Even if the NSA was 100% telling the truth here. I don't doubt that they are telling the truth. So what?!
Since Snowden's revelations about the NSA's operations, the NSA has done nothing but claim that not only does it do everything he stated, but that what they do is perfectly legal. This has been supported openly by Obama and Congress actually re-purposed a bill intended to roll back the NSA's activities, into a bill that all but confirmed their legitimacy.
"DOS attacks aren't like refusing to go to the back of the bus... They're sugar in the gas tank. Anonymous vandalism isn't going to generate sympathy from your fellow citizens."
What is this silliness? A DOS attack does no damage to any computer equipment at all. A DOS attack is even MORE pacifistic then going to the back of the bus. In real life a bunch of people show up to protest a place and close businesses by blocking traffic. A DOS attack does the same thing except the stakes are even lower because there is no chance of a sudden riot...
If anything we should be complaining that these kids aren't out in the streets doing REAL property damage.:D
Thats a whole lot of overblown rhetoric SFC. Tax evasion did not cause the fall of Greece. Tax evasion isn't a cause, like piracy its an effect. Piracy effects software yet it never kills software. In fact in the case of really good software it actually serves as an amplifying effect. Piracy crushes your competition for you: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece (remember Gates trip to Romania). In the same way tax evasion thrives in the great economic pillars of the west and the tax havens do very well for themselves. Tax Evasion didn't cause Greece.
Some History:
Greece was 'relatively' poor to begin with:
The whole of Southern Europe has been in decline for hundreds of years ever since the end of the Spanish Empire and Renaisance. Economically backward Spain and Italy fell back into farming once their trade routes dropped off. Portugal depolutated itself with worldwide colonization and both Spain and Portugal suffered heavily from growing nationalism. When the nationalist age kicked off in Europe Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece all limped through to the modern era with backwater dictatorships. The point beings that modern Southern Europe is far weaker economically then the North. Is it any suprise that these four nations are all suffering at the same time from miserable economies.
There was a far Bigger problem: The Global Economic Resession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession How could we forget this? Economies worldwide were hobbled. Greece was never going to stave this off. This massive event has sent the US budget soaring, massacred our Arab dictatorships, and we still haven't seen the end.
Why Greece is pulling down Europe:
Greece and its three fellow southerners are on the Euro. Normally they would do what all dead beats do: print their way out. A seemly poor solution it is actually sound economic theory. In the short term you have to deal with miserable work conditions but this allows you to have an advantageous trade imbalance, your worthless currency creates far more exports than imports. But Germany and France have no desire to devalue the currency they worked so hard to build. So the southerners will grow more sick and suck in more aid will the rest of Europe carries them. See the ongoing cold war between China and the US. US wants to devalue the dollar and by extension chinas investments in our debt. A weak dollar is exetremely advantageous in this manner. So in response despite a booming economy China refuses to revalue the Yuan so as to maintain the trade imbalance and their debt investments.
Well this bound to fail no doubt, but I think the judge already know this? From the article:
"They (injunctions) depend really on people's willingness to follow the rules rather than any ability to force it on them," [intellectual property and media partner Keith Arrowsmith] told Reuters when asked about Twitter.
So really the judge is just asking Twitter and Facebook very nicely to not talk about it. Ineffectual by design.
Such a bigoted post but whatever let them Europeans get away with it I suppose. WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE aren't trying to force anything on you. Our Government. and Corporations are. But from your post you seem to think that all American's are stupid pro-corporation flag wavers. How about this then?
Could you Europeans stop grovellingly accepting every stupid, clearly corporate-backed, treaty our fair Government sends your way? Please continue to live in your (America TM) corporate governed country, which you believe is better than the American (TM) Democracy, but STOP obeying our corporate overlords.
On second thought don't, just in case the "trickle-down effect" actually works, I could use a few more Euros
The article states : "These nations and many others have rightly concluded that the way to win in the world economy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating. And America? We’re losing our edge. Innovation is something we’ve always been good at. Until now, we’ve been the undisputed leaders when it comes to finding new ideas through basic research, translating those ideas into products through world-class engineering, and getting to market first through aggressive entrepreneurship."
This seems incredibly short sighted to me. I mean yeah we are losing our high-technology jobs, but isn't this the same as losing our low-tech manufacturing jobs. Do we still need to be the worlds largest exporter of technology? Honestly I don't know, but this article takes for granted that these things are necessary for America to leader of the world. There is a good chance to do damage here if we get it wrong, what if for the sake of having a "strong and powerful industrial base" we started focusing on massive amounts of low tech manufacturing again. I mean America could be self-sufficient again! Of course that stupid but it sounds logical right?
If I had to bet money I would say America is right on course for remaining world leader. By focusing on finance we can control the worlds economy and just buy all the high tech shit we need, just like we have been buying all the low tech shit we need for decades. Finance pays better than engineering in America for a reason. And if in the future finance in no longer king we can just shed our skin again.
So what does that mean? We're supposed to devote our lives to pleasure and not work. We're suckers if we work for a living.
"their idleness is resolute, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonor, and danger to life and limb. They do not fear boredom as much as work without pleasure; they actually require a lot of boredom if work is to succeed." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Whoever works has not been put to death, he is refused this honour. And labour is first of all the sign of being judged worthy only of life. Does capital exploit the workers to death? Paradoxically, the worst it inflicts on them is refusing them death." - Jean Baudrillard
While I can appreciate this sort of thing from an academic perspective (it's quite impressive, actually), I find the idea of this in the real world quite sickening. Not sure I like the idea of a vending machine putting me into a category based on how I look. Or based on anything, for that matter.
