Just out of curiosity, is the rage more from "reviving" dead actors, or Lucas doing so?
Pretty sure I know the answer already, but feel like asking anyway.
For me, it's "in general". George Burns is a great actor and comedian, but he's passed. The thought that we're going to pull a Weekend At Bernie's for a quick buck strikes me as deeply disrespectful. Owning their "likeness" strikes me as a bit cheesy too - I'm pretty sure the intention wasn't to let Elvis' estate start making new movies.
Sadly, it won't even come to that. What'll happen is that the new "standard movie star contract" will include some fine print giving the studios the rights to the actor's likeness at that point. The actor'll get paid for one cheap movie, and then the studio will keep them in movies for free for all eternity.
Actually, it reminds me more of the Darth Chef/Fruity Little Club episode. "Actor no longer with us? Well, we own the voice, let's use it anyway!" As another poster above says, horrifying but really interesting and potentially creative. It's kind of like a cross between a collage and a montage.
One big difference between "Darth Chef" and the Lucas Plan is that Darth Chef's lines were obviously (probably on purpose) clips from past lines. From what I'm reading, the Lucas Plan would be to have a Chef spin-off, and keep remixing existing lines to give the impression that this is still the actor's original work (and that the actor was still getting paid).
Actually I'm having real trouble deciding why this is "morally wrong" or even "creepy" (which is the underhanded way of saying the same thing.) I see it as just another right to be negotiated.
Because these old dead actors never gave permission to be recycled endlessly in movies. For one thing, it's going to screw younger actors. (I can just see it - Elvis movies for all freaking eternity.)
I thought it was in poor taste when they started using CGI to have Astair dance with a vacuum cleaner, to be honest.
It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.
It is damned retarded though.
a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.
Of course, a "good ad campaign" would never see air or print - not to mention that it's generally a bad plan to attack from a position of weakness anyway - Anon has superior forces in the online realm. Why wouldn't they use it?
First, the US gov't has never shown accountability to non-citizens. (And to be fair, most nations don't feel the need to be accountable to foreigners, but the US seems to take extra glee in it.)
Second, I don't believe WikiLeaks has ever positioned themselves as democratic or transparent. I'd be surprised if they did, considering the nature of their work. Contrast with the US, who theoretically is supposed to answer to their citizenry.
Also, Wikileaks *is* accountable for their actions (as recent events have shown). Unfortunately, it looks like some governments would rather be "right" than "legal".
Speaking as a Canadian who sees that the US deems more than a few of our companies, facilities, and infrastructure "essential" to their national interest, the obvious question becomes - how far are they willing to go to "secure" these things?
Will they offer to help fund our security forces in these areas? Or will they simply occupy them the first time Canada dares to deny the US what they want?
(And this isn't just wild speculation - being a fairly large supplier of oil to the US means that we do look a little nervously when we see the military stomp down governments that don't bow to American wishes.)
Only if you try to equate Wikileaks (a private organization) with the United States Government (an alleged democracy that is supposed to be accountable to it's people).
The poster worded it poorly, but the affect was the same. Why did the bank chose to review his account right at this second? Government pressure. They were also all well aware that he wouldn't be able to come and pick up the money.
I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, the timing is obvious - since they can't get WL off the web, they're attacking in meatspace. It's unlikely that all of these services all *happened* to notice that WL was possibly naughty at the same time.
On the other hand, some of the actions do seem to be making sense - the Swiss bank's reasoning (he gave false info on his account) strikes me as the sort of thing that would go unnoticed unless you went looking for it. And once the bank found it, they're within their rights to close the account.
My thinking at this point is that WL forgot that being protected online doesn't mean you can skimp on your real world protection. The US might not have the ability to wipe them off the 'net, but they definitely have enough clout to call up everyone WL deals with and say "it's really in your best interests to find a reason to drop these guys". And realistically, they should have been prepared for that. (As in, maybe spread the cash around a few banks in different countries for starters?)
Not that people won't try, but this one is pretty clearly on AVG - if you're going to make your updates mandatory, make damn sure that you don't have any showstopper bugs in there.
