I really don't understand how anyone can be so up at arms over a group of people dedicated to children's welfare suggesting that less tv might be a good thing. There is a great big world out there and the answers don't always come as easily as they do in sitcoms, so I hardly think that watching tv is adequate preparation for becoming an adult. Experience, knowledge and skills are needed that go beyond what can be absorbed passively sitting in front of a glowing box. Children (and even young adults) don't know enough about what's coming up later in their lives to be adequately able to judge what preparations they need to be making. No one can forsee the future, but there are some obvious situations and experiences that everyone deals with eventually, and there are methods for surviving even unforseen events that everyone needs to develop. That's part of the contract parents should be making with their children. To help prepare them as best they can for the world outside of their homes.
The pediatricians' plea of restraint is such a small voice compared to the barage of inducements to watch more television, that I find it hard to believe it's a threat to freedom. They are suggesting a course of action for concerned parents, not trying to outlaw or ban television. If you are truly a proponent of intelligent viewing practices, I think you would appreciate someone reminding parents that there is such a thing as too much television. You can't reach the golden mean if you don't remember that there are two sides to the argument.
There are some people who think that anyone actually mature enough to see the South Park movie would be mature enough not to want to.
I know many 8 year olds who think they are mature enough to drive and plenty of 12 year olds who think they are old enough to drink and more than a few 15 year olds who think that a constant stream of cynical vulgarities has no effect on their psychological and cultural development.
Not everyone who objects to having their system broken into is an ignorant peasant, scared of their own shadow in the forest.
For example: I think that sex is a good and right thing. Suppose I see a woman that I would like to have sex with, but who doesn't want to have sex with me. From my point of view, wearing a condom would prevent any untoward repurcussions, since no one would get sick or pregnant. These are the only valid concerns I can see anyone raising. So if I wear a condom, she will be no worse off than she is now, and I will be so much happier. Surely if she were as informed as I am, she would agree. Why should I let her ignorance and narrow-mindedness prevent me from having this fun. THIS STILL WOULD BE RAPE IF SHE DOESN'T CONSENT. It's not my evaluation of what she should or should not think about appropriate use of her body that counts. It's hers.
My system is not your toy. Just because you return my car with the tank full in the morning doesn't mean you can steal it and joyride tonight.
If a stranger climbed over my fence and set up a tent to camp out in my back yard, I'm not going to assume that they're just going to stay there for a day or two and leave with no harm done. I'm going to call the cops and have them removed. The purity of their motives does not abbrogate my right to privacy.
I don't even want to think about the criminal casing my house who discovers the laxity with which I enforce my property rights in the above scenario.
Tresspassers should be prosecuted. Cyber or otherwise.
Many people can control themselves when it comes to alcohol. Have a few drinks, know enough not to get in a car or beat up their significant other when they get home. Others can't keep this control, and sometimes they don't skip that first drink, since it seems that no one else has to abstain. But for some people the first drink inevitably leads to a tenth. And many times people who've had that tenth drink go on to do something violent. Should we ban alcohol? I don't think so. In moderation, it actually can help you live longer. There are, however, people for whom any amount of it is inappropriate.
Acting out violent scenes, even on screen, can also create an altered sense of consciousness, through the adrenalin and the extreme focus. I would have to believe that there are people for whom this would have the same effect as alcohol has to an alcoholic. Combine this with a sense of factionslism (we/they),a general feeling of powerlessness, a society that doesn't reward empathy as readily as self indulgence, and the ready availability of weapons and instruction for creating them, and you're going to get this kind of reaction sometimes.
So should the games be banned? I don't think so. Do we need to admit that they may be one of several contributing factors. I believe that the answer has to be yes.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. -- Thomas Edison
I understand the confusion surrounding the concept of inspiration as property. By doing away with copyrights, though, you make it impossible to profit from the perspiration involved in developing an idea so that it has some use.
Some people do their work for the fame and recognition, some for the money, some because they are just offended by inelegant solutions. If you only allow one reward system, you'll lose the interest of the other two groups and we'll all be worse off.
One that immediately springs to mind is symphonic recordings. The market is small, the cost enormous. The tracks are extremely long. Fidelity is very important. And the artists are already underpaid.
Another problem needs to be addressed. Despite the fact that many claims have been made about how everyone would be willing to pay for the tracks one at a time, from what I've heard and read, many if not most people who collect MP3 tracks have more than a few pirated tracks. Having displayed this willingness to ignore copyrights, can you blame the record companies for being suspicious about the future intentions of the MP3 audience?
Artists' time is valuable and they deserve to be paid for it. Musicians worth their salt spend more time learning their art than do the members of any other profession I can think of. Advertisers in broadcast media may pay your favorite artist on your behalf, but you shouldn't expect musicians to go hungry for the sake of their self-expression or your enjoyment.
****
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine." --Ayn Rand
Age related to quality of production?
on
Why Work Sucks
·
· Score: 1
Just a thought:
Development of UNIX began during what the article refers to as the golden age. Over time it became the rock-solid operating system which served as the conceptual basis for Linux. UNIX (and by derivation, Linux)are products of that earlier mentality. Everything I've heard about Microsoft leads me to believe it is representative of the current system as described in the article.