Why can't a vending machine just be a vending machine?
Its sickening to people when advertising uses efficiency like this to lump them into groups. And yet they can't exactly describe why. No one likes to think they can be mentally dissected like this. Well its an affront to the modern morals of "Individualism Uber Alles". It sickens me to be sure, but this is already being done on such a massive that a vending machine is hardly upsetting. Take polling for example:
Do you approve of Obama policies?
Such a general question is bound to shave you down to one of the mindless drooling masses you claim to despise. No amount of political awareness or newspaper (lol) reading can protect you from it, you will always be lumped in with the stupidest of us. Of course its easy to condemn polling but the problem is that it functions EXACTLY THE SAME AS VOTING. A simple yes or no question:
Should Obama be president?
And there you are drooling along with the worst television pundits in the same worthless and stupid MASS. What is truly offensive to you about this vending machine? It holds up a mirror to your face and provides the tinyest little doubt that you aren't as unique and intelligent as you thought you were...
This question is flat out insulting to gamers. First of all he doesn't even like very good games. Alice, Syberia, and Heavy Rain are terrible. Alice I will just link to a fantastic review here: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/56.html
Heavy Rain is about as much a game as those old interactive laser disc games... or Dragon's Lair. So I guess if you are looking for games find yourself an emulator for a Panasonic Laser Active, or pick up Dragon's Lair which is on a ton of different systems. Now all of these games also happen to have in common that their are 'Art Games'. So if you want to get into a bunch more of those you can check out Metacritic as they do fairly well there.
However, the best course of action, if you really have your heart set on playing more games is to start developing better taste. Much as one can acquire better taste in wine, books, movies, and music, one can also acquire better taste in videogames. Videogames can be roughly divided into two types: Action / Strategy. Western developers are much more adept Strategy and Japanese developers are more adept at action.
Japanese: Shmups (shoot-em-ups): Dodonpachi(vertical), Battle Garegga(vertical), R-type (horizontal) Run-N-Guns: Metal Slug 1,2,X Action: Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry Fighting: King of Fighters XI, Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, Blaze Blue
Western: FPS(first-person-shooter): Half-Life 2, Gears of War 2(3rd), Halo 3 RTS(real time strategy): Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 1 Strategy: Civilization IV, Panzar General 2 RPGS: Fallout 1,2, Diablo 2, Planescape: Torment
Best of all these are all either freely or cheaply obtained at this point in time. THESE ARE THE TRUE ARTISTIC HEIGHTS OF GAMING and im sure others could list HUNDREDS more.
This isn't the first time the Simpsons have done this either. In an filler clip show episode hosted by Troy McClure there is a scene where sweatshop animators in Korea toil over their work while armed guards look on. According to the DVD commentary many of the animators were upset with this and the scene was almost completely scrapped.
Turns out, if you put hardasses in power, they can turn around on you. If we just offered actual aid rather than screwing with their governance, we'd be much better regarded in that part of the world.
This is +4 insightful because? Aid IS "screwing with governance", or at least, one way of bringing down enemy institutions.
Hypothetically using the example of Darfur: Should we send aid to convicted war crimes govt. of North Sudan? the Africans in Darfur? the Arabic death squads in Darfur? The illegitimate breakaway nation of South Sudan? If you favor one of these factions you have screwed with governance. You've given one of the factions more food and supplies and theoretically they will beat their other opponents. In that case you've chosen who will govern at the end and that same government will owe you its existance and thus be inclined to favor you in every aspect of its governance. Or prehaps you send only aid to the 'people of somalia' and then the warlords intercept all your aid and either burn it or use it themselves. What then will you do? Prehaps you could invade somalia and wipe out the warlords... Don't even think of giving all sides equal aid cause that is just moronic, you have done the same thing as giving all sides no aid.
Even worse by limiting your diplomatic policy to only 'aid' you have given up the option of force. Dear Britian, Dear France please wisely use this pig iron and nylon against the Huns, of course, we won't be joining you in the fight for democracy as that would interfere in your governance. As we know we did interefere and now all of Europe and Japan are beholden to our Aid and favor us in all of their policies...
Obviously its not a simple matter of choosing 'only Aid' or 'only Force' or 'only Peace'. Those are moronic arguments of the common conservative, liberal, moderate, and (shudder now) independent. Do I know what to do in Iran? NO and neither do you. Which is why we all should be wise to talk about what we know at Slashdot: TECH and stop putting international politics on display. (And before some smartass makes a comment that the article is about IT in Iran let me say this: do you think "Man with no prior background in networking asks 'Can we like, beam the internet into a country or something?'" should be on the front page of slashdot?" That does give me an idea though... can we make 'the right to the internet' a human right, certainly it would be an excellent causus belli for our invasion of Iran....
As a note: if you have read in anyway an argument for or against: north sudan, arabs, americans, france, britian, somalia, warlords, the nazis, democracy, the internet, invasions, diplomacy, technology, or slashdot; in this post... you have not read correctly
Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference?
Because in the history of revolting THAT IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, there has never been a revolt in the world where outside backers haven't cast there lot with one or another faction like that. So any thought of Iran revolting and America not being involved, because of good feelings and such, is just hopeful fantasy. Iran suffering a revolt and America is tacitly condemning the Iranian crackdown because the revolt is not likely to succeed and Obama has already made moves to reconcile with the ruling Islamic government. The only reason to even lodge a complaint against Iran was to put pressure on them, to make them uncomfortable, but unless the govt. shows signs of toppling America will not move in Iran. If America does move we won't even know what side America will back, they could just as easily support the ailing regime in exchange for their unending debt and gratitude...
