You don't have permission to copy it == You're stealing it.
Questionable morality there. Assuming that I use Napster for this purpose (I don't, actually - no artist I get from Napster comes under US copyright law, most are from Japan and are thus not available by any conventional means), I disagree that I am (hypothetically) stealing from the artist. If anyone, it would be the record companies who have already stolen from the artists, and I wonder about whether or not stealing from a thief is really all that bad.
Of course, this is all working on the assumption that copying = stealing, which I categorically deny.
Yes, it is a very important distinction. Unfortunately, it doesn't give you the right to steal the artist's work for nothing.
Really, that's a separate issue. It's a popular concept that copying via Napster, Gnutella, etc. is theft, but that's hardly proven. Nor is it the same as telling the difference between GPL and interpretations of copyright.
I believe firmly in compensating artists. In some ways I act on this belief, such as being sure to buy the CDs of bands I like, such as Moxy Fruvous. I just don't think that following the current interpretations and amendments to copyright law assists in this.
I'll consider it newsworthy when these things actually manage to make themselves into better survivalists with NO human help.
I've been seeing a lot of comments like that. Goal-oriented/. readers who'd rather see the complete results rather than the incremental steps that make such results possible. I, for one, like to see the minutae that underlies the innovations.
Personally, I expect most of these folks would make lousy parents. "Dear, Junior's taking his first steps!" "Who cares? Call me when he's ready for the Olympics."
And before you go off ranting about how people "just want to share", remember, "he who writes the code (or in this case, "performs the music") gets to choose the license."
This seems, at least to me, to be either the crux of the matter, or at least a very important aspect.
The GPL allows for just such a choice as you refer to. However, the RIAA's interpretation of copyright and licensing runs counter to it. In the music industry, the "coder" is not able to choose the license. In fact, beyond producing the product and living up to various contractual obligations, s/he has almost no control at all. I would say this is a very important distinction.
Around when Episode I came out, I read time and again how much of a nightmare it was to deal with the several R2 robot models on the set.
Well, that's a pretty compelling reason to remove the non-Kenny droids, particularly the ones used for long shots, etc. And in fact you could even replace some of the real close-up stuff, like shots that only show a few square centimetres of his surface.
But this goes a little further than necessary or wise. Is "saving" trouble with Kenny and his "costume" really worth removing the human element? And is it worth the PR hit this decision is bound to cause Lucas and the franchise (in the fashion that MacDonalds is a franchise)?
I'm sorry Kenny didn't get to work on Episode II..., but, well... that's progress.
Sadly, that is the truth. Given that progress seems to be defined here in rather a soulless, audience-as-consumer sort of way.
So let me get this perfectly straight. Fox, which is airing Escaflowne dubbed into English, has CUT OUT the original soundtrack?...
are they out of their FUCKING _*MINDS*_? It's one of the best OSTs around!
Even more stupid, they cut out the entire first episode apparently in an effort to make the show "less girly". I shudder to think how much of the series is going to be eviscerated because Fox wants a boy's show, rather than the show they actually decided to air.
I wonder, since this treatment is aimed at ADD, whether a similar treatment program would be effective in my case.
I suffer from a mild case of Giles de la Tourette's Syndrome which, while having some differences in cause, includes some ADD tendencies. Anecdotally, I've noticed that my muscular twitches bother me less while I'm absorbed in a game, so perhaps there's something to this.
Does anyone know if there's any research along these lines?
"File sharing" just wouldn't be the same anymore... ("Hi, can you get me the Smith file?" "Yeah, just lift up your skirt, will ya?")
A very disquieting thought. Does this mean that sperm banks will be subject to DCMA suits?
Even worse, will we be seeing RIAA suits re that built-in "wow-chicka-wow" upload music you just installed? =)
Re:Is this the right thing to do?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 3
I'm not some kind of technology-fearing Luddite (as the fact that I read/. should prove) but IMHO this isn't the right thing to do. Why? Because as much as we might like to, you can't turn back the clock - a principle made abundently clear by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I'm a little fuzzy as to what the Second Law of Thermodynamics has to do with "turning back the clock" (which isn't what the scientists are trying to do - this is biology, not time travel).What it does sound like is Manifest Destiny.
