How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.
Four years here, too. I was forced to get rid of it when I moved out of my parents house and couldn't afford it. I was surprised to find how little I missed it.
Not that I don't watch tv shows, though. Hulu and Netflix are awesome.
To be fair, most people are pretty dumb, and trying to explain to them the "Person of the Year" is not an endorsement but rather a statement of significance can be pretty futile. It's like trying to explain to Christians that "Happy Holidays" is merely a more inclusive greeting and not an attack on Christmas.
How did your post get modded up TWICE? Seriously, you're really claiming all hardcore gaming is a remake of wolfenstein3D? Or were you being sarcastic? I'd love to know how Portal, Half life, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, God of War, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Fallout, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty... How do justify calling all these games mere remakes of wolfenstein.
Even if you limit it to just FPS games (which I believe was your REAL point, though you failed to specify), I'd hardly think half life, portal, Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield or Bioshock could be called remakes of wolfenstein without SEVERE exaggeration. It's absurd and ignorant.
Easy. None of those things you mentioned are threats to the financial sustainability of the industries that rely on them. Architects make quite a bit of money designing house. I don't think the current architectural industry needs a system like copyright to survive. However, if it ever did, I'd be there arguing for it.
I think the major difference between things like housing, recipes and hair designs is that they're difficult to reproduce. Music, movies and software aren't quite so difficult. Maybe if there was a button that could instantly create a house for someone to live in, then architects would be more likely to pursue a copyright-type protection in order to assure they get paid for their designs.
Honestly though, it blows my mind how many people are so easy to dismiss copyright protection as evil when all it really seeks to do is assure that artistically creative people are able to survive off their work. Sure, the current copyright model has been abused by large corporations, but that's why we should be seeking copyright reform. I'm not about to start reasoning that all copyright is evil.
"See, that's where you misunderstand: the fact that it's forced is precisely why it's not a social contract!" What? That's really what you believe? My friend, force is what MAKES a social contract. If there was nothing to force you to pay your taxes, there would be no problem from a libertarian stand point. You could just choose not to pay your taxes.
The same is true for property. Yes, without government, "jungle law" would take over and every individual would be in charge of their own property. But that would essentially mean that if I'm stronger than you are, for whatever reason, then I could take your property and there would be no retaliation. If you struck oil, so what, I'm stronger so now its mine.
But it doesn't work like that, because we band together as a society and say that an individual has the right to "own" the land that contains the oil. If I then try to take it from you, I not only have to contend with you, but I have to contend with the rest of society. In other words, it's a social contract.
You keep trying to make the argument more difficult than it really is, I guess is some attempt to muddle the points in confusion. But it's actually a really simple argument. If it's okay for society to band together to enforce the social contract that is property, then why is it wrong for society to band together to enforce roads. As you say, without the social contract to enforce roads, there would either be no roads, or road building and maintenance would be left up to an individual. The same could be said for property. Without the social contract meant to enforce property rights, there would either be no concept of property, or property enforcement would be left up to the individual. I don't know a single libertarian I've ever met who claims there shouldn't be courts and police to enforce property rights. If that's your opinion, then you obviously think that a social contract to enforce property rights SHOULD exist. If that's the case, then I don't see why other social contracts cant also exist.
It's really an easy thing to consider. Don't make it so hard.
"Instead of each property owner having to defend his property himself (or hire a private army), they cooperate with each other"
So how is this any different than "cooperating" with each other to build roads, fund schools, etc. And if it's not a forced social contract, how can I opt out of it? I mean, if I don't want to participate in your system of property and consider land to be un-ownable, are you going to let me mine your coal mine, or are you going to use force to make me comply? See, this is what libertarianism does. They pretend that somehow the force they want to use to enforce their social contracts is somehow different than the force other people would use. It's no different. Property is a product of society. It's a social contract. Exclaim all you want that it's somehow different, but its not.
Libertarian much? Honestly, I always found the critical hypocrisy in libertarianism to fall into the fact that they denounce all types of social contract using force to implement at the expense of one's individual rights, except one. The concept of property. Seriously, except that we all agree to pay taxes and abide by the social contract that is property, what else gives you the right to declare a piece of land or an automobile yours? Perhaps I could make a living mining and selling coal, but you "own" all the coal mines. What gives you that right? In nature, if a squirrel drops an acorn out of his tree and another squirrel picks it up, there's no court of law in place that will assure the acorn is returned to it's "rightful owner." So where does this right come from?
The answers obvious. Property exists as a man-made social contract. It exists because it's efficient and overwhelmingly beneficial to society. But that's the criteria for which social contracts should be measured. While the concept of property might keep me out of your coal mines, a fact one could easily claim violates my individual freedoms, it's a freedom I give because I understand how the concept of property benefits me and society in general.