It takes patience and time to work the bugs out of a system. Knowing that you may still be working on the same product 5-10 years from now gives you a longer time-horizon and makes you more willing to do a thorough job, even on a big project. Patience, focus and attention to detail are as necessary to the development equation as are vision and drive. Nobody starts out with all of these qualities. It takes time to fill in the gaps. There's an awful lot of software out there that would be great if it actually did what it was intended to do, but was never finished because people were called on to the next project.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand how anyone can be so up at arms over a group of people dedicated to children's welfare suggesting that less tv might be a good thing. There is a great big world out there and the answers don't always come as easily as they do in sitcoms, so I hardly think that watching tv is adequate preparation for becoming an adult. Experience, knowledge and skills are needed that go beyond what can be absorbed passively sitting in front of a glowing box. Children (and even young adults) don't know enough about what's coming up later in their lives to be adequately able to judge what preparations they need to be making. No one can forsee the future, but there are some obvious situations and experiences that everyone deals with eventually, and there are methods for surviving even unforseen events that everyone needs to develop. That's part of the contract parents should be making with their children. To help prepare them as best they can for the world outside of their homes.
The pediatricians' plea of restraint is such a small voice compared to the barage of inducements to watch more television, that I find it hard to believe it's a threat to freedom. They are suggesting a course of action for concerned parents, not trying to outlaw or ban television. If you are truly a proponent of intelligent viewing practices, I think you would appreciate someone reminding parents that there is such a thing as too much television. You can't reach the golden mean if you don't remember that there are two sides to the argument.
There are some people who think that anyone actually mature enough to see the South Park movie would be mature enough not to want to.
I know many 8 year olds who think they are mature enough to drive and plenty of 12 year olds who think they are old enough to drink and more than a few 15 year olds who think that a constant stream of cynical vulgarities has no effect on their psychological and cultural development.
Not everyone who objects to having their system broken into is an ignorant peasant, scared of their own shadow in the forest.
For example: I think that sex is a good and right thing. Suppose I see a woman that I would like to have sex with, but who doesn't want to have sex with me. From my point of view, wearing a condom would prevent any untoward repurcussions, since no one would get sick or pregnant. These are the only valid concerns I can see anyone raising. So if I wear a condom, she will be no worse off than she is now, and I will be so much happier. Surely if she were as informed as I am, she would agree. Why should I let her ignorance and narrow-mindedness prevent me from having this fun. THIS STILL WOULD BE RAPE IF SHE DOESN'T CONSENT. It's not my evaluation of what she should or should not think about appropriate use of her body that counts. It's hers.
My system is not your toy. Just because you return my car with the tank full in the morning doesn't mean you can steal it and joyride tonight.
If they're invited their not a hacker, they're a consultant.
If a stranger climbed over my fence and set up a tent to camp out in my back yard, I'm not going to assume that they're just going to stay there for a day or two and leave with no harm done. I'm going to call the cops and have them removed. The purity of their motives does not abbrogate my right to privacy.
I don't even want to think about the criminal casing my house who discovers the laxity with which I enforce my property rights in the above scenario.
Tresspassers should be prosecuted. Cyber or otherwise.
Many people can control themselves when it comes to alcohol. Have a few drinks, know enough not to get in a car or beat up their significant other when they get home. Others can't keep this control, and sometimes they don't skip that first drink, since it seems that no one else has to abstain. But for some people the first drink inevitably leads to a tenth. And many times people who've had that tenth drink go on to do something violent. Should we ban alcohol? I don't think so. In moderation, it actually can help you live longer. There are, however, people for whom any amount of it is inappropriate.
Acting out violent scenes, even on screen, can also create an altered sense of consciousness, through the adrenalin and the extreme focus. I would have to believe that there are people for whom this would have the same effect as alcohol has to an alcoholic. Combine this with a sense of factionslism (we/they),a general feeling of powerlessness, a society that doesn't reward empathy as readily as self indulgence, and the ready availability of weapons and instruction for creating them, and you're going to get this kind of reaction sometimes.
So should the games be banned? I don't think so. Do we need to admit that they may be one of several contributing factors. I believe that the answer has to be yes.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. -- Thomas Edison
I understand the confusion surrounding the concept of inspiration as property. By doing away with copyrights, though, you make it impossible to profit from the perspiration involved in developing an idea so that it has some use.
Some people do their work for the fame and recognition, some for the money, some because they are just offended by inelegant solutions. If you only allow one reward system, you'll lose the interest of the other two groups and we'll all be worse off.
. . . this model seems to have some limits.
One that immediately springs to mind is symphonic recordings. The market is small, the cost enormous. The tracks are extremely long. Fidelity is very important. And the artists are already underpaid.
Another problem needs to be addressed. Despite the fact that many claims have been made about how everyone would be willing to pay for the tracks one at a time, from what I've heard and read, many if not most people who collect MP3 tracks have more than a few pirated tracks. Having displayed this willingness to ignore copyrights, can you blame the record companies for being suspicious about the future intentions of the MP3 audience?
Artists' time is valuable and they deserve to be paid for it. Musicians worth their salt spend more time learning their art than do the members of any other profession I can think of. Advertisers in broadcast media may pay your favorite artist on your behalf, but you shouldn't expect musicians to go hungry for the sake of their self-expression or your enjoyment.
****
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine." --Ayn Rand
Just a thought:
Development of UNIX began during what the article refers to as the golden age. Over time it became the rock-solid operating system which served as the conceptual basis for Linux. UNIX (and by derivation, Linux)are products of that earlier mentality. Everything I've heard about Microsoft leads me to believe it is representative of the current system as described in the article.
It takes patience and time to work the bugs out of a system. Knowing that you may still be working on the same product 5-10 years from now gives you a longer time-horizon and makes you more willing to do a thorough job, even on a big project. Patience, focus and attention to detail are as necessary to the development equation as are vision and drive. Nobody starts out with all of these qualities. It takes time to fill in the gaps. There's an awful lot of software out there that would be great if it actually did what it was intended to do, but was never finished because people were called on to the next project.