I'm sorry, have you even played dwarf fortress? Have you hit magma? This game has depth that blows big-name commercial titles out of the water. Civ, the sims, and spore can't hold a candle to it. It's cool.
Spelunky is a procedurally generated platformer with a Indiana Jones theme and nethack elements. How cool is that?
and Nethack, Freaking NETHACK.
But oh, you didn't want that. You wanted more pixels in the bouncing breasts of DOA volleyball. Let me tighten up the graphics on level three for you.
A purely capitalistic society wouldn't have artists in the first place. But luckily we're a mix of all types. And yes, the artists will continue to make art regardless if it makes them millions. I know I do.
Gosh and golly! I wonder how we're going to deal with two people who have opposing morals? Possibly we'll set up a government that believes in majority rule. We'll call it democracy. Then we'll agree on some rules to follow and repercussions for breaking said laws.
All within the magical bounds of moral relativism!
So yay! Relative morals for everyone!
Seriously though, morals are relative. Just because you think skullfuckery is fine and dandy, the majority don't, you get locked away, and society moves on. When two groups with differing morals meet there's tension and/or bloodshed until they settle their differences or agree to co-exist. One is not right, the other is not wrong, but one is usually bigger and badder then the other.
You DO know the difference between morals and laws... right?
Copyright is active interference in the free market.
It's an interference in the free market like police arresting burglars is an interference.
The same way that counterfeiting is illegal.
Like restricting Microsoft from possessing nukes
Ideally, the free market is completely free. Ideally we wouldn't need government. Ideally no one would have to work unless they wanted to. But welcome to reality. The world isn't ideal and the free market isn't that free.
No, the constitution is an agreement between people, by the people, and for the people. The states, the feds, and all other entities are simply constructs that don't deserve a vote.
Yes, the court system interprets how the law is applied to specific cases. The supreme court being the ultimate arbiter of the court system and the constitution being the ultimate root of the law. They have this power because we the people gave it to them in the constitution.
if the President (for example) believes something is unconstitutional, he must behave accordingly, regardless of what the Court says.
Likewise, if he can't convice me, among other people, that what he's doing is constitutional, I MUST progressively resist those actions from complaining, to rioting, to bring out the small arms and overthrowing the government. Because if the constitution breaks down, then there IS NO government, and we would be living in martial law where might makes, well, if not right, then it at least gets the job done.
In this case of the United States of America, the ultimate arbiters are WE THE GOD DAMNED PEOPLE. The states don't exist without us. The feds don't exist without us. We're a bloody democracy and don't you forget it.
AYE! I'll second that. There's a game with DEPTH!
And you can't count the number of man-hours that have been put into good ol' vanilla nethack. There is enough polish there to shine like a diamond.
When I wish it was about the effects of it all.
Alright, so maybe the tides will rise a foot in 50 years. What does they really mean? How much will it cost to deal with it? What are the chances, really?
The rain might fall 1000 miles north instead of here. What's that going to do both areas? What are the chances of that happening?
If that got more coverage, then people would switch from "it can't possibly be us affecting the system" to "My god I hope we can affect the system".
Or, quite possibly, the reaction would be "huh, that ain't so bad. We can afford to do that. Time to invest in Canadian real estate and relocate all the komodo dragons."
Well no, as it stands, google wouldn't have access to that without the whole "network of trust" thing, because google isn't friends with everyone. Presumably they could add something to access your network, but that can't really be part of the plan. That all assumes that your pics, activities, statuses, and whatnot are restricted only to friends, which since you own it, you have actual control. Actual control being different then the illusion of control until we change the terms of service and crack you wide open sort.
Yeah, I've had this idea as well. Because Facebook is simple. It's a webpage with text and pictures uploaded by users that has interfaces with others' web page. Rather then facebook or myspace, an open source alternative that people would run on their own. Websites with "user" uploaded content are, you know, old hat, so this boils down to protocols to deal with interaction between sites. And remember, this IS the social portion of social networks.
so what are all these interactions that need protocols:
-Establishing networks of trust, friendship, and hate. That whole "friends request" thing.
And that's essentially the only one that's required to make an open source distributed social network like facebook. Everything else is, not trivial, but it's been done. If it can be made cheap and simple enough (that itself a monumental task), then the masses could use it. But they won't, as inertial will keep them in facebook.
The rest is just features:
-Poke. It's one freaking message.
-Post on another wall/picture/whatnot. It's been done.
-Search through others pictures for tags of you.
-Set up events, invite people.
-Establish groups of people. The owner would host of course, but transferring ownership could be interesting.
No no no, let's see this idea through. It'd be killer to see a bunch of idiots leaning out of their car to talk on a cell phone.
(sad thing is, they'd do it)
Yeah, I read that slashdot story too. It's a crock. You are quite literally arguing FOR ignorance.