The difference between you and me is that I also see how this same concept of social contract could be applied elsewhere. Public schools. Public libraries. Public roads. And yes, even unemployment insurance, medicare and social security. They are all social contracts, like the concept of property, meant to better society and make life more enjoyable for everyone. I don't understand how libertarians think there is some huge difference between the concept of property and the concept of public schools. If you really believe in individual freedom, then why make the exemption for property rights? Why not do away with all social contracts and be an anarchist?
Of course, my observation is that libertarianism is really just a euphemism for "I'm rich and I want to do whatever I want." It's an attempt to mask contempt by mixing it into some ideological non-sense that warps words like "freedom" and "liberty" into self-serving hypocritical talking points, the likes of which collapse under any attempt to implement them.
What are you talking about. Netflix runs in Firefox just fine. It also runs on the Wii and the xbox 360. You can also buy a $99 box sold separately to run in on your tv if you so desire. Pretty sure it's here to stay.
This reminds me of Geico commercials. "15 minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." If you think about that sentence, it really doesn't say anything. The sentence would be true if 1 in 10,000 people who took 15 minutes to call Geico saved more than fifteen percent off their car insurance.
I hate to be the cynical guy, but this really seems like a bit of a fluff story. The criteria for "potentially habitable" seems to pretty low, relying primarily on planet mass and distance from the sun.
On the other hand, all it takes is the discovery of one earth-like planet to get me super excited, so maybe my cynicism is misplaced.
Is that an indictment of bad programmers, or an indictment of copy-and-paste. Cause god know how hard life would be without copy-and-paste. Don't want to even imagine it.
Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.
Well, I didn't say that would solve ALL of the problems, my friend. I just think that happens to be one unfortunate prerequisite to running for election in this country, and I think a lot of smart individuals are doomed to political anonymity because of it. But I certainly never said it would solve every problem in our government, so lets not get hyperbolic.
On the other hand, why is excessive ambition such a bad thing again? I mean, I'm certainly no libertarian, but I don't equate greed to evil in every circumstance. Greed can often be a good thing. Greed can often be a very good motivator for an individual to contribute positively to society. Not every corporation is evil. Not every man with money seeks to do others great harm. I think "excessive ambition" has been the cause of many great advancements in society, and I think highly of people with great ambitions. The trick is to motivate these people to contribute positively to society by setting up a system that rewards ambition that leads to positive societal advancement and punishes ambition that contributes negatively.
I think having people with great ambition in power isn't a bad thing. I like that my leaders aren't apathetic, and I think the electorate system works because it is a system set up so that those in power have a constant need and drive to please the people who have put them into power. Their "excessive ambition," namely that which motivates them to ascend the ladder of political power, is only accomplished by pleasing their constituents.
Is it a perfect system? Of course not. I doubt there is such a thing. But it's actually quite effective. So effective it's been adopted (and at times imposed) by many other countries around to world to generally positive results. While I agree the system is not perfect, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we scrap the system altogether and implement a new, considerably untested system in it's place. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Especially since, for all it's flaws, The United States is still a relatively free, pleasant place to live.
But hey. I'm an optimist. We're not as fun as pessimists. Complaining is much more fun.
Nah, I don't think naming random citizens to power would be a good idea. Something like a third of the population of the United States can't even name the three branches of the United States government. Even with whatever additional steps you've imposed on the pooling process, I still doubt picking random citizens would really be a practical approach. As much as I hate politicians, at least they're tasked to know something about how this country works and what the issues are (which isn't to say we haven't elected idiots in the past, but whatever).
If any reforms should be made, I think they should simply be made to lower the financial requirement necessary to run for office. Right now, being rich gives you a huge advantage, and that's probably my least favorite aspect of how politicians are elected here in the United States. On the other hand, I wouldn't know how to suppress such an advantage without trouncing explicitly on the rights of a private citizen or a private organization to do what they want with the money they've earned. Something like that is a delicate matter.
I think Bungie and Valve are included in the list of best developers not for making the most amazing games ever (though they definitely make great games), but more because they honestly, authentically seem to care about their gaming community and constantly interact with them. That's rare among developers.
Whenever an error occurs that I can't replicate in a dev environment, I'm always SO tempted to hop into prod and start adding in some output statements.
Yeah, it's probably a good thing I don't have access to prod.
Slashdot Mirror
How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.
Maybe stop hanging your underwear in full public view?
Four years here, too. I was forced to get rid of it when I moved out of my parents house and couldn't afford it. I was surprised to find how little I missed it.
Not that I don't watch tv shows, though. Hulu and Netflix are awesome.