As far as I can see, your logic rests mainly on justification after the fact. "This species died out, therefore it was supposed to die out and we're wrong to try to change that." The same can be applied to any species we've driven to extinction, either by hunting or destroying habitat. All you need is that handy bit of sophism, "What's done is done," and everything is explained in terms of The Plan.
Pretty handy way of humanity getting off the hook for all sorts of ecological disasters, doesn't it? Sure, we're polluting the oceans, killing off the animals and befouling the earth. But if we weren't supposed to do it, then we wouldn't be able to, right? Besides, what's done is done, and thanks to a spurious reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it's too late to change our ways now.
Can't people even handle a compliment around here? I was trying to say that weathering overwhelming odds, with only luck to go on, until they found strong allies was admirable in the rebels.
Regardless of the participation of the French, the fact remains that America revolted agains the most powerful empire in the world, and won.
Nonsense. You cannot view the Revolutionary war without considering the French, Spanish and Dutch. Without them, the Americans could never have won. Your comment makes it seem like we can leave them out of the equation altogether, which is ridiculous.
The Americans won against the most powerful empire in the world because they had the help of three of the other most powerful nations in the world. Had it not been for those nations' personal enmity against Britain, the Americans would have been left high and dry.
I always hate it when foreigners equate John Wayne with their worst perceptions of American nationalistic fervor.
As for whether it was a decisive victory... I haven't paid any taxes to the British crown lately, so I guess that means you lost... completely.
I'm a Canadian, and I don't pay any taxes to Britain either. Does that mean I won a decisive victory against the British? Or does the fact that US citizens don't owe any taxes to the French and Spanish, also former colony owners, mean that you beat them, too?
It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears.
It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears.
For the entire history of our nation, beginning when we opened a can of whoop-ass on King George's redcoats, we have called ourselves "Americans". Your "politically-correct" revisionism is not going to change that.
Speaking of revisionism...
If anything, it was the French, Spanish and Dutch attacking the British on other fronts (and for their own reasons, very little concerning democracy and independence) that weakened the British presence in the colonies and allowing for American victories. To say nothing of French military support of Washington's forces.
Americans didn't open any kind of whomp-ass on the British. The British simply found themselves with more urgent matters to deal with than a rather expensive revolution. In fact, it was a full two years after Cornwallis' defeat that the war finally ended. Not exactly a decisive victory, by any means.
Try here for a little information about your own country's history.
However, I don't cast my vote until I've actually heard both candidates speak twice, once in front of a positive audiance and once in front of a receptive but not overly positive crowd. . . . How many readers can claim to really have observed Clinton so closely?
I wonder how many of your countrymen have the opportunity or ability to do as you apparently have done? In a country so large, the opportunity for the average person to physically travel to whereever the candidates are speaking (sometimes not such an easy task) and absorb both travel and time-off costs, is not necessarily easy.
The course of an election campaign is relatively short, and a large number of voters will not be able to see or hear these candidates at all if not for television and online broadcasts.
That's a stupid idea. How would you ever get a cohesive story with scads of people working on it? No, you can't just plug 'Open Source' onto the beginning of any word or phrase and make it instantly good.
Apparently I need to clarify for the hard of thinking.
I don't support Open Sourcing the story, I support Open Sourcing the game. There is a large and obvious difference between the two.
To take my current project, Adonthell, as a practical example, we are designing a story driven RPG very much in the tradition of some of the better console games (say, Final Fantasy III or Ultima VII). The story is being treated as a unified whole. We have set aside people to work specifically on story, scripting and general plot issues, just as we have people to work on the various engines needed to run the game. We don't have enormous hordes of Open Source community members coming in and changing the story on us. However, when we have enough of the code of the engine done, then others will be able to take that code and make similar games.