A more important question is why we would "beam broadband" (no doubt many slashdotters recoiled at this phrase, but we get the gist of it I suppose) to the opposition forces. Is there any evidence that broadband will help these people out against the government? They could just as easily use word of mouth and secret meetings, no doubt they already do. Unless this whole revolt started on the back of websites and mass emailings...
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Azerbijian and Uzbekistan (check your map all close neighbors of Iran) haven't had free elections in god knows how long. Look up Turkmenbashy! We don't care about these countries beating and torturing opposition supporters. These countries play ball, they are part of the great Caspian pipeline and the same police forces that torture electorates, torture terrorists/anarchists/democrats/republicans/monarchists who try and blow up the pipeline. The only reason human rights are brought up in the news/politics is because the West (sometimes the East) wants to gain something. Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't: it certainly isn't because of a disagreement about who are the victims. Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish. In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish...
So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.
I don't mean to be so brusque, but that's a really stupid statement.
You shouldn't toss rocks in glass houses, you've made several uninformed statement yourself.
Ambient music is often dull or lacks individuality, and techno music is really just mindlessly repetitive (most techno songs are onemeasure of music repeated hundreds of times with new sounds added in at fairly regular intervals).
You've generalized two very deep and very excellent genres of pop music by focusing on their shittiest output. Techno at its best is about subtle variation, as the track cycles through each repetition it alters itself and the enjoyment comes from the focus on the clever details.
The challenge that composers for games and films face is that their music must be memorable and enjoyable without being overly intrusive. I've heard it said that the best film/game music is that which you don't really actively pay attention to while watching/playing, but find yourself humming later on.../p>
Ko Otani (Shadow of the Colossus) can use an orchestra to create any number of belvable atmospheres without being "ambient" in the slightest.
This is where your Classical* bias shines most clearly, because you have stated that the best quality of film/game soundtracks is the balance between enjoyability and unintrusiveness. This is the exact definition of the Pop genre of Ambient Music. I will quote now from the wikipedia article on Brian Eno, because this it can easily be verified as true.
Brian Eno is generally credited with coining the term "ambient music" in the mid-1970s to refer to music that, as he stated, can be either "actively listened to with attention or as easily ignored, depending on the choice of the listener", and that exists on the "cusp between melody and texture."
I highly recommend you pick up "Music for Airports" and enjoy the gorgeous ambient music you've been missing out on.
As for Video game soundtracks I would love to play a classic shooter,in the style of R-type or Ikaruga, which employed a Techno soundtrack to alert you when ships or bullets were entering the screen. Rez and Audiosurfer are a good start, but the music is too much the main focus. What would be better would be to have the focus be on the game(play) whilst the music provides an ambient backdrop. This way you might find yourself falling into a groove as you play, without the game explicitly forcing you to play a 'rythm-based game'. A great example is "45:33" by LCD Soundsystem. Essentially its is a long (guess how long), ever changing Techno track designed to be listened to as you run. This way it regulates your periods of rest/effort by helping you develop a physical groove.
I am afraid I must share in parent's melancholy over this election. Barack Obama was not really much a Change.
Obama voted to renew the patriot act, voted to fund the Iraq war, voted in support of the FISA reform bill, doesn't support universal single-payer healthcare, and voted in favor of the bailout. His corporate campaign funding was massive and he has made it pretty well clear that he will not be making any efforts to upset the current capitalist status quo.
On diplomacy Obama supports the continued occupation of Iraq and a much increased presence Afganistan. He is also hawkish on relationships with Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. He has the same exact pro-Israel stance as his opponent.
Many people here on Slashdot expected the Dems to vote back our civil liberties and end the Iraq war. In fact they did nothing of the sort (the republicans voted against the bailout for chrissakes!) and maybe that was because they still didn't have the oval office, but with Obama's record I highly doubt there is much change.
Now I know i sound very bitter at this point, but really its more a feeling of bittersweet caution. I am deeply consoled by the fact that Obama is our first Black President! and that so many in the intl. community look upon this as a good change. Just be wary: make sure the Dems give you the change you voted for, and if they don't, give them the same treatment you gave the Neo-Cons and Evangelicals.
Full Disclosure: I Voted Nader b/c I support a more Socialist America
Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society. Ads may be a product of having this free capitalist society, but that doesn't mean they are good for said society. Every economy class I've have taken has hammered home the point that the market, in its unmolested by laws form, best allocates resources into the products that the society needs. How then does advertising improve on this system. Lets say Old Spice has a deodorant that is the same formula as some generic knock-off brand Capt. Jacks Spicy Deodorizer. If Old Spice spends $100,000 on advertising aand Capt. Jacks spends none, when you go to the store to grab some of that deodorant and they are the same price, you will reach for that Old Spice. Is the Old Spice any better of a buy? no, but advertising has garunteed that the Old Spice will come out on top. How does this situation create the better allocation of resources and products for a society? It completely unnecessary, but everyone has to do it or you will lose out in the end. Eventually the situation will devolve to the point where Brands become so strong the knock out there lesser funded competitors and this is NOT healthy for a free capitalist society.
Did you RTFA? Because pretty much everything in the summary is in the article. I agree that this anti-UAC crap is FUD, but come on, the summary said nothing that wasn't in the article.
From the Article: "With the current Windows Vista security models, Microsoft can claim that Vista blocks system-modification tools from running at startup; but the truth is, there are still many ways to get them to run. At the end of day, our experience with iReboot and Vista's security implementations brings us to the sad conclusion that with Windows Vista, Microsoft has made ISVs' jobs more complicated without actually providing any any further protection for end users from malware authors - which certainly isn't the best way of going about this task."