To be fair, most people are pretty dumb, and trying to explain to them the "Person of the Year" is not an endorsement but rather a statement of significance can be pretty futile. It's like trying to explain to Christians that "Happy Holidays" is merely a more inclusive greeting and not an attack on Christmas.
How did your post get modded up TWICE? Seriously, you're really claiming all hardcore gaming is a remake of wolfenstein3D? Or were you being sarcastic? I'd love to know how Portal, Half life, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, God of War, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Fallout, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty... How do justify calling all these games mere remakes of wolfenstein.
Even if you limit it to just FPS games (which I believe was your REAL point, though you failed to specify), I'd hardly think half life, portal, Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield or Bioshock could be called remakes of wolfenstein without SEVERE exaggeration. It's absurd and ignorant.
He's not going to jail for 50 years. Journalists love to quote maximum jail sentences even though it's rare the maximum sentence is ever dealt.
Easy. None of those things you mentioned are threats to the financial sustainability of the industries that rely on them. Architects make quite a bit of money designing house. I don't think the current architectural industry needs a system like copyright to survive. However, if it ever did, I'd be there arguing for it.
I think the major difference between things like housing, recipes and hair designs is that they're difficult to reproduce. Music, movies and software aren't quite so difficult. Maybe if there was a button that could instantly create a house for someone to live in, then architects would be more likely to pursue a copyright-type protection in order to assure they get paid for their designs.
Honestly though, it blows my mind how many people are so easy to dismiss copyright protection as evil when all it really seeks to do is assure that artistically creative people are able to survive off their work. Sure, the current copyright model has been abused by large corporations, but that's why we should be seeking copyright reform. I'm not about to start reasoning that all copyright is evil.
"See, that's where you misunderstand: the fact that it's forced is precisely why it's not a social contract!" What? That's really what you believe? My friend, force is what MAKES a social contract. If there was nothing to force you to pay your taxes, there would be no problem from a libertarian stand point. You could just choose not to pay your taxes.
The same is true for property. Yes, without government, "jungle law" would take over and every individual would be in charge of their own property. But that would essentially mean that if I'm stronger than you are, for whatever reason, then I could take your property and there would be no retaliation. If you struck oil, so what, I'm stronger so now its mine.
But it doesn't work like that, because we band together as a society and say that an individual has the right to "own" the land that contains the oil. If I then try to take it from you, I not only have to contend with you, but I have to contend with the rest of society. In other words, it's a social contract.
You keep trying to make the argument more difficult than it really is, I guess is some attempt to muddle the points in confusion. But it's actually a really simple argument. If it's okay for society to band together to enforce the social contract that is property, then why is it wrong for society to band together to enforce roads. As you say, without the social contract to enforce roads, there would either be no roads, or road building and maintenance would be left up to an individual. The same could be said for property. Without the social contract meant to enforce property rights, there would either be no concept of property, or property enforcement would be left up to the individual. I don't know a single libertarian I've ever met who claims there shouldn't be courts and police to enforce property rights. If that's your opinion, then you obviously think that a social contract to enforce property rights SHOULD exist. If that's the case, then I don't see why other social contracts cant also exist.
It's really an easy thing to consider. Don't make it so hard.
"Instead of each property owner having to defend his property himself (or hire a private army), they cooperate with each other"
So how is this any different than "cooperating" with each other to build roads, fund schools, etc. And if it's not a forced social contract, how can I opt out of it? I mean, if I don't want to participate in your system of property and consider land to be un-ownable, are you going to let me mine your coal mine, or are you going to use force to make me comply? See, this is what libertarianism does. They pretend that somehow the force they want to use to enforce their social contracts is somehow different than the force other people would use. It's no different. Property is a product of society. It's a social contract. Exclaim all you want that it's somehow different, but its not.
Libertarian much? Honestly, I always found the critical hypocrisy in libertarianism to fall into the fact that they denounce all types of social contract using force to implement at the expense of one's individual rights, except one. The concept of property. Seriously, except that we all agree to pay taxes and abide by the social contract that is property, what else gives you the right to declare a piece of land or an automobile yours? Perhaps I could make a living mining and selling coal, but you "own" all the coal mines. What gives you that right? In nature, if a squirrel drops an acorn out of his tree and another squirrel picks it up, there's no court of law in place that will assure the acorn is returned to it's "rightful owner." So where does this right come from?
The answers obvious. Property exists as a man-made social contract. It exists because it's efficient and overwhelmingly beneficial to society. But that's the criteria for which social contracts should be measured. While the concept of property might keep me out of your coal mines, a fact one could easily claim violates my individual freedoms, it's a freedom I give because I understand how the concept of property benefits me and society in general.