Imagine if the investment bankers (or better yet the politicians who deregulated them) had remembered the horrors of the great depression.
Imagine if people had remembered Vietnam when we went in and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. (or even just when the Russian got tired of dying in Afghanistan)
Now, our "video game heritage" isn't nearly as important or weighty as that. But I like the patent for a hammer-mill strapped to a Cadillac that my grandfather had framed. I like the old silverware dad brought back from Thailand. I even like his super-ancient record of "the electric prunes".
So I really don't get the glorification of forgetting and ignorance. Starting with a black slate sucks.
Although, in an apparent about face, I'd agree that getting rid of useless junk and casting of materialism is a healthy thing to do. But keep the good stuff. (And that old TI machine with munch-man cartridge counts as "the good stuff").
Came to point this out. It wasn't a detail in wholesale leak, it was a targeted leak about this one person's secret identity. And it probably done out of revenge like the coward mentions.
And ESPN360.com (ESPN3) hasn't really cut a deal directly with ISPs, that only happened in dreamland.
(btw, it's clearly breaking NN, why the hell is the wiki-page weaseling around it?)
Mother nature wants me to bash your head open with a rock, take your women as my own, and beat my chest triumphantly. I try to ignore it most of the time. I think you're forgetting that mother nature is a cold-hearted bitch that wants us to live just long enough to screw and feed some kids to the age they can screw.
Nature is fully capable of remembering, yet it has built us to forget.
That's not a feature, it's a bug.
What use does remembering have if you can't distinguish what is important?
How does forgetting help us distinguish what is important? Unless you want to make judgments based on ignorance, I'd say it hurts the process. So remembering important details about how that guy over there hit you with a rock will help you avoid a similar outcome. There IS the added bit of info that time has passed, and you can take that however you want.
entitles it to something like control of the entire world, forever.
This pretty much describes both England and France in their heyday. And sure enough, some Englishmen and Frenchmen still want to be on the world stage.
It saddens me that the USA preeminently invaded another nation, and that it happened under my watch, but any nation as big and as old as the USA has had both their good points and bad. Ignoring that is just nationalistic hate/pride.
I was thinking above math professors really. Like, oh I don't know, Euler or Gauss. But looking through a list, there are plenty of counter-examples, like Anon who pointed out Lagrange.
Most doctors don't need math at all. And I can't remember the last time I actually had to apply some calculus. I mean, I tackled an 11yo cousin and forced him to learn about limits and how to derive polynomials, but actually using it on the job? Naw.
I don't really have an issue with MRIs helping guide career descisions. Well, other then the fact that this sounds like it can be done with the bullshit career planning pamphlets from highschool. I mean, did I really need to answer twenty questions to know that I'm better at math then average joe?
But what's scary is if this is ever applied to children who haven't yet developed. I dunno much about child development, but if you're not a math genius by age 11, you're too old to really make it into the big league. The problem is how a kid develops if you tell them that they're stupid and they might as well break rocks with their noggin. I think the trick to encouraging engineering degrees is to trick children into thinking they're smart. Given a decade in the school system, it'll turn out to be true.
It's also scary if it's used as a screening method for prospective employees.
1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. (No longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)
Citation needed. Actually, I'd be surprised if they really did this during Bush either.
2 - Right to Privacy (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)
That's not part of the patriot act. FISA law, with or without the patriot act, forbids the mass wiretapping of citizens that happened under Bush, and continues with Obama. It's blatantly illegal. Yeah, that's a dick move by Obama. We got a taste of that during the election though, so it's not really a shocker. Remember when he voted to let off the telcom companies from being prosecuted for it?
3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)
He never said no interrogation. I believe he fought against torture, which he indeed banned. Now, the CIA probably just has their Syrian buddies do it for them, but at least the president is not defending torture. It's an important detail. And yeah, Guantanamo really should be closed. Citation needed for the american citizens held there.
4 - End the war. (Now it's been extended two more years.)
Aye, it'd be great if we had some sort of time-table for that, now wouldn't it? But oh, no, that would be heresy and treason according to the republicans from 2008. Anyway, they really are trying to ramp down the (Iraq) occupation.
Well, the story is a non-event, but I find you sentiment about corporate culture to be horrifying. It's akin to "don't blame the specific rapist for rape, it's standard practice for rapers".
Why WOULDN'T we blame BP? They're the ones making money off of cutting safety corners and profiting from the environmental risk AND DAMAGE. It's like lions' nature to eat you. You take precautions to keep them at bay, but if one gets in the village and is tearing people to shreds then you shoot the damned thing.
If you had read any of the +5 insightuls above, you'd understand the mod.