I'm guessing they'll be busily pointing to the fine print that says "even if we deliberately screwed your computer up, it's not our fault"
because I don't believe our airport security HAS to take orders from the TSA
As I understand it, Canada has to get the nudie scanners in order to continue to pre-screen people for the US. (Which is part of our free-trade in their direction policy).
The minister has already come out against the groping, but at the same time they're adding "privacy screens", so I wouldn't be surprised if they're just waiting to block the incriminating videos once they start.
That's one thing you have to admire about the American Government these days - they're not afraid to do their violating right out in the open. Not shy at all...could almost call them exhibitionists.
Also, keep in mind that the Developer Agreement for iStuff flat out *tells you* that your app can be rejected for any or no reason. (I don't have it in front of me, but I recall it being very close to those exact words). They go out of their way to tell the developer that there are no guarantees that any given app will be approved, and that "we don't want that" is an acceptable reason (per the contract) to refuse an app.
Is it a bit spiteful? Yep. But anyone who bought an iProduct (or bought the development software for it) knew what they were getting into. It's not a secret that the App Store is the spot to go. (Unless you click a link and jailbreak.)
Also worth mentioning that while there's a cute paraphrase on the summary (supplied by the Wronged Party), that's no-where near "fact". Just to throw an opposite opinion out there, if I wanted some free publicity for being "BANNED BY APPLE!", it'd be a no-brainer to submit an app that has obvious problems - because no-one's going to read past the headline to see that the app actually bricks the device or something.
More like how we don't see Sony installing filters on their TVs that prevent ads for LG TVs from showing up. Or how we don't see Comcast blocking any online content talking about DirecTV (yet). Or how we don't see the Android Market blocking apps talking about iPhones.
And come to think of it, I've been in McDonald'ses with news channels on their TVs where they DO advertise BK, and I didn't see a manager rushing up to block it from our eyes...
Sadly, "yet" has arrived - we are seeing the networks block Google TVs.
Crayons? Now that's stupid. Do you know how hard it is to get crayon off the computer screen?
The "ha ha" factor aside, there are advantages to having your kid's coloring being on a machine that not only has "undo" buttons for them, but can't accidentally doodle on your walls.
There is a bit of truth to this - my iPad has saved the day many a time when the munchkin is getting restless. It's a pile of boardgames, a set of stories, doodlepad, and typewriter all rolled into a nice compact form. And nothing impresses the locals like watching a 3-year-old teach a pair of 2-year-olds how to use one.
Also, your kids want to do what you do. My wife and I are both tech-oriented bookworms and gaming geeks. There is zero shock in the family that our kid reads way above her level and found how to search for Dora on Google by herself. (Which lead to a rousing game of "distract the kid while we find the Real Dora site and not the questionable parodies" *g*). She still finds time to run around, play with toys, and generally be a kid.
At that age, there's little in my view to be gained by giving a kid access to the internet and quite a bit to lose.
Other than losing access to some of the age-appropriate websites out there. Fisher Price ain't bad. Sesame Street is better. There's a whole "MMO" based around Pocoyo (you can make faces, but no chat, so no worries about people being idiots).
I think we need to accept that the "techie gene" is going to be more prevalent in the future, simply because a young child is exposed to buttons at an earlier age. Buttons on the phone, buttons on the TV. What's mom and dad going? Pushing buttons on the computer.
Personally, I'm trying to decide when a good age to start doing the hardware-techy projects with her is.
Yeah, striking things with a bat or running around after balls seem so much better.
The sad thing is that it's a downward spiral - kids don't go to playgrounds because "it's dangerous", so kids don't learn how to behave in playgrounds. Which is the big reason why playgrounds are dangerous.
My daughter falling off the equipment is the least of my worries (other than the mandatory parental heart attacks). She's in far more danger from the kids who never learned to look below them before jumping.
Yes... like all those baby toys rated "3+" with small parts warning... while no small parts to be found... that's just manufacturers covering their ass against law suits.
My understanding of this (as the proud owner of a soon-to-be 4yo) is that a manufacturer has to actively prove their product is safe for under 3 (nothing too small to swallow, nothing that can be torn *into* a size small enough to swallow, nothing nasty in the paint, etc, etc, etc, etc). For a lot of toy makers (especially if it isn't intended to be marketed to that young), it's just easier to say "no, it's not safe for under-3" even though it probably is.
The age ratings on games tend to be lowballed, I find. Warning: parental bragging ahead My kid's been playing Zombie Dice for a few months (rated 10+, for some odd reason), and she's better at that than she is at tic-tac-toe. Teaches counting, a smidge of strategy, and she can play it with the grownups (who have tired of Candyland - I'd burn that game if she didn't like it so much.)
Try dropping the sexual scare words and perhaps a rational conversation can be had on this.
I don't consider them "scare words" - I consider them "putting the issue into context".
If anyone else, in any other situation was requiring you to let other people "touch you in the swimsuit area", it would be considered a criminal act.
But let's flip it the other way - we've taught our children for decades not to let people touch you in those areas - not strangers, not teachers, not even your parents. How do you propose we tell our children that these particular strangers can do this, and it's OK?
research into the psychology of how a politician becomes radicalized
That's easy - The West Wing even did an episode on it.
Short version? Because US politics are obsessed with the soundbite and the "ten words" version. And you can't give a nuanced opinion on anything in that space of time. So until people start regaining an attention span, you're either "FOR", "AGAINST", or "WISHYWASHY".
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of curiosity, is the rage more from "reviving" dead actors, or Lucas doing so?
Pretty sure I know the answer already, but feel like asking anyway.
For me, it's "in general". George Burns is a great actor and comedian, but he's passed. The thought that we're going to pull a Weekend At Bernie's for a quick buck strikes me as deeply disrespectful. Owning their "likeness" strikes me as a bit cheesy too - I'm pretty sure the intention wasn't to let Elvis' estate start making new movies.
Sadly, it won't even come to that. What'll happen is that the new "standard movie star contract" will include some fine print giving the studios the rights to the actor's likeness at that point. The actor'll get paid for one cheap movie, and then the studio will keep them in movies for free for all eternity.
Actually, it reminds me more of the Darth Chef/Fruity Little Club episode. "Actor no longer with us? Well, we own the voice, let's use it anyway!" As another poster above says, horrifying but really interesting and potentially creative. It's kind of like a cross between a collage and a montage.
One big difference between "Darth Chef" and the Lucas Plan is that Darth Chef's lines were obviously (probably on purpose) clips from past lines. From what I'm reading, the Lucas Plan would be to have a Chef spin-off, and keep remixing existing lines to give the impression that this is still the actor's original work (and that the actor was still getting paid).
Actually I'm having real trouble deciding why this is "morally wrong" or even "creepy" (which is the underhanded way of saying the same thing.) I see it as just another right to be negotiated.
Because these old dead actors never gave permission to be recycled endlessly in movies. For one thing, it's going to screw younger actors. (I can just see it - Elvis movies for all freaking eternity.)
I thought it was in poor taste when they started using CGI to have Astair dance with a vacuum cleaner, to be honest.
It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.
It is damned retarded though. a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.
Of course, a "good ad campaign" would never see air or print - not to mention that it's generally a bad plan to attack from a position of weakness anyway - Anon has superior forces in the online realm. Why wouldn't they use it?
First, the US gov't has never shown accountability to non-citizens. (And to be fair, most nations don't feel the need to be accountable to foreigners, but the US seems to take extra glee in it.)
Second, I don't believe WikiLeaks has ever positioned themselves as democratic or transparent. I'd be surprised if they did, considering the nature of their work. Contrast with the US, who theoretically is supposed to answer to their citizenry.
Also, Wikileaks *is* accountable for their actions (as recent events have shown). Unfortunately, it looks like some governments would rather be "right" than "legal".
And we should be backlashing back.
Speaking as a Canadian who sees that the US deems more than a few of our companies, facilities, and infrastructure "essential" to their national interest, the obvious question becomes - how far are they willing to go to "secure" these things?
Will they offer to help fund our security forces in these areas? Or will they simply occupy them the first time Canada dares to deny the US what they want?
(And this isn't just wild speculation - being a fairly large supplier of oil to the US means that we do look a little nervously when we see the military stomp down governments that don't bow to American wishes.)
Only if you try to equate Wikileaks (a private organization) with the United States Government (an alleged democracy that is supposed to be accountable to it's people).
The poster worded it poorly, but the affect was the same. Why did the bank chose to review his account right at this second? Government pressure. They were also all well aware that he wouldn't be able to come and pick up the money.
I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, the timing is obvious - since they can't get WL off the web, they're attacking in meatspace. It's unlikely that all of these services all *happened* to notice that WL was possibly naughty at the same time.
On the other hand, some of the actions do seem to be making sense - the Swiss bank's reasoning (he gave false info on his account) strikes me as the sort of thing that would go unnoticed unless you went looking for it. And once the bank found it, they're within their rights to close the account.
My thinking at this point is that WL forgot that being protected online doesn't mean you can skimp on your real world protection. The US might not have the ability to wipe them off the 'net, but they definitely have enough clout to call up everyone WL deals with and say "it's really in your best interests to find a reason to drop these guys". And realistically, they should have been prepared for that. (As in, maybe spread the cash around a few banks in different countries for starters?)
My first thought was to feel sorry for Swedes - your lady shows up unexpectedly, and you're expected to call the police?
If quickies are criminal, only criminals will get quickies.
So theoretically he's still innocent (as in, charges haven't been proved yet).
("theoretically") because it's obvious he's going to get thrown under the bus on this one, whether he did it or not.
Manning likely has it coming to him for the leak
Has Manning been found guilty on those charges yet? Last I heard he was still just accused.
Why is /. not blaming this on M$?
Not that people won't try, but this one is pretty clearly on AVG - if you're going to make your updates mandatory, make damn sure that you don't have any showstopper bugs in there.
I'm guessing they'll be busily pointing to the fine print that says "even if we deliberately screwed your computer up, it's not our fault"
because I don't believe our airport security HAS to take orders from the TSA
As I understand it, Canada has to get the nudie scanners in order to continue to pre-screen people for the US. (Which is part of our free-trade in their direction policy).
The minister has already come out against the groping, but at the same time they're adding "privacy screens", so I wouldn't be surprised if they're just waiting to block the incriminating videos once they start.
That's one thing you have to admire about the American Government these days - they're not afraid to do their violating right out in the open. Not shy at all...could almost call them exhibitionists.
+1 for honesty
Also, keep in mind that the Developer Agreement for iStuff flat out *tells you* that your app can be rejected for any or no reason. (I don't have it in front of me, but I recall it being very close to those exact words). They go out of their way to tell the developer that there are no guarantees that any given app will be approved, and that "we don't want that" is an acceptable reason (per the contract) to refuse an app.
Is it a bit spiteful? Yep. But anyone who bought an iProduct (or bought the development software for it) knew what they were getting into. It's not a secret that the App Store is the spot to go. (Unless you click a link and jailbreak.)
Also worth mentioning that while there's a cute paraphrase on the summary (supplied by the Wronged Party), that's no-where near "fact". Just to throw an opposite opinion out there, if I wanted some free publicity for being "BANNED BY APPLE!", it'd be a no-brainer to submit an app that has obvious problems - because no-one's going to read past the headline to see that the app actually bricks the device or something.
More like how we don't see Sony installing filters on their TVs that prevent ads for LG TVs from showing up. Or how we don't see Comcast blocking any online content talking about DirecTV (yet). Or how we don't see the Android Market blocking apps talking about iPhones.
And come to think of it, I've been in McDonald'ses with news channels on their TVs where they DO advertise BK, and I didn't see a manager rushing up to block it from our eyes...
Sadly, "yet" has arrived - we are seeing the networks block Google TVs.
Crayons? Now that's stupid. Do you know how hard it is to get crayon off the computer screen?
The "ha ha" factor aside, there are advantages to having your kid's coloring being on a machine that not only has "undo" buttons for them, but can't accidentally doodle on your walls.
Let him learn the future, not the past.
There is a bit of truth to this - my iPad has saved the day many a time when the munchkin is getting restless. It's a pile of boardgames, a set of stories, doodlepad, and typewriter all rolled into a nice compact form. And nothing impresses the locals like watching a 3-year-old teach a pair of 2-year-olds how to use one.
A way to turn it off and go outside to play.
As long as you're happy being outside as well. ;)
Also, your kids want to do what you do. My wife and I are both tech-oriented bookworms and gaming geeks. There is zero shock in the family that our kid reads way above her level and found how to search for Dora on Google by herself. (Which lead to a rousing game of "distract the kid while we find the Real Dora site and not the questionable parodies" *g*). She still finds time to run around, play with toys, and generally be a kid.
At that age, there's little in my view to be gained by giving a kid access to the internet and quite a bit to lose.
Other than losing access to some of the age-appropriate websites out there. Fisher Price ain't bad. Sesame Street is better. There's a whole "MMO" based around Pocoyo (you can make faces, but no chat, so no worries about people being idiots).
I think we need to accept that the "techie gene" is going to be more prevalent in the future, simply because a young child is exposed to buttons at an earlier age. Buttons on the phone, buttons on the TV. What's mom and dad going? Pushing buttons on the computer.
Personally, I'm trying to decide when a good age to start doing the hardware-techy projects with her is.
Yeah, striking things with a bat or running around after balls seem so much better.
The sad thing is that it's a downward spiral - kids don't go to playgrounds because "it's dangerous", so kids don't learn how to behave in playgrounds. Which is the big reason why playgrounds are dangerous.
My daughter falling off the equipment is the least of my worries (other than the mandatory parental heart attacks). She's in far more danger from the kids who never learned to look below them before jumping.
Yes... like all those baby toys rated "3+" with small parts warning... while no small parts to be found... that's just manufacturers covering their ass against law suits.
My understanding of this (as the proud owner of a soon-to-be 4yo) is that a manufacturer has to actively prove their product is safe for under 3 (nothing too small to swallow, nothing that can be torn *into* a size small enough to swallow, nothing nasty in the paint, etc, etc, etc, etc). For a lot of toy makers (especially if it isn't intended to be marketed to that young), it's just easier to say "no, it's not safe for under-3" even though it probably is.
The age ratings on games tend to be lowballed, I find. Warning: parental bragging ahead My kid's been playing Zombie Dice for a few months (rated 10+, for some odd reason), and she's better at that than she is at tic-tac-toe. Teaches counting, a smidge of strategy, and she can play it with the grownups (who have tired of Candyland - I'd burn that game if she didn't like it so much.)
Agreed - advertising a single "boycott day" sounds great on paper, but it makes it easy to control and spin.
This needs to be an "everyday" thing - "don't be an exhibitionist - avoid the scanners"
That's not what terrorism is.
Actually, that's exactly what terrorism is - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Or in simpler terms, they make you do what they want, because you're afraid of what will happen if you don't.
Try dropping the sexual scare words and perhaps a rational conversation can be had on this.
I don't consider them "scare words" - I consider them "putting the issue into context".
If anyone else, in any other situation was requiring you to let other people "touch you in the swimsuit area", it would be considered a criminal act.
But let's flip it the other way - we've taught our children for decades not to let people touch you in those areas - not strangers, not teachers, not even your parents. How do you propose we tell our children that these particular strangers can do this, and it's OK?
research into the psychology of how a politician becomes radicalized
That's easy - The West Wing even did an episode on it.
Short version? Because US politics are obsessed with the soundbite and the "ten words" version. And you can't give a nuanced opinion on anything in that space of time. So until people start regaining an attention span, you're either "FOR", "AGAINST", or "WISHYWASHY".