Obviously the summary was paraphrasing the conclusion for brevity's sake. How is the article 'fine' considering you just refuted its whole goddamn premise?
Parent quote: The only probable result is that marketing campaigns will seem even more boorish and annoying to demographic outliers as the campaigns become tuned to the desires of core members of the target demographic.
No skin off my back... I haven't actually paid attention to a commercial for years, and I only read print ads that are in scientific and tech related publications.
While on the subject, I have often thought it would be nice if ads were filled with enough technical data about a product to perform a comparative evaluation against similar product ads. I doubt that will ever happen, though./Quote (i suck at the commenting on slashdot SORRY!!!)
(disclaimer: i have tendency to sound saracastic/arrogant in print. so i would like to say that i respect the parent and am only attempting to present a rationed argument against his/her position/disclaimer)
It doesn't seem like a problem, but it is. Demographics is an old term and they dont target them anymore. What they do target are lifestyles, groups of people who act and think a certain way but are not defined specifically by age, race, culture, etc. You say you don't pay attention to the ads and your right, the ads dont ask you to pay attention, they are trying to affect your emotions. Its not subliminal advertising, which turned out to be a bunch of hocus pocus.
When a marketing firm, PR division*, or advertising consulting group wants to sell a product they have a focus group where they ask people to describe the deep emotions they feel towards different products. They dont ask people what they would want in a product or why they would need to use it. This is because people are liars about ideals. With this new brain scanner they won't even have to ask you questions anymore, they can just show you the image/playthejingle/readthebrochure and then get the emotions right out of your head. They wont tell you the truth about products because they dont really think they are moved by advertising. To get around this problem they only ask questions of the focus group to elicit emotional responses that can then be divided into lifestyle groups and the firm can determine how to market the product. This is why they will NEVER do a scientific evaluation of products again, because that will not sell you a product. Reasoning with you is not nearly as effective as depending on you to lie to them, yourself, and your ideals. 'I like to think of myself as a modern enlightened liberal man, but this doesn't stop me from ocassionly slipping up and buying a Big Mac, or a Starbucks Latte.'
Okay, so they target our emotions and don't reason with us as human beings. Who gives a shit? Well, its kind of a problem in that it makes you a non-participant. In a perfect capitalist market demand is met by supplying what people need, this is determined largely by the consumer through the power of his wallet. An over-simplification, but i think we can agree its true. However, they no longer ask you what you need through reasoned argument or appeals to your ideals (things that you would consider rational). This means that not you, but your emotions are participating in the market.**
We don't live in a consumerist society, we live in a DEMOCRACTIC consumerist society. This is where marketing becomes the skin off my back. If appealing to emotions rather then ideals works in the market then why not the democracy? And it did, very well. Regan and Thatcher both polled very poorly with the demographics, however they fit people lifestyles very well. Whereas people were telling the polls that they supported welfare, social services, and govt. regulation of the market, they did not in fact support these things and the campaingers knew this. Clinton thought he could cut the military budget and raise taxes on the middle class to pay for welfare, his approval was destroyed. He hired a marketer, started giving speeches about adding V-chips to our TV sets, and dismantled the welfare system... he got a second term. Maybe yo
I agree, Gold Digger is a much better song to use as it so closely resembles the original work. However, I take issue with your statement "It required little talent to do, just a 'Best of Ray Charles' CD." I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you defending Gold Digger or are stating that this is an example of poor use of sample which is detrimental to Hip-hop as a whole. If you mean the latter I have to cry foul on that logic. Let's imagine that you very much like Gold Digger and in your opinion find it to be a great work of Hip-hop. Your use of talent in your post is ambiguous to me: a talented minimalist composer can create great works out of very little music. This could be considered talent and therefore means that, Kanye, using a single looped sample (so extra drumbeats added, but mostly unchanged), has displayed much talent in using that one sample and his own rapping to create a song you find to be very good. However if talent means skill in playing music, or in the case of hip-hop many samples cooperating from many sources, then Kanye is no good. This opens up a terrific line of reasoning in which: The Beatles will always be greater then Fats Domino, Zepplin over the Clash, Dragonforce over everybody else. It specifically leads to the conclusion that Maximal music > Minimalism. This puts the whole of modern pop (itself very minimal relative to other genres like jazz and classical) in a very poor state.
Rap Artists. I fail to understand why the parent is Modded 5. Have we at Slashdot become bigots? When a rock cover re-contextualizes a piece of music and gives it a new meaning, it is considered great (assuming you know, its not just some hero worshiping schlock.) When Jimi Hendrix covered "All Along The Watchtower" he took a previously good song and created a new (and in many people's opinion more powerful) piece of art. Even more radical was his cover of the American National Anthem, itself a 'cover' of an old drinking ditty. Art is made from the parts of other art, building on or refuting previous works to create new and more vibrant works much in the same way that science builds and refutes older science. Bookingkeeping the credits on art have not been necessary before, why now? Why is "All Along the Watchtower" more legitmate then "Planet Rock"? Please stop applying this shit-poor double-standard to techno/dance/disco/rap/hiphop/pop... Please stop telling people "Yeah, I like everything but country and rap". Please stop mentioning "Rap Artists" in that tone on Slashdot ever again- You shame us all. In the words of the great Afrika Bambaataa "Guys who say 'I'm just a hip-hop dj' don't know jack crap what hip-hop is."
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the NSA was 100% telling the truth here. I don't doubt that they are telling the truth. So what?!