It is a PR stunt. It is making Google money. And they are providing normals searches to china. (plus one click)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, have you even played dwarf fortress? Have you hit magma? This game has depth that blows big-name commercial titles out of the water. Civ, the sims, and spore can't hold a candle to it. It's cool.
Spelunky is a procedurally generated platformer with a Indiana Jones theme and nethack elements. How cool is that?
and Nethack, Freaking NETHACK.
But oh, you didn't want that. You wanted more pixels in the bouncing breasts of DOA volleyball. Let me tighten up the graphics on level three for you.
A purely capitalistic society wouldn't have artists in the first place. But luckily we're a mix of all types. And yes, the artists will continue to make art regardless if it makes them millions. I know I do.
Gosh and golly! I wonder how we're going to deal with two people who have opposing morals? Possibly we'll set up a government that believes in majority rule. We'll call it democracy. Then we'll agree on some rules to follow and repercussions for breaking said laws.
All within the magical bounds of moral relativism!
So yay! Relative morals for everyone!
Seriously though, morals are relative. Just because you think skullfuckery is fine and dandy, the majority don't, you get locked away, and society moves on. When two groups with differing morals meet there's tension and/or bloodshed until they settle their differences or agree to co-exist. One is not right, the other is not wrong, but one is usually bigger and badder then the other.
You DO know the difference between morals and laws... right?
Copyright is active interference in the free market.
It's an interference in the free market like police arresting burglars is an interference.
The same way that counterfeiting is illegal.
Like restricting Microsoft from possessing nukes
Ideally, the free market is completely free. Ideally we wouldn't need government. Ideally no one would have to work unless they wanted to. But welcome to reality. The world isn't ideal and the free market isn't that free.
Yes, the court system interprets how the law is applied to specific cases. The supreme court being the ultimate arbiter of the court system and the constitution being the ultimate root of the law. They have this power because we the people gave it to them in the constitution.
if the President (for example) believes something is unconstitutional, he must behave accordingly, regardless of what the Court says.
Likewise, if he can't convice me, among other people, that what he's doing is constitutional, I MUST progressively resist those actions from complaining, to rioting, to bring out the small arms and overthrowing the government. Because if the constitution breaks down, then there IS NO government, and we would be living in martial law where might makes, well, if not right, then it at least gets the job done.
In this case of the United States of America, the ultimate arbiters are WE THE GOD DAMNED PEOPLE. The states don't exist without us. The feds don't exist without us. We're a bloody democracy and don't you forget it.
AYE! I'll second that. There's a game with DEPTH!
And you can't count the number of man-hours that have been put into good ol' vanilla nethack. There is enough polish there to shine like a diamond.
Plus, oh I dunno, the cost of publishing is reduced to NEGLIGIBLE!
(or should be)
The debate is all about causation.
When I wish it was about the effects of it all.
Alright, so maybe the tides will rise a foot in 50 years. What does they really mean? How much will it cost to deal with it? What are the chances, really?
The rain might fall 1000 miles north instead of here. What's that going to do both areas? What are the chances of that happening?
If that got more coverage, then people would switch from "it can't possibly be us affecting the system" to "My god I hope we can affect the system".
Or, quite possibly, the reaction would be "huh, that ain't so bad. We can afford to do that. Time to invest in Canadian real estate and relocate all the komodo dragons."
Wait, face book's "news feed" wasn't useless facts?
Well no, as it stands, google wouldn't have access to that without the whole "network of trust" thing, because google isn't friends with everyone. Presumably they could add something to access your network, but that can't really be part of the plan. That all assumes that your pics, activities, statuses, and whatnot are restricted only to friends, which since you own it, you have actual control. Actual control being different then the illusion of control until we change the terms of service and crack you wide open sort.
Yeah, I've had this idea as well. Because Facebook is simple. It's a webpage with text and pictures uploaded by users that has interfaces with others' web page. Rather then facebook or myspace, an open source alternative that people would run on their own. Websites with "user" uploaded content are, you know, old hat, so this boils down to protocols to deal with interaction between sites. And remember, this IS the social portion of social networks.
so what are all these interactions that need protocols:
-Establishing networks of trust, friendship, and hate. That whole "friends request" thing.
And that's essentially the only one that's required to make an open source distributed social network like facebook. Everything else is, not trivial, but it's been done. If it can be made cheap and simple enough (that itself a monumental task), then the masses could use it. But they won't, as inertial will keep them in facebook.
The rest is just features:
-Poke. It's one freaking message.
-Post on another wall/picture/whatnot. It's been done.
-Search through others pictures for tags of you.
-Set up events, invite people.
-Establish groups of people. The owner would host of course, but transferring ownership could be interesting.
No no no, let's see this idea through. It'd be killer to see a bunch of idiots leaning out of their car to talk on a cell phone.
(sad thing is, they'd do it)
Or impervious.
But the goons would give you the boot.
Yeah, I read that slashdot story too. It's a crock. You are quite literally arguing FOR ignorance.
Imagine if the investment bankers (or better yet the politicians who deregulated them) had remembered the horrors of the great depression.
Imagine if people had remembered Vietnam when we went in and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. (or even just when the Russian got tired of dying in Afghanistan)
Now, our "video game heritage" isn't nearly as important or weighty as that. But I like the patent for a hammer-mill strapped to a Cadillac that my grandfather had framed. I like the old silverware dad brought back from Thailand. I even like his super-ancient record of "the electric prunes".
So I really don't get the glorification of forgetting and ignorance. Starting with a black slate sucks.
Although, in an apparent about face, I'd agree that getting rid of useless junk and casting of materialism is a healthy thing to do. But keep the good stuff. (And that old TI machine with munch-man cartridge counts as "the good stuff").
Came to point this out. It wasn't a detail in wholesale leak, it was a targeted leak about this one person's secret identity. And it probably done out of revenge like the coward mentions.
And ESPN360.com (ESPN3) hasn't really cut a deal directly with ISPs, that only happened in dreamland.
(btw, it's clearly breaking NN, why the hell is the wiki-page weaseling around it?)
Greek week has been around for a while yo. I wouldn't call it enlightened.
Nature is fully capable of remembering, yet it has built us to forget.
That's not a feature, it's a bug.
What use does remembering have if you can't distinguish what is important?
How does forgetting help us distinguish what is important? Unless you want to make judgments based on ignorance, I'd say it hurts the process. So remembering important details about how that guy over there hit you with a rock will help you avoid a similar outcome. There IS the added bit of info that time has passed, and you can take that however you want.
entitles it to something like control of the entire world, forever.
This pretty much describes both England and France in their heyday. And sure enough, some Englishmen and Frenchmen still want to be on the world stage.
It saddens me that the USA preeminently invaded another nation, and that it happened under my watch, but any nation as big and as old as the USA has had both their good points and bad. Ignoring that is just nationalistic hate/pride.
I was thinking above math professors really. Like, oh I don't know, Euler or Gauss. But looking through a list, there are plenty of counter-examples, like Anon who pointed out Lagrange.
Most doctors don't need math at all. And I can't remember the last time I actually had to apply some calculus. I mean, I tackled an 11yo cousin and forced him to learn about limits and how to derive polynomials, but actually using it on the job? Naw.
I don't really have an issue with MRIs helping guide career descisions. Well, other then the fact that this sounds like it can be done with the bullshit career planning pamphlets from highschool. I mean, did I really need to answer twenty questions to know that I'm better at math then average joe?
But what's scary is if this is ever applied to children who haven't yet developed. I dunno much about child development, but if you're not a math genius by age 11, you're too old to really make it into the big league. The problem is how a kid develops if you tell them that they're stupid and they might as well break rocks with their noggin. I think the trick to encouraging engineering degrees is to trick children into thinking they're smart. Given a decade in the school system, it'll turn out to be true.
It's also scary if it's used as a screening method for prospective employees.
1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. (No longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)
Citation needed. Actually, I'd be surprised if they really did this during Bush either.
2 - Right to Privacy (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)
That's not part of the patriot act. FISA law, with or without the patriot act, forbids the mass wiretapping of citizens that happened under Bush, and continues with Obama. It's blatantly illegal. Yeah, that's a dick move by Obama. We got a taste of that during the election though, so it's not really a shocker. Remember when he voted to let off the telcom companies from being prosecuted for it?
3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)
He never said no interrogation. I believe he fought against torture, which he indeed banned. Now, the CIA probably just has their Syrian buddies do it for them, but at least the president is not defending torture. It's an important detail. And yeah, Guantanamo really should be closed. Citation needed for the american citizens held there.
4 - End the war. (Now it's been extended two more years.)
Aye, it'd be great if we had some sort of time-table for that, now wouldn't it? But oh, no, that would be heresy and treason according to the republicans from 2008. Anyway, they really are trying to ramp down the (Iraq) occupation.
But really, where are you getting this from?
Well, the story is a non-event, but I find you sentiment about corporate culture to be horrifying. It's akin to "don't blame the specific rapist for rape, it's standard practice for rapers".
Why WOULDN'T we blame BP? They're the ones making money off of cutting safety corners and profiting from the environmental risk AND DAMAGE. It's like lions' nature to eat you. You take precautions to keep them at bay, but if one gets in the village and is tearing people to shreds then you shoot the damned thing.
And a band-aid for the butthurt?
If you had read any of the +5 insightuls above, you'd understand the mod.
It is a PR stunt. It is making Google money. And they are providing normals searches to china. (plus one click)