This is what I think would be wonderful for Adventure games. Making an Open Source engine which could be modified for whatever the needs of the individual games are, while each retains its unique storyline. After all, one of the things that attract me most to adventure games is the story and puzzles, which are often independent of the code.
Open Source doesn't necessarily make a game good. But it doesn't necessarily make it bad, either.
I don't know about the other genres, but I would say that adventure games would really work in the Open Source world. They're interesting sorts of games which work well on almost any machine and benefit by the free (either kind) distribution that Open Source could give.
It's actually a pity that I'm already involved in a good Open Source project or I'd be very tempted to see out just such a project. Perhaps when this one's done...
Because it's not really based on english - it's based on machine code, logic, and math.
Don't be too certain that mathematics isn't influenced by cultural factors in turn. You may find link interesting, to say the least.
I hear a lot of comments like this regarding just about anything that becomes popular. People whine and bitch about them not based on the quality of the game (or sim), but on the hype surrounding it.
I haven't really been a fan of either Tamagotchi or Pokemon (although Tamagotchis were kinda cute), but at least I'm able to make a distinction between hype and actual quality.
Furthermore, it looks like the increased attention has either attracted a hacker or caused a crash in their tallying software. A glance a few moments ago (~1450 EST) reveals that -1 donations have been made, with a grand total of $0
This isn't as facetious as it sounds. Why not provide surfing access via Lynx? Our local Chebucto Freenet provides free service using only Lynx, and it gets quite brisk usage.
If this can be done without undue problems (and really, unless you're guaranteeing graphic access you shouldn't have many) then it's a simple matter to monitor disk and printer access a little and voila, a relatively pr0n-free internet service without the need for a filter.
It should be noted that Japanese culture plays a huge role in the adoption of technology. Historically, the Japanese have shown an ability to effect large scale social change in a very short time.
Culturally, this can be seen most clearly in the Meiji period (look it up). Technologically, the dramatic abandonment of firearms in the early Tokugawa days. The latter is rather impressive, being the only case where a nation has given up en masse a superior piece of military technology in favour of more archaic (but more well-understood and familiar) tech.
Ideally, if consumers are abused, they will take it out on the company by complaining, or just moving to another product.
Aside from the quite valid points you make, I would like to add one more.
As quoted above, the ideal is for consumers to complain and/or take their trade elsewhere. Aside from ideal, it is also sensible and logical.
The trouble is that in cases like MSFT, many of the "consumers" are actually corporate entities. And corporate entities buy a lot of MSFT products.
Worse, most corporate entities don't operate by the same principles of logic and common sense that real people do, so they wouldn't fit the ideal of voting with your feet as described above. Hell, they're the sort of "people" who find this sort of thing reasonable.
Having done a lot of work for the military, I can attest to what happens when somebody in the upper stratosphere of the ranks decides on some 'standard'. For the most part, we spent our time either subverting them by creative labeling of what we were doing (for example, if embedded systems are exempt, suddenly everything we produced was an embedded system), or applying for waivers. Not exactly a productive use of our time.
I'm a little confused. What, precisely, is the point here?
Are you trying to say that the US military is incapable of setting reasonable standards, or that the US military is so anarchistic that they will not follow standards regardless of quality?
The brass should have learned to hire a few MSFT marketers. Then they wouldn't have had any problems. At least until someone attacked.
Slashdot Mirror
Questionable morality there. Assuming that I use Napster for this purpose (I don't, actually - no artist I get from Napster comes under US copyright law, most are from Japan and are thus not available by any conventional means), I disagree that I am (hypothetically) stealing from the artist. If anyone, it would be the record companies who have already stolen from the artists, and I wonder about whether or not stealing from a thief is really all that bad.
Of course, this is all working on the assumption that copying = stealing, which I categorically deny.
Really, that's a separate issue. It's a popular concept that copying via Napster, Gnutella, etc. is theft, but that's hardly proven. Nor is it the same as telling the difference between GPL and interpretations of copyright.
