threats to my internet access, I think that the deluge of junk is a normal and tolerable consequence of being "open and democratic". It doesn't make "intelligent discourse nearly impossible", it makes all forms of discourse more possible. The key is choice. What should I pay attention to? I just think that the web offers an incredibly useful mechanism (hyperlinking) for finding the good stuff. It's even better than channel surfing or browsing the headlines of a newspaper, especially since hyperlinking scales up nicely to huge amounts of information.
What's Nader out ranting about -- he's out there complaining that Hollywood is marketing violent video games and movies to kids, and should be punished. Oh yeah, that's something we've never heard from the Republicans and Democrats.
Actually, Nader emphasizes the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. While the Republocrats are distracted by smut in movies, Nader realizes the potential harm of the ad barrage directed at children, intended to hook them on Pepsi and Snickers for a lifetime. Saturday morning ads mock grown-ups and undermine parantel authority, encouraging children to whine and beg for the new toy which they just can't do without (at the expense of being cool). Advertising in schools (e.g. Channel One) is another nasty beast. Look at Commercial Alert to see why this ad barrage is a bad thing that causes real harm. Of course, the Republocrats won't criticize advertising, because it is the real source of their power (the cost of ads drives up campaign costs, ensuring that only Republocrats have enough money to gain the presidency). Entertainment is one of the major money contributors to the Duopoly, so it's not suprising that Republocrats are conveniently distracted by some trivial legislation while avoiding the real issue.
Put congressional voting records online
Did your congressperson vote for campaign finance reform? (Mine voted against it) Some organizations such as the ACLU and Common Cause keep track of a few issues, but normally I must learn the voting record from the candidates themselves before election. That forces me to parse their lies: "During my term, I increased funding for libraries and fought smut on the internet" translates to "I loaned libraries $100 and forced them to install useless $200 filters on their internet machines". If a few more people can go to the source and verify the politician's claims, then the politician won't have a free license to conveniently spin his story for re-election. A database that's searchable by topic would promote integrity in campaign literature and advertising.
Turn off the TV
What did Bush and Gore do with over $100,000,000 of campign money? 30 second commercials with thinly-veiled half-truths that should disgust any critical thinker. Television ads are the major reason why campaigns are so outrageously expensive. If you want third parties to introduce real issues into politics, then don't watch ads. Turn off the TV. That will even the chances for candidates with less money and more ideas. Then the greater influence will be the word-of-mouth from people who have researched the issues, not from a sensationalist appeal to undecided TV watchers.
Vote for a third party
Democrats insist that they are the only way to prevent Republicans from restricting abortion rights. Republicans keep right-wingers in the party by threatening: "if the Democrats gain power, they'll take away your guns." They've made those threats during every election for the past two decades. Don't let fear of the worst party prevent you from voting for the best. Don't worry about the magic of how new supreme court appointees will vote. Supreme Court members have suprised their nominators by voting fairly on the issues, not like the presidents intended. Don't let the Dems/Reps conspire to shut out third parties by restricting debates, by keeping campaign costs high, and by other means (for example, after Nader announced a rally in Flint, MI, then Clinton flew in for a seperate rally at the same time one block away). Vote your ideas!
First of all, I don't think that porn needs to be blocked. Perhaps some sites may cause real harm (internet gambling?), but the damage done by porn is theoretical and unproven. Do the obscure "benefits" of blocking justify the cost of purchasing, deploying, and maintaining the software?
With that in mind, I hope that none of the current batch of crapware gets proliferated in any more libraries. They frequently block good sites because of poor AI and because of the inherent difficulty in the decision-making task.
Let's look at three main methods of blocking to see why they don't work:
Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).
This frequent technique has less intelligence than plankton. They do not use state-of-the-art AI algorithms to parse language. Their methods are crude and arbitrary. However, that doesn't stop vendors from making exhorbitant claims about their intelligence, as if a real nanny was protecting childeren while they surf.
My experience with computer vision and pattern recognition suggests that cutting-edge technology is nowhere near distinguishing between pr0n and non-pr0n. How can you tell an innocent dance from a vile sex scene? How do even count the number of people in the photograph? One vendor claims to be able to interpret images (by counting the flesh-tones) to decide whether they are pornographic. Of course, all independent reviews of the software reveal it their algorithm to be complete arbitrary (they can only block 30% of pr0n by blocking 30% of the internet). Mostly, it just blocked people's faces.
