"[Apple] announced Tiger, the latest version of its operating system, with posters taunting, REDMOND, START YOUR PHOTOCOPIERS."
1) Wired's article is dated March 18, 2008.
2) Leopard, the latest version of OS X, was released last October.
3) Steve Jobs has an eye for detail.
4) Wired doesn't.
How did playing videogames become a risk factor in committing violence? What about testosterone driven sports? Violent videogames "desensitize". Violent sports actually numb their participants.
Doorman: "May I check your coat, sir?"
Savant: "Yes, who do I leave my brain with this evening?"
Doorman: "The recording industry will collect that inside. Be careful, please, we've had reports of brains with unauthorized memories of music being confiscated."
Savant: "Best I should just leave, then. I heard a cover band playing a Beatles tune last night."
Validation for anything is a lot like the political process in general: intended to be painfully slow. Political candidates are vetted thoroughly beforehand because no one likes to be surprised (imagine if Howard Dean's outburst had happened right as he was about to be sworn in). Legislation is debated until the problem they are trying to address no longer requires government intervention. No one wants to take a stand only to be embarassed later.
I imagine everyone who has a job which requires them to be present, but not necessarily busy, has a keen interest in any "casual game" which can capture their interest. They may not be willing to pay for those games on an individual basis, but a nominal fee for access to a wide variety of ways to pass the time could be very successful. Think receptionists, call centers, government workers.
Hence the incentive for companies to try to keep their employees busy at work, even monitoring employees' computers. Here's a BBC report on internet abuse If this is worth that much to businesses to stop it, there must be a market for exploiting it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2381123.stm
It seems clear that some Internet providers (large and small) have some interest in limiting, censoring, or otherwise filtering their customers' content. Likewise, governments appear to have little interest in banning those same providers from doing just that (not to mention little ability in drafting legislation actually aimed at banning it). Companies have all kinds of reason to limit content (which they consider a benefit to their customers), and governments have little incentive to stand in the way of what could possibly be a better system.
If providers are going to do it, and governments aren't going to stop it, what can those of us who aren't convinced this will be better do? The obvious solution is to prove the providers wrong: new providers specifically targetting customers who don't want this service. The problem is that many of the providers who want to limit content control a disproportionate amount of the Internet itself. So how about instead of trying to force providers not to limit content, governments and consumers aim to force them to provide uncensored content to other, smaller, providers?
Slashdot Mirror
"[Apple] announced Tiger, the latest version of its operating system, with posters taunting, REDMOND, START YOUR PHOTOCOPIERS."
1) Wired's article is dated March 18, 2008.
2) Leopard, the latest version of OS X, was released last October.
3) Steve Jobs has an eye for detail.
4) Wired doesn't.
"He declined to talk to Wired for this article."
Surprise, surprise.
How did playing videogames become a risk factor in committing violence? What about testosterone driven sports? Violent videogames "desensitize". Violent sports actually numb their participants.
Doorman: "May I check your coat, sir?" Savant: "Yes, who do I leave my brain with this evening?" Doorman: "The recording industry will collect that inside. Be careful, please, we've had reports of brains with unauthorized memories of music being confiscated." Savant: "Best I should just leave, then. I heard a cover band playing a Beatles tune last night."
Validation for anything is a lot like the political process in general: intended to be painfully slow. Political candidates are vetted thoroughly beforehand because no one likes to be surprised (imagine if Howard Dean's outburst had happened right as he was about to be sworn in). Legislation is debated until the problem they are trying to address no longer requires government intervention. No one wants to take a stand only to be embarassed later.
I imagine everyone who has a job which requires them to be present, but not necessarily busy, has a keen interest in any "casual game" which can capture their interest. They may not be willing to pay for those games on an individual basis, but a nominal fee for access to a wide variety of ways to pass the time could be very successful. Think receptionists, call centers, government workers.
Hence the incentive for companies to try to keep their employees busy at work, even monitoring employees' computers. Here's a BBC report on internet abuse If this is worth that much to businesses to stop it, there must be a market for exploiting it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2381123.stm
It seems clear that some Internet providers (large and small) have some interest in limiting, censoring, or otherwise filtering their customers' content. Likewise, governments appear to have little interest in banning those same providers from doing just that (not to mention little ability in drafting legislation actually aimed at banning it). Companies have all kinds of reason to limit content (which they consider a benefit to their customers), and governments have little incentive to stand in the way of what could possibly be a better system.
If providers are going to do it, and governments aren't going to stop it, what can those of us who aren't convinced this will be better do? The obvious solution is to prove the providers wrong: new providers specifically targetting customers who don't want this service. The problem is that many of the providers who want to limit content control a disproportionate amount of the Internet itself. So how about instead of trying to force providers not to limit content, governments and consumers aim to force them to provide uncensored content to other, smaller, providers?