I believe firmly in compensating artists. In some ways I act on this belief, such as being sure to buy the CDs of bands I like, such as Moxy Fruvous. I just don't think that following the current interpretations and amendments to copyright law assists in this.
I've been seeing a lot of comments like that. Goal-oriented /. readers who'd rather see the complete results rather than the incremental steps that make such results possible. I, for one, like to see the minutae that underlies the innovations.
Personally, I expect most of these folks would make lousy parents. "Dear, Junior's taking his first steps!" "Who cares? Call me when he's ready for the Olympics."
This seems, at least to me, to be either the crux of the matter, or at least a very important aspect.
The GPL allows for just such a choice as you refer to. However, the RIAA's interpretation of copyright and licensing runs counter to it. In the music industry, the "coder" is not able to choose the license. In fact, beyond producing the product and living up to various contractual obligations, s/he has almost no control at all. I would say this is a very important distinction.
Well, that's a pretty compelling reason to remove the non-Kenny droids, particularly the ones used for long shots, etc. And in fact you could even replace some of the real close-up stuff, like shots that only show a few square centimetres of his surface.
But this goes a little further than necessary or wise. Is "saving" trouble with Kenny and his "costume" really worth removing the human element? And is it worth the PR hit this decision is bound to cause Lucas and the franchise (in the fashion that MacDonalds is a franchise)?
I'm sorry Kenny didn't get to work on Episode II ..., but, well... that's progress.
Sadly, that is the truth. Given that progress seems to be defined here in rather a soulless, audience-as-consumer sort of way.
Even more stupid, they cut out the entire first episode apparently in an effort to make the show "less girly". I shudder to think how much of the series is going to be eviscerated because Fox wants a boy's show, rather than the show they actually decided to air.
I suffer from a mild case of Giles de la Tourette's Syndrome which, while having some differences in cause, includes some ADD tendencies. Anecdotally, I've noticed that my muscular twitches bother me less while I'm absorbed in a game, so perhaps there's something to this.
Does anyone know if there's any research along these lines?
A very disquieting thought. Does this mean that sperm banks will be subject to DCMA suits?
Even worse, will we be seeing RIAA suits re that built-in "wow-chicka-wow" upload music you just installed? =)
I'm a little fuzzy as to what the Second Law of Thermodynamics has to do with "turning back the clock" (which isn't what the scientists are trying to do - this is biology, not time travel).What it does sound like is Manifest Destiny.
As far as I can see, your logic rests mainly on justification after the fact. "This species died out, therefore it was supposed to die out and we're wrong to try to change that." The same can be applied to any species we've driven to extinction, either by hunting or destroying habitat. All you need is that handy bit of sophism, "What's done is done," and everything is explained in terms of The Plan.
Pretty handy way of humanity getting off the hook for all sorts of ecological disasters, doesn't it? Sure, we're polluting the oceans, killing off the animals and befouling the earth. But if we weren't supposed to do it, then we wouldn't be able to, right? Besides, what's done is done, and thanks to a spurious reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it's too late to change our ways now.
User Friendly is pixels! Pixels!!!
On a related note, though, I used to have an old AT with something called GEM installed on it. Anyone remember that?
Not me. I realize the truth.
User Friendly is a documentary.
Can't people even handle a compliment around here? I was trying to say that weathering overwhelming odds, with only luck to go on, until they found strong allies was admirable in the rebels.
Regardless of the participation of the French, the fact remains that America revolted agains the most powerful empire in the world, and won.
Nonsense. You cannot view the Revolutionary war without considering the French, Spanish and Dutch. Without them, the Americans could never have won. Your comment makes it seem like we can leave them out of the equation altogether, which is ridiculous.
The Americans won against the most powerful empire in the world because they had the help of three of the other most powerful nations in the world. Had it not been for those nations' personal enmity against Britain, the Americans would have been left high and dry.
I always hate it when foreigners equate John Wayne with their worst perceptions of American nationalistic fervor.