Since Snowden's revelations about the NSA's operations, the NSA has done nothing but claim that not only does it do everything he stated, but that what they do is perfectly legal. This has been supported openly by Obama and Congress actually re-purposed a bill intended to roll back the NSA's activities, into a bill that all but confirmed their legitimacy.
"DOS attacks aren't like refusing to go to the back of the bus... They're sugar in the gas tank. Anonymous vandalism isn't going to generate sympathy from your fellow citizens."
:D
What is this silliness? A DOS attack does no damage to any computer equipment at all. A DOS attack is even MORE pacifistic then going to the back of the bus. In real life a bunch of people show up to protest a place and close businesses by blocking traffic. A DOS attack does the same thing except the stakes are even lower because there is no chance of a sudden riot...
If anything we should be complaining that these kids aren't out in the streets doing REAL property damage.
Thats a whole lot of overblown rhetoric SFC. Tax evasion did not cause the fall of Greece. Tax evasion isn't a cause, like piracy its an effect. Piracy effects software yet it never kills software. In fact in the case of really good software it actually serves as an amplifying effect. Piracy crushes your competition for you: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece (remember Gates trip to Romania). In the same way tax evasion thrives in the great economic pillars of the west and the tax havens do very well for themselves. Tax Evasion didn't cause Greece.
Some History:
Greece was 'relatively' poor to begin with:
The whole of Southern Europe has been in decline for hundreds of years ever since the end of the Spanish Empire and Renaisance. Economically backward Spain and Italy fell back into farming once their trade routes dropped off. Portugal depolutated itself with worldwide colonization and both Spain and Portugal suffered heavily from growing nationalism. When the nationalist age kicked off in Europe Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece all limped through to the modern era with backwater dictatorships. The point beings that modern Southern Europe is far weaker economically then the North. Is it any suprise that these four nations are all suffering at the same time from miserable economies.
There was a far Bigger problem:
The Global Economic Resession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession How could we forget this? Economies worldwide were hobbled. Greece was never going to stave this off. This massive event has sent the US budget soaring, massacred our Arab dictatorships, and we still haven't seen the end.
Why Greece is pulling down Europe:
Greece and its three fellow southerners are on the Euro. Normally they would do what all dead beats do: print their way out. A seemly poor solution it is actually sound economic theory. In the short term you have to deal with miserable work conditions but this allows you to have an advantageous trade imbalance, your worthless currency creates far more exports than imports. But Germany and France have no desire to devalue the currency they worked so hard to build. So the southerners will grow more sick and suck in more aid will the rest of Europe carries them. See the ongoing cold war between China and the US. US wants to devalue the dollar and by extension chinas investments in our debt. A weak dollar is exetremely advantageous in this manner. So in response despite a booming economy China refuses to revalue the Yuan so as to maintain the trade imbalance and their debt investments.
Will the US out print China? I've got my popcorn.
Greece is fucked though... not because of taxes.
Well this bound to fail no doubt, but I think the judge already know this? From the article:
"They (injunctions) depend really on people's willingness to follow the rules rather than any ability to force it on them," [intellectual property and media partner Keith Arrowsmith] told Reuters when asked about Twitter.
So really the judge is just asking Twitter and Facebook very nicely to not talk about it. Ineffectual by design.
Leaked? How come all these 'leaked' video game articles always look like perfectly assembled press releases?
Here are the original Kotaku articles:
http://kotaku.com/5801226/the-modern-warfare-3-files-exclusive-first-details-on-the-biggest-game-of-2011
http://kotaku.com/5801353/modern-warfare-3-multiplayer-features-battles-in-brooklyn-clash-in-mogadishu/gallery/
http://kotaku.com/5801345/where-youll-go-how-youll-kill-and-who-will-die-in-modern-warfare-3
I wonder if they were delivered pre-written?
Full Disclosure: I loved MW and MW2. I would still be playing MW2 if PSN network wasn't completely fucked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bqq38WZctA
Why defend against accusations of immorality? EMBRACE THEM!
+5 insightful (?)
Such a bigoted post but whatever let them Europeans get away with it I suppose. WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE aren't trying to force anything on you. Our Government. and Corporations are. But from your post you seem to think that all American's are stupid pro-corporation flag wavers. How about this then?
Could you Europeans stop grovellingly accepting every stupid, clearly corporate-backed, treaty our fair Government sends your way?
Please continue to live in your (America TM) corporate governed country, which you believe is better than the American (TM) Democracy, but STOP obeying our corporate overlords.
On second thought don't, just in case the "trickle-down effect" actually works, I could use a few more Euros
The article states : "These nations and many others have rightly concluded that the way to win in the world economy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating. And America? We’re losing our edge. Innovation is something we’ve always been good at. Until now, we’ve been the undisputed leaders when it comes to finding new ideas through basic research, translating those ideas into products through world-class engineering, and getting to market first through aggressive entrepreneurship."
This seems incredibly short sighted to me. I mean yeah we are losing our high-technology jobs, but isn't this the same as losing our low-tech manufacturing jobs. Do we still need to be the worlds largest exporter of technology? Honestly I don't know, but this article takes for granted that these things are necessary for America to leader of the world. There is a good chance to do damage here if we get it wrong, what if for the sake of having a "strong and powerful industrial base" we started focusing on massive amounts of low tech manufacturing again. I mean America could be self-sufficient again! Of course that stupid but it sounds logical right?
If I had to bet money I would say America is right on course for remaining world leader. By focusing on finance we can control the worlds economy and just buy all the high tech shit we need, just like we have been buying all the low tech shit we need for decades. Finance pays better than engineering in America for a reason. And if in the future finance in no longer king we can just shed our skin again.
So what does that mean? We're supposed to devote our lives to pleasure and not work. We're suckers if we work for a living.