The difference between you and me is that I also see how this same concept of social contract could be applied elsewhere. Public schools. Public libraries. Public roads. And yes, even unemployment insurance, medicare and social security. They are all social contracts, like the concept of property, meant to better society and make life more enjoyable for everyone. I don't understand how libertarians think there is some huge difference between the concept of property and the concept of public schools. If you really believe in individual freedom, then why make the exemption for property rights? Why not do away with all social contracts and be an anarchist?
Of course, my observation is that libertarianism is really just a euphemism for "I'm rich and I want to do whatever I want." It's an attempt to mask contempt by mixing it into some ideological non-sense that warps words like "freedom" and "liberty" into self-serving hypocritical talking points, the likes of which collapse under any attempt to implement them.
What are you talking about. Netflix runs in Firefox just fine. It also runs on the Wii and the xbox 360. You can also buy a $99 box sold separately to run in on your tv if you so desire. Pretty sure it's here to stay.
This reminds me of Geico commercials. "15 minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." If you think about that sentence, it really doesn't say anything. The sentence would be true if 1 in 10,000 people who took 15 minutes to call Geico saved more than fifteen percent off their car insurance. I hate to be the cynical guy, but this really seems like a bit of a fluff story. The criteria for "potentially habitable" seems to pretty low, relying primarily on planet mass and distance from the sun. On the other hand, all it takes is the discovery of one earth-like planet to get me super excited, so maybe my cynicism is misplaced.
Is that an indictment of bad programmers, or an indictment of copy-and-paste. Cause god know how hard life would be without copy-and-paste. Don't want to even imagine it.
Yeah they are. Sometimes.
You're right! My mistake. Let's try to suppress it. That should work.
Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.
Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Well, I didn't say that would solve ALL of the problems, my friend. I just think that happens to be one unfortunate prerequisite to running for election in this country, and I think a lot of smart individuals are doomed to political anonymity because of it. But I certainly never said it would solve every problem in our government, so lets not get hyperbolic.
On the other hand, why is excessive ambition such a bad thing again? I mean, I'm certainly no libertarian, but I don't equate greed to evil in every circumstance. Greed can often be a good thing. Greed can often be a very good motivator for an individual to contribute positively to society. Not every corporation is evil. Not every man with money seeks to do others great harm. I think "excessive ambition" has been the cause of many great advancements in society, and I think highly of people with great ambitions. The trick is to motivate these people to contribute positively to society by setting up a system that rewards ambition that leads to positive societal advancement and punishes ambition that contributes negatively.
I think having people with great ambition in power isn't a bad thing. I like that my leaders aren't apathetic, and I think the electorate system works because it is a system set up so that those in power have a constant need and drive to please the people who have put them into power. Their "excessive ambition," namely that which motivates them to ascend the ladder of political power, is only accomplished by pleasing their constituents.
Is it a perfect system? Of course not. I doubt there is such a thing. But it's actually quite effective. So effective it's been adopted (and at times imposed) by many other countries around to world to generally positive results. While I agree the system is not perfect, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we scrap the system altogether and implement a new, considerably untested system in it's place. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Especially since, for all it's flaws, The United States is still a relatively free, pleasant place to live.
But hey. I'm an optimist. We're not as fun as pessimists. Complaining is much more fun.
Nah, I don't think naming random citizens to power would be a good idea. Something like a third of the population of the United States can't even name the three branches of the United States government. Even with whatever additional steps you've imposed on the pooling process, I still doubt picking random citizens would really be a practical approach. As much as I hate politicians, at least they're tasked to know something about how this country works and what the issues are (which isn't to say we haven't elected idiots in the past, but whatever).
If any reforms should be made, I think they should simply be made to lower the financial requirement necessary to run for office. Right now, being rich gives you a huge advantage, and that's probably my least favorite aspect of how politicians are elected here in the United States. On the other hand, I wouldn't know how to suppress such an advantage without trouncing explicitly on the rights of a private citizen or a private organization to do what they want with the money they've earned. Something like that is a delicate matter.
That's a bit vague. Care to elaborate?
Seriously? You have much more faith in the average intelligence of people than I do.
What criteria would you suggest?
The post isn't about American games. It's about Japanese games vs Western games. England is a western country. So Rockstar counts.
I think Bungie and Valve are included in the list of best developers not for making the most amazing games ever (though they definitely make great games), but more because they honestly, authentically seem to care about their gaming community and constantly interact with them. That's rare among developers.
Whenever an error occurs that I can't replicate in a dev environment, I'm always SO tempted to hop into prod and start adding in some output statements.
Yeah, it's probably a good thing I don't have access to prod.