Fair enough. I'll be certain to form my future memory of the man from his role in . , complete with droopy fu manchu moustache. =)
I'm a Canadian, and I don't pay any taxes to Britain either. Does that mean I won a decisive victory against the British? Or does the fact that US citizens don't owe any taxes to the French and Spanish, also former colony owners, mean that you beat them, too?
It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears. It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears.
Speaking of revisionism...
If anything, it was the French, Spanish and Dutch attacking the British on other fronts (and for their own reasons, very little concerning democracy and independence) that weakened the British presence in the colonies and allowing for American victories. To say nothing of French military support of Washington's forces.
Americans didn't open any kind of whomp-ass on the British. The British simply found themselves with more urgent matters to deal with than a rather expensive revolution. In fact, it was a full two years after Cornwallis' defeat that the war finally ended. Not exactly a decisive victory, by any means.
Try here for a little information about your own country's history.
I wonder how many of your countrymen have the opportunity or ability to do as you apparently have done? In a country so large, the opportunity for the average person to physically travel to whereever the candidates are speaking (sometimes not such an easy task) and absorb both travel and time-off costs, is not necessarily easy.
The course of an election campaign is relatively short, and a large number of voters will not be able to see or hear these candidates at all if not for television and online broadcasts.
Apparently I need to clarify for the hard of thinking.
I don't support Open Sourcing the story, I support Open Sourcing the game. There is a large and obvious difference between the two.
To take my current project, Adonthell, as a practical example, we are designing a story driven RPG very much in the tradition of some of the better console games (say, Final Fantasy III or Ultima VII). The story is being treated as a unified whole. We have set aside people to work specifically on story, scripting and general plot issues, just as we have people to work on the various engines needed to run the game. We don't have enormous hordes of Open Source community members coming in and changing the story on us. However, when we have enough of the code of the engine done, then others will be able to take that code and make similar games.
This is what I think would be wonderful for Adventure games. Making an Open Source engine which could be modified for whatever the needs of the individual games are, while each retains its unique storyline. After all, one of the things that attract me most to adventure games is the story and puzzles, which are often independent of the code.
Open Source doesn't necessarily make a game good. But it doesn't necessarily make it bad, either.
It's actually a pity that I'm already involved in a good Open Source project or I'd be very tempted to see out just such a project. Perhaps when this one's done...
Because it's not really based on english - it's based on machine code, logic, and math. Don't be too certain that mathematics isn't influenced by cultural factors in turn. You may find link interesting, to say the least.
I haven't really been a fan of either Tamagotchi or Pokemon (although Tamagotchis were kinda cute), but at least I'm able to make a distinction between hype and actual quality.
Bravo, /. for a job well done.
If this can be done without undue problems (and really, unless you're guaranteeing graphic access you shouldn't have many) then it's a simple matter to monitor disk and printer access a little and voila, a relatively pr0n-free internet service without the need for a filter.
Culturally, this can be seen most clearly in the Meiji period (look it up). Technologically, the dramatic abandonment of firearms in the early Tokugawa days. The latter is rather impressive, being the only case where a nation has given up en masse a superior piece of military technology in favour of more archaic (but more well-understood and familiar) tech.
Aside from the quite valid points you make, I would like to add one more.
As quoted above, the ideal is for consumers to complain and/or take their trade elsewhere. Aside from ideal, it is also sensible and logical.
The trouble is that in cases like MSFT, many of the "consumers" are actually corporate entities. And corporate entities buy a lot of MSFT products.
Worse, most corporate entities don't operate by the same principles of logic and common sense that real people do, so they wouldn't fit the ideal of voting with your feet as described above. Hell, they're the sort of "people" who find this sort of thing reasonable.
I'm a little confused. What, precisely, is the point here?
Are you trying to say that the US military is incapable of setting reasonable standards, or that the US military is so anarchistic that they will not follow standards regardless of quality?
The brass should have learned to hire a few MSFT marketers. Then they wouldn't have had any problems. At least until someone attacked.