"their idleness is resolute, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonor, and danger to life and limb. They do not fear boredom as much as work without pleasure; they actually require a lot of boredom if work is to succeed." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Whoever works has not been put to death, he is refused this honour. And labour is first of all the sign of being judged worthy only of life. Does capital exploit the workers to death? Paradoxically, the worst it inflicts on them is refusing them death." - Jean Baudrillard
While I can appreciate this sort of thing from an academic perspective (it's quite impressive, actually), I find the idea of this in the real world quite sickening. Not sure I like the idea of a vending machine putting me into a category based on how I look. Or based on anything, for that matter.
Why can't a vending machine just be a vending machine?
Its sickening to people when advertising uses efficiency like this to lump them into groups. And yet they can't exactly describe why. No one likes to think they can be mentally dissected like this. Well its an affront to the modern morals of "Individualism Uber Alles". It sickens me to be sure, but this is already being done on such a massive that a vending machine is hardly upsetting. Take polling for example:
Do you approve of Obama policies?
Such a general question is bound to shave you down to one of the mindless drooling masses you claim to despise. No amount of political awareness or newspaper (lol) reading can protect you from it, you will always be lumped in with the stupidest of us. Of course its easy to condemn polling but the problem is that it functions EXACTLY THE SAME AS VOTING. A simple yes or no question:
Should Obama be president?
And there you are drooling along with the worst television pundits in the same worthless and stupid MASS. What is truly offensive to you about this vending machine? It holds up a mirror to your face and provides the tinyest little doubt that you aren't as unique and intelligent as you thought you were...
This question is flat out insulting to gamers. First of all he doesn't even like very good games. Alice, Syberia, and Heavy Rain are terrible. Alice I will just link to a fantastic review here: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/56.html
Heavy Rain is about as much a game as those old interactive laser disc games... or Dragon's Lair. So I guess if you are looking for games find yourself an emulator for a Panasonic Laser Active, or pick up Dragon's Lair which is on a ton of different systems. Now all of these games also happen to have in common that their are 'Art Games'. So if you want to get into a bunch more of those you can check out Metacritic as they do fairly well there.
However, the best course of action, if you really have your heart set on playing more games is to start developing better taste. Much as one can acquire better taste in wine, books, movies, and music, one can also acquire better taste in videogames. Videogames can be roughly divided into two types: Action / Strategy. Western developers are much more adept Strategy and Japanese developers are more adept at action.
Japanese: Shmups (shoot-em-ups): Dodonpachi(vertical), Battle Garegga(vertical), R-type (horizontal)
Run-N-Guns: Metal Slug 1,2,X
Action: Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry
Fighting: King of Fighters XI, Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, Blaze Blue
Western: FPS(first-person-shooter): Half-Life 2, Gears of War 2(3rd), Halo 3
RTS(real time strategy): Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 1
Strategy: Civilization IV, Panzar General 2
RPGS: Fallout 1,2, Diablo 2, Planescape: Torment
Best of all these are all either freely or cheaply obtained at this point in time. THESE ARE THE TRUE ARTISTIC HEIGHTS OF GAMING and im sure others could list HUNDREDS more.
This isn't the first time the Simpsons have done this either. In an filler clip show episode hosted by Troy McClure there is a scene where sweatshop animators in Korea toil over their work while armed guards look on. According to the DVD commentary many of the animators were upset with this and the scene was almost completely scrapped.
Turns out, if you put hardasses in power, they can turn around on you. If we just offered actual aid rather than screwing with their governance, we'd be much better regarded in that part of the world.
This is +4 insightful because? Aid IS "screwing with governance", or at least, one way of bringing down enemy institutions.
Hypothetically using the example of Darfur: Should we send aid to convicted war crimes govt. of North Sudan? the Africans in Darfur? the Arabic death squads in Darfur? The illegitimate breakaway nation of South Sudan? If you favor one of these factions you have screwed with governance. You've given one of the factions more food and supplies and theoretically they will beat their other opponents. In that case you've chosen who will govern at the end and that same government will owe you its existance and thus be inclined to favor you in every aspect of its governance. Or prehaps you send only aid to the 'people of somalia' and then the warlords intercept all your aid and either burn it or use it themselves. What then will you do? Prehaps you could invade somalia and wipe out the warlords... Don't even think of giving all sides equal aid cause that is just moronic, you have done the same thing as giving all sides no aid.
Even worse by limiting your diplomatic policy to only 'aid' you have given up the option of force. Dear Britian, Dear France please wisely use this pig iron and nylon against the Huns, of course, we won't be joining you in the fight for democracy as that would interfere in your governance. As we know we did interefere and now all of Europe and Japan are beholden to our Aid and favor us in all of their policies...
Obviously its not a simple matter of choosing 'only Aid' or 'only Force' or 'only Peace'. Those are moronic arguments of the common conservative, liberal, moderate, and (shudder now) independent. Do I know what to do in Iran? NO and neither do you. Which is why we all should be wise to talk about what we know at Slashdot: TECH and stop putting international politics on display. (And before some smartass makes a comment that the article is about IT in Iran let me say this: do you think "Man with no prior background in networking asks 'Can we like, beam the internet into a country or something?'" should be on the front page of slashdot?" That does give me an idea though... can we make 'the right to the internet' a human right, certainly it would be an excellent causus belli for our invasion of Iran....
As a note: if you have read in anyway an argument for or against: north sudan, arabs, americans, france, britian, somalia, warlords, the nazis, democracy, the internet, invasions, diplomacy, technology, or slashdot; in this post... you have not read correctly
Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference?