In summary, censorware is not much more than cheap introductory-level AI with a lot of marketing hype. Why would we install this crap at the risk of undermining parental authority? Kids will not learn to respect authority by being forced to swallow such stupid and arbitrary protectionist measures.
Furthermore, the whole system reeks of abuse caused by deliberate blocking. Athiest, feminist, and gay newsgroups are frequently targeted. Sites that criticize censorship are often targetted. Remember when CyberSitter threaten to block out all sites on Peacefire's ISP unless the ISP yanked Peacefire's site (for criticizing CyberSitter and showing how lame it was)? Access control lists and blocking algorithms are kept secret, presumably to prevent the competition from improving their filtering product. However, I think that they must disguise their poor algorithms and abusive practices.
Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org for more analysis of filtering software.
So please don't let your solution include a blocking filter.
Another day, another CueCat article.
We mustn't forget that DC was cracked, cracked, and cracked.
How many votes will you cast in this poll?
this industry has the most fucking ANNOYING acronyms.
e-this, e-that, i-this, i-that, me-commerce, information superhighway, dot in dot com, jesus christ, THEY ALL SUCK.
You sound iRate. Take it e-z dude.
Gore instead claimed that he "took the initiative" in a particular place at a particular time...
Gore long ago admitted that he regretted the mis-speak. However, that didn't prevent the Republicans from capitalizing on the public perception that Al really did "invent" the internet. They aggressively advertised Gore's little slip followed by the usual FUD about Gore's credibility. How ironic that their attack on his credibility is itself misleading. I guess Bush's vague platform (pro-hug?) isn't enough to fill a 15 second spot.
Baldur's Gate reminds me of Diablo, which bored me away from the entire genre.
I watched my brother play Diablo as a high-level wizard. He looked engrossed, but all I saw was repetition. He kept torching wave after wave of undead with the same flame-throwing spell. When he was promoted, he used his new spell all of the time. That reinforced my opinion of the demo: the gameplay gets tedious.
One way that games attract players, besides being fun, is to create artifical goals for the player. The theme of the introduction is that you will inevitably kill all of the bad guys, not that you will try it out and then leave satisfied. Presumably, when the player completes the mission, he will be rewarded, perhaps by the unraveling of a mystery. In the case of Diablo, the main goal is character developement which is rewarded by seeing new animations, as well as bragging rights.
However, that just doesn't motivate me. Once I envision the theoretical possibility that my character can gain gold and levels, I just don't care about seeing it actually happen. I played rogue, so I know that I can do it eventually. I am more interested in being challenged. Any monkey can build a high-level character if they waste enough hours on it. As for the imagery, it was nothing special. I can guess approximately what a fireball looks like. I don't need to spend hours to get it.
Just because you can stress the limits of your machine doesn't mean that you must. Some of those simple, old-fashioned games were way more fun. Sure, the space ships were 2D cartoon-like icons, but the whole picture was a strategic overhead view and an exercise in visual planning, anticipating how all of those interacting sprites would move around. Contrast that with first person shooters, which naturally limit participation to parsing complex, fast-changing scenery.
Rather than join the hoards of compulsive upgraders, I will continue to play classic games with fun cartoonish figures and strategic 2D overhead views.
The main purpose of MoodWatch is obviously to see how many "chili peppers" you can score. It's like riding in the back of the bus with your elementary school friend; you make faces at people outside and get points depending upon their reaction. Obviously whoever receives the coveted middle finger wins the game immediately. Ah that good ol' juvenile humor.
thank you for taking the time to prove this guy a bonehead.
Actually, you should be skeptical. What if I submitted the original flame myself just so that I could refute it? Or worse, what if you are really my 2nd troll account and I'm waging a solitary three-way troll-fest? What if all of Slashdot was a conspiracy... nah.
That reminds me though. Why do we have the flamebait mod? It's redundant; anything that's flamebait is also a troll. Just think of the origin of those terms. What does a fisherman troll with? Bait!
Perhaps just "flame" would be more appropriate? Or maybe we should replace it with something new? We could have a poll:
New -1 mod: