I loathe the recording industry as much as anyone, but it's really, really hard to hate them for this one. Of course they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, no student would ever pay for music again. And it's probably not great for the artists. But seeing as the whole industry is going down the tubes anyway, I fully support this initiative to provide me with infinite music in the meantime.
Controversial? The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds. Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.
They're controversial for a few reasons. First, their operators are civilians at a further physical and emotional distance from war than any military pilot ever was. There's a very convincing argument to be made that if we remove the emotional toll of war, we make it more attractive, and that's something we should be careful of.
Second, they're controversial because of how they've been employed. They're being used in Pakistan to eliminate "high-profile" targets, but nobody outside of the CIA or the administration knows exactly what that means. When is it okay to fire a missile into a crowded area to eliminate an insurgent? When the target has murdered hundreds of people? Probably. When he has been known to do business with terrorists? Maybe. When he spends a lot of time on Al-Queda.com? I don't really think so. But the CIA is making these decisions without telling us their thought process; we don't even know what they think merits an assassination, let alone whether or not their decision is morally defensible.
Third, the psychological effect on a native population of using drones hasn't really been considered. Is it a good long-term strategy to make people in the middle-east fear and hate us? There's a good debate to be had on that question, but if we decide that winning hearts and minds is the way to go then we should probably stop terrifying ordinary Pakistani civilians with invisible, omnipresent death-machines.
Don't get me wrong; drones have saved American lives and their tactical usefulness is inarguable. But the national conversation on the morality of these things just hasn't really happened, and I feel it needs to.
I understand and respect your perspective; nobody likes to feel that they're being endangered by the decisions of others which are beyond their control. I'm against this law, but that's because driving while listening to music is one of my great joys in life, and I'm not eager for it to be taken away. Honestly I really expected that opinion to be in the majority, but then again it's 9 am here in ontario; all the other young people are probably still asleep:)
I do have another concern with this law though: I foresee a specific unintended consequence. When I drive now, if I want to change the song on my mp3 player I raise it to the top of the wheel so that I can keep an eye on the road, glance instantaneously between the screen and anything else, and so that if a situation arises I can just drop the player and my hand is already on the wheel. Most of the other students I know do the same thing. But with the specter of a 500$ fine now looming over our heads, the incentive is towards keeping such devices low, under the steering wheel, where they'd be harder to see from the outside. Of course the intention is that the devices won't be used at all, but that's not realistic. Many people will hold them below the wheel, where glancing at the screen more fully diverts their attention from the road and where it's more difficult to grasp the wheel in an emergency.
So I see your perspective, and I understand your obvious anger at people who drive in ways that can be distracting. But I think we need to realistically consider what the effects of this law will be. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the ignition-interlock system: an alcoholic father my family used to know had the system installed, which only led to him bringing his young son along while he drove drunk in order to feed the breathalyzer.
Only time will tell, I suppose, and I certainly hope for the best. Personally, I'm going to drive how I always have, because in the face of the uncertainty of life I'm not willing to give up one of my great pleasures for a tiny extra margin of safety. But I won't further sacrifice my safety and that of others just to dodge a fine. I hope that for that, at least, the fates take mercy on me and my wallet.
Even though you're a little over the top in places (I'd rather live with no internet than die, quite frankly), this is a fantastic post. Way to shed light on the abhorrent practices of the telcos. Every American should read this, pass it door to door, and maybe (just maybe) we'll get something done to finally take back power for the consumer.
can you specify a financial bailout delivered to an inefficient American health care provider? I can't think of one, although I could conceivably have missed it.
why is it that any sector could be better run privately? Please don't take this as an attack because I don't mean it as one, but I don't understand how a for-profit operation can be more efficient than a government one, assuming that we hold our governments accountable for their actions with our votes.
It's just as easy to look sloppy in a dress shirt and slacks as it is in a t-shirt. In fact, there's a whole lot more that can go wrong: tie too loose, or short, or long, or tight; shirt not tucked in properly at the belt; belt too high, or too low.
Bear in mind that a t-shirt is in no way less clean or neat than a dress shirt. There's some strange prejudice against seeing them as "ordered", but that doesn't indicate the presence of actual disorder.
That's not really a fair characterization. People who send their kids to school generally just have the expectation that a group of trained professionals is better qualified to teach a variety of subjects to their children. Some parents might be able to teach their kids effectively, but for most a school system (broken as it may be) seems like a better option. Yes, it serves as a surrogate daycare, and yes it's sort of a holdover from the industrial revolution, but all the same, teachers are trained in methods of education and they are (ideally) knowledgeable in their various fields. There's plenty of room for alternative methods, but it's unfair to paint sending your kids to school as a cop out.
I'm not sure if things are different down in the U.S., but up here in Canada most of the major retailers don't take returns on videogames (or any digital media) anymore. You can always sell it second-hand, but once you've opened the box there's no full refunds.
"[you are] a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize [if you pirate anything]" Sounds sort of trollish to me. Also, pretending to know everything your opponent thinks, and then making implicit claims of moral superiority is total dick behavior. Maybe it isn't textbook trolling, but between name-calling, arrogant self-righteousness, and being spam (it's posted in lots of threads, I saw it weeks ago), the post deserves whatever down-mods it gets, and then some.
I just read that and the word "microcosm" flung itself to the front of my mind. It's probably the wrong word, but still; what a tragic reflection of our modern lives. We don't have time to laugh.
Actually, as soon as we can make an all-knowing, benevolent machine, then yeah I'd be down with throwing the justices out of the SCOTUS and plugging in Deep Thought. Of course, we'd have to be all knowing ourselves to know if the machine really knew everything. Well, shit.
Hey man,
just wondering what you mean, that the market should decide for itself. What exactly would this look like? What legal framework needs to exist for it to happen? just wondering. Thanks.
I agree that someone smarter than you should be able to take a portion of my money and distribute it for the betterment of society, as overseen by me with the help of the national media. To believe otherwise is to believe in anarchy
Slashdot Mirror
I loathe the recording industry as much as anyone, but it's really, really hard to hate them for this one. Of course they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, no student would ever pay for music again. And it's probably not great for the artists. But seeing as the whole industry is going down the tubes anyway, I fully support this initiative to provide me with infinite music in the meantime.
Controversial? The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds. Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.
They're controversial for a few reasons. First, their operators are civilians at a further physical and emotional distance from war than any military pilot ever was. There's a very convincing argument to be made that if we remove the emotional toll of war, we make it more attractive, and that's something we should be careful of.
Second, they're controversial because of how they've been employed. They're being used in Pakistan to eliminate "high-profile" targets, but nobody outside of the CIA or the administration knows exactly what that means. When is it okay to fire a missile into a crowded area to eliminate an insurgent? When the target has murdered hundreds of people? Probably. When he has been known to do business with terrorists? Maybe. When he spends a lot of time on Al-Queda.com? I don't really think so. But the CIA is making these decisions without telling us their thought process; we don't even know what they think merits an assassination, let alone whether or not their decision is morally defensible.
Third, the psychological effect on a native population of using drones hasn't really been considered. Is it a good long-term strategy to make people in the middle-east fear and hate us? There's a good debate to be had on that question, but if we decide that winning hearts and minds is the way to go then we should probably stop terrifying ordinary Pakistani civilians with invisible, omnipresent death-machines.
Don't get me wrong; drones have saved American lives and their tactical usefulness is inarguable. But the national conversation on the morality of these things just hasn't really happened, and I feel it needs to.
I understand and respect your perspective; nobody likes to feel that they're being endangered by the decisions of others which are beyond their control. I'm against this law, but that's because driving while listening to music is one of my great joys in life, and I'm not eager for it to be taken away. Honestly I really expected that opinion to be in the majority, but then again it's 9 am here in ontario; all the other young people are probably still asleep :)
I do have another concern with this law though: I foresee a specific unintended consequence. When I drive now, if I want to change the song on my mp3 player I raise it to the top of the wheel so that I can keep an eye on the road, glance instantaneously between the screen and anything else, and so that if a situation arises I can just drop the player and my hand is already on the wheel. Most of the other students I know do the same thing. But with the specter of a 500$ fine now looming over our heads, the incentive is towards keeping such devices low, under the steering wheel, where they'd be harder to see from the outside. Of course the intention is that the devices won't be used at all, but that's not realistic. Many people will hold them below the wheel, where glancing at the screen more fully diverts their attention from the road and where it's more difficult to grasp the wheel in an emergency.
So I see your perspective, and I understand your obvious anger at people who drive in ways that can be distracting. But I think we need to realistically consider what the effects of this law will be. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the ignition-interlock system: an alcoholic father my family used to know had the system installed, which only led to him bringing his young son along while he drove drunk in order to feed the breathalyzer.
Only time will tell, I suppose, and I certainly hope for the best. Personally, I'm going to drive how I always have, because in the face of the uncertainty of life I'm not willing to give up one of my great pleasures for a tiny extra margin of safety. But I won't further sacrifice my safety and that of others just to dodge a fine. I hope that for that, at least, the fates take mercy on me and my wallet.
Even though you're a little over the top in places (I'd rather live with no internet than die, quite frankly), this is a fantastic post. Way to shed light on the abhorrent practices of the telcos. Every American should read this, pass it door to door, and maybe (just maybe) we'll get something done to finally take back power for the consumer.
DO NOT WANT
The right to [something] in [somewhere] should only be given to [me]
Right wing ideology in a nut(heh)shell.
can you specify a financial bailout delivered to an inefficient American health care provider? I can't think of one, although I could conceivably have missed it.
why is it that any sector could be better run privately? Please don't take this as an attack because I don't mean it as one, but I don't understand how a for-profit operation can be more efficient than a government one, assuming that we hold our governments accountable for their actions with our votes.
It's just as easy to look sloppy in a dress shirt and slacks as it is in a t-shirt. In fact, there's a whole lot more that can go wrong: tie too loose, or short, or long, or tight; shirt not tucked in properly at the belt; belt too high, or too low.
Bear in mind that a t-shirt is in no way less clean or neat than a dress shirt. There's some strange prejudice against seeing them as "ordered", but that doesn't indicate the presence of actual disorder.
man they're already working on a pain-gun. Bug spies are really the least of my concerns.
today, people cook cow meat for dinner. Tomorrow, they'll be cooking me and you!
Come on.
The rest of the world knows how wrong you are
That's not really a fair characterization. People who send their kids to school generally just have the expectation that a group of trained professionals is better qualified to teach a variety of subjects to their children. Some parents might be able to teach their kids effectively, but for most a school system (broken as it may be) seems like a better option. Yes, it serves as a surrogate daycare, and yes it's sort of a holdover from the industrial revolution, but all the same, teachers are trained in methods of education and they are (ideally) knowledgeable in their various fields. There's plenty of room for alternative methods, but it's unfair to paint sending your kids to school as a cop out.
people who don't speed might think that it is, but I wouldn't know.
I'm not sure if things are different down in the U.S., but up here in Canada most of the major retailers don't take returns on videogames (or any digital media) anymore. You can always sell it second-hand, but once you've opened the box there's no full refunds.
"[you are] a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize [if you pirate anything]"
Sounds sort of trollish to me. Also, pretending to know everything your opponent thinks, and then making implicit claims of moral superiority is total dick behavior. Maybe it isn't textbook trolling, but between name-calling, arrogant self-righteousness, and being spam (it's posted in lots of threads, I saw it weeks ago), the post deserves whatever down-mods it gets, and then some.
I can't think of a single game for the 360 that made me laugh out loud. Last game to do that was Psychonauts.
I just read that and the word "microcosm" flung itself to the front of my mind. It's probably the wrong word, but still; what a tragic reflection of our modern lives. We don't have time to laugh.
Come back to us!
nobody wants to spend their 200th birthday in prison
Actually, as soon as we can make an all-knowing, benevolent machine, then yeah I'd be down with throwing the justices out of the SCOTUS and plugging in Deep Thought. Of course, we'd have to be all knowing ourselves to know if the machine really knew everything.
Well, shit.
Hey man,
just wondering what you mean, that the market should decide for itself. What exactly would this look like? What legal framework needs to exist for it to happen? just wondering. Thanks.
I don't believe I have the right, I believe I have the ability, and I'll cheer anyone who agitates to protect it.
Yep that makes it totally cool. You've parsed the philosophy perfectly.
I agree that someone smarter than you should be able to take a portion of my money and distribute it for the betterment of society, as overseen by me with the help of the national media. To believe otherwise is to believe in anarchy