Because in the history of revolting THAT IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, there has never been a revolt in the world where outside backers haven't cast there lot with one or another faction like that. So any thought of Iran revolting and America not being involved, because of good feelings and such, is just hopeful fantasy. Iran suffering a revolt and America is tacitly condemning the Iranian crackdown because the revolt is not likely to succeed and Obama has already made moves to reconcile with the ruling Islamic government. The only reason to even lodge a complaint against Iran was to put pressure on them, to make them uncomfortable, but unless the govt. shows signs of toppling America will not move in Iran. If America does move we won't even know what side America will back, they could just as easily support the ailing regime in exchange for their unending debt and gratitude...
A more important question is why we would "beam broadband" (no doubt many slashdotters recoiled at this phrase, but we get the gist of it I suppose) to the opposition forces. Is there any evidence that broadband will help these people out against the government? They could just as easily use word of mouth and secret meetings, no doubt they already do. Unless this whole revolt started on the back of websites and mass emailings...
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Azerbijian and Uzbekistan (check your map all close neighbors of Iran) haven't had free elections in god knows how long. Look up Turkmenbashy! We don't care about these countries beating and torturing opposition supporters. These countries play ball, they are part of the great Caspian pipeline and the same police forces that torture electorates, torture terrorists/anarchists/democrats/republicans/monarchists who try and blow up the pipeline. The only reason human rights are brought up in the news/politics is because the West (sometimes the East) wants to gain something. Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't: it certainly isn't because of a disagreement about who are the victims. Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish. In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish...
So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.
Sorry, your right, it should read "House", but the difference largely comes from the genres they spawned, so I (sloppily) interchange them.
I don't mean to be so brusque, but that's a really stupid statement.
You shouldn't toss rocks in glass houses, you've made several uninformed statement yourself.
Ambient music is often dull or lacks individuality, and techno music is really just mindlessly repetitive (most techno songs are onemeasure of music repeated hundreds of times with new sounds added in at fairly regular intervals).
You've generalized two very deep and very excellent genres of pop music by focusing on their shittiest output. Techno at its best is about subtle variation, as the track cycles through each repetition it alters itself and the enjoyment comes from the focus on the clever details.
The challenge that composers for games and films face is that their music must be memorable and enjoyable without being overly intrusive. I've heard it said that the best film/game music is that which you don't really actively pay attention to while watching/playing, but find yourself humming later on.../p>
Ko Otani (Shadow of the Colossus) can use an orchestra to create any number of belvable atmospheres without being "ambient" in the slightest.
This is where your Classical* bias shines most clearly, because you have stated that the best quality of film/game soundtracks is the balance between enjoyability and unintrusiveness. This is the exact definition of the Pop genre of Ambient Music. I will quote now from the wikipedia article on Brian Eno, because this it can easily be verified as true.
Brian Eno is generally credited with coining the term "ambient music" in the mid-1970s to refer to music that, as he stated, can be either "actively listened to with attention or as easily ignored, depending on the choice of the listener", and that exists on the "cusp between melody and texture."
I highly recommend you pick up "Music for Airports" and enjoy the gorgeous ambient music you've been missing out on.
As for Video game soundtracks I would love to play a classic shooter ,in the style of R-type or Ikaruga, which employed a Techno soundtrack to alert you when ships or bullets were entering the screen. Rez and Audiosurfer are a good start, but the music is too much the main focus. What would be better would be to have the focus be on the game(play) whilst the music provides an ambient backdrop. This way you might find yourself falling into a groove as you play, without the game explicitly forcing you to play a 'rythm-based game'. A great example is "45:33" by LCD Soundsystem. Essentially its is a long (guess how long), ever changing Techno track designed to be listened to as you run. This way it regulates your periods of rest/effort by helping you develop a physical groove.
I am afraid I must share in parent's melancholy over this election. Barack Obama was not really much a Change.
Obama voted to renew the patriot act, voted to fund the Iraq war, voted in support of the FISA reform bill, doesn't support universal single-payer healthcare, and voted in favor of the bailout. His corporate campaign funding was massive and he has made it pretty well clear that he will not be making any efforts to upset the current capitalist status quo.
On diplomacy Obama supports the continued occupation of Iraq and a much increased presence Afganistan. He is also hawkish on relationships with Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. He has the same exact pro-Israel stance as his opponent.
Many people here on Slashdot expected the Dems to vote back our civil liberties and end the Iraq war. In fact they did nothing of the sort (the republicans voted against the bailout for chrissakes!) and maybe that was because they still didn't have the oval office, but with Obama's record I highly doubt there is much change.
Now I know i sound very bitter at this point, but really its more a feeling of bittersweet caution. I am deeply consoled by the fact that Obama is our first Black President! and that so many in the intl. community look upon this as a good change. Just be wary: make sure the Dems give you the change you voted for, and if they don't, give them the same treatment you gave the Neo-Cons and Evangelicals.
Full Disclosure: I Voted Nader b/c I support a more Socialist America
I don't know if this is a good precedence to set. Computers testing me for my drunkenness before I try to do anything with them? I can see it now:
"Open the Pod Bay doors Hal!"
"I'm sorry i can't do that Dave, you've had too much to drink."
Did you RTFA? Because pretty much everything in the summary is in the article. I agree that this anti-UAC crap is FUD, but come on, the summary said nothing that wasn't in the article.
From the Article:
"With the current Windows Vista security models, Microsoft can claim that Vista blocks system-modification tools from running at startup; but the truth is, there are still many ways to get them to run. At the end of day, our experience with iReboot and Vista's security implementations brings us to the sad conclusion that with Windows Vista, Microsoft has made ISVs' jobs more complicated without actually providing any any further protection for end users from malware authors - which certainly isn't the best way of going about this task."
Obviously the summary was paraphrasing the conclusion for brevity's sake. How is the article 'fine' considering you just refuted its whole goddamn premise?
Parent quote:
/Quote (i suck at the commenting on slashdot SORRY!!!)
/disclaimer)
The only probable result is that marketing campaigns will seem even more boorish and annoying to demographic outliers as the campaigns become tuned to the desires of core members of the target demographic.
No skin off my back... I haven't actually paid attention to a commercial for years, and I only read print ads that are in scientific and tech related publications.
While on the subject, I have often thought it would be nice if ads were filled with enough technical data about a product to perform a comparative evaluation against similar product ads. I doubt that will ever happen, though.
(disclaimer: i have tendency to sound saracastic/arrogant in print. so i would like to say that i respect the parent and am only attempting to present a rationed argument against his/her position
It doesn't seem like a problem, but it is. Demographics is an old term and they dont target them anymore. What they do target are lifestyles, groups of people who act and think a certain way but are not defined specifically by age, race, culture, etc. You say you don't pay attention to the ads and your right, the ads dont ask you to pay attention, they are trying to affect your emotions. Its not subliminal advertising, which turned out to be a bunch of hocus pocus.
When a marketing firm, PR division*, or advertising consulting group wants to sell a product they have a focus group where they ask people to describe the deep emotions they feel towards different products. They dont ask people what they would want in a product or why they would need to use it. This is because people are liars about ideals. With this new brain scanner they won't even have to ask you questions anymore, they can just show you the image/playthejingle/readthebrochure and then get the emotions right out of your head. They wont tell you the truth about products because they dont really think they are moved by advertising. To get around this problem they only ask questions of the focus group to elicit emotional responses that can then be divided into lifestyle groups and the firm can determine how to market the product. This is why they will NEVER do a scientific evaluation of products again, because that will not sell you a product. Reasoning with you is not nearly as effective as depending on you to lie to them, yourself, and your ideals. 'I like to think of myself as a modern enlightened liberal man, but this doesn't stop me from ocassionly slipping up and buying a Big Mac, or a Starbucks Latte.'
Okay, so they target our emotions and don't reason with us as human beings. Who gives a shit? Well, its kind of a problem in that it makes you a non-participant. In a perfect capitalist market demand is met by supplying what people need, this is determined largely by the consumer through the power of his wallet. An over-simplification, but i think we can agree its true. However, they no longer ask you what you need through reasoned argument or appeals to your ideals (things that you would consider rational). This means that not you, but your emotions are participating in the market.**
We don't live in a consumerist society, we live in a DEMOCRACTIC consumerist society. This is where marketing becomes the skin off my back. If appealing to emotions rather then ideals works in the market then why not the democracy? And it did, very well. Regan and Thatcher both polled very poorly with the demographics, however they fit people lifestyles very well. Whereas people were telling the polls that they supported welfare, social services, and govt. regulation of the market, they did not in fact support these things and the campaingers knew this. Clinton thought he could cut the military budget and raise taxes on the middle class to pay for welfare, his approval was destroyed. He hired a marketer, started giving speeches about adding V-chips to our TV sets, and dismantled the welfare system... he got a second term. Maybe yo
I agree, Gold Digger is a much better song to use as it so closely resembles the original work. However, I take issue with your statement "It required little talent to do, just a 'Best of Ray Charles' CD." I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you defending Gold Digger or are stating that this is an example of poor use of sample which is detrimental to Hip-hop as a whole. If you mean the latter I have to cry foul on that logic. Let's imagine that you very much like Gold Digger and in your opinion find it to be a great work of Hip-hop. Your use of talent in your post is ambiguous to me: a talented minimalist composer can create great works out of very little music. This could be considered talent and therefore means that, Kanye, using a single looped sample (so extra drumbeats added, but mostly unchanged), has displayed much talent in using that one sample and his own rapping to create a song you find to be very good. However if talent means skill in playing music, or in the case of hip-hop many samples cooperating from many sources, then Kanye is no good. This opens up a terrific line of reasoning in which: The Beatles will always be greater then Fats Domino, Zepplin over the Clash, Dragonforce over everybody else. It specifically leads to the conclusion that Maximal music > Minimalism. This puts the whole of modern pop (itself very minimal relative to other genres like jazz and classical) in a very poor state.
Rap Artists.
I fail to understand why the parent is Modded 5. Have we at Slashdot become bigots? When a rock cover re-contextualizes a piece of music and gives it a new meaning, it is considered great (assuming you know, its not just some hero worshiping schlock.) When Jimi Hendrix covered "All Along The Watchtower" he took a previously good song and created a new (and in many people's opinion more powerful) piece of art. Even more radical was his cover of the American National Anthem, itself a 'cover' of an old drinking ditty. Art is made from the parts of other art, building on or refuting previous works to create new and more vibrant works much in the same way that science builds and refutes older science. Bookingkeeping the credits on art have not been necessary before, why now? Why is "All Along the Watchtower" more legitmate then "Planet Rock"? Please stop applying this shit-poor double-standard to techno/dance/disco/rap/hiphop/pop... Please stop telling people "Yeah, I like everything but country and rap". Please stop mentioning "Rap Artists" in that tone on Slashdot ever again- You shame us all. In the words of the great Afrika Bambaataa "Guys who say 'I'm just a hip-hop dj' don't know jack crap what hip-hop is."
Justin Roberts
Besides, any argument that can be used to prove daft punk sucks, is most obviously shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4